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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I have just one quick follow-up.
On the words “without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place”, is that what is generally used to describe a trespass?
4:50 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
I think it's correct to say that those words apply to trespassers, yes.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Thank you, Ms. Taylor Roy.
I'll go to Mr. Barlow. Then, Mr. MacGregor, I know you have some thoughts.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
To answer Ms. Taylor Roy's question, every PMB or piece of legislation that comes through is vetted for jurisdictional and constitutional validity, as this one has been. The procedural clerk will confirm that, I'm sure, if we have any questions along those lines. To ask if this bill is impinging on provincial jurisdiction or is constitutional...that's already been vetted. It wouldn't have come here in this framework if that hadn't already been done.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Okay. Are there any further comments, colleagues?
I'm happy to continue to whet your appetite to the extent that you want in relation to questions or comments. Otherwise, if I don't see any other hands, I'm going to call to a vote this first provision that is moved by Mr. MacGregor.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
Colleagues, the proposed amendment was defeated. As we've already said, PV-1 had very similar language, so we will not cover that.
We will now head to LIB-1, which is in the name of Mr. Carr.
Mr. Carr, would you like to move that amendment?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
The floor is all yours, if there are any comments that you want to follow up with, or you can simply move it. It's up to you.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I just wanted to reflect on all the witnesses we've heard. I wanted to state for the record that there are a couple of things that have come to my attention in the discourse of this debate over the past several weeks that are not covered in the bill. I want to state them for the record because I think they merit further consideration.
One has to do with animal welfare. The other has to do with biosecurity standards.
I've tried to address the latter in the amendment that I've moved here today. The reason—if I may explain very briefly why I've put this amendment forward—is that I didn't feel as though the language in the legislation, as it was originally drafted, tackled the biosecurity measures in a clear enough way.
What I have tried to do here is to help alleviate—I hope—some of the concerns on the part of farmers we heard passionately and very justifiably from, who were concerned about the impact on their properties and, more importantly, on their animals, by virtue of a lack of biosecurity measures being in place. What I've intended to do here is to try to strengthen the language with the addition of the word “intentionally” abdicating. I felt that there was perhaps a bit of ambiguity that existed in some of our previous amendments that had been proposed and in the original legislation as drafted.
I'm certainly happy to answer any questions. That's the brief context in which I have approached this particular piece.
I will say that I was very surprised to learn that there is not so much a national legal standard for biosecurity measures in the country, but more of a haphazard, patchwork approach to this. I hope that regardless of where we end up with this particular piece of legislation, it can help serve as a catalyst to get us to a place where we're talking in more detail about animal welfare generally speaking, but we're also talking about biosecurity standards, because I think that merits further conversation. Although I understand that it perhaps wasn't the entire intention of Mr. Barlow's bill, I'm happy to work with him should there be a desire to tackle an enhancement of biosecurity measures standards, generally speaking, in farms across the country.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Thank you, Mr. Carr. Ironically or not...well, I won't say ironically, but we are studying biosecurity in the name of a study that was proposed by Monsieur Lehoux. This committee has been examining it. In fact, we are scheduled to have another meeting, so maybe to your point, Mr. Carr, we can carry on that work you're talking about.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
That's excellent, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
When you're elected in the middle of a session and thrown into committee, you're not privy to all this stuff, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
October 16th, 2023 / 4:55 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Chair. I wanted to ask a question of the CFIA. It's a technical interpretation.
When you look at the term “applicable biosecurity measures”, if this committee decides to adopt this amendment to Bill C-275 and we eventually get to a point where Bill C-275 becomes a part of the Health of Animals Act.... If the CFIA is investigating a disease outbreak on a farm and is going to have to pay attention to this section of the Health of Animals Act, can you provide the committee with your understanding of what your obligations would be on the farm with respect to the term “applicable biosecurity measures”?
Would that require the CFIA to look at the farm's biosecurity plan? Would this still be applicable to everyone on the farm—the farm workers and the farmer—including potential trespassers?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Just before I turn it over to Dr. Ireland, colleagues, there is one procedural thing I forgot to mention. Of course, if Mr. Carr's amendment is adopted, NDP-2 and G-2 cannot be moved, because of a line conflict, so those will be things we'll have to talk through.
I apologize. I should have said that at the start.
It's over to you, Dr. Ireland.
4:55 p.m.
Dr. Mary Jane Ireland Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Applicable biosecurity measures would be biosecurity efforts or protocols and practices that are in place on a particular premises. Biosecurity practices and measures can be simple, and they can be very complex. They can start from washing your hands, changing your footwear and walking through a disinfectant foot bath to wearing personal protective equipment as a more complex measure, but each premises would have its own unique protocols and practices in place that we hope are consistent with the national biosecurity standards and that address each individual premises' hazards and specific areas of risk.
Measures can be any of those practices or protocols that I just mentioned for a particular premises.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Yes. Don't worry, Mr. MacGregor. I'll go back to you so you can finish your supplementary, and then I have Mr. Barlow.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
My second question was whether the CFIA would regard this as applying to everyone equally.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
We would be looking at the particular measures that are in place via a premises to determine whether they had been followed or not—because they're not mandatory; they're voluntary—and each premises would have its own applicable protocols and practices in place. We would be looking to see whether those had been followed.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Is that a way of confirming...? If someone was there—borrowing from the previous amendment's phrase—with lawful authority or excuse, and following an investigation, they were found to have contravened the applicable biosecurity measures, no matter their status on the farm...?
Even if they were there with lawful authority or excuse, would this new amendment to the Health of Animals Act apply to them, no matter their legal status on the farm? I'm just trying to narrow that down.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
The CFIA would consider in their investigation whether the biosecurity measures on the premises had been followed. We would seek to have information about what was expected of individuals who went past a biosecurity zone or an area that was marked as having beyond it particular practices expected of the people within that biosecurity zone.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I'll go to Mr. Barlow and then Mr. Carr. I know he'd like to weigh in as well.
5 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate what my colleague Mr. Carr is trying to accomplish. I guess my concern is that it goes far beyond what we are trying to accomplish. We are trying to keep this very simple and focus on one aspect of the Health of Animals Act.
I appreciate your point here. If this is something we want to do later on as part of this study, and if Mr. Lehoux has put a framework around specifics on biosecurity, which, as Ms. Ireland said, are not mandatory but in many cases voluntary.... It depends on which industry you're in. They're all different, but they have their biosecurity protocols there. Maybe there's a way we can do this with another piece of legislation, but I think this expands too far on what we're trying to do.
The other issue is that some of the wording in here takes away the scope of what we were trying to accomplish. We wanted to include transportation and processing plants. In this you're very specific that it's only on farms. That also kind of changes it in that first line.
The third issue is that I believe we can find some consensus with NDP-2 and G-2. If we pass this as is, that eliminates that opportunity.
Again, I appreciate what you're raising here. I think there are opportunities for us in the future to focus on some of these other aspects in terms of the CFIA and the role with mandatory biosecurity protocols, if that's what the minister wants to do, but I would be unable to support such a massive change to what we're trying to accomplish here.