In his recent op-ed, "New law will put teeth into protection for farmers and their businesses," Agriculture Minister Ernie Hardeman describes Bill 156, Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, as increasing trespassing fines in order to protect farmers from trespassers, and claims the province has strong laws to protect farm animals. Unfortunately, "generally accepted" farming practices are exempt from the recently introduced Provincial Animal Welfare Services (PAWS) Act. And despite its innocuous-sounding name, anyone concerned about free speech and the treatment of animals should be deeply worried about Bill 156.

There are no laws providing for animal welfare standards on farms in Ontario. Farmers regularly and legally engage in disturbing practices like castrating piglets and steers without anesthesia, cutting the beaks off of hens, and confining hens and pigs in tiny cages. Ontario does not proactively inspect animal welfare conditions on farms, instead relying upon a complaints-based system for inspections.

That's why footage from employee whistleblowers is often the only way to uncover secretive animal abuse. Since animals cannot alert the authorities themselves when they are being mistreated, one of the only ways charges have been brought against those abusing and mistreating animals on farms in this province has been through employee whistleblowers bringing appalling conditions into the public spotlight.

For instance, employee whistleblower footage in 2014 showed turkeys being kicked and beaten with shovels, among other disturbing acts, at the Hybrid Turkeys facility in Kitchener. Whistleblower footage in 2018 showed unsanitary conditions and lack of veterinary care at a mink farm near Guelph. In both cases, authorities investigated and laid animal cruelty charges. In the Hybrid Turkeys case, the company pled guilty. In the mink farm case, the charges are still before the courts.

Bill 156 would prohibit undercover exposés such as these from shining a public spotlight on animal abuse, labour or environmental law violations, and unsafe food practices. It is what is known as an "agriculture gag" (ag-gag) law. It is an attempt to gag would-be whistleblowers by making it an offence to enter agricultural property under "false pretences." This would make it an offence for an employee not to disclose that they are an undercover journalist or that they intend to publicly expose unlawful or unethical activity witnessed on the job.

Ag gag laws are unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny. But no need to take my word for it. Forty-three law professors and constitutional and criminal law experts from across Canada wrote to the minister earlier this month, warning him that sections of Bill 156 that gag employee whistleblowers and that make it an offence for an individual on public property to "interact" with an animal being transported to slaughter would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Further, they noted that, (i)t is in the public interest for employees to expose unlawful and unethical activity, even when doing so requires not revealing their full intentions to their employer."

Ag-gag laws in the United States have repeatedly been struck down as unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment right to free speech.

The minister and supporters of Bill 156 would have Ontarians believe that the debate over Bill 156 is about whether one is for or against trespassing on farm property. Though it's a compelling narrative, it misrepresents criticism of the bill.

Any attempt to introduce an ag-gag law in Ontario should be deeply concerning to us all. Rather than stifling open debate in order to keep animal abuse hidden, Ontario should introduce legally binding standards of care for farmed animals and proactive public enforcement of those standards. Transparent oversight benefits not only animals and consumers, but also farm workers and the environment on which we all depend.

Passing Bill 156 as it's currently drafted will put the province on track to defend costly constitutional challenges, further exacerbate tensions between farmers and animal advocates, and erode public confidence in our food system.