Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2023

Canada Labour Code

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what really worries me is how the Prime Minister can have much contempt for Canadian workers and show them so little respect, while his government plans to hand over Canadian families' money to South Korean workers at the Stellantis plant.

How can we be sure he has not signed the same type of agreement with the two other battery plants in Canada that will also receive a great deal of public money? The only way is for us to see the contracts.

What is the government so afraid of? Why is it so unwilling to show Canadians these contracts? It is simply because it has not done its job.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening in support of Bill C‑58. I will say from the outset that I am very proud that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the anti-scab bill. We have been asking for so long that it be passed quickly. We urge all parties in the House to do whatever it takes to pass it as quickly as possible. We will be very pleased when the bill truly passes, including in the Senate, and the government hastens to implement it.

I am sure that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou will provide more details on this than I will. The longshore workers at the Port of Québec are currently on strike in her riding. They have waited long enough. They saw that their right to strike was not being respected because ports are under federal jurisdiction.

I have to say that Bill C-58 is the culmination of a lengthy undertaking. It constitutes a major step forward for workers. They earned it. This bill should have been passed a long time ago. It restores the balance of power between employers and employees in labour disputes once and for all.

The use of scabs has been banned in Quebec since 1977. It is now 2023, and there are still unionized employees in Quebec who work for federally regulated businesses who do not have the same rights. It is as though we have two categories of unionized workers in Quebec. We therefore have a tendency to forget that the use of scabs is completely archaic. We must allow all workers to assert their rights in a labour dispute. We cannot really tolerate the use of scabs. We are wondering why it took the government so long to introduce this bill, given that it has been in office since 2015.

In every sector under federal jurisdiction, when there is a labour dispute and when workers use their ultimate pressure tactic, when the workers choose and use their right to strike, the employer can simply resort to using scabs. That means the power relationship is broken in favour of the employer. The power is given to the employer. There is an imbalance in the bargaining relationship, the power relationship. It is completely unfair. In 2023, it makes absolutely no sense.

We are talking about people who work for railway companies, airlines, the banking sector, and the ports across Quebec and Canada. We know that currently in Quebec there are many workers on strike. Imagine if scabs were used to replace the 420,000 workers on strike in Quebec. That would upset the balance that allows workers to assert their rights. That would be completely unacceptable. That is why we think it is high time to implement Bill C‑58 as soon as possible.

The bill was introduced by the government. We have to assume that they will vote in favour of it. We also know that the NDP supports it. The Bloc Québécois is also on board. That means three parties agree that the bill should pass. Normally, based on the usual legislative process, if the bill makes it to committee, we should be able to pass it by Christmas. The three recognized parties in the House that are publicly advocating for the bill's passage need to get to work to pass it quickly.

As I said earlier, everyone except the Conservatives agrees that we need anti-scab legislation. I would be remiss if I did not mention the speech by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who is from Quebec. He did not say a word about his position, as a member from Quebec, on the whole issue of scabs.

I can say that this came as a great surprise to me, because he is usually a very diligent MP. It is clear here that he is just toeing the party line and avoiding taking a stand.

I am probably coming off as a little impatient. Frankly, I am stunned that we are debating such an important bill today, so many years after Quebec passed similar legislation.

All the same, I would like to remind my colleagues that this is not the first time we have debated such a bill in the House of Commons. In 1990, a certain MP for Richelieu, who is now the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel and our one and only dean in the House, introduced a bill on this subject. At that time, there were five Bloc Québécois MPs; they were recognized as independent MPs. All that to say, it has been a long time. This is not our first attempt. Thirty-three years ago, the dean of today's House introduced an anti-scab bill. Members can understand my impatience. I think it is amply justified.

Over the years, 10 other anti-scab bills have been tabled by Bloc Québécois members, on top of those tabled by NDP members. That is quite a number of times that we have worked together to try and create modern legislation to govern the working relationship between union members and employers.

I will take a moment to commend the members who have teamed up with workers and unions over the years. Bernard St‑Laurent, a former member for Manicouagan, introduced a bill in 1995. Osvaldo Nunez did so in 1996. Ghislain Fournier, another former member for Manicouagan, did so in 1998, 2001 and 2002. He was quite determined and introduced his bill three times.

I am also thinking of Monique Guay, a former member for Laurentides, with whom I had the opportunity to sit. She introduced her bill in 2002. I am thinking of Roger Clavet, a former member for Louis‑Hébert, who introduced his bill in 2004. Richard Nadeau, a former member for Gatineau, tabled one in 2006. I am also thinking of Mario Laframboise, a member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, who introduced his bill in 2010.

People have put a great deal of effort into this issue. Obviously, I am thinking of my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville, who introduced her own anti-scab bill this year, Bill C‑276, to put pressure on the current Liberal government, which was being slow to keep its promise.

The Bloc Québécois wants this bill. We are working tirelessly with workers to get it passed and, above all, to get it implemented.

Given that background, I cannot understand why the government decided provide for an 18-month delay before this bill comes into force. I find that very hard to accept. Anyone who cares about workers cannot understand why this bill, which was long awaited by unionized workers, most members of the House, and especially the Port of Québec strikers, will not come into force until 18 months after it receives royal assent.

I sincerely hope that we will be able to convince the Liberals to drop that provision, which makes no sense, and that we will all be able to agree that the dignity of our striking workers is at stake.

I will close by saying that, if we go through the process quickly in the House, then there will be work to do in committee. I hope that the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities will rise to the occasion and unite to give our unionized workers their dignity. They have been deserving of this bill for a long time.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for expressing her opinion so clearly, unlike our previous colleague who was having a really hard time getting to the point.

The right to strike can be compromised when an employer is able to use scabs. How will the proposed amendments help all federally regulated workers in Quebec and Canada benefit from a strong right to strike?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sherbrooke is a member from Quebec. She knows full well that unionized workers in Quebec who have a collective agreement have the right to bargain and to strike.

A strike is not the primary outcome in bargaining. Labour tends to avoid striking, using it as a last resort. The last thing a worker wants when they use their tool of last resort is for the employer to have the privilege to say that the employees can go on strike, but it will bring in replacement workers, which it has the right to do as a federally regulated employer.

The bill seeks to fix that, but I strongly encourage my colleague from Sherbrooke, since she is a member from Quebec, to convince her government to remove the clause that provides for an 18‑month delay before the legislation comes into force.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier on we heard two Conservative MPs speak. For 30 minutes or so they had one job, and that was to state whether they were in favour of hiring scabs or not. They refused to do so.

Does my colleague think that the MPs were on strike because they did not want to speak in favour or was this a lockout imposed by the Conservative leader?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this deserves a lot of thought.

It is true that it is disappointing. We have seen our Conservative colleagues do this on a number of issues. I would like to believe that, deep down, the Conservatives from Quebec want to vote in favour of the bill. It is too bad that the boss, the one running the show, does not want that. We have to make major compromises in life when we are in politics. It seems that we even have to ride roughshod over our principles and our hearts, because when we heard the two Conservative members speak, we did not get the feeling they would be supporting the bill.

I still have hope. I am a Sagittarius and therefore an eternal optimist. I sincerely hope that the Conservatives will wake up, get up to speed, modernize and say that this bill is a really good deal for unionized workers.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was all ears when my colleague spoke. I want to tell her about Monday, November 13. I was at the Port of Québec with my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, and we met with workers who have been on strike for over 14 months. They confirmed that Conservative MPs from Quebec City have yet to visit them on site. That worries them a great deal, because there are all kinds of polls and deals lurking on the horizon. They are wondering what is going to happen to them.

That is when we came up with the idea of asking the government to cut time as much as possible on this bill so that we can get it passed before it is too late. I would like my colleague to comment on the possibility that we may not persuade the government to shorten the18-month deadline in question. That could potentially leave us with a Conservative government that would pull the plug on this bill.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be quite clear. If this bill is not passed and implemented before Christmas, or when the House returns, I share my colleague's opinion that it will never be implemented.

I do not want to be unkind to the government, but we have some concern that it may have introduced the bill only to clear its conscience, thinking that the conditions attached to it would scuttle any chances of the bill being passed. The bill's failure to pass would then come as a relief to the government, which never really wanted it to pass in the first place. It was only putting on a show.

I am relying on the government's Quebec members to flatly refuse to have two categories of union members. We encourage everyone to vote for the bill and, most of all, to shorten the 18-month timeline.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her time with me.

In 1977, 46 years ago, the Government of Quebec passed anti-scab legislation. Anti-scab legislation has been around for as long as I have been alive. It was meant to force employers to negotiate in good faith. Keep in mind that before this legislation was passed, employers had no compunction about hiring new workers while their regular employees were on strike or locked out. Because of this practice, employers had no interest in negotiating to improve working conditions or salaries, since strikes or lockouts had no impact on the company's bottom line.

For 46 years, no strikes or lockouts have dragged out in Quebec, except for those involving federally regulated businesses. It turns out that we have an example of that right now. Over 14 months ago, the Société des arrimeurs de Québec locked out its longshore workers at the Port of Québec. They are not on strike; they are locked out. Because this business's activities fall under federal jurisdiction in Ottawa, it has the right to use scabs, who do not have the required health and safety training. Therefore, every day, they walk right by qualified workers. It is unbelievable that Quebec workers are not protected by the current laws in the area where they live and work, when there have been laws in place for 46 years.

This is another example of Quebec being forward-thinking, compared with the rest of Canada. In the case of the Port of Québec longshore workers, it is not just about protecting these workers, it is also about protecting the public. I would remind the House that scabs have no training in health and safety or in the transshipment of goods. In recent months, there has been an increase in incidents related to red dust and nickel, which pose a danger to the lung health of the people of Beauport—Limoilou and may even reduce their life expectancy in the event of prolonged or repeated exposure.

On top of that, ammonium nitrate is being transported through the Port of Québec. Ammonium nitrate is a product used in fertilizer manufacturing, but it can be highly explosive under certain conditions. The Valero refinery is right across from the Port of Québec in Lévis. A simple spark could lead to a disaster that could extend all the way to Lévis. Hiring scabs, also known as replacement workers to sound better, poses a real danger to the workers themselves, to the surrounding population and to Quebec's economy. If a serious accident were to occur, it could potentially bring operations at the Port of Québec to a halt. In Quebec, 80% of our goods arrive by the river.

The workers are simply asking for better living conditions. If Canada were not 46 years behind Quebec, the lockout at the Port of Québec would never have lasted 14 months.

When the minister replied to me a few weeks ago that anti-scab legislation was going to be introduced, but that it had to be drafted in such a way as to protect the bargaining power of employers at the Port of Vancouver and the Port of Montreal, I was somewhat dubious. How could encouraging employers to negotiate in good faith hurt them?

Quebec's experience shows that anti-scab legislation improves negotiations without giving more leverage to either party. That makes things more equal than they are at the moment. That is a little message for our Conservative friends, although “friends” may be stretching it.

The minister's response a few weeks ago was very telling. The one he gave me today is also very telling. He mentioned Montreal and Vancouver, as if those are the only two ports in Canada. I should point out that a few months ago, the government did not negotiate for long with the Port of Vancouver to get the workers back to work. However, it has never negotiated with the Port of Québec. It is keeping mum and carefully ignoring what is happening in Quebec City, regardless of what the minister is saying today.

Has the government ever had an opportunity to make up for lost time by passing anti-scab legislation? Yes, it has had at least 11 opportunities to do so, and that is just counting Bloc Québécois bills, not even those of the NDP.

When I am told that we need to think about Vancouver and Montreal, that is fine. However, we see that the government is able to move quickly to resolve issues in the rest of Canada, but it does not do the same for Quebec City.

In 2022, two bills were introduced to put an end to the use of scabs, a shameful, unethical practice from another century. The Government of Canada is saying that it is very urgent that we pass anti-scab legislation, but did it move either of those bills up on the schedule? No, it did not. It had to introduce its very own bill. Because of all that, I have a hard time believing that the government really thinks that this is urgent.

Let us look at what the government's Bill C-58 says. We will vote in favour of the bill. There will even be a letter signed by a whole host of academics from across Canada who support the bill. It will be out in a few days. I spoke with some of those academics and they noticed the same flaws that I am going to mention. It is important that we talk about that in committee, so that we can fix as many of the flaws as possible.

For the first flaw, subclause 9(5) states that the employer can use the services of any contractor other than a dependent contractor or any employee of another employer if they were already hired before notice to bargain collectively was given, to perform the same duties as or substantially similar duties to the duties of an employee in the bargaining unit. The services of that contractor or employee can continue to be used in the same way once the strike or lockout is over.

That means that before giving notice to bargain collectively, the employer can hire someone to do the same work as the unionized employee. Of course not a lot of employers are going to say that, since a collective bargaining notice is coming, they are going to hire people and have a surplus of workers, but when there is a lockout they will have enough people. There are not a lot of employers who can afford to have a surplus of labour because that costs a lot of money. Nevertheless, some might see this loophole. This is a flaw that does not respect the spirit of the law. We agree, but there may be some who will try. My advice is to ensure that no employer can use this loophole in Bill C‑58.

The second hitch or problem is that Bill C-58 is not retroactive. This bill will have zero impact on the workers at the Port of Québec. The employer will be able to continue using scabs indefinitely, until its employees are sick and tired of waiting for a job, work and a salary coming in. It just does not make sense. This bill must be retroactive.

Here is the third problem. If an employer has several operating sites, but only one is on strike or locked out, it can take workers from the site that is on strike or locked out and send them to one of the other sites. That is not right. The Quebec law addresses this. An employer cannot transfer employees from one location to another. This should also be included in the Canadian legislation.

Now, let us talk about effective enforcement. That is the fourth problem. It is so urgent to implement this bill that the government wants it to come into force 18 months after it receives royal assent, because the negotiators need a lot of time to sit down at the table and negotiate. It seems that they need training for this.

Take Quebec, for example. It has been an expert in the field for 46 years. Let us calculate the time it takes to complete each step in the process of passing a bill. First reading does not take very long, only a few minutes. Second reading takes a few hours. At the committee stage, things can slow down. Third reading takes a few hours. Then the bill moves on to the Senate for first, second and third readings, committee deliberation, and so on. All that time can add up to weeks, if not months. On top of that, we have to add another 18 months. Is this a joke? No one is going to get me to believe that the negotiator is incapable of sitting down at the table.

That much time is an eternity. All of this leads me to believe that, even though the government calls the situation an emergency, it thinks that workers, especially workers at the Port of Québec, can be easily fooled with smoke and mirrors and will believe anything.

Canada's delay in protecting workers' rights, the flaws in Bill C‑58 and the timelines imposed show that federally regulated workers living in Quebec would be better off if Quebec was an independent country sitting at the table with other nations.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague. I am not sure why, but I feel like talking to her about the end of her speech, which I found interesting.

Here we are, discussing a bill on scabs when a similar bill was passed in Quebec 46 years ago and has been in force ever since. Quebec is the province in Canada with the most social housing, the highest rate of unionization, the highest rate of working women and the lowest rate of child poverty. All this is thanks in part to early childhood centres, which were created by Pauline Marois in the days of the Parti Québécois. Quebec is the province that is most effective at fighting climate change. Quebec is inspiring Canada in a whole host of areas.

I would like to hear more from my colleague. Would we not be better off becoming our own country? Canada could continue to draw inspiration from us once we are on our own.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can only agree with everything my colleague said, of course.

When a nation is independent and uses its power, that only makes it want more because it sees all the potential it has. That is what is happening with Quebec.

Following Quebec's example is no better or worse than following the example of Scandinavian countries, Germany, England, or other countries. Canada would simply have a closer neighbour to emulate, instead of looking for examples on the other side of the Atlantic.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the response from the Conservatives is a bit surprising. They seem to be more focused on contracts than the legislation.

In recognizing the legislation, the member made reference to the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia, and the federal government is now bringing forward anti-scab legislation. I think that sends a very powerful and positive message to labour in all regions of the country.

Would the member agree that other jurisdictions should look at duplicating what B.C., Quebec and now Ottawa are moving forward with?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, they should definitely follow the example of Quebec and British Columbia.

Ottawa should do so by reducing the time it will take to implement the bill. The 18-month wait makes no sense. We should follow the example of these two provinces because we are currently avoiding negotiations that are not happening.

With anti-scab legislation, both parties are forced to sit down, and it is not true that workers have the upper hand. This gives them leverage that they do not have when there are scabs. The employer also has leverage when it comes to working conditions and wage conditions. The negotiation process is fairer and more equal, and that benefits everyone.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. Quebec has been a leader in this area, as in many others. It passed anti-scab legislation 46 years ago, and British Columbia followed its lead. Let us not forget that British Columbia also has this type of legislation, and the sky did not fall in on either of those economies. On the contrary, labour disputes are shorter and there is less tension, less violence and a better balance of power for workers.

The member spoke a lot about the Port of Québec, where 81 longshore workers have been locked out for 14 months. That is outrageous, but it is not the only lockout. A lockout just started at Vidéotron in Gatineau, and there are already rumours of Vidéotron using replacement workers. The situation at Vidéotron in Gatineau may just be a preview of what will happen at all of the Vidéotron locations in eastern Quebec.

Before the bill comes into force, and I hope it will before 18 months have passed, will the Bloc Québécois speak out against the use of replacement workers and scabs in Quebec by Vidéotron and Pierre Karl Péladeau?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, these rumours circulate every time a strike happens in a federally regulated workplace.

They circulate because the federal government has no anti-scab legislation. If such a situation were to happen, the current legislation would not apply because it is not retroactive. This scenario must be avoided. The bill should include a retroactivity clause. We have to ensure that the bill comes into force as soon as possible, far sooner than 18 months from now. It does not take 18 months to learn how to sit down at a negotiating table.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and emotion that I rise in the House to speak about an anti-scab bill introduced by the government. Other political parties have tabled many similar bills in recent years. They have always been rejected by the Conservatives and Liberals. Today is an historic day. Thanks to the work we have done, there is now a bill that has a good chance of being passed and becoming law.

Today is a great day for workers in Quebec and across Canada. It is a great day for workers' rights. Workers will have the opportunity to respectfully negotiate decent collective agreements and better working conditions, with a real balance of power at the bargaining table.

Let us enjoy this moment. Generations of men and women have supported unions and fought to have federal anti-scab legislation. We are getting there. This is it. We are almost there. I think we need to celebrate this moment as a major victory for all workers. It is also a major victory for all the generations of New Democrats who pushed and worked to ensure that these rights were heard and respected.

I would like to thank my team here in Ottawa and my team in Montreal for all the work they have done on this file. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the entire NDP caucus, both the current caucus and those that came before it. They worked extremely hard to get here. I would also like to thank the NPD leader, who has always been very supportive of this issue.

Let us savour the moment. This is a first in the history of this Parliament. We will be able to work hard so that Port of Québec longshore workers, Vidéotron employees, Port of Montreal workers and all employees in the federal sector who are subject to the Canada Labour Code will never again have to experience situations where scabs take their place during a labour dispute that then lasts longer, becomes more tense, costs everyone more and violates workers' rights.

Let us work together so that what is happening right now at the Port of Québec and what may happen at Vidéotron never happens again. In the future, let us protect the rights of workers in this country.

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms), be read the third time and passed.

Health of Animals Act

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-275 and, specifically, to the support it would provide our farmers.

We know that Canadian farmers face hardships. These include issues with supply chains and the rising costs of production; the threat of environmental hardships, such as natural disasters caused by climate change; and the risk of harmful and deadly animal disease. These are compounding everyday struggles. The possibility of someone illegally entering farmers' property amplifies these hardships, causing stress to the farmer, their family and their animals.

Bill C-275 would protect Canadian farmers and their animals by making it illegal to enter a place where animals are kept if, in doing so, a person could reasonably expose the animals to a disease or toxic substance. The bill would provide Canadian farmers with the reassurance that they no longer have to worry about potential biosecurity breaches from individuals entering their property illegally. They could instead focus on their daily work to maintain the health of their animals and to help feed the country.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food studied this bill. The committee heard from a number of stakeholders, including farmers and industry associations representing the agriculture and agri-food sector. It was clear from their testimony that farmers are committed to protecting the health of their animals. Their livelihood depends on it. Indeed, that would characterize the vast majority of farmers.

However, I would be remiss if I did not point out some of the criticisms of the bill raised by those who are concerned about animal cruelty. There are people who have expressed concerns in that regard. They point out that, in Canada, it is rare to see cameras in slaughterhouses, something that is commonplace in Europe, for example. They also point out that whistle-blowers in an operation, where they see something untoward, would be exposed to potential risk by measures such as these.

I am from Prince Edward Island, and probably the most serious biosecurity case encountered in P.E.I. did not relate to animals but, as one might predict, to potatoes. In 2014, there were sewing needles found in potatoes and in french fries in various locations throughout Prince Edward Island. The angst this caused the agricultural community was absolutely incredible. It also necessitated some very substantial investments by farmers to essentially X-ray potatoes going through the processing line in order to combat this and reassure the public their food was safe.

Our government recognizes the importance of farmers and has demonstrated its ongoing commitment to them and the agriculture and agri-food sector. I want to take a moment to describe some of the ways we have supported the Canadian agriculture sector over the past year, beginning with budget 2023.

The Canadian agriculture industry is world class and the backbone of our economy. In fact, Canada exported nearly $92.8 billion in agriculture and food products in 2022. The government has made a number of significant investments to continue expanding the sector's reach. For instance, through budget 2023, our government created the dairy innovation and investment fund, providing up to $333 million over the next 10 years. The fund is intended to help the Canadian dairy sector increase its competitiveness and adapt to new market realities.

We know the dairy sector is a vital pillar of rural communities and a key driver of the economy. There are 9,739 farms and 507 dairy processing plants across Canada, employing more than 70,000 Canadians. In 2022, the dairy sector generated $17.4 billion in sales.

Even though I am from Prince Edward Island, I represent an urban riding. I can remember, when I was first elected, being summoned to a meeting with dairy farmers with a couple of my rural colleagues. My immediate reaction was to ask why I needed to be at the meeting, because there were no dairy farmers in my riding.

It was very quickly pointed out to me that ADL, which is a milk and cheese processor, employs many of my constituents. That was a good lesson for a young member of Parliament: While much of the wealth is generated in rural areas, it often emanates from rural into urban areas. We are all interconnected. That needs to be borne in mind.

I would like to offer a tip of the hat to Chad Mann and the good people at Amalgamated Dairies Limited, who are truly national and international leaders in the production of milk and cheese. We are immensely proud of them. They are actually owned by producers. It is a business that we need to promote as a key element of the economy in Prince Edward Island and that the Government of Canada can, must and should continue to support.

The sustainable Canadian agriculture partnership was launched this past April. It is a five-year agreement between the federal and provincial and territorial governments. It includes $1 billion in federal programs and activities. For instance, the federal AgriMarketing program provides approximately $130 million to the agriculture sector to increase and diversify exports to international markets and seize domestic market opportunities.

The SCAP includes an additional $2.5 billion in cost-shared programs and initiatives that are funded among all orders of government. This includes, for example, support for AgriRecovery in cases of emergencies.

Speaking of AgriRecovery in support of emergencies, natural disasters can have a devastating impact on our agriculture industry. We have seen it up close in Prince Edward Island, more often than we would like in recent years, including, most recently, hurricane Fiona. There have been a number of catastrophic floods, droughts and hurricanes that have resulted in millions of dollars in losses.

Our government recognizes the hardships that farmers face from these natural disasters, and we are here to support them. The AgriRecovery framework is designed to support producers with the extraordinary costs they incur because of an emergency and to get them back into production.

That is why, in October 2023, we announced $365 million in federal-provincial funding to provide relief to farmers and ranchers in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan as a result of the extraordinary costs they have incurred because of this year's extreme weather conditions. This funding covers up to 70% of costs incurred during these disasters. This includes moving livestock, so they can be fed and watered, replacing and repairing damaged fencing, and unforeseen veterinary costs.

I would like to close by indicating that our government recognizes the importance of supporting farmers. We are investing significant funding to support our farmers and producers. This would enable Canadian farmers to maintain their world-class reputation and continue to provide Canadians with the first-rate products we have come to expect.

Our government is always hard at work to promote the work of our farmers in the agriculture sector through a wide range of activities, initiatives and funding opportunities. We have demonstrated that we are consistently here for our farmers, in good times and in bad.

Bill C-275 is another tool to provide further support for farmers and to ensure the safety of their animals, a subject that preoccupies the vast majority of them. This is a commendable objective that deserves our backing.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to say that I am aware we still have a long way to go to improve how livestock are often treated. We must speak out against intensive livestock farming done without any concern for animal welfare. We have to implement practices worthy of a modern world.

Our ancestors showed us how to be kind and have respect for the lives of farm animals. We must monitor any misconduct and punish people accordingly. Animal rights groups are right to be concerned. However, we must not defend animal rights by demonstrating illegally, which only makes things worse. Before I get into it, I would like to say that we all make life choices. Food is part of that, based on our values and food traditions. Generally speaking, we should be eating local food that comes from ethical and sustainable agriculture, and we should show moderation in how much we eat, especially when it comes to food of animal origin. That is a rule we should live by at all times.

In the same vein, a society that treats its animals badly and disrespectfully does not take much better care of its humans. That idea is going to form the foundation of the rest of my speech. I would like to take advantage of the fact that we are indirectly talking about animal welfare to say thank you to all the pets that have been part of my life or still are. I am sure many of my colleagues here will agree that the relationship we have with our pets is unique; it is like no other feeling.

Although they go by many names, I am convinced that pets make families happy, just as Copain, Patof, Flocon, Hiver, Roxy once did for me, and as Abricot, Capi, Dalida, our little newcomer, Ma Dalton, Luna, Marjolie, Berlioz and Iba still do. I want to take this opportunity to thank pets for the affection and unconditional loyalty they give to their respective families. Pets bring happiness to families and single people alike, and there are the positive effects that pet therapy has on people with psychological difficulties.

Although not directly related to the subject of this bill, I wanted to highlight my love for animals and also my concern for all aspects of animal welfare in our society. I am very concerned about respect for animal life and welfare at home and on livestock farms. Legal protection of the animal world is a fundamental principle.

In that regard, this bill engages the same willingness to do better, despite any perceptions that its wording may elicit. The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑275 in principle, particularly to curb a growing phenomenon across North America and the rest of the world. I am referring to break-ins at farm buildings to protest livestock conditions. As unhealthy as they may sometimes be, there is no excuse for committing offences that often endanger the very animals we seek to protect. This bill is a step in the right direction, although a number of points will have to be clarified to determine whether this addition is consistent with Canada's federal animal health legislation and Quebec's existing animal welfare legislation.

We firmly believe that it is not up to the federal government to impose its laws on Quebec, even in an area of shared jurisdiction, when the division is relatively clear. The Bloc Québécois recognizes that demonstrations with dramatic gestures are a growing problem, that they should not be trivialized and that they must be better regulated. This is not a debate about freedom of expression. No one is questioning this right to demonstrate against abuse, which must be denounced. However, when the act of protest itself leads to mischief, that may not be the best way to express one's opposition.

I do not think this bill is meant to condone animal abuse. We all have a responsibility to speak out against such situations. Extremes often lead to excesses, which is when laws like these are really necessary. It is more a question of recognizing that property-owning families have suffered and continue to suffer from these crimes, and that they live in fear of new offences being committed. It is also about making people aware that biosecurity standards must be met on farms in order to protect the safety of animals and herds.

It makes it an offence to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them. There is nothing offensive or upsetting about that.

The Bloc Québécois's concern over this bill is that the penalties for contravening the new offence are enforced under the Health of Animals Act and not under the Criminal Code, which is a federal responsibility. Then, the enabling legislation, the Health of Animals Act, was not directly designed to support animal welfare, despite its title. It was instead drafted to protect animals in a perspective of human consumption and to try to contain the chance of zoonotic diseases, diseases that are transmitted from animals to humans.

The federal government has limited power with respect to the scope of application of such a bill. That is why it would be interesting to have more information in committee on the bill's functionality and application. Protecting animal welfare, including that of livestock, is primarily a provincial jurisdiction. Every province and every territory in Canada has legislation on animal welfare. Provincial and territorial legislation often have a broader scope; they focus on a series of interests related to animal protection.

Some provinces and territories have laws or regulations that govern specific aspects of animal welfare or target certain species. All of the provinces have animal welfare legislation, but they do not all have legislation dealing specifically with this offence. In recent years, several provinces, including British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta, have created or strengthened laws to punish people who break into a slaughterhouse or farm. Quebec does not yet have such legislation, and instead court action is taken under the Criminal Code or the Civil Code. We must therefore avoid getting involved in a situation that might be construed as us telling Quebec what it should do. It is not up the federal government to impose its laws on the provinces.

When strangers come into contact with animals or their habitat without taking the appropriate precautions to avoid contamination, the risk of disease increases tenfold. Every such contact is a risk and requires the application of biosecurity measures. Intrusions that cause a disease outbreak in a farmer's herd jeopardize their livelihood because sick animals cannot be consumed and must be isolated. If the disease spreads outside the farm, the consequences can be catastrophic. The best example of this is the avian flu, which is often transmitted through contact with migratory birds. It should be noted that pigs are very sensitive to stress and, when they are in captivity, their environment needs to be controlled both in terms of temperature and noise. For example, noise and stress can cause sows to get up abruptly and then kill the piglets when they lay back down. How can a person think that holding these animals hostage, as it were, will serve a cause? One has to wonder.

If we want to change mindsets and get people to eat less meat, because limiting meat consumption is also beneficial for the environment and reduces greenhouse gases, we need to find other ways to do it. Balancing supply and demand, adding these variables to education programs and improving information and awareness are just some of the ways we can profoundly change the course of history.

Some members in this House may not agree because they deny the concept of ecosystem imbalance and the role of human neglect in animal welfare and they believe that climate change is made up. As we all know, freedom of expression is a precious value for the Bloc Québécois, and people have every right to protest and make their views known. However, we cannot condone protests involving illegal acts that may cause harm to both producers and animals. Breaking and entering is simply not the way to go about it.

Asking questions about best practices and the best ways to change consumer mindsets is also a good way to protect animals. I would like to point out that in Quebec is once again well ahead of the game. It is home to a number of livestock farms that are winning awards of excellence in animal welfare. For example, Ferme Karona in Plessisville, central Quebec, won Agropur's 2021-22 animal welfare award. The farm is a true wonder. I commend the owners, Pierre, Odrey and Pierre-Olivier Caron, who breed Holstein cows and are recognized as master breeders, the most highly prized honour in the livestock industry. The title is conferred by Holstein Canada on livestock producers who breed and raise animals under the most comfortable conditions and in compliance with good breeding habits and practices based on health and longevity. The cows are free ranging and live on a fine sand surface more comfortable than a living room sofa. All this is happening right here in our own backyard. Obviously, when breeders improve their behaviour, the number of offences committed to protest animal abuse drops. I encourage people to follow their example.

There is probably room for a constructive discussion on this issue. The debates between the parties were all about the details. I hope there will be more reflection to find better solutions. I would especially like to see Quebec used as a model, once again, in order to improve the health and the lives of animals.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in support of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, biosecurity on farms, which was introduced by my friend and colleague, the member for Foothills.

Like my Conservative colleagues who have spoken to this piece of legislation already, I am also an extremely strong supporter of our agricultural sector. I actually grew up on a family farm near Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. I wear it on my sleeve that I am just a regular farm kid who happened to find his way into the House of Commons.

I understand that many members of Parliament, and many Canadians, have not had the chance to visit a farm for a variety of reasons related to how they live their lives or where they live. I appreciate my hon. colleague from Charlottetown previously stating that, as a new MP, he had to recognize that urban MPs need to understand the interconnectivity between where production may take place and the processing done often in urban areas. At the end of the day, all Canadians eat. I applaud him for that and I encourage all my urban colleagues to try to understand by visiting a farm somewhere near their area.

Many others, who may be animal rights activists or vegans, may not want to experience a farm. For those who probably never will visit a farm, I would like to explain what it is like to visit a livestock operation. I have had the chance, prior to being elected and since being elected, to visit many farms.

The first question someone will be asked is if they have been to another farm recently because the transfer of diseases between farms is potentially a terrible challenge. Beyond that, someone is immediately asked to put on a suite of biosecurity measures like gowns, foot covers, hats, goggles and gloves, to make sure they are not endangering any of the flock or herd of animals on the farm. Livestock producers and all farmers care about the health of their animals. Animal welfare is critical. If we ask any producer, they will say the health and well-being of their animals is of utmost importance to them.

Relating to the bill specifically, its central provision is that it makes it an offence for a person, without permission, to enter a place where animals are kept, if their doing so could reasonably be expected to result in the animals being exposed to a disease or a dangerous substance. This is so that individuals and organizations will be deterred from entering farms without permission. It also changes the financial and non-financial penalties associated with doing so.

Some outside the agricultural sector may ask why these changes are necessary. Let me tell everyone why. Radical animal rights activists have been staging protests on private property, such as farms and processing plants, for far too long. I can assure people they are not putting on all that protective gear to protect the welfare of those animals. The groups that do not want to see this bill pass might deny this claim, so I will give a few examples.

On March 9, 2019, 15 activists trespassed on Webstone Holstein Farm, a dairy farm near Elmira, Ontario, even removing a deceased calf in the process.

On April 28, 2019, 65 individuals staged an occupation of the Excelsior Hog Farm in Abbotsford, British Columbia.

On September 2 of the same year, dozens of protesters, without permission, planted themselves inside a barn at the Jumbo Valley Hutterite Turkey Farm near Fort Macleod, Alberta.

On December 7 of the same year, 11 activists occupied Porgreg farm, a pig-breeding facility in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec.

The disruptive nature of these protests is the reason that many provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and P.E.I, have passed bills that strengthen provincial laws as they relate to trespassing on farms. However, in provinces where these laws are not present, farmers are largely left to fend for themselves when it comes to creating a playbook for protecting biodiversity and handling trespassers on their property. This legislation aims to fix that.

The fact of the matter is that individuals and groups staging protests are far from being animal saviours. They are more than likely exposing animals to dangerous diseases and substances.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2022, the agriculture and agri-food system employed 2.3 million people, or one in nine jobs in Canada, and generated $143.8 billion, roughly 7% of Canada’s GDP.

An activist who, even accidentally, introduces a disease at a farm could have a staggering effect on these numbers, in addition to the fact that it would threaten our food security here in Canada and around the globe. Let us take, for example, African swine fever, ASF. It has yet to be detected in Canada, thank goodness. It was first found in China in August 2018, leading to the death of about half of that country’s pigs and a quarter of the entire world’s pig population between 2018 and 2019.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, notes that in 2022, Canada exported just over $4.8 billion in pork to 77 different countries, as well as the fact that the industry contributes 88,000 jobs and generates $24 billion for our economy. For my province and my home riding, this is a very important issue as it relates to the hog sector. We have 138 sites producing pigs in my riding alone.

Manitoba is the second-largest producer and exporter of Canadian pork, employing 22,000 Manitobans across the various sectors involved with the industry. It is interconnectedness that matters here, in the sense that two million tonnes of feed is purchased by this sector from local grain growers, representing about half a billion dollars. Over 40 new barns have been expanded to enhance their environmental sustainability and animal care since 2017. This is a $2.3-billion industry for Manitoba that must be protected. The threat of radical animal rights activists putting that economic impact in jeopardy is worth tackling.

If ASF were to be detected in Canada, and to reach the same scale it had in China, the pork industry would simply be decimated, just like the numbers we saw in China. I cannot stress enough how devastating these losses would be, not just for those in the agricultural sector, but that interconnectedness. For the rest of the processing industry and those involved in shipping these processed products, it would have a major impact.

Protecting our economy and the global food supply is the main reason why this bill is so important, although another, and somewhat understated, goal of this legislation is to protect the mental health of farmers. Farmers have a very stressful life. They work long hours in sometimes very extreme conditions. They have an increasingly extremely high debt burden and are price takers, not price makers. In fact, the Canadian Mental Health Association states that “stress, mental health issues, and suicide are higher among farmers as compared to the general population.” When radical animal rights activists illegally enter farms on the private property that they are located on, they unnecessarily threaten farmers' physical and mental well-being by adding to the long list of stressors that our Canadian farmers already face. This is unfair, especially considering that farmers are, quite literally, the people who feed our country and the world.

I have taken a few minutes to talk about what this bill does, but I would also like to focus on what it does not do. I know there are some criticisms out there that are unwarranted. The first thing it does not do is limit a person’s ability to protest peacefully. Second, it does not prevent whistle-blowers in any way. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(c), protects an individual's right to peaceful assembly. If people take issue with the way farmers raise their livestock, they are free to protest in accordance with all applicable laws on public property instead of private agricultural land. To the second point, this bill does not, as some might lead people to believe, prevent whistle-blowers from speaking out. Whistle-blowers are the employees. They are the family members. They are professionals who work and are legally permitted to be on the private property where these animals are being housed. Simply put, trespassing activists are not whistle-blowers. They are more like trouble-makers.

At the end of the day, this is a good piece of legislation that will protect biodiversity on farms and farmers' mental health. It has support from a vast number of organizations from the agricultural sector, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Pork Council and Dairy Farmers of Canada. While I could give quotations about their support and stand here all day expressing why they think this is important, I would just like to thank them for all the work they have done in supporting this legislation, as well as all the good work they do to represent our Canadian farmers. Like those stakeholder groups, I hope that we are able to turn this common-sense bill into law as soon as possible.

I will just conclude by saying that for the well-being of our farmers, our economy and our food supply, I hope members of this chamber will join me in voting in favour of Bill C-275.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to start off by reflecting on a tour that the Minister of Agriculture and I had last week. We had the opportunity to tour the Maple Leaf Foods processing centre on Lagimodiere Boulevard. It is such an impressive facility, and members will understand why I use it as an example.

With respect to Manitoba's pork industry, one only needs to take a tour of a facility of that nature to see literally hundreds of people hard at work providing a quality product. In this case, it is bacon. Do members realize that half of all the bacon produced and eaten here in Canada comes from that particular factory? I very much appreciated that the Minister of Agriculture came to visit Winnipeg and toured the facility. Fantastic hospitality was provided to the two of us, recognizing how important the hog industry and the pork industry are to the province of Manitoba.

With respect to the legislation we are talking about, let me bring a direct link to it. Some individuals are very concerned, specifically farmers, producers, manufacturers and processors. There are a litany of opportunities for people to be engaged within the pork industry. Let me give some examples of that.

I had the opportunity to tour a hog barn, and the first thing I thought of when going into the hog barn was that I would be seeing lots of hogs. I was not disappointed; I saw lots of hogs. There were over 10,000 hogs in one barn. However, what surprised me was that when someone walks into the barn, the very first thing they do is put on a smock, take a shower and use all sorts of cleansing materials to make sure they are all washed up and in a state to take a tour of the facility. The second thing they see is the computers and technology used to make sure of the quality of the product, from the day a piglet is born to the day it is hauled out of the barn. It is a very impressive sight to witness. In this case, we heard about the age of the pig from the time it enters the barn and the type of food being processed.

It was interesting that earlier that week, I had a tour with the Minister of Agriculture in Portage la Prairie. In Portage la Prairie, just north, is Roquette, which is the largest pea manufacturer in the world. Parts of crushed yellow peas are used for feed, so we can get a sense of how that particular product is used as feed where I had taken a tour. Imagine the jobs there, the jobs on the hog farm and the jobs at Maple Leaf, not to mention the indirect jobs.

In Manitoba, thousands of Manitobans are employed in the hog industry. There are even more indirect jobs. We can drive out to the plant in Brandon, where there is a workforce of over 1,200, or to the Lagimodiere plant I visited, where there are over 1,500 workers. There are other plants, and they are not just in Manitoba. Whether looking at parking lots or visiting homes, we see consumers. They go to restaurants, they buy furniture and they buy vehicles, all of which are the residuals of jobs.

As I indicated, the pork from this plant is ham and bacon, the best bacon in the world. That bacon is circulated throughout the country and plays a very important role in our food chain. If we bring it all the way back to this particular piece of legislation, what farmers are asking for is that the legislation protect not only their interests but the interests of the food we produce.

As I pointed out, when I took the tour, it was critically important that anyone going into these facilities had taken the appropriate means to be there. Unfortunately, there are some in society who might not understand how important that is. When they enter a facility or even get close to a facility, which is private property, that puts it into jeopardy, potentially, and causes a great deal of harm, whether it is to the farmer, the animals themselves or our food chain.

When I look at the legislation being proposed today, I know the government is going to be supporting it, because the government understands, as we have witnessed, the importance of the food supply, which is not just for the province or even the country. Canada has now entered into more trade agreements than any other G7 or G20 country in all the different regions of the world. That in itself is one of the ways to ensure that we continue to supply food products.

If I were to stay with the hog industry and use it as an example, I could go to Neepawa, which employs close to 1,000 employees at the plant. It might be over 1,000. Over 95% of its product is exported to Asia. Again, if we follow the line, it goes right back to the hog producer and those barns. That is why, whether it is hogs, cattle or chickens, these farm products and animals play a very important role in our critical food supply system. They are not just for Manitoba and Canada but indeed the world.

It is those comments that I wanted to get on the record this evening. I give a special shout-out to Maple Leaf, but necessarily limited to it. Whether it is the communities of Winkler, Neepawa, Brandon or Winnipeg, not to mention the rural communities raising hogs, I know all contribute to a hog industry in Manitoba that all of us can be proud of, one that creates literally thousands and thousands of jobs and that provides good-quality food around the world.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Foothills has the floor for his right of reply.