THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 19, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms).
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome back, everyone. I hope you had a great summer. I don’t know about you, but it seemed to fly by. I do hope you were able to spend time with family and friends.
I want to welcome some new senators: Senator McBean, who isn’t here today, but she will join the committee; Senator Oudar, welcome; Senator Marshall, welcome; Senator Richards, welcome; and we have Senator Plett sitting in as an ex officio member. I believe Senator Kutcher will join us to replace Senator McNair for today only.
We also have the remaining senators who are already on the committee. Senator Sorensen, welcome. It is great to have everyone here and to have the new senators. Really, I know you’re here because this is the best and most fun committee. So I have heard, anyway.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in‑person participants to consult the cards in front of you for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make your earpiece is away from the microphones at all times. When not using your earpiece, place it face down on the table. This will help us protect the translators and the folks listening off site.
I want to welcome members of the committee as well as our witnesses and those watching on the world wide web. I’m Rob Black, a senator from Ontario, and I’m the chair of this committee. Before we hear from witnesses, I want to ask all senators to introduce themselves. We’ll start with our deputy chair.
Senator Simons: Good morning. I’m Senator Paula Simons from Alberta, and I come from Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Good morning. Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. Welcome.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Good morning. Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Richards: Dave Richards, New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you.
Today, the committee continues its examination of Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms). On our first panel, we will be hearing from producer organizations about the bill. We welcome Tim Klompmaker, Chair, Chicken Farmers of Canada; and Michael Laliberté, Chief Executive Officer, Chicken Farmers of Canada. Joining us via video conference, from Alberta, we have Darren Ference, Chair, Turkey Farmers of Canada; and Maegan MacKimmie, Manager, Corporate Communications, Turkey Farmers of Canada. We also welcome René Roy, Chair, Canadian Pork Council; and Gabriela Guigou, Director, Animal Health, Canadian Pork Council.
We will begin by hearing from the Chicken Farmers of Canada, or CFC, followed by the Turkey Farmers of Canada, or TFC, and then the Canadian Pork Council. You each have five minutes for your presentations. When we get to one minute left, I’ll put the hand up. When you see two hands, it’s pretty much time to wrap it up, please.
The floor is yours, Mr. Klompmaker.
Tim Klompmaker, Chair, Chicken Farmers of Canada: Good morning. I am a third generation chicken farmer from Norwood, Ontario, and the Chair of Chicken Farmers of Canada. I’m here with Chicken Farmers of Canada’s Chief Executive Officer Michael Laliberté. We would like to thank the committee for studying the proposed amendments to the Health of Animals Act. We are also grateful to MP Barlow for standing up for farmers.
For several years now, farmers have feared the possibility of trespassers on our properties and into our barns. In most cases, activist trespassers unlawfully enter with the intention of harm — what they think is saving the animals, but it is really protesting farmers’ commitment to raising safe food.
Therefore, we appreciate that the aims of Bill C-275 are twofold for our sector. It aims to protect the farmers and the animals in their care from activist threats while maintaining biosecurity on the farms.
Ensuring the appropriate care and welfare of the birds raised by Canadian chicken farmers is a top priority for our sector. We take pride in our long-standing, innovative approach to animal care as shown by our mandatory and third-party-audited Animal Care Program. The Animal Care Program for Canadian chicken has a solid, credible and science-based foundation that is based upon Codes of Practice developed through the National Farm Animal Care Council. We are proud that 100% of our farmers are compliant with our program.
Chicken Farmers of Canada also has a federal-provincial-territorial-recognized On Farm Food Safety Program that stipulates high standards for biosecurity and disease prevention. CFC was the first national organization to achieve full recognition from the government in 2013, and 100% of our farmers are certified.
The program employs strict measures on the farm to prevent flock infections from outside sources, including requirements for biosecurity, disease prevention, feed and water management and testing and mandatory recordkeeping. Diligent processes like registering visitors to the farm, wearing designated coveralls and boots inside the barn and careful flock reports are some of the many steps to guaranteeing safe chicken for Canadians.
These programs, coupled with the trust Canadians have in farmers, are some of the many reasons why chicken is Canada’s number one meat protein. Our programs convey the message to Canadians about how their food is being raised and strengthen consumer trust in farmer messages over activist rhetoric. I am proud to follow these programs carefully.
You have to remember that farming is my business, and I operate it the same as any other business. I have procedures and protocols in place, which include security policies, I mitigate and manage risk and I work hard to provide a high-quality product for Canadians. Farming is my business, but my farm is also my home. It is where my wife and I raised our three sons and where we farm together today. Our home — and our farm — is both the workplace and the meeting place for our family, which includes our eight young grandchildren.
I encourage you to consider farmer mental health, the fact that these threats of trespassing contribute negatively to it and how the passage of this bill could alleviate some of that stress.
It’s well-documented that when people have better mental health, they are better able to provide good welfare for the animals in their care. This has been termed One Welfare and is an extension of the One Health approach taken by government and industry worldwide.
An invasion rattles a farmer’s sense of security and privacy, creates deep concerns about biosecurity and seems like an ongoing attack on our livelihoods.
I’ll move on to make sure I get to the end.
I know detractors might raise questions about the right to protest or laws that are already in place to prosecute trespassers, but when you are considering this bill, I want you to think about me and the thousands of other livestock farmers who work hard every day to ensure the food we are raising for Canadians is safe and raised with care.
Thank you for your time and consideration of Bill C-275. We hope you will support this important defence of farmers and the on-farm practices that protect our food system. And if this topic piques your interest to see how chickens in Canada are raised, I would be happy to host you on my farm. Senator Black, you’re more than welcome to back to my farm. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Ference.
Darren Ference, Chair, Turkey Farmers of Canada: Good morning, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of Turkey Farmers of Canada, or TFC, about the importance of Bill C-275 regarding biosecurity on farms.
My name is Darren Ference, and I’m joined today by TFC staff member Maegan MacKimmie. I’m a turkey farmer in Alberta and the Chair of Turkey Farmers of Canada. I raise cattle and plant about 3500 acres of cropland.
As someone invested in the welfare of our turkeys and the longevity of our industry, I strongly advocate for this bill. It’s crucial for safeguarding our animals’ health by preventing unauthorized farm access, thus shielding Canadian farmers from adverse effects, such as compromising biosecurity protocols.
This couldn’t be more important today. The turkey industry is facing significant pressure from the spread of foreign animal diseases, such as highly pathogenic avian influenza, or HPAI, reovirus and metapneumovirus, which was recently detected in Canada.
Biosecurity is a top priority as these diseases pose a risk to the welfare of our turkeys but also have the potential to devastate entire flocks. Our industry has been dealing with the impact of HPAI for several years now. Outbreaks of avian influenza can lead to widespread mortality among birds and significant economic losses for farmers. This is compounded by the threat of other animal diseases that turkey farmers are worried about.
One of my goals as a turkey farmer is to ensure the health and well-being of our animals while providing safe food to Canadians. For turkey farmers across Canada, both rigorous animal welfare and food safety is achieved by two national, mandatory TFC on-farm programs. Both programs are reviewed annually by qualified on-farm auditors. The TFC On-Farm Food Safety Program focuses on controlling pathogens on farms, minimizing disease transmission to turkey flocks and ensures marketed turkeys are free of medication and other chemical residues. This program received full government recognition under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, Food Safety Recognition Program.
The TFC Flock Care Program verifies Canadian turkey farmers’ commitment to ensuring the proper care for and respectful treatment of their birds. The third-party auditors have found that the TFC Flock Care Program was implemented effectively and maintained on an ongoing basis and that animal care measures are consistently applied.
Trespassers and unknown visitors on farms are putting these protocols at risk, potentially exposing turkeys to unknown pathogens and increased stress. Farmers take great care to maintain the atmosphere in barns and to keep birds safe, barns clean and stressors mitigated. When individuals enter the farm property without authorization, they are directly risking the health and welfare of the birds in the barn. For the farmers, the ability to sell the entire flock could be impacted while also potentially imposing movement restrictions on neighbouring farms, affecting their operations as well. While I respect the rights of individuals to express their opinions, unauthorized entry into farms poses many risks.
Let me share an experience from a fellow turkey farmer that underscores the urgency of the issue. In 2019, this farmer walked into his barn to discover over 30 individuals from an activist organization. They had broken in. Despite being faced with intruders who were on private property and violating biosecurity protocols, the turkey farmer handled the situation with composure by being transparent and referring to the TFC on‑Farm programs aimed at bird welfare. Nonetheless, break-ins not only breach farm biosecurity by putting our turkeys at risk, they also negatively impact the farmers and their families and have significant ramifications on their feeling of safety and well‑being.
In conclusion, Bill C-275 is a critical piece of legislation that will strengthen biosecurity as well as safeguard animal health and welfare and the safety of farm personnel. As a turkey farmer deeply committed to the welfare of my animals and the success of our industry, I urge you to support this bill and work towards its swift enactment into law. Thank you for your attention. I welcome any questions that you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ference. Now, Mr. Roy.
René Roy, Chair, Canadian Pork Council: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation, and thank you as well to the committee members for your work on this issue.
[Translation]
My name is René Roy, and I am the Chair of the Canadian Pork Council. I am also a pork producer from Quebec. With me today is Gabriela Guigou, Director, Animal Health.
[English]
We are supportive of this bill for three main reasons —
The Chair: We will stop the timer. Are we having —
Senator Burey: It might be on my machine. Continue, and I’ll figure it out.
Mr. Roy: If I may translate what I said. I am a producer from Quebec. Let’s summarize it. I’ll just continue.
We are supportive of this act for three main reasons. First, this will help us stem the flow of disinformation prevalent in certain corners of the internet. Videos taken from non-Canadian farms have been used to justify these kinds of activities, and that needs to stop.
Second, there are existing mechanisms in place for people with legitimate concerns. Our provincial pork organizations work quite closely with provincial regulators to ensure animals are cared for. There is a process to be respected.
Imagine if it were suddenly legal for people to walk into a bank and start taking pictures of bankers as they work because these people who were “protesting” had decided they knew better or worse that banking should no longer exist.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, this could even happen to you in your workplace if we buy into the argument that anyone can decide what constitutes a violation of a secure work site. That is what we are contending with.
[English]
Third, biosecurity threats are real. Our producers shower in and out of their farms, and we have established biosecurity protocols because diseases introduced by humans hurt our animals. We place stop signs and other notices on our farms to tell people about our biosecurity perimeters.
Rules to prevent people from ignoring our biosecurity measures are currently absent at the federal level and rare at the provincial level. We would expect to hear our partners in legitimate animal protection organizations join us in supporting efforts to keep animals safe.
This is not about groups having the right to talk about farming. It’s about protecting biosecurity practices we’ve established as an industry and other groups acting like they should get to decide what practices they will or won’t respect as they feel like it.
We look forward to your questions and thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses for your testimony.
We’ll proceed with questions. I have a list here, starting with our deputy chair, Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: My first questions are to Mr. Ference and Mr. Klompmaker.
Can you talk to us about what the situation is right now in Canada with avian flu outbreaks and with this new disease, which I understand is more likely to affect turkeys than chickens, the avian metapneumovirus? It’s good to have a doctor in the room. How much are we seeing this spread? Is it coming primarily from wild birds that are flying over?
Mr. Klompmaker: The avian influenza situation has been tracked to migratory birds, of course. Although we have had very few cases over the summer, as we go into migratory season now heading into the fall, that is, of course, a great concern to us again. We will be heightening biosecurity on farms again, and that will be where we will see feed trucks or any type of delivery truck coming in, stopping and spraying their tires before coming onto the farm.
Certainly it’s a threat to us, but certainly it’s not the number of cases that we have had in previous years, which is a positive for our producers. I’ll let Mr. Ference comment as well, if you would like.
Mr. Ference: Sure, I can comment now too. The avian influenza, as Mr. Klompmaker has said, seems to have subsided a little bit, and we have had fewer cases, which is very promising. It does follow the migratory path of birds, and that is why I believe Alberta was one of the hardest ones hit because they have two or three migratory pathways that pass through there, so they have the intermingling of different flocks of birds as they move going through those pathways.
Onto the metapneumovirus, Ontario and Quebec is where it is. I think it transmits with wild birds, but it is also tracked, and that’s why heightened biosecurity all year round is very important. We may not shower, but we change clothes and boots between barns. Each barn has its own set of footwear and has protocols when we move from younger birds to older birds so you don’t track. If some farms have multiple species, like I do — I have both chicken and turkey — you make sure there is no cross-contamination there because there are different diseases or pieces that can move between them.
Senator Simons: Have there been any cases, to your knowledge, in Canada of protesters bringing either of these viruses onto farms? Or is the real danger more organic?
Mr. Klompmaker: I don’t think there are any cases documented where protesters actually brought disease onto farms, but the concern we have is there is a potential. Any time we have somebody come on farm — as Mr. Roy stipulated about having signage — they are going past that signage and into our controlled access zones, which is already a concern. As I said before, when we have trucks coming in, they are spraying tires. That is happening before they get into that controlled access zone.
Protesters are getting into that controlled access zone, and in some cases, they are even breaking into barns with the potential of bringing that disease threat into the barn. There may not be documented cases where there is a direct link. For us, it’s just another way to have some type of protection there to help us make sure it doesn’t happen.
Senator Simons: Mr. Ference?
Mr. Ference: Well, we have the protocols in place for biosecurity for all of our employees and visitors who may come in, from feed representatives and industry people who go into the barns. When they come into the barns, like Mr. Klompmaker said, they are spraying tires before they get into control zones, they are putting on booties and they are tracking which farms they were on or if they were on a farm before they come in.
If a trespasser comes in, we don’t know where they have been. They may have avoided the stop signs and the no trespassing signs by tromping through the bush and walking through a slough, which would then bring in migratory bird feces or whatever. There is no control there. We are trying to control that to make sure we don’t have the potential spread of some of these diseases.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
Senator Plett: Thank you, witnesses. My question will be posed more to the pork council than the others, but certainly the others would be very welcome to contribute because I think much of what I’m going to ask would pertain to all of you.
In my previous life, my company did an awful lot of work on hog farms, being in Manitoba, which is a large hog-producing area. My men would tell me, “I no longer have to shower before I come to work because I’m going to have five or six showers during the course of the day.” Indeed, they would shower when they would walk into a barn, they would shower when they walked out to get a pair of pliers from their truck and they would shower again when they walked back into the barn. We also owned a truck wash where trucks that were on the barn regularly came to our truck wash before they could go to another barn; they had to be washed and disinfected. The protocols, I think, are significant.
The protesters seem to say they are protesting because there is cruelty to animals. They are protesting, which could cause all the animals in that yard to die. I find that incredibly hypocritical when they are wanting to protest cruelty to animals, and they are the most dangerous with respect to cruelty.
Mr. Roy, if you could elaborate a little bit — and, of course, hog barns and maybe chickens as well, there are pyramids, so anything within that pyramid has to be very tightly controlled.
Tell me if a hog barn that had, let’s say, pregnant sows and some kind virus would break out there, what would be the economic cost overall to the host of farmers who would be involved in that and to the economy in general? And it has broken out time and again. What would be the economic costs? The other chicken and turkey farmers, please go ahead as I’m sure many of this would pertain to you as well.
Mr. Roy: Thank you, Senator Plett. I will give you two figures. One is diseases that we currently have on our territory that are endemic. There is one that is affecting our pork. Depending on the sectors, there is more density in other sectors in terms of pork production. If the disease hits more than once, some of our producers will just close down their barns because of the cost associated with the disease. It creates various problems, symptoms that are significant. It kills the piglets and sometimes the sows. As a pork producer, we cannot afford working with disease. I would say that’s one that exists.
I will bring the case of zoonosis. We are aware that there are some diseases that can move from animals to humans and vice versa. So even if somebody comes from outside — I have heard this argument from some people — and never came into a barn before, they can bring a disease that would kill our pigs and have significant effect.
Another point is, right now in Ottawa, there is an international forum about African swine fever. If it hits Canada, it would mean that we stop trade. Our industry is exporting about 70% of our pork to the rest of the world, feeding people around the world, and this would have such a significant impact that we are concerned about the survival of our whole industry. It’s a disease, but it would kill our whole industry if nothing is done.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Mr. Klompmaker: Quickly, just when I think about avian influenza and the impact that it had on our farmers, as far as the economic impact, it just depends on the size of the operations that were impacted. It also affects those farms in the area because, all of a sudden, they have unrestricted movements on their farms as well.
A lot of it is financial, but there’s the other piece — the mental stress on our farmers. I’ve had farmers call me after they were hit with avian influenza, and they’re crying on the phone, saying: “I didn’t do anything wrong, but how am I going to be viewed now? Am I a poor farmer?” No, you’re not a poor farmer, you just got caught, one of those things that happen. There is not just the financial but the mental anguish side that goes with it as well.
Mr. Ference: I was going to add to the mental piece where Mr. Klompmaker was going. We love our animals, we treat our animals with great respect and these animals then provide a life for us. If we are hit by these diseases, we’re devastated. It’s like losing one of the family when you lose pieces or barns of a flock, and that is very traumatic to the farmer that has that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Bill C-275 amends the Health of Animals Act, with reference to biosecurity on farms, and I’ll come back to that in a moment.
In terms of trespassing, almost every province has legislation to address trespassing, and five provinces have passed enhanced private property legislation to prohibit trespassing at locations where animals are kept. In regard to the existing trespassing legislation, does this complement that? Before you answer that — and anybody can answer this from this group because they’re all applicable — will this amendment to the Health of Animals Act, with the reference to biosecurity, complement the existing legislation or does it add some concerns otherwise?
The reference to biosecurity on farms is an important subject requiring due care and attention. Equally important are the protocols and practices in place to mitigate or eliminate any threats in this regard. My sense, just from listening here, is that the required protocols or the objective of this bill is to prevent those that trespass and are unlikely to observe or practise the protocols, particularly in controlled access areas, and I assume those are clearly marked for the novice.
I also assume that this doesn’t play a large role with grain farms. It might be more with mixed farming with livestock and dairy, so then it doesn’t really apply to grain farms. That is a question.
I’ve asked two questions: Is that going to complement the legislation and can you confirm this probably doesn’t apply to grain farms?
Finally, I’m sure that on the turkey, chicken and dairy farms I’ve seen you don’t see any sprawling land around that would be good hunting grounds, but in your businesses, do you have Indigenous people that ask to hunt on your farmland? Is this amendment to the trespassing going to affect that?
Mr. Roy: First, for the complement of provincial and federal, yes, it helps. Our programs are national, so we must have a national umbrella in terms of regulation, so it helps.
On the second point regarding grain, I cannot speak to that.
Mr. Klompmaker: Whether it enhances it or not, I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t dive into exactly what the laws are in each of the provinces. But I can say that any time it gives our farmers an extra tool in the tool box to protect their livestock from a biosecurity risk, that for us is very positive to have. Again, I’m not going to speak to the grain farmers on this one.
As far as from a hunting perspective, on our farm, we don’t allow anybody on the farm to hunt. It’s just not a good practice in our sense.
Mr. Ference: I have grain, cattle, the sprawling acres, and I have the turkey and chicken operation. I’ll answer on the first part. I think it’s important that this encompass the whole Canadian area. We have five provinces that have some legislation, and this links it all together and protects farmers across Canada against the biosecurity.
As for the piece on the grain, grain land is just as biosecure. I’m just as important with that. We have diseases and fungi that grow in the canola that move that way. If equipment is coming or going in the oil patch for oil patch development or coming on, they’re required to wash down anything that is coming from out of area that may bring those pathogens into my grain land.
On the hunting side, we allow hunting to come on. I have posted signs at every gate. Every gate is posted with my number and my brother’s number that manages the land. We need to know where they come from, give me what they’re doing and we usually allow most hunting onto the premises. We have a lot of Crown land also, so that’s how we manage it.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: My question is for Mr. Klompmaker. The bill deals with animal health. Having worked in this field for the last 10 years, I must say that the health and safety of human beings is something I care about as well. In your opening remarks, you mentioned being concerned about mental health. Thank you for that, and I would like to pick up on it.
Over the past few years, I have noticed that you talk more about the health and well-being of animals than you do about your own well-being and health. I am glad you are talking about mental health. It is hard enough for you to talk about health and safety. It is even harder to talk about mental health. Thank you for broaching this conversation.
I do not have a question. I would like to turn the floor over to Mr. Klompmaker and the other witnesses to give them a chance to tell us exactly what they want us to focus on when they encouraged us to think about mental health. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Klompmaker: When I think about mental health, it’s certainly something that has come up over the last number of years. It has always been a serious issue on farm. It has been for years, but over the last number of years, it has certainly risen. We’ve worked closely with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, in establishing tools for farmers to go to get help when they are under stress of any kind. That’s the work we continue to do, but certainly any time we have any threats on farm, whether from animal activist groups or whatever the case may be, it has certainly added stress to our farmers. A lot of times, farmers are pretty proud people and are reluctant to ask for help so we’re doing a lot of work in that area to encourage farmers that, if they’re suffering in that area, there’s nothing to be embarrassed about asking for help. It’s okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Roy: We have noted over the years that mental health and animal health go hand in hand. Mr. Klompmaker pointed this out earlier. When we face uncertainty on our farms, it becomes difficult to properly take care of our animals. When the animals are not doing well, it affects us too. This is because animals are not only our bread and butter, but, for a number of us, are also our retirement savings. Farmers do not clock in and out. Diseases have a devastating impact. Over time, we have learned that if we do not take care of our farmers — especially on an organizational level — farmers have a harder time taking care of their animals.
Imagine someone trespassing on a farm. Imagine how this uncertainty creates insecurity and how difficult it becomes to continue working effectively on our farms. It has an enormous impact.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ference, do you have anything to add to this discussion? You have a minute.
Mr. Ference: Mental health is a very important piece, and just like Mr. Klompmaker said, we’ve been working with and supporting a lot of mental health programs to work with farmers on that piece. But as you work in — we had that break-in in 2019. I could only imagine if they were sitting in my barn when I went there. It would be like me getting up in the morning and having 14 people sitting around my table. It is the same thing as 14 people sitting in your barn when you go there. This is part of — our houses, our structures, our barns are all very close to us, and it’s part of our personal space as well as the biosecurity.
It really drives on the mental health piece of that. It’s like you’ve been violated that people have walked straight into your personal space so that really drives on that side of this structure also.
They’re all posted — most farms are all gated and posted, so to get in there, it is a violation, because they find holes, they crawl through fences, they go through locked doors or find other ways in. It is a violation of your personal space.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for being here. Your testimony is very appreciated.
There are two questions that I have. One is for Mr. Roy, but I’ll say them both together and then the rest is to anybody.
You brought up the issue of disinformation. I would appreciate it if you could help us understand a bit more about that. What is the disinformation that you’re referring to? What is the content? What is the context? Where does it come from? How is it distributed? What impact does it have? So that’s the first part.
The second issue for all of you — and this comes from the work that some of us around this table did on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. We found there was a lot of variability across the country, in different places, in how workers were treated. Some employers were exemplary, and some were much less so. The question is, do you have any idea about the variability within the industry with adherence to the necessary regulations that ensure animal welfare? Do we have an idea about what the variability is within the industry on that? Those are the two questions. Thank you.
Mr. Roy: Thank you, Senator Kutcher. First, about disinformation, we had cases where some individuals said that they entered the farm but used various footage from around the world that is not related to what they have seen in the farm, but they are using it for lobbying and also for a financial campaign. It is disinformation about what we are doing, really, on the farm, and it is not representative of the reality of the Canadian farm, first.
The impact can be great for some of our producers. For instance, in Quebec, we have one family farm that has decided to stop its pork production after such trespassing because they felt that they were not supported by society and that they were not secure on their own property.
Also, they mentioned that they had some disease that had significant after — they believe it may be related to the stress that the animal had, but they stated they had some disease after the occurrence, after this trespassing, and they had to close because there was a financial impact to it. So it’s not only hypothetical. There are real impacts.
The second part, temporary foreign workers, these workers are part of our family. If we’re not able — we have to work with them well; otherwise, we’re not able to function well on our farm. If there is any case that we’re aware of, we address it because it is central for our industry that we have good access and relationship with our temporary foreign workers.
Senator Kutcher: If I can just clarify, your issue with disinformation is that disinformation has had quite a pernicious impact on farms, on farmers and, I would imagine, on the public perception of the industry as a whole.
Mr. Roy: Yes.
Senator Kutcher: So it is pretty pernicious. Thank you for that.
I didn’t mean your temporary foreign workers. I was saying when we studied temporary foreign workers, there was variability in how they were treated. I’m sure all of you do great, but I’m wondering about the variability in the farms about animal welfare, following regulations.
Mr. Klompmaker: I can comment on that. We have a number of farmers that do use temporary foreign workers. It’s somewhat of a challenge because of the language barrier, but they do manage to educate farmers on what the requirements are within our food safety program and animal care program, and it’s part of the criteria that farmers have to follow as well. Any new employees on-farm, before they can actually even step foot inside the barn, they have to sign off to say that they understand the programs and that they have to adhere to all the standard operating procedures that we have as it relates to food safety and to animal care.
Mr. Ference: I’m going to turn it a little bit. I think you were looking for the variability of the farmers on the animal welfare and how they follow that.
I think I heard Mr. Klompmaker say that chicken farmers are 100% and the turkey farmers are 100%. We’re all third party audited, so we have third-party audits that go through. We have our processor that comes at least once or twice a year. We have to be present when loading and unloading. I think the variability is minimal, and we are — all our farmers are 100% certified in the programs that exist and are recognized by the CFIA and other government agencies and are third party audited.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you all for being here today and for sharing. I hear the passion about the work that you do providing food, concern about your livelihoods and your families, especially mental health.
In the interest of time, I’m a physician myself, so I’m also interested in viruses, the spread of viruses. We went through the COVID pandemic, and we saw how important it was to have those protocols in place. In the previous bill, Bill C-205, the penalties would apply to any individual entering an animal enclosure regardless of whether they had lawful authority or excuse to be there.
Do you think that that would be a better, I would say, wording for the bill, or should it just apply to people who do not have lawful authority to be there? The reason I’m asking that is that an individual could obtain permission to enter the animal enclosure through false pretenses, such as lying or omitting information, and they may — will the bill as it is now still apply to people who did that?
The Chair: I would ask Mr. Ference to go first, just to give him a fair shake.
Mr. Ference: You’re asking me to give me the fair shake. The bill as it is, I think, stands, and it should be the ones that are permitted — that do not have proper permission to enter would be there. If you have proper permission or you’re an employee, you’re also trained in all of the protocols. As you’re onboarded onto the farm, you’re trained in the proper protocols and protections for the birds, but you’re also trained in the proper protocols for yourself.
There are contaminants in the barn; most barns have salmonella and other things, so your cleanliness and not eating, and cleaning after you come out, also protects you.
So if the protesters happen to not have permission and go in and are sitting there with a bottle of water, they can make themselves sick. They can also make the birds sick and cause problems.
Those who have the permission and training are fine, and those who don’t have permission and who have gone there upon false pretenses are not.
Mr. Klompmaker: I’m not really able to add much to what Mr. Ference said. He covered it off very well. That’s the whole concern here. It’s the unlawful folks who are coming onto the farm.
Senator Marshall: My question is also about the wording of the amendment. I find that some of the legislation that gets enacted doesn’t have the desired effect or might have unintended consequences. Looking at this one, why is that phrase “reasonably be expected to” in there? Does that strengthen or weaken the legislation? Do you see that as being a necessary part of the amendment?
In the interests of time, Mr. Chair, I’d be happy if just one of the witnesses responded to that. I just want to get a handle on the wording of the amendment.
Michael Laliberté, Chief Executive Officer, Chicken Farmers of Canada: I don’t have a legal background, but I believe it’s well written and will act as a deterrent to activists who are stepping on farm and breaching the biosecurity protocols in place. So as I said, it’s a good deterrence to those activists.
Senator Marshall: Does that phrase “reasonably be expected to” apply to the trespasser? When I read that and if I’m a trespasser and went on your farm to do something, I could do great damage and say, “Well, gee, I had a new pair of sneakers, and I bought new clothes.” So does that term “reasonably be expected to” apply to the trespasser?
Mr. Laliberté: I’m not a lawyer and I wouldn’t want to be the one interpreting this bill, but the way I read it, it would apply to anybody who is actually going on the farm unlawfully.
Senator Marshall: Can anybody tell me that it strengthens or weakens the bill? Should we be looking to suggest an amendment to the bill to remove it?
Mr. Klompmaker: I don’t see the need to amend it.
Senator Marshall: Okay, thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here. I just have a quick question, and anyone can answer.
You know how much more pervasive these incursions on the farms are becoming over the last 10 or 15 years? Are there organized groups that are doing this on a monthly or bimonthly basis? Can you give me some idea about that?
Mr. Roy: I can start by saying that there have been several occurrences. Provinces that have acted with regulation have significantly reduced the number of intrusions on these farms thus reducing the biosecurity risks associated with such intrusions. So we see migration of these actions from one provincial regulation to another when some provinces are acting on it.
As to the rate, I cannot say a number, but I could say that, in the last three years, there are at least about 10 that I can count right now off the top of my head.
Senator Richards: That’s quite a bit.
Mr. Roy: Yes, it is, and it’s significant.
Senator Richards: Mr. Klompmaker, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Klompmaker: Yes, I could add to that.
It’s something we’re faced with on a regular basis across the country. I know that, recently within the last two months, I did have a farmer in my area call me about an incident that occurred. We have one that’s ongoing where it’s happening on a regular basis where they’re tracking what is going on along the farm. They’re not coming on the farm, but they are sitting along the road.
Those are the types of things that are ongoing all the time.
Senator Richards: And there’s a chance that, sooner or later, these could become violent in one way or another?
Mr. Klompmaker: Yes, exactly.
Mr. Ference: As I mentioned, we had a farm in 2019 that had protesters on it. I know as of recently in the last couple of months, they were protesting out on the road. Alberta has some legislation, so that may have helped to keep them out in the public area.
We cannot protest against protesters in the public area; that’s fine so long as they stay there and we have the legislation to protect farmers across Canada in that piece. In the last 10 years, I’ve added gates — most of the farmers have added gates — and we all have signage. Places are fenced off, barn doors — all places are there. Because of the increasing effects of those — and regarding our processing friends, I know there are processors now that have totally fenced off what were totally open areas. That is because of people infiltrating into plants and causing issues there.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: My question is for each organization. Thank you for being here today.
Obviously, you think there’s a major problem that has to be addressed by higher penalties and sanctions. Do any of your organizations have a program to reach out to those organizations that you call the activists to engage in dialogue and maybe organize visits that would be following protocol? For example, the CFC refers to a farm where there are regular people spying and all around. Will you favour an open dialogue and say to those activist organizations to come along and organize a visit for them? “Let’s get together instead of fighting each other” kind of thing.
Mr. Klompmaker: I’ll start out with a comment. It’s pretty hard to actually sit down and have a discussion with somebody who wants to put you out of business because that’s what their ultimate goal is: It’s to end animal agriculture. So any time they can chip away at anything it is that we have, that’s what they do. They just keep chipping away and chipping away.
So to sit down with them will not be very meaningful because like I said, ultimately, they want me out of business.
Mr. Ference: I agree with what Mr. Klompmaker has said. That is their ultimate goal, and I don’t know where you would go to discuss that with the individuals who are in charge for those organizations.
[Translation]
Mr. Roy: There are a wide variety of perspectives. There are people you can talk with and explain —
Senator Dalphond: Those who enforce animal cruelty legislation, for example? Are you open to them visiting your farms?
Mr. Roy: Absolutely. We talk with people who are interested in better understanding how we do things, because information is a factor. We do need to keep our farms closed off for biosecurity reasons, but we make strides to share our methods with the public. It is open to everyone and open to the public. If people want to see how farms work, we have videos. We also organize site visits with members of Parliament and other folks.
Senator Dalphond: Earlier, you spoke of a farm in Saint-Hyacinthe. Department of Agriculture officials then visited it and made several negative observations.
Mr. Roy: Yes. In this case, negative observations were made regarding certain aspects, but I will say that the protocols that were in place — the ones that the Department deemed incorrect — were also ones we had deemed incorrect. That part does not guarantee or allow for any action to occur.
Senator Dalphond: I understand, but, if you are in contact with them, you can invite them to visit that farm.
Mr. Roy: Of course. We are open to some degree, but not to people who tell us, “We want you to stop what you are doing and we are ordering you to stop eating meat, because —”
Senator Dalphond: That is another topic.
Mr. Roy: It is one of the many opinions I spoke of earlier. I was trying to nuance my argument.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Witnesses, I want to say thank you for your testimony, participation and insights today. The testimony has been very helpful.
Our second panel today, with respect to this bill, is on animal industry care and animal justice. On that topic, we welcome Colleen McElwain, Executive Director, Animal Health Canada; Pierre Sadik, Government and Legislative Affairs Counsel, Animal Justice; and Dr. Toolika Rastogi, Senior Manager, Policy and Research, Humane Canada.
We’ll begin by hearing from Animal Health Canada followed by Animal Justice and Humane Canada.
Colleen McElwain, Executive Director, Animal Health Canada: Good morning and thank you, senators, for having me come today to speak to you about this important issue on Bill C-275.
I’d like to start by sharing a bit about my organization because it is relatively new. Animal Health Canada is the only national organization that brings together industry and federal, provincial and territorial governments to provide collaborative guidance and develop shared responsibilities and accountability when it comes to animal health and welfare in Canada. Our operating divisions include the newly formed Emergency Management Division, the Canadian Animal Health Surveillance System as well as the National Farm Animal Care Council.
We are guided by the One Health and One Welfare principles in how we do our work on a day-to-day basis. We action this is by embedding them in emergency preparedness plans, so farmer mental health and responder mental health as well as animal welfare assessments are a part of those plans. We also support the development of best practices regarding animal care when it comes to health, feed and quality, housing and so on. Each of these are included in the codes of practice for the handling and care of farmed animals. We have developed recommendations for animal health surveillance parameters, and that is to support the monitoring of animal health and welfare across Canada.
Moving to the topic at hand, Canadian herds and flocks have a very high health status. This is well recognized internationally as well as domestically. A high health status is critical to help support food safety, food security, animal welfare and domestic and international trade, as well as the Canadian economy.
Biosecurity is a critical component of how Canadian farmers ensure that this status is maintained. The practices followed to ensure biosecurity on livestock and poultry farms are effective in preventing foreign animal diseases, but as we heard this morning, they are also effective in preventing endemic and economically important diseases. Because of both of these drivers, our livestock and poultry farmers have implemented programs to keep these pathogens out.
When it comes to emergency preparedness, the work of Animal Health Canada has prioritized three federally reportable foreign animal diseases. These are African swine fever, foot and mouth disease and highly pathogenic avian influenza.
Both African swine fever and foot and mouth disease are not a risk to human health. However, they are highly contagious. They cause high illness and fatality rates in affected species. They would have devastating trade consequences should they be detected in Canada, and this would negatively and significantly impact our economy. Both are known to be spread around the world through human activities. This means that biosecurity is critical to making sure we don’t have these within Canadian borders.
Animal Health Canada coordinates the African swine fever executive management board, which has an entire pillar — one of four — dedicated to biosecurity. It is important because animals, people and things move in greater numbers than ever before. This means infectious diseases can be disseminated much more easily across larger areas.
I just spent the last couple of days at the North American African Swine Fever Forum hosted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency here in Ottawa where it was reiterated multiple times that the detection of this virus in North America would have a devastating impact not just on Canada but also on the U.S. and Mexico.
Lessons were shared from the European Union based on their experience with African swine fever outbreaks and the message was very clear: The importance of good biosecurity is paramount to prevent this virus from coming into Canada, into our swine herds or re-entering a swine herd after the disease has been eradicated.
Shifting to other priority diseases guiding our work in the last few years, H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza has been mainly moved and spread through wild birds. We talked about that a little bit this morning with the other witnesses. We know that the introduction of this virus into poultry flocks are strongly correlated with biosecurity, meaning that people can accidentally bring this virus into a barn on their boots and clothing. Knowing this, significant work has happened within the poultry industry to help keep that risk low.
The recent detection of H5N1 in U.S.-based dairy cattle is suspected to be a one-time spillover from wild birds. More information is needed on how this virus spreads between cattle. However, U.S. data indicates that human activity is a factor.
Animal Health Canada has undertaken considerable effort to facilitate discussions with the Canadian dairy sector stakeholders to ensure all are kept informed. We have provided tools for biosecurity on the farm, fairs and exhibits to help keep this virus out of Canada. Industry-wide requirements for on-farm biosecurity are provided to invited persons coming onto a farm.
Biosecurity plans vary from farm to farm because each farm is unique. Farm visitors who know, ask for, review and follow prescribed measures and sanitation practices help to keep the biosecurity risks lower. Uninvited persons can inadvertently bring different pathogens into a barn. It’s really important to make sure they understand the risk of a particular farm, which is not possible when uninvited.
Thank you again for having me this morning. I’m happy to take your questions.
Pierre Sadik, Government and Legislative Affairs Counsel, Animal Justice: Good morning. Thank you for inviting me here this morning. My name is Pierre Sadik. I am a lawyer with Animal Justice who works on legislative affairs.
Animal Justice is Canada’s leading national animal law advocacy organization. Together with our tens of thousands of supporters, we work to improve laws that protect animals. This is a big task because, frankly, Canada has fallen far behind other countries. We have some of the weakest animal protection laws in the Western world.
Canada does not have federal or provincial laws regulating animal welfare on farms. Some of the most painful farm practices are still legal and common in Canada despite being outlawed in the European Union and in some U.S. states. This includes things like keeping pregnant pigs in gestation crates, which are metal cages so small that the mothers cannot turn around, and things like crowding egg-laying hens into tiny wire cages where they can’t spread their wings.
Along with our lack of laws comes a lack of transparency and oversight. Farmed animals are typically kept behind closed doors in areas that the public can’t access. There are no government inspections of farms to proactively monitor animal welfare, including by the CFIA. Provincial agencies tend to respond only if a complaint is made, and no farmer or worker has any legal obligation to report anything they see on a farm.
One of the few times that a cruelty complaint can occur is when a person goes onto a farm and films something that a bad actor is doing on that farm using a hidden camera.
Proponents of Bill C-275 have repeatedly claimed that the CFIA inspects farms regularly for farm animal welfare. This is false. The CFA does not have jurisdiction over animal welfare on farms. The CFIA’s jurisdiction only extends to, number one, livestock transportation, and number two, slaughter of animals under the Health of Animals Act.
Moreover, there are generally no legally binding standards of care to protect the welfare of farm animals. There has been discussion during hearings on this bill about enforcement of codes developed by the National Farm Animal Care Council, or NFACC. These are non-binding guidelines developed largely by industry, and there are no government or even NFACC inspections to monitor whether the guidelines are being adhered to.
In May, this committee heard that animal protection groups in the U.S. fundraise $800 million annually off of campaigns regarding trespassing on farms. This is incorrect and does not reflect the situation either here at home or in the U.S.
The only organization in the U.S. that systematically enters farms is called Direct Action Everywhere. According to their website, which I checked, they had an annual budget of only $500,000 in 2022. It is possible that the combined total annual budget of all animal welfare organizations in the U.S. might be several hundred million dollars, but that would include the broad-based animal welfare work of mainstream organizations such as the well-known ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States. These groups work closely with government and industry and they do great work, but they don’t trespass on farms, let alone engage in undercover whistle-blower work.
No animal protection organizations in Canada are fundraising off of trespass. In fact, the combined annual budget of all Canadian animal protection organizations is less than $15 million, which is a fraction of the marketing budget of the animal agriculture industry.
This committee heard allegations that activists entered the Porgreg pig farm in Quebec and caused an outbreak of rotavirus. These allegations have been conclusively proven to be false through testing. The Porgreg pig farm case went to court, and the trial judge explicitly stated that the allegations that the activists caused an outbreak of rotavirus are not accurate.
This committee also heard allegations about the spread of avian flu in California by activists, but at the time, there was already a widespread epidemic of avian flu in the state. No scientific report has tied animal activists to any outbreak of avian flu in California.
I see I’m running out of time, so I’ll finish here with some CFIA data.
Since 2000, the CFIA data shows there has not been a single documented case of a disease incident caused by someone entering onto an agriculture facility without permission.
The former Chief Veterinary Officer of Canada, Dr. Jaspinder Komal, stated as follows when appearing before the House Committee on Agriculture in 2021 on Bill C-205, the predecessor to this bill. I’ll finish with this quote. Here is what Dr. Komal said:
. . . We think the level of risk that will be induced by trespassers would be very minimal, because in order to have a risk from a disease perspective, you have to have continuous and prolonged contact with the animals, as that’s how diseases are spread. . . .
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Dr. Rastogi, please go ahead.
Toolika Rastogi, Senior Manager, Policy and Research, Humane Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Humane Canada is the federation of humane societies and societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or SPCAs, representing more than 50 of those organizations in every province and two territories. Approximately 25% of humane societies and SPCAs are responsible for the enforcement of animal protection and cruelty laws under provincial and federal legislation.
If I may, I’d like to start with an observation regarding the process for considering this bill. As an organization whose mandate is animal welfare, Humane Canada is very pleased with the number of studies that honourable senators are undertaking during this parliamentary session pertaining to topics of animal concern.
Though animals are sentient and their protection and freedom from suffering is of the utmost importance, unfortunately, these matters are often overlooked and under-resourced. Legislation related to animal protection needs to be given appropriate consideration and follow a rigorous process.
We are concerned that Bill C-275 may not have received the full consideration it deserves, since it moved forward for study by this committee without the time typically allotted for debate on second reading in the Senate chamber.
As our organization is focused on animal welfare, my remarks on Bill C-275 today are intended to bring your attention to the implications for animal welfare. Allow me to first state clearly that Humane Canada does not support actions that threaten farmers, their families, animals or public safety, but we are greatly concerned about measures that reduce transparency and accountability in Canada’s animal protection system because it could create situations in which animals are even more vulnerable to harm, animals who cannot speak for themselves.
We do not support Bill C-275 because it reduces transparency. We can understand what motivates those who may take direct action approaches: It’s because of their deep concern for the welfare of farmed animals and to raise awareness about the need for stronger protections. These concerns are legitimate.
If farming were undertaken more ethically, humanely, sustainably and equitably, there would be far less concern and protest. More than 800 million animals are raised and slaughtered annually in Canada for food. The vast majority of these animals are raised in large-scale settings in close confinement using intensive practices where good and natural lives are not possible.
Humane Canada does not campaign to end animal agriculture. In fact, we work collaboratively with industry, including the very associations from whom we just heard in the previous panel, as well as with governments and with other stakeholders at the National Farm Animal Care Council to create — we work together with these organizations and stakeholders to create standards of care for animals on-farm. We try very hard for these standards to require practices that minimize suffering. But the standards in NFACC codes are not legally binding in most of the country. Government and enforcement agencies are not inspecting farms to ensure welfare standards are met. In fact, violations of standards and cruelty laws are brought to the attention of enforcement through complaints, often together with undercover evidence gathered by whistle-blowers, and this is because there is so little transparency and oversight.
Bill C-275 would further reduce transparency and hinder reports of animal abuse, even from those who are not trespassers, for fear of repercussions. Rather than what this bill is proposing, which undermines the existing system of animal protection — applying harsh penalties to deter trespassing and whistle-blowing — what is needed is increased transparency, accountability and oversight to ensure farming practices are humane. This would encourage those working in the sector to abide by best practices and requirements, which in turn could alleviate concern and build public trust and confidence.
Bill C-275 purports to be a biosecurity bill. Humane Canada absolutely supports robust biosecurity surveillance, prevention and control measures, but there is no evidence of increased risk from trespassing. Protests have not been found to be sources of reportable disease outbreaks. It is rather farming practices and workers that most often have been found to be the source. Reducing transparency of farm biosecurity practices could actually exacerbate this issue.
I will just wrap up here. Trespass laws, as we have been discussing, already exist in Canada, and in any case, the Health of Animals Act is not the right tool. It is about infection control such as containing and preventing the spread of disease once an animal is already sick.
Finally, to really address the serious threat of infectious diseases as well as environmental threats such as the climate crisis, we urgently need to reimagine our food system — our food production — to one that provides good conditions for animals and humans and is environmentally sustainable. We need to implement the One Health/One Welfare approach. Public support is needed to transform the system for that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will proceed with questions now. Senators will have five minutes for questions and answers, and we’ll ask the deputy chair to begin, followed by Senator Plett.
Senator Simons: Ms. McElwain, you have laid out some of the real risks that we are worried about with zoonotic viruses, with animal-to-animal transmission, whether that’s from avian flu to cows or from wild migrating birds to turkeys.
What do you say to Mr. Sadik and Dr. Rastogi when they say there are almost, as far as we can tell, no cases where trespassers have brought virus infection into farms?
Ms. McElwain: That’s a really good question. For biosecurity, for the movement of viruses, whether they are zoonotic or whether they are an endemic disease that really only targets an animal species, a livestock species, the risk is really around people movement. Biosecurity programs are designed to allow farmers to apply the best practices that they know for manageable risk. They have different science-based practices that they ask visitors — invited visitors, service providers, those they know are coming onto their farm, whether for hunting or other purposes — to follow.
Having someone come uninvited is an unmanageable risk. You don’t know where they have been. For some farm visitors, there are requirements on how long it has been since the last time you visited another farm. It does vary a little bit by species in terms of what species have you last visited versus what species are you going to visit next. It really depends on what the risks are in the local area as well. That’s particularly when it comes to endemic diseases as opposed to the bigger ones where there are some really basic ones, trying to keep them out of Canada.
So manageable risk with known visitors and invited visitors is something you can actually prepare for. An uninvited guest is someone you can’t prepare for, and you can’t ensure that they are following the practices you have established for your unique situation.
Senator Simons: Mr. Sadik, thank you very much for your testimony and for your very careful rebuttal of some of the evidence that has been presented before us.
One of the things that concerns me — I share Ms. McElwain’s concern about disease transmission and biosecurity. I really do. But some of the witnesses who have come before us, including the sponsor of this bill, have been quite clear that they are also trying to use this bill to stop protest. We even heard people complaining about protesters on the side of the public highway outside the farm. So to what extent do you think this is a bill about biosecurity and to what extent do you think this is about a bill designed to limit protest, including legal protest, outside the farm gate?
Mr. Sadik: It has been noted by many people that this bill is actually an anti-trespass bill masquerading as a biosecurity bill. If it were a true biosecurity bill, it would have a much broader application, not to the group that, according to the record, since the year 2000, have never once brought an actual biosecurity risk to a farm to the point where it has manifested.
So this is an anti-trespass bill, and in that regard, we have seen that the courts have been willing to strike those portions of it down. In Ontario, earlier this year, a judge struck down parts of the Ontario version of this bill because it was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in terms of the right to freedom of expression, and it also duplicates what is already going on provincially. Trespass is, under the Constitution, a matter that falls squarely within provincial authority.
Senator Simons: Dr. Rastogi, do you think that if this — you mentioned the bill shouldn’t be legislating in the animal act but rather, perhaps, in the Criminal Code? If we were going to increase trespass sanctions, do you think that should be done in the Criminal Code rather than here?
Ms. Rastogi: What I understood from the question is if this is a bill that is addressing trespass, it doesn’t belong in the Health of Animals Act. It belongs somewhere else, for example, in the Criminal Code. I would support that.
Senator Simons: Thanks very much.
Senator Plett: Thank you, witnesses. This bill is not about stopping protests. With all respect, this bill is about stopping trespassers coming onto a farm. It’s not about legal protests. If somebody wants to stand on the road out in the country, on the road away from the farm and protest, this bill doesn’t deal with that.
You have said — I think both Mr. Sadik and Ms. Rastogi indicated that there is no evidence that diseases have been brought on by trespassers. One thing is factual. The diseases have been brought on from off of the farm. There is no doubt about that. As I said to our previous witnesses, in my previous life, we did a lot of work on hog farms. There were many protocols that we had to follow to get onto the farm. Even following those protocols, occasionally disease crept in because someone did not follow protocols or it got transferred from one farm to another.
So you cannot say that it has not happened that a protester has brought a disease on the farm. It’s impossible for me to say they have and equally impossible for you to say they have not.
It’s been brought off of there; that’s why we have biosecurity. Our good farmers are trying to do that. If you don’t think that our farmers are treating the animals the way you think they should be treated, there are ways to do that. Bring legislation forward. We have a couple of animal rights activists, if you will, right here on this committee who are sponsoring bills in the Senate dealing with animals — two bills that are before the Senate right now. That’s the proper way to do it, not by doing something illegal, which is what is happening, which is what this is trying to prevent.
I take no issue with you being opposed to the bill and my favouring the bill — none at all. That’s what a democracy is about. But it has to be done legally.
Mr. Sadik, I would like to know, if I had evidence that you were treating your pet dog in a bad way in your house, do you think it would be okay for me to come pry open your window and crawl into your living room to take pictures of you mistreating your dog? And that is what this is about.
I would like your comments. I may have another question if I have time, and this was more comments than questions, but certainly at the end there was a question. Do you support trespassing on to your property if I truly believe you’re mistreating an animal?
Mr. Sadik: No, I don’t support someone cracking open a window and entering my house if they believe I’m mistreating an animal.
Senator Plett: How about your yard?
Mr. Sadik: We’re not talking about homes or houses. This is not about preventing trespass, break and enter into homes. This is about barns, outbuildings; this is about places of business.
Senator Plett: No, it’s not; it’s about private property. This farm is private property.
Mr. Sadik: It’s not a home.
Senator Plett: It’s private property.
Mr. Sadik: Yes.
Senator Plett: So you just simply say, well, because it’s not a home, go ahead and trespass?
Mr. Sadik: I’m using the analogy you used, and I’m answering your analogy precisely. You said if someone cracks open a window and tries to enter my home, and I answered that question, sir.
Senator Plett: Let me go one step further. Do you think if I believe a pig is being mistreated in a hog barn, it’s okay for me to trespass, go into that barn and risk the lives of a thousand animals and the livelihood of that farmer? Is that okay? Because I think he is legally operating, but you think he is endangering an animal. Are you telling me, here on the record, it’s okay for me to trespass?
Mr. Sadik: Absolutely not, Senator Plett. Animal Justice doesn’t condone the breaking of the law in any way, shape or form. We’re a bunch of lawyers. We’re an animal protection legal organization.
Trespass is the law of the land provincially, and trespass laws must be adhered to. However, there are also situations where journalists go undercover and go into places of business and record misconduct, and that is a strong part of our democratic tradition in this country, and that is illegal under Bill C-275.
Senator Plett: Am I out of time?
The Chair: We’ll get you in the second round.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to all. My question is to Ms. McElwain. I’m going to try to state the reasoning that I heard you make just to make sure I got it right.
I think you were arguing about the importance of biosecurity in terms of a precautionary principle. We have just been through COVID, and we now much better understand that pre-emptive action is preferred to post-infection response.
Ms. McElwain: That’s correct.
Senator Kutcher: African swine fever, which is highly contagious, is spread aerosol-wise through pig-to-pig contact — also with feces and all that other stuff — but it’s also spread by indirect contact through fomite transmission. It sits on boots and things. I don’t know how long those things stay on fomites. I know it can stay in meat for weeks and weeks.
What is, as you apply a public health approach to biosecurity — because this is what you’re arguing, a public health approach — the value of a public health approach, even in the absence of previously documented infection? Is that a useful approach to mitigate potential risks down the road or is it only useful if we have evidence of prior pathogens being brought in this way?
Ms. McElwain: It’s a good question. I think, for a zoonotic virus, it’s more of a public health approach. I would say biosecurity for animal health reasons, especially African swine fever that doesn’t transmit to humans, is probably a more useful way to look at it.
You’re right that it does move through human activities, meat and other products, and that’s why we have campaigns. We can see even in airports for “don’t pack pork” trying to raise the awareness of keeping African swine fever out of Canada.
Our biosecurity practices for African swine fever, in particular, are preventative. They’re to keep the virus out of Canada. However, they’re heavily informed by what we’ve seen with other viruses across Canada that are here and we have experienced. Those are viruses, like circovirus, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome and porcine epidemic diarrhea. Those have all been in Canada, and we know using those same biosecurity principles help to keep those viruses out. Often, as we did see through the pandemic, using protocols for that pre-emptive and proactive protection helps for other viruses as well as the ones you’re targeting.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Welcome, and thank you for your presentations. I’m going to try to get two or three questions in so if I could get pithy answers, that would be helpful. There’s a common theme of interests and advocacy amongst your organizations. Farmed animal health and welfare system is an interest of yours as well as the areas of animal law and advocacy and protecting the welfare of farmed animals.
If this bill were to go through as is, how will that impact your interests with regard to those three areas I just mentioned?
Ms. Rastogi: Thank you for the question. If this bill were to pass, I think it would eliminate an important source of information that comes to agencies that are investigating and trying to enforce strong animal protection in Canada.
On the topic of biosecurity, it may also prevent reporting of infractions against biosecurity protocol just because it reduces that level of transparency.
Ms. McElwain: For Animal Health Canada, the bill would support work we’re doing on biosecurity. It would help to manage risk. It would help ensure any visitor coming onto a farm is following protocols that we spent quite a lot of time working on with our members and that our members have worked on their own to create for themselves, and we heard about that in the last panel.
Mr. Sadik: If the bill became law, it would allow a fair number of animal welfare breaches by bad actors to go undocumented.
That’s because it would chill undercover investigations by investigative journalists, who would be committing an illegal act under this bill, or by individuals who legitimately go in as employees. They do all biosecurity measures at the door, they’re trained in how to work in that particular animal environment and they also happen to be an undercover investigator for an organization. So they’re not trespassers; they’re in the farm and the barns legally. That would also be illegal now under this bill.
Senator Klyne: Very quickly, the CFIA animal welfare mandate covers humane transport of animals and the treatment of food animals in federal abattoirs. Canadian law requires all licence holders who operate slaughter establishments under federal regulations to ensure that all species of food animals are handled and slaughtered humanely, starting with their arrival at the establishment — I guess that’s where CFIA drops off — until slaughter in the facility.
Reflecting back on what Senator Plett said, there’s a piece of legislation missing here that allows agencies to fulfill this area of all species of food animals being handled and slaughtered humanely, starting with their arrival until slaughter in the facility. Why is that not happening through a federal agency? Why do people have to go in undercover, observe those things and bring forward other things that should be brought forward?
Ms. Rastogi: Thank you for the question. I’m a little bit unclear as to the part of that continuum that you said is not under oversight under CFIA.
Senator Klyne: I haven’t found anything — or maybe I have failed to find anything — where a government agency or agencies are not — I don’t know how they fulfill the mandate of ensuring that all animals are handled and slaughtered humanely, starting with their arrival and until their slaughter.
Ms. Rastogi: One thing that is really important to note is that there is no federal oversight for on-farm welfare and care of animals.
Senator Klyne: So why isn’t it there?
Ms. Rastogi: That’s an excellent question.
Senator Klyne: Back to Senator Plett’s point, wouldn’t that be the legislation you would like to see responsibly brought forward?
Ms. Rastogi: Yes, 100%. It is absolutely what’s needed. There was discussion in the previous panel about the lack of national consistency in certain areas, such as biosecurity. There is a tremendous lack of national integration of animal protection laws across the country.
Senator Klyne: Are there any amendments that would improve this bill?
Ms. Rastogi: We don’t support the bill. We wouldn’t support the bill.
Senator Klyne: There is no way you could make it a better bill?
Ms. Rastogi: Correct.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for being here. I’m going to direct my question to Mr. Sadik and Ms. Rastogi. I’m going to start with Mr. Sadik.
I understand you disagree with the risks stated and a number of things that have apparently been said in testimony, and you’ve pretty much already answered this question, but just to take it from a different angle: Would you disagree with passing this bill to define trespassers on private property? I think I heard you say it’s probably not necessary because that’s covered in other legislation, but I would just like some clarity on that.
Ms. Rastogi, can you answer the same? Also, I was interested in your comment about this bill reducing transparency. To me, you’re suggesting that trespassing allows for transparency. I don’t see trespassing and transparency being used in the same sentence; it doesn’t make sense to me. My note here says, “I may be totally naive in how this world works, but ethically, I don’t understand why anyone, overtly or undercover, should be entering private property without permission or under false pretenses.”
So call me naive, but please educate me on the fact this happens.
Mr. Sadik: To answer your trespass question, Senator Sorensen, this bill is characterized as a biosecurity bill — it’s in the title of the bill — but it’s actually all about trespass. Ironically, it’s targeted at the one group that, since the year 2000, the data shows has not brought a biosecurity hazard onto a farm.
Second, trespass is already covered from A to Z in provincial legislation in every single province, so this is a redundant piece of legislation. It’s the federal government trying to make law in an area that, under our Constitution, is under provincial domain.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Ms. Rastogi: Thank you for the question.
With regard to transparency, it is important to highlight here how infractions or complaints get investigated. We’ve been talking about private property but which are closed facilities where animals are being kept. More and more over the course of decades, farming is taking place indoors, behind fences and doors. Animals are not even necessarily able to access outdoor natural environments as much as they used to in the past.
So complaints being prevented through a lack of observation of the state of an animal and the practices that might be taking place, but also reducing complaints from whistle-blowers or increasing the disincentives or even threats of repercussions should whistle-blowers come forward — those are other major losses of important information that would go to enforcement agencies to investigate infractions or potential welfare complaints and cruelty causes, even.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. I just needed the perspective.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you, witnesses.
The biosecurity risk is something that concerns me. Ms. McElwain, you work with the Ontario provincial government and you were the leading expert with the Turkey Farmers of Canada regarding biosecurity, so you know these things but do you really think this bill is addressing biosecurity? Why don’t we work on better and stricter guidelines that would be applicable to all farms across Canada — chicken farms, hog farms and other types of farms — and that would be enforced as a way to protect? So even if an investigating journalist were to go on a farm to take pictures and do a report, they will know how to dress properly to get there before.
Ms. McElwain: Does this amendment help address biosecurity on farms? I would say it does. It helps to manage risk more effectively.
For looking at alternatives to address trespassing, this is one way to do it. There were some discussions in the previous presentations back in May about why they went with the health of animals versus Criminal Code and so on with MP Barlow.
As you likely know, agriculture is a shared responsibility between the federal government and provinces, so we have some federal tools and being able to address this nationally is definitely an ideal scenario. In the provinces, it would be up to them to decide how they want to manage animal welfare, and there are animal welfare legislation and rules in each province and territory. They vary extensively depending on where you are.
When it comes to biosecurity, that tends to be very farm-specific. That is why I want to address that from the biosecurity standpoint a little bit.
Senator Dalphond: Don’t we need more standardized forms and protocols instead of leaving it to each farm?
Ms. McElwain: There are standardized forms and protocols in the national programs. As an example, you spoke about how I used to work for the Turkey Farmers of Canada. That is actually a program that does include biosecurity requirements that apply to all farmers across Canada. That would be very similar —
Senator Dalphond: I’m sorry to interrupt but my time is almost up.
Do the associations have some kinds of mechanisms to make sure these guidelines are complied with? Do you inspect and do you see people visiting farms regularly?
Ms. McElwain: They do. Part of my role was to train auditors. They go out and do assessments of biosecurity practices and protocols. They literally write down and watch how they’re being taken through the farm to see what protocols are being followed based on what’s on paper —
Senator Dalphond: Sorry to interrupt again. Are these protocols made public? I’ve never been called an activist before, but this morning, I think I was. Can activists find these guidelines and protocols on the website?
Ms. McElwain: No, not that I’m aware of, but they do have teeth.
Senator Dalphond: Don’t you think it’s a good idea to make it clear to the public that these are the protocols to be complied with?
Ms. McElwain: I’d have to leave that up to the individual organizations. I couldn’t speak on their behalf.
Senator Dalphond: Mr. Sadik, based on your experience, especially with the judgment from the Superior Court in Ontario last April, just a few months ago — it’s still warm — do you think that somebody who works as an undercover agent hired by one of these firms will lie about the purpose of their hiring and be exposed to be sued under this provision?
Mr. Sadik: Someone —
Senator Dalphond: Wouldn’t they be there lawfully?
Mr. Sadik: Let’s say a journalist gets a job on a farm and doesn’t disclose that they are a journalist. In Ontario and, I believe, in Alberta as well, that would be getting onto the farm under false pretenses and that would be, then, subject to a dramatic fine under this legislation, yes.
Senator Dalphond: You would be unlawfully on the farm?
Mr. Sadik: Not in regards to the biosecurity, cleansing, the booties and the training, but they did not disclose that they were a journalist when they took the job.
Senator Richards: I’m following up on Senator Sorensen and Senator Plett. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Sadik, do you agree we have a trespassing law in this country? You agree, we do. It’s under provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Sadik: Yes.
Senator Richards: So you agree that the RCMP or provincial police under provincial jurisdiction should be allowed to arrest protesters coming onto farms?
Mr. Sadik: Arrest trespassers? Absolutely.
Senator Richards: So you’re arguing against your own statement there. Because you indicated that if this was in the law about trespassers going on to farms, this should not be a subject of debate or that these trespassers should not be arrested.
Mr. Sadik: May I answer that?
Senator Richards: Yes, please.
Mr. Sadik: What I was referring to is an investigative journalist who obtains employment with that farm not disclosing the fact that she’s a journalist who undergoes the biosecurity treatment, wears the biosecurity clothes and knows all the training. That person could still be found in breach of the law under this legislation if it passes even though they are not a trespasser. They are in their place of employment with the permission of the employer.
Senator Richards: I don’t think this bill says that.
Mr. Sadik: It does where it says “without lawful authority or excuse.”
Senator Richards: If they’re hired by the person who owns the farm, they’re under lawful authority to be there.
Mr. Sadik: It’s nuanced. I understand where it gets foggy—
Senator Richards: It will be thrown out of court, sir.
Mr. Sadik: In Ontario, it’s against the law under the ag gag law in Ontario not to disclose that you’re a journalist or, oddly enough, that you have a post-secondary education.
Senator Richards: I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t want to admit they have a post-secondary education, sir.
Senator Plett: I want to re-emphasize, Mr. Sadik, this bill only prevents illegal entry. It does not impact those that are there legally, even undercover journalists. The bill doesn’t address motivation but simply whether they are present with permission or not. You have told me it’s okay to trespass on my property not on yours, but — sorry, that is what you said, sir.
My question is for Humane Canada, and I’m not going to try to butcher your name again. I’m sorry. I apologize for that. Your organization basically says Humane Canada doesn’t support actions that threaten farmers, their families, animals or public safety. Thank you for that. I agree with you. But then you say you don’t support Bill C-275 because it reduces transparency.
On one hand, you seem to be trying to distance yourself from the individuals and organizations who illegally enter private property — it doesn’t matter what Mr. Sadik says; a farm is private property — and follow no biosecurity protocols, at times, stealing the property of those owners by releasing their animals. Then, on the other hand, you suggest that these same people are providing a legitimate public service because they increase transparency no matter how illegal their activity is.
How would you ensure that trespassers don’t bring harmful pathogens if you believe this legislation is unnecessary? There has to be something. Isn’t it irresponsible to oppose a bill that would prevent outbreaks affecting both animal and human health?
I have no issue with you thinking the animals are being mistreated, and if that’s the case, you should get somebody to present legislation to prevent that from happening. I support you in that. But you are saying on one hand, it’s okay to go there and risk the lives of 1,000 pigs or 20,000 little chicks because you are doing a public service. Who pays for that? Who pays the cost of what has happened there?
Ms. Rastogi: Thank you so much for the question and for your support, which we’ll look forward to when we try to bring forward national animal welfare legislation and for your good work in other areas.
What I want to clarify is the question: Why is it that people are taking issue with the way animals are farmed in Canada? It’s because we have significant problems. We have a system that is not protecting their welfare and therefore —
Senator Plett: Legally, though? Is it illegal for the person to be there? That’s my question.
Ms. Rastogi: We definitely don’t support illegal activities like trespassing. Absolutely not. However, this whole issue is highlighting an important area where we do need action, and it’s not in the context of trespassing and the Health of Animals Act as proposed in this legislation. It’s a much bigger issue. It’s —
Senator Plett: But we’re dealing only with this legislation.
Ms. Rastogi: We should be addressing the root cause of the issue.
Senator Plett: Fair enough. Separately.
Ms. Rastogi: The current farming system is putting at risk not only the welfare of animals but also the people who are employed and working in this area. It’s putting at risk our environment —
Senator Plett: Great legislation. Great legislation. I’m sorry for cutting you off, but I know the chair’s going to cut me off.
I have a yes or no question for Animal Health Canada. It’s a yes or no question. Does Animal Health Canada support this legislation?
Ms. McElwain: Animal Health Canada supports increased biosecurity.
Senator Simons: Mr. Sadik, we’ve heard there have been no cases of transmission of disease to animals from protesters. Can you tell us, on the other hand, whether any animal rights activists who shot videos have uncovered or documented proven cases of animal mistreatment or neglect?
Mr. Sadik: Yes, various organizations and the internet are full of examples of the mistreatment of animals by bad actors on Canadian farms. Yes.
Senator Simons: Have any of these exposés led to an investigation or a conviction?
Mr. Sadik: There have been a fair number of exposés. Some of them have led to an investigation by provincial animal welfare government agencies and a smaller proportion has led to convictions of some sort of the operators of those farms. That’s the case, yes.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Witnesses, I’d like to thank you very much for your participation today. Your testimony and insight are much appreciated. I want to thank the committee members for your active participation and thoughtful questions.
As always, I would like to thank the folks that support us, our pages and the folks behind the scenes who do so much work for us.
Before I adjourn, I wanted to share with the committee that our clerk will be leaving us very shortly. We will be having a new clerk and that will be Raymond St-Martin, and our current clerk and the new clerk will be working together to do a transition, but we will be losing our wonderful clerk.
With that, senators, I do want the steering committee to meet for five minutes or less. Other than that, I move the meeting be adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)