Animal rights activists threaten our health and food supply

Recently, Riana Topan, an animal rights activist, published an opinion editorial in The Hill Times denouncing Bill C-275, an Act to Amend the Health of Animals Act (Biosecurity on Farms), put forward by Conservative MP and agriculture critic John Barlow. The summary for C-275 reads: “This enactment amends the Health of Animals Act to make it an offence to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.” Concentrated animal feeding operations are susceptible to disease which is why extraordinary sanitation measures are required. Threats to our food supply include African swine fever, avian influenza, foot and mouth disease to name a few. To enter a modern hog or poultry facility you must shower, don a sterile suit, and special boots. Then you walk through a trough of disinfectant to ensure extra-sterile footwear. You may ask why producers raise animals in this manner. Confined animal feeding operations are part of the panoply of modern agricultural practices that have provided Canadians with inexpensive food relative to the rest of the world. For example, in a 2016 report by the World Economic Forum, Canadians spend 9.1 per cent of their income on food while Nigerians spend 56.4 per cent of their income on food. The miracle of modern agriculture is that it has allowed people on modest incomes to eat well for the first time in recorded history. Animal agriculture is governed by veterinary codes of practice that guide the treatment and welfare of farmed animals as well as the Criminal Code, of which Section 445 (3) reads: “...evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it pain, suffering or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the pain, suffering or injury was caused or was permitted to be caused wilfully, as the case may be.” The fact that confined animal feeding operations follow veterinary-approved codes of practice means that they are exercising “reasonable care” under the law, a fact that is conveniently overlooked by animal rights activists. Furthermore, Sec. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure of their property. Sec. 8 focuses on the restraints that are put on the government. But the Charter also states that we are all entitled to privacy on private properties such as the home we reside in. Private property also includes farm outbuildings and land. Robert Sopuck represented the Manitoba constituency of Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa as a Conservative Member of Parliament from 2010 to 2019. Photograph courtesy of Robert Sopuck I represented the large Manitoba farming constituency of Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa as its member of Parliament for nine years. The majority of the land is privately owned farm and recreational land, and property rights are sacrosanct. In Manitoba, permission must be obtained to access farmland for recreation; permission is readily given in many cases, but you must ask. Unless you are a landowner, it is hard to describe the passionate attachment to one’s land and property. This is because the work and toil required to own and operate a farm and livestock operation is truly monumental. The hours are long, and one’s life is dictated by weather, machinery, and markets. Therefore, the intrusion into that space by arrogant, entitled, and self-righteous criminals who think they are better than you are is insufferable. You may think that this has nothing to do with you. Wrong. Animal rights groups are working hard to eliminate animal-based medical research. AIDS, heart disease, and many other ailments have been successfully treated by procedures that were developed on animals. Having a stent put in one of my coronary arteries means that I am one of the beneficiaries of such research; I would be dead without it. Think of your loved ones who are still with you because of modern medical treatments before you give one nickel to an animal rights group. But there is another dimension regarding Bill C-275 which is the rise in rural crime across Canada. Rural residents are usually safer than city dwellers, but the fact that confined animal feeding facilities are somewhat remote means they are vulnerable to criminal activity, especially since response times from law enforcement can be between 30 minutes to an hour. What is a farm family supposed to do when descended upon by the animal rights mob? Furthermore, rural people are generally right neighbourly. Bill C-275 must pass. Robert Sopuck served as the Conservative Member of Parliament for the Manitoba constituency of Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa from 2010 to 2019. The Hill Times

Animal rights activists threaten our health and food supply

That confined animal feeding operations follow veterinary-approved codes of practice means they are exercising 'reasonable care' under the law, a fact conveniently overlooked by animal rights activists.

Canada’s aging crisis and a call for reform in eldercare

As COP29 wraps up, will Canada finally stop funding fossils this fall?

Addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance

The wisdom of Homer Simpson and Aaron Sorkin

Climate finance should target resilient food systems

Trump’s ‘America First’ plans may undermine global trade

Bill C-275 overestimates risk of human-to-animal disease transmission

The real threat to our food supply and public health is lack of regulation

Bill C-69 dragon has been slain

Private member’s bill uses biosecurity and infectious diseases as a smokescreen

Conservatives already have a climate plan

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Animal rights activists threaten our health and food supply

That confined animal feeding operations follow veterinary-approved codes of practice means they are exercising 'reasonable care' under the law, a fact conveniently overlooked by animal rights activists.

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter