Why it matters: Bill C-275 could return to a more favourable state for producers.

Following the announcement of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation and prorogation of Parliament last month, many bills, including C-275, will be reset to their first reading. When an election is called, they will die on the order paper.

The aim of Bill C-275 was it to make it an offence to enter livestock facilities without permission. It underwent several amendments last year, changing the rules to apply to anyone entering a facility, not just trespassers.

Lauren Martin, senior director of public affairs at the Canadian Meat Council (CMC) said her organization supported the bill as originally proposed by Conservative MP John Barlow, but “were a little bit dismayed to see the amendments made by the Senate.”

“As it was amended, the fact that it died is not the worst thing, but we still overall want to see a piece of legislation like that in place,” Martin said.

The bill’s first reading targetted those who enter facilities recklessly and knowing their actions “could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance.” In the amended third reading, the wording changes to only apply to cases where their entering could “resonably be expected” to cause such an outcome.

Barlow called these changes an attempt to prevent the bill from passing. In an emailed statement, Barlow said the amendments “weakened the bill significantly.”

Barlow’s statement said he “realistically (does) not expect Bill C-275 to recieve royal assentvefore Parliament is dissolved” but also he is confident a future Conservative government would make “tools like those proposed in Bill C-275 to protect livestock from diseases like African Swine Fever, avian flu and foot and mouth disease” a top priority.

Current polling suggests Conservatives are likely to win a majority in this year’s federal election. Martin said she can see the next government making another attempt at passing similar legislation, noting Barlow has already sponsored a very similar bill, 2019’s C-205, which likewise aimed to penalize trespassers in livestock facilities.

“I have a high degree of confidence that something like this will see the light of day,” she said, though she added her faith in the Senate was less pronounced.

“I have about, you know, 50/50, confidence as to how the Senate would approach this in a future government iteration, and that is just because of the sentiments around animal agriculture.”

She pointed to animal rights activists who have referred to it as the “ag gag” bill. Advocacy group Animal Justice has claimed C-275 is a “pretext for targeting animal protection advocates,” keeping them off farms.

One issue Martin said could foster more support for C-275 is the recent threat of tariffs coming from the U.S., which could lead Canadians to pay more attention to their food system. This is something she said has happened in previous times of crisis.

“We saw in the pandemic that when folks couldn’t access food on grocery stores shelves, there was a better appreciation for agriculture,” she said. “If the tariffs lead us to a place where food security is threatened, because that is something that we’ve discussed as being a potential consequence … that might play into the social discourse that surrounds a bill like this.”

The post Livestock health bill could receive second chance appeared first on Farmtario.

Animal activists challenged the act’s constitutionality in Ontario’s Superior Court, but Judge Markus Koehnen’s April 2 decision upheld it. However, he called into question specific subsection provisions within Ontario Regulation 701/20, saying some of the language is overly broad and disproportionate, requiring further clarifications to align with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Why it matters: The act was developed to deter activist disruptions of farms and food processors, and to reduce biosecurity and safety risks.

“Ensuring this legislation was upheld in the court process was big for us,” said Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Drew Spoelstra. “We have animal welfare top of mind at every turn.”

The act was developed in 2020 to deter activist disruptions of farm and food processors, and closed the gap in previous laws to protect the agriculture sector against trespassing and biosecurity risks.

“In some cases, change is inevitable, and we want to make sure that this act is as strong as it possibly can be,” Spoelstra said. “Getting it right is the most important part.”

He added that the focus must remain on protecting food production animals, biosecurity safeguards and farmers’ mental health, which was the impetus for the legislation.

Ontario livestock organizations declined Farmtario’s invitation to comment on how regulation language changes might impact the act’s strength.

Spoelstra said discussing case specifics while it’s in the courts isn’t prudent, but he hopes changes don’t unintentionally create false-pretense access loopholes to agri-food facilities and farms.

“We want to make sure the people farmers are employing are there for the right reasons and are there to do the work that they’re meant to be doing. (Not) bad actors or there for the wrong reasons.”

In an Apr. 24 email to Farmtario, Keesha Seaton, Ministry of the Attorney General media spokesperson, said the hearing addressing the decision has yet to be scheduled.

The post No hearing schedule yet to address Trespass Act changes appeared first on Farmtario.

The Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 was developed to deter activist disruptions of farm and food processors, and closed the gap in previous laws to protect the agriculture sector against trespassing.

Animal Justice, along with journalist Jessica Scott-Reid and animal advocate Louise Jorgensen of Toronto Cow Save filed the lawsuit against the province in early 2021, stating the act infringes upon sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that address freedom of expression, freedom of the press and right to peaceful assembly.

Their application further alleges the issues regarding the trespass regulations are “compounded by deliberately harsh and excessive arrest and penalty provisions, which are themselves unconstitutional.” 

Animal Justice said in a media advisory and on its website it plans on holding a rally outside the courthouse in Toronto in support of the legal challenge.

The post Court battle begins over Ontario law banning hidden-camera farm investigations appeared first on Farmtario.

“The factsheets were developed as part of the consultation process,” said Scott Duff, director of economic development policy with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).

“We heard from First Nation organizations some strong concerns over what they saw were the potential for conflicts with Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.”

Why it matters: The act is meant to limit access by activists and the curious to barns and other facilities where biosecurity is important.

OMAFRA held a webinar earlier this month to review the factsheet, which focuses on increasing understanding of the Act and exemptions around individuals lawfully exercising their Aboriginal and Treaty rights to ensure the safety of indigenous harvesters.

“In Ontario, we have more than 40 treaties and agreements that affect land resources and our nations,” said Duff.

The treaties entered into with the British and later the Canadian government have specific rights embedded within to protect First Nation rights to hunt, fish, and trap.

This includes the new trespass act, which was fully proclaimed on Dec. 5, 2020, to protect farmers, the agri-food sector and livestock transport drivers from the impacts of trespassing and interference with animals.

“What that means is Indigenous people lawfully exercising Aboriginal or treaty rights may enter an animal protection zone without first obtaining prior consent of the owner on the farm,” explained Duff.

The Act does not cover areas of a farm where animals are never or rarely present, like crop fields and woodlots, where Aboriginal and Treaty Rights are more likely to be exercised.

For example, an Indigenous person could legally cross an animal protection zone – a farmer’s field where cattle may graze – to access a nearby area to hunt without arrest.

“It isn’t a new power created under the Act,” Duff said. “But it is an exemption that is allowed.”

Bethanee Jensen, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario director and sheep producer, sought clarification when those actions became trespass.

“Do they have to have a reason to or prove they’re hunting, trapping and fishing to enter my barn, or is that trespassing for anybody?” Jensen asked.

Kristopher Crawford-Dickinson, OMAFRA legal counsel, suggested justifying entering private buildings would be difficult.

“Aboriginal rights have to be exercised in a manner compatible with the land use,” he said. “If you are near someone’s barn, you’re not going to be taking shots because that’s not compatible with the land use.”

Consent is required to enter animal enclosures, including barns and fully fenced pastures, (Type B) animal protection zones areas meeting the Minister’s regulation requirements and marked with signs by a landowner or occupier and areas where farm animals are displayed, such as auction yards, fall fairs, etc.

Type B areas require sign demarcation, but farming organizations have strongly encouraged implementing signage everywhere as a precaution. Farm and Food Care sells signs meeting the Act specification for five dollars, as do several agricultural associations, said Danie Glanc, Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) farm policy analyst.

Police enforce the Act by issuing a warning, ticket, or a court summons. Unlike the Trespass to Property Act which caps fines at $10,000, the new trespass act relating to livestock has escalating penalties of up to $15,000 for a first offence and up to $25,000 for subsequent violations.

“The Act also allows the court to order restitution for injury, loss or damage suffered as a result of the fence of the offence,” said Duff. This includes livestock loss caused by stress and disease due to failure of adherence to safety protocols and trespass resulting in potential contamination.

Police knowledge lacking

To his knowledge, Duff said there are no convictions under the Act, nor could he comment on any enforcement actions undertaken by police as part of the Act. However, he suggested individual law enforcement agencies would have that information.

Shelagh Finn, a sheep producer in the Nottawasaga OPP coverage area, described a lack of response or priority for animal harassment on her farm.

“The snowmobiles chase the sheep in the pasture, causing harassment,” she said. “I get zero response, or maybe a week or two weeks later, somebody from the detachment may drop by to say trespassing is minor on our list of things.”

Finn installed cameras but said they were pulled down and removed by someone and are too expensive to purchase and replace.

She asked Duff how to improve OPP’s response to trespassing and harassment of her livestock.

The OPP sent an all-chiefs memo to law enforcement agencies, including Indigenous forces, explaining the Act and its powers when it came into power in December 2020.

However, Glanc said the OFA’s outreach to municipalities and OPP uncovered a general lack of knowledge about the Act.

“Whether it’s (not knowing) the details and the information contained therein or . . . they’ve never heard of it,” said Glanc. “(The) all-chiefs memo does go out, and from our discussions, it’s up to the individual departments to relay that information to their officers and down the chain of command.”

Glanc inquired if OMAFRA had a formal information or education plan to provide to police on the Act because “it feels like it’s one of these things they don’t know about using until it’s too late.”

OMAFRA developed a training module for the Ontario Police College for new and veteran officers’ ongoing training programs, encompassing regulations within the Act, said Duff.

The post OMAFRA addresses Aboriginal and Treaty Rights within Trespass Act for farmers appeared first on Farmtario.

Early in the pandemic it became a magnet for people looking to escape towns and cities. I expect it was mostly people from nearby towns. They know where the no-winter-maintenance roads are, likely from experience with teenage parties.

The early-on visitors were fine. They were generally courteous, stuck to the road and we didn’t mind sharing the picturesque road that runs down to the Ausable River.

But pandemic spring number two seems to have brought out more motorized vehicles.

There are more ATVs and side-by-sides than cars now running down the road in front of my parents’ farm further north. But there’s a rough road through a swamp down the road that is mighty enticing if you’re an off-roader.

My place hasn’t been too bad as far as off-road trespassers. I can usually identify the neighbourhood boys by the sound of their vehicles and I know they’re responsible, and I know what their grandfather would have to say if they were ever caught ripping up crops.

I caught some others ripping through my fields on dirt bikes a few years back. They haven’t returned, even though I didn’t identify them.

Judging by online discussion, there are more issues occurring across the province as people run a bit loose with the rules and courtesy to their neighbours. There were some mighty creative ways suggested for a woman who was having problems with local kids riding dirt bikes in her laneway and back out again.

Calling the police and getting it reported is likely the best suggestion, but not the most creative.

Buckshot was mentioned several times, but I think there’s a bit of risk in that. The same with spike belts and hidden depressions in the road.

Motion sensor lights and trail cameras could help.

My favourite was the suggestion of motion-sensor glitter bombs. I can see that the mostly young male crew wouldn’t be all that excited to go home with their bodies and their bikes covered in shiny glitter.

A chat with parents, if you can identify the culprits, is also effective, as long as you know them well enough to be assured the message will be received.

There’s concern about retribution when that happens, and that’s a legitimate worry. Depending on how well you know the parents, dropping a hint can be enough.

I’ve always liked the privacy on my property. It’s a big reason I live here, but a couple of things have made me wonder whether I have to reconsider how much I bristle when I know someone’s been on the property.

We’re doing some direct-to-consumer sales, which means there will be more people around. It makes sense to do that economically, so off we go. We can always stop if it becomes too much of a privacy breach.

New apps have also made me wonder whether Canadians could be more open to having people on their property if they could vet who arrives.

LandPass is a Canadian app that connects farmers with urbanites who would like to visit land outside the city. It is made for those who want to hunt or fish. I could also see it used for people who want to have unique hiking, picnic or camping experiences.

Harvest Hosts is an American app that connects recreational vehicle owners who are looking for a place to stop for a night. Lots of farmers have extra space in their yards. Why not get some revenue out of it? RVs and large camping trailers are pretty much self-sufficient homes on the road.

There are lots of reasons not to do it: biosecurity and concerns about who is arriving in the RV, especially if you have livestock. And do you really want to run a hospitality operation?

But for some it could make sense and be a new revenue stream for farms.

The post Editorial: The thorny issue of people on your land appeared first on Farmtario.

The Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, colloquially known as Bill 156, is aimed at deterring activist disruptions of farm and food processors, and closing the gap in current laws to protect the agriculture sector against trespassing.

Why it matters: The act that limits farm trespassing has been popular with farmers worried about uninvited interlopers at the places where they work and live.

However, the appeal would have to rest on division of power and constitutional arguments, which are difficult to prove, says an Ottawa lawyer. Don Buckingham also added that legislation or part of it can be struck down based on small parts of an act.

The act infringes upon sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that address freedom of expression, freedom of the press and right to peaceful assembly, said Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, and co-applicants Jessica Scott-Reid, animal advocate and freelance columnist, and Louise Jorgensen, Toronto Cow Save organizer, in their submission. 

Their application further alleges the issues regarding the trespass regulations are “compounded by deliberately harsh and excessive arrest and penalty provisions, which are themselves unconstitutional.” 

Labchuk said the act allows facility owners to arrest those they believe to violate the act “in the absence of objectively reasonable and probable grounds to justify such action.”

Stating that the government doesn’t regulate or monitor animal welfare on farms, Labchuk said hidden camera footage is often the only avenue the public has to learn about poor conditions and animal cruelty in the food supply. 

Ontario recently also passed some of the strongest animal welfare legislation in North America.

“We are hopeful the court will strike down this troubling ag-gag law and make it clear that Ontario and other provinces cannot interfere with Charter rights to protect the profits of the meat industry,” said Labchuk in a media release.

Buckingham, a lawyer and consultant in agriculture, food and regulation in Ottawa with 35 years of experience, said it’s common practice for legislation to be reviewed by government legal counsel to ensure it fits the parameters of the Constitution and would hold up in court. 

Even if the legislation was mostly compliant, if there was a tiny portion that toed the line of constitutional interpretation, the court could selectively modify that specific portion because it falls outside of legislative competence. 

Once an application is submitted and is before the court, applicants must state their case and show their interest in the legislation. The court would then issue a preliminary decision to move forward on the merits of the argument or quash the application.

“It just strikes me, as a protester on a farm about animal rights, it seems like a really long stretch to think that any of the Charter rights have been violated,” he said.

What are the steps to challenging an act?

Buckingham spent a great deal of time addressing constitutional arguments because agriculture is a specialized area.

Section 95 of the Constitution indicates both the federal and provincial governments can legislate when addressing codes, permits, equal rights and legislation for laws concerning agriculture and immigration. 

If the argument suggested the act was unconstitutional from a division of power aspect, Buckingham would be surprised if it gained traction given that it deals specifically with on-farm activity, which the province can specifically legislate. Ontario has almost unlimited power to make laws concerning property under Section 92(13) of the Constitution, he said.

While Animal Justice is the first to launch an application against the Security from Trespass Act, they are not the first to voice concerns the Act contravened aspects of the Constitution. 

Another argument could be made that the act is criminal law, which would be an incursion into federal jurisdiction, says Buckingham. However the act lacks criminal sanctions that are usually found in federal law.

“It has contraventions that are all under two years, and those are usually the hallmarks of it being a provincial violation and not a federal offence,” he said. “The other argument they could make is that somehow this legislation restricts the rights of individuals, and again, that’s a real long shot.”

Opposition focuses on what in the bill might not affect food security.

During the journey from Bill 156 to becoming law, animal rights activists, law professors, lawyers and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) submitted letters of concern to the Standing Committee on General Government.

CCLA’s submission hinted at potential arguments against the Act including acquiring access to facilities under false pretences and the length of the time in which people could be charged after an offence was committed have nothing to do with increasing safety for farmers or the food supply.

“This extension of the time period for pursuing an offence is wholly divorced from the protection and biosecurity goals,” said the CCLA. “But directly related to deterring whistleblowers from coming forward.” 

The CCLA said if a journalist applied for and obtained an on-farm job to investigate the conditions of migrant workers during COVID-19, they would be at risk under Section 4(6) because “false pretences” is too vague a term. They also charged the regulation defining an animal protection zone, where a person could face charges for entering, even if the area was unmarked by signage, left too much leeway. 

A long road yet

Animal Justice argued in its media release that the striking down of ag-gag laws in the United States, specifically Idaho, laid a precedent for the same result in Ontario. 

American laws targeted specific actions, such as filming within a barn, and legal experts weren’t surprised they were struck down.

Buckingham would not speak specifically to the Animal Justice application but said, in general, rulings are based on the language of Canadian law, the principles of legislative interpretation and Supreme Court of Canada decisions. 

“Binding precedent only comes from the Supreme Court of Canada and from the court of appeal in your province, not from any superior courts from other provinces or countries,” he said.

With the number of applications levied under family law, criminal law and mental health-based law, the queue is long. That casts doubt on whether constitutional questions around the new trespass act would reach a court agenda.

It could take years for the application to be addressed and resolved.Until then, the current legislation remains intact, he said. 

Any decision made at the Superior Court level would likely be appealed and finish at the Supreme Court of Canada. 

“It could be a very long time before (it’s decided),” said Buckingham. 

Recent acquittal provides example of where act could be used

Keith Currie, vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and past-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, said Bill 156 closes the loopholes commonly used to avoid conviction under the Criminal Code of Canada.

He pointed to the recent finding of not guilty in the Klimowicz-Freeman Mink Farm trial in North Frontenac.

Malcolm Klimowicz was acquitted on charges of break and enter with the intent to cause mischief after the prosecution failed to prove that mischief had been caused.

Currie said the judicial thought process was one of “the animals didn’t get sick so it wasn’t an issue.”

This type of argument is what the trespassing act helps avoid, said Currie.

“The bill is to prevent people from coming in, so there never is the opportunity for disease to enter the barn, but the judge doesn’t understand animal agriculture,” he said. “Just because something didn’t happen doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have.”

The post Activists challenge Bill 156 constitutionality appeared first on Farmtario.

Nonetheless, several provisions of the new law, Bill 156, are concerning enough to the province’s animal rights movement that a challenge was issued in early March to have them struck down.

Why it matters: Provincial agriculture minister Ernie Hardeman introduced and championed Bill 156 after hearing from farm groups and livestock haulers fed up with interferences and vandalism committed in the name of eliminating animal agriculture.

Lawyer John Goudy of the London firm Scott Petrie LLP specializes in property and expropriation law as well as agricultural matters, and still operates the family farm he grew up on north of London. He looked at several areas of law currently affecting farms including the “checkerboarding” approach to consolidating and subdividing farm properties, as well as laws surrounding underground fuel tanks.

But he kicked off his afternoon talk with a discussion of trespassing.

Under the Trespass to Property Act and the Occupiers Liability Act, both updated most recently in 1990, special provisions already exist for farmland and woodlots. Unauthorized entry is prohibited even without “no trespassing” signs, a provision that doesn’t apply for other types of properties. And if someone is on a farm or woodlot without authorization, “they are deemed to have assumed the risk” of any mishap that might occur.

As a result, Goudy explained, farm or woodlot owners can’t be held liable if someone is unintentionally harmed while on the property without notice.

He stressed, however, that all landowners have a duty not to intentionally endanger people through the setting of traps or the creation of other hazards. And they can’t threaten to or actively impinge upon personal safety if they find someone on their land.

So it certainly wasn’t outside legal precedent to see livestock farmers and truckers singled out for particular protection under Bill 156. Under the new law, Goudy noted, charges can be laid if an unauthorized person is inside a farm’s Animal Protection Zone – an area that can be delineated by something as simple as a pasture fence or barnyard enclosure.

The maximum fine ranges from $15,000 for the first offence up to $25,000 for subsequent offences. This compares to a maximum $10,000 fine under the Trespass to Property Act.

Animal rights activists oppose the law. Animal Justice filed an application on March 8 asking the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to rule on the constitutionality of several clauses in Bill 156 “on the basis that these provisions unjustifiably restrict political expression and peaceful protest activities.”

The application, which can be viewed on the Animal Justice website, says that prohibitions against entering into animal housing facilities under false pretences and against interfering or interacting with farmed animals represent an “unconstitutional impact on fundamental freedoms” related to freedom of expression and freedom of the press and that these impacts are “compounded by unduly harsh and unconstitutional arrest and penalty provisions.”

For now, Goudy said the enhancements in Bill 156 are significant. He noted that the Trespass to Property Act now technically doesn’t apply within Animal Protection Zones. The intention isn’t to allow unauthorized people into the area but rather to ensure there’s no ambiguity and the full strength of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act can apply.

The post Bill 156 sees court challenge from animal activist groups appeared first on Farmtario.

“It has to be done at the provincial level, but I’m following it closely because this is something that I care about,” said Minister of Agriculture Marie-Claude Bibeau. “This is not acceptable, that our farmers are being threatened for feeding us.”

Why it matters: Activists, protestors and others who illegally encroach on farm property threaten the safety of farm families and their animals.

Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta have taken steps to bolster protections for livestock and producers against trespassers and activists following high profile events. Manitoba is believed to be soon following them and is in the middle of doing a public consultation on the matter.

Last September, a protest at an Alberta turkey barn led to charges against four of the roughly 30 participants; but more significantly, it prompted the Alberta government to increase fines for trespassing.

A new law in Ontario makes it illegal to stop or interfere with a vehicle transporting animals, while Saskatchewan passed legislation in 2019 requiring people looking to access privately owned rural land have permission from the landowner before doing so.

“There is what the provinces are doing in terms of trespassing and, really, protecting private property. This is one part of it, but it worries me a lot when I see the mental health issue,” Bibeau said. “This new reality, the added bullying and threats (producers) are getting through social media is also something that is hurting them a lot. They don’t deserve that and it is totally not acceptable.”

She said her government is looking at ways to combat that hatred on social media, and proposed the Buy Canadian policy could help. The Buy Canadian campaign is a federal initiative to promote Canadian food, but Bibeau said she wants it to be more than just marketing.

“I want it to contribute to strengthen the trust between consumer and producers and the pride around Canadian farmers, so this is another way I’m looking at it,” she said.

The post Provincial trespassing bills watched by federal minister appeared first on Farmtario.

But two tornados within seven kilometres of our farm in the past three months has my family more vigilant during hot and sultry days when a storm starts to blow. Those are not the first in the area over the past 10 years.

I have to preface any concern about tornados in my area by saying that the scale of tornados we get in Ontario pales in comparison to the fearsome giants that wreck communities in the United States. The Canadian Prairies also get bigger twisters.

But small tornadoes have become a regular visitor in the area north of Highway 7 to Exeter.

Shortly after we moved here, I remember hearing about a tornado a few kilometres south of us that took the roof off a garage.

This summer, however, there have been two. The first was about five km away and moved a grain bin off its moorings and shoved it up against another bin at the Knip farm on Hwy. 4 between Lucan and Exeter.

The second was on Aug. 27, north and west of the first tornado. It flattened an old bank barn at the Hall farm, on Mount Carmel road.

Luckily these tornados were low level; the one on Aug. 27 was graded EF-1.

The storm surrounding the tornado and the twister itself took down many trees and hydro poles in the area and we were without power for 30 hours.

The damage to trees was impressive. I’ve always loved tree-lined roads, with old oaks and maples and elms providing an interesting canopy as you drive. In this area, many old maples have lined the roads. I remember being perturbed when municipal crews seemed to find work each summer cutting down some of these great old trees.

The recent tornados have reminded me why, sadly, maple tree culling is necessary as three old maples split and fell in our concession alone — all of them brittle and hollow to the core. Luckily they didn’t end up on the road, although they fell into a neighbour’s soybean field.

Several days after the storm went through, farmers were still working at cleaning up tree debris. I still have to deal with a downed tree in a soybean field.

The two storms meant the loss of what I call sentinel trees, especially one just up the Ausable River from the steel bridge down the sideroad beside our place. We often ride our bikes or run to that spot. It was a lonely maple, many times photographed by our neighbours and ourselves, casting its reflection into the water, or as a foreground to a sunset shot. It’s a bit strange to say, but we’ll miss that tree.

The recent storms provide a good reminder of the power of nature to reshape the landscape. Water relentlessly moves dirt. Wind reshapes soil, plants and trees. We humans get a bit excited about it, but we also adapt, figure out solutions and move on, although perhaps learning some caution and respect for the forces we can’t control.

Protests, but within limits

It was good to see the province quickly moving some provisions of Bill 156 into place. The Bill, which aims to create zones that protect areas of animal production from entry by trespassers, was still in the regulation creation stage, even though it had been passed by the legislature and received royal assent.

Duelling protests, at a busy intersection near the Sofina Foods plant in Burlington — all around moving transport trucks — were a recipe for greater disaster. A protester was killed there earlier this spring, when she got in front of a transport truck. Recently supporters of truckers and food producers had started counter-protests. They were rightly fed up with how truckers, who were just doing their jobs, were being treated.

Protesting is fine and an important right to be maintained in Canada, but when the safety of truckers, protesters, animals, police and others are being put at risk, then something has to be done.

The post Editorial: Living in 2020’s tornado alley appeared first on Farmtario.

Bill 156 was passed by the legislature June 17. It  also prohibits obtaining employment at a farm under false pretences.

Why it matters: There has been an increase in high profile farm invasions by protesters and that has caused concern from farmers.

“We’ve been very frustrated for quite some time with lack of teeth in existing laws in dealing with trespassers,” says Keith Currie, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. That includes activists going into barns without permission, livestock trucks being held up and people with ATVs and other vehicles trespassing and damaging grain fields.

The legislation has been targeted by animal activists who say that Bill 156 will decrease their right to protest and could help hide animal abuse.

The legislation will allow protests, but just not ones that enter farm animal facilities or processors.

Currie says that if people want to protest at the end of his laneway, then they have the right to do so. But he says activists have become more willing to trespass, entering farms and barns, endangering animals and breaking biosecurity. Farmers have also expressed concern because most of them live at their farmers with their families.

“There is harassment and bullying in labour laws. Why does activism get a free ride in that? It’s time to protect personal property.”

Currie says the province has assured farm groups that the bill will stand up to court challenges.

The post Ontario bill restricting barn trespassing approved appeared first on Farmtario.