Agriculture Committee on May 25th, 2021

[Keith Currie]

Thank you.

This “I didn't know better” excuse is being used quite frequently in the court, and many of our judges in particular are stating that “because there was potentially no harm done, we can acquit you of this mischief charge that's being presented”. I keep referencing the mink farm case just outside of Ottawa because it's recent, where that very reason was used by the judge: “Yes, the person got into the building, but no damage was caused, so therefore I am going to acquit of that charge.”

What we are proposing is a slight change to proposed section 9.1 just to say this: “No person shall, without lawful authority, enter a building or other 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”.

It's a simple change to take away that “nothing happened so therefore I'm not guilty” aspect of the bill.

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

Thank you very much for your answer.

You would also like people who may have been complicit to be mentioned. Could you elaborate on that?

[Keith Currie]

Yes. Quite often, you will have people who actually are caught in a facility or caught doing some trespassing on a property and get charged, but lots of times these people have had help in accomplishing their end goal of getting in, doing a sit-in and trespassing on property. Anyone who is known to have aided or abetted these individuals in that act should also be held responsible for being part of the act itself.

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

Thank you very much for the clarifications.

Ms. Stark, you are appearing today in your personal capacity. Do you think it would be a good idea to pass Bill C-205?

[Dr. Deb Stark]

I think the intent of the bill is good. I think the problem the bill is trying to address is real. I agree with Mr. Currie and the CFA. I think these things are getting worse and people who oppose animal agriculture are getting bolder. In that way, in terms of sending a signal, I think it's a noble effort.

As I said in my comments, I do really question whether or not or how this can be enforced. Again, I think we've heard the CFIA say that it kind of falls apart in the courts. That has been the experience in the past, and simply putting another rule on the book only to have it fall apart in the end I'm not sure is going to achieve anything.

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

I understand what you are saying and I also feel that way sometimes. Thank you.

From what we heard from the witnesses who appeared, the problem is that the current regulations, whether they are provincial or federal, force producers to establish proof as to the consequences of the intrusion, which can be difficult to do. For example, if a disease appears sometime after the intrusion, it's very difficult to make the connection between the two.

Don't you think that if just being on farm property became a violation, that might simplify the job? If that mere presence could be punished, couldn't the problem be avoided?

[Dr. Deb Stark]

I'm sorry. Are you asking me?

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

Yes, Ms. Stark.

[Dr. Deb Stark]

I am not a lawyer, so I have no ability to really give you a definitive answer on that. Mr. Currie may choose to respond.

I think that in some ways that's the intent they are trying to address with the amendment, which is to say that “if you're there, assume that this may cause problems”. Then you can take action. But I really have no ability to give you any kind of insight of any value.

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

Okay.

Mr. Currie, what is your opinion about that?

[Keith Currie]

Well, I think any strengthening of the protection of animals and their handlers, their owners and the employees who work around farms, is good.

With respect to the act itself, it may need further wording to enclose things like pasture fields. It may need to include processing facilities and these types of areas where animals do exist and potentially could run into some trespassing as well. I'll leave that to the smarter minds to make sure that they encompass all that needs to be done there, and we're happy to have those conversations.

What we have now is not working, so if it's strengthened only a little bit, it's better than nothing.

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

In your opinion, if Bill C-205 were passed as it stands, would its enforcement cause problems, or would it be easy to apply?

[Keith Currie]

I think any piece of legislation could be enforced. It's whether or not there's a willingness to do it in a lot of cases.

We have rules. We need to have them enforced.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

You have time to ask a brief question and get a brief response.

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

That's fine.

Mr. Currie, some people say there is a risk that animal abuse will no longer be reportable. What would you say to them?

[Keith Currie]

Many activists use the “ag-gag” law as a defence. The reality is that if there are bad farmers out there, I want you to find them.

It's like saying every parent is a bad parent, every pet owner is a bad pet owner. That's just not the case with farmers and their livestock. They truly do the best they can.

Almost all of the commodity organizations do their own inspections on farm as well. There are very strict rules.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Currie.

Now, Mr. MacGregor, go ahead, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to both of our witnesses for helping us with our understanding of Bill C-205.

Mr. Currie, maybe I will start with you.

In your opening statement you used the word “trespass” a lot, and you mentioned that activists have become a lot bolder in their activities. A lot of these acts have now transgressed to break and enter, property damage and so on.

In your mind, do you think Bill C-205 is primarily designed to stop trespassing, or biosecurity? Which comes top of mind for you as the priority of the bill?

[Keith Currie]

Thank you for the question.

I'm not sure that I would prioritize one over the other, for the following reasons: Biosecurity is incredibly important for the protection of our animals, but the act of trespassing in itself is something that's creating a tremendous amount of stress to our farm families and employers, as I mentioned.

What I'm fearful of is that someone might decide to take the law into their own hands—and that would scare me even more—because they don't feel there's adequate protection, through the law, regulations, legislation, to help protect them. Both trespassing and biosecurity are big, big issues here.

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

Thank you for that clarification.

Across Canada, as you know, we have had some instances on farms—notably, mink farms —where it's been employees who have accidentally brought in a disease to the animals. They were there with lawful authority and excuse, and through their actions—they may not have been following proper protocols—they accidentally transferred a disease to the population.

Bill C-205 uses that language of being there with “lawful authority or excuse”.

Do you think there's room to amend this bill so that employees are held to the same standards, or if that's not in your view the correct path to take, what should we be doing to ensure that standards are uniform, whether you're a protester or a farm employee?

[Keith Currie]

Well, certainly I believe it's up to each individual farm operation to make sure they educate their employees on the proper biosecurity protocols that are in place. All livestock commodity organizations that I know of have resources that farmers can access to educate their employees on proper procedures and protocols.

I'm not sure that having an act that will penalize an employee because they made a mistake in that regard is really fair, unless that employee was hired under false pretences in order to get access to the building. That's a different situation. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to say that this act should try to handle a mistake by an employee bringing a disease in.

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

Thank you for that.

Bill C-205, in that first clause, makes reference to “a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept”.

In your mind, if we had a hypothetical scenario where protestors did gain access to a farm property but did not come anywhere close to animals, is that where provincial laws would be applicable and not this federal act? I guess that's where the jurisdictional waters have the potential of being muddied in that hypothetical situation.

Do you have any comments on that?

[Keith Currie]

Certainly, you're correct, there is a little muddying of the lines, there, but I think provincial and federal rules can complement each other. It would depend on the situation, but there is real potential danger of bringing in infection of some kind, even just by being on the property, without even necessarily getting right onto the barn.

Dr. Stark is better to speak to this than I am, but there are organisms that can live in the soil, which the animals may have access to once they're outside. Certainly we're trying to encompass all of the areas in which animals may be housed, whether it's outdoors or indoors.

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

Okay. Thank you.

Maybe, Dr. Stark, I'll turn to you if you want to maybe add some comments on that last question.

Before you do, in our previous meeting on this bill we did have the chief veterinarian for the CFIA give testimony, Dr. Komal. He testified that scientific literature provides little evidence that farm trespassers have transmitted pathogens. He said that human beings would have to have close, prolonged contact with animals in order to transmit a disease.

If you have any comments on the previous question I asked Mr. Currie, as well as any commentary on what Dr. Komal told this committee, I would appreciate that.