SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 188

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 1, 2023 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 188 - May/1/23
Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Foothills for introducing Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, a private member's bill. As previously indicated, this bill was drafted in response to individuals and groups entering private property such as farms. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental to a democratic society. However, trespassing on farms is unacceptable. The health and safety of our farmers and their animals are crucial. Incidents of trespassing on farms have made Canadian farmers anxious and have raised concerns about the health and safety of their animals. We recognize the purpose of this private member's bill, Bill C‑275, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that any legislative provision in this area does not have any unintended consequences. I would like to draw the attention of members to two items to take into consideration. First, Bill C‑275, as worded, creates legal risks. Second, existing federal and provincial statutes can be used for managing cases of trespassing on farms. These matters need to be carefully taken into account before any changes to this bill can be considered. As most of us know, agriculture is a jurisdiction shared by the federal and provincial governments. Generally speaking, the federal government is only responsible for agricultural practices and operations on farms. However, the bill as it stands would probably not fall under federal jurisdiction in this area, given that it generally applies to any building or enclosed area in which animals are kept on a farm or the area outside. Furthermore, the bill seems to focus more on prohibiting trespassing by protesters than on protecting animals from the spread of disease. Provinces and territories have authority in the areas of property rights and civil rights, which includes passing laws concerning trespassing. Most provinces already have laws against trespassing on farms and other places. In recent years, five provinces—Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Prince Edward Island—have passed strong legislation prohibiting trespassing on farms or any places where animals are kept. For instance, in 2019, Alberta amended its Petty Trespass Act to prohibit entry into a farm or farmland without the permission of the property owner or occupant. Someone convicted under the act could be fined up to $10,000 or face six months in prison. A corporation could face a fine of up to $200,000 if convicted under this act. This example shows that the provinces already have laws governing trespassing on private property. The wording of Bill C-275 also shows this bill seeks to regulate trespassing on private property. This is clearly stated in the part that reads, “No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place”. Accordingly, the current wording of Bill C-275 could be seen as infringing on existing provincial legislation. At the federal level, the Criminal Code criminalizes activity related to trespassing, such as mischief and breaking and entering. In fact, I know of two recent cases where the Criminal Code was successfully used to lay charges against people who had trespassed on farms. One was in British Columbia and the other in Quebec. I would like to say a little more about the case in British Columbia, because it shows how existing legislation is working to allow charges to be laid against people who trespass on farms. In 2019, a number of people broke into the Excelsior Hog Farm in Abbotsford, British Columbia, to raise awareness about farming practices they believed were detrimental to animal welfare. Two of the individuals who broke into the farm were convicted and subsequently sentenced under the Criminal Code. The judge took certain factors into account when deciding their sentence, as is required under the Criminal Code. For example, in this particular case, the judge considered the negative impact the trespassing had on the farmer and the farm's operation. As a result, the trespassers were sentenced to 30 days in jail and 12 months' probation. What I am saying is that the existing laws work, plain and simple. As the judge in the British Columbia case noted, this verdict, which included a jail term, was intended to send a message to discourage others from engaging in this type of activity. The bill of the member for Foothills certainly sheds light on farmer and animal health. While it is crucial that we support farmers with the tools they need to carry out their important work, we need to be mindful of how best to do that without creating legal challenges. Fundamentally, legislation should not introduce new legal issues. It should also complement, not duplicate, the laws we already have. That is why our government will be supporting Bill C-275 with amendments. Specifically, we will look to move amendments that meet the spirit and intent of Bill C-275, while lowering the legal risks that we have identified. Rather than broadly prohibiting unlawful entry into any building or other place, we propose an amendment to more narrowly prohibit entry into on-farm biosecurity zones where animals are kept, except in accordance with established biosecurity protocols. Such an amendment would support the strong biosecurity measures that many farmers have already put in place on Canadian farms. This amendment would also mitigate against the legal issues I outlined earlier. By shifting the focus to entry into on-farm biosecurity zones, it would bring the bill under federal jurisdiction because it would be more clearly related to agricultural options inside the farm gate. It would also reinforce the benefit of biosecurity zones, which are an important part of agricultural practices to prevent the spread of animal disease. Many may wonder why we are supporting this bill when we did not support its predecessor, Bill C-205. Let me be clear: As I have noted, we do have concerns with the legal risks associated with this bill as currently written. However, we have taken the time to consider previous debates and testimony on this matter. We have listened to stakeholders, and almost all have stressed the importance of biosecurity to prevent the spread of animal disease to animals. Upon further analysis, we have identified an amendment that focuses more squarely on biosecurity and provides a better alternative to the current wording of Bill C-275. This amendment would emphasize to Canadians that biosecurity is serious and necessary to prevent the spread of animal disease, while recognizing there is existing legislation to address trespassing. We recognize the efforts of the hon. member for Foothills in trying to protect farmers. However, it is important that we find the right balance with the bill and discern the best way forward, considering the legal risks. Should Bill C-275 be referred to committee, we will move an amendment to ensure that the bill addresses the legal risks that have been identified. The government looks forward to further discussions on this important topic. We are eager to discuss ways we can amend Bill C-275 to provide supports to farmers and protect the health of their animals. Once again, I want to thank the member for Foothills. We have heard about every issue that has been ongoing over the past few years and past decades on farms. This week we are acknowledging it is Mental Health Week, and I think this bill would address some of the measures and some of the stresses that farmers face on their farms. I want to thank the member for Foothills for putting this bill forward.
1263 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border