Evidence of meeting #31 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was biosecurity.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you.
Dr. Ireland, you mentioned the word “reckless”.
How would you interpret that term “reckless”, and could someone else interpret differently the term “reckless” in this bill?
5:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's a great question.
I am going to stay in my lane, here, not being a lawyer. I think it deserves some thought and deliberation on the wording and how it would be enforced and interpreted.
I could see, as a CFIA official—and I can also ask my colleague Mr. Mathuik to add here—it being be difficult to define and prove intent in this particular bill.
Mr. Mathuik, do you want to add anything to that?
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Western Area, Operations Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, and to my colleague and to the member, it is going to be a high burden for us to prove at the moment—with regard to the term “reckless”—that someone willfully or knowingly entered the premises with the outcome of impacting biosecurity and spreading a disease. That whole onus of proof would need a very high legal test from our Department of Justice to prove what we would need to demonstrate, to prove that degree of test.
Again, with respect to having lawyers help us, the Department of Justice would be needed to refine that particular proof of test.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you.
I believe that's my time, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Louis.
Now we'll go to Monsieur Perron for two and a half minutes.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you.
My question is for Mr. Mathuik or Ms. Ireland.
Mr. Mathuik or Ms. Ireland, you talked about the requirements and the significant resources it takes to respond quickly. We also talked about partnering with local law enforcement. Can't we simply count on the police to demonstrate that the individuals in question penetrated the area where the animals were kept?
That's my first question. I think it's possible to do that.
You said it would be very difficult to prove the intent of the individuals. However, John Barlow, the sponsor of Bill C-205, told us such proof would not be necessary, as he understood the bill. He indicated that the individuals could be penalized simply for trespassing.
That brings me to my questions.
What is the real story?
If the offence is very difficult to prove, what changes need to be made to the bill?
The committee has the power to propose amendments to the bill. What changes would you suggest we make to lower the burden of proof?
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Western Area, Operations Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mary-Jane, do you want to start off, and I will continue?
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
I will pass it over to you, Kelvin, in a second.
We're trying to describe to the committee today the challenges with the bill as it is written for the CFIA with regard to what we do now, what our authorities are, where our inspectors are and are not, and what some of the enforcement challenges will be for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with this bill. That is my role, and our role here today is to describe those to you and make sure the committee understands those elements.
Go ahead, Kelvin.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Western Area, Operations Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
To the member's question and to my colleague, we have a very strong collaborative partnership with our provincial and territorial governments that leads to mandates on animal health provincially or federally. That collaboration and partnership is quite active, where we are engaging on all matters that have a question about jurisdictional authority and involvement. There is a very strong relationship in that regard.
To Mary-Jane's comment that this would be a profound transformative change to our mandate as the agency and that, if passed, we would have to reflect on what we would clearly have to put in place to administer this statue and, again, to Dr. Komal's comment about authorities of jurisdiction, this would have to be really articulated.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Perron.
Now we will go to Mr. MacGregor for two and a half minutes.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The question I have is probably going to be a recap of some of the answers you have given to some of my colleagues.
You've mentioned that some provinces now have these trespass laws in place that are designed specifically for farms. In a hypothetical situation, if we had a trespasser who came onto a farm in one of these provinces and somehow spread a disease that wiped out a large percentage of the existing livestock, under current law, without Bill C-205, what are the applicable federal laws and provincial laws in place right now to help that farmer have accountability against the trespasser, and what kind of recourse does the farmer have in terms of getting financial help to assist with the damages to his or her farm?
5:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Science Branch, Chief Veterinary Officer and World Organisation for Animal Health Delegate for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
I'll take this question. It is a very good question.
In the current Health of Animals Act, we have these provisions. If there is a disease outbreak on a farm, and CFIA inspectors find out that there is a disease happening, and it's a regulated disease under the Health of Animals Act, they will go and do the investigation. That investigation, under emergency management, would look at how much the disease has spread, what the cause was and where the disease came from. As we did recently with a tuberculosis outbreak and even influenza, we'll investigate. We will take samples. We'll do tests, and we'll go to farms where the animals have come from or the animals were bought, and trace backward and forward to find the cause.
We do everything to look at the cause, and if we know what the cause is, we zero in on it and eliminate that cause, and if there was an illegal activity, we may also have assistance from peace officers to help us.
In order to do this investigation, we have provisions under the Health of Animals Act and regulations to provide compensation to the producers for the destruction of these animals, because we'll have to destroy these animals to stop the spread of the disease.
The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food also has provisions to help producers if we have put animals under quarantine or if they have to put down healthy animals for some reason. They can also come in and implement some of the provisions of their funding to the producers, so there are provisions in the Health of Animals Act already that enable us to investigate, find the cause and eliminate the cause of disease.
Thank you.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
That will conclude our second panel and our committee meeting.
I want to thank Dr. Jaspinder Komal, Mr. Kelvin Mathuik, and Ms. Mary-Jane Ireland from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Thank you all for being here and answering our questions.
That will conclude our meeting.
I want to wish everyone a good weekend, if we don't see each other before then. We'll see you next week.