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.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I will add that these fines are in line with what the Liberals put forward on Bill C-275. They're in line with what they supported in previous legislation.

Health of Animals Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-275, under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms), be read a third time and passed.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all colleagues who took the opportunity not only tonight but throughout this process to speak in support of this very important legislation, which is an amendment to the Health of Animals Act, Bill C-275.

There has been overwhelming support for this bill from Canadians across this country, and certainly from farmers, producers and the entire agriculture sector. I cannot thank them enough for helping me craft this legislation, for improving it at committee and for championing it through the legislative process. To farmers, ranchers and producers across the country for their encouraging phone calls and letters, I give a heartfelt thanks.

Perhaps it is fitting if I take a few minutes to read an excerpt from an open letter by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which represents more than 200,000 families across Canada. It states:

The amendments proposed under Bill C-275, would provide targeted intervention against the on-farm food safety and biosecurity risk by limiting the access of unauthorized entrants to animals and farms. The proposed amendments to the Health of Animals Act offer an avenue to further strengthen our overall food system by enhancing the measures in place to protect the health of farm animals across our country.

At the same time, Bill C-275 strikes a balance between producers’ safety and protection and the right to lawful and peaceful protest. Our members’ operations often host visitors to demonstrate how the land is managed or their animals are cared for, but there is a key distinction between those who willingly follow prescribed, strict biosecurity and sanitation practices and those who willfully endanger animal health, welfare, and food safety.

The letter goes on to quote Megz Reynolds, an executive director of the Do More Agriculture Foundation, a group that is the national voice and champion for mental health in agriculture. She said:

Agriculture is an industry with a foundation in deep rural roots, hard work, resilience, strength, and community. On a daily [basis] farmers deal with numerous factors outside of their control, that directly influence their mental wellbeing. Farmers should not have to add living with the fear of protestors trespassing into enclosed areas and endangering their animals, livelihoods, and food security on top of everything else that weighs on them day in and day out. Farmers are among the most vulnerable when it comes to mental health challenges like stress, anxiety, depression, emotional exhaustion, and burnout. In 2021 the University of Guelph found that 1 in 4 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.

The letter concludes by saying, “We urge you to support Bill C-275 and its proposed amendments, which will provide increased safety to producers, the animals they raise, and the food they produce.”

I, of course, echo these sentiments. I want to encourage my colleagues to support Bill C-275 and send a message to our farmers, our livestock producers and their families. The message from the House of Commons would be that their animals matter, Canadian agriculture matters, our food security matters and, most importantly for farm families across the country, their livelihoods matter. We care about their mental health. We recognize the unwavering dedication our farmers and farm families have for the well-being of the animals in their care.

I again thank all colleagues who spoke so well and shared many of their personal sentiments on farmers and operations in their ridings across Canada and who echoed the concerns and viewpoints of their constituents in the House today. For colleagues who do not necessarily come from an agricultural or rural riding, it is important that we share this message not only with our rural communities but certainly with urban Canadians, who may not have a wealth of knowledge or experience regarding what Canadian agriculture is, how we do it, why we do it and the very strict regulations and protocols in biosecurity we must follow to ensure the security of our food supply.

I thank my colleagues for their support and hope they will continue to support Bill C-275. I also thank farmers and farm families across Canada so much for their support.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in support of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, biosecurity on farms, which was introduced by my friend and colleague, the member for Foothills.

Like my Conservative colleagues who have spoken to this piece of legislation already, I am also an extremely strong supporter of our agricultural sector. I actually grew up on a family farm near Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. I wear it on my sleeve that I am just a regular farm kid who happened to find his way into the House of Commons.

I understand that many members of Parliament, and many Canadians, have not had the chance to visit a farm for a variety of reasons related to how they live their lives or where they live. I appreciate my hon. colleague from Charlottetown previously stating that, as a new MP, he had to recognize that urban MPs need to understand the interconnectivity between where production may take place and the processing done often in urban areas. At the end of the day, all Canadians eat. I applaud him for that and I encourage all my urban colleagues to try to understand by visiting a farm somewhere near their area.

Many others, who may be animal rights activists or vegans, may not want to experience a farm. For those who probably never will visit a farm, I would like to explain what it is like to visit a livestock operation. I have had the chance, prior to being elected and since being elected, to visit many farms.

The first question someone will be asked is if they have been to another farm recently because the transfer of diseases between farms is potentially a terrible challenge. Beyond that, someone is immediately asked to put on a suite of biosecurity measures like gowns, foot covers, hats, goggles and gloves, to make sure they are not endangering any of the flock or herd of animals on the farm. Livestock producers and all farmers care about the health of their animals. Animal welfare is critical. If we ask any producer, they will say the health and well-being of their animals is of utmost importance to them.

Relating to the bill specifically, its central provision is that it makes it an offence for a person, without permission, to enter a place where animals are kept, if their doing so could reasonably be expected to result in the animals being exposed to a disease or a dangerous substance. This is so that individuals and organizations will be deterred from entering farms without permission. It also changes the financial and non-financial penalties associated with doing so.

Some outside the agricultural sector may ask why these changes are necessary. Let me tell everyone why. Radical animal rights activists have been staging protests on private property, such as farms and processing plants, for far too long. I can assure people they are not putting on all that protective gear to protect the welfare of those animals. The groups that do not want to see this bill pass might deny this claim, so I will give a few examples.

On March 9, 2019, 15 activists trespassed on Webstone Holstein Farm, a dairy farm near Elmira, Ontario, even removing a deceased calf in the process.

On April 28, 2019, 65 individuals staged an occupation of the Excelsior Hog Farm in Abbotsford, British Columbia.

On September 2 of the same year, dozens of protesters, without permission, planted themselves inside a barn at the Jumbo Valley Hutterite Turkey Farm near Fort Macleod, Alberta.

On December 7 of the same year, 11 activists occupied Porgreg farm, a pig-breeding facility in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec.

The disruptive nature of these protests is the reason that many provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and P.E.I, have passed bills that strengthen provincial laws as they relate to trespassing on farms. However, in provinces where these laws are not present, farmers are largely left to fend for themselves when it comes to creating a playbook for protecting biodiversity and handling trespassers on their property. This legislation aims to fix that.

The fact of the matter is that individuals and groups staging protests are far from being animal saviours. They are more than likely exposing animals to dangerous diseases and substances.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2022, the agriculture and agri-food system employed 2.3 million people, or one in nine jobs in Canada, and generated $143.8 billion, roughly 7% of Canada’s GDP.

An activist who, even accidentally, introduces a disease at a farm could have a staggering effect on these numbers, in addition to the fact that it would threaten our food security here in Canada and around the globe. Let us take, for example, African swine fever, ASF. It has yet to be detected in Canada, thank goodness. It was first found in China in August 2018, leading to the death of about half of that country’s pigs and a quarter of the entire world’s pig population between 2018 and 2019.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, notes that in 2022, Canada exported just over $4.8 billion in pork to 77 different countries, as well as the fact that the industry contributes 88,000 jobs and generates $24 billion for our economy. For my province and my home riding, this is a very important issue as it relates to the hog sector. We have 138 sites producing pigs in my riding alone.

Manitoba is the second-largest producer and exporter of Canadian pork, employing 22,000 Manitobans across the various sectors involved with the industry. It is interconnectedness that matters here, in the sense that two million tonnes of feed is purchased by this sector from local grain growers, representing about half a billion dollars. Over 40 new barns have been expanded to enhance their environmental sustainability and animal care since 2017. This is a $2.3-billion industry for Manitoba that must be protected. The threat of radical animal rights activists putting that economic impact in jeopardy is worth tackling.

If ASF were to be detected in Canada, and to reach the same scale it had in China, the pork industry would simply be decimated, just like the numbers we saw in China. I cannot stress enough how devastating these losses would be, not just for those in the agricultural sector, but that interconnectedness. For the rest of the processing industry and those involved in shipping these processed products, it would have a major impact.

Protecting our economy and the global food supply is the main reason why this bill is so important, although another, and somewhat understated, goal of this legislation is to protect the mental health of farmers. Farmers have a very stressful life. They work long hours in sometimes very extreme conditions. They have an increasingly extremely high debt burden and are price takers, not price makers. In fact, the Canadian Mental Health Association states that “stress, mental health issues, and suicide are higher among farmers as compared to the general population.” When radical animal rights activists illegally enter farms on the private property that they are located on, they unnecessarily threaten farmers' physical and mental well-being by adding to the long list of stressors that our Canadian farmers already face. This is unfair, especially considering that farmers are, quite literally, the people who feed our country and the world.

I have taken a few minutes to talk about what this bill does, but I would also like to focus on what it does not do. I know there are some criticisms out there that are unwarranted. The first thing it does not do is limit a person’s ability to protest peacefully. Second, it does not prevent whistle-blowers in any way. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(c), protects an individual's right to peaceful assembly. If people take issue with the way farmers raise their livestock, they are free to protest in accordance with all applicable laws on public property instead of private agricultural land. To the second point, this bill does not, as some might lead people to believe, prevent whistle-blowers from speaking out. Whistle-blowers are the employees. They are the family members. They are professionals who work and are legally permitted to be on the private property where these animals are being housed. Simply put, trespassing activists are not whistle-blowers. They are more like trouble-makers.

At the end of the day, this is a good piece of legislation that will protect biodiversity on farms and farmers' mental health. It has support from a vast number of organizations from the agricultural sector, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Pork Council and Dairy Farmers of Canada. While I could give quotations about their support and stand here all day expressing why they think this is important, I would just like to thank them for all the work they have done in supporting this legislation, as well as all the good work they do to represent our Canadian farmers. Like those stakeholder groups, I hope that we are able to turn this common-sense bill into law as soon as possible.

I will just conclude by saying that for the well-being of our farmers, our economy and our food supply, I hope members of this chamber will join me in voting in favour of Bill C-275.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to say that I am aware we still have a long way to go to improve how livestock are often treated. We must speak out against intensive livestock farming done without any concern for animal welfare. We have to implement practices worthy of a modern world.

Our ancestors showed us how to be kind and have respect for the lives of farm animals. We must monitor any misconduct and punish people accordingly. Animal rights groups are right to be concerned. However, we must not defend animal rights by demonstrating illegally, which only makes things worse. Before I get into it, I would like to say that we all make life choices. Food is part of that, based on our values and food traditions. Generally speaking, we should be eating local food that comes from ethical and sustainable agriculture, and we should show moderation in how much we eat, especially when it comes to food of animal origin. That is a rule we should live by at all times.

In the same vein, a society that treats its animals badly and disrespectfully does not take much better care of its humans. That idea is going to form the foundation of the rest of my speech. I would like to take advantage of the fact that we are indirectly talking about animal welfare to say thank you to all the pets that have been part of my life or still are. I am sure many of my colleagues here will agree that the relationship we have with our pets is unique; it is like no other feeling.

Although they go by many names, I am convinced that pets make families happy, just as Copain, Patof, Flocon, Hiver, Roxy once did for me, and as Abricot, Capi, Dalida, our little newcomer, Ma Dalton, Luna, Marjolie, Berlioz and Iba still do. I want to take this opportunity to thank pets for the affection and unconditional loyalty they give to their respective families. Pets bring happiness to families and single people alike, and there are the positive effects that pet therapy has on people with psychological difficulties.

Although not directly related to the subject of this bill, I wanted to highlight my love for animals and also my concern for all aspects of animal welfare in our society. I am very concerned about respect for animal life and welfare at home and on livestock farms. Legal protection of the animal world is a fundamental principle.

In that regard, this bill engages the same willingness to do better, despite any perceptions that its wording may elicit. The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑275 in principle, particularly to curb a growing phenomenon across North America and the rest of the world. I am referring to break-ins at farm buildings to protest livestock conditions. As unhealthy as they may sometimes be, there is no excuse for committing offences that often endanger the very animals we seek to protect. This bill is a step in the right direction, although a number of points will have to be clarified to determine whether this addition is consistent with Canada's federal animal health legislation and Quebec's existing animal welfare legislation.

We firmly believe that it is not up to the federal government to impose its laws on Quebec, even in an area of shared jurisdiction, when the division is relatively clear. The Bloc Québécois recognizes that demonstrations with dramatic gestures are a growing problem, that they should not be trivialized and that they must be better regulated. This is not a debate about freedom of expression. No one is questioning this right to demonstrate against abuse, which must be denounced. However, when the act of protest itself leads to mischief, that may not be the best way to express one's opposition.

I do not think this bill is meant to condone animal abuse. We all have a responsibility to speak out against such situations. Extremes often lead to excesses, which is when laws like these are really necessary. It is more a question of recognizing that property-owning families have suffered and continue to suffer from these crimes, and that they live in fear of new offences being committed. It is also about making people aware that biosecurity standards must be met on farms in order to protect the safety of animals and herds.

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. There is nothing offensive or upsetting about that.

The Bloc Québécois's concern over this bill is that the penalties for contravening the new offence are enforced under the Health of Animals Act and not under the Criminal Code, which is a federal responsibility. Then, the enabling legislation, the Health of Animals Act, was not directly designed to support animal welfare, despite its title. It was instead drafted to protect animals in a perspective of human consumption and to try to contain the chance of zoonotic diseases, diseases that are transmitted from animals to humans.

The federal government has limited power with respect to the scope of application of such a bill. That is why it would be interesting to have more information in committee on the bill's functionality and application. Protecting animal welfare, including that of livestock, is primarily a provincial jurisdiction. Every province and every territory in Canada has legislation on animal welfare. Provincial and territorial legislation often have a broader scope; they focus on a series of interests related to animal protection.

Some provinces and territories have laws or regulations that govern specific aspects of animal welfare or target certain species. All of the provinces have animal welfare legislation, but they do not all have legislation dealing specifically with this offence. In recent years, several provinces, including British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta, have created or strengthened laws to punish people who break into a slaughterhouse or farm. Quebec does not yet have such legislation, and instead court action is taken under the Criminal Code or the Civil Code. We must therefore avoid getting involved in a situation that might be construed as us telling Quebec what it should do. It is not up the federal government to impose its laws on the provinces.

When strangers come into contact with animals or their habitat without taking the appropriate precautions to avoid contamination, the risk of disease increases tenfold. Every such contact is a risk and requires the application of biosecurity measures. Intrusions that cause a disease outbreak in a farmer's herd jeopardize their livelihood because sick animals cannot be consumed and must be isolated. If the disease spreads outside the farm, the consequences can be catastrophic. The best example of this is the avian flu, which is often transmitted through contact with migratory birds. 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. For example, noise and stress can cause sows to get up abruptly and then kill the piglets when they lay back down. How can a person think that holding these animals hostage, as it were, will serve a cause? One has to wonder.

If we want to change mindsets and get people to eat less meat, because limiting meat consumption is also beneficial for the environment and reduces greenhouse gases, we need to find other ways to do it. Balancing supply and demand, adding these variables to education programs and improving information and awareness are just some of the ways we can profoundly change the course of history.

Some members in this House may not agree because they deny the concept of ecosystem imbalance and the role of human neglect in animal welfare and they believe that climate change is made up. As we all know, freedom of expression is a precious value for the Bloc Québécois, and people have every right to protest and make their views known. However, we cannot condone protests involving illegal acts that may cause harm to both producers and animals. Breaking and entering is simply not the way to go about it.

Asking questions about best practices and the best ways to change consumer mindsets is also a good way to protect animals. I would like to point out that in Quebec is once again well ahead of the game. It is home to a number of livestock farms that are winning awards of excellence in animal welfare. For example, Ferme Karona in Plessisville, central Quebec, won Agropur's 2021-22 animal welfare award. The farm is a true wonder. I commend the owners, Pierre, Odrey and Pierre-Olivier Caron, who breed Holstein cows and are recognized as master breeders, the most highly prized honour in the livestock industry. The title is conferred by Holstein Canada on livestock producers who breed and raise animals under the most comfortable conditions and in compliance with good breeding habits and practices based on health and longevity. The cows are free ranging and live on a fine sand surface more comfortable than a living room sofa. All this is happening right here in our own backyard. Obviously, when breeders improve their behaviour, the number of offences committed to protest animal abuse drops. I encourage people to follow their example.

There is probably room for a constructive discussion on this issue. The debates between the parties were all about the details. I hope there will be more reflection to find better solutions. I would especially like to see Quebec used as a model, once again, in order to improve the health and the lives of animals.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-275 and, specifically, to the support it would provide our farmers.

We know that Canadian farmers face hardships. These include issues with supply chains and the rising costs of production; the threat of environmental hardships, such as natural disasters caused by climate change; and the risk of harmful and deadly animal disease. These are compounding everyday struggles. The possibility of someone illegally entering farmers' property amplifies these hardships, causing stress to the farmer, their family and their animals.

Bill C-275 would protect Canadian farmers and their animals by making it illegal to enter a place where animals are kept if, in doing so, a person could reasonably expose the animals to a disease or toxic substance. The bill would provide Canadian farmers with the reassurance that they no longer have to worry about potential biosecurity breaches from individuals entering their property illegally. They could instead focus on their daily work to maintain the health of their animals and to help feed the country.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food studied this bill. The committee heard from a number of stakeholders, including farmers and industry associations representing the agriculture and agri-food sector. It was clear from their testimony that farmers are committed to protecting the health of their animals. Their livelihood depends on it. Indeed, that would characterize the vast majority of farmers.

However, I would be remiss if I did not point out some of the criticisms of the bill raised by those who are concerned about animal cruelty. There are people who have expressed concerns in that regard. They point out that, in Canada, it is rare to see cameras in slaughterhouses, something that is commonplace in Europe, for example. They also point out that whistle-blowers in an operation, where they see something untoward, would be exposed to potential risk by measures such as these.

I am from Prince Edward Island, and probably the most serious biosecurity case encountered in P.E.I. did not relate to animals but, as one might predict, to potatoes. In 2014, there were sewing needles found in potatoes and in french fries in various locations throughout Prince Edward Island. The angst this caused the agricultural community was absolutely incredible. It also necessitated some very substantial investments by farmers to essentially X-ray potatoes going through the processing line in order to combat this and reassure the public their food was safe.

Our government recognizes the importance of farmers and has demonstrated its ongoing commitment to them and the agriculture and agri-food sector. I want to take a moment to describe some of the ways we have supported the Canadian agriculture sector over the past year, beginning with budget 2023.

The Canadian agriculture industry is world class and the backbone of our economy. In fact, Canada exported nearly $92.8 billion in agriculture and food products in 2022. The government has made a number of significant investments to continue expanding the sector's reach. For instance, through budget 2023, our government created the dairy innovation and investment fund, providing up to $333 million over the next 10 years. The fund is intended to help the Canadian dairy sector increase its competitiveness and adapt to new market realities.

We know the dairy sector is a vital pillar of rural communities and a key driver of the economy. There are 9,739 farms and 507 dairy processing plants across Canada, employing more than 70,000 Canadians. In 2022, the dairy sector generated $17.4 billion in sales.

Even though I am from Prince Edward Island, I represent an urban riding. I can remember, when I was first elected, being summoned to a meeting with dairy farmers with a couple of my rural colleagues. My immediate reaction was to ask why I needed to be at the meeting, because there were no dairy farmers in my riding.

It was very quickly pointed out to me that ADL, which is a milk and cheese processor, employs many of my constituents. That was a good lesson for a young member of Parliament: While much of the wealth is generated in rural areas, it often emanates from rural into urban areas. We are all interconnected. That needs to be borne in mind.

I would like to offer a tip of the hat to Chad Mann and the good people at Amalgamated Dairies Limited, who are truly national and international leaders in the production of milk and cheese. We are immensely proud of them. They are actually owned by producers. It is a business that we need to promote as a key element of the economy in Prince Edward Island and that the Government of Canada can, must and should continue to support.

The sustainable Canadian agriculture partnership was launched this past April. It is a five-year agreement between the federal and provincial and territorial governments. It includes $1 billion in federal programs and activities. For instance, the federal AgriMarketing program provides approximately $130 million to the agriculture sector to increase and diversify exports to international markets and seize domestic market opportunities.

The SCAP includes an additional $2.5 billion in cost-shared programs and initiatives that are funded among all orders of government. This includes, for example, support for AgriRecovery in cases of emergencies.

Speaking of AgriRecovery in support of emergencies, natural disasters can have a devastating impact on our agriculture industry. We have seen it up close in Prince Edward Island, more often than we would like in recent years, including, most recently, hurricane Fiona. There have been a number of catastrophic floods, droughts and hurricanes that have resulted in millions of dollars in losses.

Our government recognizes the hardships that farmers face from these natural disasters, and we are here to support them. The AgriRecovery framework is designed to support producers with the extraordinary costs they incur because of an emergency and to get them back into production.

That is why, in October 2023, we announced $365 million in federal-provincial funding to provide relief to farmers and ranchers in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan as a result of the extraordinary costs they have incurred because of this year's extreme weather conditions. This funding covers up to 70% of costs incurred during these disasters. This includes moving livestock, so they can be fed and watered, replacing and repairing damaged fencing, and unforeseen veterinary costs.

I would like to close by indicating that our government recognizes the importance of supporting farmers. We are investing significant funding to support our farmers and producers. This would enable Canadian farmers to maintain their world-class reputation and continue to provide Canadians with the first-rate products we have come to expect.

Our government is always hard at work to promote the work of our farmers in the agriculture sector through a wide range of activities, initiatives and funding opportunities. We have demonstrated that we are consistently here for our farmers, in good times and in bad.

Bill C-275 is another tool to provide further support for farmers and to ensure the safety of their animals, a subject that preoccupies the vast majority of them. This is a commendable objective that deserves our backing.

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms), be read the third time and passed.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today in support of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act regarding biosecurity on farms, which was introduced by my colleague, the member for Foothills, under Private Members' Business.

Like my friend and colleague from Foothills, I love and deeply respect the agriculture and agri-food industry. As a dairy farmer and purebred breeder for over 40 years, I have always been a strong supporter of the agricultural industry, and I recognize the importance of this bill.

This bill proposes essential amendments to the current Health of Animals Act, which in my opinion does not go far enough in protecting biosecurity on our farms or in protecting our family farms from unwelcome intruders on private property.

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 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 even a herd.

As hon. members know, animal rights activists have organized many protests on private property, on farms and at processing plants. Of course, these protests are not limited to certain segments of the animal agriculture sector or certain parts of the country. It is a broader issue.

Bill C‑275 simply proposes to double the fines for trespassing on a farm. This will protect biosecurity on the farm, as well as the safety and mental health of farm families. When activists break into farm properties and facilities, they do not fully grasp the consequences of their actions. First and foremost, they endanger the safety of farm animals, as well as of farmers and workers.

I know that my colleagues in the House will agree with me when I say that agricultural producers, livestock farmers and processors care deeply about food safety and animal health. They will also agree that mental health and anxiety among farmers are reaching crisis levels, especially since the pandemic.

Protecting Canada's food supply is vital. Viruses such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, foot-and-mouth disease, avian influenza and African swine fever pose a very real threat to Canadian agriculture. These biosecurity threats can decimate livestock herds and devastate our industry and economy.

An epidemic in Canada would devastate our farms, and export markets would disappear overnight, crippling the pork industry as well as many other industries in the chain. A single case of BSE in the early 2000s automatically shut down all Canadian export markets.

I would like to share with my colleagues my personal experience as a purebred breeder exporting to some 30 countries in the 2000s. All Canadian exports came to a halt overnight, only resuming several years later, very gradually. When it comes to the costs of non-compliance with biosecurity measures, I can confirm that they are very high.

The vast majority of people who go to farms respect these biosecurity measures. Enhancing biosecurity measures as they relate to trespassers is a move that is supported by farmers and ranchers, as well as food processors and the many associations that my colleague from Foothills named earlier. Even the former agriculture minister spoke about the unacceptable actions of extremist groups who protest against dairy farms and the fact that this was a major concern of his department.

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.

I would like to tell the House of Commons about some testimony we heard at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food from a British Columbia hog farmer, Ray Binnendyk, who had to deal with a massive demonstration on and off his property.

He and his family woke up one morning to find several protesters in and around his hog barn. These were not isolated individuals; they were brought onto his private property by bus for the sole purpose of disrupting his family's farming activities. Cameras have also been installed inside his hog barn on several occasions.

The case I just mentioned was truly catastrophic. This was his and his family's livelihood. The fact that he was the victim of such an intrusion, that his private property was invaded, is appalling. We can no longer allow Canadian farmers to be intimidated. We also cannot afford to suffer from food insecurity in the current climate because of mental health concerns.

Clearly, the agricultural industry fully supports these important changes to the legislation. We, the Conservative Party of Canada, hope to have the support of all parties to pass Bill C‑275 as soon as possible.

In conclusion, Bill C‑275 will defend biosecurity on farms and in food processing centres. Protecting animals and workers must always be top of mind when it comes to farms and food processing centres.

I hope that all members of the House understand the importance of this bill and will support it when the time comes to vote on it here. This bill is in no way partisan. It is common sense. We must do everything we can to protect Canada's agri-food sector. As members have heard in previous speeches and in my intervention, protecting the national food supply is extremely important.

It is imperative that the federal government step in to ensure compliance with and regulation of these issues. We must put guidelines in place so the provinces can review them. Then, we must work with all stakeholders to do everything we can to better protect farmers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this bill.

I have to say I was a little surprised to hear my friend, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, say that he protects provincial areas of jurisdiction. What an odd thing to say at this juncture. We could talk about that at length.

I would like to go have a beer with him to hear more about all the obstacles he sees to health care with respect to these systems. I would like him to tell me his definition of areas under provincial jurisdiction when he talks to us here in Parliament about imposing conditions on seniors' care homes in the provinces before sending transfers. I actually object quite strenuously to being told that this evening. I hope the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is listening to what I am saying.

I will not hold it against him, though. I will let it slide, but I want to set the record straight. This is not about encroaching on areas under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. I am an elected member of the Bloc Québécois, as I believe everyone here knows. We are always talking about that. I noticed a member across the way with a charming smile that I will take as a sign that he knows what I am talking about. I doubt anyone here is as keen to protect Quebec's jurisdiction as I am.

We have had that discussion. At the same time, I must admit that my colleague is not coming out of nowhere on that because trespassing does in fact fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. There are already laws in that regard. The problem is that often those laws are inadequate. They force people into extremely complicated complaints processes that require showing evidence of a direct link between the disease outbreak and the trespassing. I will give the example of the Porgreg hog farm in Saint‑Hyacinthe, where there was a rotavirus outbreak after people illegally trespassed there. The owners must scientifically prove that the outbreak happened because of the trespassing. That is very difficult to do.

What we can do at the federal level is amend the Health of Animals Act, which falls under federal jurisdiction. Members can rest assured that I would not interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. That is clear. I am still trying not to laugh after being told that by my NDP colleague. We witness all sorts of things in the House. I cannot help laughing.

What we are doing is legislating on animal welfare. This law will reinforce the message. It says that, if a person enters a livestock facility without authorization and jeopardizes its biosecurity, then they will have to pay a hefty fine.

My NDP colleague is criticizing us for not saying that everyone would be subject to this fine. We are talking about a $25,000 fine. Do we seriously want to tell people who work on a farm, feed the pigs or milk the cows that if, three weeks or a month from now, they make a mistake and an accident happens, not only will they lose their job and lose a lot of money for their employer, or themselves if they are farmers, but they will also be fined $25,000? That is ridiculous. Employees cannot be targeted by this bill.

The purpose of the law is to prevent trespassing, which, I might add, is criminal assault. Nobody is talking about passing a law for the sake of it. The issue here is people entering someone's property and settling in. I already gave an example in the previous Parliament, because, unfortunately, in the House, we often have to restart what has already been done. This bill is in its second iteration. I have already suggested imagining coming home and finding eight people sitting in the living room. Nobody is allowed to shove them out, because physically touching them is considered physical assault. Assault charges could be laid, even if these people are in the living room. The police must be called to ask them to leave.

It may take several hours. It is not known what the individual did while there. Maybe the individual went to sabotage the bathroom. I am talking about sabotage because, at the Porgreg pig farm, someone put water in the diesel tank. Without video surveillance, it is difficult to prove that it was the intruder who put water in the diesel tank.

I referenced the laws of Quebec. The laws of Quebec exist, for private property, but we are acting here on another level, that of biosecurity. The committee did not take its work lightly. The committee very diligently made sure that we addressed biosecurity, which we want to protect.

The member for Foothills is the sponsor of this important bill and I thank him again for introducing it. I believe it was he who mentioned, among other things, African swine fever, which is circulating in the world today.

I am not trying to scare people even though it is Halloween today, but let us call things by their rightful name. If anyone can go onto a farm at any time without following protocols, that will certainly cause problems. Studies done by organizations show that most biosecurity incidents are caused by someone who works on site. Accidents do happen, but does the fact that accidents happen justify letting people assault others with impunity? Honestly, I do not see this as a valid argument. The goal is to minimize risk and protect farmers.

Can we start to respect the people who feed us in this country? Yesterday, produce growers spoke out, asking for emergency support programs so their businesses will not go under, but governments are not responding.

In this case, at least, the issue is being addressed. I applaud that.

I want to talk about safety measures. Farmers must first wash and change their boots. Poultry farmers have different boots for each hen house. Most of the time, they take a shower afterwards. Farmers have specific clothing for the barn. There are a lot of rules to follow, and with good reason. Avian flu can be transmitted by wild bird droppings in the field that the farmer has stepped in without noticing. It could come from the tire of another vehicle that has driven through. It only takes one particle that is nearly invisible to the naked eye to transmit these dreadful viruses. This is a serious subject.

We are talking about respecting the people who feed us, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them. They work hard every day, with little income, but they are under a lot of stress trying to stay in business for the long term. There is also the lack of respect and support they get from their government. What we are talking about today is important.

This bill does not conflict Quebec's laws. Animal health is a separate area. This reinforces the message. Of course, it is already prohibited by certain laws in some provinces that are stricter than others. Here, however, it is prohibited everywhere.

I understand that my time is almost up. I was shocked to hear someone from the NDP tell me to respect provincial jurisdictions. I will remember what he said, and the NDP can rest assured that I will remember it, keep the video and bring it up again in the coming months when he does the same thing again. When that happens, I will ask him what he is doing.

For now, let us vote in favour of Bill C-275. Let us show some respect for farmers and, above all, let us protect them. Can we, as a government, tell people that we are going to do everything we can to ensure that they will not be assaulted on their property or when they are working to feed us all?

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to bill C-275 today, but I would first like to congratulate the member for Foothills for his work in advancing the bill.

Bill C-275 would amend the Health of Animals Act to add a new offence to protect farmers and the biosecurity of animals on their farms from those who enter their property unlawfully. The objective of the bill is laudable, as it is meant to deter individuals or groups who choose to illegally enter a farm and potentially cause detrimental impacts to Canadian farmers and their animals.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food had an opportunity to study Bill C-275; during this time, we heard from several witnesses who brought various perspectives forward. What was abundantly clear from witnesses' testimony is that protecting the health and safety of animals is of the utmost importance to farmers and producers. As we noted during the study of the bill, on-farm animal biosecurity protocols are a key element supporting this objective, which is why the majority of committee members voted in support of Bill C-275 passing with amendments.

In simple terms, animal biosecurity consists of the practices and principles that protect animals from the introduction and spread of infectious diseases. In Canada, animal biosecurity is an area of shared responsibility. It involves federal, provincial and territorial governments, industry associations and farmers. All these partners work together to strengthen animal biosecurity.

Over the years, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has collaborated with industry, academic institutions and provinces and territories to develop voluntary national biosecurity standards for various sectors, including poultry, cattle and dairy. These standards are available on the CFIA's website. Farmers can tailor them to meet their specific operational needs and help protect the animals on their farms.

During the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food's study of Bill C-275, we learned that a number of industry-led programs incorporate some elements of these national biosecurity standards in their on-farm programs. We have been informed that farmers implement these standards and can tailor biosecurity protocols to meet the unique circumstances of their farm operation. Witnesses spoke to the specific protocols their industry members require on their farms, including showering in and out of barns, washing their hands and signing logbooks, to name a few. Protocols are often unique to the farm and tailored to the specific needs of the farmers and circumstances. It was broadly recognized that these protocols are essential. The risk of an animal disease outbreak is real and can be devastating, as was explained by the member for Foothills. That is why the government has continued to fund efforts to strengthen animal biosecurity in Canada.

For example, in 2022, the government allocated $1.5 million to the poultry biosecurity preparedness initiative in Ontario. This funding is directed toward non-supply-managed poultry operations with 300 birds or more. It provides money for these farmers to strengthen their on-farm biosecurity protocols used to reduce the spread of avian flu, such as adding security gates and signage to control entry, purchasing cleaning and disinfecting equipment for their premises and enhancing practices to mitigate interactions between wild and farm birds. In sum, animal biosecurity is crucial for the agricultural sector. Biosecurity protocols help minimize disease risk to Canadian farms and their livestock, reduce the threat of disease to both animals and Canadians, and maintain market access and international trade.

I have heard multiple testimonies on Bill C-275, and the difference between a regular business and a farm business is that families live on farms. When protesters or unwanted visitors show up on farms, it is completely different. None of us here in the House are saying that people should not protest, but if a person has an issue with animal abuse, there are resources they can use. For instance, they can call the SPCA in Ontario or OMAFRA to make a complaint. These organizations have the proper resources to show up on a farm, as well as the proper knowledge. Not everybody knows how to raise livestock in Canada. Videos from certain groups that I have seen online clearly show that they have no clue or understanding of how to raise animals on farms.

I can assure everyone that it is in the farmers' interests to raise their animals in a proper way. Why? Because if animals are mistreated they will not produce. It is the same thing with dairy farmers; it is the same thing with poultry farmers. All of us in this House want to ensure that animals are properly raised, but we must ensure that we use the resources that we have available at our disposal, that is, to call the SPCA and OMAFRA. I will not comment on the other provinces. I am familiar with Ontario.

There are proper resources that can be called. I would encourage anyone who is worried about animal security or animal welfare to call the proper local authorities to ensure they can do the proper inspections on those farms.

Because of the complex nature of agriculture in Canada, biosecurity is a collaborative effort. Multiple stakeholders are involved in implementing biosecurity. It requires commitments from all levels of government, industry and individuals. It is very clear that this government and every player in biosecurity share the same objective, which is to protect the health and safety of animals in Canada.

At the federal level, the Health of Animals Act establishes a legislative framework to prevent and control diseases that can affect animals. The federal government has also worked with the provinces, territories and industry associations to help fund and support the development of biosecurity standards for various products.

In the industry, many associations promote biosecurity through farm programs specific to their products.

When it comes to farm operations, owners and farmers can take steps to ensure the welfare of their animals. Implementing preventive measures, including biosecurity protocols, is a long-standing and effective practice on Canadian farms to keep animals healthy.

Implementing these biosecurity protocols, such as creating biosecurity zones on farms and establishing biosecurity protocols for entry into such zones, allows us to protect animals from the spread of animal diseases. Canadian and Quebec farmers work tirelessly to ensure the safety of their farms and animals.

Private individuals are illegally trespassing on farms, and this worries farmers. In addition, it raises concerns for the safety and health of their animals. Bill C‑275 offers farmers an extra layer of protection to deter individuals from illegally trespassing in barns and pastures and potentially endangering animals.

Once again, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and all the parliamentarians who participated in the study of the bill. In my riding, I would like to thank the farmers who ensure that biosecurity measures are respected every day. For example, in the poultry sector, a biosecurity issue such as an outbreak of avian flu at one farm could result in depopulation, where all the animals would be killed. We know that farmers want to protect their animals.

Once again, I would like to congratulate the member for Foothills for moving forward and introducing Bill C‑275, which our government is proud to support.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in the House today and speak again to my private member's bill, Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act. I would like to thank all the members of the agriculture and agri-food committee who participated in the study of this bill and worked with our witnesses and stakeholders to try to bring this forward.

I do want to take a moment to thank all of the stakeholders who have supported this bill from the beginning: the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Meat Council, the Canadian Pork Council, Dairy Farmers of Canada, Egg Farmers of Canada, Turkey Farmers of Canada, the National Cattle Feeders' Association, Alberta Farm Animal Care and Canada's Accredited Zoos and Aquariums.

During the committee discussion, we did have one amendment to this legislation, which included removing the words “knowing that or being reckless as to”. This is some clarification for my colleagues in the Liberal Party and NDP and I do appreciate their participation.

The second amendment was to lower some of the penalties as part of this for unlawful trespassers, but one amendment to remove penalties for groups and organizations that encourage this unlawful behaviour was not successful. It is not surprising that animal activist groups wanted these penalties removed from this legislation. These groups encourage this unlawful behaviour, which is a fundraising mechanism for them. For example, in the United States alone last year, these groups raised more than $800 million and organized more than 500 attacks on farms across the United States. We do not have specific statistics in terms of fundraising and numbers in Canada, but we do know that Canada ranks seventh in the world in the number of attacks on farms by animal activist groups.

These producers and farm families are subjected to vandalism, cyber-attacks, tampering on farm and arson, but, most important, relentless intimidation and harassment. This takes its toll on farm families across Canada. It jeopardizes the biosecurity on farms and certainly the health and welfare of our livestock. Most important, we heard at committee that these illegal intrusions have a long-lasting impact on the mental health of our farm families.

We had a hog farmer from B.C., Mr. Binnendyk. His family went through having 200 protesters on his family farm. I want to quote Mr. Binnendyk's comments at committee. He said:

[I]t affected us as a family,...for a number of years it was basically like you were...being watched. We used to be proud to be hog producers. Now we don't tell anyone. The perception that people have about us has all been spread by lies and stuff that are not true. It takes the fun out of what you do.

There aren't many farmers left, especially in B.C. There used to be 300 [hog] producers in the nineties. I do believe there are now [only] four or five producers left. It's a dwindling...industry, [to be] sure.

We also had Megz Reynolds, who is the executive director of The Do More Agriculture Foundation, which is an important advocacy group for mental health on farms. I want to quote some comments from Ms. Reynolds as well, from committee. She said:

[These] people showing up and trespassing [and protesting] are not whistle-blowers. They don't necessarily understand what that farmer needs [or what they] do to take care of that animal and what that animal means to that farmer.

I've talked to farmers, men, across Canada, and they tear up when they talk about having to cull a full barn in response to [a] disease....

I talked to a producer in Saskatchewan, and she does not feel safe to send her children out to fix fences by themselves because of the perceived risk from protesters. These are actual things happening on farms today, where in rural Canada our farm families do not feel safe on the land that they have nurtured and cared for, in many cases for generations.

I cannot be more crystal clear about this point in this legislation: This bill would not hinder in any way an individual's right to protest on public property. This bill would not prevent whistle-blowers from coming forward when they see standards of care not being met. In fact, whistle-blowers would be protected under this proposed legislation because they would be lawfully allowed to be on the premise with the animals.

Canadian farmers and ranchers have a moral and legal obligation to look after their animals. Farmers operate in a highly regulated system, and the environment and strict codes of conduct must be followed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of farm animals.

It was also highlighted at committee in testimony that people are showing up on farms who are not whistle-blowers. Activists are not whistle-blowers. True whistle-blowers are family members, employees, veterinarians and professionals like CFIA inspectors who understand the nuances of animal husbandry. They understand the livestock industry. They know what they are looking for if standards are not being met.

Members from all parties recounted situations in their ridings where they saw these activities happening and the impact that it had on our farmers and constituents. What worried me, from some of the testimony at committee, is how brazen some of these activists have become. They are putting not only farmers and farm animals at risk, but also the public. We saw an animal rights group in Montreal hang three dead hog carcasses from an overpass. The consequences of that could have been devastating.

We heard from a farmer in Ontario who was attacked by ransomware. His farm and his operation were held hostage unless he admitted publicly that he was mistreating his animals, which we know was utterly false. Mr. Binnendyk said there used to be 300 hog farmers in B.C., and now there is only a handful. The activist campaigns will work to end animal agriculture if there is not a strong deterrent in place.

Opponents of this bill will say there is no proof of animal activism spreading disease. There are two problems with that argument. First, they are missing the whole point of our current situation. It is short-sighted to have an argument that justifies unlawful behaviour that could lead to unimaginable consequences on a farm. Second, it is completely false. We had one incident in Quebec with an outbreak of rotavirus, a disease not seen in almost 40 years, after trespassers were on a hog farm there. Trespassers also went on a mink farm in Ontario, which spread distemper throughout the community, again as a result of trespassing.

Another argument is that some provinces have trespassing and biosecurity laws in place. That is true, but only Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba and P.E.I. That means the vast majority of provinces and territories do not have this type of legislation in place. I think it is very important that we show leadership from a national perspective, a federal government perspective, that says we understand the importance of biosecurity on farms, the importance of food security and the fact that public protests have a place but that place is not private property.

Most importantly, what this bill talks about is ensuring that biosecurity protocols on farm are adhered to and protect our food security from diseases like the avian flu, African swine fever, and foot and mouth disease, which pose very real threats to Canadian agriculture. In 2014, the Fraser Valley had 10 farms with avian flu outbreaks, and almost 200,000 animals had to be euthanized. The worst outbreak was in 2004, when 17 million birds had to be euthanized. That outbreak eventually cost the industry about $300 million in losses. In the aftermath, a number of changes occurred to ensure that biosecurity protocols were more strict and were adhered to.

In the most recent outbreak of avian flu, which we had this past year, 7.6 million birds had to be euthanized. The provinces of B.C., Alberta, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan were the hardest hit. Farmers are still trying to recover from this outbreak, replacing flocks, cleaning out barns and getting their operations back up.

Cammy Lockwood, the owner-operator of Lockwood Farms on Vancouver Island, who, ironically, has free-range chickens and sells eco eggs, talked about the importance of this legislation for protecting their farms from trespassers who very well could be bringing the avian flu virus onto their farms. They have very strict protocols.

Many of us as parliamentarians have visited farms in our ridings or neighbouring ridings and understand that many times we have to wear booties, hairnets and haz-mat suits and have to clean our shoes before and after leaving farms. When we travel, we are asked if we have visited a farm in the last two weeks. That is important for not spreading viruses, but that is how easy it is to spread them and it cannot be overlooked.

One example is African swine fever, which thankfully we have not had in Canada. Unfortunately, it is not a matter of if, but likely a matter of when it will come to Canada. When the first case of African swine fever occurred in China in 2018, it spread to every single province in that country in less than a year. It has since spread to the Asia-Pacific, central Asia and eastern Europe and has now been detected in the Dominican Republic.

Although it is not a food risk, 100% of animals that come down with African swine fever have to be put down. If an outbreak were to happen in Canada, it would be absolutely devastating. Our Canadian pork industry has a $24-billion economic footprint in Canada. It employs more than 45,000 people, and almost 70% of our production, which is worth $4.25 billion, is exported to markets around the world.

Unfortunately, many of us in Canada understand and still feel the ramifications of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSC, which happened more than 20 years ago. It cost our cattle industry and was very impactful in my riding of Foothills. I know it was much the same for my Alberta colleagues.

It cost us almost $10 billion. In western Canada we lost 3,000 ranches. The vast majority of those ranches have never come back. Our animal herd in Canada is significantly lower 25 years later. It shows us the very real consequences of an animal-borne disease and what it can do to our industries across Canada. This is very real. It can happen. We do not want it to happen again.

If there are any lessons we can take, I look back to what happened over only the last couple of years with COVID. I think if any of us had a chance to go back in time, we would have done things differently. We would have been much better prepared to ensure we had the resources in place to protect Canada. We cannot make that same mistake.

Members can imagine the consequences if we had an animal-borne virus pandemic in Canada with any of these types of diseases. That is why strengthening the biosecurity of our farms is so critical, which is what this legislation is focused on doing. Certainly, these groups are raising money off of these endeavours and threatening the mental health of our farmers.

Most importantly, I hope my colleagues in the House will support protecting the biosecurity of farms and our food security here in Canada and around the world. I look forward to their questions.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Lockwood, I have a bit of time left here, so I'm going to go to my last question.

You mentioned the importance of preventing unwanted guests and protesters from coming onto your farm. We just passed Bill C-275 in this committee, which will put substantial fines on people who would come onto private property and protest on your farm or in your barn.

Do you think it's an important tool to have those deterrents to protect biosecurity and the mental health of you as a producer?

[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.

[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.

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

While I respect and support what my honourable colleague is saying, we're getting a little far from what Bill C-275 is covering. If we could stay on the subject matter, it would be great for all of us.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 73 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I will start with a few reminders. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. Please note that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted during the meeting.

Welcome to everyone, including all the members. Since we are in public, I would like to welcome to the committee Mr. MacDonald, who represents the riding of Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, and Mr. Carr, who represents the riding of Winnipeg South Centre, Manitoba.

It's great to see everyone back.

Gord Johns, I don't think you're a permanent member, but it's great to see you here on behalf of our good friend Mr. MacGregor.

Colleagues, today we are starting the first study of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act regarding biosecurity on farms.

The sponsor of that bill is Mr. John Barlow, the member of Parliament for Foothills and someone who sits on our committee. He's no stranger to us, but welcome, Mr. Barlow. It's great to have you here.

The way we're going to proceed with our format is that Mr. Barlow will have approximately five minutes. I'll be relatively lenient, Mr. Barlow, but we're going to give you some time for some opening remarks. We are then going to try to get two rounds of questions in for Mr. Barlow.

We then have three witnesses coming for what I'll call the second hour, but we're hoping to make it a bit more, about 70 or 75 minutes. I'll try to get three rounds of questions in from the respective parties, if possible.

We'll move quickly.

Without further ado, I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Barlow, for approximately five minutes.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:40 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-275 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it truly is an honour to once again rise today as the representative of the people of North Okanagan—Shuswap to speak to Bill C-275, put forward by my hon. colleague from Foothills.

Bill C-275 would 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 the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.” This is an important bill for farmers.

I come from a community in North Okanagan—Shuswap where we grow just about anything that can be grown in Canada. We also have some incredible ranchers, chicken farmers, hog farmers and dairy farmers who truly care about their animals. I have toured their farms and seen the care they put into making sure their animals are healthy, safe and secure. However, I have also heard about farmers finding foreign objects in their grain auger, such as a bolt that should have been nowhere near the grain auger system and could have caused damage to the auger, basically crippling the ability to feed the chickens that were on the farm. That is just one example of what farmers believe to be trespassing and attacks on their farms.

Earlier this year, I had the honour of hosting the shadow minister for agriculture in my riding. We did a round table with farmers and members of the agriculture sector. One of the things we heard from those farmers, who were quite open, is something that had not been evident before: their concern for their mental health and their family's mental health.

There are so many stresses placed on our farmers these days. Many of them are carrying mortgages or farm loans to carry on their operations. Those stresses, along with being responsible for supporting their family, meeting deadlines and paying bills, just add to the mental health stress put on these farmers. Also, the added stress of not knowing who might come onto their farms and what they might be doing in the dark of night or at any time not only affects them and their families, but also affects their livelihoods and the animals they care so much about. This added stress was one of the pieces they raised with us about their mental health situation, because they are under so much stress.

These farmers really pay attention to their animals. They know when the animals are stressed, they know when the animals are comfortable and they know when things are not right. It is interesting how birds can be very sensitive to that, and I have experienced it while touring a chicken farm. When I entered the barn, the farmer actually instructed me to move slowly and cautiously so as not to alarm the birds, because it would throw them off their laying cycle and so on.

This reminded me that, a number of years ago, my sister and brother-in-law started an ostrich farm. They were raising ostriches and set up a barn for the hatchlings to grow in. My brother-in-law was doing most of the interaction, with feeding, checking up on the birds and so on. He could walk into that barn at any time dressed any way he chose and the birds were calm and relaxed and would carry on as if nothing was going on. However, if my sister entered that barn, it did not matter whether she put on his clothing, his coveralls or his hat, doing everything to disguise herself as him. There was something that those birds knew instantly, and it would send them basically into a state of stress and they would be running around. Ostriches are very susceptible to leg problems, such as knee joint problems, in their very young stages, so they had to be careful about who went into the barn and when.

The same thing can happen in many situations. We know that dairy farmers for years have played music on the radio. It has a calming effect on the animals in the barn. Having strangers come onto a farm for nefarious reasons or to ignore the biosecurity measures that have been put in place is something that needs to be addressed in legislation and law.

There is so much at stake with farmers across this country feeding not just Canadians but people around the world with the food they produce: the grain, the beef and the chicken products. So many different products feed not just Canadians but people around the world. We need to be certain that those products and that supply chain are stable. I believe this bill would go a long way toward making sure there is no disruption in that process.

I mentioned biosecurity. When we visit a dairy farm or a chicken farm, we are often expected to change our footwear or to walk through a type of wet bath for our footwear so that any toxins or biohazards on the footwear are cleaned off by the product in there. People going in without authorization would not be doing that. They could put that entire farm and neighbouring farms at risk if they are not there for the right reasons with the right authorizations.

As I mentioned, we have heard of farmers who have found potential damage to their equipment. We have had, in my hometown of Salmon Arm, protesters trying to protest trucks coming into a hog abattoir and blocking the processing of food for Canadians. I do not believe this bill would cover that aspect, but it sends the message that our food production is so important here in Canada that we need to take every step we can to make sure we secure it and keep it safe. I do not think that people who have not been exposed to farm life can understand that.

I think I mentioned that I grew up on a dairy farm. I spent my formative years there learning about taking care of animals. They had to be fed every day. They had to have water every day. They had to have a place of shelter every day. It was not something I could do part time and then just leave until I felt like coming back again. There was responsibility with that, and that responsibility is something that farm life has instilled in so many young people across our country today. However, it is not often understood by people who have not been exposed to farm life.

I hope that many people will listen to the speeches that have gone on about this bill, Bill C-275, which is from my colleague from Foothills. What is such an important piece for people to understand is that farmers, almost 100% of them, want to take care of their livestock. There are the odd bad apples out there and they get found out, but the vast majority of farmers care so much about their livestock that they would put their own health and their own mental health at risk to make sure those animals are fed, to make sure they get water and to make sure they are safe from any threat. This bill would go a long way toward reducing at least one threat to the animals and to the farmers' livelihoods and would improve their mental health, as they would not have to worry quite so much about the possibility of someone coming onto their farm without authorization.

I want to thank my fellow colleague, the member for Foothills, for putting this bill forward. It is an excellent bill and I look forward to supporting it.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to enter into debate tonight. I certainly appreciate the speech given by my friend and colleague the member for Regina—Lewvan. It touched upon a lot of what I believe are the important subjects and contents related to Bill C-275.

If I could, I would like to start with a quote. This quote is from somebody I know, and a number of people in this place know this individual as well. I happen to know him really well, as he is my father, and this is a quote that he shares with me on a fairly regular basis. It is related to farming, which is very close to my family's heart. He says, “We owe our entire existence to a few inches of topsoil and some timely rains.”

The reason I bring that up in the context of this debate is that farming is a unique occupation. It is something to which I subject myself, year after year, generation after generation, and I am proud to be the fifth generation that is farming in the dust in Alberta's special areas. We subject ourselves to so many factors that are outside of our control, such as the weather, and that has become a significant topic of conversation, especially in light of some of the wildfires that have impacted many communities across the country.

We are subject to market conditions. On a small farm or a large farm, in the context of the larger global situation, a farmer is a price-taker. We do not have any control over how much we sell our products for. We also do not have control over how much the products cost, in inputs, to put in the ground.

When it comes to the larger context, the reason I wanted to start with that quote is that it is important for people in this place to understand how there are so few factors within a government's or any individual's control when it comes to a farm operation.

I know that, when it comes to health and the importance of the ethics of animal management, there has been some debate about where agriculture and Canada's ag industry fit into that, but let me make something very clear: We can be proud of our ag industry. We can be proud of the record of our farmers, our ranchers, our chicken farmers, our turkey farmers and our pig farmers. Canada has an incredible reputation, one that we can and should be proud of, because we have demonstrated not only our ability to produce food to feed the world, but also how we can do so in a manner that is good for the environment and done ethically. It is truly the gold standard on the planet. That is something we should all be very proud of in this place.

One of those factors within our control is something that this bill touches on. I appreciate the shadow minister of agriculture from the Conservative side, somebody who knows a lot about agriculture, understands the dynamics of what I am talking about and cares about our farmers, ranchers and producers from across the country. Whether they are on potato farms on P.E.I., dairies on Vancouver Island or anywhere in between, there is a care that the shadow minister and Conservatives have for those in this sector.

Specifically, one of the areas within our control has to do with what is known as biosecurity. Many people do not realise that, when there is a report on television of activists showing up at a turkey farm, there is far more than that 30-second clip on the news. What may have happened, and what this may have led up to, is that those activists, probably inadvertently, although one can never be quite sure, may have brought in a disease that could impact an entire flock. They could have gone to a ranch and brought in a disease that could have an impact on an entire herd.

There is a number of diseases that are widespread across the world right now. African swine fever is one of them, and avian flu is another, and when I talk to any producer of animals that could be affected by those things, there is an amount of stress when it comes to managing those things, factors that are largely out of the control of a producer.

However, we have a chance here with Bill C-275 to make sure that, within the bit within our control, we can manage and navigate it, so there is not an incident where a disease is brought into a producer's operation that could have devastating effects on an entire industry, let alone on what is usually a farmer's small business.

I talked about the pride that we can have in our national ag industry. I can tell members of the pride so many producers across our country have, like those who raise turkeys. One of my constituents is proud of the turkeys he raises. There are broilers, chickens, that they are incredible proud of, and dairies, with the milk they produce.

I am proud to be from an area that I affectionately refer to as “cowboy country”. There are many areas of east central Alberta where the only thing someone can do on the land is ranch. We have some incredible ranchers who showcase the best of that industry. An activist, well-intentioned or not, showing up to an operation could have a devastating effect, which could result in an entire herd or flock having to be culled.

This bill simply takes heed from some of the work that provinces have done related to biosecurity and adds some penalties and additional teeth to ensure that it is not stopping activism and it is not stopping whistle-blowers. That is not what this is about, but it ensures that there are appropriate safeguards in place so we do not have the devastating consequences of activism gone wrong.

There are some activists across the way. I know our Minister of Environment is probably one of the only members of the House who has been to prison, and he went because he was an illegal activist. I know the Liberals understand a bit about what activism is about.

We are talking about making sure that the livelihood and welfare of farmers, and the welfare of the animals, are protected. This is a very straightforward way to do that.

Something else this bill would do that I think is so very important is that it talks about mental health. Mental health is a significant issue across our nation. In the industry we are talking about, agriculture, as I mentioned, there is so much that those in the ag industry deal with that is so out of their control.

The bill proposes a small adjustment to the Farm Credit Canada Act to include mental health as part of its mandate. What is significant about this is Farm Credit Canada is a lending institution, a Crown corporation lending institution. It would have, if the bill passes, the ability to include mental health resources as part of its core mandate.

I want to give kudos to Farm Credit. This is already part of what it does. If someone googles “farming mental health”, Farm Credit Canada is one of the sites that comes up. It has some good resources and a checklist.

Farming can be incredibly stressful. It might be around calving time when, for a rancher, the hours of sleep are short, or when seeding a harvest for a farmer, or any of the other times of the year that can have undue stress. They all have a significant impact on a farmer. To be sure, we need to do everything we can to promote mental health in an industry that is so vitally important for our country. Again, it cannot be understated how important this sector is.

Parliament needs to recognize there needs to be teeth when it comes to ensuring that we do not put the livelihood of a herd or a flock at risk. We need to ensure that there are protections for those farmers who work diligently each and every day, while striking that right balance to ensure that it does not stifle freedom of speech or anything like that. Further, we have to acknowledge the necessity of mental health as part of the conversation.

I would point to a number of great examples, such as Facebook pages by farmers, ranchers and others involved in the ag industry who have taken the cause upon themselves to ensure they are promoting mental health in the sector. It is incredible work, which I would love to be able to talk more about.

This is a piece of legislation coming before the House that strikes the right balance and protects what is one of the most significant industries, certainly in my constituency, and truly for any person in this country who eats. It is one of the most significant industries we have. We need to be taking those steps to ensure that we can provide that protection when so many factors are out of our control. This is a simple step that can be taken to not only promote mental health, but also ensure biosecurity on farms. It is worthy of everyone's support.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I was saying that, as a young boy growing up on a farm, I watched the care that my dad and uncle took with the animals. I wanted to portray that and make sure people realize that our producers are second to none in the world in ensuring the security and safety of animals on their farms. That is why this bill is so important.

There have been cases in B.C. and Alberta where people did not have the knowledge of how animals should be treated or of the possibility of spreading diseases from farm to farm by protesting, and I want to portray what kind of impact that has on family farms. It goes from distraught animals and the diseases that could be carried to farms to the mental health of the farmers who look after those animals. That is what it comes down to.

Farmers' livelihoods depend on the safety of these animals. There is nothing more important to them than making sure the animals are secure. When people go to farms to protest, they have to realize the unintended consequence of their actions, and that is transferring diseases from farm to farm. Even if there are no diseases, unknown people on farms can cause animals to stampede, to trample each other and to get really upset. Being distraught can result in a lot of stress on animals. There are examples where they just drop dead; that has happened.

I am glad to hear that my Liberal, NDP and Bloc colleagues will support this bill going forward. In the last Parliament, we did not quite get to the finish line, which is a shame. There was an election call that was probably unnecessary. It was really a $600-million cabinet shuffle. I want to ensure that people realize the intention of Bill C-275. As I said in my earlier comments, peaceful protests on public property would still be allowed. There would also still be opportunities for whistle-blowers to report wrongdoing on farms, but animals on farms need to be taken care of.

Saskatchewan is an agricultural community, and agriculture is still the backbone of the province and drives its economy. I cannot be more clear in saying to people that our producers take amazing care of their animals, whether they are producing beef, dairy, pork or chicken. They have the best of intentions for their animals.

The scary thing is that people, while possibly well intentioned, do not realize how quickly diseases can spread. That is really at the heart of this bill. African swine fever could devastate our hog industry in this country, putting billions of dollars at risk. An outbreak of avian flu is devastating to our producers. People should think of the impact this would have on the mental health of these amazing producers if a flock of birds were wiped out because someone trespassed on private property. This is devastating not only to the community but also to the chicken and poultry community as a whole. It is the same with the African swine fever.

We have seen it in other countries, such as the United States. We have seen these outbreaks and how much they affect these industries. Right now, our agriculture industry is trying to work with a government that continues to tie one hand behind its back, whether it be with carbon tax 1 or carbon tax 2. The industry is trying to make the best of a bad situation.

This bill gives the agriculture producers a leg up, the opportunity to ensure their farms and private properties are safe and secure. That is something we really need to take into consideration moving forward. In fact, we have all-party support on this non-partisan issue. Ensuring that agriculture producers have the opportunity to have security on their own farms is the reason we need to get this bill to the finish line.

I am very excited that my colleague from Foothills brought this forward. It is a strongly worded bill. He did take pains to ensure he talked to all parties to bring forward a bill that everyone could vote in favour of. It is very important to work along non-partisan lines, and we are able to see that from the support this bill has had in the House of Commons. That is how this place should work, in a non-partisan way.

Hopefully, once it is passed in the House of Commons, the Senate will move quickly to pass it as well. It will help our agriculture producers across the country ensure that they, their animals and their families are safe and secure on their own private properties, so they can do the best possible job in raising the amazing world-class livestock we have in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to support the bill of my friend from Foothills, Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, relating to biosecurity on farms.

I just listened to my friend from the NDP talk about some of the things this act might do, but I would like to read into the record some of the comments by my friend from Foothills in response to the bill. He said that he wanted to make clear what this bill does not do: It does not limit an individual's right to protest on public property. I just want to make sure that we have an understanding of what this bill is meant to do and what it will not do even if some people have some concerns. It will not prevent whistle-blowers, and it will not prevent people from protesting on public property.

What my friend from Foothills is trying to do is to ensure that animals are secure on private property, on farms. We know that there is a lot going on right now in the agriculture industry, and we have very real concerns about African swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease. There are a lot of diseases that can be contracted, and transferred from farm to farm, that have really devastating effects on the animals on a farm. I just want to make that very clear from the get-go.

This bill is really close to my heart. I was born and raised on a dairy and beef farm in southwest Saskatchewan. That is where my roots are, and that is where I try to get back home to as much as possible. I think some people who, like my NDP friend would say, are concerned about the protesting aspect of animals being on farms, do not really know how to be around animals as much as actual farmers do.

I have to put on the record that people who are raising animals take amazing care of the animals. When I was growing up on the dairy farm, we showed cattle all over North America. We were at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair and the Madison World Dairy Expo. Those animals were our livelihood on our farm. I remember my dad going out to the barn every night to make sure all the animals were okay, checking to see if a calf was coming and just ensuring the animals were safe and had clean bedding, making sure they were taken care of, making sure there was feed in the alleyways. There were exciting times on the farm.

What I would like to portray this evening, in talking about this bill, is what great care our agriculture producers, our farmers, take with their animals. That is what helps them to provide for their families. As a young boy, I learned this on our farm by watching my dad and my uncle look after—

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are in the House this evening to study Bill C‑275, which amends the Health of Animals Act. This bill was introduced by the Conservative member for Foothills, in Alberta, and is now in the House at second reading.

Briefly, Bill C‑275 proposes 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 [their] exposure...to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of...contaminating them.” So it amends the Health of Animals Act, and it is under that amended act that penalties will be applied.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑275, subject to a thorough study in committee. We are in favour of it because it is an important bill and subject. Fundamentally, it is about trespassing. These are criminal acts rooted in extremism. Of course, extremism has never solved anything.

I would like to clarify a few things about this bill before I move on.

First, it is not an indictment of veganism, but an indictment of extremist activism and certain antispeciesists.

Second, this is not about freedom of speech. People absolutely have the right to protest and denounce practices they do not agree with. However, we cannot condone that being done through illegal acts that could also harm both farmers and animals. Obviously, one's personal freedom ends where another's begins.

Third, this bill does not condone animal abuse. We all have a personal and collective responsibility to prevent animal suffering. Once again, that does not mean we are exempt from the law or our duty to go through the designated authorities. In Quebec, the ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, or MAPAQ, is responsible for this.

Fourth, it is about making people aware that there are biosecurity standards to be respected on farms in order to ensure the safety of animals and livestock.

What is biosafety? MAPAQ defines it as the set of tools, measures and procedures for preventing and addressing the dangers associated with the transmission of pathogens through various pathways for contamination. Mad cow disease, H1N1 and H5N1 influenza, circovirus, scrapie and wasting disease of cervids are all examples of transmitted diseases with serious consequences for the entire agri-food complex, public health and the balance of biodiversity. When humans come into contact with animals or their habitat without taking the appropriate precautions to avoid contamination, the risk of disease increases tenfold. For a breeder, an outbreak can obviously lead to serious financial losses. In the case of a spread outside the farm, the consequences can be devastating.

It is interesting to learn that this bill was drafted partly in response to a specific event that occurred on December 7, 2019, when 13 vegan and antispeciesist activists broke into a hog farm in Saint-Hyacinthe. The farm was named Les Porgreg. They were there to protest the breeding of animals for human consumption. They entered the hog barn, filmed and demonstrated for almost seven hours in front of the pig pens in an attempt to expose the pigs' quality of life.

Several Sûreté du Québec officers had to enter the building to remove them. As a result, some 30 people who should not have been there contaminated the premises.

According to the owners, the incident caused a rotavirus outbreak, which considerably increased the maternal mortality rate of the herd.

Moreover, the criminals were fully aware of what they were doing, and what they were doing was completely illegal.

Events like those in Saint-Hyacinthe are unfortunately not isolated. What is interesting in this particular case is that it was discovered that MAPAQ followed up a year later. That helped move the issue forward and raise public awareness of the situation. The MAPAQ inspector noted that there were too many animals in certain pens at the Les Porgreg pig farm. The pens were soiled with manure, lacked proper ventilation, contained too many flies and so on. The good news is that on March 16, 2020, the farm followed the inspector's recommendations to the letter. Yes, the farm had committed a number of violations, but is this type of stunt allowed, or should it be allowed? The answer is, quite clearly, it absolutely should not.

My brother Alain is a farmer and has been a goat farmer for a number of years. I can say that it is an extremely—

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always great to rise to speak in this most honourable of House.

I would like to first offer thanks to the member for Foothills for his work with regard to the agricultural sector in Canada. I know the hon. member is a champion for the agricultural sector in the area he represents. We all come here championing our causes and issues, and I would like to speak to the hon. member's private member's bill this evening.

The government welcomes the opportunity to speak to the importance of supporting Canadian farmers. Now, more than ever, farmers face increasing hardships. These range from sustained supply chain issues to the rising costs of doing business.

Moreover, the effects of climate change and the risk of harmful and deadly animal diseases are only compounding these difficulties. It feels like farmers cannot catch a break. It is crucial that we provide these hard-working Canadians and their families with the tools they need to do their jobs safely so that they can be competitive and ensure the safety of their animals or livestock.

I would like to take a few minutes to speak to importance of the agri-food system in Canada and the actions that our government is taking to support Canadian farmers across the country.

The agriculture and agri-food system is a key pillar of Canada's economy. In 2021, it employed 2.1 million people in Canada, representing one out of every nine jobs. In the same year, Canada exported nearly $82.2 billion in agriculture and food products, making us one of the top 10 exporters of agri-food and seafood in the world, something of which we can be quite proud.

It is safe to say that agriculture touches every Canadian. In fact, the agriculture sector is very broad and encompasses federal, provincial and territorial governments, industry partners and farmers. Each of these groups plays a unique and indispensable role to keep Canadian livestock safe and healthy.

I can proudly say that the Government of Canada takes its role seriously in supporting Canadian farmers and in supporting the Canadian agri-food sector. We have a long record of championing initiatives that protect and grow our agriculture and agri-food sector.

Just recently, budget 2023 announced a number of initiatives to respond to the emerging needs of the Canadian agriculture industry. These included $333 million to establish a dairy innovation and investment fund to increase revenues for dairy farmers; $34 million to support farmers for diversifying away from certain fertilizers; and $13 million to increase the interest-free limit of loans under the advance payments program to provide additional cash flow to farmers in need.

Budget 2023 also announced $57.5 million over five years to establish a vaccine bank for foot and mouth disease so that farmers can maintain market access for their livestock and protect their livelihood in the event of an outbreak.

In addition, the government has a history of working closely with provinces and territories to support economic growth for the agriculture and agri-food sector.

For example, the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership was launched on April 1. The renewal of this important five-year policy framework will benefit farmers and processors from across all of Canada. The sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership has set aside $3.5 billion, up 25% from the previous 2018 to 2023 agreement, to strengthen the competitiveness, innovation and resiliency of the agriculture sector.

This partnership agreement recognizes what we already know, that farming is a difficult job. That is why the government is also committed to supporting the mental health of Canadians, including farmers and their families. For instance, under the Canadian agricultural partnership, it provided $7 million for two multi-year mental health initiatives to support farmers.

In addition, the government funds the Wellness Together Canada portal. This portal operates 24 hours a day and seven days a week. It provides free, credible information to individuals to help address their mental health and substance use issues. The Wellness Together Canada portal also provides information and self-assessment tools, peer support networks and access to psychologists and other professionals.

This government recognizes that meaningful support to farmers must recognize both economic and psychological hardships.

I understand that Bill C-275 tries to protect farmers by minimizing risks to on-farm biosecurity. Let me be clear that the government takes these risks seriously. Disease outbreaks can have major impacts on animal welfare and food supply, and result in economic losses. We also know that farmers are also focused on biosecurity as they too care about the health and well-being of their animals.

It is important to note that the health of animals and biosecurity measures are a shared responsibility among the federal government, the provinces and territories, industry associations and farmers.

Recognizing the importance of biosecurity in preventing the spread of animal disease, the Government of Canada has championed efforts and has provided funding to strengthen on-farm biosecurity. For instance, federal funds helped support the development of 14 commodity-specific national biosecurity standards. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, industry, academic institutions, and provinces and territories developed these voluntary national biosecurity standards, protocols and strategies to protect animals from disease.

Additionally, through the federal AgriAssurance program and its predecessors, the government has provided industry associations with funding to develop on-farm assurance programs that include biosecurity protocols. Several of these associations, such as the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the Chicken Farmers of Canada, have on-farm programs that include biosecurity requirements.

In addition, under the Canadian agricultural partnership, federal, provincial and territorial governments have advanced a number of cost-shared investments that support biosecurity. Some recent examples include funding of up to $1.5 million for the poultry biosecurity preparedness initiative in Ontario, and up to $45.3 million to fund efforts that enhance Canada's African swine fever response, including actions to mitigate risks to biosecurity.

These examples all highlight the important work and investment that farmers, industry associations, provinces and territories, and the Government of Canada have all made toward on-farm biosecurity. There is a collective recognition that on-farm biosecurity is an important measure to safeguard animal health and to minimize the risk of animal disease outbreaks in order to protect the livelihood of Canada's agri-food producers. To really help farmers, we should be championing the use of these on-farm biosecurity standards and protocols and encouraging their use.

In conclusion, the government recognizes the hard work, day in and day out, of Canadian farmers, their families and agriculture producers along the complete agricultural continuum, and it is responding to the sector's needs. The government is interested in supporting legislation that builds on the investments that various partners, including farmers themselves, have already made to improve animal health on farms.

We look forward to studying Bill C-275 at committee and discussing ways that it can be amended to recognize and build on the great work farmers, their families, the communities involved and others are doing to support biosecurity measures on farm.

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

We are not very supportive of Bill C-275, not having the public go on protesting on farms to protect their biosecurity.

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

First, it's great to be able to join such an esteemed committee. I think you have gotten over a half dozen reports done. I come from OGGO, where we haven't completed a single study in two years. It's really good to be at a functioning committee.

I'm subbing for my good friend Alistair MacGregor, who's trapped at an airport, trying to make his way to Ottawa. It's been 24 hours so far in his journey. This is what it's like as Vancouver Island MPs, of which I am one. It can be quite difficult to get here.

It's an honour to be able to be here. This is such an interesting study. I want to thank all the witnesses for participating.

I'll start with an Animal Justice report that mentions a large number of biosecurity breaches that have occurred as a result of authorized personnel on farms. All it takes, I guess, is for one farm to make a mistake, and then we can get contamination to other farms.

I'm just going to read a quote from our critic, Mr. MacGregor, on the second reading on Bill C-275. He said:

...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.”

Maybe I'll start with Mr. Roy and Ms. Cameron.

In 2019, Canada exported over 1.2 million tonnes of pork and pork products, valued at $4.2 billion, to 94 countries.

Do farms need stronger regulation? Are the voluntary regulations enough when a multi-billion dollar industry is potentially at risk? Maybe you can speak to whether there should be a legal requirement.

[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.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

moved that Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to my private member's bill.

I have always been taught that if at first we do not succeed, try and try again. I was honoured to have the support of every party in the House in the previous Parliament for my private member's bill, but, unfortunately, an election was called and it died on the Order Paper. Therefore, I am pleased to bring this forward once again on behalf of some of my constituents and farm families across Canada.

I will start my presentation speaking about a family in my riding.

In 2019, I received a call from a farm family in the southern part of my riding that owned a free-range turkey farm. The family members were distraught about what they were supposed to do with a number of protesters who had trespassed on their farm near Fort Macleod. They really had no understanding of what was taking place or what they did to deserve this.

I would ask members how they would feel if they woke up in the morning, went to check their animals, opened the barn and saw 45 protesters trying to take their turkeys off the property. The Tschetter family was really quite distraught. They did not know how to handle this and what to expect. This raised concerns with me about the protection not only of private property, but the biosecurity of those animals and the mental health of that family.

Less than two weeks before, many of these same protesters were on a hog operation in Abbotsford, B.C., where the Binnendyk family had a similar issue. The wife phoned her husband and son to tell them that there were more than 200 protesters in their family's breeding barn. Those protesters, and probably unbeknownst to them, did not understand the very strict biosecurity protocols that farm families had to follow. Those protesters may very well not have realized that they could have been carrying a virus or pest from one farm, the hog farm in Abbotsford, B.C., to a turkey farm in southern Alberta. We have very strict protocols on farms, and they are there for a reason, which is to protect the biosecurity and the health of those animals.

However, not only did the protesters put those animals at risk, but they had a very serious impact on those families. Even when I speak to members of the Tschetter today, they are still upset about what occurred on their farm and are still hesitant when they check their barns.

Calvin Binnendyk, whose hog farm in Abbotsford was impacted, said “I had quite a few sleepless nights, and it was rough on my family, especially my wife, even though she doesn’t even work in the barn. She took it really hard, and she still has a hard time sleeping to this day.” This is three years after that occurrence on their farm.

It is because of these two elements that I bring forward this private member's bill, which would amend the Health of Animals Act.

Bill C-275 proposes 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 toxic substance capable of affecting or contaminating those animals. Simply put, this amendment would apply existing penalties within the act to people who trespass on farm property and facilities where animals are kept.

There is a key element to this as well. This would add a very significant fine to those organizations that encourage this type of behaviour. There is no question that those organizations, which, up to this point, are very unlikely to be held accountable, are fundraising off these actions. They videotape those trespassers and protesters who come onto a farm and they fundraise off that. In case of the farm family in Abbotsford, B.C., many of the pictures and videos that they were showing, according to the court case, never happened on that farm at all. They were staged and, in some cases, allegedly faked.

However, I want to state very clearly for everyone in the House and those listening at home what this legislation would not do.

The bill would not, in any way, disallow protesters from protesting on public property about the issues that they are passionate about and that are important to them. They can hold those rallies and protests outside the farm gate, but there has to be a line in the sand. When they cross that line onto private property and put the health of animals at risk as well as the mental health of our farm families at risk, there has to be a line there. There have to be strict rules in place to deter that action.

The bill would also not stop whistle-blowers from bringing forward cases if they witness practices that jeopardize the safety and welfare of farmers. Canadian farmers and ranchers have the moral and legal obligation to look after their animals. In fact, farmers and their employees are obligated to report any inappropriate actions and any wrongdoing they see happening on a farm, especially because this is a highly regulated atmosphere. They must follow strict codes when it comes to the health, safety and welfare of their farm animals.

I know the members in the House are well aware that there have been numerous actions of protesters on farms. It is becoming more and more daring and reckless.

Only two months ago, an animal rights activist group hung three dead pigs from an overpass in Montreal. I understand this did not happen on a farm, but imagine if one of those pigs had fallen off that overpass and onto the windshield of a passing car? That just symbolizes the extreme lengths that some of these activist groups are willing to go. Again, where did they get those pigs? Were they taken off a farm? They killed them. I do not think that is really protecting the health and welfare of animals.

I know we are going to get some questions about whether we are wading into provincial jurisdiction. Some provinces have implemented something similar. I am proud to say that they were modelled after the legislation I brought forward in the previous Parliament. However, less than half of the provinces and territories have something like this on their books, which shows the federal government and the federal legislators have a leadership role to indicate that there is a line that cannot be crossed.

What this really focuses on is the biosecurity risk and the health of our animals. We saw what COVID did to Canada's economy, a human-borne virus. It devastated not only our economy but economies around the world. Imagine what a similar animal-borne pandemic would do to Canada's agriculture industry. Right now we are experiencing that with avian flu and chicken and egg producers across Canada.

In 2014, in the Fraser Valley, we had 10 farms that had an Al outbreaks and more than 200,000 birds were euthanized.

in 2004, we had a highly pathogenic strain that led to the slaughter of 17 million farm birds. Before that outbreak was eventually brought under control it cost producers $380 million.

We are going through a similar experience right now, where 7.5 million domestic birds across B.C. Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan have had to be euthanized.

We know that it is only an amount of time before our next concern, and that is African swine fever. This has killed more than half the pigs in China and is spreading to the Asia-Pacific, Central Asia, Eastern Europe and even the Dominican Republic. It is at our doorstep and we have to take precautions to ensure that our producers are protected. If African swine fever were to occur in Canada, it would have a $24 billion economic hit to Canada's pork industry. More than 45,000 people are employed in that industry and 70% of our $4.25-billion industry is exported around the world.

Whether we are prepared to deal with ASF or avian flu is something the agriculture committee will very seriously look into soon, and the threat of transmission is very real. Again, I cannot stress this enough. I know that if any of my colleagues here have toured a chicken farm, or an egg hatchery or a pork operation, they know the protocols that have to be taken, such as putting on a hazmat suit, washing one's boots, putting on booties and a hair-net. If anyone has gone to an animal processing facility, it is very similar. There are very strict protocols and they are there for a reason.

I think that, in many cases, protesters are not willingly putting the biosecurity of those farms at risk but they do not understand the protocols that are in place, which every farm family follows very closely. Those animals are their livelihood and they want to ensure they are treated well. I think all of us in the House understand that. If we can take proactive measures to ensure that these types of animal pandemics do not occur, we want to do that. It is one tool that we are able to use.

We cannot make the same mistake with a potential outbreak on a ranch or farm in Canada. We must take every precaution and use every tool in our took box to ensure we protect our farm families. We know that agriculture and agri-food is going to be a critical pillar of our economy moving forward. To ensure that it can reach its full potential, our farm families need to know that the Government of Canada and the House of Commons stand with them, will protect them and put these measures in place.

Strengthening the biosecurity measures for trespassers is something farmers, ranchers, food processors and farm groups across the country all support. In fact, I have letters from dozens of agriculture and stakeholders groups that are strongly in support of this legislation. I am glad to hear that the Minister of Agriculture has also spoken out, saying the actions of extremist groups protesting on dairy farms are unacceptable, and it is a concern for her. That is good to hear.

We have the support of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, for example, which said, “The CFA supports in principle, and encourages, [this] private member's bill to support Canadian farmers who have been negatively impacted by activism. We believe that the introduction of this bill is an important and necessary step in the right direction.”

The Canadian Dairy Farmers of Canada said that Canadian dairy farmers were committed to the best care of our herds and were fully engaged in adhering to the highest standards of animal welfare, food quality and biosecurity, and that the amendments proposed by me to the Health of Animals Act would further protect the health and security of our animals.

As I said, the bill would not prohibit peaceful protesting by those groups that want to make a statement on animal welfare, and I appreciate that, but it would ensure the security on our farms and help with the mental health of Canadian farm families.

I hope members in the House will continue to support this legislation, as they did in the previous Parliament. It is very important that we send a leadership message that we support our farm families, that we understand the importance of biosecurity on farms and the protocols that are in place, and that we will protect the mental health of our farm families.

I am speaking especially of families like the Binnendyks and the Tschetters that work hard every single day. These are family generational farms that do all they can to protect their animals, but they also grow high-quality food for Canadian families and food that is exported around the world, helping us feed the world as well. They understand the steps they must take to protect their animals, but they do not understand when protesters cross the line onto private property and, in many cases, do not understand what they do.

I look forward to engaging with my colleagues as we work together to address this very important issue of protecting Canada's food supply, protecting our supply chain and standing up for Canadian farm families.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms).

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill as an amendment to the Health of Animals Act. This is very fitting with what we have seen across Canada with the spread of avian influenza, the possibility of diseases like African swine fever, and what we have gone through it in my riding with BSE. These show us how important it is to protect biosecurity on our farms and ensure that those who may endanger our farms and our farm families are held accountable for those actions, which is why I am tabling this amendment to the Health of Animals Act.

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