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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In response to Mr. Steinley's comments, I actually don't believe that we're putting our farmers on trial here. It was the Conservatives who brought this bill forward—Bill C-275—and I believe that as a committee we owe it to Canada's farmers, the public and our regulatory agencies to do a deep dive into proposed legislation. We ultimately owe it to everyone to make sure that the bills we're passing into law are doing what their intended purpose is.

Ms. Labchuk, here's what I wanted to ask you. From the documented evidence that you have reviewed, would you agree that most documented disease outbreaks on farms have actually been caused by people who were there with lawful authority and excuse?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to echo the thanks to all of the witnesses who are helping to guide this committee in its examination under Bill C-275.

Dr. Lazare, I'd like to turn my first question to you. I think you've very clearly outlined the problematic phrasing of the bill, which I think veers Bill C-275 into provincial jurisdiction.

We've also heard a lot of conversation from witnesses about the lack of effective existing biosecurity measures on farms and the fact that a lot are voluntary, and we have documented cases where a lot are not being followed even when they are voluntary.

In your opinion, because of your expertise in this subject matter, does the federal government have a potential mandate to enact stronger biosecurity requirements right across the board? You outlined the concern that because of provincial jurisdiction, we can end up with a patchwork of different trespass laws, but I think the federal government does have clear jurisdiction in this way, and that may be one of the ways in which we can address the problem countrywide. Do you have any opinions that you can offer on that?

[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. Mary Jane Ireland, Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you very much.

We are pleased to be here to speak with you today as you continue your consideration of this private member's bill, Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, with regard to biosecurity on farms.

The CFIA is a science-based regulatory agency and is dedicated to safeguarding animal health, plant health and food safety to enhance the health and well-being of Canadians, the environment and the economy. In this capacity, the CFIA administers and enforces a variety of legislation, including the Health of Animals Act, which Bill C-275 seeks to amend.

The primary objective of the Health of Animals Act is to protect animals and prevent the transmission of federally regulated animal diseases and toxic substances to both animals and humans. The CFIA employs highly skilled veterinarians, veterinary inspectors and other inspectors, who administer and enforce the Health of Animals Act. Under the act, CFIA inspectors have the authority to conduct inspections, seize and detain animals or things, investigate cases of non-compliance and recommend prosecution when it is appropriate to do so.

CFIA inspectors are not peace officers. They do not have the authority to detain persons who violate the Health of Animals Act.

The CFIA works with various stakeholders, including producers, to help protect animal health and prevent the spread of diseases, including through the development of animal biosecurity measures, which can be implemented by producers on their farms.

Animal biosecurity is an area of shared responsibility. It involves federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as industry associations and producers.

The Health of Animals Act and its regulations contain biosecurity requirements for federally regulated diseases. Provinces and territories may also develop and enforce their own biosecurity requirements. Provinces and territories provide funding to producers to improve biosecurity measures and to support certain disease-control activities.

In addition, the CFIA, industry, academic institutions and provinces and territories have worked together to develop voluntary national biosecurity standards. These standards outline the practices and protocols for farmers to routinely implement in order to prevent animals from being exposed to disease at the farm level.

In Canada, most on-farm biosecurity standards are voluntary, and farmers are responsible for implementing biosecurity standards on their premises. While these standards are voluntary, several industry associations have integrated parts of them into their mandatory on-farm programs. This collaborative effort between industry associations and producers has promoted the use and adherence to on-farm biosecurity measures, and these measures, combined with other regulatory requirements, help to reduce the threat of disease spread and to maintain market access.

While the objectives of Bill C-275 are commendable, we would like to identify a few considerations regarding the current text of the bill.

The current wording poses legal risks. It does not account for existing provincial and territorial jurisdiction over property and civil rights. Almost every province has legislation to address trespassing, and five provinces have passed enhanced private property legislation to prohibit trespassing at locations where animals are kept.

At the federal level, the Criminal Code includes prohibitions related to trespassing, such as mischief and breaking and entering, and these provisions have been successfully used to convict individuals who have engaged in this type of activity. There is a risk the prohibition may not be a valid exercise of federal agricultural power, which is understood to be limited to agricultural operations that are inside the farm gate.

The bill also presents enforcement challenges. The Crown would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused understood the risk of disease transmission as a result of entering the premise or that they acted recklessly to expose an animal to disease or toxic substances. Additionally, the police of local jurisdiction would need to respond to trespassing incidents, as CFIA officials are not peace officers.

We would encourage you to take these considerations into account as you continue your study of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I hope this provides a general overview of the CFIA's role in animal health and biosecurity as well as an overview of some of the challenges with the current text of the bill. We welcome any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

[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.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 74 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

There are a few reminders about today's meeting. This will be taking place in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so you're aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

Screenshots or taking photos are prohibited. Our witnesses should be aware of that.

Also for our witnesses, members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately, and we will ensure the interpretation is working properly before we proceed.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you're on video conference, please click on your microphone to unmute yourself. For those in the room, the microphone will come on automatically. If you see the little red button in front of you on the panel, you will know that your microphone is on.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly for the benefit of our interpreters. When you are not speaking, please make sure, especially for those who are online, that your microphone is on mute.

I remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair, please.

Pursuant to the order of reference for today, the committee will resume consideration of Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms).

I would now like to welcome our opening panel.

With us today, we have Dr. Jodi Lazare, associate professor. From Animal Justice, we have Camille Labchuk, executive director. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have Dr. Mary Jane Ireland, executive director, animal health directorate, chief veterinary officer for Canada, and Dr. Rick James-Davies, director general for western operations. I believe he is joining us online.

For our witnesses, you'll be given up to five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we'll proceed to the opening rounds of questions. When you have one minute left, I will signal you by giving you a bit of a wave so that you know to start your conclusion. Just keep an eye on it; I will try my best not to cut anyone off. I would like you to try to finish your comments.

We have a substitution today. We have Mr. Collins subbing in for Mr. Drouin. There's no pressure, Mr. Collins. I'm sure you'll do fine.

Ms. Lazare, we'll start with your opening comments. You have five minutes, please.

[Pierre Lampron]

That's what makes Bill C‑275 so important: If producers feel that the government doesn't care about their problems, if they don't feel supported, at some point, all kinds of things can happen.

I think the idea is that we work together. We're going to work on our side, the government is going to put rules in place to prevent these intrusions, we're going to put out nice positive messages for producers and we're going to get through this. That's what I wanted to say.

We mustn't forget that these organizations—we saw the amounts mentioned earlier—are very well organized. They're international. They see which countries have no laws or standards, and it's these countries that are the most attacked. We don't want to be the global target of farm intrusions. It's important to have protection.

[Paul Doyon]

Pan-Canadian regulation is really essential, and that's what Bill C‑275 is going to enable. It will send a signal to everyone that people are not allowed to enter farms, which are places of production, but also living environments for families. It's not allowed for people to just turn up and demonstrate. That's what it should be across the country.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being with us today.

Mr. Doyon, you mentioned something interesting: the additional use of antibiotics that might be necessary following contamination. From memory, I think this is the first time anyone has mentioned this. It's very relevant.

You also mentioned that the legislation in the provinces and Quebec is not equal, and that in one place or the other, certain laws are going to be used. You said that in Quebec, we use the Civil Code and the Criminal Code. People who question Bill C‑275 tell us it's not necessary because there are already laws that can protect against intrusions.

I'd love to hear you talk about this aspect. Why is Bill C‑275 essential? What will it change in relation to existing legislation?

[Paul Doyon, Senior Vice-President General, Union des producteurs agricoles]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, everyone.

My name is Paul Doyon. I am the senior vice-president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA. I am a dairy and maple producer. I am accompanied today by Annie Tessier, assistant coordinator, research and agricultural policy branch, UPA.

Animal biosecurity is a major concern, both for reasons of animal health and welfare and because of the major economic and commercial consequences associated with animal diseases. The UPA believes that Bill C‑275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act, provides a clear signal of the importance of compliance with biosecurity measures on farms to deter trespassing on livestock premises.

Biosecurity and animal health are among farmers' responsibilities, in part determined by the Health of Animals Act, which sets out the measures to be taken when a disease occurs in a herd. Among other things, the act stipulates that the premises concerned be accessible only to persons authorized to enter them to limit the risk of spreading diseases.

In addition, the various livestock sectors work on prevention and have adopted safety and biosecurity protocols that are often very strict, under which only persons who are authorized and follow those protocols can enter the farms. Agricultural input suppliers, livestock transporters, and renderers also have a role to play in animal biosecurity.

In recent years, the rise of anti-meat and anti-speciesist movements has been felt in many countries, including Canada. A lot of these protests have taken place in public places. However, a more radical faction is ready for civil disobedience and organizes trespassing onto private premises, such as farms. For example, in Quebec, a hog production farm in the Saint-Hyacinthe region was trespassed onto in December 2019. The 11 co‑accused were convicted of breaking and entering and mischief. In April 2021, during a lockdown related to COVID‑19, two activists trespassed onto a dairy farm in the Eastern Townships and tried to release animals.

However, it is well established scientifically that the entry of unprotected persons or those who do not know the rules to follow on a farm site poses a significant risk to biosecurity, as well as to animal health and welfare. The clothes and shoes of an intruder who has not complied with the biosecurity protocol may carry pathogens or contaminants.

Some diseases have decimated herds and resulted in their systematic slaughter. Cases of avian flu in Canadian and Quebec chicken and turkey farms have multiplied and require a significant mobilization of producers and stakeholders.

Those authorized to enter livestock premises know the dangers of their behaviour: sudden movements, random noises or a change in routine can cause stress in the animals and lead to erratic behaviour that can lead them to injure themselves, lethally injure other animals or their young. In addition, an animal that has experienced significant stress is more likely to develop health problems. So without leading to herd depopulation, unauthorized entry could introduce diseases into the herd and require increased use of antibiotics, while the agricultural community—farmers, veterinarians and government authorities—is working to combat antibiotic resistance.

All these factors will have a significant impact on the financial health of the business, but also on the mental health of the producer, their family and their employees.

Several Canadian provinces have specific trespassing laws. Others, such as Quebec, use provincial laws and the Criminal Code to lay charges of breaking and entering or mischief against unauthorized entry into private premises.

Bill C‑275 is an important tool that the federal government will have to consistently protect farm animals from the consequences of trespassing by providing significant penalties that can deter individuals or groups from trespassing without authorization and without following established biosecurity or animal welfare protocols.

Given that an unauthorized entry into a livestock premises brings an increased risk of exposure to diseases and contaminants for the animals there, whether premeditated or not, we believe it is important to clarify the wording in the act. The act should clearly specify that any person who enters a breeding site, enclosure or biosecurity zone without authorization is deemed to pose a risk, even if he or she complies with the biosecurity protocols in place. It's just as important to respect animal welfare.

Thank you.

[Megz Reynolds, Executive Director, The Do More Agriculture Foundation]

Farmers are used to adversity. They watch as an entire crop is destroyed in a 10-minute storm. They grieve, powerless, as disease rips through their herd or flock. They watch market prices tank when global production is good. They pray for rain, for markets, for health and for safety. On a daily basis, they pray for an understanding of who they are and what they do.

I sit before you today on behalf of Canadian farmers in my capacity as the executive director of The Do More Agriculture Foundation. We are the national voice and champion for mental health in Canadian agriculture.

Last spring, just as avian influenza was moving across Canada, I sat down with a group of poultry producers in Nova Scotia. The focal point of our conversation was mental health and the challenges farmers are facing that lead to chronic stress, burnout and anxiety. A conversation that is usually robust was lilted. The producers sharing their table with me were more focused on the migratory birds outside the window than on our dialogue. They were living day and night with the fear that avian influenza would show up in their barns, introduced either by wild birds or through a break in biohazard security.

I didn't grow up in agriculture. I grew up in the city, and before moving to a farm, I never would have thought twice about walking into a barn full of animals. It never would have crossed my mind that walking into a biosecure barn housing 30,000 birds could result in introducing a disease like avian influenza that could see that entire flock dead within the week.

Producers across Canada are not expecting everyone to know the ins and outs of their operations or of animal husbandry, but they are asking for help. They are asking for protection and for understanding, and for Bill C-275 to be enacted to protect their animals, their families, their farms and their livelihoods. Agriculture is an industry with a foundation of deep rural roots, hard work, resilience, strength and community.

On a daily basis, farmers deal with numerous factors that are outside of their control and directly influence their mental well-being. Farmers should not have to add to that living with the fear of protesters trespassing into enclosed areas and endangering their animals, their livelihoods and Canadian food security.

Farmers are among the most vulnerable when it comes to mental health challenges like stress, anxiety, depression and burnout. In 2021, the University of Guelph found that one in four Canadian farmers felt like their life was not worth living, wished that they were dead or had thought about taking their own life in the last 12 months.

Sandi Brock and her husband raise sheep and run a grain farm outside of Hensall, Ontario, in a place that she feels is sort of like the middle of nowhere, yet Google has led strangers straight to her door. Sandi has been kind enough to share her story through me.

She writes:

I have long feared the forces of anti-agriculture (specifically livestock) that have made it their mission to end animal agriculture. In the same breath, I also respect where people are in regard to their core values.

In 2017, I decided to start a YouTube channel to “bring” people onto our farm, and into our lives as farmers on an Ontario family farm. Instead of expecting the general public to trust and understand what we do, I turn my camera on, almost daily, to bring them alongside us to witness it all....

I started this channel in the hopes of maybe not changing minds, but instead giving context behind the work we do each day. Not to educate, but maybe to cultivate empathy. As it turns out, millions of people have tuned in over the years and even some that don't agree with animal agriculture have reached out and offered up their genuine respect for us as farmers, and for us as a family.

But my comment section isn't always so nice, and there is always a gnawing in my gut that one day one of those negative commentors will show up at my front door. And trust me, it happens.

Thankfully, so far, the strangers that have found my address and shown up unannounced have been because they like me. Unfortunately for me, I do not know the difference. When these strangers have shown up, I have had an out-of-body experience like no other. I shake from head-to-toe for hours after they leave, and the intrusion stays with me for days after.

We live where we work. The vulnerability of strangers showing up unannounced is one thing, but the violation of privacy is a completely different level, and this is where I can firmly stand beside my fellow livestock farmers.

It feels like, and quite honestly is, a break-in. Businesses and homes are protected by the law. Our farms are quite literally our farms and homes, and in so, should be protected.

I started sharing my life online to help connect, provide context, and give the experience of a small family farm. Sharing did this, and more, and I'm so proud of the connections we've made. But after experiencing even the mildest forms of trespassing, and seeing and feeling firsthand how vulnerable we truly are as an industry I have seriously questioned if it was all worth it in the end.

Thank you.

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

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Pierre Lampron, and I am second vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, CFA, and a dairy farmer in Quebec.

The CFA 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.

I want to be clear that the CFA supports Bill C‑275. As a dairy farmer myself, I fully appreciate the critical importance of ensuring that strong biosecurity measures are in place to protect our animals, our livelihood as farmers, as well as our economy.

Before diving into why the bill is so important for Canadian farmers, I would like to start by reminding the committee that producers are already taking a leadership role in promoting animal welfare and on-farm biosecurity. Across all animal industries, farmers have put strict biosecurity protocols in place to ensure the health and safety of their livestock.

As a dairy farmer myself, I am most familiar with the national standard on biosecurity for Canadian dairy farms, which was developed by the Dairy Farmers of Canada in collaboration with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This is just one example, but every livestock commodity has their own biosecurity standards.

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 includes: 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 a proactive veterinary response 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. Those are the pillars of the proAction certification program.

Unfortunately, industry alone cannot prevent a breach of biosecurity protocols. We need the support of governments across Canada, including the federal government, to ensure that our animals and our livelihoods are protected.

To date, several provincial governments have put in place legislation to prevent trespassing on farms. However, these laws are not uniform across the provinces. Bill C‑275 fills a critical gap in that legislative framework because it focuses more on preventing biosecurity risks than on trespassing.

Furthermore, we would argue that biosecurity is very much a national issue with potential consequences that go beyond provincial boundaries and affect our food production, our farmers' mental health and our economy.

Strong biosecurity measures are necessary not only to reduce the risk of spreading disease and stress on the animals; they also serve as proactive measures to strengthen our domestic food systems to ensure food security for Canadians.

Without strong biosecurity protocols, there is a risk of disease outbreaks that jeopardize our national food supply and our farmers' ability to provide food to their communities. In addition, the mental health and well-being of producers and farm employees could also be affected owing to animal welfare impacts and loss of livelihood.

Finally, in the context of 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.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

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

It's been raised, but I want to clarify again that the discussion about Bill C-275 is centred around farms. The first clause explains that it would apply to any building or any enclosed place in which animal are kept. There are a lot of buildings, and this can stretch pretty far. Would the bill apply to other animal enclosures that have been the target of animal welfare protests, such as slaughterhouses, rodeos, zoos, or animals being transported to such facilities?

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

Thank you very much.

As for places, we are told that Bill C‑275 will apply to any building or enclosures where animals are kept. Do you think that this way of describing the place covers more than the farm? For example, does that include a transport truck, a slaughterhouse, the site of a rodeo or a zoo, among others? If you think that the definition does not cover those places, should we not work to cover them, in your opinion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Certainly you have some leeway, but we are on Bill C-275, so I would ask you to make sure we keep tight on that legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Epp.