Agriculture Committee on May 6th, 2021

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Thank you for the question.

To our knowledge there are not many documented cases from trespassing or from people demonstrating. The one that I heard about is the one in Quebec, but I'm not sure if there's evidence that there actually was transmission from the activists to the pigs. In scientific literature we haven't seen much evidence of transmission of disease through these activities.

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

Thank you.

What laws are in effect now to handle trespassing on the farms, and how would this bill provide a solution, do you think?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

There is provincial legislation. There's the Criminal Code, and as I said before, the jurisdiction on the farm is a provincial responsibility, and therefore it's pertinent that they and the peace officers will enforce these kind of activities. CFIA is not there on the farms unless there's a regulated disease to be managed. Therefore, having this enacted in the Health of Animals Act will sort of muddle the accountability between provinces and the federal government, because the way the bill is drafted right now, there will have to be evidence beyond any doubt that there was a disease or a biosecurity breach that happened in order to prosecute any perpetrators. In the provincial legislation there are provisions that they can implement and they can enforce the provisions regarding trespassing and the Criminal Code.

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

Do you know how this bill differs from what we spoke about earlier in the testimony, with regard to there already being trespassing laws in, I believe, Alberta and Ontario? How would this bill actually affect those laws if it took effect, and do you know the difference between this bill and the ones that are already in effect?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

For this question maybe I'll ask my colleague Dr. Ireland to explain the differences with regard to how they're implemented.

Over to you, Mary-Jane.

[Dr. Mary-Jane Ireland, Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thanks.

Respecting the fact that I'm not a lawyer, I will say that there is existing legislation to deal with these types of incidents. There is existing provincial and territorial jurisdiction over property and civil rights and laws that prohibit trespassing in almost every province. As we heard earlier, Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and P.E.I. have recently passed enhanced private property legislation as a way to deter animal rights activists from trespassing on farms and in food processing facilities. British Columbia and Manitoba are also considering similar legislation. Federally the Criminal Code also includes provisions that deal with trespassing. We have section 177 which prohibits trespassing at night, section 430 which deals with general acts of mischief, and section 348 which codifies breaking and entering with the intent to commit or committing an indictable offence. These are areas of legislation that are already in existence to deal with and deter trespassing.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you.

I have just one last question. Are there similar laws in other countries? How do our trading partners handle this?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

With regard to laws that pertain to the health of animals, we know that south of the border, the USDA's health of animals laws are very similar to what we have in the Health of Animals Act.

These laws are made pursuant to the standards developed by the OIE, the World Organisation for Animal Health, so they are very similar to the laws made in other countries because of trade. They are very focused on trade. They are not focused on trespassing activities or things like that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Ellis.

We now go to Mr. Perron.

Mr. Perron, you may go ahead. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. We certainly appreciate it.

I'm not sure which one of you can answer my next question, but someone mentioned that laws are already in place to address this type of activity.

How do you explain that it keeps happening?

Is that a sign that the current legislation is not working?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Perhaps I can start. I will ask my colleagues to add to this, if they want.

As was mentioned previously, many provinces have implemented legislation for trespassing. Normally, if these things happen, a producer can call peace officers to ensure that they are protected. They can also work with the provinces to ensure that these activities are not carried out. There are arrangements there that can be enabled by—

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

Sorry to interrupt you, but I have a limited amount of time.

I know provinces have legislation, but how do you account for the fact that the behaviour persists despite the laws?

I'll rephrase the question, but in a more direct way this time. Mr. Barlow's bill fills a gap, does it not?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

The intent of the bill, as it is, is to protect against trespassing. The second intent is with regard to biosecurity. In our minds, as experts in animal health, it is a little bit difficult to reconcile the one with the other. A breach in biosecurity can be caused by anybody—a farm worker or a trespasser or anybody else—and with this kind of activity, the risk of disease is more on the lower side of the ledger. That's why it is a little bit difficult to see the Health of Animals Act as the right act for this bill to amend.

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

That's very insightful. You said that the risk for this type of activity could be quite low, that it's not particularly clear. In response to another member's question, you said the offence would be tough to prove.

The very purpose of the bill is to punish trespassers on a preventative basis. The idea is to prevent biosecurity hazards.

Would it not be a good idea, as a precautionary measure—and I know this can be tough to prove scientifically speaking—to raise the penalties to deter the behaviour? Just think about all that's at stake: food safety, farmers' mental health, privacy, and the prevention of unfortunate circumstances resulting from the unwanted presence of individuals on farms, not to mention the fact that the farm owners are very aggrieved by the situation.

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Dr. Ireland wants to respond to this.

[Dr. Mary-Jane Ireland]

I think CFIA acknowledges the potential risks to animals and animal health and welfare, and in fact also the mental stress that trespassing poses to producers and their staff and families. Yes, trespassing is not something that we want to happen, and for a number of reasons. However, in light of considering this particular bill, we contemplate that we need to think about the fact that there are existing legal instruments that are already there to deal with the activity at both the federal and provincial levels.

CFIA staff have neither the legal authority nor the training to perform as peace officers, which would be required with this bill. Nor is the CFIA structured, in fact, in a manner that would allow for the timely response to trespassing incidents.

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

Thank you, Ms. Ireland.

Wouldn't it be possible to have the agency partner with police?

The agency would document that someone trespassed on the premises, and police would obviously deal with the home invasion. After all, it is a home invasion—home, in the broad sense, of course.

With this type of partnership, you wouldn't need to serve a police function—which already exists—but you would document the fact that biosecurity was compromised, that a secure workplace was breached.

[Dr. Mary-Jane Ireland]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I understand the question correctly, I think the member is asking about how CFIA would go about enforcing the bill's provisions. In response to that, the first response to an incident of trespassing would be the police of jurisdiction, including the RCMP in some Canadian locations, or provincial, territorial or municipal police forces, depending on the police in that area. They would be the first to arrive in such a situation. Should there be an indication that a trespasser has exposed an animal to a diseased or toxic substance that is capable of affecting and contaminating them, CFIA would be called in to investigate.

The CFIA employees would not attend any volatile location alone, certainly. They would need to be accompanied by a local peace officer or police officer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Ireland.

[Dr. Mary-Jane Ireland]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Now we have Mr. MacGregor, for six minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

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

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

The CFIA has very clearly explained that they are not peace officers. They do not have the ability to detain, arrest or carry firearms.

With the existing Health of Animals Act, has the CFIA ever had to have a peace officer accompany them to enforce its currently existing provisions?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

I would pass this question to Mr. Mathuik, because he is on the ground he will be better able to explain.

[Kelvin Mathuik, Director General, Western Area, Operations Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the member's question, the process we would use as public officers in the agency would be to call the local police authority to assist us in a matter. That could range from many factors, such as if there were a humane transport issue at play. If we moved to actually quarantine a farm and were going to need to detain animals, for example, and we had an uncooperative producer, then we'd need the assistance of the police force to assist us on that matter.

Again that goes to the notion that our staff, inspectors, veterinarians and scientists are not peace officers, as you described in your opener, and don't carry the enforcement authorities and detainment authorities that would be vested with the police authority.