AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 20, 1998

• 0901

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Members, it's 9 o'clock. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we shall convene this meeting to get an update on the scrapie situation in the province of Quebec.

We have two witnesses from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Dr. André Gravel, who is the acting vice-president of programs; and Dr. Brian Evans, the director of animal health.

Just before I ask the gentlemen to begin their presentation, I want to mention a couple of things. We'll be dealing with Mr. Hilstrom's motion after we have dealt with the witnesses. I should advise you that we have to vacate the room by 11 o'clock, so we should aim at finishing with the witnesses no later than 10.30. I would hope that because we've started on time, we should be able to finish this easily in 90 minutes.

Just one more thing—and this is for the ears of Mr. Hilstrom, I suppose—Madame Alarie has asked to be the lead-off questioner, given the fact that she was the one who asked for this information session. I know that you're a gentleman, coming from Manitoba—they all are. Thank you for that, Mr. Hilstrom.

Who is going to begin? Is it Dr. Gravel? We will give you a few minutes to set up the situation and then we'll have questions for you. Go ahead, please.

[Translation]

Dr. André Gravel (Acting Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you for having invited us to appear here regarding scrapie.

Given that our Agency has made presentations to this committee many times before, we chose to adopt a much more informal approach here today. I will therefore ask Dr. Brian Evans to give you an update of the Agency's activities and to explain the context in which our activities are ongoing, for the benefit of members. With your permission, I would ask Dr. Evans to make a brief presentation.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, since this is a public hearing today, I would like us to bear in mind that we've already taken part in three in camera meetings and that we want to discuss the facts about the scrapie situation, notably animals that have already been eradicated, and the situation that prevails in Quebec.

Dr. André Gravel: That was our intention, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Thank you.

[English]

Dr. Brian Evans (Director, Animal Health, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, honourable members, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In looking at the situation, I guess it is appropriate, as the honourable deputy has asked, that we review for members of the committee a few of the details around scrapie and the situation in which we are currently operating in the province of Quebec and nationally, recognizing that the scrapie disease control program is a national program.

To remind members of the committee, scrapie is a member of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. This group of diseases includes bovine spongiform encephalopathy, more familiarly known to many as mad cow disease; chronic wasting disease in deer; and chronic Jakob disease in human beings.

• 0905

The exact cause of the disease is not known. We do recognize that certain variant forms of protein are associated with the expression of the disease. The exact mechanism that causes this protein malformation is not well elucidated in science at the present time.

At this point in time, no direct link has been made between scrapie and human health in terms of direct transmission, but we do recognize that the science in this area is not fully complete. Scrapie is identified internationally as one of the key risk factors leading to the outbreak of mad cow disease in Europe. Therefore it is viewed, within the context of the extension of the disease, as a disease that must be managed from both the consumer and food safety perspective.

The disease, as we reported previously to the standing committee, has being reportable in Canada under the Health of Animals Act since 1945. The first occurrence of disease was in 1938. The disease has a very long incubation period, as we have discussed previously, of on average two to four years. It is not highly contagious in the context that it spreads very rapidly, although there are several known routes of transmission. One is vertical, from an infected mother to offspring, and there is a secondary horizontal or lateral form of transmission, which normally is associated with lambing or birthing and contact with infected fluids and placental material.

As we've discussed previously, prior to 1990, the scrapie program in Canada—again, a national program—was focused on dealing with high-risk animals, from parent to offspring. With the identification in the late 1980s of the possible horizontal transmission through contact at birth, the program was expanded to also consider those lambs born within a given lambing season as potentially infected or exposed animals.

In 1995, following dealing with the mad cow single outbreak scenario in Alberta and the actions taken by the then Food Production and Inspection Branch, prior to the creation of the agency, the sheep industry of Canada came forward with a request that scrapie be dealt with using zero tolerance in as aggressive a manner as with the mad cow disease. This was both to protect their long-term market interests and to maintain consumer confidence in food safety.

In June of this year, as most are aware, we amended the program, with the support of the industry and based on the evolution of new testing methodologies and some further evolution of science. We retooled the type of program we would operate under into a program where we would test animals in herds, using new methodologies, and on the basis of that test, determine the lengths to which depopulation or removal of risk animals would take place. So subsequent to June 1998, we've been operating on a much more selective basis, and the level of depopulation has decreased significantly.

In terms of numbers, to this point in time, we are dealing with the fact that we have identified positive scrapie infection in over 40 flocks in the province of Quebec. Within those 40 flocks, we have been forced, by the level of scrapie detected, to remove all of the animals from 14 flocks in the province of Quebec. The removal of those animals from those 14 flocks constitutes approximately 8,000 animals. We have investigated over 200 other premises, and the results of those investigations have led to the removal of approximately another 3,000 animals from the Canadian population.

To date, compensation paid to producers exceeds $2 million. The level of compensation was expanded in February of this year, in response to industry requests from both the sheep industry and other livestock sectors, to help control the disposal and destruction or removal from the food chain of carcasses or animals. This again was to protect the integrity of the food safety system and the feeding programs in Canada. With the support of Treasury Board and the government, a regulatory amendment was passed that expanded the scope of compensation to include disposal and destruction costs.

The compensation level awarded to producers has been capped since 1992, in response to an outbreak in the late 1980s of tuberculosis in deer. It was the recommendation of the government and of the standing committee that, in light of the fact that over $19 million worth of compensation was paid out at that time, there had to be a higher level of fiscal responsibility and a higher industry participation in responsibility for disease control.

• 0910

Caps were introduced in 1992, as I said, and promulgated into law in 1994. Those caps or maximums as they related to sheep at that time were determined to be $150 for non-purebred animals and $300 for purebred animals.

At the request of the minister, in April of this year we undertook to contract for a private third-party assessment of the relevance of the caps as they apply to all livestock species in Canada and to the current evaluation process used to determine the market value of animals.

On Friday last week, the contract was presented to the compensation working group—comprised of representatives from the 126 breed associations, provincial governments, and veterinarian academic agricultural faculties in Canada—to reach consensus that the values would be increased. Although they have not completed their task with respect to all species, consensus agreement was given to move forward with recommendations to increase the levels of compensation for sheep and turkeys. Further data will be presented to support compensation reviews for other species.

Within the scope of that review, it was recommended that we discontinue the differentiation between non-purebred and pure animals and go to a maximum allowable based on the assessment and the evaluation done for market value at the time of ordered destruction. There was consensus agreement by all industry sectors to proceed on that basis and to proceed with a recommended cap for sheep at $600.

Industry has requested other scopes within the consideration of compensation. That includes consideration of government covering of costs, such as feeding and production costs during a period of quarantine, as well as cleaning and disinfection charges. We have agreed in principle to pursue that. However, the requirement under the act is that the act itself be opened to provide for that expanded review of compensation scope. The agency has committed, as part of its single agency act review, to be tabled with the House in the spring, to open the Health of Animals Act and take those considerations.

During the course of this situation, we have been challenged in previous discussions concerning the investment as a reactive situation arising from compensation. The agency, in collaboration with the department, has now embarked on a research-enhanced program to help facilitate the validation of live animal tests for scrapie. One has been developed in the United States, referred to as the third eyelid test, where scrapings are taken from inside the inner eyelid of the sheep to help identify the accumulation of prions. We are embarked now on a one-year project, collaborating with U.S. researchers, to help validate that test in the Canadian situation and to help bring that methodology to commercial application as quickly as possible, if it proves to be effective.

In addition, with that research proposal, we have agreed to assemble test-positive animals to create a scrapie-infected flock under government research control, which would then provide materials and be available to other collaborating institutes and parties interested in doing research in the area of scrapie.

We have been challenged by a number of circumstances in dealing with the situation in Quebec. One is the level of identification within flocks and another is the level of knowledge on the part of producers. The agency has undertaken to provide public forums in all regions of Quebec, conducted by our regional staff, to provide information to producers and to meet with them face to face to explain the scrapie program and to explain their legal obligations and their legal rights under the scrapie program. You have a copy of some of the material that has been prepared and released to industry in that regard.

Beyond the scope of the agency, we have worked collaboratively with the department in other areas related to scrapie, trying to find other ways and means to put the producers in a better financial situation. We have with us today representatives from the department who can speak to the Farm Credit Corporation program to provide up to 24-month interest-free loans to producers, with deferred payments amortized over extended periods, to help them re-establish their flocks.

• 0915

We are also in the process of trying to continually review, with industry, the science around scrapie and to apply the best available science to provide consumers in Canada with the highest level of protection for the food supply and to provide the opportunity for producers to continue to build on their current reputation, both in Quebec and nationally, for good-quality, healthy genetics for international trade purposes. We are committed to working with industry working groups on an ongoing basis to review the issues around quarantine where there is scientific justification and merit, to provide an equivalent level of protection to consumers and our trading partners, and to adjust the program on an ongoing basis.

Those are some of the activities we have been involved with over the last number of years and during the months since we last met. We certainly welcome the opportunity to respond to questions by the members of the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Evans. I'm quite sure a number of questions will be asked.

As indicated earlier, we'll begin with Madame Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Good morning. First of all, I noticed that since the last official meetings we had, the situation seems to be taken more seriously.

My questions can be grouped into three parts. First, I would like to talk about farmers' trust in the Agency. If I can get to the second group of questions, I will deal with transparency. Lastly, I can dream of getting to the third group to ask what will happen to the program that you're presenting here this morning.

I want to start by talking about trust because I spent two days with representatives of the sheep producers' industry during the second symposium that took place in the Quebec City region, where as a matter of fact I heard Dr. Evans deliver his paper. I spent a lot of time listening to the farmers. Sometimes I talk a lot, but this time, I listened a lot. There's a total lack of trust in the relationship between producers and the Agency, to such a degree that when I see all the measures that are upcoming, I wonder what kind of work we will have to do together in order to reestablish a climate of confidence.

They have experienced situations where common courtesy was absent. I will give you some examples. I don't want to lay out before you a chamber of horrors, because that is not my style, but in order to describe the climate that prevails, we have to be truthful.

In order to notify one particular farmer that his herd was going to be slaughtered, the message was transmitted to his eight- year old daughter who answered the telephone. I won't name names, but I have them all. In another case, where tests were to be conducted on the brains of animals, the beasts were carved up on the front lawn in order to harvest their brains, and this in front of the children. I could give you hundreds of examples like that, including the one about the farmer who held 800 animals in his arms for them to be slaughtered. People won't soon forget that kind of stress. I could continue on and on; it was like the chamber of horrors. There was a lack of basic sensitivity, common courtesy and ethics. People acted badly.

My second comment is about fear. People are afraid. Some were so afraid that they hid to come and talk to me. It's interesting to see that the first ones, whom I will call the indomitable, those from the Lower St. Lawrence valley, were not scared. They put everything on the table from the outset; they brought out their figures and their papers and there was no problem. But as soon as you leave the Lower St. Lawrence, people hide to talk to you. I found that really painful. Before I became a member of Parliament, I was an agronomist and I often worked with those people.

Some very forward-looking farmers in the Eastern Townships have told me that they no longer called the vet for cases of listeriosis because it could resemble the onset of scrapie. When they sent for the vet for listeriosis, they may not have saved 100 percent of their animals, but they saved many. Now, they slaughter them so that no one will see the symptoms. So there is a serious problem of trust.

I will now deal with ignorance. No one has received the results of the tests that were done on these farms. The farmers had to swallow everything like a bunch of yes men, which Quebec farmers don't tend to be. They are asked to trust in the system, just trust and more trust. That's unacceptable. They asked their veterinarians to look at the results of the tests, but they never saw them. They have to take your word for it, but they don't believe you. That's the honest truth.

They also talked about incompetence. They said it's not true that you have to kill 12,000 sheep—I always mention that figure although it's 11,000 and some odd hundred—following a handful of tests, even though it was the best testing laboratory. According to the scientific method, you take samples from a hundred subjects or I don't know exactly how many. In any event, the method is established in advance. Thirty-eight tests were conducted for almost 12,000 sheep. From a scientific standpoint, that's a very small sample that does not allow one to have some idea of what happened. I'm not talking about feelings, but from a true scientific standpoint.

• 0920

They would like to be able to call upon independent consulting veterinarians, at the Agency's expense. They've lost trust in the Agency's veterinarians and that's very serious. They want a second opinion when they're not sure of the results presented to them. In fact, they should start by asking for one expert opinion before asking for a second opinion; right now they have nothing to go by.

If we don't manage to reestablish a climate of confidence, we will have another serious problem. The best and most conscientious producers were penalized. The top two. Let's start there, because after that it was done as if by magic. Even if we considerably increase the amounts given to them, which is necessary given the mistrust that surrounds this, there's another problem that's not quite settled.

On the whole, the farmers are ready for permanent identification and they admit there is no other way to keep their records. But I wonder how that can be implemented given the lack of trust that exists right now.

My question is a very simple one: are you aware of the state of mind of these producers?

[English]

The Chairman: I'd just like to remind members that in the opening round, we have seven minutes for questions and answers.

Madame Alarie has taken a full five minutes, so you have two minutes to respond.

[Translation]

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you, Ms. Alarie. I have noted some of the concerns you have expressed. The Agency is aware that in the course of such difficult interventions on farms, one can expect people to be worried, afraid and that in some cases they refuse to provide information regarding eradication. The comments you made have already been communicated to us. It is precisely in that context that the Agency organized these information sessions during the summer for veterinarians to ensure that farm interventions are done in a more humane way and that the horror stories you've described do not reoccur.

It must be understood that we had a crisis situation in Quebec and we had to intervene very quickly. As I stated, we gathered Quebec veterinarians and gave them information sessions not only on the program, but also on how to conduct these interventions on the farms.

You also mentioned the large number of animals that were destroyed in Quebec over a short period of time. This was done under a program supported by the Sheep Producers' Federation. As Dr. Evans said, we adopted a zero tolerance approach at that point. Only afterwards, when we had the tools to better target our interventions, were we able to amend our program. When the program started, the only test available could be performed only after the animal died. Another test was then developed that can detect scrapie earlier, and we therefore had to destroy fewer animals. The amendment to the program required the support of the Sheep Producers' Federation. We therefore acted in co-operation with the industry to change our program. There are tools now available to us that we did not have before.

Dr. Evans mentioned the research projet on scrapie that will be starting. This project will focus on the possibilities of taking action while the animals are alive. I hope that when the research project is finished, we will have a valid test to detect scrapie in live animals. We will also—

• 0925

[English]

The Chairman: We're out of time for this round. We'll have to go to Mr. Hilstrom.

Members, you can use your time any way you like, but when the time is up, it's up.

Mr. Hilstrom, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We've had a pretty good relationship with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and a pretty good response in regard to diseases in the cattle industry and so on across the country. What's the extent of the problem of scrapie outside of Quebec?

Dr. Brian Evans: Thank you, Mr. Hilstrom.

Scrapie is reported at national levels. Up until 18 months ago we were detecting, on an annual basis, between four and six incidents of scrapie nationally. We have also had cases in the past two years in Ontario, and our trace-out activities from the Quebec situation have taken us into and identified flocks in the Atlantic region as well, in several provinces.

The overall incidence level in western Canada has tended to be lower, but we do have surveillance activities ongoing to try to detect the disease in all parts of the country. This includes slaughter surveillance programs, as we do for mad cow disease as well, to ensure that if there is a level out there that's not being reported, it can be detected as quickly as possible.

In addition, we do have working arrangements, as I indicated earlier, with all the veterinary faculties of the universities and private laboratories as well. The disease is reportable, and if any pathologist, in conducting an assessment of an animal, detects or suspects scrapie as an underlying cause, then it is reported to us and investigated. As a disease, it's fairly well recognized by the veterinary profession. Again, the requirement of veterinary practitioners is that, should they see the disease on any one farm, they are obligated to report it.

So as I say, we are looking for it in all parts of the country, and we do have an ongoing low-level endemic incidence that has been historical.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We appreciate that the primary problem is in the province of Quebec right now, but this is a national program, and I just want to make sure we're all aware of what's going on nationally. So the last time a flock was destroyed outside of Quebec was when?

Dr. Brian Evans: We had a flock in Ontario. That would be the most recent outside of Quebec. It was late last year. It's been within the last year that we also took a flock—actually, more than one flock—in Ontario.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: And outside of Ontario and Quebec?

You can provide the committee with additional information on that later, but my concern of course is that we not have this problem going across the country when in fact the CFIA could be stopping it right now.

The next area I'd like to look at is the discontinuation of the differentiation between market and purebred. How is that going to work? Is it going to be paid out at the maximum to producers across the country? There still has to be a differentiation, unless you're saying all animals are worth $600.

Dr. André Gravel: As for the new compensation maximum that the consultant is recommending to us, the distinction between purebred and commercial animals has been removed. The next step in this process will be for us to have a grid that will allow evaluators to determine the value of the animals. The $600 is a maximum. It doesn't mean $600 will be paid for each and every animal. It's going to be on the basis of an objective evaluation of the animals.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: There's an open and free auction and bidding system throughout the country in regard to sales of sheep. Is that not the standard that will be used?

Dr. André Gravel: As I mentioned, on the basis of that new table that has been arrived at for compensation maximums, we need to develop the tools that will allow us to set the commercial value. The transactions that happen on the market will certainly be a guide, because the compensation is based on the commercial value of the animals. So whatever information is out there will certainly be helpful for us.

• 0930

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Can we expect the maximums in other animal species to be increased to the same level, as in doubling?

Dr. André Gravel: The committee met on Friday, as Dr. Evans mentioned, and five animal species were on the table at that time. The only two for which it was felt all the information was available were sheep and turkey.

As for the others, the consultant has agreed to review information that will be provided by industry with regard to commercial value of the animals. It is expected that the maximum will be increased significantly for other animal species as well, on the basis of commercial value of the animals. We're expecting that the consultant will be reporting back to the agency by 30 October, having analyzed the information that will be provided by industry in the meantime.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Are the interest-free loans available to all producers at this present time? You mentioned 24-month interest-free loans. Is that to everybody and is it effective immediately?

Dr. André Gravel: You have to file an application; that's all. So it's accessible.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I guess this consultant study is the key to taking care of disease across the country. I agree that slightly raised compensation to farmers will alleviate their being afraid to report the disease—I don't see any problem with that—but I certainly want to see it equitable across the whole meat industry, from feathers through to cattle. Is that the intention of the consultant study and the CFIA?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, it is our intention, and the process we're using is a horizontal process. When we discussed the compensation caps review at our meeting on Friday, there were representatives of all industry sectors, all animal species. The basic idea is that it's a transparent process. Even though we were not touching, for example, elk or any of those species, the industry representatives from those sectors sat at the table to see how the process could be applied fairly across all animal species.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Just before I go to Mr. Coderre, could one of you tell me the impact on the industry so far? Has it shrunk or will it shrink appreciably, or at least stall hope for expansion of the industry in the province of Quebec?

Dr. Brian Evans: On the weekend, I was at the international symposium referred to by Madame Alarie, and certainly it was a very upbeat, positive conference in terms of the financial outlook for the sheep industry in Quebec. They recognize that this has removed some genetic material from their programs, but they still see sheep as a very viable, profitable, and enjoyable practice for a number of producers in Quebec, and they seem to be moving still forward in the hope that they will continue to increase numbers in Quebec.

The three- to five-year trend projection in Quebec is for sheep production to increase in the magnitude of 10% to 20%.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, I do not know where to start. To begin with, I would like to pay tribute to three extraordinary sheep producers: Giovanni Lebel, Régent Raymond and George's Parent. This is a non-partisan issue and when we work together there are things that can happen.

• 0935

If the Agency that is testifying before us today is painting a rosy picture, it is probably because of the pressure exercised by Ms. Alarie, Mr. Crête and Ms. Tremblay of the Bloc Québécois and by the Quebec Liberal caucus, our caucus president Denis Paradis and by the president of the federal caucus, Larry McCormick. I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if we had not got involved in this issue and if the Minister had not listened to us, more than 12,000 sheep would have been destroyed for no reason. Many more would have been destroyed.

I think we need to understand each other properly. I do not want anyone to think I am stupid or naive. We are told that no one knows what the situation is in the other provinces. I can tell you that last July four flocks were identified in New Brunswick. If I am being told that the only flock that was destroyed last year was in Ontario, I want apologies sent to the Quebec producers, since their sheep were probably destroyed needlessly.

Since the beginning, I have had a lot of difficulty with this issue because there is a whole range of emotions. These are dedicated people who want to do the right thing and, as Ms. Alarie said, there is a problem of trust.

You have come to us with a wonderful program. If it is working well, that is good and I'm pleased. In response to the pressure that was put on you, you have come up with something brilliant. However, I could continue to describe the horror show. We could go together to Saint-Gabriel-de-Rimouski, Mr. Gravel. There are a few cases in that area, and I will mention a few of them to you. I know that this particular case was resolved, but I would like to have a guarantee that such a thing will never happen elsewhere.

At one point, it was decided that the Agency would dispose of the carcasses, and that's fine. Early on, the carcasses were to be buried and an order was given, something like "Dig me a hole 200 feet long and seven feet deep to bury all that," but in the end, the decision was made to incinerate the carcasses. But since that producer had a GST number, someone came up with the brilliant idea that the Agency would pay the carcass disposal costs but the producer would pay the GST. I know that you have settled this case. Enough manure hit the fan and splattered you, and that is why you have settled it.

I would like public guarantees that from now on, when there are carcasses to be disposed of, the Agency will never take the indecent approach of asking the producer to pay the tax if he has a GST number. When the Agency disposes of carcasses and Mr. Daigneault, your accountant, calls, I do not want him to tell the producer to pay the tax. I would like you to give me assurances that you will look after everything from A to Z. Mr. Gravel, can you give me a guarantee that from now on, such a thing will not happen?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, and thank you for your comments, Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I am not finished.

Dr. André Gravel: I know that you are not finished. Obviously, as you mentioned, this case has been settled. It was an unfortunate incident. In bureaucracies, we have rules to follow and, in some cases, the rules must be changed. And that is why the Agency took prompt action to do so as soon as the issue was brought to my attention.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Can you guarantee me that there will be no similar problems in the future?

Dr. André Gravel: There will be no problems of that sort in the future. The problem has been resolved, in our opinion.

Mr. Denis Coderre: All right. There were meetings held. I know that Desneiges Pépin, the Federation's president, with Mr. Speed, from the Canadian Federation, met with you. I would like to say at the outset that it is easy to tell us that you were going by the book and that the Federation agreed. Do we understand the situation the same way? Beginning in 1997, the Federation was not at all in agreement with the way things were being done, but you really had no choice because you had your rules to follow. You were applying those rules but, somewhere along the line, they were improperly applied.

To restore confidence, Mr. Gravel, it would be good to admit once and for all that the Agency was wrong in how it proceeded. I too have been around to visit flocks. I have seen extraordinary people in the Lower St. Lawrence region, and sometimes I envy my friend Mr. Crête. It is a wonderful part of the country. Do not worry, Paul, I will not run against you.

Some people have told us that they called the veterinarian and the Agency and they were told that there was no manure management protocol. Something has to be done with that manure. If there is a problem with the placenta and the amniotic fluid, all that is thrown on the pile and the manure is then spread in the fields— We have already talked about this, Mr. Gravel.

In any case, we are told that there is no protocol for this, that there is no protocol for disinfection, that there are minor problems with the slaughter protocol, and here you are today with a program and news that there is now a protocol. That means that there was none before. So there was a problem.

• 0940

What am I going to say to the producers? These are conscientious people who wanted to save the industry and protect it in the interest of public health. Given that there will be no retroactivity, what can we tell those people who, in good faith, have tried to help the industry?

Will you provide assistance to them through the Farm Credit Corporation to make things easier for them? You have talked about a two-year program. During that period, there will be no capital or interest payments, which will be spread out starting after two years. However, you know as well as I do that the Farm Credit Corporation considers itself more astute than the banks and that it is sometimes more difficult to get a loan from the Corporation than from a bank.

If we cannot get involved in guarantees, what are you going to do to reassure us that something will be done for those people, and that they will not just be told: “You will get a medal for what you have done. You have paid the price for others and it is because of your pressure— What am I going to tell these producers?

Are you willing to provide specific help since you did err in the way you went about it at the beginning, even if you did go by the book? We can talk about horror stories, insensitivity, know-how and the way things were done. The Minister had to step in. You know that because of pressure from the Minister, we've come up with this kind of program. What am I going to be able to tell Régent Raymond, Giovanni Lebel, Georges Parent, Doris Rioux and all the others to reassure them? Will I have to say, "You did the right thing, but you're going to have to wait 12 months for the additional revenue. If the other guy is getting $600, it's because of the pressure you have brought to bear, but I'm not sure what you're going to get." What can I tell them? What will you tell them?

I'd like to ask you one last question after this one.

[English]

The Chairman: We're out of time. Members are going to have to realize that if they want answers, they have to use a little less time for questions.

We'll go on to Mr. Proctor.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

We knew that it was a Quebec problem and we've now found out that it is a national problem. I think that everyone is acting in good faith here. With the unanimous consent of the committee, I would at least like to obtain an answer to my question because it is essential for producers.

[English]

The Chairman: Unanimous consent for how long?

Mr. Denis Coderre: I want an answer. It's up to you.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): It will come back to you. You had seven minutes.

The Chairman: Take a couple of minutes, Dr. Gravel or Dr. Evans.

[Translation]

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you for giving me a chance to answer this question, Mr. Chairman. It's rather intimidating to have these questions asked without being able to answer them.

Reference was made to a lack of confidence in the Agency. There is no doubt in my mind that we have got through this difficult situation. In my opinion, it is by making communications our priority that we will be able to build up confidence. In this respect, when the Federation met the Minister recently, we agreed that a consultation committee would be set up.

There are lots of issues that have to be settled as far as the producers are concerned. It will be necessary to establish a monitoring and identification program. These matters will be brought to the attention of the consultation committee. Whenever a crisis occurs, people evolve over time and learn a number of things. With the knowledge we now have and the instruments at our disposal, namely the tests, the research and the support that the Minister will be able to provide under farm credit, I think we should be in a position to resume our dialogue and establish the necessary degree of confidence in our interventions.

As I said, the situation hasn't always been easy. I think that the dialogue has been resumed. Dr. Evans spent a great deal of time with Ms. Pépin over the last weekend so that the dialogue could be resumed and the parties brought closer together.

We are not necessarily acting in our own interest, we are acting in the interest of Canada, of Canadian consumers and producers. It must be understood that there was no malice in our actions. They may have been inadequate in some cases, but our final objective was to solve the situation.

Mr. Denis Coderre: What are we going to be doing now? Are you going to help those who will not qualify for the new compensation?

• 0945

Dr. André Gravel: This is an issue that we must discuss with the producers to find out which approach they favour. As far as financial assistance is concerned, the Agency is not necessarily the appropriate vehicle. The farm credit assistance program is open. It will be up to the people involved to decide whether they wish to take advantage of it or not. I think that is how they will have to go about it.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I'm glad you were able to answer the question.

Members, we do have time limits. I don't want to choke you off, but most of the questions can be put in shorter form. Perhaps it's my broadcasting journalist background.

Mr. Proctor for five minutes.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you very much. I have three or four very brief questions.

I apologize for being a few minutes late arriving, and perhaps you've covered this, but how many sheep in Quebec have been slaughtered to date and how many are scheduled to be slaughtered?

Dr. Brian Evans: Over the approximately two years that we've been focused on the current outbreak, we have removed in excess of 11,000 sheep from the national flock, not all in Quebec, but involved in the trace-outs to other provinces as well. To my understanding, within the province of Quebec presently, 60 flocks are still under investigation.

As I say, we have been on in excess of 240 premises to date, as part of the trace-out activities, and 60 flocks remain under some level of investigation. A number of these flocks will be released without any depopulation, based on the verification of records. We are aware of at least 19 flocks where animals have been identified as either positive or related directly to positive animals, which will involve some level of depopulation. The information we have from Quebec is that the numbers in these flocks will range from one to four animals. They will not be massive reductions.

In a number of these situations, in order to show sensitivity and demonstrate good faith, because of the review of compensation that was ongoing, the agency has provided the opportunity to producers of remaining under quarantine until the compensation process runs its course, as opposed to arbitrarily taking these animals at this time. This is in recognition of the stresses and the emotional impact of what's going on.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay. Second, you've removed the distinction between purebred and market for the $600 maximum. When was that distinction removed?

Dr. Brian Evans: It hasn't legally been removed. This was a recommendation as a result of the contract let to review the compensation program. As I say, that committee met on Friday. We have started drafting the regulatory proposals and the Treasury Board submission for presentation.

Mr. Dick Proctor: When this comes forward, is it your intention to recommend that the discrepancy in what you were paying for the two different types of animals be retroactive for the folks who have had their sheep destroyed so far?

Dr. Brian Evans: The issue was presented to the industry group as one of the considerations on Friday. The industry group did not support retroactivity for compensation.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Why not?

Dr. Brian Evans: Primarily for three reasons. One, the industry group asked, where would you draw the line? Do you go back to BSE? Do you go back to brucellosis? How far back do you go to make retroactivity fair to all animal species?

Mr. Dick Proctor: So it's hepatitis C all over again.

Dr. Brian Evans: Also, an automatic appeals process is available to individuals under the compensation program, which goes through a Federal Court of Appeal process. We currently have on backlog something in excess of 90 or 100 appeals, which again, for compensation, would carry a liability to the government into the tens of millions of dollars.

Mr. Dick Proctor: My third and final question is this. You mentioned that the incidence level is lower in western Canada. What are the reasons for that? Is it breeding lines primarily? What do you attribute that to?

Dr. Brian Evans: Multiple factors have led us into the situation we're currently in. We do recognize that certain breeds are more susceptible to scrapie than others, and there are some different geographic uses of various breeds.

• 0950

In Quebec there were a number of factors. There has been a significant provincial incentive program to increase sheep production in the province of Quebec over the last five to seven years—an enhancement program that fostered an environment wherein there was a lot more investment in the sheep industry for production and a lot more movement of sheep between flocks.

One of the issues we dealt with early in the process is that the average size of a sheep flock in Quebec is in excess of 400 animals, whereas the average national size would probably be fewer than 40, because of the number of hobby breeders. So in the province of Quebec, it's a much more commercialized activity. And as I say, because of the increased buying and selling of flocks, we went into a number of flocks, and we did encounter this obstacle of lack of identification and record-keeping in a certain number of flocks, which compounded the problem.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Is it the intent of the current program to eradicate scrapie completely? Is that possible, to simply get it right out of the population of sheep in the province of Quebec or all across Canada? Or is it just a matter of keeping it at an extremely low level?

Dr. Brian Evans: The current program is viewed primarily as a control program, not an eradication program. In the absence of an ability to test a live animal, it makes it very difficult, because as we've indicated previously, this disease can exist subclinically and incubate in animals for two to four years. These animals can obviously still move around and infect other animals during that period. So in the absence of a live animal test, we feel it's not achievable at this point in time.

We did have previous discussion with the committee around the opportunity to encourage, with industry, the use of other means as well, such as genetic susceptibility testing in breeding programs. One of the other things the agency has undertaken to do is to introduce into our artificial insemination programs the need for any rams being widely used for semen distribution in Canada to go through genetic susceptibility testing.

A lot of the discussion with the industry this weekend in Quebec City was looking at ways and means of getting tools into the hands of producers so that they could take preventative actions and identify high-risk animals in their flock, and through a breeding and husbandry program, move those animals out of the flocks over a four- to five-year period.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy for five minutes, followed by Mr. Calder.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm replacing Rick Borotsik here today; I handed the papers to the clerk. I'm not an ordinary member of this committee, so I've been listening to this debate with a great deal of interest, because I have a number of questions that I suppose may have been answered had I been here at the table more often.

But I am a sheep farmer, I suspect one of the few at the table. Listening to a number of the questions here, especially on the compensation, although I'm not averse to seeing any farm commodity group receiving fair and equitable compensation at any time, the raising of the limit to $600 is certainly fair and equitable compensation.

If you go to any livestock sale in Canada, you can buy good market animals for $150 to $250. You'll pay more money for your rams, obviously. You might pay $600, $700, or even $1,000 for a good ram, but that would be the exception and not the rule. You turn around and feed that animal all winter, and hopefully produce a lamb and a half out of it; you might produce two lambs. In Nova Scotia we'll produce a lamb and a half and do well. And if you received $125 apiece for your lambs, you'd be getting up to $425.

If you're going to pay $600 apiece for those animals, I suspect anyone would do well, if they had an infected flock, to receive their compensation, not have to grow that animal and feed it all winter, and not have to worry about selling their lambs in the spring. So there are some other dynamics at work here that we should look at.

On the subject of fairness and consumer confidence, there are two issues here. One issue is fairness to the producer, which I think everybody at this table would support. The other issue is consumer confidence and the protection of an industry that's very vital to the province of Quebec and certainly to the rest of Canada.

• 0955

A question was asked earlier by Mr. Coderre about who will benefit from new compensation. My question is, who didn't benefit from the past compensation? There's some discussion here about the fact that flocks that were destroyed earlier weren't compensated for. Is this recent?

Dr. André Gravel: The compensations are being reviewed at the present time, but caps were in place for compensation for flocks that were destroyed earlier.

You mentioned the regular price at which sheep are being sold. In establishing the compensation maximum, the consultant took into consideration the genetic background of the animal and also the fact that if a herd or flock is eradicated, it takes some time to get the farm back into production. The difficulty in resupplying the flock with genetic material that is equivalent to what the owners have was also taken into consideration in arriving at that maximum. It is, as I mentioned, a maximum—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's fine. I have another question. I don't know how my time is. We only have five minutes, and I do want to ask the other question.

I want to come back to this question of consumer confidence and the importance of this industry straight across Canada. You can go buy New Zealand lamb in our grocery stores in any province in Canada far too cheaply and far too easily, as far as I'm concerned, as a sheep farmer.

The other issue is that long-term income supplement. The interest-free loans I would tend to agree with. There's something I don't understand in the dynamics here, and maybe you can fill me in. Are the growers in Quebec in the net farm income stabilization plan?

Dr. Brian Evans: Again, when we talk about income support programs, it would be more appropriate to have a representative from the department, from policy, speak to that.

The Chairman: Could you identify yourself, sir, for the record?

Dr. Tom Richardson (Director General, Farm Income Policy and Programs Directorate, Policy Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada): My name is Tom Richardson. I work in the policy branch of Agriculture Canada. I'm responsible for the income support programs.

In response to the member's question, in Quebec, no, the only commodities eligible for NISA are the horticulture products. Sheep producers have a price support program called ASRA, but of course in this situation ASRA does not pay, because it's driven by price changes. The commodity price has not changed because of the slaughter of the animals, so no payments can be made to those producers.

In other provinces, including Nova Scotia—in fact in all other provinces—sheep producers are eligible for NISA. Where there might be an income impact of the asset disposal, they would of course be able to withdraw NISA money if they were eligible.

The Chairman: Thank you.

You've already gone over by about 90 seconds, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Brian, you stated just a little while ago that some breeds are more susceptible than others, so obviously this has a basis in genetics. I know down in Michigan right now they're looking at the possibility of doing more research on genetic resistance and at that point in time establishing gene pools. In other words, they're looking at breeding flocks that are scrapie-resistant. Are we considering starting a similar type of gene pool up here, so that farmers can go out and buy a breed of sheep that they know is more resistant to scrapie than other breeds?

Obviously, seeing as genetics works into this, with DNA testing we could find out why one breed of sheep is more resistant to scrapie than another, what the difference is between the two, and whether or not there's a possible vaccine, cure, or preventative measure.

• 1000

Dr. Brian Evans: Thank you, Mr. Member, for the question. You're right; in Michigan they have developed a voluntary state-wide program based on genetic susceptibility. The designer of that particular program was also with us in Quebec City on the weekend and presented their material.

Yes, to answer your question succinctly, we do advocate the use of genetic susceptibility testing in Canada. As you've indicated, though, what is not known at this point in time is whether it is effective across all breeds. In other words, we do know that certain breeds, with certain markers on their genes, can be determined to be either extremely susceptible or less susceptible. No one will say totally resistant at this point in time, because again, it hasn't been fully followed out.

The research proposal we have tabled with the industry to test 1,000 animals to validate the third-eyelid test has a parallel component, which is to do genetic susceptibility on those sheep as well. So we will be drawing samples and contributing to both the Michigan work and the work at Washington to help advance some further determinations on that.

As I also indicated, the intent is to assemble these sheep that test positive during the test validation process, which gives us a resource of material that we can expand to do other research on, or we can collaborate with provinces, universities, industry, or other parties that wish to do research in this particular area. We are going to be providing that material and have it available to do that type of work, because it does have merit for us.

One of the obstacles we've encountered in the past in terms of bringing genetic and DNA testing to Canada is this. Any of the laboratories we've had discussions with—provincial laboratories, the blood-typing lab in Saskatoon, Armand Frappier, and others in Quebec—are prepared to bring in the technology to do the test, provided they can be assured there will be a commercial level to justify them importing the technology to do so. We've made arrangements to help expedite that, if industry can work with us to identify the volume of testing that would sustain having that testing capacity in Canada.

Mr. Murray Calder: Would we be considering, for instance, a rating system so that when farmers go out to buy breeding stock, they know that on the scale of susceptibility, this breed of sheep is more susceptible than other breeds? Would we be looking at a rating system like that?

Dr. Brian Evans: We're open to all suggestions as to what works best for the industry and the producer in terms of that level of education. We need more data to be able to make blanket statements, because within breeds you'll have animals that are more susceptible than others. So we need broader-based data before we can say you should breed this breed rather than that breed.

Certainly there already is an industry recognition. Based on our incidence levels, they know that some breeds in Canada, such as Suffolk, have a much higher incidence of scrapie than other breeds. And again, we are encouraging, through extension and education with producers—

Obviously there are other carcass characteristics and other traits that are valuable in those particular breeds, so a lot of the discussion we had this weekend with the industry and the experts was about the fact that scrapie susceptibility is one element in the gene pool, and we don't want to get into a situation where we narrow the gene pool to the extent that we start propagating other undesirable traits, whether it's carcass characteristics or other issues. So we need a broad-based approach, and industry is onside to work that through with us.

In terms of whether or not we actually get into a rating scale and say this breed versus that breed, we need the data before we can make an assumption that isn't detrimental or punitive to one breed arbitrarily.

Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

If a producer chooses to get out of one breed of sheep and get into another line, is that expensive? Is it a protracted process?

Dr. Brian Evans: Maybe Gilles could answer that better than I could, but in Canada the sheep industry is similar to other livestock sectors. There is the commercial sector, which uses a lot of hybrid animals and crossbreeds for hybrid vigour, growth, and other characteristics associated with that.

For a truly purebred breeder to decide to move from Oxford to Dorset or something else, it's simply an issue of availability. Certain breeds, because of their characteristics, carry a higher price. He may have to see a premium to move from one breed to another. But perhaps even Mr. Keddy, as a breeder, could speak to that better than I could.

The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner, Monsieur Crête, and then Monsieur Paradis.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to address two issues. When it comes to disease control, management sometimes is a big issue. Are there any precautions that producers can take after they've spotted one or two animals that are infected? Can they do something differently to prevent others from getting that disease?

• 1005

The other thing I want to ask is this. Scrapie being very closely related to mad cow disease, how is it going to affect our trade with the U.S. and other countries if we don't get a quick handle on controlling this disease or eradicating it if possible?

Dr. André Gravel: In terms of measures to be taken by producers, one of the first things we've been recommending—and there's some industry support for it—is animal identification. It's a key component to any success in dealing with scrapie. The fact that there is genetic susceptibility makes it very clear that if your animals are properly identified, in case of a disease incident, the segregation of these animals that are genetically susceptible to the disease would certainly help.

And as Dr. Evans mentioned, there is a possibility of horizontal transmission at birth. So measures can be taken there as well to limit the area and limit the mixing of animals during that time.

In terms of impact on trade with the U.S., the U.S. has scrapie, the same as we do. So I don't foresee that it could have a significant impact, at least as far as this market is concerned. There are, however, some countries that are free of the disease, and they're in direct competition with Canada. It was mentioned that New Zealand lamb is available on the market very cheaply. New Zealand is free of scrapie. So it is definitely an advantage being in that position in terms of export. But as I mentioned, measures on trade with the U.S. I don't think are in the cards.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: The cleanup and the manure disposal was mentioned. Does it carry over into droppings or other by-products?

Dr. Brian Evans: I can give you a long, technical description if you wish the detail on it, but certainly manure has not been incriminated as a dissemination point for scrapie. It is a dissemination point for other diseases, and manure disposal has environmental impacts as well, but it has not been incriminated.

The primary source, as has been indicated, is the placental and birthing fluids. There has not been any solid evidence of transmission by using common needles, but there are reasonable sanitary precautions one should take.

Again, it's a disease for which the science is incomplete, but manure in itself has not been implicated and is not known to be a high-risk factor.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): The best type of protection is to guarantee the producer's statement. Can you confirm that sheep 277T, purchased in Lennoxville by a producer, Mr. Régent Raymond—and I have the proof here—was sold to two New Brunswick producers, whose animals were inspected but not put down, whereas in Quebec this resulted in the destruction of 1,000 sheep?

Isn't there a double standard at play here? Wouldn't it be a way of getting around the problem of retroactivity if the responsibility of the federal government were recognized and also a way of encouraging those who made a declaration under the law, thus reinforcing this law, to continue to do likewise?

Do you realize, and this is not something I've been able to find in the programs, that the decision to implement a quarantine in some situations is just as drastic as the destruction of animals? What will happen to these people? What type of compensation do you expect to provide to them?

My last question concerns retroactivity. Earlier on you said that you were willing to take another look at this. Can you tell us what possibilities you are looking at and how long it will be before you can provide us with details?

• 1010

Dr. André Gravel: You raise a very significant point. The compensation program is seen as a way of encouraging producers to declare diseases. In this respect, the review of the maximum levels of compensation will surely encourage producers to continue declaring diseases.

Mr. Paul Crête: Not if there is no retroactive effect.

Dr. André Gravel: The matter of retroactivity is a legal question. Is it possible to change the regulations or the Act legally in order to allow for retroactivity? Our legal advisors are now working on this point. We will be able to come back later and discuss the matter in greater detail.

You mentioned the effects of quarantines. We are aware of this, and the consultation committee with the industry that I mentioned will be examining, as one of its first items of business, whether in certain specific cases the decision may be taken to replace a quarantine with monitoring.

We must obtain a great deal of information. We must also be very careful because if the quarantine is lifted, that means that animals will be moving from one farm to another. If I were Mr. Keddy, for example, I'd take a dim view of allowing animals that may have been exposed to scrapie to circulate freely.

Mr. Paul Crête: Would a quarantine not warrant compensation in the same manner as the destruction of an animal? It costs the producer 50 cents a day, per head, to keep the animal while it is in quarantine. That may make him want to get out of the industry just as much as the putting down of his animals.

Dr. André Gravel: As Dr. Evans said, under the present regulations, we cannot provide compensation for quarantines. However, with the legislative review we've undertaken, this possibility will be raised for consultation during the review of regulations.

Mr. Paul Crête: I asked a question about liability in the Lennoxville case. The animal from Lennoxville was sold to a producer in our area. In Quebec 1,000 animals were put down. Two animals were sold to New Brunswick and these animals were inspected but not destroyed. Can you confirm whether this is indeed the situation?

[English]

Dr. Brian Evans: That's correct, and as you've indicated, we have traced out from Quebec. With the records made available to us by the producers, we have tracked all the sales of animals from exposed and infected flocks in Quebec.

In the case of New Brunswick, we did have a depopulation of 23 animals associated with the trace-back to Quebec. Again, the criterion for destruction may in fact be that animals sold to some of the flocks in Quebec may have been animals that were on the farm in Quebec but either were not related to the infected animals or were not exposed. They may have been on the farm after the landing period, and therefore are not risk animals.

So again, what we've attempted to do on a case-by-case basis is evaluate the level of exposure and the level of risk. It has not been a simple policy of, if you have an animal, we destroy them all. As I've indicated, in a number of cases, even in Quebec—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: But that is what you did at the beginning. You did it for six months. Let's be serious.

[English]

Dr. Brian Evans: As I tried to point out earlier, yes, out of the 250 flocks, we did have 14 flocks in which all animals were destroyed, but we did have a number of flocks in which only one or two or three animals were taken, and this is consistent with what we've done in other areas.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): The thing that disturbs me in this matter is that we are dealing with two groups of producers. The first group of producers were subject to the horrors described by Mr. Coderre and Ms. Alarie. These producers feel that they were penalized as far as compensation is concerned. As for the second group of producers, they will not be treated in the same way as the first if the problem should arise and they can expect to be provided with better compensation.

So we are dealing with two groups. I'm looking for equity in all of this and have a great deal of trouble finding it. A number of people have come to see me in my constituency office, I'm thinking in particular of one sheep farmer whose entire flock was ordered to be put down. The total market value was approximately $125,000 but he received only $75,000. A loss like that is quite a blow to take.

• 1015

We are not talking about income stabilization nor are we talking about market prices, but of an order requiring a farmer to destroy an entire flock. In my opinion, it is at that level that a distinction must be made between income security, stabilization, etc., and regulations that prevent farmers from marketing their products and force them to destroy their flocks. That is an important distinction.

People throughout Quebec and people in parts of Ontario experienced the ice storm. Everyone was in a very difficult situation. What did the government do? The government decided that it would help people out and it did not quibble about it. The federal government committed to paying 90% and the provincial government, 10%. It did not start setting different maximum amounts here, there, and everywhere.

The regulation dates back to 1992, and it has not been amended since. Mr. Gravel, you said earlier that in a crisis, we evolve and learn things. Based on that statement, do you think that we could come up with a method or another solution to provide adequate compensation for those who were affected in the first stage, so that they are treated the same as the following group, even though it is difficult to change attitudes? What happened in 1992 is not the producers' fault.

Secondly, have you looked into mechanisms to adjust compensation on a regular basis in the future?

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you for your question. You are right in saying that when compensation maximums are changed, there is always a before and an after. In the past, there were no maximums for animal compensation, and as Dr. Evans mentioned, that made the government somewhat vulnerable. It was a question of several million dollars. So maximum amounts are a must.

I admit that the compensation maximums that were established have been in place since 1992 and that they do not necessarily represent the replacement value of a flock. That was not the context in which the maximum amounts were established. They represent an incentive to encourage producers to declare infected animals and are designed to provide some compensation. In reality, it is not an insurance program.

In the case of mad cow disease, the industry took partial responsibility for providing additional compensation. That is an avenue that opened up.

Last Friday, we discussed a review of the maximum compensation levels with members of the committee. It seems likely that the committee will recommend a review of the compensation maximums every four years. The process would begin during the course of the third year and the compensation maximums would be adjusted during the fourth year. We realize that there are a lot of changes at the economic level and that the mechanism must be more flexible and better able to respond to emergencies.

I am aware that I did not completely answer your question with respect to what to do with the before and after situation, which is a bit problematic for us. We have a lot of trouble with the idea of retroactivity. I will stop there.

Mr. Denis Paradis: If I come back to this question, it is because it is the very essence of the claims made by the people who met with me in my riding office. I will go back to the example of the farmer who destroyed his flock that was worth $125,000 and who received $75,000 in compensation. It is all well and good to say that farm credit is available, etc., but something isn't working here. This is real life, the fellow has a wife, children and a farm, and he starts over $50,000 poorer.

Regardless of the type of production we are talking about, it is unacceptable that compensation has not been adjusted since 1992. Don't you have a mechanism to offset this problem or couldn't you take steps so that at some point, producers who were affected earlier on receive at least as much compensation as producers affected later? It is not the producer's fault if his flock was wiped out at an earlier date rather than a later date.

The Chairman: Doctor Gravel.

• 1020

Dr. André Gravel: I would like to have the mechanisms to do so. However, the Agency operates within the regulations that this Parliament sets for us. As a result, we don't have all the flexibility we need to make the adjustments that we would like to make.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I have a point of order.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Coderre?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: It's also a request for clarification. For nine months, we've been fighting and trying to understand things, and today, I've almost been told that selective slaughtering has been done in Quebec from January 1997 to the present.

Mr. Evans, you said that there had been some problems in New Brunswick, and that you had changed your approach and proceeded with selective slaughter. Yet you know full well that there were meetings and lobbying in July 1998 because mass slaughter was going on. When a flock was taken, it wasn't a few animals here and there that were slaughtered; the entire flock was destroyed.

[English]

An hon. member: —

[Inaudible—Editor] —

Mr. Denis Coderre: That's a point of order.

[Translation]

Can you confirm that this was selective slaughtering?

[English]

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Evans.

Dr. Brian Evans: Within the context of what was done between January 1997 and June 1998, as I have indicated to the group, we investigated over 200 farms, of which 14 lost all of their sheep. Other farms lost less than all of their sheep.

As I say, through the over 500 tests that were done on various farms, we did detect positive animals on in excess of 40 of those farms. Even though we had positive animals on over 40 of those farms in Quebec, not all 40 lost all of their sheep. We attempted to look at the higher-risk animals, the female lines, and the animals born during the same lambing period, and they were depopulated on that basis. Other sheep on those farms were not totally depopulated, even in the province of Quebec. So as I say, we have investigated, and we found scrapie on a number of farms, but not all sheep were lost.

It was not a situation where we weren't selective previously, either. Under the old program, if there were multiple cases or multiple family lines, or if such a dispersed number in the flock were considered risk animals, or, alternatively, if there was no level of identification for individual animals, we were put in a position where we felt we had to take pre-emptive actions, as we did with mad cow disease, to protect the long-term interests of the industry, to make sure animals didn't continue to migrate out, and to protect the consumer.

The Chairman: Thank you.

It's Mrs. Ur's turn, for five minutes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was reading through your documentation, and under “Surveillance” you have:

Following the removal of scrapie-infected and -exposed animals, the quarantine is removed; however, the herd remains under surveillance. The surveillance period varies and can last up to 60 months. Owners whose herd is under surveillance can sell their animals and buy others without written authorization from a CFIA veterinarian.

Then, under “Animal Identification”, you say:

The lack of animal identification is one of the most serious problems facing both owners and CFIA veterinarians responsible for administering the Scrapie Control Program. Animal identification is essential to effectively prevent and control this disease.

I see this as probably one of the most major concerns within the industry. Although I'm not a sheep farmer, to me that comes up in pretty bright lights. This is probably one of the major areas where some changes can be made, so the onus would be upon the sheep farmer to report that. Should this not be made mandatory, then, to help with the problem?

I have a whole bunch of questions, so maybe you can just take the questions with you, and I'd like answers to them, if you can't answer them today.

Mr. Gravel said they're reviewing compensation, perhaps retro. For what disease?

You were saying a health certificate can be issued after 60 months. How did you come up with the 60-month number?

Where do the compensation dollars come from within your agency?

Is the size of flock being reviewed as a potential problem in scrapie? It appears that the smaller flocks don't have as many.

Is the same inspection carried out in all provinces regarding scrapie?

And the last question is this. Has the choice within the province of Quebec to allocate the dollars to price support rather than to income stabilization created some of these concerns?

• 1025

Those are my questions.

The Chairman: Okay. Let's see if we can get through most of them in the time allotted.

Dr. Brian Evans: In response to question number one, the disease is mandatorally reportable in all parts of the country. It's reportable under law. Having a law on the books and forcing someone to report are two separate issues, but it is, under law, required to be reported.

Is compensation tied to any specific disease? Compensation is paid where there is a disease control activity at the federal level. In other words, we have a group of reportable diseases for which we do pay compensation, and that includes brucellosis, tuberculosis, scrapie, if we had an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Canada—these are all prescribed in legislation.

Where an animal is ordered destroyed by the Crown—and there have been situations in the past where the disease was not reportable, such as salmonella enteritis in poultry flocks as well—we have undertaken to pay compensation in those areas, again, to ensure that industry is onside with the magnitude of what the disease can cause in terms of human health or other situations.

The 60-month period is based on the fact that the average incubation period from the point an animal is exposed until it may show the disease clinically is three to four years. Therefore the expectation is that if the disease was present in the flock, the assurance can be fairly high that if you've had no disease in that 60-month period, there is no active source of infection in the flock. But it is a very slow disease to develop; hence the long time period.

As for the source of compensation dollars, up until the creation of the agency, compensation was a draw against the budget of the department. With the creation of the Food Inspection Agency in April of last year, provision was made within the establishment of the agency that compensation is no longer drawn from within the agency but is now drawn from consolidated revenue, subject to Treasury Board approval of course. It's not an open chequebook.

Flock size can be a factor. As I say, in smaller flocks it hasn't been as widespread. Certainly in the Quebec situation, because of the average flock size being so large, they have brought animals from a number of sources. So in establishing those large flock sizes and then moving animals out, they have served as a way of the disease being further dispersed. But flock size in and of itself, with proper bio-security and preventive measures and astute record-keeping, identification, and purchasing, will not be a factor in the longer term.

Are the inspections the same in all provinces? Yes. As we indicated earlier, we do have a national surveillance program. The activities carried out in all provinces are based on common principles and common efforts.

And the answer to question seven is yes. It was the choice in Quebec, as I understand, on how they would use their transfer payments. That was a provincial decision, and it's not the same as it's been done in other provinces.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

You can get a lot of questions in and get a lot of information if you make the questions quite short, as Mrs. Ur has done.

We're going to aim at 10.30 a.m. We may go over a couple of minutes.

Mr. Hilstrom, Monsieur Coderre, Madame Alarie, and Monsieur Paradis have indicated they'd like to ask a question each. Let's do it very rapidly.

Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The producer wants to supply a good, clean, safe product. The consumer wants to receive a good, safe, clean product. The cattle industry has gone to a national identification program, which you're well aware of. Is there an equivalent or is there movement towards that in the sheep industry?

Dr. Brian Evans: Certainly the sheep industry have indicated that they are willing to move towards a mandatory identification program. I think it's fair to say they are not as far down that road as some of the other livestock species, but we have made them aware of the fact that between the department and the agency, we have put, over a two-year period, a $1 million allocation towards development of national identification programs in support of the databases and software development that are to be matched in kind by industry.

I would say the sheep industry wants to move toward identification but feels somewhat financially hamstrung at the present time in terms of their ability to move as quickly as other species. But as I say, we have invited them to the table with the other livestock groups, and they are aware of the funding we've made available for them to have access to and match in kind.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Coderre, quickly.

• 1030

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I'll ask two short questions quickly. You are in the process of applying the new compensation, and you know that the Federation told its farmers to keep the veterinarians from going in and to make sure that no animals were destroyed these days.

First of all, I would like to know whether we could settle the matter quickly, because as you know, farmers talk to each other, so they will say to themselves that it would be better to wait before they slaughter an animal because that way they could get up to $600. What do we do with those people?

You mentioned flexibility. There are some small problems. Could you tell us what the government of Quebec has done, because I thought that since we give large amounts of money to the provincial governments, we could perhaps come to an agreement with them regarding retroactive compensation. Has Minister Julien responded in this regard? Everyone is concerned about this. To my mind, we shouldn't necessarily be talking about jurisdictional problems here.

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Vanclief wrote to Minister Julien to tell him about the problem with Quebec sheep farmers, suggest that he make changes to the program and tell him that the federal government would certainly be open to a program that would provide income support to the farmers rather than price support. The government of Quebec's response was no.

In my opinion, once the compensation levels have been adjusted, the next thing that the farmers can do is go back to the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Julien, and ask him to show some flexibility towards them. As I said, Mr. Vanclief was very open to the idea of changes to the transfers to Quebec for sheep farming.

As for the amount of time needed to review the compensation levels, I'm expecting to receive a recommendation soon from the consultant who reviewed the caps. I can assure you that we will take action as quickly as possible on this file. I know that we have the Minister's support on this one. He too would like to take action as quickly as possible, and I'm sure that his Cabinet colleagues will give him the support he needs to amend the regulation as quickly as possible.

We at the Agency have already begun drafting regulations so as not to hinder any progress in this area.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Gravel.

Madame Alarie, followed by Mr. Paradis.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I'd like to add one comment. Mr. Richardson was very clear: at present, there are no plans for an income support program in Quebec to compensate the farmers. So far, that has been the Agency's responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a recommendation, if that's possible. After all, we have spoken a great deal about retroactive compensation, and I would like to put forward a recommendation, along the same lines as Mr. Paradis. Could I move it now?

[English]

The Chairman: Is this a motion?

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, according to the rules as adopted at our meeting a couple of weeks ago, you're going to have to either get unanimous consent or give 48 hours' notice if it's a motion.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Is there unanimous consent to table the motion?

Mr. Denis Coderre: We want to act in good faith, but we can't be giving out blank cheques like that. The first step is to read the motion. You can't ask for unanimous consent.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I have no problem with that.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I think that this motion should be submitted to the steering committee.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: May I read out the motion?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, you can read the motion, but you'll have to have unanimous consent. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie:

In light of the crisis within the sheep industry due to scrapie, the committee recommends that the Minister treat all affected farmers fairly and grant compensation retroactive to January 1, 1997.

[English]

The Chairman: That sounds like a fairly substantive motion. Is there unanimous consent, or do people want to think about it?

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): The first question is, are we dealing with the motion?

The Chairman: Well, we'll have to deal with the motion, yes.

Joe.

• 1035

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): We should take this under consideration. I don't think we can vote, especially on the retroactive compensation. I don't think we can give unanimous consent to the motion now. We can certainly take it under review and see what can be done with positive recommendations to the minister to deal with this problem.

The Chairman: So in other words, you'll have to observe the 48-hour notice, if you want the motion for the next meeting, Madame Alarie. Okay?

Mr. Paradis.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: I would like to get some more information about what Ms. Alarie was talking about. According to some farmers, compensating the first group fairly could cost one million dollars. At first you said that you had already spent about $2 million, but the farmers claim that one million dollars is still needed to reach the overall market value.

When reviewing your Agency, the Auditor General said the following:

Most government departments are funded annually through parliamentary appropriations. The Agency has the authority to spend its annual appropriation over 24 months rather than the traditional 12 months. It has the authority to spend revenues it has generated (user fees)—

Since we are talking about an agency that is not a department, would it be possible for you to table the Agency's entire compensation budget with the committee? Secondly, is there any way to increase the compensation for the first group so as to avoid having two different categories of sheep farmers, those who were hit before we became aware of the problem and those who were hit after?

Dr. André Gravel: The Agency was set up to allow greater flexibility in enforcing the Act. You are correct, our appropriation can be spent over two years. As a result, we can be thrifty the first year and spend more money the second year. The Agency does have that flexibility.

As for retroactive compensation of one million dollars, the Agency does have some flexibility, of course, but all the same, it operates within certain regulations. That is the main reason why we are having some problems. Legally, can we provide such compensation? Ex gratia payments, for instance, are specifically prohibited by Treasury Board as part of a compensation program. So, our hands are tied to some extent because of the legislation that governs us.

The Agency allocates a certain amount for compensation within its budget, but in reality, each animal eradication initiative must be approved by Treasury Board. There is a token amount in the Agency's budget to determine compensation, but given this context, as Dr. Evans said, we have access to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and we have to apply to Treasury Board for each particular case.

Mr. Denis Coderre: So in other words, you have a special fund, but if you don't have enough money, you have to turn to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Is that right?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Could you table a report on this fund with the committee clerk?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, absolutely. We will table the report.

[English]

The Chairman: I just want to remind members that we're facing a severe time shortage. I know there are more questions. I'm going to take two tiny questions, one from Madam Ur and one from Monsieur Crete. Please make the questions very short, and short answers if possible.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: When a positive diagnosis of scrapie is made, the premises must be cleaned and disinfected. You say the CFIA inspector goes in and verifies that. Is that actually carried out in every case?

Dr. Brian Evans: Certainly it's prescribed that they do—

Ms. Rose-Marie Ur: Prescribed, but does it happen?

Dr. Brian Evans: Yes. We've not had any complaints that the proper cleaning and disinfection have not been carried out. In fact this is a controversial issue, because presently, although we oversee and supervise the cleaning and disinfection, the cost of that cleaning and disinfection is currently carried by the producers. This is one of the concerns that has been raised previously. Producers feel it is punitive to them that they have to clean up their premises afterwards.

• 1040

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, very short.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I'd like to go back to the question that you didn't answer earlier. Could you confirm or deny that animals that were at the Lennoxville Experimental Farm were indeed sold to farmers and that these animals played a major role in spreading the disease?

[English]

Dr. Brian Evans: That has been reported in the media but is without scientific foundation. In fact in 1979 Canada imported from France 19 sheep of the Romanov breed. Those animals were imported through the Lennoxville station, were quarantined at Lennoxville for in excess of six years, and no evidence of scrapie was found. Those animals were dispersed to a number of breeders across the country in 1986 and 1987.

The first reported case linked back was a great-great-granddaughter to those animals. There was never a positive case of any of the animals that were resident at Lennoxville. We did not have a single positive case in Lennoxville, nor were there any positive animals that resided at Lennoxville.

The science, based on how scrapie is propagated and spread, would suggest that since this Romanov-traced animal developed scrapie in 1996, the animal was exposed in 1993, which was seven years after they left the Lennoxville research station. So scientifically, we have investigated all the allegations, and we have not been able to define a scientific link that would show there was any active scrapie at the Lennoxville station.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Evans.

Thank you, members, for your cooperation. I'm sorry if I had to come down hard on you, but we had to meet some of these time deadlines.

We have a couple of motions that we must deal with before 11 o'clock. This room must be vacated by 11 o'clock.

To the witnesses, thank you for your information. I'm sure there will always be questions, but again, thank you for coming here and helping enlighten the members.

We'll break for one minute—honestly, just one minute—to allow the witnesses to leave, and then we'll get into two motions that we must deal with.

• 1042

• 1043

The Chairman: Okay, members, we're going to have to get back to work. If anyone wants to carry on a conversation, that can be done out in the hall, because we have to wrap up discussion on these two motions in the next 15 minutes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise a point of order on behalf of my colleague, Rick Borotsik, who's unable to attend today's meetings. It relates to the agreement from the previous committee meeting on Thursday, October 8 that the committee would deal with the farm income motion put forward by Mr. Hilstrom at the next meeting, which as I understand it happens to be this meeting today.

However, notices were sent out on October 9 and October 15 stating that the agriculture committee had already decided the WTO “take note” hearings were going to begin on October 22 with the Minister of Agriculture and his department officials, and on October 27 with stakeholders from the sugar industry, before dealing with the farm income motion.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, the committee had not even decided on the farm income motion and whether or not farm income hearings would happen before, after, or during the WTO hearings. Judging by the comments in the last committee hearing by Mr. Calder, Mr. McCormick, and Mrs. Ur, they agree with all the opposition parties that the WTO hearings will be pointless if our farmers can't even pay their bills.

• 1045

That being said, Mr. Chairman, I would think other members of this committee would be in agreement that the notices put out on October 9 and 15 violate the mandate of the committee as outlined under Standing Order 108. It is the committee as a whole that decides what is going to be studied and what is not. I would suggest that if the chair is going to schedule meetings, he do so only after he reaches a consensus with the members of this committee.

Given that, I would suggest that the scope of the hearings on October 22 and 27 be broadened to include farm income, until a consensus is reached on Mr. Hilstrom's motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): I have a very short point of order, Mr. Chair, just because I was named in there by an absent member, and not Gerald.

Certainly I was involved in conversations, and I think we're going to address this in the next five minutes. It's not exactly what I said—that we had to do this or we had to do that—but let's carry on. We'll address this to everyone's satisfaction, I hope.

Mr. Chair, carry on.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Order, order.

I'm not exactly sure whether I understand completely what you're saying, Mr. Keddy. The hearings on the WTO have been on the books, if I can put it that way, for a very long time, actually going back to last spring. In light of commitments made by the committee's staff last spring, they had to go ahead this fall and schedule these hearings on a tentative basis.

At our last meeting, the question of farm income was brought up by Mr. Hilstrom. We were then faced with the question, do we stall the WTO negotiation hearings? Do we set that aside for a while and talk about farm income? Or is there some way of perhaps doing both, not necessarily at the same time, but perhaps in a concurrent fashion—let the WTO hearings go ahead and find some extra time, perhaps on Wednesdays or whenever, to deal with farm income? That was my understanding.

Could you just explain to me in a few words what was the intention of your intervention?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: As I understand this, the motion was put forward on October 8, to be dealt with at the next meeting. I think it was a procedural fact. We all understand the difficulty of scheduling and of having government officers appear before committee. However, Mr. Chairman, with respect, there was still a motion on the floor, as I understand it—

The Chairman: That's what we're going to deal with now.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: —to deal with farm income.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: What Rick is asking, since that motion hasn't been dealt with, is to broaden the scope of the hearings on October 22 and 27 to allow some incorporation of farm income discussion until a consensus is reached, unless there's a consensus on Mr. Hilstrom's motion now.

The Chairman: Can we just set this aside for a moment? Mr. Hilstrom had a motion on the budget for the WTO negotiations. He wanted the period during the break to look at the budget as proposed. Can we just deal with that now? I hope it will only take a few moments, and then we can get back to the other motion.

Mr. Hilstrom, did you have any particular question about that motion? We're talking about the budget now.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, that's right. Yes, the budget is fine, with the idea that I would think we have a bit of accommodation coming along in regard to looking at this income issue. If we do ultimately deal with that issue, I would question whether there's a separate budget for that, which I assume there is. That's my only concern.

The Chairman: It would be.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: This budget for the WTO is fine.

The Chairman: Okay.

Do we have a record as to who moved the motion? Can I have a motion in support? Can someone move this?

Mr. Larry McCormick: I so move.

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick moves that the budget relating to the proposed “take note” hearings on WTO negotiations, totalling $76,900 for witnesses' expenses, be agreed to.

Mr. Coderre.

• 1050

Mr. Denis Coderre: There is Toronto and the rest of western Canada, but there's nothing about Quebec and Atlantic Canada. The WTO also has an effect on those regions. I don't want to impeach that budget, but we should grow it a little bit bigger and consider that Quebec and Atlantic Canada should be in there also.

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre, my understanding from the clerk is that three organizations in Quebec were invited, and they all declined. The list is simply a proposal. If somewhere along the line during the hearings, a Quebec organization has something to offer, why would we turn them down? I see nothing in the budget that would prevent that.

Mr. Denis Coderre: That's not what I'm saying. I didn't know, first of all, that you had three organizations. Maybe you can talk with us and we can manage something. I'm sure there are organizations in Quebec or in Atlantic Canada—

I'm not against that budget, and I understand that if we have some organizations, we'll provide it. All I'm saying is that with that motion, we're just talking about a certain budget, and you'll have to work in those parameters. If we have people from Quebec—for example, from Côte-Nord—they have to take the plane too. If we have people from P.E.I., what will happen?

I'm not saying no to that. I say yes, but plus for Atlantic Canada and Quebec. That's all I'm asking.

The Chairman: Well, I would assume this budget is set according to what we know now. If we discover in the next few weeks, Mr. Coderre, that we're going to have to hear from three or four more organizations, be they from Halifax or Quebec, we will have to ask for more funds. It's as simple as that.

Mr. Paradis.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I can't believe that we would approve a budget to hear witnesses on the WTO without considering that if three groups were invited and did not want to come, that there are other groups in Quebec. Agriculture is important in Quebec, just as it is in the Maritimes. In my humble opinion, no matter what political party we may belong to, we believe that the committee cannot approve a budget that would exclude witnesses from half of the country right at the very beginning. This makes no sense. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, perhaps this budget should be referred to the steering committee so as to get everyone on board.

[English]

The Chairman: I just want to remind you that we have to be out of here in six minutes, so we may not even get to Mr. Hilstrom's motion, but if that's the will of the committee, that's fine.

I really don't understand what the problem is. The clerk has already pointed out to me that there were invitations. Perhaps there weren't enough invitations; I don't know. But there is nothing exclusionary about this process at all, Mr. Paradis—nothing. This is not written in stone. We have come up with a tentative list of attendees at the hearings. If we find that more people want to come and if we agree that they should be heard, they will be heard.

It's unfortunate that we don't have in the preliminary list organizations from your province, and I would hope that somehow we can rectify that, but nobody is being excluded—absolutely nobody. If you want to test it, then I would invite you, Mr. Paradis and Mr. Coderre, to invite someone who would agree to come. I don't see anything exclusionary.

The parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Joe McGuire: I have just a short interjection. What you should provide the committee with is the list of all those who were invited and all those who accepted or said no, so that if anybody has been left out that the members might know of, we can expand the list.

The Chairman: Anyway, whatever help you can provide, Mr. Paradis, is most welcome.

Yes, Madame Alarie?

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: What worries me is that the budget does not provide for hearing from people from eastern Canada and that these people may not be in the schedule either. To my mind, these two things go together. There is a vacuum here, and we cannot come to any decision in a vacuum.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to my recommendation.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

• 1055

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, from what I understand, what you're saying about the budget is that the budget can accommodate additional groups if they apply in the future. So I think you can lay that one to rest.

I'd like to ask just one more question on the point of order. The original consensus was not reached as to the original agenda and scope of the WTO hearings. Can they or can they not be broadened to include farm income? Or are you going to deal with Mr. Hilstrom's motion? There's an issue here.

The Chairman: We are trying. I don't know whether we're going to get to it now, because of the time. What you're concerned about can be applied to the motion put forward by Mr. Hilstrom. But are we finished on this question of the budget for the hearings?

Mr. Lavigne, you wanted to say something.

Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Yes, sir.

[Translation]

Why don't we add "and other witnesses that may wish to appear"? That way we could hear from people from the two provinces that were excluded or other witnesses that wish to come before us. Then, if other witnesses would like to appear, we could add to the motion: "and that an additional budget be automatically approved for the two provinces that were not mentioned."

[English]

The Chairman: I would suggest, Mr. Lavigne, that the situation is under control. We have confirmations from over 30 organizations, so based on that, a budget was drawn up. The budget is not the end of it. I hope we hear from people in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. If we hear more from other organizations beyond the preliminary list, we will ask for another $5,000, $10,000, or whatever it might be. I don't want to see anybody excluded. I know you don't. I guess we're going to have to redouble our efforts to make sure it doesn't happen that there is an appearance of exclusion.

Yes, Mr. Paradis?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: I don't know whether the steering committee could look at this budget right now so that Mr. Coderre and I could have enough time to look at the names of the people who were invited and find some witnesses from Quebec and perhaps from the Maritimes. We could draw up a complete chart of both expenditures and appearances, as Ms. Alarie suggested.

[English]

The Chairman: Just for my own clarification, though, Mr. Paradis, can you support the motion the way it is now, and then we can deal with adding on to the list at steering? Or do you want to withhold your support of the budget as proposed and submit it to steering?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I would prefer that we take a broader perspective. The WTO talks are a very important issue, and I would prefer that we take a broad look at the entire country, program and funding before we begin. Otherwise, we seem to be starting with the West and Toronto and postponing the Maritimes and Quebec. That creates a distortion, at least in my mind it does.

[English]

The Chairman: The only thing I'd point out, Mr. Paradis, is that the hearings are scheduled to begin on Thursday, with the visit of the minister at 8 o'clock in the morning. Remember that, members: the meeting is at 8 a.m. Thursday, not the regular 9 a.m.

If you want to amend the motion, Mr. Paradis, be my guest, but I'm going to put the question.

Who moved the motion, Mr. Clerk?

Mr. Larry McCormick: I did.

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick moved the motion, and the question should be put.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Can I make an amendment to my own motion?

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I'd like to amend the motion to include an amount that would be used to bring someone from Quebec, up to a maximum of $2,000, and that can be broken down the same for Atlantic Canada, in the amount of $2,700 additional. I move it. Do we have a seconder? Let's roll.

The Chairman: You're suggesting—

Mr. Larry McCormick: I'd add those words, “Quebec” and “Atlantic Canada”, into those additional moneys.

The Chairman: Mr. Hilstrom.

• 1100

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I object to that amendment to that motion. You already have it set out that if witnesses were to show up, you would in fact accommodate them through the process you have. That's what I would like to see you stay with. This is pointless.

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. All of us are in politics, and we work at the level of perceptions. I'm not saying this to be against the rest of Canada, but it's not true that no one in Quebec is interested in the WTO, and it's not true that no one in Atlantic Canada is interested in it. We are interested, even if it were just for fishery matters.

If we agree to this, tomorrow morning people are going to say: "How come Quebec and the Atlantic region aren't included?" And once again we're going to have to do some crisis management. We know that people from these provinces will come. Mr. McCormick says that we should allocate the same amount as for Ontario, because the expenditures for Ontario and Quebec are about the same, while the expenditures for Calgary and Atlantic Canada are also about the same.

[English]

The Chairman: Members, I think we're going to be in the fortunate or unfortunate position of time deciding it. It's already 11 o'clock. We're out of here. We have to be out of here, so can we simply move this motion into the hands of the steering committee?

Mr. Denis Paradis: Yes.

The Chairman: Let's see if the steering committee can come up with a resolution, and then at the next meeting we will formally adopt a motion to cover the expenses. Okay?

(Amendment allowed to stand) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Motion allowed to stand) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: As for your motion on farm income, that's going to have to be delayed until the next meeting, Mr. Hilstrom. We're just simply out of here. Another committee is already waiting to move in here.

(Motion allowed to stand) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I would invite a motion of adjournment.

Mr. Paradis, are you moving that we adjourn?

Mr. Denis Paradis: —

[Inaudible—Editor] —

The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned.