Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 33 - Evidence - Meeting of April 23, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 23, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 6:03 p.m. to examine and report on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector (topic: traceability).
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
Honourable senators, I welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
[Translation]
I would like to thank our witnesses for accepting our invitation.
My name is Percy Mockler, I am a senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee.
[English]
I would ask the senators to introduce themselves, and then we will move on to introduction of our witnesses.
Senator Callbeck: Catherine Callbeck, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Merchant: Pana Merchant, Regina, Saskatchewan.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Buth: JoAnne Buth from Manitoba.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton from Ontario.
Senator Duffy: Mike Duffy, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais, Quebec.
Senator Rivard: Michel Rivard, The Laurentides, Quebec.
The Chair: And to my immediate left, Senator Tardif, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
Senator Tardif: Claudette Tardif from Alberta.
The Chair: The committee is continuing its study on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector.
[English]
The order of reference of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, as authorized by the Senate of Canada, is to examine research and development efforts in the context of primarily the development of new markets domestically and internationally, enhancing sustainable development in agriculture and improving the diversity and security of food and its traceability.
Today, we welcome Agri-Traçabilité Québec.
[Translation]
Our witnesses are Ms. Marie-Christine Talbot, Director General, and Ms. Lyne Ravary, Coordinator, Development and Automation Directorate.
[English]
Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear at this Senate committee.
[Translation]
I will ask you to make your opening remarks and then we will move on to a period of questions from senators. The clerk is telling me that we will be beginning with Ms. Talbot, followed by Ms. Ravary. You have the floor.
Marie-Christine Talbot, Director General, Agri-Traçabilité Québec: Ms. Ravary will add to my comments if necessary. First, thank you for your invitation. It is a pleasure for us to participate in your committee's study and to, among other things, introduce Agri-Traçabilité Québec to you. We sent you a document about 10 days ago; I believe you have received it. During my remarks, I will speak generally to the document in order to allow more time for questions.
After a short introduction, I will tell you about ATQ and the issues that we feel are important in the area of traceability.
To begin, several individuals have probably come before you and spoken about the many major crises that occurred in the agricultural sector over the past decade. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that these types of crises will not diminish over time.
To give you only one example, in 2003, the mad cow crisis resulted in economic losses for the Canadian industry in the order of $7 billion. These incidents have serious financial impacts on companies but above all they damage consumer confidence in the food they eat. The main goal of a traceability system, extending from farm to consumer, is health monitoring that protects human and animal health. An identification and traceability system is not in itself a measure to prevent exotic animal diseases or food safety crises. Instead, it is a tool that can help mitigate their impacts.
It is in the wake of these crises from 2000 and onwards that ATQ was born.
In 2001, during the Forum sur l'agriculture et l'agroalimentaire québécois, Quebec government and industry representatives agreed to develop and implement a permanent identification and traceability system. That is when Agri-Traçabilité Québec was established. ATQ is an independent, non-profit organization. Its mission is to develop, implement and operate a permanent identification and traceability system for agricultural products, both animal and vegetable, in order to improve food safety and enhance the competitiveness of agricultural producers.
Quebec's traceability system is based on Quebec's regulation governing the identification and traceability of certain animals; this is regulation P42. Quebec has full traceability. In other words, it is based on the following three pillars: animal identification, location and movement identification. This regulation applies to three sectors: bovines, ovines and cervids.
The Quebec system's characteristics are based on the notion of double identification of the animal based on RFID tags. I brought you some examples and I am going to tell you how we have tried to develop them from a technological perspective. We also have a multisectoral, multispecies database. Traceability is above all things a database. Animal movements are declared and registered.
Quebec has complete traceability from birth of the animal to slaughter. Therefore, there are various strategic stakeholders throughout the system. Producers must declare an animal's birth. Over the course of their lives animals are moved and go through auctions and slaughterhouses. In Quebec, almost all if not all stages are completely automated, which means that throughout these regular operations, information can be sent to the ATQ in real time and entered into our database. This is a very important point and we can come back to that during question period.
We have developed, and this is also very important, a simple and effective system based on mainly electronic information transfers. So when we are talking about automation, we are talking about electronic transfers. We try to minimize multiple transfers; in other words, for every insured producer, for example, whether they be working with agriculture insurance or a sales agency, we make sure that they only have to declare once in order to minimize paperwork, because we know that is not their main interest.
We enter into our database on an annual basis 4.5 million events linked to animal movements, and we have 19,000 registered producers in the sectors that I mentioned previously.
ATQ achievements in Quebec beyond the database management have been to work with many groups and undertake pilot projects and various studies. We have conducted around 20 over the past few years that we have listed for you, including, in the table egg sector, testing egg coding equipment and conducting field tests with producers.
In 2010, we assessed the identifiers and methods for tagging live lobsters.
In the produce sector, we have pilot projects with producers in order to ensure traceability from the producer's field to the table because, as you will see, there is a growing market demand for this. We are working with the horticultural sector in order to identify good equipment and the right information. In the bovine sector, we are at the second phase of a pilot project whose purpose is to extend traceability from the slaughterhouse to the consumer.
So we have been working with various stakeholders along the chain from the slaughterhouse in order to identify what kind of information has to be maintained, standardized, and what kind of equipment will facilitate upstream and downstream communication between stakeholders along the chain from the slaughterhouse to the consumer. We have just started phase 2 of that project.
We have also had achievements outside Quebec; we have been working with the Canadian Pork Council for several years. We developed the Pig Trace system which is used for complete traceability of Canadian pork. We work with them, in fact, we store their data and provide bilingual service to clients throughout for all Canada producers.
We have also worked with cattle breeders and producers in New Brunswick and with the New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, to test automation tools like the ones in Quebec. They also want to expand traceability and have asked us for our expertise.
Since 2001, we have been working with the Dairy Farmers of Canada. We have been assisting them in planning the implementation of a traceability system in the dairy sector, taking their specific characteristics into account.
For some time now, we have been involved in creating CATS, the Canadian Agri-Traceability Services. Perhaps you have heard of it. The western equivalent in Calgary is the CCIA, the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency. Together we are about to establish an organization that will provide traceability services Canada-wide.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are also involved in this project and we agreed to begin by establishing a single multi-species Canadian database, rather than assigning a database to each sector. The main goal is to be more effective during epidemiological crises. By grouping everything together, one also achieves economies of scale. This project is happening as we speak because we are currently creating the board for this service.
We also sometimes work at an international level. Many people come to us spontaneously because they have heard about us. We have been in touch specifically with Chile, Morocco, Algeria and Nicaragua. For some years now, we have been following Chile. Two years ago, we went there to analyze their traceability system and provide them with recommendations. This is an interesting case because they export beef to Europe and they were audited by the European Union. They wanted to improve on their traceability system in order to be able to continue exporting to the European market.
Now I would like to talk about the six key issues that we have identified for the purposes of your study.
The first is protecting human and animal health. These systems give us the ability to respond immediately to an animal disease or food safety issue, in order to limit its spread and resolve it as quickly as possible. Crisis management is fundamental and we have listed the benefits of a traceability system.
The second key issue is consumer expectations. In my introduction, I spoke to you about several crises. We are observing, as you, as consumers, probably are also, that people are increasingly questioning the safety and origin of their food. The horse meat crisis in Europe was an example of how a product can move between various stakeholders. As I said, consumers want to know where their products come from. This involves the issue of food labelling and origin.
In terms of niche products — and this was part of our meat project — traceability can distinguish, throughout the food supply chain, products that comply with certification programs, such as organic food certification. This could actually strengthen the certification process, given that one would be able to prove, for example, that an animal was not put on a farm just before being slaughtered at the end of its life, but that it was there throughout its life, based on the data entered. Traceability could add value.
Another key issue is that of increased tracking of food products. An efficient traceability system can clearly help preserve some markets and open others to the added value and assurance it provides. I spoke about Chile earlier. It has suspended its exports to the European Union market, based on the E.U.'s most recent inspection. So harm can certainly occur.
Food and vegetable produce are another example. The United States will be implementing a program in 2014 call the Produce Traceability Initiative which will require compliance with their traceability rules.
By providing complete traceability, an animal can be tracked right from its birth. Therefore, buyers can have access to the animal's birthdate, which is important because age is increasingly a factor in what is called SRM, specified risk material, and past a certain age a portion of the carcass has to be completely discarded. This information is valuable for buyers and sellers.
Cargill is one of the buyers that put a lot emphasis on age. When the markets were shut down, Quebec's markets were the first to open again because we were able to prove complete traceability and age.
When you have gate to plate traceability, you are making full use of traceability. The first part of that chain, from the producer to the slaughterhouse, was achieved through considerable effort on the part of producers. Now, based on what they are saying, with good reason, it is essential that stakeholders in the next stage of the supply chain, which goes right to the table, are actively involved in ensuring complete traceability that will meet consumer expectations.
Traceability can add value for product marketing. However, any traceability system developed here must be credible both domestically and internationally, and be available at a comparable cost to the systems of our main competitors, both here and abroad.
There has been financial support but it must continue in order to have an effective, lasting and recognized traceability system.
I would like to make another point about innovation. I told you earlier that we have to focus on automation to ensure that the greatest possible amount possible of information is being collected and transferred electronically. It is faster, there is less risk of making mistakes, and business management can be linked to traceability. To a certain extent a business could even be doing traceability without even noticing it. I would say that is the case of auctions in Quebec.
In terms of innovation, the issue of identifiers has probably been raised by previous witnesses. This is a huge irritant for producers and represents a lot of work. The cost is not huge but the work is significant.
We are working closely with a company called Allflex, a supplier that won our market through a tendering process. Over the years, we have supported them in improving their identifier in terms of the quality of the plastic and the shape. For those who are not aware, the difference may not be significant, however it does exist. This is the first identifier of its kind in the world. Now, dairy producers, among others throughout Canada, will be using it — I believe the decision was just made this week.
We are also working on innovation in transportation. We want the animals' tags to be read automatically as they board the trailers. When it comes to a crisis, every point of animal contact presents a risk of epidemic. The regulations are ready for Quebec transporters, but they cannot be implemented because we are not yet able to provide them with technological solutions, and it would be very difficult for them to do so. We have been working for a number of years with the École de technologie supérieure, thanks to funding from the National Research Council of Canada, to develop this archway that will one day read the animals' tags.
Let us talk about government and traceability. I mentioned the issue of funding. It is essential to budget for adequate funding to implement traceability in new agricultural sectors, but also to keep up the work that has already been started in the sectors where traceability has been implemented. There is already some financial assistance for the establishment of the Canadian Agri-Traceability Services. There are also equipment acquisition programs, which are highly appreciated and very important.
A lot of work has to be done in terms of outreach and support in this sector, because the young folks do not really know what traceability means. When you speak to farmers, it takes them a long time to understand how this will involve them, because at the outset, they are the ones who get this system started.
In conclusion, many traceability challenges have been met over the past 10 years, but there are many more to come in the years ahead. I have identified a few of those challenges, such as establishing effective, integrated and innovative traceability services across Canada, and continuing support for traceability in new production sectors. Traceability must apply all the way to consumers. Traceability must provide more added value and provide tools so that it can be coupled with business management and leverage animal age. Traceability is not a seamless, effortless exercise for those who have to meet its requirements. The use of ever-more innovative technological solutions makes the job easier and reduces the risk of error in the capture and reporting of data.
The Chair: Ms. Ravary, is there anything you would like to add?
Lyne Ravary, Coordinator, Development and Automation Directorate, Agri-Traçabilité Québec: Not for the time being.
The Chair: We will start with Senator Rivard. He will be followed by Senator Callbeck.
Senator Rivard: Thank you for accepting our invitation. We have heard, over the past few months, from representatives of a number of provinces. I am very pleased this evening to hear from representatives of my own province, Quebec.
We know that traceability ensures safety, and thus the health of consumers. Exporting truck farms will soon be required to comply with the Produce Traceability Initiative, developed by the Canadian Produce Marketing Association and the U.S. government to facilitate exports. Given the costs of developing this initiative in Canada, do you believe that we will remain competitive and be able to continue increasing our sales to the U.S.?
Ms. Talbot: I am inclined to think so, because that is what current research indicates. I mentioned that this was an important issue. Not all producers will have to equip themselves, just exporting producers.
The people we are working with today and who agreed to take part in the pilot project have already taken the measure of this issue. Operations that are sufficiently large can absorb the cost of purchasing this equipment.
Senator Rivard: Do we have an approximate idea of the cost of the equipment that is being tested?
Ms. Ravary: We have no idea of the cost at this time. It depends on the organizations. They may be integrated into their inventory and invoicing operation system and include the software. Small devices can be put in place depending on the systems. It is often integrated into their invoicing and inventory management system.
Senator Rivard: When the system was implemented and developed by the ATQ, you were largely funded by the Quebec Department of Agriculture. How are you currently covering the operating costs for the maintenance of the system? Do the producers cover the costs or do you have recurring subsidies?
Ms. Talbot: We have recurring subsidies. The original agreement between the producers and the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stipulated that the producers would pay for everything that was associated with the identifiers and farm work. As I said, we should not underestimate the scope of this initiative. The Department of Agriculture grants a subsidy to the ATQ which goes to the management of operations. The cost of staff and equipment is thus covered by the department.
Senator Rivard: Do you have an idea of the proportion or the amount that is covered by the Quebec government? Does what Quebec pays you, represent one-third of the cost, 50 per cent, 75 per cent? Is most of the operation subsidized by the Department of Agriculture or is it the farmers who cover the major portion of the costs?
Ms. Talbot: If we include the price of the identifier, we sell 600,000 per year.
Ms. Ravary: For the bovine sector, it is $700,000.
Ms. Talbot: So let us say 1 million identifiers at $2.50 each, and the government gives us about the same thing. Actually, the government gives us a bit more. We are talking about $2.5 million or $3.5 million from the government.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: Certainly, by your brief you have accomplished a great deal to date. Your goal really is to get from farm to fork. Now, you have gotten from farm to the slaughterhouse for, I believe, it is cattle, goats and sheep. What about pigs or swine?
[Translation]
Ms. Talbot: The Department of Agriculture decided to wait for the federal regulations governing the pork sector, instead of making its own legislation. At the time, they drafted their own regulations in the bovine, ovine and cervid sectors, because the discussions taking place among the other Canadian provinces were not focusing on full traceability. The Quebec Department of Agriculture wanted to begin at the outset with full traceability.
Over time, things evolved and changed. We decided to wait for the regulations in the pork sector and not put our own in place, because things have changed and people are more willing to consider full traceability in other farming sectors.
The objective in Quebec is also to achieve full and comparable traceability across Canada. It is all very well to have a very good system in Quebec, but if a crisis occurs, the whole country is affected. In this regard, we are working with the Canadian Agri-Traceability Services to put in place national regulations in all sectors that are comparable and that include the three pillars.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: With the regulations that were gazetted last July, I believe, by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, did you make comments on those to the agency?
[Translation]
Ms. Talbot: Yes.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: When those come into effect, they will take effect in Quebec, right?
[Translation]
Ms. Talbot: In the pork sector. Absolutely.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: You mention in your brief that you had a pilot project on lettuce in 2008. How did that go?
[Translation]
Ms. Talbot: In fact, we extended the study to other farm sectors that are likely to export to the United States, and we studied other sectors as well, but from the angle of technology. This was with a view to becoming familiar with the technology and the information that needs to be collected from farming businesses. Currently, studies are being done in the strawberry, potato and greenhouse tomato sectors. And we are expanding these studies, but we are focusing on the technical aspect of the equipment because the goal, basically, is to be able to collect the information and to apply it as specifically as possible to the farm, so in the case that we are talking about, we can trace a particular row of lettuce in a farmer's field.
Mme Ravary: The lettuce project, the first one, because there are two. There is the previous one and there is another one, which is currently in the second phase. The first focused mainly on identification codes. Code GS1 will be required for exports to the United States, for market produce, but for small farmers who do not export, we tested other methods of identification that could be used for the traceability of market produce.
So the first project went all the way to the level of the grower-packer. Now, with the second project, we are using only code GS1 to meet the needs of the United States, and we are going from the grower-packer to the retailer with the technological means that Marie-Christine mentioned.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: That is in effect right now?
[Translation]
Ms. Ravary: The second project is under way for strawberries, greenhouse tomatoes and potatoes.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: With lettuce, you had the project in 2008, so that is in effect now. You talked about exporting to the United States.
[Translation]
Ms. Ravary: No, it was just a test which is being conducted at this time on another project. It is not in effect or implemented. Exporters will have to comply with this in 2014 if they want to export to the United States with code GS1 on the labels.
Senator Eaton: Thank you for this fascinating presentation.
[English]
How far are we away from national standards?
[Translation]
Ms. Talbot: In the bovine and ovine sectors, for example, we are told that this should be in place, but I do not want to speak for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, because they are the ones who look after regulations, but in the fall, we should see the first regulations come out and they could be in force for 2016.
Senator Eaton: So this will be across Canada?
Ms. Talbot: Yes, in the sectors that I mentioned.
Senator Eaton: Do we require, from countries whence we import food, the same traceability rules that they require of us?
[English]
The EU is very demanding, and we know the U.S. also demands things. We are about to ratify or finish up our free trade agreements with the EU and we are entering into the Trans-Pacific Partnership with Korea. Are we going to demand the same regulations for traceability as they are demanding of us?
[Translation]
Ms. Talbot: I asked the agency about that, and for now, nothing is clear. Currently, few countries clearly call for this in exchanges, but that is a trend that we will see more and more. Right now, the question of well-being takes priority, but we see that buyers are calling for it and it will not be surprising, for different reasons, that this may become a requirement. I do not know who will call for it first, but I gave the example of Chile who saw its markets shut off.
[English]
Senator Eaton: Will we demand it as well?
[Translation]
Ms. Talbot: We will have to demand it, because that is where we are penalizing our farmers by imposing requirements, high standards of quality, monitoring and food safety. We were talking about whether they would remain competitive, but the opposite is true as well. We cannot allow competition within our own markets without having the same standards.
Senator Eaton: Senator Maltais always has a good question on tilapia, so I will let him ask it.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for being here this evening and also, congratulations for the leadership role you are playing in the field of traceability.
You said that there are 10,000 farmers registered in your system. Is this voluntary or compulsory?
You also said that you were beginning the second phase of the traceability system. What are the differences between the first and the second phase with regard to the implementation of a traceability system, and are there differences as concerns the requirements for the implementation?
Ms. Talbot: There are approximately 19 000 producers in total. Because of the mandatory regulations, they are required to register.
Senator Tardif: In what sector?
Ms. Talbot: For cattle, ovine and cervids, in other words red deer. The ovine sector includes sheep and lamb; and the beef sector includes beef and dairy cattle as well as dairy and grain-fed cows. The 19,000 producers are required to be registered because of the regulations.
Senator Tardif: Are you the only province or one of the only ones in Canada to make that mandatory?
Ms. Talbot: Regulations on complete traceability? Yes, and Alberta on identification.
Ms. Ravary: And traceability, but I am not familiar with it.
Ms. Talbot: We started in 2001. That was 11 years ago.
Senator Tardif: The second question?
Ms. Talbot: Regarding the second phase of the project, you talked about the aspect from slaughterhouse to table. We are currently conducting a study, but that traceability system will be very different from what is being done by producers from birth to slaughterhouse. These are private companies which hold private information, and they already have internal systems for herd management. They are not very keen, among other things, to provide information for a database, especially if all of the animal's movements are put into a database, from the slaughterhouse to the consumer. It would be very surprising to see that information in a database. That is a completely different dimension, and as a result, it would be very surprising to see regulations requiring entrepreneurs to share their information.
They will, however, and this is what the study will enable us to determine, have to keep information that can be exchanged between the supplier and the consumer so that the product can be traced in the event of a problem. Those are two different dynamics where we do not play the same role. We will be more like a consultant supporting those companies.
Just as animal health, epizooty, prevailed for the first part, or phase one, the commercial aspect will take on more importance for the second phase.
Senator Tardif: Will it be more consumer-driven, in your view?
Ms. Talbot: Clearly, where consumers demand it, the concern about where the products come from and how they were prepared puts pressure on chains — and some will face more pressure than others. Some will see this as a market opportunity and decide to take the lead, positioning themselves ahead of the competition. In that sense, companies can come to the fore, but also as a country, we can decide to distinguish ourselves and be leaders in terms of quality, food safety, and everything surrounding these notions.
Senator Maltais: Welcome, and thank you very much for your presentation. With our chair's indulgence, I would like to ask you to pass my greetings along to your president, Pierre Lemieux, and to your deputy secretary, Charles- Félix Ross.
Having said that, I note that our mandate is to examine and report on efforts and research in innovation in the agricultural sector. I think that you fit right into our mandate.
I want to continue on with what Senator Eaton raised earlier. We know that we are perhaps on the verge of signing a free trade agreement with the European community. That worries me, not for Canadian products because the west is setting its system up, and it is done in Quebec; we are working with New Brunswick and probably with Ontario as well — Senator Eaton could certainly confirm that for us. But Europe claims to be ahead of the game on everything, yet they ended up with horse meat in their lasagna. Was the horse owner traced? How did that work? I would not want to see European products arriving here that way. Is their system as foolproof as they would have us believe, in your view?
Ms. Talbot: Again, I would draw a distinction between traceability of the animal to the slaughterhouse, as we do it, and traceability from the slaughterhouse to the consumer. When it comes to the lasagna, that was the worst case. The carcass is cut up, recut and ground with several other carcasses and ends up in lasagna. In that case, DNA screening is what was used to detect it, as we would have done here. They were able to track the cut, but the system does not perform as well and is not as expeditious. It did take some time.
The distinction to be drawn between us and them is automation, and I really focused on this. In Belgium, for one, they have an excellent traceability system, but paper-based systems are still widely used, as in France. This means that when a crisis arises, it takes time to access the information.
I am not a specialist in European products; it is true that we have been told that we could go into certain chains and even see photos of producers. There are niche products like those. Will that apply to all products? I doubt it. I doubt there are many countries whose entire production is traceable. We trace the origins of an animal in a matter of a few hours. But I know that collecting paper-based data takes quite a long time.
Senator Maltais: In their discussions with the Europeans, this is probably an issue on which your association and free trade agreement negotiators will be quite firm. It has to be said, there are 35 million consumers in Canada and 300,000 million in the U.S. We need to ensure that products entering Canada are of the same quality as those leaving it, at the very least.
Ms. Talbot: That is the heart of the matter.
Senator Maltais: This is an area where you have had to innovate from a technological standpoint. Over the next 10 years, what do you expect in terms of the evolution of traceability?
Ms. Talbot: As I was saying earlier, traceability is a database. We have just finalized a new application which is on the Internet. Our application was chosen for the Canadian system following a Deloitte study comparing what was being done in Australia, Europe and elsewhere. I say this because it was just completed recently and is a solution that will be good for the next 10 to 15 years. When you look at the pace of technological change, I would say that is a major issue that has been settled.
I referred to archways, animal tag readers. It may seem trivial, but in the area of traceability, it would be a major step to be able to identify animals as of the moment when they are first put on a trailer, unloaded and then reloaded, when it comes to animal health and crises. We have resolved part of the problem. We are ahead of a company like Allflex and the Americans, thanks to the École de technologie supérieure that is working with Canadian Forces and their scanners. That is also a major issue.
Then there are the identifiers I showed you; the new identifier has been on the market for two years now. It really is an irritant for producers. We certainly hear a lot about it. We are the ones testing it the most, because in requiring producers to identify animals from birth, these identifiers are expected to have a lifecycle of 10 to 15 years, in hot and cold conditions. So they are subjected to conditions that are rarely found in other parts of the world. We are pushing companies to innovate in this area because we ourselves are not manufacturers. We hear about UHF and various RFID readers, but as of today, there is no perfect solution. It is a lesser evil, it is evolving, but there still remains a lot to be done in this area of innovation.
Senator Maltais: If you look at what you have accomplished over the last six, seven years, I am convinced that in the coming six or seven years, you will arrive at a solution that is acceptable to all, and at an acceptable cost.
In closing, I want to thank you. Do not give up, you are doing extraordinary work, and not only are you good for Quebec, but you are good for the entire country. I think that to remain a leader, you must never stop innovating.
[English]
Senator Hubley: Welcome, and thank you for your presentation. It was a lengthy presentation, but I would like to go back to the pilot project that you launched in June of 2012. It was called Next Steps in Cattle Traceability in Selected Provinces. It was a 10-month project to analyze and document the current infrastructure in the dairy sector, measuring the gaps that need to be filled in order to implement a traceability system like Quebec's.
Could you share with us what other provinces were selected to be part of that pilot project and how it was financed? Although it has just finished, I wonder if there are any results that you could share with us.
[Translation]
Ms. Ravary: Actually, this is a project that existed with Canadian dairy producers, to see what actually was being used out in the field, and the gap that needed to be filled to meet the requirements of a future traceability system similar to what exists in Quebec, in other words comprehensive.
As to the provinces involved, they visited almost all the provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Maritimes, all the Canadian provinces.
The report is currently being revised, so unfortunately I do not have the final conclusions, but it was just recently tabled with the dairy producers for their revision before publication.
Does that answer your questions?
[English]
Senator Hubley: Yes, it does. Thank you very much.
Senator Buth: It is good to have you here this evening because as each group has come in to talk about traceability they have always said Quebec has a program and that you have taken the leading role.
I want to clarify something with you. I think there is a perception out there that traceability is food safety. You made a comment that traceability reduces the impact of negative consequences. Could you comment further on the differences between traceability and food safety?
[Translation]
Ms. Talbot: The section on live animal traceability deals more with animal health and epidemiological crisis management.
In this regard, it would not be considered safety in the same way that it would be once the animal is slaughtered or because of equipment, or residue on the equipment, et cetera. There may be bacteria and in that case, we would refer to food safety. That is the difference between the two.
When the animal is alive, infectious diseases can be transmitted, and that is why it is important to be able to trace an animal's movement as of the moment when it is found to be sick, so that we may cordon off zones so as to avoid massive culling, as was seen in England.
After slaughter, contamination would be through equipment or contact with foods. It is not the same type of illness. Food will not transmit disease to other foods; we are talking food safety. At the end of the day, to the consumer, it is the same thing. Consumers do not necessarily distinguish between the two.
[English]
Senator Buth: I find it interesting because you can have food that is not safe and have a traceability system that is working. There is this confusion that you automatically have safe food when you have a traceability system.
[Translation]
Ms. Talbot: No, not at all.
[English]
Senator Buth: I wanted to clarify that because I think we get those mixed up at times.
You make a comment in your document that it is clear that traceability adds value for product marketing. We assume that countries are asking for all sorts of traceability programs, but I hear different things from different people. I hear that, in terms of Japan, they are not asking for a full traceability system. Korea is not asking for it. The U.S. is not asking for full traceability. When you make the statement that traceability adds value for product marketing, what value do you think is brought into the system?
[Translation]
Ms. Talbot: Currently, what is most valued is age identification. Without traceability, it would be very difficult to guarantee an animal's age. There is a major difference between an animal that is under 30 months of age and one that is older. It can mean that the producer will receive a premium for the carcass, and it may also mean that certain buyers will not buy a given animal.
Even when it comes to rendering, we have been approached by a Quebec company that gets better value for downgraded carcasses that are under 30 months of age. They can give it added value and pay the producer a premium even for a dead and downgraded animal. The issue of age at this point is related to traceability and is tangibly valued in the marketplace.
Otherwise, it is true that we hear many things, because consumers confuse aspects of traceability exactly in the way you described in your question regarding traceability and food safety.
But at the end of the day, consumers want it. There is a concern and they want to know where their products come from and how they were produced. People believe that if there is a good traceability they will know that, for instance, the animal was produced with antibiotic-free feed, et cetera. That is not true.
However, what I was saying is that if traceability serves to support certain specifications, it will provide even greater added value. Traceability will gain added value, because it would not only be traceability for the benefit of an insurance policy. It is not traceability that defines whether this cut of lamb is from Quebec or is from Charlevoix, but it may help back up that kind of statement. And then, on the market, designations of origin gain value.
I hope I am not confusing you with my explanations.
[English]
Senator Buth: I am following you, but because of the interpretation, of course, there is a delay, so my reaction is always three to four seconds beyond what you may be expecting.
To clarify, when you are talking about the age of animals, you are talking about beef and it is related to the BSE issue. That is very specific in terms of age.
[Translation]
Ms. Talbot: Yes.
[English]
Senator Buth: Thank you very much.
Senator Duffy: I have always thought of traceability as a sprinkler system in a building; you hope it never has to be used, but when you have a fire, it limits the damage.
Everyone, as you have heard, who has testified before us on this issue has held Quebec up as the leader. Was it only because it is mandatory that you have gotten such pickup? The mantra from previous witnesses has been that it is too expensive: ``Yes, we all see the benefits, but our industries are so fragile that we cannot afford it.''
[Translation]
Ms. Talbot: The fact that there are regulations is the essential and crucial factor allowing us to really develop and get traceability up and running as we have.
[English]
Senator Duffy: You made it mandatory and that allowed you to have the critical mass to get it going. Congratulations to whoever the policy people were 12 years ago who saw that this was going to be a growing thing.
My colleague asked about dairy and beef, but we also have vegetables. P.E.I. is a big potato producer. Most of our producers are proud of their product, and they put their personal farm label on that product. Are we talking about boxes of lettuce, where you would have individual heads of lettuce that you would be able to trace? How specific and granular is your system now, and where would you see it going in these very small portions?
[Translation]
Ms. Ravary: What we test in the produce sector is really to identify cases of lettuce. We do not identify each individual head of lettuce. That is what is currently required within the American system, and so we are following what is required there.
[English]
Senator Duffy: I assume that is bar code?
[Translation]
Ms. Ravary: It is the GS1 identification system. It is indeed a bar code with numbers and all of the required nomenclature inherent in this coding system.
[English]
Senator Duffy: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I would be remiss if I did not go off on a slight tangent. You said at the beginning of your presentation that you had gone to New Brunswick regarding the issue of lobster traceability. That would mean that we will be able to know where New Brunswick lobster is from.
Ms. Talbot: No, there was a mix up between two issues. We worked with New Brunswick in the cattle sector, but we worked with producers in the Magdalen Islands and the Gaspé on lobster identification. So, we know where it is coming from.
Senator Maltais: What is the advantage of knowing where the lobster comes from?
Ms. Talbot: There are two aspects to it. There is an important marketing-related aspect, because consumers want to know. The identifier on the lobster, if you have had a chance to buy some in the springtime, you will see, includes a number, and if you go to the Aliments Québec site and type in the number, it will take you to the producer and the fishing area.
Senator Maltais: Could this be extended to the Maritime provinces just as easily, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia?
Ms. Talbot: Absolutely.
Senator Maltais: It has been done?
Ms. Talbot: No. It could be. It could be done if there is a will to do so.
Senator Maltais: Now, my last question: in Quebec and in Canada when it comes to identification, we have made great strides with the fisheries. There is great deal of aquaculture in Canada. All the better, because we have excellent products. Governments oversee this activity, both federal and provincial governments. With respect to imported products, how can we know if a given product is good and how it was fed? I do not mean now, but in the future. Currently there is a type of fish called tilapia on the shelves — this is my signature question — and it comes from Thailand, and I do not believe I know what it eats. It is competing with our fishers, our aquaculture harvesters here in Canada. It makes me uncomfortable, I do not like it, because we cannot trace back how it was fed and raised.
Ms. Talbot: Tracing the fish is one thing, knowing what it has eaten is another.
Senator Maltais: That is a whole other issue. I thank you. I simply could not pass up the opportunity to ask you the question.
The Chair: I must tell the witnesses that I will advise Senator Maltais to put this question to the Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Ms. Talbot: Precisely.
The Chair: We thank our witnesses for sharing their experience and vision with us.
The committee is now adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)