Agriculture Committee on June 17th, 2021

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

I see both sides of this particular point of concern that is being raised. What I heard from the testimony and what I think we all intrinsically know in our backyard is that farmers take biosecurity very seriously.

We heard vigorous testimony about the work that a whole host of stakeholders do, whether or not it's wearing the boots and having those measures in place, changing clothes of sorts. By going to all persons, I think it presents a situation. What if there were a particular employee who was rogue, a particular employee who wanted to cause harm or was going to go in and do something of danger?

Essentially, we have a bit of a loophole here such that if they had lawful entry, yet went and were reckless—I don't have the piece of legislation, so let me pull it up. Essentially if someone did have lawful authority and entered a building knowing that or being reckless as to whether entering such a place could cause it, we have a bit of a loophole in the sense that they had lawful authority even though the act that they're committing would be excluded under this particular provision.

I think we all know that our farmers and our good stewards of biosecurity are not going to necessarily fall into that category, but beyond the constitutional aspect that Mr. MacGregor has raised, I wonder if it leaves open the door for a particular individual who wants to cause this harm or goes and does this particular act under a lawful authority and is somehow excluded, even though there are others who might commit the exact same type of act without lawful authority and are then deemed to be able to fit under this piece of legislation.

I think it's closing the gap a little bit, and I don't think it would necessarily bring into question our farmers and our stakeholders who actually take biosecurity seriously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Blois.

Mr. Barlow, I believe, was the next one in line.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Mr. MacGregor, go ahead, please.

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

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thanks, Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Blois, go ahead, please.

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

I recognize that Mr. Barlow raised his hand, perhaps as a counter to Mr. MacGregor.

With regard to my question, Mr. Barlow mentioned whistle-blowers and the concern about restricting the ability for people, rightfully, to be able to call out poor practices on farm. So that I can understand the element he's raising, is it that the whistle-blowers in question would enter the farm without taking some measure of biosecurity before going on the said farm to report the poor behaviour?

In my mind, what Mr. MacGregor is proposing about all persons is that as long as those individuals followed the biosecurity protocol in place going into the particular entry of the building, as is being contemplated in the act, came back out and then reported, this wouldn't necessarily impugn the individual in question.

Can Mr. Barlow give me a bit more context, so I can understand his argument in that regard?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Blois.

Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Blois, you kind of led into what I wanted to conclude with.

There are procedures in place, let's say, for farmers, processors and employees. They are audited on a regular basis by their commodity groups, CFIA, provincial health officials. There is a process in place to ensure they are following the rules and the strict biosecurity measures in place, and if they are not, there are already very strict rules, and penalties and consequences to that.

To Mr. Blois' question, that is an important differentiation that we have to make here. Those whistle-blowers would lawfully be on farm because they are likely to be family members, employees, visitors, who have been brought onto the farm, and that owner or farmer or processor has taken them through the biosecurity protocols.

Many of us have toured farms as part of our parliamentary duties or as constituents. I know that when I visit Cargill, for example, I go through a rigorous biosecurity process, or when I go to Mountainview Poultry, I do the same.

That is why there would be no repercussions to those whistle-blowers, because they are lawfully on farm as an employee and they would be following those strict rules.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

I don't see any other hands up, so we'll proceed to a vote on NDP-1. I just want to remind the group again that if we adopt this amendment, we will just skip LIB‑1.

I'll ask the clerk to take a recorded vote on this.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We will just skip over LIB-1 and go to BQ-1.

Mr. Perron, you may now move your amendment.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Does anyone wish to speak to the amendment?

Mr. Blois.

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

Mr. Chair, my question for Mr. Perron, or my comments when I read through this, would be that it seems Mr. Barlow's intent is that if someone were to enter the building in a fashion that could potentially cause a biosecurity risk, regardless of whether someone was holding an animal or bringing an animal in or whether the individual brought a particular item of clothing or food or something of that nature, that entrance would be more premised on whether the entry could potentially cause a biosecurity risk. I think that's quite broad in nature now.

I know what Mr. Perron is trying to do here by making sure we're a little more specific. I just don't know if it's necessary. It's intrinsic by the way the particular provision reads now that if someone is entering the building, regardless of themselves, with 50 people, with animals, with certain items, if they do something to cause a biosecurity risk, they could potentially be impugned under this legislation.

Although I appreciate Mr. Perron's attempt, I don't know if it necessarily is needed. I wonder if he could explain to me why it's absolutely necessary, because I'm reading that it would already be covered under the current provision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Blois.

We'll go to Mr. MacGregor, and then we'll come back to Mr. Perron to have him explain.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

[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?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

I'll ask Mr. Perron to answer first. Then, if necessary, you can ask Ms. Dudley for help.

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

I think Mr. MacGregor's question was more for the experts, but I can still try to answer it.

I'll start by answering Mr. Blois. We tried to keep in mind that we are about to pass a bill that may well be in effect for a long time, so we wanted to make it as effective and as stable as possible, without any loopholes. This bill applies to facilities that are closed, of course, but also to enclosed places where animals are kept. In this case, someone could walk up to the enclosure and throw in a chicken, say, as in Mr. MacGregor's example. But it could be something else. In such a case, the person would not have entered the enclosed place, but they would still have put something in it. So we just wanted to close that loophole.

Now, do we need to be that specific? Our interpretation of the current proposed wording is that the prohibition relates to entering a building or other enclosed place. So, if the person does not enter, are they in violation? It is important to remember that in court, judges cannot act at will. They have to interpret the law and stay within the law. That is why we are trying to fill in any gaps that may exist in order to make this bill effective.

Our experts may wish to add to my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Ms. Dudley, is there anything you would like to add to clarify or maybe explain further on this?

[Jane Dudley]

Of course, there isn't an interpretation that I can give, but the language is pretty consistent with what exists already, “person or thing”. I believe this is what we're discussing, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Yes, Ms. Dudley.

[Jane Dudley]

This is common language in the Health of Animals Act, “any animal, animal product, animal byproduct or thing”. Consistency is usually recommended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Okay.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Perron?

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

Actually, I think we're saying much the same thing, if I can convince my colleagues. The way it is currently worded, it does not apply to any person or any thing, and that's the clarification we want to add. If I understood Ms. Dudley's answer correctly, it would be consistent with the existing act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Is there anything else for discussion?

Are we clear on the amendment, and are we ready to vote?

Again, if BQ-1 is adopted, NDP-2 and LIB-2 cannot be moved.

Mr. Blois.