I take the comments from my Conservative colleagues with good measure. However, let's not kid ourselves. There is a perception out there, and we're all aware of it—we have all received the emails and we have received the briefs—that this bill is designed to target a specific group of people, animal activists. While we all condemn their actions of going on a farm and causing all kinds of ruckus with both farmers and animals, because they don't understand the procedures and the potential dangers they introduce, I'm trying to find a way to make the law apply equally.
If we all, as a committee, agree that biosecurity is of extreme importance, then our specific federal law that is dealing with diseases and disease outbreaks should apply equally to everyone. The evidence is out there that most farm outbreaks have been caused by farm employees. It's there. It's a fact. We have all seen it.
To get away from the perception that this bill might be targeting a certain group of people, even though we rightfully condemn their actions, I believe our amendment to this bill, if it passes and becomes part of the Health of Animals Act, needs to apply equally to everyone. We are trying to put biosecurity on a pedestal, saying this is important, and if you're the farmer, the employee, or someone who's deciding to trespass and make a point, this law is going to apply equally to all of you.
With respect, it's up to our provincial legislatures to step up to the plate and address farmers' concerns when it comes to trespass. Farmers need to be activists and start calling their MLAs to get stronger trespass laws. That's under the domain of our provincial legislatures, and I think we need to respect that constitutional division of jurisdiction.
I will leave it at that.