Bill C-205 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act

This enactment amends the Health of Animals Act to make it an offence to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.

[Pierre Lampron]

I want to make clear that Bill C‑205 is a very important step to give farmers long-term peace of mind. As was mentioned, this is long awaited. To feed people, we need healthy animals, and this bill helps us keep animals healthy.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Lampron, do you think Bill C‑205, the way it's currently written, will have the same impact?

[Pierre-Luc Leblanc]

It is essential that the bill become law, in our view. That is a must. Laws are made to be improved. Time will tell how the law changes, but as things stand, Bill C‑205 has to pass. Not only do farmers need protecting, but so do their chickens and turkeys. In the end, it's about protecting animal welfare.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you for that answer.

At the end of his testimony, Mr. Leblanc touched on mental health for farmers.

I'd like to ask this question to the dairy farmers, and this is coming, I guess, even from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Do you believe that Bill C-205 addresses critical issues such as mental health?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Do you think Bill C‑205 establishes a robust enough framework for police, whether it be the RCMP or Quebec provincial police, to respond quickly?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Weins.

Mr. Leblanc, good afternoon again.

We realize that the poultry farming sector has some vulnerabilities. Your biosecurity standards are very stringent. Do you think the fines prescribed by Bill C‑205 are stiff enough to deter people from trespassing on farms?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to the witnesses. My thanks to them for joining us today to talk about Bill C‑205.

My first question goes to Mr. Lampron or Mr. Wiens, from Dairy Farmers of Canada.

At your symposium in 2020, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that break-ins were unacceptable. Can you tell us today whether you have had any discussions with the Minister on the issue since February 2020? What is her approach to it?

[Pierre-Luc Leblanc, President, Les Éleveurs de volailles du Québec]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

First of all, on behalf of the 731 chicken and turkey farmers in Quebec whom we represent, I would like to thank the committee for providing us this opportunity today to express our views on Bill C‑205. As proposed, it is an important piece of legislation that seeks to better protect our birds from the enormous risks and consequences of incursions onto farms.

First, allow me to say a few words about our organization. The members of the Éleveurs de volailles du Québec are 650 chicken farmers and 157 turkey farmers who raise their birds with care and in compliance with strict food safety and animal welfare standards. In Quebec alone, the poultry industry supports almost 30,000 direct and indirect jobs, representing $2 billion in annual gross domestic product. Our industry is therefore a major driver of the dynamism and economic vitality of our regions and communities.

Our main goal in appearing before you today is to give you a clearer idea of the considerable risks that break-ins on animal farms like ours can have. Trespassing by individuals or groups can have very serious impacts on the health and well-being of the animals, and on humans in economic terms. It can affect not only the farmers but also our society as a whole.

The first risks are to the animals' health and well-being, which are put in danger. We have rigorous standards to protect biosecurity and the well-being of the chickens and turkeys we raise. Since 2009, these programs, which are recognized by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, have been continually improved to meet the demands of Canadians. Quebec’s chicken and turkey farmers work hard every day to comply with these programs, including when suppliers need to enter the production site and the buildings where the birds are housed.

You can probably guess that trespassing on a poultry farm therefore directly jeopardizes all these measures that all Quebec farmers take to maintain farming standards that are among the highest in the world. You should also know that farmed birds, especially turkeys, are sensitive to stress caused by intrusions into their living space. This stress can lead the birds to huddle, causing injuries and even many deaths by asphyxia. A weaker immune system and a disruption of their watering and feeding habits are also possible. The stress caused by trespassing on poultry farms can quickly lead to a loss of 10% to 20% of the birds caused by the huddling and the disruption.

Other effects can be seen over the medium term. Diseases may result if biosecurity measures are not followed. Indeed, a series of diseases, including avian influenza, infectious laryngotracheitis and mycoplasmosis, can be introduced, even inadvertently, by humans entering a farm without observing a rigorous protocol of biosecurity rules. Let us not forget that avian influenza is a reportable disease because of its substantial potential impact on human and animal health and, in the event of large-scale spread, on the Canadian economy.

If a disease is introduced through trespassing without the farmer being aware of it, the infection may have time to spread more widely before mitigating actions are taken. This further complicates the work of health authorities and raises the associated costs. If a disease is introduced, it can also lead to the requirement for humane slaughter, an unfortunate decision that runs counter to the chicken and turkey farmers' commitment to supply the Canadian market with food.

The third major risk of farm break-ins is financial loss. To properly understand what an outbreak of a disease can do, we need only read the report prepared by the Équipe québécoise de contrôle des maladies avicoles on the outbreak of infectious avian laryngotracheitis that occurred on 10 farms in Bellechasse and the Beauce from May 18 to July 28, 2010. The outbreak, which began in a single poultry barn, affected no fewer than five municipalities. It affected 20 poultry barns on 17 farms in the region, or more than 50% of the poultry barns in the entire region. A total of 1.8 million chicks had to be vaccinated in two consecutive lots following the infected lot. In addition to the increased mortality and condemnation in the infected lots of birds, a number of expensive measures had to be carried out, increasing the overall cost to the industry by more than $1.8 million.

It is also worth noting that Quebec poultry farms have specialized equipment to optimize growing conditions and bird welfare. However, this equipment is expensive and, if it is damaged during a break‑in, resulting in no ventilation or heating, the farm could suffer serious consequences, including the total loss of whole lots of birds.

Finally, we must not forget that human beings are behind every operation. The fear of being the target of a break‑in is very real among our members, and the stress that this can cause may be traumatic for the targeted farmer.

[Pierre Lampron]

Thank you, Mr. Wiens.

Bill C-205 is one more step in the right direction. We believe that that the wording of the bill could be strengthened to provide our animals with better protection.

In our opinion, enthusiasm or lack of knowledge should not be used as excuses when animal health is at stake. This must therefore be removed from Bill C-205. The result of doing so would be to ensure that the bill achieves its objective, which is to protect animals from toxic substances, dangerous pathogens and excessive stress.

In addition, we believe that the bill should also protect animals from all individuals or organizations who help others to contravene the legislation. In reality, unauthorized access to farms is often linked to organizations that suffer no legal consequences as a result of their actions.

Dairy Farmers of Canada are emphatically demanding that the government and all political parties support Bill C-205 with the amendments previously proposed. Passing this bill would guarantee that all livestock is protected against unauthorized access to farms, thereby reducing the risk of dangerous diseases among the animals. The legislation would also provide a legal framework that would strengthen the measures that dairy producers are already taking to protect the health of their animals under the proAction program.

Thank you. We will be glad to answer your questions.

[Pierre Lampron, President, Dairy Farmers of Canada]

Good afternoon, everyone. I am pleased to be here with you again today, on behalf of all the dairy farmers of Canada. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our point of view on Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

As you said, my name is Pierre Lampron, and I am the President of Dairy Farmers of Canada. With me are my Vice-President, David Wiens, and our Special Advisor, Érik Tremblay.

As Canada's dairy farmers, we are essential to the Canadian food supply chain. Our job, to feed the country, would not be possible without our animals. Their health and well-being, therefore, are very important for us.

Using our mandatory program called proAction, dairy farmers work every day to produce quality milk that meets the highest standards in the world. The six areas that our proAction program covers include animal care and biosecurity. Both are in peril when visitors from the outside do not follow the appropriate protocols.

I will now hand over to my colleague, David Wiens.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

If I understand correctly, many solutions already exist and they do not include breaking onto a farm to verify a situation.

Let me finish with this question. In your opinion, Ms. Pritchard, if Bill C‑205 is not passed, what will be the repercussions for agriculture?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Ms. Pritchard, you have talked a lot about those who participate in these invasions. People have told us that we must spare a thought for whistleblowers. We have received a number of briefs from those saying that Bill C‑205 is a gag order that would hamper freedom of expression and prevent people who suspect mistreatment from becoming involved.

Could you explain the processes that already exist? For example, if people suspect an operation of mistreating its animals, are they really forced to break in? What other means can they use to report their suspicions?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

Moving on, then, to how we might administer such a law should it come into place, my understanding is that the RCMP has livestock units, particularly in western Canada. Is that something the CFIA could leverage in its administration of a potential law such as Bill C-205?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I look forward to saying, “Thank you, Mr. Chair,” many more times yet, but given your recent announcement, I hope that our bonding opportunities over our favourite vegetable—which of course we know is a fruit—will not be cut short.

We'll go on to the testimony.

Dr. Pritchard, thanks for being here with us today. We very much appreciate it.

We've heard in previous testimony that there are a number of vectors for how disease could come onto a farm. Obviously, Bill C-205 is dealing with one particular vector, and it's in that vein that we have heard some conflicting testimony.

We've heard one witness explain that human beings need to have close, prolonged contact with animals to transmit a disease to them, and that scientific literature provides very little evidence that farm trespassers have transmitted pathogens to animals. Conversely, though, we've also heard from Dr. Jean-Pierre Vaillancourt at the University of Montreal, from Scott Weese at the University of Guelph, from Dr. Brian Evans and from Dr. Henry Ceelen that there are very real risks of transmission. You've alluded to that in your testimony.

To me, this is something that's at the basis of how a law to combat this needs to be solid. I wonder if I could solicit your opinion as to if there are real risks here, or are they just perceived risks?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Dr. Pritchard, during that time, in the conversations you had with the minister of agriculture and other departmental officials, did you ever discuss any shortcomings with the existing Health of Animals Act? Did you see a gap that Bill C-205 is now trying to fill, at that time?