Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 31 - Evidence - Meeting of March 7, 2013
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 7, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:03 a.m. to examine and report on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector (topic: traceability); and for the consideration of a draft budget.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I welcome senators and thank the witnesses for accepting our invitation to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to share your views, recommendations and opinions with the committee.
My name is Percy Mockler. I am chair of the committee and a senator from New Brunswick. At this time I would ask senators to introduce themselves, please.
Senator Mercer: I am Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Fernand Robichaud, Saint-Louis de Kent, New Brunswick. Good morning.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: Catherine Callbeck, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Claudette Tardif from Alberta.
[English]
Senator Merchant: Pana Merchant, Saskatchewan.
Senator Plett: My name is Don Plett, and I am from Manitoba.
Senator Buth: Good morning. I am JoAnne Buth from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Good morning. Ghislain Maltais, Quebec.
Senator Rivard: Michel Rivard, The Laurentides, Quebec.
The Chair: The committee is continuing its study on innovation and economic research efforts in the agricultural sector.
[English]
Today we have witnesses who will share their opinions with us in view of the order of reference that the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry received from the Senate of Canada, namely developing new markets domestically and internationally, enhancing agricultural sustainability, and improving food diversity and security.
Honourable senators, our first panel will be composed of Mr. Darcy Eddleston, Chair, and Mr. Brian Caney, General Manager, Canadian Cattle Identification Agency.
Thank you for accepting our invitation. I have been informed by the clerk, Mr. Pittman, that Mr. Eddleston will give the presentation, to be followed by questions from senators. The floor is yours.
Darcy Eddleston, Chair, Canadian Cattle Identification Agency: Good morning senators and thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. I am a cow/calf producer southwest of Lloydminster, Alberta. Our family farm has been in our family since 1906, so we have been in the business for quite a few years and we are very proud of that.
Today I want to share with you a bit about CCIA to start with. It is a non-profit organization and we are the national administrator for the beef, dairy, bison and sheep industry. We allocate the tag numbers to the manufacturer, who then passes them on to producers in those industries.
One of the strengths at CCIA is our board of directors. We have a large a board of directors from many sectors of the livestock industry. They have vast knowledge of the industry and their sectors and that helps us build an overall plan for the entire industry.
There are basically three pillars of traceability. They are animal identification, premise identification and movement. Those factors make up the overall traceability of cattle in Canada. CCIA works under the Health of Animals Act, which CFIA administers, so we work hand in hand with CFIA. CFIA enforces the policy and we administer the animal identification system.
Back in September 2011, Minister Ritz held a National Cattle Traceability Summit meeting in Saskatoon and brought the industry players together. Prior to that, it was our opinion that traceability was starting to fracture out different groups that were coming up their own plans of what traceability should look like. Through that meeting, the industry came together and developed a road map of what they felt traceability should like moving forward.
One of the important things that came out of that is both government and industry realized there needed to be a partnership. We needed to work together; not one group could do traceability all by themselves. It was important that each play their role and work together. Through that, it was recognized that traceability was important for domestic and international animal health emergency response capabilities.
The industry sees traceability as an insurance premium. Through the work we do with traceability, if an animal disease outbreak occurs, it will help isolate the contaminated animals, close off the disease, and we can get rid of those animals and hopefully open up trading faster than what would occur if no program was in place.
Out of that meeting in Saskatoon, a cattle implementation plan was developed. Several groups have started work in different areas of that. One group is the Cattle Movement Reporting Working Group. They have brought together different sectors of the cattle and transportation industries on what sort of information needs to be collected so that we can track the movement of cattle and other species across this country without impeding commerce. It is important that we not slow down commerce at any stage of this and make it a disadvantage for the producers of this country as we move forward.
That group is working on the minimum level of information that needs to be done and how to put that on a commerce-based document to help move things forward.
As I said, one of the pillars of traceability is premises ID. Premises ID has turned out to be a big challenge for CCIA. It was determined that the provinces would be in charge of premises ID, and now we have 10 different provinces doing different things. CCIA must be able to collect all that information, and each province has different ways of collecting premises and recording them. Some provinces were slow when this first started. They wanted to see what was going to be required of them, so for several years not a lot done in this area. There has been a bit of a catch- up game as far as premises go, but we are making headway. It is a lot better than it was a couple of years ago.
Coming out of the cattle summit, it was important that we have a phased-in approach. The producers of Canada could not do everything all at once, so it was important that we do a phased-in approach. Out of that, there are different phases. One right now is a regulatory review for the Health of Animals Act that industry is giving its input on.
There are also producer issues such as tag retention. Whenever I go out to producers, we get a number of complaints about tag retention in their animals. I also have people telling me that it is not a problem for them. We felt it was important to do some type of research project to get a baseline of what the retention issues are in this country. We have started it. We have a challenge at times to secure funding to maintain it. We think it must be a long-term project. Cows and the cattle herd can stay 10 years, so we need a multiple year program to test these tags. A 90-day or one-year test is not long enough, in our opinion. We are trying to get a multiple year project going to get a true base on where a tag is.
We have done an auction market study of trying to scan every animal inside the marketplace. That study has been completed. There was not a lot of advantage to scanning every individual in the auction market. It would tend to slow things down for the auction market, and if a tag did not read or an animal did not have a tag, they would have to run it around again. That creates extra stress on the animal; it creates weight loss and other issues.
The industry has gone to a group movement reporting system. We think the next potential big animal disease problem could be an airborne disease, and therefore group movement is far more important than an individual animal.
We are working on a cost analysis of the cattle implementation plan. There is a group going through trying to put a cost to each one, and then we will sit down and figure out who will pay for the system as we move forward. We have to share this amongst everyone. Industries and governments all have a part to play in this. There is an advantage to every member moving forward to have a good traceability program in place. That committee is currently under way as well.
As I said, there is also a phase-in for reporting. Alberta is doing it and the other provinces will start; Quebec also is reporting. West of Manitoba, feedlots of 1,000 head or bigger will start reporting on a move-in basis. It became clear at the cattle summit that we record these animals on a move-in basis. The first movement of 80 per cent of cattle is to a feedlot. The bigger feedlots are currently reading these animals for management purposes within their organizations. They are already recording that data, so it is easy for them to pass that information on to CCIA as well.
It will start at 1,000. It is 500-head feedlots east of Manitoba, and that number will go down over the next number of years until eventually all movement on to someone's premises will be recorded with CCIA.
The industry felt it was important that they show their commitment to traceability. We have had about 19 different cattle organizations pass the resolution that they support a national commerce-based movement reporting system. They support the use of movement documents as an alternative to individual scanning at commingling sites, and support the cattle industry traceability plan. The industry has bought into the plan and sees the importance of it. It is working on moving it forward.
The last thing I will share today is something that we are quite excited to be working on. We are currently in the process of examining with the province of Quebec and ATQ the possibility of having one national multi-species database to record movement across Canada. This would be a big step forward for the country and we look forward to making this work. Right now there is a consultant's work. It will go before both CCIA and ATQ's boards by the end of this month on moving forward. To have a multi-species system all across the country is a big step forward for traceability in Canada.
That is a quick overview of what CCIA is working on now. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Well done.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Mr. Eddleston, for that report. You are in the cattle industry, but how does the cattle identification program work with other livestock identification, or is other livestock identification similar?
Mr. Eddleston: That is in various stages across the country. Quebec has a very detailed system that the province has invested a fair bit of money in developing. Other species are working that. There are different groups working on their own traceability system right now. From what we hear, the biggest challenge to them is cost.
One thing we like about the CATS system is that it gives them a place; they do not have to go out and develop their own traceability system. They can hire those services out to this new organization.
Senator Plett: You talked about cost quite a bit. You are non-profit. I assume that producers foot the bill for some of it. How much of it is passed down the line to consumers? Who pays for your operation right now?
Mr. Eddleston: For the operation of CCIA right now, the producers pay. We collect 60 cents from every tag sold to run our organization. That is how CCIA is funded. We seek government support for things such as IT upgrades and bigger projects such as that, but the producers pay for the day-to-day operations.
Senator Plett: Are you getting no government funding right now?
Brian Caney, General Manager, Canadian Cattle Identification Agency: We do get provincial government support in Saskatchewan and Alberta for field staff. We have ten field staff in Alberta and three field staff in Saskatchewan who are out with producers helping them face to face with their traceability issues, but just in those two provinces.
Outside of that, as Mr. Eddleston said, the only other government funding we get is for project work to do upgrades. He mentioned an auction market project we undertook a couple of years ago.
Our operational funding come strictly from the 60 cents we get when we issue the tag numbers to the tag manufacturer. Effectively, that is built into the cost of the tag as it goes through the supply chain. When the producer goes to the farm supply store to buy tags, the 60 cents is buried in that price.
Mr. Eddleston: This is a fear of the industry. As we start looking at auction market studies, if we were to go to individual scanning and auction markets, some of those scanners cost $100,000. If that cost was borne by the auction market, they would pass that cost on to producers again. It starts to build on the backs of producers moving forward. That was a concern of the industry and why it is important to understand the ramifications of some of these costing studies as we move into a more complete system.
Senator Plett: Alberta would obviously be, I am assuming, the largest in the country. How many tags a year would you sell in Alberta?
Mr. Caney: They have about 70 or 75 per cent of that cattle herd. We do not sell, but about 4 million to 4.5 million tags are sold per year. They will take 70 per cent of those tags.
Senator Plett: How do we compare with other countries? Has this improved our export into countries like Japan and South Korea? How do other countries compare with Canada in traceability?
Mr. Eddleston: Canada, I would say, is further ahead than most countries. Australia has a very dynamic system. I would say they are probably ahead of us. However, we are further ahead than the United States.
Senator Plett: Are we?
Mr. Eddleston: Yes. They are very fractured. It is broken down on a national system. It is a state-by-state basis. The rules are all over the map there. Traceability has been very good for us as far as market access in that we have something. While it may not open up a door for us, many countries will not talk to you about trade unless you have something in place. It is a non-starter if you do not, for countries like ours who are so export-dependent. It has been beneficial. That is why we think we need to improve it further, to build a better system. What we have now is what we call a book-in system. We know where the animal was born and where it either left the country or was slaughtered. Now it is time to start filling in those pieces in between, where that animal has been in its life.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning to both of you and thank you for your presentation. If I understand correctly, one of the objectives of the traceability program is to identify the source of a food product problem if such a problem should arise and to mitigate the consequences of a food safety crisis.
Does the program currently allow you to trace the movement of one head of livestock from the farm to the final consumer in the grocery store, from farm gate to dinner plate, so to speak? If not, where does the tracing stop?
[English]
Mr. Eddleston: The quick answer would be no.
We have the capability of tracing back. One of the things that the BSE crisis showed is that we do have a trace-back system; we can know where the animal is. It sometimes takes a long time to be able to chase the paperwork.
Once it gets to the packing plant, that is as far as we go. What happens inside the plant will be up to the individual companies and how they track within their own buildings.
I believe Australia claims they can do a trace-back within 24 hours. Our goal is to be 48 hours. We want to know where that animal has been in its life cycle within 48 hours. We are not there now because of holes between the two bookends, and that is what we want to tighten up. We know the faster we can isolate any animals that have come into contact with a diseased animal, close that ring down and shut that disease down, the better it is for our trading partners, producers and the country as a whole.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Is the information on the movements of a product and the facilities available to the general public?
[English]
Mr. Eddleston: No, it is not. The producers feel it is important that their information is kept confidential. There are also business arrangements on how some of that works that need to be confidential. Some of it will be proprietary.
Therefore, no, it is not open for the individual citizen to access where that movement has been. There are programs that producers are in that I know will share that information; some of what we call branded products that you can buy in the store will tell you where the cattle were born, raised, produced and that sort of thing. However, as far as general information goes, the answer is no.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Are the costs of the traceability program passed on to the prices consumers pay? Who absorbs the costs of the traceability program?
[English]
Mr. Eddleston: Many of the costs end up falling down to the primary producer. Those sorts of costs get built into the system; whether it is the cost of the ear tag they have to put in, or if there are extra costs at the auction market that get built in, they will get passed back down.
If you have a branded program and you are able to control that entire string, some of that cost will get passed along to the consumers, but very little gets passed along to consumers.
Senator Buth: Thank you very much for being here today and giving a good presentation.
Is the system actually functioning right now? What parts of it are functioning?
Mr. Caney: We have the capability to have a fully functioning system. The problem is the reporting and the lack of regulation to require reporting in certain areas of country. The database that we manage can do bookend, as Mr. Eddleston said — the birth of the animal and the death or export of the animal. We have all the capability to do movement and premise information inside the database.
However, if the jurisdiction does not require reporting movement, of course we do not collect any information. As an example, in Alberta and Quebec there are requirements for movement reporting. In Alberta, specifically, it is at feedlots that are processing more than 1,000 animals a year, so that movement is coming in. In Alberta we are getting 1.5 or 1.6 million move-in events per year. However, that drastically drops as you go into provinces where there is no requirement to report movement.
It varies. We have the capability to do complete reporting, but we are not complete in all areas. Quebec does have a very good, strong system. Through ATQ and provincial regulations, it is my understanding — I am not totally familiar with ATQ's system — that they are picking up all the movement and premise information, so they have everything; they have the start, the end and everything in the middle.
Senator Buth: Have there been discussions about whether movement tracking should be on a province-by-province system or whether it should be a federal requirement?
Mr. Caney: I think the recent Safe Food for Canadians Act allows for the federal government to put in rules around movement, although movement is I think a provincial jurisdiction. In a way, it is working with the provinces to try and get movement reporting and make it more precise and delivered to a national reporting system like CCIA or ATQ. I think that capability is there and can be exercised in the future.
As Mr. Eddleston said, we are working on the Cattle Movement Reporting Working Group. We have defined the national set of data. There are 15 or 16 data elements that we need to capture on every animal movement. Even though every province has its own manifest or transportation documents — and they may have other information they need to capture for that with regard to ownership or things like that — if everybody agrees to the 16 elements, we could get there. Then we can collect those 16 elements, and that is what need for traceability.
There is movement towards that. However, prior to 2011, it was all over the map. Now it is coalescing and coming together, and everybody is at the table and talking about this. They are at various stages of development, but everybody is at the table to move the thing forward. It is good to see that the provinces are gathering around and agreeing that we need to work towards some kind of documentation. We want to make that electronic as much as possible in the future as opposed to having millions of pieces of paper floating around.
Mr. Eddleston: There is an encouraging thing I am seeing. Six years ago when I first came to CCIA, we were telling government to stay out of our business, that we would take care of our own business. We are at the point now where we have provincial cattle organizations going to their provinces with resolutions from their members saying that they need mandatory premise ID in the province. The industry is starting to push this harder than it has in the past, which I think is encouraging.
Senator Buth: Are there benefits to producers in terms of monitoring, herd health, record keeping or management through this system? Is this something that they might see a benefit to?
Mr. Eddleston: At the primary level, not a lot. As I mentioned, some of the big feedlots are scanning these cattle in and they have their own management practices that they are taking advantage of, whether it is marketing opportunities or others. Prior to Japan going to 30 months, if they had an animal that they thought could finish in 20 months, they would pen them in groups of cattle that could have the potential to go to that market.
As you went further down the chain, there might have been someone. However, at the primary level there is not a lot of benefit.
Senator Buth: You mentioned that 60 cents per tag goes to you. What is the total cost of the tag?
Mr. Eddleston: It varies across the country. In Alberta, $3 a tag is probably the average. I know it can go up in certain places a little more remote. I have heard of prices up to $5 a tag.
Senator Robichaud: Someone pays 60 cents but the costs differ in places — $2, $3 or $4. Who makes up the difference here?
Mr. Eddleston: The retailer selling that tag will take a little bit of that money, as will the tag manufacturers. Sixty cents of that basically goes to traceability. The rest goes to production and retail — profit margins — for everybody else in the chain of retail.
Senator Buth: The producer pays.
Mr. Eddleston: The producer pays the $3, yes.
Senator Callbeck: There are differences in every province. I would like you to pick one province, whether it is Alberta or another one, and take us through the various steps from the time the animal is born until it is at the slaughterhouse. I assume the tag goes on as soon as the animal is born. For one thing, is there only one tag for a lifetime? I saw in here something about eight approved tags. I would like to know the process.
Mr. Eddleston: One tag goes with that animal throughout its life. The easy way to describe that tag is that it has a 15- digit number on it. It is like a VIN number on your car. It is an individual number for that animal.
When that animal is born, before it leaves that herd of ownership, it has to be tagged. A lot of people do that either right at birth or at branding when the animal is a couple months old. This is where the cattle industry is different from other sectors, such as hogs or poultry. In those sectors, it is all one-way movement, from one barn to the next and then to slaughter, usually. In the cattle industry, animals go out, come back and move on.
I will use my own farm as an example. The animals are born and we tag them. We will keep those animals for roughly a year and sell them. From there, they can go a couple of ways. They can go to someone we call a "grasser." The animals are small and need more time to grow, so they go to a grasser who will put them out in the summertime grass, bring them back and sell them to a feedlot, who will then feed those animals until they are ready for slaughter. It goes to slaughter, the tag is read and it is retired at the slaughtering plant. Some of them can go directly to the feedlot. Some will go out to pasture, and I will retain those. We will keep some of the good females on our own farm for replacement purposes, so they can stay within our herd for a number of years.
Senator Callbeck: You say you usually keep them for a year, and then they go to a grasser and then to a feedlot. Is all that recorded on that tag?
Mr. Eddleston: No. All that is on that tag is that number, and that number is attributed back to my farm. If it goes to a big feedlot, that tag will get recorded as being moved onto its property.
Senator Callbeck: When it gets to the slaughterhouse and there is a number on it, it can be traced back to your farm.
Mr. Eddleston: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: However, there is no way of knowing with whether it went to the grasser or the feedlot; is that correct?
Mr. Eddleston: Correct, unless it is in Alberta and it is over a thousand-head feedlot. That is getting recorded. Depending on what feedlot it goes to, it can get recorded. These are some of the holes that we have to fill in to complete this because we need to know where that animal has moved in its lifetime.
Senator Callbeck: The other question is about from the slaughterhouse to the retail. I know it is in existence because a beef plant in Prince Edward Island was using it. I am not sure whether they are now or not. Are many places using that, and is it pricey?
Mr. Caney: As Mr. Eddleston said, we do the tracing from birth to slaughter, so we are not directly involved with traceability programs post-slaughter to consumer.
I have a background in the grocery business, and I do know that various different plans are available. I do not think the industry has coalesced around a particular plan. I think there are multiple number of different plans out there, driven either by the retailer or by the person processing the meat. I do not know their expense or anything like that. We are not involved directly with those.
Mr. Eddleston: I do know that some of the bigger plants have the capability of recording that tag number onto a hook number that that carcass is hung on until it is graded. Once it has passed the grading station and starts to get broken down, I am not sure how they can keep track of that at that stage. At the start, from the limited bit of inner workings of the packing plant I know of, I do know some of the bigger ones have that capability, but further down the chain, I do not know how they follow that through.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Was the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency in operation during the mad cow crisis?
[English]
Mr. Eddleston: Yes, it was. I know there are CFIA inspectors in the plants and have been for quite a while. Again, inside the packing plant, I am not well versed on the inner workings of how that all works, but I do know they have a number of inspectors inside the plants.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I read recently that Japan has finally agreed to accept Canadian beef, after a number of years. Are there countries that still refuse to accept Canadian beef because of the mad cow disease outbreak we had some years ago?
[English]
Mr. Eddleston: I know we have limited access to some markets. Just to clarify, Japan has changed their status. Prior to the recent announcement, they were accepting beef from animals that were under 20 months of age at slaughter. They have now increased that to 30 months of age. As far as other countries, the answer is yes.
For a producer, one of the frustrating things that occurred through BSE was that science shut down borders, but politics opened them. Everyone uses the science to shut the border down, but then it is this long negotiated process to get those markets open, and it has nothing to do with science. We have been able to prove, from the work we have done in identifying other animals that come through the chain that have had BSE, that we are doing our testing and our due diligence to identify these at-risk animals and removing them from the food chain. However, it is politics of the "what can we sell you to take our beef" thing that frustrates the producer, where we have had access in the past. Korea has been very slow to get back into that market, and it has been somewhat frustrating. It has been slow. It took a number of years for other markets to open up. However, it is an issue for some countries.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: We are about to reach a free trade agreement with the European Community. Is the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency an extremely important factor in bringing the agreement to a successful conclusion?
[English]
Mr. Eddleston: I think it is very important that CCIA is doing the job it is doing. As I mentioned, many countries will not even approach trade of beef unless you have some sort of identification system in process. The better our system, the better selling point it is for Canadian beef. It makes that even a more valuable program.
From the producer's side, it is a real insurance program because the faster we can contain a disease outbreak, the quicker we can get into these markets, with less loss to the producers and to the country. On a severe disease outbreak, there is no doubt the country would have to step in and help out the producers of this country.
Senator Robichaud: If an animal develops a disease that would have to be traced back, how easy is it to trace back to the group and to trace back the members of that group?
Mr. Eddleston: It can be very challenging. One of the things that some of the trace-backs we went through with BSE has shown us is in the following example. You buy a group of, perhaps, 15 animals at the auction market. You take them, but you might only want five of them. Then you sell that group of ten, and they might get split up to different places. To be able to follow that chain takes a lot of time because you have to follow all the paperwork, and the paperwork has to be in place. As we develop our system to an electronic basis to be able to pull that up with a couple of punches on a keyboard and find out where that animal has been, it will be a huge advantage for this country.
Senator Robichaud: I look at phase 8, group movement reporting, and then phase 9, by January 2016, of all cattle movements reported. The bar code system, or whatever system, will be in place by then; am I right?
Mr. Eddleston: The system is already in place. It is to get the members in those different steps to report. Like I said, the big feedlots are already doing it, so it is easy for them to do this. It is to get to the smaller producers. By 2016 we hope the ordinary producer will report. If I go to town and buy 10 females to bring into my herd, I will start reporting those. Right now it is quite burdensome for the individual producer to report because, first, I need some sort of scanning device to scan the RFID tags. That is why it is so important we do it on a move-in basis as opposed to a move-out basis. If a primary producer has to scan every animal that leaves the farm only to have the feedlots scan in the cattle for management purposes, it makes sense to do it on a move-in basis.
As we move forward through the different steps and one group makes the other group aware of their responsibilities, we felt it was important to do a phased-in report approach because over time the industry will see the importance and get involved.
Senator Robichaud: We will write a report. If you were to propose to us a recommendation that we should include in our report to help you with this reporting and to accelerate whatever you choose we should be doing, would you be ready to recommend?
Mr. Eddleston: As I mentioned, premise identification has been a real challenge for us and for the industry. Provinces have gone out and done their own thing. Some provinces have worked with us; some have not. As they see the importance, they have come around to that, so that has been a big challenge. We are addressing it. Provinces are starting to move on this issue, some of it because the provincial cattle organizations are pushing for it. That has been a big one.
I hate to sound like everyone else coming to government, but some funding, some money. Like I said, when I first came here, the industry was telling government to stay out, leave us alone, and we will just raise the cattle. We finally got industry to the table now wanting to move some of this forward. I realize the financial constraints that the government is facing, but I think it would be a shame for them to push this file and, now that the industry is at the table, wanting to get involved, then to back away. It would be a huge step back for this country.
Senator Robichaud: This also has a consumer protection aspect.
Mr. Eddleston: Absolutely.
Mr. Caney: It is for the public good.
Mr. Eddleston: We talk about opening markets, but we also have to maintain our domestic market. Consumers have to feel safe about the product they are consuming. There are a lot of choices now in the grocery store. We want it to be beef, so we have to make them feel that the product they are buying is safe to take home and give to their family.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Right off the bat, can it be said that the traceability of an animal gives it added value?
[English]
Mr. Eddleston: Yes. Because we have more markets, that adds value. If we did not and we were shut out of those markets, there would be less value by far.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: In your case, traceability starts at birth, even with the mother, and you can trace it to the packing plant door. Your responsibility is that, plus the feedlot, I believe.
The problem is in the packing plant. In a lot of cases — as you have mentioned — the tag no longer follows the carcass after the animal has been slaughtered. The difference in Quebec is that the tag follows the carcass; it is scanned and recorded. So if there is a suspected epidemic, the carcass carrying the virus can be traced immediately. That prevents a lot of problems. Basically, the problem is much more in the packing plants that do not do what you do as a producer.
[English]
Mr. Eddleston: I would not say necessarily. Every sector will have its own challenges and potential for disasters. I am somewhat reluctant to say too much because I do not know all the inner workings of a packing plant. Please do not take anything I say as the workings inside the packing plant because I do not know all their operating systems and how they work.
As I said, at certain stages when the animal is first killed it will be inspected to look for any signs of disease and ensure that the tag is still there. One plant I am aware of does scan that number onto a hook, so until that animal starts getting broken down along the process, there will be some tie-in. I just do not know how every plant works, so I am reluctant to say it is just the plant's problem.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: The problem is that the plant that slaughters the animal can sell it to various processors in separate pieces. That is where the problem lies. The traceability should start from the plant and continue to the various processors. A year and a half ago, we saw batches of ground beef, medium grade, as they call it, sold for processing into various products. Batches like that are hard to trace.
Why? Because those in charge of the packing plants do not keep track of all the different processors that they sell the beef to. I think that is where we should start to come up with a model that allows us to always trace the processor when there is an epidemic, a disease.
[English]
Mr. Eddleston: Here again I am working on a little bit of information, and a little information just makes a person dangerous. However, I do know they do some batch tracing. They will know that a specific animal was in a certain batch of animals. Therefore, when some of that processed meat gets passed on, it will have a code and they will have some idea what group of animals might have been in that, so they can trace it back that way. I am getting over my head as far as speaking for the packing plants.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: With an epidemic, it is still easy for inspectors, provincial or federal, because the trademark is on the packaging. We know of companies that have to recall various products; it happens quite often. In cases like that, it is not a problem because government inspectors are informed immediately and, in the space of a few hours, all supermarket shelves are cleared of those meats. That is a good way to make sure that Canadians get quality products.
As for Canadian free trade, you said something important. You said that a lot of countries in eastern Europe are not ready to adopt quality standards. You just have to look at what is happening in France, where people are eating horsemeat in their lasagna; that shows a major failing in their inspection system. They cannot trace the horse, I will grant you, but they should at least be able to trace the country.
Canada is going to produce high-quality meat. In return, does Canada have the right to expect that products imported from Europe will have the same standards of quality?
[English]
Mr. Eddleston: As a producer, I sure hope so. However, I do not get to make those rules as that will be determined in the trade — it kind of ties in to your last question. The size of the recall at that Alberta plant was massive, but it should give us some security in knowing that there is a trace-back and recall system. They knew that box of beef had to be pulled out of that store. It shows that the system we have in Canada is fairly safe, and we have the ability to trace it back to the stores and the many different products. They were able to go back and recall those products when there was a problem.
Senator Mercer: I am the longest-serving member of this committee, so I was here during the BSE crisis and sat around this table. I understand the reluctance of farmers, in particular beef farmers, to come to government to ask for help and money. The reluctance we saw during the BSE crisis was really something. It was also a very emotional time as many farmers were in desperate shape. The government tried to help and screwed up the first attempt but got it right the second time. It is also great to see farmers playing a helping role. If we had had this system in place as fully functional back when we had the BSE issue, we would have been able to open our markets a lot faster by being able to prove the traceability, showing that we had good control over where the possibly affected animals were. Am I correct?
Mr. Eddleston: I believe so. The more we have in place, the easier it is for us to make our case to trading countries that our product is safe. We have the checkpoints in place to catch anything that is not right. As I said, it seems to be that to open markets is more political, but that is the nature of the world.
Senator Mercer: This is new territory for cattlemen but for one of your other partners, Dairy Farmers of Canada, it is not new territory. Traceability is new for them, but they have been active at the national level for a number of years in lobbying and advertising. You have not mentioned dairy at all. We continue to talk about cattle and feedlots. I appreciate that is your background, but dairy farmers are part of this as well.
How do you see this being a benefit in dairy, other than the obvious end product when a dairy cow outlives its usefulness as a producer of milk and goes into the food chain? Is there another advantage in dairy that I am not seeing?
Mr. Eddleston: Dairy farmers are ahead of beef producers. They have seen the benefits. They can use that identification number to keep track of their animals. They have a milk production report every day of how that cow is doing. We do not have that in the beef industry. Once a year, that cow will have a calf, and when that calf is eight months to a year and a half old, we know how that cow performed. They have seen the advantage of this and are able to use it on their business side better than the beef producer has been able to do.
As you said, I have not talked much about dairy. I get into trouble with my board sometimes because we have dairy, bison and sheep representatives as well. I have to remember that there are other groups.
Senator Mercer: It seems to me that they are essentially more used to regulations that manage supply management. Does that make it easier for them to participate in these programs?
Mr. Eddleston: It might do that, but dairy cattle do not move as much as beef cattle move. That might have something to do with it as well. It is probably a better question for dairy farmers.
Senator Mercer: Someone has already asked part of the ultimate question, which I will try to phrase in a different way. From my perspective, it is a good idea that we should get this in place as quickly as possible. We are doing the great Canadian thing of having 10 different regulations in 10 different provinces, and we have seen all of this before — it is an old movie. However, maybe there is an opportunity, since we are at the beginning of this and are not that far down the road. As I understand, Alberta and Quebec are the two major players currently. Maybe it is time that the federal government somehow got involved in helping to bring things together.
Would the CFIA be the logical place for us to recommend some kind of involvement by the federal government, or should it be through Agriculture Canada or something else?
Mr. Eddleston: It would probably fall under the CFIA because all of this would fall under the Health of Animals Act. It would naturally fall under the CFIA.
You made a comment earlier about being here when BSE happened and how it took a couple of tries to get it right. It speaks to the fact that there is not a designated disaster program in place. If we had parameters of what a disaster was and what would trigger disaster relief, it would help the industry to understand and would help government too. We have a problem, so how will we fix it? They scramble around trying to fit money into an existing program that was never designed for that in the first place.
Senator Mercer: "Scramble around" is a great description of what happened. The government was trying to do the right thing and industry needed the right thing to be done. Everyone was trying to do the right thing, but no one got it right at first.
The ultimate question that my colleagues opposite would want the answer to is: How much would it cost if we were to have a program?
Mr. Eddleston: Technically, we are working on that, as we have a costing committee coming out of that cattle implementation plan. They are meeting and have hired someone to help them work through the numbers. We are working on what the different phases will cost and trying to pull that number together. I do not have a firm number for you today.
Senator Duffy: Thank you for your very informative and educational presentation. You are not only educating members of the committee but also Canadians.
We have talked about traceability from the farm to the feedlot to the processor. Given the public interest, concern and the importance of this issue, if we are going to try to beef up — no pun intended — our reporting mechanisms, should we not go for the whole enchilada and take it all the way from the farm right to the fork? Should we not find a way to trace, through the processing system, all the way so that it can be triggered instantly as soon as something comes up? Why go halfway? Why not go all the way? Do you think that would be beneficial in reassuring Canadians and the world? Would that also be more efficient if and when something untoward happens?
Mr. Eddleston: There are benefits to that, definitely. What concerns me as a producer is the cost and who would pick up that cost. There is a part for the consumer to play in this, but by the same token how do you get the consumer to pay for safety?
You are leaving the message that because we are doing all this the food is safe. Does that mean what we had before was not? There is a delicate balancing act, and we as an industry have to be careful of the message we send out. It is like this organic beef or hormone feed. Well, there is no such thing as hormone feed. Every animal has hormones. The question is whether they are artificial hormones or not. However, that is an argument for another day. It goes to show the different storylines that can be out there.
Senator Duffy: I can see down the road where hormones and the feed offered to those animals will become a marketing issue. We see it in Europe already, with genomes and genetically modified foods. If we set up a proper traceability system from the farm to the fork, would that not be one of the inputs that eventually we could put in the database so that people could see that they are buying grass-fed, grain-fed and no artificial sweeteners in their beef?
Mr. Eddleston: There are those programs now. Some consumers are willing to pay a little extra for that. In the long run you are probably right, senator, in that anything the producer can do to ensure the safety in the long run will promote the sale of their product.
Senator Duffy: You said a few minutes ago that our system is "fairly safe." I know it courts bad luck to say our system is foolproof, but I really think it is important for Canadians to understand that we are world leaders in this area and are working to make a great system even better.
Mr. Eddleston: It was probably a poor choice of words on my part.
Senator Duffy: I want to give you an opportunity to reassure Canadians.
Mr. Eddleston: I appreciate that, because it is safe. As a producer myself, I take my product and it with a great deal of pride. I am very proud of the animals I produce and I know other producers are as well. People along the chain take a great deal of pride in the product they produce.
Thank you for clarifying that for me. I appreciate it.
Senator Merchant: What challenges still remain in maximizing or perfecting — and I do not want to use the wrong word — the efficiency of the traceability system in Canada? You spoke about premise identification as a challenge. You also spoke about some research projects that you have.
I come from Saskatchewan, so we have the University of Saskatchewan. You mentioned Alberta and Quebec. Are you engaging the universities in the innovation? Are young people engaged in your projects? I would like to have a clearer understanding of what you are doing.
Mr. Eddleston: As far as our projects go, they are more at the farm level, and so that is who we are mainly dealing with. I do know some work is being done at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology on tags and new types of tag technology that are out there. I have heard enthusiastic stories coming from students who are getting to develop these new types of tags and trying different things to see what works and what does not. There are some at that level as well. Most of the stuff we are doing is at the farm level.
I will say that the chairman of our tag retention project is from Saskatchewan, and so Saskatchewan is involved in that project quite heavily. On that project we have representation from Ontario to B.C. We have cattle in every province in that study. One of the parts of that study is a diverse study in different environments to try to understand the true nature of tags and tag retention.
Senator Merchant: Are there other challenges? You spoke of some challenges.
Mr. Caney: I would say the two main challenges that we have currently to get this thing working as we stand today, as to what we are trying to deliver in a traceability system from birth to slaughter, is premise ID and animal movement. Those are the two areas where we need to fill in the middle gap. We said before we have a bookend system that is perfect. Almost 100 per cent of the animals are identified. We know where they are born and where they will be slaughtered or when they will be exported. Where we have the hazy bits are in the middle. That is where, as was mentioned, the multiple jurisdictional issues of provinces come in. It is slowly coming together, but that is the piece that needs to get firmly put in place, and that is where we are behind countries like Australia. Australia can provide that information and we can do it in areas but not in the whole country necessarily. That is where we are working now with various industry and governments to try and fill in those gaps. If we are going to have that traceability, and our focus is on that traceability piece between birth and death, we need to fill in those holes.
You mentioned "farm to fork" earlier. I think those are important. We eventually need to bring those two systems together. The reporting from processing to eating must fit in with the traceability system of birth to death. We are still kind of focused on our little piece first to try and get that done.
Mr. Eddleston: One of the challenges we also face is technology. It is capable, but it has not been built for the livestock yet. As we enter into this, there is a lag of what we want and what is available. Industry is trying to catch up to develop what we need. As far as technology goes, we need the ability to read these animals quickly, either going through an auction market or through a feedlot, some way of recording movement quickly, electronically, and seamlessly, where it does not impede commerce. There should not be an extra job or extra paperwork. We need that technology in place to move that forward.
Senator Merchant: I know we are leaders, but are there other countries that you are looking at to emulate some of the programs that they have. You mentioned Australia was a leader. Are there others?
Mr. Eddleston: Australia is a big export country and so we are fighting with them for market. We are trying to catch up to their market. Other countries have it. Europe has a very burdensome paper trail. They have a passport that goes with every animal. It is a very work and labour intensive system. I see ours as an improvement over that, but they are not a big export country for us. Australia is our biggest challenge.
The Chair: For the time that we have, I must advise senators that it will be impossible to go for a second round of questions. However, I wish to bring something to the attention of our panel. We know the importance of traceability to your organization, but what percentage of Canadian producers are members of your association? You can answer my question in writing to the clerk, as well as the answer to the next question from Senator Callbeck.
Senator Callbeck: You spoke about the hazy areas or the holes between the farm and the slaughterhouse. I have heard talk about radio frequency identification tags. I understand they are very costly, but if that system were in place, would it take place of these hazy areas?
Mr. Eddleston: We are currently using a low-frequency radio frequency system. There is some work being done in high frequency, which is a little costlier, which I think you referred to. Work is being done on high-frequency tags and some investigation being done on them. The only difference is that on a low-frequency tag you have to be very close to the animal to get any reading from the tag. With a higher frequency you can be farther away and get multiple reads.
I am sorry; I am supposed to write the response.
The Chair: To the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency, Mr. Eddleston, and Mr. Caney, thank you for coming in and sharing your views with us.
The committee will now hear from the Canadian Animal Health Coalition. We have two witnesses: Mr. Mark Beaven, Executive Director, and Dr. Ed Empringham, Senior Project Manager.
Thank you for accepting our invitation and sharing your views with us. We have an order of reference from the Senate of Canada to look at developing new markets domestically and internationally, enhancing agricultural sustainability and improving food diversity, security and traceability for Canadian consumers and world markets. I am informed by the clerk that we will start with Mr. Beaven, who will be followed by Dr. Empringham.
Mark Beaven, Executive Director, Canadian Animal Health Coalition: Thank you very much for the invitation today. On behalf of the Canadian Animal Health Coalition, the board of directors and members, I want to thank this committee for the invitation to present to you the work of the Canadian Animal Health Coalition as it relates to research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector.
The Canadian Animal Health Coalition membership includes the livestock commodities, the meat processing industry, the genetics industry, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and the deans of the Canadian veterinary colleges. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada sit on our board as observers. Since its formation in 2002, the Canadian Animal Health Coalition has focused on farm animal health and welfare activities that are system-based and affect multiple animal production commodities.
We find that there is a need for a collaborative approach between industry and governments. A highly functioning animal health and welfare system is an essential component of the "one health" concept, and it is critical to sustaining international and domestic markets.
A number of Canadian Animal Health Coalition initiatives are directly related to the order of reference and the issue upon which this committee has requested that we focus. I will go over some of the history of our activities and mention a few of them, and Dr. Empringham will speak at length on one that we would like to focus our attention on today, that is, the West Hawk Lake Zoning Initiative.
Over the past 10 years, the Canadian Animal Health Coalition has been involved in a number of activities that focus on sustainability and food security. One of these is the formation of the National Farm Animal Care Council, or NFACC, as we call it. NFACC coordinates a national approach to farm animal welfare in Canada. A current project of the coalition, managed jointly with NFACC, is entitled Addressing International and Domestic Market Expectations Relative to Farm Animal Welfare. It is a long title but a very important initiative. It addresses the need for standards and assessment programs to ensure the well-being of farm animals and the sustainability of associated markets.
Another initiative that the Canadian Animal Health Coalition was involved in was being the lead organization in the development of the National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council, not to be confused with NFACC. This is a new initiative that started recently, in 2010. The National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council is an advisory body to the regulatory ADMs and has agriculture and public health representation from industry, federal and provincial governments. The focus of this group is a collaborative governance approach, with a consideration to the "one health" concept. Advisory statements from this council are developed to provide guidance for stakeholders seeking to enhance Canada's animal health and welfare system. The National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council hosts an annual forum to engage stakeholders. Advisory statements on surveillance, animal welfare and anticipation of agri-intelligence can be found on their website, which is listed in the documents I believe you have.
The Canadian Animal Health Coalition was also closely involved with the Fore-CAN project done by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We are a partner with CFIA on a project to continue that work of Fore-CAN with the development of an integrated intelligence system and response.
Another initiative that the Canadian Animal Health Coalition has been involved in is the development and testing of emergency management capabilities at the national animal commodity association level. Participating national organizations developed emergency management communications plans and a communication network has been maintained between those organizations.
Yet another initiative is the Assessment of Presence and Compliance of Biosecurity Protocols in Canada. This initiative supported further development of biosecurity protocols by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Lastly, one initiative that I would like to mention that the Canadian Animal Health Coalition has been involved in is participation in the National Cross-Sector Forum of Public Safety Canada, which brings critical infrastructure representatives together to recognize the interrelations and develop strategies and processes to mitigate risk. As you can see, the Canadian Animal Health Coalition is involved in a number of initiatives, all leading back to animal health, welfare, food security and traceability.
The last initiative, as I said, is our traceability zoning initiative, which I will turn over to Dr. Empringham to focus on.
Dr. Ed Empringham, Senior Project Manager, Canadian Animal Health Coalition: Thank you to all of you for the invitation.
The coalition has been involved in the development of the National Agriculture and Food Traceability System through the development of zoning capability at West Hawk Lake, Manitoba. We have had two multi-year projects — we are now in year 9 or 10 — totalling nearly $8 million that were equally funded by government and industry. Those projects to date have demonstrated proof of concept, 24-7 operation. We have established a database that, inconsequentially, is housed within the database at CCIA.
We have provided information to stakeholders. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada uses some of the movement information in modelling things like their response to the XL situation. We have provided an adequate basis for discussions with the USDA, which I will come back to. We have established a functional Zone Canada that includes Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, CFIA and industry and Manitoba, a province that happens to have legislation that supports what we do.
Canada is an exporting country, as we heard in the earlier presentation, and we are vulnerable to a market closure. There are a number of diseases internationally that could force immediate closure of the border. As a trading nation, closing of the border to livestock and meat exports would be a severe impact on the economic viability of the livestock sector, but also our rural municipalities, the mental health of producers and the general economy of Canada.
As an aside, with the foot-and-mouth outbreak in the U.K., the biggest impact was not to agriculture, but to tourism. That is an important thing to remember.
The inability to access foreign markets for more than six months would result in a complete restructuring of the industry. It is not possible to sustain through that. Zoning capability has the possibility to mitigate this risk by rapidly providing evidence of disease freedom recognized by trading partners so that we can reach an agreement on resuming trade sooner. The vision for Zone Canada is to have a rapid, effectively internationally recognized zoning capability at predefined zones through the use of validated retrospective movement information at zone crossing points.
Zone capability is defined as the ability to rapidly secure and declare a disease-free zone, as opposed to zoning to contain a disease. It is establishing a disease-free zone. The natural barriers are selected for use. You need data of movement and you need to be able to trace back the incubation period of the disease, and so on. In the event of an outbreak, the zone can quickly be secured and at-risk livestock can be rapidly traced to confirm that disease has not entered the other zone.
The ability to track movement across control sites such as West Hawk Lake at the Manitoba border and stop movement provides that possibility. This is a unique location in that there is only one road. Any animals that would go around would have to be driven across to go down through the States, and that is not possible through other controls. It is a perfect spot. It is also isolated from other livestock involvement so that it is a completely isolated situation.
Until Canada's animal traceability system is fully implemented and the data is validated that they are collecting, Zone Canada at West Hawk Lake provides the only opportunity for mitigating the risk of a highly infectious disease — not BSE — through the use of validated movement of data across the site which provides retrospective traceability data.
Participants in our project to date include the livestock commodities; the Canadian Meat Council, which includes the Maple Leafs of the world; CFIA; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; and the Government of Manitoba.
Currently, again the vagaries of it being in Canada, Manitoba has the legislation that allows the collection of data and the stopping of vehicles, so we use their Animal Care Act. The Health of Animals Act does not allow that until there is a disease. That is the difference. We are dependent on validated identification, premise identification and movement information, which are all, as we heard earlier, components of that functional traceability system that we aspire to have.
The staff at our crossing site at West Hawk Lake has worked closely with producers, shippers, transporters and receivers to enhance the uptake of premise identification, traceability, the recording of movement, and so on. It has been a very positive relationship with CCIA and ATQ in doing that.
The support for overall development of traceability will enhance zoning capability in the long term. There is in fact a possibility of using electronically collected information from a fully established traceability system, rather than physically collecting it at West Hawk Lake. We could do it electronically in a leap of technology. That is a bit away.
The Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council work plan for agriculture includes zoning. The CFIA, working with the USDA, reached an agreement, called an "arrangement", with the USDA in October of 2012 that facilitates the development of a framework for each country to recognize the other's decisions on zoning within the context of veterinary equivalency. That is technical, but it is an international standard of equivalency and within that they can recognize each other's zoning decisions.
The inclusion of Zone Canada in this arrangement was a very important step in the development of zoning in Canada. The further development of traceability data provides the option of alternate data collection, the potential of establishing multiple, strategically located zoning sites across Canada, for example somewhere in the Rockies in the event of something happening in B.C. or somewhere on Highway 20 through Quebec in the event of something in the Maritimes, those types of strategic locations.
At the present time, for use in trade and for use in disease management, the value of data coming out of the traceability system is unknown. Its integrity is unknown at this point; it is not fully implemented. It is sort of where the step in the process is. It will get there, but in the meantime we have a system at West Hawk Lake that can serve as an audit tool for that data. At least on that location, at percentage of use, you could develop an audit system. In fact, CFIA is having some discussion about doing that.
We do anticipate regulatory change to the Health of Animals Act, Part XV, in 2015 that will allow CFIA to stop vehicles and collect data as part of a disease surveillance or movement assessment purpose. With that will come some change in relationship because CFIA will have authority, and we see CFIA taking this on as a public good piece. However, how that will be managed is another question that we are not ready to discuss at this point.
We have some issues to manage. It generally speaks to much of the work that we do, and it is around the continuity of funding. We work in these project-funded things and then there is a gap of a year and you lose almost everything that you had. You get it going again, and then there is another gap. That is an issue; loss of momentum and credibility when trying to deal with trading partners through CFIA, and loss of investment value.
There is some detail on that in the paper that we have provided, but we are really appreciative of the efforts that have been made by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through Growing Forward 2. Every effort has been made to move this through quickly.
In conclusion, zoning capability is a component of livestock traceability. It offers considerable opportunity for lessening the impact of a foreign animal disease on Canada. It can be enhanced with the development of traceability and the validation of data. Critically, right now it is part of the CFIA/USDA arrangement, and it needs to continue to develop uninterrupted until the anticipated assumption of authority by CFIA.
Senator Plett: Thank you for your presentation.
I asked Senator Buth whether she had ever heard of the site at West Hawk Lake and she, as I, had not. I am excited to see what we are doing in our home province. I know the area very well.
We know that there is a truck inspection station right at that border. Does this group inspect every livestock truck driving across? Are they physically at the inspection station doing that?
Dr. Empringham: Yes. We have an arrangement with Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation, and we have a trailer on that site. It is voluntary, but we have about 85 per cent participation of animals moving across the site. They are largely through a relatively small number of shippers. Once the trucking companies and the shippers are onside, it is quite simple. We do not inspect what is in the truck. We inspect the paperwork to be able to say that they crossed at a certain time, et cetera. We validate what was on the truck when they are off-loaded at the receiver so that there is a matching of ear tags between what was loaded and what came off.
Senator Plett: As you said, there are no other roads across. That is the road you have to take, and every vehicle driving from east to west goes across that border. Of course, there are many other provincial border crossings that they may be crossing as they come along. What steps are being taken to control other border crossings? I know it will be extremely difficult to control many of them because of all the different accesses. Of course, they could drive from Alberta into Manitoba and head south from there.
Dr. Empringham: The original work done on this back in the 1990s looked at West Hawk Lake as a way of dividing Canada in two. It was looking at the way the industry was structured at the time in terms of slaughter capacity, animal movement, where the major production centres were and that sort of thing. There has always been a vision, when the capability is there, of having multiple sites across Canada. The capability is a fully developed electronic system that can allow you to say arbitrarily that this is the location and, based on the premise ID information, we know that that movement happened across that site.
It is very costly to man these things 24-7, as we have done on a proof of concept stage. The longer term needs to be an electronic audit function that would allow us to do multiple sites. The sites we have looked at are going into the Fraser Valley somewhere. Obviously, we can deal with Newfoundland fairly easily. We can probably deal with P.E.I. fairly easily, although you now have a bridge. We have to look at those realities of limited movement.
You also have to look at what happens within the zone you are trying to separate. For example, the Maritimes operates kind of as a group of three. Chickens move from Nova Scotia to New Brunswick for slaughter. A lot of the feed for chickens comes out of Quebec. Therefore, we need to think about those things when establishing a zone as well. The big benefit would come from being able to say east-west, and the other benefits will be secondary.
Senator Plett: West Hawk Lake is 24-7; is that correct?
Dr. Empringham: It has been during phases of this project. It is currently shut down because of end of funding. There is a new application in process.
Senator Plett: We have members who believe that the government always has unlimited funding available, and it is easy to think that when you are not the government. We appreciate what you are doing.
Senator Mercer: I do not believe that there is an unlimited supply of money, but I do believe government has a role to play.
I have only one question. I am very impressed with the work you are doing. I, too, had not heard of West Hawk Lake, but I live in Nova Scotia, so I am not surprised.
Our earlier presenters today were from the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency. I assume that their success and their intention of broadening their identification of cattle were complementary to what you are talking about.
Dr. Empringham: Yes.
Just to share something with you, I live in Nova Scotia more than half the year, so I do pretty well.
Senator Mercer: That is good.
Dr. Empringham: Without a fully functional traceability system, zoning cannot fully operate. On the other hand, while zoning is not fully developed, zoning offers us a good in-between.
Senator Mercer: Zoning could be a quick interim step as we develop a fully functioning identification system.
Dr. Empringham: That is the way we have been operating in moving up to this point and trying to develop what they are doing.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: The animal traceability system is in place to protect the health of Canadians. Now we are really wondering whether there could be problems with fruits and vegetables too. Should we be establishing a system that, while it may not be a traceability system, would at least involve much stricter inspection of fruits and vegetables?
[English]
Dr. Empringham: It is difficult for me to answer that question except to say that we have, with CFIA, been looking at whether other commodities would fit into this zoning thing, and that is where our discussion has ended. Clearly we have to respect that the inspection system, both in Canada and in the United States, is good.
Sorry, Senator Duffy, it is very good.
We always need look at enhancements. However, when we have produce moving, in some cases from one field in the Southern United States and affecting 40 states, we know they have a system that allows a quick recall. I believe that whether it is perfect or not, there is a very good traceability system within that sector now, although we are having this discussion about whether it is one of the sectors we should look at in terms of zoning.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I got the same impression as you a few days ago, two days ago, actually. At noon on Tuesday, March 5, CTV aired a piece about a Health Canada report. It was about a study done in Ontario on 544 samples of prewashed salad, a good number of which came from the United States, Canada and Mexico. It must be said that there were no problems with Mexico. But, with the American and Canadian samples, they found that 10 per cent of the samples were unfit for consumption, even though they had already been washed. The effects can vary from intestinal problems to diarrhea. That figure of 10 per cent is huge. If we had a ten-per-cent problem with animals, we would likely call it a crisis.
Those are reliable data that come from Health Canada. The researcher's name is Brent Dixon. He ends by saying that the data must serve as a signal.
[English]
The Chair: Do you have any comments?
Dr. Empringham: No. That is out of my scope, except to say that we always have to be aware of those things.
Senator Robichaud: You say zoning capability is defined as the ability to rapidly secure and declare a disease-free zone in the event of a foreign animal disease outbreak. This would mean you would not have to close the whole country. You would just close the affected zone, and the other zones being declared disease-free could, if the system is in place, continue to trade with other partners.
Dr. Empringham: Sort of.
Senator Robichaud: Please explain.
Dr. Empringham: International standards would require that the border close at first and then you would have to establish the zone. The trace-out time that is required depends on the amount of information that CFIA starts with on their exercise of tracing out animals or product that have moved. If they have lots of individual animal identification, good premise identification and so on, it should be fairly straightforward.
Once that has happened and you are able to make the declaration, CFIA will not have the resources to negotiate a market opening, so it is really important that this negotiation happens in advance, which is the whole strength of this arrangement. Even though it is a little loose at this point with the USDA, it is the strength of it in that it is discussed in advance, is within their veterinary equivalency discussion and it is recognition of each other's decisions. Those are huge pieces, particularly with our largest trading partner.
Mr. Beaven: One of the concepts that industry and our government partners are transitioning to is this idea of being prepared in advance instead of reactionary. Our colleagues on the first panel mentioned Australia as being one of the leaders in terms of traceability, and that is also the case in animal health systems. Australia is a leader in many respects. In Canada, we are trying to move towards that idea where agreements are in place before the event takes place. That way, it allows for a quicker turnaround.
As Dr. Empringham has indicated, we have the arrangement between USDA and CFIA. If that is ironed out in advance and we have a foreign animal disease outbreak, such as foot-and-mouth, reopening half of the country to trading with our partner would happen a lot quicker than if that arrangement was not made in advance.
Senator Robichaud: What was the arrangement that was somehow agreed on in October 2012? I thought there was some kind of arrangement already in place.
Dr. Empringham: The arrangement is simply an agreement between Canada and the United States to develop the framework to allow that to happen. That is continuing. Since it is within the work of the Regulatory Cooperation Council, it has very short timelines. I think it has to be done within 18 months, which is extraordinary if it happens.
Senator Robichaud: Are you saying the chances of it happening are slim?
Dr. Empringham: No. I am just saying there are a lot of i's to dot and t's to cross. When you get to the United States, one of the issues is that state rules will supersede federal rules.
Senator Robichaud: If the states overrule the feds, what is the advantage? How can we use that agreement with the USDA if the states can overrun it?
Dr. Empringham: It is still where we have to start. Federal governments have to start with federal governments and then we have to work out the rest.
Senator Buth: I was just looking at your organization and I have some questions about it.
Dr. Empringham: Which of the reports do you have?
Senator Buth: I am looking at the Canadian Animal Health Coalition update.
Dr. Empringham: Perfect.
Senator Buth: In terms of your members, it looks like you only have one poultry organization, the Ontario Livestock & Poultry Council. Is there a reason you do not have any other poultry organizations?
Mr. Beaven: While they may not be formal members of the Canadian Animal Health Coalition, they are involved in many of the activities. We are very much an inclusive group. The poultry sector is very active with its own animal health file. They have the national poultry working group. My background is that I came from Egg Farmers of Ontario, so we are in constant communication. There is cost and communications going on between our group and the national poultry working group.
As I said, they are involved on a project basis as well. You have to remember that while the Canadian Animal Health Coalition — the organization itself — has various members, we get funding for specific projects from more than just that group.
Hopefully that answers your question.
Senator Buth: Going back to the comments you made in terms of funding and budget, how are you funded? What is the size of your budget? What is industry versus government funding?
Mr. Beaven: In terms of our core budget, the organization, we have three main revenue streams, the first being membership fees paid by those organizations listed. The second one is service fees or secretariat fees. We act as the secretariat for NFACC and that National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council. They pay us for those administrative duties. The third revenue stream is our management fees. For example, we are receiving management fees from the West Hawk Lake project. That pays for Dr. Empringham's time, for example. Those are our three funding revenue streams.
Again, our core budget is approximately $300,000. We operate as a very lean, mean machine, so to speak. I think you will find that what we have been able to accomplish on those limited funds far exceeds what is appearing there.
Senator Buth: Would your project funding be coming from Growing Forward? You made the comment about this interruption because of the shift from Growing Forward to Growing Forward 2.
Mr. Beaven: I would like to clarify that. The lack of funding is a case of a funding gap right now. March 31, as you well know, is the end of Growing Forward, and we are going into Growing Forward 2. West Hawk Lake right now is closed down because we are waiting for the new start-up on April 1.
Yes, the projects themselves are funded through Growing Forward, or the federal government, and industry on an individual project basis. We also have projects that are just industry funded. We have the Canadian Johne's Disease Initiative, for example, that was funded by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Dairy Farmers of Canada.
Senator Callbeck: You would like to see Canada divided into zones. Roughly how many zones would you like to see?
Dr. Empringham: The current project works on the basis of two, dividing Canada at the middle of the country, if you were to fold the map, at West Hawk Lake. The concept is something more than that, with the possibility of up to five. Some work needs to be done around the added economic benefit of that, and it really cannot happen until the traceability system is fully functional. However, the potential is for up to five.
Senator Callbeck: Where would you see these five?
Dr. Empringham: I am not sure I can rhyme them all off, but one would be between Alberta and B.C., West Hawk Lake, Newfoundland, potentially P.E.I., and then the Maritimes and Quebec somewhere.
Senator Callbeck: Those would be the zones.
Dr. Empringham: Correct.
Senator Callbeck: Going from one zone to the other, would there be more than one checkpoint?
Dr. Empringham: That could be true if you are travelling fully across the country.
Senator Callbeck: No, but if there are five zones, would there be just five checkpoints?
Dr. Empringham: Right now we have just one checkpoint at West Hawk Lake. In the potential of going to five, or even fully implementing West Hawk Lake, we would probably be dealing with more use of electronic movement data and less physically tracking. It would probably be more dependent on the credibility of the movement data, and you would have a way of measuring what went across. You would audit it periodically by blocking the road and measuring what is going across.
Senator Callbeck: Who do you feel is in the best position to decide where the zones would be?
Dr. Empringham: I really think that comes down to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in consultation with the industry. The reason for consultation with the industry is to understand how the industry works within those zones. There is no point in having a zone here when there is a slaughter plant that is critical to the success of the industry just outside of it. That does not make any sense. It becomes important to just consider those issues.
Other things to consider include where feed comes from to service the area. There are a number of issues to take into consideration with regard to how the industry operates on an ongoing basis.
When zones are established in international trade under the OIE regulations, which Canada respects, they will first make them as large as possible and then they will gradually retract. You really do not want to make them small and expand; internationally, that makes you look like you are not in control.
Senator Callbeck: I certainly agree that consultation with the industry would be of the utmost importance. Have you had any indication from CFIA that they will assume responsibility?
Dr. Empringham: Those discussions are ongoing, but yes. In what way? That is to be clarified.
The Chair: I would like to remind senators that we will need to continue following the second panel in order to have approval for a fact-finding mission in Ontario and British Columbia.
Senator Duffy: My colleague asked my first question about the number of zones across Canada.
When we get back to West Hawk Lake, how long does it take a truckload of cattle to get through the process? Would you eventually see something like we now have for containers coming out of Canadian ports, where there is an electronic scanning system that would mean that they essentially just have to slow down enough for the scanner to capture the data?
Dr. Empringham: The quick answer is that the use of more technology is anticipated. Right now they carry a manifest, and it is simply a matter of showing the people the manifest. How much time it takes depends on whether they are due for a break from driving, because we do not really slow them down. They have to stop for the truck stop anyway. We do not really slow them down. We are a small addition to their day.
Senator Duffy: There is then little or no cost, really, to the trucking industry.
Dr. Empringham: Very little. However, we do see the need for increased use of the tracking technology.
Senator Duffy: Finally, we have seen the amount of media and public interest; my colleague mentioned the CTV report on lettuce. I think this is a growing matter of interest to the public. It strikes me that what we are talking about here is somewhat akin to having fire insurance: You want to have it in place before you have a problem. Hopefully you will never have to use it. It seems to me that you and our previous witnesses are suggesting that we put "fire insurance" in place, just in case.
Dr. Empringham: Yes; absolutely right. In our current business case in preparation for Growing Forward 2 application, we use the insurance analogy simply because it is real. That is why, of the $8 million that has been invested to date, half came from industry.
Mr. Beaven: It is not only fire insurance, but also an escape plan out of the house in case of the fire. It is both.
Senator Merchant: I see your council members include dairy, sheep, swine and chicken producers. The presentations this morning have been basically about dairy. Can you tell me where we are with national standards with the bee, goat and sheep industries?
Dr. Empringham: National standards with regard to what aspect?
Senator Merchant: Traceability.
Dr. Empringham: I do not know, specifically. I know that they are actively involved, as we are, with the Industry Government Advisory Committee that is moving this forward.
Senator Merchant: Bee and goat producers are not your members, though, are they? I see you have sheep. I am looking at the council members.
Dr. Empringham: This gets very confusing in our world. The council is an organization that is advisory to the regulatory assistant deputy ministers of agriculture and was formed as a result of work by the coalition. The council has funding members, which does not include bees but includes mink. It is how you develop value and show it. In terms of traceability, sheep and goats work on their efforts within the context of IGAC. They are trying to keep that moving forward as well as they can.
Senator Robichaud: Did I understand you to say that you operate with a budget of $300,000?
Mr. Beaven: The core operation budget of the CAHC is approximately $300,000. That does not include the West Hawk Lake project, which is a project on its own of approximately $2 million.
Senator Robichaud: You made the point that it is important that there is no interruption in funding. However, there will be an interruption in the current funding when Growing Forward 2 comes into effect. How much are we talking about?
Mr. Beaven: The last funding gap was about three years ago. It was almost a year that the coalition was running West Hawk Lake on a lights-on-only basis. We were running it from our core budget dollars. This time, we are appreciative of the efforts of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada because the sense is that the turnaround will be a lot quicker than before. We are in the process of getting the application in and we hope that it will not be as onerous as before.
Senator Robichaud: For how much money will it be?
Dr. Empringham: The budget proposal we are putting forward is limited by the funding program, so it will be $1 million over the term of the project. The term of the project, depending on a teleconference tomorrow, will be either three or five years.
The Chair: There is no doubt that the Canadian Animal Health Coalition will continue to follow the study of the order of reference from the Senate of Canada to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. We thank you for sharing your opinions with us.
Honourable senators, we will move to consideration of a draft budget for the fiscal year 2013-14 prepared so that the committee may complete its fact-finding missions in British Columbia and Ontario.
Senator Mercer: All of you have a copy of the draft budget before you. I move the adoption of the budget application in the amount of $152,793 for our order of reference on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.
The Chair: The chair recognizes the motion by Senator Mercer, seconded by Senator Buth, that the committee agrees to adopt the budget of $152,793 and to submit it to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Are there any questions?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I have to point out that this means two trips, one to British Columbia and one to Ontario, in order to complete our study. Then we will have covered every province in Canada.
The Chair: Thank you for the clarification; you are correct.
[English]
Senator Duffy: Following up on what Senator Robichaud said, it is important for the committee to be able to reach out to all sectors of the agricultural business if we are to have a comprehensive report, and this is an integral part of doing that.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: There again, it is all very well to visit the ten provinces, but are we forgetting that there are two territories as well?
The Chair: Thank you for that comment, Senator Maltais. We will discuss it with the analyst and our clerk.
[English]
Senator Merchant: I see that we have two trips, one to B.C. and one in Ontario. We have the same number of participants. I see that the amount for Ontario is only $20,030. Why is the figure so low?
The Chair: That is a very important question. It is because we will do Ontario by train and B.C. by air. There is a difference in the cost to travel Ontario, from Ottawa, and to travel to British Columbia, from Ottawa.
Senator Merchant: The number of senators and staff on each trip will be the same.
The Chair: Absolutely.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: We must specify that, when a committee submits a budget, it has to do so for all members of the committee, but it is rare that all members of the committee go on the trip. So the expenses are certainly likely to be less than the budget indicates.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we conclude the public meeting, is the motion carried?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: It is carried. Thank you, honourable senators.
(The committee adjourned.)