Agriculture Committee on June 15th, 2021

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

I've visited a few egg farms in my riding, and all over the barn are clearly marked signs about biosecurity measures being in effect, such as a warning that special types of clothes are needed or that there is no unauthorized access. You would have to be blind to not see the signs. It's quite apparent to anyone visiting the property that those are in place.

We are always going to have a group of people in this country who are committed activists, but I am wondering about the people who are persuadable. I'm wondering more about the conversation that needs to happen between agricultural producers and the general Canadian public.

I look at things like the National Farm Animal Care Council. Do you have any recommendations, in the short time I have, about maybe how we, as a federal government, can be strengthening that particular policy?

[Dr. Jane Pritchard]

I have only one recommendation with the National Farm Animal Care Council, and that's permanent funding, because it relies on grants to survive. It is the cornerstone of how I can stand up and defend any of our industries, because we have these very strong, science-based protocols that are constantly being updated for the industry to use as a minimum standard, and then recommended practices on top of that.

That's all I can say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Dr. Pritchard and Mr. MacGregor.

We'll move to the second round and Mr. Epp, for five minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I look forward to saying, “Thank you, Mr. Chair,” many more times yet, but given your recent announcement, I hope that our bonding opportunities over our favourite vegetable—which of course we know is a fruit—will not be cut short.

We'll go on to the testimony.

Dr. Pritchard, thanks for being here with us today. We very much appreciate it.

We've heard in previous testimony that there are a number of vectors for how disease could come onto a farm. Obviously, Bill C-205 is dealing with one particular vector, and it's in that vein that we have heard some conflicting testimony.

We've heard one witness explain that human beings need to have close, prolonged contact with animals to transmit a disease to them, and that scientific literature provides very little evidence that farm trespassers have transmitted pathogens to animals. Conversely, though, we've also heard from Dr. Jean-Pierre Vaillancourt at the University of Montreal, from Scott Weese at the University of Guelph, from Dr. Brian Evans and from Dr. Henry Ceelen that there are very real risks of transmission. You've alluded to that in your testimony.

To me, this is something that's at the basis of how a law to combat this needs to be solid. I wonder if I could solicit your opinion as to if there are real risks here, or are they just perceived risks?

[Dr. Jane Pritchard]

I have two examples.

One is avian influenza. We know that simply by walking through a puddle that a bird had pooped in and then walking into a barn, the number of viral particles introduced into that barn was extraordinarily low, yet it went down with pathogenic avian influenza. It doesn't take much with certain diseases.

The other thing is porcine epidemic diarrhea. Trying to get rid of that disease and clear it from manure slurry is not a conversation you want to have—

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Over breakfast.

[Dr. Jane Pritchard]

—but it takes very little viable organism to result in a massive loss of life in a barn: any introduction on footwear, on clothing or on a vehicle that brings it onto the property improperly.

Then there are other diseases where it is a considerable load and you have to be exposed; you have to bring a large load of the organism and expose it quite closely to the animal for it to transmit.

You can just look at COVID, right, and the initial strains of COVID we had. We know now. We were worried about paper and all the rest of it, and it turned out that it actually had to take a fair bit of exposure to be able to transmit. Now, with the new strains, we find that it doesn't take very much, and that even not wearing a mask outside and being in close proximity to people can result in a transmission. It's strain-dependent, even with viruses. Certainly, fungi are different from viruses, which are different from bacteria.

The question can be answered in many different ways, but the possibility is there for it to transmit very easily, depending on the disease.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

Moving on, then, to how we might administer such a law should it come into place, my understanding is that the RCMP has livestock units, particularly in western Canada. Is that something the CFIA could leverage in its administration of a potential law such as Bill C-205?

[Dr. Jane Pritchard]

I would suggest that you have better information on the actual resources assigned to livestock in western Canada.

For the two people I know in the Fraser Valley who do it, they do it because they're both from farm backgrounds and have a farm. They're actually a husband-and-wife pair. The only RCMP officer I've worked with outside of that is a single officer in the province assigned to livestock.

It's a small resource, as far as I'm aware, but there could be some training to help them go on and off farms to deal with the issue. As with any regulation, it comes down to whether there is a will to enforce it and how much you want to enforce it.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

You've mentioned deterrence several times in your testimony. When we're crafting legislation, there's the balance or principle of law that the punishment should fit the crime. However, in something like this, given the risk or the outcome—the massive harm that could come from mental anguish, animal cruelty, etc.—is there not more value in deterrence in such a law, as opposed to trying to fit the punishment to the crime after the fact, when the damage has been done?

[Dr. Jane Pritchard]

I would completely agree with you.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you. Your timing is good.

I want to assure my good colleague and friend that I would never mistreat a tomato and we'll never need a bill to stop mistreatment of tomatoes.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

That's great. Thanks.

We'll move to our next questioner, Mr. Blois, for five minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Blois.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Pritchard, for providing great testimony here today.

I know you don't have the legislation in front of you, but for my colleagues and for you, right now there are provisions under the Health of Animals Act regarding notice forbidding entry, which is basically, as we have talked about and Mr. MacGregor mentioned, the signage and the biosecurity risks that are already highlighted.

There is a prohibition under the act that already says:

No person shall knowingly enter a building or other enclosed place in contravention of a notice affixed under this section, unless the person has a right of entry or way into the building or place or any part thereof or an inspector or officer has authorized the entry.

That language is very similar to what we have here in Mr. Barlow's bill, and the penalties under the act are very similar. You just said that sometimes it's about the will to enforce the provisions. Do you think that perhaps we just need to try to have more will to enforce what might already be in the act?

[Dr. Jane Pritchard]

I don't think I get paid enough for that question. That's very complicated.

I looked at this—and I'm familiar with the legislation that you're referring to—and thought there must be a point at which it isn't easy to enforce, and this is to make it easier to enforce. I've dealt with that, with the language in the regulation or the bylaw or whatever I was trying to enforce not being clear enough and the government not wanting to enforce it the way it was because it was not going to stand up.

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

Was that the federal government?

[Dr. Jane Pritchard]

That was provincial and it was not related to this. When I see something like this coming in, an amendment like this or an addition, my default thought is that someone needed it so a case could be built more easily.

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

I know you don't have the act in front of you. I think we as a committee will have to reflect on whether or not there have to be clear instructions regarding the provisions that might already be in there.

You mentioned in your testimony earlier that you had conversations with some animal and health care groups as part of your background and your history. What impression did you get from those conversations about the activists' knowledge that they might be putting biosecurity at risk by going on a farm?

Obviously, as much as I might not intrinsically agree with some of the ideology, some activists think that this is something that's beneficial to the animals. You've mentioned the harm that can occur. How adept are these particular organizations or individuals at knowing that they are indeed putting biosecurity at risk when they carry out these particular acts?

[Dr. Jane Pritchard]

They have had limited exposure and are speaking from small experiences. I have spoken, after farm invasions, to people who obviously were part of the invasion, who have called me up, as the chief veterinary officer of the Province of British Columbia, and said, “You have to stop this. You have to do something. I want to help. What can I do?”

I've spent the hours that it takes to explain animal welfare and what's in place already to support it, how these standards are developed and why we enforce these standards, and that they are standards and they are enforced. If you look at something and you don't understand it, you can't understand what's being done.

Those people are often very ashamed that they contributed to that, when you explain to them that they have actually put those animals at risk and terrorized them. The animals are not used to having people going in and shining bright lights on them in the middle of the night. These people are ashamed.

The perpetrators of this are very good at social media and at gathering people, and telling them things—

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

Ms. Pritchard, I'm sorry, but I have about 45 seconds.

[Dr. Jane Pritchard]

That's a rant. I'm sorry.

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

No, no. It's okay. I guess what I'm hearing is that as part of the education, there's more of an awareness once people realize.

I have one final question in my last 35 seconds. You mentioned at one point that farmers are not going to do this themselves. You mentioned, of course, the intrinsic support that farmers offer one another.

Do you have any idea why there seems to be a hesitation? We've heard this from other witnesses. Why don't farmers press charges or try to encourage the authorities to use the full provisions that might be there? Do you have any comments on that for the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Give a quick answer, if you can, Dr. Pritchard.