Agriculture Committee on June 15th, 2021

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for Mr. Leblanc.

I asked the dairy farmers earlier what they want to tell people who say that there will no longer be whistleblowers or people who report suspected abuse on a particular farm.

Can you tell us about your control structures? To whom could these people go without having to assault people by trespassing?

[Pierre-Luc Leblanc]

I don't understand your question. Do you want to know whom people could contact regarding our farmers?

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

Yes. I'll repeat what I said in the last round of questions.

People tell us that farmers are generally good people who take care of their animals, but that, if they have a concern about a specific case, they can no longer act because of the bill.

What would you tell them?

[Pierre-Luc Leblanc]

Okay.

The Quebec department of agriculture, fisheries and food, or MAPAQ, is currently providing support in this area. We received some complaints that birds in backyard farms were sick and untreated. We have the support of MAPAQ, which can send in a team of specialists to ensure that animal welfare is respected.

We've even taken action in the past against farmers whose practices, in our opinion, didn't respect animal welfare. We had to send in the MAPAQ team to conduct checks.

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

An inspection is then done fairly quickly and action is taken. Is that right?

[Pierre-Luc Leblanc]

Absolutely.

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

Okay.

Mr. Lampron, I assume that you'll tell me the same thing.

[Pierre Lampron]

Thank you for your question.

I would add that we mustn't forget that veterinarians regularly visit dairy farms to take care of the animals or as a preventive measure, and that they must report cases of abuse. Many organizations talk about cruelty. Yet we really don't benefit from abusing our animals.

The few cases that do occur are often related to mental health issues. It's sad to say, but it's true.

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

Mr. Leblanc, if I were to give you my last 15 or 20 seconds, what would you say to better inform the committee members on the significance of this bill?

[Pierre-Luc Leblanc]

In our view, the legislation must be simple. Breaking and entering is simple and straightforward. You don't need to start wondering whether the person broke in. The legislation must be simple. A procedure must be established to ensure that an unwanted visitor can be quickly removed from the premises.

Fines are also needed to deter trespassing on farms. If the offence is only breaking and entering and no theft or mischief is involved, the penalty may not be substantial enough. The bill must have a deterrent effect.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Leblanc and Mr. Perron.

We'll now go to Mr. MacGregor, for two and a half minutes.

[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?

[Érik Tremblay]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I'll answer that very good question.

I think that we must see this as two complementary issues. There's animal health, which is being addressed today, and breaking and entering, which can be addressed at the provincial level. In my view, the issues go hand in hand. That's why the discussions before the committee have been connected and linked together. Complementary measures must be taken at both the provincial and federal levels.

In our opinion, the bill before us today must ensure that additional protection, which doesn't exist now, is provided. This protection must be provided in a consistent manner across Canada. At this time, the protection is incomplete. We also support the idea of a deterrent. This will help to ensure additional protection, but it won't necessarily right all wrongs. The provinces may work together to address the issue of breaking and entering. These issues are indeed complementary.

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

Thank you. I think that's my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Thank you, Mr. Tremblay.

That pretty much wraps up our second panel.

I want to thank Mr. Lampron, Mr. Wiens and Mr. Tremblay from Dairy Farmers of Canada.

Thank you again for sharing your knowledge with the committee.

I also want to thank Mr. Leblanc, who represented Les Éleveurs de volailles du Québec.

Thank you for joining us today.

This concludes our meeting today. I want to wish all my colleagues a good weekend. We'll meet again next Thursday for the clause‑by‑clause consideration.

The meeting is adjourned.