Bob Dobson, a cattle producer who farms an hour’s drive west of Ottawa, sat before MPs on Oct. 24 to warn them they could be setting him up for failure.
Along with representatives of the poultry industry and the fur industry, Dobson and the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association were on Parliament Hill to warn about the dangers of proposed cruelty-to-animals amendments to the Criminal Code.
“This is not an academic exercise for me,” he said, noting that his family has farmed in Ontario for 170 years.
“Some of the amendments you are considering could some day put me or one of my neighbours in front of a judge, not because I necessarily did anything wrong, but rather because someone did not approve of me or my livestock management practices or simply did not apply the law properly.”
Read Also
Volatile temperatures expected for this winter
DTN is forecasting a lot of temperature variability in the Canadian Prairies this winter. Precipitation should be close to average.
John Slot, vice-chair of Chicken Farmers of Canada, said farmers agree with the government’s goal of clamping down on blatant and deliberate cruelty to animals. And they are not looking for an exemption.
“We support the potential longer sentences for those who abuse animals,” he said.
“But let’s make sure this bill does that without preventing normal legitimate agriculture practices.”
Farm organizations’ major complaint with the bill is that it moves animal cruelty provisions from the Criminal Code’s property sections, thereby denying farmers the right to defend themselves by claiming “legal justification or excuse and colour of right.”
Bill Uruski, a board member of the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency, said this puts farmers in jeopardy of charges by animal rights activists.
In proposals that caught the attention of many MPs during the meeting, Uruski and the Poultry Welfare Coalition also suggested narrowing the government’s proposed definition of animals – “any animal that has the capacity to feel pain” -to remove the reference to pain.
“As a result of significant weaknesses in this bill, agriculture could be subject to numerous nuisance charges by those whose agenda is to end all uses of animals,” said Uruski, a former Manitoba agriculture minister.
Dobson said legal harassment can be costly for farmers.
“Agriculture operates on a very small margin of profit,” he said.
“The legal fees for just the preliminary stages to defend a legitimate action or management practice can sometimes be more than many farmers and ranchers can bear.”
The alternate voice at the committee came from the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
David Loan and Richard Smith of the IFAW said they were heartened that even critics of the law were agreeing on the need for tougher penalties against animal abusers.
But they insisted the critics had it wrong. The new law would not be used to target or harass normal animal husbandry practices, they said.
Ontario Liberal Lynn Myers jumped in.
“Can you categorically tell me tonight in this committee that you are not going to target legitimate farm practices, that you are not going to target the fur industry?” he asked.
Loan, director of public affairs and campaigns for the IFAW, took the question.
“Mr. Myers, I categorically state that we will not be targeting legitimate farm practices or other industries,” he said.
Earlier, Doug Pollock of the Fur Institute of Canada said the IFAW has been targeting his industry for years.
At one point, he pointed at Smith sitting beside him and said: “These same animal extremists sitting here this evening want to eliminate in some cases the only economic benefit available to northern people, as well as destroy the fur industry. As we know, there is an element of animal rights movement that CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) and the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) have classed as terrorists.”
