Agriculture Committee on Sept. 28th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You have two and a half minutes.

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

Perfect, thank you.

When I attend things like the Highgate Fair, often I'm late. When I am trying to get there on time, the odd time I have exceeded the posted speed limit. I'm not looking for law enforcement to find me, whereas, as I heard from your testimony—and perhaps this is linked to the $900 million that agriculture groups raised—often one goal of these trespass incidents and biosecurity violations is for the people to get caught.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, they're not hiding what they're doing. They want as much attention as possible when they are doing these things. They are filming it.

When that happened on the Tschetter farm, it wasn't the Tschetter family who phoned the RCMP. It was the protesters who phoned the RCMP. They said they were trespassing illegally on a farm and asked the RCMP to come protect them. That was the phone call to 911. They are asking to be caught. They are asking for the media to come. They want this to be a show. The farm family members just want to get on with their lives and do what they do. This was, as I said, an incredibly stressful experience for them, whereas, for the protesters.... I don't want to say it's a game, but they play it very well. They know what they're doing. You see by the fundraising numbers that are there. We hear all kinds of stories about bonuses if you get arrested and bonuses if you get a photo taken with the police and those types of things. They aren't doing this to be discreet.

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

You go right into the mental health aspect of it. I know agriculture has broadly put a focus on mental health, as has our general society. The stigma about talking about it is being lifted, which is great news.

In particular, why is it such a concern to the mental health of farm owners when it comes to the violation of their flocks or their herds?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

John, answer very quickly. You only have five or six seconds.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Farmers feel like victims no one is standing up for. This is their livelihood. They care for these animals as if they are members of their family. With the blood, sweat and tears they put into this, they feel that they should be protected, not victims.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much.

I'll go to Mr. Perron for two and a half minutes, and then we'll have Mr. Johns for two and a half minutes. Then we're going to turn it over to the next panel.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Barlow, the second clause of the bill mentions “[every] person, other than an individual...”. Can you explain the meaning of that wording? Who is being targeted in that sentence?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It's any individual.

We highlighted two aspects as part of this bill. One is a little bit of a new direction, I'd say. The first is that we want to ensure that those protesters who come on farm are held accountable. We also want to ensure that the groups that organize or encourage this type of behaviour are also held accountable. That is why we have those two separate elements.

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

Thank you very much.

As for places, we are told that Bill C‑275 will apply to any building or enclosures where animals are kept. Do you think that this way of describing the place covers more than the farm? For example, does that include a transport truck, a slaughterhouse, the site of a rodeo or a zoo, among others? If you think that the definition does not cover those places, should we not work to cover them, in your opinion?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, the idea of the bill is to include transportation, processing plants, the rodeo, the zoo, any of those types of things where the health of an animal can be put at risk.

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

Thank you very much.

In our last study, Keith Currie told us that he wanted to remove the requirement that an individual be unaware that they were exposing animals to a disease or toxic substance or that they didn't care about that. Do you think that the current wording makes it possible to effectively cover all offences? Could people get away with saying that they did not know or that it was not intentional?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

As I said, Mr. Perron, I hope that when protesters are coming on farm and doing these types of activities, they may not understand the catastrophic consequences of what they potentially could be causing. I really hope that's the case, because if it's not the case, I think this is even worse. Not knowing is not an excuse. When they go to a farm and do that type of activity, they know deep inside that they are causing harm, either to that animal or to that farmer. I don't believe that not knowing is an excuse.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Johns.

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

I'm going to go back to one of the previous questions.

We know that animal rights groups have expressed some concerns about the bill, stating that it's not about the health of animals as much as it's about a trespass law. Hopefully you can help me with that.

We know that many instances of animal abuse on farms have been documented by farm employees who work there. I think you've been very supportive of that in stating that. If a farm employee with lawful authority or excuse to be on the farm property were to document an instance of animal abuse using a “thing”, as I raised earlier, for example a cellphone camera, it seems that what you're seeking to do here is have that farm employee indirectly subject to a $50,000 to a $200,000 fine and possible jail time. Does that not seem like an awfully tough punishment for documenting instances of animal abuse?

Maybe you can dive in a little more on that, the concern about that language, because that's where it could lead.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I understand the concern there, but the whistle-blower is there lawfully, so he or she would not be included in this legislation, because they are there lawfully. This is about someone who is there unlawfully. That is the distinction.

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

It's been raised, but I want to clarify again that the discussion about Bill C-275 is centred around farms. The first clause explains that it would apply to any building or any enclosed place in which animal are kept. There are a lot of buildings, and this can stretch pretty far. Would the bill apply to other animal enclosures that have been the target of animal welfare protests, such as slaughterhouses, rodeos, zoos, or animals being transported to such facilities?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, it would. It would include those other facilities as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

We're going to take a two-minute pause. We're going to get our next witnesses in. Please don't go far, because I'd like to try to get three rounds, if possible, for the next witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I call the meeting back to order.

I would now like to welcome the second panel of witnesses.

First, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we have Pierre Lampron, second vice-president, who is joining us by video conference, and Brodie Berrigan, director, government relations and farm policy.

From the Do More Agriculture Foundation, we have Megz Reynolds, executive director.

Finally, we have two representatives from the Union des producteurs agricoles: Paul Doyon, senior vice-president, who is joining us by video conference, and Annie Tessier, assistant coordinator, marketing and group support.

Welcome, everyone, and thank you very much for joining us this morning.

Colleagues, we're going to have five minutes for each organization for opening statements. Then I'm going to try to make sure that we can get in as many questions as possible.

I'm going to start with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and either Mr. Lampron or Mr. Berrigan.

You have up to five minutes. I'll turn the floor over to you.

[Pierre Lampron, Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Pierre Lampron, and I am second vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, CFA, and a dairy farmer in Quebec.

The CFA is Canada's largest general farm organization. We represent over 190,000 farmers and farm families across Canada that are the heart of a Canadian agri-food system generating $134.9 billion of Canada's gross domestic product.

I want to be clear that the CFA supports Bill C‑275. As a dairy farmer myself, I fully appreciate the critical importance of ensuring that strong biosecurity measures are in place to protect our animals, our livelihood as farmers, as well as our economy.

Before diving into why the bill is so important for Canadian farmers, I would like to start by reminding the committee that producers are already taking a leadership role in promoting animal welfare and on-farm biosecurity. Across all animal industries, farmers have put strict biosecurity protocols in place to ensure the health and safety of their livestock.

As a dairy farmer myself, I am most familiar with the national standard on biosecurity for Canadian dairy farms, which was developed by the Dairy Farmers of Canada in collaboration with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This is just one example, but every livestock commodity has their own biosecurity standards.

The national standard for dairy farms focuses on four biosecurity control areas that result in a significant reduction in disease and human food safety risks and includes: restricting visitors' access to animals; ensuring the farm is well maintained, clean and sanitary; ensuring that there is a herd health plan in place that includes a proactive veterinary response to disease risk; and keeping new animals separate from existing animals until they represent no disease risk.

On top of that, the dairy sector has integrated biosecurity into its proAction certification program, which offers proof to customers that the sector is ensuring quality and safety, animal health and welfare, as well as environmental stewardship. Those are the pillars of the proAction certification program.

Unfortunately, industry alone cannot prevent a breach of biosecurity protocols. We need the support of governments across Canada, including the federal government, to ensure that our animals and our livelihoods are protected.

To date, several provincial governments have put in place legislation to prevent trespassing on farms. However, these laws are not uniform across the provinces. Bill C‑275 fills a critical gap in that legislative framework because it focuses more on preventing biosecurity risks than on trespassing.

Furthermore, we would argue that biosecurity is very much a national issue with potential consequences that go beyond provincial boundaries and affect our food production, our farmers' mental health and our economy.

Strong biosecurity measures are necessary not only to reduce the risk of spreading disease and stress on the animals; they also serve as proactive measures to strengthen our domestic food systems to ensure food security for Canadians.

Without strong biosecurity protocols, there is a risk of disease outbreaks that jeopardize our national food supply and our farmers' ability to provide food to their communities. In addition, the mental health and well-being of producers and farm employees could also be affected owing to animal welfare impacts and loss of livelihood.

Finally, in the context of international trade, the integrated nature of our markets has long made clear the importance of animal health and animal biosecurity as key priorities.

An outbreak of an infectious disease in any sector has disastrous effects, including but not limited to closing our borders to trade, lost trade opportunities, and increases in production costs.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

That's great, Mr. Lampron. It was exactly five minutes.

We'll go to Ms. Reynolds.

It's over to you for five minutes.

[Megz Reynolds, Executive Director, The Do More Agriculture Foundation]

Farmers are used to adversity. They watch as an entire crop is destroyed in a 10-minute storm. They grieve, powerless, as disease rips through their herd or flock. They watch market prices tank when global production is good. They pray for rain, for markets, for health and for safety. On a daily basis, they pray for an understanding of who they are and what they do.

I sit before you today on behalf of Canadian farmers in my capacity as the executive director of The Do More Agriculture Foundation. We are the national voice and champion for mental health in Canadian agriculture.

Last spring, just as avian influenza was moving across Canada, I sat down with a group of poultry producers in Nova Scotia. The focal point of our conversation was mental health and the challenges farmers are facing that lead to chronic stress, burnout and anxiety. A conversation that is usually robust was lilted. The producers sharing their table with me were more focused on the migratory birds outside the window than on our dialogue. They were living day and night with the fear that avian influenza would show up in their barns, introduced either by wild birds or through a break in biohazard security.

I didn't grow up in agriculture. I grew up in the city, and before moving to a farm, I never would have thought twice about walking into a barn full of animals. It never would have crossed my mind that walking into a biosecure barn housing 30,000 birds could result in introducing a disease like avian influenza that could see that entire flock dead within the week.

Producers across Canada are not expecting everyone to know the ins and outs of their operations or of animal husbandry, but they are asking for help. They are asking for protection and for understanding, and for Bill C-275 to be enacted to protect their animals, their families, their farms and their livelihoods. Agriculture is an industry with a foundation of deep rural roots, hard work, resilience, strength and community.

On a daily basis, farmers deal with numerous factors that are outside of their control and directly influence their mental well-being. Farmers should not have to add to that living with the fear of protesters trespassing into enclosed areas and endangering their animals, their livelihoods and Canadian food security.

Farmers are among the most vulnerable when it comes to mental health challenges like stress, anxiety, depression and burnout. In 2021, the University of Guelph found that one in four Canadian farmers felt like their life was not worth living, wished that they were dead or had thought about taking their own life in the last 12 months.

Sandi Brock and her husband raise sheep and run a grain farm outside of Hensall, Ontario, in a place that she feels is sort of like the middle of nowhere, yet Google has led strangers straight to her door. Sandi has been kind enough to share her story through me.

She writes:

I have long feared the forces of anti-agriculture (specifically livestock) that have made it their mission to end animal agriculture. In the same breath, I also respect where people are in regard to their core values.

In 2017, I decided to start a YouTube channel to “bring” people onto our farm, and into our lives as farmers on an Ontario family farm. Instead of expecting the general public to trust and understand what we do, I turn my camera on, almost daily, to bring them alongside us to witness it all....

I started this channel in the hopes of maybe not changing minds, but instead giving context behind the work we do each day. Not to educate, but maybe to cultivate empathy. As it turns out, millions of people have tuned in over the years and even some that don't agree with animal agriculture have reached out and offered up their genuine respect for us as farmers, and for us as a family.

But my comment section isn't always so nice, and there is always a gnawing in my gut that one day one of those negative commentors will show up at my front door. And trust me, it happens.

Thankfully, so far, the strangers that have found my address and shown up unannounced have been because they like me. Unfortunately for me, I do not know the difference. When these strangers have shown up, I have had an out-of-body experience like no other. I shake from head-to-toe for hours after they leave, and the intrusion stays with me for days after.

We live where we work. The vulnerability of strangers showing up unannounced is one thing, but the violation of privacy is a completely different level, and this is where I can firmly stand beside my fellow livestock farmers.

It feels like, and quite honestly is, a break-in. Businesses and homes are protected by the law. Our farms are quite literally our farms and homes, and in so, should be protected.

I started sharing my life online to help connect, provide context, and give the experience of a small family farm. Sharing did this, and more, and I'm so proud of the connections we've made. But after experiencing even the mildest forms of trespassing, and seeing and feeling firsthand how vulnerable we truly are as an industry I have seriously questioned if it was all worth it in the end.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Ms. Reynolds.

Certainly, from speaking with my farmers in the Annapolis Valley, I know from the likes of Amy VanderHeide and others that you spend time in our beautiful corner of the world, and I thank you for the work that you do.

Now we will hear from the representatives of the Union des producteurs agricoles.

Mr. Doyon or Ms. Tessier, the floor is yours.

[Paul Doyon, Senior Vice-President General, Union des producteurs agricoles]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, everyone.

My name is Paul Doyon. I am the senior vice-president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA. I am a dairy and maple producer. I am accompanied today by Annie Tessier, assistant coordinator, research and agricultural policy branch, UPA.

Animal biosecurity is a major concern, both for reasons of animal health and welfare and because of the major economic and commercial consequences associated with animal diseases. The UPA believes that Bill C‑275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act, provides a clear signal of the importance of compliance with biosecurity measures on farms to deter trespassing on livestock premises.

Biosecurity and animal health are among farmers' responsibilities, in part determined by the Health of Animals Act, which sets out the measures to be taken when a disease occurs in a herd. Among other things, the act stipulates that the premises concerned be accessible only to persons authorized to enter them to limit the risk of spreading diseases.

In addition, the various livestock sectors work on prevention and have adopted safety and biosecurity protocols that are often very strict, under which only persons who are authorized and follow those protocols can enter the farms. Agricultural input suppliers, livestock transporters, and renderers also have a role to play in animal biosecurity.

In recent years, the rise of anti-meat and anti-speciesist movements has been felt in many countries, including Canada. A lot of these protests have taken place in public places. However, a more radical faction is ready for civil disobedience and organizes trespassing onto private premises, such as farms. For example, in Quebec, a hog production farm in the Saint-Hyacinthe region was trespassed onto in December 2019. The 11 co‑accused were convicted of breaking and entering and mischief. In April 2021, during a lockdown related to COVID‑19, two activists trespassed onto a dairy farm in the Eastern Townships and tried to release animals.

However, it is well established scientifically that the entry of unprotected persons or those who do not know the rules to follow on a farm site poses a significant risk to biosecurity, as well as to animal health and welfare. The clothes and shoes of an intruder who has not complied with the biosecurity protocol may carry pathogens or contaminants.

Some diseases have decimated herds and resulted in their systematic slaughter. Cases of avian flu in Canadian and Quebec chicken and turkey farms have multiplied and require a significant mobilization of producers and stakeholders.

Those authorized to enter livestock premises know the dangers of their behaviour: sudden movements, random noises or a change in routine can cause stress in the animals and lead to erratic behaviour that can lead them to injure themselves, lethally injure other animals or their young. In addition, an animal that has experienced significant stress is more likely to develop health problems. So without leading to herd depopulation, unauthorized entry could introduce diseases into the herd and require increased use of antibiotics, while the agricultural community—farmers, veterinarians and government authorities—is working to combat antibiotic resistance.

All these factors will have a significant impact on the financial health of the business, but also on the mental health of the producer, their family and their employees.

Several Canadian provinces have specific trespassing laws. Others, such as Quebec, use provincial laws and the Criminal Code to lay charges of breaking and entering or mischief against unauthorized entry into private premises.

Bill C‑275 is an important tool that the federal government will have to consistently protect farm animals from the consequences of trespassing by providing significant penalties that can deter individuals or groups from trespassing without authorization and without following established biosecurity or animal welfare protocols.

Given that an unauthorized entry into a livestock premises brings an increased risk of exposure to diseases and contaminants for the animals there, whether premeditated or not, we believe it is important to clarify the wording in the act. The act should clearly specify that any person who enters a breeding site, enclosure or biosecurity zone without authorization is deemed to pose a risk, even if he or she complies with the biosecurity protocols in place. It's just as important to respect animal welfare.

Thank you.