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.

Health of Animals Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to give some thoughts on Bill C-275, which was introduced by my colleague on the agricultural committee, the member for Foothills.

I was happy to support this bill at second reading, but that support was always conditional on certain amendments being made at committee, just as we did in the previous Parliament, the 43rd Parliament, on the previous version of this bill, which was Bill C-205. Unfortunately, the majority of committee members did not support the amendments that were conditional for my support, and I find myself speaking in the House today saying that I can no longer support Bill C-275.

I want to talk about the importance of biosecurity measures because they are incredibly important to Canadian farms and farms all around the world. At the federal level, Canada’s legislative framework for dealing with issues with respect to animal disease and biosecurity rests primarily under the Health of Animals Act and its regulations.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for investigating and responding to reported incidents of a reportable animal disease. We know that many diseases pose a serious risk to farm animals, including things such as African swine fever, foot and mouth disease, and avian influenza. Biosecurity is about preventing the movement of disease-causing agents on to and off of agricultural operations. The three key principles of effective biosecurity are isolation, traffic control and sanitation.

At committee, we had a variety of witnesses, and many of those witnesses provided our committee with briefs. One of the organizations was Animal Justice. It provided a report from 2021 that looked at the disease outbreaks and biosecurity failures on Canadian farms. It was around the same time Bill C-205 was being debated in the previous Parliament.

I know a lot of people have differing opinions on animal justice, but the report was based on factual data, and that data listed hundreds of incidents of failures of biosecurity, which were all caused by authorized personnel associated with the afflicted farms. That means people who were authorized to be on the farm were the ones responsible for the disease outbreak.

Biosecurity is a serious thing. It can happen to any farm, and it can happen to anyone, either through no fault of their own or through being at fault. If they are not following proper biosecurity measures, the results can be quite devastating.

I also want to take some time to talk about the differences between federal and provincial jurisdiction when it comes to enacting laws because this is a key point behind my opposition to Bill C-275. We know the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the criminal law power. That is why acts, such as the Health of Animals Act, exist.

We know that, to be considered a valid exercise of criminal law power, federal legislation has to have a valid criminal law purpose, which can include measures such as health; be connected to a prohibition; and be backed by a penalty for violations. This bill, however, gets out of the federal lane and enters into provincial jurisdiction over trespass law. We know that the provinces of Canada have exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and that is definitely considered to be the domain under which they enact their anti-trespass laws. I think Bill C-275 is unfortunately taking us into provincial jurisdiction, and that is a serious point that we have to pay attention to.

This is backed up by evidence that we heard from none other than the senior legal counsel for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Mr. Joseph Melaschenko. On two occasions, both in questioning from the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and from myself, he confirmed that the phrase “without lawful authority or excuse” in Bill C-275 made this primarily a piece of legislation about trespass. He confirmed that on the record on two separate occasions.

What are we to take from that? If the senior legal counsel of the federal agency responsible for the Health of Animals Act is telling our committee that Bill C-275 is veering into trespass territory, why should we as a committee be ignoring it and instead returning a bill to the House with that problematic phrase in it?

That is the crux of the problem. That phrase is making the bill veer into that territory. I tried my best at committee to amend the bill. My amendment sought to remove the phrase “without lawful authority or excuse” so that the purported biosecurity measures of Bill C-275 would apply to everyone equally. After all, if we are in fact serious about dealing with biosecurity breaches, knowing we have a litany of evidence detailing just how many on-farm failures there have been from people who are authorized to be there, we should make a biosecurity piece of legislation apply to everyone equally, including on-farm employees. Unfortunately, that amendment failed.

I want to commend another member of the committee, the new member for Winnipeg South Centre, who tried with his own amendment to instead insert the phrase “applicable biosecurity measures” so that basically the bill would have applied to everyone who had taken the applicable biosecurity measures. I think that was a reasonable amendment. Again, we have measures in place that the industry has developed. They are voluntary measures, but they are developed with the CFIA, and I think it is quite reasonable that if we are going to make a substantive amendment to the Health of Animals Act, we should make reference to applicable biosecurity measures. Unfortunately, a majority of committee members did not see eye to eye with me or the member for Winnipeg South Centre, and we have the version of the bill we are dealing with today in the House.

I also believe that clause 2 of the bill is redundant and completely unnecessary given that the Health of Animals Act already has offences and punishment. I have been in this place a long time, and unfortunately our federal statutes are littered with examples of redundant and unnecessary language in the law. One only needs to look at the Criminal Code of Canada to see that in action. I believe that with offences and punishment already listed in the parent act, having clause 2 in Bill C-275 is unnecessary, and it is yet another reason I can no longer support it.

I want to make one thing very clear to all who are listening to this debate: I will never condone unauthorized trespass on private property that puts farmers and their families at risk. I say that not only as the NDP's critic for agriculture and agri-food, but as the member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, an area that has a long and storied history in farming.

Unfortunately, I have arrived at this place with Bill C-275 because I believe it is veering out of its federal laneway and into provincial jurisdiction. I believe, in other words, that it is a trespass bill masquerading as a biosecurity bill. Proper biosecurity measures need to apply to everyone equally. If a farm does not follow measures and is responsible for a disease outbreak that spreads to other farms, then it is that farmer who has done a real disservice to his or her neighbours. We need to work to make sure those measures are applicable to everyone.

If people are concerned with the inadequacy of current trespass law in Canada, then I invite them to pressure their provincial representatives, because that is where this debate belongs. If members of this House feel that trespass laws are not adequate, then it is the provincial legislatures of Canada that need to take that issue up on behalf of their constituents.

It is very difficult to find the correct balance between all of these issues, and I really wish I could have come to a place where I was supporting Bill C-275. Unfortunately and with regret, I do not feel that Bill C-275 would achieve that balance, and I will find myself voting against it.

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

The other suggestion for lines 8 to 10 is that NDP-2 deals with those lines, so there may be opportunities on NDP-2 to entertain subamendments from LIB-1 or G-2, whatever the case may be.

In response to Mr. Drouin's point, in the last Parliament we passed Bill C-205 with exactly the same language. The Liberals seemed to be in agreement during that Parliament. I'm not sure why opinions have changed at this point.

I know there's an understanding that we don't want necessarily to target farmers or farm workers, but at the same time we have heard from witnesses that there needs to be some kind of national input on biosecurity measures on farms. A lot of them are volunteer-based—we've heard that—and we know that there are examples in which the biosecurity measures are simply not being followed. Either we make them apply equally to everyone who could potentially bring in a toxic substance or a disease, or we don't.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks again to all our witnesses.

I'd like to start with Humane Canada. I was listening to the opening remarks, and I believe the word “detrimental” was used. It was that if we adopt this bill, it will be detrimental to the efforts that your organization is involved with. In terms of Bill C-275, in the previous Parliament we had Bill C-205. I think you've seen how this committee amended that bill and reported it back to the House, and there have been a lot of concerns over whether this bill is intruding on the provincial jurisdiction over trespass law.

Do you feel that the way in which the committee amended the previous bill would be enough to save this bill, or do you believe that Bill C-275 just cannot be amended appropriately? We're seeking guidance here.

[Daniel Gobeil]

Thank you.

In fact, our farms are not public spaces; they are our homes, the places where we raise our families. Obviously, it's very important for us to preserve this vocation.

We need to strike a balance between fundamental rights and reasonable safety measures that protect the health, safety and welfare of animals and the people who work on farms and in the food supply chain. For that reason, Dairy Farmers of Canada supports Bill C‑275.

I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the member for Foothills, who sponsored this bill.

We feel that this new bill improves on Bill C‑205 because it expands the scope of protection to situations where animals and things are kept in enclosed spaces.

However, in our view, Bill C‑275 doesn't fully achieve its objective and parts of it must be amended. The provision about the offender knowing or being reckless as to exposing animals to disease or toxic substances should be removed, as we believe it places an unrealistic burden of proof on the Crown.

The mere possibility that entry without authorization or legal justification might expose our animals to a disease or toxic substance should be sufficient grounds for prosecution. We can elaborate on our comments during the question period.

In closing, Mr. Chair, on behalf of Dairy Farmers of Canada, I'd like to thank you and the committee members for helping to enhance animal safety and continue to improve agricultural production—

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

Thank you for your answer, Dr. Ireland.

Ms. Lazare, you mentioned earlier that, in your opinion, there is an issue with the current wording. You referred to the amendments we adopted during the study of Bill C‑205.

I'm not asking you to draft the amendments, obviously, but could you tell me what amendments the committee should be looking at?

[Camille Labchuk]

Yes. Thank you for your question.

One thing that we've done through analyzing decades of CFIA data is take a close look at the things that result in biosecurity threats and diseases, and oftentimes it tends to be poor practices on farms or poor adherence to practices that are voluntary. For instance, there have been numerous studies in the dairy sector, in the chicken sector, on mink farms and on rabbit farms that have shown that people are not really following the rules closely when researchers put up cameras to monitor their behaviour.

One thing that we are advocating.... When the last iteration of this bill, Bill C-205, was discussed at this committee two years ago, it was amended to do a couple of things, and I think those amendments would be productive in this case.

The first amendment struck the term “without lawful authority or excuse”. It made this bill apply to anyone who was on a farm who introduced a biosecurity threat, and that's important because we know that the vast majority of biosecurity threats come from people who have regular access to farms. They could be workers, operators or people coming and going with permission. They're not people who are there unlawfully.

That's what we would suggest.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you very much, again, for no answer.

I'm going to turn my comments and questions over to Dr. Lazare.

Dr. Lazare, in your testimony on Bill 156 at committee in the Ontario legislature, you said that “there are...ways to achieve the legislative objective [here that] have less of an impact on fundamental freedoms. For example, simply raising the fines for trespassing would do the job, or expressly prohibiting the introduction of biosecurity threats, like the federal private member's bill C-205 would do. Both of those things would impair rights less than the current form of the legislation. Again, that's enough for the law to fail in a constitutional challenge.”

In your opening comments, you alluded to the fact that Parliament doesn't have checks and balances set up—when in fact it does—to vet private members' bills to make sure that they are constitutional before they're even introduced.

Thank you for acknowledging that this bill, formerly Bill C-205, prohibits “the introduction of biosecurity threats” on farms. We've already established through previous testimony that whistle-blowers are protected under Bill C-275, since they have lawful authority to be on the premises. Therefore, the provisions in this bill would not apply to them.

Would you agree? How does this bill ban whistle-blowers?

[Dr. Jodi Lazare, Associate Professor, As an Individual]

Thank you. I'm happy to be here.

My name is Dr. Jodi Lazare. I am an associate professor at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie, where I teach the mandatory constitutional law course and an animal law seminar.

I previously held a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to study the constitutional dimensions of animal rights advocacy and farm trespass laws. I have published articles in peer-reviewed journals on that subject.

I'm going to use my time here to touch on my primary concern with the proposed bill, which is simply that, just as in 2021, it may not correspond with the division of powers. By that I mean that Bill C‑275, in its current form, without the amendments voted on by committee last time around in 2021 in dealing with Bill C‑205, might well be outside of the federal government's legislative jurisdiction.

Some of the discussion in the House and in committee thus far has suggested that statutory consistency across provincial jurisdictions is a worthwhile goal, and I agree with that. It is a fact that uniform federal legislation would often be more efficient and more effective than a patchwork of different provincial laws.

However, the nature of Canada's constitutional structure means that it's simply not always possible to have consistency across provinces, and, respectfully, the federal government can't force consistency if it is acting outside of its area of jurisdiction.

I understand that this bill aims to improve biosecurity on farms and that it is, in some part, about protecting animals and about food safety, but it has also been stated, several times now, that the bill is primarily about trespass.

I'm sure the committee members don't need this kind of breakdown, but in the interest of clarity, I ask you to just please bear with me as I take you through my quick thinking about the constitutional issues here.

In determining whether a law was properly adopted by a particular level of government—that is, at the federal or provincial level—courts will look at what the law actually does. They look at a law's purpose and at its effects to uncover what's known in legal jargon as its “pith and substance” or its “dominant feature”.

They might look at the context of the adoption of a law, such as current events motivating its introduction—those have, of course been relevant here—and at speeches and debates and hearings like this one. All of those things, in the present case, clearly suggest that the “dominant feature” of this bill is not entirely protecting biosecurity. That's because, in addition to what has been said about this being a trespass bill—as this committee has heard before and I think we'll hear again today—biosecurity threats on farms are not in fact driven by trespassers, protesters or activists—by people “without lawful authority” to be on the farm, to use the words of the bill.

You've heard already—and I suspect we'll hear again—that CFIA records show that there is no documented evidence or instance of an activist or trespasser or protester introducing disease onto a farm, but that the greatest risks to animals are diseases transmitted from farm to farm. Diseases are transmitted from workers, suppliers, etc., going between farms, and by birds and wildlife and so on. In other words, they are not from individuals who are present illegally.

From a constitutional perspective then, in my view and as has been repeated here, this is a trespass bill, which may or may not, based on the evidence, have perhaps incidental or secondary effects on biosecurity. It's quite clear that this bill is about shutting down activism and trespass and about protecting the mental health of farmers and farm families. In other words, it is about protecting a particular industry by shutting down activism in the form of trespass.

In fact, the bill's sponsor has stated explicitly that this bill is about the protection of private property, and as we all know, these things fall under the provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights. Legislation protecting private property is not, in other words, part of the federal government's tool box, so to speak.

The fact is that all provinces have trespass laws. Some of them have laws specific to trespass on farms, although some of those laws are currently being challenged in court. In fact, interestingly, Prince Edward Island's legislation, aside from the part about taking in any animal or thing, contains exactly the same wording as Bill C‑275 and has not been subject to any constitutional questioning, suggesting again that this bill, Bill C-275, should fall under provincial jurisdiction.

I want to be clear here that I am not suggesting that Parliament cannot legislate to protect health and safety and biosecurity on farms. It's been said numerous times by the courts that Parliament can legislate to protect health and safety by way of the Criminal Code, and in this case, perhaps by using its jurisdiction over agriculture, although there is not a lot of case law and interpretation of that provision.

My submission, rather, is that this bill, as it is currently written, does not do that: It does not target the most likely source of biosecurity risks. However, a law that provided for the same restrictions and applied to everyone who enters a farm, legally or illegally—in other words, that adopted the same amendments voted on with respect to Bill C-205 in 2021—would be much more likely to survive constitutional scrutiny because, in its dominant feature, it would be a biosecurity bill.

I will leave it at that in the interest of time, and of course I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

The last iteration of your bill, Bill C-205, made it all the way past second reading and was reported back to the House with amendments. Mr. Perron highlighted some of that in his questions.

Now, in the new version, can you explain why you didn't keep the same language that AGRI supported here at this committee and that Mr. MacGregor put forward as well? I know that in your proposed section 9.1 there's a reference to not taking anything into a space where animals are kept, including the specific language of “any animal or thing”. Can you talk about what the rationale is for this new language, which didn't appear in Bill C-205—what you've taken out and what you've put in here?

Further, can you define what “thing” is? I mean, “thing” could be anything. A cellphone or some type of recording device could also count as a “thing”. It seems that interpretation of the law could certainly cover those types of items.

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

Yes.

During our study of Bill C‑205, we amended the wording so that it would apply to any individual who enters a building or enclosure where animals are kept, regardless of whether they have lawful authority or excuse to do so.

Can you tell us why you decided not to include that amendment here?

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

Thank you very much.

In the last Parliament, during our study of Bill C‑205, people from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency told us that they did not have the resources to act as peace officers. They also feared that this legislation would create confusion with the legislation of the provinces and Quebec.

Even in provinces where there is no legislation dealing specifically with trespassing on a farm, there are still laws that protect people from trespassing on private property, and so they already cover such situations. The witnesses have told us that they were afraid this would create confusion and make it difficult to prosecute people who would commit such an offence. What do you think?

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

One of the concerns with respect to your previous bill, Bill C-205, was noted by our colleague Mr. MacGregor, who is not here but who said the following:

I have received correspondence from concerned people from across the country who are worried that the bill might serve as an effective gag against their right to protest. What I would say in reply to that is that if we look at the specific wording of this act, it is talking about a person entering without lawful authority or excuse. There is nothing in the bill to prevent a whistle-blower, like a farm employee, who is already lawfully there and who witnesses something that they believe is wrong or contrary to animal welfare laws, from blowing the whistle and raising the alarm on that.

The difference between what the committee adopted in Bill C-205 and Bill C-275, which is before us today, is an amendment to apply the bill to whistle-blowers. Is that correct? Can you just speak on that, now that we have that on the record, with respect to how we can make sure they're protected?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, colleagues. It’s an honour to be here to discuss my private member’s bill, Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

This is very similar to a previous bill that we've dealt with, Bill C-205. It basically makes 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...capable of affecting or contaminating” the facility. Simply put, this enactment would apply existing penalties within the act to people who trespass on farms, properties and facilities where animals are kept. It also proposes to double the amount of those existing fines for groups and organizations that encourage unlawful behaviour that puts the biosecurity of our farms and our farmers' livelihoods at risk.

Colleagues, I really need to stress this next point, as I know all of us have probably been receiving emails and phone calls at our offices. I want to make crystal clear what this bill does not do, and I certainly want to address some of the misinformation that the campaigns have been doing for all of us. This bill does not limit an individual’s right to peaceful protest on public property. This bill also does not prevent whistle-blowers from coming forward when they are witnesses to practices that jeopardize our food security, our food safety or the welfare of animals.

Canadian farmers and ranchers have a moral and legal obligation to look after their animals. It's simply that clear. In fact, farmers and their employees are obligated to report to the appropriate authorities any wrongdoing they see as they operate in a highly regulated environment. They must follow strict codes of conduct to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all farm animals.

Colleagues, the last time I was here on Bill C-205, I dedicated a lot of time in my discussion to the mental health aspect of this bill. I would invite those who are new to this committee to take a look at my comments on the previous bill, and there will certainly be another witness later today who is an expert in this field. I will leave most of that to her.

When this bill was debated in the last Parliament, members from all parties recounted situations in their ridings. What worries me, colleagues, is that since we had that discussion a couple of years ago, animal activists have become even more brazen, to the point where they’re endangering the lives of animals on farms, and in some cases the public and the livelihoods of our farmers. We've seen animal rights activists hang dead pig carcasses from a Montreal overpass. We heard of the hog farmer in Ontario who has been targeted by ransomware, where activists are demanding that the farmer admit the mistreatment of his livestock, which of course is undeniably false.

Where this started, colleagues, was an incident in my riding with the Tschetter family, who woke up one morning to check on their free-range turkey farm and had 40 activists camped out in their barn. It took five to six hours to de-escalate and have these protesters removed. However, the impact on the family has been long-lasting. It impacts them to this day, as they question why they were targeted and what they had done wrong, as they had followed all the rules. Again, they have a free-range farm in Fort Macleod.

Now, opponents of this bill will claim it’s not necessary because there’s no proof of the introduction of disease by trespassers.

First, I think this misses the point of this bill completely, as one issue can make all the difference and it’s a short-sighted argument to justify unlawful behaviour. Second, and I think more importantly, colleagues, is that it’s completely false. We know of at least two incidents. One was in Quebec, where an outbreak of rotavirus was a result of protesters on a pig farm. Rotavirus hadn't been seen in Quebec in more than 40 years. Another was on an Ontario mink farm, where trespassers released thousands of animals, which led to an outbreak of distemper.

Colleagues, some provinces have followed up with something similar, but the vast majority—seven provinces and three territories—do not have anything like this in their legislation.

Finally, I just want to reiterate the impact that having an outbreak of an animal disease or an animal-borne virus on our farms could have on our farm families and certainly on our economy. Protecting Canada’s food supply is absolutely critical. That is one of the pillars of what we do here in this committee. Viruses like avian flu, African swine fever, and foot and mouth pose substantial threats to Canadian agriculture.

In 2014, 10 farms in the Fraser Valley had an AI outbreak and more than 200,000 birds had to be euthanized. The most serious outbreak of avian flu in Canada took place in the Fraser Valley in 2004 and led to the slaughter of 17 million farm birds. Before the outbreak was eventually brought under control, it cost more than $380 million in lost economic income. In the aftermath, a number of changes were made, including self-quarantine, biosecurity protocols, surveillance and laboratory testing.

The most recent outbreak in Canada impacted 7.6 million domestic birds in provinces across western Canada, as well as Ontario and Quebec, with B.C. being the hardest hit.

When we talk about African swine fever.... Thankfully, this has yet to be detected in Canada. The first case of ASF was detected in China in 2018. It spread to every province in the country by 2019 and has been seen in the Asia-Pacific, central Asia, eastern Europe and now the Dominican Republic. It would be devastating if this came to Canada. It would have a $24-billion economic impact.

I want to conclude with this, colleagues. As I said, this bill is not about prohibiting peaceful protests. The problem is that many of these protesters are not aware of the strict biosecurity protocols we have on farms, why they are there, or the fact that potentially trespassing on farms could have catastrophic consequences for our farmers, our food security and certainly our economy.

I know members on this committee understand the importance and urgency of this bill and what it can mean to our farmers, ranchers and producers. I look forward to addressing any questions or comments my colleagues have.

I appreciate your attention.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be standing in the House to give my remarks with respect to Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, biosecurity on farms. This was introduced by the member for Foothills. I will add to my colleague's comments to say that it is a pleasure to work with the member on the agriculture committee.

Despite what the public sees in question period, we, as members of all parties, actually do get along with each other. I find some of our most rewarding work happens at committee, specifically the agriculture committee, which bucks the trend of many committees because, whatever political party one may be a member of, we all represent farmers, and we all have their interests at heart.

This is the member's second attempt. The first was in the previous Parliament with Bill C-205. I last had the opportunity to debate that legislation at second reading in late 2020. Here we are in 2023, and it may not be the most efficient process, but we had the journey of the previous bill interrupted by an unnecessary election at the time.

Let us get to the purported why of this bill, which centres on biosecurity. We know there are many diseases that pose a risk to farm animals. They include African swine fever; bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE; foot and mouth disease; and avian flu. Many of these diseases do keep our researchers and scientists up at night. I recently had a conversation with the deans council of agriculture and veterinary schools across Canada. They are leading some of the efforts in looking at these diseases, and they are quite concerned, particularly with avian influenza.

Generally speaking, biosecurity at the farm level can be defined as management practices that allow producers to prevent the movement of disease-causing agents onto and off of their operations because, if one farm operator does notice an outbreak of disease, they want to contain that to prevent its spread to other farms. Generally speaking, there are three key principles: isolation, traffic control and sanitation. With Bill C-275, we are mainly looking at the principle of traffic control: controlling who is coming into contact with on-farm animals.

We know that visitors to farms can unknowingly bring harmful agents. They can bring them via contaminated clothing and footwear, with equipment and with their vehicles.

I will talk about some of my personal experiences. In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I have had the pleasure of visiting local farms, including Farmer Ben's Eggs and Lockwood Farms, which are both egg-producing operations. I keep a small flock of chickens on my property. I raise my own chickens, and I like to eat the eggs from them. With the dangers of avian influenza, I was not allowed to come into contact with my own birds for the space of an entire week before visiting a commercial operation, and of course, I had to take very strict measures with my footwear before I was allowed anywhere near the birds.

In a previous life, I used to be a tree planter in the interior of British Columbia. I was planting trees on the Douglas Lake Ranch, a ranch near Merritt, British Columbia, which, of course, is the largest working cattle ranch in B.C. The ranch has such vast properties that many of them are harvested in timber operations. Before our tree-planting operation was allowed anywhere onto the property, we had to have all of our vehicles sanitized to make sure that there was no danger of foot and mouth disease being transferred to the operation.

This just gives members a sense of the operations that are currently in place. I know this is replicated in farms across the country, but these are operations that I have personally witnessed and had to partake in.

Now let us get to the what. We have an existing federal statute, the Health of Animals Act. It is primarily responsible for diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals, or be transmitted by animals to persons, and it looks at their protection. In existing sections of the statute, there are provisions that deal with the concealment of the existence of a reportable disease, the keeping of diseased animals, bringing diseased animals to market, and selling or disposing of diseased animals. That is the current state of some of the existing sections of the federal legislation and what they are hoping to achieve.

Bill C-275 seeks to amend the existing Health of Animals Act by adding a proposed section 9.1. I will read the key section: “No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept, or take in any animal or thing, knowing that or being reckless as to whether entering such a place or taking in the animal or thing could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.” Of course, further on in the bill, there is a new series of penalties for individuals and groups that would violate this new section, consistent with existing provisions of the Health of Animals Act.

I also want to take some time during my speech to outline some of the concerns, because we would not be doing our job as parliamentarians if we did not look at both sides of the argument, and I think this is what our committee really needs to take into account. There are animal rights groups that feel that the legislation represents what they call “ag-gag” legislation, meaning they feel that they are going to be silenced or prevented from taking actions they deem to be in the best interest of farm animals.

As other speakers have outlined, if the bill is about stopping trespassing and not about shoring up biosecurity, it would be unconstitutional, because we all know that, under our current Constitution Act, jurisdiction over property and civil rights belongs firmly within the provincial realm. We do not want to interfere with the rights of provincial legislatures to make such laws. Of course, as I referenced in my question, there is an Animal Justice report from 2021 that lists hundreds of incidents of failures of biosecurity that were all by authorized personnel associated with the afflicted farms. I will repeat that. All of those incidents came from people who were on the property with lawful authority and excuse. I want to quote from that report:

Despite the risk to farms, animals, and the economy posed by disease outbreaks, biosecurity on farms is not comprehensively regulated at the federal level. The CFIA publishes voluntary biosecurity guidelines for some animal farming sectors, developed in cooperation with industry and government. Adherence to these standards is not a legal requirement. Provincial legislation varies, and tends to empower officials to respond to existing biosecurity hazards instead of prescribing rules that farmers must follow to prevent disease outbreaks.

These are some of the items we have to take into account when we are examining the bill.

I want to conclude by saying that, as New Democrats, we absolutely do support animal welfare. I fact, I was personally proud to support petition e-4190, which collected more than 36,000 signatures and is calling for the Liberals to honour their campaign promise of banning the live export of horses for slaughter. That is something the agriculture minister has still not met in her mandate letter, and we committed, through several elections, to updating the health of animal regulations and to making sure we modernize animal welfare legislation.

That being said, I want to very clearly state that I support farmers and I support their rights to be free from trespass. I know, not only from personal experience but also from my five years in this role as agriculture critic, that farmers are good people. They want to treat their animals well during their lives. Based on the witness testimony we heard at the agriculture committee, there is fairly strong support for a measure like Bill C-275.

I do want to note that protesters can legally get close to farms, not on the property, and it is in their interest to call for more accountability. I also want to note that on-farm employees who witness any instances of abuse to livestock could not be silenced by provisions of the bill. In fact, we do want that measure of internal accountability.

I want to say to the member for Foothills that, while I do support the legislation in principle, more work does need to be done at committee. I want to make sure that biosecurity measures would, in fact, apply to everyone and that we would not be intruding on provincial jurisdiction over trespass laws. I look forward to sending the bill to committee for further work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Foothills for introducing this bill. I also want to say that I appreciate the comments made by the parliamentary secretary, who basically told us that the government will work with us to come up with an enforceable bill. That is great. It is good news because our duty, as parliamentarians, is to work for our constituents. Our farmers need additional protection so that they no longer have to experience the atrocities that they have endured and over the past few months and years.

This bill seeks to eliminate the growing problem of trespassing. I would like every member of the House to take a few minutes to think about what trespassing means. We may find it hard to empathize with farmers when we think of it in terms of farm businesses, so let us consider it in terms of a more relatable scenario.

I am going to use the same scenario that I did when we spoke about Bill C-205. Imagine if you were to arrive home to find four or five people sitting in your living room, and that they tell you that they do not like the way you run your home, that it is inconsistent with their values. You ask them to leave, but they will not. You cannot remove them by force because you might get into trouble and be criminally charged, so you just have to live with it.

The real-life example that I always use is the case of the Porgreg farm in Saint‑Hyacinthe because it is the most blatant. Farm staff had to put up with this kind of situation for many hours. Even when the police showed up and asked the protesters to leave, they remained seated. They were taking pictures and saying that they wanted to protect the animals whose health and safety they were jeopardizing. Afterwards, it was discovered that a disease had been introduced into the herd because biosecurity protocols had been violated.

I think that “biosecurity” is a very important concept we must keep in mind. This was mentioned by the member for Foothills and the parliamentary secretary. Focusing on biosecurity may be the right approach to take. As federal representatives, we must find a way forward. I appreciate what the parliamentary secretary said about jurisdictions. As members know, the Bloc Québécois also likes to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. I believe that is something we generally agree on. Nevertheless, I believe that we can work as a team, as we do in committee. That is the sense I am getting from the debates we are hearing today. We must find a way to better protect our agricultural producers against this unacceptable abuse.

This is not about questioning the values of people who are vegans. That is not the issue. It is also not about limiting freedom of expression, because any freedom ends where the rights and freedoms of others begin. There is one thing we often tend to forget and that we really need to remember: the rights of the individual are not absolute. I am sorry to have to tell my colleagues that when someone claims to be exercising their right to freedom of expression by criminally assaulting another person, that is not exercising a right but committing a crime. Parliament must absolutely put a stop to that. That is why we need to work on this issue.

We ask agricultural producers to take strict precautions when it comes to meeting health standards. A few of the possible infections were named earlier. One of them is African swine fever, which is having devastating effects around the world. Thankfully, it has not reached Canada yet, and we are taking every precaution to ensure that it stays that way. We are not going to allow certain individuals to jeopardize the biosecurity of agricultural establishments, which could lead to contamination.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, foot and mouth disease and avian flu are also risks. Quebec currently has confirmed cases of avian flu. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is advising producers not to go into fields if they see wild birds there, to avoid the risk of contaminating their establishment.

These producers are always careful and are looking for ways to protect their facility. They shower before they enter and they change their clothes. We cannot have people deciding to jeopardize all that based on an ideology that is a little extreme, and so I believe it is our job to be doing this.

In and of itself, Bill C‑275 is pretty straightforward: It prohibits people from entering a production facility if it would compromise biosecurity. I think the biosecurity element is already there. I am quite willing to work with the parliamentary secretary and the member for Foothills to find common ground, but it is imperative that we get this bill passed.

In fact, we studied it in detail in the previous Parliament, as part of Bill C‑205. This is one of too many bills that we have had to start from scratch. We need the opportunity to do this efficiently so we do not have to go through this process a third time. The committee is able to work quickly and efficiently by analyzing the scope of Bill C‑275 with experts.

First, the issues raised by the parliamentary secretary seem legitimate. Obviously, as I always say, we will work carefully and diligently in committee in order to adopt a bill that is real, that will send a positive message to the farming community and a clear message to people who have any intention of demonstrating, a bill that is actually enforceable. This third condition is important. That is what we are here for and why we will do serious work.

The issue of shared jurisdiction was raised again. This bill also raises the issue of animal and mental health. This was mentioned earlier by two members who spoke before me. This being Mental Health Week, let us take this opportunity to protect our farmers whose life is already challenging. It is already so tough.

I am thinking of pork production. A processing plant in Quebec closed recently, which is having tremendous repercussions on production and jeopardizes several producers who might have to withdraw from farming. It is no joke. Are we going to allow threats, intimidation and gratuitous assault on top of that? The answer is no. As a Parliament, I think we have a duty to say no.

I want to come back to what happened at the Porgreg farm in 2019 because it is a perfect example. As I said earlier, there was disease within the herd. Someone will surely say that laws already exist governing this, which is true. However, it can be difficult to make the connection between the disease and the trespassing incident in a court of law. It also means that these individuals must lodge a complaint and go through the justice system, thus reliving the assault, which can also be difficult. We therefore need to improve and clarify the process. It would be great if we could enhance these protections.

During the incident at the Porgreg farm, there was a biosecurity breach and the doors were left open for many hours. It was -12° outside. Diesel fuel was also contaminated with water. How do prosecutors prove that the attackers put water in the diesel fuel? There are a number of ways.

Significant measures must be put in place to deter wrongdoers. We need to send a clear message that if they do these kinds of things, it will cost them and their organization dearly. In committee, I will pay particular attention to ensuring that fines and penalties are directed not only at individuals, but also at the organizations that sponsor them.

The member for Foothills spoke earlier about pigs hanging from an overpass in Montreal. This is the same organization that trespassed at Les Porgreg farm and claimed responsibility. It is clear what kind of people we are dealing with. These are extremists who are not afraid of anything and who are ready to face criminal charges.

There must be more significant consequences if we want to discourage these kinds of activities. Our agricultural producers deserve this. They need to know that we respect them, that we appreciate their work, that we want them to carry on for a long time and that we will protect them.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Foothills for introducing Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, a private member's bill. As previously indicated, this bill was drafted in response to individuals and groups entering private property such as farms. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental to a democratic society. However, trespassing on farms is unacceptable.

The health and safety of our farmers and their animals are crucial. Incidents of trespassing on farms have made Canadian farmers anxious and have raised concerns about the health and safety of their animals. We recognize the purpose of this private member's bill, Bill C‑275, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that any legislative provision in this area does not have any unintended consequences.

I would like to draw the attention of members to two items to take into consideration. First, Bill C‑275, as worded, creates legal risks. Second, existing federal and provincial statutes can be used for managing cases of trespassing on farms. These matters need to be carefully taken into account before any changes to this bill can be considered.

As most of us know, agriculture is a jurisdiction shared by the federal and provincial governments. Generally speaking, the federal government is only responsible for agricultural practices and operations on farms. However, the bill as it stands would probably not fall under federal jurisdiction in this area, given that it generally applies to any building or enclosed area in which animals are kept on a farm or the area outside. Furthermore, the bill seems to focus more on prohibiting trespassing by protesters than on protecting animals from the spread of disease.

Provinces and territories have authority in the areas of property rights and civil rights, which includes passing laws concerning trespassing. Most provinces already have laws against trespassing on farms and other places.

In recent years, five provinces—Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Prince Edward Island—have passed strong legislation prohibiting trespassing on farms or any places where animals are kept.

For instance, in 2019, Alberta amended its Petty Trespass Act to prohibit entry into a farm or farmland without the permission of the property owner or occupant. Someone convicted under the act could be fined up to $10,000 or face six months in prison. A corporation could face a fine of up to $200,000 if convicted under this act.

This example shows that the provinces already have laws governing trespassing on private property. The wording of Bill C-275 also shows this bill seeks to regulate trespassing on private property. This is clearly stated in the part that reads, “No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place”. Accordingly, the current wording of Bill C-275 could be seen as infringing on existing provincial legislation.

At the federal level, the Criminal Code criminalizes activity related to trespassing, such as mischief and breaking and entering. In fact, I know of two recent cases where the Criminal Code was successfully used to lay charges against people who had trespassed on farms. One was in British Columbia and the other in Quebec.

I would like to say a little more about the case in British Columbia, because it shows how existing legislation is working to allow charges to be laid against people who trespass on farms.

In 2019, a number of people broke into the Excelsior Hog Farm in Abbotsford, British Columbia, to raise awareness about farming practices they believed were detrimental to animal welfare. Two of the individuals who broke into the farm were convicted and subsequently sentenced under the Criminal Code.

The judge took certain factors into account when deciding their sentence, as is required under the Criminal Code. For example, in this particular case, the judge considered the negative impact the trespassing had on the farmer and the farm's operation. As a result, the trespassers were sentenced to 30 days in jail and 12 months' probation.

What I am saying is that the existing laws work, plain and simple. As the judge in the British Columbia case noted, this verdict, which included a jail term, was intended to send a message to discourage others from engaging in this type of activity.

The bill of the member for Foothills certainly sheds light on farmer and animal health. While it is crucial that we support farmers with the tools they need to carry out their important work, we need to be mindful of how best to do that without creating legal challenges. Fundamentally, legislation should not introduce new legal issues. It should also complement, not duplicate, the laws we already have.

That is why our government will be supporting Bill C-275 with amendments. Specifically, we will look to move amendments that meet the spirit and intent of Bill C-275, while lowering the legal risks that we have identified.

Rather than broadly prohibiting unlawful entry into any building or other place, we propose an amendment to more narrowly prohibit entry into on-farm biosecurity zones where animals are kept, except in accordance with established biosecurity protocols. Such an amendment would support the strong biosecurity measures that many farmers have already put in place on Canadian farms.

This amendment would also mitigate against the legal issues I outlined earlier. By shifting the focus to entry into on-farm biosecurity zones, it would bring the bill under federal jurisdiction because it would be more clearly related to agricultural options inside the farm gate. It would also reinforce the benefit of biosecurity zones, which are an important part of agricultural practices to prevent the spread of animal disease.

Many may wonder why we are supporting this bill when we did not support its predecessor, Bill C-205. Let me be clear: As I have noted, we do have concerns with the legal risks associated with this bill as currently written. However, we have taken the time to consider previous debates and testimony on this matter. We have listened to stakeholders, and almost all have stressed the importance of biosecurity to prevent the spread of animal disease to animals. Upon further analysis, we have identified an amendment that focuses more squarely on biosecurity and provides a better alternative to the current wording of Bill C-275. This amendment would emphasize to Canadians that biosecurity is serious and necessary to prevent the spread of animal disease, while recognizing there is existing legislation to address trespassing.

We recognize the efforts of the hon. member for Foothills in trying to protect farmers. However, it is important that we find the right balance with the bill and discern the best way forward, considering the legal risks. Should Bill C-275 be referred to committee, we will move an amendment to ensure that the bill addresses the legal risks that have been identified.

The government looks forward to further discussions on this important topic. We are eager to discuss ways we can amend Bill C-275 to provide supports to farmers and protect the health of their animals.

Once again, I want to thank the member for Foothills. We have heard about every issue that has been ongoing over the past few years and past decades on farms. This week we are acknowledging it is Mental Health Week, and I think this bill would address some of the measures and some of the stresses that farmers face on their farms. I want to thank the member for Foothills for putting this bill forward.

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to something my colleague mentioned in his speech. I have already had the opportunity to ask questions about Bill C-3. Obviously, nobody can be against sick days and apple pie.

My colleague gave two examples related to the right to protest that are of particular interest to me. The first example, specifically protests in front of abortion clinics, is of particular interest to me as the critic for status of women. Indeed, those protesters can sometimes do more harm than good, since the women who need to attend those clinics are often going through an already difficult and intensely private experience.

My hon. colleague also drew a parallel with a previous bill, Bill C-205. As a member representing a rural riding, I have heard a lot about the harm protesters have caused to animals.

Can my colleague talk about the need to balance the right to protest with the fact that these protests sometimes do far more harm than good?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑3.

I must admit that this bill is a little strange because it deals with two completely different topics. It would amend the Canada Labour Code and would also amend the Criminal Code. The bill's scope goes in two completely different directions.

First, the bill would amend the Criminal Code to increase penalties on people who intimidate health care workers or patients or who obstruct access to a hospital or clinic in order to impede people from obtaining health services, such as vaccination. It is hard to argue against virtue, so it is relatively easy to support this part of the bill.

Second, the bill would force federally regulated employers to grant up to 10 days of paid sick leave to their employees. As I just said, it is hard to argue against virtue, so we will support this bill.

I would like to raise an important point about the part involving protests outside health care facilities. We are being told the bill is not intended to infringe on the right to peaceful protest and is therefore not intended to affect workers' rights, but that is not made perfectly clear in the wording.

This will require clarification. As usual, the Bloc Québécois will be thorough in asking questions, checking the facts, seeking confirmation and possibly proposing any amendments needed to protect this basic right.

The Bloc Québécois always stands up for workers' rights. Of course, we defend collective rights, but defending workers' rights is one of our core values. It is of the utmost importance to us.

In Quebec, workers' rights during a dispute are particularly well protected compared to the rest of Canada. Think, for example, of the anti-scab legislation in effect in Quebec. It is important that close attention be paid to this part of the legislation.

Furthermore, paid sick leave is a step forward for federally regulated Quebec workers, even though there are not that many of them. It is a step forward for them.

As history has shown, progress for one group of workers is always progress for all workers. A rising tide lifts all boats, and measures like this create momentum, which is always positive even if it is just for a small group of people. The Bloc Québécois will definitely support this measure.

I want to comment on the prohibition of protests. The bill would give prosecutors added powers to charge people who impede others in the performance of health care duties and interfere with access to a clinic or hospital.

Under the present circumstances, because of the election campaign and anti-vax protests, people have been thinking about access to health care facilities a lot. It is these events, in large part, that led to the creation of this bill.

Over the years, we have also seen protests by people preventing access to abortion clinics. Recognizing that every woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body and that nobody can interfere with that is one of our core values. In that respect, this measure is good because it goes some way toward ensuring that people will not be hassled while accessing health care.

This part of the law is important because it distinguishes between “freedom of expression” and “aggression”. Unfortunately, in our society, some individuals or groups often confuse the two concepts. Some think that because they have the right to express themselves, they have the right to prevent others from doing something. This is not at all the case, and such behaviour should never be tolerated. This is a fundamental and very important point.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect people from all forms of aggression. This is what we started to do in the last Parliament before the unnecessary election that everyone knows about. We were working on Bill C‑205, which concerned the agricultural sector and would have prevented vegan activists from trespassing on livestock farms and other farms.

Assaulting someone or coming onto their property to express a political opinion or a point of view is unacceptable. This is a democratic country, and democracy is expressed in a peaceful and respectful way. There are public spaces for demonstrating. Once people start to be bullied, it becomes very important to intervene.

This also deals with intimidation, and that is important. When people head out to a certain place and find a threatening group there, they may turn back. The example of vaccine-hesitant folks comes to mind. This is not a judgment of someone's opinion. I am not saying that one group is more right than another. However, in order for us to get out of this miserable crisis, our duty as parliamentarians is to encourage people to get vaccinated. That means that any demonstration that might interfere with that goal obviously must be prevented without stopping people from expressing themselves. Once again, “expression” does not mean “aggression”. This is a very important point.

In my former life as a high school teacher, I fought against bullying and intimidation for many years. It was a fundamental issue that was very important to me. I will continue that fight as a parliamentarian, because our civil society must not accept that kind of behaviour.

Bill C‑3 is quite severe, providing for prison sentences of up to 10 years, depending on how the offender is charged. They could get 10 years or two years less a day. This could be a good way to make people think twice about assaulting others.

As for the rest, the bill also contains other clauses, such as release orders for people charged under the amended law, potentially with conditions. That is fairly standard.

However, I would like to highlight one very important point for my colleagues. Under Bill C‑3, any criminal offence committed against a health professional in the performance of their duties would now be considered an aggravating factor. I think this is a great approach, because it confirms the almost sacred nature of health care work. It also protects access to care for the general public, which I think is a very good sign.

The last part deals with paid sick leave, and it is positive, as I said earlier. However, the majority of federally regulated private sector workers already have access to 10 or more days of sick leave. We are talking about roughly 63% of those workers. Getting that number up to 100%, or in other words, giving everyone access to those sick days is great, but there is one aspect of Bill C-3 that could prove to be problematic, and it needs to be addressed. I am referring to the fact that the employer can require a medical certificate within 15 days of the employee's return to work. I wonder about that.

Consider the example of someone who has been sick for two days and returns to work, then after another five or six days is asked by their employer to provide a medical certificate. I think it would be hard to prove one's illness by that point. The right questions need to be asked, and I am counting on my esteemed colleague, who is the critic on this issue, to dig into the matter, but I think it is important to clarify that aspect.

As I have been saying from the start, we cannot be against this bill, despite the fact that it changes very little. It feels like the Liberals are trying to prove that they are with the times and following the trends. We are being asked to vote on this bill after we were forced to urgently vote on a time allocation motion. As a colleague from our party said earlier, however, this was brought up a long time ago.

Why was this not done at the beginning of the crisis when many people may have needed it?

Why wait 62 days to recall members to work and then shove bills down their throat?

Many areas need our swift action, such as the cuts to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, which is a major injustice. When will we see some movement on that? I am being told that Bill C‑3 is urgent, that it needs to happen by tomorrow morning, but we sounded the alarm about the cuts to the GIS before the election campaign.

Does the government not want to introduce a bill to address that situation? It is a matter of social justice. Yesterday, we discussed Afghanistan; it is the same thing.

Business of the House

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the minister was talking about the importance of these protests in that we need to protect the rights of Canadians. I could not agree more. My private member's bill, Bill C-205, went through the parliamentary process in the last Parliament, made it very close to the finish line and was about protecting the rights of farm families and ranch families from protests on farms and on their properties.

When we talk about the rights of Canadians, I think that goes both ways. I was honoured to have the support of the Liberal Party at committee as well as having the agriculture minister be in support of that initiative during the election.

I am wondering if the justice minister will also support Bill C-205, if I am able to bring it back this Parliament.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair, at this point, there have already been a lot of great points said, so I'll just echo what has already been said to you.

You show great deference and a great ability to help try to balance all the interests, so we will miss you if we're not back in September. As someone that has been able to see your work inside the tent, so to speak, of our caucus, you're going to be missed. You're a heck of a guy. All the best to you and your family in the days ahead.

To my colleagues, I am a relatively new MP—just since 2019—but I've had a glimpse of other committees, and as Mr. MacGregor said, we are the gold standard. It has been great to be able to come to each group, to be able to listen to the different ideas, to be able to have respectful debate and to try to advance the interests of farmers.

To Mr. Barlow, of course, thank you for your work in bringing forward C-205. I know you're very passionate about it, and I applaud you. Congratulations on getting this bill back to the House. On the basis of the feedback that you've had from the different members, this will pass when it gets to a vote, and I think that's a compliment for our ability as a committee to help put a frame that is going to help support farmers.

Well done, Mr. Barlow.

To all my colleagues, have a great summer. If you want a bottle of Nova Scotia wine, you need to send me your address so I can send it.

Finally, I'm going to miss getting little text messages from Mr. Steinley. I quite enjoy that as we have a bit of friendly banter back and forth.

Enjoy the summer, everyone, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We will apply the same results.

(Reprint of Bill C-205 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

I think all is good, Madam Clerk.

I think we've covered it all. Great job.

Congratulations, Mr. Barlow. It went through. This will end our clause-by-clause.

I've communicated with Ms. Rood, Monsieur Perron and Mr. MacGregor that this would conclude our meetings for this session. I think everybody was okay with that, as long we got through the clause-by-clause, which we've just finished, so I think this will be our last meeting.

I really want to thank the committee. I think we've done great work, really pertinent work, and it's thanks to everyone. I'm thinking about this session and I'm thinking about way back. I've really enjoyed working with the ag committee.

If I think back a bit to business risk management, this influenced the minister, and this got a lot of things done.

On mental health issues, although maybe not with this particular session, that was important work we did.

I'm thinking of the CUSMA negotiations and our trip to Washington. I'm not saying that we were the ones who changed their minds, but I think we were all part of the whole negotiation process.

On the grain issues that we had one winter, we got both CN and CP in here and made sure it happened.

Those are just a few examples of what we were all able to do, so I really want to thank all my colleagues who have been through this.

I think Francis and I are probably the only ones from the original committee, but to all of you, I really appreciate how we were able to work together on all sides of the House on this one.

I also want to thank the magnificent clerks that we've had throughout, including this one now, and the analysts.

Corentin and Alexie, that was great work. Without you, this would not have proceeded as smoothly, for sure.

Also, to the staff, to translation and to all the other staff who make meetings happen, especially in the challenging times we've had with the pandemic, it's just awesome what you guys are doing. We really want to thank you for that.

Also, thank you to our own party staff, who we don't see on the screen but who are there working with us, sliding sheets and stuff to us to make us look, I wouldn't say “good” but maybe “better” is the word I'm looking for.

I want to say again that this has been the highlight of my stay. Of course, this is going to be my last committee for sure. Well, who knows? We might still be here in three years' time. If you believe that, let's go and buy a lottery ticket.

I want to thank all of you and, really, from the bottom of my heart, I appreciate all of you and all the work we've been able to do With that, I'll conclude.

Mr. Epp, I know that you have your hand up.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I see all thumbs up. Good.

(Bill C-205 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

We will apply the same results.

(Reporting of bill to the House agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

I will bring it to the House on Monday.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm not sure if either of our witnesses from the CFIA can chime in.

I appreciate what Mr. Perron is trying to do, but again, is this level of specificity required, or would it just be assumed that if you're taking in an animal from wherever, that would not be allowed? I would assume that if I were visiting another poultry farm, I wouldn't be able to take one of my chickens with me for a friendly visit. That's just not what you do.

I appreciate what he's trying to do. I guess my question is on whether this further clarification in the clause is necessary, or is Bill C-205, as it currently reads as amended, clear enough to the officials who would be enforcing the act?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As I explained, we really tried to analyze the bill from all angles, as a result of the many testimonies we have heard. We think it may have a loophole that needs to be addressed. We need to consider the possibility that a person could be trespassing not by entering the premises themselves, but by taking in an object, animal, substance or food that could contaminate the animals.

In order to close this loophole, we propose an amendment to lines 8 and 9 on page 1 of Bill C‑205 to clarify that, in addition to a person trespassing, if they “take in any animal or thing”, it also constitutes trespassing.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To Mr. MacGregor, thanks very much for your insight and your input. There's always great detail.

I think it is important that we maintain this unlawful portion of the bill. As Mr. Steinley said, we did put this through a rigorous legal counsel review to ensure that there were no jurisdictional or constitutional issues with the bill, and there were none that came back. We also wanted to ensure that this protected the opportunities, let's say, for whistle-blowers, those who are lawfully on a farm, whether that's a farm employee or a family member who sees something that is below standards, and that this will be reported. I believe C-205 as it stands ensures that whistle-blowers have that protection to do that important work.

What we are trying to focus on here are those who do not necessarily understand the biosecurity protocols that are extremely stringent. If they don't understand those, we want to ensure that they are held accountable and can't use the excuse of not knowing or not understanding the signage or the rules that are in place.

I also wanted to mention that my colleague Mr. MacGregor brought comments from Dr. Lazare and her submission about her concerns, but Dr. Lazare also testified at the Ontario legislature about their bill, Bill 156. She also made a comment on C-205, and I want to quickly read that:

[T]here are other ways to achieve the legislative objective and have less of an impact on fundamental freedoms. For example, simply raising the fines for trespassing would do the job, or expressly prohibiting the introduction of biosecurity threats, like the federal private member’s bill C-205....

In previous testimony, Dr. Lazare has commented that Bill C-205 is a better way to achieve the goals of what we are trying to do. I think there has to be a balanced approach to this, and C-205, in my opinion, achieves that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

Yes, Chair. Thank you so much. I formally move NDP-1 as an amendment to Bill C-205.

It's a relatively simple amendment to the first clause of the bill, whereby we are replacing line 6 on page 1 so that it would read “No person shall”. It's essentially removing the words “without lawful authority or excuse”.

The reason I am moving this amendment to Bill C-205 is that I've been struggling throughout the proceedings on this bill between the terms “trespass” and “biosecurity”. We've heard witnesses at one point or another say this bill is meant to address trespassing on farms. Others have said no, it's meant to address biosecurity. We've had some witnesses say that it does both.

I want to make it very clear that I think any intrusion on private property needs to be condemned. We know the ill effects it has on farmers and the ill effects it has on animals, but I want this bill to stay in its federal lane. It has to stay in its federal lane.

The federal government has very clear jurisdiction through the federal criminal law power in addressing biosecurity, but it does not have the jurisdiction to address crimes against property. Under our Constitution, that is very clearly a provincial power. Under Canadian law, animals are considered property, so any crimes against animals are considered a property matter. Trespass on property is a provincial matter.

We cannot intrude on the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. It's very clearly laid out under section 92.13 that property and civil rights are under the domain of provincial legislatures.

The reason I am proposing this amendment is to make Bill C-205 apply to everyone equally, so that if you are a farmer or farm employee, if you are a transport driver or if you are a protester, if you violate the biosecurity protocols in place on a farm, this law applies equally to you. That's the main essence of my putting it forward.

I'll direct committee members to the brief submitted by Dr. Jodi Lazare. She mentioned that the bill as originally written might run into some constitutional conundrums, but she did say that if we had a law that applied to everyone who enters a farm to those most likely to threaten biosecurity by transmitting disease amongst animals, that would be more likely to survive constitutional scrutiny, whereas in its current form this amendment might not survive a constitutional challenge in court.

The brief we received from Animal Justice went into a lot of detail on page 4 about how most of the risks to biosecurity have come from farm workers or from transports, from people who have gone from farm to farm. That's where most of the risk has actually come from, which has been properly documented. They did say that prudent regulatory measures to address biosecurity should focus on the gaps and failures within the sector, which again is another argument in favour of making this apply equally to everyone.

Also, Dr. Brian Evans, during his appearance before the committee on June 3, went into a lot of detail about how some of the more serious outbreaks in our country's history have been caused by workers who were not following the proper biosecurity concerns. That was the day I was having Internet connectivity issues, so I had to go back through the testimony as written in Hansard.

I'll wrap up there. This is really just my attempt to keep this bill within its federal lane and to not in any way intrude on provincial jurisdiction over trespass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 40 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 10, 2021, and the motion adopted by the committee on May 11, 2021, the committee is commencing the clause-by-clause consideration 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, 2021. Therefore, members may be attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

I will take this opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. Just a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

For the clause-by-clause consideration, we have some people from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for assistance if we need them. We will have them as resources if we have questions.

We have Dr. Jaspinder Komal, vice-president, science branch, chief veterinary officer and World Organisation for Animal Health delegate for Canada.

Welcome, Dr. Komal.

Also, we have Jane Dudley, senior counsel, agriculture and food inspection legal services.

Ms. Dudley, thank you for joining us.

With that, we shall start the clause-by-clause consideration.

(On clause 1)

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Throughout the testimony on Bill C-205, the word “trespass” has come up repeatedly. Under our Constitution, if you look at the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures, subsection 92(13) states that property and civil rights are under the domain of our provincial legislatures.

Under Canadian law, animals are considered property. That's a widely accepted legal interpretation, no matter which province you're in. Provinces will be very quick to speak up any time they feel the federal government is encroaching on their jurisdiction. I have colleagues in the House of Commons who will speak up if there is even the slightest chance that the federal government is intruding on something that is clearly under provincial jurisdiction.

If we're continually using the word “trespass”, my question to both groups is, how do we square that constitutional circle, if we're dealing with a crime against property, which is so clearly marked under provincial jurisdiction? Do you have any thoughts on how we square that circle?

The provinces may speak up and say, “No. You are intruding on something that is under our domain to legislate.” Do you have any thoughts on how they might push back against that?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Breaking and entering is illegal in Canada. Our discussion on Bill C‑205 concerns how to address this issue and how to create tools to prevent this type of activity. That's important.

Have there been any discussions? Have you been contacted by animal welfare organizations, such as the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA, in Quebec, for example?

Is this type of contact being made? Is it more that they aren't talking to you, they don't want anything to do with you, they're against you, and to hell with it, they'll do their campaigns on social media? At some point, and it's unfortunate, a farmer will fall victim to this situation, whether or not their family is there. That's how things will go.

Has there been any contact?

[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?

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Pritchard, for informing this committee as we examine Bill C-205.

You were chief veterinary officer of British Columbia—also my home province. Can you tell me a bit about some of your main duties in that role?

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

Thank you.

Let me go back to the enforcement of provincial legislation. According to a number of witnesses, it seems that having to prove damages also makes enforcing the legislation difficult. That would be one of the strengths of Bill C‑205. It would remove that burden. If I understood your opening statement correctly, you could start from the simple fact that the required protocols had not been followed. Since an offence would already have taken place, that would remove the burden of proof.

Did I understand you correctly?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Pritchard, thank you for making yourself available today. We are glad to welcome you.

You are in favour of Bill C‑205, of course. I would like to start by talking about current legislation. Some who are opposed to the bill tell us that these break-ins are already covered in the Criminal Code.

What can we tell them to justify passing Bill C-205?.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Pritchard. Don't feel any pressure whatsoever that you are literally in the spotlight for the next hour. Certainly, it's great to have somebody with your experience and knowledge in this field to provide us with some great insights.

I wanted to touch on some of the things we've heard so far and to get your opinion on what you feel is possible. We heard from CFIA officials that Bill C-205 would be difficult to implement and enforce due to current resources.

You talked about the avian flu that was in the Fraser Valley in 2014, and we've seen the impact of BSE and the concerns with African swine fever. I also kind of tie it back to COVID, where, if we've learned anything, it's that when you prioritize something from government officials and they're given the right direction and adequate resources, you can overcome some obstacles.

Do you feel that with the right resources, and understanding the potential risk that is there with the right priorities, Bill C-205 could be implemented and enforced?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, last week we were unable to meet because of the resources available to the committees as the extension of sittings in the House has continued, so we had conversations. I sent an email to my colleagues on Friday, expressing that I thought it was important to finish all three of the panels we had agreed upon and move to clause-by-clause on Thursday. I've had conversations with Ms. Rood, Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Perron, and I'll now move:

That, notwithstanding the motions adopted by the committee on Tuesday, May 11, 2021, regarding Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, the witnesses that were scheduled to appear on Thursday, June 10, 2021 be rescheduled to Tuesday, June 15, 2021; that clause-by-clause consideration of this bill commence on Thursday, June 17, 2021; and that amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee no later than 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on Wednesday, June 16, 2021.

That is the text of the motion. I believe it has been distributed to my colleagues.

Mr. Chair, I would also say to my colleagues as we go to vote on this, that given the conversations I've had with my colleagues, I understand the clerk has prepared for the adoption of this motion, and I would ask that we go forward with that at this time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 39 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 10, 2021, and the motion adopted by the committee on May 11, 2021, the committee is commencing the clause-by-clause consideration 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, 2021, and therefore 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, and the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that screenshots or taking a photo of the screen are not permitted.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

Just a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses must be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

Kody, you have your hand up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call the meeting back to order.

I will start about halfway through if that's okay. You know the guidelines pretty well, so I'll continue.

I would 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 an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

Just a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses must be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

Before we go to our witnesses, I want to remind members that the deadline for sending amendments with regard to Bill C-205 is Friday, June 11, at noon. Amendments must be sent to the clerk. If you want advice on the admissibility of an amendment, you may contact legislative clerk Jacques Maziade. If you need assistance with drafting amendments, you may contact legislative counsel Alexandra Schorah. I don't know if there will be any questions, but I wanted to remind all of you.

That being said, I will now welcome today's witnesses.

From ALUS, I believe it's Alternative Land Use Services, we have Bryan Gilvesy, chief executive officer; and from Farmers Edge Inc., we have Wade Barnes, chief executive officer, and Bruce Ringrose, head of sustainability and stakeholder relations.

Welcome to all of you. We'll go with a seven and a half minute opening statement.

Go ahead, Mr. Gilvesy.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'll continue with the Turkey Farmers of Canada.

In the existing “Prohibitions” section in the parent act, the Health of Animals Act, where prohibitions are defined, when they deal with how to treat a diseased animal—for example, it's illegal to bring it to market, to conceal it or to let it go out into a pasture—they refer to “no person”, whereas Bill C-205 is using the specific language:

No person shall,

but then it includes:

without lawful authority or excuse

There have been a number of cases in which employees at a farm have been responsible for introducing a biosecurity threat. Is there anything we can do to make sure that every person—no matter whether he or she is a protester or a farm employee—is actually respecting those biosecurity protocols? Is there anything further the federal government can be doing to make sure that any person who's entering a place where animals are kept is observing those strict biosecurity protocols?

Are there any suggestions you might have?

[Marcel Groleau]

If the federal and provincial levels could collaborate, but also transfer responsibilities, as we see in other areas, it would help with the enforcement of not only Bill C‑205, but perhaps even aspects of other agreements between the federal government and the provincial government on the whole area of healthy livestock operations.

[Darren Ference]

I just think it's vital that we have this Bill C-205. The majority of farmers are passive, so it's hard to get them to lay a charge. They want to farm and they want to be on their farm. They don't want to be pulled away to go to a criminal court while they're calving or they're seeding. It becomes a hindrance, so it's hard to do that.

This will help deter people from coming there. It won't mean that the farmer necessarily has to press the charges, but with the law, charges can be pressed because the law was broken.

[Marcel Groleau]

In our opinion, Bill C‑205 should discourage demonstrators from making their way onto farms. They will have to find other ways to express their opinions, because, if their actions have any impact on the health and biosecurity of the animals or on the farms, or if they cause any damage, there will be significant monetary consequences. There is a deterrent effect. Penalties for traffic offences have been significantly increased and that has had a deterrent effect and led to corrections in behaviour. So penalties are important.

In Quebec, we will continue to work to amend the act dealing with home invasions or farm invasions. In the Civil Code of Quebec, incursions are currently not sufficiently penalized to discourage that kind of behaviour. That would be in addition to the tools we would have under Bill C‑205.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

How would Bill C‑205 encourage farmers to take the steps necessary to make sure that those responsible for the incursions are punished?

[Marcel Groleau]

I would like to clarify the term “scenes of horror”. When the cameras arrived, the demonstrators had already been on site for some time. You would see scenes of horror in any pig farm where 30 or so strangers were wandering around, where the animals should have been fed three hours previously but had not been, and where the doors were open and letting in the cold. So it is important to put that report into context.

Bill C‑205 is intended to protect farms from incursions that could cause problems for the well-being and health of the animals. To be honest with you, I don't think that the bill would correct the situation that happened on the Porgreg farm.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

The Radio-Canada report also mentioned “scenes of horror” in describing the state the pigs were in. In your opinion, would Bill C‑205 reduce the possibility of shedding light on situations of that kind?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Do you consider that the fines currently proposed in Bill C‑205 are enough to have a deterrent effect?

It must be understood that, with what you have told us about Mr. Grégoire's farm, the impact in the area was very considerable.

[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?

[Nick de Graaf, First Vice-Chair, Chicken Farmers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name, as previously mentioned, is Nick de Graaf. I am a third generation chicken farmer in the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia. I'm also first vice-chair of Chicken Farmers of Canada. I'm joined here today by CFC's director of brand and communications, Lisa Bishop-Spencer.

For several years now, farmers like me across the country have feared the possibility of activists trespassing on our properties and into our chicken barns with the intention of what they think is saving the animals and protesting our commitment to carefully raising safe chicken. Therefore, we appreciate that the aims of Bill C-205 are twofold for our sector: It aims to protect the farmers and the animals in our care from activist threats while maintaining disease prevention and biosecurity on the farm.

Ensuring the appropriate care and welfare of the birds raised by Canadian chicken farmers is a top priority for our sector. We take pride in our long-standing, progressive and innovative approach to animal care, as demonstrated by the third-party-audited and mandatory Raised by a Canadian Farmer animal care program that safeguards our flocks. The animal care program for Canadian chicken has a solid, credible and science-based foundation. CFC’s animal care program is third-party-audited and is mandatory on every farm. The program uses enforcement mechanisms in cases of non-compliance, and we are pleased to say that 100% of farmers are compliant.

Chicken Farmers of Canada also has an FPT-recognized Raised by a Canadian Farmer on-farm food safety program, the OFFSP, that guarantees that the highest standards of biosecurity and disease prevention are in place on the farm. Of our farmers coast to coast, 100% are certified and compliant. This on-farm food safety program employs strict measures on the farm to prevent flock infections from outside sources, including top-notch requirements for biosecurity, disease prevention, feed and water management and testing, and mandatory record-keeping. Simple acts like registering visitors to the farm, wearing designated or new coveralls and booties inside the barn and careful flock reports are some of the many steps guaranteeing safe chicken for Canadians.

These programs, coupled with the trust Canadians have in farmers, are some of the many reasons that chicken is Canada’s number one meat protein. The difference between the two programs is their assurance programs. The OFFSP has an FPT recognition protocol, whereas the animal care program does not.

We are calling for the development of an FPT recognition protocol for animal care programs in the next agricultural policy framework. Such a protocol would help government convey the proper message to consumers about how their food is being raised and strengthen consumer trust in farmers' messages over activist rhetoric. I am proud to follow these programs carefully in order to raise food for Canadian families.

You also have to remember that farming is my business, and I operate it no differently than any other business person does. I have procedures and protocols in place. I mitigate and manage risk and I work hard to provide a high-quality product for Canadians.

As part of my business practices, I have good security policies and procedures in place to ensure overall security against any threat or multiple risks. An invasion rattles a farmer's sense of security and privacy and creates deep concern about biosecurity and what seems like an ongoing attack on our livelihoods. It is likely that outsiders entering a farm or private property that raises animals do not know about the biosecurity requirements on Canadian chicken farms and, in the case of activists, do not respect them.

Biosecurity is critical to the prevention of disease in flocks. On my farm, I track visitors and know who is on the property to mitigate the risks of introducing a domestic, reportable or emerging disease on the farm. Should a trespasser expose the animals to an unknown substance or disease or to an element that may compromise food safety, this may impact my ability to market that entire flock.

I know this legislation might bring up questions about people’s right to protest or laws that are already in place to prosecute trespassers, but when you are considering this bill, I want you to think about me and the thousands of other poultry and livestock farmers across this country who work hard every single day to ensure that the food we are raising for Canadians is safe and raised with care.

Thank you for your time and consideration of Bill C-205. We hope you will support this important defence of farmers and the on-farm practices that protect our food system so we can keep feeding Canadians.

[Dr. Brian Evans, Veterinarian, Deputy Director, World Organisation for Animal Health (Retired), Chief Veterinary Officer of Canada (Retired), Canadian Veterinary Medical Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and good day to all the members of the committee.

I am Dr. Brian Evans, as the chair has indicated. I am the current treasurer of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. As such, I also serve as an ex officio member of the CVMA executive and the CVMA council. It was my honour and privilege to previously serve as Canada's chief veterinary officer for 15 years, as well as Canada's chief food safety officer and executive vice-president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency prior to my retirement from the public service in 2013.

I was subsequently very fortunate to serve for a number of years as the deputy director general at the World Organisation for Animal Health, known globally as the OIE, based in Paris.

I'm pleased to be accompanied today at the committee by Dr. Henry Ceelen, the chair of the CVMA's national issues committee and a highly respected food animal practitioner from eastern Ontario. It's our pleasure to lend our collective experience and perspectives to assist you in your consideration of this private member's bill, Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

Briefly, the CVMA was incorporated by an act of Parliament in 1948. Our association is the national and international voice for Canada's approximately 13,000 veterinarians and 9,000 veterinary technicians and technologists. We provide leadership and advocacy for the veterinary medical community. The strategic priorities underpinning the work of the CVMA include leadership on national and international veterinary issues, animal welfare advocacy and support for members in building successful careers and maintaining balanced lives.

Canada's veterinarians make critical contributions to support the well-being of Canadians and the Canadian economy in a wide variety of roles. This includes the health and welfare of aquatic, terrestrial farm and companion animals; food security and food safety inspection; policy development in animal and public health domains in federal, provincial and territorial governments; scientific research; laboratory diagnostics; technical support for the animal health industry; and many others.

Canadian veterinarians embody the real-world application of the principles of One Health—that is, we work to address risks that emerge at the interface of animal health, human health and ecosystem health. We are qualified to assess and advise on the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and response to animal and zoonotic diseases, which are those diseases that affect both animals and humans, including those of livestock that have the potential to spread rapidly and widely, affecting herds and flocks over vast areas, often with significant adverse welfare, social and economic impacts.

Likewise, we understand the role of the environment as a potential source of disease and exposure to contaminants of many sorts, and the ability of hazards to spread through environmental contamination from affected premises to others in the surrounding area and beyond.

Overlying our roles and responsibilities in One Health is the essential role veterinarians play in contributing to the Canadian economy through trade and market access by working with producers and in close collaboration with the CFIA and provincial governments to produce healthy animals and safe food, respecting societal values and meeting consumer expectations.

In the area of animal welfare, Canadian veterinarians work through the CVMA with the National Farm Animal Care Council to develop and maintain codes of practice for all farm animal species that fall under animal care programs managed by industry.

In the area of animal and public health, Canada's veterinarians are trusted advisers in designing and implementing strict on-farm voluntary biosecurity protocols that are focused on managing natural, incidental and deliberate threats and are specifically aimed at prevention of disease and illness in animals. Veterinarians are well aware that prevention of an animal or zoonotic disease outbreak is much more cost-effective than managing the consequences.

This proposed amendment to the Health of Animals Act would “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”.

The CVMA acknowledges that authorized or unauthorized entry of individuals onto premises where animals are raised or housed is one way that diseases or other contaminants could be introduced onto the premises. It is for this very reason that many livestock operations have strict entry and exit controls, in many cases including decontamination shower-in and shower-out protocols.

Biosecurity procedures incorporate controls to mitigate risk from other potential disease entry points as well. For example, strategies are used to ensure that herds are closed to the introduction of live animals, vaccination programs are in effect, and wildlife and insect vector populations are controlled—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 10, 2021, and the motion adopted by the committee on April 15, 2021, 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, 2021, and therefore members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

Just a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses must be addressed through the chair.

When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

Now I would like to welcome our witnesses.

As an individual, we have Mr. J. Scott Weese, professor, University of Guelph. Welcome, Mr. Weese.

From the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, we have Dr. Henry Ceelen, veterinarian. Welcome, Mr. Ceelen.

Also from the CVMA is Dr. Brian Evans, retired veterinary deputy director, World Organisation for Animal Health, and former chief veterinary officer for Canada.

We value certainly your experience.

From the Chicken Farmers of Canada, we have Nick de Graaf, first vice-chair, and Lisa Bishop-Spencer, director of brand and communications.

We will start with the opening statements. Everyone will have a five-minute statement.

We will start with you, Mr. Weese, with your five-minute statement.

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

Thank you.

Thank you to our witnesses, Mr. Forbes, Ms. Walker and Ms. Lapointe, for appearing.

As you know, our committee is also studying Bill C-205. We did have the CFIA appear before the committee and express concerns about that bill and whether the organization would in fact have the resources to carry out the mandate that would be legislated upon it by the increase under the authority of the Health of Animals Act.

If we were in a hypothetical situation where Bill C-205 didn't exist, but the concerns that farmers have with risks to biosecurity and trespassers coming onto their property are very much prevalent.... I know some provinces have taken initiatives to address these issues. Can you tell me what policies or plans the federal department is currently engaging in to deal with those two issues, aside from what Bill C-205 is proposing?

[Rick Bergmann]

Well, really, what is the law? That's what we're talking about right now: Bill C-205. Maybe Mr. Roy would like to respond to that as well with a Quebec perspective, but we really need to have a law in place, which we're seeking.

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

I am just trying to wrap my head around this. Right now, if Bill C-205 were passed, how do you see timely enforcement? This is what we're getting back to: enforcement in a timely manner.

I know there are police on the ground now, that municipalities have police forces and things like that. There are 444 municipalities in Ontario alone. I just can't comprehend how we'd be able to hire enough CFIA officials in order to enforce this law.

I think it was Dr. Stark who commented on the last panel that it does have merit, but it's going to get around to enforcement.

I would ask Mr. Bergmann this: For your organization, what would be a timely fashion of implementing charges under this be if it came into law?

[Rick Bergmann]

Again, when Bill C-205 was brought forward, we thought it would be a very significant victory across the umbrella of our Canadian production.

With regard to the provincial side, to my knowledge, there hasn't been much of that at all.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

The CFIA investigators would have a much better knowledge of what they're dealing with than maybe the local RCMP police service.

To Mr. Vaillancourt, thank you very much for the great information you provided in your testimony.

What we've heard from many producers, specifically the pork producers who were today concerned about African swine fever for example.... In this context, I think what we've learned from the COVID pandemic is the incredibly devastating impact a virus can have on our economy.

Are we prepared for an outbreak of African swine fever, and should we be proactive with a deterrent such as Bill C-205 to ensure that we take every measure possible to safeguard the biosecurity of our farms?

[David Duval]

In my opinion, when a break and enter occurs on a farm, the local police should be the first to respond because they can be deployed the fastest. The same is true for a home invasion, where the RCMP, municipal police or national police can respond immediately.

The next step is to submit a report to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to determine whether animal abuse actually took place. I'm the first to refuse to defend people who would dare to harm animals.

I think that the first step is for the police to obtain warrants under legislation that enables them to respond.

This bill is important because, right now, the police and some governments are struggling to deal with this issue. Bill C-205 is important to us.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our witnesses for being here again.

Mr. Duval, I just wanted to start with you. It's certainly heartbreaking when you talk about a farm family who has quit the industry. We certainly cannot afford that when we're trying to attract young, new farmers to the industry. You mentioned the lack of response by the RCMP. In the incident that happened with friends of mine here, it was in fact the protestors who phoned the RCMP because they wanted the RCMP to protect them, and they knew there would be very few consequences, if any.

To counter some of the questions by my colleagues, I would point out that the CFIA has the enforcement and inspection services, the investigators and specialists, in place right now to enforce CFIA regulations. They also have the public prosecution services to follow through. It's not that the CFIA doesn't have the authority or the resources. It just doesn't seem that they are taking this as seriously as they should. Do you not think that if we made this a priority for the CFIA and their investigators, the presence of Bill C-205 would serve as a better deterrent compared with what the RCMP or local police officers are doing now?

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

Okay, thank you.

I just want to squeeze one more question in. This is for Mr. Bergmann. The theme of my question is really on deterrence versus enforcement, because we have heard testimony that the police are not always very quick to arrive on the scene and sometimes seem unsure as to whether they should proceed with a case.

If we were in fact to adopt Bill C-205—and I understand Mr. Barlow has made the case that CFIA can always work with provincial peace officers to enforce the law—do we also have a problem of enforcement, especially in rural Canada? If we're going to add another law, it's not going to do much good if we don't have the force to back it up and follow through with it.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

Professor Vaillancourt, maybe I will start with you. I did appreciate in your opening statement how you took the time to also illustrate that there are other dangers to the uninitiated entering a barn. There's heavy equipment. Livestock are large animals, and when they're spooked they can move unexpectedly and cause serious injury to humans, who are often quite a bit smaller.

I've been looking at the parent legislation, the existing Health of Animals Act. There are provisions in there such as section 9, keeping diseased animals; section 10, bringing diseased animals to market; section 11, selling or disposing of diseased animals; and section 12, throwing carcasses into water. It appears that the existing sections of the Health of Animals Act can apply equally to farmers and farm employees if they engage in this type of behaviour, whereas Bill C-205 as it's written seems to exclusively concentrate on someone who is there without lawful authority or excuse.

You are an expert in biosecurity. Do you think Bill C-205 needs to be broadened so that it is in line with other sections of the existing act, so that employees and farmers are held to the same standards in promoting general biosecurity?

[Rick Bergmann]

First of all, we all have expectations of protecting our families and properties. As a matter of fact, maybe in some of the offices that you're sitting in right now, or in your home, there is security to prevent people from coming in. When they come in, that's a wrong thing.

Why not agriculture? First and foremost, that's really my question, why not agriculture? Bill C-205 is a very common-sense bill.

To your question about people coming onto our farm, unwelcomed and unannounced—

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

It's appalling when things end this way.

Thank you, Mr. Duval.

I would now like to turn to the representatives of the Canadian Pork Council, Mr. Roy and Mr. Bergmann.

Does the current version of Bill C-205 meet your expectations? Does the additional protection provided by the bill satisfy all pork producers in Canada?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

What I also understand, Mr. Duval, is that Quebec does not currently have legislation specifically addressing this issue.

Would Quebec pork companies be better positioned if Bill C-205 were to come into force?

[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?

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

Thank you.

My question is for Mr. Mathuik or Ms. Ireland.

Mr. Mathuik or Ms. Ireland, you talked about the requirements and the significant resources it takes to respond quickly. We also talked about partnering with local law enforcement. Can't we simply count on the police to demonstrate that the individuals in question penetrated the area where the animals were kept?

That's my first question. I think it's possible to do that.

You said it would be very difficult to prove the intent of the individuals. However, John Barlow, the sponsor of Bill C-205, told us such proof would not be necessary, as he understood the bill. He indicated that the individuals could be penalized simply for trespassing.

That brings me to my questions.

What is the real story?

If the offence is very difficult to prove, what changes need to be made to the bill?

The committee has the power to propose amendments to the bill. What changes would you suggest we make to lower the burden of proof?

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

Thank you.

It seems, from the way you answered, that the number of charges does act as a deterrent to bad behaviour. That is the intent, as I understand it, of this bill as well.

Can you talk about farm biosecurity standards? My understanding is that on their own they don't carry the force of law. Would the passage of Bill C-205 not provide the force of law to trespassing with the potential of breaching farm biosecurity standards?

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

Finally, Bill C-205 makes reference to an enclosed place or building in which animals are kept. There's been some talk about what would happen if protesters entered a farm but did not enter the building.

Are there problems, when you try to do your investigations, concerning whether the protesters came anywhere close to animals in order to possibly transfer a disease?

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

If Bill C-205 were to become law, is there any other agency that can be tasked with enforcing the Health of Animals Act, or does it always have to be the CFIA?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I understand what you are saying, but my question had more to do with activists who go from farm to farm.

I'm from an agricultural community and I know that, while activists don't stay long on a farm, they don't have to have prolonged contact in order to spread certain diseases.

Lastly, does the agency have sufficient resources to oversee the biosecurity component set out in Bill C-205?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here this afternoon. CFIA plays a very important role in protecting animal health.

My question is for whomever would like to answer. It's about biosecurity. You said you work with various organizations and farmers associations to develop biosecurity standards. When people trespass on a property, regardless of how they penetrate the premises or where they come from, there is a risk of contamination. Farmers have to change their clothes and even shower when they enter and exit the building.

Is biosecurity very important in the context of Bill C-205?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal, Vice-President, Science Branch, Chief Veterinary Officer and World Organisation for Animal Health Delegate for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Good day, Mr. Chair.

My name is Dr. Jaspinder Komal and I am Canada’s chief veterinary officer and the vice-president of science at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. With me today is Dr. Mary Jane Ireland, who serves as the executive director of animal health, and Mr. Kelvin Mathuik, director general of our operations in the western area.

We are pleased to lend our expertise to assist you in your consideration of private members’ Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

The CFIA is a science-based regulatory agency, and its broad mandate encompasses animal health, plant health, food safety, and international market access. The proposed bill contains elements that greatly impact how the CFIA currently delivers on its mandated activities due to the bill's proposed changes to the Health of Animals Act.

The CFIA has programs in place that are designed to protect animal health and support biosecurity. In a nutshell, CFIA’s animal health program protects Canada’s animals from disease, including aquatic animals; manages animal disease events; promotes and regulates certain aspects of animal welfare; verifies that animal feeds and vaccines are safe, effective and of high quality; collaborates to develop voluntary biosecurity standards; and facilitates trade and market access for Canadian animals and products.

The CFIA administers and enforces the Health of Animals Act and regulations, which address diseases and biological, chemical, or physical agents that may affect animals or be transmitted by animals to persons and, in the same vein, to protect animals from these risks. The CFIA takes the lead in responding to reportable diseases, such as avian influenza, African swine fever, and Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE.

There is also the issue of biosecurity, which is a foundational piece in the proposed legislation. The CFIA has a long history of working closely with industry and producer organizations, provincial and territorial authorities, academia, and consulting with international partners to support biosecurity for the regulated parties we inspect.

Under the Health of Animals Act, in the course of their work, CFIA inspectors and officers may require that animals be presented for inspection, require documents be produced, conduct tests or analysis, as well as enter a dwelling place with a warrant, among other authorities officially granted.

However, CFIA inspectors and officers are public officers. They're not peace officers. Public officers are defined as any officer engaged in enforcing the laws of Canada relating to revenue, customs, excise, trade or navigation. Their powers stem from the acts and regulations they enforce—in this case, the Health of Animals Act—and they are given limited additional powers under the Criminal Code. In contrast, peace officers are generally police officers. Their powers include the ability to detain or arrest individuals. Peace officers may also be armed, whereas public officers such as inspectors may not be.

I would also like to point to the fact that existing legislation already clearly defines and deals with issues related to private property, and its enforcement largely rests with provincial authorities, including peace officers. There are also existing federal provisions under the Criminal Code that deal with trespassing, as well as specific prohibitions on animal cruelty and abuse. What Bill C-205 proposes represents a significant shift from what the CFIA has been mandated to do, and therefore would require an investment of additional inspection resources, further training, and increased legal authorities to assume these additional responsibilities. Given the combination of Criminal Code provisions, provincial trespass and animal health legislation and producers’ commitment to on-farm biosecurity that already exist, the proposed amendments would provide limited additional protection to farmers and producers.

However, I feel I can only speak to my expertise in animal health, especially as it pertains to CFIA’s mandate and activities. I trust that this testimony can help inform your study of this proposed legislation, and I am very happy to be back at this table, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be splitting my time with Mr. Blois.

Mr. Barlow, I'm going to continue in the same vein as Mr. Longfield. Do you anticipate any legal challenges from the provinces, since Bill C-205 interacts with provincial trespassing legislation?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Barlow. Thank you for being here today.

I have a fairly straightforward question for you.

Bill C-205 is quite significant. My riding is home to a lot of hog farmers, so protecting biosecurity is certainly very important to them. It's one of the worries farmers have, worries that can easily lead to mental health problems.

Mr. Barlow, talk, if you would, about the bill's deterrent effect. When it comes to break-ins, are the fines stiff enough to deter would-be perpetrators?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Barlow, it's wonderful to see you back here. What a pleasure to have you with us. The committee members all recognize what Bill C-205 aims to do. I, too, had the opportunity to speak in the House to ensure the committee had a chance to study this important piece of legislation.

I'm going to continue along the same lines as Mr. Blois.

When you say the current legislation is not adequately enforced, two things come to mind. Does the bill have a provision to ensure charges are actually laid? I am thinking of someone who isn't really aware of the biosecurity hazards and therefore cannot plead innocence.

Could you comment on that?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's great to be back here with some friends. I'm certainly looking forward to the discussion today. It really is an honour for me to be in front of the standing committee on agriculture and agri-food to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-205 proposes to amend 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 animals to disease or a toxic substance capable of affecting or contaminating them. Simply put, this enactment would apply existing penalties within the act to people who trespass on farm property at facilities where animals are kept. It also proposes to double existing fine amounts for groups and organizations that encourage unlawful behaviour, which put the biosecurity of our farms and food supply at risk.

The new offence, titled “Exposure of animals to disease or toxic substance” would be inserted after section 9 of the act under “Prohibitions”, the heading within the “Control of Diseases and Toxic Substances” portion of the act. Existing penalties within the act are found in section 65 under “General offence”. Bill C-205 would apply those penalties to the new offence. The bill would also add subsection 1.2, which, as was mentioned previously, would double existing fine amounts for groups and organizations that encourage unlawful behaviour that puts the biosecurity of our farms and our food supply at risk.

Two key principles were considered when I was drafting this bill. First, I wanted to work within the existing legislation to enhance what was already there and to ensure that the penalty would be a deterrent for unwanted behaviour. Second, I wanted to develop legislation to deal with one specific incident. Rather than the bill, it should have the capacity to address the big-picture challenges associated with trespassing incidents across the country.

Mr. Chair, I also want to be very clear about what this bill does not do.

This bill does not limit individual rights to peaceful protest on public property. This bill also does not prevent whistle-blowers from coming forward when they witness practices that jeopardize food security or the welfare of animals. In fact, farmers and their employees are obligated to report any wrongdoing to the appropriate authorities, as they operate in a highly regulated environment. They must also follow strict rules and codes of conduct to ensure the health, safety and welfare of our farm animals.

Mr. Chair, I certainly know the members of this committee, and they are well aware that there have been numerous protests by animal activists on farms and at processing plants. The situation is not limited to a specific segment of animal agriculture or to a certain part of this country. Members from all parties recounted the situations in their ridings when this bill was debated in the House at second reading. I won't revisit all of those stories today. Instead, I'd like to touch on one aspect of the bill that has no clause for this committee to consider, but will perhaps have the most impact on farmers and ranchers if this bill does become law.

It's a subject matter this committee knows well, and that is mental health in agriculture. It is fitting to discuss this, given that this week is indeed mental health week in Canada.

The idea for this bill came to me as a result of an incident within my riding at a turkey farm near Fort Macleod. I went to visit the Tschetter family after they had about 30 protesters on their farm.

The Tschetter family came up to check the turkey barns at 7 in the morning, as they always do, and were shocked to find about 35 or 40 protesters who had camped out in their barns. When I spoke to Mr. Tschetter and his son, he just couldn't understand why they were targeted and what they had done.

This was a devastating incident for their family, but also for farmers across my riding and across the country who phoned and emailed me—and maybe many other members of this committee. They're concerned. Is this open season on farmers and ranchers? Is this something that we have to endure? Why are they being targeted?

This committee will recall that in its 2019 report titled “Mental health: a priority for our farmers”, you heard testimony from witnesses about farmers being the victims of stigmatization at the hands of activists. For the benefit of people listening and those who have not read the committee's report, I'd like to quote part 3 of that report:

Today, farmers, ranchers and producers come under attack from many different sources. As one witness put it: “Our ancestors only had to worry about weather and prices. Today, we farmers have the added worry of being a target of an extreme activist, something that takes a serious toll on me mentally. ”

Committee members heard extremely disturbing testimony from witnesses relating to how they had been verbally assaulted, threatened and called murderers or rapists over social media channels by environmental terrorists and animal rights extremists. Such social media attacks are not tolerated in most urban setting or among teenagers, yet little has been done to curb these attacks targeted at farmers.

Who do these animal rights activists target? Of course, the first ones in their sight are the producers. As well as being called polluters, today they are accused of being aggressors and rapists, because of artificial insemination, and child kidnappers and killers.

You know, those words have extremely serious consequences. As one farmer told me, when he gets up in the morning and sees that type of thing on Facebook, he's already wondering how he's going to cope. It adds a lot of stress and distress.

Such testimony is troubling and deeply disturbing. Sadly, it is quite common to see many instances of bullying and intimidation towards farmers go unpunished. This section of the report led to the following recommendation from this committee:

Recommendation 4: That the Federal government should take any and all measures necessary to prevent these unprovoked attacks as well as to make sure individuals who perpetrate them face justice.

Bill C-205 speaks directly to that recommendation. Imagine waking up and knowing that your farm is the target of some of these individuals and groups, but not knowing if or when they'll show up at your home or your farm, what they have planned for the animals in your care, or what they may do to your property, your employees or your family. Though my bill may not prevent unprovoked attacks on social media, it certainly aims to deter groups and organizations who encourage others to bring this type of aggression onto the doorsteps of farm families and unlawfully trespass onto farm property where animals are kept.

I hope members of this committee can see the importance and urgency of this bill and what it would mean for our farmers, our ranchers and our producers, and especially for farm families like the Tschetters who, unfortunately, have been on the receiving end of this misguided activism. I would encourage this committee to listen to our hard-working families and support Bill C-205.

Mr. Chair, I'm certainly happy to answer any questions from the members of the committee. We'll certainly be talking about many other aspects of this bill, but I really thought it was important, considering this is mental health week, to focus on the mental health side of what is being proposed with Bill C-205.

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 31 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 beginning its study of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

Today's meeting is taking part in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25. Therefore, members can attend 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 show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

I'd like to take the opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that screenshots or taking a photo of your screen is not permitted.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

Just a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

Before we get going, I'd like to remind members that amendments to Bill C-206 must be sent to the clerk by Friday, May 7—tomorrow—at 5 p.m. eastern time.

Now I'd like to welcome the witness, who has seven and a half minutes for his opening statement. I'd like to welcome John Barlow, the member of Parliament for Foothills.

Mr. Barlow, you have the floor for seven and a half minutes. Go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor, and thank you, Mr. Ammeter.

This concludes our second panel.

I really want to thank the Canadian Canola Growers Association—Mr. Mike Ammeter and also Mr. Dave Carey—for being here today.

Also Mr. Kelly from Dowler-Karn Limited, thanks for coming in today to share your thoughts on our study.

That will conclude this. I'd like the members to stick around for a few minutes so we can finish a few items of business.

We'll start with Bill C-206. The officials have been invited. They've agreed to do one opening statement for all of them—not each. We have three departments. We have agriculture, environment and I believe we have finance as the third one. They'll have one opening statement and then we can go into the questioning rounds after that.

Hopefully that's agreeable to everyone. I don't know if there are any issues with that. If not, we'll adopt that model. I don't see any opposition.

The next thing we have to do is approve the press release.

I think you've all received a copy of the press release from the processing capacity report. If it's okay with everyone, we'll approve that and we'll release it as soon as we have a tabled report. Are there any comments on the press release? Is it all good with everyone?

Okay, I don't see any comments, so I think we're all good with that.

Finally, we have to approve the budget for Bill C-205. I believe everyone has received a copy of the budget. It's pretty standard practice. The total is $3,350 for that budget. I don't know if we need a motion, but we need consensus to approve the budget.

Are we all okay with the budget? Just show your thumb or wave your hand....

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome, everyone, to meeting 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 24, 2021, and the motion adopted by the committee on March 9, 2021, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C-206, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, regarding qualifying farming fuel.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, 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. The webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

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

To ensure this 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 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.

Before welcoming our witnesses, I'd like to ask the members to remain in the meeting once the second panel is over. We'll go over the press release for the processing capacity report and approve the budget for the study of Bill C-205. This will only take a couple of minutes.

Now I'd like to welcome our witnesses. We have today, for our first panel, from the Canadian Horticultural Council, Aaron Coristine, chair of the energy, environment and climate change working group; and Linda Delli Santi, chair of the greenhouse vegetable working group. From the National Farmers Union, we have Katie Ward, president and farmer.

With that, we'll start our question panel. With the first panel, we have six minutes each, and we'll start with Ms. Rood for six minutes.

I jumped over the opening statements. I'm sorry about that. Let's go back to the Canadian Horticultural Council and whoever wants to take the opening statement for five minutes.

Health of Animals Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-205, under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from February 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-216.

We are debating this legislation because the Liberal government has not treated supply-managed sectors fairly. They have not supported farmers or producers, and not followed through on their commitments. However, this legislation does not address the issues of farmers and producers.

Conservatives have been strong and vocal supporters of our supply-managed sectors and will continue to be. In fact, Conservatives have a policy declaration that says the following:

...it is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative Government will support supply management and its goal to deliver a high quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producer.

Our leader, our party, and our policy have been clear on this. The Conservative party is an ally, supporter and defender of supply management in Canada. I will talk about these important supply-managed sectors.

When I met with the Chicken Farmers of Canada, they were clear about their priorities. Through correspondence and an appearance at committee, we know that their priorities are new investment programs to support producers as they improve their operations, a market development fund to promote Canadian-raised chicken, a tariff rate quota allocation methodology designed to ensure minimal market distortions, the enforcement of Canadian production standards on imports and the resolution of import control loopholes undermining this sector. One of these is the fraudulent importation of mislabelled broiler meat being declared as spent fowl. There are reports of chicken meat imports being mislabelled in order to bypass import control measures.

When this situation first became apparent in 2012, Canada was importing the equivalent of 101% of the United States’ entire spent fowl production. According to the Chicken Farmers of Canada, these illegal imports have resulted in an estimated annual loss of 1,400 jobs in Canada, $105 million in contributions to the national economy, $35 million in tax revenue and the loss of at least $66 million in government revenues due to tariff evasion.

These illegal imports also raise important food safety concerns relating to traceability for recalls. This issue not only affects our economy and hard-working chicken farmers, but the lives of Canadians are on the line in the case of a food-borne illness.

Where is the action plan to deal with this?

When I spoke to the Egg Farmers of Canada, an industry association that represents over 1,000 family farms across the country that support over 18,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in GDP, they were clear that they wanted the government to stop claiming to support the industry and actually start defending it. I learned of the innovation occurring in this industry.

The egg industry is tired of being strung along by the government. They had to fight tooth and nail for clarity on promised compensation. They expressed their desire for investment in their industry, which is the backbone of rural communities, and for market development support when it comes to the Canadian egg brand.

Where is the desire or action plan to defend our egg industry?

When I spoke to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, they told me how hard it was for the industry to plan for the future due to the government’s lack of transparency, not the least in regard to the disbursement of promised compensation.

Where is the desire and action plan to defend the dairy industry?

These same concerns were raised by the Turkey Farmers of Canada. When I first spoke with them, they were going into year four without any payments of promised compensation by the government.

The Conservatives are the only party who can and will be able to ensure that our world-class producers of dairy, chicken, turkey, and eggs have a partner in government. The Bloc Québécois will never have to negotiate a trade agreement for Canada and be the partner in government that the supply management businesses in Quebec and across the country can rely on. The Conservative Party is the only party that can and will put an end to the failures of the Liberal government when it comes to trade agreements and compensation.

Conservatives will faithfully defend supply management. We were in the House of Commons pressing the government over and over again to fulfill its compensation promises to the supply-managed sectors. We have also raised in the House the meaningful actions that we can take now to protect and support farmers and producers, including in supply-managed sectors. These actions would include modernizing and improving agricultural risk management programs, asking the Competition Bureau to investigate the impacts of abusive trade practices in the grocery industry by the grocery giants, or providing flexibility and clarity on how compensation for supply-managed sectors is allocated.

Why have we seen no plans on these important topics?

I have spent a lot of time talking with businesses and industry representatives. They want consultation, understanding and transparency from the government. They want support from the government, which has been sorely lacking. After all, our agricultural sectors do not compete fairly with other countries that subsidize, both directly and indirectly, their own products.

Creating legislation such as we are debating today, which could target farmers and producers right from the onset as bargaining chips in future trade negotiations, is not a wise strategy. Canada could be outnegotiated and forced to agree to concessions and pay compensation. This would mean more workers losing jobs, and it would do nothing to drive investment, spearhead innovation or protect jobs.

In my home province of British Columbia, supply management is an important part of our economy. B.C. has over three million egg-laying hens across over 140 farms in the province. Chicken farmers in B.C. produce 87 million dozen eggs annually and account for 14,000 jobs, contributing $1.1 billion to Canada's GDP.

B.C. is also the third-largest dairy-producing province in Canada, with 500 farms.

It is the Conservatives who are putting forth private members' bills that are meaningful to the agriculture sector. Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-206, would exempt farmers from paying the carbon tax on gasoline, propane and natural gas. From heating barns to running farm equipment, farmers face steep energy costs, and these have skyrocketed in many parts of the country due to the increasing federal carbon tax. It is a practical measure to help alleviate the financial strain on the agriculture sector. Supporting our food security is more important than ever.

Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-208, would allow the transfer of a small business, family farm or fishing operation at the same tax rate when selling to a family member as when selling to a third party. I was happy to jointly second this bill in the first session of this Parliament. This was a poor tax policy change brought in by the government. This policy bothered me so much when it first came out. It was one of the factors that prompted me to run to become a member of Parliament.

Succession planning is a challenge at the best of times for small businesses, in particular farmers, and it is unfair that it is more financially advantageous to sell to a stranger than to one's own children, who have often grown up around the family business and contributed over time. I have many communications regarding this bill from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country on how positively it will affect their businesses and future planning.

Conservative Bill C-205 would amend the animal health act to address trespassing onto farms, into barns or other enclosed areas where the health of animals and safety of Canada’s food supply is potentially at risk. Entering a farm without lawful authority or excuse would become an offence under the act.

We will always support the hard-working farmers and producers in our supply managed sectors who ensure quality foods for Canadians. Dairy products, chicken, turkey and eggs are core staples on our dinner tables, and the pandemic showed us how important it is to protect our supply chains, supply management and food security.

The legislation we are debating today does nothing to address any of the concerns I have outlined. There are more meaningful, productive and long-lasting ways we can stand up for supply management without supporting Bill C-216.

Canada’s Conservatives will continue to support our supply managed sectors and ensure that dairy- and poultry-farming families and producers are consulted and engaged in any trade negotiations in the future.

We will continue to support all farmers and producers in meaningful ways.

Health of Animals Act

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is very fitting that I have the opportunity to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-205, on the week that we celebrated Canada's Agriculture Day. It means a lot when we look at the bills that have come forward. I want to congratulate my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South for the passing at second reading of his private member's bill, Bill C-206, which would exempt all farm fuels from the carbon tax. It is a huge message we are sending to Canadian farmers: We are advocating for them and working on issues that are important to them.

I want to take the short time I have remaining in this debate to thank my colleagues who have stepped up and spoken to my bill, and certainly my colleague from Beauce and my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who spoke in favour of the legislation today. It is important that we talk about how this legislation builds on the very robust biosecurity measures we already have in Canada.

I also want to thank my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, especially the agriculture critic, who spoke about another very important issue in our first hour of debate. I heard it raised again today. It is the issue of whistle-blowers. Nothing in the bill does anything to prevent whistle-blowers from doing what I believe, and what many Canadians believe, is a very important job. Someone with a lawful reason for being on a farm, like a farm employee, who sees something that is concerning or is not up to standard should absolutely take the opportunity to raise the issue with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or their employer to ensure that our farm animals are protected.

I also want to thank the Bloc's agriculture critic, who talked about another important issue: the mental health impact on Canadian farmers. The Tschetter family, in my riding, went to their barns at 7:30 in the morning and saw 40 protesters in one of their barns. It was shocking, and it has had a profound impact on them. I know it still impacts them to this day.

My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot spoke today about a very recent issue at a farm in his riding, where 30 protesters came onto a hog operation. They did not understand the biosecurity protocols that are in place. That is exactly what this legislation is trying to address. As a result of the protesters being on that hog farm, the farmer has now seen rotavirus in his herd. He had not seen it on his farm in more than 40 years. These issues are very real, and they do impact Canadian farmers. It could have been African swine fever, which would have devastated that farm and spread across Canada.

This is a $14-billion industry to Canada. A protester or an activist, unknowingly, does not understand the biosecurity protocols that are in place, and they are very strict. Any of us who have gone to visit a farm in our riding or a neighbouring riding understands the things we must do before we go onto farms, and certainly into barns or processing plants. Protesters and activists many times do not understand the protocols that are in place. I know they do not do it on purpose, but sometimes they do not understand the consequences of their actions. They could be bringing in African swine fever, BSE, foot-and-mouth disease or avian flu. All of these things have an impact.

As I said, we saw it at the hog farm in Quebec. However, we also saw mink farms in B.C. have to euthanize their animals because of COVID-19. We have seen the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on our Canadian economy and what has happened. Imagine a similar virus or disease came onto a farm. It could have a similar impact throughout our agriculture sector. That is what the legislation is trying to prevent. It is not a statement against protesting. Protesting is an important part of our society, but people can do that on public property, outside of the farm. This is about when they cross the line and go onto private property. That is what the bill is trying to address.

I want to thank the commodity groups and farmers across Canada I have worked with, including the Tschetter family, to develop this legislation and bring it forward. It would not have been possible without their support and encouragement.

I ask that all members of the House support Bill C-205 to get it to committee for further discussion. I hope they will all vote in favour of it. I want us to send a message to farmers and farm families that we are here for them, we understand what they are going through, we are here for their financial and mental health, and we are here to protect the sanctity of our food supply.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in support of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, the private member's bill introduced by the member for Foothills.

Much like my friend and colleague, the member for Foothills, I have a profound love and respect for the agriculture and agri-food sector. I am a strong supporter of farmers and ranchers. They get up at dawn every single day to do a vital job and feed Canadians.

This important bill proposes some essential amendments to the existing Health of Animals Act. I do not think the existing legislation does enough to protect farmers and ranchers from people unlawfully entering their farms. Bill C-205 would make it an offence to enter farms and ranches, in order to protect livestock and other animals from trespassers who could intentionally or unintentionally cause damage to them or to their owner.

The existing law provides a framework to control diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals or that may be transmitted by animals to humans. However, the requirements and prohibitions apply to the owner of the animals. The act does not currently cover people who unlawfully enter a farm, and that is what the bill would amend.

It is important to note that the purpose of the bill is not to limit a person's ability to protest peacefully, but to add guidelines, and especially rules, that individuals must follow when it comes to animal welfare and cross-contamination, which can have disastrous consequences for the health of an animal or the ability of an owner to keep their herd safe.

As hon. members surely know, animal rights activitists have organized many protests on farms and at some processing plants. As my colleagues have mentioned, these protests are not limited to certain segments of the agriculture sector or certain parts of the country. In the Saint-Hyacinthe region, many problems were caused by activists who broke into pig farms and caused irreparable harm to the animals and their owner.

In this case, in December 2019, protesters broke into the pig farm in the early hours of the morning with the intention of causing a disturbance. The activists entered the pig barn and caused severe damage to the facilities. The farm owner reported losing over 500 pigs as a result of the contamination. Two different biological infections were subsequently detected on that farm. Not only did the protesters cause the pigs serious health problems, but they also traumatized the animals by taking pictures with ultra-bright flashes and causing the animals to run around the pens, leading to considerable losses. The activists also left the barn doors open and tampered with the building's thermostat, causing additional problems for the farm owner. Members can imagine what happens when the doors of a farm building are left open in the middle of December. For the protesters, this intrusion led to nothing more than a slap on the wrist. The police even told the farmer that there was nothing they could do to keep the protesters off the property. This incident was definitely a premeditated attack, since all but one or two of the protesters were not even local residents.

That was just one of the many protests that took place in Quebec. They are happening far too often, and they are happening across the country. I am worried things will get worse if nothing is done. When activists trespass on farms and farm buildings, they are probably not aware of the consequences of their actions. First and foremost, they are endangering livestock, farmers, their families and workers.

I know my colleagues will agree that our farmers, ranchers and processors care deeply about food safety, animal health and the environment. They will also agree that mental health and anxiety in the agricultural sector are reaching crisis levels and that we are already seeing a significant impact during the pandemic in particular.

It is essential to protect Canada's food supply. Viruses like African swine flu are a real threat to our agriculture. These threats to biosecurity can decimate cattle herds and devastate our industry and our economy. An epidemic in Canada would devastate our farms and immediately close export markets, paralyzing the pork industry and countless other sectors.

Enhancing biosecurity measures as they relate to trespassers is a move that is supported by farmers and ranchers, as well as food processors and various farming organizations. Recently, a growing number of individuals have been breaking into farms and food processing centres. This could lead to major biosecurity problems for the animals and the people who work with them. Even the Minister of Agriculture has spoken out against these protests by extremist groups on dairy farms, saying that her department was concerned about this.

I would like to share with the House some of the perspectives of the stakeholders who completely agree with the proposed changes in this bill.

According to Benoît Fontaine, chair of Chicken Farmers of Canada or CFC, Canada's 2,877 chicken farmers take pride in raising safe food for Canadians. CFC's raised by a Canadian farmer on-farm food safety program enforces strict biosecurity measures on every farm across the country to limit the spread of disease. He believes that the proposed legislation will further strengthen the Health of Animals Act to ensure trespassers are prosecuted for their actions, while preventing the potential spread of disease.

For his part, Pierre Lampron, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, said that Canadian dairy farmers are committed to giving their herds the best care and respecting the highest animal welfare, food quality and biosecurity standards. Mr. Lampron believes that the amendments proposed by the member for Foothills to the Health of Animals Act will better protect the health and safety of animals.

As we can see, the industry generally supports these important changes. The Conservative Party hopes to have the support of the other parties to implement this bill as soon as possible. We have the sense that many of the recent incidents in Canada are not organized by individuals but by groups of activists who encourage people to break the law in some cases. This amendment would serve as a deterrent to these groups by doubling current prison sentences and maximum fines.

In conclusion, Bill C-205 will protect the biosecurity of farm operations and food processing plants, where the protection of animals and workers must remain the priority. I hope that all members of the House understand the importance of this bill and that they will support it when the time comes to a vote in the House. This is not in any way a partisan bill; it is just common sense.

We must do what we can to protect our agri-food sector. As we heard in previous speeches and in my presentation, protecting our national food supply is extremely important. It is imperative that the federal government intervene to ensure proper regulations and enforcement with respect to this issue. We must put in place guidelines for the provinces, on which they will work with all stakeholders—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-205 because I come from a riding where agriculture is so important and agri-tourism makes such an enormous contribution to the vitality of Shefford.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill because we have always stood with farmers, who would not be able to survive if they did not treat their animals properly. I grew up with horses. My father even raised a mistreated horse and practically brought it back to life. I accompanied my aunts and uncles when they went to care for their animals. That contact with the land and the agricultural community on a smaller scale was a privilege for me, and it did a lot to open my eyes to the importance of this sector in the food chain.

I want to begin my speech today by stating the main points of the bill. I will then give a real-life example from my region, and I will close by reminding members of some of the arguments for and against the bill. To start, I want to dispel the myth that Bill C-205 challenges vegan values. The bill is about respect for animals, laws and private property.

First, let me summarize the bill, which is actually very simple. It makes 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. It also amends the Health of Animals Act, under which the penalties would be applied.

However, shared jurisdiction limits its effects. Certain difficulties may also complicate the application of this bill, including the fact that the purpose of the Health of Animals Act is really to protect animals in order to protect the humans who consume them and to prevent epidemics of zoonotic disease, or animal-to-human disease transmission. It was not created to define animal welfare. Agriculture and animal protection are shared jurisdictions, so the federal government's power to implement this kind of bill broadly is limited. That is why it would be good to have more information about how the bill would actually work.

To better understand the issue, here is a brief description posted on the website of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA:

Canadian provinces have the primary responsibility for protecting the welfare of animals, including farm animals and pets. All provinces and territories have laws in respect to animal welfare. Provincial and territorial legislation tend to be general in scope, covering a wide range of animal welfare interests. Some provinces and territories have regulations that govern specific aspects of animal welfare, or are related to certain species.

The CFIA's animal welfare mandate is limited to regulating humane transportation of animals and the humane treatment of food animals in federal abattoirs.

The Criminal Code of Canada prohibits anyone from willfully causing animals to suffer from neglect, pain or injury. The Criminal Code is enforced by police services, provincial and territorial Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and/or provincial and territorial ministries of agriculture.

We must therefore be careful, because all provinces have animal welfare laws but not all of them have passed legislation to address this particular issue. In recent years, several provinces, including Ontario and Alberta, have created or strengthened laws to punish people who break into a slaughterhouse or farm.

Quebec does not yet have a law such as this, but it does have the Animal Welfare and Safety Act. This law is very much in line with the type of agriculture we have in Quebec, which is much more oriented towards family operations. We must avoid getting involved in a situation where it could be construed that we are telling it what to do or giving lectures. If the question is asked, the reply is simple: Quebec is considering the issue and it is not up to the federal government to impose its laws on the provinces.

I will now talk about a case that farmers and food processors in Shefford have raised with me several times, especially since I live in the region that is known as Quebec's pantry. It is a region that I share with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who also spoke of the highly publicized case of Porgreg in Saint-Hyacinthe. We are neighbours, so of course, people have talked to us about this a lot. Again, on December 7, 2019, 13 vegan activists and antispeciesists broke into a pig farm in Saint-Hyacinthe to protest against raising animals for human consumption. They entered a pig barn where they filmed and protested for nearly seven hours, sitting on the floor in front of the pig enclosures to try to expose their quality of life.

Sûreté du Québec officers had to enter the building to remove them. These 30 people, who were not supposed to be there, then contaminated the premises, which put the health and safety of the herd at risk.

During a press conference in January 2020, the co-owners of the farm in question said that after the incident they had noticed some clinical signs of a disease. After testing was done, they found out they were dealing with the rotavirus, which they had not seen in nearly 40 years.

That is what Ms. Grégoire explained when she testified alongside the president of the UPA, Marcel Groleau, and the president of the Éleveurs de porcs du Québec, David Duval. It should be noted that pigs are very sensitive to stress and when they are in captivity their environment needs to be controlled both in terms of temperature and noise.

This type of break-in obviously has potentially disastrous biosecurity consequences for pig farms and puts the animals' health, safety and well-being at risk. Access to the pig barns is limited and controlled, to prevent the potential introduction of external diseases, viruses or bacteria, such as the swine respiratory disease, or SRD, porcine epidemic diarrhea, or PED, the rotavirus, which is a viral disease of a pig's small intestine, or African swine fever, which has ravaged pig populations in Asia.

Farmers whose herds are infected as a result of a break-in end up having to spend a significant amount of money. This event was quite unsettling for the animals. One of the owners, Ms. Grégoire, reported that the activists had put water in their generator's diesel tank, tampered with the building's thermostats and left the barn doors open. The temperature in the barn dropped to -12°C. The noise and stress even caused the sows to get up abruptly and then kill the piglets when they lay back down. Anyone who has spent any amount of time on a pig farm could have foreseen this outcome. secur

The UPA had to seek an injunction against the activist group to prohibit it from coming within 500 metres of a farm without the owner's consent. That injunction was urgently granted because the group was planning other stunts.

When I read the request for injunction, it was worrisome to see that the risk of criminal conviction clearly did nothing to curb the behaviour of the individuals in that group and did not have the desired deterrent effect. Farmers in my region are therefore extremely concerned, because the activists do not seem to regret their actions. The fear that it will happen again is legitimate.

One month after the incidents in Saint-Hyacinthe, UPA representatives made a public announcement with the owners of the farm to show their support and denounce this type of practice, which is clearly becoming more and more common. Marcel Groleau even said that “the acts committed seek to impose an ideology through defamation, propaganda, threats and fear. Society strongly condemns this type of abuse, for which there must be serious consequences”.

The Bloc Québécois values freedom of expression highly, as we recently demonstrated. People absolutely have the right to protest and make themselves heard and share their vision of how things should be. However, we cannot allow that to take the form of illegal activities that can harm both farmers and animals.

I mentioned the Porgreg farm earlier, which raises pigs, obviously, and, without downplaying the consequences for other animal species, pigs in particular are genetically very similar to humans. Their sensitivity to stress is very high. The incident stressed the animals. In addition to exposure to contaminants and changes in temperature, light and noise, as well as the commotion of the tussle with police, the pigs are in danger of getting sick.

That is unfortunately what happened at the Porgreg farm. The owners hold the activists responsible for the fact that the farm has been dealing with a rotavirus outbreak since late December 2019. They told the media that none of their pigs had had that disease for nearly 40 years. They also said, and I quote, “Our sows are feverish and sick. Since they entered our hog barn, our maternal mortality rate has increased considerably.” They also pointed out that several visits from veterinarians have been required, and that also means additional costs. According to one of the owners, the stress of seeing activists breaking into farms will cause a lot of anxiety for many Quebec livestock producers.

Let us now look at the views of both supporters and opponents. Obviously, most producer federations are in favour of this measure. These include the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Pork Council, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, the Egg Farmers of Canada, the Turkey Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Meat Council and, of course, the Union des producteurs agricoles.

From the animal rights activists' perspective, the legislation does not go far enough and should punish offending producers and processors when the living conditions of animals are deemed to be poor.

Many people go as far as to discount the biosecurity argument, believing that the meat industry hides behind all kinds of bogus arguments to the effect that surprise visits from activists to slaughterhouses can create contamination problems or endanger the lives of animals.

In closing—

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, the private member's bill of my Conservative colleague, the member for Foothills. I want to congratulate the member and thank him for the bill. The member understands the challenges farmers, ranchers and processors in his riding face, and he knows what they are up against. The residents of Foothills are well served by him.

I am very proud to represent all of my constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. In speaking to the bill, I am representing the thousands of farm families that would benefit from this change in legislation, not only in my own riding but across our great country. This last year has shown us just how important our farms and farm families are in ensuring our domestic food supply.

Mental health has come to the forefront during the pandemic, and this includes the mental health of all those who work in agriculture to produce the foods we all enjoy. The bill would protect not only animals, but also the workers and families who care for them.

It also addressed very directly the concerns of farmers, ranchers, producers and processors about biosecurity. The welfare of livestock, poultry and fur-bearing animals when outsiders trespass or insinuate themselves by false premise on farmland, grazing land, production sites or in transit is critical to protecting our domestic food supply and our agriculture industry. Viruses like African swine fever and even COVID-19 pose a real threat to biosecurity. They can decimate our livestock herds and have long-lasting devastating impacts on our farms.

It is critical that Canadians have a reliable and safe food supply system. To ensure the integrity of our food supply system, Canadians, ranchers, farmers, producers and processors adhere to the most robust security standards developed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and protocols and strategies in collaboration with producer organizations, provincial and territorial governments and academia. They work diligently to follow these standards to ensure the health and welfare of their animals.

Few people understand animals better than those who raise them. They understand their behaviour and instincts, their feed and water needs, what they require to feel safe where they are kept, their veterinary requirements and what is humane treatment for a particular species of animal. They understand that livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals and even dogs and cats are not human beings. Herding animals want to be treated according to their behaviour and their instincts, as do livestock, poultry and, yes, dogs.

Those who raise livestock, poultry or fur-bearing animals do so because they enjoy being around animals. They do something they enjoy to earn a living from raising these animals for commercial purposes. Their ability to earn a living from animals depends on their giving those animals good care and treatment.

On a farm, ranch or production site with animals, every animal has a purpose. Dogs serve as an early warning sign for intruders on property and keep away foxes and coyotes. Farm cats help hold down the rodent population in barns and around farmsteads. Animals raised for commercial purposes also benefit us. The eggs and bacon we fry up for breakfast come from chicken and hogs. The milk we put on our cereal and the cream we add to our coffee or tea come from a dairy cow, as do the butter on our toast and the cheese on our burger or pizza. The steak and roast beef on our supper tables or from a favourite steakhouse come from beef cattle, as does the pastry shell made with lard that comes with a piece of pie. Our Thanksgiving and Christmas turkey with or without the trimmings comes from a poultry producer's work. I do not know about members, but I am starting to feel a little hungry.

It does not stop there. The wool in our suits, sweaters and blankets comes from fleece sheared from a sheep. The leather in belts, boots, purses and briefcases, the fur collars on a coat and the fur lining of our slippers come from the hides of animals raised for purpose.

Canadians are indebted to farmers, ranchers and producers for the food, clothing and household goods that give us sustenance, warmth and enjoyment. Their contribution to the quality of life should not be underestimated, nor should the excellent quality of life that farmers, ranchers and producers give their animals.

I understand that not everyone eats meat, poultry or eggs, drinks chocolate milk or enjoys ice cream or a slice of cheese, nor wears leather or fur. However, the vast majority of Canadians do. People's decisions not to eat meat, poultry, eggs or dairy, nor wear leather shoes or carry a leather purse, do not entitle them to prevent other Canadians from enjoying these products. Someone's freedom of choice does not entitle them to trespass on a farm, ranch or production site to engage in behaviour that stresses animals, introduces diseases or vandalizes private property.

We continue to see an increasing number of people trespassing on farms and at food-processing centres, and there is real potential to cause massive health and safety issues for the animals and the individuals who work with them. Despite the pandemic, we have seen that COVID-19 affects not only humans, but also poses a real threat to the health of some animals and, in turn, the livelihoods of those families who depend on animals to make a living. When individuals enter a farm unlawfully, they not only threaten the health of animals by potentially exposing them to disease, but also the welfare of the animal that is put in danger. Farmers in my riding have seen first-hand the devastating harm to the animals when protesters release them from their cages, and moms and babies are separated with no way of knowing how to reunite.

Regardless of one's own opinion, this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated, especially when the health and safety of the animal is jeopardized. The preferences of protestors do not entitle them to insinuate themselves and trespass under false premises onto a farm, ranch or production site to clandestinely capture and out-of-context video that does not take into account animal behaviour and needs.

That said, as Canadians, we have an absolute right to hold our own views and opinions, and the right to peacefully protest. I want to be clear that this bill in no way prohibits someone's right to peacefully protest on public property.

When someone enters private property without permission, putting the health of farm families and animals at risk, there have to be consequences. This bill will increase the penalties for groups and organizations who encourage individuals to threaten the health and safety of animals and workers. There have been instances in my area where individuals have trespassed on a farm, and not only were the livestock and animals at risk, but also the families. That may include young children who also reside on the property. Parenting and raising animals for a livelihood is hard work. Farmers should not have the extra burden of worrying about the safety of their children being affected by individuals unlawfully entering their farms as well. The worry adds a whole other level of unnecessary mental health strain.

Unlike most if not all of us who have had the privilege of serving as members of Parliament, most farmers, ranchers and producers who raise animals are not very political. Most just want to get on with what they know and do best: raising animals to feed and clothe us and to serve our everyday lives. By doing so, they want to earn a living to look after their families, and like all of us, feed and clothe themselves and their families and put a roof over their heads. As they do so, they just want to be left in peace. Is that really asking too much?

Of course, there are instances of animals not being properly cared for, but this bill in no way prevents whistle blowers and employees from reporting abusive and cruel conditions in livestock facilities. In fact, they have an obligation to report to the appropriate authorities any abuse, inhumane or irresponsible treatment, as they operate in a highly regulated environment and must follow strict codes of conduct to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all farm animals, including farm animals at events like agricultural fairs and exhibitions.

Those who raise animals for a living are the most vigilant when it comes to the well-being of the animals. In today's global marketplace, it is critical that we protect the integrity of Canada's supply chain and ensure that our food remains safe to eat and prevents disease outbreaks, and that our farmers and businesses do not lose significant income. Strengthening penalties on trespassers is something that farmers, ranchers, food processors, farm groups and commodity organizations all support. I urge the Liberal government to do the same. That is why, as the official opposition's shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food, I fully support Bill C-205. I encourage all members of the House to support it and vote in favour of this bill.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, for all of us as parliamentarians, private members' business is an opportunity to share our thoughts and concerns about things that matter to us and the people we represent, so I want to acknowledge the member for Foothills for his work on this.

Farming, in my riding of North Island—Powell River, is an incredibly important part of the region that I serve. Whether on the mainland or on Vancouver Island, we have a lot of farms. There are a lot of family farms, some that have been in the family for generations, and it is a proud history that we have in our region.

This is important to all of us. People in our area continue to be very concerned about food security because we are in communities that are isolated. If food transportation becomes an issue, research tells us that we have only three days of food in our area. With some of our islands, particularly some of our small islands, this timeline could be even shorter.

We have a lot of farms that produce both produce and livestock, so this is an issue that arises in my region. I am incredibly proud of the hard work that many farmers do.

For example, our region produces wines and spirits. I think of the wonderful 40 Knots Winery and the Shelter Point Distillery, which have both won awards recognizing the high quality of their products. SouthEnd Winery, on one of the islands in my region, has lovely wines but also amazing spaces for enjoying the beautiful area and engaging with a small chicken coop as well.

Gunter Brothers Meat Co., which was started by the grandfather of the brothers who own this business and has gone through generations, processes local meat in our communities. I often drive by the Vancouver Island bison farm and get to see the bison majestically walking along the fields. It is amazing in the morning to see the mist rising and these beautiful bison, locally raised and grass fed, that are really a healthy product for our communities. Amara Farm is a family-owned organic farm that provides a great amount of beautiful produce and also important leadership in supporting people who want to grow their own food, so it provides a lot of education.

Then I think specifically of the Powell River region, where there are many tremendous small farms. A list of them is provided online at the Powell River Farmers' Agricultural Institute, and that list is significant. This organization also hosts a regular Seedy Saturday, where local farmers gather and share seeds and information about what is happening in the region. In my riding, agriculture is very important, and I am incredibly proud of that as well.

Today, we speak to Bill C-205. It specifically talks about farms with livestock and the fear that outsiders who unlawfully gain access to farms or properties could introduce contagions, thereby infecting animal populations resulting in their deaths or possible livestock culling. This is a serious concern, and I appreciate the focus drawn to this. Several provinces have already introduced similar legislation. Some provinces are in the process of considering it, so this is obviously a concern.

One of the things that I think is important for us to address, though, is when we see people doing the work to expose animal abuse cases. This bill proposes significant fines and up to two years of imprisonment. It concerns me, because I think we need to protect farms and livestock, while acknowledging that there is important work to be done around identifying challenges or when treatment of livestock is unethical in this country. I hope to see that this will be addressed in this bill, when and if it goes to committee.

Several years ago, we heard a terrible story that I think is important to talk about with respect to this legislation. Our office was called by a woman named Kathy from Port Hardy, who had two horses stolen from her property. Sadly, they were stolen and taken to a slaughterhouse where, under forged identification papers, they were slaughtered for meat. That was absolutely appalling. I cannot imagine losing two beloved pets that way. They were horses. They were connected to the family and it was just a devastating outcome.

Two issues became very clear from this. First, the CFIA knows that horses are not intended for the meat market and often can contain steroids or medication that are not supposed to be in meat for consumption. There seems to be a missed mark here that we need to see addressed. Second, and very importantly, equine information documents are easily forged, which could open the doors to horses being stolen and slaughtered under fraudulent identity. We have continued to work with Kathy and the federal government around this, but have been saddened and disappointed by the lack of engagement by the government.

We have heard from people across Canada who are experiencing this. It is something that is happening and I really hope the federal government takes it seriously and starts to address it. This represents a loss of family members for those people. I also believe that in the House, all people here want to ensure the safety of livestock on farms, while allowing animal abuse cases to be uncovered.

I am just worried about some of those key points that we need to see addressed in this piece of legislation. I hope that if it does pass, the committee will really look at these and make sure that there is a more robust discussion of the inspection regime of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It is obviously something that is really important.

I am incredibly proud of all of the farmers across my riding. I hear from them frequently. I know they work hard to provide food, beverages and produce for our communities and our region.

I hope that if this does go to committee, there are serious discussions about amending this legislation to make sure that the testimony is reflected in it. I look forward to further discussions.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate virtually in today's debate on Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

If I may, I would like to go back to a sad event that occurred in my riding just under a year and a half ago.

On December 7, 2019, 13 vegan and animal rights activists broke into a pig farm in Saint-Hyacinthe to protest the raising of animals for human consumption. They entered a hog barn, where they filmed a staged protest for nearly seven hours, sitting on the floor in front of the pig pens. Several Sûreté du Québec officers then had to enter the building to get them out. The site was contaminated by approximately 30 people who should never have been there in the first place.

During a press conference in January 2020, the co-owners of the pig farm in question said that since the incident, they had noticed clinical signs of a new disease. An analysis showed that it was rotavirus. This disease of the small intestine was not a new disease, but it had not been seen in 40 years. Furthermore, rotavirus is not the only disease that can affect pigs. Pigs are extremely sensitive to stress. When they are in captivity, their environment has to be controlled, in terms of both temperature and noise levels.

During the occupation of the farm, the sows got up suddenly, and when they lay back down, they crushed some of the piglets to death. What is more, the activists put water in the generator's diesel tank, throwing off the temperature. They also left the barn doors open when it was -12°C out.

That happened in my riding, but it was not the only incident of its kind. An intrusion like this can have major consequences on farm biosecurity. The health and well-being of the very animals on whose behalf these people are protesting are at serious risk. In addition to the harm caused to the animals and the financial consequences, many farmers told me that after this incident, they were constantly afraid it would happen again. Unfortunately, these protests are becoming increasingly common.

After this incident, the Union des producteurs agricoles obtained an emergency injunction against the protest group, preventing it from coming within 500 metres of a farm without the owner's permission. Naturally, if they have the owner's permission, they can approach the farm.

The 12 members of the group Direct Action Everywhere faced two charges, namely breaking and entering with intent to commit mischief and obstructing a police officer. The other protester, a minor, had to appear in youth court.

Even though the matter is before the courts, the harassment has not stopped. Just recently, the farm owners I talked to this week were the target of people's ire on social media. They have had to stop answering the phone to avoid the invective. They are not the only ones in this situation.

People realized that, unfortunately, the law is not good enough. That is why we are discussing Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act. This is a very simple bill that makes 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.

We support the bill at this stage. This is not about opposing freedom of expression, or people's right to express themselves and protest, or vegan values. Each and every one of us is free to embrace such values and to share them or not. That is not the issue. However, we can by no means allow illegal actions that hurt both farmers and animals.

It is important to mention that animal welfare is an integral part of Quebec's agricultural model, which is based on family farms, not factory farms where animals spend their whole lives never seeing so much as a blade of grass. That is not how we operate.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade and the member for what is likely the most agricultural riding in the country, I often get the chance to talk to farmers about their concerns over meat imports competing with their products. Animal welfare is one of their considerations because their competitors have much lower production costs, not least because their animal welfare standards are much lower. This leads them to seek greater reciprocity of standards, while ours are among the best in the world. Lastly, farmers are calling for improved animal welfare standards around the world.

For example, duck farmers recently voiced their dissatisfaction with the European standards, which are less strict than ours and promote what I would not hesitate to describe as unfair competition. Poultry farmers are also concerned about what might end up on our supermarket shelves from Mercosur countries. Incidentally, poultry farmers get their workers to sign a farm welfare awareness form.

In addition, dairy farmers adopted a code of practice for the care and handling of dairy cattle, in co-operation with scientists and veterinarians. This code sets standards with respect to living conditions, feeding, health care and transportation for the animals.

There is also the proAction certification program, which has been around since 2017. This program provides a way to properly assess all these factors. I am sure some people are thinking that dairy farmers must not have been happy to have a certification program forced on them and to be under the microscope. On the contrary, this program was not forced on dairy farmers. They did not go along with it reluctantly. They took the initiative and asked for it. A well-treated cow produces better-quality milk. A study has shown that when cows are pampered and brushed, they can produce up to one kilogram of additional milk per day and are 30% less likely to develop inflammation. Farmers know that it is always beneficial to treat animals well.

The types of farms that I mentioned are just examples, not an exhaustive list. However, let us remember that the activists who are going after Quebec agriculture are missing the mark. Even though things can always be improved and we can always do better, that is not the issue. In many ways, Quebec agriculture is the gold standard. Attacking Quebec agriculture only promotes foreign farming practices that are far more harmful to animals.

To come back to the bill, we support it, but we fear there may be some problems enforcing it. Agriculture and animal welfare are areas of shared jurisdiction. Ottawa has limited power with regard to such a bill's scope of application. That is why it would be good to have more information on the bill's functionality and application. As the Canadian Food Inspection Agency says, the welfare of animals, including livestock, falls mainly under provincial jurisdiction. The CFIA therefore limits its own mandate to regulating the humane transportation of animals and the humane treatment of food animals in federal slaughter establishments.

The Criminal Code of Canada also prohibits anyone from willfully causing animals to suffer from neglect, pain or injury. The Criminal Code is enforced by police services, provincial and territorial societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals and provincial and territorial ministries of agriculture. We must proceed with caution because all provinces have animal welfare legislation, but not all provinces have legislation dealing specifically with intrusion. Some provinces and territories have passed legislation or regulations, while others have not. Some provinces, like Alberta and Ontario, have made stricter laws to punish offences and break-ins, but Quebec still does not have a similar law. Quebec is contemplating the issue, and it is not up to Ottawa to impose its laws on the provinces.

However, the whole point of committees is to ask these kinds of questions, and so, we will raise our concerns on the matter in committee.

Action is needed and that is why, in the name of respect for animals, private property laws and producers, we will vote in favour of Bill C-205 at this stage.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear the speeches by the hon. members and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-205.

I understand the intent of this bill. I understand the farmers and the fact that the animals under their care have been distressed by intrusions. I understand the reasoning of the hon. member for Foothills who is addressing this issue of biosecurity. I have a great deal of respect for him. We sat at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and I deeply respect his knowledge and concerns for the agricultural sector.

The government agrees that biosecurity measures are crucial for protecting the health of animals and ensuring their welfare. We must protect the mental health of farmers and the marketing of farm products.

We obviously agree with implementing solid biosecurity measures. As we have already heard, effective biosecurity is a shared responsibility between the federal government, the provinces and the territories, as well as the farmers.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is responsible for enforcing the Health of Animals Act and regulations, is working in close collaboration with the provinces and the industry on biosecurity standards and other issues related to animal welfare.

Cases of unlawful entry are currently dealt with by existing legislation. However, Bill C-205 proposes to amend the Health of Animals Act to prohibit trespassing on farms and other facilities.

Let us unpack this a little. As I just said, instances of trespassing or unlawful entry are currently dealt with by existing legislation, whether under the Criminal Code or provincial or territorial laws. Trespassing on farms and such premises is already addressed in several provinces. In addition, provincial governments in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have increased trespassing fines dating back to early 2019.

Let me provide an example. Alberta Bill 27, The Trespass Statues (Protecting Law-Abiding Property Owners) Amendment Act, came into force December 5, 2019. That bill amends several acts. The Occupiers' Liability Act was amended to better protect property owners from civil liabilities for injuries to trespassers where the owner has reasonable grounds to believe the trespasser is committing, or about to commit, a criminal offence. The Petty Trespass Act and the Trespass to Premises Act were amended to increase the maximum fines to $10,000 for a first offence and$25,000 for a subsequent offence, as well as possible prison time for up to six months, and $200,000 for corporations that help or direct trespassers.

The Petty Trespass Act was amended to broaden locations where entry is prohibited without notice to explicitly reference land used for crops, animal rearing and bee keeping. The Provincial Offences Procedure Act was amended to increase the maximum amount a court may order for loss or damage to property to $100,000.

Of even more pertinence is Alberta's biosecurity regulation, Alberta Regulation 185/2019, which also came into force December 5, 2019. That regulation was made under existing authorities of the Animal Health Act and is intended to protect animals from potential disease introduction and stress associated with breaches of security protocols.

The regulation prohibits unauthorized entry into premises where livestock are housed without the need to give notice, such as posted signage, and where other species of animals, such as laboratory animals, are kept when notice is given orally or in writing. The regulation contains a novel prohibition against aiding, counselling or directing a person to commit an offence. The regulation provides an avenue for a grieving party to request restitution from the convicted party for loss or damage to property and the costs of remedial action that may be taken to address the potential harm of the biosecurity breach, such as veterinary care, medication, cleaning and disinfection.

In relation to break-ins, the Province of Alberta had previously made reference to provisions of the Criminal Code, section 348. This section codifies breaking and entering with the intent to commit an offence, breaking and entering and committing an offence, or breaking out of a place after intending to or having committed an offence. Section 321 of the Criminal Code defines “break” for the purpose of the break and enter provision. It makes clear that “breaking” does not need to include damaging property, and can simply mean opening a door. However, under Alberta legislation, if the concern is related to use or enjoyment of property, then the offence in question is likely to be mischief.

To recap, not only do provinces have trespassing legislation, but several provinces, like Alberta, have passed legislation specifically focused on protecting farms, and I think it is important to respect provincial jurisdiction.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, the trespassing activities targeted by Bill C-205 are already captured under the mischief offence, subsection 430(1); namely, the obstruction, interruption or interference with the lawful enjoyment or operation of property. Penalties depend on the nature on the property, and whether the mischief caused actual danger to life. Punishment includes fines of up to $5,000 and up to two years in prison. The trespass offence in section 177 of the Criminal Code, against loitering or prowling at night near a dwelling or house without lawful excuse, could also be applicable in such cases, and is punishable by summary conviction by a maximum term of imprisonment of two years less a day and a fine not exceeding $5,000.

The point is that there is the Criminal Code and there is existing provincial legislation, some with higher fines. This type of legislation and enforcement largely rests with the provinces.

In closing, in addition to instances of trespassing or unlawful entry being dealt with by existing legislation, biosecurity measures already exist on Canadian farms and premises. We do not want to reinvent the wheel, but we want to find the right balance with the bill and discern the best way forward considering that legislation and biosecurity measures already exist. If the bill before us makes it to the agriculture committee, I look forward to discussing it and finding ways to create that balance. I absolutely agree that we can improve biosecurity in places where animals are kept, but I cannot support the text of the bill as written, given some of the challenges it raises.

Not only does existing legislation already address instances of unlawful entry, but biosecurity measures are also in place on Canadian farms and other such facilities. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

The House resumed from November 26, 2020, consideration of the motion that Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the member for Foothills on his excellent private member's bill.

Before I get into the heart of my speech, there are a couple of arguments that I think are misplaced. Quite frankly, I am a bit frustrated, as over the last couple of days I have been involved in private member's bills that were designed to help the agriculture industry, and we have received support and constructive feedback from both the Bloc Québécois as well as the NDP. I have to say I am a little disappointed in the Liberal Party and in its response to our supporting rural agriculture.

Specifically, I would like to address a couple of things that have come up. One is that this is absolutely an area of federal jurisdiction. It is co-jurisdiction, but the federal government has the right. Currently in some of the provincial legislation that would attempt to prevent some of the conduct that is contemplated in this legislation, some of the penalties are less than stringent. Therefore, this federal legislation, which is definitely within the jurisdiction, is also warranted.

Secondly, the member for Kings—Hants brought up the idea that maybe animal activists will not know about this law, and asked how we could put this law in place. The reality is that there is an old common-law principle that is hundreds of years old that says ignorance of the law is not an excuse. We must be aware of the law. It is part of being a citizen of a country.

Finally, the other subject he brought up was the idea that, and he did ask it earnestly and I do respect that, whether for one of these biosecurity lapses, protestors had created an outbreak or the spread of a disease, and whether there was evidence of this. I would say, respectfully, to him that before COVID there was no COVID. Before the Holocaust there was no Holocaust. We need to get ahead of things; we cannot stay behind them. The reality is that, whether this has occurred in the past or not, there is the very real opportunity for this to occur, which it appears all parties acknowledge. Therefore, we need to be ahead of these things, not behind them.

At this point, I would like to get into the meat of my speech. I can say with great pride that I am the member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South, a predominantly rural riding where we have, I believe, some of the best farmers in our country. I am honoured to rise in the House for the second time this week to speak in support of the amazing hard work farmers do across Canada.

Canadians should all be proud of the amazing work our agriculture sector does. We have incredibly difficult and stringent regulations, which farmers across our country meet every day to make sure that Canadians have the safest, most secure food supply in the world. Whether it be growing grain on the Prairies, produce out in the beautiful province of British Columbia or raising livestock in my province of Ontario, Canadians can rest assured that every step is being taken by our farmers to make sure that food is safe and secure.

We have talked about biosecurity in Canada, but I would just like to take a half-step back and explain, at least in accordance with the Province of Ontario, what biosecurity is. Biosecurity is defined at the farm level as a management practice enabling producers to prevent the movement of disease-causing agents onto and off of agricultural operations. This includes environmental contamination. Biosecurity, therefore, involves many aspects of farm management, such as disease control and prevention, closed-herd vaccination, nutrient management and visitor control. Although controlling and limiting the movement of livestock is recognized as the most important biosecurity measure for most diseases, many important hazards can be carried on contaminated clothing, boots, equipment and vehicles.

While many people outside of the agricultural industry may not yet be aware of the issue of biosecurity, it has become a major concern within the industry as a result of the foreign and emergent diseases that are increasing public concerns over food safety and the globalization of agriculture.

I would like to comment on the question addressed by the member for Foothills.

There is unfortunately a divide between rural and urban Canada. Hopefully this speech and legislation helps to bridge it. As someone who is in rural Canada, I invite every member of Parliament, whether Liberal, NDP or Green, to come out to rural Canada. I would be happy to show everyone around my farm and the farms in my area. We would, of course, abide by all appropriate measures.

The concerns of biosecurity will only grow as we have greater farm and population density. This will increase the relevance and salience of biosecurity concerns.

In my opinion, the passing of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, is long overdue. This is an issue that all Canadians should care about. I hope to see all my colleagues join me and the member for Foothills in supporting this important legislation.

The protection of biosecurity on farms has always been an important issue for farmers across the globe, but perhaps it has never been more salient than right now. There are currently no provisions at the federal level to protect our farmers, and the incredible products they produce, from trespassers, who may pass on an array of various diseases to their livestock.

Meanwhile, we are becoming increasingly aware of many diseases plaguing our farmers and animals across the globe. I want to give an example: African swine fever. Of course, the member for Foothills talked about this. This is a very real concern for Canadian farmers.

I want to tell the story of Chen Yun, a pork farmer in Jiangxi, China. He noticed that one of his pigs had stopped eating. Shortly after, it developed a fever. He was concerned, so he checked on the rest of his pigs. Within a week, all 10,000 of his pigs had died of African swine fever. This virus is highly contagious and affected every province in China, and it led to the slaughter of half of Chinese pigs.

Soon after the outbreak, the fever spread from China to Southeast Asia to central Europe, where it has now reached Belgium. This virus shows the importance of biosecurity and why this legislation is very important.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to also offer my congratulations to the member for Foothills for bringing forward Bill C-205 for the House's consideration and debate. I enjoyed working with the member for Foothills when he was previously a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, of which I have now been a member for almost three years, going back into the previous Parliament. Maybe we will be able to invite the member back to the committee, this time as a witness to defend his bill.

I am quite excited about this because in the almost-three years that I have been a member of that committee, I have not yet had the chance to examine any legislation at the committee. It is actually exceedingly rare that the agriculture committee gets to examine legislation, and we may in fact now have two bills headed our way, both Bill C-206 and Bill C-205, so it is going to keep us quite busy in the short term.

The legislation that we have before us, Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, is essentially centred on the danger that exists from potentially exposing animals on a farm to disease or to a toxic substance. Before I get into the particulars of the bill, it might be helpful just to spend a few moments talking about biosecurity and why it is so important for farms. Therefore, I will talk a bit about the experiences I have personally had here in my riding.

I have had the pleasure of visiting a couple of farms in my riding, and I will identify two of them: Lockwood Farms and Farmer Ben's Eggs. They are both fantastic egg producers in my riding.

Because I have a small flock of chickens myself, one of the strict requirements was that I have no contact with my own chickens for an entire week before I visited those farms because there is a very real danger that I could unwittingly, or through negligence, transfer diseases like avian flu. I also have a flock of ducks. For anyone who manages fowl, there is a real understanding that disease is prevalent and it is quite a danger, so there was that requirement before I even visited the farm. Of course, when I was there, we had to take great care to make sure that our footwear was clean, that we put on disposable booties and wore the gowns and the hairnets, before we actually went into the barn to look at their egg production facility.

When in the barn, we get a sense of why this is necessary. First, avian flu is a very contagious disease and if it were to go through the flock, it would be absolutely devastating. Any farmer whose livelihood depends on animals, whether livestock or poultry, will tell you that their first and primary care is focused on the well-being of their animals. They literally stay up at night wondering about all the dangers that could come, and biosecurity is a huge part of that.

Another experience I had, going back a few years to a previous life, was when I was a tree planter. One of my tree planting contracts was near Merritt at the Douglas Lake Ranch. It is one of the largest working cattle ranches in the interior of British Columbia and their lands are so vast that they actually lease them out to logging companies. They do selective harvesting of their lands and, as a tree planting company, we were brought in to reforest. When I was doing the reforestation, there was a real danger of foot and mouth disease, so before we were allowed entry onto the lands, we had to have our vehicles wiped down, the wheels hosed off and all of our footwear hosed off with cleaning agents to make sure that we were not inadvertently transferring the disease.

All of these examples just help to illustrate the very real concern that exists out there with biosecurity.

Given the fact that international trade is such a huge part of agriculture, we have seen many diseases and pests come from other parts of the world, diseases and pests that are novel to the Canadian environment and pose a very real risk. I have spoken to researchers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the number of new diseases and pests entering our borders every year really does keep them up at night. It is an ongoing battle to try to make sure that they're coming up with the best practices and best defences against those diseases.

I also want to highlight the important role that animal rights organizations play. As the member for Foothills correctly noted in his speech, the vast majority of them have the best interests of the animals at heart. Their ultimate goal is to make sure that we have a farming system in place that is treating our animals with respect and making sure that the standards of care are there.

What we face, and I think the member illustrated it very well in his speech, is the balance that we have to have between the public's right to know, the transparency we want to see and the right to protest, and the rights of a farmer to secure his or her property from trespassers, people who may not know how the farming operation works and may not know about the dangers they might be carrying, just simply on the soles of their feet. They could be transporting diseased soil or something in some food they are carrying, and these are all very real dangers for the reasons that I illustrated previously.

That is the balance we are confronting through the legislation we are considering. In Canadian law, when it comes to animal welfare, it is primarily our provinces that have jurisdiction over protecting the welfare of animals. Here in British Columbia, depending on what the case is, we have the B.C. SPCA. They do farm inspections. We also have visits from officials from the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture.

Going to Bill C-205 and what it is doing, for the the next part of my speech, I just want to highlight the provisions that currently exist in the federal statute that is the Health of Animals Act. If we go through the existing act, we can see that there are number of sections within the act that are already seeking to prohibit. For example, people are not allowed to conceal a reportable disease or toxic substance. People are not allowed to keep diseased animals. People are not allowed to bring them to market or to dispose of them improperly, or to let them out. These are all prohibited actions and they come with some pretty severe fines and penalties, because we are essentially trying to prevent those types of actions from occurring.

Where Bill C-205 steps in is that it is going to insert a new section 9.1, which is aiming to prohibit the entry of persons into a building where animals are kept, if by knowingly doing so or if they were reckless in doing so could potentially expose those animals to disease or a toxic substance. This is important. If the ultimate goal here is the welfare of animals, a person may have noble intentions and may want to see if the animals are being taken care of, but by doing so they may in fact be doing more harm than good.

Again, I understand the struggle that is out there, the debate that is going on with the public's right to know, but it has to be balanced against the very real consequences that those actions bring about. As the NDP's critic for agriculture and agri-food, I support the bill. I support the principle behind it. I believe that the bill does merit further study at the committee. That is why I will be looking forward to voting for it.

In closing, I have received correspondence from concerned people from across the country who are worried that the bill might serve as an effective gag against their right to protest. What I would say in reply to that is that if we look at the specific wording of this act, it is talking about a person entering without lawful authority or excuse. There is nothing in the bill to prevent a whistle-blower, like a farm employee, who is already lawfully there and who witnesses something that they believe is wrong or contrary to animal welfare laws, from blowing the whistle and raising the alarm on that.

Perhaps what the bill may serve to do is to have a broader conversation on how we instill that public trust and build that kind of transparency so that people understand what farming is all about and the struggles that farmers go through, and also give farmers a chance to inform the public of how a farm operates and what measures they try to put in place to look after their animals.

I will conclude there. I will just congratulate the member for Foothills again for bringing forward the legislation. I hope it is sent to committee so that we can take a further look at it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking my colleague for introducing this bill. As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot said, we will support it.

I will start with a question. At times, we might wonder if something that happened to us has also happened to someone else. For example, has anyone here ever experienced a break-in?

One of my colleagues raised a hand. I was not really expecting an answer, but I thank him for that information.

I have experienced a break-in, and I know it can change a person's life. It had a psychological impact on my sense of safety and consequences for my belongings. Nothing I took for granted was guaranteed anymore. I was worried about my family's safety 24/7. I was distressed and did not know what to believe. Personally, I think such an event changes a person's life, changes their habits.

Now imagine that the future of one's own business is at stake, that thousands of dollars are at stake or that the break-in makes one responsible for disease or for not having taken proper care of one's business.

Colleagues mentioned it earlier, including my colleague from Kings—Hants, whom I commend for his remarkable efforts to speak French. I tip my hat to him. Even though the Liberal Party does not have any tangible measures at least there are people in the Liberal Party making a serious effort. I encourage the hon. member to have a positive influence within his party.

As agriculture critic, when we would tour farms or processing plants before COVID-19, we would have to wear plastic from head to toe and wear a mask. People would have to remove their jewellery. They do not ask people to do that just for kicks. They do this for the sake of biosafety.

This bill is very serious and extremely important. It makes 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. A disease or toxic substance may be introduced by a well-meaning person who wants to water an animal with an outside source that was not subject to quality control. As such the person might jeopardize the entire herd. Let's not forget the people who go near an abattoir or a farm to protest.

As my esteemed colleague warned us earlier, this is not about preventing people from expressing an opinion or protesting, quite the contrary. We live in a country that affords its people a lot freedoms that all parliamentarians here respect and want to continue to respect.

However, we must not lose sight of the basics, such as private property, biosecurity or the food security of our people; these are concerns that we have become extra sensitive to, particularly during this pandemic. It is therefore extremely important to take action, and here is why.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's mandate on animal welfare is limited to regulating the humane treatment and transportation of food-producing animals when they are at the slaughterhouse or on the way there. As another colleague mentioned earlier, it is about preventing disease.

It is complementary, but I think the proposed legislation is necessary because it will add to and clarify the consequences. What I like about this bill is that it contains concrete measures, such as prison sentences and significant fines.

We have heard all kinds of stories about things that happened in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Farmers and restaurateurs do not dare report incidents because they figure that if they get mad, they will come back. The government does not have the right to not ensure people's safety. The government certainly does not have the right to not ensure the safety of farmers, the people who feed us.

This does not take away anyone's right to protest. People can protest in the street with placards and on social media. All we are saying is that there must be no unjustified intrusions without appropriate precautions being taken.

I am sure that if these people want to visit facilities, they will find businesses that are willing and all the necessary precautions will be taken, just like the precautions that we as parliamentarians take when we visit farms and we don plastic from head to toe. Farmers are transparent. They have nothing to hide. That is the essence of Bill C-205.

I want to come back to the incident that happened in Quebec nearly a year ago, in December 2019. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot talked about it earlier. It had to do with Porgreg, in the Saint-Hyacinthe region. Those individuals were incredibly courageous, speaking out publicly with the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, out of a sense of duty to serve the public. Despite the fear of reprisals, they did it for the public good.

In Quebec, this resulted in a temporary injunction prohibiting protesters from getting within a certain distance of farms, so as to ensure the safety not only of livestock, but also of property owners and businesses.

The piglets that died were mentioned earlier, but we did not hear about the disease that ensued. Rotavirus spread throughout the facility shortly after the trespass. Farm officials said they had not seen that disease for 40 years. How could one file a complaint and prove that the protesters brought in the disease? It would be very difficult. That is the problem. The proposed regulations will give some clout to people who might want to take action in that kind of situation. I am running out of time, but I could probably talk about it for a good half hour.

Leaving the doors of a hog barn open when it is -12°C outside is reckless. People were there all day. The police were called in to evacuate them one by one. I will come back to my anecdote from earlier. Imagine coming home and realizing that you have been burglarized and, to make matters worse, the burglars are sitting in the living room. Then imagine that the police tell you that it is a tough call because they did not break anything and no one can prove that they were the ones who stole the merchandise. At Porgreg, they put water in the diesel. It is appalling. We have to put ourselves in the farmers' shoes.

We have to adopt this measure because it is simply logical. Yes, there are jurisdictions to consider. We are very aware of that and we will be careful, but I think this bill deserves to be studied further because it is essential. Imagine not having any recourse against people sitting down in our own home. We have to adopt this measure now to avoid unfortunate events. I do not want to scare anyone, but we want to avoid that.

When one's own business is put at risk by a group of total strangers who came from another province, the interprovincial regulations become very important. It is important that we adopt this measure. The Bloc Québécois will support this bill. When the bill is a good bill, the Bloc Québécois will vote for it. I urge those who brought forward this bill to do the same for the bills we are introducing.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Foothills for introducing Bill C-205 so that we can talk about it.

I know that the bill was introduced to support biosecurity on Canadian farms and other establishments, which is a laudable objective.

I believe I speak for everyone when I say that Canadian consumers are engaged consumers. They care deeply about where their food comes from and whether it is safe.

I am pleased to report that Canada has one of the best food safety systems in the world, and we continued to maintain that high confidence level in our food safety system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In April, the Government of Canada announced $20 million in funding for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, to support critical food inspection during the pandemic to ensure that Canadians would have continued access to safe, high-quality food.

In my opinion, our country's high level of food safety and security can be attributed to the ongoing work of the CFIA and the robust biosecurity measures in place on Canadians farms and other establishments.

It is important to note that the health of animals and biosecurity measures, as was discussed in the speech by the member for Foothills and in the question and answer period, are a shared jurisdiction between the federal government, the provinces and the territories.

I want to take a moment to talk about the role of the CFIA and the Government of Canada in relation to the topic we are discussing tonight, a very important topic I might add.

CFIA enforces regulations concerning the transportation of animals. The government introduced the health of animals transport regulations in February. It is also concerned with the humane treatment of animals at federally licensed abattoirs, or slaughterhouses.

The member for Foothills talked about education between rural and urban. There is a difference between provincial abattoirs, or slaughterhouses, that are licensed to provide meat products within those provincial or territorial boundaries and the federal licensing system, where the meat that is processed goes across the country. Therefore, it is important to recognize that there is concurrent jurisdiction in relation to these two domains.

The provinces also have the ability to introduce their own regulations as it relates to the health of animals regulations and biosecurity.

I will leave it up to my colleagues to elaborate on the strong biosecurity measures already in place on Canadian farms and facilities as well as the jurisdictional aspects and existing legal instruments.

I want to focus on the Health of Animals Act. I ask that all members be patient as I will be discussing some rather technical concepts.

The Health of Animals Act was enacted in 1990. It repealed and replaced the previous act, the Animal Disease and Protection Act.

The Health of Animals Act is enforced by the Canada Food Inspection Agency.

With respect to the real purpose of the Health of Animals Act, its long title is “An Act respecting diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals or that may be transmitted by animals to persons, and respecting the protection of animals”. Section 34 is the primary authority in the Health of Animals Act for making regulations. This section gives the Governor in Council, or the minister, the authority to make regulations for the protection and health of persons and animals by controlling or eliminating diseases and toxic substances, and for the carrying out of any other purposes under the act.

I want to highlight for all of my colleagues in the House and, indeed, all Canadians watching that three objectives are revealed by these three provisions, the underlying goals of the act. The first is to prevent or control the spread of diseases that may affect animals; the second is to prevent or control the spread of diseases that may be transmitted to humans by animals, which are called zoonotic diseases; and the third is to protect animals from inhumane treatment. There are provisions related to this objective found under part XII of the health of animals regulations, which deals with the humane transportation of animals.

I will talk specifically about the contents of Bill C-205. One thing that needs to be fleshed out in this discussion, and I look forward to my colleagues' thoughts on this, is whether CFIA would have an additional role. The member for Foothills gave examples of where the behaviour of individuals, activists and protestors on farms was creating challenges. He mentioned Ontario and Alberta as two examples, and perhaps there are others, that have introduced provincial legislation in this sphere, but there was not a whole lot of conversation on who enforces this. Is this being done by police or CFIA, given the fact that it has the explicit responsibility for this act?

Something we need to consider is whether that would be an expectation of CFIA, whether it would be given a larger mandate and be required to have additional personnel who would also be responsible on farm, because right now it is largely maintained among the federal abattoir-inspected facilities. I asked the member for Foothills about this and in his remarks, which I do not have right in front of me, he said that many of these activists do not know what they are walking into or they are not aware.

I will read the provision that he is suggesting we add to the legislation. It says:

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

My concern is if the member for Foothills is correct in saying that the majority of people do not know about this when they go on farm and the provision is that they had to know about or ought to have known about it, it may be a difficult threshold for us to make meaningful change on these pieces, but perhaps that could be studied at committee, assuming that it passes to that level.

I want to highlight a few things. There are strong biosecurity measures already in place on Canadian farms and other establishments. The member for Foothills himself acknowledged the good work that Canadian farmers do along with industry, in co-operation with the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

It is up for debate, but there are legal instruments already in place to perhaps deal with the issue around whether the provinces have the ability to introduce these types of legislation, as some provinces have already done. There are provisions under the Criminal Code. It is up for debate and I look forward to hearing other members' thoughts on whether prosecutors, who try to prosecute on these particular grounds, believe they have the tools to successfully have a prosecution in these circumstances, which I would agree are unfortunate and cannot continue.

The Health of Animals Act, which is where it is suggested this particular legislation be added, the private member's bill, is designed to protect the health of animals. I do not think anyone would question that is not a good intent, but I do not know if it is intended to be used as a mechanism to crack down on trespassers. That is why I asked the member for Foothills about whether there has been a connection between a biosecurity risk and trespassing on farm. I do not know what that information is. I asked that in earnest. I hope it is a point that we can discuss in the House, because this bill is an important piece of consideration for agriculture communities.

I want to bring in the Nova Scotia context very quickly. I am in one of the heaviest agriculture ridings in Atlantic Canada, in Kings—Hants. This has been mentioned by my stakeholders and that is why I have the privilege of being able to speak to this tonight. Speaking on behalf of the government, it does appreciate that the incursion on farms and biosecurity facilities can potentially result in the introduction of concerns and we look forward to hearing more of the debate tonight.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

moved that Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I know that all of us, when we have the opportunity to stand up in this House, are very proud of representing our constituents. I have stood up in this House many times, but I think this is one of the most proud moments I have ever had as a parliamentarian because I have the opportunity to not only to represent my own constituents, but also farmers, ranchers, farm families and processors in this industry across Canada. I am presenting an amendment to the Health of Animals Act, which I am confident that all members in this House will support, as it will protect the mental health of our farm families, but also the integrity of our food supply.

I want to take the members of this House back to just over a year ago when I received a frantic phone call from a farmer in my riding. He was extremely upset. He and his sons had gotten up to check on their turkeys in the morning, but when they walked into their barn they found that dozens of activists and protestors had broken onto their farm and into their barns, demanding the release of their birds.

What made that interesting is that they were free-range turkeys. They were not in cages or mistreated in any way. They were healthy and happy. The only risk to the health of these animals was actually from the protestors who were on that property.

When I left from Ottawa, I went back home to the riding to meet with Mr. Tschetter and his family. He was completely distraught. He had not slept in days. He did not understand why he was targeted. He had done everything he possibly could to take care of his animals because he knows they are his livelihood.

In fact, he had nothing to hide. When he got into his barn that morning and saw 30 or 35 protestors, he invited them to tour his farm. He invited the media, protestors and activists to walk around to see what he had and what his operation entailed.

My bill is really trying to address two things. The first is the mental health of our farmers and farm families, as well as the protection of those families, their workers and the animals they care for. The second is the very important issue of biosecurity on our farms. This is a critical issue as we try to protect our food supply and our supply chain.

What my bill sets out to do is a very simple change. It is an amendment to the Health of Animals Act. I really wanted to make it as simple as possible, so we could get the support of every member in this House.

The Health of Animals Act, as it currently stands, has control of diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals, and diseases transferred from animals to humans. However, the obligations and prohibitions within the act only deal with the farmer who owns those animals. There are no protections in the act that deal with individuals or organizations who may break into private property and put those animals at risk.

That is really what my private member's bill is trying to address. I did not want to invent something new. I wanted to have something that was specific to the issue that we are dealing with. I also wanted something that was not a one-off on an issue that happened in my own riding, but something that could address the bigger picture of biosecurity on our farms.

I really want to be crystal clear on this to all members in this House. The one thing that this bill is not is a prohibition of protest. Protesting one's view and one's opinion is absolutely anyone's right as a Canadian. We want to uphold that. One's right to protest on public property is absolutely one's right. However, when someone crosses a line by entering or breaking into private property and putting the health of animals and farm families at risk, there have to be consequences.

I think that all of us in this House understand this is not an isolated incident. My staff and I went through media reports and did some research. There have been literally dozens of these types of incidents across the country, touching ridings of every single party in this House, from one coast to the next, in every sector of agriculture. We had 50 protestors at a hog farm in in Abbotsford, B.C. We had people trying to forcibly remove animals from a dairy farm in Quebec, and we saw protestors at a pork-breeding facility in Ontario.

As I said, this really sparked an interest in me. This incident in my own riding with the Tschetter family had an impact not only on that family, but also on farm families across my riding. They inundated my office with questions such as these: Are we free game for protestors and activists? Are we not safe on our own farms? Are our animals not protected?

What really struck me with that protest at the farm in Fort Macleod, which is usually quite a quiet little town, was the fact that many of those activists and those protesters had been on a hog farm in Abbotsford only a week before.

This is really the crux of my private member's bill. I do not think these protesters quite understand, perhaps through no fault of their own, the consequences of their actions or the very strict biosecurity protocols we have on farms, which are there for very important reasons.

I know that my colleagues in this House understand that no one cares for their animals, their land and their environment more than farmers, ranchers and processors do. I hope that biosecurity is an important aspect of this bill that we can focus on through our debate this evening.

When those protesters are coming onto private property and breaking into barns in areas where they may not fully comprehend what is at stake, they are posing a very real risk to a critical industry within our country, and this is very real. African swine fever, avian flu, foot-and-mouth disease, and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, are very real threats to our industry.

Obviously, this has hurt my riding. Almost two decades ago, we had the BSE outbreak in Alberta. That had an impact of between $6 billion and $10 billion on our cattle industry in Canada, as the second that BSE was confirmed in central Alberta, more than 40 countries shut their borders to Canadian cattle exports. It was a $10-billion hit. Most important, 3,000 ranchers went out of business, including many of my constituents and my friends.

I can recall ranchers like Grant Hirsche, who found a little processor, slaughtered his cattle, found a used refrigeration truck and drove up and down Highway 2, trying to sell his beef on the side of the highway just to keep his operation afloat. Thousands of ranchers were not so lucky. Almost 20 years later, we are still trying to rebuild our cattle herd in this country. Twenty years later, the impact of that outbreak is still being felt. Many countries are only now reopening their border to Canadian beef.

In 2004, we had a massive outbreak of avian flu in the Fraser Valley. Almost 300 million animals had to be euthanized. The economic impact of that was more than $300 million. To this day, we have to be aware of avian flu. There were some positives that came out of that. We have improved surveillance, improved testing and improved quarantine measures, but, most important, we have improved regulations and protocols around biosecurity, which everyone must abide by.

I know many of us in this House who have had an opportunity to tour the farms and ranches in our constituencies or neighbouring constituencies in rural Canada understand. I visited the Kielstra farm, a poultry operation, this summer. I had to put on booties, a lab coat, a hair net and a face mask. This had nothing to do with COVID. These are the biosecurity protocols on just about every farm in Canada. Many times these protesters and activists just do not understand this.

We have a very big threat facing us right now. I talked about BSE, foot-and-mouth disease and avian flu, but African swine fever is a very real threat as well. There has been an outbreak in China, which has decimated the Chinese hog population. It has spread now through most of Southeast Asia, Central America and many parts of eastern Europe.

Were African swine fever to come here to Canada, the impacts would be profound. The pork industry in Canada is a $24-billion industry. That is 45,000 jobs from gate to plate. Seventy per cent of the hogs that we raise here in Canada are exported. That is $4.25 billion.

If there is an outbreak of African swine fever in Canada, international markets will close. It take us years, as we learned with BSE, to rebuild that confidence in those export markets to try to regain that global opportunity. The threats of these animal-borne diseases are very real and we cannot take them lightly.

All of us in the House understand the impact COVID-19 has had on our constituencies and certainly on every aspect of every industry in our economy. This is a human-borne virus that has brought our country, and just about every country around the world, to a screeching halt. Imagine what an animal-borne virus could do to Canada's agriculture industry, whether it is hogs, cattle or feathers. It would be devastating.

All of us in the House, if we had an opportunity to walk back in time and do a better job of preparing for the COVID-19 pandemic, for which all of us as parliamentarians take some responsibility, I know we would do that to have a better strategy in place to protect Canadians.

We have that opportunity today to to that with this amendment to the Health of Animals Act, which would protect the health of animals on farm. It would also protect the mental health of our farmers and our farm families. We cannot make the same mistakes we have made in the past. We simply cannot afford an animal-borne disease or virus outbreak on farms or within processing plants across the country.

We have dug ourselves a very deep financial hole as a result of COVID-19 and there are only a few industries that as Canadians we can look to and rely on to help dig us out of that financial hole. Energy would be one; agriculture is the other. If we do not provide agriculture with the resources and the safeguards they need to ensure they are protected, then we leave them vulnerable. I do not think any Canadian would support that.

I was encouraged to read a comment from the Liberal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food the other day, saying there were unacceptable actions of extremist groups protesting on dairy farms. I know it is a concern of hers as well. Strengthening the biosecurity measures for trespassers on farms, ranches and processing plants are something farm groups, commodity groups and processors across the country support. I have been honoured to have their letters, emails and quotes of support from across the country, which is really buoyed our efforts on this private member's bill.

I am confident that the Liberal government as well as my colleagues throughout the House also understand the mental health strain our farm families are under right now and the importance of protecting our food security and food supply, especially now as we try to rebuild and come out of this pandemic. This is no time to put our food supply and food security at risk.

I really want to leave this message very clear with my colleagues. I know the opposition to this private member's bill will be based on this. In no way is the bill a prohibition on protesting. People are more than welcome to protest on public property, on the gravel road, on the highway outside the farm fence, but there has to be a line in the sand. That line is when people cross onto private property and put the health of a farm family, their workers and their animals at risk.

We must do everything we possibly can to put protections in place for our food security and food supply. As I said, we cannot make the same mistakes we have in the past when it comes to animal-borne diseases that would devastate our agriculture industry. This is an opportunity to be proactive. I look forward to questions and support from my colleagues throughout the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ginette Petitpas Taylor]

No. Thank you so much for that. That's great.

Perhaps now we can proceed through each item. To be efficient with our time, we could maybe just go through them item by item, and if there are no questions or comments, we can dispose of them fairly quickly. We'll be able to address the ones for which there is debate.

Does that sound appropriate to everyone?

We'll start off, then, with Bill C-210. Does anyone have any issues or comments about that one? No.

Next is Bill C-238.

I see there are no comments, so we'll move right along to Bill C-224. Good.

Next is Bill C-215. No comments.

Next is Bill C-204, and now Bill C-229.

I'm not going to jinx it, but we're on a roll.

Now we have Bill C-218 and a motion, M-34.

Next we have Bill C-214, Bill C-220, Bill C-221, Bill C-222 and Bill C-213.

I love working with women.

Next is Bill C-223, followed by M-35.

Now we have Bill C-206, Bill C-216, Bill C-208, Bill C-205, Bill C-237, Bill C-225, Bill C-228, Bill C-236, Bill C-230 and Bill C-232.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand today and introduce this bill, which is seconded by my colleague, the member for Beauce.

This bill addresses a critical issue, which is the securing of the biosecurity of our food supply, especially when there are trespassers on farm property and facilities. As the House may be aware, there are numerous protests on farm property and process plants across this country, and it is certainly not relegated to one segment of agriculture or one area of Canada. We have seen people enter hog farms in Abbotsford, B.C. and Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, a pork breeding facility in Ontario, and activists have even tried to remove animals from dairy farms.

In my own riding of Foothills, a farmer was startled to come to his farm in the morning and see that dozens of protesters had broken into the property and into a barn and were trying to take turkeys. There are numerous examples, and I fear the situation will get worse if producers do not see something is done. I do not think activists understand the full consequences of their actions. We want them to understand that they are endangering the safety of livestock, families, farmers and workers. We understand that they care deeply about the soil, food safety, animal health and the environment, but I think my colleagues in this room would also understand and agree with me that mental health and anxiety within agriculture is at a crisis.

These are important issues that we hope to address, but I have decided to focus my amendment to the Health of Animals Act to create a new offence. The act provides for the control of diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals or could be transmitted by animals to persons. The risk from viruses like the African swine fever are very real and potentially devastating to Canadian agriculture.

Currently, there is nothing that addresses trespassers, which is what this bill aims to change. I look forward to engaging with my colleagues as we work together to address this important issue and the safety of Canada's food supply.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)