Agriculture committee  I'll try. I'm sorry. I don't have the amendment in front of me, so I can't speak to the technicalities of how we're all going to work this out. It's certainly possible to have a stand-alone provision that deals with every person other than an individual—in other words, corporate entities.

Agriculture committee  Yes. I agree with that interpretation.

Agriculture committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. The presence of the words “without lawful authority or excuse” means that the provision would be limited to trespassers. Perhaps I could pass it over to you, Dr. Ireland, for the second part.

Agriculture committee  It's not that it's an impossible thing to do, but it's a more difficult thing to do, of course, if you have to bring proof of a person's state of mind.

Agriculture committee  Yes. This type of offence that requires proof of a mental state of mind is not uncommon in the Criminal Code, for example. In that case, as opposed to recourse to a psychologist or what have you, there are simply inferences that are made about the person's state of mind based on the available evidence.

Agriculture committee  I'll try to take part of this question. The words “knowing that or being reckless as to” would mean that the CFIA would have to prove a certain mental state of mind on behalf of the accused. Recklessness could be commonly understood as a failure to take appropriate care. That's about as far as I can go in terms of speculating on how that meaning would play out.

Agriculture committee  I think it's correct to say that those words apply to trespassers, yes.

Agriculture committee  I've heard the comment about the effort to keep this bill within federal jurisdiction, but I can't speculate or provide legal advice to the committee on what the constitutional impact would be of removing these words.

Agriculture committee  I'm sorry, but my role here today is not to provide legal advice to the committee. I can provide technical legal information. That question really calls on me to give a constitutional opinion on the provisions, so I have to respectfully decline to answer it.

Agriculture committee  I'm not quite sure I understand where we're going with that question. It's correct that trespass falls under provincial legislation. I understand that the committee is conceiving of this bill as possibly a biosecurity measure and possibly a trespass measure as well, or some combination of the two, which is what the committee is discussing right now.