Bill C-275

An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)

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 reasonably be expected to result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.

[Pierre Lampron, Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. As has been said, my name is Pierre Lampron and I'm the second vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We met not too long ago to discuss Bill C‑275.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is Canada’s largest general farm organization. We represent over 190,000 farmers and farm families across Canada that are the heart of a Canadian agri-food system generating $134.9 billion of Canada's gross domestic product.

As a dairy farmer myself, I fully appreciate the critical importance of animal emergency preparedness and ensuring that strong biosecurity measures are in place to protect our animals, our livelihood as farmers, as well as our economy. Generally speaking, from our perspective the most effective strategy to deal with biosecurity threats is prevention. Here in Canada, across all livestock sectors, farmers have put strict biosecurity protocols in place to ensure the health and safety of their animals.

I am most familiar with the National Standard on Biosecurity for Canadian Dairy Farms which was developed by the Dairy Farmers of Canada working with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The national standard for dairy farms focuses on four biosecurity control areas that result in a significant reduction in disease and human food safety risks and include: restricting visitors' access to animals; ensuring the farm is well maintained, clean and sanitary; ensuring that there is a herd health plan in place that includes responding proactively to disease risk; and keeping new animals separate from existing animals until they represent no disease risk.

On top of that, the dairy sector has integrated biosecurity into its proAction certification program which offers proof to customers that the sector is ensuring quality and safety, animal health and welfare as well as environmental stewardship. This is just one example, but every livestock commodity has their own biosecurity standards.

Another important facet of this issue is facilitating communication and coordination nationally and across other jurisdictions. Animal diseases don’t recognize borders and we’re all better served by fostering clear communication and sharing best practices.

In Canada, we have seen good progress in establishing collaborative protocols that clearly define critical tasks and delineate responsibilities to ensure a coordinated and timely response. While this work has been under way in one fashion or another for some time, we have seen recent progress made through the Animal Health Emergency Management Project, overseen by Animal Health Canada, which supports the collaborative development of resources to minimize the incidence of disease.

Animal Health Canada is a national organization bringing together industry, federal, provincial and territorial governments to provide collaborative guidance on animal health and welfare systems in Canada. The success of this model is that it enables a comprehensive approach jointly developed by industry and government, supporting increased awareness, response capacity, and confidence through the development of protocols supported by clear guidance and training.

The last point I want to touch on is international trade. The integrated nature of our markets has long made clear the importance of animal health and animal biosecurity as key priorities. An outbreak of an infectious disease in any sector has disastrous effects, including but not limited to closing our borders to trade, lost trade opportunities, and increases in production costs. That’s one of the reasons why traceability systems are absolutely critical to facilitate both efficiency and stable growth. These systems need to be developed through extensive industry leadership and engagement and be supported with education and outreach.

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay, so there's a replication of that. Mr. Barlow explained the rationale for wanting there to be specific fines on corporations that are involved in the type of activity being discussed before Bill C-275. If the committee were to remove the personal penalties to keep in line with what Mr. MacGregor is suggesting on subsection 65(1), do you know if that impacts the corporate piece, which Ms. Taylor Roy is...or that we will discuss next, I guess, in terms of keeping or not keeping that in the bill?

Can you follow my convoluted path, Mr. Melaschenko?

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

First of all, I have a question for the CFIA.

If clause 2 of Bill C-275 did not end up surviving committee deliberations, am I correct in understanding that the currently written subsection 65(1) of the Health of Animals Act would then apply to Bill C-275? It says, “Every person who contravenes any provision of this Act, other than section 15”.... I won't read the rest. Basically, it has the exact same punishments: $50,000 for a summary conviction and $250,000 for an indictable offence.

Am I correct in interpreting that? Subsection 65(1) of the existing Health of Animals Act would apply if we did not include clause 2 of Bill C-275.

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

Thank you, Chair. I wanted to ask a question of the CFIA. It's a technical interpretation.

When you look at the term “applicable biosecurity measures”, if this committee decides to adopt this amendment to Bill C-275 and we eventually get to a point where Bill C-275 becomes a part of the Health of Animals Act.... If the CFIA is investigating a disease outbreak on a farm and is going to have to pay attention to this section of the Health of Animals Act, can you provide the committee with your understanding of what your obligations would be on the farm with respect to the term “applicable biosecurity measures”?

Would that require the CFIA to look at the farm's biosecurity plan? Would this still be applicable to everyone on the farm—the farm workers and the farmer—including potential trespassers?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I call this meeting to order.

Colleagues, I welcome you to meeting number 75 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

First, I'd like to welcome Mr. Garon and Mr. Epp.

We are delighted to see you again, gentlemen.

Colleagues, pursuant to the order of reference on Wednesday, June 21, 2023, the committee is meeting to proceed with its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms).

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses, who are here to help us with the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

With us today from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, it's great to see Dr. Mary Jane Ireland, who is the executive director of the animal health directorate and chief veterinary officer for Canada. We also have Joseph Melaschenko, who is the senior counsel for agriculture and food inspection legal services.

We also have, from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Donald Boucher, who is director general of the sector development and analysis directorate.

We also have, from our legislative procedural side, Émilie Thivierge and Jean-François Pagé.

Thank you for coming this afternoon.

Colleagues, I have to read a few reminders and then my clerk says to follow the agenda. As you know, I'm normally quite freewheeling, but this is more procedurally pertinent, so I will make sure that I read all of this out for you.

I'd like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-275. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each one is subject to debate and a vote.

If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk.

Members should note that the amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. Yes, I think there is an ability to amend on the fly, but we have to have it in writing to the clerk.

The chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Good luck with that.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During the debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.

When a subamendment is moved on an amendment, it is voted on first, and then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. I suspect that will be the case with this group. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

For many of you who have served in parliamentary committees, I know this is just a little refresher for you. You've heard that before.

I will move to my own package right here, and we can move forward on that basis.

Again, we have our witnesses, who are available for any testimony if you'd like to draw upon them. I have my good procedural folks to my right and to my left to keep me out of trouble.

(On clause 1)

This amendment stands in the name of Mr. MacGregor. Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you for your response, Mr. Gobeil.

Thank you, colleagues.

There are couple of reminders before we head out.

The amendments for Bill C-275 need to be in by the end of the day on October 11. Keep that in mind. We'll be doing clause-by-clause study on Monday, October 16.

If anybody has any travel plans or ideas for this committee, please have them to us by November 10. Is that okay, colleagues?

Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here with us today and for your testimony. It's certainly much appreciated to have your insights.

We are adjourned.

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

Mr. Roy, we have infectious disease experts writing to our committee and telling us that Bill C-275 in its current form does not address existing biosecurity disease risks. From the industry point of view, how do you respond to experts who are asking our committee to amend this bill or not pass it in its current form? I just want your response to experts in the field.

[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.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you very much. That's really very helpful.

My next question is for Mr. Wiens or Mr. Gobeil.

How does it work for Dairy Farmers of Canada? Dairy farms see a lot of action. I used to own one, so I know they get a lot of traffic.

I understand that you support Bill C‑275. How do you see this? It has some significance. You certainly do get a lot of visitors on your farms, both guests and suppliers. These individuals must always respect biosecurity on your farms.

Mr. Gobeil or Mr. Wiens, could you elaborate on that?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Roy.

Along the same lines, let's talk about the number of visitors allowed on your farms, since the current version of Bill C‑275 excludes whistleblowers, it must be said. A lot of people visit your farms. Can you tell us how many people visit your farms, suppliers and others?

Many people who come to your farms could sound the alarm other than those who might show up and seek unauthorized entry.

[Ray Binnendyk, Member, Owner of Excelsior Hog Farm Ltd., Canadian Pork Council]

This is a normal day at the office for most of you, but this is not something I enjoy much.

My name is Ray Binnendyk, from Excelsior Hog Farm in Abbotsford, B.C.

We have a family-run farm that my dad started in 1977, after he moved from Holland. I am one of the owner-operators, along with two brothers. We each have four kids. We are a close family that you will find, on a Sunday morning, at opa and oma's for soup and buns. Farming to us is not just a job; it's a lifestyle.

I was asked to be here to voice my thoughts on Bill C-275. This bill is very important to the future of the agricultural industry.

For those of you who don't know, we have had our farm trespassed on a number of times in the last four years. First there were hidden cameras installed. Then there was an occupation, during which 48 people camped out in our barn for a day while 150 protesters stood on the road. Just a few months ago we actually found three cameras again.

Having protesters break into our barn, install cameras and spread false information on the Internet about our family farm was an invasion of our privacy and a deeply distressing experience. It felt like a violation of not only our property but also our sense of security and trust within our community. Although all our family and friends saw through the lies, it did take a few years before we stopped getting the one-finger salutes while driving pigs to market.

The false accusations online had a significant emotional impact on our family. Because of our close-knit family, we kept each other's heads up, but I'm sure this would not be the case for everyone.

Canadian farmers take pride in what they do, and they work hard to put food on the table. Our industry has many guidelines for animal health and care, which we all follow.

Biosecurity is also a very big part of the health of animals and food security. There are—

[Erin Martellani, Campaign Manager, Animal Advocacy, Montreal SPCA, Humane Canada]

Thank you for the invitation to appear regarding Bill C‑275.

Founded in 1869, the Montreal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA, was Canada's first animal welfare organization, and it's now the most active and influential animal protection organization in Quebec. In addition to being a shelter, the Montreal SPCA is a law enforcement agency. Our Investigations Division officers are responsible for enforcing provincial animal protection laws.

However, our officers' authority to intervene is limited to pets. Animals used for agricultural purposes no longer fall under their jurisdiction. So the only recourse for our officers, who are also special constables who can address complaints about farm animals, is to turn to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with crimes against animals.

Despite this situation, the Investigations Division has received many farm animal abuse complaints from whistleblowers over the years. Some of them have actually led to criminal investigations and, in some cases, even convictions.

The Montreal SPCA does not support Bill C‑275 for a number of reasons, the main one being that it could undermine the work of our Investigations Division by taking away the only tool that lets us receive reports of animal abuse from the agricultural sector, a self-regulated industry that demonstrates very little transparency as it is, and offers extremely restricted access.

It would be a mistake to pass this bill because, right now, the vast majority of Canadian provinces, including Quebec, don't regulate how farm animals are treated. In addition, we have no government agency doing proactive inspections of these facilities to ensure animal welfare.

The Montreal SPCA obviously does not condone unlawful behaviour, but if distressed producers wonder why they are being targeted by activists, it is in large part due to their industry's lack of regulation and transparency.

In this context, further reducing access to livestock facilities and the ability to document violations committed therein, as proposed by this bill, will not only harm the millions of vulnerable animals that pass through them, but it will also harm producers and undermine the overall credibility of an industry that should instead be striving to address societal concerns.

I will now give the floor to Toolika Rastogi.

[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—

[David Wiens, President, Dairy Farmers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure for me to join you today from my family farm in Grunthal, Manitoba.

I would like to also thank the committee members for this opportunity to talk a bit about our situation.

My name is David Wiens. I'm the president of Dairy Farmers of Canada. I am joined by our vice-president, Daniel Gobeil, with whom I will be sharing some of my speaking time today.

On behalf of Canadian dairy farmers, it is a privilege to be here to share our views on Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, which is basically biosecurity on farms.

Supplying Canadian families with safe, nutritious and high-quality dairy products is the paramount mission for us as dairy farmers, and we cannot accomplish that mission unless we can ensure that our cattle themselves are healthy, safe and secure.

Canadian dairy farmers adhere to a mandatory and coordinated national quality assurance framework, which we know as proAction. This framework constantly evolves to reflect best practices and includes programs with strict requirements in a number of key areas, and that of course includes animal care and biosecurity. It's a program that Canadian dairy farmers are proud of and one that the National Farm Animal Care Council recently assessed. The council found that it met and exceeded all requirements of Canada’s animal care assessment framework.

DFC worked with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to develop the national standard for biosecurity for Canadian dairy farmers. The most critical elements of this national standard are incorporated into proAction’s biosecurity module, which requires strict measures at every Canadian dairy farm to mitigate the risk of exposure to dangerous diseases or toxic substances that could threaten animal health.

In this regard, controlling traffic and visitors is essential. Dangerous pathogens can be introduced and spread by contaminated footwear, clothing and hands, as well as vehicles, farm machinery and other equipment. This is why we have strong standards and protocols in Canada that we should actually be proud of.

Such standards are compromised when visitors from the outside do not follow the correct protocols. This is true regardless of the purpose or intent of the individuals seeking uncontrolled access to the farm. Dangerous pathogens do not respect intentions. They are opportunistic disease vectors that can devastate herds and destroy farm livelihoods.

Now I will pass this on to my colleague Mr. Gobeil for a few further comments.

[René Roy, Chair, Canadian Pork Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to speak to Bill C‑275 this morning.

My name is René Roy. I am chair of the Canadian Pork Council and a hog producer in Quebec. This morning, Ray Binnendyk is joining us as a producer and a member of the B.C. Pork Producers Association. He has felt the direct impact of what this bill seeks to address on a number of occasions.

We are supportive of this bill for three main reasons.

This bill will help us to stem the flow of disinformation prevalent in certain corners of the Internet, like videos taken from non-Canadian farms that have been used to justify these kinds of activities. That needs to stop, as Ray will testify shortly.

There are existing mechanisms already in place for legitimate concerns. Our provincial organizations work quite closely with provincial regulators to ensure that animals are cared for, and there is a process that has to be respected. Imagine if it were suddenly legal for people to walk into a bank and start taking pictures of bankers as they work because these people who are protesting have decided they know better or, worse, that banking should no longer exist. This is the fight we're having.

Finally, the threats from biosecurity are real. Our producers shower into and shower out of their barns. We have established biosecurity protocols that prevent diseases from being introduced by humans who don't respect biosecurity standards. That could hurt our animals. We expect to hear that our partners in the legitimate animal protection organizations will join us in supporting efforts to keep animals safe.

Thank you.

I hope Ray has been able to connect. I will leave him some time to introduce himself.