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.
Liberal
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate my NDP colleague's concern, but again, when we did the language of this legislation, it's not that we were just inventing things that weren't already in the Health of Animals Act. Subsection 7(2) of the Health of Animals Act has language about “Notice forbidding entry without permission”. Also, the act says, “No person shall knowingly enter a building or other enclosed place in contravention of a notice affixed under this section”, and so on.
There is already language in the Health of Animals Act regarding this. That's why we wanted to remain as consistent with it as possible. I truly appreciate what Mr. MacGregor is trying to accomplish here, but this isn't something that we put in just to try to focus on trespassers. This is language and function that are already within the Health of Animals Act. We want to make sure it remains consistent.
To say that we're just talking about trespassers.... That's not the case. We are talking about protecting farm employees and farm family members as well, and again, this is language that's already in the Health of Animals Act.
Also, thank you, Dr. Ireland, for outlining the fact that CFIA does have an active role with the farm organizations in terms of animal protocols on farms. I appreciated that.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I just wanted to touch on a couple of points related to this amendment.
Dr. Ireland, obviously CFIA doesn't have the resources to inspect farms every day. I don't think any government has the resources to go on farms and inspect whether a certain protocol...and that's even veering off biosecurity protocols. While this act may not necessarily address preventive measures that CFIA is working on with industry, whether it's on ASF or when outbreaks happen, what's the role of CFIA when outbreaks happen?
For instance, in the Fraser Valley, what was the role that you guys were playing in there in terms of helping farmers either depopulate or respect strict protocols? They do vary. In the Fraser Valley it's really tight. In my riding it's not tight. It's not as strict. If we asked for a depopulation within a one-kilometre radius, I might hit just one farm. If we asked for the same protocols in the Fraser Valley, we could hit two or three or four or five farms.
I just wanted to get your comments on that.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
The situation changes drastically around biosecurity when there is a reportable disease found on a premises. The day-to-day biosecurity is voluntary, but when we find a disease like the highly pathogenic avian influenza, the biosecurity becomes a requirement. A facility or premise may be put under quarantine. Things don't leave and they don't go in. We have a primary control zone. It controls movement of things into the zone, through the zone and out of the zone.
All these efforts are to ensure that the disease that is significant in nature, which all reportable diseases are, is contained and eliminated. Biosecurity measures become mandatory to some degree. That includes quarantine and not allowing things to move out unless they are properly monitored and approved. It's a different situation around biosecurity when there is a reportable disease.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Yes. I'm also just trying to clarify something. I think we're hearing different things, which might be dependent on confirmation bias.
You said that right now biosecurity is voluntary and the CFIA is not involved unless there is a reportable disease on the premise. Then it becomes mandatory. When you were talking earlier about going in and seeing whether compliance had occurred, were you talking about what would be the case if the amendment that my colleague put forward was passed? If it said, “without having taken the applicable biosecurity measures”, then the CFIA would have a role in actually seeing whether those measures had been in place. If it weren't amended this way, it would remain the way it is now, where you do not inspect for biosecurity measures unless there is a reportable disease on the premises.
Am I correct in that summary?
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
The enforcement of this rule would be consistent with our authorities under the Health of Animals Act and regulation. As I outlined, we would triage, inspect, investigate and recommend prosecution, or give the details of our investigation to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
Biosecurity in the day-to-day operations on a farm is voluntary. When we become aware of a suspected or confirmed reportable disease—it's mandatory to report it to the CFIA—that is when the CFIA would take action to prevent the spread and eliminate the disease on a particular premises. Our responses to this bill or to rules under the Health of Animals Act are largely the same. We would follow the same process we do for other suspected non-compliance under the Health of Animals Act and regulation. If there was a reference to biosecurity measures, then we certainly would have to ascertain what the biosecurity measures were with regard to what was in place and what might have been breached or not conformed to.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Just to be clear, what I heard, then, is that if this amendment were put in place, you would then actually investigate what the biosecurity measures were on that farm and whether or not they'd been breached.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
It's my understanding that if the language were there, we would need to find out whether biosecurity measures had been breached.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I have a quick question. I have been looking through the Health of Animals Act.
Mr. Barlow, was it section 7 from which you were reading those parts that deal with a notice forbidding entry and other areas that are similar? It was subsection 7(2)? Okay. I just wanted clarification on that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Mr. MacGregor, while you're contemplating that, I have one point of clarification, from my point of view, for CFIA, with respect to Ms. Taylor Roy's line of questioning about applicable biosecurity measures as being the threshold. The bill as proposed right now says, “could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them”.
That is the language, in terms of the threshold, regarding the class of individuals if they were to expose the animals to a disease. I presume you would still have to be able to look at that through an analysis and that the local biosecurity rules in question would still inform your opinion to the Public Prosecution Service as to whether or not that could reasonably have resulted.
Do you follow my line of questioning, Dr. Ireland? It's about you, CFIA, as an agency, under the bill as it reads right now, being asked whether the persons' having entered the building or enclosed place could possibly result in exposure of the animals to disease or toxic substances that are capable of affecting or contaminating them. Would that be an analysis your agency would actually do? I presume one of your baseline criteria as you go in is whether the entry into an enclosed space could contaminate the animals. You would look at the biosecurity question on the local farm. Is that a fair comment?
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, I think that's a fair comment. I would also say we would take into consideration a number of things about whether visitors or individuals might have introduced something or could have introduced a disease.
This is a very complex area. Have the visitors been to another farm in the last while? What is the disease we're concerned with? Is it a virus? Is it feed-borne? Is it water-borne? Is it airborne? We would certainly have to ask a lot of questions to determine whether they could have introduced or presented a risk of introduction of a disease.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I think, Mr. MacGregor, we'll come back to you and then Mr. Steinley. Then, if there are no further comments, colleagues, we'll take it from there.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I found the section. I appreciate my Conservative colleagues' pointing it out. Under section 7 of the existing act is the heading “Notice forbidding entry”. The Conservatives are correct in that there are provisions under section 7 that allow for controlling the entry of people into certain areas, but we have to put those provisions in the context of section 7 as it is written—and I'm going to ask if I'm correct in my reading of this—if there exists an area in which a disease or toxic substance has been reported. There is a special notice that an inspector would have affixed to the door because of the circumstances. I think we're kind of moving from trespass to an actual biosecurity containment zone because of the danger. Am I reading section 7 correctly? It seems to apply to everyone equally, as I read subsections 7(2) and 7(3) of the existing Health of Animals Act.
Executive Director, Animal Health Directorate, Chief Veterinary Officer for Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I don't have that in front of me. I'd have to look at that carefully.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
I appreciate all of the interventions, but I'm wondering if we could have a vote on this at this point in time. I think it's been pretty exhaustive.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Before we vote, I just want to summarize it and say that it's pretty clear from the discussion we've heard that the way this bill is being presented right now.... Even though the title references biosecurity, there's no reference to biosecurity in the actual text of the bill. The amendment proposed by my colleague would actually introduce biosecurity into the bill. It would actually give the CFIA an opportunity—if there is someone who enters into a space and does that in a such a way, having taken the applicable measures—to look at what the measures are and then to actually address that. I think that, with the title of the bill referencing biosecurity, it would actually at least address biosecurity.
I'm speaking in favour of this because I think it does, then, what we all want, which is to try to protect farm animals and farmers from the horrible possibility of a huge biosecurity event that could wipe out their animal population. As I said before, I believe that for farmers—again, having been around farmers and been in a family of farmers—that is one of the most traumatic events that can happen on a farm: to find a disease and then have to kill all your animals.
I would say that this addresses that very well, and it actually addresses the mental health of farmers and helps keep people and animals safe. I think it's a brilliant amendment, and I'm in support of it.
October 16th, 2023 / 5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
The entire Health of Animals Act is about biosecurity. This is an amendment to the act. The whole act talks about biosecurity. Just because it doesn't have the word “biosecurity” in the amendment.... The whole act talks about that. This is just an amendment to that act. It's a bit of a red herring to say that the amendment doesn't talk about biosecurity.
Liberal