Agriculture Committee on June 15th, 2021

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. It's a pleasure to see you all.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Leblanc.

You said earlier that an incident occurred in Quebec and police did not know how to respond. How do you explain that?

A number of witnesses told us that Quebec already had laws in place to protect against trespassing. How is it that they are not enforced or not enforceable?

[Pierre-Luc Leblanc]

It happened at a hog farm near me. It took police a long time to get the individuals off the premises.

As I understand it, the legislation will deter people from coming onto the property. Once activists gain entry to the property and occupy it, they do not up and leave just because police are on the scene. The law needs to deter people from breaking onto the property, to prevent the birds from coming under stress, to ensure their welfare and to protect biosecurity.

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

Not being able to get trespassers out of their facilities immediately must be very hard for farmers.

[Pierre-Luc Leblanc]

Yes, it is stressful, and that stress spreads to other farmers and producers who see what's happening and how long it takes for authorities to respond. Once peace has been restored, the damage is already done. That's the problem farmers face.

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

Do you worry that unfortunate incidents will happen if the bill is not passed? If the bill fails to pass, what consequences will it have?

[Pierre-Luc Leblanc]

It is essential that the bill become law, in our view. That is a must. Laws are made to be improved. Time will tell how the law changes, but as things stand, Bill C‑205 has to pass. Not only do farmers need protecting, but so do their chickens and turkeys. In the end, it's about protecting animal welfare.

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

Thank you.

Many witnesses told us that farmers were reluctant to file a complaint after an incident had occurred and that seeking redress was a complex undertaking. Do you think the bill, in its current form, unequivocally allows for action to be taken? The offence arises from being on the farm, not from causing a problem, even though the trespasser's presence could cause a problem.

[Pierre-Luc Leblanc]

It's important to start somewhere. I think the bill as it currently stands meets expectations. As I told you, time will tell whether people ignore the law. What is currently stipulated in the bill does a good job of meeting expectations. I think the authorities will have the necessary willingness to ensure the law is properly enforced.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Lampron, do you think Bill C‑205, the way it's currently written, will have the same impact?

[Pierre Lampron]

Thank you for your question.

We have actually recommended two amendments to the bill. I'll tell you what they are, and then, Mr. Tremblay can explain the legal ramifications. We are recommending removing the part that says the person who contravened the act would get off if they claimed that they did not know their behaviour would cause harm to the animals.

As Mr. Weins mentioned, these groups are often highly organized, hence the need for federal legislation. It will keep groups from targeting farmers in less protected provinces.

In terms of stress, the bill will definitely protect animals, but it also needs to protect farmers. Just think how you would feel if you saw a stranger in your yard stealing carrots out of your garden. Even worse, what if that stranger was sitting in your living room watching television? That is the level of stress farmers experience.

I realize the purpose of the bill is to protect animals, and we will get to that, but you asked about the farmer's stress. It's important to understand that, when someone breaks into your farm, your workplace, it's stressful.

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

I completely understand.

In your opening statement, you brought up the proAction program and the way in which dairy farmers endeavour to pay attention to animal health. What do you say to those who would accuse us of trying to muzzle whistle-blowers and prevent people who suspect animal abuse on a farm from reporting it? Can you tell us what mechanisms currently exist in that regard?

[Pierre Lampron]

I will go first, but Mr. Weins is the expert on proAction. The program is mandatory for all farmers and is overseen by the National Farm Animal Care Council. The program is rooted in the Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Dairy Cattle, which is in the process of being updated. It's quite a program and it's based on legislation. We plan to incorporate this bill into the program as well.

I've said enough, but Mr. Weins can talk more about the connection with proAction and the program's credibility.

[David Wiens]

Thank you.

Certainly, proAction is mandatory for all dairy farms across Canada. We follow the same protocols. The whole point of proAction is to ensure that we have independent audits done on the farm to look at biosecurity, animal welfare and the list goes on, ensuring that all of these things are actually happening on the farm. It's not just in a code somewhere. It is being evaluated, so it's mandatory and, of course, you have to pass in terms of this proAction program.

That's what we do, and the whole point of the program is to let the public know what we're doing. This score card is not private; it's for everyone to see. It was done to address any concerns that Canadians would have about how, in this case, dairy cattle are being treated, housed and taken care of.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Thank you, Mr. Wiens.

Now we go to Mr. MacGregor for six minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I'm just wondering if the Dairy Farmers of Canada can clarify the amendment for me. It's in clause 1. Are you proposing that the sentence “kept knowing that or being reckless as to whether” be deleted? You want to remove both the “knowing” and the “reckless” reference so that it just refers to anyone who is entering a place.

[Pierre Lampron]

Can you answer, Mr. Tremblay?

[Érik Tremblay]

Yes, I'd be happy to.

That is a good question, and I would be glad to clarify.

That is exactly what we are proposing. We recommend that the references to knowledge and recklessness be removed from the bill, so they cannot be used as an excuse to contravene the legislation. The bill would then have enough teeth to protect all Canadian farmers.

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

Yes, I was having a conversation with legislative counsel about that, because in my opinion.... Do you not feel that having “recklessness” in there would cover everything? If a person knows they could transmit a disease, that requires a higher burden of proof, but if the Crown can establish that someone was completely reckless when they entered a place, that of course requires a lower burden of proof. You would still object even with that terminology in there?

[Érik Tremblay]

Thank you.

Of course, we defer to the House's expertise when it comes to the exact wording that should be used. We can provide the necessary amendments, but all we are looking for is a bill with enough teeth to be enforced. We think the amendment we are proposing would achieve that.

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

Thank you.

For my next question, I would like to have both groups respond. Amongst your member farmers, your producers, do your organizations have a signed policy in which you recommend that farmers clearly mark their properties with a “no trespassing” sign or signs to the effect that there are biosecurity measures in effect? Is that a uniform policy across Canada amongst your membership so that anyone who is approaching a property is, number one, aware that trespassing is not tolerated and, number two, aware that strict biosecurity provisions are in effect? Would that be something that is uniform across Canada, so that any would-be activists could not claim not to know?

[David Wiens]

That is a good point. In dairy, part of the biosecurity module of our proAction program is that you must have a sign on the entrance to your facility that states that there's biosecurity in place and that someone can't simply enter the building; they need to have permission. Then there's contact information given if they want to. Well, if they do go in, they know very clearly then that they are out of bounds and are going somewhere they should not be, and they know why they shouldn't be there. That is for all dairy facilities across the country.

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

Okay.

Monsieur Leblanc.

[Pierre-Luc Leblanc]

The Éleveurs de volailles du Québec has similar measures to those of dairy farmers. Stop signs are installed at the entrance of each farm. Farmers are also required to have some type of fence, chain or otherwise, around the property, as well as a sign indicating that the farm is a secured area. Restricted access areas are also set up to let drivers who do not stop at the entrance know that stricter biosecurity measures apply the closer they get to the facility. Access is also restricted inside the facility, with signage telling visitors that they have to change their clothes in order to enter. Overalls and appropriate footwear must be worn.

Those measures fall under the provincial regulations farmers have to follow, but they also apply to all Canadian farmers, as part of on‑farm food safety systems. Quebec farmers who do not comply with the regulations are subject to penalties.

I should also point out that nearly 100% of evaluated farmers follow the regulations.

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

Section 7 of the existing Health of Animals Act states that if there is an area in which a disease or a toxic substance is present, the minister can require that the farm clearly put up a notice that biosecurity measures are in effect. There is also a provision that says that no person shall knowingly enter that building if that sign is in effect. Do any of your farmers have experience with that happening, and have those signs mandated under that existing section of the act been successful at keeping anyone off the farm? I'll open it up to anyone who might want to answer.

[David Wiens]

I could maybe answer at least part of the question.

I know we had a situation where animals inadvertently got into a substance that obviously was not intended for animals and would impact the quality of the milk. Those farms were then quarantined so that nothing went on or off the farm. There was ongoing testing done until the substance cleared up and the milk was safe, and things were opened up again.