Agriculture Committee on May 6th, 2021

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Ms. Bessette, that is an incredible question. I wish I could have the answer to that.

We are seeing groups like Do More Ag and those kinds of social media groups that are really starting to become proactive and standing up for our industry. That is so important.

I hope that as a result of COVID, as a silver lining, people will have much more appreciation for our farmers and where their food comes from. Unfortunately, we have that “cowboy up” mentality, that you just suck it up; you spray some dirt on it and you move on. We have to stop that. We have to start talking about mental health as a real issue and something we can't ignore anymore. Unfortunately, this legislation doesn't address that, but I think all of us can play a role in supporting this bill, showing that we understand that mental health in agriculture is an issue and that we're going to take steps to show them we support them.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Blois can have the rest of my time.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Ms. Bessette.

Again, Mr. Barlow, thank you for your time here today.

I would agree with the lion's share of what you said today, particularly about mental health.

I had the chance in the House to recognize the Do More Agriculture group last week. You're spot on.

I want to go back to some of the questioning by Mr. Perron and Alistair, because when I read this legislation I looked at the summary, and it says, “exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance”, and Mr. MacGregor presented a situation where a protester could come on a farm and take some due diligence to try to avoid the disease or toxic substance. You said that as soon as they walk onto that farm without lawful authority, essentially this is going to trigger them. Do you see that as the only piece? When I look at proposed section 9.1, I read it all the way through to the point where it becomes “could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them”.

My worry is that, although the intent of this legislation is strong, I don't know if the CFIA, or whoever would be responsible for administering it, will be able to impose these penalties because there is a strong requirement on someone to not only have shown recklessness, but also a knowing intent to do exactly what they did.

What are your thoughts on this, because you're really just talking about lawful authority and nothing really on the rest of that statement?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Blois. I appreciate your question and your interest in the issue.

Absolutely, we want to make sure that, as part of this legislation, we are protecting the biosecurity of farms. If that protester—and that's the key part of it—is unlawfully on that property and unknowingly or could potentially be passing on a virus or a toxic substance.... We don't know if they are or they aren't, because they aren't a professional and aren't being given guidance on that property by the homeowner or the business owner. I think that's really important. They may think they are doing all the right things. I'm sure when these protestors and activists come onto a property, they are not trying to put animals in harm's way—of course not. That is the complete opposite reason to why they are. However, in most cases, they do not understand the biosecurity protocols or the consequences. That's why I think this legislation is so important.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Just quickly, if I could continue, Mr. Chair, if indeed they did meet the protocol or standard of care so that they would not pass on a disease or otherwise, would you admit then that this is the type of legislation that might not impugn them because it really deals with biosecurity? If they actually met the standard of care, this wouldn't actually trigger it, or is it triggered if they simply step foot on the property?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I think that would be up to the CFIA inspector who is there. Again, part of this is whether they “could” pass this on. I understand where you're trying to go with this, Mr. Blois, but it will be at the discretion of the CFIA and the potential consequences or potential ramifications that could have resulted from that action.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barlow.

Thank you, Mr. Blois.

This concludes our first hour. I really want to thank you, Mr. Barlow. It was a very interesting, good conversation about a subject that certainly is of interest to all farmers in the country.

With that, we'll pause to get the panel for the next hour, and we'll see you here very shortly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call the meeting back to order. Welcome back.

For the second hour, from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have back again on our panel Mr. Jaspinder Komal, who has been here many times.

He is the vice-president of the science branch and chief veterinary officer at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, as well as the World Organisation for Animal Health delegate for Canada.

Welcome, Mr. Komal.

We also have Kelvin Mathuik, director general, western area, operations branch, and Mary-Jane Ireland, executive director, animal health directorate, policy and programs branch.

Welcome everyone.

We will start with opening statements.

Mr. Komal, you may go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal, Vice-President, Science Branch, Chief Veterinary Officer and World Organisation for Animal Health Delegate for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Good day, Mr. Chair.

My name is Dr. Jaspinder Komal and I am Canada’s chief veterinary officer and the vice-president of science at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. With me today is Dr. Mary Jane Ireland, who serves as the executive director of animal health, and Mr. Kelvin Mathuik, director general of our operations in the western area.

We are pleased to lend our expertise to assist you in your consideration of private members’ Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

The CFIA is a science-based regulatory agency, and its broad mandate encompasses animal health, plant health, food safety, and international market access. The proposed bill contains elements that greatly impact how the CFIA currently delivers on its mandated activities due to the bill's proposed changes to the Health of Animals Act.

The CFIA has programs in place that are designed to protect animal health and support biosecurity. In a nutshell, CFIA’s animal health program protects Canada’s animals from disease, including aquatic animals; manages animal disease events; promotes and regulates certain aspects of animal welfare; verifies that animal feeds and vaccines are safe, effective and of high quality; collaborates to develop voluntary biosecurity standards; and facilitates trade and market access for Canadian animals and products.

The CFIA administers and enforces the Health of Animals Act and regulations, which address diseases and biological, chemical, or physical agents that may affect animals or be transmitted by animals to persons and, in the same vein, to protect animals from these risks. The CFIA takes the lead in responding to reportable diseases, such as avian influenza, African swine fever, and Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE.

There is also the issue of biosecurity, which is a foundational piece in the proposed legislation. The CFIA has a long history of working closely with industry and producer organizations, provincial and territorial authorities, academia, and consulting with international partners to support biosecurity for the regulated parties we inspect.

Under the Health of Animals Act, in the course of their work, CFIA inspectors and officers may require that animals be presented for inspection, require documents be produced, conduct tests or analysis, as well as enter a dwelling place with a warrant, among other authorities officially granted.

However, CFIA inspectors and officers are public officers. They're not peace officers. Public officers are defined as any officer engaged in enforcing the laws of Canada relating to revenue, customs, excise, trade or navigation. Their powers stem from the acts and regulations they enforce—in this case, the Health of Animals Act—and they are given limited additional powers under the Criminal Code. In contrast, peace officers are generally police officers. Their powers include the ability to detain or arrest individuals. Peace officers may also be armed, whereas public officers such as inspectors may not be.

I would also like to point to the fact that existing legislation already clearly defines and deals with issues related to private property, and its enforcement largely rests with provincial authorities, including peace officers. There are also existing federal provisions under the Criminal Code that deal with trespassing, as well as specific prohibitions on animal cruelty and abuse. What Bill C-205 proposes represents a significant shift from what the CFIA has been mandated to do, and therefore would require an investment of additional inspection resources, further training, and increased legal authorities to assume these additional responsibilities. Given the combination of Criminal Code provisions, provincial trespass and animal health legislation and producers’ commitment to on-farm biosecurity that already exist, the proposed amendments would provide limited additional protection to farmers and producers.

However, I feel I can only speak to my expertise in animal health, especially as it pertains to CFIA’s mandate and activities. I trust that this testimony can help inform your study of this proposed legislation, and I am very happy to be back at this table, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Dr. Jaspinder.

Now we'll start our round of questions.

Mr. Lehoux, we now go to you for six minutes.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here this afternoon. CFIA plays a very important role in protecting animal health.

My question is for whomever would like to answer. It's about biosecurity. You said you work with various organizations and farmers associations to develop biosecurity standards. When people trespass on a property, regardless of how they penetrate the premises or where they come from, there is a risk of contamination. Farmers have to change their clothes and even shower when they enter and exit the building.

Is biosecurity very important in the context of Bill C-205?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Biosecurity on an animal farm is very important. As I said, biosecurity is a responsibility that is shared. We support the development of standards along with industry, provinces and academia. That's the National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council, which actually convenes these stakeholders.

We are there to provide expertise from the scientific perspective and from the international perspective, but it's primarily a provincial responsibility because provinces have jurisdiction on the farm. As well, the producers have a responsibility because it is their farm, so they make sure that, based on risks, they will implement—

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Sorry to cut you off, but what role, specifically, can the agency play in investigating incidents or administering the penalties in the bill? What will the agency's main role be?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

I was going to come to that, to say that because it is a provincial and a producer's responsibility, our inspectors are not there because of the jurisdiction.

Our inspectors are only there in case there is a drug-related disease, which is regulated under the Health of Animals Act, and then they are called upon to investigate. They are not present in the communities.

It is the provincial government that will implement the biosecurity on the farm and investigate in case there is a breach, unless there is a drug-related disease that is happening on the farm.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] in connection with that, because, as we know, African swine fever is a concern.

My riding is home to quite a few hog farms. Foot-and-mouth disease has done damage to farms in previous years, and is still a problem. That's what makes biosecurity so important.

Don't you think imposing higher fines on activists who trespass on farms can be a major deterrent?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Yes, biosecurity is very important and we actually communicate with stakeholders to implement biosecurity. Especially, you talked about African swine fever, which is a great threat to the Canadian pig population, which is an important economic factor in the Canadian agriculture industry.

Is there a level of risk? We think the level of risk that will be induced by trespassers would be very minimal, because in order to have a risk from a disease perspective, you have to have continuous and prolonged contact with the animals, as that's how diseases are spread. African swine fever is one of them, which is a very slow disease that actually is transmitted between pigs, unless humans are within the farm, in the pig barn with the pigs for a longer period of time and then transmitting the virus.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I understand what you are saying, but my question had more to do with activists who go from farm to farm.

I'm from an agricultural community and I know that, while activists don't stay long on a farm, they don't have to have prolonged contact in order to spread certain diseases.

Lastly, does the agency have sufficient resources to oversee the biosecurity component set out in Bill C-205?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Thank you again.

The current resources that agencies end up deploying are for inspectors to be working under the Health of Animals Act to investigate diseases. The resources are now being deployed to investigate or to enforce regarding trespassing, which will be new work for the inspectors and this will be a game-changer. We'll have to have more resources to actually implement this because it will require training inspectors, developing their skills, equipping them with new instruments or tools. It will require having more inspectors.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

In that case, would it not be possible—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Perron. Unfortunately, you're over time.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

My apologies, I meant to say Mr. Lehoux.

Now we will go to Mr. Ellis for six minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Ellis.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Good afternoon. I would like to thank you for coming today. Mr. Barlow's speech touched on documented cases. Are there documented cases, and how often does trespassing trigger a disease outbreak?