Agriculture Committee on May 25th, 2021

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Dr. Vaillancourt, do you think that changing the current wording in the bill would resolve the issue?

[Dr. Jean-Pierre Vaillancourt]

The point is that a person who breaks in must be an individual who knows about the standards. The person decides not to comply with the standards by breaking in. That's how I read it. The important thing is that these people aren't authorized to enter the farm and don't have a warrant to do so. In my opinion, the fact that someone might claim innocence because they don't know the biosecurity standards and measures shouldn't be taken into consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Dr. Vaillancourt.

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Now we have Mr. MacGregor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

Professor Vaillancourt, maybe I will start with you. I did appreciate in your opening statement how you took the time to also illustrate that there are other dangers to the uninitiated entering a barn. There's heavy equipment. Livestock are large animals, and when they're spooked they can move unexpectedly and cause serious injury to humans, who are often quite a bit smaller.

I've been looking at the parent legislation, the existing Health of Animals Act. There are provisions in there such as section 9, keeping diseased animals; section 10, bringing diseased animals to market; section 11, selling or disposing of diseased animals; and section 12, throwing carcasses into water. It appears that the existing sections of the Health of Animals Act can apply equally to farmers and farm employees if they engage in this type of behaviour, whereas Bill C-205 as it's written seems to exclusively concentrate on someone who is there without lawful authority or excuse.

You are an expert in biosecurity. Do you think Bill C-205 needs to be broadened so that it is in line with other sections of the existing act, so that employees and farmers are held to the same standards in promoting general biosecurity?

[Dr. Jean-Pierre Vaillancourt]

Well, yes and no. Here's the deal. First of all, we do have biosecurity measures. Sometimes we have a compliance issue, whether it's in swine, poultry or elsewhere. It's not unusual to have somebody not do exactly what should be done, but employers have means to deal with that. They have incentives. They can provide positive ones and negatives one, such as if we catch you doing this or not doing that, we can fire you. That's where the game should be played when it comes to employees or technical staff per se.

We should not mix these two things. In one case, it is really criminal to go onto a farm, and you don't even need to cross it. If you have contaminated boots and you get onto the premises, if you're in the entrance and you do not cross where the animals are, you might still have contaminated the site. Unless you have perfect biosecurity, and I've never seen that, you're going to have a risk. That's why that is criminal. That's different from what an employee might do or not do.

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

Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

Of course, there have been instances on farms where employees, by not following proper procedures, did bring disease onto the farm. I'm thinking of British Columbia, with COVID-19 on some mink farms.

Is there anything that the federal government should be doing more generally to further the cause of biosecurity, or is this something that's best left to provincial jurisdiction?

[Dr. Jean-Pierre Vaillancourt]

CFIA already does something. I worked on that. We have established some guidelines.

I think this should be left not only at the provincial level, but also quite a bit at the company farm level. Each farm is different. We need to custom design these biosecurity measures and we need to favour them. We need to provide positive incentives and all that, but this has to be done close to where the action is.

The federal government can help by maybe assisting in some ways at the local level, but I'm not convinced, other than to establish some norms, which we have done. However, if I had a wish, I would say that when we established these norms at the federal level, they were one-size-fits-all. We had in mind a backyard flock and a 200,000 egg-layer operation. They're not the same. If we have primary breeding stock in Ontario in particular that's not protected because we do not have regulations regarding distances between production sites, for example, at the federal level that might be of interest.

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

Okay, thank you.

I just want to squeeze one more question in. This is for Mr. Bergmann. The theme of my question is really on deterrence versus enforcement, because we have heard testimony that the police are not always very quick to arrive on the scene and sometimes seem unsure as to whether they should proceed with a case.

If we were in fact to adopt Bill C-205—and I understand Mr. Barlow has made the case that CFIA can always work with provincial peace officers to enforce the law—do we also have a problem of enforcement, especially in rural Canada? If we're going to add another law, it's not going to do much good if we don't have the force to back it up and follow through with it.

[Rick Bergmann]

We really believe that the enforcement is a big part of it because when one domino falls, without enforcement, what would be the deterrent to this reoccurring and for others to do that? I think enforcement is very much a component of all of this, absolutely.

In a rural setting, absolutely, that would be a different situation—not a different situation, but when you're more remote.... That said, I believe that society is coming along quite well, where they can react more quickly to different circumstances. It doesn't matter whether it's remote or not. I really believe it would help us to further protect our farms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Bergmann, and Mr. MacGregor.

We'll now go to our second round, in which I understand Mr. Barlow is going to take the lead for five minutes.

Mr. Barlow, go ahead.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our witnesses for being here again.

Mr. Duval, I just wanted to start with you. It's certainly heartbreaking when you talk about a farm family who has quit the industry. We certainly cannot afford that when we're trying to attract young, new farmers to the industry. You mentioned the lack of response by the RCMP. In the incident that happened with friends of mine here, it was in fact the protestors who phoned the RCMP because they wanted the RCMP to protect them, and they knew there would be very few consequences, if any.

To counter some of the questions by my colleagues, I would point out that the CFIA has the enforcement and inspection services, the investigators and specialists, in place right now to enforce CFIA regulations. They also have the public prosecution services to follow through. It's not that the CFIA doesn't have the authority or the resources. It just doesn't seem that they are taking this as seriously as they should. Do you not think that if we made this a priority for the CFIA and their investigators, the presence of Bill C-205 would serve as a better deterrent compared with what the RCMP or local police officers are doing now?

[David Duval]

In my opinion, when a break and enter occurs on a farm, the local police should be the first to respond because they can be deployed the fastest. The same is true for a home invasion, where the RCMP, municipal police or national police can respond immediately.

The next step is to submit a report to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to determine whether animal abuse actually took place. I'm the first to refuse to defend people who would dare to harm animals.

I think that the first step is for the police to obtain warrants under legislation that enables them to respond.

This bill is important because, right now, the police and some governments are struggling to deal with this issue. Bill C-205 is important to us.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

The CFIA investigators would have a much better knowledge of what they're dealing with than maybe the local RCMP police service.

To Mr. Vaillancourt, thank you very much for the great information you provided in your testimony.

What we've heard from many producers, specifically the pork producers who were today concerned about African swine fever for example.... In this context, I think what we've learned from the COVID pandemic is the incredibly devastating impact a virus can have on our economy.

Are we prepared for an outbreak of African swine fever, and should we be proactive with a deterrent such as Bill C-205 to ensure that we take every measure possible to safeguard the biosecurity of our farms?

[Dr. Jean-Pierre Vaillancourt]

We'll never be prepared enough. This is a positive step because that virus is a very resilient virus. It would be easy to bring it in voluntarily or not. It doesn't have to be on a big farm to create a national issue. We have a lot of traffic with the U.S., for example. Everything would be blocked, with the consequence in the summer, for example, of trucks loaded with pigs no longer being able to move. You can see the remarkable impact that would have—yes, in the billions of dollars. This bill will not solve a big part it, but it would be an important step to help growers and everybody around to get prepared for it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Finally, Mr. Bergmann, thank you very much for being here as well.

If there were an outbreak of African swine fever or something along that line on one of your farms—for example, we saw rotavirus in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, which we hadn't seen in 40 years—this isn't something that would be resolved quickly. What would be the long-term ramifications to the industry if you had an outbreak of a virus like African swine fever?

[Rick Bergmann]

We're seeing that occur around the world, where it devastates the sectors in those countries. You can look at China, Germany, Poland, and on and on.

Our industry here would be decimated—it would be mass euthanasia of the animals—because, folks, pork producers export 70% of what we produce in Canada. That's a tremendous opportunity, but it's a tremendous challenge if we have an internal problem with ASF here in Canada.

It was mentioned already that this bill is a super tool in our tool box to limit that risk, so—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Bergmann. I'm sorry, but the time is up.

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Now we'll go on to Mr. Ellis for five minutes.

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

I probably need only four, but thank you, Mr. Chair.

Rick, you mentioned in your testimony that there has been an increase in the number of protestors over the last few years. Could you just explain over how many years that's been, and how these protests are taking effect? Do you see them to be getting more radical and things like that?

[Rick Bergmann]

That is a great question. Thank you for that.

The one that sticks out in my mind is.... In western Canada, we have the Hutterite colonies, which like to keep to themselves. A situation where there is an activist group that is so aggressive that it would actually go to people who really want to stay among themselves and don't want to really interact, to me, is an extreme concern because it tells us, again, that when people select the farms, they're being strategic. It's just a form of bullying, which is very inappropriate.

There are more and more cases—to your point—and it's very concerning to hear when there is selection of those who would be considered more timid because activists feel that they can get away with more things with these folks. It's very unfortunately.

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

Has your council across Canada lobbied any provincial ministers on a similar law that would take offence on a provincial level?

I send that to you also and to Mr. Duval.

[Rick Bergmann]

Again, when Bill C-205 was brought forward, we thought it would be a very significant victory across the umbrella of our Canadian production.

With regard to the provincial side, to my knowledge, there hasn't been much of that at all.

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

Okay.

Mr. Duval.

[David Duval]

No, absolutely nothing has been done in this area.

We've mostly adopted codes of practice to ensure animal welfare. We're among the people who proposed this.

With respect to trespassing or any form of activism on farms, there hasn't been any progress on these issues at this time.

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

I am just trying to wrap my head around this. Right now, if Bill C-205 were passed, how do you see timely enforcement? This is what we're getting back to: enforcement in a timely manner.

I know there are police on the ground now, that municipalities have police forces and things like that. There are 444 municipalities in Ontario alone. I just can't comprehend how we'd be able to hire enough CFIA officials in order to enforce this law.

I think it was Dr. Stark who commented on the last panel that it does have merit, but it's going to get around to enforcement.

I would ask Mr. Bergmann this: For your organization, what would be a timely fashion of implementing charges under this be if it came into law?

[Rick Bergmann]

Well, we look at the example of what has happened in Quebec, and Mr. Duval told us a story. You know, seven hours is just not appropriate at all as far as a response time is concerned.

As far as the length of time it takes for police officers to get to a location, that's a big question because locations are all over the place. However, if we make it so that it is a crime, then they would be activated to do so in the quickest way, and I believe that would be really important for us to focus on.