Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-275. Before I get to my comments about the report directly, allow me to set some context.

I grew up in Landmark, Manitoba, the centre of the country. For all those people in Toronto who think you are Central Canadian, you are not. Landmark, Manitoba, is Central Canada. I grew up there. It is an agricultural community.

Later, during my years in the plumbing industry, I worked with the sector, often doing installations of heating systems in barns and various outbuildings. The importance of agriculture and the need to be aware of its unique challenges have always been close to my heart.

When I was appointed to this chamber in 2009, I was delighted the first committee I was appointed to serve on was the Agriculture and Forestry Committee. At the time, the Harper government wanted their senators to serve on committees where they had some expertise — kind of unique — unlike today, when a housing developer with no agriculture background can be on the Agriculture Committee. We actually needed to know something about ag.

I sponsored every agricultural bill in the Senate during the Harper government in the years I served on that committee until I was appointed the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate in 2019.

My time on the Agriculture Committee ran concurrently with Senator Terry Mercer’s. I have used his name a few times in the Senate. I used to use his name when I was cursing. Lately, I have used it in a much gentler and more collaborative tone. Terry and I were very good friends. He sat on the committee as a Liberal, and I as a Conservative.

In spite of our opposing political views, we rarely disagreed at committee. There were a few exceptions, such as the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. By and large, when it came to agricultural issues, everyone on the committee was united. We made it our job to understand the industry and find out what was good for agriculture. When we discovered that, we supported it.

We were there because of our love for agriculture, our appreciation for producers and our recognition that agricultural policy should support the ag industry, not tear it down.

Honourable senators, I know that Senator Gold says we are using talking points and we say the same thing. You say that many times. Colleagues, I truly, honestly feel those days are gone.

Although I am no longer a regular member of the committee, I sit on it occasionally. I recently sat on the committee for the consideration of two different ag bills: The first one was a year ago on Bill C-234, the carbon tax exemption bill; and now, lately, the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms).

On both of these occasions, I found I no longer recognized our Agriculture Committee. I felt like I was no longer sitting around the table with senators who wanted what was best for the agricultural industry. Some did, for sure. Some still do. But too many of them were now advocating for their own special interest or playing some kind of a weird power game rather than watching out for the best interests of producers and, indeed, the entire agricultural sector.

In the committee’s study of both Bill C-234 and Bill C-275, when farmers, producers and farm organizations came to the table and unanimously supported a position, I saw members of our committee treat them contemptuously. Instead of listening to witnesses, they lectured them. They treated them with hostility. Instead of trying to understand their position, they acted like skeptics and critics. Instead of guarding and defending the interests of agriculture in Canada, they took positions which were antagonistic toward the industry.

This not only surprised me, colleagues; it alarmed me. I was shocked to see — and I am sorry to say that — the Senate Agriculture Committee of today is no longer a friend of farmers. Senator Wallin alluded to that earlier in her response to the Speech from the Throne.

With Bill C-234, the agricultural community from coast to coast was unanimously asking for a simple change to the carbon tax which would exempt propane and natural gas from the carbon tax in the same way that gasoline and diesel were already exempted. They were unanimous, colleagues.

This would save producers millions of dollars, which could be put to good use by being reinvested in their farms or invested in cleaner technology. In some cases, it could very well be the difference between solvency and insolvency for their farming operation.

However, as you may recall, the majority of the committee refused to listen to producers and, instead, amended the bill in a way which would ensure the bill would never become law. Under the guise of improving the bill, Senator Dalphond inserted a poison pill. To its credit, the Senate as a whole rejected those amendments at report stage, and the bill was returned to its unamended state. For a moment, I was hopeful. There was a light at the end of the tunnel.

Then Senator Dalphond, together with his good friend Senator Woo, managed to convince this chamber to amend the bill again, knowing full well that if there were amendments, the bill would languish, which it is doing today. Those amendments were passed by this chamber at third reading and, to this day, Bill C-234 sits on the Order Paper in the House of Commons and will likely never become law because of it.

Farmers never got the much-needed relief from the carbon tax that most Canadians in this chamber claimed they wanted farmers to receive. Colleagues, that was December 12, 2023, almost one year ago.

Today, the bill continues to languish in the other place. I will not be surprised if it lies there until the next election, which we are all hoping — some of us more than others — will be soon, and then this bill will die, and a common-sense Conservative government will bring this back, and it will become law. There is hope for these farmers.

You will not be part of giving them that hope. Those of you who voted the way you did will not be a part of it, and you will not be able to accept credit for them getting that hope.

Colleagues, today we are in the exact same situation with Bill C-275.

Bill C-275 seeks to add additional legal protection for farmers in order to mitigate biosecurity risks introduced by unauthorized visitors. Note the term “unauthorized visitors,” better known as “trespassers.” It proposes amendments to the Health of Animals Act that would make it an offence for individuals to enter without lawful authority areas where animals are kept if such entry could expose the animals to diseases or toxic substances.

It introduces stricter penalties for trespassers and recognizes the potential biosecurity risks that unauthorized entries pose to animal health and, by extension, the Canadian food supply chain.

This bill is an unapologetic response to increasing concerns over farm trespassing incidents across Canada involving animal rights activists. These incidents not only compromise the biosecurity of farms but also impose significant stress on farm operators, threatening both animal welfare and the country’s food security.

Action is needed to protect our agriculture producers and their livestock, and this legislation provides exactly that, or at least it did before the Agriculture Committee got a hold of it.

Colleagues, biosecurity threats to Canadian farms are not hypothetical; they are real and present dangers. Diseases like African swine fever, or ASF, avian influenza and others pose significant risks to animal health and to the agricultural economy. An outbreak of ASF in Canada, for example, could result in a $24 billion economic hit to the pork industry, affecting thousands of jobs and export markets.

Moreover, the mental health impact on farmers due to trespassing and potential biosecurity breaches cannot be overstated. Incidents of unauthorized entries have left farm families distressed, impacting their livelihoods and well-being.

The necessity of Bill C-275 lies in its potential to serve as a deterrent against such activities, protecting farms from biosecurity risks and supporting the mental health of farm operators.

At committee, agricultural producers vigorously supported this bill as much-needed legislation. Matthew Atkinson, President of the Canadian Cattle Association, said this:

Trespassers on beef cattle farms, ranches and feedlots are a biosecurity hazard. The proposed amendments to Bill C-275 would provide a targeted intervention to this on-farm food safety and biosecurity risk by limiting the access of unauthorized entrants to animals and their feedstocks.

Darren Ference, Chair of Turkey Farmers of Canada, said:

. . . Bill C-275 is a critical piece of legislation that will strengthen biosecurity as well as safeguard animal health and welfare and the safety of farm personnel. As a turkey farmer deeply committed to the welfare of my animals and the success of our industry, I urge you to support this bill and work towards its swift enactment into law. . . .

Colleagues, the challenge of protecting biosecurity is neither theoretical nor aspirational. The implementation of formal biosecurity protocols in Canadian agriculture has been a longstanding and ongoing process that gained significant momentum in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Today, strict biosecurity protocols are in place for avian farms, the bee industry, beef cattle farms, the cervid industry, dairy farms, the equine industry, the goat industry, the mink industry, the sheep industry and the swine industry. But while biosecurity protocols exist at all levels, including regional, national and international, it is important to realize that the responsibility for farm-level biosecurity rests with farmers themselves.

As noted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA:

Biosecurity may be considered as a whole-farm approach to animal health management. The cooperation of visitors and agri-service personnel is an important part of a plan, but, ultimately, the owner or manager must be willing to do what is necessary to ensure that established protocols are followed by family members, employees, and visitors.

Critics of this bill like to say that this means biosecurity measures are voluntary, but this presents an inaccurate picture. Biosecurity on farms is as voluntary as locking or not locking your doors in a high-crime neighbourhood: It’s your choice, but no one who cares about their property or the safety of their loved ones would fail to do so.

Furthermore, industry associations have integrated biosecurity protocols into their mandatory on-farm programs, including the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, the Turkey Farmers of Canada and the Canadian Pork Council. The protocols are mandatory if a producer wants to continue accessing the market for their products, which means that anyone who does not abide by them will quickly be out of business. There is nothing voluntary there.

It is the producer who bears all of the responsibility and risk for biosecurity at the farm level, and it is something that they take seriously.

I have witnessed this first-hand. In my previous life, my company did a lot of work on hog farms, being in Manitoba, which is a large hog-producing area in the country. My men would tell me:

I no longer have to shower before I come to work because I’m going to need to have five or six showers during the course of the day.

They would have to shower before they walked into a barn. They would shower when they walked out to get a pair of pliers or something else they had forgotten from their truck. Then they would shower again when they walked back into the barn. We also owned a truck and trailer wash, where we washed a lot of farm vehicles. Trucks that had been on a farm were regularly brought to our truck wash; before they could go to another farm, they had to be washed and disinfected.

Farmers take this seriously. They are trying to do everything they can to ensure nothing happens, and then we say, “Well, let’s not penalize trespassers.”

Biosecurity protocols are significant and rigorously enforced by producers, yet, at this point, farmers still do not have the tools necessary to ensure compliance with those protocols.

They can enforce the protocols with their employees, family members and visitors, but they are helpless in one key area: with respect to individuals who come to their farms without authorization — in other words, trespassers.

At committee, there was a fixation on the idea that this bill should apply to everyone, not just trespassers. The argument was made that the sanctions imposed in Bill C-275 should also apply to anyone legally present on the farm, and, regrettably, an amendment was made to this effect.

Think about that, colleagues. What the amendment did was remove five words from clause 1, as passed by the House. The bill had previously read:

No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept, or take in any animal or thing, knowing that or being reckless as to whether entering such a place or taking in the animal or thing could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.

The amendment removed the words “. . . without lawful authority or excuse . . . .” This was proposed by a judge. In doing so, it made the sanctions in the act apply to not just persons who were present “without lawful authority or excuse,” but to everyone. This includes producers themselves, their own employees, their temporary foreign workers, visitors, family members and delivery drivers. This, colleagues, is misguided and misdirected to the point of being malicious.

As I said earlier, producers who currently carry all of the responsibility and all of the risk for a biosecurity outbreak are already highly motivated to prevent one. Yet should they find themselves in an unfortunate situation where — through their own lapse in judgment or error — they cause a biosecurity incident, they would now be facing fines of up to $25,000 or three months in jail or both on summary conviction.

On an indictable offence, the punishment would be a fine of up to $100,000 or one year in prison or both. And this is in addition to the financial, emotional and mental impacts of the biosecurity incident on their operation.

And we had seven senators vote in favour of that, colleagues.

At committee, Senator Dalphond claimed that since he grew up on a farm, he was representing farmers by introducing this amendment. Yet in the same breath, he acknowledged that at one point his father “. . . lost thousands of chickens because of a sickness that contaminated not only one, but many buildings.” Those are Senator Dalphond’s words.

Senator Dalphond also said:

I know what biosecurity is. I know it’s an important risk, and I know who pays at the end of the day. It was not the government. It was my father.

I agree with that. But by some strange logic, Senator Dalphond said this in defence of his amendment that he introduced — if it were law during the biosecurity incident on his very own father’s farm, his father could have seen a fine of up to $100,000 and spent a year in jail for an outbreak which had already cost him dearly.

This is the lunacy of this amendment. It does not help the agricultural sector; it hurts it. It is like amending a bill meant to punish home invaders, but instead making it apply to homeowners who accidentally leave their door unlocked. Imagine facing criminal charges and potential jail time because you forgot to double-check your own door, on top of already dealing with the trauma and losses from the break-in itself. That is not just missing the point of the legislation, but it’s also actively punishing the very people whom the law is supposed to protect.

Senator Dalphond may have grown up on a farm, but he certainly does not understand agriculture.

While Bill C-275 was drafted to protect farmers, Senator Dalphond’s amendment to the bill destroyed that intent and instead targets producers. Instead of protecting them, it now threatens them.

Senator Dalphond gave two reasons for making this amendment. No, let me correct that; he gave three reasons. The first one — and this is ironic — was that he felt it would somehow force me to speak to Bill C-355 on his timetable. I’m not clear how he expected this to play out, but he seemed to think his amendment put me in some kind of a hammerlock.

He even clipped that portion of the committee hearings and tweeted it, which was then promptly retweeted by animal rights activists. My office has been fielding phone calls ever since, patiently trying to explain parliamentary procedure to the callers.

On that point, it’s interesting to note that some of those calls have been coming from the United States. One caller from New York told my office that animal rights groups in Canada had contacted their counterpart organizations in the U.S. and asked them to mobilize their members to call my office. I guess if you do not have enough support for your movement at home, you will beat the bushes to try to find it somewhere else.

Senator Dalphond had two other reasons for making his amendment: One reason was because of a concern that the bill exceeded federal jurisdiction, and another reason was because he claimed it would do more to strengthen biosecurity protections.

Those may sound like good reasons until you realize that they are unnecessary and that the amendment actually endangers the entire bill, promising to leave the agricultural community with nothing instead of something.

Allow me to explain, beginning with the question of jurisdiction. I hope there will be some people who will speak to this later and explain this even better, and I’m sure there will be, but I will take a stab at it.

This concern has been raised repeatedly, both under this bill and when it was introduced by MP John Barlow in its earlier form as Bill C-205. During the debate over Bill C-205, the government opposed the legislation, partly due to jurisdictional concerns. But with Bill C-275, the government ended up supporting the bill after the Conservatives introduced an amendment at committee which addressed the concern.

MP Francis Drouin, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, said this during his second reading speech on Bill C-275:

This amendment would . . . 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.

Senator Dalphond’s amendment addresses concerns which were raised in the House of Commons and addressed to the satisfaction of the government — the government that Senator Dalphond is supporting.

The bill ended up passing the House by a wide margin — colleagues, listen to this — with the support of 133 Liberals, 112 Conservatives, 20 Bloc Québécois and 3 independents. That is a total of 278 elected members of Parliament, including the Prime Minister and all of his cabinet, including the current and former Ministers of Agriculture.

Colleagues, at committee, Joseph Melaschenko, the Senior Counsel with the Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services from the Department of Justice, was present to aid us in our deliberations. I asked him this question: “. . . would you have advised the government on the constitutionality of this bill?”

It’s a simple question.

His answer was “Yes, the Department of Justice looks at constitutional issues in support of government witnesses that appear at this committee.”

This means we can be certain of two things: First, he advised the government on the bill’s constitutionality; and second, the government ended up supporting the bill. Thus, it is obvious that, as explained by MP Francis Drouin, the bill as amended by the House of Commons is constitutional in the government’s view. The constitutional question was settled; 278 members of the House of Commons agreed, but Senator Dalphond did not.

This leaves us with Senator Dalphond’s second argument that the amendment will somehow motivate producers to be more vigilant about implementing and enforcing biosecurity protocols on their farms. As I already explained, colleagues, this is nothing short of frivolous and vexatious. Producers already carry all the risk and all the responsibility for biosecurity. They do not need a legislative gun to their head to convince them. Such a rationale shows how out of touch Senator Dalphond and six other members of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee are with the agricultural industry and its producers.

Colleagues, there is only one group of stakeholders who support this amendment: It is the animal rights activists, their lawyers and their university professors.

The animal rights activists have been very active on this file, and their reason for doing so is simple: They raise hundreds of thousands of dollars off of it, and they want to be able to continue to illegally enter farms, barns, feedlots, broiler houses, hatcheries, farrowing houses and any other agricultural facility that they decide to invade. They claim that they have a greater interest in animal welfare than the very people whose future and livelihood depends on the welfare of these animals — the producers.

The real agenda of animal rights activists is no secret. It is to eventually shut down livestock farming in its entirety from the death by a thousand cuts. Their objective is not to improve this bill, but to defeat it.

But, colleagues, if you doubt me, perhaps you will believe the animal rights activists themselves. Let me quote from an email that Animal Justice sent out on October 25, right after Senator Dalphond amended the bill, right after.

This is what it read, colleagues:

Dear [supporter], we are so excited to share this week’s achievement with you. Bill-275, a federal agricultural gag bill that attempted to punish people for exposing animal suffering on farms, has just been dealt a major blow in the Senate. Critically, the Senate Agriculture Committee amended the bill so that it no longer targets animal advocates. Now, the bill ensures that farm operators who cause disease outbreaks can be held to account for failing to protect animals against biosecurity risks.

Now listen very carefully to this part, to the end of it:

You kept the pressure on and spoke up for animals, and this amendment is a giant nail in the coffin of this dangerous proposed law!

“This amendment is a giant nail in the coffin of this dangerous proposed law,” and yet Senator Dalphond and Senator Varone and Senator Pate and others say this amendment helps.

Make no mistake about it, colleagues. The objective of the animal rights activists is to kill this bill, and they are using Senator Dalphond and six other senators who voted in favour of this amendment to do that. Senator Bernard, Senator McBean, Senator Pate, Senator Petitclerc, Senator Simons and Senator Varone — these are the senators who helped the animal rights activists put “. . . a giant nail in the coffin of this dangerous proposed law” because the activists do not want to be impeded by heavier consequences for trespassing and risking the health of the very animals they pretend to care about.

At committee, Senator Simons acknowledged that this amendment could very well kill the bill. She said:

If we amend this bill, given current political climate, there is a good chance it may not come back out of the House. . . .

And then, shamefully, she went on to suggest that such an outcome should have no bearing on how senators voted on the amendment because, in her words, “. . . that is not our fault or our problem.”

What are we doing here, colleagues? What is our problem? What is our responsibility? “That’s not our fault or our problem.”

Well, I’m sorry, senators, but it is the fault of those very senators unless we kill this report. It is the fault of those senators and anybody who votes for this report, who supported this amendment at committee, and it will be the fault of every senator in this chamber who does not vote to overturn this report.

And I would add that if the problems facing agriculture are not our problem, then let me suggest to those of you who believe that: You should certainly not be sitting as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. If agriculture and farmers are not your problem, what are you doing there, colleagues? Find a committee that you believe in.

I cannot help but wonder whether these senators — and particularly whether a large housing developer from Toronto — would be happy if people trespassed on their property. And yet he comes to a committee one time, substitutes and casts the deciding vote, the last vote, to amend this bill.

As I asked the Animal Justice lawyer at committee, I would like to know from senators who supported this amendment:

. . . if I had evidence that you were treating your pet dog in a bad way in your house, do you think it would be okay for me to come pry open your window and crawl into your living room to take pictures of you mistreating your dog? . . .

Or would that be trespassing, and should I be charged for it? Because that’s what we’re saying is okay for these trespassers.

This is the kind of behaviour that is being enabled by these senators. The amendment they supported is going to put “a giant nail in the coffin” of Bill C-275. And, remember, those were not my words; they were the words of Animal Justice.

Colleagues, the agenda of the animal rights activists is not ambiguous. It is crystal clear. Although they claim to promote animal welfare, this is little more than an undisguised effort to incrementally impose their world view on every Canadian with the help of witting and unwitting parliamentarians.

To put it bluntly, animal rights activists do not believe that any animals should be in captivity, period. As Senator Wallin stated earlier — and this is not verbatim — we don’t get our food from Safeway; we get it from the farms. It is not simply about elephants and great apes. It is about freeing every single animal in zoos and farms and no longer seeing animals killed for human consumption.

You may find this hard to believe, so allow me to quote from the Three-Year Strategic Plan of Animal Justice, beginning with their “Vision,” which says it plainly:

Animal Justice’s top priority from 2023 to 2025 is protecting farmed animals, because of their numbers and extent of suffering.

In 2022, over 841 million land animals were killed for food in Canada — a record high. An estimated 10 billion aquatic animals are also killed annually.

Note the emphasis here: “Suffering” does not mean being held in conditions which do not meet animal welfare standards. It means being held in captivity for any reason, and especially if the end use is killing those animals for human consumption.

So, colleagues, you had better not go home and eat a steak this weekend, or a piece of chicken, because you don’t want that to happen anymore. You want us to be rid of all of this.

This is the constituency and the agenda which Senator Dalphond’s amendment panders to.

But here’s the counter-argument that the activists made at committee and which Senator Dalphond and his allies parrot. They claim that animal protection advocates have never caused a disease outbreak on a farm, so there is no need for this bill. This argument is so absurd that I should not even have to respond to it, but you know me; I will.

For starters, although it is difficult to conclusively prove the precise origin of any outbreak, outbreaks following unauthorized entry have happened and have raised serious concern that they could have been caused by the activists who had just invaded the private property.

The most recent example of this was a 2023 outbreak of avian influenza in Sonoma County, California, where a state investigation found that activists may have spread avian flu to a farm. Animal activists have tried to make the case that since the source of the outbreak cannot be conclusively proven with “absolute evidence,” this incident should be ignored. This is both absurd and misleading. It suggests that even though having protesters illegally entering and trampling over your property is a possible vector of disease, it should be ignored because there is no “absolute evidence.” Even the California Department of Food and Agriculture noted that while there was no “absolute evidence,” it was “plausible” that the virus was introduced to that farm during those incidents.

Furthermore, this risk of contamination was confirmed by the Quebec court decision in the 2022 Porgreg farm case which found 11 animal activists guilty of breaking and entering, obstructing a peace officer and mischief, after invading a pigsty and refusing to leave. Although the prosecution was not able to conclusively prove that the activists caused the subsequent illness and death of several pigs that followed their invasion, the judge noted in his decision that such actions “. . . could cause the spread of viruses or diseases that could kill many pigs, or even an entire herd. . . .”

The risk is real, and the consequences are severe. Suggesting that there is no need to discourage risky behaviour since that behaviour has not yet conclusively resulted in an outbreak is like telling your children — or, in most of our cases now, maybe your grandchildren — that they should play with matches because they have been playing with them for years and they haven’t burned the house down yet. That is how absurd this is.

It simply does not matter, colleagues, if there is a provable case of an outbreak or not. Nobody argues with the fact that an outbreak is a possible and plausible consequence of an illegal invasion of private property. We can argue about whether that risk is high or low, but it cannot be argued that the risk does not exist.

Frankly, colleagues, anyone who supports activists storming into barns uninvited cannot honestly claim to be a supporter of animal welfare. Such activity does nothing but threaten the welfare of the very animals they claim to care about, with the potential for devastating results for both the animals in those barns and those in the surrounding farms.

Our agriculture community is asking that we pass this bill unamended to help them mitigate this risk. In closing, let me again underscore that Bill C-275 is meant to be preventative. One of its main goals is to deter unlawful behaviour before that behaviour results in disastrous consequences. The fact that animal rights organizations are fighting so hard against it demonstrates that this bill will discourage them from unlawfully entering farms. The bottom line is that producers are already incentivized to follow biosecurity protocols. Trespassers are not; therefore, this legislation is needed.

Senator Dalphond’s amendment is not needed to either ensure the constitutionality of the bill or strengthen the impact of the bill on biosecurity protections. This bill as we received it from the House is supported by producers, agriculture organizations across the country, the government, current and former ministers of agriculture, Animal Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The exact same amendment made by Senator Dalphond at committee was previously considered by the House of Commons Agriculture Committee and rejected. Listen to this, colleagues: Following the rejection of that amendment, at third reading, this bill was passed by a vote of 278 to 36.

I want to compare very quickly one other bill, and we are going to talk about that later in the week. The report was introduced today. Bill C-280 has also been amended by some of the same senators. That bill was voted on in the House of Commons, and the vote was 320 to 1. Then we get a committee together here with 10 senators and say we know better, and then we have a senator who says that’s not our problem and not our concern. And then we say we’re legitimate. Then you wonder why we say the Senate isn’t legitimate. You tell us time and again how independent you are and that you’re not on anyone’s side. Well, are you on the side of farmers?

How can this be in a democratic society? Even if we believe we should have voting rights like they do in the House of Commons, we must believe in a democracy.

Let’s say we were all united, every one of us believed the same thing, there was no dissent in this chamber and we had a full Senate of 105. The vote on Bill C-275 would be 278 to 133. Which one should win, the 278 or the 133? If we voted on Bill C-280, it would be 280 to 106. Yet we believe we have the right to do this and that it’s not our concern.

Colleagues, we have an obligation to present good amendments, but what about when they have already been presented? It is the same thing with Bill C-280: It was presented in the other place, and they turned it down. But we say, “No, you guys don’t know what you’re talking about, and we are not dependent on anyone.” I read Senator Simons’s article. I’m not sure when she wrote it, but I read today where she says we’re not accountable to anyone. We’re not beholden to anyone. We don’t report to anyone. I don’t know the exact words and am not going to stumble through this, but in essence, that is what she said: that we aren’t beholden to what they’re doing over in the other place.

Colleagues, each of those 280, 278, 320 represent approximately 100 to maybe 130,000 people.

They represent voters.

They represent voters. We don’t represent them. Who are we representing? To whom are we accountable? To whom do you answer when you go home? I know to whom I answer because I’m part of a caucus, and I’m proud of it. If you aren’t part of a caucus, that’s fine too, but who are you accountable to?

Themselves.

Are you accountable to no one? Senator Simons says we’re not at fault and it doesn’t matter. To whom do you report? No one, because you’ve been appointed. No one can kick you out of here. You’ve been here. Some of us have to be a little more careful because we’re afraid there could well be some move to get rid of us before our time; that’s been done in the past. Fortunately, I only have eight months left so by the time anything could be done, maybe I would be gone; the Senate doesn’t move that fast. Nevertheless, colleagues, we are all accountable to someone.

Maybe you’re independent. Maybe you don’t answer to the Prime Minister. Maybe you don’t answer to the Liberal caucus. However, you must answer to someone. I don’t know care how smart they are or what their businesses or backgrounds are: How can 7 people be smarter than the 278, which includes, by the way, the gentleman who put you all here — who appointed every one of you? Whether you like it or not, he appointed you. He voted the right way on both of these bills. What are you going to do?

I need to underscore this point. The amendment made to Bill C-275 does not reflect the Senate’s role of providing sober second thought to improve legislation sent to us by the other chamber. Because this amendment was already considered by the other place and rejected, moving this amendment again in this chamber is contrary to the clear will of the elected House of Commons.

This is the kind of behaviour that pours fuel on the fires of cynicism regarding the Senate’s value and role. Senators, this is what leads to the call for the abolition of this institution, which refuses to acknowledge the will of the people and rebuffs the clear intent of their elected representatives.

I have been as strong a defender of this institution as anyone here, but these are the kinds of things that lead all of us to say that if this is as good as we can be, then this chamber needs to shut down. Should this chamber decide to go this route, we will, in the minds of many Canadians, be living up to one senator’s description of this place as not being a chamber of sober second thought, but rather a “chamber of drunken second chances.” That is what this will do, colleagues.

Colleagues, I urge, implore and beg you to help the farming industry. We passed two bills here today because some of us didn’t care if they were brought forward by independents or Liberals; we cared about the legislation. We passed two bills just two days ago, those of Senator Colin Deacon and Senator Leo Housakos, because we didn’t care who brought those bills forward; we care about this country. That’s what’s happening here, colleagues. People are looking at who the sponsor and critic are, and saying:

If Senator Plett is going to talk for 40 minutes, then I’m voting against it. It is not because we should vote against it but because, boy, he railed on me for so long, and now I’m angry at him. Now I’m going to vote against it for sure.

I’ll vote for you.

Thank you.

I urge you, colleagues, to make the right choice today. Stand up with our producers, stand up for our producers and stand up with those who support them. Reject the report of the Senate Agriculture Committee on Bill C-275 and return the bill to the version that was overwhelmingly supported by the House of Commons and passed by them at third reading.

Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Plett, would you take a question?

If you promise to be good to me, yes.

Senator Plett, there is one thing I’m curious about. It sounds like there were some constitutional questions raised about this, yet it sounded like the entire Liberal cabinet supported this. I’m assuming that probably included the justice minister, so I am anxious to hear about that.

In the last year, we’ve sadly seen a few different situations, as you were alluding to, where members on Senate committees have gutted bills that were passed by the House of Commons. I’m thinking about Bill C-234, the carbon tax exemption for farmers; Bill C-275, which is this bill regarding biosecurity on farms; and Bill C-280, the financial protection for fresh fruit and vegetable farmers act. All of those bills would help Canadian farmers, and all of those bills were introduced in the House of Commons by Conservative MPs, but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

Senator Plett, I am a senator from Saskatchewan, the agricultural heartland of Canada, or the breadbasket of Canada, as it is often called. It is a key part of my job to stand up for the people of my province of Saskatchewan. I regularly hear from farmers about how important these bills are to their livelihood, as you were saying you hear this from people in Manitoba.

Do the senators who are gutting these important agricultural bills realize the profoundly negative impact that their actions are having on Canadian farmers?

Thank you very much for that question. I do need to disagree with you on one thing: I think the agricultural heartland of our country is Manitoba, but we’ll leave that debate for our own caucus next week.

Senator Batters, you are absolutely correct when you talk about the coincidence that these are all Conservative bills. They are all bills that I mentioned, of course. Even though I don’t agree, I understand that, at the end, there was a strong cabinet push on Bill C-234. Our government leader here pushed strongly to defeat the private member’s bill, as he does when the moment suits him, but he stays out of it when the moment does not suit him. But in that particular case, he found the energy.

I can understand why Senator Dalphond, having been a staunch, strong Liberal all his life, would want to support it, and he was told by the Liberal cabinet, “We need to do this.”

You are absolutely right; these were almost unanimous. As a matter of fact, on Bill C-280, one senator didn’t vote. She said it was because one constituent didn’t want her to vote, so she didn’t, and I will allow her to answer for herself. But the rest of them did, including the Prime Minister and, indeed, the justice minister.

As you know, I’m not a constitutional expert. I’ve been promised by some constitutional experts and professors that they may have a few words to say about this, and I’m looking forward to hearing what they have to say. But I did ask the witness whom the government sent here — the constitutional expert — whether he had advised the government, and he had. I didn’t ask him to go into what he had told the government, but he clearly advised the government that he believed it was constitutionally sound. I don’t think that the justice minister would have voted for a bill that he thought would not pass muster.

I hope that answers your question, Senator Batters.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the report on Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms).

And since we are all thinking about America tonight, I want to start with some American news about H5N1, or avian influenza A, known colloquially as “bird flu.” As the name suggests, the disease spreads primarily amongst birds. That includes farm‑reared poultry and wild birds such as waterfowl, shorebirds and raptors.

But in the United States, disturbingly, the disease has jumped the species barrier. This strain of avian influenza is now infecting American dairy cows. It has been detected in more than 400 separate dairy herds across 14 states. And now avian influenza is showing up in the milk supply to such an extent that Tom Vilsack, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, informed the press this week that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is about to begin testing raw milk in bulk for signs of the virus.

I am happy to say that pasteurizing kills the disease, but in America, there is currently a big political fad for drinking raw milk, so that has the authorities there concerned about vectors for human infection.

As of last week, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had identified 36 cases of people infected with this strain of avian influenza; almost all of them were farm workers, primarily in Washington State and California. Some were poultry workers, while others worked on dairy farms.

While avian influenza is lethal to birds, so far the humans who have been infected have reported relatively mild illness — upper respiratory symptoms and inflamed eyes. No one has been hospitalized, and there have been no fatalities. And thus far, I am happy to say that no cases of infected cows — or people — have been reported in Canada.

But the spread of this influenza variant, which has so nimbly jumped the species barrier, should make us sit up and take notice. Some experts are concerned that if this influenza variant successfully mixes its genetic material with the more typical autumn flu strains — perhaps in a farm worker who is infected with both viruses at the same time — we could end up someplace much less pleasant.

I agree with Senator Plett; the concerns about biosecurity on farms are very real. We must protect not just our flocks and herds but also our farmers and farm workers — and everyone else — from the spread of infections that can wipe out livestock and farm livelihoods and can potentially pose the risk of igniting another pandemic.

Avian influenza is far from the only pathogen that puts people and animals at risk. We’re talking about everything from distemper to African swine fever, from hoof-and-mouth disease to bovine tuberculosis, and even COVID-19, which can be spread to and by mink being raised on fur farms.

Years ago, as a journalist, I covered the BSE crisis in Alberta, where bovine spongiform encephalopathy — otherwise known as mad cow disease — shut down Alberta’s beef exports and wiped out many producers. Even though the disease affected only a handful of cows, the fear of the disease devastated our beef industry, and it took years to recover.

So let’s talk about biosecurity on farms and what Bill C-275 does and doesn’t do to address it.

In its original and unamended form, the bill focused almost entirely on trespassers, with the goal of dissuading animal rights activists from coming onto farms and disrupting their operations.

Under the terms of the original bill, any person who entered a building or other enclosed place where animals were kept, without lawful authority or excuse, could be fined up to $100,000 under the Health of Animals Act, if their entering such a place or taking in some animal or thing could reasonably be expected to expose the animals to a disease or toxic substance. They could also face a sentence of up to one year in prison. An organization convicted of an indictable offence under the act could face fines of up to $500,000.

In Canada, trespass law falls under provincial jurisdiction, and fines for illegal entry range from province to province, from $5,000 to $10,000 up to $25,000, for a repeat offence.

John Barlow, the Alberta MP who sponsored this bill, made his frustration with those penalties plain. Here is what he told our committee in his testimony last spring when he complained that existing provincial laws weren’t doing enough to stop animal rights activists and their fundraising campaigns:

I believe existing trespassing laws aren’t sufficient because they are not harsh enough. Last year, in the United States, these groups raised more than $80 million from videos and so on that they are posting online. So, if we don’t have fines that are sufficient to pose a deterrent, there is really no financial hammer to stop this.

In other words, his concern was not biosecurity; it was PR.

Farms are unique as workplaces where families often have their homes on site. I can’t imagine how upsetting and disorienting it would be for a farm family to wake up in the middle of the night to find political protesters on their property.

There is also a real problem in rural areas with police response time. I know that on the Prairies, where farms are huge and often far away from RCMP detachments, many people feel helpless to deal with trespassers on their property, whether they are there to protest or simply to pilfer.

As a long-time journalist, I support a free press. I understand the public value of whistle-blowers. Animal rights activists can rightly point to cases where trespassing on farms has yielded disturbing examples of animal abuse and neglect.

Nevertheless, I think that people who commit criminal trespass as a form of civil disobedience, even with the noblest of intentions, should face appropriate penalties for doing so including, where warranted, charges of breaking and entering under the Criminal Code, if and when such charges would pertain. But the regime of fines laid out in Bill C-275 is so disproportionate as to be absurd, as Senator Plett recognized.

I say again that trespass is a provincial responsibility. By trying to create an alternate parallel trespass law, Bill C-275, as some witnesses testified, may trespass into provincial jurisdiction.

Let me quote again from testimony we heard at committee, this time from Angela Fernandez, a professor of law at the University of Toronto:

. . . First, if the bill is meant to target trespassers coming onto farms, then its title is misleading; it is not really about biosecurity on farms. You might ask what the big deal is about the mismatch between the title and the substance. In constitutional law, if you have a mismatch between the substance and what’s sometimes called the purpose and effect of a statute, this can be called “colouring the law with a substitute purpose,” a doctrine known in constitutional law as “colourability.”

This constitutional law doctrine specifically describes a situation in which a statute has the formal trappings of being about a certain matter, but it is not really about that matter. This is a problem if that matter falls outside the jurisdiction of the government that is passing it — in this case, the federal government.

Now, let it be said that section 95 of the Constitution Act 1867 clearly divides the responsibility for agriculture between the provinces and the federal government. The federal government is well within its rights to legislate on matters involving agriculture, and that includes the Health of Animals Act. But let’s look at what Bill C-275 actually does.

The original bill wouldn’t just encompass animal rights protesters with a righteous political agenda. Interpreted broadly, it might capture anyone who strayed onto a farm property even if they were there for a relatively innocuous reason, such as hunting or snowmobiling, or a more nefarious one, such as straight-up theft. In other words, the bill, as originally drafted, could lead to the extraordinary punishment of trespassers of all sorts under the guise of biosecurity.

Provinces certainly have the power to enact higher trespass fines, if they so wish, to protect rural landowners. But it’s disingenuous to pretend this bill, as drafted, was primarily about biosecurity because even leaving the constitutional debate aside, Bill C-275, as presented to our committee, was poorly conceived public policy.

My friends, there has never been a confirmed case in Canada of an animal disease being spread and carried by protesters — never. Even in the one case that Senator Plett cited from Sonoma County in California, it was found that trespassers were a plausible vector. It was also found that the area was rich in shorebirds and waterfowl, which could also have caused the contamination.

Why has there never been a confirmed case in Canada of an animal disease being spread and carried by protesters? Well, there are two obvious reasons for this. One is that such farm protests don’t happen all that often — they are outliers. The other is that protesters, many of them being city folk, aren’t all that likely to spread an agricultural pathogen if and when they come to a farmyard. If you or I were to show up to protest at a farm, we would be unlikely to have pathogens dangerous to livestock clinging to our shoes, clothes or car tires.

The far greater risks, as you well might imagine, are more mundane and the more quotidian. They may come from people who travel from farm to farm making deliveries, doing maintenance or selling supplies. There can be issues too if farmers share machinery and move equipment from barn to barn, potentially spreading diseases if they don’t use the kind of washing equipment that Senator Plett referenced. Then there’s the issue of cross-contamination within a farm operation, which might explain how avian flu ended up infecting thousands of dairy cows across the United States.

At the same time, we learned in our committee that biosecurity protocols in Canada are largely voluntary. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, does not enforce them. It is left to producer groups to make sure farmers are following good biohazard protocols. But if producers break those rules, the producer groups can only impose economic or social sanctions and not legal penalties. How absurd would it be to have a law that set huge fines for trespassers coming onto farms but no fines at all for the people whose negligence might far more realistically cause contagion?

So after hearing all the testimony, our committee agreed on an amendment to address the problem. It removes the phrase “without lawful authority or excuse” from the first clause of the bill. This would mean that any person could be prosecuted if they’re entering an enclosed place or taking in an animal or thing could reasonably be expected to expose animals to a disease or toxic substance. They could be prosecuted if they were trespassers, negligent farm operators or negligent farm workers.

That wouldn’t mean that you could prosecute a hapless farm employee or temporary foreign worker for making an innocent mistake. The law would still only apply to people who commit acts that could “reasonably be expected” to spread disease. Indeed, the law would actually protect farm workers, including economically vulnerable temporary foreign workers, by making their work sites safer and healthier and minimizing the threat of the spread of disease to those who earn their living caring for livestock.

Senator Plett asked me if I were a friend of farmers. I think, based on my experience covering the bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, outbreak, that protecting farm livelihoods is being a friend to farmers. When I said things were not our problem, as Senator Plett well knows, I was not referencing the situation of biosecurity on farms; I was referring to the shenanigans and the antics in the other place, which are most assuredly not our problem.

This is an amendment that we passed at committee after seven hearings and 10 hours of expert testimony from livestock producers, veterinarians, law professors, infectious disease experts and, yes, animal rights activists. We didn’t take that action lightly or because we wanted to score ideological or political points. We did it out of a sincere concern about biosecurity on farms and a wish to help craft legislation that actually works to protect farmers, farm animals and human health.

If we vote against this report, we not only strip the bill of a vital amendment designed to enhance public health and safety, we also eliminate an important observation passed by our committee, noting that our biosecurity rules in Canada are voluntary on-farm and calling on the government and the CFIA to reconsider that state of affairs.

For the Senate to vote down a report from a committee that worked long and hard on this bill in a good faith and non-partisan way should be an extraordinary step, reserved for times when a committee has strayed somewhat out of bounds or when the committee made a decision perhaps without possession of all the facts. We should not make a precedent of voting down a report simply because some parliamentarians did not like the result of a committee’s work. Based on that logic, we could relitigate every committee decision.

So I ask, let us please accept this report and begin third reading debate in earnest and hash out these issues in this chamber, where they deserve to be heard, because we are on the side of farmers and on the side of Canadians. We need to craft legislation with sober second thought, exercising our responsibilities to analyze private member’s bills and hold them to the scrutiny that they deserve, not just to protect farm animals and people who work on farms but to protect the human health of everybody who might be vulnerable to the viruses that are out there. Thank you. Hiy hiy.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry’s report on Bill C-275.

Now, I’m no longer on the beloved and occasionally overpopulated Agriculture and Forestry Committee, but my fondness for its work is undiminished. I don’t hold myself out as an expert in the area of agriculture, certainly not with respect to the policy and substance of Bill C-275. I’m reading, listening to and observing the decisions of others on this bill, especially in the other place.

For now, and speaking to the report, I intend to confine my remarks to the issue of those who advanced amendments to Bill C-275 on a key basis, a basis that the original bill was about trespassing and, consequentially, an unconstitutional intrusion into provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights. Therefore, it required an amendment to the bill as reported back to us.

I have nothing to say about motive or the use of this debate as some form of political football. That’s not my interest. My main point will be that the issue of constitutionality is a wrongheaded interpretation of both the legislation and the Constitution’s division of powers between the federal and provincial orders of government.

I want to start by describing how we in this place should think about these questions of alleged unconstitutionality, something that we hear on a relatively regular basis. Indeed, you will recall that, with respect to nearly every piece of legislation that comes to us, the Attorney General provides a Charter statement — sometimes helpful, sometimes less helpful — on questions of unconstitutionality as it relates to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is my considered view, only slightly related to this conversation, that we also ought to be having statements from the Attorney General of Canada regarding the question of constitutionality as it regards the division of powers, historically the main constitutional question that bedeviled our country and enriched constitutional lawyers.

As a matter of principle, in my view, we ought to take the same approach to the questions of constitutionality regardless of our support for or opposition to a piece of legislation. That is, we ought not to approach the question in an opportunistic way as it suits our particular interests in the moment, so to speak. The Constitution of Canada deserves better than to serve as a tool for this form of argument.

Now, one approach would be to accept the view of those who say that questions of constitutionality should be left to the courts. This is certainly attractive, but I suggest to you that this is too simplistic an approach and, in a certain way, beneath us. Each of us took an oath or affirmation, and it includes a commitment to the Constitution of Canada. Surely, this does not mean, at the very least, that we would turn a blind eye to the question of constitutionality with respect to every law we examine in this place. Surely, we owe it to Canadians to say with a certain level of confidence that a law we propose to pass appears to meet the requirements of the most fundamental law in our country. Less than this is surely an abdication of responsibility.

At the other end of the spectrum, surely, we are not required to provide a seal of certainty on every piece of legislation over which we deliberate. The best constitution lawyers can’t and won’t do that, and so a standard of constitutional perfection is both ridiculous and beyond us. So we are somewhere in between.

Let me offer some points to consider before I turn to questions of this bill.

Legislation starts with the presumption of constitutionality. With government legislation, the Attorney General provides, as I mentioned, Charter statements — a form of constitutional imprimatur — and the Attorney General has a legal obligation to be attentive to that question, especially where there’s a fairly high — maybe very high — probability of unconstitutionality. It’s not certainty but it's significant.

Nor can it be that we should set aside legislation where there is an arguable case as to unconstitutionality. This message, this standard, was articulated by the constitutional experts who testified at the Agriculture and Forestry Committee.

Most controversial laws lend themselves to an arguable case of unconstitutionality, so this cannot possibly be the basis upon which we would withhold our approval of legislation. With respect, that would be a dangerously low bar, and it’s not the one the Attorney General of Canada applies.

In my view, this leaves us trying to identify a fairly high standard, something in the vicinity of “at least probably or a high degree of probability of unconstitutionality,” closer to the language that guides the Attorney General.

This key is to have an immutable standard that we should embrace for every piece of legislation, and not move it around as suits our will. You might be saying to yourself, “Well, I’m not a constitutional lawyer. How am I to know?” That’s a fair point. But like everything in this place where we lack the knowledge or skill set — and I just referred to my own deficit with respect to agriculture — we listen carefully, we consult and we do the best we can.

So if this, or something close to it, is the standard, let’s look at the original law here and see if it fits that “probably unconstitutional” standard. The main argument is that the prohibition on entering property without lawful excuse where animals are kept is really a trespass and an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. Senator Plett and Senator Simons helpfully laid the groundwork for that. A secondary argument is that the legislation purports to do something within federal jurisdiction — creating a federal offence — but is really intended to do something else within provincial jurisdiction and is therefore “colourable” — that is, an unconstitutional “end-around,” if I could call it that.

My first point is that the law forbids entry for a particular purpose, which could have serious consequences. There is some debate on how serious or not, but nevertheless, that’s the point. On its face, it’s a valid exercise of federal criminal law jurisdiction, and I’ll say more about that in a moment.

My second point is that activities can have more than one aspect from a constitutional point of view, in this case, trespass and a crime. Many driving offences have this: provincial driving offences and dangerous driving or driving under the influence of alcohol. The same event might bring together two legitimate laws burdening, in this case, the driver, with the provincial law regarding maybe careless driving or — you name it — speeding, but also the federal law about dangerous driving. When we have that situation, we have what is known as a law that has a double aspect where both the provincial law and the federal law are valid. So the legislation that’s being proposed does not in any way invalidate provincial laws of trespass. It tries to establish, probably on the basis of criminal law, a criminal offence for the same kind of behaviour. As I say, in this context, they would both be valid.

Let me offer what I think is a compelling example of this. It highlights a few significant words. It is the reference regarding genetic non-discrimination. It was a constitutional reference that went to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was found to be valid as a matter of criminal law. It was a law criminalizing compulsory genetic testing and the non-consensual use of genetic test results. It’s a valid criminal law despite an unquestionable overlap with provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights because it was a valid exercise of the criminal law power, which required three things: number one, a prohibition; number two, a penalty; and number three, that it be directed at a legitimate public purpose such as health, public order, security, morality or the environment.

Well, there are a few words in there, and you can take your pick, but surely some of them apply to this law. And then, as a matter of having more than one aspect, you can see that in genetic testing. Part of it is provincial jurisdiction over health, property and civil rights, but part of it governed by the criminal law, which is what the genetic testing legislation did. Both are constitutional, which should take us to the view that Bill C-275 should not be tampered with on constitutional grounds.

I want to take you to another argument that Senator Simons and I discussed earlier and to which she made reference. The bill is focused unquestionably on what happens on farms. That’s the whole point of the bill. The bill, at its core, is about agriculture. In constitutional terms, Bill C-275 is “in relation to agriculture.” This is pretty obvious, and we have already acknowledged this. Where do we send the bill? I know he secretly calls it the “Rob Black and friends committee,” but it is the Agriculture Committee. It’s where we send bills dealing with — you got it — agriculture. You may be saying at this point: What’s the big deal?

It is this. When we think about the division of powers between federal and provincial governments, between Ottawa and the provinces, we nearly always think about sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act. They’re big long lists, but whether you like it or not, we have to pay some attention to those lists because our job is limited to the section 91 list. That’s how it’s taught in law school, and most of the big constitutional action prior to the Charter was about those two sections of the Constitution.

But section 95, as Senator Simons observed, gives power to the federal government in relation to agriculture. Indeed, it is a concurrent jurisdiction with the provinces, but it is so powerful that the Constitution recognizes that in the case of a conflict, federal legislation in relation to agriculture dominates. It is, in the language of constitutional law, paramount.

This isn’t conflict between federal and provincial agriculture law, but I think it conveys to us a fairly powerful statement of the meaningfulness of the federal jurisdiction over agriculture. Indeed, the focus with respect to that federal jurisdiction tends to be with respect to agriculture as it applies to what happens on the farm. One of the constraints is that once food goes into the food distribution chain, it becomes a more complicated issue, but the farm activity is thought of as predominantly federally regulated.

You may like or not like Bill C-275 in its original form, although as Senator Plett noted — and he stole my observation of this — 278 members of Parliament liked it. But the argument that it was constitutional in its original form is compelling. The need for a committee amendment for the purpose of establishing its constitutionality just doesn’t hold water.

The bill, in the form in which it came to us, possessed a constitutional “belt,” which is criminal law, and “suspenders,” which is agriculture. If that is not enough, and as has already been noted, a parliamentarian who has the greatest official legal duty — and I’ve written about when attorneys general have failed in this regard, including a member of Senator Plett’s party — to uphold the constitutionality of our laws, the Attorney General of Canada voted for this bill in its original form twice.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I decided to rise today as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, but also as the former president of a board that has promoted workplace health and safety for many years. I will be brief, much briefer than my colleagues, but I thank each of the senators who spoke today for their insight.

I also want to thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, because I really appreciated the debates that were held. Thank you to the committee chair, Senator Black, and to all of the committee members: Senators Simons, Burey, Dalphond, Klyne, Marshall, McBean, McNair, Petitclerc, Richards and Sorensen.

We all understand the importance of the subject now before us. Here are some figures from Statistics Canada. The agriculture and agri-food industry employs 2.3 million people in Canada, which represents one in nine jobs in Canada. It generates $150 billion or close to 7% of our GDP. I think that we all understand how important this subject is.

The committee heard from many groups and witnesses. I think that all members of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry want to do their job properly.

Today’s debate is very healthy. We’ve heard a lot about biosecurity. That’s our goal. We’ve also heard constitutional perspectives. I’m grateful to Senator Cotter for his constitutional insights.

I’m not going to talk to you about the constitutional aspects today. I’ve reviewed everything that happened in the other place, including the votes and the constitutional analysis. I’ve assimilated all of it, and I respect the work that’s been done on this.

I’m not going to talk to you about constitutional law or freedom of expression, either. As a lawyer, I hold freedom of expression very dear. It’s protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As you all know, the Charter takes precedence over any act passed in Canada.

Instead, I’m going to talk about the amendment, but before I do that, I’d like us to take the time to review proposed section 9.1 in the bill. This bill essentially has two clauses. That’s what I’ll be talking to you about for the next few minutes. Proposed section 9.1 reads as follows:

No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept, or take in any animal or thing —

 — like a camera, for example —

 — if their entering such a place or taking in the animal or thing could reasonably be expected to result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance —

 — and that’s not all, because that substance also has to be “capable of affecting or contaminating them”.

So you see, colleagues, there are several steps that have to be followed, and I believe that the use of the conditional tense in the proposed section demonstrates that all the necessary assessments were done and that it was determined that this wording would not infringe on either freedom of expression or freedom of information. The proposed section is clear on this point, which is why I now want to draw your attention to the amendment.

The amendment proposed by my colleague Senator Dalphond would delete the words “without lawful authority or excuse.” The proposed section would therefore read as follows: “No person shall enter a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept . . . .”

If these words can be deleted, then what purpose were they serving? This was why I objected in committee to the amendment proposing to delete them. I think it would violate the rights of workers who are on the premises to perform job-related duties, for example. In fact, it would deny them a defence, because this bill provides for criminal offences.

For example, a worker who is present on a farm and who is accused of bringing in a substance that is capable of contaminating the animals could face criminal charges. By removing the words “without lawful authority or excuse,” we would be denying workers a defence, so it would no longer be available to them in court. That is why I objected to deleting those words.

As I was telling you earlier, honourable senators, 2.3 million people work in the agriculture and agri-food sector. However, according to Statistics Canada, if we only consider primary agriculture, which refers to crops and livestock, it alone employs 278,373 workers.

I’m new to the Senate, but I decided that my duty will be to advocate for workers, but also all Canadians, to uphold their rights and protect defences that they may need to use in court. As I mentioned not only to my colleague Senator Dalphond, but also to all the senators I have had the privilege of interacting with on this important topic, that is precisely why I was against deleting these words.

I trust both the wisdom of the committee members and the wisdom of the Senate. Since joining the Senate, I have been impressed by the sound judgment of all senators. The debate we are currently having is healthy and useful, and I thank all senators who have shared their insights. There is a French expression that says that enlightenment comes when ideas collide, but I’m confident that we’ll come up with a good solution. I urge my colleagues to protect workers, but also, since you mentioned inspections, I believe that people who are on the premises should have a lawful authority or excuse to enter. It would be inconceivable if health and safety inspectors, for example, couldn’t rely on such a defence in court.

That concludes my brief remarks today, specifically on the amendment, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue, honourable senators.

Honourable senators, I move that further debate be adjourned to the next sitting of the Senate.

Senator Pate, would you like to ask a question, or are you speaking on debate?

Honourable senators, I would like to speak to the amendment, but I am not ready to do so at this time. I move that the debate be adjourned for the balance of my time.

It is moved by the Honourable Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator White, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion the “yeas” have it.

Do we have agreement on a bell? Thirty minutes. Is there leave for 30 minutes?

The vote will occur at 6:48. Call in the senators.

Moved:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

He said: Your Honour, as we did last week, I think we should go home, collect our thoughts and decide whether we want to come back and work collaboratively. I suggest we do that overnight and come back tomorrow refreshed to deal with all the government business before us. With that in mind, I move the adjournment of the Senate.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)