Health Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 19 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I want to remind participants of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating virtually, please click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. At the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. As a reminder, all comments should be made through the chair.

For members in the room, you know the rules. Don't forget that little decal thing to put your phone on so that you don't create any feedback for the interpreters.

The clerk and I will try to manage the speaking order. Put up your hand if you have anything you want to say, and we'll hope we can see you first.

If the committee is in agreement, I'll invite the clerk to proceed with the election of the second vice-chair before we continue with our study on antimicrobial resistance.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Catherine Ngando Edimo]

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition.

I am now prepared to receive motions for the election of the second vice-chair.

Ms. Chi, you have the floor.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I nominate my colleague Maxime Blanchette‑Joncas for the position of committee vice-chair.

[The Clerk]

It has been moved by Ms. Chi that Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas be elected as second vice-chair of the committee.

Are there any further motions?

Seeing none, I will now put the motion to the committee.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Clerk]

I declare the motion carried and Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas duly elected second vice-chair of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, the committee will resume its study on antimicrobial resistance.

I would like to welcome our witnesses.

As individuals, we have Dr. Dao Nguyen, professor at McGill's AMR Centre; Dr. Joseph Rubin, professor of veterinary microbiology, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan; and Dr. Scott Weese, professor at the University of Guelph and director of the Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses.

From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we have David Wiens, director, and Scott Ross, executive director. From the Canadian Pork Council, we have René Roy, chair, and Dr. Egan Brockhoff, chief veterinary officer. From the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, we have Dr. Tracy Fisher by video conference.

Dr. Fisher and Dr. Brockhoff, welcome. You are virtual. I don't know if you heard the opening, when I said where to go to tap the mic. There's a little globe that gives you interpretation on your screen. Thank you.

We'll begin. Here's how it works. I will give each of the individuals and one person from each organization five minutes. I will time you. With about a minute left, I will shout, literally, “A minute”, and then I will give you 30 seconds so you can wrap up what you have to say. If you cannot finish everything you have to say, please remember that there will be a question and answer period later on in which you can pick up the things you wanted to say.

I will begin with Dr. Dao Nguyen, professor at McGill's AMR Centre.

Dr. Nguyen, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Dao Nguyen, Professor, McGill AMR Centre, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about antimicrobial resistance, or AMR for short.

My name is Dao Nguyen, and I speak to you as a physician working at McGill University's main teaching hospital, as a professor of medicine, as a microbiology researcher who studies difficult-to-treat bacterial infections and as the founder-director of the McGill AMR Centre and a new AMR Québec network, where I lead efforts to structure and mobilize a multisectoral AMR research ecosystem of over 150 researchers in Quebec. We engage with government, private partners and public partners across the human, animal and environmental health sectors.

As this is the fifth session on AMR of this standing committee, you have undoubtedly already heard many statistics about AMR, which I will not repeat. The pan-Canadian action plan, the AMR report by the Council of Canadian Academies and numerous other global reports all provide the data to tell us that AMR is a silent pandemic that threatens the safety and health of our population, our health care system and beyond.

However, what I would like to bring to your attention to today are a few current realities about AMR and human health care in Canada.

First, antibiotics are currently used by nearly every type of doctor, even dentists and pharmacists. They are used not only to treat infections but also to prevent infection complications that arise from treatments like chemotherapy and from interventions like surgery. However, with the rise of drug-resistant bacteria, particularly those resistant to carbapenems, powerful antibiotics of last resort, the options for effective and safe antibiotics are shrinking and are sometimes not available at all.

Second, to treat the right patient with the right drug at the right time, a health care provider needs to have timely diagnostic information. Are they treating a bacterial infection? What bacteria is it? Is it drug-resistant? With the currently available diagnostic tests, it likely will take three to five days to get an answer, if at all. Antibiotics are most often used empirically, which is medical jargon to say “by guesswork”.

Third, taking carbapenem-resistant enterobacterales as an example, these very concerning drug-resistant bacteria have already reached levels of 70% to 80% in certain regions of the world today, as we speak. In Canada, although the rates are still low in comparison, they are rising exponentially despite the surveillance, infection-prevention and control programs already in place.

The AMR crisis is knocking at our doors, and we are not equipped to handle it. In fact, it is not enough to do more of the same. We are in dire need of new solutions.

We need to preserve existing antibiotics, but we also need new treatments. We need faster and accessible diagnostic tests in order to prescribe the most appropriate and effective antibiotics. We need surveillance systems that are more comprehensive and timely enough to track where drug-resistant bacteria spread across the human, animal and environmental continuum, and to guide action.

I would therefore highlight that research and innovations done in a collaborative and strategic manner are essential to addressing the AMR crisis.

First, academic research is an important source of innovations, from discoveries to spinoff companies. Researchers are critical for understanding what the AMR problems are and for guiding effective interventions. Canadian researchers have notable strengths and expertise upon which to build.

Second, we can build teams that transcend disciplines and use cutting-edge approaches to come up with better and more creative solutions.

Third, members of the academic community are important conduits for mobilizing the AMR ecosystem, one that is rich in expertise but highly complex and fragmented across sectors and disciplines.

What do I think is lacking and what do we need to do?

To deal with the AMR crisis, we need infrastructure with adequate resources to support an AMR ecosystem that makes research and innovation an integral part of the actions taken by the government, public stakeholders, industry and end-users. Specifically, we need greater strategic funding and programs to deliver on the research strategy that the CIHR is developing. Funding for the CIHR AMR initiative is currently only at $1.8 million per year, which pales in comparison to the $21 million per year invested in the HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections initiative, as an example.

This also means supporting programs that build partnerships between academia, industry and public-sector partners to turn discoveries into drugs and diagnostics, and knowledge into policy and intervention.

Finally, we need strong leadership that clearly understands the urgency of the AMR crisis and has a mandate to mobilize political will and resources, and a governance structure that allows coordinated actions across sectors and jurisdiction.

Thank you for your time and attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I now go to Dr. Joseph Rubin, professor of veterinary microbiology, for five minutes, please.

[Joseph Rubin, Professor of Veterinary Microbiology, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Thank you for the invitation to testify today.

My name is Joe Rubin. I'm a veterinarian, microbiologist and professor in the Department of Veterinary Microbiology at the University of Saskatchewan. I've been working on antimicrobial resistance, primarily in companion animals and food products, for nearly 20 years. My roles are as an educator of veterinary students in the areas of bacteriology and infectious diseases and as a researcher studying the problem of AMR from a number of perspectives.

Antimicrobial resistance is an underappreciated pandemic that urgently requires additional action. I'm very heartened to see this topic examined by multiple parliamentary committees. The committee has already heard foundational testimony from other witnesses, so I'll focus on areas in my field where I believe action is needed.

At present, we have an incomplete picture of the scope of the problem. The committee has heard about challenges with resistance surveillance in people. In animals, our knowledge is even more fragmented. Resistance is not a problem uniformly spread across all bacteria. Some organisms are more problematic than others in terms of how common resistance is, how frequently they cause infections and what animal species, including people, are impacted.

We have a very good understanding of antimicrobial resistance in Canadian-raised agricultural animals through the CIPARS program, which is within the Public Health Agency of Canada. There are, however, some very large and important gaps, including among imported foods, companion animals—dogs, cats and horses—and wildlife, although the impact of resistance in wildlife on human health may be more difficult to quantify. Resistance surveillance programs outside of CIPARS are limited to research projects initiated by individual scientists, which lack stable funding and broad integration with other researchers and other programs.

In previous testimony, the committee has heard how prescription audit and feedback programs are among the most effective stewardship interventions. This is something we don't do, and we probably can't do it at a meaningful scale in veterinary medicine.

Antimicrobial stewardship necessarily looks different in each context where it's applied. What works in a large human hospital may or may not be appropriate in the diverse environments or for the patient populations that veterinarians care for. An individually owned dog is quite different from a dairy cow, a barn full of broiler chickens or a hive of bees, and the stewardship approach in each of these contexts will look different.

In veterinary medicine, more data is needed to support stewardship in companion animal practice. The goal of stewardship is to change prescriber behaviours. For companion animal practitioners, we've relied largely on passive antimicrobial stewardship, which has consisted of providing knowledge and information through continuing education conferences and workshops. In human infectious diseases, we know that more active approaches have a bigger impact on prescriber behaviours. Furthermore, there are areas where we simply lack data on how antimicrobial use can be optimized. For instance, reducing the duration of therapy can greatly impact the total amount of antimicrobial that an individual animal is treated with, which, at a population level, can multiply to a big difference.

Finally, the committee also heard that AMR does not respect borders, and that the threat of resistance is global. Through international travel and trade, resistant bacteria and resistance genes can be easily transported intercontinentally. It is therefore in our best interest to assist low- and middle-income countries to build regulatory, diagnostic and stewardship capacity in the veterinary and human health sectors. Meeting the threat of resistance where it's most rapidly emerging will protect Canadians and reduce the burden of resistance on vulnerable individuals living in these regions, who may be both disproportionately impacted and least able to respond.

To conclude, antimicrobial stewardship is essential in our fight against AMR. In companion animals, more resources are needed to develop effective strategies to help veterinarians optimize antimicrobial prescribing and to ensure that best practices are implemented. We must also take a global perspective and work with our colleagues internationally to help combat AMR in regions where it's most rapidly emerging.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Dr. Rubin.

I now go to Dr. Weese, professor at the University of Guelph and director of the Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses.

Professor Weese, you have five minutes.

[Scott Weese, Professor, University of Guelph, and Director, Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm an infectious disease veterinarian, and I direct our university's Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses. I deal with antimicrobial use and resistance at the animal level, but also at the human-animal interface, ranging from local to global activities.

This may be fairly high-level, but I want to emphasize the complexity of the issue, the oversimplification of the problem, the lack of action-based approaches and the need to consider animal and human health as separate but linked entities.

There's increasing recognition of AMR as a “one health” problem, because it is. However, it's not human health and one health; it's human health, animal health and environmental health under the one health umbrella, and we have to remember the animal health component of that.

The other thing with one health is that it tends to be more talk than action. It's very difficult to define. It's difficult to act upon. We need to think about one health, but we can't wait for a one health approach. We can't let one health be the anchor that slows us down.

We need individual actions in human and animal sectors. We need to keep one health in mind, but action is largely going to be done at the species and sector levels.

If we look at the World Organisation for Animal Health, they have estimated that by 2050, if AMR is unchecked, food production losses will be the equivalent of the food needs of 750 million to two billion people. That's a staggering number.

A small percentage of them will be in Canada, but a small percentage of a staggering problem is still relevant, and it's growing. That doesn't even show the whole scope of the problem. As Dr. Rubin mentioned, we have other species and have companion animals and their emotionally attached owners, and there are significant health impacts there.

One of the reasons we're here is to think about the role of animals in human health. We really don't understand the role of antibiotic use in animals and in resistance in humans. It's probably a very small proportion. Most of the resistance in humans comes from antimicrobial use in humans and most of the resistance in animals comes from use in animals, but there is some crossover in both directions. Again, a small proportion of a very large problem is something we'll still need to address.

We need to address AMR in humans and animals, but human and animal health needs are different. We have to recognize that. We can't ignore the animal health and welfare components.

The other thing is that we can't fix the problem of AMR by just addressing AMR. AMR is the end result; it's not the problem per se. Our problem is antimicrobial use. Why do we use antimicrobials? It's because of health, or a lack thereof. If we focus only on new drugs and new tests, we avoid addressing the true problem and we're perpetually trying to keep up with a problem that's more agile than we are. If we just focus on surveillance, we have a great view of a problem, but we're not actually doing anything to fix it, so we need to optimize health and welfare if we're going to have an impact.

For animal health, we need innovation, but we need it in things that improve health: better animal management, better access to vaccines and other preventive measures, nutrition, access to veterinary care, treatment guidelines, willingness to change and social science interventions to help us effect changes that we all know we need to make. These are often outside what's considered innovation and can be challenges to getting support for funding in particular.

Additionally, while we know we have a problem with AMR, we can't define it well, as mentioned before. If we can't understand a problem, we can't efficiently address it. That can lead to inaction, inefficient action or, sometimes, harmful action. We need to think about action-oriented, broad, and integrated, or at least integrable, surveillance, with an ability to understand where, why and how antimicrobials are used in my area on animals, but also more broadly anywhere.

With better surveillance, we can focus on appropriateness of use and actionable data, not crude numbers that are better for sound bites than action. For that, we need industry buy-in and commitment, political buy-in and commitment, sustained funding and sustained will.

We have to accept that there is a role for the use of antimicrobials in animals but not accept the status quo. My mantra when it comes to antimicrobials is “use as little as possible, but use enough”, and we have to maintain what we have.

We can't rest on our laurels. Canada has done well in the AMR field. We've been well regarded, but we have slipped internationally.

We have to continue to act, continue to innovate and truly commit to addressing this problem. We have well-respected groups and individuals and the foundation to re-emerge as a world leader if there is will and support, part of which has to come from the political level to ensure action.

My final point is that it's complicated. It's a complex problem. It's going to require complex, multisectoral solutions and support for sustained and aspirational action. AMR is a problem that spans decades and generations. It's bigger than election cycles, it's bigger than administrations and it's bigger than granting cycles, and that's a problem for motivation. We need short-term wins, but we need a long-term strategic plan, commitment and support if we want to address this problem.

I thank you for addressing this important issue, and I would encourage you to consider animal health when you're thinking about the AMR crisis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Dr. Weese.

I am now going to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

You have five minutes, please, Mr. Wiens.

[David Wiens, Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, Madam Chair and all members of the committee, for inviting me to speak here today on this important topic.

My name is David Wiens. I'm a dairy farmer from Grunthal, Manitoba. I'm here as a member of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I'm also the current president of Dairy Farmers of Canada. Joining me today is Scott Ross, executive director of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

Canadian farmers and veterinarians understand that human, animal and environmental health are all connected through the concept of “one health” and recognize our important role in reducing antimicrobial resistance.

Farmers and veterinarians are deeply committed to antimicrobial stewardship. At its heart, this means working together, alongside regulators, to use antimicrobials responsibly in animal care. Through practical, coordinated efforts, we promote and monitor proper use so that these important tools remain effective, while protecting the health and welfare of our animals.

Preventing and controlling infections are essential to keeping animals healthy and reducing antimicrobial resistance. On the farm, this involves implementing robust biosecurity measures that ensure animals remain healthy through proper nutrition and other health-enhancing practices.

The best way to reduce antimicrobial use on farms is through strong stewardship, responsible use and making sure farmers and veterinarians have access to the widest variety of veterinary health care tools possible. The tools currently available fall into several different categories based on how they are used. These include veterinary pharmaceuticals, veterinary health products, feed and water additives, vaccines, parasiticides and pesticides, which help maintain animal health, and livestock feeds, which help ensure nutritional requirements and meet and support optimal functions in animals.

Each of these categories has a different regulatory oversight and approval process. Domestic barriers that discourage manufacturers from entering the Canadian market have pushed access to these tools to a critical point. This has been made worse by the continued loss of approved options, forcing us to rely on an increasingly limited number of tools to protect animal health and well-being.

This isn't just a risk to animal and human health. It also leaves Canada at a competitive disadvantage compared with other countries that do not have the same barriers to access. Simply stated, the more varied tools we have available from each of these product categories, the less we need to rely on products that are important to human health.

Over the past two years, a coalition of 16 national organizations representing Canada's livestock farmers, veterinarians and product manufacturers have worked together to identify barriers and improve access to veterinary health care tools. The collaboration has led to a joint white paper containing consensus solutions, which was shared with government officials in 2024. We're very pleased to see that several of the recommendations within the white paper were reflected in the recent red tape review.

As one example, Health Canada has launched a consultation that will enable it to rely on decisions made by trusted foreign regulators. This will facilitate more efficient reviews of drug submissions for priority products. This is an extremely welcome first step that should help to address the acute shortage of veterinary pharmaceuticals. That said, it does not address many of the long-standing barriers identified in the white paper or help improve access to other product categories.

We look forward to continuing our collaborative work with government to implement this and other solutions identified in the white paper. I'd like to thank the officials at Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for their continued support and collaboration. I would also like to thank parliamentarians from all parties for their ongoing support on this issue.

Again, on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, I want to thank members of this committee for their effort to help reduce antimicrobial resistance and for studying this important issue.

We would be happy to take any further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to René Roy, chair of the Canadian Pork Council.

You have five minutes, please, Mr. Roy.

[René Roy, Chair, Canadian Pork Council]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is René Roy, and I am a hog farmer from the Beauce region of Quebec. I'm here today with Dr. Egan Brockhoff, the chief veterinary officer for our industry.

We currently represent 7,000 hog farmers in Canada.

Our industry is not just an $11-billion economic engine; we are a frontline partner in food safety and public health.

Canadian hog farmers and their veterinarians and nutritionists understand that antimicrobial resistance is a global one health issue. Public health, animal health and environmental health are inextricably linked.

That is why the Canadian Pork Council on-farm food safety program has a responsible use policy embedded into its PigSAFE program. This program requires pork producers to work with a licensed swine veterinarian and requires all pork producers to be audited annually by an external auditor. Through our PigSAFE program, we have eliminated the preventive use of category I antimicrobials, those of very high importance in human medicine.

The swine sector has a remarkable stewardship track record. We started working with the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2006 on AMR surveillance and antimicrobial use monitoring within the Canadian integrated program for antimicrobial resistance, CIPARS, which is a farm-level surveillance system. We introduced our first national biosecurity standard on infection prevention and control in 2010, and then updated it again in 2024. Finally, we developed and implemented our own swine health intelligence network in 2007.

To reach the next stage, we need more. Producers need tools and they need experts. Currently, we are hitting two major walls: access to veterinary medicines and a shortage of swine veterinarians and specialists. Canada has fallen behind the United States, Brazil, Australia and Europe in approving new vaccines, medications and other products. Also, our producers are facing a shortage of specialized veterinarians, university specialists and laboratory support. Without access to this expertise, producers are left vulnerable during health emergencies.

For Canada to remain a leader, we are submitting three priority recommendations to the government.

The first is regulatory agility and red tape reduction. We ask Health Canada and the CFIA to work towards making Canada more attractive to the pharmaceutical sector through speeding up the approval of veterinary medicine by harmonizing this process with recognized international jurisdictions.

Second, to support infection prevention and control, we propose a biosecurity tax credit to help our family farms modernize their buildings for biosecurity.

The third recommendation is a massive investment in the production of veterinary expertise. Science is of no use if it does not reach the farm. We are calling on the federal government to increase education-related transfers specifically to expand the number of seats reserved for the production of animal medicine in our colleges. Simultaneously, we must invest in rural digital infrastructure to enable veterinary support through digital pathways.

In conclusion, farmers, including pork producers, are an essential part of the solution. Give us the vaccines, the modern facilities and the necessary experts, and we will continue to reduce our antimicrobial footprint while ensuring food security for all Canadians.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm willing to receive your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I now go to Dr. Tracy Fisher of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

[Tracy Fisher, President, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association]

Hi there. My name is Tracy Fisher, and I'm a practising veterinarian in Regina, Saskatchewan. I am here today as the current president of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, or CVMA, which represents veterinarians and allied professionals nationally. Veterinarians oversee antimicrobial use in animals, including diagnosis, prescription, appropriate use and preventative strategies such as vaccination, biosecurity and improved management. We understand this is a privilege, and we take our role very seriously.

The CVMA aids our members in their stewardship role by providing guidance and decision-making tools to reduce the threat of AMR. Since 2018, all medically important antimicrobials used in animals in Canada require a veterinary prescription, positioning veterinarians as gatekeepers of antimicrobial access. Veterinarians use a precautionary framework emphasizing responsible use, reduction, refinement, replacement and review of antimicrobial use. These practices reduce selection pressure for resistance, while safeguarding animal health and welfare. Veterinarians from all areas of practice—farmed and companion animal—are committed to minimizing AMR.

Evidence shows that a coordinated one health approach is effective at reducing AMR, while protecting animal welfare, public health and the environment. Canada has established foundations through the pan-Canadian action plan and CIPARS. However, assessments by the Auditor General of Canada and the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences identify gaps in coordination, geographic and species coverage, and sustained investment. Veterinarians are essential partners in ensuring antimicrobial use stewardship and in protecting public health, but we need reliable data to ensure we can properly do our part.

Access to effective veterinary antimicrobials and their alternatives is essential for animal health and welfare, public health and food security. Between 2017 and 2022, the number of licensed veterinary medicines available in Canada declined by approximately 40%. Health Canada recently proposed changes to the categorization of antimicrobials that could reduce access to important veterinary antimicrobials and inadvertently contribute to increased veterinary use of antimicrobials that are important in human medicine.

Limited access to antimicrobials and preventative alternatives such as vaccines constrains appropriate treatment and stewardship efforts. Simply put, the ability of veterinarians to do their job—control disease, prevent suffering, manage food security—is all being put in jeopardy by either the lack of appropriate medications or potential restrictions on the medications we need every day.

Of particular concern to bovine veterinarians is the proposed reclassification of first-generation tetracyclines and phenicols, which will make treatment for the most common types of bacterial respiratory illnesses, especially in dairy cattle, extraordinarily difficult to treat.

The CVMA has the following recommendations.

First, improve the integration of veterinary expertise into antimicrobial policy and drug regulatory development. Ensure veterinarians and animal health experts are systemically involved in developing and revising antimicrobial regulations, classifications and guidelines. We need to be there at the beginning of the process, not as an afterthought. Consider the importance of ensuring the continued availability of less medically important antimicrobials for veterinary use, such as antimicrobials used in veterinary medicine that were recently affected by the Health Canada changes.

Second, maintain and improve access to veterinary medicines and alternatives. Streamline regulatory pathways and incentivize manufacturers to supply approved products in Canada, including alternatives to antimicrobials such as vaccines, probiotics, phages and other medicines.

Third, invest in one health research and surveillance. Strengthen integrated animal, human and environmental AMR research in Canada to support evidence-based disease prevention and control and enhanced antimicrobial stewardship.

Fourth, and finally, support veterinary stewardship capacity and tools. Sustain investment in national stewardship initiatives, clinical guidelines and decision support tools such as CVMA's Firstline AMR stewardship app, which helps veterinarians make informed choices.

Thank you for your time today. We appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all about a matter of great importance to our profession, our clients and the animals that depend upon us.

I'm happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Now we're going to questions. The questions are going to be in a six-minute round, and the six minutes is for the question and the answer.

Everyone, please try to be as short as you can so we can get through all the questions, or else I'll just have to cut you off. There you go—a warning to members and the witnesses.

I begin with the Conservatives for six minutes.

Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming here this afternoon.

I'm going to start with the Canadian Pork Council and Dr. Brockhoff.

Several witnesses during this study have compared Canada and the European Union in the context of antimicrobial resistance. From your perspective, is this a fair and useful comparison for the committee to rely on for its report?

[Egan Brockhoff, Chief Veterinary Officer, Canadian Pork Council]

Thank you for the question.

No, it's not a fair comparison. We live in a much different environment from the European Union livestock sector. We're not nearly as subsidized a sector in terms of housing, housing facilities and so on, so that characteristic is unfair. We know that we are very similar in industry type to those in the United States, Mexico, Australia and Brazil. When we compare what's across those countries with what we're doing here in Canada, we see a very similar story emerge.

I think it's an unfair characterization on its own. More context is always needed.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Dr. Fisher, I might as well get your perspective on this as well. Do you agree with it? Should we avoid comparisons to the EU in our report?

[Tracy Fisher]

Yes. I think things are very different. Herd sizes, especially for bovines, tend to be much smaller in the European Union. The way those animals are handled is quite different.

There are things to learn, of course, from other countries. I also think we need to be careful and make sure that we look to our own industries and the differences, and then make the best decisions based on the evidence we have at hand.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Dr. Brockhoff, in analyzing the EU versus the North American type of model, it stood out to me that the countries you listed are much more vast. A lot of the challenges we have in Canada are with getting our product to market for processing and keeping it safe and disease-free, and that requires different sets of drugs.

For the committee's sake and for the analysts as we write this report, I'll note that I think a lot of people forget just how big a country Canada is, the kinds of challenges we've come across over the years and how the industry and our producers have stepped up. We've been a shining example for the rest of the world to follow, instead of trying to catch up to them and conform to them.

This is for Dr. Brockhoff, or for the Canadian Pork Council. What role does regulatory flexibility play in antimicrobial resistance, particularly in the agriculture sector? Also, should the committee make recommendations on regulatory flexibility in its report?