Agriculture Committee on June 3rd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Before we move on, I'd like to welcome Mr. Morrissey to our committee. I also like to welcome the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Barlow. Welcome back to the committee.

With that, we'll go to Mr. Louis for six minutes. Go ahead, Mr. Louis.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our panellists for being here for this important discussion. I appreciate your time.

I would like to start my questions with Dr. Weese. Being down the road here in Kitchener—Conestoga and having a child at the University of Guelph, it only seemed fitting.

We're here today primarily to talk about animal health and safety and farmers' health and safety. Biosecurity issues are prevalent, and you're obviously an expert on those. Can you explain to us the major causes of biosecurity issues and maybe list them in order of prevalence from your experience? What types of biosecurity issues are being faced?

[Dr. J. Scott Weese]

Are you asking with respect to people coming on the farm?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

No, I am just asking in general. Dr. Evans touched on it. I might ask him as well about herds being closed, wildlife vectors and other things like that. I am just asking in general about biosecurity.

[Dr. J. Scott Weese]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. One of the things we're concerned about is that the biosecurity aspect is preventing movement of things onto the facility that aren't there or letting them spread within a facility. A pathogen or an infectious agent will come into the facility through various routes. That could be people coming in, such as farmers, veterinarians, visitors and people bringing in feed, or it could be other animals brought into the facility, to the farm. It could be wild birds. It could be things that come in through air, which is very unlikely, but it's in close proximity. It could be things that get in through water, through runoff from pastures. There are various ways things can get in.

The relative risk of those will vary greatly with the type of animal, the type of farm and the pathogen we're talking about, but something that is new has to get onto the farm, typically, for us to be worried about a biosecurity concern.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you. You just summed it up there with the term “relative risks”. It depends on many factors.

What recommendations can you give our committee to help our agricultural workers make the protocols they're working with easier? What kind of resources can we offer? Would it be enhanced funding, education or communication? How can we help? What can we recommend to help mitigate those relative risks?

[Dr. J. Scott Weese]

For biosecurity in general, the industry has done a very good job. There are very good national standards for all our industries. There is varying implementation of biosecurity by the different sectors. How they run chickens, for example, is very different from beef cattle, dairy cattle and pigs. They all have different risks and different ways they approach them, but the different industries have developed quite good standards. The industries themselves collaborated with the CFIA on national standards and with veterinarians on developing biosecurity programs and preventive medicine programs and the like.

I think you'd have to ask the industries themselves what they would like for support, but in the era we're in now, there is quite good information and quite good support for what to do. Implementation can be a challenge, depending on the industry, but overall we're in a much better position than we were 10 years ago.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

Dr. Evans, I know we're talking about biosecurity and stopping diseases and that we're in the middle of a global pandemic, but in your experience with trying to protect the physical and mental health of both animals and farmers, are we learning? Would you say we're learning from the lessons of the global COVID pandemic that we're experiencing? Are there applications and lessons we can take moving forward to protect our farmers and our animals?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Thank you for the question. I think it offers a number of insights.

Certainly, as Scott has touched on, the reality of disease emergence is constantly changing, and it's emerging on an ongoing basis. We see up to five new diseases emerge every year, and 60% of those have an animal base or an animal origin to them that can affect human health as well.

I would like to say that lessons get learned, but I would be remiss if I said that with sincerity, because I think that while often there are lessons noted, our reality is that history tends to repeat itself all too often.

Canada itself is not immune to the introduction of diseases on farms, obviously, like all nations. The committee might recall two of the more memorable ones. One was foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan in 1952, which obviously predates the vast majority of the committee members, I'd suggest. It was concluded that the foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan was ultimately related to a farm worker who moved from West Germany to Saskatchewan in 1951. The area in West Germany where he resided and worked with livestock was suffering from an outbreak of foot-and-mouth type A, which was the same type of foot-and-mouth that emerged on farms in Saskatchewan over the subsequent time period. It's postulated that it may have been the result of boots and clothing that he brought with him that were not cleaned and disinfected. Obviously those issues of disinfection and cleaning weren't as prevalent in industry at that time as they are today. Again, that was an incident that was determined to be caused when a farm worker actually introduced the disease.

More recently, in 2009, we dealt in Canada and globally with the outbreak of H1N1, which unfortunately picked up the misnomer of “swine flu”, which was totally inappropriate, given it was a triple-reassortant virus. In this situation, Canada was one of 22 countries around the world where infection with H1N1 was finally detected or confirmed in swine populations. Again, in the vast majority of those circumstances, it was determined that these pigs had been infected by people—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you. Sorry about that, Dr. Evans. We'll have to move on to the next questioner.

Mr. Perron, the floor is yours for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for taking the time to join us today. We are grateful to them.

Mr. Evans, I will start with you in order to take advantage of your great expertise in the field of biosecurity.

Can you tell us about specific cases of intrusion, where people go on to a farm, for example, to sit next to cattle for a few hours and then leave without doing any damage? What are the impacts of those types of visits and for how long should we be afraid of negative consequences? It's not just about the intrusion, but about the potential contamination.

Do you have any data about that or is it a complete unknown?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Thank you for your question.

Thank you very much for the line of inquiry.

I can't provide, off the top of my head, a statistical analysis of where activist activity on a farm has resulted in consequences without penetrating to the livestock-holding or poultry-holding area where issues have occurred.

As Dr. Weese has indicated, the pathways by which animals can become infected are quite varied, so even if they do not access the barn or the housing structures themselves, contamination of the water supply or grazing areas can also be a way by which animals can be exposed to food safety issues in terms of toxic substances.

Again, to be fair to your question, honourable member, I think it really comes down to intent. These incursions can result in accidental, incidental or deliberate threat. Those are three distinct types of threat that can occur, and I think a lot of that has to be assessed by looking at the true intent of the intruder.

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

Thank you.

As an expert in animal health, how do you respond to those who are telling us not to pass Bill C‑205 because it will silence whistleblowers, meaning people who suspect mistreatment on a farm?

What processes are in place? How do you respond to them?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Thank you again, honourable member.

I would make two points. One, as has been referenced by a number of witnesses today and previously, is that part of the answer is in the issue of education and information. Again, I think there are those with deliberate intent who, regardless of how well-informed they are, will still make efforts to disrupt agricultural production based on values that are disconnected from where agriculture is today.

Beyond education, the other component of your question largely has to be answered by considering how you would enforce the provisions of this bill. Many witnesses have spoken about the challenges of enforcement. Dr. Ceelen has spoken about the role that veterinarians play on farms in Canada, and I would have a concern if the bill is envisioned as requiring more veterinary resources, whether they be federally with the CFIA, provincially with provincial governments, or from the private sector. We are already experiencing a significant shortage of veterinarians in Canada, and I would be concerned that in order to enhance the CFIA resources, those resources are going to come at the direct expense of veterinarians who are currently in private practice or in other types of practice. They'll move to the CFIA, which then creates vulnerabilities. It's a “rob Peter to pay Paul” scenario.

I think the issue isn't so much around the big area. It's around the enforcement construct.

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

To simplify things in terms of procedure, is there not a way to establish a partnership with local police forces? Basically, Bill C‑205 sees simply being on the premises as an offence.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Very briefly, I would say that if we're talking about a disease or situation evolving on a farm that's been compromised because of an intrusion, the investigation of that type of disease outbreak is significantly different from the investigation of a natural disease outbreak. The forensic aspects of it and the issues around chain of custody and evidence leading to prosecution are an area that Scott could speak to, but I don't think it's part of the regular veterinary teaching curriculum. It is a different type of investigation, and the use of individuals who are better trained in those types of enforcement and investigations would, from my perspective, be beneficial.

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

Thank you very much.

I would like to hear what Mr. de Graaf, from the Chicken Farmers of Canada, has to say about the previous question. Some are asking us what methods currently exist to register suspicions of mistreatment on a farm. Can you tell us about the methods currently in place?

[Nick de Graaf]

Absolutely not. Chicken farmers are stewards of the animals. We care about them. When they do well, we do well. That's really what it all comes down to.

There's nothing in this bill that I think would create a false alarm and hide any wrongdoing. Chicken farmers are trusted because we are good people and we know how to take care of our flocks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Now, Mr. MacGregor, I believe we lost you for a while. It's good to see you back. Hopefully the sound is good.

You have the floor for six minutes. Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I beg the committee's pardon, because I missed all of the opening statements and questions, so I'm kind of flying blind here on what's already been discussed. I beg your pardon on that.

I'll start with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

When you look at existing provisions of the Health of Animals Act, specifically under the prohibitions in section 8 on the concealment of the existence of a reportable disease and the keeping of diseased animals, and then under section 9 on bringing diseased animals to market, you see that these existing provisions of the federal statute broadly refer to anyone. It could be a person. It could be the farmer. It could be an employee. Bill C-205 is expressly making reference to a person “without lawful authority or excuse”.

I'm wondering what you think about the language of Bill C-205 when you compare it to existing sections of the parent act that it is seeking to amend. Do you have any comments on that?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Very briefly, I would state that it has to be borne in mind that the Health of Animals Act and its relative enforcement relate to a subset of diseases. It talks about reportable diseases. Canada benefits from a framework whereby agriculture is a jurisdiction shared between the federal government and the provincial governments. The provincial government deals with a number of diseases that are not dealt with under the Health of Animals Act because they are not reportable federally. It is that integration, I would say, that is very valuable in Canada because it gives a much broader coverage than this particular act does in isolation.

The existing provisions of the act, as you say, do take into account issues around contamination and toxic substances, but do not speak to how they are introduced. It's back to a comment I made, perhaps before your arrival, that when we look at the risk pathways that are involved and whether these risks in fact are low-probability events with high consequences, the vast majority would fall into that category. Therefore, again, we have to ask whether adding this additional tranche, if you will, of risk mitigation is going to be sufficient to mitigate those who advocate on the farm from introducing—inadvertently, accidentally or deliberately—a situation to the farm that's going to be detrimental to animal health or animal welfare.

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

Professor Weese, can I turn the same question to you and ask you to compare what BillC-205's language involves to the parent act? In the parent act, it's quite broad. It says “no person shall”, full stop, whereas in this existing Bill C-205, it says “No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse”.

Do you have any comments on the differences in language?

[Dr. J. Scott Weese]

Sorry, Mr. MacGregor; we have a fire alarm here, so I had to find a spot outside the building where I could hear. Hopefully my audio is okay.

When it comes to some of the specific language of the bill and how that would impact things, that's not really my area of expertise. I can comment on the biosecurity, the risk aspect, and how that would change the risk aspect.

From a risk aspect, if you change people's behaviours, you obviously change the risk. It comes down to, as Brian said, a low risk with a potentially high consequence. Overall, there are many good reasons that people shouldn't be trespassing on farms. Biosecurity is at the lower end of that risk for me. It varies quite a bit with the situation.

Right now, the biggest issue would be COVID and mink. Trespassers on a mink farm would be a substantial concern about COVID. As Brian mentioned, influenza coming in would be a potential concern. Beyond that, there aren't many people walking around in the street carrying a high-consequence animal disease that they're going to track in. We'd be worried mainly about people going farm to farm, if there was a trespassing event that went from one farm to another farm. You get into these scenarios where we can't do a cost-benefit assessment very well because we just don't have the information.

I'm sorry that I've gotten off topic from your question, I believe. The language of the bill is outside of my realm.

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

Thank you for contributing in any case.

I'll go back to the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

When BillC-205 makes reference to the entrance to a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept, do you think there might be some confusion if, say, farm protesters made it onto a farm but did not come anywhere close to where animals are kept? I'm trying to find a possibility of where federal jurisdiction might run into provincial jurisdiction if no one really knows where they're in charge.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Henry, did you want to start on that one?