Agriculture Committee on Oct. 5th, 2023

[Dr. Rick James-Davies]

There's no regulatory regime to do on-farm inspections of biosecurity.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Do you feel that mandatory biosecurity measures would be more effective in preventing biosecurity risks?

[Dr. Rick James-Davies]

Well, I think, as Dr. Ireland said, that's really a shared responsibility across the sector. CFIA's role is to respond to acts and regulations put forward by Parliament, and a change in regulation would certainly change the nature of our activities.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Do I have more time?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

You have one minute.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

That's great.

I'd like to come back to you, Ms. Labchuk.

There's been some controversy about whether biosecurity risks or diseases have actually been introduced into farms by trespassers.

One in particular was the case of the hog farm. Could you comment on that? My understanding was that actually the judge said it did not happen, but there has been some confusion. I'd like to have that on the record.

Thank you.

[Camille Labchuk]

Thank you for the question.

There has been a lot of discussion about a hog farm in Quebec where it was alleged that trespassers brought in disease. There actually is no evidence of this. It was not a point in the Crown's case at trial. The judge rejected testimony from the farm owner at trial that this would have occurred.

A subsequent inspection by authorities after that sit-in found filthy conditions. There were too many pigs. There was an accumulation of manure on this farm. There was an insect infestation, and there was a dying sow that should have been euthanized without delay. I would just say that there were pretty troubling conditions on this farm to start with and no link between the sit-in and the disease.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

In your mind, what other—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

That's your time.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay. Thank you. It was a quick minute.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

No problem at all.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for joining us.

I'm going to start with Dr. Ireland.

You said that there was a problem with the wording given the jurisdictions. I'd like you to explain that to me in greater detail and tell me what amendments should be made to the bill, in your opinion, to ensure that this problem is solved.

[Dr. Mary Jane Ireland]

Mr. Chair, we are concerned that the agricultural powers are limited to premises inside the farm gate, and we are concerned that this bill may actually include premises outside of the normal jurisdiction.

I remind everybody, Mr. Chair, that I am not a lawyer. I am a veterinarian. More details on that I think would need to be provided by a legal expert.

I also would say that unfortunately my role here is not to recommend amendments but just to point out some of the things that we would like you, as a committee, Mr. Chair, to consider that may be problematic about this bill.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much.

I understand that you're not a lawyer, but short of drafting the amendment, do you feel that focusing the bill more on biosecurity could help solve the problem?

[Dr. Mary Jane Ireland]

What I would say is that biosecurity is an extremely important component of preventing disease introduction into premises and further spread of disease. Making sure that producers and veterinarians practice high biosecurity is really a critical part in controlling disease and preventing disease. As we have pointed out, that's an area of shared responsibility.

For CFIA's part, we have contributed to the production of national standards for codes of practice for biosecurity. We promote those in terms of web material, communications and working with industry and stakeholders. We also fund the development of some of those biosecurity standards, and we also, as an agency, put in place import restrictions to make sure that products like live animals and things from places that have diseases that we do not want here in Canada do not come into the country.

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

Thank you for your answer, Dr. Ireland.

Ms. Lazare, you mentioned earlier that, in your opinion, there is an issue with the current wording. You referred to the amendments we adopted during the study of Bill C‑205.

I'm not asking you to draft the amendments, obviously, but could you tell me what amendments the committee should be looking at?

[Dr. Jodi Lazare]

I'm sorry. I going to switch to English. I'm really rusty in French.

The fact that it prohibits entry or only applies to people who are trespassing, who are there illegally without lawful authority, makes this law a trespass bill. If that were removed, in my opinion it would look a lot more like a biosecurity bill.

As we've heard, the federal government's jurisdiction over CFIA, health and safety, criminal law, health and even agriculture allows the federal government to deal with biosecurity on farms. What I think the federal government can't do is prohibit trespass. There are no federal trespass provisions, because trespass is a provincial jurisdiction, so in order to protect biosecurity on farms and to be constitutionally compliant, I think the trespass parts of the bill need to go.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Labchuk, don't you think that raising biosecurity standards and trying to enhance safety to fight disease would also improve animal living conditions in general?

[Camille Labchuk]

Thank you for your question.

Yes, I do think that biosecurity is critically important, and I will say that as somebody who cares deeply about animals in an organization that works to enhance their protection, it's devastating to us when we learn about Avian influenza wiping out entire flocks. These are birds who are are euthanized in cold and really brutal ways.

We think it's very important to have biosecurity standards, but I would say two things. First of all, it would be preferable to us if those standards were actually enshrined in law, but this bill isn't the way to accomplish stronger biosecurity. It doesn't actually address the threats that have been identified and are evidence-based in terms of what we see emerging from threats that actually cause diseases. I think that something that applies to everybody who is on a farm would actually be fair, and it would address the root cause of biosecurity threats and disease outbreaks.

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

Thank you very much for your answer.

I want to come back to trespassing. Of course, everyone here understands the jurisdictional sensitivity. This is the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. We're all very familiar with that. However, right now, aren't there any other ways to catch farms suspected of mistreatment on a farm, for example? We've heard from stakeholders in the agricultural sector. Are there not already ways that do not require trespassing or provocation to inform people at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that they should conduct an inspection, for example?

Please be brief, Ms. Labchuk, because my time is almost up.

[Camille Labchuk]

Unfortunately, it's exceedingly difficult right now for anyone to report concerns about farms, and there are a couple of reasons.

The first is that farms are private property, as we've repeatedly heard. Farms are not areas that the public would typically have access to, so you don't typically get a number of reports coming from the public because they simply don't go to farms. The second is that animals can't report abuse, obviously, so if they're experiencing some suffering, that's not something that can be reported.

Because it's provincial enforcement that deals with animal cruelty concerns on farms in this country, and since it's all complaint-based, it's simply that those enforcement agencies are just not receiving reports.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thanks, Ms. Labchuk. That's the time. I gave you a bit extra there.

We'll now go to Mr. MacGregor for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to echo the thanks to all of the witnesses who are helping to guide this committee in its examination under Bill C-275.

Dr. Lazare, I'd like to turn my first question to you. I think you've very clearly outlined the problematic phrasing of the bill, which I think veers Bill C-275 into provincial jurisdiction.

We've also heard a lot of conversation from witnesses about the lack of effective existing biosecurity measures on farms and the fact that a lot are voluntary, and we have documented cases where a lot are not being followed even when they are voluntary.

In your opinion, because of your expertise in this subject matter, does the federal government have a potential mandate to enact stronger biosecurity requirements right across the board? You outlined the concern that because of provincial jurisdiction, we can end up with a patchwork of different trespass laws, but I think the federal government does have clear jurisdiction in this way, and that may be one of the ways in which we can address the problem countrywide. Do you have any opinions that you can offer on that?

[Dr. Jodi Lazare]

My broad answer is yes.

As I've mentioned, the federal government can regulate health and safety by way of criminal law power, and I think that this extends to biosecurity. As I said, if this bill actually dealt with biosecurity across the board and not just on the part of trespassers—if it actually applied to everyone on-farm—then I don't think there would be any jurisdictional issue with it. I'm not a judge and I don't have a crystal ball, but in my opinion it would be a much safer bet constitutionally.

Of course there's the jurisdiction over agriculture. Again, we don't have much case law on it, but we do know that it applies to what happens on farm. Legislation dealing with biosecurity and mandatory requirements could easily fall under the jurisdiction over agriculture. It could, and in my opinion it should.

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

Ms. Labchuk, I'd like to turn to you. I don't want to repeat many of the questions that have already been asked and I think we've covered many of the issues with this particular bill. but I do want to look at clause 2 of the bill, because clause 2 of the bill is amending the act much further down at section 65. It's adding some new clauses in there with respect to penalties.

We know the Health of Animals Act already has penalties. Do you have an opinion as to whether clause 2 of this bill is redundant and if the existing Health of Animals Act is sufficient in the penalties scheme?