THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 3, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms); and, in camera, to examine and report on the growing issue of wildfires in Canada and the consequential effects that wildfires have on forestry and agriculture industries, as well as rural and Indigenous communities, throughout the country.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. It’s good to see you here. Thank you for coming out.
I want to remind you again about these earpieces. For the folks that are in the room, please consult the cards in front of you so we can take preventive measures to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. Thanks very much for cooperating.
I want to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witness online, as well as those watching the meeting on the World Wide Web. My name is Robert Black, I am a senator from Ontario, and I chair this committee. Before we hear from our witness today, I want to start by asking senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Good morning. I’m Senator Paula Simons. I come from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Richards: Dave Richards from New Brunswick.
Senator McNair: Good morning. John McNair, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Hello. Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Burey: Good morning. Sharon Burey, a senator from Ontario.
Senator Francis: Good morning. Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Hello. Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you. Welcome.
Today the committee continues its examination of Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms).
Today we welcome one witness as an individual, Mr. Robert Bollert, Canada Mink Breeders Association, who is joining us by video conference. Welcome, Mr. Bollert. You’ll have five minutes for your presentation. When I put my hand up, it will be one minute left; and when you see both of them, it’s time to wrap it up. With that, we’ll move forward. Mr. Bollert, the floor is yours.
Robert Bollert, Canada Mink Breeders Association, as an individual: Thank you very much. Good morning.
My name is Rob Bollert, and I live in a small rural community in southern Ontario. I am a fourth-generation mink and fox farmer. My family, starting with my great-grandfather, has been deeply involved in the growth and innovation that makes Canada a world leader in fur farming.
I am currently past president of the Canada Mink Breeders Association and president of the Canada Fox Breeders’ Association. These national associations have mandates to explore new markets, advance animal welfare and ensure the right to farm in Canada. I am also a director on the boards of the Fur Institute of Canada, International Fur Federation and on the executive of the NFACC, the National Farm Animal Care Council. I was heavily involved in the development of the current world-leading National Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of both mink and fox.
In August 2013, we experienced every farmer’s worst nightmare. Animal rights extremists trespassed on our farm and released our animals from their homes. The Bollert name has appeared in many history books about the fur industry, but never for something like this. That day, my father had to watch his years of hard work run down the laneway. A man that had seen almost all the ups and downs of the fur industry was brought to his knees, extremely confused by the drastic ends someone would go to showcase their extremist views, with no concern for the impacts on farmers or even the animals themselves.
After countless hours spent trying to save our animals, we were able to retrieve all but a few hundred that day, but for weeks to come, we were contacted by neighbours to retrieve an animal that was on their property or was hit by a car. Although a few may have learned to fend for themselves, the vast majority of released animals would not be able to, regardless of their wild ancestry many generations previous. These are domesticated animals which rely on our care daily.
As the week passed after this horrible event, we started to notice signs of sickness in these released animals. In the interest of biosecurity, we had segregated the released animals as we recaptured them. We immediately submitted these dead animals to the University of Guelph, who determined it was canine distemper. Despite its name, distemper affects not only dogs but many other animals, including mink. Distemper is a virus in the same family as mumps and measles and can spread very quickly. This virus causes gastrointestinal, respiratory and nervous system issues. I will spare you the gory details of what happens to animals with distemper.
Although we vaccinate animals for distemper as a regular biosecurity practice, the effectiveness rate for this vaccine is just above 90%, similar to all vaccines. In total, we lost 800 to 900 mink. Besides the numerous dollars spent on revaccinating and laboratory fees, we lost valuable breeding stock and were unable to take these animals to market because of the actions of animal rights extremists.
These people who invade farms do not care about animals; they care about the idea of animals. They are not interested in biosecurity or keeping animals safe. They are interested in seeing domesticated animals, which would have met a humane end based on veterinary science, turned loose to meet their end courtesy of teeth, claws, car tires or disease.
Since that horrific event, there have been multiple animal releases or trespassing incidents on other farms in southern Ontario. The perpetrators of these releases and trespassing incidents have not been arrested nor held accountable for these extremist activities.
When we are working on the farm or have visitors to the farm, we have strict protocols on biosecurity, including things like boot-wash stations, dedicated clothing for the ranch, washing and hand sanitizing and, finally, masking. The people invading our farms are using bolt cutters and ski masks. Like all animal agriculture, we follow a national biosecurity standard developed together by government, veterinarians and disease experts, along with producers, to ensure this very problem doesn’t occur.
In closing, I would like to say that after 100 years of generations raising mink and fox, I am still proud to produce a warm, environmentally friendly, sustainable alternative to fast fashion: Canada’s heritage, the fur trade. Please help farmers like me feel safe on our farms and homes and pass Bill C-275.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bollert. It is much appreciated.
We’ll proceed with questions from senators. I remind that you have five minutes for questions and answers, and the one-minute mark will come up.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Mr. Bollert, for appearing before us today.
I want to understand the canine distemper outbreak. Is the supposition that the protesters somehow brought that virus in or that the mink, when released, picked it up as they were running about in the forest?
Mr. Bollert: Yes. Distemper is known as a nose-to-nose virus. One or multiple mink that would have been released would have had to come into contact with an animal outside. When we brought them in, we segregated them, but, unfortunately, they had already contracted it.
Senator Simons: From what we’ve been hearing about the idea of people bringing in the virus, in this case, with the release of the animals, the animals brought it back in organically, one might say, so a two-step process?
Mr. Bollert: Yes.
Senator Simons: I was surprised to learn during the beginning of the COVID outbreak that mink was one of the animals most susceptible to COVID. Did you have any instances on your farm or in your federation of people who either gave the mink COVID because they had COVID or caught COVID from mink?
Mr. Bollert: Initially, when mink were known to be able to contract COVID, it was in Denmark. They did a mass cull of the mink at that point in time. As the Canada Mink Breeders Association, along with the CFIA, we were proactive and worked together to put some really strict biosecurity protocols in place. We were actually very lucky that the vast majority of farms across Canada didn’t have problems.
Now, there were three incidents in B.C. where mink did contract COVID, and they’re not sure whether it was from the people. They just don’t know. They haven’t been able to prove it. So just three cases out of all the farms across Canada.
Senator Simons: In the case of the people who have come onto your property, trespassed, broken in and destroyed property, have there been any prosecutions? Can you tell us the results of those prosecutions?
Mr. Bollert: Especially on my farm, there wasn’t. There were never any indications of who did it. There was a blurb that was posted on the internet from people who did do it that day, but they were never able to find out.
There was another situation where a person went on five different farms across Ontario to gain access to take video footage at night. That person, after six months, posted online. He was arrested and was not incarcerated, I guess you would say. They tried him in court, but at that point in time, it did not stick.
Senator Simons: I guess the challenge with legislation like this is that there would be enhanced penalties, but only if you caught somebody and only if you convicted them. In your case, nobody was ever arrested. Would legislation like this actually be a deterrent if people think that they can’t be caught?
Mr. Bollert: Personally, if they know there is a stiff penalty for doing something as drastic as what they did on our place, maybe they would not do it. I know the person who was held accountable or was tried to be held accountable — that specific person, I don’t think, has been on farms since, so maybe it has deterred him because he did get caught. I think it’s a deterrent, for sure.
Senator Plett: Thank you so much for being here, Mr. Bollert.
We have repeatedly had witnesses appear before this committee to tell us that animal rights activists who trespass on private property do not represent a biosecurity risk. Pierre Sadik from Animal Justice said the following:
Since 2000, the CFIA data shows there has not been a single documented case of a disease incident caused by someone entering onto an agriculture facility without permission.
Why he wants to promote somebody coming onto property without permission, I’m not sure, but nevertheless, he believes it should be okay to do that because it doesn’t create a problem. How do you respond to that assertion?
I know you say that distemper is caused by nose-to-nose contact and that your animals probably caught it on the outside. Regardless, how do you respond to that quoted assertion, and doesn’t the impact of the invasion you experienced on your mink farm contradict that claim?
Mr. Bollert: With our specific incident, we can’t prove that it was brought in any other way than nose to nose. On our farm, they had cut down all of the perimeter fencing, which allowed wildlife to come in. I can’t prove that it wasn’t brought in by an animal coming in at that time. We feel it was an animal brought back that was caught from out in the wilderness.
We know with other incidents on other farms, for instance, this one individual who went from farm to farm, they didn’t know there was anybody who had been on their farm. The person came and left. Whether they used proper biosecurity, they don’t know, but they do know that this person was on there and had been to other farms. There are other diseases that you can transfer from farm to farm, similar to a chicken farm or a hog farm. You have to shower in, shower out. I don’t think it was ever proven that these people had any type of disease after, but it is quite possible. It wasn’t until six months later that they found out.
Senator Plett: Let me follow up. I have very limited time here.
We’ve heard much about biosecurity on all kinds of farms, and I’ve certainly been involved in many of them myself. One of your employees has to shower in, shower out, wear the right type of boots and gloves, et cetera. Even if that person came on there with nefarious intent and was a journalist in disguise, as has been suggested here, that journalist would have to follow your protocols before you would let them into your barn. So who poses a bigger risk to your farm or any mink, fox or hog farm, somebody who goes through the proper protocols or somebody who sneaks onto your farm from across the fields and tries to find their way into the barn? Who creates the biggest biosecurity risk?
Mr. Bollert: There’s no question it would be the person who would be sneaking on, because they certainly don’t know our protocols for our farms and they wouldn’t be following them. Our employees follow our biosecurity protocols. They have boot stations, they wear dedicated clothing, they wash their hands beforehand and they wear masks in some cases. These people who are sneaking on at night, whatever they’re trying to do, would not be following those protocols.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much for your time here, Mr. Bollert. We will do our best to get this bill adopted as quickly as possible. I appreciate that.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Bollert, for your testimony.
In your opinion, how beneficial is this bill going to be? It’s pretty specific, because it uses the terms “they enter” and “could be reasonably expected” to expose the animal to a disease. It would have to be a very special incident. With he incident that you relayed to us with the distemper cases, how would you prove that it was the trespasser who caused it? Could you just speak to how beneficial you think this amendment will be?
Mr. Bollert: Certainly.
The cause of a disease would probably never be able to be — it takes a couple of days, maybe a week, for something to happen. What we need is prevention; we need to prevent it from happening. If that person has a cold, for instance, or if we have an employee who is showing signs of a cold or the flu, we don’t let them go back to the ranch. They are on other duties. It is very important in preventing a disease on our farm.
Senator Marshall: So you think it would be helpful.
Mr. Bollert: It’s certainly helpful, yes.
Senator Marshall: You relayed the incident of distemper and told us what you had to do after the fact and go out and try to recover the mink, et cetera. Tell us about the long-term recovery. That was the immediate you did to try to recover, but it was a long-term recovery. Can you give us some insight into what else happened in the long term? Do you have insurance? What happens? Just bring us a little bit past that first week after the incident.
Mr. Bollert: Certainly.
It was a total loss. Anything that was not able to be taken to market or breeding stock was a total loss. We don’t have insurance in our industry for that type of thing. In fact, we don’t have insurance for the animals whatsoever, so that was a total loss.
We had to vaccinate everything again just to make sure that we were covered. We didn’t want it spreading across the rest of the ranch. That was a big cost. And there were the laboratory fees. It wasn’t a cheap endeavour to find the actual problem, which ended up being distemper.
Senator Marshall: Do you cover those costs yourself, or are there government programs to assist you in recovering those costs?
Mr. Bollert: No, that was totally absorbed by the farm.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
Senator McNair: Mr. Bollert, thank you for being here today and for testifying. We appreciate you taking the time.
I came across an article from 2021 where you were speaking about the risks of mink contracting COVID-19 from humans. Could you elaborate on that? You mentioned briefly the strict biosecurity protocols that were put in place at the time by your association.
Mr. Bollert: Yes. We worked proactively with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, their experts there, as well as veterinarians across North America. We were all doing the same thing at the same time, putting extra measures in place to make sure that we wouldn’t spread COVID at the time. I don’t know what else you’d like to hear.
Senator McNair: I take it that from your point of view, this bill is necessary even though those protocols are in place and working?
Mr. Bollert: Yes, because it is the employees and visitors who would be using this new set of protocols. It isn’t somebody who is just coming on your farm, whether they’re coming in at night or at any point in time, not following those protocols. It’s very important.
Senator McNair: Have you seen any violations of the protocols since 2021 or other contaminations?
Mr. Bollert: I don’t know the exact date, but yes, there was another lady who was going around a couple of farms and had videoed herself inside a mink farm, not following any of the farm protocols, without masks and whatnot. This was during COVID. We know that it was happening. I know that the farm didn’t get COVID at the time, but it’s quite possible she could have spread COVID if she had had it. That would have been a big loss.
Senator McNair: Mr. Bollert, just to clarify, when the violation and trespass took place on your farm, did the OPP or the police come out to the farm?
Mr. Bollert: The OPP actually helped us gather the animals up. I was quite surprised. There were two law enforcement officers running around and helping us catch the animals, just like the rest of the farm people were doing, yes.
Senator McNair: But no charges were laid against anyone with respect to your trespass situation?
Mr. Bollert: No. We feel we know who did it, but there was no follow-up on it.
Senator McNair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Bollert.
I will give you the opportunity to go a bit further. At the end of your presentation, you said that you followed several biosecurity standards. I don’t know whether you’ve heard what all the witnesses have had to say, but last week, most experts, even those critical of the bill, told us that producers are in the best position to develop biosecurity standards, that the government doesn’t follow up and that the agency does not do inspections. There wasn’t even follow-up for the incidents that occurred. I see that as implicitly delegating the power to producers. You can develop biosecurity standards yourself, which is perfectly in line with the bill’s objective, since it aims to protect security per se.
Earlier, at the end of your presentation, you opened the door by saying that you followed strict biosecurity standards. Senator McNair mentioned the ones that have been in place for several years.
I would like you to give me some concrete, more specific examples. What are your biosecurity standards for incident follow-up, preventive measures and the like?
[English]
Mr. Bollert: Thank you. The Canadian government — and I don’t know the exact date — had worked with Canada Mink Breeders to put together biosecurity protocols. That was a number of years ago. Since then, we’ve obviously made them more stringent, especially during COVID. Now, we feel that if we aren’t doing biosecurity on our own farms, it’s not good. We have to follow these or else we’re going to bring disease in ourselves. There’s no winning there. I have to produce the best product at the end of the year, and you don’t do that by not looking after your animals, especially biosecurity. That’s very important. I don’t know what more to say than it’s in place and was developed by the government, CFIA, and we’ve made it more stringent. I don’t know if that answers your question.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I’m trying to understand what you said about the biosecurity standards developed by the federal government. When you said “we’ve obviously made them more stringent,” did you mean producers? Who made the rules more stringent? Are you saying that you apply the biosecurity standards imposed on you more stringently?
[English]
Mr. Bollert: No, let me clarify that. Back when COVID was first emerging, we were proactive with CFIA in order to make our protocols more stringent so that we couldn’t spread COVID.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: My question went beyond COVID-19. It was about biosecurity standards. However, since I’m almost out of time, I’ll come back to it in the second round. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here, sir. I have two quick questions.
First, because I grew up with trappers in New Brunswick, and that’s pretty well a lost industry now, I’m wondering how much your industry has suffered in the last 20 years by this activism, both in trespassing and in the press?
Mr. Bollert: It’s certainly been an impact. There’s no question. The trespassing has really taken a toll on a lot of farmers. Last night, I read my submission to my dad, and it actually teared him up. He still feels from that day that he lost his livelihood. Many other people have had animal releases in southern Ontario, and other places as well, but this actually goes back to quite a while ago. There was another farm in Chatham back in I’m thinking the late 1990s, maybe early 2000s, that had a group that came over from the U.S., and they actually caught these people. It was coincidental that they caught them, but they caught them. They went back to the U.S. and were never held accountable.
The media certainly want to play both sides sometimes, sometimes not in our favour, sometimes in our favour. It has certainly taken a toll as well.
Senator Richards: Okay, thank you.
Maybe you could explain how your mature mink are euthanized. I am sure it’s in a much more humane way than getting distemper or being run over by logging trucks.
Mr. Bollert: Certainly, yes.
They are depopulated with carbon monoxide gas. It is very similar to if you had a carbon monoxide leak in your house. They merely fall asleep. It is classified as one of the most humane ways to put the mink down.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much to our witness for being here. I grew up in a farming community, so this resonates strongly with me.
I have a question. I have been puzzled about whether this piece of legislation is the appropriate vehicle to address trespassing, because that’s what it is all about. It is biosecurity, but from what we heard, the challenge is more about preventing trespassing. That’s what I heard from you as well. We have the Criminal Code and we have provincial legislation, so is it that it should be that the provincial laws, consequences and penalties be stronger? Would that be the best way to address trespassing risk, or is this bill the right way to achieve what we’re trying to achieve?
Mr. Bollert: We know that one of the perpetrators who had been on multiple farms has multiple trespassing charges against them. They can be as low as $50 or as high as $10,000. A $50 fine and a slap on the wrist is not enough to deter them from coming onto your property, unfortunately.
Senator Petitclerc: No, I can see that. I understand that’s not what we’re doing here. I’m just trying to address the fact that perhaps the problem is that those penalties are not adequate at the provincial level, which I understand is not — okay. Would you say that it needs to be an effort and the penalties in the provinces should be more consequential? That doesn’t really prevent us from doing what we’re doing.
Mr. Bollert: I was part of helping in the development of Bill 156, which is a provincial biosecurity bill. That was put in place in order to keep people from going on farms as well. That was during COVID, the girl that went onto a couple of farms. During that, it ended up getting thwarted, but there was a mass group that was going to be locking themselves inside a turkey farm in southern Ontario. That was during the same time. Unless there’s a big enough, stiff enough penalty, they will keep coming on. They are not breaking into a shopping mall to shut it down. They are breaking onto a farm because they want to shut you down.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you, witness, for appearing.
You mentioned a case. Was it the Klimowicz case you were referring to, the Ontario case?
Mr. Bollert: Yes.
Senator Pate: You talked about charges not being proceeded. My understanding was that it was because the charges were breaking and entering with the intent to cause mischief, and it was the “intent to cause mischief” that couldn’t be proven that caused the charges to be dropped. Do you know if there was a reason why it wasn’t a break and enter charge alone?
Mr. Bollert: That was the Crown that took that forward. We weren’t involved in it. It was break and enter with the intent to commit an indictable offence, and it was not proven that the specific person was there to commit an indictable offence. But he did break all biosecurity protocols. I wish we could have been involved in it, but we weren’t, unfortunately.
Senator Pate: It is unusual they wouldn’t go to the lesser and included.
Your organization, Mink Breeders Association, sets standards and protocols for the industry, as I understand it; is that correct? Guidelines and that sort of thing?
Mr. Bollert: We work together with animal experts, veterinarians, the government as well as producers in order to put protocols together, yes.
Senator Pate: Thank you for that.
My understanding is that Millbank Fur Farm, a mink farm in Ontario, pled guilty in 2021 to failing to comply with prescribed standards of care under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act and was ordered to pay a monetary fine. This came as a result of a complaint by someone who had gained access to the farm, but when the authorities went in, it was found that there was more than just the issues that had been raised. There was clear evidence that mink were exhibiting clinical signs of “illness, injury, pain or suffering.” They had to be provided with immediate medical care or be immediately euthanized when treatment was not appropriate, yet the farm had not been monitored by any of your overseeing bodies.
I’m curious as to how you would see that kind of thing being prevented in the future when, in fact, there are protocols in place but they are not followed and they are not discovered until someone comes onto the farm and then reports it, as I understand happened in this case. How would you propose that this kind of issue be addressed to ensure that those kinds of biosecurity standards are maintained?
Mr. Bollert: I would like to step back to the beginning of your comment there that they were charged — that as they did their inspection, there were signs of clinical distress. Coincidentally, I was the one who did the inspection with OSPCA that day, and there was not one animal that they identified — not one when I was there, and I was there from start to finish. So I find that oddly misrepresenting what they had found.
Anyway, either way — I don’t know where to go back to the — you are wanting — can you repeat part of that?
Senator Pate: I am quoting from what was in the material that we received about that. You are saying there were no issues in terms of mink suffering, but the information is that, on the farm, mink were found suffering from untreated and festering wounds and regularly exhibited repetitive behaviours associated with poor psychological health, such as pacing back and forth and rapidly circling in their cages. If you are saying that wasn’t what you found, I am curious as to how you would even monitor it if, in fact, the monitoring body didn’t find that but it was reported as part of the penalties.
Mr. Bollert: The person who was taking video — I know she was hired on. I know the case. The person was hired on did misrepresent herself and was there for her own motives, and I know she took video. There were certainly things that she had [Technical difficulties] to make things look rosy, there is no question. But at the same time, in the end, I think he was charged with, I don’t know, 20 different charges, and in the end it was determined that he was charged I think with not having enough paperwork, something to that effect.
Senator Pate: Okay. My information says severe animal suffering and neglect.
Senator Burey: Good morning, Mr. Bollert. Thank you so much for sharing your experiences. It is very important testimony to hear.
Talking about this bill and the concern about biosecurity and the interplay with trespassing, we have heard from different sides that this may be just a trespassing bill and not a biosecurity bill. I understand from testimony that I have heard that you feel the trespassing is what leads to the biosecurity incident. On that note, we have also heard that the national biosecurity standards are voluntary. You have spoken about COVID and how all of the mink producers got together to ensure that protocols were followed. Do you think that these biosecurity standards should be mandatory? That’s the first thing. That has come up quite a bit, not having it voluntary. That’s the first question. Secondly, should the bill apply to everyone, even producers and farmers? That’s the second part of it. If farmers or producers didn’t follow protocols or did it in a reckless manner, then they would also be liable for the same fines? So there are two questions. Should the biosecurity standards be mandatory? That’s the first one. And then should it apply to everyone in terms of the penalties?
Mr. Bollert: I can’t speak for other animal agriculture, but on the mink farms, I don’t see that is actually a problem. I think if they were put in place and enforced, that’s a good thing. That’s only better for all the animals.
Senator Burey: So you are saying that the biosecurity standards should be mandatory?
Mr. Bollert: I would say that would be fine, yes.
Senator Burey: To the second part, the penalties if people do not follow it, even if you were lawfully allowed to be there but you did it in a reckless manner, should people be subject to the penalties?
Mr. Bollert: I guess so. I certainly think that the farmers are doing a good job of it. We don’t see disease on our mink farms. You will get pneumonia or something like that, but an outside disease like COVID, we’re doing, as far as I’m concerned, a tremendous job, so they are working.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Bollert, if an outbreak were to happen on your farm, can you lead us through the steps of what would transpire if a biosecurity outbreak were to happen: protocols, who you have to report to and what they have to do. Take us through that step.
Mr. Bollert: Typically, if you see any clinical signs of something on your farm, you will obviously monitor it for a short period of time, and then the next step is to submit your animals to Guelph University. They have been doing it for a long, long time, and you have to do that through your veterinarian. You consult with your veterinarian, and either your veterinarian comes in or they will tell you to immediately take the samples to Guelph.
The Chair: And then what would happen if it was an outbreak of something significant?
Mr. Bollert: If it was, for instance, pneumonia, they will find out what the actual problem is and will tell your veterinarian what you need to do, and the solution is typically done through medication.
The Chair: If you report something more significant than pneumonia, we’ll say, is there a further reporting that has to happen? Does CFIA have to be notified? Does Agriculture Canada? Does the world?
Mr. Bollert: If there was a reportable disease on farm and your veterinarian was told, I think Guelph is obligated to report a reportable disease, yes.
The Chair: Okay.
We heard from the sponsor of the bill that one of his primary reasons for introducing the legislation was to safeguard the mental health of farmers and their families. If this bill is passed, how do you believe it will impact the mental health and well‑being of farmers in the mink industry?
Mr. Bollert: Well, my dad, obviously, was the hardest hit, but it never leaves you. You are always on guard, whether it is a vehicle stopped out front, whether it is in the middle of the night. If you wake up, you are constantly looking at cameras, or I have taken a drive out around the farm in the middle of the night. This is all pretty stressful. We’re trying to do business, and it is a daily 24/7 job which takes a lot of your time and effort, and in the end, you are having to worry about somebody running around your farm at night. It is always something that looms in the back of your mind.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McBean: Mr. Bollert, have you ever — or maybe any of your colleagues or other farmers — had people who work on your farms who had lax biosecurity measures, maybe a little lazy coming onto the farm?
Mr. Bollert: I can’t speak for other farms, but our farm doesn’t even have visitors. Other than our veterinarian, who does visit, we don’t have people who go out to the farm. Our protocols here are that when you walk out the back door, you are committed to following our protocols. I have too much at stake to allow someone to just go on their own.
Senator McBean: So if you had someone on your farm, like a new farm hand or veterinarian, who wasn’t following your biosecurity measures, what would your response be?
Mr. Bollert: They wouldn’t be allowed on the farm. They wouldn’t be allowed to go back to work, no.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Senator Simons: I want to follow up, if I may, on Senator Burey and Senator Black’s question, because I think a lot of us were taken aback a couple of weeks ago when witnesses from the CFIA explained to us that biosecurity measures in Canada are all voluntary and that breaking those protocols is not reportable in any way. I want to understand better. I’m sorry if this sounds a bit like Senator Black’s question, but if the rules are voluntary, it seems to me that this is like hard cheese to fine a trespasser for rules that the farm itself doesn’t have to follow.
You are very much involved in your umbrella organization. Can you tell me a little bit about how your organization enforces its own protocols? Can you tell me if you do spot inspections? Are there annual inspections? How do you know that your members are following your voluntary codes?
Mr. Bollert: There are two different things here. There are codes of practice, which are voluntary as well, but there are the biosecurity protocols. Biosecurity protocols aren’t enforced, by all means. We certainly respect that the farmers themselves are doing it, and, again, we know that there has been only these few cases out in B.C. that we have seen any COVID. The actual National Farm Animal Care Council’s Codes of Practice are — we do have a certification, and that is we can’t sell our skins anywhere in the world without being certified. That is a third‑party, independent inspection agency that does inspections on your farm. It isn’t the biosecurity protocols, but it is the humane care of the animals.
Senator Simons: So they are looking more at humane care. Are they also looking at biosecurity, or are they looking primarily at humane care?
Mr. Bollert: I think there are a few aspects in the codes of practice that do touch on biosecurity, but it is more the humane care.
Senator Simons: Because this is where I’m having a problem. Maybe I was naive, but I was frankly shocked when the CFIA told us that this is all voluntary. I want to understand. If it is voluntary, it seems to me hypocritical to have enormous fines for people who break the protocols that the farm itself may not be following. I’m sorry if this is repetitious. How do you know that your fellow mink farmers are following the biosecurity protocols? Is there any inspection or any measure? Do you have training for them? Do you come together to discuss best biosecurity practices?
Mr. Bollert: I can’t say that we know for sure, obviously, but we do have round tables and discussions every few months with our veterinarians, who — the top of the conversation is avian flu or COVID and the spread. We know it is still out there, and it is a threat, so these specific protocols are certainly being used because we have had no cases.
Senator Simons: It is enlightened self-interest that people do this, because they want to protect their production.
Mr. Bollert: Exactly. We have got big investments, obviously, and the last thing you want to do is have an outbreak of anything on your farm. So you need to look after your investment.
Senator Simons: Right. And, of course, the last thing any of us wants is for mink to be a reservoir of COVID. As you can see, I’m still practising protocols that everybody else has given up on, but I worry about not just the impact on farmers, but about the impact on the human population, about things like avian influenza and COVID that can come right back to us.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I actually wanted to ask the same question as you did about mental health. I’ve put the question to other witnesses in the last few weeks. Instead, I’ll turn to another topic that hasn’t been broached: communications.
As the president of an association — I believe you are the outgoing president — you engage in communications activities, including round tables. Can you tell us whether any dialogue measures have been put in place? If so, what are they? I see that people with self-proclaimed good intentions who break into properties endangered your animals’ lives and put them at risk. You also indicated that most released animals are not able to survive. These people’s actions caused severe harm to the animals. These incidents could even be considered a form of animal endangerment.
What kind of social dialogue do you have with the associations? Is there awareness of the risks, given these cases? You mentioned distemper and animal deaths. I find it deplorable that no charges were laid. What does your association, or former association, do? What type of communication initiatives can be set up to give the other side of the story? Right now, they’re present on all media platforms.
[English]
Mr. Bollert: That’s a long question, first of all. I’m not sure where to start here.
As far as communication with media outlets, as far as that goes, with every one of our animal releases that had happened, the news was there. They certainly at that point in time didn’t know what was going on, but these farmers at the time were working on collecting up their animals and trying to figure out what the best actions were. They had media at the time. We had media people that would obviously be talking. As far as communication goes, I don’t know where to go here. I’m sorry.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: In Quebec, there are media outlets — La Terre de chez nous, for example — that express the point of view of farmers and producers. Earlier, you mentioned that the media coverage isn’t in your favour. Would that be all media? Are there lines of communication that could be used to present the facts? The facts you brought to the table today are proven. What do you think your associations could do in that regard?
[English]
Mr. Bollert: Okay. So we do have media outlets, certainly, that will — that are supportive. There is no question. We have some media people that work for the Canadian Mink Breeders Association that certainly are able to relay our side of the story, and the majority of these media outlets will certainly listen. I don’t know if that answers your question. Thank you.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions, Mr. Bollert, thanks very much for your participation today. Your testimony and insight certainly have been very much appreciated.
I also want to thank our committee members for your active participation and always thoughtful questions, and as always, I would like to thank the folks that support us, behind us: the interpreters, debate teams transcribing the meeting, committee room attendant, multimedia services, technicians, the broadcasting team, the recording centre, ISD and our page Maïssa. Thank you very much.
Senators, is it agreed that we suspend for a few minutes to end the public portion of this meeting and proceed in camera to discuss future business?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)