Thank you.
The NDP supports this motion, obviously. We have an identical motion.
I had a question about drafting. In proposed paragraph 160(5)(b), the wording says to compel the “accused” person to pay for the care of the animal they allegedly injured, and we're wondering if that's the proper terminology. By definition, the person would have been convicted. You wouldn't compel an accused person to pay; you would compel the person convicted of the offence.
As a matter of drafting, I think that would be a concern I'd raise with my colleagues, to see if we should change that.