Evidence of meeting #75 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Mr. Carr, I see Mr. Drouin's hand. I'm happy to go to you first, and then I'll go to Mr. Drouin and Mr. MacGregor.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Okay.
Mr. Chair, I'm the newest member of the committee and of Parliament. Do I have the ability to ask Mr. Barlow a question in this particular format, to clarify some of his comments? I'm just not sure of the formality here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Yes. Certainly. We're in debate right now, so it's quite open. Mr. Barlow, of course, is not required to answer, but if you want to put out suggestions based on what you've heard from Mr. Barlow—
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try not to be too long.
Mr. Barlow, thanks for your feedback. In terms of the word “farm”, certainly I'm open to an expansion of that in order to touch upon some different pieces here.
I have a quick question for Dr. Ireland. Then I have a question for Mr. Barlow. Once we get through other colleagues, perhaps we can come back to that.
Dr. Ireland, this is to Mr. MacGregor's previous comment on the bill as it's currently worded and “knowing that or being reckless as to”. It confuses me in regard to how we determine, and who determines, what is reckless. If that can't be determined, then effectively the rest is moot. That's why in part I tried to replace “reckless” with a specific mention of biosecurity measures, regardless of whether they may vary across different properties.
If the bill were to be passed as is, who would be responsible for determining what reckless is? Would you be able to provide an example, if one comes to mind, about where one would be found guilty or in breach of this law for having been reckless, should it pass as is?
I also have a question for Mr. Barlow, but I don't want to monopolize. I'm sure Mr. Drouin wants to talk too. Perhaps I'll save my question for later.
Senior Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
I'll try to take part of this question.
The words “knowing that or being reckless as to” would mean that the CFIA would have to prove a certain mental state of mind on behalf of the accused. Recklessness could be commonly understood as a failure to take appropriate care.
That's about as far as I can go in terms of speculating on how that meaning would play out.
Liberal
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I do. Perhaps I can ask the question of Mr. Barlow. If Mr. Drouin has something of equal wisdom to contribute, Mr. Barlow will then have many things to respond to.
You alluded a moment ago, Mr. Barlow, to some openness on the other NDP and government amendments that are on the table. If you could expand on what you are open to, should this amendment that I've put forward be defeated, I'd be interested to know what that is. It will help inform my willingness or not to determine a vote on this moving forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.
Then, I know that Mr. MacGregor....
I might even have a question for our witnesses.
Go ahead.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you.
I want to welcome my newest colleague, Mr. Carr. He's a good man. The intentions behind this are good. I know he has been a reasonable voice, and I support that reasonable voice.
The one issue, as I think the CFIA mentioned, is your assumption of “reckless” stops. The expertise you have is in animal care, so the assumption of proving for CFIA through the Health of Animals Act is whether or not an animal has been properly taken care of, but you wouldn't have the ability, necessarily, to provide whether or not a person's mental state is okay or not. Because you made some comments, I just want to make sure I understood what you said.
Senior Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
It's not that it's an impossible thing to do, but it's a more difficult thing to do, of course, if you have to bring proof of a person's state of mind.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Practically, if the bill were to pass as is, what would CFIA do? Would you consult with psychologists? You'd have to go outside the organization, I suppose. I rarely get calls at the constituency office asking if the CFIA can do an assessment on a person, but I suppose that.... I'm just trying to determine the expertise that you guys have versus the expertise that you don't under the act that we're trying to amend.
Senior Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Yes. This type of offence that requires proof of a mental state of mind is not uncommon in the Criminal Code, for example. In that case, as opposed to recourse to a psychologist or what have you, there are simply inferences that are made about the person's state of mind based on the available evidence.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Thank you, Mr. Drouin.
I have Mr. Barlow.
Now you have questions and comments. If you want, you can respond, and then I'll go to Mr. MacGregor.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Yes. I'll just respond to Mr. Carr's question.
I think, as I had mentioned, that to try to get us to where we can all reasonably agree, I'm willing to take out the word “reckless”. I understand the concerns around that and maybe the proof of that. That's in G-2, I believe, as well as adding some language from NDP-2 in there in terms of the capability of “affecting or contaminating”. I'm certainly open to coming to some compromise that I hope allows all of us to agree on the framework of the legislation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Okay.
Go ahead, Mr. Drouin. I think it was on that point.
Then I'll come back to you, Mr. MacGregor.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Yes, I'm just going to ask a question on procedure.
If we adopt the subamendment, I'm supposing that G-2 now becomes moot, or I can't present it afterwards. Nobody remembers who presented a subamendment or an amendment, so I don't necessarily care, as long as it gets done.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Wait just one second, Mr. Drouin. I'll get an opinion, and then we'll come back to you in a second.
Colleagues, the piece of paper that Mr. Barlow's team distributed is not truly a subamendment.
Mr. Drouin, to answer your question, what we would have to ask Mr. Barlow.... If this is the desire of the majority of the committee or we think this is a pathway forward, what Mr. Barlow would have to do is officially move this. It would actually have to be the last thing we consider, but at least if it's on the record it would then be applicable and, of course, if we were to adopt NDP-2 or G-2, then this wouldn't be able to be moved, so it would be up to the committee to say that we could consider this last.
Procedurally, that's how we would have to go.
Ms. Taylor Roy, I think it's on procedure, so I'll go to you.
I'm going to go to you, Mr. MacGregor. You've been waiting patiently.
Then I will come back to you, Ms. Taylor Roy.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll lay all my cards out on the table here.
I cannot support this bill until we fix line 6. Now, I understand that we've had a vote on my first amendment. I think what Mr. Carr has put forward here is something I can accept in the way it's trying to amend line 6 using the term “applicable biosecurity measures”. I'm prepared to accept that, but if we don't fix line 6, I can't support this bill. Those are just my cards on the table.
Mr. Barlow has done some good work with this handout that's just come out, so maybe what we can do is use the language here as a subamendment to amendment LIB-1. That's my suggestion, but I need to see line 6 of this bill fixed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I'm going to go to Ms. Taylor Roy.
However, colleagues, just to instruct, based on what I hear—again, as your chair—there are a couple of things.
As you know, Mr. MacGregor, what Mr. Barlow has presented wouldn't be able to be moved right now as a subamendment. I agree that what you're talking about are the principles that perhaps could be looked at. I think the committee was very clear on its most recent vote on line 6. I appreciate that this might mean that you won't be able to support the bill, but I think it's important to understand that this seems to be a line that the committee is not willing to move on.
If I could—
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
There's an amendment to line 6 in this amendment, so we're still dealing with line 6 in LIB‑1.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I understand, but what I'm saying is that it's been very.... Again, my comments are that I don't have a vote in this and that I'm just trying to help inform the debate. It seems as though it's been very clear that, as proposed on line 6 in what you were talking about, Mr. MacGregor.... I don't know if that's going to move forward.
Ms. Taylor Roy, you have, perhaps, a comment and a procedural question, so I'm going to turn to you. We will choose how we want to move forward from there.
Go ahead.
