Evidence of meeting #37 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was farm.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you very much.
Ms. Bishop-Spencer, I believe you mentioned earlier that you are seeing an increase in incursions on farms. Could you confirm that for me?
Then can you tell me why current legislation does not seem to be effective in combatting the phenomenon?
Director of Brand and Communications, Chicken Farmers of Canada
Yes, there has been an increase in on-farm protests, and it's new. It's something that's a new kind of phenomenon with respect to protesting. We believe wholeheartedly that people have the right to protest and to peacefully demonstrate in a public space, but once these actions start to breach private property, these kinds of protests and demonstrations need to be illegal and punishable, because they threaten the health and safety of our farm animals, our producers and other stakeholders.
I think the answer to your question is yes, there are more protests, and I think the reason that we're not prepared for them is that it's a new kind of phenomenon. It's something that we hadn't seen within the sector or within our industry until the last few years. We're trying to figure out what tools we need in order to be able to deal with it, and this is one of them that we believe will allow people to ensure that our farms are protected.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Okay.
Basically, Bill C‑205 would be of use to you and would give you an additional inspection tool.
Could you now tell us about the effect that this has on the producers who are victims of these incursions? You say that the number of incursions has increased. How do the producers who are victims of them behave after the incursions? What are the consequences?
Director of Brand and Communications, Chicken Farmers of Canada
Nick, do you want to talk about the impact that you've heard about from our farmers on that or did you want me to answer?
Me? Okay.
We have had experiences of farms being trespassed upon. It's a very emotional experience. You're a farmer and you have your daily life. Imagine waking up and finding 30 protesters in your barn. The first question becomes, what is the biosecurity? What are we going to be doing about the health of my birds? What do I do and how do I handle it?
It becomes a very stressful event for the farmer, and the farmer doesn't know what to do. Usually the first step there is to try to call the local law enforcement to see what they can do. We've had—
Liberal
Director of Brand and Communications, Chicken Farmers of Canada
That's fine.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
We'll go to Mr. MacGregor for two and a half minutes.
Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for helping to contribute to our study of this bill.
I will turn my question to the Chicken Farmers of Canada.
When you look at federal statutes such as the Criminal Code or even the Health of Animals Act, you see that they always come into play after the fact. They are reactive laws. Someone has to have committed an offence and has to have been found guilty, and then the appropriate punishment is applied. I agree very much that people have to be held accountable for their actions and that there has to be a level of punishment that is appropriate to the crime, but I guess what I'm interested in is if you have any ideas on how we can be proactive.
Are there things the federal government can be doing to help bridge the divide that exists between a certain section of the Canadian public and our hard-working agricultural community, so that there's a more proactive attempt to educate on how farms operate, how important biosecurity is and the very strong standards of care that are in place because farmers depend on healthy livestock in order to have good incomes in the end? Are there any ideas that you could contribute on this?
Director of Brand and Communications, Chicken Farmers of Canada
I have one. I think what Nick talked about at the very beginning of the presentation was the concept of having FPT recognition of our animal care programs. Many of the animal care sectors throughout Canada, if not most, have very vigorous and in many cases mandatory on-farm food safety programs that do have an FPT protocol to back them up.
If we could have something similar for our mandatory animal care programs, that would give us a lot of leverage and a lot of powerful messaging to consumers that the story of animal care in Canada is not the nightmare that they think it is, and that in fact we have an excellent system in Canada that is not only mandatory but enforceable and is something that has teeth. That FPT recognition would allow us to do a great deal of that.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you so much.
I think I'll end there, Chair, in the dying seconds of my time. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thanks.
This will end our first panel.
I'd really like to thank Mr. Scott Weese from the University of Guelph; Dr. Henry Ceelen, veterinarian; Dr. Brian Evans; Nick de Graaf, first vice-chair of Chicken Farmers of Canada; and Lisa Bishop-Spencer.
Thank you all for this very interesting testimony and your insight on the bill we're studying now.
We'll suspend for a few minutes to bring in the new panel. We'll be right back.
Thank you all.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Welcome back, everyone.
Welcome to our new panel.
In our second group of witnesses, we will be hearing from Jorge Correa, Vice-President, Market Access and Technical Affairs for the Canadian Meat Council.
Welcome to the committee, Mr. Correa.
From the Turkey Farmers of Canada, we have Darren Ference, Chair of the Board, and Phil Boyd, Executive Director.
Welcome, both.
From the Union des producteurs agricoles, we have Marcel Groleau, General President, and Annie Tessier, Assistant Coordinator, Marketing and Group Support.
Mr. Groleau, it is a pleasure to see you again. Ms. Tessier is also joining us today. Welcome to you as well.
Each group will have five minutes for your opening statements.
We will start with Mr. Correa, from the Canadian Meat Council.
Please go ahead, Mr. Correa, you have the floor for five minutes.
Jorge Correa Vice-President, Market Access and Technical Affairs, Canadian Meat Council
Thank you very much.
The Canadian Meat Council, or CMC, would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on private member's Bill C-205, introduced by member of Parliament John Barlow. It would address the issues of safeguarding the biosecurity of Canadian farms and the safety of the food supply.
For over a century, the CMC has represented Canada's federally licensed meat packers, meat processors and goods and services suppliers for the meat industry. The Canadian red meat industry represents over $20 billion to the Canadian economy and supports 280,000 jobs across Canada.
We agree with the premise of this bill that protecting Canada's food supply is critical. Viruses such as African swine fever; classical swine fever; bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE; foot-and-mouth disease and avian influenza pose a real threat to Canadian agriculture. These biosecurity threats can decimate herds and flocks and devastate our industries and economy. Strengthening biosecurity measures for trespassers is something farmers, ranchers, food processors and farm groups all support.
The safety of food is vital to all consumers and food businesses. For the meat industry, food safety is a priority. We want consumers to be confident that the meat they buy and eat is what they expect and that it will cause them no harm.
Food safety starts at the farm and continues through the whole harvesting process so that manufacturing companies can ensure that the meat has not compromised food safety. Providing any unsuitable foods or liquids to livestock at any stage of the harvesting process may result in intentional contamination of a food product that may cause harm to the consumer or to a private company.
There has also been a series of provincial legislation that addresses the safety risks of people interfering with livestock in transport by prohibiting stopping, obstructing or interfering with a motor vehicle transporting farm animals. Some provinces have in place, or are in the process of adopting, a trespass and protecting food safety act to protect food supply, farmers, agri-food businesses and farm animals from the risk of trespass activities.
The Canadian meat industry is the most intensely regulated and inspected industry in the world, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors are present during every minute of operation to ensure compliance on the handling of livestock, from unloading and through the harvesting process, to make sure that food safety regulations are followed. The meat industry is exceeding animal welfare and food safety regulations, as those are essential for the sustainability of our industry. If CFIA identifies humane handling or food safety problems, it may result in the issuance of corrective actions required, or if any significant problems are flagged, they can pursue plant operation suspension and administrative monetary penalties.
Meat plants not only work to meet federal regulations but also support the on-farm codes of practice under the National Farm Animal Care Council. Its employees are trained and certified under the Canadian Livestock Transport certification program or other similar U.S. certification programs. The supply chain from farm to slaughter has guidelines and certifications to maintain high animal welfare standards and the necessary biosecurity and food safety practices to protect those food animals from disease or contaminants under the on-farm food safety programs.
Animal agriculture production is the basis of our industry, and the biosecurity of these farms and ranches must be protected. Protestors interfering in the operations of farms, transporters or food processing businesses can lead to serious unintended consequences that endanger the animals they seek to protect. It's important to ensure that the animals that enter our supply chain are healthy and not exposed to outside factors. This ensures that our members can continue to safeguard the meat we produce and continue to provide the world and Canadians with the safe, nutritious meat they expect from our industry.
In brief, the Canadian Meat Council and its members are in support of Bill C-205 and the proposed amendments that would provide increased security to allow our members to operate without the danger of outside interference by well-meaning protestors or activists. Such interference is a danger to the food animals, the professional workers in the supply chain, the food products and potentially the protestors themselves.
I will finish with that, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Correa.
Now we will go to Les Éleveurs de dindon.
Whoever wants to take the floor for five minutes, go ahead.
I am now turning to the Turkey Farmers of Canada. Who wants to take the floor?
Mr. Ference or Mr. Boyd, you have five minutes to do your statement.
Darren Ference Chair of the Board, Turkey Farmers of Canada
Thank you. On behalf of the Turkey Farmers of Canada, I'd like to thank you for the invitation to appear before the House of Commons standing committee regarding Bill C-205.
I'm Darren Ference, and I own and operate a turkey and chicken operation in Alberta. I also raise cattle and crop about 3,500 acres of crops. I have represented Alberta at the Turkey Farmers of Canada since 2013 and was elected chair in 2018.
I'm joined here with Phil Boyd today. He's the executive director of the Turkey Farmers of Canada.
Today, TFC would like to show our support for Bill C-205, introduced by MP John Barlow. We feel the bill will help prevent unlawful entry to farms and breaching of biosecurity protocols and in doing so protect Canadian farmers against the negative ramifications of activism on the farm. This is an issue that has become increasingly prevalent and of concern for many turkey farmers and the whole agriculture industry.
About one and a half years ago, a turkey farmer in Alberta entered his barn to find over 30 individuals from an activist organization had broken in. Additionally, the activists had made sure that the RCMP and press were called and were on site. This was a huge shock to the farmer. Imagine if you woke up in the morning to find a group of strangers sitting at your kitchen table or showed up to work and had them sitting all around your office on the floor.
Despite being on private property and breaching biosecurity protocols, the group demanded turkeys to be released to them before they would leave. The turkey farmer handled the situation well, being open and honest and pointed out the on-farm programs in place for the welfare of birds.
However, the situation was difficult for both the farmer and the turkeys in his care and points to the absolute importance of this bill.
Break-ins not only breach farm biosecurity but also negatively impact the farmers and their farm families and have ramifications on their feeling of safety and well-being. Canadian turkey farmers take great care to ensure the humane treatment of our turkeys while providing safe, high-quality food to consumers. As mentioned, the Canadian turkey industry has two mandatory on-farm programs that ensure Canadian turkey is raised with rigorous standards of food safety and animal welfare. Both these programs are reviewed annually and audited by qualified on-farm auditors.
The TFC on-farm food safety program focuses on controlling pathogens on-farm, minimizing disease transmissions to turkey flocks, and ensures that marketed turkeys are free of medication and other chemical residues. This program received full government recognition under the CFIA food safety recognition program, showing national consistency in terms of food safety [Technical difficulty—Editor]
The TFC flock care program is recognized as following the NFACC animal care assessment framework. The process involves a diverse range of stakeholders that, among many others, includes researchers, veterinarians and animal welfare group representation.
This program verifies Canadian turkey farmers' commitment to ensuring the proper care and respectful treatment of our birds and that the programs are reviewed by a third party process, including third party audits. The finding of the third party auditors has consistently been that the national flock care program was implemented effectively and maintained on an ongoing basis and that the animal care measures are consistently applied.
These on-farm programs lay out strict biosecurity procedures applicable to farm personnel and visitors to prevent the spread of disease in barns and to meet animal welfare and food safety standards. This includes signage on the farm, locking barns, foot and clothing biosecurity and the tracking of visitors. Those trespassing on farms are putting these protocols at risk, potentially exposing the turkeys to unknown pathogens and increased stress.
Farmers take great care to maintain the atmosphere in the barns to keep birds safe and barns clean and to mitigate stressors. When individuals enter a farm property without authorization, they are directly risking the health and the welfare of these birds in the barn.
In conclusion, I would like to once again express my appreciation of the invitation to appear before the AGRI committee. I must reiterate the importance of the bill for our industry and I would ask the members of the agriculture committee to carefully consider it.
We recognize some provinces are undertaking work in this regard; however, national consistency is very important to ensure all farmers across Canada receive the same protection.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ference.
We now move to the Union des producteurs agricoles.
Mr. Groleau or Ms. Tessier, the floor is yours for five minutes.
Marcel Groleau General President, Union des producteurs agricoles
Committee members, Mr. Chair, we are also very pleased to have been invited to testify before you.
Rather than dealing with aspects of health and biosecurity, given that that has already been fully discussed and that there has been a good deal of eloquent testimony since this committee began its work on the issue, let me instead tell you about one particular case.
Two years ago, an incursion took place on a pig farm, Les Porgreg Inc. I am going to tell you about the consequences of that incursion for the company. First of all, people came to a production site with no houses nearby. They were therefore able to get in easily without being seen. They arrived early one morning. The doors to the building were locked, but they managed to find one that enabled them to get in. Once they were in, they opened all the other doors. It was in the winter, so it was cold and they let the temperature inside the building drop. That morning, they also prevented the animals from being fed. In addition, they put water in the generator's gas tank. Naturally, no one noticed that until the gas was analyzed.
After publishing photographs of the consequences of that incursion, the Grégoire family received threats. They were affected psychologically, because people from all around the world were sending them threats and insults.
After the incursion, the mortality rate in the herd increased and some sows had to be aborted. The family also had difficulty in insuring their company again. The insurer did not want to renew their policy. The Union des producteurs agricoles intervened and we put pressure on the insurer to continue the company's level of insurance.
It all had consequences for the company, which suffered significant losses. To be compensated, it will have to sue the demonstrators and try to prove that the losses incurred were really caused by the incursion. This will be very difficult to do. That is why it's important for Bill C‑205 to be passed and for the consequences for demonstrators entering farms to be increased. The young woman who described it at the press conference was still crying as a result, several weeks after the incident.
The consequences are therefore extremely difficult for producers going through situations of this kind. Those who perpetrate the incursions suffer few consequences, simply because no legislation involves a penalty for the incursions when damage cannot be proved. They are given a little slap on the wrist and asked not to do it again. But the current laws in Quebec provide for no serious consequences for incursions into a farm or a residence when no vandalism takes place or when no offences can be proved.
Recently, in the Estrie, there was also an incursion on a dairy farm. That case involved two individuals who tried to free the cows and send them outside. The farm was close to the road and there was no fence. What happens if a cow is hit by a vehicle? What happens if a child is injured in such a collision? I don't need to paint you a picture of the aftermath of a collision with a cow.
That is why incursions must absolutely be censured. Hence the importance of the bill that you are currently studying and the fines that it provides for the offence.
Setting all the issues of biosecurity aside, just think of the human beings who are the victims of these incursions. There truly is a human cost.
In conclusion, may I suggest that Bill C‑205 simplify the proposal for section 9.1 in the Health of Animals Act to make it even clearer—
Liberal
General President, Union des producteurs agricoles
Will I have the opportunity to come back to this, perhaps during the time for questions?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Yes, of course.
We will now start our time for questions.
I will start with the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Barlow, for six minutes.
Go ahead, Mr. Barlow.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks for everybody's testimony.
I think, from the stories we're hearing from Mr. Ference and Mr. Groleau, you understand why this legislation is so important, not only for biosecurity but for the mental health of our farmers as well.
Mr. Ference, I'll start with you.
Mr. Tschetter is a constituent, and I know how this impacted him and his family. You mentioned something that I thought was really quite interesting, and we heard this from the chicken farmers in the previous panels as well. We're seeing these incidents of activism increase, but these activists—it happened in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec as well—were the ones who actually phoned the RCMP, because they knew the consequences would be minimal if anything. To me it shows that the current system we have right now is not suitable. There isn't enough of a deterrent.
Do you see the fines and penalties within Bill C-205 as a strong enough deterrent to send a message to those activist groups and those people who are doing these actions and unlawfully protesting on private property?
Chair of the Board, Turkey Farmers of Canada
It's definitely an improvement on what we have, because with what we have, there is no deterrent for them. This will give some consequences, and hopefully there will be a deterrent in that.
They're calling the police because the police weren't trained on how to get rid of them and don't know how to deal with the biosecurity, and there are no consequences for it.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Ference—and maybe, Mr. Groleau, you want to chime on this really quickly as well—we're talking about biosecurity here, which is an important element. How important is showing national leadership in standing up for the safety of our farm families as well as their mental health? How important is that as part of this legislation?
General President, Union des producteurs agricoles
For us, it is essential. As Mr. Ference was saying, we really appreciate the fact that it applies all across Canada and gives some minimal protection to producers in provinces that do not yet have regulations.
In terms of fines, I believe that one of the items that should be added is that the fines will be applied to each individual involved in an incursion rather than to the group. I don't know whether that is currently the case.
Certainly, an incursion like the one that happened on the Porgreg farm, for example, causes a lot of disruption. I can tell you that 25 people getting into a pork farm is extremely troubling. The consequences are much more serious than if two people get into a dairy farm, for example. I believe that the offence should be severely penalized and that other fines should be added to correspond to the number of people taking part.