Agriculture Committee on Feb. 28th, 2019

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is to the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

We decided to do the study because we feel pressure. Even our constituents feel the pressure, including urban constituents who feel the pressure from activists and so on.

As an organization, how do you balance that? Do you get pressure in your organization, potentially from activists saying that you're not doing your job, that you're not applying the science-based rules, for instance for animal agriculture?

[Dr. Henry Ceelen]

I've only recently been chair of the national issues committee on the CVMA. To my knowledge, there have not been many comments to us that we're not doing our job, not being proactive and not dealing with the issues with respect to food safety and animal welfare. If you look at the initiatives we've been involved with over the last number of years, we've done a lot. We're not satisfied with where we are right now. We're continuing to work on those files, and we see it as a work in progress.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Your members are veterinarians. Do they have any reason to believe that the majority of animal agriculture is in jeopardy right now because farmers are not taking care of their animals properly?

[Dr. Henry Ceelen]

I'm going to put on my veterinary practitioner hat. I work and live with it every day.

I look at it from that perspective. I look at the sum total of my career, which has been a long one, and I look at what's important today, compared to almost 40 years ago when I graduated. When I graduated, there was no real thought about pain management in animals, whether companion animals or food animals. In fact, at that time, there were few or no licensed drugs to be used, especially in food animals. It was a very narrow selection.

As we've progressed, there are new issues that we become more attuned to. As professionals, we take actions to deal with them and contribute to improving the health and welfare of the animals we serve.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

In your opening statement, I didn't hear you sound the alarm that animal welfare is the major issue in Canada. You've mentioned that antimicrobial resistance is the issue of the day, and that's what you guys are focused on right now.

[Dr. Henry Ceelen]

Right. I think that's a true statement. I'm not sure if you folks are aware of it, but right now, worldwide, antimicrobial resistance is a very big issue. They are very concerned about the effects on human health.

Right now, that's a very prominent topic. Because it's front of mind provincially, nationally and internationally, we're very heavily engaged in that.

Five years ago, I would have argued that animal welfare was the pre-eminent issue from a veterinary perspective, as it relates to food animal agriculture.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Lee, I know you've exchanged with Mr. Dreeshen and me. Your organization has been proactive in terms of producing codes of practice. How do you ensure that farmers follow those codes of practice when it comes to animal welfare?

[Ryder Lee]

That's a good question.

NFACC designs the process for developing those codes. The different industry groups take the lead, whether it's beef producers, dairy farmers or chicken farmers. Those groups come to NFACC and say they would like to use its process to renew their codes.

They can also say they would like to use its process for building assessment programs. There are different programs in each of the different sectors. Step one is getting the code. Step two is assessing the code, and going out on the farms to look at their practices and say, “Here's what the code says for requirements and recommendations....”

Several of those programs are multi-faceted now. They'll go out and look at animal care, environment, food safety and different things like that. They are kind of a whole farm assessment program.

We are seeing lots of that. That's done by the leadership of the industry groups themselves. NFACC is the home for making sure the industry groups are doing those, developing those, with a robust process, engaging all the stakeholders that should be engaged, including the public. You come out the other end with a piece that is defensible and very thoroughly done.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The role that you play is important. I'm not sure if a lot of Canadians know the role you play. I come from a rural riding, and I don't know that even those who are in my rural riding understand what NFACC does. Do you do any marketing to the general population to ensure that there is that public confidence between the regular consumer and the farmers who produce the food?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I'm sorry, Mr. Lee. We have to go to the next questioner, we're out of time.

We go to Mr. MacGregor for six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Dr. Ceelen, I'd like to start with you. In your opening statement, you made remarks about the really high level of public trust that exists with veterinarians. I think this is the case for a lot of professions involved in medical fields, because you have provincial licensing agencies. Also, you exist by a code of ethics.

A main focus of this study is the public's perception and trust. As large animal veterinarians, can you maybe inform this committee about a veterinarian's duty to report when cases of abuse are suspected, such as malnourishment or lack of due care? What do veterinarians do in those circumstances? The public is wondering how farms are checked and what veterinarians do when they see a case of suspected abuse.

[Dr. Henry Ceelen]

I'm going to have to answer that question from an Ontario perspective, because I'm not completely up to speed with the other provinces and territories.

In Ontario now, it is a mandatory requirement to report all cases of suspected abuse; we have no option. We have to break client confidentiality to do it. The repercussion is that, if a case of animal abuse were to occur and we were not to report it, our licence would be in jeopardy. There's a very high standard we need to meet with respect to that. Again, I would argue that we take that very seriously.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

For farms in Ontario, how frequently do they need to have veterinarians come and visit?

[Dr. Henry Ceelen]

There is no official requirement, but there is an understood requirement that it should be at least once a year.

Again, I'm going to speak to you from my understanding. I have a pretty good understanding of Ontario. At one time, it was in writing that a veterinarian had to be on those premises at least once a year. They have more recently removed that requirement, but they have given quite a lot of detail to define how often a veterinarian feels they need to be there. I think they define it to a level that veterinarians can make the proper judgment on whether it needs to be every two months, every year, etc. It is an absolute requirement to have a reasonable understanding of the practices and procedures that occur on that farm and the primary conditions there. Even within my own clientele, that time interval might vary.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Lee, I was reading an article in the Calgary Herald concerning the recent changes to the animal transport regulations. I have had conversations with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. They noted they have an over 99% success rate and that if you reduce the number of hours—as Mr. Dreeshen was alluding to—the injuries happen when the animals are being unloaded and then loaded back up. I think the percentages by themselves, because even with livestock generally.... According to the CFIA, approximately 98% of livestock shipments are already in compliance with the new standards. If I put Joe Public's hat on, it's not really the percentages that may bother people, but what the percentages represent. The 2% not in compliance represents an estimated 16 million animals per year that may be suffering and then an additional nearly 1.6 million animals....

This study is about public perception. I'm wondering if you can offer some thoughts. We're trying to address public perception when they see those kinds of numbers. Do you have any strategies or recommendations for this committee on how to address that, given that you're talking about animals in the millions?

[Ryder Lee]

The important thing to note there is that the 98% in compliance is the 98% that travel less than the time in the new regs.... There's nothing to do, no judgment on whether those trips turned out to be bad or not. The 99.9% plus is research performed, funded by Ag Canada, looking at how those cattle got on this way, and they got off in a good way as well.

It's that level of success.... There are real numbers there, but when you get close to 100%, and you change what you're doing, it's much harder to get closer to 100% than it is to move away.

Some of those objections have been raised. There's research going on to look at unloading time and rest time, and whether that is more positive than getting the trip done. There will be ramifications from these changes, and it might change where buyers are, and it will change where animals flow to. That's going to mean real impacts for farmers and ranchers in Ontario and in the Prairies as well.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Now we have Mr. Longfield for six minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to both of you for your testimonies this morning.

I want to start off with Mr. Ceelen from the veterinary point of view. The University of Guelph is quite heavily and deeply involved with animal health. You mentioned One Health, which is an approach that the University of Guelph has also taken that really brings the framework of the conversation into a good context.

When we look at the health of the animals, though, and we talk about antimicrobials, by taking away antibiotics, by taking away treatments for infections.... Say an animal has a broken leg and has to be treated. How else would we deal with animals if we weren't using antimicrobials?

[Dr. Henry Ceelen]

Just so it's clear, we're not talking about removing antibiotics or antimicrobials when they're necessary. There's a real distinction to be made there, because animal welfare is really important, and it's more important than restricting or reducing the amount of antimicrobials we use. Animal welfare comes first. In those cases where it's deemed necessary, absolutely every animal that needs it will be administered an antimicrobial.

However, it's been my experience over the years that new modalities occur, and when we have some of our paradigms change or we're asked to look critically at something to do with animal health, we find, when the research gets done, that there are other methods to do it that are just as good and perhaps even better.

Perhaps many years ago we might have had overreliance on antimicrobials, but we're finding many ways to counteract that.

When I graduated, veterinarians were involved primarily with emergency medicine and sick animal medicine and now, starting in the mid '80s, it's been very much a preventative mode. Our major focus is on prevention, and the amount of antimicrobials used is reduced dramatically.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yet in the media or in advertising, we see all antimicrobials as a bad thing, as indicated by some of the fast-food chains. The public trust gets shaky because all the public knows is that antimicrobials are bad. We don't like antimicrobials.

If you said to your family, “You've got an infection, but I'm not going to let you take antibiotics”, it would make no sense from the human standpoint, but it seems to make more sense for people from an animal standpoint, because we don't want to buy any meat that comes from an animal that's been subjected to antimicrobials.

[Dr. Henry Ceelen]

I understand what you're saying, but I would argue that we could make the argument to the public that, if we don't, it's an animal welfare issue. I think that's where the focus needs to be.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you. That's very good.

Mr. Lee, it's great to have you from Regina. Thanks for dialing in.

It's very interesting to hear that your organization includes all the different types of stakeholders for and against. There was, in our current ag partnership agreements with the provinces and territories, an element of building public trust.

It seems like you have some experience in that area. How do you bring the groups together? Is that something where you have to draw on the support of the ag partnership, or is that something that you do outside of it? Could you maybe give me some context to that?

[Ryder Lee]

Well, there are two streams.

NFACC and its core operations are funded by its members, a diverse group that includes animal welfare groups and production agriculture groups.

Then there are also the projects themselves, so when it comes to writing a code that is funded under the partnership, under Growing Forward 2 before, and under different frameworks all along.... That really helps bring some of those voices to the table. It allows for funding some things like public comment periods and processing all the comments.

The round table function of it is by the members, and the projects are more government funded.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Is it too early to have an example in an annual report of how the code is being developed using your collaboration in partnership with the ag partnership funding? Is that something we could get hold of for our study?