THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 10, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9:59 a.m. [ET] to consider 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: Honourable senators, good morning.
Before we begin, I want to remind you all in the room about consulting the cards in front of you about guidelines to prevent audio feedback with respect to our hearing pieces. Please take note of the following measures: If possible, ensure you’re seated, use only the approved earpiece in front of you and keep it away from the microphones. Doing so will help us ensure the folks who support us so diligently are protected.
I want to begin by welcoming members of the committee and our witness, as well as those watching on the web. My name is Rob Black, I’m a senator from Ontario and I chair this committee. Before we hear from our witness today, I’d like to start by asking senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Hello. I’m Senator Paula Simons from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator McNair: Good morning. John McNair from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Hello. Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. Welcome.
[English]
Senator Burey: Good morning. Sharon Burey, Ontario.
Senator McBean: Morning. Marnie McBean, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Hello. Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Pate: Good morning and welcome. I’m Kim Pate, and I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Richards: Good morning. Dave Richards from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Today, the committee continues its examination of Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms). We welcome back Mr. John Barlow, Member of Parliament for Foothills and the sponsor of the bill. Mr. Barlow, you have 10 minutes for your presentation. I’ll signal when one minute remains, and you can start to wrap up. When I have both hands up, it means we’re close to wrapping up.
The floor is yours.
John Barlow, Member of Parliament for Foothills — sponsor of the bill, as an individual: Thank you very much to the senators and the Agriculture Committee for inviting me back to discuss my private member’s bill.
I’m not going to try to go over too much of the territory that we covered last time, but I do see there are some new senators here, so I will try and cover some things that might be repetitive for others. I apologize for that.
This is a private member’s bill about which I am very passionate. This started as a result of an incident in my own riding where the Tschetter family near Fort Macleod, on a Jumbo Valley turkey farm, gave me a call early one morning. They had about 30 to 35 protesters on their farm, in their turkey barn, trying to steal a number of turkeys.
This was traumatic for that family in a number of ways. They have a free-range turkey farm. They do everything they possibly can to take care of their animals. Animal welfare, for all farmers and ranchers, is of the utmost importance. They questioned themselves as to what they did to attract that kind of activity. It was a mental health challenge for them, certainly in the days and weeks that followed.
There were big concerns as to the impacts it would have on their farm, as these folks who had come onto private property were not following the very strict biosecurity protocols that were in place. That was a concern. I had a number of calls from producers across Canada saying that this is becoming much too common and more brazen than they had ever seen in the past. Yes, some provinces have standards, policies and legislation in place such that there are consequences for this, but the fact that this is continuing to happen makes it clear that those punishments or those policies in place are not deterrent enough.
I made some phone calls to other colleagues and experts in the field, and one thing that really concerned me with this particular incident was the fact that a number of those protesters had been on a hog farm in B.C. only a week before. They could very easily have been transferring a virus or something from one farm to another. In their defence, they would have done so without knowing the potential consequences of their activities. I certainly know that no one is going there to cause an animal outbreak or a pandemic outbreak of avian influenza or African swine fever. However, as legislators, and as protectors of our economy and, certainly, our agriculture industry, I think it behooves us to ensure that all tools are in place to protect biosecurity on farms and food security.
That is why I came up with this bill. It is an amendment to the Health of Animals Act. This was just to make it an offence to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place where animals are kept, if doing so could result in the exposure of animals to disease or toxic substances capable of affecting or contaminating them.
That aims to apply existing penalties within the act to people trespassing on farm property or facilities where livestock is kept. It proposes to increase fines for groups and organizations that encourage unlawful behaviours that put biosecurity and food security at risk.
I know I said this last time, but because we have some new senators here, I want to drive this point home — and I can’t emphasize this enough: This bill doesn’t limit an individual’s right to protest. All we are saying with this bill is that there has to be a strong notification that there is a line over which one must not cross. If you want to protest on public property outside of that farm, by all means, you are more than welcome to do that — that is your right — but there has to be a line in the sand whereby if you cross onto private property where biosecurity protocols are strongly in place, not only by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, the Government of Canada and provinces but also by the agriculture groups that have mandatory rules in place as well.
This bill doesn’t prevent whistle-blowers from coming forward if they witness practices that jeopardize our food safety, or the health and welfare of our animals. Canadian farmers and ranchers have a moral and legal obligation to look after their animals and report any instances that might cause concern.
I know we talked about this a bit last time — I talked about my own issue with a constituent in my riding: There are going to be comments that there is no proof that protesters or trespassers on farms have caused an animal health outbreak, but that simply isn’t true. We know of two instances in Canada where this did happen, and we now know definitively of a case in the United States. The California Department of Food and Agriculture reported outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza last year. According to that report, animal activists were caught on video trespassing in poultry barns, removing ducks. Eight days later, there was a noted decrease in egg production, which was a sign the animals were infected. The activists posted on social media that they had rescued these birds from the poultry farm, but there was later an outbreak on that farm and another farm. As a result of that outbreak, 250,000 chickens and ducks were killed in Sonoma County, which the government of California has attributed to the activities of those trespassers.
The other point I want to get home is that this isn’t about being reactive; this is about being proactive. I had the opportunity to meet with the deans of the animal health and veterinary colleges and universities of Canada a few days ago. I raised this issue with a number of those veterinarians, doctors and deans. They were adamantly supportive of this bill, and here is the reason: We have not had an outbreak of African swine fever in Canada yet, but it’s very likely to happen. We are very concerned about foot-and-mouth disease. We’ve seen the impacts of avian flu. We must limit every collision point between trespassers or folks who don’t understand the protocols in place and our animals that are on the farm; we must minimize those collision points. That is what this tool is meant to do.
We have to be proactive, not reactive, because the consequences of being reactive are catastrophic. Those are the words from those doctors and veterinarians I spoke with. We had a very serious outbreak of avian flu in Canada just recently where we lost almost 8 million domestic birds.
The impact of the outbreak of African swine fever would be a $24-billion economic blow to Canadian agriculture. There are 45,000 people employed in this industry. The transmission or possible transmission from human to animal is very real.
Even the current government understands the severity of this issue. Only last week, the government announced $13 million to be spread across a number of agriculture groups for animal welfare and pandemic prevention. They’ve also committed $55 million in last year’s budget to implement a partnership between Canada and the United States to address an outbreak of African swine fever, including the development of a vaccine bank.
Even the current government understands how serious this issue is and is putting tools in place to protect our producers and our ranchers. Again, it is about protecting our biosecurity, food security and supply chain.
As I said, senators, I need to be adamant: This does not prevent people from protesting. What it does, I believe, is to send a national message from the House of Commons — and hopefully from the Senate — that we will stand firmly behind our farmers and ranchers, and we will stand firmly behind the very strong biosecurity protocols we have on farms.
We must do that, because when we’re talking about food security, we’re not just talking about food security just here at home. Canada is one of only five countries that produce enough agriculture goods to not only feed our own population but help feed the world. A catastrophic outbreak of something like African swine fever or foot and mouth would not only be devastating to Canada. It would also be devastating for our commitments and our burden to help feed the world. That’s why I believe that this legislation is so important.
Senators, thank you very much for having me back to talk about this bill, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much Mr. Barlow.
We’ll start questions and answers. You will five minutes for both the question and answer, and then we’ll go to rounds two and three as necessary. I’m going to take my right to ask the first question, if that’s okay.
Mr. Barlow, we’ve heard testimony while looking at this bill about how biosecurity measures and responses on farms are voluntary, and we’ve heard that from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA. We’ve recently received written information from an organization that previously testified that the measures and responses are mandatory. What do you read into this issue? How do you see it?
Mr. Barlow: Thank you very much, chair. That is true, a number of the biosecurity protocols that are in place are voluntary, but what makes agriculture unique is the stakeholder groups, whether that’s the Canadian Pork Council, Dairy Farmers of Canada or Chicken Farmers of Canada. They also have mandatory protocols that they put in place on top of the federal and provincial regulations that are there, and those regulations are audited by a third party. It’s not just that this is something that they have put on their producers, and the reason is twofold. The essence of this bill is to ensure the protection of the biosecurity and that we meet very strong food and animal health standards, but our producers would not be able to sell their products on the open market, and certainly with our free trade agreements around the world, if they did not meet these very detailed, mandatory programs.
I’ll give you a couple of examples. Dairy Farmers of Canada has the proAction program. They adhere to a mandatory and coordinated national assurance framework. This framework is constantly evolving to reflect new practices as we’ve seen robotics and things that have been brought in for dairy farmers. This is part of the National Farm Animal Care Council, which has been assessed by that council.
The Chicken Farmers of Canada has the Raised by a Canadian Farmer On-Farm Food Safety Program, which follows very strict biosecurity measures to protect animal health and prevent infections from outside sources. These are mandatory rules that govern chicken farmers from coast to coast, and are top-notch gold standard requirements for biosecurity and disease prevention.
The Turkey Farmers of Canada has the On-Farm Food Safety Program, which is an extensive biosecurity measure, restricting access to people and animals to barns, disinfecting equipment, taking barn management and hygiene precautions. That is overseen, again, by the National Farm Animals Care Council’s code of practice.
Last, the Canadian Pork Council has the National Swine Farm-Level Biosecurity Standard, which sets a world standard for mandatory protocol for producers to follow, which again, enables them to access markets through the Verified Canadian Pork certification program where biosecurity codes of practice are developed with various stakeholders, including Humane Canada, which has a seat on that council which develops those protocols.
Those are the ones I wanted to highlight, because those are the sectors of the industry that are most targeted. I think it shows how committed these groups are to ensuring that not only do they want to meet the voluntary standards, they want to go over and above and impose on themselves mandatory protocols to ensure that there is consumer confidence, as well as the confidence of our global trading partners where our markets are.
The Chair: Are you aware of mandatory notification if an outbreak occurs?
Mr. Barlow: Absolutely. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency must be made aware of any outbreak. I think that’s going to be a discussion for another issue. I don’t think the CFIA has the resources to meet — we really saw that with the outbreak of avian flu, where their resources were stretched very thin.
I will give you an example. In the rules of CFIA, if there’s an outbreak or a noted case of avian flu, they’re supposed to be in that barn and culling that flock within 48 hours. In the most recent case in the Fraser Valley, at times it was up to two weeks before CFIA could get there.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Thank you, Mr. Barlow, for drawing our attention to these issues of biosecurity, which I think were eye opening for some of us.
I had different questions I wanted to ask, but following up from what the chair said, I’m still a bit perplexed. When you say that these programs are mandatory — and perhaps it’s not fair to ask you this question, but I think that you and Senator Black opened the door to it — mandatory how? How are they inspected? How are they enforced? What are the punishments if you break the rules? Because the CFIA repeatedly refers to this as voluntary. When you’re saying the producers’ associations have their own mandatory codes, who mandates them, and what are the consequences if you don’t meet those goals?
Mr. Barlow: Thank you very much for the question, senator. Each one of these industries will have a different oversight from a different council. As I said, with a couple of them, it is the Canadian Pork Council that does that. On the beef side, it’s the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef and it’s the National Farm Animal Care Council. They all have a different oversight or administrator that would develop these protocols.
The consequences of not meeting these are very much financial. If you don’t meet these standards, you are not able to sell your product, so there’s not a producer out there who is raising these animals at this level who is just doing it as a hobby. To meet these standards, it’s very serious and expensive.
I’ve been to a number of farms this summer, as I know you have. When I go to a chicken farm, I’m wearing a full hazmat suit and spraying my boots. It was the same thing at a potato farm in P.E.I. this weekend. Those are the steps they take. The consequences, again, are that you are not able to sell your products.
Senator Simons: Are there regular inspections? How do we know this is being enforced? When you say you’re not able to sell, what does that mean? If you’re a supply market thing, I suppose there’s quota, but what stops you, if you’re a cattle producer, from being able to sell your cattle to slaughter?
Mr. Barlow: If you try to sell your cattle, your hogs or your chickens — on the cattle side you’re going to an auction or going to the feedlot — they will not buy those animals if you have not been verified and certified. It’s the same for any livestock. They are regularly inspected, and I would say they are inspected on two levels. They are inspected by the council, their oversight, which has inspectors to take on that work, but also by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and I can tell you that it’s not always easy —
Senator Simons: CFIA has told us it’s voluntary.
Mr. Barlow: I realize that, but they’re still inspecting those farms.
Senator Simons: I appreciate your concern for biosecurity, and I think all of us around the table have come to understand how important this is, especially in an era of zoonotic viruses jumping the species barrier. I’ve seen some really disturbing stories from the United States last week about the number of dairy workers and poultry workers who are getting forms of avian influenza from working with animals. I mean, that’s very concerning in the wake of the COVID pandemic.
Do you feel that there are other steps we should be taking to ensure biosecurity on farms, whether that is making more of these protocols mandatorily enforced by the government or whether that is ensuring not just the trespassers don’t bring in viruses but that there are strict protocols to ensure others who are coming on to farm don’t bring in viruses?
Mr. Barlow: I believe we have to look at every tool available. This is one tool. We looked at a number of options before we came up with this private member’s bill, including looking at the Criminal Code, looking at grain and including that. As you know, a private member’s bill is not always easy. Amending the Health of Animals Act looked as if it covered a lot of what we were trying to accomplish without going too broad.
To answer the first part of your question, I believe that with the two levels we have on the voluntary and the additional mandatory, we do have that covered. Again, these things are fluid; they change as new issues arise.
To the second part of your question, those people who come on the farm who are lawfully there are already protected. Again, that’s why we put this in here. They understand the protocols, whether they’re delivering fertilizer or working with those animals — a dairy farmer having his milk picked up. Those people already know and follow those protocols, and they are well trained to meet those protocols.
Senator Simons: It seems to me that if we’re seriously concerned about cross-contamination, the far more dangerous vector are the people who are habitually going onto farms and habitually going from farm to farm versus the extraordinarily rare occurrence, statistically speaking, of protesters bringing in a contagion.
I’ll go on a second round, thank you.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Barlow, for being here.
I think all of my questions so far have been focused on clause 9.1, because it has a very narrow focus. In your opening remarks, you indicated — and I understand; you said it doesn’t prohibit protests because the phrase “that could reasonably be expected to result in the exposure” is there — so I understood that part. But the amendment also refers to persons “without lawful authority or excuse.” I’ve heard the bill should apply to everyone on farms, not just the people who are unauthorized. I had understood there was some consideration of an amendment of that nature.
Could you speak to that? Because that section is so narrow. Why wasn’t it broadened, and why wasn’t the amendment accepted? Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Barlow: Certainly. I was asked this question a number of times when I was here the initial time, but I understand you weren’t part of that.
That amendment was turned down at our Agriculture Committee in the House of Commons. The only party that supported that was the NDP. I’ll be really upfront with this, because I’ve answered this a number of times: That amendment put forward does nothing to improve the bill. In my opinion, it was a way to delay the passage of this legislation by trying to have an amendment there.
As I said, those who are lawfully on farms already understand and follow very strict protocols. This is to address those who are unlawfully on farms. Again, whistle-blowers are not impacted by this, because they are lawfully on farms; they are farm family or a farm employee.
I should mention this as well: Mr. Francis Drouin, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri‑Food, made this comment:
I just have a comment on the overall amendment from my perspective. While we support the objective —
Senator Marshall: Why make the amendment, then? I find that section to be really narrow, so who proposed the amendment?
Mr. Barlow: The mover of the amendment to change it, which is the question that has been asked a number of times, was Alistair MacGregor of the NDP.
Senator Marshall: And it was rejected?
Mr. Barlow: That’s correct.
Senator Marshall: Was it supported by — we’ve had farmers here who support this bill, but did they support that amendment?
Mr. Barlow: No.
I need to be clear again: The only people who are asking for this amendment are the animal activists who are trying to shut down animal agriculture.
I’ve dealt with this for many, many years. They are not trying to improve animal health. They are not trying to improve livestock and animal husbandry. Their goal is to shut down animal agriculture in this country and North America. The only people who are asking for this amendment are those anti-animal agriculture activists.
Farmers unanimously support this legislation. I have not spoken to a single farmer or rancher who opposes this as written.
Senator Marshall: The trouble is with the narrow focus. It’s “persons without lawful authority” and “could be reasonably expected to result in the exposure.”
Thank you very much. I will go on a second round.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Mr. Barlow, for being with us.
As others have said, we all agree on the devastating impact of infectious disease and don’t want to see any of those kinds of outbreaks on farms or anywhere, quite frankly. The impacts of those, not only on individual farmers but on the national economy, are of concern to many of us.
But we’ve heard testimony here — and I understand you did on the House side as well — that one of the biggest threats is actually migratory birds. In fact, one of the most significant outbreaks — which has been quoted as one of the reasons for needing this bill — involved a migratory bird.
So instead of continuing down this route, what do you think of the idea of looking at legislation wherein instead of the primary purpose being the regulation of folks coming onto the land — because we’ve also heard that enforcement, as Senator Simons said, is voluntary — we look at other mechanisms of standardizing biosecurity measures, of assisting farmers in implementing those standards and other measures? Did you look at those as well before coming up with this bill?
Mr. Barlow: Like I said, we looked at a number of different options. I will admit that we didn’t look at how to control migratory birds. That is one of the main causes of avian flu, for example. That would be a major concern. I don’t know what we would do for that legislatively.
Again, I really have to stress this point where you keep saying that enforcement is voluntary. Enforcement is not voluntary. From the federal perspective, the CFIA protocols are voluntary, but each agriculture industry sector group has their own mandatory protocols in place. So I would encourage senators not to have in your mind that this is voluntary, because that simply isn’t true. Enforcing these biosecurity protocols is mandatory.
Senator Pate: You’re on record as stating that this bill is to support farmers’ mental health by preventing trespass on their farms. Today, you repeated that your interest is not in preventing protesters, but when you were asked if protesters who are following biosecurity protocols should still be penalized, even if they don’t pose a biosecurity risk, you stated in the House of Commons that they should because of the mental health impacts those kinds of intrusions have on farmers.
To me, those statements seem to demonstrate, at the very least, some ambivalence in terms of your approach but also that the bill’s purpose is clearly not just to focus on the protection of farms from biosecurity threats but to penalize protesters.
If you want to legislate to support farmers’ mental health, what other avenues are available or that you examined in terms of how the federal government could go about that?
Mr. Barlow: We actually had a portion of the private member’s bill the first time we did this in the previous Parliament that included mental health — having that in the mandate of Farm Credit Canada. In the discussions with my colleagues from the other parties, they just felt that it broadened the bill a bit too much, so we voluntarily took that out.
Again, senators, there are real consequences when these trespassers come on farms, absolutely. They are putting the biosecurity of farmers at risk, but there are also very real consequences to the mental health of the farmers who are dealing with this. It is twofold. I don’t think anyone expects to get up in the morning to check your barn and see 40 people who have broken into your property and are stealing your animals. As Mr. Perron of the Bloc Québécois eloquently said in his speech in the House:
Can you imagine waking up in the morning, walking downstairs in your own house and having there a group stealing your pets?
We would never say that was acceptable, but for some reason, we’re playing with this in terms of this being a different set of circumstances. It’s not.
But you also have to realize something. I saw this with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in my own riding, but I’ve talked to many farmers and when you have an outbreak of an animal virus, you have to euthanize, on the bird side, hundreds of thousands of animals. That is crushing. They don’t take that lightly. They have worked every day to ensure the health of their animals. It is their livelihood. The impact on the family of having to euthanize a herd of cows, a flock of birds, a barn of pigs is devastating. There is a mental health aspect to it.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much for being here.
I have a little summer home where I have a couple of acres of grain and a little shed. I wouldn’t want anyone trespassing on that. It’s not much, but if someone came in and they tore it all apart, I would be pretty angry, too. You have already gotten to the crux of that problem. I look at this as not so much as trespassing to protect animals, the underlying motivation is to destroy the very industry that they are protesting. In its own way, as slight as they might seem to think it is, it’s a terror tactic. That’s how I look at this bill.
Protesting is fine, but breaking into someone’s place to protest should not be allowed, and I don’t know if this bill actually says that, but I think this is what the underlying focus of the bill probably wants to be.
Mr. Barlow: Yes, certainly one element that we could help to address is focusing on ensuring that protesters understand the consequences of their activities and that there are costs to that. As I have said here previously, there are existing penalties in place in some provinces, but there’s no national standard, which is why we did this as an amendment to the Health of Animals Act.
The protesters come onto a farm and film the activities they are doing, and sometimes they are killing animals. Inadvertently, perhaps, but when you walk into a chicken barn as 40 people, they flock to the opposite end and often trample each other. They are often doing more harm than good. For them, the current deterrents that are in place are the cost of doing business for these groups. I had a statistic here last time, and I’m happy to share that information again. In the United States, these groups fundraised $800 million off protesting on farms.
In contrast, the cost to Canadian farmers is far more impactful. As I said, with an outbreak of African swine fever in Canada, that would be hundreds of billions of dollars to the Canadian economy and the complete loss of Canada’s pork industry.
Senator Richards: If trespassers went onto a chicken farm, and were caught doing so and taking photographs or video, or whatever they are doing, would the farmer be obligated — or by his conscience — to destroy those animals?
Mr. Barlow: Very possibly, depending on which province they’re in. Because they have come in and if they didn’t follow protocol, they would likely have to euthanize that entire barn.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator McNair: Mr. Barlow, thank you for being here for a second time. I appreciate you appearing in person.
Like Senator Marshall, I am struggling with the text of clause 9.1. We did hear from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that the greatest risk to animals is transmitted from farm to farm, from workers, suppliers, machinery, et cetera, going between the farms, and from birds and wildlife. In other words, not from people present illegally.
Keeping that in mind, for me, at least, this struggle is without lawful authority or excuse. Listening to your opening comments today, you mentioned that we must minimize collision points, and we get that. Contact points would be another way of describing it. If that truly is the goal, doesn’t a broader application make sense if the intent is to enhance biosecurity and limit those collision points?
Mr. Barlow: I should have been clear with this, too. We didn’t come up with this language just willy-nilly. When we developed this legislation, we were very detailed in how we worded it. To the senators, this wording comes from the existing language of the Health of Animals Act, as well as the controls of diseases and toxic substances acts.
The prohibition section of that bill says:
No person shall knowingly enter a building or other enclosed place in contravention of a notice affixed under this section, unless the person has a right of entry or way into the building or place or any part thereof or an inspector or officer has authorized the entry.
This language is in the parts of the Act titled, “Notice forbidding entry,” section 7, and “Notice forbidding entry without permission.” This isn’t language we put together because we were trying to be restrictive, this is language we took directly from existing legislation and transferred into our amendment to the Health of Animals Act. We wanted to be consistent with the language, we didn’t want to bring in something that was completely inconsistent with the existing language of the bill as it stood.
Senator McNair: In the 43rd Parliament, in Bill C-205, I think it was, the amendment was made to take that language out. Is that correct?
Mr. Barlow: That is correct.
Senator McNair: From my perspective, you indicated that it does nothing to improve the bill by taking that language out. One thing it does do, potentially, is removing the likelihood of the success of a constitutional challenge, does it not? Because you’re not specifically focused on one group of people, which is illegal trespassers.
Mr. Barlow: To the first part of your question or your statement, yes, it was included in the previous Bill C-205, but on this subsequent, I had much greater discussion with my Liberal and Bloc colleagues, who also did not support the inclusion of that amendment. As I mentioned, MP Francis Drouin had a very strong comment on why that amendment does not belong, so that’s why there is the difference between Bill C-205 and Bill C-275.
On the constitutionality side, senators would know, there are two things. No province has approached me with concerns about impugning on their jurisdiction. In fact, my conversations with the agriculture ministers across Canada have been very supportive, even in regions where they have their own legislation, like Alberta and Saskatchewan, for example, but any time that we develop a private member’s bill, it is highly scrutinized by the law clerk, who would see if it meets the standard of being constitutional. We worked very closely with the law clerk’s office to ensure that this private member’s bill met that standard, and I trust the experts in the law clerk’s office to ensure that any private member’s bill that we put forward will meet that scrutiny.
Senator McNair: You’re talking above and beyond a Charter statement.
Mr. Barlow: I’m just saying we go by the experts who have reviewed this legislation and helped us write it in the law clerk’s office, and that it meets the constitutionality standard.
Senator McNair: It’s clear, a Charter statement is not a legal opinion on the constitutionality of the bill.
Mr. Barlow: I don’t believe this is an unconstitutional private member’s bill in any way.
Senator McNair: When I say a challenge, I’m not thinking of a challenge from the provinces with respect to the trespass laws, primarily, I’m thinking of a challenge from the animal rights activists.
Mr. Barlow: I can’t predict if they will challenge this. I’m sure they will, but that’s not my job as a legislator. My job as a legislator is to come up with legislation that I believe addresses a very serious concern in Canada, which I do believe firmly that this does.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you for being here to enlighten us. Today, our study focuses on the examination of section 9.1. I had the same questions as Senator Marshall. We’ll have to make some decisions about wording later.
I’d like to hear your comments on the history. I read the debates on Bill C-205 in 2021. I understand the discussion on the amendments. When you worked on those bills, what were your thoughts about the Criminal Code? I’m wondering why you didn’t turn to subsection 348(1),which I’ll read in part for the benefit of the committee, and which states the following:
is guilty
(d)if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life,
I refer you to subsection 348(3)(d), which refers to a place in relation to which an individual guilty of breaking and entering is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. Since it’s important to know whether this section applies to what we’re discussing or not, the code states that the word “place” means, “a pen or an enclosure in which fur-bearing animals are kept in captivity for breeding or commercial purposes”. That’s what we’re discussing today.
What led you to draft a separate bill on biosecurity, rather than applying section 348 of the Criminal Code or clarifying that you felt it fell short of achieving the same objective?
[English]
Mr. Barlow: Thank you, senator, I appreciate your question. We did look at changes to the Criminal Code, which is a whole different level of processes, but our concern with addressing this through the Criminal Code was that we thought it was too narrow and that it would not include other areas where animals are kept where biosecurity protocols are in place like, as you mentioned, barns.
Our legislation would include trucks, transportation from farm to auction mart, for example, fairs and other places where there could be that connection between a person and an animal. We just felt the Criminal Code was not the way to go. Yes, we did look at that as an option, but we felt amending the Health of Animals Act was a much more positive and effective way of doing this.
Senator McBean: Clearly, we’re all coming somewhat at the same issue, looking at trespassing being provincial, and so it’s the same as senators Marshall, McNair and Oudar.
The Alberta government, particularly, often criticizes the federal government for wading into provincial jurisdictions. You’ve asked and said in your testimony that the goal was for us to show the farmers that the Senate has their back.
To make this a strong biosecurity bill, if the people who are lawfully on the farm are already following biosecurity measures, what does it hurt to make it broader? What does it hurt to include everyone if the penalty goes to those who are entering the place and could reasonably be expected to result in exposure? Because if people who are lawfully there are doing everything right, then there’s no reasonable expectation that they’re causing exposure, so it would cover the people who are just not following biosecurity measures. What does it hurt to make it broader?
Mr. Barlow: To answer the first part of your question regarding Alberta, as I said, I’ve had conversations with every agriculture minister in the country — they’ve changed a bit as elections happen — there are no concerns about impeding on provincial jurisdiction. In fact, it was quite the opposite, because one element of this bill that the provinces don’t have is an element to lay charges or consequences on those groups who organize these types of protests. As I said, there is substantial fundraising off of this, so that’s on the provincial side.
We wanted a national program, while there are only four provinces that have something like this in place. Again, their consequences or deterrents are much, much lower. If those provincial deterrents were working, why are these things continuing to happen with more regular occurrences and even more brazen than we’ve seen in the past? Just to address that.
On the language itself, we wanted to keep the language consistent with the language that is already in the Health of Animals Act, but again, this doesn’t make it broader.
Senators, I was asked this question at least half a dozen times the first time I was here, and I’m getting asked it again. I would encourage you to ask questions that are brought forward by the producers and the farmers. This question — the only group asking for this — are the anti-animal activists who are hoping to delay and kill this bill. I get it. That is their right. But those who are lawfully on farms are already covered. They understand the protocols in place. This does not do anything to wrest these rights from a whistle-blower, because they already have the right to be on the farm, as a farm employee or as a member of the farm family. Again, farmers and farm employees legally and morally must report any abuse or any contraventions to the voluntary and mandatory protocols that are in place.
Senator McBean: We’re asking the questions here. I’m asking the question not as an animal activist, I’m asking the question as someone who has been asked to protect the biosecurity on farms and ranches. I don’t see how making it narrow and saying only the people who are unlawfully there, who are entering a place, could reasonably expect it. I’m trying to make a strong biosecurity bill. You’ve titled it a biosecurity bill, so that is the question that we’re asking, sir.
Mr. Barlow: I appreciate that, senator. I’ve been asked this question at least a dozen times, I’ve answered it a dozen times, and my answer remains the same. We’ve kept the language consistent with what is already in the Health of Animals Act, we did not want to add an inconsistency to the language already in the bill, and that language doesn’t change the rules that are already in place.
Senator Plett: I will be brief, because I would like to give the time to people who have concerns about the bill, and I certainly don’t. Thank you, Mr. Barlow, for being here.
You answered at the end of answering Senator McBean’s question — and further to what Senator McNair said — that the animal rights activists will challenge this no matter what you put in there. The animal rights activists don’t want any bill, they want to be able to trespass and they want to be able to go and create disturbances. But this bill was drafted to focus specifically on addressing biosecurity threats posed by those who are illegally present on agricultural property. Yet it seems here — and we’ve heard it again today — that some witnesses and senators think that unless the bill addresses every biosecurity concern presented by anyone, the scope is too narrow.
I have one quick question. Do you believe that there is a danger here of allowing the perfect be the enemy of the good by doing this?
Mr. Barlow: Thank you, senator. There’s nothing nefarious in the language that we chose for this legislation. I apologize to the senators, but you can tell my passion for our farmers and the frustration I hear on a regular basis in my conversations with them when they feel they’re being neglected for other elements.
Yes, as I’ve said, this is one tool that we can provide legislators, and certainly those who are involved in enforcement, but as a strong deterrent to those groups who, again, maybe unknowingly or not on purpose, are putting our biosecurity and our food chain at risk. I believe we have to have very strong language and very strong deterrents to ensure that they will understand that there are consequences when you cross that line and put our food security at risk.
Senator Plett: Please don’t apologize for being passionate. I share that passion, and I think farmers from coast to coast to coast appreciate that passion. This is trying to help the industry.
Mr. Barlow, it is clear that senators are considering amendments to broaden the prohibitions of this bill to include the sanctioning of farm workers, for example. If such an amendment were to happen here at committee, what do you think will be the real-world consequences of this, and do you feel that such an amendment would exceed the scope of the bill?
Mr. Barlow: I think the very real world consequences could be the devastating outbreak of an animal virus. We have already seen that with avian flu, which happens much more frequently than it ever has before, and we are very cognizant of African swine fever coming into Canada. They lost more than a million hogs in China with the outbreak of African swine fever. We’ve now seen it in the Dominican Republic and some of the Caribbean countries, which means it’s on our doorstep.
Senators, there are many steps we can take to try to protect our food supply and our food security. This is one tool. I would encourage senators — yes, there are some nuances around the language, but, again, we used the language that already exists in the act. I would encourage senators to move this along as quickly as possible, with your scrutiny, of course. This is not a matter of if but when, and I need to ensure that our agriculture industry has all the tools at its disposal to protect its animals. They take every step possible. You’ve had the CFIA here. You’ve had the animal industries here. You understand the passion and the care they take to protect their herds and flocks.
This is another tool that will send a very strong message to Canadians and to our trading partners around the world that we take this seriously, and that we are taking steps immediately to try and protect Canadian agriculture.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much. I assure you, there are those of us who will try to move this along as rapidly as we can. Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: Most of my questions have been asked and answered, so thank you.
I have just one small question now. I know it’s not directed to the bill, but I assume you’ve talked to many provinces and done a lot of research for this. Is it the case or is it documented that farmers feel the provincial deterrence — provincial legislation, regulation and consequences — is not strong enough? Would you say that — or did you hear that? Is it documented?
Mr. Barlow: Absolutely, we definitely heard that the current deterrents are not strong enough. Even when they are, they’re very rarely enforced, let’s say.
Regarding the incursion in my riding, they were given a $250 fine. They were charged, so that is a good start; that doesn’t always happen. But if the deterrents were strong enough, we wouldn’t see this continually happening. As I said, this is a cost of doing business, and the cost of their doing business is potentially catastrophic for us.
Again, the other part is that there are only a few provinces that have existing legislation on this. That leaves a huge gap, including Quebec — they don’t have legislation like this. So we want to ensure we have national legislation that covers all provinces and territories.
Senator Petitclerc: That is helpful, thank you.
Who documents or collects the data in terms of trespassing, the nature of the trespassing and the consequences of the trespassing? Do we have that? Who does that?
Mr. Barlow: That’s a good question. I don’t know if there’s one source. I don’t know if the Canadian Food Inspection Agency would keep that data themselves, because a lot of times, this isn’t necessarily reported. The RCMP collects some of that. The agricultural stakeholder groups collect some of that.
When we were doing our research, it wasn’t easy to try and collect all the incidents, but you do the research.
Senator Petitclerc: You have mentioned a few times that incidents are increasing, so I just wanted to grab a quantifiable statistic on the increase into what and to get a picture of those trespassing, which are concerning, as you say.
Mr. Barlow: We had to collect as much of the information as we could on our own. Senator, the advent of social media has certainly made this more provocative and accessible. They’re getting their message out, where that wasn’t as much of a tool before. So we’re seeing that as moving this into more common ground.
Again, they have become more brazen as well. We saw the one in Montréal, where they were hanging pig carcasses off an overpass. This isn’t just happening on farms; they were taking those animals and then doing an exposé, let’s say, in urban centres.
Senator Petitclerc: I’m trying to get my head around all the different components. Am I correct to say that when you look at the Criminal Code, and what is happening in the provinces? So your thought is that it’s very difficult to make it stronger at those levels for many reasons, as you said, so you’re trying to add a different way on top of those two things that exist already; am I correct?
Mr. Barlow: That’s correct.
The Chair: We have one other senator in the first round, and then I’m going to ask each of the five senators in the second round to state their question and MP Barlow will then submit written responses.
Senator Burey: Thank you, MP Barlow, for your passion and knowledge.
I’m going to tap your expertise. Just take us back to the international experience — countries that are similar to us — I would say Australia, the U.K. and maybe the U.S. — what is their legislation like surrounding this issue, if you know that?
Mr. Barlow: I don’t know the European Union. That’s a great question.
We modelled a lot of what we were doing on our colleagues in the United States, which is our number one trading partner by far. I would say they would be the most common to what we are doing. We are trying to model ourselves on what is going on in the United States.
The difference in the United States is that a lot of theirs is state-based, so we really took a look at what our best way is to make a national impact. We felt the best way to do in Canada was an amendment to the Health of Animals Act.
The Chair: Your question, succinct and concise.
Senator Simons: I want to come back to something Senator Oudar asked about — and I think Senator McNair asked about it in the spring — and that’s about animals off the farm. Almost all of our testimony has been farms focused, so I wanted to understand if an enclosed space includes a corral. Does it include an open-air barn or a feedlot? What is “enclosed,” legally speaking?
Would this also apply to situations where animals that are not being kept for food — I’m thinking about horses at the Calgary Stampede and people who might want to protest the chuckwagon races, for example — if they go into the barns, would they be covered.
The Chair: We’ll take all the questions, and then your staff can get them from the blues.
Senator Marshall: I think you already answered this with Senator McNair — and I think you said section 7 — but you said that the wording of your amendment is consistent with the bill, so I wanted to know whether there are sections in the Health of Animals Act that apply to people unauthorized to be on the premises but that do not apply to those who are authorized to be there. I think you might have said section 7, but if you can answer in writing, that would be great.
Senator Pate: I want to pick up on something other senators, in particular, Senator McBean, raised: What would be the harm in expanding this? Are there some particular reasons why you would see that as harmful?
As part of that, I’d like your comments on — I believe the case you were talking about was the Sonoma Valley one. The report we reviewed showed that it was most likely introduced by wild birds or the wind, or possibly one of two employees who were cohabiting but who worked on different farms. So I don’t see how this bill would address either of those issues.
Given some of the expertise we’ve heard from others about the importance of providing inducements for farmers to report and follow through — you’ve mentioned there are some of those in terms of marketing — but also, what are some of the other measures that we should be looking at? Thank you.
Senator Richards: I think you answered this for Senator Petitclerc, but if the provincial governments and law enforcement enforce the trespassing laws that are already in place and did it with more consistently, would this bill be necessary — if the trespassing laws were themselves taken as being serious and done properly?
The Chair: Four questions that we hope you’ll be able to respond to them for us. Mr. Barlow, I’d like to thank you again for joining us today. Your testimony and insight are very much appreciated. We do acknowledge your passion, and I think you’ll acknowledge the passion of my colleagues around the table. Their active participation and thoughtful questions certainly indicate a passion for scrutiny and the bill. Colleagues, thank you for all you do for this.
I want to take a moment to thank the staff that support our committee, the folks behind me and our office staff. In particular, I want to thank our page. She’s always here bright and early with a smiling face. Thank you, Olivia.
Colleagues, a week from Tuesday, the deputy chair will be in this chair to continue studying the issue of wildfires, and on Thursday, October 24, we’ll be undertaking clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill C-275. So if you wish to propose amendments, I would ask you to consult with the legal counsel of the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to ensure that amendments are drafted in the proper format and in both official languages.
(The committee adjourned.)