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 a place in which animals are kept, or take in any animal or thing, if doing so could reasonably 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]

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.

[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 another 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.

[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.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-216.

We are debating this legislation because the Liberal government has not treated supply-managed sectors fairly. They have not supported farmers or producers, and not followed through on their commitments. However, this legislation does not address the issues of farmers and producers.

Conservatives have been strong and vocal supporters of our supply-managed sectors and will continue to be. In fact, Conservatives have a policy declaration that says the following:

...it is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative Government will support supply management and its goal to deliver a high quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producer.

Our leader, our party, and our policy have been clear on this. The Conservative Party is an ally, supporter and defender of supply management in Canada. I will talk about these important supply-managed sectors.

When I met with the Chicken Farmers of Canada, they were clear about their priorities. Through correspondence and an appearance at committee, we know that their priorities are new investment programs to support producers as they improve their operations, a market development fund to promote Canadian-raised chicken, a tariff rate quota allocation methodology designed to ensure minimal market distortions, the enforcement of Canadian production standards on imports and the resolution of import control loopholes undermining this sector. One of these is the fraudulent importation of mislabelled broiler meat being declared as spent fowl. There are reports of chicken meat imports being mislabelled in order to bypass import control measures.

When this situation first became apparent in 2012, Canada was importing the equivalent of 101% of the United States’ entire spent fowl production. According to the Chicken Farmers of Canada, these illegal imports have resulted in an estimated annual loss of 1,400 jobs in Canada, $105 million in contributions to the national economy, $35 million in tax revenue and the loss of at least $66 million in government revenues due to tariff evasion.

These illegal imports also raise important food safety concerns relating to traceability for recalls. This issue not only affects our economy and hard-working chicken farmers, but the lives of Canadians are on the line in the case of a food-borne illness.

Where is the action plan to deal with this?

When I spoke to the Egg Farmers of Canada, an industry association that represents over 1,000 family farms across the country that support over 18,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in GDP, they were clear that they wanted the government to stop claiming to support the industry and actually start defending it. I learned of the innovation occurring in this industry.

The egg industry is tired of being strung along by the government. They had to fight tooth and nail for clarity on promised compensation. They expressed their desire for investment in their industry, which is the backbone of rural communities, and for market development support when it comes to the Canadian egg brand.

Where is the desire or action plan to defend our egg industry?

When I spoke to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, they told me how hard it was for the industry to plan for the future due to the government’s lack of transparency, not the least in regard to the disbursement of promised compensation.

Where is the desire and action plan to defend the dairy industry?

These same concerns were raised by the Turkey Farmers of Canada. When I first spoke with them, they were going into year four without any payments of promised compensation by the government.

The Conservatives are the only party who can and will be able to ensure that our world-class producers of dairy, chicken, turkey, and eggs have a partner in government. The Bloc Québécois will never have to negotiate a trade agreement for Canada and be the partner in government that the supply management businesses in Quebec and across the country can rely on. The Conservative Party is the only party that can and will put an end to the failures of the Liberal government when it comes to trade agreements and compensation.

Conservatives will faithfully defend supply management. We were in the House of Commons pressing the government over and over again to fulfill its compensation promises to the supply-managed sectors. We have also raised in the House the meaningful actions that we can take now to protect and support farmers and producers, including in supply-managed sectors. These actions would include modernizing and improving agricultural risk management programs, asking the Competition Bureau to investigate the impacts of abusive trade practices in the grocery industry by the grocery giants, or providing flexibility and clarity on how compensation for supply-managed sectors is allocated.

Why have we seen no plans on these important topics?

I have spent a lot of time talking with businesses and industry representatives. They want consultation, understanding and transparency from the government. They want support from the government, which has been sorely lacking. After all, our agricultural sectors do not compete fairly with other countries that subsidize, both directly and indirectly, their own products.

Creating legislation such as we are debating today, which could target farmers and producers right from the onset as bargaining chips in future trade negotiations, is not a wise strategy. Canada could be out-negotiated and forced to agree to concessions and pay compensation. This would mean more workers losing jobs, and it would do nothing to drive investment, spearhead innovation or protect jobs.

In my home province of British Columbia, supply management is an important part of our economy. B.C. has over three million egg-laying hens across over 140 farms in the province. Chicken farmers in B.C. produce 87 million dozen eggs annually and account for 14,000 jobs, contributing $1.1 billion to Canada's GDP.

B.C. is also the third-largest dairy-producing province in Canada, with 500 farms.

It is the Conservatives who are putting forth private members' bills that are meaningful to the agriculture sector. Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-206, would exempt farmers from paying the carbon tax on gasoline, propane and natural gas. From heating barns to running farm equipment, farmers face steep energy costs, and these have skyrocketed in many parts of the country due to the increasing federal carbon tax. It is a practical measure to help alleviate the financial strain on the agriculture sector. Supporting our food security is more important than ever.

Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-208, would allow the transfer of a small business, family farm or fishing operation at the same tax rate when selling to a family member as when selling to a third party. I was happy to jointly second this bill in the first session of this Parliament. This was a poor tax policy change brought in by the government. This policy bothered me so much when it first came out. It was one of the factors that prompted me to run to become a member of Parliament.

Succession planning is a challenge at the best of times for small businesses, in particular farmers, and it is unfair that it is more financially advantageous to sell to a stranger than to one's own children, who have often grown up around the family business and contributed over time. I have many communications regarding this bill from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country on how positively it will affect their businesses and future planning.

Conservative Bill C-205 would amend the animal health act to address trespassing onto farms, into barns or other enclosed areas where the health of animals and safety of Canada’s food supply is potentially at risk. Entering a farm without lawful authority or excuse would become an offence under the act.

We will always support the hard-working farmers and producers in our supply managed sectors who ensure quality foods for Canadians. Dairy products, chicken, turkey and eggs are core staples on our dinner tables, and the pandemic showed us how important it is to protect our supply chains, supply management and food security.

The legislation we are debating today does nothing to address any of the concerns I have outlined. There are more meaningful, productive and long-lasting ways we can stand up for supply management without supporting Bill C-216.

Canada’s Conservatives will continue to support our supply managed sectors and ensure that dairy- and poultry-farming families and producers are consulted and engaged in any trade negotiations in the future.

We will continue to support all farmers and producers in meaningful ways.

Health of Animals Act

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand today and introduce this bill, which is seconded by my colleague, the member for Beauce.

This bill addresses a critical issue, which is the securing of the biosecurity of our food supply, especially when there are trespassers on farm property and facilities. As the House may be aware, there are numerous protests on farm property and process plants across this country, and it is certainly not relegated to one segment of agriculture or one area of Canada. We have seen people enter hog farms in Abbotsford, B.C. and Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, a pork breeding facility in Ontario, and activists have even tried to remove animals from dairy farms.

In my own riding of Foothills, a farmer was startled to come to his farm in the morning and see that dozens of protesters had broken into the property and into a barn and were trying to take turkeys. There are numerous examples, and I fear the situation will get worse if producers do not see something is done. I do not think activists understand the full consequences of their actions. We want them to understand that they are endangering the safety of livestock, families, farmers and workers. We understand that they care deeply about the soil, food safety, animal health and the environment, but I think my colleagues in this room would also understand and agree with me that mental health and anxiety within agriculture are at a crisis.

These are important issues that we hope to address, but I have decided to focus my amendment to the Health of Animals Act to create a new offence. The act provides for the control of diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals or could be transmitted by animals to persons. The risks from viruses like the African swine fever are very real and potentially devastating to Canadian agriculture.

Currently, there is nothing that addresses trespassers, which is what this bill aims to change. I look forward to engaging with my colleagues as we work together to address this important issue and the safety of Canada's food supply.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)