Agriculture Committee on June 17th, 2021

[Jacques Maziade]

Okay. It would read “thing will or could”.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Yes.

[Jacques Maziade]

Okay.

Mr. Chair, it's on the subamendment. You can have a debate on this and vote on this subamendment. If it's adopted, you will vote on the amendment as amended, or if it's defeated, you'll go back to BQ-1 as is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Okay. We are now debating the subamendment.

Thank you, Ms. Rood.

Mr. Blois, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My hand was up originally to make sure I understood exactly what Ms. Rood was contemplating. I do have it before me.

The only issue I see with this is that when you say “thing”, in “the animal or thing”, I think we change it to say “will or could result”.

What's the standard? If this goes before a judge, what are they choosing to use? Is it simply it “could have resulted” or it “will result”, or would it be “would have resulted”?

It creates two different standards in my mind, in terms of what we're trying to move on. I have problems with the two standards. Does a judge simply take the one that they feel is best? I think that would run into real complications.

A potential individual who is charged under this provision would say, “Well, I didn't do anything where it would have impacted”, but then, what if the judge says, “Well, no, you could have...just because you happened to be in there and anything under the sun could have happened”? I think that's the problem we run into.

I don't know if it's appropriate at this stage, but I have some other language that I'd like to propose at some point after we, as a committee, decide if this language is appropriate.

Is it appropriate to maybe put it on...?

When we look at trying to find a bridge between “could” and, of course, what Mr. MacGregor said, which is “would”, and I had in my language “will”, I think both “would” and “will” are stronger in terms of burden of proof of trying to establish on a prosecution that this did indeed happen.

What if we went somewhere in between and said “could reasonably”, which then starts to become the 51%? It becomes less of it “would” absolutely be, that it absolutely had to be tied to a particular disease transfer.

The word “could” is so wide open that I think it could be anything, anyone stepping on a farm, and “could reasonably” starts to.... The judge would use those words to look at whether it's 51% on the evidence: Was it more likely than not that this particular action would have actually resulted in biosecurity?

Maybe it's not my time to move that, but I put that on the record for my colleagues to consider.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Blois.

I believe we'll have to deal with the subamendment first.

Keep in mind that we are still dealing with the subamendment that was suggested by Ms. Rood.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask Mr. Blois a question.

The proposed subamendment is sort of the equivalent of the two amendments that might be proposed after this one. It's intended to add the same concept.

Mr. Blois may be raising an important point when he says that the two possibilities could make it ambiguous. Having said that, I would like him to explain why he wants to change the original word “could” to “would”. What is the goal?

Remember, I mentioned the danger of placing a huge burden of proof on the complainant. So the current problem would remain.

We heard from many witnesses that we don't need this bill because there are already laws in place that prohibit such acts. Yes, but those laws don't work. The goal is to make it work, and I think we all share that goal.

So I would like Mr. Blois to explain why he wants to change the word “could” to “would”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

We'll go to Mr. Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have two points. One is that the word “could“ is something that is consistent already and used within the Health of Animals Act. The second point is that we heard from numerous witnesses that one of the goals, in their eyes, that we're trying to represent is that this is an act that encourages some deterrence. That's using an oxymoron in my language, “encourages deterrence”. Leaving “could” undefined, yes, it provides a lower standard, but it certainly enhances the deterrence aspect of this bill. I would think that should be important in our thinking here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

Mr. MacGregor.

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

Chair, first of all, this provision is going to come into effect after the fact, right? CFIA is going to have to determine through their investigation what exactly happened on the farm. They're going to have to see whether a person entered the building or enclosed place, and whether they knew or they were reckless as to the fact that their doing so put the animals in danger.

I actually appreciate what Mr. Blois brought forward. I think that adding the word “reasonably” tightens it up a little bit, because “could” is just too broad a term. I understand that Mr. Epp said that it is consistent with other parts of the act, but maybe the compromise here is to add the word “reasonably”.

With the subamendment we have before us and whether it's “will” or “could”, I think we have to pick a lane with regard to our language here. A judge is going to look at that and say, well, which one is it? It's just leaving a little bit too much confusion. I think I will vote against the current subamendment and try to go with the reasonable addition that Mr. Blois has included. That allows us to keep the word “could” but further modifies it to give a little bit more certainty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks for the great discussion, everyone. I just want to add really quickly that when we picked the wording for this amendment to the Health of Animals Act, we purposely tried to keep it consistent, which is one of the reasons “could” was put in there. The idea was that the purpose of the bill is to prevent the possibility of trespassers spreading disease, not to, in essence, create an offence with respect to trespassers who intend to spread a disease.

I thought Dr. Pritchard's testimony the other day was interesting too. When Mr. MacGregor was asking about “would” versus “could”, she was pretty adamant about the importance of “could”. I'll just quickly quote her: “I spend all day reading regulations and trying to figure out how to enforce [them]. Being reckless, as to whether entering such a place could result in the exposure of animals to a disease or toxic substance, to me, is that you're not following the protocols it could. I feel that the burden of proof is not to show that the disease was transmitted, but that it could have been transmitted. I feel that that bar for burden of proof is much lower.”

Maybe we can discuss Mr. Blois' amendment, but I just want to stress that we picked “could” to keep it consistent with the existing Health of Animals Act and I would just emphasize Dr. Pritchard's testimony from the other day as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

We'll go with Mr. Perron and then perhaps we can vote on the subamendment, unless there are other speakers.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor.

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

I don't know if you feel the same way I do, but I think we're getting closer to a consensus.

I agree with Mr. Barlow and I too am very keen to keep the word “could”. If we put the word “reasonably” in there to reassure the other members of the committee, I think we'll have something that could look like a compromise.

I know that procedurally, it may not be the appropriate time to suggest this change. But it's important to state your intentions so that members can make the right decision when they vote.

If we reject Ms. Rood's first subamendment to amendment BQ‑1, but accept a new subamendment to add the word “reasonably”, I think we will have a consensus.

Correct me if I am wrong in my impression.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

With that, I think we can vote on the subamendment, which would be to BQ-1 to have “will or” before “could”. I think that's how it would read—

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Steinley has his hand up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see your hand. Go ahead, Mr. Steinley.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I'm wondering if Ms. Rood is able to add “reasonably” to her subamendment. We could just vote on that, and if everyone is okay with that, we could pass that and then vote on Mr. Perron's amendment. Is Lianne able to add “reasonably”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We'll go to the expert on procedure.

Mr. Maziade, is that a possibility or do we have to go to another subamendment?

[Jacques Maziade]

Just to clarify, do you want to remove the “will or” and add “could reasonably”, or do you want to keep “will or could reasonably”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I believe from what I'm hearing we would remove “will or” and then just add “reasonably”. Is that the consensus that I'm hearing here?

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

Mr. Chair, let me make my intentions clear.

As it stands with the current amendment by Ms. Rood, I would not be able to support it. If she would like to withdraw her amendment and instead reinsert, under the aspect of whether entering a place or taking in the animal or thing, “could reasonably result in the exposure of”, then I'll support that.

If she wants to take the glory, she can. If not, she knows where I stand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thanks, Mr. Blois.

We'll ask Ms. Rood after all this discussion if she still wants the amendment.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I will move to drop the “will” and instead add “reasonably” so that it reads “could reasonably”.