Thank you, Mr. Chair.
While I have the opportunity, I want to thank my colleagues for all the well-thought-out potential amendments and for putting some work into this. It is certainly appreciated.
As in the previous Parliament, we will not support amendment NDP-1. The reason is that we specifically chose that language to not include farm workers, farm family and those who have permission to be on farm. The idea for this is that if you are a farm employee or a farm family member and you see something that shouldn't be happening, you feel free to come forward. You are not included under the fines that are proposed not only in this change but throughout the Health of Animals Act.
To me, it really doesn't make any sense at all to make this change. This legislation that we're putting forward does not apply to whistle-blowers. We heard from many witnesses that we want to ensure that whistle-blowers and farm employees have the opportunity to say things. Well, that's exactly what this legislation does by excluding farm workers and family and people who have a lawful reason to be there. By taking that out, you are then including farm employees and “whistle-blowers” and leaving them open to those fines. I think it actually does the opposite of what those groups are trying to argue, that this is somehow going to encourage whistle-blowers. If I'm a farm employee and I'm now open to those fines, I think it would do the opposite.
With all respect to my colleague, there was one group of witnesses who wanted this language. Every other group, from stakeholders to people involved in agriculture to the legalese, did not want this amendment or did not ask for this amendment. It was one specific area of witnesses. I want that clarified. To say that there's overwhelming support to remove this language from the bill is actually not accurate at all.
I don't support removing it.