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

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Foothills for introducing Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, a private member's bill. As previously indicated, this bill was drafted in response to individuals and groups entering private property such as farms. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental to a democratic society. However, trespassing on farms is unacceptable.

The health and safety of our farmers and their animals are crucial. Incidents of trespassing on farms have made Canadian farmers anxious and have raised concerns about the health and safety of their animals. We recognize the purpose of this private member's bill, Bill C‑275, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that any legislative provision in this area does not have any unintended consequences.

I would like to draw the attention of members to two items to take into consideration. First, Bill C‑275, as worded, creates legal risks. Second, existing federal and provincial statutes can be used for managing cases of trespassing on farms. These matters need to be carefully taken into account before any changes to this bill can be considered.

As most of us know, agriculture is a jurisdiction shared by the federal and provincial governments. Generally speaking, the federal government is only responsible for agricultural practices and operations on farms. However, the bill as it stands would probably not fall under federal jurisdiction in this area, given that it generally applies to any building or enclosed area in which animals are kept on a farm or the area outside. Furthermore, the bill seems to focus more on prohibiting trespassing by protesters than on protecting animals from the spread of disease.

Provinces and territories have authority in the areas of property rights and civil rights, which includes passing laws concerning trespassing. Most provinces already have laws against trespassing on farms and other places.

In recent years, five provinces—Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Prince Edward Island—have passed strong legislation prohibiting trespassing on farms or any places where animals are kept.

For instance, in 2019, Alberta amended its Petty Trespass Act to prohibit entry into a farm or farmland without the permission of the property owner or occupant. Someone convicted under the act could be fined up to $10,000 or face six months in prison. A corporation could face a fine of up to $200,000 if convicted under this act.

This example shows that the provinces already have laws governing trespassing on private property. The wording of Bill C-275 also shows this bill seeks to regulate trespassing on private property. This is clearly stated in the part that reads, “No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place”. Accordingly, the current wording of Bill C-275 could be seen as infringing on existing provincial legislation.

At the federal level, the Criminal Code criminalizes activity related to trespassing, such as mischief and breaking and entering. In fact, I know of two recent cases where the Criminal Code was successfully used to lay charges against people who had trespassed on farms. One was in British Columbia and the other in Quebec.

I would like to say a little more about the case in British Columbia, because it shows how existing legislation is working to allow charges to be laid against people who trespass on farms.

In 2019, a number of people broke into the Excelsior Hog Farm in Abbotsford, British Columbia, to raise awareness about farming practices they believed were detrimental to animal welfare. Two of the individuals who broke into the farm were convicted and subsequently sentenced under the Criminal Code.

The judge took certain factors into account when deciding their sentence, as is required under the Criminal Code. For example, in this particular case, the judge considered the negative impact the trespassing had on the farmer and the farm's operation. As a result, the trespassers were sentenced to 30 days in jail and 12 months' probation.

What I am saying is that the existing laws work, plain and simple. As the judge in the British Columbia case noted, this verdict, which included a jail term, was intended to send a message to discourage others from engaging in this type of activity.

The bill of the member for Foothills certainly sheds light on farmer and animal health. While it is crucial that we support farmers with the tools they need to carry out their important work, we need to be mindful of how best to do that without creating legal challenges. Fundamentally, legislation should not introduce new legal issues. It should also complement, not duplicate, the laws we already have.

That is why our government will be supporting Bill C-275 with amendments. Specifically, we will look to move amendments that meet the spirit and intent of Bill C-275, while lowering the legal risks that we have identified.

Rather than broadly prohibiting unlawful entry into any building or other place, we propose an amendment to more narrowly prohibit entry into on-farm biosecurity zones where animals are kept, except in accordance with established biosecurity protocols. Such an amendment would support the strong biosecurity measures that many farmers have already put in place on Canadian farms.

This amendment would also mitigate against the legal issues I outlined earlier. By shifting the focus to entry into on-farm biosecurity zones, it would bring the bill under federal jurisdiction because it would be more clearly related to agricultural options inside the farm gate. It would also reinforce the benefit of biosecurity zones, which are an important part of agricultural practices to prevent the spread of animal disease.

Many may wonder why we are supporting this bill when we did not support its predecessor, Bill C-205. Let me be clear: As I have noted, we do have concerns with the legal risks associated with this bill as currently written. However, we have taken the time to consider previous debates and testimony on this matter. We have listened to stakeholders, and almost all have stressed the importance of biosecurity to prevent the spread of animal disease to animals. Upon further analysis, we have identified an amendment that focuses more squarely on biosecurity and provides a better alternative to the current wording of Bill C-275. This amendment would emphasize to Canadians that biosecurity is serious and necessary to prevent the spread of animal disease, while recognizing there is existing legislation to address trespassing.

We recognize the efforts of the hon. member for Foothills in trying to protect farmers. However, it is important that we find the right balance with the bill and discern the best way forward, considering the legal risks. Should Bill C-275 be referred to committee, we will move an amendment to ensure that the bill addresses the legal risks that have been identified.

The government looks forward to further discussions on this important topic. We are eager to discuss ways we can amend Bill C-275 to provide supports to farmers and protect the health of their animals.

Once again, I want to thank the member for Foothills. We have heard about every issue that has been ongoing over the past few years and past decades on farms. This week we are acknowledging it is Mental Health Week, and I think this bill would address some of the measures and some of the stresses that farmers face on their farms. I want to thank the member for Foothills for putting this bill forward.

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to something my colleague mentioned in his speech. I have already had the opportunity to ask questions about Bill C-3. Obviously, nobody can be against sick days and apple pie.

My colleague gave two examples related to the right to protest that are of particular interest to me. The first example, specifically protests in front of abortion clinics, is of particular interest to me as the critic for status of women. Indeed, those protesters can sometimes do more harm than good, since the women who need to attend those clinics are often going through an already difficult and intensely private experience.

My hon. colleague also drew a parallel with a previous bill, Bill C-205. As a member representing a rural riding, I have heard a lot about the harm protesters have caused to animals.

Can my colleague talk about the need to balance the right to protest with the fact that these protests sometimes do far more harm than good?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑3.

I must admit that this bill is a little strange because it deals with two completely different topics. It would amend the Canada Labour Code and would also amend the Criminal Code. The bill's scope goes in two completely different directions.

First, the bill would amend the Criminal Code to increase penalties on people who intimidate health care workers or patients or who obstruct access to a hospital or clinic in order to impede people from obtaining health services, such as vaccination. It is hard to argue against virtue, so it is relatively easy to support this part of the bill.

Second, the bill would force federally regulated employers to grant up to 10 days of paid sick leave to their employees. As I just said, it is hard to argue against virtue, so we will support this bill.

I would like to raise an important point about the part involving protests outside health care facilities. We are being told the bill is not intended to infringe on the right to peaceful protest and is therefore not intended to affect workers' rights, but that is not made perfectly clear in the wording.

This will require clarification. As usual, the Bloc Québécois will be thorough in asking questions, checking the facts, seeking confirmation and possibly proposing any amendments needed to protect this basic right.

The Bloc Québécois always stands up for workers' rights. Of course, we defend collective rights, but defending workers' rights is one of our core values. It is of the utmost importance to us.

In Quebec, workers' rights during a dispute are particularly well protected compared to the rest of Canada. Think, for example, of the anti-scab legislation in effect in Quebec. It is important that close attention be paid to this part of the legislation.

Furthermore, paid sick leave is a step forward for federally regulated Quebec workers, even though there are not that many of them. It is a step forward for them.

As history has shown, progress for one group of workers is always progress for all workers. A rising tide lifts all boats, and measures like this create momentum, which is always positive even if it is just for a small group of people. The Bloc Québécois will definitely support this measure.

I want to comment on the prohibition of protests. The bill would give prosecutors added powers to charge people who impede others in the performance of health care duties and interfere with access to a clinic or hospital.

Under the present circumstances, because of the election campaign and anti-vax protests, people have been thinking about access to health care facilities a lot. It is these events, in large part, that led to the creation of this bill.

Over the years, we have also seen protests by people preventing access to abortion clinics. Recognizing that every woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body and that nobody can interfere with that is one of our core values. In that respect, this measure is good because it goes some way toward ensuring that people will not be hassled while accessing health care.

This part of the law is important because it distinguishes between “freedom of expression” and “aggression”. Unfortunately, in our society, some individuals or groups often confuse the two concepts. Some think that because they have the right to express themselves, they have the right to prevent others from doing something. This is not at all the case, and such behaviour should never be tolerated. This is a fundamental and very important point.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect people from all forms of aggression. This is what we started to do in the last Parliament before the unnecessary election that everyone knows about. We were working on Bill C‑205, which concerned the agricultural sector and would have prevented vegan activists from trespassing on livestock farms and other farms.

Assaulting someone or coming onto their property to express a political opinion or a point of view is unacceptable. This is a democratic country, and democracy is expressed in a peaceful and respectful way. There are public spaces for demonstrating. Once people start to be bullied, it becomes very important to intervene.

This also deals with intimidation, and that is important. When people head out to a certain place and find a threatening group there, they may turn back. The example of vaccine-hesitant folks comes to mind. This is not a judgment of someone's opinion. I am not saying that one group is more right than another. However, in order for us to get out of this miserable crisis, our duty as parliamentarians is to encourage people to get vaccinated. That means that any demonstration that might interfere with that goal obviously must be prevented without stopping people from expressing themselves. Once again, “expression” does not mean “aggression”. This is a very important point.

In my former life as a high school teacher, I fought against bullying and intimidation for many years. It was a fundamental issue that was very important to me. I will continue that fight as a parliamentarian, because our civil society must not accept that kind of behaviour.

Bill C‑3 is quite severe, providing for prison sentences of up to 10 years, depending on how the offender is charged. They could get 10 years or two years less a day. This could be a good way to make people think twice about assaulting others.

As for the rest, the bill also contains other clauses, such as release orders for people charged under the amended law, potentially with conditions. That is fairly standard.

However, I would like to highlight one very important point for my colleagues. Under Bill C‑3, any criminal offence committed against a health professional in the performance of their duties would now be considered an aggravating factor. I think this is a great approach, because it confirms the almost sacred nature of health care work. It also protects access to care for the general public, which I think is a very good sign.

The last part deals with paid sick leave, and it is positive, as I said earlier. However, the majority of federally regulated private sector workers already have access to 10 or more days of sick leave. We are talking about roughly 63% of those workers. Getting that number up to 100%, or in other words, giving everyone access to those sick days is great, but there is one aspect of Bill C-3 that could prove to be problematic, and it needs to be addressed. I am referring to the fact that the employer can require a medical certificate within 15 days of the employee's return to work. I wonder about that.

Consider the example of someone who has been sick for two days and returns to work, then after another five or six days is asked by their employer to provide a medical certificate. I think it would be hard to prove one's illness by that point. The right questions need to be asked, and I am counting on my esteemed colleague, who is the critic on this issue, to dig into the matter, but I think it is important to clarify that aspect.

As I have been saying from the start, we cannot be against this bill, despite the fact that it changes very little. It feels like the Liberals are trying to prove that they are with the times and following the trends. We are being asked to vote on this bill after we were forced to urgently vote on a time allocation motion. As a colleague from our party said earlier, however, this was brought up a long time ago.

Why was this not done at the beginning of the crisis when many people may have needed it?

Why wait 62 days to recall members to work and then shove bills down their throat?

Many areas need our swift action, such as the cuts to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, which is a major injustice. When will we see some movement on that? I am being told that Bill C‑3 is urgent, that it needs to happen by tomorrow morning, but we sounded the alarm about the cuts to the GIS before the election campaign.

Does the government not want to introduce a bill to address that situation? It is a matter of social justice. Yesterday, we discussed Afghanistan; it is the same thing.

Business of the House

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the minister was talking about the importance of these protests in that we need to protect the rights of Canadians. I could not agree more. My private member's bill, Bill C-205, went through the parliamentary process in the last Parliament, made it very close to the finish line and was about protecting the rights of farm families and ranch families from protests on farms and on their properties.

When we talk about the rights of Canadians, I think that goes both ways. I was honoured to have the support of the Liberal Party at committee as well as having the agriculture minister be in support of that initiative during the election.

I am wondering if the justice minister will also support Bill C-205, if I am able to bring it back this Parliament.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair, at this point, there have already been a lot of great points said, so I'll just echo what has already been said to you.

You show great deference and a great ability to help try to balance all the interests, so we will miss you if we're not back in September. As someone that has been able to see your work inside the tent, so to speak, of our caucus, you're going to be missed. You're a heck of a guy. All the best to you and your family in the days ahead.

To my colleagues, I am a relatively new MP—just since 2019—but I've had a glimpse of other committees, and as Mr. MacGregor said, we are the gold standard. It has been great to be able to come to each group, to be able to listen to the different ideas, to be able to have respectful debate and to try to advance the interests of farmers.

To Mr. Barlow, of course, thank you for your work in bringing forward C-205. I know you're very passionate about it, and I applaud you. Congratulations on getting this bill back to the House. On the basis of the feedback that you've had from the different members, this will pass when it gets to a vote, and I think that's a compliment for our ability as a committee to help put a frame that is going to help support farmers.

Well done, Mr. Barlow.

To all my colleagues, have a great summer. If you want a bottle of Nova Scotia wine, you need to send me your address so I can send it.

Finally, I'm going to miss getting little text messages from Mr. Steinley. I quite enjoy that as we have a bit of friendly banter back and forth.

Enjoy the summer, everyone, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We will apply the same results.

(Reprint of Bill C-205 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

I think all is good, Madam Clerk.

I think we've covered it all. Great job.

Congratulations, Mr. Barlow. It went through. This will end our clause-by-clause.

I've communicated with Ms. Rood, Monsieur Perron and Mr. MacGregor that this would conclude our meetings for this session. I think everybody was okay with that, as long we got through the clause-by-clause, which we've just finished, so I think this will be our last meeting.

I really want to thank the committee. I think we've done great work, really pertinent work, and it's thanks to everyone. I'm thinking about this session and I'm thinking about way back. I've really enjoyed working with the ag committee.

If I think back a bit to business risk management, this influenced the minister, and this got a lot of things done.

On mental health issues, although maybe not with this particular session, that was important work we did.

I'm thinking of the CUSMA negotiations and our trip to Washington. I'm not saying that we were the ones who changed their minds, but I think we were all part of the whole negotiation process.

On the grain issues that we had one winter, we got both CN and CP in here and made sure it happened.

Those are just a few examples of what we were all able to do, so I really want to thank all my colleagues who have been through this.

I think Francis and I are probably the only ones from the original committee, but to all of you, I really appreciate how we were able to work together on all sides of the House on this one.

I also want to thank the magnificent clerks that we've had throughout, including this one now, and the analysts.

Corentin and Alexie, that was great work. Without you, this would not have proceeded as smoothly, for sure.

Also, to the staff, to translation and to all the other staff who make meetings happen, especially in the challenging times we've had with the pandemic, it's just awesome what you guys are doing. We really want to thank you for that.

Also, thank you to our own party staff, who we don't see on the screen but who are there working with us, sliding sheets and stuff to us to make us look, I wouldn't say “good” but maybe “better” is the word I'm looking for.

I want to say again that this has been the highlight of my stay. Of course, this is going to be my last committee for sure. Well, who knows? We might still be here in three years' time. If you believe that, let's go and buy a lottery ticket.

I want to thank all of you and, really, from the bottom of my heart, I appreciate all of you and all the work we've been able to do With that, I'll conclude.

Mr. Epp, I know that you have your hand up.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I see all thumbs up. Good.

(Bill C-205 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

We will apply the same results.

(Reporting of bill to the House agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

I will bring it to the House on Monday.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm not sure if either of our witnesses from the CFIA can chime in.

I appreciate what Mr. Perron is trying to do, but again, is this level of specificity required, or would it just be assumed that if you're taking in an animal from wherever, that would not be allowed? I would assume that if I were visiting another poultry farm, I wouldn't be able to take one of my chickens with me for a friendly visit. That's just not what you do.

I appreciate what he's trying to do. I guess my question is on whether this further clarification in the clause is necessary, or is Bill C-205, as it currently reads as amended, clear enough to the officials who would be enforcing the act?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As I explained, we really tried to analyze the bill from all angles, as a result of the many testimonies we have heard. We think it may have a loophole that needs to be addressed. We need to consider the possibility that a person could be trespassing not by entering the premises themselves, but by taking in an object, animal, substance or food that could contaminate the animals.

In order to close this loophole, we propose an amendment to lines 8 and 9 on page 1 of Bill C‑205 to clarify that, in addition to a person trespassing, if they “take in any animal or thing”, it also constitutes trespassing.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To Mr. MacGregor, thanks very much for your insight and your input. There's always great detail.

I think it is important that we maintain this unlawful portion of the bill. As Mr. Steinley said, we did put this through a rigorous legal counsel review to ensure that there were no jurisdictional or constitutional issues with the bill, and there were none that came back. We also wanted to ensure that this protected the opportunities, let's say, for whistle-blowers, those who are lawfully on a farm, whether that's a farm employee or a family member who sees something that is below standards, and that this will be reported. I believe C-205 as it stands ensures that whistle-blowers have that protection to do that important work.

What we are trying to focus on here are those who do not necessarily understand the biosecurity protocols that are extremely stringent. If they don't understand those, we want to ensure that they are held accountable and can't use the excuse of not knowing or not understanding the signage or the rules that are in place.

I also wanted to mention that my colleague Mr. MacGregor brought comments from Dr. Lazare and her submission about her concerns, but Dr. Lazare also testified at the Ontario legislature about their bill, Bill 156. She also made a comment on C-205, and I want to quickly read that:

[T]here are other ways to achieve the legislative objective and 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....

In previous testimony, Dr. Lazare has commented that Bill C-205 is a better way to achieve the goals of what we are trying to do. I think there has to be a balanced approach to this, and C-205, in my opinion, achieves that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

Yes, Chair. Thank you so much. I formally move NDP-1 as an amendment to Bill C-205.

It's a relatively simple amendment to the first clause of the bill, whereby we are replacing line 6 on page 1 so that it would read “No person shall”. It's essentially removing the words “without lawful authority or excuse”.

The reason I am moving this amendment to Bill C-205 is that I've been struggling throughout the proceedings on this bill between the terms “trespass” and “biosecurity”. We've heard witnesses at one point or another say this bill is meant to address trespassing on farms. Others have said no, it's meant to address biosecurity. We've had some witnesses say that it does both.

I want to make it very clear that I think any intrusion on private property needs to be condemned. We know the ill effects it has on farmers and the ill effects it has on animals, but I want this bill to stay in its federal lane. It has to stay in its federal lane.

The federal government has very clear jurisdiction through the federal criminal law power in addressing biosecurity, but it does not have the jurisdiction to address crimes against property. Under our Constitution, that is very clearly a provincial power. Under Canadian law, animals are considered property, so any crimes against animals are considered a property matter. Trespass on property is a provincial matter.

We cannot intrude on the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. It's very clearly laid out under section 92.13 that property and civil rights are under the domain of provincial legislatures.

The reason I am proposing this amendment is to make Bill C-205 apply to everyone equally, so that if you are a farmer or farm employee, if you are a transport driver or if you are a protester, if you violate the biosecurity protocols in place on a farm, this law applies equally to you. That's the main essence of my putting it forward.

I'll direct committee members to the brief submitted by Dr. Jodi Lazare. She mentioned that the bill as originally written might run into some constitutional conundrums, but she did say that if we had a law that applied to everyone who enters a farm to those most likely to threaten biosecurity by transmitting disease amongst animals, that would be more likely to survive constitutional scrutiny, whereas in its current form this amendment might not survive a constitutional challenge in court.

The brief we received from Animal Justice went into a lot of detail on page 4 about how most of the risks to biosecurity have come from farm workers or from transports, from people who have gone from farm to farm. That's where most of the risk has actually come from, which has been properly documented. They did say that prudent regulatory measures to address biosecurity should focus on the gaps and failures within the sector, which again is another argument in favour of making this apply equally to everyone.

Also, Dr. Brian Evans, during his appearance before the committee on June 3, went into a lot of detail about how some of the more serious outbreaks in our country's history have been caused by workers who were not following the proper biosecurity concerns. That was the day I was having Internet connectivity issues, so I had to go back through the testimony as written in Hansard.

I'll wrap up there. This is really just my attempt to keep this bill within its federal lane and to not in any way intrude on provincial jurisdiction over trespass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 40 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 10, 2021, and the motion adopted by the committee on May 11, 2021, the committee is commencing the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members may be attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

I will take this opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. Just a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

For the clause-by-clause consideration, we have some people from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for assistance if we need them. We will have them as resources if we have questions.

We have Dr. Jaspinder Komal, vice-president, science branch, chief veterinary officer and World Organisation for Animal Health delegate for Canada.

Welcome, Dr. Komal.

Also, we have Jane Dudley, senior counsel, agriculture and food inspection legal services.

Ms. Dudley, thank you for joining us.

With that, we shall start the clause-by-clause consideration.

(On clause 1)

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Throughout the testimony on Bill C-205, the word “trespass” has come up repeatedly. Under our Constitution, if you look at the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures, subsection 92(13) states that property and civil rights are under the domain of our provincial legislatures.

Under Canadian law, animals are considered property. That's a widely accepted legal interpretation, no matter which province you're in. Provinces will be very quick to speak up any time they feel the federal government is encroaching on their jurisdiction. I have colleagues in the House of Commons who will speak up if there is even the slightest chance that the federal government is intruding on something that is clearly under provincial jurisdiction.

If we're continually using the word “trespass”, my question to both groups is, how do we square that constitutional circle, if we're dealing with a crime against property, which is so clearly marked under provincial jurisdiction? Do you have any thoughts on how we square that circle?

The provinces may speak up and say, “No. You are intruding on something that is under our domain to legislate.” Do you have any thoughts on how they might push back against that?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Breaking and entering is illegal in Canada. Our discussion on Bill C‑205 concerns how to address this issue and how to create tools to prevent this type of activity. That's important.

Have there been any discussions? Have you been contacted by animal welfare organizations, such as the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA, in Quebec, for example?

Is this type of contact being made? Is it more that they aren't talking to you, they don't want anything to do with you, they're against you, and to hell with it, they'll do their campaigns on social media? At some point, and it's unfortunate, a farmer will fall victim to this situation, whether or not their family is there. That's how things will go.

Has there been any contact?