Agriculture Committee on Oct. 5th, 2023

[David Wiens]

I would just like to say that there are vulnerabilities. Because of the mechanization and the technology that's being used, there is a possibility that there could be outside interference, which obviously is a huge concern.

I think what we have to be looking at here is legislation that makes your actions as important as the results, so instead of trying to determine the intent, that there's something there that can.... Some of these actions are damaging, and for us to simply say that you have to prove intent makes it very difficult. I think that just the fact that people are trying undermine the health and safety of animals and farmers should be considered in this legislation.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

I want to go back to Humane Canada and ask a very specific question.

We've talked about policy regulations and trying to improve. That's why we're here. I think the bill is a good bill and I think the intent of the bill is good. We're all here discussing it. There are going to be improvements, obviously, on both sides.

I want to touch on the gentleman from Abbotsford, Ray Binnendyk. I want to ask this of Humane Canada: Was he treated fairly?

[Dr. Toolika Rastogi]

It's an interesting question. Thank you.

I have not had the pleasure of getting to know the family and Mr. Binnendyk and the situation. I am not involved in the case. It is not something that I can—

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Pardon me. All I'm asking is....

We've heard what his family has gone through, and the potential for that happening to another family. We're here as legislators to put policy and regulations in place, and that's what we're trying to do.

We want to be on the same page. Was it fair the way his family was treated? We don't know the case, but from what we're hearing, I'm sure we could read it and Google it.

I just want to know if you would support something like that.

[Dr. Toolika Rastogi]

Absolutely not. Humane Canada does not support trespassing. We are completely empathetic to the horrendous impacts on mental health. However, there are other ways to address the concerns about what's happening on farms than to further reduce transparency.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Doctor. We appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald, for your questions.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses with us today, especially Mr. Binnendyk, who may be finding it more difficult to be here than the others. The committee members are grateful for everyone's contribution.

I'm going to go to Ms. Rastogi or Ms. Martellani. I don't know who will answer my question.

Ms. Martellani, in your opening remarks, you said that you didn't in any way condone trespassing, but that this bill would hamper investigations by removing your only tool. I'm using your words. In the same sentence, you said that you don't condone trespassing, but basically, this bill deals specifically with that. I see a contradiction there.

Could you explain your position to me clearly? Ms. Rastogi, you just mentioned that there are other ways. What are they? I put this question to the previous panel.

Let's suppose someone from outside who doesn't have access to the farm suspects that abuse is happening. Is there a way to report it? The CFIA told us there is. I'd like to hear what you have to say about this and the contradiction.

Thank you.

[Erin Martellani]

I'll take this one.

Currently, there is no adequate mechanism in place to report abuse on farms. Contrary to what was incorrectly stated earlier, reporting isn't mandatory. Employees and farmers are not required under the Health of Animals Act to report all forms of abuse. However, it's true that people who work on the farm could still report things. That said, it's probably not in their interest to do so.

A farmer will be less likely to blow the whistle on himself or his family. It would be understandable that an employee with a less advantaged status or an immigrant employee would be reluctant to file a complaint and put their job at risk.

The same is true for veterinarians or suppliers who go on site regularly. They have a financial interest in maintaining a good business relationship with the farm. So—

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

Thank you. I apologize for interrupting, but my time is limited.

We've been told that we can go to the police force or, in the case of Quebec, the Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec, MAPAQ.

Don't you think that might be enough? You say you don't encourage intrusions, but you don't want us to touch this tool, because it's the only one you have. That's what I'm questioning.

[Erin Martellani]

Certainly MAPAQ could follow up on a report, but they don't do proactive visits. Someone on the premises would have to see the facts and report it to MAPAQ.

As I mentioned, access to the premises is restricted, with the result that people find ways, illegal or legal, to gain access so they can make a report.

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

In my opinion, there will be a visit if there is a report. We could discuss this for a long time.

Mr. Binnendyk, I'd like you to quickly tell us how you feel about this from a mental health perspective. You said it took you a few years to get over it. Now you're better, but it still has serious consequences.

Do you think that, if there had been a report to the ministry in your province, inspectors could have come to your company to carry out an inspection within regulatory standards, perhaps allowing the public to be reassured?

[Ray Binnendyk]

Yes, standards were followed at our place. We had the SPCA come in right after this whole incident started in 2019. Everything was good. None of that, of course, made it to any kind of press or news.

As for the way it affected us as a family, yes, for a number of years it was basically like you were always being watched. We used to be proud to be hog producers. Now we don't tell anyone. The perception that people have about us has all been spread by lies and stuff that are not true. It takes the fun out of what you do.

There aren't many farmers left, especially in B.C. There used to be 300 producers in the nineties. I do believe there are now four or five producers left. It's a dwindling farming industry, for sure.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Roy, as president of your association, could you tell us about your members' mental health in general?

[René Roy]

I'd like to start by saying that the whole farm intrusion issue leads to misinformation because it's not verified. One side does its advertising, often for pecuniary interests.

I'd like to mention that, very often, there's a company behind this kind of action.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Roy.

Your time is up.

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Mr. MacGregor, you have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks again to all our witnesses.

I'd like to start with Humane Canada. I was listening to the opening remarks, and I believe the word “detrimental” was used. It was that if we adopt this bill, it will be detrimental to the efforts that your organization is involved with. In terms of Bill C-275, in the previous Parliament we had Bill C-205. I think you've seen how this committee amended that bill and reported it back to the House, and there have been a lot of concerns over whether this bill is intruding on the provincial jurisdiction over trespass law.

Do you feel that the way in which the committee amended the previous bill would be enough to save this bill, or do you believe that Bill C-275 just cannot be amended appropriately? We're seeking guidance here.

[Dr. Toolika Rastogi]

Thank you for the question.

From our perspective, the bill is not an appropriate way to address the issues of concern. Biosecurity measures or the amendment you're speaking about, through which the bill would apply to not only those without lawful authority but also to those who do have an excuse to be on the farm, might be an improvement, because as we heard in the previous panel, the biosecurity risks are typically greatest from activities and practices on the farm as opposed to those coming from the outside.

However, the bigger question really is about addressing trespassing and addressing concern about protest activities. This could be alleviated perhaps through public government proactive inspection, a public oversight mechanism that doesn't rely on industry managing their own oversight but that actually has public reporting and accountability to citizens.

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

Thank you for that.

Mr. Roy, I'd like to turn to you. This committee is in receipt of a letter from infectious disease experts, all doctors in their fields. Let me quote a section from their letter: “However, as it is currently written, Bill C-275 does not address these existing biosecurity and zoonotic infectious disease risks. Rather, it would serve as an anti-trespass law that exempts animal agriculture businesses and employees and targets undercover reporters, whistle-blowers, and activists seeking to document conditions on farms.”

I have visited farms. I've followed biosecurity measures. In a previous life, I was a tree planter. I've visited ranches where I've had to hose down my boots. We had to hose down the wheels on our trucks because there was a risk of foot-and-mouth disease at the time. I've visited chicken farms where I've had to not be in contact with poultry for an entire two weeks before the visit. I've had to put on special booties. I understand the protocols that are in place.

I find that during the testimony on this bill, people use words like “preventing intrusion” and “preventing trespass”. In light of the quote I gave you, my question to you is this: How do we as a federal Parliament ensure that through this bill we are not intruding on provincial jurisdiction over trespass law? We simply cannot legislate on property rights. That is the domain of the provinces. In your view, how do we make this bill simply about biosecurity and not trespass?

[René Roy]

Mr. Chair, I will be relatively short on this one.

Animal health is under federal jurisdiction. We know—it has been demonstrated in a number of the testimonies—that humans are disease vectors for animals. There is a direct link between trespassers and animal health, so there is a possibility with this bill to protect our animal health in Canada.

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

Mr. Roy, we have infectious disease experts writing to our committee and telling us that Bill C-275 in its current form does not address existing biosecurity disease risks. From the industry point of view, how do you respond to experts who are asking our committee to amend this bill or not pass it in its current form? I just want your response to experts in the field.

[René Roy]

Well, we have various experts in the field who are saying that humans are disease vectors. Those who are not saying that are not addressing the point. I would like to see the science behind it, because with everything on our farm, it's clear that humans are disease vectors. If we don't control the risk of trespassers, there's an increased likelihood of having additional disease on our farms.

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

As a final question, why are existing provincial trespass laws not adequate?

[René Roy]

Well, I think we have somebody who is testifying about what is happening right now in B.C.

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

Shouldn't we be taking that up with the provincial legislatures, though, if the laws are not adequate? I'm just trying to figure this out.

[René Roy]

We have the ability with this bill to be proactive and—I think this is important—to protect not only animal health but also human health, because there are risks also for human health. When we have disease, it can mean an additional threat to human health, so I think there is a role at the federal level.