Agriculture Committee on Oct. 9th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

Is the sound quality good enough for the interpreters?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Yes, we're good with the interpreters. Thank you to our interpreters for working so hard.

Before I officially call the meeting to order, I'm going to say, really quickly, that everything is fine with the interpreters. We're going to proceed as planned. If you sent a message out to any of the folks to get here early, you might want to give them an update.

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number seven of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are in attendance in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I'd like to ask all participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. You'll also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

I have a couple of comments to make.

Please wait until you are recognized. For those on Zoom, you'll see at the bottom of the screen that there's an appropriate channel for interpretation—floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the specific channel.

As a reminder, all comments should go through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 18, 2025, the committee is resuming its study of the government's regulatory reform initiative in agriculture and agri-food.

I would now like to welcome our very patient guests. Thank you so much to our two witnesses for joining us today. We have the Anchor P Cattle Company and Diane Sawley, who is the ranch manager, by video conference. We also have the East Point Cattle Corporation and Erin Sawley. She is the co-owner.

I'm not sure if you're related, but it would be a pretty big coincidence if you weren't, having the same last name. Welcome. We appreciate it.

You have five minutes to present, and after that we'll open it up for questions from members.

We'll start with Diane. Welcome to the committee.

[Diane Sawley, Ranch Manager, Anchor P Cattle Company]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for allowing me to tell my story.

My name is Diane Sawley. Along with my husband Cody, son Remington and mom Ethel, we operate Anchor P Cattle Company. Our family has been ranching in the foothills of Alberta since 1900.

This is a summary of our time and resources allocated to the TB testing of our cattle herd.

On July 11, we were notified that our herd had been identified as a trace-out from a TB case in Saskatchewan involving cattle we acquired in December 2021. The CFIA subsequently assigned our case and initiated the necessary procedures. We completed the premises pre-interview producer questionnaire for bovine tuberculosis to enable the CFIA to gain a comprehensive understanding of our operation.

This is a brief view of our operation. We manage 550 commercial cows. Our land is spread over multiple locations with challenging landscapes. The main ranch is 30 kilometres west of Nanton, Alberta. Our summer range pastures are located anywhere from 40 kilometres to 132 kilometres from the main ranch and range in size from 1,750 to 8,000 acres. The cows are in five different herds and summered in five separate locations.

Following the completion of our questionnaire and interview with the CFIA, we explained that testing most of our cattle in July would be extremely challenging, if not impossible. The CFIA demonstrated flexibility concerning scheduling and agreed to test the herd in the fall, when it would all be in one location. Normal operations could proceed. However, on July 21, our caseworker informed us that due to the complexity of our operation and the presence of two commingled herds, both our cow herd and the associated commingled herds would be subject to quarantine. The official quarantine notice was issued on July 24.

To mitigate a four-month quarantine, we requested that immediate testing begin. An operational plan and a schedule were established.

I would like to note that the manpower and hours required to gather the cattle were considerable—approximately 800 man hours in total—but given the tight timelines, seasonal constraints and the size and configuration of our fields, it was unavoidable.

In addition to gathering and testing costs, several other expenses were incurred, including the loss of grazing range, disruptions in breeding programs, abortions during testing, fuel, vehicle wear and tear, and missed marketing opportunities. With the current cattle market at historic highs, the inability to market cattle during quarantine has been particularly stressful.

Testing began August 3 and ended August 28. In this time, we tested five separate herds in four different locations, which amounted to 10 test days and multiple days of gathering. Policy and procedure over this time were inconsistent.

Eleven cows in total were depopulated from our herd. The CFIA will compensate us for this loss, but this will be the only compensation we receive. We have also been tasked with proving the value of the depopulated cows.

My intent today is to detail the significant effort and resources dedicated to TB testing our herd. The planning and implementation required considerable time and attention. The entire testing process spanned an entire month, diverting essential focus from regular ranch operations and leading to missed business opportunities.

While I recognize the necessity of maintaining a disease-free cattle industry for international trade, I believe it is inequitable for individual producers to bear the full burden of these requirements.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much for being here today.

I will now turn it over to Erin Sawley for five minutes.

[Erin Sawley, Co-owner, East Point Cattle Corporation]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

My name is Erin Sawley, and I'm speaking to you today from our family ranch near Melville, Saskatchewan. Together with my husband Shane and our three young children, we operate East Point Cattle Corp.

The past 12 months have been devastating. We went from managing a healthy herd of over 2,000 head of beef cattle and being named the 2024 commercial breeder of the year by the Saskatchewan Simmental Association, to having every single animal ordered destroyed by the CFIA, in February 2025, due to a positive case of bovine tuberculosis.

This event has drastically altered our lives, and it set our business back by years, possibly even a decade. When the positive case was traced to our farm, we committed to full co-operation. Over the years, we have maintained detailed records and implemented a rigorous traceability system, not only to support our breeding program but to contribute to the integrity of the industry.

Canada's disease control system relies on producer participation to ensure food safety and to maintain international market confidence, yet producers are often left to navigate the federal system alone, facing rigid procedures, limited opportunities for discretion from CFIA staff and an entirely insufficient level of communication. In our experience, the CFIA is not equipped to manage its own protocols effectively, and its policies lack the flexibility needed to respond to real-world challenges.

We appreciated Minister MacDonald's recent amendment to increase compensation rates for animals ordered to be destroyed, but those values were nearly a decade out of date and remain inflexible. If market prices continue to rise—as they may, given the shrinking North American beef herd—producers will again be forced to advocate for updates before compensation can begin.

A simple, effective improvement would be to adopt an evergreen model, like the wildlife predation compensation program under Saskatchewan Crop Insurance. Beef calf pricing is based on market data from the week before, during and after the loss, with producers receiving the highest value. If prices fall below a set minimum, the minimum is paid. Other species are compensated using six-month averages, and registered livestock and specialty animals are valued at one-and-a-half times the commercial rate.

These common-sense solutions would reduce administrative burden, save time and money for both producers and government, and eliminate the need to assess carcass quality long after the fact. Streamlining the process would also ease the mental health toll producers face during these crises.

As a producer going through this process right now, it would be very difficult for us to advocate for other producers to follow the path we have followed. At no step in the process have we been rewarded with any benefit for our wholesale compliance. It's been very difficult to watch situations unfold in high-profile cases in other parts of the country, and we wonder whether we should have behaved differently. As we said, we want to do the right thing, but when non-compliance offers a similar or even better outcome to the process, then the process is destined to fail. When the federal government leans this heavily on individual producers to take one for the team while risking their operations, families and livelihoods, with little to no reassurances that they will be supported through the process, it undermines everything the process sets out to achieve.

While I propose some simple, minor improvements, unfortunately I believe the entire framework requires a different approach, one that can assure producers that if they participate fully in the process, they will be made whole again, with an eye to returning to production as soon as possible. That is where the CFIA can truly achieve its joint mandate of safeguarding the food system and maintaining economic viability through market access and trade.

I want to conclude by saying that I hope you realize the opportunity you have before you to make real changes that affect everyday citizens during their darkest days. I would hope that is something my government can do for our industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much for your testimony. Obviously, it's a huge challenge that has been presented to you. Thank you for sharing it with us so we can learn about it for this study.

I'll go to John Barlow, from the Conservatives, for six minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

I appreciate your comments and your commitment to doing what is right for your operations. For many of us, BSE is still fresh in our minds, and the impact that it had, especially in our neck of the woods. Diane would know that very well.

Erin, you mentioned there's a program, the wildlife predator compensation program, through Saskatchewan Crop Insurance. We've often fought to have a more timely and efficient process when it comes to compensation when producers are having to depopulate.

Is that a method or a protocol that could easily be copied by the federal government to make this process easier on you as a producer?

[Erin Sawley]

Yes, I think something like that could very easily be implemented right now. Through the compensation process, we're trying to value individual animals at a time when they weren't marketed. Throughout the whole compensation process, from day one, we have had no idea what we will be paid. We still don't know. We're 304 days in, and we have no idea what our compensation is going to look like. If producers had a window of reliability to say, “We were depopulated here, and here are our three weeks”, it would at least give a framework for some idea of what compensation would look like.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

In the last Parliament, we did a study on biosecurity preparedness, which also led to my own private member's bill on protecting biosecurity on farms. One of the recommendations we had was to “Review the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s compensation policy, when the destruction of animals is ordered, to include all cleaning and disinfection costs”, and the costs associated with depopulation.

As you said, there was a lot of work by the members of this committee to get the government to change the compensation model, but it doesn't include other extraneous costs, whether they're for transportation or man-hours worked collecting cattle, as Diane said.

How important is it for you, as you mentioned, to be made whole ahead of your having to depopulate 2,000 animals when you have worked for years to build the genetics of that operation?

[Erin Sawley]

In the process, as you said, the CFIA only compensates for animals ordered destroyed. For example, we were ordered to destroy them on February 18, and the animals didn't leave our premises until March 31. We were expected to feed and care for 2,075 head for 40 days all at our own expense—our own manpower, our own fuel, our own tractors, everything like that. That's just one example.

As Diane said, it's about the days that it takes to gather cattle and the people you need to help process them. The CFIA doesn't have the capability to do that. They need us to put them through the processing facilities. They need us to gather them. After the fact, after the depopulation, we spent the entire summer cleaning and disinfecting, moving through that process, all with no compensation in sight—nothing from the CFIA.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

Diane, you mentioned in your testimony that it was inequitable for producers to bear the full financial consequences and that the CFIA needs to do things differently.

We had officials of the CFIA here as part of this study a couple of weeks ago. The current government had it in their election platform and as a mandate that the CFIA adjust its own mandate to include food security and the economic impact on its decision-making. The CFIA officials said they do not need to change anything.

Does it raise some concerns with you, considering the experience you've had with the CFIA, that despite some government pressure, they are still not relenting on or willing to change the way they do things?

[Diane Sawley]

Yes, it does. In our situation, which is not even close to similar to Erin's, we basically had to test our herd. The man-hours we put into that to be compliant so we could have open borders was unrealistic. They don't really seem to care.

Also, because we tested five different locations at five different times, their policies and procedures didn't follow. They were inconsistent. When we first started testing, they were fairly lax. As our testing went through [Technical difficulty—Editor], which really doesn't make any sense.

There has to be some kind of compensation for your time.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

What we've heard about from a lot of folks who have dealt with this is the lack of knowledge within the CFIA of your operation and how agriculture works. Has it been a similar experience for you?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm going to stop you there because the six minutes has been exhausted. I'm sure you can answer that question in the next round.

We'll go to MP Harrison for six minutes.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Before I say anything else, I'd like to finish the line of questioning from Mr. Barlow.

[Diane Sawley]

Can you repeat the question?

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Sorry, it was the question John Barlow asked you, if you want to finish up the answer.

[Diane Sawley]

Can you repeat it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

John, do you want to repeat the question?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Emma.

We've heard comments from producers about the shocking lack of knowledge the CFIA has of agricultural operations. Was that experience similar, Diane, to what you had dealing with the CFIA on your operation? Maybe Erin can comment as well, if Emma is willing to give you the chance to answer that.

[Diane Sawley]

Yes, it was. They had no realization of the difficulty it would be for us, in the middle of the summer, to retrieve those cattle, test them, hold them for 72 hours, test them again and then return them to the field they were in. That is a three-day process in both directions. They were just clueless when it came to anything like that.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

I'm a small-time cattle producer in Ontario. First of all, I want to say I'm sorry for the experience you've been going through. It's truly unbelievable. I can't imagine losing your whole herd.

Erin, would you be able to explain to the committee, as you talked about how it's not just about the loss of 2,000 animals, how that will pan out over the decades? For people who don't understand how cattle work, could you explain why this is a tremendous loss of decades of work by your farm and family?

[Erin Sawley]

Cattle herds are usually built over generations. Young people like us enter the cattle industry and maybe buy a few cows. Maybe you buy some bred heifers. From there, you carefully select which bulls you want to buy and you select which bred heifers you want to keep to build your herd—build the genetics and the traits of your herd that you want to see for years to come.

That's how you build a quality herd, and it's how you build an operation that runs smoothly. You don't keep animals that are of poor quality or that can't calve on their own. It takes years to come to a herd of our quality, and then it's gone and can't be replaced.

That's been part of the challenge with the CFIA. They want to put a value on these cattle and on this herd as individual animals. They don't recognize the years it takes to have animals of this quality, of this nature, and to build this herd. They think we should just be able to go out and buy new ones.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

I appreciate that fully. When I took over my family's farm, I had to restart it because my dad passed. The farm had sat vacant for a pretty long time, so we could only afford to buy a few head of bred heifers. Now I have my favourite line of cattle. Her name is Mabel, and I would be devastated to lose her. She's only ever had heifer calves, so I love her even more for that.

To either of you who feels comfortable answering, did you feel initially that you had the information up front on how this process would go and what was expected of you? Did you have enough information? Was it clear to you what the expectations were and how things would go for you?