Agriculture Committee on Dec. 4th, 2018

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

We had a program from 1923, where we were doing active surveillance, right up to 1980 or 1985. Active surveillance means that if you find a case, you go out on most of the farms—based on our statistics—and take samples. If you find cases, then you quarantine and kill animals and continue eradication. We found out that if we kept doing the active surveillance, it wasn't going down more than that. We went into a passive surveillance, which means that we don't go to the farms. When the animals go to the slaughterhouse, we have a program at post-mortem to look at each animal to detect if there's any signs of TB, which seems to be working.

According to research, finding one or two cases every two to three years is very normal. Like I said, each province is considered to be TB free, even if we find a case every two or three years.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

You mentioned, briefly, the emotional and economic cost, and the impact on farmers. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the programs in place to compensate farmers for their loss?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Yes.

First of all, in learning from the lessons of last time, we are very careful in how we approach the producer. We put them in contact with the provincial health authorities right away so that if they need any help they can have it.

Second, we have a compensation program for animals that we put under quarantine and cull. At CFIA, under the authority of the law, we pay for that. Anything else comes under BRM programs. I can ask my colleague to explain.

[Donald Boucher, Director, Animal Industry Division, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

There is a suite of programs that producers and ranchers can access in order to help them cope with the losses related to tuberculosis.

The first one is AgriStability, a margin-based whole-farm program that helps cover revenue losses that go up by more than 30% compared to their historical levels. Producers can also get an interim payment under that program. There's also AgriInvest, a savings account that is a joint contribution from producers and governments. Producers are able to draw from their accounts to address some of the financial issues they are facing. The last one would be the advance payments program, which gives access to financial loans, the first $100,000 being interest free. That's the suite of the regular programs.

In addition, there is AgriRecovery, which is not a program but a framework to look at all of the extraordinary costs that may be linked to an event such as an outbreak of tuberculosis. That would be driven by an assessment done jointly by the federal government and provinces to look at what those costs would be and to see if an initiative should be put in place to address those costs. The request of the province would trigger such an assessment.

Lastly, there are also tax deferrals that producers would have access to in order to report the taxation on income with regard to compensation provided by the CFIA for animals that are ordered destroyed.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

I'm debating whether to ask about cash advances or to ask about what the Government of B.C. is doing. Why don't I ask about the role of the provincial level in this?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

CFIA does the compensation for the animals that are destroyed. For the other programs that Donald has talked about, they are all done in conjunction with the Province of B.C. These are cost-shared programs.

On the tax deferral on whatever compensation we pay, I think our department will work with Revenue Canada to make sure that producers are not negatively affected.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you so much.

That's all I had, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Dreeshen, please, for six minutes.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thanks for being here today.

I have a series of question about things that people have presented as concerns. There are potentially some alternatives to herd depopulation. Of the cattle that were destroyed at Jenner, many were just weaned calves. They were put into the landfill because they knew how long they would have to be feeding them. As you mentioned, it takes a certain amount of time for them to be infected. Then if they were to be processed at a certain time, you'd know there would be no concern about those particular animals. Taking a look at what has happened in B.C., it would be an isolated case, extensively managed and extensively closed. If a test and cull approach could be used there as well, would people be interested in that? When you look at the procedures that other countries use, are they using exactly the same approach, to kill everything regardless of age? Could you comment on that, first of all?

Also, in your introduction you spoke about how isolated it is, how few cases we have here in Canada. Then you talked about the very rare instances where humans could get this, and the main way you mentioned was non-pasteurized milk and you explained that we go through a particular process. Of course, because you are a responsible scientist, you will never say there is zero chance of something happening. That's the physical science part, but then there is the political science part. Because you cannot or will not say zero, everybody else gets cranked up about it, saying when that does happen....

The problem we have is the relationship between where you are with the science and where the public is, where people start cranking up the rhetoric. Could you comment on herd depopulation and how best to speak to the public? We all know about the fiasco with BSE. It must have been frustrating for you to watch the cow from the U.K. flopping around and our news media talking about it—the way it was completely blown out of proportion. Could you comment on that, please?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

I'll tackle the first one, and look to my colleague if I make any mistakes.

We have worked very hard on this since the 1920s. Among other countries that have similar systems to ours in managing animal health—the U.S., the U.K., New Zealand, Australia—I think Australia and Canada are the two countries that don't have TB in domestic herds.

If we find a case of TB, we look at the economics. It's much better for us to eliminate it and clean it and then start again. The disease is so slow that you never know—it might flare up if you keep the animals there for any length of time.

The U.S. moved away from the program we have, and a number of states are infected. Now they cannot eliminate TB from their domestic herd. That's why we want to continue to do what we are doing. At the most we spend about $40 million every five years to do this. That was the cost the last time we did it in Alberta. It might be less this time, because it's a smaller problem. The U.S. will spend that much money almost every year. From the point of view of economics, it's better.

To your second question, about why we care if it is so low: back when TB was quite prevalent in bovine populations, about 6% or 8% of human cases were from bovine TB. Now we see virtually nothing. If we let it go and TB starts appearing in our cattle population, we might start seeing human cases again. Given that we have to give antibiotics for a year, and given the human health impacts and the impacts on the health and social systems, I think it's better to continue.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Could we go back to the young animal side of it? That was another part of it.

It takes time for it to manifest itself in the animal. If you knew that this animal was in a certain area, would there be a slaughter date that you could use, to still be able to move that animal to a particular market?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Yes, that's exactly what we do. On the primary farm, the cows under one year of age will be quarantined, but we can send them to slaughter. If there are no post-mortem findings in those, they can be used for consumption. On the contact farms, we will do the testing—not on the calves, but only on animals that are more than one year. If they're negative, then they're released and they can be used for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.

Thank you, Dr. Komal.

Mr. Breton, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here.

The investigation lasted about 18 months, from April 2016 to September 2018. During that period, what were the repercussions of that investigation on the sale of Canadian cattle on the international markets? How did the international market react during that period? Do you have any information for us on that?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Thank you for that question.

The previous investigation lasted 18 months because we had to slow down in the spring because of calving season. During that season, we cannot test the gestating cows because there is no reaction. Also, we did not want to disrupt the producers' work.

The last time, like this time, we were proactive and we spoke to the head veterinarians of the importing countries. There was no negative impact attributable to that case of bovine tuberculosis, because the countries know that we are able to manage the problem in a very effective way. There have been no negative reactions to date with regard to this case, and we don't expect any.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Indeed, the affected herds or the ones that are being tested cannot be sold. Is that the case?

Tell me if I am mistaken. This means that we continued to sell animals that were not diseased or were not being investigated. People even sold more to offset the losses caused by the sick animals. I'm trying to get an exact sense of the situation.

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

I will explain in detail how it is done. If I go into too much detail, let me know.

If there is a positive case on a primary farm, after being tested, the animals are destroyed, because the place has to be disinfected. If the animals that have been in contact with the other farms are not infected, we will lift the quarantine immediately. They can be sent to the abattoir if they are mature, or they will be left to continue to grow.

The same thing applies to the animals that are traced, either upstream or downstream. If the results are negative, the animals are released. If the results are positive, we investigate a second locus of infection. Otherwise, they are released immediately.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Are there other animals that may be affected by the disease or is this limited to bovines?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Other animals can also be infected. There are pets on farms. There can be cats, dogs, and also sheep and goats. We analyze the risks for those animals, and even for the humans. We explain to them how all of it works. Depending on the scope of the contamination, we can decide to only observe the pets. The last time we went to a farm with infected animals, we did not need to destroy the pets. In this case, if we see that the contamination is not too widespread, we can let them live, depending on the results of the analysis.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Shipley, you have five minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC]

Thank you very much.

How do you detect it? Can you detect TB through a blood test, or is it when you actually physically view the animal? Is that how it is detected?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

This is the one of the most complicated micro-organisms we have. It grows very slowly and it hides itself in a ball of fibres. The immune system doesn't react very well, so we don't have a test that can detect it very well.

[Bev Shipley]

When can I pick it up from an animal?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

You can pick it up, as we were talking about before, when the abscess bursts and the animal starts breathing it out through respiration or coughing. It's when you are in long-term contact with that animal.