]
>> The Speaker: FURTHER
DEBATE?
I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM
GUELPH.
>> THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
[ Applause ]
THANK YOU.
[ Laughter ]
I SUPPORT THE PURPOSE OF BILL
156 TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY AND
SAFETY OF FARMERS, THEIR
FAMILIES AND WORKERS.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, SPEAKER, I
VOTED IN FAVOUR OF THIS SECTION
OF THE BILL AT COMMITTEE.
BUT TO OVERREACH IN THE PURSUIT
OF THIS PURPOSE, AS THE
GOVERNMENT HAS DONE WITH BILL
156, WILL ONLY SERVE TO
UNDERMINE THIS PURPOSE OF THE
BILL WHICH WE ALL HOPE TO
ACHIEVE.
THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN TRUE OVER
AND OVER AGAIN IN THE UNITED
STATES WHERE SO-CALLED AD GAG
BILLS HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN BY
THE COURT.
JUST LAST FRIDAY, NORTH CAROLINA
BECAME THE FIFTH STATE IN THE
U.S. TO STRIKE DOWN SUCH A BILL.
CHARTER CHALLENGES TO BILL 156
ARE INEVITABLE.
THESE HIGH PROFILE COURT
CHALLENGES WILL MAKE ONTARIO THE
EPICENTER OF ANIMAL RIGHTS
ACTIVISM AND JOURNALISTS
FIGHTING TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS
OF FREE EXPRESSION, FREE
ASSEMBLY AND INVESTIGATIVE
JOURNALISM.
A RESEARCH TEAM AT UBC HAS SHOWN
HOW SUCH BATTLES UNDERMINE
CONFIDENCE AND TRUST IN SUPPORT
FOR FARMERS AND FARMING.
AT A TIME WHEN WE NEED TO
STRENGTHEN PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN
LOCAL FOOD AND FARMING, THE
GOVERNMENT'S OVERREACH WILL
UNDERMINE CONFIDENCE IN ONTARIO
FARMING.
MANY U.S. FARMERS WHO INITIALLY
SUPPORTED SUCH BILLS HAVE NOW
COME OUT AGAINST THEM.
CHUCK JOLLY, A RESPECTED RANCHER
FROM THE GREAT STATE OF KANSAS
AND A PRESIDENT OF THE MEAT
INDUSTRY HALL OF FAME HAS
DESCRIBED AG GAG LAWS AND I
QUOTE, WHAT YOU ARE REALLY DOING
IS HANDING AN ISSUE TO THE
ANTIAG PEOPLE, IN SAYING YEAH,
I'VE GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE.
AND I'VE GOT LAWS TO PROTECT ME.
END QUOTE.
WELL, SPEAKER, THOSE LAWS
HAVEN'T WORKED.
ONTARIO FARMERS HAVE NOTHING TO
HIDE.
I GREW UP ON A FARM.
I'VE SPENT MY WHOLE LIFE
MARKETING AND PROMOTING ONTARIO
FOOD AND FARMERS.
MY SUCCESSFUL LOCAL FOOD
CAMPAIGNS WERE BUILT ON THE
PREMISE THAT IF WE TELL PEOPLE
THE STORY OF ONTARIO FOOD AND
FARMERS, PEOPLE WILL SUPPORT
THEM.
BILL 156 UNDERMINES THIS.
SPEAKER A NUMBER OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS AND LAW
PROFESSORS WARNED THE COMMITTEE
THAT BILL 156 WILL FACE A
CHARTER CHALLENGE.
THE FALSE PRETENSE PROVISIONS IN
SECTION 4 AND 5 VIOLATE SECTION
2 OF THE CHARTER ACCORDING TO
LEGAL EXPERTS.
INFRINGING ON PEOPLE'S RIGHTS TO
THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND
THE FREEDOM OF PEACEFUL
ASSEMBLY.
IN ADDITION, BOTH THE CANADIAN
ASSOCIATION OF JOURNALISTS AND
CANADIAN JOURNALISTS FOR FREE
EXPRESSION TOLD COMMITTEE
MEMBERS THAT BILL 156 WILL
CRIMINALIZE INVESTIGATIVE
JOURNALISM.
THINK OF THAT, SPEAKER.
CRIMINALIZING INVESTIGATIVE
JOURNALISM.
THINK OF THE ESSENTIAL
UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION FROM
NEWS ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS CBC'S
MARKETPLACE, REVEALING THE
HORRIFIC CONDITIONS IN LONG-TERM
CARE HOMES.
BILL 156 WOULD MAKE CBC
JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS FOR
UNDERCOVER REPORTING ILLEGAL IN
ANIMAL PROTECTION ZONES.
BILL 156 COULD ALSO CRIMINALIZE
UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATIONS INTO
WORKPLACE SAFETY.
AT FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS SUCH
AS THE ONE THE TORONTO STAR DID
TO EXPOSE UNSAFE CONDITIONS AT
PIERRE FOODS.
BILL 156 ALSO PUTS A CHILL ON
THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYEES TO
REPORT AN ANIMAL ABUSE ISSUE.
HUMANE CANADA RAISED THIS
CONCERN BECAUSE A WORKER
WITNESSING SOME SORT OF ABUSE
MIGHT BE RELUCTANT TO REPORT IT
OUT OF FEAR OF BEING CHARGED
UNDER THE FALSE PRETENSE
PROVISIONS OF BILL 156.
THIS WILL UNDERMINE THE ABILITY
TO INVESTIGATE ANIMAL ABUSE
UNDER THE PAWS ACT WHICH I
SUPPORT.
WE NEED STRONGER TRESPASS LAWS.
AND WE NEED STRONGER ENFORCEMENT
OF THOSE LAWS ON ONTARIO
FARMERS.
BUT WE CAN DO THIS WITHOUT
VIOLATING PEOPLE'S CHARTER
RIGHTS, AND CRIMINALIZING
INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM.
WE CAN DO IT WHILE MAINTAINING
THE PUBLIC'S TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE IN ONTARIO FOOD AND
FARMERS.
I PUT FORWARD AMENDMENTS TO
STRIKE THIS BALANCE, SPEAKER, AT
COMMITTEE AND WHILE I APPRECIATE
THE GOVERNMENT VOTING IN FAVOUR
OF AMENDMENT I PUT FORWARD TO
RESPECT INDIGENOUS RIGHTS, I AM
DISAPPOINTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT
VOTED DOWN AMENDMENTS TO PROTECT
THE BILL FROM A CHARTER
CHALLENGE.
I UNDERSTAND WHY SOME OF MY FARM
FRIENDS ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL.
NO ONE WANTS TO FEEL UNSAFE AT
HOME OR IN THEIR WORKPLACE.
AS A MATTER OF FACT I RECEIVED
AN eMAIL FROM A FRIEND OF MINE
WHO TESTIFIED IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL AT COMMITTEE AND WAS
HARASSED AFTERWARDS ON LINE.
UNACCEPTABLE, SPEAKER.
BUT ONTARIO FARMERS AND
PROCESSORS DESERVE A BILL THAT
PROVIDES THESE SORTS OF
PROTECTIONS THAT WILL ULTIMATELY
WITHSTAND A CHARTER CHALLENGE
AND ULTIMATELY THEN BENEFIT
FARMERS NOT HURT THEM.
THANK YOU, SPEAKER.
>> The Speaker: TIME FOR
QUESTIONS.
THE MEMBER FOR PETERBOROUGH
KAWARTHAS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
APPRECIATE THE SPEECH THAT YOU
GAVE, MEMBER FROM GUELPH.
YOU WERE IN COMMITTEE, YOU HEARD
SOME OF THE THINGS.
YOU'VE TOUTED THE LEGAL EXPERTS
WHO WROTE THE LETTER.
ONE OF THOSE LEGAL EXPERTS
PRESENTED AT COMMITTEE AND
ADMITTED THAT SHE LOBBIED THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO NOT GIVE
COVID-19 SUPPORT TO CERTAIN
FARMERS AND THOSE SUPPORTS WERE
TO PAY FOR PPE.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT LEGAL
OPINION THAT SHE PUT FORWARD?
AND IF YOU DON'T, WHY SHOULD WE
BELIEVE HER OTHER LEGAL OPINION?
>> MEMBER FOR GUELPH.
>> THANK YOU.
TO MY COLLEAGUE OPPOSITE,
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
PROVIDING A LEGAL OPINION AND
PROVIDING A POLITICAL OPINION.
I DISAGREE WITH THIS PARTICULAR
PERSON'S POLITICAL OPINION, THAT
PPE FUNDING SHOULDN'T GO TO
FARMERS.
THAT'S A POLITICAL OPINION.
I DISAGREE WITH THAT POLITICAL
OPINION.
DOESN'T MEAN I'M NOT GOING TO
RESPECT THAT PARTICULAR LAWYER'S
LEGAL OPINION ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF BILL 156
WHERE THIS LAWYER AND 44 OTHERS
SIGN ADLER OUTLINING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS WITH
THIS BILL.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE LEGAL
PROFESSORS COME TO COMMITTEE,
SPEAKER, OUTLINING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS UNDER
SECTION 2 SPECIFICALLY OF THE
CHARTER THAT THIS BILL LIKELY
RESULTS.
THE LEGAL BATTLES THAT ARE GOING
TO RESULT FROM THIS BILL, I
BELIEVE, WILL HURT FARMERS AND
UNDERMINE THE PURPOSE OF THE
BILL.
>> THANK YOU.
FURTHER QUESTIONS?
MEMBER FOR SUDBURY.
>> THANK YOU, SPEAKER.
I THANK THE MEMBER OPPOSITE FOR
HIS COMMENTS.
RECENTLY WE HAD SOMEONE WHO
RECENTLY PREVIOUSLY WORKED FOR
LEGAL PROFESSION, CAME FROM A
FARM.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING
FARMERS FROM FEELING SAFE IN
THEIR HOME AND ALSO PROTECTING
FARMERS FROM LEGAL CHALLENGES
AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
CHALLENGES AND THE DAMAGE THAT
DOES TO THEIR PROFESSION AND THE
PERCEPTION PEOPLE HAVE OF HARD
WORKING FARMERS.
MAYBE SOMETHING YOU CAN COMMENT
ON AND TRY TO EXPLAIN.
>> The Speaker: MEMBER FOR
GUELPH.
>> I APPRECIATE THE MEMBER'S
QUESTION AND WHAT I WOULD SAY IS
IS THAT I HAD REALLY HOPED THAT
WE WOULD HAVE ALL PARTY SUPPORT
FOR THIS BILL.
BECAUSE WHEN I HEARD FROM SOME
OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
MEMBERS AND WHAT PEOPLE HEARD
FROM ME IS THAT WE RECOGNIZE
THAT TRESPASS LAWS ARE BROKEN IN
ONTARIO WHEN IT COMES TO
PROTECTING FARMERS.
AND PROCESSING FACILITIES.
I THINK ALL OF US COULD HAVE
AGREED ON A BILL THAT WOULD --
THAT INCREASED FINES WHICH THIS
BILL DOES.
I THINK YOU KNOW MOST OF US
SUPPORT THAT.
I THINK MOST OF US WOULD SUPPORT
OR ALL OF US WOULD SUPPORT
INCREASING LAW ENFORCEMENT,
MAYBE PROVIDING MORE RESOURCES
TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ENFORCE
THE LAW.
BUT THE CHARTER CHALLENGE THAT
WILL RESULT FROM THIS BILL WILL
UNDERMINE CONFIDENCE IN FARMING.
WE HAD UBC PROFESSOR PRESENT
SUCH RESEARCH.
BUT I'VE ALSO READ A LOT OF
OTHER RESEARCH FROM A VARIETY OF
RESEARCHERS ACROSS NORTH AMERICA
THAT HAS SHOWN HOW THESE TYPES
OF -- THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION
ACTUALLY UNDERMINES CONFIDENCE
IN FARMING AT A TIME WHEN WE
NEED INCREASED CONFIDENCE IN
FARMING.
>> MEMBER FROM PETERBOROUGH
KAWARTHAS.
>> TO THE MEMBER FROM GUELPH, WE
HAD A PRESENTER COME IN WHO'S
PART OF THIS GROUP OF LAWYERS
WHO WROTE THIS LETTER.
WHO DEMONSTRATED IN COMMITTEE
SHE HAD A DISTINCT BIAS AGAINST
SOME FARMERS.
DOES THE MEMBER FROM GUELPH NOT
THINK THAT SOMEONE WHO ADMITTED
TO HAVING A BIAS AGAINST FARMERS
WOULD NOT HAVE A BIAS WHEN IT
COMES TO LEGISLATION FOR
FARMERS?
>> The Speaker: MEMBER FOR
GUELPH.
>> THANK YOU, SPEAKER.
THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUE FOR
THE QUESTION.
HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE, SPEAKER.
WE HAD NUMEROUS LAWYERS, 45
LAWYERS SUBMIT A LETTER.
WE HAD LAW PROFESSORS SUBMIT A
LETTER.
WE HAD RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE DONE
RESEARCH INTO HOW THIS TYPE OF
LEGISLATION HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN
IN THE UNITED STATES.
AND THEN HAD A NEGATIVE EFFECT
ON THE PERCEPTION OF FARMERS,
YOU RECALL.
UNFORTUNATELY.
THIS ISN'T JUST ONE LEGAL
OPINION.
THIS IS NUMEROUS LEGAL OPINIONS.
IN ADDITION TO THE LAWYERS, WE
HAD ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING
JOURNALISTS TALK ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY PROBLEMS OF
THIS LAW, PARTICULARLY AS IT
RELATES TO WHISTLE BLOWER
PROTECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIVE
JOURNALISM.
SO IF THE MEMBER COULD TRY TO
DISBARGE THE REPUTATION OR
CREDIBILITY OF ONE PARTICULAR
WITNESS, THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH.
BUT THE OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF
OTHER LEGAL OPINIONS --
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
FURTHER QUESTIONS?
THE MEMBER FOR SCARBOROUGH
SOUTHWEST.
>> THANK YOU, SPEAKER.
THANK YOU TO THE SPEAKER
OPPOSITE FOR HIS POINTS.
I THINK YOU KNOW HE ECHOED A LOT
OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE
BY THE MEMBER FROM BRAMPTON EAST
AS WELL AS MEMBERS FROM
TEMISKAMING COCHRANE.
IN THE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW,
THIS BILL WHICH IS TITLED
PROTECTING FARMERS, AND WE --
I'M GLAD WE HAD COMMITTEE, I'M
GLAD PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO COME IN
AND ACTUALLY SPEAK THEIR MIND
BECAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF
POSITIVES AND NEGATIVES AND
THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRACY SHOULD BE.
SO MY QUESTION IS WHEN WE HEAR
FEEDBACK, WHEN YOU HAVE
AMENDMENTS, WHEN YOU HAVE GOOD
AMENDMENTS, WHY DIDN'T THE
GOVERNMENT MAKE THESE AMENDMENTS
THAT WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY
PROTECTED FARMERS IN EVERY WAY
POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE THAT THE
MEMBER FROM BRAMPTON EAST SO
ELOQUENTLY POINTED OUT.
THANK YOU, SPEAKER.
>> The Speaker: THE MEMBER
FROM GUELPH.
>> THANK YOU TO THE MEMBER FOR
THE QUESTION.
I CERTAINLY CAN'T PRETEND TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GOVERNMENT'S
THINKING IS ON THIS, I WISH I
KNEW BECAUSE, AGAIN, I
SUPPORTED, VOTED IN FAVOUR OF
THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL, SPOKE
IN FAVOUR OF THE PURPOSE OF THIS
BILL, LOVED TO WORK WITH THE
GOVERNMENT TO WORK OUT A WAY TO
PRODUCE A BILL THAT WOULD
PROTECT FARMERS AND FOOD
PROCESSORS, THAT WOULD
STRENGTHEN TRESPASS LAWS,
INCREASE FINES FOR TRESPASSING,
BUT DO IT IN A WAY THAT PROTECTS
PEOPLE'S CHARTERS RIGHTS AND
PROTECTS FARMERS FROM A CHARTER
CHALLENGE AND WHY WE WERE UNABLE
TO YOU KNOW ULTIMATELY, YOU
KNOW, REACH THAT BALANCE AND I
FEEL LIKE A NUMBER OF THEM THAT
WOULD HAVE REACHED THAT BALANCE,
YOU HAVE TO ASK THE MEMBERS
OPPOSITE IN THE NEXT ROUND OF
QUESTIONS.
>> The Speaker: THE
QUESTIONS -- MEMBER FOR
SCARBOROUGH SOUTHWEST.
>> THANK YOU, SPEAKER.
I WANT TO ASK THE MEMBER ABOUT
THE WHISTLE BLOWER COMPONENT OF
IT AND I THINK THAT'S THE PART
THAT OUR MEMBERS HAVE POINTED
OUT AS WELL.
YOU KNOW, TALKING ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF YOU
KNOW EVERY CITIZEN, BUT ALSO
FARMERS.
AND WHAT THE MEMBER FROM SUDBURY
POINTED OUT SO -- YOU KNOW, AN
IMPORTANT POINT WHICH WAS ARE WE
ACTUALLY PROTECTING THE FARMERS?
ARE WE ACTUALLY MAKING LAWS THAT
ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE HELD UP
IN THE COURTS?
SO I WANT TO HEAR THE MEMBER'S
POINT OF VIEW ON THAT.
>> The Speaker: MEMBER FOR
GUELPH.
>> YEAH, I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED
ABOUT THE WAY IN WHICH THIS BILL
VIOLATES WHISTLE BLOWER
PROTECTION.
WE HEARD FROM HUMANE CANADA, THE
HUMANE SOCIETIES ESSENTIALLY,
THEY WERE STRONG PROPONENTS OF
THE PAWS ACT BUT CAME TO
COMMITTEE WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
PASSED AND I BELIEVE WE ALL
VOTED FOR IT IF I'M NOT
MISTAKEN.
THEY'RE CONCERNED THAT A WORKER
GAINFULLY EMPLOYED, BEEN THERE A
YEAR OR TWO, THEY SEE ANIMAL
ABUSE FOR FIRST TIME -- THEY
COULD BE CHARGED POTENTIALLY AS
THAT BEING FALL PRETENSES, THAT
MAYBE SOMEHOW THEY LIED IN THEIR
APPLICATION OR SOMEHOW THEY GOT
HIRED UNDER SOME, YOU KNOW --
>> RESPONSE?
>> NEFARIOUS WAY.
SO IT WAS A CHILL ON THAT TYPE
OF WHISTLE BLOWER THAT I THINK
IS CRITICAL TO A FUNCTIONING
DEMOCRACY.
>> The Speaker: QUESTIONS,
MEMBER FOR CARLTON.
>> THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
I WANTED TO THANK THE MEMBER FOR
HIS STATEMENT TODAY AND IT'S
GREAT TO HAVE YOU ON THE STAND
HE COMMITTEE OF GENERAL
GOVERNMENT.
THE GOVERNMENT LOVES WORKING
WITH YOU TOO.
MY QUESTION YOU MENTION A LOT
ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE IN
AGRICULTURE AND HOW YOU COME
FROM A FARMING FAMILY.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE INTERESTED
TO KNOW, YOU KNOW FROM THE
FARMERS IN YOUR AREA AND MAYBE
YOUR PARENTS, YOU KNOW, DO YOUR
PARENTS WHO HAVE A FARMING
BACKGROUND, DO THEY BELIEVE
SOMEONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO LIE IN
ORDER TO GET ACCESS TO THEIR
PROPERTY AND LIVESTOCK?
WHAT YOUR PARENTS OR THE FARMERS
IN YOUR RIDING THINK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> The Speaker: THE MEMBER
FROM GUELPH.
>> APPRECIATE THAT.
SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT
NOBODY, NO FARMER I KNOW AND
NOBODY I BELIEVE IN THIS
LEGISLATURE BELIEVES IN UNLAWFUL
TRESPASSING ON FARMS.
BUT I WANT TO READ TO YOU THE
JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS OF THE
CBC.
I WANT TO QUOTE, WHEN THE
INVESTIGATION BEARS ON ILLEGAL
OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR OR ABUSE
OF TRUST, AND THE GATHERING OF
INFORMATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST,
THE JOURNALIST MAY NEED TO
INFILTRATE AN ORGANIZATION TO
GET FIRSTHAND INFORMATION.
THAT'S JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS.
THAT'S WHAT A DEMOCRACY IS BASED
ON, THE ABILITY TO INFORM T
