Honourable senators, I rise today to speak briefly to the fourteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry dealing with Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms). The report recommends amending the bill in a way that, regrettably, the government cannot support. Therefore, respectfully, I will be urging my colleagues to oppose this report so that the bill can proceed to third reading in its original form.

Canadian farmers are facing many challenges. Some of those challenges are well known, such as supply chain issues and natural disasters that jeopardize their operations; however, there is also the risk of fatal diseases. The risk of fatal animal disease is particularly stressful for farmers. The threat of an illegal intrusion on their property only adds to the stress our farmers and their families are experiencing.

The intention of Bill C-275 is to better protect Canadian farmers and their animals by making it illegal to enter a place where animals are kept without authorization, since doing so could reasonably be expected to expose the animals to a disease or toxic substance.

Colleagues, we know how hard our Canadian farmers work, and Bill C-275 will provide a small but significant reassurance that they do not have to worry about potential biosecurity breaches from people entering their property illegally.

This will help them instead focus on their daily work of caring for and maintaining the health of their animals and providing world-class products to Canadians and people around the world.

The proposed amendment by Senator Dalphond, though well‑intentioned, will put these hardworking farmers, their families, employees and others at a potential legal risk, which is not the intention of this bill.

The vast majority of farmers and those who work on or around farming facilities and properties have the utmost respect for their animals. This is not just because it represents their livelihood, it is because it is the right thing to do.

The proposed amendment could put farmers, their families, farm employees and veterinarians at legal risk. They take the appropriate steps to protect the health and well-being of their animals and public health. But, like any human being, they are prone to mistakes.

By removing the words “without lawful authority or excuse,” this amendment could inadvertently expose them to this risk by eliminating this important legal protection when the overarching objective of the bill is to deter bad actors.

In that regard, I share the view that Senator Oudar expressed in this chamber that by eliminating this wording, we are in effect eliminating an important legal defence that workers may need to rely upon depending on the circumstances at play.

Indeed, the wording “without lawful authority or excuse” is an important legal protection that applies in other forms of statutory law in the case of persons applying specific activities or actions, including elements of the Criminal Code, the Health of Animals Act and the Customs Act to name but a few.

As Francis Drouin, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, pointed out when the same amendment was proposed during the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture’s clause-by-clause consideration of the bill:

This amendment brings a new constituency into the bill. While I respect the fact that we must do everything we can to promote biosecurity, I don’t think that touching the employer-employee relationship is the way to go with this particular amendment . . . .

At a time when poultry farms are heavily impacted by the bird flu and massive efforts are being made to keep African swine fever out of Canada, it is essential that we do everything in our power to protect these animals and to protect farmers and their employees, who are using their knowledge, expertise and skills to ensure that their health and well-being are taken into account.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate the government recognizes the importance of supporting farms. We want to enable Canadian farmers to maintain their world-class reputation and continue to provide Canadians with the first-rate products they have come to expect.

This bill in its original form is another tool to provide further support for farmers and ensure the safety of their animals. This is a commendable objective that deserves our backing. While I thank Senator Dalphond for putting this initiative forward, I would respectfully urge colleagues to reject this report.

Thank you.

Senator Gold, will you accept a question?

Of course.

I’m not aware of that, senator. That is a question that was raised in the debate.

If you will allow me to pursue an analogy, one with the chilling effect of laws that restrict free speech, it is not simply that at the end of the day a prosecution may not be brought or a prosecution may not be successful.

The possibility that one could be exposed to certain risks — and I’m not talking about protesters, I’m talking about the workers or perhaps temporary workers who come — even if there is no strong evidence in the past, it can be both a discouragement to their ability and willingness to do the work they’ve been hired to do and could have a negative effect on their well-being as workers.

As I said, this bill, which was studied in the other place — and where this amendment was, in fact, proposed, discussed then defeated — it’s the government’s position that this bill better serves the interests of farmers, their workers and the communities in its unamended form.

I carry no grief for anyone whose legitimate Charter rights are either compromised or who feel they’re not able to exercise them.

However, it is important to remember this is federal legislation. It must remain within the jurisdictional boundaries of federal legislation. In that regard, again, it’s the government’s view that the amendment to the bill does not serve the purposes of the bill and the interests of farmers; the integrity and biosecurity on their farms would best be served were the bill to be restored to its original form.

Would you take a question, Senator Gold?

Yes.

Senator Gold, I have to say that I’m quite surprised that you’ve made two back-to-back interventions on two private members’ bills, first Bill C-282 and now this one. When I first joined the Senate, it was pretty clear that government representatives were preoccupied with government bills. That was always my understanding. There’s no rule to that effect, but I’ve always understood that your priority was government bills.

You said the Senate wasn’t moving fast enough on Bill C-282. Regarding this bill, you’re saying that the committee, which adopted this report by a majority, got it wrong. That’s a pretty serious statement. I’m trying to understand something. Why did you decide to intervene now on these private members’ bills?

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to elaborate on the answer I’ve given to leaders at the table over the years. Dear colleague, there’s an important distinction to make when it comes to the role of the office of the government representative in procedures relating to government bills. Like Senator Harder before me, I’ve never played a role in advancing non-government bills.

However, my predecessor and I, and the government I represent, can indeed take a position on non-government bills. The government studies every non-government bill, and they’re all discussed in cabinet. The government takes a position on all bills that would change legislation, be it the Criminal Code or other legislation. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for me, as the government representative, to share the government’s perspective on these bills with you, my colleagues.

We have before us a bill that the government supported in the other place. An amendment was proposed, and I absolutely respect the work of our committees and Senator Dalphond, who is backing the amendment. I think it’s always important to argue the government’s point of view on this matter.

Would Senator Gold take a question?

Yes.

Thank you for your speech. It confirms at least one thing: that Senator Plett was wrong to say that I was acting on the instructions of the Prime Minister and cabinet by moving the amendment. At least this point will be clarified for the record.

My question is this: Since the government has examined and studied this bill, could we get a copy of the relevant Charter statement, given the bill’s impact on “activists,” to use Senator Plett’s term, involved in protecting animal rights? The Superior Court of Ontario has examined similar provisions and determined that they violated freedom of speech provisions. Can the government give us the Charter analysis that was done for this bill?

Thank you for the question. I’m very happy that I was able to clarify something about the role you played. To be perfectly frank, I don’t know whether a Charter impact analysis has been done since the bill wasn’t a government bill. However, I will ask the minister considering that I’m unable to answer your question myself.