Evidence of meeting #75 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
October 16th, 2023 / 5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Okay. I'm sorry. Can you explain? I thought you were saying that was what they were doing.
Right now we have no biosecurity measures that are enforced at all. Am I correct in saying that?
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, may I?
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Thanks very much.
The national biosecurity standards are voluntary. They were developed collaboratively with CFIA, provinces and territories, academics and producer associations. There are about eight of them, so they cover the major species.
Those national standards are the gold standard upon which producers' associations can develop their own, tailored to their own needs. We know that the Dairy Farmers of Canada, Turkey Farmers of Canada and Chicken Farmers of Canada have included elements of the national biosecurity standards in their mandatory on-farm programs, so members would need to follow certain elements of biosecurity that are consistent with elements of the national biosecurity protocol. We do not mandate or require compliance with the national biosecurity standards. They are voluntary and they are tailored by associations and producers to their own risks and their own needs.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
To clarify on the inspection question, you do no inspections regarding the specific voluntary biosecurity standards that the chicken farmers, dairy farmers or anyone else has.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency.... As Dr. Rick James-Davies pointed out in the last appearance, there are not inspectors on farm routinely to determine whether biosecurity measures are in place, because they're voluntary. However, producer associations and their on-farm programs would have oversight to make sure that their members are following their own programs.
We are not on farms to decide whether biosecurity protocols are being complied with.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I also have a question for the CFIA.
From your technical understanding of the two different proposals we've had for line 6, if the CFIA is conducting an investigation and believes there has been a contravention of the Health of Animals Act under the new proposed section 9.1, how does the term “with lawful authority or excuse” compare to the term “applicable biosecurity measures”?
How do the differences between that language inform your investigations on the farm?
Senior Counsel, Agriculture and Food Inspection Legal Services, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The presence of the words “without lawful authority or excuse” means that the provision would be limited to trespassers.
Perhaps I could pass it over to you, Dr. Ireland, for the second part.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, the CFIA's role in enforcing these new rules would be to use the existing authorities under the Health of Animals Act. These would include inspection, seizure, the detention of animals or things and investigation of non-compliance, and recommending prosecution to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
If we had alleged non-compliance, first of all, we would triage the complaint, taking into consideration all the other matters at hand. Is there a risk of foreign animal disease? Is there a finding of highly pathogenic avian influenza? We would then inspect to determine whether non-compliance had occurred; we would determine what enforcement action, if any, was appropriate; we would investigate to gather and secure evidence and determine penal liability, and, if warranted, we would recommend prosecution to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. It would be the PPSC that actually determines whether or not to pursue charges.
That is how we would enforce a new rule under the Health of Animals Act, similar to the existing rules under the Health of Animals Act.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
As a quick follow-up, Mr. Melaschenko, you just used the word “trespassers”. One version of this bill is going to take you down a trespass-related avenue of investigation, whereas, as Dr. Ireland said earlier, the term “applicable biosecurity measures” would force the CFIA to look at whether the on-farm biosecurity measures had in fact been followed.
Colleagues, I'm sorry, but we are looking at two different avenues here. One version of this bill is taking us down the road of trespass. The other version, which I think Mr. Carr has moved, is keeping us firmly within our federal jurisdiction on biosecurity.
It's been laid out there. If we choose to ignore it as a committee, so be it, but it's out there.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to ask Dr. Ireland for clarification. I was a little confused about one thing.
You laid out what the process would be should there be amended rules, but with the language in the amendment I've put forward, it specifically says, “the applicable biosecurity measures”. Where my confusion lies is in how you would know what the CFIA's response would be unless you knew what specific biosecurity measure was being breached.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, I would say that is part of the inspection of the particular incident. What were the protocols in place? What were the biosecurity measures in place on the premises, and were they followed or not?
It would be part of our investigation—gathering all the facts of what occurred.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
When you drew a reference a moment ago, for example, to influenza, you were using that as an example of something, as opposed to what would happen in each specific case.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry if I've caused confusion. What I am trying to say is that we would triage a complaint. We would take into consideration all of the other complaints currently in our queue and the region base. We would also look at our resources at that time.
Triaging the complaint is something that we do routinely under the Health of Animals Act and regulations in terms of whether we are concerned about an animal disease entering into premises.
The avian influenza was really just a reference to the agency having a number of priorities right now, including addressing highly pathogenic avian influenza, as an example.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I appreciate that clarification.
I have one last follow-up.
Maybe I missed it, but Mr. MacGregor asked something. Is the answer you gave to his question the same if the legislation reads “reckless” versus if it reads the language that has been included in my amendment? I just want clarity on that. Would your response be the same in both instances?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Dr. Ireland, if I may, because what I heard, Mr. Carr.... I appreciate the comment you're making, but the testimony I heard from our witnesses—and they can clarify with a yes or no—is that their job would be to look at the legislation. What you have proposed here is “applicable biosecurity measures”, which I think we've heard vary depending on the circumstance in question.
They would provide recommendations and then perhaps even be a witness if the Public Prosecution Service decided it wanted to move forward on the basis of what is there.
Dr. Ireland, can you confirm if that's the case? It would be different. You would go in, look at the circumstances in question and then provide recommendations and advice based on that. Is that what I heard as the committee chair?
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Yes, I think that's correct.
As part of our investigation, we would ask a producer, for example, what are your biosecurity measures in place? What is expected when someone enters into your biosecurity zone? Is it expected that they shower in/shower out? Is it expected that they change their footwear? Is it expected that they wash their hands? We would gather information about the incident and the applicable measures that a particular premises has in place and expects individuals who enter it to adhere to.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but it still doesn't answer.... My question is, is that answer the same if the bill is passed with the word “reckless” in its current form versus if it were to be adopted with my amended language? I'm asking if that answer would be the same in both instances.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I think, Mr. Carr, it comes down to a legal interpretation of how the judges would view this.
Again, I'm not in a position to offer legal advice either, but from my time at Dalhousie law school, “reckless” is a higher threshold than “reasonable” in terms of that. I can let perhaps the legal counsel provide—
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
That's right. In this case, it's “applicable”. Perhaps I'm missing the legal nuance in it. Mr. MacGregor asked a question that I was curious to know the answer to, and I didn't feel that I got it in the response.
