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.

[David Duval, President, Les Éleveurs de porcs du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen members of the House, good afternoon.

I am extremely pleased to appear before you today to represent Quebec pork producers and to speak to you about the issues related to the bill, which should be passed.

Our organization represents more than 1,700 producers, who market seven million processed hogs in Quebec per year. Quebec is the largest pork producing province, and our sector is the second largest agri-food sector in Quebec. Hog production in Quebec contributes $1.13 billion annually to GDP and generates $1.8 billion in farm gate sales. Hog farms employ some 14,000 people, and more than 30,000 families make their living from the Quebec pork industry. Quebec farmers are proud to meet 80% of the local demand for fresh meat, with Quebec's self-sufficiency rate for pork at around 400%. By comparison, the self-sufficiency rate for blueberries is about 300%, for cranberries it is 490%, and for maple syrup 1300%.

We are therefore very proud to export most of our production to other countries, mainly to countries where natural resources cannot allow for sustainable farming like ours in Quebec. Between 2009 and 2020, the value of Quebec's pork exports rose from $975 million to $2.1 billion. This is an impressive average annual growth rate of 7.25%.

This is in keeping with the Zero Hunger Challenge and the Responsible Consumption and Production goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda, to which Canada has signed on. All of this is to tell you that the pork industry and other agricultural industries in Canada are extremely important and must be protected by legislation.

Of course, hog producers face many risks, as we heard earlier, risks involving diseases that must be avoided at all costs. I don't know if any of you have ever visited a hog farm, but in most cases, not just anyone can enter. Before entering, you have to sign a register. You must change your boots and clothes, shower, keep to a sanitary area and respect the biosecurity rules, as well as animal welfare inside the farm. These rules are important. It took several years to put them in place with the different stakeholders who supported us in this regard.

So the biosecurity rules are very much present and very much followed. It's mainly about the health of the animals. On the farm, the pigs' environment is calm and stress-free. Welfare standards even recommend toys and music for the animals.

When a group of agitated people rush inside our farms, the animal is definitely experiencing stress. This does not just apply to pigs. It's the same for rabbits and other animals, which can even die instantly when people who ignore these rules enter these farms. So the consequences of breaking and entering are many. The stress on the producers is also enormous, as we saw recently on a farm. I personally know the family that operates that farm, a young family that just got into pork production in 2019.

However, the law doesn't see it that way, not in Quebec nor in other provinces. If you look at the laws in Quebec and in some Canadian provinces, you don't find anything that deals specifically with livestock. We have to try to defend ourselves with general laws in the Criminal Code or the Civil Code, and that is extremely difficult and costly for us.

This bill sends a clear message, from coast to coast: you don't go onto a farm without permission, period. It's not a matter of whether the farmer has put up a sign, put up a gate, or locked his doors. You don't have the right to enter a farm, it doesn't happen without permission.

This bill is essential and is in line with the demands made by hog farmers in Quebec and Canada, and by my colleagues in all other agricultural sectors over the years.

We also need to think about the threat posed by African swine fever. This is a disease that has decimated half of China's livestock industry in recent years. In Quebec, it would be devastating, as it would be throughout Canada.

It was mostly international travellers who contaminated farms in the rest of the world, whether in Germany, Belgium or elsewhere.

We need to be extremely careful. A single case detected in Canada would jeopardize the survival of Canada's 7,000 pork producers. Quebec and Canada would lose an important economic sector, and achieving various objectives would become very difficult.

This disease is just one example of why unauthorized entries into a farm should be regulated in the manner proposed by Bill C-205.

This legislative proposal is essential to the survival of a strong and economically important agricultural sector.

Thank you for your attention.

[René Roy, First Vice-Chair of the Board of Directors, Canadian Pork Council]

Thank you, Rick.

Our investments in time, energy and money are not enough to prevent unauthorized entries. Bill C-205 provides a means to deter trespassers who might expose animals to unnecessary stress, potential disease or toxic substances.

We underscore our commitment to being transparent with consumers in Canada and around the world. Transparency is essential for consumers to have confidence in how pork is produced, including ensuring that producers are living up to the high standards they set for animal health and welfare.

Bill C-205 is not an attempt to limit transparency on our farms but an attempt to protect animal health and welfare. We regularly speak to Canadians from coast to coast. We make it one of our top priorities to answer all people’s questions about how pork is produced, including questions on animal welfare.

Passing Bill C-205 will provide confidence to producers that their animals will not be put at risk by illegal trespassers who do not care or respect pigs, their health and welfare, and the health and welfare of their family pork producers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Rick Bergmann, Chair of the Board of Directors, Canadian Pork Council]

Thank you for that.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the House of Commons. Bill C-205 is very important for Canadian pork producers. My name is Rick Bergmann. I'm a producer from Manitoba, and today I'm joined by René Roy, a producer from Quebec.

The Canadian Pork Council’s on-farm program, called Canadian pork excellence, is based on HACCP principles. Food safety and biosecurity are all intertwined, and the adoption of stringent biosecurity protocols is a vital component of every producer’s plan to keep their animals healthy and safe.

Pork producers are investing significant amounts of money to improve infrastructure, including significant improvements in barns, traceability and measures to limit who can access a hog barn, all to improve biosecurity controls. At the end of the day, the focus is to keep animals safe.

Still, unauthorized entries onto our hog farms are one of the greatest threats to biosecurity. Over the past several years, as I'm sure is not new to you, we have seen an alarming increase in unauthorized entry on farms, with individuals illegally entering our barns and other farm properties. That is very disturbing. These incidents put us, animals, and the entire food supply at risk. The reason we have so many stringent controls over the access to our barns is to reduce the devastating risks that several diseases could have for the industry.

Using my own farm as an example, a disease like PED or PRRS would cost my farm, which is not a large farm, between $260,000 and $320,000, very significant money, a significant cost and detriment.

The most concerning is African swine fever, which is an industry-killing disease. The cost of responding to and recovering from an ASF outbreak would be measured in billions of dollars for all our producers combined. Biosecurity is our best defence against the disease, and unauthorized entries put us all at risk.

I invite René Roy, my colleague, to say a few words at this time.

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

Thank you.

Dr. Stark, our committee did receive a letter from Humane Canada, an organization that I'm sure you are very well aware of and have worked with over your many years of service. Of course, it is the federation of all the SPCA organizations across Canada. It has written a letter stating quite clearly that it is against Bill C-205.

Do you have any comment on when an organization that is tasked with enforcing animal welfare on farms comes out against the bill we are studying? Do you have any comment to add to that, or does that elicit any reaction from you?

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

Thank you for that.

Bill C-205, in that first clause, makes reference to “a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept”.

In your mind, if we had a hypothetical scenario where protestors did gain access to a farm property but did not come anywhere close to animals, is that where provincial laws would be applicable and not this federal act? I guess that's where the jurisdictional waters have the potential of being muddied in that hypothetical situation.

Do you have any comments on that?

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

Thank you for that clarification.

Across Canada, as you know, we have had some instances on farms—notably, mink farms —where it's been employees who have accidentally brought in a disease to the animals. They were there with lawful authority and excuse, and through their actions—they may not have been following proper protocols—they accidentally transferred a disease to the population.

Bill C-205 uses that language of being there with “lawful authority or excuse”.

Do you think there's room to amend this bill so that employees are held to the same standards, or if that's not in your view the correct path to take, what should we be doing to ensure that standards are uniform, whether you're a protester or a farm employee?

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to both of our witnesses for helping us with our understanding of Bill C-205.

Mr. Currie, maybe I will start with you.

In your opening statement you used the word “trespass” a lot, and you mentioned that activists have become a lot bolder in their activities. A lot of these acts have now transgressed to break and enter, property damage and so on.

In your mind, do you think Bill C-205 is primarily designed to stop trespassing, or biosecurity? Which comes top of mind for you as the priority of the bill?

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

In your opinion, if Bill C-205 were passed as it stands, would its enforcement cause problems, or would it be easy to apply?

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

Thank you very much for the clarifications.

Ms. Stark, you are appearing today in your personal capacity. Do you think it would be a good idea to pass Bill C-205?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us and for giving us their time at this meeting.

Mr. Currie, there are obviously a host of questions I would like to ask. You have proposed that section 9.1 of Bill C-205 be amended. Could you repeat what you proposed?

If I understand correctly, you are proposing to remove the part that says “[...] knowing that or being reckless as to whether entering such a place could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease [...]”, because someone could claim that they didn't know there was a risk, and not be subject to a fine. Did I understand correctly?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see so many of my agriculture committee colleagues once again. Welcome to Mr. Fillmore as well.

Mr. Currie, I'd like to start with you if that's okay. I appreciate your testimony here. What we heard at the last meeting was CFIA officials' saying that enforcing Bill C-205 would be difficult with current resources. I think what the CFIA failed to mention during their testimony is that the burden is not entirely on them. They have the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is is something that they are doing already. There are enforcement officials at CFIA, which include inspectors and veterinary inspectors as part of the CFIA legislation. It also includes the enforcement and investigation service investigators who are already doing this type of work.

To go with your testimony, Mr. Currie, I would believe that if this pandemic has shown us anything, it's that when something is prioritized by the government and officials are given the right direction, what is sometimes considered a difficult problem certainly becomes possible. Would you not agree with how important this issue is and that the federal government should show leadership on this issue, and not just defer this to the provinces when it's convenient to do so? This is something that the federal government needs to show leadership on.

[Keith Currie, First Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee members.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, and its members understand the critical importance of maintaining a safe and reliable food supply and protecting the safety of those who feed us. As such, CFA is in support of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

Farmers and ranchers work hard to provide a safe and sustainable food supply for all Canadians. It is becoming increasingly difficult for farmers and agricultural owners to effectively produce food, fibre and fuel due to ever-increasing trespassing events. Farms and farming operations have come under increasing threat from trespassers and activists who illegally enter property, barns and buildings, which cause significant disruptions to the entire agri-food sector.

Once-peaceful protests have now escalated into trespassing, invasions, breaking and entering into barns and other livestock facilities, theft, and harassment. The issue has now evolved to activities that create potential damage and liability far beyond the traditional, such as biosecurity breaches on livestock operations. Biosecurity breaches of crop production operations often go unnoticed. There is food tampering, damage from people intruding in confined spaces and impacting the welfare of animals; activists moving animals off site; and sit-ins and protests around processing plants. We see the obstruction of trucks and drivers hauling our livestock to and from farm and livestock processing facilities, as well as the release of animals from production facilities for fur bearing animals and hogs, for example. There is trespassing and intrusive behaviour on fish farms.

These incidents distress farmers, their families and employees and threaten the health of livestock and crops. When activists breach biosecurity protocols, this ultimately puts the entire food system at risk. While current trespassing laws, regulations, fines and penalties may have been adequate to deal with nuisance trespassing in years past, the current new era of activism sees well-orchestrated and planned events that result in uninvited and unwelcome trespassers on farm properties, yards, buildings and processing plants. The number of people with a specific focused agenda are increasing at an alarming rate. It's intended to cause economic stress for the producer.

While trespassing laws are typically under the jurisdiction of provinces, often provincial statutes are not enough of a deterrent for people who commit trespass offences. Bill C-205 will complement provincial legislation as an indicator of the severity of these offences and that protecting the agri-food industry is critical. Charges, when laid, are often dropped by the court system as they are considered minor infractions.

While the CFA does support the passage of this bill—and we urge all parliamentarians to get behind it—we do have some suggestions for some changes.

The proposed section 9.1 of the bill currently reads:

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

This seems to indicate that unless you are fully aware that you are willfully reckless, the violation is excusable. A recent incident on an Ottawa-area mink farm where somebody had broke in and entered had the judge acquit them of a mischief charge because, although they entered the building illegally, no harm came to the animals. In the judge's mind, there was no violation.

We would like to see that change, so that it says that no person “without lawful authority, enter a building or an enclosed place in which animals are kept, to prevent the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them”. As well, add in anyone “who aids or abets” someone in this should “be considered party to that contravention”.

As you heard Dr. Stark mention, mental health is becoming a big issue around activism. Farmers already face a wide variety of daily stressors that affect their mental wellness, whether it be weather, environment, market fluctuations, farm labour and social isolation, just to name a few. Trespass and activism are now an additional growing source of stress. Continuing to allow on-farm trespassing and barn break-ins to occur is not only threatening the viability of Canadian agriculture, but also posing a serious threat to farmers' mental health and well-being.

Bill C-205 recognizes the mental health crisis in agriculture and aims to support farmers and farming businesses by introducing new protections against trespassing and biosecurity breaches.

I should also add that livestock transporters and processing facilities are also under a similar tremendous mental stress from activism and activists.

I'll leave it at that, and I'll close, leaving more time for our witnesses to ask questions of me. I look forward to the conversation.

Thank you.

[Dr. Deb Stark, As an Individual]

Great. Thank you very much.

I am pleased to accept the invitation to appear before this committee as you consider Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

I want to start by emphasizing that I'm here because I was invited and I wish to be helpful. It's very important to me that it's clear that my comments do not represent the view of any of the organizations that I'm involved with now or have been involved with in the past.

When I received this invitation and I asked why you wanted to talk to me, I was told it was because of my long-standing experience in various organizations. With that in mind, I thought I might take a minute and share some of my background.

I am a veterinarian by training. I spent most of my career in the Government of Ontario, including serving as Ontario’s first chief veterinary officer and, at another time, the deputy minister of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Also, at various times, I was the manager of the ministry’s animal welfare programs and the assistant deputy minister in charge of the food safety programs. I'm now serving on several not-for-profit boards, including the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, or CAPI; the University of Guelph; and Ontario Genomics. I'm also the chair of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada departmental audit committee.

I would stop here, but I assume your first question might be, “What do you think about the bill?” I offer the following comments.

First, I want to thank you for your due diligence. Conversations on issues around animal diseases, farmer mental health and protecting the welfare of both people and animals are all important. Canadian agriculture plays an important role in global food security, in mitigating the impacts of climate change and in contributing to our economic success. Study after study has concluded that having an effective and efficient regulatory framework is important to this sector, so it's very good that you're closely scrutinizing these proposed changes.

I know some of your members have asked if the problem is truly about a gap in the legislative or regulatory framework, or if it's more about the application of the existing rules. I confess that I have that question as well. I don't know the answer, but I think it's important to think about that.

I also know that some members have asked about the ability to enforce the provisions in this bill, and I think that's another important question. Farmers expect to follow rules. They expect others to do the same and to suffer consequences when they do not. I don't think it's going to help any farmer's mental health if expectations rise because this bill passes and then nothing really changes.

I think it's important to acknowledge that the activity this bill is trying to prevent stems from a core tension. In its 2020 survey of Canadians, the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity reported that one-third of those surveyed were concerned about the humane treatment of animals. Perhaps most of those people just want to be reassured, but I know some of them are concerned with specific practices on the farm. I know others are completely against any kind of livestock and poultry production.

Change can be, and has been, driven by the farmers themselves, as research leads to better animal care; by consumers, through the choices they make in the marketplace; and of course by the activism of others. Animal agriculture isn't unique in this regard, and I don't think any of these drivers is going away soon.

These points being made, I want to to conclude with my first comment. I don't think I have to tell this committee that our food production system is a Canadian success story. As long as the world chooses to eat meat, Canada can be a good place to raise animals. Canadian farmers deserve a regulatory environment that protects their animals, them and their assets.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 10, and the motion adopted by the committee on April 15, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25. Members are attending in person in the room, and remotely, using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so that you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entire committee.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all participants at this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

To ensure that the meeting runs smoothly, I would like to share some rules with you.

Before you speak, please wait for me to recognize you. If you are participating in the meeting via video conference, click on the microphone to unmute it. The microphones of participants in the room will, as usual, be monitored by the proceedings and verification officer.

I remind you that all comments from members and witnesses should be directed to the chair.

When you do not have the floor, please mute your microphone.

We will now welcome our witnesses for the first hour.

As an individual, we have Dr. Deb Stark. We also have, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Keith Currie, first vice-president.

Welcome to our meeting. We'll start with opening statements.

Dr. Stark, you have five minutes for an opening statement. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The question I have is probably going to be a recap of some of the answers you have given to some of my colleagues.

You've mentioned that some provinces now have these trespass laws in place that are designed specifically for farms. In a hypothetical situation, if we had a trespasser who came onto a farm in one of these provinces and somehow spread a disease that wiped out a large percentage of the existing livestock, under current law, without Bill C-205, what are the applicable federal laws and provincial laws in place right now to help that farmer have accountability against the trespasser, and what kind of recourse does the farmer have in terms of getting financial help to assist with the damages to his or her farm?