Agriculture Committee on Sept. 28th, 2023

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

We included the amendment from the Bloc, which has remained in this new version. I felt it was a good addition, so thank you for that, Mr. Perron.

I did not include Mr. MacGregor's amendment in this bill, because I felt it was already covered. In speaking with our stakeholders and the consultants we worked with on this, I know they felt it was redundant. Whistle-blowers are already protected in the Health of Animals Act. They are protected in the wording of the bill. Whoever is on farm for a lawful reason, including an employee, a farm worker or a farm family member, is already covered in the bill. We didn't feel we needed to re-emphasize that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay.

Thank you very much.

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

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you. It's an honour to be here.

It's great to see you, Mr. Barlow.

I know you talked about the importance of the bill in protecting the mental health of farmers and their families as a primary motivation for you to introduce this piece of legislation. You and I have talked a lot about mental health over our many years here.

Can you talk about how this bill would improve the mental health of farmers?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks for that question, Mr. Johns. I know that this is a pretty important issue for both of us.

If I can, I want to correct the record as I'm taking a quick review of some of the data we've collected here. I think I said that these activist groups had raised about $90 million in the United States last year. It's actually $900 million; I forgot a zero there. That shows what's going on.

In terms of how this protects the mental health of farmers, this is really what inspired me to do this. When I met with the farm family in my riding after this had happened to them, the looks on their faces were.... I was surprised by how hard they took this. They just didn't understand why they were targeted. They were basically saying, “What did we do wrong? We have free-range turkeys. We do everything that the CFIA has asked us. Our animals mean everything to us. In no way would we ever put them in danger.” Then I had phone calls from farmers across western Canada asking, “Is it now open season on farming?” No one was charged in this issue. I think two people out of the 40 were given a $250 fine.

Farmers just feel like they are being targeted and attacked for what they do. Are there bad actors? I'm sure there are, but the vast majority of farm families are doing everything they possibly can to protect their animals, water and soil. They just feel like there's no one out there standing up for them. I feel that something like this would show some leadership from the federal government's side that says, “Yes, we are there to protect you” and would put some parameters in place that will deter this illegal activity from happening.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

The last iteration of your bill, Bill C-205, made it all the way past second reading and was reported back to the House with amendments. Mr. Perron highlighted some of that in his questions.

Now, in the new version, can you explain why you didn't keep the same language that AGRI supported here at this committee and that Mr. MacGregor put forward as well? I know that in your proposed section 9.1 there's a reference to not taking anything into a space where animals are kept, including the specific language of “any animal or thing”. Can you talk about what the rationale is for this new language, which didn't appear in Bill C-205—what you've taken out and what you've put in here?

Further, can you define what “thing” is? I mean, “thing” could be anything. A cellphone or some type of recording device could also count as a “thing”. It seems that interpretation of the law could certainly cover those types of items.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Yes, of the two amendments that we had, one from the Bloc and one from the NDP, we kept the one from the Bloc, which is the “thing” talked about there. I don't want to put words in Mr. Perron's mouth, but I believe the idea there was that you could be bringing in water or food.

We saw this specifically with protesters who were feeding pigs in a truck along the side of the highway. That's where the language for that came from. We have to expand that because even if you are bringing in food, water or other things, they could be just as harmful. The cellphone point is one I hadn't thought of, so that's interesting.

Again, the reason we did not include the NDP amendment at this time is that further review.... We were very proud to have the support of all parties at the end of this to get this through to the Senate. Unfortunately, an election happened, and we had to start over. However, in consultation afterwards, we felt that it was a redundant amendment. We are protecting whistle-blowers in the language of the bill. If you are lawfully on the farm as a farm employee or a member of the farm family—which a whistle-blower would be—then you are not encapsulated in this bill. You have a reason to be there. If you, as an employee, see something that is happening on the farm, processing plant or whatever, then, yes, you should come forward and file a complaint. Go to the RCMP, the CFIA or Health Canada, whichever avenue you want to take. We felt this was already strong within the wording of the bill.

However, I'm always willing to work with my colleagues. If there are ways to improve this, then I'm open to suggestions.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Absolutely.

You mentioned several examples from recent years where outbreaks have led to the mass deaths of many animals. For example, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of birds have died.

Just out of curiosity, in those instances you referenced, was it animal rights activists who spread the infections leading to those deaths?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, it was, on the two specific ones I mentioned.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

In terms of whistle-blowing, what can be strengthened to support whistle-blowers? Have you put any thought into that?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I wouldn't say there's any specific wording, but I think a promotional campaign or some sort of marketing campaign could go around on this, once we finish it, hopefully, which could encourage whistle-blowers. If you see something on a farm, don't be afraid to come forward, because it's for the greater good.

The stronger the reputation of Canadian agriculture.... We're an export market, as well. We are selling to customers not only across the country but also around the world. We have a very strong reputation, and we want to protect that reputation. Any time something comes forward about an operation doing things they shouldn't be, or not meeting the standards, that is not good for anyone. Any farmer or producer you talk to, as much as they are at their wits' end and mentally stressed as a result of trespassers, they also want to ensure that everyone is meeting the standards that are there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're going to have to leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

We'll now turn it over to Mr. Carr.

Colleagues, I realize that the pecking order is normally Conservatives and then Liberals. I got that a bit different. It will all work out in the end, anyway. Forgive me this time.

Go ahead, Mr. Carr.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Barlow, thanks for the information you have provided thus far at committee.

I certainly take your point about the mental health impacts on farmers and the disruption to everyday livelihoods when there are significant demonstrations or events taking place on their property.

We've talked a lot about these animal rights activist groups. I'll trust you until I fact-check the $900 million, in terms of fundraising. What is it that animal rights groups are finding that is driving them back continually to these farms? Surely you don't raise $900 million if you send an empty video clip to those you're trying to fundraise from—assuming, as per your suggestion, that that's what they're trying to do.

I'm curious as to what it is they are discovering when they go to these farms. What is problematic in their minds and the minds of those who are supporting them, and how does this bill help address that?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you for the question.

I can't speak for all of these groups and what they think they're seeing.

I think it's twofold, Mr. Carr. There's no question that this is a successful fundraiser for them, obviously, from the numbers we have seen. Perhaps I will table this document with the committee, so you can see that. In many cases, are they catching some things that shouldn't be happening? Perhaps. Again, these fundraising numbers are from the United States. I want to be clear on that. We don't have definitive numbers for Canada.

In many cases, a lot of consumers or Canadians don't understand what they are showing. For example, on the Tschetter farm, when they opened the doors to the barn, turkeys or chickens panicked. They were “fight or flight”. They ran over each other and stomped and literally trampled each other. I know that, in one video we saw, they said, “Look, we have a couple of dead birds.” Well, those birds died because those protesters went in. Those birds were not expecting it and didn't know who they were. You have 30 or 40 people coming in there. It scares the crap out of them and they trample each other. If you've been in a chicken barn, you understand. It's 35,000 birds in some of those things. There's a lot of room to go around, but when you have them all rushing into one area, that's what happens.

I think that, in many cases, they're being disingenuous about what's happened. We've seen a couple of cases where the videos they put up were actually not from that farm at all.

Listen, I think the overall goal of these groups.... I could quote from some of those. I have it here. “Humane meat? There is no such thing.” That's from Animal Outlook. This is from the Good Food Institute: “Eating meat is not your personal decision, any more than...whether somebody beats their child is their personal decision.”

Their goal is to end animal agriculture. That's the justification for what they are doing.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you for responding to that.

You mentioned a few moments ago the importance of strengthening the reputation of the industry and that the stronger the reputation of the industry, the better things can be for us internationally.

One of the things I've heard from folks who have reached out on the bill is that they feel as though they don't have enough information about what's going into the production of their food in Canada, everything from how the animal is treated prior to being slaughtered to when they're slaughtered and after. What do you think we can do, whether it's through the provisions of this bill or regulations beyond it, that will help work with industry to provide Canadians with a better sense of how things are being produced?

I'm a former teacher and school principal. We all know The Simpsons references from years past on how the agricultural industry went, but I'm curious as to whether there are educational materials that you think we can work to produce with industry, in partnership with some of these groups, as a fair compromise to provide Canadians with a transparent look at what's happening.

In my mind, that strengthens the international reputation, as you've referenced, and perhaps it helps to mitigate some of the tensions between the groups that are bringing attention to this and the farmers themselves. The by-product of all that is that we have safer regulations, greater protection and a reputation that's going to help advance the economic export piece. I'm just wondering if you can comment on what we can do around that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I think that's an excellent point. You said you were a principal. I would say it starts in the elementary classroom. Agriculture should be part of the curriculum. We've all heard of Agriculture in the Classroom, for example, but very few schools actually use that program.

The point is that we're seeing two extremes and we're not seeing the middle. I think a lot of these protesters have the best of intentions, but again, they just don't understand what's actually going on and the standards and protocols we have and why they're there. That education element, I think, would go a long way towards alleviating some of their concerns, and it would also be a great educational tool for those Canadian consumers who just don't know where their food comes from. I think that for all the things we discuss here, probably the number one underlying issue we have is that most Canadians and consumers don't understand what happens from the farm gate to when they purchase that item at the grocery store. There's a lot that goes into that middle part.

As part of this bill, I think that certainly we can work with industry, which I believe is trying to do its best to get the message out there. Are people listening, though? I'm not so sure. I think that having an education program as part of the education system is integral. As to why we don't have that, I think that's something we could talk about for hours here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Carr. We're at time. I actually gave you a little bit extra.

We'll go to Mr. Epp now for six minutes.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Barlow, for bringing this bill forward.

I want to start with whistle-blowers. You mentioned that the opportunity for whistle-blowers is not being impinged upon by this bill at all, whistle-blowers who are family members or employees who are legitimately there. Would you not also agree, though, that there are other people, without that close a relationship to the owners, who visit farms in the course of their regular duties, such as veterinarians, fuel suppliers and feed suppliers, who are maybe not as close to the family from a vested interest point of view but who also follow proper biosecurity and have that same opportunity on the off chance there is abuse?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

That's an excellent point. Probably the most important one is the CFIA. Any commercial farm operation will have regular CFIA inspections, whether you live in the most rural part of P.E.I. or just outside of Calgary. No matter what your operation is on a commercial side, you are having a regular inspection from CFIA to ensure that you are meeting the standards.

You can talk to any producer, and I'm sure you have. Those can be very stressful inspections as well, which shows that they want to make sure they are meeting the standards put in front of them when it comes to animal health, sanitation and all those things when the CFIA comes by.

Yes, whether it's a member of Parliament coming by to visit your farm, a fuel supplier or the guy coming to pick up the milk every day, there are constantly people coming by who have a lawful reason to be there. If they see something that they know, as experts, is not meeting the standard, they also should have that opportunity—and they do have that opportunity—to step forward and say something.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

You led a tangent right into my next question, which is a bit tangential to the bill, but it deals with biosecurity in animal agriculture.

CFIA has proposed some new regulations around fair societies. I'm going to be speaking at and attending the annual Highgate Fair, in its 169th rendition. I'm a little over a third that old. There are proposed regulations that put an onus on traceability, again for biosecurity reasons, on the animals that will be displayed there. Can you comment?

My understanding from agricultural groups and organizations.... Obviously, they support a solid traceability regime, but are they willing to maintain that regime and the responsibility for it through that setting...so that the 83% who are volunteers in our ag societies are not discouraged from volunteering?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, that is a concern with the new regulations brought forward by CFIA.

When we talk about the global reputation of Canadian agriculture, one reason we have that strong reputation is our very fulsome traceability program. However, with this new program that's being introduced, the concern from the stakeholders is that these groups that are now having to take on this new responsibility don't have the people to do it and also don't have the expertise to do it. They would rather have it—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Yes, go ahead.

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

While I respect and support what my honourable colleague is saying, we're getting a little far from what Bill C-275 is covering. If we could stay on the subject matter, it would be great for all of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Certainly you have some leeway, but we are on Bill C-275, so I would ask you to make sure we keep tight on that legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

How much time do I have left?