Agriculture Committee on May 25th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 34 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 resuming its study of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25. Members are attending 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 always show the person speaking rather than the entire committee.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all participants at this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

To ensure that the meeting runs smoothly, I would like to share some rules with you.

Before you speak, please wait for me to recognize you. If you are participating in the meeting via video conference, click on the microphone to unmute it. The microphones of participants in the room will, as usual, be monitored by the proceedings and verification officer.

I remind you that all comments from members and witnesses should be directed to the chair.

When you do not have the floor, please mute your microphone.

We will now welcome our witnesses for the first hour.

As an individual, we have Dr. Deb Stark. We also have, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Keith Currie, first vice-president.

Welcome to our meeting. We'll start with opening statements.

Dr. Stark, you have five minutes for an opening statement. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Deb Stark, As an Individual]

Great. Thank you very much.

I am pleased to accept the invitation to appear before this committee as you consider Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

I want to start by emphasizing that I'm here because I was invited and I wish to be helpful. It's very important to me that it's clear that my comments do not represent the view of any of the organizations that I'm involved with now or have been involved with in the past.

When I received this invitation and I asked why you wanted to talk to me, I was told it was because of my long-standing experience in various organizations. With that in mind, I thought I might take a minute and share some of my background.

I am a veterinarian by training. I spent most of my career in the Government of Ontario, including serving as Ontario’s first chief veterinary officer and, at another time, the deputy minister of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Also, at various times, I was the manager of the ministry’s animal welfare programs and the assistant deputy minister in charge of the food safety programs. I'm now serving on several not-for-profit boards, including the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, or CAPI; the University of Guelph; and Ontario Genomics. I'm also the chair of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada departmental audit committee.

I would stop here, but I assume your first question might be, “What do you think about the bill?” I offer the following comments.

First, I want to thank you for your due diligence. Conversations on issues around animal diseases, farmer mental health and protecting the welfare of both people and animals are all important. Canadian agriculture plays an important role in global food security, in mitigating the impacts of climate change and in contributing to our economic success. Study after study has concluded that having an effective and efficient regulatory framework is important to this sector, so it's very good that you're closely scrutinizing these proposed changes.

I know some of your members have asked if the problem is truly about a gap in the legislative or regulatory framework, or if it's more about the application of the existing rules. I confess that I have that question as well. I don't know the answer, but I think it's important to think about that.

I also know that some members have asked about the ability to enforce the provisions in this bill, and I think that's another important question. Farmers expect to follow rules. They expect others to do the same and to suffer consequences when they do not. I don't think it's going to help any farmer's mental health if expectations rise because this bill passes and then nothing really changes.

I think it's important to acknowledge that the activity this bill is trying to prevent stems from a core tension. In its 2020 survey of Canadians, the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity reported that one-third of those surveyed were concerned about the humane treatment of animals. Perhaps most of those people just want to be reassured, but I know some of them are concerned with specific practices on the farm. I know others are completely against any kind of livestock and poultry production.

Change can be, and has been, driven by the farmers themselves, as research leads to better animal care; by consumers, through the choices they make in the marketplace; and of course by the activism of others. Animal agriculture isn't unique in this regard, and I don't think any of these drivers is going away soon.

These points being made, I want to to conclude with my first comment. I don't think I have to tell this committee that our food production system is a Canadian success story. As long as the world chooses to eat meat, Canada can be a good place to raise animals. Canadian farmers deserve a regulatory environment that protects their animals, them and their assets.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Dr. Stark, for your statement.

Now we'll go to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, with Mr. Keith Currie.

Go ahead, Mr. Currie, for five minutes.

[Keith Currie, First Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee members.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, and its members understand the critical importance of maintaining a safe and reliable food supply and protecting the safety of those who feed us. As such, CFA is in support of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

Farmers and ranchers work hard to provide a safe and sustainable food supply for all Canadians. It is becoming increasingly difficult for farmers and agricultural owners to effectively produce food, fibre and fuel due to ever-increasing trespassing events. Farms and farming operations have come under increasing threat from trespassers and activists who illegally enter property, barns and buildings, which cause significant disruptions to the entire agri-food sector.

Once-peaceful protests have now escalated into trespassing, invasions, breaking and entering into barns and other livestock facilities, theft, and harassment. The issue has now evolved to activities that create potential damage and liability far beyond the traditional, such as biosecurity breaches on livestock operations. Biosecurity breaches of crop production operations often go unnoticed. There is food tampering, damage from people intruding in confined spaces and impacting the welfare of animals; activists moving animals off site; and sit-ins and protests around processing plants. We see the obstruction of trucks and drivers hauling our livestock to and from farm and livestock processing facilities, as well as the release of animals from production facilities for fur bearing animals and hogs, for example. There is trespassing and intrusive behaviour on fish farms.

These incidents distress farmers, their families and employees and threaten the health of livestock and crops. When activists breach biosecurity protocols, this ultimately puts the entire food system at risk. While current trespassing laws, regulations, fines and penalties may have been adequate to deal with nuisance trespassing in years past, the current new era of activism sees well-orchestrated and planned events that result in uninvited and unwelcome trespassers on farm properties, yards, buildings and processing plants. The number of people with a specific focused agenda are increasing at an alarming rate. It's intended to cause economic stress for the producer.

While trespassing laws are typically under the jurisdiction of provinces, often provincial statutes are not enough of a deterrent for people who commit trespass offences. Bill C-205 will complement provincial legislation as an indicator of the severity of these offences and that protecting the agri-food industry is critical. Charges, when laid, are often dropped by the court system as they are considered minor infractions.

While the CFA does support the passage of this bill—and we urge all parliamentarians to get behind it—we do have some suggestions for some changes.

The proposed section 9.1 of the bill currently reads:

No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, enter a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept knowing that or being reckless as to whether entering such a place could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.

This seems to indicate that unless you are fully aware that you are willfully reckless, the violation is excusable. A recent incident on an Ottawa-area mink farm where somebody had broke in and entered had the judge acquit them of a mischief charge because, although they entered the building illegally, no harm came to the animals. In the judge's mind, there was no violation.

We would like to see that change, so that it says that no person “without lawful authority, enter a building or an enclosed place in which animals are kept, to prevent the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them”. As well, add in anyone “who aids or abets” someone in this should “be considered party to that contravention”.

As you heard Dr. Stark mention, mental health is becoming a big issue around activism. Farmers already face a wide variety of daily stressors that affect their mental wellness, whether it be weather, environment, market fluctuations, farm labour and social isolation, just to name a few. Trespass and activism are now an additional growing source of stress. Continuing to allow on-farm trespassing and barn break-ins to occur is not only threatening the viability of Canadian agriculture, but also posing a serious threat to farmers' mental health and well-being.

Bill C-205 recognizes the mental health crisis in agriculture and aims to support farmers and farming businesses by introducing new protections against trespassing and biosecurity breaches.

I should also add that livestock transporters and processing facilities are also under a similar tremendous mental stress from activism and activists.

I'll leave it at that, and I'll close, leaving more time for our witnesses to ask questions of me. I look forward to the conversation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Currie.

Now, just before I go one, I want to welcome Mr. Barlow, sponsor of the bill, as a committee member today, and also my Atlantic colleague, MP Andy Fillmore.

Welcome to both of you, including the rest of the committee.

We'll start with our first round of questions at six minutes each, beginning with the sponsor himself, Mr. John Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see so many of my agriculture committee colleagues once again. Welcome to Mr. Fillmore as well.

Mr. Currie, I'd like to start with you if that's okay. I appreciate your testimony here. What we heard at the last meeting was CFIA officials' saying that enforcing Bill C-205 would be difficult with current resources. I think what the CFIA failed to mention during their testimony is that the burden is not entirely on them. They have the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which is is something that they are doing already. There are enforcement officials at CFIA, which include inspectors and veterinary inspectors as part of the CFIA legislation. It also includes the enforcement and investigation service investigators who are already doing this type of work.

To go with your testimony, Mr. Currie, I would believe that if this pandemic has shown us anything, it's that when something is prioritized by the government and officials are given the right direction, what is sometimes considered a difficult problem certainly becomes possible. Would you not agree with how important this issue is and that the federal government should show leadership on this issue, and not just defer this to the provinces when it's convenient to do so? This is something that the federal government needs to show leadership on.

[Keith Currie]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow, for the question, and the answer is “absolutely”.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I think this bill really complements current provincial legislation. It strengthens both provincial and federal legislation on protecting farms, farmers, farm families and farm employees. As I mentioned, this new era of activism has really ramped up. It's well planned. It's well orchestrated, and activists know what they're doing. To your point, what's happening is that our enforcement is not happening on the farm or at facilities. It just simply isn't. Part of it is because police do not have enough tools in the tool box. They also don't believe that the court system will look at this properly and actually convict people. If they're not going to convict people, then they don't want to lay charges and have to put the whole system through the process of going through the courts only to have it dropped, much like the recent case I referred to on the mink farm in the Ottawa area.

I think that if there are a lot of teeth in the legislation, that will, first of all, prove to be a deterrent, and also, if there activism and break-ins are happening, the police also will be confident in laying charges that something will happen as it goes through the court system. Hence, it will also require some education of the entire penal system to make sure that people understand what it is we're dealing with back out on the farm.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Following on that same train of thought, Mr. Currie, the CFIA is currently saying that we should leave this to the provinces. However, there are, in fact, only two provinces that have legislation in place now that deals with this. Saskatchewan is kind of going through the process. That leaves the vast majority of provinces and territories with nothing protecting biosecurity on farms, and you certainly rightfully spoke about the impact that this is having on the mental health of our farmers, ranchers and processors.

Is it not also important to have that national platform or national means to regulate and enforce this when many times, even at the provincial level, we're seeing merely a fine of a couple of hundred dollars for mischief, which is really no deterrent? We need a national deterrent. Would you agree with that statement, that there has to be a level playing field across Canada?

[Keith Currie]

Yes, I would absolutely agree.

Having a national act in place as a deterrent also leads to consistency in enforcement right from coast to coast. I think that is equally important so that people understand that we can't risk the safety of our livestock and our people looking after them.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Another comment by the CFIA was that there has to be an acceptable risk involved, that part of their job is that they can't enforce some of these things and that the risk of a biosecurity outbreak is something they have to accept.

I would strenuously disagree with that. Maybe just from your perspective, what would be the impact, let's say, of an outbreak of African swine fever on a hog farm in Canada or an outbreak of hoof-and-mouth disease? Certainly, I saw first-hand and lived the impact that BSE had on my part of Alberta. What would be the impact if we had a single outbreak of African swine fever or another animal-borne disease in Canada? What would be the impact of that?

[Keith Currie]

Diseases like ASF, or African swine fever, are very highly transmissible. I'll throw avian influenza in there, as well. AIA is devastating to poultry flocks, and quite often, the quarantine area is not just the farm that it occurs on, but a larger area where birds have to be destroyed.

You can talk about infectious diseases coming into cattle operations, and even go so far as to say that bringing in invasive species into crops could impact a farm's livestock operation as well. It's devastating to not only the producer where it happens but also the entire area in which it happens is quite often affected. It affects multiple producers, costing hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.

Potentially, depending on the livestock, it could create shortages in that product as well. It really does have a devastating effect, which is why we need to strengthen our trespassing laws.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I find it interesting, Mr. Currie, that the activists and protesters are there to protect the health of animals, which I think we can all agree with, but if there is an outbreak, what happens to those animals?

[Keith Currie]

Typically, depending on what the outbreak is, of course, they may have to be destroyed. It's not only that, because when activists enter those facilities, particularly on poultry farms and also with livestock, these animals are not used to them, so they get extremely excited. They are scared.

I have a very large duck farm near me that activists broke into, and hundreds of birds had to be put down because they—pardon me for lack of a better term—freaked out and injured themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Currie, and Mr. Barlow.

We'll move on to Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to thank both witnesses for being before the committee.

Certainly, I think all committee members agree with the objectives of the bill, but we may not necessarily agree with how to get to that particular point.

I did have a question for Dr. Stark—and I'm not going to ask which hat you're going to wear—with regard to biosecurity, and how that has evolved over the last 20 to 30 years. I know that when I was seven years old, which was 30 years ago, I didn't have to wear special equipment walking onto a farm. Now I have to wear special equipment to go onto farms in my own riding.

What risks or dangers do strangers walking onto a farm present for biosecurity?

[Dr. Deb Stark]

Thank you very much for the question. Again, I'm not wearing a hat of any particular organization. I'm here with my hatless head today.

You're right that biosecurity expectations have changed. People used to welcome people into their barns. It was seen as a sign of friendliness. As you say now, the signs are up, the doors are closed, and before you can get into barns, you are expected to change clothes, go through disinfection procedures, and things like that.

That being said, the risk really comes if whoever is coming in has been exposed to a disease somewhere else. It's really hard, and this is one of the challenges. If you haven't been near any sick animals, and if you haven't been near any particular disease agent, then you are really not likely bringing it on to the farm. It's when you have been near those animals, or those agents, that the risk increases.

Unfortunately, we don't always know. That's the problem, and that's why farmers have implemented standards that have to apply to everybody, because they can't take a chance with your knowing whether or not you've been near a sick animal or been exposed to a virus. We can't take that chance.

Therefore, the standards are set. Mostly, they are kind of consistent across the country, but lots of them are implemented at the provincial level through various organizations, like the dairy farmers or the pork producers, setting up standards that work for their particular situation. Then they move out across the country that way.

I hope that answers your question.

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

Thank you.

I'll move on to Mr. Currie. It's great to see you before the committee.

I know you were instrumental in lobbying the Ontario government to pass the Security From Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, when you were wearing your OFA hat.

I am wondering if you know of anybody who has been subject to that particular act since it was passed in Ontario, and whether it's working.

[Keith Currie]

There has been one charge laid under it. To the best of my knowledge, it has not made it through the court system yet. Has it been successful? I guess we'll see. We are in the season of activism. Typically, the warmer weather months are when activists are more prevalent, so we'll see. It's a matter of educating enforcement officers as well to fully understand the parameters around the penalties and to enforce them.

The correct answer is that nobody has been charged because nothing is happening, but we know that won't be the case.

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

There's one quick comment I want to make. I know that public trust was identified under the CAP initiatives over the five years, and I'm wondering whether or not there's been any education campaign amongst the activists on the reasons why they shouldn't be walking into such environments and whether or not you know if there have been any organizations that stepped up and have asked for funding to launch those campaigns. I certainly believe in the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act in Ontario. I commend my colleague Mr. Barlow for presenting this bill, but I certainly don't believe that the CFIA may be the right folks to do this, especially given that you would now have multiple levels of government responsible for one particular aspect on the farm. If there are too many monkeys in charge, then nobody's in charge.

I'm wondering if you're aware of any organization that has applied for such funding or is doing that education campaign so that we can prevent those types of events from happening?

[Keith Currie]

I'm not aware of any organization that has applied for it, but you have to keep in mind that when you enter into this public trust type of campaign on animal husbandry in particular, it quite often becomes a battle on social media. You're dealing with activists who have no idea what they're talking about with respect to animal husbandry. For those of you on the committee, if you just look at the National Farm Animal Care Council, who create these codes of husbandry for our animal producers, there's a long list of organizations that are involved there. It's not just farmers; it's Humane Canada, for example, and it's restaurants. The whole value chain is part of this. So we have their input on how we need to handle our animals quite properly.

However, getting into a battle on social media is one that you never win, so it's a tough one to get into that public trust on animal safety. Most of these activists, as I've said, not only don't farm, but their real or main goal is to get you to stop eating meat. It's not about whether they think you're doing something wrong. They just want you to stop eating meat. That's the goal behind a lot of this. It's a tough road to haul if we're trying to get into a public battle with them.

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

I agree on that, but just to educate...so they can protest and come to MPs' offices and I'll give them free coffee if they want it. Just don't be on the farm.

[Keith Currie]

MP Drouin, it's good to see you again as well. If I could just add, one of the things that's occurred in the last 15 months is that people have become more aware of food security and have a better understanding of the need to make sure that we look after the people providing the food. They have taken a deeper interest in agriculture in general. I think that is a positive thing that we need to capitalize on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin, and Mr. Currie.

I'm a little bit generous on time because we're not going to be able to get in the second round. If you noticed, I let you go a little bit over time, but eventually I have to stop it. We will continue and I think it will work out fine.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor for six minutes and a few seconds.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us and for giving us their time at this meeting.

Mr. Currie, there are obviously a host of questions I would like to ask. You have proposed that section 9.1 of Bill C-205 be amended. Could you repeat what you proposed?

If I understand correctly, you are proposing to remove the part that says “[...] knowing that or being reckless as to whether entering such a place could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease [...]”, because someone could claim that they didn't know there was a risk, and not be subject to a fine. Did I understand correctly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Currie.