Thank you for that.
Mr. Roy, I'd like to turn to you. This committee is in receipt of a letter from infectious disease experts, all doctors in their fields. Let me quote a section from their letter: “However, as it is currently written, Bill C-275 does not address these existing biosecurity and zoonotic infectious disease risks. Rather, it would serve as an anti-trespass law that exempts animal agriculture businesses and employees and targets undercover reporters, whistle-blowers, and activists seeking to document conditions on farms.”
I have visited farms. I've followed biosecurity measures. In a previous life, I was a tree planter. I've visited ranches where I've had to hose down my boots. We had to hose down the wheels on our trucks because there was a risk of foot-and-mouth disease at the time. I've visited chicken farms where I've had to not be in contact with poultry for an entire two weeks before the visit. I've had to put on special booties. I understand the protocols that are in place.
I find that during the testimony on this bill, people use words like “preventing intrusion” and “preventing trespass”. In light of the quote I gave you, my question to you is this: How do we as a federal Parliament ensure that through this bill we are not intruding on provincial jurisdiction over trespass law? We simply cannot legislate on property rights. That is the domain of the provinces. In your view, how do we make this bill simply about biosecurity and not trespass?