Agriculture Committee on May 6th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 31 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 10 and the motion adopted by the committee on April 15, the committee is beginning its study of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

Today's meeting is taking part in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25. Therefore, members can attend in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so that you are aware, the webcast will show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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

Mr. Chair, Bill C-205 proposes to amend the Health of Animals Act to make it an offence to enter without lawful authority or excuse a place in which animals are kept, if doing so could result in the exposure of animals to disease or a toxic substance capable of affecting or contaminating them. Simply put, this enactment would apply existing penalties within the act to people who trespass on farm property at facilities where animals are kept. It also proposes to double existing fine amounts for groups and organizations that encourage unlawful behaviour, which put the biosecurity of our farms and food supply at risk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barlow. You're right on time.

We'll start our question round with Ms. Rood, who has six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Barlow, for appearing here today. I did have the pleasure of speaking to this bill in the House. I want to commend you on the great work you've done for our producers across this country with this bill.

Like you, I have a lot of farmers in my riding who are suffering from mental health issues relating to incidents that have come onto their farms. I can think of one farmer in particular who I talked to just prior to being elected. They have an animal farm and their animals are kept outside. He told me of how he had awoken and found some folks who were trespassing on the property and released all their animals out of the cages. He told of how it just really took a mental toll on the whole family and on their livelihood, really. Biosecurity is number one, but the health and safety of the animals is a priority for these folks. It's their livelihood.

You touched a little bit on what the implications are and how this would affect biosecurity measures. I'm wondering if you could comment a little bit further on how this protects the farmers and how it will continue to help them when they go through these issues with people coming unlawfully onto their farms so that they're protected and their mental health doesn't suffer anymore.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes. Thank you, Ms. Rood. Certainly you've touched on one of the most important aspects of this legislation.

Really, we looked at it from two different perspectives. The first perspective was protecting the biosecurity of our farms and our food supply. The second was dealing with the mental health of our farm families and our ranchers and certainly even those who work at the processing plants.

The crisis in agriculture, when it comes to mental health, is real. We have certainly seen that become even more so as a result of the pandemic. Many of our farm families live in isolated communities. Many of their social gathering opportunities have been cancelled—rodeos, family fairs, community dinners, 4H events and those types of things—so we've seen the mental health impact on agriculture become even worse.

My colleague from the Bloc put it very well, I thought, in his speech during second reading. He said imagine you were a homeowner who came downstairs in the morning to get breakfast for you and your kids, and a group of protesters was sitting in your living room saying, “You're mistreating your family dog.” Never would that be appropriate or something that wouldn't face very serious consequences. Unfortunately, though, when it comes to farms and agriculture, this all too often has become just part of the business.

That is unacceptable. There has to be strict consequences for those types of actions. I think the most important thing here is that oftentimes the protesters or the activists don't understand the very strict biosecurity protocols that are in place and they unknowingly may be spreading a disease from one farm to another.

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

Thank you very much.

You touched on my next question for you. I have a lot of fall fairs in my riding, as I'm sure a lot of our rural members of Parliament do. Of course, at those fall fairs there are young people who go to show their livestock as part of their 4-H club, or just as part of the exhibition or fair itself. You touched on rodeos as well. I'm just wondering if you can share with us whether this bill, if passed, would apply to things such as fairs and exhibitions, or even I guess zoos for that matter.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much for the question.

Yes, it would. The idea of this bill was that it would deal with any animal that is in an enclosed area, so a corral, say, at a rodeo, or a barn or holding area, but also during transport. Certainly, I have a Cargill meat processing plant in my riding, as well as Bouvry, but my Cargill plant, as Mr. Longfield will know, is the largest processing plant in the country. There are 4,000 head of cattle going into that facility every single day. That's a lot of transport trucks, so there are a lot of opportunities for some contamination to be spread, for diseases to be moved from one animal to another.

It's also very important that when those animals are in transport, they are also protected. So rodeos, transport trucks, zoos will all be encapsulated within this legislation.

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

Thank you very much.

Lately we've heard in the news a lot of people talking about their charter rights and freedoms. Are there concerns about the constitutionality of this proposed bill? I ask because I know it's a question that's out there, and I want to make sure that we're not infringing on the peaceful right to protest. Could you comment on that as well?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It was an important aspect of this bill. Many of my colleagues.... Mr. MacGregor, brought this up. I thought he was very eloquent about it. We wanted to ensure that this bill would not infringe on the rights of Canadians to peacefully protest on public property. I think that's an integral part of our society. It's something we want to ensure is protected. Absolutely, this does not prevent any group or individual from protesting on public property. You can do it on the highway, in the ditch, but there has to be a line that cannot be crossed, and that is that fence line, or the driveway or the barn door where there are some very real financial and mental health consequences is those are crossed.

This does not prevent any Canadian from peacefully protesting on public property outside a processing plant or a farm.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Rood and Mr. Barlow.

Now we go to Mr. Blois for up to six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank Mr. Barlow for his remarks. It's clear that this is something he's very passionate about.

Just as an aside, I would be remiss if I didn't talk about the sign wars in your riding. I've seen a few of those pictures locally, and I'm getting quite a kick from them, so well done.

The first question I have when I look at this is the following. Mr. Barlow, I know you touched upon this a little bit when you said in response to Ms. Rood that most activists don't understand or appreciate the biosecurity risk. If that is indeed the case, my concern with the legislation—although its intent, I think, is well meaning—is that knowing that, or being reckless too, might be too high a threshold for us to be able to even get any type of conviction to actually deter this type of activity that you're talking about here today. Do you think that might be too high a threshold?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I appreciate the question, and thanks, Mr. Blois, for noticing my sign wars, but we're trying to lighten it up a little bit. It was getting a little bit vicious, and it was a good way to highlight some local businesses for sure.

On your question specifically, there has to be a deterrent in place that puts our farm families at ease that their issues are being taken seriously, let's say, and some consequences in place for those activists and protesters who, as I said and as you mentioned, may not know the protocols that are in place. Many of us on this Zoom call have certainly toured farms in our ridings, or across the country. I have Mountain View Poultry in my riding, for example. I took my staff through there this summer. You've got to put on booties. You've basically got to put on a haz-mat suit, a hair net, and wash your hands and boots as you go from room to room. Protesters may not understand that.

There has to be that level of consequence there. Certainly—

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

Mr. Barlow, I don't mean to interrupt.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It's okay, Kody.

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

I get that when you and I put our boots on and we're willingly going through that facility with the co-operation of the farmer, we know there is inherently a potential biosecurity risk, because we're being told or we're reading the signs. For the individuals we're talking about—there's a lot of talk around trespassing, activists and people that are quite militant—how do we know that the legislation being proposed is actually going to get to those outcomes and deter?

It's a pretty high threshold when a prosecutor—and I'll get to that question about who would actually be prosecuting this legislation—has to illustrate to a court that, indeed, someone actually knowingly presented this risk to the farmer. If these people are uneducated about the background on farms, are we worried that these people will continue to do it and that there won't actually be an ability to get a charge under the legislation because of that threshold?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Using your argument, Mr. Blois, I would say that doing nothing also doesn't achieve that goal. We could just keep the current legislation or the act as is and rely on that to do its job, but clearly it isn't. Most often, from the research that I've done, charges are rarely laid. This gives us an opportunity through the CFIA—and I'll get to that question—to look at this, but to ensure there are consequences in place.

I didn't agree with just the status quo, and I would say that we've had unanimous support from stakeholders, farmers, ranchers and processing companies that this is a step that needed to be taken to ensure that those protesters would learn. They're not militants, necessarily, Mr. Blois, but people who have a legitimate passion or concern about what they're doing. This is a way for us to teach them that if you want to do this, there are right and wrong ways of doing it.

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

Let's talk about the other types of legislation, because you mentioned that there are some recourses, whether it be provincial trespass laws or elements under the Criminal Code. In the instances of the experiences you've had locally, when you talk to the farmers, do they ask the RCMP to press charges? Or is there a disconnect between what farmers ask the RCMP to do and what might actually be applicable under the existing legislation?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

That's a great question, Mr. Blois.

I'll give you an example of what happened during the incident in Fort Macleod in my riding. It wasn't the farmers who phoned the RCMP. Do you know who phoned the RCMP? It was the protestors. They wanted to protect themselves from the ramifications of having a very shocked ranch family walk into the barn at 7 o'clock in the morning as they were breaking into this property and into the barn, which I would say is actually a free-range turkey farm. The turkeys weren't in cages, and they weren't in any enclosed space, other than being able to go in and out of the barn to keep warm.

It was the activists who actually phoned the RCMP so that they could be protected from any unknown reactions from a farm family.

In many ways, it's actually the protesters and the activists who are phoning the RCMP, but there were a lot of farm families putting pressure on the Fort Macleod RCMP to make sure they pressed charges.

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

You talked about CFIA and you mentioned that you expect that they would be the ones that would actually perhaps enforce these regulations and perhaps bring charges or work with the RCMP. CFIA doesn't have a whole lot of presence, necessarily, at the producer level on-farm. Did you do any consultation with them about the resources that would be necessary to meet the spirit and intent of your legislation?

I think I have about 30 seconds, Mr. Chair, for Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks for the question, Mr. Blois.

You're right. CFIA would be the group that would be enforcing this.

I'm not in government. I'm hoping that if this goes through, the agriculture minister will ensure that the resources are there, because this is an important issue.

I would say that if you were to ask 10 farmers and ranch families about it, this would be in their top ten priorities, if not their number one priority. I'm sure that if this bill passes we will have to ensure that the CFIA has the wherewithal and the resources to enforce this.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow, and thank you, Mr. Blois.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

Could you comment on that?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Perron.

It's a great question.

Through the chair to you, I guess the focus of this is as a deterrent. It's not that we want activists or protestors coming on to farms and claiming ignorance. We want to have some teeth in this to ensure—in many cases, these organizations are organizing these protests and unwanted behaviour—that there's a deterrent there, that this doesn't become a bit of a game.

There's nothing we can have in the legislation that will prove or guarantee that charges are laid, but I think what this will do is give CFIA the opportunity to see that this is something that the Government of Canada takes seriously, the agriculture sector takes seriously, and should be followed up on.