Agriculture Committee on Oct. 16th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I call this meeting to order.

Colleagues, I welcome you to meeting number 75 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

First, I'd like to welcome Mr. Garon and Mr. Epp.

We are delighted to see you again, gentlemen.

Colleagues, pursuant to the order of reference on Wednesday, June 21, 2023, the committee is meeting to proceed with its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms).

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses, who are here to help us with the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

With us today from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, it's great to see Dr. Mary Jane Ireland, who is the executive director of the animal health directorate and chief veterinary officer for Canada. We also have Joseph Melaschenko, who is the senior counsel for agriculture and food inspection legal services.

We also have, from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Donald Boucher, who is director general of the sector development and analysis directorate.

We also have, from our legislative procedural side, Émilie Thivierge and Jean-François Pagé.

Thank you for coming this afternoon.

Colleagues, I have to read a few reminders and then my clerk says to follow the agenda. As you know, I'm normally quite freewheeling, but this is more procedurally pertinent, so I will make sure that I read all of this out for you.

I'd like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-275. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each one is subject to debate and a vote.

If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk.

Members should note that the amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. Yes, I think there is an ability to amend on the fly, but we have to have it in writing to the clerk.

The chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Good luck with that.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During the debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.

When a subamendment is moved on an amendment, it is voted on first, and then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. I suspect that will be the case with this group. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

For many of you who have served in parliamentary committees, I know this is just a little refresher for you. You've heard that before.

I will move to my own package right here, and we can move forward on that basis.

Again, we have our witnesses, who are available for any testimony if you'd like to draw upon them. I have my good procedural folks to my right and to my left to keep me out of trouble.

(On clause 1)

This amendment stands in the name of Mr. MacGregor. Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I formally move NDP-1 as an amendment to clause 1 of the bill.

Essentially, it's a very simple change to line 6 on page 1. It would remove the phrase “without lawful authority or excuse” so that the new line 6 would read, “No person shall”.

My reasoning behind this amendment is that we want to ensure that this piece of legislation stays firmly within the boundaries of being a biosecurity bill. The fact is that we have had multiple witnesses before this committee who demonstrably showed with clear evidence that many of the biosecurity failures on farms were the result of people who were there with lawful authority or excuse.

We need to change this bill so that the provisions within it and the overall amendment to the Health of Animals Act ensure that the provisions apply to everyone equally. We had a lot of testimony backing that up. I think we're all very familiar with it. We've all had the opportunity to review the Hansard testimony from the witnesses, so I think my reasoning is fairly clear.

I'll end it there and allow others to join the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

I've already gone afoul of my package. I was supposed to say, before you moved your amendment—but I'll inform committee members now—that if NDP-1 is moved—which you have done—PV-1, of course, is not applicable, as they're identical. That's for committee members.

I also want to recognize that if NDP-1 is adopted, LIB-1 cannot be moved because of a line conflict. That's just a procedural note for committee members to understand.

Mr. Drouin, you want to weigh in.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'll ask a procedural question, and then I'll move on to just get some clarity on LIB-1.

On LIB-1, the entirety of the lines cannot be replaced. I know that we're replacing “9.1 No person shall...”, which would be line 6. We'd be modifying line 6 with Mr. MacGregor's amendment.

Just so I understand, and for my colleague Mr. Carr, who could be moving LIB-1, he can't move LIB-1 as is; he would have to move a subamendment should Mr. MacGregor's amendment be adopted. Is that correct?

[Legislative Clerk, Ms. Émilie Thivierge]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One possibility is to move a subamendment to NDP-1 to include new ideas in NDP-1. If NDP-1 is adopted without any subamendment, then LIB-1 cannot be moved because line 6 will already have been modified.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

However, amending lines 8 to 10 is still available, because we haven't touched line 6 yet.

[Émilie Thivierge]

It would be difficult. The changes to line 6 are different, and you wouldn't be able to add them after. You could still change lines 8 to 10, but if we look at what's in line 6, it can't be incorporated in lines 8 to 10, so there's a choice of words to make with regard to line 6.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I just have a comment on the overall amendment from my perspective. While we support the objective of what this would do, we don't think that potentially penalizing employees or temporary foreign workers on farms is the right way to go. I will not be supporting this amendment the way it is written—this includes PV-1, as well—simply because.... You know, during a pandemic, we didn't go and penalize nurses and doctors and say, “You're subject to a fine of up to x amount if you don't respect biosecurity protocols.” This amendment brings a new constituency into the bill. While I respect the fact that we must do everything we can to promote biosecurity, I don't think that touching the employer-employee relationship is the way to go with this particular amendment, so I will not be supporting NDP-1 as written.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. MacGregor, I saw your hand, so if you would like to weigh in....

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

The other suggestion for lines 8 to 10 is that NDP-2 deals with those lines, so there may be opportunities on NDP-2 to entertain subamendments from LIB-1 or G-2, whatever the case may be.

In response to Mr. Drouin's point, in the last Parliament we passed Bill C-205 with exactly the same language. The Liberals seemed to be in agreement during that Parliament. I'm not sure why opinions have changed at this point.

I know there's an understanding that we don't want necessarily to target farmers or farm workers, but at the same time we have heard from witnesses that there needs to be some kind of national input on biosecurity measures on farms. A lot of them are volunteer-based—we've heard that—and we know that there are examples in which the biosecurity measures are simply not being followed. Either we make them apply equally to everyone who could potentially bring in a toxic substance or a disease, or we don't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I have Mr. Barlow. Then we'll continue if there is any other discussion.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I see Ms. Taylor Roy's hand, Mr. MacGregor. I will start with her and come back to you.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I want to start by saying that not agreeing with this particular private member's bill that's been put forward doesn't mean that one's not supportive of the farming industry or farmers. I think we see this happening a lot today in a lot of different discussions. If you don't agree with one thing, you're kind of blankly put into a category of being anti-farm or anti-farm family or anti-farmers. I'd like us to be able to have a discussion about what this bill is really trying to do and the title of the bill, and then look at whether it's accomplishing that.

I agree with Mr. MacGregor that if this is really about biosecurity and the protection of animals, then there's no reason this wouldn't apply to any person who enters the space. Presumably, whistle-blowers or employees or anyone else there will follow the biosecurity protocol. They work there. If they're aware of this legislation, they have an even greater incentive to do that. I don't think this will somehow stop whistle-blowers or in any way endanger employees.

Additionally, it has to be reported or investigated. As we heard before, the CFIA does not do regular investigations or regular inspections of these facilities. It would then mean that somebody in the building or in the place of work would have to report someone else and say what they're doing, and I'm not even sure to whom, at this point, because trespassing is provincial jurisdiction. Expanding this bill to include anyone who comes in is really much more in keeping with the title of the bill and the intent of the bill.

Additionally, I would say that we received a number of submissions over the last while to committee that have been put in the file. I'm not sure if Mr. Barlow has read them, but there are numerous references to this. It's not one witness or one person. In fact, the majority of the submissions that have been made have actually talked about the need to make this bill about protecting animals and about biosecurity. It is repeatedly mentioned in those submissions that most of the breaches happened due to farm workers and farmers, not animal activist groups.

I agree with what Mr. MacGregor is saying. Maybe there is another way of getting there, if this is not acceptable, but I do believe this should be broadened and be a true biosecurity measure as opposed to something that simply targets animal welfare activists. As well, if we're talking about biosecurity, include biosecurity in the actual language.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay. I have Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I would also just add that you have to place line 6. It's not just floating there by itself. We have to take it in the context of the whole clause here. It's in the context of the specificity that is present in lines 8 to 10 now, which go on to say, “knowing that or being reckless as to whether entering such a place or taking in the animal...could result....”

I think farm workers are protected. They should know. For example, if I visit a farm on which there is potentially an avian flu outbreak and I know that's there and I decide to visit another farm where chickens are kept, I know that I have the potential of transferring a disease.

Similarly, I made mention of the fact that back in the day, when I was a tree planter, when we were entering cattle lands, ranching lands in British Columbia, we were told of the danger of foot and mouth disease. We knew of that and we had to take the appropriate steps. It was on us to spray down our boots and spray down the wheels of our truck. If we had gone into those lands, we would have done so knowing that our presence there could have resulted in the exposure of animals to disease.

I think that even with the removal of “lawful authority or excuse”, the rest of the clause still has language in there to say that farm workers, at the very least, should know about the dangers that exist in that region. They should know about the dangers of going from farm to farm, and they should be educated on what those risks are, so that if they take adequate measures, they are not going to run afoul of this law.

I think that this phrase, “lawful authority or excuse”, in line 6 steers this piece of federal legislation too far into provincial jurisdiction. We are getting into the murky waters of provincial jurisdiction over trespass. I think it's very important that we stay in our lane, that we amend the law that is specifically dealing with biosecurity measures, and that we not get into provincial jurisdiction.

If people are concerned about people being on private property without lawful authority or excuse, they can go talk to their MPP. They can go talk to their MLA or their member of the national assembly and tell them they want provincial laws to be strengthened. The federal government has no role in there. We have to stay in our lane.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, colleagues. If there are no further comments or debate, we can call this provision to a vote, and we can go forward. Is there any further debate?

Go ahead, Mr. MacDonald.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I am just wondering whether it would be possible to have a comment from one of our guests here today on the effect of this. You've heard a bit of the debate. I'm just wondering if anybody is interested in making a comment.

[Joseph Melaschenko, Senior Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

I've heard the comment about the effort to keep this bill within federal jurisdiction, but I can't speculate or provide legal advice to the committee on what the constitutional impact would be of removing these words.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Could you give any comment on the constitutionality of it without removing those words? As it stands now, do you believe that it's infringing on provincial jurisdiction?

[Joseph Melaschenko]

I'm sorry, but my role here today is not to provide legal advice to the committee. I can provide technical legal information. That question really calls on me to give a constitutional opinion on the provisions, so I have to respectfully decline to answer it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Hold on, Ms. Taylor Roy. I'll go back to you for anything further. Then I have Mr. Barlow, followed by Mr. MacGregor.

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy. It seemed as though you might have wanted to have a follow-up based on that answer.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Without giving an opinion, could you comment on what this bill is doing technically in terms of trespassing law that is already in place on provincial books?

[Joseph Melaschenko]

I'm not quite sure I understand where we're going with that question. It's correct that trespass falls under provincial legislation. I understand that the committee is conceiving of this bill as possibly a biosecurity measure and possibly a trespass measure as well, or some combination of the two, which is what the committee is discussing right now. I couldn't give you much more than that.