Maybe I'll make a couple of other comments and then perhaps turn to my colleague to augment.
I think I would avoid using the word “intent”. I know you're not meaning it as deliberate because we are talking about a negligence-based offence. The mens rea for this offence is negligence, which requires evidence of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in those circumstances. That's the first point I might say.
I think the bill does try to provide some specificity around the concept of manager, although it doesn't say, “manager is defined as”. It does speak to a “person who is responsible for”, and then it enumerates a number of different responsibilities. That doesn't speak to your question about “owner”.
I think you raise an interesting point in respect of wanting the criminal law to be clear and precise, so that those who are governed by it understand what is and what isn't legal, and who the law applies to and who it doesn't.