Farmers on Parliament Hill trying to convince government to change proposed cruelty to animals legislation last week faced a conundrum.
They fear that proposals in Criminal Code amendments could subject farmers to lawsuits or investigations over how they treat their animals in the normal course of farming.
Yet the government and animal rights activists say farmers need not worry. The changes are meant to target real animal abusers and not normal farm practices.
Last week, Canadian Alliance justice critic Vic Toews and Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Jack Wilkinson said the argument leads to an obvious question: if it changes nothing, why make the changes?
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
Toews, from the rural Manitoba riding of Provencher, said he does not believe the assurances.
“I represent a rural farming constituency and I believe this bill strikes at the heart of the farming community, food production and indeed the fashion industry in Canada,” he told an Oct. 17 justice committee meeting where the bill is under scrutiny.
Wilkinson agreed, even if the danger is inadvertent.
Farmers do not want exceptions and an exemption from treating their animals well, he said. Farmers agree that those who deliberately abuse or neglect animals should face harsher penalties.
“We are asking for a law that will respect standard animal husbandry, management and slaughter practices,” said Wilkinson, appearing on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. “We are asking for a law that will protect animal-based businesses from the aggressive agendas of some animal rights activists.”
Wilkinson said the federal government says it wants to move agriculture beyond crisis management: “It would be counterproductive if the legislation allows extreme animal rights activists to tie up farmers’ time and money through frivolous court cases.”
Supporters of the legislation appearing before the committee dismissed the farmer concerns as an over-reaction.
Troy Seidle, from Zoocheck Canada Inc., said the Criminal Code is not a vehicle for attacks on industry practices such as dehorning, branding or slaughter.
“These sorts of scenarios that we’re hearing all the time could simply never fly under criminal law the way it’s designed.”
Bob Gardiner from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies agreed.
“There’s no way that the criminal changes could possibly destroy anybody’s livelihood in industry,” he told MPs. Judges will understand the need to allow animal agriculture and its normal practices.
Farm leaders and opposition critics remain unconvinced. They are appealing to rural Liberal MPs to help them change the bill to ensure there is no danger to farming practices.
