Evidence of meeting #74 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was disease.
A video is available from Parliament.
October 5th, 2023 / 8:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Animal Justice
Yes, I would say it does seem redundant to me, and I would note that these penalties seem excessively high.
8:55 a.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I'll turn to the CFIA.
Dr. Ireland, I'd like to ask you this: From the CFIA's documented cases and from all of the experiences that members of your organization have with respect to farms, what is the greatest source of risk for transmission of disease on farms?
Many of us are wondering whether this bill is a solution in search of a problem. We've heard that there's not a strong evidential link between activists' being on farms and transmitting disease.
Can you inform the committee, from the CFIA's perspective, of the greatest risk in transmission of diseases on farms?
8:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, I wish I had a simple answer to that question.
The introduction of disease and the spread of disease on a farm or premises where animals are kept are very complicated and complex. There are a number of ways a disease can enter into a farm. Humans can introduce disease onto a farm. Animals can introduce disease onto a farm, and that includes animals that may have left the premises, commingled someplace else and come back. It can also be the introduction of new animals.
We also have wildlife that have the potential to introduce disease onto farms. In cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza, we have seen that wild migratory water birds are the likely source of introduction into Canada. We also have things that can introduce disease—tractors and objects that might be contaminated with manure from wild birds, for example. That is why biosecurity contemplates all the different routes of transmission onto premises.
We also have to think about which disease we're worried about. How is it transmitted? Is it a virus? Is it bacteria? Is it food-borne, feed-borne or water-borne? That is why biosecurity standards and protocols are so important. Each farm is going to have different risk factors to consider, and those national biosecurity standards give people a starting place from which to build their own.
I would also say that we are not aware of a confirmed case of a disease as a result of trespassers, but humans are a factor in the introduction of disease onto a farm.
To conclude, Mr. Chair, I would like to say that we as the Government of Canada take the health and well-being of animals, including farmed animals, very seriously. The vast majority of producers also take the health and welfare of their animals very seriously. It is linked to their livelihood and their businesses.
9 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative John Barlow
Colleagues, we stayed right on time, so we will have time for that second round.
I appreciate your comments, Dr. Ireland.
We'll now turn to Mr. Steinley for five minutes, please.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.
Dr. Ireland, you said there are no confirmed cases, but in the example in Quebec there had been no rotavirus on that farm for 40 years. Then, after unlawful protesters were on that farm, rotavirus came back. Is that not an actual link between those two, or was it that after 40 years it just magically appeared because they changed practices? The only thing that was different on that farm was that one day there were unlawful protesters and the next day there weren't, and then they had rotavirus.
9 a.m.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, I deal in science. That is not a confirmed case in which we would say trespassers were linked to that, and I wouldn't want to speculate on cases.
9 a.m.
Conservative
9 a.m.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
I cannot confirm that because I don't have the data in front of me and I have not investigated it.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
On a mink farm in Ontario, trespassers released thousands of animals, and then there was an outbreak of distemper. Can that be just a coincidence?
9 a.m.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, again, I deal in evidence. I don't know that case. I don't have the data before me. I would say that the release of animals may cause an animal health and welfare issue, but I cannot confirm that one equalled the other there.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
You wouldn't deny there is a possibility of that happening.
9 a.m.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
I would not speculate either way.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
There obviously has been speculation either way, though, because we're having the discussion of whether that's a possibility or not. To just blindly make a statement like, “Canadians don't have trust in our farmers anymore” is damaging to our reputation, and I think it does a great disservice to our producers across the country. I really feel that we've gone into a weird place with the agriculture committee right now, where we're actually putting farmers on trial and saying that they're not doing their jobs.
I grew up on a dairy and beef farm and I know the protocols we had. Some of the CFIA standards we're talking about are voluntary. We're trying to say now that our producers aren't doing the job and aren't going the extra mile to make sure their animals are safe. I, for one, don't believe that for a second.
We had a program, and lots of dairy farmers have this program—Mr. Lehoux is a dairy farmer, as well—called “herd health”. Veterinarians come and check on the herd health twice a month. If the veterinarians find something wrong or if they have a big concern, they contact the CFIA.
Dr. Ireland, can you comment on some of the processes and protocols that our producers do voluntarily, and on the fact that, as with the herd health program, if there is something wrong, they have professionals on the farm who come to check? They have it in other industries as well, such as pork and dairy.
Just comment on some of those protocols our farmers follow that are above and beyond those in some other jurisdictions around the world.
9 a.m.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
In the next session you're going to have a producer speak to you, so that might be a good question for them. I think producers and associations are well placed to talk about their practices.
I was a large animal veterinarian. I am aware, and it links back to my earlier comment, that the vast majority of producers value the health and welfare of their animals. That includes proper veterinary care. That includes biosecurity, because preventing disease spread and introduction of disease into a farm are in everyone's best interest. It is linked to their livelihood. It is linked to their business. I would say it's also important for a backyard flock owner to maintain the health and well-being of their animals.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
I have a couple more comments.
Ms. Labchuk, you talked about the fact that someone videotaped a Caesarean delivery happening. I saw a lot of Caesareans when I was growing up on a dairy farm, and lots of those procedures were done to save the mother and the calf. Do you know what? It isn't a pretty sight, but it is sometimes necessary to do a medical procedure to save an animal. When you see it on film, it may not look very nice, but in fact, most of the time it actually ends up saving the lives of those animals because there was a vet who came on time and there was a beautiful baby calf, perhaps a 4-H calf—I had a lot of 4-H animals.
When you show it on video, you're actually doing a great disservice to the producers and the farmers, because they do take their animals' health seriously, and you know what? They hired a vet to come out to do this procedure so that those animals would survive.
I think we should really take a step back at this committee and not put our Canadian producers on trial here for not taking good care of their animals.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
The question I want to ask first will be for both Dr. Lazare and Ms. Labchuk. I'm going to ask the same question. I just want to put forward a hypothetical situation to help me understand a couple of things related to the bill.
Here's the hypothetical situation. Somebody is hired legally by a farm, by a producer within the industry. They follow all of the biosecurity regulations that are in place. They're clean when they walk in. They follow all the rules. In their pocket is a camera. They uncover some type of situation that they deem to be contrary to the regulations and the standards that are in place. They take out the camera. They record the situation. They put the camera away. They send the recording to the CFIA or maybe to Animal Justice. Maybe they post it on YouTube.
In your opinion, with the current wording of the bill, would that individual—again, emphasizing that they had gone through all of the proper biosecurity measures—be subject to punishment under the law?
9:05 a.m.
Associate Professor, As an Individual
That would depend on how the law, if it comes into force, is interpreted, and whether the wording around being on a farm without lawful excuse extends to the taking in of “any animal or thing”. It's a question of interpretation. It could go either way.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Can I just ask this, though? My understanding of the wording is that the “thing” would have to knowingly pose a risk. Does a camera that's clean, that's allowed under all the regulations, pose a risk? If it doesn't pose a risk, would that person therefore be subject to the penalties within the legislation?
9:05 a.m.
Associate Professor, As an Individual
If they're on a farm illegally in Ottawa, Ontario, or—
9:05 a.m.
Associate Professor, As an Individual
I can't see that as being an issue, but to me the bill is targeting trespassers, not that kind of situation. Those are the situations we want to see happen.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I understand that, but what I'm hoping for is some clarity on that particular hypothetical. The person's there legally. The phone is clean. They've gone through all the proper procedures. They work for the farmer. They see something that they don't like, that they think is unjust and contrary to regulations. They release the footage. In your interpretation as a legal expert, in accordance with the way the law is currently written, is that going to make that person subject to some form of punishment?
9:05 a.m.
Associate Professor, As an Individual
No, it is not, unless their contract or employment terms prohibit them from bringing in a camera or a thing.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I appreciate that clarity.
The exact same question goes to you, Ms. Labchuk.