Manure scabs on cows, lack of water and food, corpses in contact with live animals… Many violations of the Animal Welfare and Safety Act are recorded on Quebec farms each year — and repeat offenders are sometimes repeatedly warned before being sanctioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of Quebec (MAPAQ).
The duty consulted 1,024 pages from 26 animal welfare violation reports on Quebec farms produced between 2018 and 2022. These reports — without establishing an exhaustive portrait of the situation — clearly illustrate the gradation of the measures recommended by MAPAQ towards offenders.
Some operators have received inspection reports from MAPAQ that repeatedly raised major shortcomings related to the safety and well-being of their animals before receiving a general violation report.
Even when inspectors have observed unsanitary premises, animals forced to lie down in manure or poor body condition on cows, it is inspection reports (which are equivalent to a warning) that have been issued. to operators rather than an infraction report.
“The primary purpose of an inspection is to bring the owner or custodian of the animals to comply with the regulations to ensure their well-being and their safety in a sustainable manner. The inspectors will intervene and educate the operator. Through the inspection reports, they will make recommendations,” summarizes Émilie Pelletier, veterinarian and spokesperson for MAPAQ.
An approach that worries Me Alain Roy, professor of animal rights at the University of Montreal. “Why are shortcomings observed repeatedly? A single breach should be enough” for an offense report to be produced, he believes.
A recurring situation
Last year, 40 general farm animal welfare violation reports were filed — a record since the Animal Welfare and Safety Act was passed in 2015.
On February 23, 2022, the Edelweiss dairy farm, located in Saint-Isidore, received three violation reports from MAPAQ. These reports notably raise that cows are lame, that there is “a large accumulation of feces” in the circulation and rest areas of a barn housing 85 cattle and even the presence of a “disemboweled corpse of a hen in contact [avec] live poultry.
The operator’s shortcomings had however already been reported on numerous occasions in the past: four inspection reports raising several of these same shortcomings and a first violation report had already been drawn up in the previous months. (See Box 1 for more details.)
The duty contacted Gabriella Rempfler, the daughter of the owners of the family farm. According to the latter, who works there full time, it is the work overload that would explain the various shortcomings noted by the inspectors. Sometimes the inspections had taken place too early and the workers had not had the opportunity to start their tasks.
This type of case is not isolated: the operators whose files have been consulted by The duty received, on average, two inspection reports raising deficiencies before receiving a violation report. Although several were sanctioned quickly, in six cases analyzed by The dutythree or more reports were submitted to the operator before an infraction report was submitted.
Ferme Pellerin, located in the municipality of Grand-Saint-Esprit, also received numerous warnings before receiving an infraction. On the morning of April 24, 2017, a MAPAQ inspector went there and noted that “a few cows showed an inadequate body condition” and that a “moribund cow” was lying on the ground.
It will take four additional visits during which numerous breaches were recorded before the farm receives a violation report in April 2018.
According to Yvon Pellerin, the farm owner, the two-month delay between inspections was too short for him to be able to submit to the requested corrections. (See Box 2 for more details.)
Sensitization
In terms of animal welfare, MAPAQ’s approach is more focused on education and awareness than on repression. There are no specific guidelines regarding the number of warnings an operator may receive before an infraction report is issued. “Each situation is unique,” says Émilie Pelletier, of MAPAQ. […] Depending on the situation, the inspection service will act differently. »
According to the Dr Jean-Yves Perreault, president of the Association of Veterinary Practitioners of Quebec, this method of intervention has proven itself.
“I think it’s better to have support measures than coercive measures,” he argues. Usually there are going to be recommendations repeatedly for the breeder to comply. We’re going to give it a chance because generally speaking, it works. The veterinarian also points out that the cases noted in the infraction reports are extreme and exceptional cases.
But according to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) of Montreal, this system lacks teeth and can only crack down on a handful of offenders. Because for an animal welfare inspector to travel to a farm in Quebec, a complaint must be filed beforehand, recalls Ms.e Sophie Gaillard, Acting Executive Director and Director of Animal Advocacy and Legal Affairs at the Montreal SPCA.
“It is very rare that we have reports or complaints since a farm is closed buildings, often without windows. The people who have access to farm animals are the farmer himself, the producer, his family and his employees, so people who are not necessarily inclined to denounce,” she explains. The Montreal SPCA would like systematic visits to be made to all farms in Quebec by animal welfare inspectors.
Variable consequences
Despite the MAPAQ’s violation reports, the operators only really suffer the consequences when their file is the subject of legal proceedings — which is not guaranteed.
Once a general offense report is produced, the MAPAQ then sends it to the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP), who is responsible for deciding whether to initiate criminal proceedings.
Regarding the weight that the repeated warnings and recurrences of certain operators can have in the balance, the spokesperson for the DPCP Audrey Roy-Cloutier is of the opinion that these elements are more relevant when presenting their defense before the courts.
“If there were warnings, it will be difficult for the person to claim that they were in good faith. Necessarily, she knew that there was something to improve, ”she reacts.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, André Lamontagne, did not want to grant an interview to the Duty before knowing the content of the report.
Tomorrow: An approach based on cooperation and education
The case of Edelweiss Farm
The case of the Pellerin Farm