Agriculture Committee on Sept. 28th, 2023

[Annie Tessier, Assistant Coordinator, Marketing and Group Support, Union des producteurs agricoles]

Provincial ministries can always be contacted to report cases of animal abuse by a producer. You can also contact humane societies. There are already mechanisms in place regarding denunciation.

As Mr. Doyon and others have said, there are already people who go to farms, who are authorized to go and who can flag problems that might be experienced on the farm.

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

So, you're telling me that there are already processes in place to counter this problem and that there's no need to commit aggression. Indeed, in theory, when you enter somewhere without permission, you're assaulting the owner of the premises. You have to call things by their name.

I'd like to hear about another thing from the witnesses. One of my fears is that if this type of trespassing continues, I'm afraid something unfortunate could happen. Earlier, Ms. Reynolds talked about mental health, and I'm going to draw a rather lame parallel. If people are in a farmer's living room protesting about the way he treats his dog, he won't be able to get them out. Sometimes, self-defence can be tempting if the person doesn't feel protected by society or legislation. Do witnesses have any fears about this?

I invite Mr. Doyon to answer first, followed by Mr. Lampron.

[Paul Doyon]

You're absolutely right. At one point, on social networks, people gave us unacceptable suggestions for when people show up at a farmer's house. We've produced a little guide for producers to give them advice and show them how to behave if protesters arrive on the premises of their business or farm. It could indeed be dangerous for people to want to take the law into their own hands, which could lead to some very unfortunate events. That's not what we want, of course.

[Pierre Lampron]

This is why this bill is important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Lampron, I'm sorry, but the member's time has expired. It will be possible for you to complete your answer following Mr. Perron's next question.

Mr. Johns, you now have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

First, I really appreciate the part of Mr. Barlow's motivation behind the bill around the mental health of farmers.

Ms. Reynolds, I've learned a lot from your testimony here today and greatly appreciate that, especially as the NDP critic for mental health. I know Mr. MacDonald asked you what more Canada can do to support the mental health of farmers. I know we have the three-digit suicide prevention line coming on board at the end of November, and the bilateral agreements are rolling out with provinces, but there are not a lot of strings attached to ensure that the money is going to go directly to mental health. In fact, some provinces might just put it all into long-term care or other important needs.

The government promised $4.5 billion over five years for mental health that could supply different initiatives, such as targeted funding for mental health for farmers. Can you talk about the need for targeted funding to support farmers and what possibilities could be there to support farmers?

[Megz Reynolds]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this.

There is a need to have more of a national approach to farmer mental health. There are some incredible provincial programs. Some have been running upwards of 20 years and have a crisis line and free counselling. Affording counselling can be a barrier, as a lot of farmers are running their own businesses and they don't always have benefits, so sometimes it's the cost.

There is, of course, the stigma piece, and the biggest barrier can be that they're possibly worried to reach out to the traditional systems because that person will not have an understanding of their challenges as farmers. Having that specific mental health support for farmers and having that more nationalized approach.... Having the 988 number is incredible, but we need to make sure that the people on the other end of the line have a connection and understanding to agriculture so that when that person from the farming industry does call in, they are not told to go take a holiday from their dairy farm because they're experiencing burnout and need a break.

It's about making sure we have a national approach, making sure that it doesn't disappear after a couple of years, and then making sure that those who are interacting with those in agriculture have that understanding and are best suited to support them.

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

Would you support the importance of getting that mental health transfer that was promised and that is no longer? It's going into the bilaterals. Do you see an important role in getting that money out the door, on top of the bilateral agreements, so that it gets to the organizations and industry, like farmers?

[Megz Reynolds]

It would be great to see this, along with working with each province. As I said, some provinces have really great systems, and some are bringing them online right now, so having more of a nationalized approach to that would be great.

With the foundation, we have a free national peer-to-peer support platform for anyone in the industry, trying to make sure that when someone reaches out, there is help there for them.

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

This is a question for both Mr. Berrigan and Ms. Reynolds.

Maybe you can talk about some other amendments that you might suggest for this bill. You heard me speak about some of the language about “any animal or thing”. My concerns were around what “thing” could be portrayed as. Do you have any thoughts you want to share while you're here today?

Maybe we can start with you, Mr. Berrigan.

[Brodie Berrigan]

Sure, I'm happy to start. Pierre, feel free to jump in.

I think it's difficult to answer that question without seeing the details of what those proposed amendments might look like. I think ultimately, at the end of the day, our interests are ensuring that farmers and livestock are protected and that the proper biosecurity protocols are in place on farms and followed and respected.

I think we would be open to a discussion about what those could look like, but at this point it's difficult to comment specifically on any amendment.

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

Ms. Reynolds, do you think it would be worthwhile for this committee to do a study on the mental health of farmers and what supports farmers could gain—doing a proper study, evaluating the provinces that are having success, and then trying to scale that up across Canada, making it a pan-Canadian type of approach?

[Megz Reynolds]

I testified in 2018 in the original study on farmer mental health, so I think it would be worth possibly relooking at that and seeing what needs to evolve and going from there. The landscape has changed. That was the tipping point of starting to have the conversation, and now we're comfortable having the conversation and people are becoming more comfortable reaching out for help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. Johns.

We'll now turn it back to the Conservatives.

I think it's Mr. Barlow for five minutes, and then we'll go back to our Liberal colleagues.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here.

Ms. Reynolds, I want to ask you a question going on some of the stats you gave in your testimony, which are quite stark.

I lived through this with BSE more than 20 years ago. We lost something like 3,000 ranches. It cost upward of $10 billion. I think the thing we don't talk enough about is the impact that had on our farm families. It's two decades later and many are still trying to recover from that.

You were talking about the discussions you had with farmers as a result of avian flu. It is not only about the trespassers. What impact does it have on farmers and their mental health when they have to euthanize whole herds or whole flocks? Can you talk about the impact that has on farmers as well?

[Megz Reynolds]

It's devastating. Even when you're raising an animal knowing that it's going to go into the food system, you have it for a certain amount of time and during that time you look after it as if it is your child. I think it's important to note—and the comment about whistle-blowers has been brought up a lot—that the people showing up and trespassing to protest are not whistle-blowers. They don't necessarily understand what that farmer needs to do to take care of that animal and what that animal means to that farmer.

I've talked to farmers, men, across Canada, and they tear up when they talk about having to cull a full barn in response to disease showing up.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to ask a question similar to Monsieur Perron's, but I'm going to get the English answer, if that's okay, Monsieur Perron. It was a good question.

Certainly the number one question we get from our colleagues is this: If there are provincial trespassing laws in place, why is this necessary? I think it's important that we have a national initiative in place and show some leadership on the national stage.

Mr. Berrigan, as the representative of CFA and so many members—I certainly appreciate your support—maybe you wouldn't mind articulating a bit why this legislation is important, despite having some trespassing laws in place.

[Brodie Berrigan]

Certainly. Thank you for the question.

As was discussed previously, trespassing legislation provincially is a bit spotty. I think this bill fills a critical gap in that sense. It also raises and elevates the importance of biosecurity as a critical issue for farmers in Canada.

We do feel that this is an issue of national importance and something that Canadians and Canadian farmers need to have in legislation because it touches on things we've talked about here today, like food security issues, production issues, mental health issues, certainly, and international trade implications. There are significant international trade implications associated with biosecurity breaches and outbreaks on farms, which can cost the entire economy and Canadian society millions of dollars.

I think there is quite a compelling case to have this legislation.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I'm not sure if you were here for my testimony, but the research we've done now in the United States shows that these activist groups are fundraising $900 million a year. PETA actually went from $60 million to $80 million in fundraising revenue last year. When I look at the trespassing laws, in many cases these are a $100 fine and then you carry on.

When you see the scope of what we're talking about here in terms of the dollars, how important is it to have some strong deterrents there that will show these groups that there are consequences to taking on this kind of activity?

[Brodie Berrigan]

Thank you for the question.

I think it goes without saying that there need to be very strong deterrents in place to deal with this issue. A lot of these organization are very well resourced and funded, as you said. The penalties and implications that are in place right now are simply not severe enough to act as a deterrent.

We welcome the bill and its enforcement provisions, absolutely.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

How am I doing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You have 30 seconds.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Okay, I will be really quick.

As Mr. Johns noted, we did do a study on mental health. We tried to have mental health as part of this bill as well. That would have been a money part of it, so we had to remove that as part of this PMB. I just want to reiterate how important that aspect of this legislation is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barlow. We'll leave it right at time.

I'll turn the floor over to Ms. Taylor Roy for five minutes, please.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by thanking all the witnesses for being here.

I think everyone on this committee agrees that biosecurity on farms is a real concern and that the mental health and welfare of our farmers is of concern as well. I don't think there's any disagreement on that. I think the disagreement lies with what the intention of this bill is and whether it is necessary. I believe trespassing laws are provincial jurisdiction; we know that, and there are many in place.

Ms. Reynolds, I really appreciate the work that you and your organization are doing on supporting farmers' mental health. It seems to me that the incidence of outbreaks on farms is a real cause of mental health stress for farmers. When I looked through the list of outbreaks, since 2020 at least, they have been numerous, as you know, but it is debatable—we can debate the one—whether any of those were caused by a trespasser.

I'm wondering if this is one of the biggest causes of stress. In the recent report you put out, “Measuring Impact & Identifying Future Action”, in April 2023, you identified 14 causes of stress for farmers. Trespassing wasn't included in any of the 14. Are there not larger issues, and can we not address biosecurity more directly to really address the problem that is affecting the mental health of farmers?