Bill C-205 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act

This enactment amends the Health of Animals Act to make it an offence to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.

Health of Animals Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to give some thoughts on Bill C-275, which was introduced by my colleague on the agricultural committee, the member for Foothills.

I was happy to support this bill at second reading, but that support was always conditional on certain amendments being made at committee, just as we did in the previous Parliament, the 43rd Parliament, on the previous version of this bill, which was Bill C-205. Unfortunately, the majority of committee members did not support the amendments that were conditional for my support, and I find myself speaking in the House today saying that I can no longer support Bill C-275.

I want to talk about the importance of biosecurity measures because they are incredibly important to Canadian farms and farms all around the world. At the federal level, Canada’s legislative framework for dealing with issues with respect to animal disease and biosecurity rests primarily under the Health of Animals Act and its regulations.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for investigating and responding to reported incidents of a reportable animal disease. We know that many diseases pose a serious risk to farm animals, including things such as African swine fever, foot and mouth disease, and avian influenza. Biosecurity is about preventing the movement of disease-causing agents on to and off of agricultural operations. The three key principles of effective biosecurity are isolation, traffic control and sanitation.

At committee, we had a variety of witnesses, and many of those witnesses provided our committee with briefs. One of the organizations was Animal Justice. It provided a report from 2021 that looked at the disease outbreaks and biosecurity failures on Canadian farms. It was around the same time Bill C-205 was being debated in the previous Parliament.

I know a lot of people have differing opinions on animal justice, but the report was based on factual data, and that data listed hundreds of incidents of failures of biosecurity, which were all caused by authorized personnel associated with the afflicted farms. That means people who were authorized to be on the farm were the ones responsible for the disease outbreak.

Biosecurity is a serious thing. It can happen to any farm, and it can happen to anyone, either through no fault of their own or through being at fault. If they are not following proper biosecurity measures, the results can be quite devastating.

I also want to take some time to talk about the differences between federal and provincial jurisdiction when it comes to enacting laws because this is a key point behind my opposition to Bill C-275. We know the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the criminal law power. That is why acts, such as the Health of Animals Act, exist.

We know that, to be considered a valid exercise of criminal law power, federal legislation has to have a valid criminal law purpose, which can include measures such as health; be connected to a prohibition; and be backed by a penalty for violations. This bill, however, gets out of the federal lane and enters into provincial jurisdiction over trespass law. We know that the provinces of Canada have exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and that is definitely considered to be the domain under which they enact their anti-trespass laws. I think Bill C-275 is unfortunately taking us into provincial jurisdiction, and that is a serious point that we have to pay attention to.

This is backed up by evidence that we heard from none other than the senior legal counsel for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Mr. Joseph Melaschenko. On two occasions, both in questioning from the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and from myself, he confirmed that the phrase “without lawful authority or excuse” in Bill C-275 made this primarily a piece of legislation about trespass. He confirmed that on the record on two separate occasions.

What are we to take from that? If the senior legal counsel of the federal agency responsible for the Health of Animals Act is telling our committee that Bill C-275 is veering into trespass territory, why should we as a committee be ignoring it and instead returning a bill to the House with that problematic phrase in it?

That is the crux of the problem. That phrase is making the bill veer into that territory. I tried my best at committee to amend the bill. My amendment sought to remove the phrase “without lawful authority or excuse” so that the purported biosecurity measures of Bill C-275 would apply to everyone equally. After all, if we are in fact serious about dealing with biosecurity breaches, knowing we have a litany of evidence detailing just how many on-farm failures there have been from people who are authorized to be there, we should make a biosecurity piece of legislation apply to everyone equally, including on-farm employees. Unfortunately, that amendment failed.

I want to commend another member of the committee, the new member for Winnipeg South Centre, who tried with his own amendment to instead insert the phrase “applicable biosecurity measures” so that basically the bill would have applied to everyone who had taken the applicable biosecurity measures. I think that was a reasonable amendment. Again, we have measures in place that the industry has developed. They are voluntary measures, but they are developed with the CFIA, and I think it is quite reasonable that if we are going to make a substantive amendment to the Health of Animals Act, we should make reference to applicable biosecurity measures. Unfortunately, a majority of committee members did not see eye to eye with me or the member for Winnipeg South Centre, and we have the version of the bill we are dealing with today in the House.

I also believe that clause 2 of the bill is redundant and completely unnecessary given that the Health of Animals Act already has offences and punishment. I have been in this place a long time, and unfortunately our federal statutes are littered with examples of redundant and unnecessary language in the law. One only needs to look at the Criminal Code of Canada to see that in action. I believe that with offences and punishment already listed in the parent act, having clause 2 in Bill C-275 is unnecessary, and it is yet another reason I can no longer support it.

I want to make one thing very clear to all who are listening to this debate: I will never condone unauthorized trespass on private property that puts farmers and their families at risk. I say that not only as the NDP's critic for agriculture and agri-food, but as the member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, an area that has a long and storied history in farming.

Unfortunately, I have arrived at this place with Bill C-275 because I believe it is veering out of its federal laneway and into provincial jurisdiction. I believe, in other words, that it is a trespass bill masquerading as a biosecurity bill. Proper biosecurity measures need to apply to everyone equally. If a farm does not follow measures and is responsible for a disease outbreak that spreads to other farms, then it is that farmer who has done a real disservice to his or her neighbours. We need to work to make sure those measures are applicable to everyone.

If people are concerned with the inadequacy of current trespass law in Canada, then I invite them to pressure their provincial representatives, because that is where this debate belongs. If members of this House feel that trespass laws are not adequate, then it is the provincial legislatures of Canada that need to take that issue up on behalf of their constituents.

It is very difficult to find the correct balance between all of these issues, and I really wish I could have come to a place where I was supporting Bill C-275. Unfortunately and with regret, I do not feel that Bill C-275 would achieve that balance, and I will find myself voting against it.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

The other suggestion for lines 8 to 10 is that NDP-2 deals with those lines, so there may be opportunities on NDP-2 to entertain subamendments from LIB-1 or G-2, whatever the case may be.

In response to Mr. Drouin's point, in the last Parliament we passed Bill C-205 with exactly the same language. The Liberals seemed to be in agreement during that Parliament. I'm not sure why opinions have changed at this point.

I know there's an understanding that we don't want necessarily to target farmers or farm workers, but at the same time we have heard from witnesses that there needs to be some kind of national input on biosecurity measures on farms. A lot of them are volunteer-based—we've heard that—and we know that there are examples in which the biosecurity measures are simply not being followed. Either we make them apply equally to everyone who could potentially bring in a toxic substance or a disease, or we don't.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks again to all our witnesses.

I'd like to start with Humane Canada. I was listening to the opening remarks, and I believe the word “detrimental” was used. It was that if we adopt this bill, it will be detrimental to the efforts that your organization is involved with. In terms of Bill C-275, in the previous Parliament we had Bill C-205. I think you've seen how this committee amended that bill and reported it back to the House, and there have been a lot of concerns over whether this bill is intruding on the provincial jurisdiction over trespass law.

Do you feel that the way in which the committee amended the previous bill would be enough to save this bill, or do you believe that Bill C-275 just cannot be amended appropriately? We're seeking guidance here.

[Daniel Gobeil]

Thank you.

In fact, our farms are not public spaces; they are our homes, the places where we raise our families. Obviously, it's very important for us to preserve this vocation.

We need to strike a balance between fundamental rights and reasonable safety measures that protect the health, safety and welfare of animals and the people who work on farms and in the food supply chain. For that reason, Dairy Farmers of Canada supports Bill C‑275.

I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the member for Foothills, who sponsored this bill.

We feel that this new bill improves on Bill C‑205 because it expands the scope of protection to situations where animals and things are kept in enclosed spaces.

However, in our view, Bill C‑275 doesn't fully achieve its objective and parts of it must be amended. The provision about the offender knowing or being reckless as to exposing animals to disease or toxic substances should be removed, as we believe it places an unrealistic burden of proof on the Crown.

The mere possibility that entry without authorization or legal justification might expose our animals to a disease or toxic substance should be sufficient grounds for prosecution. We can elaborate on our comments during the question period.

In closing, Mr. Chair, on behalf of Dairy Farmers of Canada, I'd like to thank you and the committee members for helping to enhance animal safety and continue to improve agricultural production—

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you for your answer, Dr. Ireland.

Ms. Lazare, you mentioned earlier that, in your opinion, there is an issue with the current wording. You referred to the amendments we adopted during the study of Bill C‑205.

I'm not asking you to draft the amendments, obviously, but could you tell me what amendments the committee should be looking at?

[Camille Labchuk]

Yes. Thank you for your question.

One thing that we've done through analyzing decades of CFIA data is take a close look at the things that result in biosecurity threats and diseases, and oftentimes it tends to be poor practices on farms or poor adherence to practices that are voluntary. For instance, there have been numerous studies in the dairy sector, in the chicken sector, on mink farms and on rabbit farms that have shown that people are not really following the rules closely when researchers put up cameras to monitor their behaviour.

One thing that we are advocating.... When the last iteration of this bill, Bill C-205, was discussed at this committee two years ago, it was amended to do a couple of things, and I think those amendments would be productive in this case.

The first amendment struck the term “without lawful authority or excuse”. It made this bill apply to anyone who was on a farm who introduced a biosecurity threat, and that's important because we know that the vast majority of biosecurity threats come from people who have regular access to farms. They could be workers, operators or people coming and going with permission. They're not people who are there unlawfully.

That's what we would suggest.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you very much, again, for no answer.

I'm going to turn my comments and questions over to Dr. Lazare.

Dr. Lazare, in your testimony on Bill 156 at committee in the Ontario legislature, you said that “there are...ways to achieve the legislative objective [here that] have less of an impact on fundamental freedoms. For example, simply raising the fines for trespassing would do the job, or expressly prohibiting the introduction of biosecurity threats, like the federal private member's bill C-205 would do. Both of those things would impair rights less than the current form of the legislation. Again, that's enough for the law to fail in a constitutional challenge.”

In your opening comments, you alluded to the fact that Parliament doesn't have checks and balances set up—when in fact it does—to vet private members' bills to make sure that they are constitutional before they're even introduced.

Thank you for acknowledging that this bill, formerly Bill C-205, prohibits “the introduction of biosecurity threats” on farms. We've already established through previous testimony that whistle-blowers are protected under Bill C-275, since they have lawful authority to be on the premises. Therefore, the provisions in this bill would not apply to them.

Would you agree? How does this bill ban whistle-blowers?

[Dr. Jodi Lazare, Associate Professor, As an Individual]

Thank you. I'm happy to be here.

My name is Dr. Jodi Lazare. I am an associate professor at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie, where I teach the mandatory constitutional law course and an animal law seminar.

I previously held a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to study the constitutional dimensions of animal rights advocacy and farm trespass laws. I have published articles in peer-reviewed journals on that subject.

I'm going to use my time here to touch on my primary concern with the proposed bill, which is simply that, just as in 2021, it may not correspond with the division of powers. By that I mean that Bill C‑275, in its current form, without the amendments voted on by committee last time around in 2021 in dealing with Bill C‑205, might well be outside of the federal government's legislative jurisdiction.

Some of the discussion in the House and in committee thus far has suggested that statutory consistency across provincial jurisdictions is a worthwhile goal, and I agree with that. It is a fact that uniform federal legislation would often be more efficient and more effective than a patchwork of different provincial laws.

However, the nature of Canada's constitutional structure means that it's simply not always possible to have consistency across provinces, and, respectfully, the federal government can't force consistency if it is acting outside of its area of jurisdiction.

I understand that this bill aims to improve biosecurity on farms and that it is, in some part, about protecting animals and about food safety, but it has also been stated, several times now, that the bill is primarily about trespass.

I'm sure the committee members don't need this kind of breakdown, but in the interest of clarity, I ask you to just please bear with me as I take you through my quick thinking about the constitutional issues here.

In determining whether a law was properly adopted by a particular level of government—that is, at the federal or provincial level—courts will look at what the law actually does. They look at a law's purpose and at its effects to uncover what's known in legal jargon as its “pith and substance” or its “dominant feature”.

They might look at the context of the adoption of a law, such as current events motivating its introduction—those have, of course been relevant here—and at speeches and debates and hearings like this one. All of those things, in the present case, clearly suggest that the “dominant feature” of this bill is not entirely protecting biosecurity. That's because, in addition to what has been said about this being a trespass bill—as this committee has heard before and I think we'll hear again today—biosecurity threats on farms are not in fact driven by trespassers, protesters or activists—by people “without lawful authority” to be on the farm, to use the words of the bill.

You've heard already—and I suspect we'll hear again—that CFIA records show that there is no documented evidence or instance of an activist or trespasser or protester introducing disease onto a farm, but that the greatest risks to animals are diseases transmitted from farm to farm. Diseases are transmitted from workers, suppliers, etc., going between farms, and by birds and wildlife and so on. In other words, they are not from individuals who are present illegally.

From a constitutional perspective then, in my view and as has been repeated here, this is a trespass bill, which may or may not, based on the evidence, have perhaps incidental or secondary effects on biosecurity. It's quite clear that this bill is about shutting down activism and trespass and about protecting the mental health of farmers and farm families. In other words, it is about protecting a particular industry by shutting down activism in the form of trespass.

In fact, the bill's sponsor has stated explicitly that this bill is about the protection of private property, and as we all know, these things fall under the provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights. Legislation protecting private property is not, in other words, part of the federal government's tool box, so to speak.

The fact is that all provinces have trespass laws. Some of them have laws specific to trespass on farms, although some of those laws are currently being challenged in court. In fact, interestingly, Prince Edward Island's legislation, aside from the part about taking in any animal or thing, contains exactly the same wording as Bill C‑275 and has not been subject to any constitutional questioning, suggesting again that this bill, Bill C-275, should fall under provincial jurisdiction.

I want to be clear here that I am not suggesting that Parliament cannot legislate to protect health and safety and biosecurity on farms. It's been said numerous times by the courts that Parliament can legislate to protect health and safety by way of the Criminal Code, and in this case, perhaps by using its jurisdiction over agriculture, although there is not a lot of case law and interpretation of that provision.

My submission, rather, is that this bill, as it is currently written, does not do that: It does not target the most likely source of biosecurity risks. However, a law that provided for the same restrictions and applied to everyone who enters a farm, legally or illegally—in other words, that adopted the same amendments voted on with respect to Bill C-205 in 2021—would be much more likely to survive constitutional scrutiny because, in its dominant feature, it would be a biosecurity bill.

I will leave it at that in the interest of time, and of course I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

The last iteration of your bill, Bill C-205, made it all the way past second reading and was reported back to the House with amendments. Mr. Perron highlighted some of that in his questions.

Now, in the new version, can you explain why you didn't keep the same language that AGRI supported here at this committee and that Mr. MacGregor put forward as well? I know that in your proposed section 9.1 there's a reference to not taking anything into a space where animals are kept, including the specific language of “any animal or thing”. Can you talk about what the rationale is for this new language, which didn't appear in Bill C-205—what you've taken out and what you've put in here?

Further, can you define what “thing” is? I mean, “thing” could be anything. A cellphone or some type of recording device could also count as a “thing”. It seems that interpretation of the law could certainly cover those types of items.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Yes.

During our study of Bill C‑205, we amended the wording so that it would apply to any individual who enters a building or enclosure where animals are kept, regardless of whether they have lawful authority or excuse to do so.

Can you tell us why you decided not to include that amendment here?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much.

In the last Parliament, during our study of Bill C‑205, people from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency told us that they did not have the resources to act as peace officers. They also feared that this legislation would create confusion with the legislation of the provinces and Quebec.

Even in provinces where there is no legislation dealing specifically with trespassing on a farm, there are still laws that protect people from trespassing on private property, and so they already cover such situations. The witnesses have told us that they were afraid this would create confusion and make it difficult to prosecute people who would commit such an offence. What do you think?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

One of the concerns with respect to your previous bill, Bill C-205, was noted by our colleague Mr. MacGregor, who is not here but who said the following:

I have received correspondence from concerned people from across the country who are worried that the bill might serve as an effective gag against their right to protest. What I would say in reply to that is that if we look at the specific wording of this act, it is talking about a person entering without lawful authority or excuse. There is nothing in the bill to prevent a whistle-blower, like a farm employee, who is already lawfully there and who witnesses something that they believe is wrong or contrary to animal welfare laws, from blowing the whistle and raising the alarm on that.

The difference between what the committee adopted in Bill C-205 and Bill C-275, which is before us today, is an amendment to apply the bill to whistle-blowers. Is that correct? Can you just speak on that, now that we have that on the record, with respect to how we can make sure they're protected?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, colleagues. It’s an honour to be here to discuss my private member’s bill, Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

This is very similar to a previous bill that we've dealt with, Bill C-205. It basically makes it an offence “to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance...capable of affecting or contaminating” the facility. Simply put, this enactment would apply existing penalties within the act to people who trespass on farms, properties and facilities where animals are kept. It also proposes to double the amount of those existing fines for groups and organizations that encourage unlawful behaviour that puts the biosecurity of our farms and our farmers' livelihoods at risk.

Colleagues, I really need to stress this next point, as I know all of us have probably been receiving emails and phone calls at our offices. I want to make crystal clear what this bill does not do, and I certainly want to address some of the misinformation that the campaigns have been doing for all of us. This bill does not limit an individual’s right to peaceful protest on public property. This bill also does not prevent whistle-blowers from coming forward when they are witnesses to practices that jeopardize our food security, our food safety or the welfare of animals.

Canadian farmers and ranchers have a moral and legal obligation to look after their animals. It's simply that clear. In fact, farmers and their employees are obligated to report to the appropriate authorities any wrongdoing they see as they operate in a highly regulated environment. They must follow strict codes of conduct to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all farm animals.

Colleagues, the last time I was here on Bill C-205, I dedicated a lot of time in my discussion to the mental health aspect of this bill. I would invite those who are new to this committee to take a look at my comments on the previous bill, and there will certainly be another witness later today who is an expert in this field. I will leave most of that to her.

When this bill was debated in the last Parliament, members from all parties recounted situations in their ridings. What worries me, colleagues, is that since we had that discussion a couple of years ago, animal activists have become even more brazen, to the point where they’re endangering the lives of animals on farms, and in some cases the public and the livelihoods of our farmers. We've seen animal rights activists hang dead pig carcasses from a Montreal overpass. We heard of the hog farmer in Ontario who has been targeted by ransomware, where activists are demanding that the farmer admit the mistreatment of his livestock, which of course is undeniably false.

Where this started, colleagues, was an incident in my riding with the Tschetter family, who woke up one morning to check on their free-range turkey farm and had 40 activists camped out in their barn. It took five to six hours to de-escalate and have these protesters removed. However, the impact on the family has been long-lasting. It impacts them to this day, as they question why they were targeted and what they had done wrong, as they had followed all the rules. Again, they have a free-range farm in Fort Macleod.

Now, opponents of this bill will claim it’s not necessary because there’s no proof of the introduction of disease by trespassers.

First, I think this misses the point of this bill completely, as one issue can make all the difference and it’s a short-sighted argument to justify unlawful behaviour. Second, and I think more importantly, colleagues, is that it’s completely false. We know of at least two incidents. One was in Quebec, where an outbreak of rotavirus was a result of protesters on a pig farm. Rotavirus hadn't been seen in Quebec in more than 40 years. Another was on an Ontario mink farm, where trespassers released thousands of animals, which led to an outbreak of distemper.

Colleagues, some provinces have followed up with something similar, but the vast majority—seven provinces and three territories—do not have anything like this in their legislation.

Finally, I just want to reiterate the impact that having an outbreak of an animal disease or an animal-borne virus on our farms could have on our farm families and certainly on our economy. Protecting Canada’s food supply is absolutely critical. That is one of the pillars of what we do here in this committee. Viruses like avian flu, African swine fever, and foot and mouth pose substantial threats to Canadian agriculture.

In 2014, 10 farms in the Fraser Valley had an AI outbreak and more than 200,000 birds had to be euthanized. The most serious outbreak of avian flu in Canada took place in the Fraser Valley in 2004 and led to the slaughter of 17 million farm birds. Before the outbreak was eventually brought under control, it cost more than $380 million in lost economic income. In the aftermath, a number of changes were made, including self-quarantine, biosecurity protocols, surveillance and laboratory testing.

The most recent outbreak in Canada impacted 7.6 million domestic birds in provinces across western Canada, as well as Ontario and Quebec, with B.C. being the hardest hit.

When we talk about African swine fever.... Thankfully, this has yet to be detected in Canada. The first case of ASF was detected in China in 2018. It spread to every province in the country by 2019 and has been seen in the Asia-Pacific, central Asia, eastern Europe and now the Dominican Republic. It would be devastating if this came to Canada. It would have a $24-billion economic impact.

I want to conclude with this, colleagues. As I said, this bill is not about prohibiting peaceful protests. The problem is that many of these protesters are not aware of the strict biosecurity protocols we have on farms, why they are there, or the fact that potentially trespassing on farms could have catastrophic consequences for our farmers, our food security and certainly our economy.

I know members on this committee understand the importance and urgency of this bill and what it can mean to our farmers, ranchers and producers. I look forward to addressing any questions or comments my colleagues have.

I appreciate your attention.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be standing in the House to give my remarks with respect to Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, biosecurity on farms. This was introduced by the member for Foothills. I will add to my colleague's comments to say that it is a pleasure to work with the member on the agriculture committee.

Despite what the public sees in question period, we, as members of all parties, actually do get along with each other. I find some of our most rewarding work happens at committee, specifically the agriculture committee, which bucks the trend of many committees because, whatever political party one may be a member of, we all represent farmers, and we all have their interests at heart.

This is the member's second attempt. The first was in the previous Parliament with Bill C-205. I last had the opportunity to debate that legislation at second reading in late 2020. Here we are in 2023, and it may not be the most efficient process, but we had the journey of the previous bill interrupted by an unnecessary election at the time.

Let us get to the purported why of this bill, which centres on biosecurity. We know there are many diseases that pose a risk to farm animals. They include African swine fever; bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE; foot and mouth disease; and avian flu. Many of these diseases do keep our researchers and scientists up at night. I recently had a conversation with the deans council of agriculture and veterinary schools across Canada. They are leading some of the efforts in looking at these diseases, and they are quite concerned, particularly with avian influenza.

Generally speaking, biosecurity at the farm level can be defined as management practices that allow producers to prevent the movement of disease-causing agents onto and off of their operations because, if one farm operator does notice an outbreak of disease, they want to contain that to prevent its spread to other farms. Generally speaking, there are three key principles: isolation, traffic control and sanitation. With Bill C-275, we are mainly looking at the principle of traffic control: controlling who is coming into contact with on-farm animals.

We know that visitors to farms can unknowingly bring harmful agents. They can bring them via contaminated clothing and footwear, with equipment and with their vehicles.

I will talk about some of my personal experiences. In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I have had the pleasure of visiting local farms, including Farmer Ben's Eggs and Lockwood Farms, which are both egg-producing operations. I keep a small flock of chickens on my property. I raise my own chickens, and I like to eat the eggs from them. With the dangers of avian influenza, I was not allowed to come into contact with my own birds for the space of an entire week before visiting a commercial operation, and of course, I had to take very strict measures with my footwear before I was allowed anywhere near the birds.

In a previous life, I used to be a tree planter in the interior of British Columbia. I was planting trees on the Douglas Lake Ranch, a ranch near Merritt, British Columbia, which, of course, is the largest working cattle ranch in B.C. The ranch has such vast properties that many of them are harvested in timber operations. Before our tree-planting operation was allowed anywhere onto the property, we had to have all of our vehicles sanitized to make sure that there was no danger of foot and mouth disease being transferred to the operation.

This just gives members a sense of the operations that are currently in place. I know this is replicated in farms across the country, but these are operations that I have personally witnessed and had to partake in.

Now let us get to the what. We have an existing federal statute, the Health of Animals Act. It is primarily responsible for diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals, or be transmitted by animals to persons, and it looks at their protection. In existing sections of the statute, there are provisions that deal with the concealment of the existence of a reportable disease, the keeping of diseased animals, bringing diseased animals to market, and selling or disposing of diseased animals. That is the current state of some of the existing sections of the federal legislation and what they are hoping to achieve.

Bill C-275 seeks to amend the existing Health of Animals Act by adding a proposed section 9.1. I will read the key section: “No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept, or take in any animal or thing, knowing that or being reckless as to whether entering such a place or taking in the animal or thing could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.” Of course, further on in the bill, there is a new series of penalties for individuals and groups that would violate this new section, consistent with existing provisions of the Health of Animals Act.

I also want to take some time during my speech to outline some of the concerns, because we would not be doing our job as parliamentarians if we did not look at both sides of the argument, and I think this is what our committee really needs to take into account. There are animal rights groups that feel that the legislation represents what they call “ag-gag” legislation, meaning they feel that they are going to be silenced or prevented from taking actions they deem to be in the best interest of farm animals.

As other speakers have outlined, if the bill is about stopping trespassing and not about shoring up biosecurity, it would be unconstitutional, because we all know that, under our current Constitution Act, jurisdiction over property and civil rights belongs firmly within the provincial realm. We do not want to interfere with the rights of provincial legislatures to make such laws. Of course, as I referenced in my question, there is an Animal Justice report from 2021 that lists hundreds of incidents of failures of biosecurity that were all by authorized personnel associated with the afflicted farms. I will repeat that. All of those incidents came from people who were on the property with lawful authority and excuse. I want to quote from that report:

Despite the risk to farms, animals, and the economy posed by disease outbreaks, biosecurity on farms is not comprehensively regulated at the federal level. The CFIA publishes voluntary biosecurity guidelines for some animal farming sectors, developed in cooperation with industry and government. Adherence to these standards is not a legal requirement. Provincial legislation varies, and tends to empower officials to respond to existing biosecurity hazards instead of prescribing rules that farmers must follow to prevent disease outbreaks.

These are some of the items we have to take into account when we are examining the bill.

I want to conclude by saying that, as New Democrats, we absolutely do support animal welfare. I fact, I was personally proud to support petition e-4190, which collected more than 36,000 signatures and is calling for the Liberals to honour their campaign promise of banning the live export of horses for slaughter. That is something the agriculture minister has still not met in her mandate letter, and we committed, through several elections, to updating the health of animal regulations and to making sure we modernize animal welfare legislation.

That being said, I want to very clearly state that I support farmers and I support their rights to be free from trespass. I know, not only from personal experience but also from my five years in this role as agriculture critic, that farmers are good people. They want to treat their animals well during their lives. Based on the witness testimony we heard at the agriculture committee, there is fairly strong support for a measure like Bill C-275.

I do want to note that protesters can legally get close to farms, not on the property, and it is in their interest to call for more accountability. I also want to note that on-farm employees who witness any instances of abuse to livestock could not be silenced by provisions of the bill. In fact, we do want that measure of internal accountability.

I want to say to the member for Foothills that, while I do support the legislation in principle, more work does need to be done at committee. I want to make sure that biosecurity measures would, in fact, apply to everyone and that we would not be intruding on provincial jurisdiction over trespass laws. I look forward to sending the bill to committee for further work.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Foothills for introducing this bill. I also want to say that I appreciate the comments made by the parliamentary secretary, who basically told us that the government will work with us to come up with an enforceable bill. That is great. It is good news because our duty, as parliamentarians, is to work for our constituents. Our farmers need additional protection so that they no longer have to experience the atrocities that they have endured and over the past few months and years.

This bill seeks to eliminate the growing problem of trespassing. I would like every member of the House to take a few minutes to think about what trespassing means. We may find it hard to empathize with farmers when we think of it in terms of farm businesses, so let us consider it in terms of a more relatable scenario.

I am going to use the same scenario that I did when we spoke about Bill C-205. Imagine if you were to arrive home to find four or five people sitting in your living room, and that they tell you that they do not like the way you run your home, that it is inconsistent with their values. You ask them to leave, but they will not. You cannot remove them by force because you might get into trouble and be criminally charged, so you just have to live with it.

The real-life example that I always use is the case of the Porgreg farm in Saint‑Hyacinthe because it is the most blatant. Farm staff had to put up with this kind of situation for many hours. Even when the police showed up and asked the protesters to leave, they remained seated. They were taking pictures and saying that they wanted to protect the animals whose health and safety they were jeopardizing. Afterwards, it was discovered that a disease had been introduced into the herd because biosecurity protocols had been violated.

I think that “biosecurity” is a very important concept we must keep in mind. This was mentioned by the member for Foothills and the parliamentary secretary. Focusing on biosecurity may be the right approach to take. As federal representatives, we must find a way forward. I appreciate what the parliamentary secretary said about jurisdictions. As members know, the Bloc Québécois also likes to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. I believe that is something we generally agree on. Nevertheless, I believe that we can work as a team, as we do in committee. That is the sense I am getting from the debates we are hearing today. We must find a way to better protect our agricultural producers against this unacceptable abuse.

This is not about questioning the values of people who are vegans. That is not the issue. It is also not about limiting freedom of expression, because any freedom ends where the rights and freedoms of others begin. There is one thing we often tend to forget and that we really need to remember: the rights of the individual are not absolute. I am sorry to have to tell my colleagues that when someone claims to be exercising their right to freedom of expression by criminally assaulting another person, that is not exercising a right but committing a crime. Parliament must absolutely put a stop to that. That is why we need to work on this issue.

We ask agricultural producers to take strict precautions when it comes to meeting health standards. A few of the possible infections were named earlier. One of them is African swine fever, which is having devastating effects around the world. Thankfully, it has not reached Canada yet, and we are taking every precaution to ensure that it stays that way. We are not going to allow certain individuals to jeopardize the biosecurity of agricultural establishments, which could lead to contamination.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, foot and mouth disease and avian flu are also risks. Quebec currently has confirmed cases of avian flu. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is advising producers not to go into fields if they see wild birds there, to avoid the risk of contaminating their establishment.

These producers are always careful and are looking for ways to protect their facility. They shower before they enter and they change their clothes. We cannot have people deciding to jeopardize all that based on an ideology that is a little extreme, and so I believe it is our job to be doing this.

In and of itself, Bill C‑275 is pretty straightforward: It prohibits people from entering a production facility if it would compromise biosecurity. I think the biosecurity element is already there. I am quite willing to work with the parliamentary secretary and the member for Foothills to find common ground, but it is imperative that we get this bill passed.

In fact, we studied it in detail in the previous Parliament, as part of Bill C‑205. This is one of too many bills that we have had to start from scratch. We need the opportunity to do this efficiently so we do not have to go through this process a third time. The committee is able to work quickly and efficiently by analyzing the scope of Bill C‑275 with experts.

First, the issues raised by the parliamentary secretary seem legitimate. Obviously, as I always say, we will work carefully and diligently in committee in order to adopt a bill that is real, that will send a positive message to the farming community and a clear message to people who have any intention of demonstrating, a bill that is actually enforceable. This third condition is important. That is what we are here for and why we will do serious work.

The issue of shared jurisdiction was raised again. This bill also raises the issue of animal and mental health. This was mentioned earlier by two members who spoke before me. This being Mental Health Week, let us take this opportunity to protect our farmers whose life is already challenging. It is already so tough.

I am thinking of pork production. A processing plant in Quebec closed recently, which is having tremendous repercussions on production and jeopardizes several producers who might have to withdraw from farming. It is no joke. Are we going to allow threats, intimidation and gratuitous assault on top of that? The answer is no. As a Parliament, I think we have a duty to say no.

I want to come back to what happened at the Porgreg farm in 2019 because it is a perfect example. As I said earlier, there was disease within the herd. Someone will surely say that laws already exist governing this, which is true. However, it can be difficult to make the connection between the disease and the trespassing incident in a court of law. It also means that these individuals must lodge a complaint and go through the justice system, thus reliving the assault, which can also be difficult. We therefore need to improve and clarify the process. It would be great if we could enhance these protections.

During the incident at the Porgreg farm, there was a biosecurity breach and the doors were left open for many hours. It was -12° outside. Diesel fuel was also contaminated with water. How do prosecutors prove that the attackers put water in the diesel fuel? There are a number of ways.

Significant measures must be put in place to deter wrongdoers. We need to send a clear message that if they do these kinds of things, it will cost them and their organization dearly. In committee, I will pay particular attention to ensuring that fines and penalties are directed not only at individuals, but also at the organizations that sponsor them.

The member for Foothills spoke earlier about pigs hanging from an overpass in Montreal. This is the same organization that trespassed at Les Porgreg farm and claimed responsibility. It is clear what kind of people we are dealing with. These are extremists who are not afraid of anything and who are ready to face criminal charges.

There must be more significant consequences if we want to discourage these kinds of activities. Our agricultural producers deserve this. They need to know that we respect them, that we appreciate their work, that we want them to carry on for a long time and that we will protect them.