---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, May 30, 2024

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms); and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).

Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards you’ll find on the table in front of you, regarding preventing audio feedback incidents.

Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our esteemed interpreters.

If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones.

Use only the approved black earpieces.

Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times, and when you’re not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker in front of you on your desk.

Thank you very much for your cooperation with this.

I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses and those watching this meeting on the web. My name is Rob Black, senator from Ontario, and I’m the chair of this committee.

Before we hear from the witnesses, I would like to ask senators around the table to introduce themselves.

Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, senator from Ontario.

Senator Robinson: Mary Robinson, senator from Prince Edward Island.

Senator McNair: Welcome. John McNair from New Brunswick.

Senator Burey: Good morning. Sharon Burey from Ontario.

Senator Pate: Good morning and welcome. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg. I’m Kim Pate.

Senator Jaffer: Welcome. My name is Mobina Jaffer. I’m from British Columbia.

Senator Oh: Good morning. Victor Oh, Ontario.

Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory, home of the future Stanley Cup winners the Edmonton Oilers.

The Chair: Today, the committee is beginning its examination of Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms). We welcome our witness, Mr. John Barlow, Member of Parliament for Foothills and sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Barlow, you have five minutes for your presentation.

With that, Mr. Barlow, the floor is yours.

John Barlow, Member of Parliament for Foothills —sponsor of the bill, as an individual: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the senators for having me here today. It’s an honour and a privilege to speak to my private member’s bill, Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

The impetus of this bill was focused on an incident that happened in my riding in 2019 and subsequently happened in many other parts of the country in the years since then. We really wanted to take a look at a way to address what was becoming a more considerable issue. Certainly, it was an issue that I felt had some potentially dire consequences that a lot of people, when they were doing these activities, perhaps didn’t understand.

What we tried to do with this legislation was form a bill that would make it an offence to enter without lawful authority or excuse a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in the animals being exposed to a disease or toxic substance capable of affecting or contaminating those animals. It also proposes to increase the fines in place through the Health of Animals Act to also to discourage groups organizing those types of activities.

I feel a need to stress this and make this point perfectly clear. This is not an “ag-gag” law. This does not in any way stop people in the public from protesting on public property. What this does is put a line in the sand where you cannot cross onto private property where very strict biosecurity protocols are in place. By all means, you are more than welcome to protest on public property, but you cannot go onto private property without understanding the biosecurity protocols.

Also, this bill does not ban whistle-blowers in any way. In fact, as many of you would know, the farmers and their employees are morally and legally obligated to report any misappropriation or activities that put the health of their animals and livestock at risk. In no way does this bill stop whistle-blowers from taking steps to ensure the health of animals is always a priority.

There have been a number of examples over the last several years of this unlawful behaviour. Certainly, we heard about them during debate in the House, when members of every party rose, spoke and discussed issues that have happened in or close to their ridings that have impacted their farmers. As I said, this really became important to me as a result of an incident in Fort Macleod, Alberta, where the Tschetter family has a free-range turkey farm. They aren’t in enclosures or cages as one might see in other parts of the world. Mark Tschetter woke up, phoned me in the morning and said, “I have 40 protesters in one of my barns, trying to take my turkeys.” If you had heard the emotion and stress in Mark’s voice, you would know that he was extremely upset, extremely distraught and didn’t know what to do. Ironically, it wasn’t Mark who phoned the RCMP. It was the protesters themselves. They phoned the police, wanting to make sure they were safe.

The real impetus of this was that these same protesters were on a hog farm in Abbotsford, B.C., the week before. They were not following biosecurity protocols. They could easily have been carrying a disease from one farm to another. We have had a number of these incidents in Canada as well as a recent one in the United States.

Opponents of this bill will say there is no proof they are spreading diseases. First, that sort of misses the point of this. Second, that is completely incorrect. We had an incident in Quebec, where a rotavirus appeared for the first time in 40 years, and another in Ontario on a mink farm. Most recently, we had two incidents in the United States where the California government has now said that it appears protesters on two farms spread avian influenza, or AI, and it resulted in the deaths of 250,000 birds.

Therefore, we do know this is happening, and we want to take steps to ensure this does not happen here in Canada. We see African swine fever, avian flu and foot and mouth disease, or FMD, and we certainly see what’s happening now with H5N1 and dairy cattle. We must take every step we possibly can to ensure that our livestock, food supply and food security are protected. This is just one tool for us to take those appropriate steps to ensure our food supply and food chain are protected. I believe that amending the Health of Animals Act is our best and most efficient way of doing that.

Finally, since we tabled this bill, a few provinces have followed through with something similar — but not all of them, so it’s important that we have a national focus and legislation that will address this. That is what we’re hoping to achieve with Bill C-275.

Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate your words.

We’ll move to questions. We will ask Senator Simons, as deputy chair, to start. You have five minutes in total.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Mr. Barlow, for being with us. Especially now that avian influenza has jumped the species barrier, I am very concerned about biosecurity. I met with chicken farmers this week to discuss some of their concerns. But as a former journalist, I am also concerned about freedom of speech, access to information and the capacity of people to report on matters of public interest.

I have a few questions to start off with. Why aren’t our current laws against criminal trespass sufficient? Why do you feel we need something beyond that?

Mr. Barlow: Thank you for the question. We took a few different approaches with this. We were looking at the best way to do it. Certainly, we were asked, “Why didn’t you look at the Criminal Code?” That would have been a lot more difficult, in my opinion, so that’s why we looked at the Health of Animals Act and existing fines that were there. Senator, I believe existing trespassing laws aren’t sufficient because they are not harsh enough. Last year, in the United States, these groups raised more than $80 million from videos and so on that they are posting online. So, if we don’t have fines that are sufficient to pose a deterrent, there is really no financial hammer to stop this.

Senator Simons: There is a phrase in clause 9.1 that defines a person who violates this rule as someone who does things that “. . . could reasonably be expected to result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance . . .”

So what is the test for “reasonably expected” — if somebody enters with malice, intending to introduce a toxic substance, or knowingly goes from a farm that’s infected with an infectious disease to another? Would most protesters be “reasonably expected” to know that they could be putting animals at risk if they haven’t come from another farm — if they’ve just come from their home?

Mr. Barlow: Yes. Again, I don’t believe that protesters are purposefully trying to carry a disease from one farm to the next. It’s a matter of them not knowing. But not knowing the consequences or potential consequences of your actions isn’t an excuse in this case when — as you said — with the avian flu outbreak we had in Canada over the last few years, millions of birds have had to be culled. There are also the financial and mental health implications for these farmers. Senator, you said you visited some farms. If you talk to these farmers who have been asked to cull an entire barn of 150,000 birds, that takes a toll on their mental health, not to mention their financial health. So, I don’t think having the excuse of not knowing the rules should be sufficient.

Senator Simons: It’s not a question of not knowing the rules; it’s a question of not knowing the risk. The wording of the legislation is “. . . could reasonably be expected to result in the exposure of animals to a disease . . .” I can think of all kinds of circumstances in which you could imagine somebody coming in. The question at the heart of this is this: Is this a law that uses legitimate concerns about animal health as a way to keep out all protesters, whether they are actually a risk to the animals or not?

Mr. Barlow: No, I don’t think so. The idea is to ensure that if there are reasons for a person to come on a farm — if you are bringing in feed or are a delivery person — you still have to go through the same biosecurity protocols as anyone else. I’ve been through it many times, as I’m sure some of the senators here have. Any time I go visit a farm, I’m wearing booties — and a haz-mat suit in some cases — and washing my shoes and hands multiple times. Everyone has to go through these protocols, and protesters are circumnavigating those steps. That’s why we need to highlight that.

Senator Simons: Presumably then, this law could be applied to somebody — a contractor, somebody making a delivery — who is going from farm to farm, who would actually be a much greater risk factor if they don’t follow the farm security protocols. They could be prosecuted under this as well.

Mr. Barlow: Potentially —

Senator Simons: Not just potentially, but presumably they would be a source of greater risk of infection.

Mr. Barlow: If they’re not following the biosecurity rules, yes.

Senator Simons: Thank you.

Senator Oh: Thank you, John, for joining us. When we come back from overseas, we fill out the entrance form, which asks, “Have you been to a farm in the last seven days?” Canada takes this issue very seriously. Who are the motivators, that is to say, the people behind these protests in which people go to anybody’s farm without adhering to the proper security protocols? Do you ever investigate why these people are coming? When I was on the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, people barred us from building the pipelines to Vancouver, and we found out there was someone supporting these protesters for some special interest. Could you tell us about your own investigation?

Mr. Barlow: Yes, I can table a list of some of the organizations that we investigated in developing this. They are doing this for a few reasons. If you read the literature that these groups have put out, one of their main goals is to eliminate animal agriculture. They do not support animals being used for food. The second is fundraising. We weren’t able to find statistics for Canada, but as I mentioned, the statistics for the United States indicate that last year these groups raised about $80 million from these types of protests.

Senator, they go on farms or to fairs, make videos, put them online — on Twitter and Facebook — and fundraise. That’s what’s going on.

Senator Oh: This is very important. This is not in the best interest of Canadian farmers. This is another form of foreign interference.

Mr. Barlow: Certainly, most of these groups are American-based. This is not in the best interest of Canadian farmers. We have the unanimous support of every agriculture group in Canada for this type of legislation. Again, it’s the financial implications, but also the mental health of our farmers, the vast majority of whom are doing everything they possibly can: following all the rules and taking excellent care of their animals.

They feel targeted and attacked. After this incident in Fort Macleod — as I mentioned — in my own riding, I had dozens of calls from constituents saying, “Is this open season on farmers?” Out of the 40 people, 2 were arrested and given a $200 trespassing fine — to Senator Simons’ point — and that’s not a deterrent.

Senator Oh: What is your suggestion to our committee? What is the best thing we can do to help our farmers?

Mr. Barlow: Passing Bill C-275 also sends a message to our farmers that we have their backs and understand that this type of activity can’t be tolerated in Canada. There is too much at risk in terms of animal diseases that have very serious consequences. As well, this bill — unlike others — also targets those groups that are organizing these types of activities with a substantial fine. That wasn’t previously in the Health of Animals Act. That sends a strong message that those organizations responsible for these activities will also be held responsible.

Senator Oh: Thank you.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much for being here, and thank you for this bill. I had the same questions as Senator Simons. I’ll come back to that in the second round. In all transparency, I’m an egg farmer and just lost a whole farm with avian flu. Culling those chickens just about killed us. We’ve still not recovered. I know what you are saying. But we are told by the egg marketing boards that we have to let people like the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA, on our farm. They come there lawfully, and we know why they come. I’m talking from a farmer’s point of view. I’m concerned about what’s lawful and who is on the farm lawfully. Can you describe what you mean by somebody being lawfully on the farm?

Mr. Barlow: Someone lawfully on the farm is someone that farmer has invited or allowed to come onto their farm. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, for example, would be coming to do an inspection. Somebody you invited who is bringing you feed and fuel or an employee would be lawfully on your property. But when you wake up at seven o’clock in the morning and find 40 unwelcome guests in one of your barns, that is not lawful.

Senator Jaffer: I’m belabouring this point, but when you’re told by your own egg marketing board that you must let the SPCA and people like that in, it confuses farmers. We don’t think they’re lawful, but who are we to say that? I have that challenge along with the one that Senator Simons said regarding trespassing. I’m still not convinced that trespassing laws do not cover this. The authorities don’t really follow it, which means we need to look at enforcing it.

When I saw this bill, I felt at least someone is listening to us farmers. As a legislator, it’s hard for me to say, “Someone is listening to us farmers,” but I wear two hats. As much as it helps our mental state to see a bill like this, I’m not so sure that trespassing laws do not cover it.

Can you explain again why the trespassing laws in the Criminal Code don’t cover this situation?

Mr. Barlow: Well, I think there are two reasons — and, again, I can’t reiterate this enough: The fines for the trespassing laws that are in place aren’t big enough. We could have looked at amending the Criminal Code to increase those fines, but the process would be much more difficult and lengthy. This was another option for us because the Health of Animals Act is already in place — the fines are already in place. All we’re doing is increasing those fines.

In many cases, no one’s charged at all or, as in the case with my riding, there was a $250 fine, I believe. That doesn’t send a strong message to trespassers that this is not an appropriate activity. There must be some teeth to this. That’s why we put the fines where we did. Actually, we lowered the proposed fines at the House Agriculture Committee. My colleagues felt they were too high, so we came to a compromise and thought this would be fitting. If we have a strong financial deterrent to these groups, will it stop it completely? I’m not convinced of that. However, I do believe this sends a strong message.

Senator McBean: I have a lot of questions. A virology researcher from the University Health Network in Toronto recently said that the risk of transmission of a virus to farm animals via trespassers’ clothing or bodies is low because the viruses don’t survive long enough in the gut of a tick. He said the likelier scenario instead involves infected pigs being introduced from other farms carrying the virus via ticks and transmitting the disease to the new facility. He also said that the risk of trespassers transmitting the influenza virus to farm animals is markedly low and the historical evidence and ongoing observations — such as the recent outbreak in British Columbia — suggest that migratory birds are serving as the primary transmitter to farm poultry.

This is in line with Senator Simons and Senator Jaffer, but why does this bill only target the people “. . . without lawful authority or excuse . . .” entering the buildings when experts say it’s more likely that farm workers, people you lawfully invite or birds will transmit a virus to the animals? You’re just targeting a group that has a low chance of being the transmitter.

Mr. Barlow: Thank you for that question, senator. It may be low, but it’s not impossible. We have a number of incidents showing that to be true. In Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, for example, they had the rotavirus for the first time in 40 years. There was distemper at a farm in Ontario. The most recent example was the one in California, where the California Department of Food and Agriculture recently reported an outbreak of avian influenza at two farms. According to the report, animal activists were caught on video trespassing on two farms within eight days, leading to decreased egg production, which was a sign of the birds being infected. Upon further investigation, it was found that these activists were posting on social media that they were at these two farms, which resulted in 250,000 birds being euthanized.

Those are three known incidents where this has happened and can be directly attributed to trespassers. I don’t want us to say that this could never happen. Is it a regular occurrence? No. But it does happen and there are consequences. The most recent consequence that we know of was the loss of 250,000 birds. As Senator Jaffer said, they had to cull an entire barn. That’s what happens when you have an outbreak on your farm, as well as a lockdown on the farms around you. It’s not just your farm that is impacted but the other farms around you.

We could have expanded this. We certainly talked about this at the House Agriculture Committee, but the committee found that the current wording was appropriate and we left it that way. There are already rules and regulations in place to ensure those people who are lawfully on farms in the Health of Animals Act are following those biosecurity rules. We could have expanded it. As I said, we discussed it and left the wording as is.

Senator McBean: I want to go back to Senator Jaffer’s point about the trespassers and why trespassing laws aren’t enough. You say it’s because they’re not harsh enough. However, according to a media report, two animal rights protesters who trespassed on a hog farm in Abbotsford, B.C., in 2019 were convicted of mischief as well as breaking and entering and sentenced to 30 days in prison and one year of probation. Is a sentence like that proportionate to the offence that they committed or was it not harsh enough?

Mr. Barlow: I think that was a good step by the RCMP in B.C. or the Abbotsford police, but those are extremely rare. As I said when we tabled this bill, a few provinces, namely, Alberta, Ontario, B.C. and maybe P.E.I. — Senator Robinson can correct me on that if not — have followed through with similar legislation to put stronger deterrents in place, but not every province has done so. Our feeling was to have a national view on this. That’s our role. If provinces follow through, that’s great.

Senator McBean: Thank you.

Senator Burey: Thank you so much for being here. I come from the medical field. I was on the front lines of COVID-19 — the public health concerns, the need of infection control and public health measures. I ended up on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, and it seems I’m only getting pediatrics and health issues. A senator asked, “Why would you want to be on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee?” Now we know why. Somehow, I got here.

This brings me to the larger issue of educating the public about the risk of pathogens, whether be it on farms or in the regular public sphere. I hear a lot about trespassing, but I see biosecurity on farms is the thing.

I have now read about it through the CBC and know about the H5N1 avian flu that’s travelling through the cattle industry across the U.S. and damaging the dairy industry there. There are concerns that this could become a pandemic virus, but we don’t have any evidence about that. You noted that biosecurity measures are happening on farms such as further testing, because this is the whole issue of surveillance. This is a biosecurity bill. Should there be further testing of the milk supply and of animals who are not yet showing infection? If we are talking about biosecurity, as some senators have said, it’s for the workers, et cetera. Should there be more testing? Will that open this up now for farmers? Farmers like this bill, but is this bill opening the door for further testing?

Mr. Barlow: Thank you, senator. I appreciate your experience. You raise a good point comparing this a bit to what we went through with COVID. I don’t believe we were well prepared for COVID. I think that bore out with PPE, securing vaccines and those types of things. I don’t want us to go through a similar “would have, should have, could have” with an animal‑borne virus as well.

For example, if we have African swine fever, which is an inevitability — it is heading our way and to say we won’t get it is probably very naive — that would be catastrophic to our $45‑billion pork industry in Canada. We have seen the impact it has had on China and now the Dominican Republic. We know it’s getting closer.

We must take steps proactively to ensure that we do everything we can to protect our industries. To your point, testing happens on a regular basis. As Senator Jaffer said, she’s had groups on her farm. The SPCA is not there testing, but CFIA does come to test. They will be testing dairy cattle coming into Canada now, especially lactating dairy cattle, and those things are important.

We must start looking at these things as proactively as we can. They are going to happen. Certainly with avian flu, as Senator McBean said, migrating birds are the main culprit. There is not much we can do about keeping the Canada geese south of the border. They are going to come here, so we need to be testing as aggressively as possible. I believe that is happening; it is an important step.

Senator Burey: Thank you.

Senator Pate: Thank you for being here. My question relates to a concern that has been raised with us, which is the potential for this bill to negatively impact the treaty rights of Indigenous peoples. I would like to know if you’ve had consultation with Indigenous groups. If so, which ones, and what has been their response to this bill?

Mr. Barlow: Thank you, Senator Pate. That is not a concern that has been raised with me previously. I did speak with some of the First Nations communities in my riding, but that was never a concern. Maybe I could ask you what their concerns are in terms of accessing treaty land. We are not talking about grazing leases here at all, but, no, that’s not a concern that was raised with me in my discussions.

Senator Pate: You’re talking about people coming onto property “. . . without lawful authority or excuse . . .” I’m curious, in terms of the biosecurity of farms and as others have raised, whether it should apply to everybody, including owners, operators, contractors and employees. There are many examples of people who come to farms lawfully every day. It sounds as if they wouldn’t be subject to the same rigour. I’m curious why that is. Wouldn’t that be a more effective way to address the biosecurity risks?

Mr. Barlow: I appreciate the committee trying to hammer this down, but the only way I can answer that is to say that those who are coming onto farms lawfully — and some of you here are farmers — are well aware of the biosecurity protocols. You don’t have the Amazon driver coming out to your farm — they don’t usually do that — and not knowing what rules are in place. Any delivery driver or anyone who has access to lawfully come onto your farm knows the process they have to go through.

We’re focusing on the protesters because while some do understand that there are biosecurity rules in place, in most cases, they don’t. They don’t understand what steps they have to take: as I said, washing boots, wearing booties, wearing hazmat suits, depending on what kind of operation you’re going to.

To Senator Burey’s point, this really is an education effort as well, in that you cannot just come onto or visit a farm without following very strict rules and steps.

Certainly in B.C., when the avian flu outbreak happened, we wanted to go talk to farmers, and they said, “No. We are not having anyone come anywhere near our farm, no matter what your end goal is.” We just wanted to ask, “Is there anything we can do? Is CFIA meeting their responsibilities?” And they said, “We are not having anyone come onto our farm right now.”

These are steps that must be taken, and 95% of those people who are lawfully farms know what they are supposed to be doing.

Senator Pate: Is the Saint-Hyacinthe pig farm incident the one in Quebec you’re talking about?

Mr. Barlow: Yes.

Senator Pate: My understanding is that at that hog farm in Quebec, it was alleged that trespassing brought in the disease, but there was actually no evidence of it. In fact, the court ruled it wasn’t even a point in the Crown’s case, and at trial, the judge rejected the testimony from the farm owner that this could have occurred. I’m curious why that’s being used as an example.

Mr. Barlow: We spoke to the farmer and some of the other Quebec farm groups, and they have a different opinion. I believe we cannot just rule it out as a possibility. They say they cannot prove it didn’t happen; they cannot prove it did happen. We have to look at every single incident that could potentially have caused this. For rotavirus to not be in that area for 40 years, and then return now — it’s more than a coincidence.

Senator Pate: We all are reliant on what farmers produce. We want it to be safe. Why wouldn’t we just take the next step and ensure this kind of law would apply to everybody?

Mr. Barlow: As I said, we did look at that at the House Agriculture Committee. We felt we wanted to keep this. Mr. Alistair MacGregor from the NDP was the lone individual wanting to expand it to everyone.

We wanted to be as specific as we could on this because we felt that rules and regulations are in place, and those who are lawfully on farms know the rules. This is more to focus on people we don’t believe are aware of the rules and consequences.

Senator Pate: Thank you.

Senator McNair: Thank you, Mr. Barlow, for being here.

I will continue on the line of questioning that you’ve gotten from Senator Jaffer, Senator Simons, Senator McBean and Senator Pate on the “lawful authority” issue.

It’s my understanding that in the Forty-third Parliament, the Agriculture and Agri-food Committee amended Bill C-205 so that it would apply to any individual entering an animal enclosure, regardless of whether they had lawful authority or an excuse to be there.

I’m curious why you chose to use the unamended language in Bill C-275 and how you would respond to another such amendment during this round of committee consideration.

Mr. Barlow: Thank you. We went back to the original wording after discussions with my colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee as to whether they would be okay passing this as is. Obviously, they were.

I will be clear here. The only groups that are asking for that amendment are the animal activist groups. They are the ones who want that change. No farm group or other association is asking for that amendment. The amendment request is only coming from the animal activists — the ones we are trying to target with this legislation to ensure they understand the consequences and to protect our farmers.

I don’t understand why they are so adamant about wanting that change, but frankly, that’s not the group I am listening to on this. I am listening to our farmers, ranchers and veterinarians — the groups that unanimously support this legislation as is. I believe we have to show some leadership here and show them that we are going to take this type of activity seriously, and there must be consequences.

Frankly, senator, I’ll answer this a different way. As I said, the only groups that want that amendment are the animal activist groups.

Senator McNair: My second question is with respect to the fact that most of the discussion around your bill has centred on farms, but the language in it indicates that it would apply to any “. . . building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept . . .” From your perspective, does this mean the bill also applies to other animal enclosures that have been the target of animal welfare protests, such as slaughterhouses, rodeos, zoos, et cetera?

Mr. Barlow: Yes, it will be in effect in those places as well, as well as livestock trucks.

Senator McNair: Thank you.

The Chair: Does that also include fairs, Mr. Barlow?

Mr. Barlow: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Robinson: Thank you for being here, Mr. Barlow.

I come from a cropping background, and I look at a lot of this and certainly feel the vulnerability and exposure that producers face. You’re well versed in some of the issues we face in cropping in Canada with soil-borne, phytosanitary, quarantinable risks, and what it means for someone to innocently walk across one field into another because there are some beautiful sunflowers or something they want to have a look at.

Looking at your bill to amend the Health of Animals Act, I can’t help but think we need to help farmers, because I know what it means for a small farmer, someone with very few resources and very little time to address people who are on their property, to feel safe. I appreciate your comments about how this is trying to get to the heart of a very large, well-funded, organized machine coming from outside of Canada.

I also appreciated your opening comments about how it’s not to put an “ag-gag” in place, but rather meant to address people who are on private lands. You also spoke a bit about the mental health implications for people who have had their private places of business violated and how that stretches and creates concerns on biosecurity.

To build on Senator Jaffer’s point about how her family had to destroy a barn of chickens, I’m wondering if you could speak a little bit to the health and business implications for producers who do have to destroy crops or herds because of biosecurity issues. In particular, I’m thinking not just of the mental health implications, but how those farmers might be exposed to a perception that they are not a reliable supplier for their marketplace and what that can mean with respect to stresses on how they do their business. Have you had much discussion around that with producers?

Mr. Barlow: Yes, thank you, senator.

Certainly, we have. I will share a more personal experience as well. Although this isn’t related to this current bill, we had bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in Alberta — well, Canada, but it was certainly more acute in Alberta 20 years ago.

We lost 30% of our ranches in Alberta at that time, and we still have not recovered. The cattle numbers are not near back to where they were then.

I had a number of friends who lost their ranches and have never financially recovered. There are very real financial consequences to these incidents when they occur. As Senator Jaffer said, when you have to — I don’t know if I can explain this in a better way than this, but to have the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, come onto your farm and say, “You need to euthanize or cull 350,000 birds,” would be like your vet coming into your house and saying, “I need you to put your dog down, but you’re going to do that 350,000 times.”

That takes a toll on a farmer. I’ve seen it in their faces on the ranches. When we had a tuberculosis, or TB, outbreak a few years ago, it was similar. It’s not just financial. This takes a very deep toll on these farmers — and, unfortunately, it happens when they have done everything right. That makes it that much more heartbreaking. They have done everything right to protect their animals; however, some things are just outside of their control.

In terms of these groups, I need to correct myself. I think I said they raised $80 million. They raised $800 million in the United States last year. And just in Canada, there were 95 vandalism incidents, 70 incidents of stolen animals and 60 criminal trespasses. Cyberattacks are now up to 16. There were 13 cases of product tampering, 10 cases of arson and a number of harassment and intimidation incidents. These things are happening, and I firmly believe that this is a tool for us to try to address that.

Senator Robinson: I don’t have time to, but I want to ask my question, which is this: When we talk about trade partners, people that are coming onto property — such as feed suppliers, veterinarians and so on — I understand that these people would have a contractual arrangement with farmers. They would have some legal repercussions and would know who they are if they had to pursue any concerns about what they might have brought onto a farm.

Mr. Barlow: Correct.

Senator Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: I have a question, Mr. Barlow. One of our discussions during the steering committee meetings that we’ve had with respect to the work plan for this bill was around ensuring that we balance the perspectives that we hear in the form of witnesses, both in favour and against the bill.

From the opposing side, who did you hear from, and who might you suggest we hear from?

Mr. Barlow: The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA, certainly was one, but let me get back to you on that. I will have to go through the witness list that we had, but I can definitely supply that for you.

The Chair: Please do. Anything that you choose to send us can go through the clerk.

Mr. Barlow: Absolutely. I’m happy to do that.

Senator, I think it’s very important to hear both sides of the story, as we certainly did at the House of Commons. I’m sure you’ll get different perspectives and weigh them as well as you can, as we certainly did.

The Chair: Thank you.

We want to finish about 9:50 a.m. Senator Pate, did you want to add your name to the second round?

Senator Pate: No, it was just a short supplementary.

The Chair: Please.

Senator Pate: The statistics you just read out with respect to charges, could you provide that information and the source documents to the committee as well?

Mr. Barlow: I sure can.

The Chair: Thank you. We have four senators who wish to ask questions, and we want to wrap up in less than 10 minutes. If you could keep your questions short and succinct, we will give you three minutes each — and that will still be too long.

Senator Simons: Mr. Barlow, just to be clear, has there ever been a case of avian influenza being spread by protesters in Canada?

Mr. Barlow: In Canada, not that I’m aware of.

Senator Simons: In the rotavirus case, which Senator Pate pointed out, the facts are murky. You said the other one was diphtheria —

Mr. Barlow: Distemper.

Senator Simons: Distemper. What is the evidence that was caused by an invasion of protesters?

Mr. Barlow: It was a mink farm in Ontario. It led to the euthanizing of the minks on the farm.

Senator Simons: How do you know that it was brought in by protesters?

Mr. Barlow: I’ll send you the report on it. This was several years ago, and it was not my personal experience.

Senator Simons: Because it seems to me that you have a goal, which is to stop these protesters from trespassing. But we’re cloaking it or sort of giving it the cover of very legitimate concerns about animal health. If I were you, I would be positioning my bill not as an attack on protesters but as an effort to prevent the spread of disease. I feel that all this talk about how much protesters are raising and foreign influence is getting us away from a serious and important discussion about animal health, the prevention of the next zoonotic virus and so on.

I don’t understand — to come back to Senator McNair’s point — why we wouldn’t want the law to be as effective as possible in protecting the health of our livestock and of Canadians. What would be the objection to adding back the language that broadens the scope of who is encompassed in the bill?

Mr. Barlow: Thank you for the question.

Certainly, our focus with this is to highlight the biosecurity risks that are there and the importance of mitigating those biosecurity risks. I don’t want to lose that message, and I appreciate your question, Senator Simons.

We amended this previously, but again, the committee decided to go back to the original language because we felt that the focus should be on those who are not following or are unaware of the rules that are in place. Those who are lawfully on farms are legally obligated — as I said in my opening — to follow those biosecurity rules, whether that’s farmers, their employees or their contractors. Those trespassers or others who may unknowingly be putting animals at risk are not following those rules.

Senator Simons: But if they are unknowingly putting animals at risk — I must come back to the language, which says that they have to reasonably know. If you are going from infected chicken farm to infected chicken farm, that’s one thing. If you are showing up at one pig farm or one mink farm, why would you have any expectation that you are going to bring a disease with you?

Mr. Barlow: They are not going to one farm. They are going to multiple farms. They are aware of what they are doing.

Senator Simons: Was there any evidence in the cases of either that rotavirus outbreak or the distemper with the minks that they had gone from one infected place to another and brought infection with them?

Mr. Barlow: The focus here isn’t that they are bringing infections. The focus is being proactive to ensure they do not bring infections. We do have the case in California — which I cited — where it was shown that these protesters went to multiple farms and spread avian flu. Therefore, we can’t say this is not going to happen.

Our focus with this is to be proactive and ensure this doesn’t happen. If people are going onto farms or around farms, they need to understand the rules that are in place. If they don’t follow those rules, there are going to be consequences because the financial implications — not to mention the potential implications for our food supply — are very real and not inconsequential.

That’s why we put this forward.

The Chair: Thank you. I gave some leeway to our deputy. I’m going to have to knock it down to two minutes for everyone else.

Senator Oh: John, are there any potential financial or operational impacts that this bill may have on cattle operation? Are there any support measures you suggest that might help farmers comply with the new requirements?

Mr. Barlow: No, there shouldn’t be any financial implications for cattle ranchers or any other farmers because they are already following the rules that are in place. This does not have any additional onus on the operator or producers themselves. This is more an increase of existing fines. I want to be clear that these are existing fines already in the Health of Animals Act. We are not asking for any new steps or tools. We are just increasing the tools that are in place to make them a stronger deterrent.

Senator Jaffer: Mr. Barlow, I really commend you for this bill. However, as a farmer, I must tell you that it’s really not the protesters who are coming onto our farms. There are other kinds of things, and if we are trying to get larger fines for protesters, then we need to educate the judges and the police instead of doing this. In my opinion, this doesn’t do anything.

Obviously, as a farmer, I would love this. However, I don’t think it has the effect that it should. If you’re saying the fines are not enough, I’m sure there could be higher fines in the Criminal Code. I don’t think this will be solved by giving higher fines.

I can tell you very quickly, chair —

The Chair: Is there a question?

Senator Jaffer: Yes, there is.

For many years, I worked to prevent violence against women. The only way we were able to get better protection for the women was to educate the judges on the effects. I believe it’s the same thing here. Don’t you believe it’s about educating judges rather than worrying about the fines they give?

Mr. Barlow: If I felt comfortable that they were following through on these, I would say yes. However, again, we felt this was an angle we could take. As I said, some provinces have rules and regulations around this, and others don’t. There’s no national regulation or trespassing law that works specifically for this, so that’s why we want to have a national scope and do something that would be Canada-wide.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you.

Senator McBean: I have two questions. The first question will be quick — you can answer at the end.

The first question is this: Is there a standardized system for signage on farm gates about biosecurity when people approach farms?

I support creating tools that lead to increased biosecurity on farms. I feel like this is like chasing down drug-free sport. I know it’s essential to food security and the farmers’ profitability, and I agree that — as you said — not knowing the rules or saying you don’t know the rules isn’t enough to skirt prosecution.

However, the whole thing seems a little bit like “no eyes on us” to me. Some have said that this bill would actually be bad for biosecurity and food security because it bans people without lawful authority or — as you said — these groups posting videos from farms and fairs. It bans people without lawful authority who reveal public health and safety risks regarding the industry. Many of these reveals have actually led to important food recalls and enforcement action.

How do you respond to that sort of criticism? Also, I would like an answer to the first part about the signage.

Mr. Barlow: Signage — thank you. I was trying to remember what the first one was.

That’s a good question. To my knowledge, there is not a standardized set of signage for farms. I can’t think of one off the top of my head that would be Canada-wide.

In terms of your second question, it is very important that we have these rules in place. Again, I go back to the fact that we’re talking about allowing people to trespass on farms as if it’s okay. We would never allow that in our homes. You wouldn’t allow a group to come into your house to say you’re mistreating your dog, cat or fish.

Senator McBean: But it’s a business. Think about Alberta, where the lack of inspection into daycares led to tragic illness and death among kids. It’s a business, and so I’m not inviting someone into your home. I’m inviting someone to inspect and observe a business.

Mr. Barlow: Your farm is your home, too. It isn’t as if I’m living somewhere else and then going to my business. That’s a great point, as well, considering the halal meat in Calgary — something that needs to be addressed.

However, these farmers live there. These are their homes. It is different, and we need to look at it a little bit differently. Again, I can’t stress enough that the farmer and his employees — including his family and his contractors — are legally obligated to report anything they see that is not following the rules that are in place. These trespassers or other folks coming there have nothing holding them to the same standard. This will try to do that.

The Chair: Mr. Barlow, thanks very much for your participation and your testimony today. Your insights have been very much appreciated. Just a heads-up — we may be calling you back.

Colleagues, I apologize that we had to cut it short, but we do have another panel of witnesses. Mr. Barlow, thank you for joining us. We look forward to chatting with you again.

Mr. Barlow: Thanks for having me, and thank you very much for the questions.

The Chair: Colleagues, for our second panel today, we welcome from the Canadian Cattle Association, or CCA, Matthew Atkinson, President, Manitoba Beef Producers; and Ryder Lee, General Manager. From the Canadian Meat Council, we welcome Ms. Lauren Martin, Senior Director, Government Relations and Policy.

Witnesses, each organization has five minutes for your presentations. With that, the floor is yours, Mr. Atkinson.

Matthew Atkinson, President, Manitoba Beef Producers, Canadian Cattle Association: Thank you very much for the opportunity for the Canadian Cattle Association to take part in your study on Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms).

I’m the co-chair of CCA’s Animal Health and Care Committee and President of Manitoba Beef Producers. Along with my family, I farm in Neepawa, Manitoba.

The CCA supports the intention of Bill C-275 to prevent exposure of animals to disease or toxic substances, which will work in tandem with the beef sector’s robust animal health and welfare standards.

The CCA represents 60,000 beef producers. The Canadian beef cattle industry is a significant driver of our economy and a global leader in sustainability.

The beef industry is Canada’s second largest single source of farm income, contributing $21.8 billion to GDP and supporting almost 350,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

A thriving beef industry generates considerable economic, environmental and social opportunities and benefits for Canada.

Trespassers on beef cattle farms, ranches and feedlots are a biosecurity hazard. The proposed amendments to Bill C-275 would provide a targeted intervention to this on-farm food safety and biosecurity risk by limiting the access of unauthorized entrants to animals and their feedstocks.

Let me be clear: Canadian beef producers are devoted to the highest standards of health and welfare for our animals, and biosecurity is part of those standards.

Simply put, biosecurity is about preventing the entry and spread of all diseases — both known and unknown. The emergence of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, or HPAI, in dairy cattle is a great example of an unknown. We don’t fully know yet how it spreads, so we need to be vigilant around all potential entry routes, including trespassers.

Biosecurity is about both planning and prevention. The actions we take daily are for prevention, but we can also be prepared through proactive planning to go to a very high level in the face of a known threat.

Producers have done a good job of identifying and putting processes in place to mitigate herd health risks, but the introduction of contaminants — either intentionally or through unauthorized access — presents uncontrolled risk.

It is important to note that while Bill C-275 enhances the safety and protection of cattle producers and Canada’s food production system, it also maintains and respects citizens’ rights to lawful and peaceful protest.

Canada’s beef producers recognize the importance of transparency and are passionate about openly sharing the story of our operations and how we care for our animals.

However, there is a critical distinction between visits offered to those willing to follow prescribed biosecurity measures and sanitation practices and trespassers who could intentionally or unintentionally endanger animal health, welfare and food safety.

The CCA believes Bill C-275 will bolster the Health of Animals Act by providing additional safeguards to mitigate livestock’s exposure to disease or toxic substances from trespassers.

The introduction of a foreign animal disease is a major threat to beef producers that would create devastating animal health and economic and trade consequences.

The most crushing example of this is foot and mouth disease. Any incursion of this highly contagious virus will result in international border closures for meat and animals and widespread depopulation of animals. A large-scale outbreak has been estimated to create $65 billion in losses. The FMD virus is rampant in many areas of the globe and is easily accessible to those who wish to harm our nation.

Bill C-275’s proposed amendments to the Health of Animals Act will help minimize the social, environmental and economic risks that animal disease places on Canada’s food supply.

With the COVID-19 pandemic as a recent example, we are all acutely aware of introduced pathogens’ ability to spread rapidly with devastating health and economic consequences.

In conclusion, the CCA supports Bill C-275 and believes that the proposed amendments will provide increased safety for producers, the cattle we raise and the food we produce.

The CCA appreciates the opportunity to speak here today, and I would be happy to take your questions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Atkinson.

Lauren Martin, Senior Director, Government Relations and Policy, Canadian Meat Council: Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to appear today on behalf of the Canadian Meat Council. I am pleased to provide comments regarding Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms).

The Canadian Meat Council — to give you a sense of who we are — represents Canada’s federally licensed meat packers, meat processors and suppliers of equipment, goods and services to the meat industry. Our members process over 90% of Canada’s beef and 96% of Canada’s pork. The meat our members provide feeds Canadians and the world, with some of the highest-quality animal protein in the world. The Canadian red meat industry represents over $32 billion to the Canadian economy and supports almost 300,000 jobs across Canada.

We are aligned with the spirit and intent of Bill C-275, which is to protect farms, properties and facilities where animals are kept from unlawful trespass. We believe this bill will provide an additional, necessary layer of protection against biosecurity threats to the Canadian red meat industry. Viruses like African swine fever, foot and mouth disease and avian influenza can decimate our herds and flocks — as we’ve seen, especially in the case of AI — devastate our industries and impact our ability to feed Canadians. Strengthening biosecurity measures against trespassers is something farmers, ranchers and food processors all support.

Biosecurity goes hand in hand with animal welfare, and on that front, the Canadian meat industry is highly regulated. Those unfamiliar with meat processing are often surprised to learn that Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, inspectors and veterinarians must be present during all slaughter operations at federally regulated facilities. This is to ensure compliance with applicable food safety and animal welfare standards from the time of unloading and through the harvesting process. Complying with animal welfare and food safety regulations is essential for our members’ continued operation. Non-compliance results in corrective actions, plant suspensions or monetary penalties.

Meat plants not only work to meet federal regulations, but also seek to exceed them. Our members support the on-farm Codes of Practice under the National Farm Animal Care Council, and plant employees are trained and certified under the Canadian Livestock Transport Certification Program or via similar certification programs. The supply chain from farm to slaughter has guidelines and certifications to maintain high animal welfare standards and the necessary biosecurity and food safety practices to protect those food animals from disease or contaminants.

Animal production is the basis of our industry and biosecurity is paramount. The protesters that this bill targets interfere in the operations of farms, transportation and food processing and can lead to serious consequences that endanger the animals that we have a responsibility to protect. As my colleagues Mr. Atkinson and MP John Barlow have mentioned, this is an additional layer of security.

It is important to ensure the animals in our supply chain are healthy by limiting exposure to outside factors. This ensures that our members can continue to provide Canada and the world with the safe, nutritious meat they expect from our industry.

To conclude, the Canadian Meat Council is supportive of Bill C-275 and hopes this committee will vote in support of it and move this bill back to the Senate swiftly. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses. We’ll move to five-minute rounds of questions and answers. As is the chair’s prerogative, I’m going to ask the first question this time around.

This is to Mr. Atkinson or Mr. Lee. Thank you for joining us from a different time zone, Mr. Lee. It’s good to have you here. Are conversations about biosecurity and bioterrorism happening at international meetings, such as at the World Organisation for Animal Health, or WOAH, or at other meetings you are participating in?

Mr. Atkinson: Yes, they are. To put it simply, the World Organisation for Animal Health, or WOAH, is doing a lot of work. Currently, we have staff in Paris working on those meetings. In the near future, they are holding meetings on bioterrorism. It is definitely on everyone’s mind, both locally and internationally. Realistically, us being here today discussing this shows that Canada is paying attention to it and showing leadership in that regard.

The Chair: Thank you. We heard from the sponsor of the bill in the House of Commons that one of his primary reasons for introducing the legislation was to safeguard the mental health of farmers and their families. I might extend that to processors and so on. If the bill is passed, how do you believe it will impact the mental health and well-being of farmers and processors? We don’t need an extensive explanation, but give us what you’ve heard, seen and felt.

Mr. Atkinson: It’s no secret that it’s a high-stress industry. Anything that can relieve one of those stressors in day-to-day operations is a big deal. Also, beyond that, having been around during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, days, the risk of something being introduced on the farm would be the ultimate stressor — the unfortunate events of depressed prices, euthanasia of the animals and addressing all of those issues.

So, it’s twofold. First, the big picture could be catastrophic. Second, with day-to-day matters, it’s one less thing to worry about. Repercussions you or I felt would discourage folks from participating in these actions would be vital.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Martin, anything to add?

Ms. Martin: Thank you for the question, Senator Black. My answer is twofold. First, it reduces one element of uncertainty for farmers, namely, of waking up — and this is to Mr. Barlow’s point — with 40 protesters on your property when you didn’t expect to. Reducing one element of uncertainty in the world of farming would be beneficial to mental health.

Second, there is also this aspect of exposure and villainy. Often, if there is a protesting enterprise happening on a farm, the outcome is often that exposure piece. That has large ramifications, as you can imagine, on mental health. If your actions, which are completely within the bounds of compliance in the industry, are vilified in a public forum, that’s certainly challenging.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator Simons: Thank you to all three of our witnesses. Mr. Atkinson, I was a journalist in Alberta during the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and remember the devastation it caused in Alberta’s ranching and cattle sector. I have also seen what foot and mouth disease can do to that sector. These are very real concerns. The idea of bioterrorism, which we didn’t discuss in the first round, is an interesting new wrinkle.

However, if you heard our first round of testimony with Mr. Barlow, Senator McNair raised an important issue on the scope of the language. I understand the motivation behind focusing on protesters, but if we’re serious about preventing the natural spread of disease, bioterrorism and the introduction of biotoxins or other toxins, then focusing on protesters may be the wrong way of tackling the problem.

What would you think of expanding the scope of this to capture everybody? You could imagine somebody who might be a malicious actor having lawful access and leveraging that to cause mischief.

Mr. Atkinson: I’ll admit that my expertise is not on the legal end of it. I’m a cattle rancher from Manitoba. In representing the industry, we put a lot of work toward industry best management practices and quality assurance programs to encourage folks to be as well-educated as they can about allowing people onto their farms and ranches and how to have those interactions in a safe way. We constantly do that educating within our industry and hope that all our producers are well-educated enough that they can convey that, along with those companies that have regular access, maybe feed or fertilizer companies, and that they have those practices in place.

We’ve done a lot of work within the ag sector to ensure everybody is up to speed on what those requirements are in order to enter those spaces. From my own management perspective, neither fuel nor feed would go near livestock or feedstocks. A lot of those requirements can cover a lot of those bases too.

Senator Simons: Ms. Martin, in Mr. Barlow’s testimony, he spoke almost exclusively about protesters showing up at farms. However, as we heard in the questioning, this bill would also apply to slaughterhouses and the transport of animals. Have there been any incidents that you can tell us about where protesters have come to slaughter facilities? Obviously, free-range cattle will perhaps not attract those kinds of protesters, but have there been incidents or are these speculative problems that might happen down the road?

Ms. Martin: I don’t want to mislead the committee with my less-than-perfect memory, but I believe that there was an incident — it is not theoretical — in the Greater Toronto Area with pigs and truckers at the entrance of a processing plant. I believe that there are actual instances of protests at processing plants.

What I can do, Senator Simons, is follow up with specific instances.

Senator Simons: Of course, but there’s nothing in this act that would prohibit people from protesting outside a slaughterhouse or along a highway. Has there been an incident where people penetrated a slaughterhouse? I want to understand what we’re actually talking about here in terms of risk.

Ms. Martin: I think there has been but, again, I don’t want to rely on my imperfect memory to answer that question, senator. I would be happy to follow up.

Senator Simons: Sure. Thank you very much.

The Chair: I will confirm that at that Hamilton plant, an individual was killed as a result of a moving truck that was swarmed by protesters. I’m just pointing that out. One of the protesters was harmed.

Senator Oh: Witnesses, thank you for being here. I have a different view than that of my colleague here. She’s a bit kinder to the protesters. I think I will take a big step toward a different opinion.

About $800 million has been raised, according to MP Barlow, around this particular problem. We have to be careful because this affects the nation’s supply chain. Everybody’s life in this room will be affected. Food costs will go up. Exports, farmers and our GDP will be affected. If they have $800 million sitting in the bank, don’t look at them lightly. There is probably something big coming, and we have to take this issue seriously.

As a farmer, what do you suggest? What is the best way we can help you to stop this from happening before it actually explodes like you mentioned?

Mr. Atkinson: Thank you very much for the question. I think steps such as this help. I’ve made a few trips to Ottawa, and some of the big things we’re always here to talk about are business risk management tools, getting ahead of what the next problem is and — believe it or not — working on getting back to “normal” following BSE 20 years ago. I think that’s ridiculous to think about, 20-some years down the road.

We can do things like this, as well as all our best management practices within our industry and quality assurance programs that raise the levels of biosecurity and knowledge so that we can get out in front of the next event similar to BSE.

Realistically, from a cattle ranching perspective, we lost an entire generation. When I drive between my pasture and my home yard, I drive past rows and rows of empty farmyards that will never be revived. The back-of-the-napkin math was $65 billion out of the second largest driver of Canada’s rural economies. What that would do would be devastating.

We have to take the steps that we can in order to limit the risk of that, because I don’t want to roll the dice and see if it happens. I want to be proactive. That’s why we talk a lot on business risk management tools, having disaster financial assistance work and trying to educate our industry as best we can.

Senator Oh: Do you have any comment?

Ms. Martin: I am reflecting on the text of the bill, which I do not have in front of me, but I don’t believe it mentions protesters. I believe it mentions unlawful individuals.

The CMC supports the wording as it is. We believe that it is broad enough to capture the intended audience of unlawful trespassers, yet specific enough to address many of the industry’s initiatives that already protect biosecurity on farms.

Senator Oh: Thank you.

Senator Robinson: Welcome. Thank you both for coming. I have a few questions. I want to echo what Senator Simons said on the bioterrorism lens.

We’ve really been focusing on this from a trespassing lens, and I do really appreciate your introduction of this idea, Mr. Atkinson, particularly when we look at the interruptions we saw in our food supply chain that COVID delivered to us. I’m thinking of the situation in the U.S. where we saw eggs for $15 a dozen or something to that effect because their eggs were all in one basket. They had avian influenza and interruptions in the supply chain, and it meant culling huge herds. Your numbers around what the GDP implications are really hit home.

I’m thinking of animal health and welfare. Mr. Atkinson, as you said, you are not a legal expert, but you are a cattle expert. If you were in an enclosed barn situation when there’s a disruption, what would it do to the herd? Would it be disruptive to them? Would it cause them stress? If that herd were near finishing and going for slaughter, what would that do along the whole value chain?

My second question is this: Could one of you speak to the measures industry is currently undertaking to protect biosecurity?

Mr. Atkinson: Thank you very much for the question. It’s a very interesting one regarding herd stress and the implications there.

One thing that struck me from the previous conversation is we talked about transmission from farm to farm. In our best management practices, one thing that I would do — and would encourage everybody to do — is this: When we have sick animals of any kind, because it does happen, they are segregated to stop the spread. It would be a common practice to have what is called a sick pen or hospital pen or something like that.

Also, we talk about the movement of animals on and off farms. Again, in those best management practices, it would be normal practice to segregate those animals. They don’t go into general population with everything else. They would go into a segregated or quarantine situation to ensure their health was what it needed to be before they were introduced to the others.

I would focus not just on moving from farm to farm but also the unintended consequences of moving from one area of a farm to another, where we could actually build in those quarantines and segregation and encourage our industry to do that.

But, yes, incredible herd stresses are there — loss of weight, loss of gains and potentially death loss. Cows are a lot more resilient than most things out there, so the stressors are taken a little bit better, but that is a significant interruption.

Ms. Martin: Thank you, Senator Robinson, for the question. I’ll answer you in two parts.

First, I will refer to some of my comments about industry-wide practices, and those include following the National Farm Animal Care Council practices as well as all livestock transporters needing to follow livestock transport certification processes.

I have alluded to veterinarians being in processing plants to ensure they are in compliance with CFIA regulations related to animal welfare. To really make this personal, I would speak to you about the personal biosecurity protocols that I have had to undertake in visiting processing plants. Just as a visitor, one day, I had to don a cap, gown and special boots that were provided to me — not my own — and undertake hand washing, as well as respond to a questionnaire about where I had visited prior to entering a processing plant.

If you have the opportunity to tour a processing plant, you would find yourselves in the same circumstance. I provide that to you as an example of the level of rigour that anyone lawfully invited into a processing plant must undertake.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Lee, if you feel like jumping in, please feel free.

Senator Robinson: I just want to make sure — sometimes my brain gets ahead of my tongue or vice versa — did I say bioterrorism? I meant to say bioterrorism and not biosecurity when you raised —

The Chair: You did say bioterrorism. We can check the blues later.

Senator Robinson: Excellent. Thank you.

Senator McBean: As I said in the previous panel, I think biosecurity and protecting farms, food security and farmers’ profits is essential. We’re trying to figure out what the difference is between trespassing, which is covered in the Criminal Code, and why this is necessary. It does seem targeted at protesters and possible whistle-blowers.

Mr. Atkinson, of the 60,000 beef producers and 350,000 full-time workers, in your Health and Care Committee, do you find you have members who are reported for not following best practices in the industry?

Mr. Atkinson: Honestly, it’s tough to have a series of checks and balances within that. We do the utmost we possibly can to ensure that everybody is educated and brought up to speed on the realities of the potential impacts. We brought in leadership from the chicken producers and that was, honestly, one of the most impactful speeches I have ever heard on what avian influenza has done to that industry. If you didn’t leave that room wanting to make a lot of changes or tighten things up a little bit, then I don’t know what would.

We do our best to educate people. We have a lot of safeguards in place around transportation and things. Every single animal that goes on a commercial truck these days is required to have documentation of when that was last cleaned, when it was last disinfected, as well as records of those livestock being on there. They’re required to be kept for two years following this so that we can follow up when we do have issues like these. But it is a challenge for us to really crack down on and put any teeth behind ensuring that, apart from good encouragement and education within our industry.

Senator McBean: I imagine with self-reporting, your underperforming is not high. This relates to a question that I asked before in that this bill could actually be bad for protection because you’re taking away eyes, where people come in and observe these places.

What do you think about the idea that the people who come in without lawful authority — some of the protesters and people who are trying to be whistle-blowers and reveal bad practices — are revealing public health and safety risks? Some of these revelations have led to food recalls, enforcement and even just education on your side.

How do you respond to that?

Mr. Atkinson: Regarding checks and balances, one thing I maybe missed is that we do have some good quality assurance programs that come with audits of what is happening on our farms. Verified Beef Production Plus is a great example of that, and that would ensure that producers were following those.

As far as flagging potential risks, we do have a lot of safeguards in place. We have the CFIA. We have our provincial vets that would always have access.

Anybody in Canada dealing with a vet — and we need to for everything, for every vaccine, for every antimicrobial — is now required to have a vet-client-patient relationship that requires that veterinarian to have had boots on the ground on our operations within the last 12 months. This ensures that we have a good understanding of herd health management, antimicrobials — when and how to use them — and good animal husbandry and stewardship in order to function. So we have tried to build those safeguards in there through those certified professionals.

Senator McBean: For both of you, this was asked previously, but is there any standardized signage at points of entry to farms, barns and processing equipment that would lead people to know that — if you’re invited, you get to the door, but what about back at the point of entry regarding biosecurity measures?

Mr. Atkinson: I am no expert on the hog industry or the chicken industry, of course — maybe Lauren Martin can better speak to that — but it is my understanding that where you turn in off the roadway, they are all posted. In a more intensive setting — if I could say that — more of a barn setting, they are posted when entering off a roadway, indicating the biosecure area, as well as on the doors. It’s a little more challenging on my cattle pasture sometimes. It requires a few more signs, which might be a big expense.

I’m not sure if you can speak to that, too, Ms. Martin.

Ms. Martin: It is standardized in chicken operations. Regarding hogs, I would have to double-check and get back to you, but it depends on the operation. There are practical implications, as Matt Atkinson mentioned.

Senator McBean: Thanks so much.

Senator Simons: I’m concerned that we are conflating or cross-contaminating two separate issues. One is the very real issue of biohazards, whether they are organic — if I can use that term — or malicious.

The other is that farmers are frustrated. This is not a widespread problem. A few farmers have been targeted. It’s been pretty random, and I wish that we could have a discussion about legitimate biohazards without using them as a cover for dealing with the annoyance of protesters. “Annoyance” isn’t quite a strong enough word for it, but you understand what I mean.

Is it possible, in your minds, to separate these two issues? I want our food supply to be safe and human health to be protected. However, I don’t want to use those very legitimate public policy goals as a way to hammer legitimate protest and observation.

Ms. Martin?

Ms. Martin: If I may — and thank you for providing me a copy of the bill to refresh my memory — I wasn’t wrong. The bill does not mention protesters anywhere. It’s the conversation that’s really scoped in the question of protesters on farms. I understand what you’re saying, and it is why my comments — by and large — focused on the biosecurity measures. Mr. Atkinson’s comments also mentioned the preventative measures.

I also really liked the conversation that we had with Mr. Barlow earlier, when he was saying that it’s not how often this is happening; it’s the possibility of it happening. If we can eradicate the possibility of it happening, this is one of those tools with which to do so.

Senator Simons: I remember the days of “shoot, shovel and shut up,” when the former premier of Alberta said that’s what we should have done with the first mad cow we found. It’s really important to me that we not make this an ideological question but one about protecting a really important economic industry in our country, and also protecting us from viruses that might spread into the human population.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Pate: My question was actually generated by the exchange you just had with Senator Simons.

Is there any downside to ensuring that everybody who comes onto a farm is subject to these provisions?

Ms. Martin: The only downside that I can see, Senator Pate — and this is a downside that you would understand much more than I — is that it might be so broad as to be difficult to enforce.

Mr. Atkinson: My only concern would be the unintended consequences of it. The fuel guy or the fertilizer guy or the feed guy might not want to set foot on my farm anymore because of the potential there. We have agreements in place, but if something like this were worded that way, that would be my only concern.

I’m not the legal expert on this by any means, but that would be my concern: the unintended consequence of them not wanting to enter my property for fear that this was in place, perhaps. I don’t know if I’m going off the rails there.

Senator Pate: Did Mr. Lee have anything to add?

Ryder Lee, General Manager, Canadian Cattle Association: No. Thanks for the question. The idea is that the people who are visiting your farm are letting you know. That’s the biggest thing we look for from everybody.

“Can I come see?” is a great question, because the pride that’s out there across the country is high. However, you might not get to visit. It depends on the type of operation and the type of animals. It might be an issue of safety for the visitors or animals, or it might just be the time of year. It could be inconvenient or unavailable that far out with muddy roads.

I’m having a hard time cooking up a scenario where it would be bad for anybody to come forward and say, “Here I am. Can you show me what’s going on?”

Senator Pate: Thank you.

Senator Robinson: It would be misleading for us not to admit there’s a bad apple in every barrel, and the root of the discussion here is around ensuring that we don’t create shade for those mushrooms to thrive.

We’ve talked about education, and I’m sitting here trying to think of other industries or facets of society that rely on a tight biosecurity or sanitary situation. How can the public — and perhaps people we would label “activists” — be satisfied that we’re following the rules there so they can be comfortable with what’s going on?

I’m not quite sure where “there” is. I’ve only come up with an operating room kind of scenario. To me, food production and biosecurity on farms are within that same realm.

Do you have any suggestions on how we could do a better job on that? Again, we have talked about education, but respectfully, Mr. Lee, I know places that would not want you to show up uninvited. For me, it’s a lot like the temporary farm worker program. The ones who are following the rules want the bad ones to be caught because we need that program. It’s the same with the biosecurity situation. We want to make sure those nefarious actors are weeded out.

Can you suggest any ways for us — industry and government — to collectively do a better job of ensuring we are transparent and therefore bring some comfort to people by letting them see that we have caught those bad actors?

Mr. Atkinson: I will start by saying that we put a lot of effort into trying to tell our good news story on the animal welfare and environmental part. Part of that is that when we take meetings, we invite everybody to contact us, our producers or somebody local. I would extend that to everybody here, and part of that would be going through biosecurity to enter.

It is a challenge to educate people. I’ll be the first to admit that there are a lot of people working against us sometimes in that education. Often, education is needed there. We like to work with them to help them understand how things work.

I look at your comparison, and I think of our labs, operating rooms and things like that. They are very closed off, and nobody would have a way to access them. I guess the challenge is just that I can’t put a locked door on my cattle pasture. That makes it a little bit more logistically challenging.

Ms. Martin: I’m thinking really hard about your very good question. The wheels are turning. I would say it’s bad business to do bad business, so in that respect, the industry has its own checks and balances.

Second, we’re not a system unto ourselves. There are checks and balances between the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, and other entities that are responsible for ensuring we meet the standards.

I kind of hesitate to bring this up because I don’t want to make this about protesters — it doesn’t need to be — but third is that there’s often an agenda piece. If the agenda is making the industry better, that’s all well and good. However, if the individuals who are coming in and observing the farms or wanting to observe the farms have the agenda that they don’t want the industry to exist, I don’t know if that’s a legitimate observer.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Martin, Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Lee, thanks very much for your participation today. Your testimony and insights have been insightful and very much appreciated.

Colleagues, thanks for your active participation and questions. Also, I would like to thank the folks who support us around the room and behind us. We couldn’t do what we’ve done today and in the past without the folks who support us — translators, television operators, our page and folks in our offices — so thanks very much.

Colleagues, there will be no meetings next week. Our next meeting will be held on Thursday, June 13, when we will continue to hear from witnesses on this particular bill.

Senators, is it agreed that we suspend briefly to move in camera for some discussion on future business?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

(The committee continued in camera.)