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.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Yes, I would. I've submitted it.
What I would like to do is amend the section of the act that deals with the penalties for contravention of the act. You can see the amendment in front of you. It basically reduces the—
6 p.m.
An hon. member
On a point of order—
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
It's being shared right now.
Ms. Taylor Roy, why don't we wait just a couple of minutes for that to be shared, and then we'll let you carry on?
I'm sorry about that, Ms. Taylor Roy. I think everyone now has a copy. We'll go over to you to continue to talk about the amendment.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you.
They are two separate amendments. I separated them because I thought one might have a chance of getting passed and the other probably not, but I think they're both appropriate amendments to make, because with the bill the way it is reading right now, in my mind, given testimony and actually the discussion from the member who put forward this private member's bill, this is really about making sure animal activists do not trespass onto farm property.
Given that, and that it is basically a trespassing bill when you keep in the clause “without lawful authority or excuse”, I felt the convictions and the penalties imposed were much greater than even the penalties that have been imposed in the legislation in Ontario and Alberta, which are similar to this in their intent. These are still higher than trespassing fees, but they're much more in line with the other legislation that's already in place, and if we're going to be adding our federal legislation onto provincial legislation, I felt that it should at least be consistent.
The first amendment is simply to reduce the amount of the fine, given also that this offence, if someone were to be convicted, I suppose, of this, does not at all entail that there was any disease or that anything happened on the farm. It was simply that they trespassed on the farm. I felt like those penalties were really out of line with that particular offence, especially since it has no element of biosecurity, breaking any prior security regulations or anything else.
This basically brings it back in line with the legislation that has already been passed in Ontario and Alberta for the same type of thing, so I'm suggesting we just reduce these penalties so that this is more in line with trespassing and with provincial legislation, although it's still more than normal trespassing.
That would be the first one. I think we should probably debate that one first before we move to the second one.
October 16th, 2023 / 6:05 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
First of all, I have a question for the CFIA.
If clause 2 of Bill C-275 did not end up surviving committee deliberations, am I correct in understanding that the currently written subsection 65(1) of the Health of Animals Act would then apply to Bill C-275? It says, “Every person who contravenes any provision of this Act, other than section 15”.... I won't read the rest. Basically, it has the exact same punishments: $50,000 for a summary conviction and $250,000 for an indictable offence.
Am I correct in interpreting that? Subsection 65(1) of the existing Health of Animals Act would apply if we did not include clause 2 of Bill C-275.
6:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Yes. I agree with that interpretation.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you.
Now I have just a comment for my colleagues. I appreciate what Ms. Taylor Roy is trying to do, but for simplicity's sake, I think, we already have some pretty hefty offences and punishment in the existing act, and I think clause 2 in its entirety is just a redundant piece of legislation, so I would humbly suggest that rather than trying our best to amend it, we just vote it down in its entirety.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Alistair pretty much said exactly what I was going to say, but maybe with a different conclusion.
Yes, the reason that we have the fines and the penalties that are in this amendment is that they match exactly what's already in the Health of Animals Act, but the reason we had to bring this forward as part of this clause was that we added the fines and penalties to the corporations part, which is not in the Health of Animals Act at this time. For consistency's sake, I suggest we keep the fines as they are proposed in this amendment, because they match up with what's already in the Health of Animals Act.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I had read that, and I had understood that it was there as well, but I don't believe that this offence is.... In my mind, the way this is written right now, this is a trespass offence. Those fines are for actual biosecurity violations. If there was a posting on a wall already that there was a biosecurity event, and someone went in when they saw the notice and they weren't supposed to go in, that would be different, in my mind. The way this bill is currently written, it really is just about people unlawfully going in. It doesn't mention biosecurity. There's no reference to a disease being spread or anything happening.
I felt that those particular penalties were actually out of line with this piece of legislation that you're putting forward. That's why I suggested this. I went back to the provincial legislation. This is much more akin to what the provincial legislatures have passed. It's higher than the $10,000, which is the normal trespassing penalty, but in both the Alberta legislation and the Ontario legislation, it's $25,000 in their bills that are comparable to what you're trying to do here. That's why I suggested that it should be brought down to that level.
In fact, though, the second piece, the second one I brought forward, was to eliminate proposed subsection 65(1.2), in which case Mr. MacGregor's recommendation that we just go with what's here already would have been appropriate. However, I understand that you do not want to eliminate proposed subsection 65(1.2), so I would suggest that the penalties for individuals be brought more in line with the existing legislation.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Okay, colleagues. I have one question for the CFIA. Mr. Barlow made the comment that there was an explicit rationale for including the personal penalties that I guess are duplicated, to Mr. MacGregor's point, in section 65 of the act.
Is that the section of the act, Mr. MacGregor?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Okay, so there's a replication of that. Mr. Barlow explained the rationale for wanting there to be specific fines on corporations that are involved in the type of activity being discussed before Bill C-275. If the committee were to remove the personal penalties to keep in line with what Mr. MacGregor is suggesting on subsection 65(1), do you know if that impacts the corporate piece, which Ms. Taylor Roy is...or that we will discuss next, I guess, in terms of keeping or not keeping that in the bill?
Can you follow my convoluted path, Mr. Melaschenko?
6:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
6:10 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
I'll try.
I'm sorry. I don't have the amendment in front of me, so I can't speak to the technicalities of how we're all going to work this out. It's certainly possible to have a stand-alone provision that deals with every person other than an individual—in other words, corporate entities.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I understand.
Is there any further debate, colleagues? We can vote on Ms. Taylor Roy's first piece, which is around replacing the fines in the penalties to a different level.
Seeing no further comment, I'll call the vote, please.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you, Ms. Taylor Roy.
We'll now move to the second piece, which I think was well documented. This is about removing lines 9 to 15 in clause 2 on page 2. That's in relation to the corporate penalties that were discussed by Mr. Barlow.
Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Yes, I do want to speak to that.
The penalties for individuals are applicable to each individual who trespasses, in this case, or who violates the provisions in this private member's bill. It's not simply the $25,000. If there are more people there, each of them would be subject to that fine.
One thing I want to say is that if we had passed either Mr. MacGregor's amendment or Mr. Carr's amendment, which extended this to all people who basically endangered animals by not adhering to the proper biosecurity measures, would we want a farmer—the entity of the farm—to be responsible for an individual farmhand, employee, family member or visitor, if they did this?
If we had this bill really talking about biosecurity and being broader, what this second clause would have done would be to say that a farmer, or the corporation of a farm, whatever the entity is, would pay a half-million dollar fine if a visitor or an employee or someone entered and violated biosecurity regulations.
I don't believe that it's appropriate to put that kind of a penalty on a person, or an entity other than a person, in this case, given that this is really about individuals who are trespassing.
That would be my argument on it.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Colleagues, is there any further debate?
Seeing none, I'll get my trusty madam clerk to call the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Ms. Taylor Roy.
Colleagues, that brings us to the end of clause 2 considerations. My question to you is on whether clause 2 should carry as amended.
Okay, Mr. MacGregor, would you like to have a recorded vote?
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
We are voting on clause 2 as amended.
This is the second portion of the bill. It is amended in Ms. Taylor Roy's name in relation to a reduction in penalties for individuals. Her second amendment was not successful, so we are now moving on whether you support clause 2 of this bill.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Madam Clerk, we'll go over to you.
(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)
Colleagues, clause 2 carried with amendment.
Shall the title carry?
