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.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Various dairy and pork producers in Quebec have lived through such experiences. As a group, the Union des producteurs agricoles is very well aware that Bill C‑205 may be passed. Do they look favourably on that?

[Marcel Groleau]

Exactly.

I would also like to bring up the point by saying that Bill C‑205 is certainly not about protecting farming families. It is about protecting the health and well-being of the animals. I feel that is important, and you in the federal government have the tool with which you can respond. If your response is for the health and well-being of the herd, you will also be protecting the health of farming families.

As for the stress, we as farmers are all concerned that it may happen to us. It's inevitable. No one can predict when or how it will happen, but we know that it can happen to us. We are under that stress as well.

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

I'm asking that question because I think the police have a very good understanding of what trespassing is: being unlawfully present on private property and not leaving when the owner says to leave. The CFIA is an organization that intimately understands the concept of biosecurity. They have already testified before this committee that if Bill C-205 were to come into effect, they would not have the resources to take on the added responsibility.

How do we fix that? If Bill C-205 does become part of the Health of Animals Act, how do we fix the situation if police decide to apply charges? Would they need to have CFIA officials with them to give them an understanding of biosecurity? I'm wondering if you have a solution to how we fix the resource problem in implementing the law and enforcing it.

[Darren Ference]

We're talking about the trespass that occurred here. The trespassing bill had not yet been brought forward in Alberta. It was brought in afterward because of this circumstance. Then you could have the “no trespassing” sign, but people could come in from any point. Before it, the farmer who was trespassed against had to press the charges and be convinced to press the charges. There was no distinct law to automatically charge people without the farmer pressing charges.

It's important to have these laws in place to set things out so that if you violate them, you have to go. The law in Alberta now has stronger penalties toward the organization that organizes trespasses, and it's very similar to Bill C-205. It's important that we get consistency across the country. I was listening earlier to some of the chicken farmers. You don't want people to go to an easier spot to target farms.

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

I have one last question, and I'll give it to you, Darren. Don't feel that I'm picking on you here, but this question was asked already of Marcel. Mr. Barlow explained in his testimony to the committee on May 6, 2021, that protecting the mental health of farmers was a key motivation for introducing Bill C-205. I wanted you to touch on this. If enacted, would this bill improve the mental health of farmers? If so, how?

[Darren Ference]

I don't believe that any of the current trespassing laws in the national.... I know Alberta has brought in a new trespassing law that very much mirrors or is very similar to this bill, but this bill protects us right across the country and doesn't expose certain farmers and protect other farmers.

I think it's important to have a national one that covers nationally, which Bill C-205 will do.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for everybody's testimony.

I think, from the stories we're hearing from Mr. Ference and Mr. Groleau, you understand why this legislation is so important, not only for biosecurity but for the mental health of our farmers as well.

Mr. Ference, I'll start with you.

Mr. Tschetter is a constituent, and I know how this impacted him and his family. You mentioned something that I thought was really quite interesting, and we heard this from the chicken farmers in the previous panels as well. We're seeing these incidents of activism increase, but these activists—it happened in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec as well—were the ones who actually phoned the RCMP, because they knew the consequences would be minimal if anything. To me it shows that the current system we have right now is not suitable. There isn't enough of a deterrent.

Do you see the fines and penalties within Bill C-205 as a strong enough deterrent to send a message to those activist groups and those people who are doing these actions and unlawfully protesting on private property?

[Marcel Groleau, General President, Union des producteurs agricoles]

Committee members, Mr. Chair, we are also very pleased to have been invited to testify before you.

Rather than dealing with aspects of health and biosecurity, given that that has already been fully discussed and that there has been a good deal of eloquent testimony since this committee began its work on the issue, let me instead tell you about one particular case.

Two years ago, an incursion took place on a pig farm, Les Porgreg Inc. I am going to tell you about the consequences of that incursion for the company. First of all, people came to a production site with no houses nearby. They were therefore able to get in easily without being seen. They arrived early one morning. The doors to the building were locked, but they managed to find one that enabled them to get in. Once they were in, they opened all the other doors. It was in the winter, so it was cold and they let the temperature inside the building drop. That morning, they also prevented the animals from being fed. In addition, they put water in the generator's gas tank. Naturally, no one noticed that until the gas was analyzed.

After publishing photographs of the consequences of that incursion, the Grégoire family received threats. They were affected psychologically, because people from all around the world were sending them threats and insults.

After the incursion, the mortality rate in the herd increased and some sows had to be aborted. The family also had difficulty in insuring their company again. The insurer did not want to renew their policy. The Union des producteurs agricoles intervened and we put pressure on the insurer to continue the company's level of insurance.

It all had consequences for the company, which suffered significant losses. To be compensated, it will have to sue the demonstrators and try to prove that the losses incurred were really caused by the incursion. This will be very difficult to do. That is why it's important for Bill C‑205 to be passed and for the consequences for demonstrators entering farms to be increased. The young woman who described it at the press conference was still crying as a result, several weeks after the incident.

The consequences are therefore extremely difficult for producers going through situations of this kind. Those who perpetrate the incursions suffer few consequences, simply because no legislation involves a penalty for the incursions when damage cannot be proved. They are given a little slap on the wrist and asked not to do it again. But the current laws in Quebec provide for no serious consequences for incursions into a farm or a residence when no vandalism takes place or when no offences can be proved.

Recently, in the Estrie, there was also an incursion on a dairy farm. That case involved two individuals who tried to free the cows and send them outside. The farm was close to the road and there was no fence. What happens if a cow is hit by a vehicle? What happens if a child is injured in such a collision? I don't need to paint you a picture of the aftermath of a collision with a cow.

That is why incursions must absolutely be censured. Hence the importance of the bill that you are currently studying and the fines that it provides for the offence.

Setting all the issues of biosecurity aside, just think of the human beings who are the victims of these incursions. There truly is a human cost.

In conclusion, may I suggest that Bill C‑205 simplify the proposal for section 9.1 in the Health of Animals Act to make it even clearer—

[Darren Ference, Chair of the Board, Turkey Farmers of Canada]

Thank you. On behalf of the Turkey Farmers of Canada, I'd like to thank you for the invitation to appear before the House of Commons standing committee regarding Bill C-205.

I'm Darren Ference, and I own and operate a turkey and chicken operation in Alberta. I also raise cattle and crop about 3,500 acres of crops. I have represented Alberta at the Turkey Farmers of Canada since 2013 and was elected chair in 2018.

I'm joined here with Phil Boyd today. He's the executive director of the Turkey Farmers of Canada.

Today, TFC would like to show our support for Bill C-205, introduced by MP John Barlow. We feel the bill will help prevent unlawful entry to farms and breaching of biosecurity protocols and in doing so protect Canadian farmers against the negative ramifications of activism on the farm. This is an issue that has become increasingly prevalent and of concern for many turkey farmers and the whole agriculture industry.

About one and a half years ago, a turkey farmer in Alberta entered his barn to find over 30 individuals from an activist organization had broken in. Additionally, the activists had made sure that the RCMP and press were called and were on site. This was a huge shock to the farmer. Imagine if you woke up in the morning to find a group of strangers sitting at your kitchen table or showed up to work and had them sitting all around your office on the floor.

Despite being on private property and breaching biosecurity protocols, the group demanded turkeys to be released to them before they would leave. The turkey farmer handled the situation well, being open and honest and pointed out the on-farm programs in place for the welfare of birds.

However, the situation was difficult for both the farmer and the turkeys in his care and points to the absolute importance of this bill.

Break-ins not only breach farm biosecurity but also negatively impact the farmers and their farm families and have ramifications on their feeling of safety and well-being. Canadian turkey farmers take great care to ensure the humane treatment of our turkeys while providing safe, high-quality food to consumers. As mentioned, the Canadian turkey industry has two mandatory on-farm programs that ensure Canadian turkey is raised with rigorous standards of food safety and animal welfare. Both these programs are reviewed annually and audited by qualified on-farm auditors.

The TFC on-farm food safety program focuses on controlling pathogens on-farm, minimizing disease transmissions to turkey flocks, and ensures that marketed turkeys are free of medication and other chemical residues. This program received full government recognition under the CFIA food safety recognition program, showing national consistency in terms of food safety [Technical difficulty—Editor]

The TFC flock care program is recognized as following the NFACC animal care assessment framework. The process involves a diverse range of stakeholders that, among many others, includes researchers, veterinarians and animal welfare group representation.

This program verifies Canadian turkey farmers' commitment to ensuring the proper care and respectful treatment of our birds and that the programs are reviewed by a third party process, including third party audits. The finding of the third party auditors has consistently been that the national flock care program was implemented effectively and maintained on an ongoing basis and that the animal care measures are consistently applied.

These on-farm programs lay out strict biosecurity procedures applicable to farm personnel and visitors to prevent the spread of disease in barns and to meet animal welfare and food safety standards. This includes signage on the farm, locking barns, foot and clothing biosecurity and the tracking of visitors. Those trespassing on farms are putting these protocols at risk, potentially exposing the turkeys to unknown pathogens and increased stress.

Farmers take great care to maintain the atmosphere in the barns to keep birds safe and barns clean and to mitigate stressors. When individuals enter a farm property without authorization, they are directly risking the health and the welfare of these birds in the barn.

In conclusion, I would like to once again express my appreciation of the invitation to appear before the AGRI committee. I must reiterate the importance of the bill for our industry and I would ask the members of the agriculture committee to carefully consider it.

We recognize some provinces are undertaking work in this regard; however, national consistency is very important to ensure all farmers across Canada receive the same protection.

[Jorge Correa, Vice-President, Market Access and Technical Affairs, Canadian Meat Council]

Thank you very much.

The Canadian Meat Council, or CMC, would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on private member's Bill C-205, introduced by member of Parliament John Barlow. It would address the issues of safeguarding the biosecurity of Canadian farms and the safety of the food supply.

For over a century, the CMC has represented Canada's federally licensed meat packers, meat processors and goods and services suppliers for the meat industry. The Canadian red meat industry represents over $20 billion to the Canadian economy and supports 280,000 jobs across Canada.

We agree with the premise of this bill that protecting Canada's food supply is critical. Viruses such as African swine fever; classical swine fever; bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE; foot-and-mouth disease and avian influenza pose a real threat to Canadian agriculture. These biosecurity threats can decimate herds and flocks and devastate our industries and economy. Strengthening biosecurity measures for trespassers is something farmers, ranchers, food processors and farm groups all support.

The safety of food is vital to all consumers and food businesses. For the meat industry, food safety is a priority. We want consumers to be confident that the meat they buy and eat is what they expect and that it will cause them no harm.

Food safety starts at the farm and continues through the whole harvesting process so that manufacturing companies can ensure that the meat has not compromised food safety. Providing any unsuitable foods or liquids to livestock at any stage of the harvesting process may result in intentional contamination of a food product that may cause harm to the consumer or to a private company.

There has also been a series of provincial legislation that addresses the safety risks of people interfering with livestock in transport by prohibiting stopping, obstructing or interfering with a motor vehicle transporting farm animals. Some provinces have in place, or are in the process of adopting, a trespass and protecting food safety act to protect food supply, farmers, agri-food businesses and farm animals from the risk of trespass activities.

The Canadian meat industry is the most intensely regulated and inspected industry in the world, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors are present during every minute of operation to ensure compliance on the handling of livestock, from unloading and through the harvesting process, to make sure that food safety regulations are followed. The meat industry is exceeding animal welfare and food safety regulations, as those are essential for the sustainability of our industry. If CFIA identifies humane handling or food safety problems, it may result in the issuance of corrective actions required, or if any significant problems are flagged, they can pursue plant operation suspension and administrative monetary penalties.

Meat plants not only work to meet federal regulations but also support the on-farm codes of practice under the National Farm Animal Care Council. Its employees are trained and certified under the Canadian Livestock Transport certification program or other similar U.S. certification programs. The supply chain from farm to slaughter has guidelines and certifications to maintain high animal welfare standards and the necessary biosecurity and food safety practices to protect those food animals from disease or contaminants under the on-farm food safety programs.

Animal agriculture production is the basis of our industry, and the biosecurity of these farms and ranches must be protected. Protestors interfering in the operations of farms, transporters or food processing businesses can lead to serious unintended consequences that endanger the animals they seek to protect. It's important to ensure that the animals that enter our supply chain are healthy and not exposed to outside factors. This ensures that our members can continue to safeguard the meat we produce and continue to provide the world and Canadians with the safe, nutritious meat they expect from our industry.

In brief, the Canadian Meat Council and its members are in support of Bill C-205 and the proposed amendments that would provide increased security to allow our members to operate without the danger of outside interference by well-meaning protestors or activists. Such interference is a danger to the food animals, the professional workers in the supply chain, the food products and potentially the protestors themselves.

I will finish with that, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you for contributing in any case.

I'll go back to the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

When BillC-205 makes reference to the entrance to a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept, do you think there might be some confusion if, say, farm protesters made it onto a farm but did not come anywhere close to where animals are kept? I'm trying to find a possibility of where federal jurisdiction might run into provincial jurisdiction if no one really knows where they're in charge.

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

Professor Weese, can I turn the same question to you and ask you to compare what BillC-205's language involves to the parent act? In the parent act, it's quite broad. It says “no person shall”, full stop, whereas in this existing Bill C-205, it says “No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse”.

Do you have any comments on the differences in language?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I beg the committee's pardon, because I missed all of the opening statements and questions, so I'm kind of flying blind here on what's already been discussed. I beg your pardon on that.

I'll start with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

When you look at existing provisions of the Health of Animals Act, specifically under the prohibitions in section 8 on the concealment of the existence of a reportable disease and the keeping of diseased animals, and then under section 9 on bringing diseased animals to market, you see that these existing provisions of the federal statute broadly refer to anyone. It could be a person. It could be the farmer. It could be an employee. Bill C-205 is expressly making reference to a person “without lawful authority or excuse”.

I'm wondering what you think about the language of Bill C-205 when you compare it to existing sections of the parent act that it is seeking to amend. Do you have any comments on that?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

A couple of witnesses and Mr. de Graaf had mentioned that maybe sometimes activists aren't aware of the harms they could be perpetrating on the animals when they're coming into barns and the stress they're bringing.

Do you think Bill C-205 would actually help educate some of the activists on some of the dangers they do bring forward with some of the activism that's taken place on farms across the country?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today on Bill C-205, which we believe is a very important bill.

Mr. de Graaf, you mentioned the fact that you guys have already implemented the Raised by a Canadian Farmer animal care program. We know that it's credible and science-based, but is it static or is it ever-changing and evolving as your industry evolves? Can you answer that for me?