Agriculture Committee on Sept. 28th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 73 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I will start with a few reminders. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. Please note that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted during the meeting.

Welcome to everyone, including all the members. Since we are in public, I would like to welcome to the committee Mr. MacDonald, who represents the riding of Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, and Mr. Carr, who represents the riding of Winnipeg South Centre, Manitoba.

It's great to see everyone back.

Gord Johns, I don't think you're a permanent member, but it's great to see you here on behalf of our good friend Mr. MacGregor.

Colleagues, today we are starting the first study of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act regarding biosecurity on farms.

The sponsor of that bill is Mr. John Barlow, the member of Parliament for Foothills and someone who sits on our committee. He's no stranger to us, but welcome, Mr. Barlow. It's great to have you here.

The way we're going to proceed with our format is that Mr. Barlow will have approximately five minutes. I'll be relatively lenient, Mr. Barlow, but we're going to give you some time for some opening remarks. We are then going to try to get two rounds of questions in for Mr. Barlow.

We then have three witnesses coming for what I'll call the second hour, but we're hoping to make it a bit more, about 70 or 75 minutes. I'll try to get three rounds of questions in from the respective parties, if possible.

We'll move quickly.

Without further ado, I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Barlow, for approximately five minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, colleagues. It’s an honour to be here to discuss my private member’s bill, Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

This is very similar to a previous bill that we've dealt with, Bill C-205. It basically makes it an offence “to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance...capable of affecting or contaminating” the facility. Simply put, this enactment would apply existing penalties within the act to people who trespass on farms, properties and facilities where animals are kept. It also proposes to double the amount of those existing fines for groups and organizations that encourage unlawful behaviour that puts the biosecurity of our farms and our farmers' livelihoods at risk.

Colleagues, I really need to stress this next point, as I know all of us have probably been receiving emails and phone calls at our offices. I want to make crystal clear what this bill does not do, and I certainly want to address some of the misinformation that the campaigns have been doing for all of us. This bill does not limit an individual’s right to peaceful protest on public property. This bill also does not prevent whistle-blowers from coming forward when they are witnesses to practices that jeopardize our food security, our food safety or the welfare of animals.

Canadian farmers and ranchers have a moral and legal obligation to look after their animals. It's simply that clear. In fact, farmers and their employees are obligated to report to the appropriate authorities any wrongdoing they see as they operate in a highly regulated environment. They must follow strict codes of conduct to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all farm animals.

Colleagues, the last time I was here on Bill C-205, I dedicated a lot of time in my discussion to the mental health aspect of this bill. I would invite those who are new to this committee to take a look at my comments on the previous bill, and there will certainly be another witness later today who is an expert in this field. I will leave most of that to her.

When this bill was debated in the last Parliament, members from all parties recounted situations in their ridings. What worries me, colleagues, is that since we had that discussion a couple of years ago, animal activists have become even more brazen, to the point where they’re endangering the lives of animals on farms, and in some cases the public and the livelihoods of our farmers. We've seen animal rights activists hang dead pig carcasses from a Montreal overpass. We heard of the hog farmer in Ontario who has been targeted by ransomware, where activists are demanding that the farmer admit the mistreatment of his livestock, which of course is undeniably false.

Where this started, colleagues, was an incident in my riding with the Tschetter family, who woke up one morning to check on their free-range turkey farm and had 40 activists camped out in their barn. It took five to six hours to de-escalate and have these protesters removed. However, the impact on the family has been long-lasting. It impacts them to this day, as they question why they were targeted and what they had done wrong, as they had followed all the rules. Again, they have a free-range farm in Fort Macleod.

Now, opponents of this bill will claim it’s not necessary because there’s no proof of the introduction of disease by trespassers.

First, I think this misses the point of this bill completely, as one issue can make all the difference and it’s a short-sighted argument to justify unlawful behaviour. Second, and I think more importantly, colleagues, is that it’s completely false. We know of at least two incidents. One was in Quebec, where an outbreak of rotavirus was a result of protesters on a pig farm. Rotavirus hadn't been seen in Quebec in more than 40 years. Another was on an Ontario mink farm, where trespassers released thousands of animals, which led to an outbreak of distemper.

Colleagues, some provinces have followed up with something similar, but the vast majority—seven provinces and three territories—do not have anything like this in their legislation.

Finally, I just want to reiterate the impact that having an outbreak of an animal disease or an animal-borne virus on our farms could have on our farm families and certainly on our economy. Protecting Canada’s food supply is absolutely critical. That is one of the pillars of what we do here in this committee. Viruses like avian flu, African swine fever, and foot and mouth pose substantial threats to Canadian agriculture.

In 2014, 10 farms in the Fraser Valley had an AI outbreak and more than 200,000 birds had to be euthanized. The most serious outbreak of avian flu in Canada took place in the Fraser Valley in 2004 and led to the slaughter of 17 million farm birds. Before the outbreak was eventually brought under control, it cost more than $380 million in lost economic income. In the aftermath, a number of changes were made, including self-quarantine, biosecurity protocols, surveillance and laboratory testing.

The most recent outbreak in Canada impacted 7.6 million domestic birds in provinces across western Canada, as well as Ontario and Quebec, with B.C. being the hardest hit.

When we talk about African swine fever.... Thankfully, this has yet to be detected in Canada. The first case of ASF was detected in China in 2018. It spread to every province in the country by 2019 and has been seen in the Asia-Pacific, central Asia, eastern Europe and now the Dominican Republic. It would be devastating if this came to Canada. It would have a $24-billion economic impact.

I want to conclude with this, colleagues. As I said, this bill is not about prohibiting peaceful protests. The problem is that many of these protesters are not aware of the strict biosecurity protocols we have on farms, why they are there, or the fact that potentially trespassing on farms could have catastrophic consequences for our farmers, our food security and certainly our economy.

I know members on this committee understand the importance and urgency of this bill and what it can mean to our farmers, ranchers and producers. I look forward to addressing any questions or comments my colleagues have.

I appreciate your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barlow.

We're going to get right to that.

I'll start with Mr. Drouin for up to six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Barlow for putting this bill forward.

You've touched on a few points. You were the author of the previous bill. Your bill talks about unlawful entry into buildings or areas where farm animals are kept. We would be in favour of presenting a friendly amendment. Obviously, we talk about biosecurity. If biosecurity protocols are followed, do you still object to entry? If somebody enters into.... Where I'm coming from is that sometimes there are bad apples. The majority of them are fine, but there are bad apples who taint the entire industry, unfortunately. However, you have people who do follow biosecurity protocols. You could be in a situation where....

If biosecurity protocols are followed, what is the danger of somebody entering into an area?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you for that question.

My initial reaction is this. Of course, I'm always open to a discussion on amendments that would help make this proposal better. My concern is this: Are you still talking about a trespasser? I know all of us have visited farms. We've gone through the protocol. We've put on haz-mat suits, washed our boots, put on booties and those types of things. However, we've been invited onto those farms.

If you are saying.... If protesters are still trespassing on farms but they put on haz-mat suits and all those things, are they still having an impact? I would say, yes, they are. It is still impacting the mental health of that farm family. If I woke up in the morning and went down to my living room and some protesters were there who were upset about how I treated my dog, but they were wearing a haz-mat suit and whatnot, does that make it any better? I would say, as a dog owner, no.

I want some clarification. Are you talking about protesters, or are you talking about a regular person who has been invited onto that operation?

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

There are already trespassing laws. We don't have jurisdiction for that. As soon as we touch trespassing in federal jurisdiction, that bill could be challenged in court and rendered unconstitutional. That's what I'm worried about.

We have jurisdiction strictly over what happens inside the farm. That's where we want to present a friendly amendment to ensure that we stay in our—I don't want to use a pun—silo or farm, in terms of legislating the objective of what you are trying to do.

I certainly agree with you. I certainly agree with the objective of the bill. I've met a lot of farmers, in regard to ASF, who are spending $23 million just to prepare the pork industry for ASF over two years. That's a lot of dollars. I've spoken to a lot of poultry farmers out in the Fraser Valley who have been affected by AI—that's poultry that didn't make it to the market. Millions of poultry were killed because of AI.

I certainly understand where you're coming from on this. We are dealing with a new reality. We just went through a pandemic. The objective of the bill serves a purpose to inform potential protesters that there are.... We're in a new world. Geographically, it's a small world now, with diseases travelling much faster than they used to. I know farmers are worried about potential protesters. I know you've mentioned a few cases.

From our perspective, if somebody follows—regardless of the reason why they're there—biosecurity protocols put in place.... That's where we would put a friendly amendment to ensure we respect the areas of jurisdiction of the federal government.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, I understand and appreciate the clarification. Certainly there are trespassing laws in place, which is why we didn't go with the Criminal Code but amended the Health of Animals Act. We did not want to try to go down a path we thought was going to be onerous.

The issue with the trespassing laws in many cases, other than in B.C., is that, for the most part, there is a fine of a couple of hundred dollars. We have to understand that these groups are fundraising tens of millions of dollars off these events. They're filming them, and they're fundraising off them, so there would have to be teeth to this that will make it a deterrent for these groups to do that.

My concern with your amendment, in all honesty, Mr. Drouin—and maybe we should have more discussion with stakeholders on this—is that we would now be giving an invitation to protests by saying that as long as you follow protocol, you're more than welcome to trespass on farms. That's not the message we're trying to portray here.

We're trying to say that our food security must be paramount. As you mentioned with the great analogy of COVID, imagine, on a similar scale, what would happen if we had a viral outbreak like African swine fever and what impact it would have on our economy and our country.

These protocols are in place for a very important reason, and they must be followed. As part of that, there has to be a line in the sand where, if you are not up to understanding the protocols, understanding the procedures and understanding why they're in place, you should not.... Protest as much as you want—you're welcome to do that, and it is your right—on public property outside the farm gate, but there has to be a line where we say that you're putting too many people and animals at risk when you cross that line.

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

I agree 100%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, colleagues. We'll have to leave it at that. That's six minutes.

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

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Barlow, thank you for your bill. I appreciate it. I appreciate the ability to second it in the House of Commons and give that second-reading speech.

You did talk about stakeholders a bit. Piggybacking on what Mr. Drouin was saying, can you comment on some of the stakeholders you've spoken with about this bill, some of the positive reactions you've had from stakeholders about this bill and how it's going to help their membership?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, we've had extensive consultations with all of our agriculture stakeholders. Although we focused on livestock here, even those from the grain and oilseeds industry have been very supportive, as they are seeing similar issues where people are coming into their fields and taking pictures, taking plants and things like that. Again, you don't know what kind of weeds or whatever they're bringing.

The consultations have been very extensive, and I would say we've had unanimous support from every single agriculture stakeholder group we've spoken with. It's really two things: One is the importance of protecting the biosecurity on farms, and the second thing is that they see this, hopefully, as the federal government stepping up and protecting them and their mental health, as this has been becoming more and more of an irritant. “Irritant” is not the right word. It is painful to them, what they're going through when these things happen on their farms.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

One example I have is about the Government of Saskatchewan. They've increased and changed some of their trespassing laws because of things like clubroot. People don't realize this, but when they go hunting or quadding, sometimes they inadvertently bring disease into fields that can ruin a whole field. This is a nice way to add to some legislation that provinces have.

Talking about some of the activists who go on the farms, I know they don't go by sector, but they have gone by jurisdiction, because some jurisdictions have lower fines and, as you said before, some people actually want to get caught, in jurisdictions where the fines are lower. Do you think there are some other motives behind some of these activities? Could you walk us through that and how this bill, as you said, with higher fines and increased penalties, might curtail some of that activity?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

I don't think there's any question that these protests, when they happen, are well planned and well thought out. I'm sure one of the reasons the Tschetter farm in my riding was targeted was that it is right at the junction of Highway 2 and Highway 3, two of the busiest roadways in southern Alberta, so they would get a lot of attention. At that time, Alberta did not have trespass laws in place, as it does now, which were a result of this issue and a result of our initial bill, which some of the provinces have copied in terms of what we had first proposed.

Canada is one of the top 10 targeted countries in the world when it comes to these types of protests. One of the reasons for that, I believe, is that we do not have a national initiative in place—which we are proposing here—that is a deterrent to these groups.

We don't have definitive numbers in Canada, but some research on the United States shows that these groups fundraised close to $90 million last year. That's a huge number. There's no question that this is a fundraising initiative for these groups, whose sole goal is to end animal agriculture, which I would hope all of us would oppose. That's why these deterrents have to be in place. There has to be a financial deterrent to these groups doing this; otherwise, they will continue to frighten our farmers and impact our daily lives.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

One of the concerns with respect to your previous bill, Bill C-205, was noted by our colleague Mr. MacGregor, who is not here but who said the following:

I have received correspondence from concerned people from across the country who are worried that the bill might serve as an effective gag against their right to protest. What I would say in reply to that is that if we look at the specific wording of this act, it is talking about a person entering without lawful authority or excuse. There is nothing in the bill to prevent a whistle-blower, like a farm employee, who is already lawfully there and who witnesses something that they believe is wrong or contrary to animal welfare laws, from blowing the whistle and raising the alarm on that.

The difference between what the committee adopted in Bill C-205 and Bill C-275, which is before us today, is an amendment to apply the bill to whistle-blowers. Is that correct? Can you just speak on that, now that we have that on the record, with respect to how we can make sure they're protected?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

That is correct. We did have a friendly amendment from Mr. MacGregor the last time we went through this.

I did not include it in this bill for two reasons. All of the stakeholders we spoke with felt it was redundant and not necessary because it is already in place. We were careful with our language to ensure that whistle-blowers were already protected. They are on the farm lawfully. They've been invited there. They're employees. They're farmers and family members, and they have a critical role.

As I said in my presentation, farmers and employees on farms have a moral and legal obligation to report any incidents that are not meeting our standards, any incidents where the health of an animal or the health of a farm employee or family member is being put in danger. I believe that is strongly worded in the legislation as is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're going to have to leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Steinley.

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Mr. Perron, you now have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Barlow, thank you for being here this morning, and thank you for reintroducing this bill.

People who question the relevance of this bill often tell us that all the provinces have already adopted regulations, some of which are stricter than others. What do you say to those people?

Currently, as things stand, it is possible to file a complaint in the event of a breach and to initiate a criminal prosecution. Why should we pass another bill?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Perron.

I think in your question, you've answered it: Some provinces have something in place, but not all. In fact, I think there are four provinces: Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan and P.E.I. Quebec is trying to do something, but they have had to go to the Supreme Court to have something in place. I think it behooves us as the federal government to have a national program in place that will cover all provinces and territories, because that is not happening right now.

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

Thank you very much.

What do you say to people who tell us that we are in the process of imposing a kind of gag order that will prevent whistle-blowing? That was just briefly mentioned by the Conservatives. Are you aware of the mechanisms that already exist in the agricultural system to denounce or report a farm that is not following the rules or is mistreating animals?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

I believe that the legislation we have proposed covers that very well. Through our animal health regulations and the Health of Animals Act, an employee, a farmer or a family member who is on farm is obligated to come forward if they see something that does not meet CFIA or Health Canada standards.

We are not targeting whistle-blowers. I want to be absolutely clear here. Our goal is not to address whistle-blowers, because I believe they're already protected. This is about protesters who don't understand the protocols and the standards we have in place.

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

Thank you very much.

In the last Parliament, during our study of Bill C‑205, people from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency told us that they did not have the resources to act as peace officers. They also feared that this legislation would create confusion with the legislation of the provinces and Quebec.

Even in provinces where there is no legislation dealing specifically with trespassing on a farm, there are still laws that protect people from trespassing on private property, and so they already cover such situations. The witnesses have told us that they were afraid this would create confusion and make it difficult to prosecute people who would commit such an offence. What do you think?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I certainly understand CFIA's concerns. That's something we will have to address once we get to that point, but we're not asking the CFIA to be the RCMP.

When these issues happen on farm—and I've spoken to a number of farmers who have gone through this—they're not phoning the CFIA. When they have protesters on farm, they're phoning the RCMP. The RCMP officers are the ones who are first on the scene and who try to de-escalate these issues and try to get this resolved. In many cases, it is resolved, but it takes hours. As I said, with the Tschetter example, they were there for five or six hours, and eventually left with a couple of their turkeys.

I understand the CFIA's concern, but we're not asking the CFIA to police this. The RCMP will do their job, police this and try to resolve the situation when it happens on the ground. The CFIA will have a role to play in the follow-up, when fines are laid.

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

Thank you very much.

In the last Parliament, we did good work in committee and made a number of amendments to the bill. Among other things, we amended it so that it would apply to any individual who enters a building or enclosure where animals are kept, regardless of whether they have lawful authority or excuse to do so.

You chose not to use that wording. Can you tell us why?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I'm sorry. I had a little translation issue there.

Could you repeat the question?

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

Yes.

During our study of Bill C‑205, we amended the wording so that it would apply to any individual who enters a building or enclosure where animals are kept, regardless of whether they have lawful authority or excuse to do so.

Can you tell us why you decided not to include that amendment here?