Animal rights protesters are using “terror tactics” to disrupt farming operations, claimed Sen. David Richards (N.B.) during a Senate agriculture committee hearing. Blacklock's Reporter says his comments came as the committee reviewed Bill C-275, which aims to ban unauthorized entry into farms and livestock barns.Richards, speaking at a Senate agriculture committee hearing, argued that animal rights protesters are not just trespassing but aiming to dismantle the very industry they oppose. “I look at this not so much as trespassing to protect animals. The underlying motivation is to destroy the very industry they are protesting,” Richards said. “In its own way, as slight as they might seem to think it is, it’s a terror tactic," he said.Richards shared a personal anecdote to illustrate his point: “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.”The discussion centered on Bill C-275, An Act To Amend The Health Of Animals Act, a Conservative-sponsored bill that proposes fines of up to $100,000 and one-year jail terms for individuals, and $500,000 fines for organizations involved in unauthorized entry into farms. The bill passed the House of Commons in November 2023 with significant support, despite opposition from New Democrats.“Protesting is fine, but breaking into someone’s place to protest shouldn’t be allowed,” said Richards, supporting the bill’s tougher measures on trespassing.Conservative MP John Barlow (Alta.), who sponsored the bill, testified that the legislation is necessary to protect farms from biosecurity risks posed by unauthorized entry. “There are existing penalties in place in some provinces, but there’s no national standard,” Barlow explained. “The protesters come onto a farm and film the activities they are doing, which poses risks.”Barlow emphasized that provincial agricultural ministers across Canada, even in regions with their own regulations, have expressed support for the national standard proposed by Bill C-275.Not everyone agrees with the bill’s approach. Sen. Kim Pate (Ont.) questioned its constitutionality, arguing that its purpose goes beyond biosecurity. “The bill’s purpose is clearly not just to focus on the protection of farms from biosecurity threats but to penalize protesters,” Pate said.New Democrat MP Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan-Malahat, B.C.) voiced similar concerns during the Commons debate, calling the bill “intrusive.” He argued that trespassing laws should remain within provincial jurisdiction: “If Members of this House feel trespass laws are not adequate, then it is the provincial legislatures of Canada that need to take that issue up.”Animal rights groups have labeled Bill C-275 an “ag gag law,” claiming it seeks to silence legitimate concerns about animal welfare on farms.Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, testified that the bill is intended to suppress public scrutiny, noting the lack of proactive government inspections to monitor animal welfare.During a heated exchange, Conservative MP Lianne Rood (Lambton-Kent, Ont.) challenged Labchuk’s qualifications to speak on the issue. “Have you lived on a farm?” Rood asked. Labchuk replied that she had not, stating, “I am a lawyer, not a farmer.”When asked if she believes animals should be used for food, Labchuk responded, “We work to improve the legal protections for animals.”
Animal rights protesters are using “terror tactics” to disrupt farming operations, claimed Sen. David Richards (N.B.) during a Senate agriculture committee hearing. Blacklock's Reporter says his comments came as the committee reviewed Bill C-275, which aims to ban unauthorized entry into farms and livestock barns.Richards, speaking at a Senate agriculture committee hearing, argued that animal rights protesters are not just trespassing but aiming to dismantle the very industry they oppose. “I look at this not so much as trespassing to protect animals. The underlying motivation is to destroy the very industry they are protesting,” Richards said. “In its own way, as slight as they might seem to think it is, it’s a terror tactic," he said.Richards shared a personal anecdote to illustrate his point: “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.”The discussion centered on Bill C-275, An Act To Amend The Health Of Animals Act, a Conservative-sponsored bill that proposes fines of up to $100,000 and one-year jail terms for individuals, and $500,000 fines for organizations involved in unauthorized entry into farms. The bill passed the House of Commons in November 2023 with significant support, despite opposition from New Democrats.“Protesting is fine, but breaking into someone’s place to protest shouldn’t be allowed,” said Richards, supporting the bill’s tougher measures on trespassing.Conservative MP John Barlow (Alta.), who sponsored the bill, testified that the legislation is necessary to protect farms from biosecurity risks posed by unauthorized entry. “There are existing penalties in place in some provinces, but there’s no national standard,” Barlow explained. “The protesters come onto a farm and film the activities they are doing, which poses risks.”Barlow emphasized that provincial agricultural ministers across Canada, even in regions with their own regulations, have expressed support for the national standard proposed by Bill C-275.Not everyone agrees with the bill’s approach. Sen. Kim Pate (Ont.) questioned its constitutionality, arguing that its purpose goes beyond biosecurity. “The bill’s purpose is clearly not just to focus on the protection of farms from biosecurity threats but to penalize protesters,” Pate said.New Democrat MP Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan-Malahat, B.C.) voiced similar concerns during the Commons debate, calling the bill “intrusive.” He argued that trespassing laws should remain within provincial jurisdiction: “If Members of this House feel trespass laws are not adequate, then it is the provincial legislatures of Canada that need to take that issue up.”Animal rights groups have labeled Bill C-275 an “ag gag law,” claiming it seeks to silence legitimate concerns about animal welfare on farms.Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, testified that the bill is intended to suppress public scrutiny, noting the lack of proactive government inspections to monitor animal welfare.During a heated exchange, Conservative MP Lianne Rood (Lambton-Kent, Ont.) challenged Labchuk’s qualifications to speak on the issue. “Have you lived on a farm?” Rood asked. Labchuk replied that she had not, stating, “I am a lawyer, not a farmer.”When asked if she believes animals should be used for food, Labchuk responded, “We work to improve the legal protections for animals.”
