AGRI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

1110

The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.))

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

1115

The Chair

Mr. Robert Carberry (Acting Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

1120

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Robert Carberry

The Chair

Mr. Robert Carberry

1125

The Chair

Mr. Robert Carberry

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Claude Lavigne (Associate Executive Director, Animal Products Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

1130

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Robert Carberry

1135

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Claude Lavigne

1140

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Claude Lavigne

The Chair

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.)

1145

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Mark Eyking

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Mark Eyking

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Mark Eyking

The Chair

Mr. Robert Carberry

1150

Mr. Claude Lavigne

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Rick Borotsik

1155

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

1200

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Claude Lavigne

1205

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Claude Lavigne

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. John Maloney

1210

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Robert Carberry

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Robert Carberry

1215

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

1220

Mr. Gilles Lavoie (Senior Director General, Operations and Agricultural Industry Services Directorate, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food)

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.)

1225

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Claude Lavigne

1230

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Claude Lavigne

The Chair

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Carberry

1235

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Claude Lavigne

1240

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

1245

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. Claude Lavigne

1250

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

The Chair

Mr. Robert Carberry

1255

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Robert Carberry

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Claude Lavigne

1300

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Claude Lavigne

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Robert Carberry

The Chair

Mr. Robert Carberry

The Chair

Mr. Robert Carberry

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

Mr. David Anderson

1305

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gilles Lavoie

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

1310

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Robert Carberry

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

NUMBER 032

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1110)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we want to begin our meeting.

Prior to getting on with the intent of our real meeting this morning, we have two motions to deal with.

The first one has to do with the motion put forward by Mr. Hilstrom. The 48-hour notice period has been granted, and we want to look at the motion, which you have before you. It requests the Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Alberta, the Honourable Shirley McClellan, to appear before this committee in early June 2003 to discuss how the Government of Alberta intends to implement its recently passed legislation regarding the Canadian Wheat Board.

Is there any discussion on this motion? Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): This is my motion. It's of vital interest to western Canadians that this issue be fully debated and that it continue to be debated. The debate has not stopped since Bill C-4 was passed. The Alberta government has taken a position on this, so we now have to hear what that government has to say, or to have it explained to us.

So I would ask that this motion be passed.

The Chair: Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): I'm always delighted to welcome provincial ministers, and I say this not in a paternalistic way. We have made no attempt to correct anything or to influence provincial decisions. Respective jurisdictions must be respected and I hope that when we meet with a minister, we conduct our work in this spirit. We have a responsibility to respect provincial jurisdictions and not take a paternalistic stand, as the federal government typically does when dealing with provincial ministers.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Just for Monsieur Plamondon, that's exactly what it is. It's a provincial jurisdiction that is putting its position forward, more so as a province than as the Canadian Wheat Board. So that is exactly what is being proposed by Mr. Hilstrom, to see that provincial jurisdiction and their opinions.

But also, Mr. Chairman, if we do extend the invitation, can we make it a dual invitation as opposed to dealing with just the Canadian Wheat Board, because Alberta is certainly at the forefront of the issue we're dealing with today. Should she accept, perhaps Ms. McLellan would also be prepared to spend maybe another hour talking about mad cow disease, since we have this room for four hours.

The Chair: Since the motion was put forward by Mr. Hilstrom, he will get the last word on it. Then we're calling the question.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Minister McLellan and the Alberta government have to have an opportunity to speak directly to us—and we an opportunity to report to the minister our findings on this.

This motion is not to have the Canadian Wheat Board chairman down here at the same time. This is a meeting strictly for the Alberta government to put their position forward on the Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board will not be here.

The Chair: The motion is to invite the minister, Shirley McLellan, to this meeting in June, but we haven't determined a date yet.

Let me put this clearly. The motion was given to you in written form on your desk this morning, and invites the minister, Shirley McLellan, to this meeting some time in June, on a date to be determined.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next motion deals with--I think many of us have had letters from this particular cattleman--Mr. Morrison from Manitoba. I believe he is a constituent of Mr. Hilstrom's.

The motion is duly put to this committee, and we need to take action on it. It is my opinion, as probably many around this table know, that it's pretty difficult for a committee to deal with a constituent issue. As the chair, I seek the committee's direction, but I suggest that while this motion is duly put, it may cause us some problems if we decide to concur with it.

Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: This arose because of correspondence between Mr. Morrison and the chair of the committee. It was brought forward because of that correspondence. However, we can't be dealing with every individual case. I think there was some miscommunication between the constituent and the committee.

I would think the results of what happens here could be communicated by the committee back to Mr. Morrison directly.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we'll move to the business at hand for this morning.

We're happy to have with us.... Actually, it is unfortunate, because we didn't plan on having you people here this morning. We had other plans for Tuesday morning's meeting, but because of circumstances over the last eight days, we are forced to deal with this issue.

We want to be transparent, as we have been in the past week, and to have further clarification and transparency in response to questions people have on this issue of BSE. I must point out that we want to be frank in our questioning, and we hope that the respondents will also be frank. We thank you for your assistance with the various members of all sides of the House over the past week in helping us deal with constituents' concerns, and with our own concerns as well.

We have with us this morning Mr. Gilles Lavoie, senior director general, operations and agricultural industry services directorate, in the market and industry services branch of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. From the CFIA, we have with us Mr. Robert Carberry, acting vice-president of programs, and Claude Lavigne, associate executive director of the animal products directorate.

I don't know what form your presentation is going to take, Mr. Carberry, but thank you for your assistance over the past week.

Mr. Robert Carberry (Acting Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am Bob Carberry and, as you mentioned, I am acting vice-president of programs at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. With me is Gilles Lavoie, director general with the market and industry services branch of the Department of Agriculture, and Claude Lavigne, who is a veterinarian and the deputy director of the animal products directorate.

I'd like to begin by saying that we at the CFIA also appreciate the time and attention that MPs have devoted to this very important issue. We're pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this committee and to answer any questions you might have.

Since Tuesday, May 20, when we received confirmation that a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, had been found in a single cow in Alberta, the CFIA has been conducting a thorough and extensive investigation to find any herds of cattle that may have been associated with the infected cow. As part of this investigation, the agency has now placed a total of 17 cattle herds under quarantine in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia.

I'd like to emphasize that the increasing number of herds under quarantine is normal in an investigation of this type; it does not indicate the situation has gotten worse or that BSE has spread. It means we are being relentless and exhaustive in our efforts to ensure that any other cases of BSE that may be out there will be found.

The CFIA has three lines of investigation at this point in time. To provide a clearer picture of what we're doing, I'd like to show you these visual aids we've developed. So I ask your indulgence to allow me to provide you with a description of what's occurring, through these visual aids.

Our three lines of investigation with respect to live animals lead out from the case herd we find here in Alberta. There is one line, the blue line, that has Saskatchewan as the original source; the second line has Alberta as the source; and the third line is the progeny from the infected animal.

This is the case herd you've heard referred to most recently in the press with respect to the negative results that have come back. As the minister said yesterday, negative is good. It means there is no BSE in these animals. The confirmation tests have also come back, and they confirm these are negative—notwithstanding one result.

Á (1120)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chair, given that it has already been in the public realm, I wonder if you could ask the witnesses the name of the farm or ranch, so we can keep that straight? I believe Mr. Piester has the farm that's being discussed. So could the witnesses use an actual name where possible, to help us keep it straight?

Mr. Robert Carberry: Okay.

The case herd here is in fact the Piester herd. Since you're using the name, I'll use it as well.

As I said, we have two lines of investigation. We are 85% sure epidemiologically, at this point, that the animal came out of the Saskatchewan line, the blue line on the map. There is still a possibility it came from another one, so we're keeping these animals under a precautionary quarantine until we determine definitively where the animals came from.

The Piester herd has been depopulated and tested. The rapid tests came back negative, and now we have confirmation using the IHS method that these were negative, with the exception of one sample. There was not a problem with the sample; it just got tied up in the lab.

There were 75 cows that moved out of the Piester herd over the last period of time and went to three operations; these are three of the other quarantines you've heard us talk about. We've also depopulated these herds at this point. We actually took a total of about 130 animals out, because in the identification process there were a couple of animals from the Piester herd that had lost their eartags. To err on the side of safety and caution, we took any of the calves on these farms that did not have eartags at that point in time; hence we depopulated a good portion of those. The results will be known within the next 24 hours. The balance of them will be coming up over the next few days.

Is there another question?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chair, I think that euphemisms are not totally appropriate. We don't want to use words that are inappropriate, but “depopulated”.... We need to be clear whether this means simply “removed from the farm” or that these animals were slaughtered for testing.

I would ask if there is any way the department could use precise language as opposed to language that is more of a euphemism. Could you ask that?

The Chair: Perhaps we could do that with any of the terms we use. With anything we use, we try to be transparent, in language that is understood by—

Mr. Robert Carberry: I'll make it clear. Depopulation means the animals are put down; they are euthanized. The samples are taken from their brains. There is no other way of sampling or depopulating. Depopulation means the animals have been put down and samples have been taken from their brains.

These animals are in the process of being depopulated. Samples have been taken and have been sent off to the laboratory.

Our next herd has now moved to the laboratory facility. This particular herd had the animals in it for a period of three to four years. In terms of potential exposure to any of the risk factors—and we still believe feed is the highest risk factor—the highest probability is that infection took place on this farm. These animals, approximately 50 animals, have also moved to the laboratory, and samples are being taken now.

That's where we are presently. One set of results is in, another will be here within the next few days, and a third set will follow a few days after that. There's a total now of approximately 190, plus 130, plus 50 animals.

This is what we're in the process of doing right now. Are there any questions on the herds?

The Chair: Perhaps we'll leave our questions until we get to the question period.

Mr. Robert Carberry: Here is a slide of our tracing investigation for the feed. In the case herd here, the Piester herd, the animal that was the index animal and was confirmed to have BSE went to an abattoir in Alberta. That's where we picked up the sample and where we found the results once the province notified us.

It went to rendering at a plant in Alberta. The rendered material from that plant went to eight feed mills, to two farms for on-farm mixing, and to two pet food establishments.

This is now subject to a fairly massive ongoing investigation. About 200 farms are being visited right now, as we speak, to determine how they used that feed when it got to those farm operations, to see whether there were any ruminant animals there, and to see whether there was any problem in the feeding practices.

The initial stages of that investigation gave us three farms that are presently being quarantined as a precaution. Visits are occurring today. If it's determined that there is any possibility those animals were fed that feed, they will also be sent for testing. We're in the process of working through that right now.

That's pretty much where we are within the CFI investigative streams at this point in time.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Is that the conclusion of your formal presentation, Mr. Carberry?

Mr. Robert Carberry: I have a couple of words more here.

Mr. Chairman, that's a brief summary of the current situation from the investigation side. With respect to some of the briefings that will occur today from the technical side, here is a little bit more information for you.

First, as I indicated, there is the pet food angle that we're investigating. There will be an advisory put out today simply for information. That is part of our investigation. Some of the product of the rendered animal went into dried kibble for dog food. Health Canada is confirming that there's no risk to human health and that dogs are not susceptible to BSE. That notice is going out very shortly.

That's it, at this point in time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Carberry. I'm sure there will be lots of questions. We want to keep our questions succinct, and the responses, but we want to be forthright.

You will notice on your agenda this morning that this meeting room is ours until 3:30 p.m. We don't anticipate going that long, but the room is available for that period of time; only for that reason is it noted.

We will begin with Mr. Hilstrom, or someone on that side, for seven minutes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Just to clarify a relatively small point about the carcasses from the animals at Lethbridge. What's happening to those that have been destroyed?

Mr. Claude Lavigne (Associate Executive Director, Animal Products Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): The carcasses have been kept refrigerated until we get the final lab results, and we will see about this position later on.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you.

In what I guess we'll call the case herd, how many animals in total are reflected by the farms both on the blue line and the yellow line? How many animals have not been depopulated to date?

Mr. Robert Carberry: I don't have exact numbers for you at this point, certainly not from the Alberta line or the yellow line, but on the blue line, as I said, the herd we've moved to depopulate over the last 24 hours has 50 animals in it. I believe, all told, in that line there are about 400 animals.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's in the blue line?

Mr. Robert Carberry: That's adding all the blue together; that's right. I can get you more exact numbers the next time we have a chance to discuss—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Is it in your plan to depopulate all those animals, or is there some kind of progressive decision-making on this?

Á (1130)

Mr. Robert Carberry: There is a progressive type of decision being made as we go. If we end up having any more positives, that may send us in another direction, but at this point these are the only herds that are suspect. We'll base our decisions on the results we get.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: How many negatives do you have to get before you say enough is enough?

Mr. Robert Carberry: What we have to do is exhaust all the lines of inquiry and the entire investigation. As we've mentioned before, it's entirely possible, since we don't have any other positives through this investigation, that this was a spontaneous case, or the root just can't be found. That's happened in situations in Europe as well.

If we have another positive, again it depends where it came from.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: This is costing this industry and the Canadian economy $30 million a day; that's one figure being thrown around. Just dividing exports brings it up to $11 million.

The important issue is to get this over and done with and get our exports moving again. Why are the 400 animals represented by this blue line not depopulated, every one of them, in Lethbridge, with the brain samples in a lab waiting to be tested? Why are the full 400 not depopulated?

Mr. Robert Carberry: We're moving in a staged way in this investigation.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Why?

Mr. Robert Carberry: We are basing our moves on the best scientific evidence we have at any point in time. We have people who are working around the clock on this. We're moving this absolutely as quickly as we possibly can.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Best scientific evidence has established that in fact there is one case of BSE that came up in this country. This issue is now one of economics and trade. Four hundred animals should not stand in the way of moving quicker than you are to getting that border open.

Who made the decision to proceed in this manner, at this rate? Was this a ministerial decision, or is this being made by Mr. Lavigne?

Mr. Robert Carberry: These are standard investigative processes. This is moving very quickly. We are stressing our system to get these through as quickly as possible, and we are focusing on human health and public health. We will do an adequate and thorough investigation.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: As quickly as possible is not good enough, Mr. Carberry. What is needed is for this to be drawn to a conclusion at the earliest moment. Can you give me a date under your scenario? Under my scenario, this would be done in a few days. Under your scenario of progressive decision-making and science, what is your target date to have this thing cleaned up and finished? We can't wait for bureaucratic decision-making. We need action.

Mr. Robert Carberry: We're moving forward on this as quickly as possible, Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No date.

Mr. Robert Carberry: We cannot give a date because we cannot predict the way the results are going to be coming in from the sampling. Hopefully I'm making that clear. We will be making decisions with the best information we have, with the results we get through the testing at every point in time. We are moving 24 hours a day on this. Twenty-four hours a day, people are working on moving this file forward on all of the fronts.

Á (1135)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Did your department consult with Minister McClellan in Alberta and Minister Vanclief directly as to which option to take, the progressive or the blanket association of the 400 animals to be destroyed?

What has to be transparent and clear is the decision-making on this issue. We know what the final objective is—to get that border open and the quickest possible way at many millions of dollars a day. We're not talking about the government paying for these animals. That's a negligible, minor little cost. We're talking about getting this thing cleaned up as fast as possible.

Was Minister McClellan in Alberta consulted about what to do with these 400 animals?

Mr. Robert Carberry: I do not see the distinction between what you're characterizing as a progressive option and a blanket option. If the results show that we should continue on this path, then the blanket option, as you're describing it, will in fact occur. At this point in time we're moving in a staged way that is appropriate and we will wait until we have the appropriate scientific evidence to move forward.

At the end of the day, what will open up access to markets and what will get us success in this is a science-based logical approach that other countries can understand and that they can accept.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: My last question is this. Have the criteria been given to you from the United States of what it's going to take to open this border up by way of regulation changes and/or quick action on this trace-back? Do you have that written from the United States or verbally?

Mr. Robert Carberry: No.

Sorry. We are in verbal contact with the U.S. on a daily basis through our chief veterinary officer, and there is an understanding that the investigation must be complete and based on science.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hilstrom, Mr. Carberry.

I'm moving to Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to discuss your tracing program. The Canadian Cattle Identification Program was introduced in 2001-2002. I'm familiar with Quebec, but I don't know if other regions of Canada were forward-looking and implemented their own, more comprehensive tracing programs. From what I know of the identification program in the rest of Canada, cattle movements are traced from birth to the slaughterhouse. This is a two-stage program. In Quebec, the animal's birth is recorded, as are any viewings of the animal, while its slaughter is recorded as well. All of the animal's movements are recorded. As a result of this tracing system, I think Quebec can say at this time—and Premier Charest said it clearly yesterday—that the health of Quebec's herd is not in question as a result of the tracing program.

I'd also like to talk to you about bone meal. Bone meal has not been used in cattle feed in Quebec since 1993, whereas similar federal legislation wasn't passed until 1997. Quebec stopped purchasing at-risk animals in 1990. I've never heard you say, either during a press conference or in a notice on Canadian production that some regions were 100 per cent safe, or safer than others. Such a statement might have reassured certain importers who would have continued to exercise caution in dealing with a particular region, but not with another because its system was deemed safe. I've never heard comments of this nature either from CFIA officials, or from any other authority, including the Minister. Do you understand what I'm saying?

I'd appreciate hearing your views on the subject.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Mr. Plamondon, you're correct in saying that tracing programs, whether in Canada or in Quebec, were introduced quite recently. These mandatory programs have been in place for two years or less, both nationwide and in Quebec. Your contention that Quebec's program has more stages is correct. In fact, an animal's every movement must be recorded.

However, the Canadian Identification Program is extremely useful in terms of conducting epidemiological investigations, as we are currently doing. We've made tremendous strides over the past two years by ensuring that all animals that are sold at least once are physically identified in such a way that they can be tied to their herd of origin. This information allows for the possibility of tracing any movements that may have occurred. If these movements are monitored more effectively, it will facilitate the process of conducting an epidemiological investigation.

With respect to the regionalization, or zoning, of a disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, is not contagious and cannot be transmitted from farm to farm. Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult to convince an importing country that we have contained the problem to a given geographic location, since this disease can be spread through products that can be transported easily across the country.

This observation is borne out by history. Thus far, while some 20 countries have been declared free of this disease, it hasn't been possible to determine that one region is not at risk of infection. We will certainly explore this matter with our trade partners in the near future, but from a scientific standpoint, this is difficult to determine.

Á (1140)

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Let's consider calves. Calves cannot be infected because they were born only recently. Moreover, calves have not been fed bone meal since 1997 in Canada, and since 1993 in Quebec. I see you never tried to get your trade partners to understand that calves could easily be exported. This would be a boon to cattle producers since calves pose no danger whatsoever. I'm not talking here about the calf of an infected cow, because the offspring of the cow in question are no longer calves. I'm talking about calves born recently. I didn't hear you make this distinction.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: I'd like to say two things. First, from a scientific standpoint, it's possible for the disease to be transmitted from a cow to its calf. This has led to importing countries taking a cautious approach.

Second, we keep in close contact with our trade partners or with veterinary authorities in those countries to which we export cattle or cattle products, to ensure that at the very least, existing international standards governing products at risk of carrying the disease are met.

At present, some countries have slapped a ban on the importation of products not likely to carry this disease and we are vigorously challenging these decisions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Plamondon.

We are moving to Mr. Eyking, for seven minutes.

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming here today to tell us about the situation you're in.

I'm sure your people are on the right track of giving our cattle industry a clean bill of health. My question is more about what our relationship is with the United States and other countries that are monitoring your investigation.

It's my understanding that there is a U.S. team in Canada now watching what you're doing. I'd like you to tell me a little bit about that. What is the communication and involvement there in having their team with your team? What's their sense and mood of the findings so far? What else are they looking for, or what else do they want you to find?

I know this is a hard question and you don't have a crystal ball. But how do you see this unfolding over the next couple of weeks?

Á (1145)

Mr. Robert Carberry: With respect to the Americans who are here right now, the reason for their being here is largely due to their offering of technical assistance. We have a couple of their pathologists working within our labs, helping us get through volume, that type of thing.

We have one of their experts in transmissible spongiform encephalopathies working with us at our headquarters unit. It's more from an assistance standpoint. This team—and I don't think “team” is the right word for it—these individuals are here more to provide assistance throughout our investigation than to do an evaluation of how we're doing on this.

We've had a number of countries that are interested in coming in to talk to us about this at this point in time. However, it's still premature. What we'd like to do is get through the next very short period of investigation, where we have some more results and hopefully have drawn some conclusions from this. At that point in time, I think it would be most appropriate for countries to come in to see what we've done, how thorough our investigation was, and what the results were. This will be a move towards getting these borders reopened.

The U.S., however, is being contacted on a daily basis by a number of individuals, including Dr. Brian Evans with his chief veterinary officer counterpart in the U.S., who will basically be the parties who need to be satisfied with respect to the thoroughness and the quality of the job we're doing here in our investigation.

At this point there's a very good relationship between them and a high level of trust that exists between our two countries. I don't think it could be much better at this point in time between us and the U.S, but we do need to get through these initial stages of investigation.

Mr. Mark Eyking: Just to follow up on that, you're well aware of the very intricate system we have with the U.S., with thousands of cattle going back and forth. Is the U.S. doing anything to indicate that maybe they should start looking a little deeper on what they might have? Do you have any sense of what they might be doing south of the border? Have any of their practices changed? Are their slaughterhouses on any alerts?

Mr. Robert Carberry: My understanding is they've not yet changed any of their policies, but they certainly recognize that if Canada chooses to change policies they would be directly impacted and they would likely have to follow suit. So they have an intense interest.

This would be because access, as you say, does go both ways. There are hundreds of thousands of animals that go across the border. The feed system is integrated. It's a highly integrated market. They're looking at this as being a North American challenge at this point. They understand that they will have to make some changes, I think, more based on what we're doing rather than because of any major concerns they have about our products at this point in time.

Mr. Mark Eyking: You're saying that, whatever the outcome is for all of this, we're going into a new phase in our relationship with the United States on all food inspection. We're probably looking down the road at a more integrated food inspection system in the future.

Mr. Robert Carberry: I wouldn't say that this issue is driving us towards a very holistic kind of more uniform system. I certainly think, with respect to BSE, that we'll be seeing some changes within our policies around feed, animals, tracing, or whatever it happens to be, and the U.S. will be partners in that.

Mr. Mark Eyking: Thank you.

The Chair: It's the liberty of the chair to ask a question occasionally. I'll take it out of your time.

If dogs and cats subsequently eat the product from the cow that was rendered, and those dogs or cats are rendered and fed back to a cattle beast, would it be a continuum of the BSE, or at some point would it end?

Mr. Robert Carberry: There has been no evidence, in spite of some work that's being done, that BSE can go to dogs. However, for cats, there have been some situations within Europe where there has been a feline version of this disease. How it was generated I don't know. It's at a level of scientific detail that I don't have. I could get for you, if you like.

In terms of any potential effects that might occur by feeding back to cattle, I really don't have the scientific answer for you there.

I don't know whether, Claude, you can add anything or not.

Á (1150)

Mr. Claude Lavigne: If I may, there are a number of animal species known to be not susceptible to this disease. Not only are these animals not susceptible, but they are not capable of reproducing the agent of the disease.

For an animal to be able to transmit the disease, the animal has to be susceptible to the disease so that the animal produces, or becomes a factory for, this agent of disease. By doing this, when the animal is slaughtered or dies, it is full of zillions of these elements. That is what contaminates the feed.

If you give contaminated feed to a chicken, for instance, which is a species that is not susceptible, the agent of disease in the feed is not going to go into the animal's system. It's going to be eliminated the next morning. Therefore, the animal does not become a factory and does not have a role to play in the transmission.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to get back to what Mr. Hilstrom was heading toward.

As I understand your chart of blue, yellow, and green, the blue seems to be priority cases. That's what you think.

I appreciate science, but in your best science, the four farms are where you believe the animal came from. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Carberry: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. We have four that we've identified. As I understand it, you said only one has currently been tested. I think it was 130 animals. Of the other three, you say that there's a total of about 400 animals.

I appreciate progression. I appreciate the science. I appreciate everything that you're doing. I'd like to know, for my one edification, why you would not want to take all of the four potential farms and test them as quickly as possible, as opposed to the progression?

Mr. Robert Carberry: We do want to test them as quickly as possible.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Do I anticipate from your answer that all four farms will be depopulated and will be tested within the next little while?

Mr. Robert Carberry: They will be if the suspicion continues and if the results we're getting from them aren't.... It isn't only from lab tests; we're also doing some DNA work to confirm origin and those types of things. If everything keeps clicking along that it's a direction, that is where we're going to be going.

We will continue to depopulate herds that have a probability of being the source herds of this animal and that have the probability of having been fed feed that could have created the problem or created any other problems.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You segued right into my next question.

As we know, this comes from feed. If the four possible herds were contaminated, it came from the feed contaminate. There may be other animals out there that were fed the same feed at whatever time it may have been. It may have been prior to 1997, for our purposes; it may have been after 1997. We don't know.

Again, I go back. Again, you've answered my question, I guess.

Wouldn't we have all of the 400 animals in Lethbridge now?

Mr. Robert Carberry: We're working toward moving these herds out and getting the results in a staged way.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So you will be testing all these 400 animals?

Mr. Robert Carberry: Right now, there are animals from the three farms that had the calves, as well as that first one in the blue line, and we will continue to move in this direction as long as there's a scientific reason to do it. We will take down all the herds that exist, unless there's a good reason not to, with a high level of probability that this is not where it came from. We're moving in that direction.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. I appreciate that comment.

Mr. Robert Carberry: I'll just clarify one other point, if you don't mind. There are three basic ways this disease can occur or be transmitted. The highest probability in what has been shown is through the feed. The other one is maternal, even though it's still a very low probability.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What percentage, what probability would that be?

Mr. Robert Carberry: Is it 10%?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Oh, no, it's not 10%.

Mr. Robert Carberry: Not even 10%? Okay.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, what is the probability? That's another question I have, because you have 75 calves out there, the progeny from those animals, and I've heard on news reports that it's 10%. Can you give me the scientific answer to that?

Mr. Robert Carberry: We can get it for you, if you like.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Yes, we can get it for you.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I think that's important because, believe me, feed is one thing, but we talk about embryos, and we know we have embryos stopped. We know the genetics are stopped now, and that's another transmission possibility. So help me with that transmission possibility.

Á (1155)

Mr. Robert Carberry: Sure, we'll get the information for you in terms of the maternal transmission.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, what's the third way?

Mr. Robert Carberry: The other one is spontaneous, a spontaneous occurrence within the animal, which Europe has focused on when they haven't been able to determine any other sources. So all of those are still possibilities.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It just happens; it's part of the animal's culture. Is that it? And this may well be a spontaneous issue as well.

Mr. Robert Carberry: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: They don't know how and why--

Mr. Robert Carberry: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: --and what causes it, like SARS, I suspect, only in animals.

Mr. Robert Carberry: Well, SARS is transmitted person to person.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm sorry. I was facetious. Don't get people thinking this is transmitted animal to animal, because it's not. We have the three transmissions. Thank you very much.

In regard to rendering, rendering is a bit of a problem now. As I understand it, a lot of the rendering plants are not taking beef at the present time--obviously looking for your final results before they start taking that back into the rendering process.

From CFIA's position, that's horrendous. If we start getting some beef animals backed up in the system and not able to be rendered, what's your position on that? How does a farmer or a producer get rid of animals if they can't go to a rendering plant?

Mr. Robert Carberry: That's probably a better question for Gilles. Are you talking about dead animals?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm talking about dead animals.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: There's no question that the rendering system has an extremely important part in our environment. Certainly you can't slaughter animals and leave the remnants of these animals lying there in the parking lot. So they play a vastly important part, and there's no way we can do without them. Even if there was no use for the product coming out of these plants, you'd still have to get rid of it and it's still a good way of getting rid--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, but answer my question, please. What is going to happen with the rendered product--the effluent, first of all, as well as the dead animals? What's going to be the answer to that? Does CFIA have any suggestions?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: At this point we're just hoping that operations will resume normally and that we will continue to have a normal rendering stream.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have another question.

In regard to your other one, with the rendering materials that went into the feed, into the dog food, I think it was, the pet food, the farms, and the feed mills, you said there were 200 farms that received feed from the rendered animal that you traced back. Out of those 200 farms, only three in B.C. were quarantined. Are you telling me that only three out of those 200 farms had ruminants?

Mr. Robert Carberry: No, the investigation is ongoing. As I said, there are 200 farms in the package that we either have visited or are visiting right now.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So far you've identified three that had feed go to that farm and that farm has ruminants, therefore you've quarantined. But it's in yellow, so it's.... No, it's not in yellow, actually.

Mr. Robert Carberry: No, it's in the other stream.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's in the other stream, but these are just as a precaution.

Mr. Robert Carberry: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay.

Mr. Robert Carberry: We will be doing a more in-depth investigation at those farms to determine whether any cross-contamination or feeding occurred. If it did, we will depopulate them as well.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So it's not as simple as simply going in and depopulating four herds--and I make that comment because I realize that this is more detailed and more complex.

I have two other quick questions.

The Chair: One clear question.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Canadian beef is being turned back right now. In fact, I just read in an article today that $25 million worth of Canadian beef is being turned back from, I believe, Mexico and Japan at the present time. Will you be involved in the inspection of that beef coming back into the country?

I know this isn't CFIA, but you're going to have to have some recommendations. When that beef is turned back here, we have a whack of beef coming back into this country. Is it our recommendation that it go back into the table market of Canada, or is there going to be compensation to the corporations for that beef turned back?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Any meat that's returned to Canada will certainly have to be inspected on the way back. For one thing, there will have to be evidence that this meat was not tampered with in the country to which it went.

For instance, if it went to a country where there is foot-and-mouth disease and the containers were opened, it will not be readmitted into Canada; it will have to be redirected or destroyed. But certainly there is a possibility that some of this meat will be acceptable, and we will accept it and reinspect it on the way in.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And it will go back to the table.

The Chair: That's the end of your line of questioning.

We'll now move to Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

You have indicated in some of your answers that the criteria that the U.S. is going to put forward before that border is opened have not been written down, but that there were verbal discussions. Can you tell us what those verbal discussions are, what the criteria are that they are suggesting will be put in place before the border is opened up?

Â (1200)

Mr. Robert Carberry: At this point in time, what the U.S. is looking for is a thorough and science-based investigation. It doesn't go much past that.

There are some things that we certainly will be doing in terms of going after progeny and exhausting investigations on feed sources. These are all standard things that don't really need to be written down. They're understood within that community. That's pretty much what the U.S. is looking for at this point in time.

What we would do is complete the investigation, show them exactly how science-based and thorough it was, as well as the results, and hopefully at that point in time it would be compelling enough for them to open the border up again.

If it gets into a more detailed discretion, then of course we would be pinning them down with respect to precisely what more they need than that, but at this point in time we've no reason to believe a good, solid investigation on this and results going the direction in which we hope they go and think they're going to go won't get our border back open again.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: So there's no assurance beyond that. You haven't any kind of agreement with them that once this is scientifically investigated thoroughly, the border will automatically open up. Are there no other suggestions or any other hoops or hurdles that may have to be jumped through?

Mr. Robert Carberry: As I said, our relationship with the U.S. is certainly a good one, and as long as we do a good science-based job here, we expect that those borders will open up again.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay.

The second thing I'd like to have you discuss is in regard to the feed manufacturers. I understand you've met with them, and as feed is the most likely source for contamination, maybe not the only one--maybe it was spontaneous or maternal--what discussions have taken place and what instructions are you giving them, or what are they asking of you in regard to this? What assurances are you looking for?

I have heard that the blood is still not a restricted part, that it may in fact be a contaminant, but at this point there are no restrictions on that in the feeds. Can you use the rest of my time here to elaborate on what the nature of the discussion was with the feed manufacturers and what direction this case has caused you to take with them?

Mr. Robert Carberry: I'm not aware of any discussion that occurred with the feed mills, outside of some discussions that have occurred where we're seeking assistance in our investigation relative to that rendered animal.

Right now we have feed restrictions that have been in place since 1997, which is the ruminant feed ban, which follows the World Health Organization guidelines--actually exceeds the guidelines that were in place. At this point we've not made any changes to those current guidelines or to the ban we've had in place. As I said, the majority of the work we've been doing with them so far is getting their assistance in helping us trace where some of this feed from the rendered animal has gone, and they have been very forthcoming with us.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Just for the public's information, what do you know about the incubation period of this disease? I've heard that it's 24 to 30 months. Is it restricted to that period? Could it be longer than that; could it be shorter than that? Can you let us and the public know what you know about the way that disease develops?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: BSE is just one of the family of the TSEs, the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. All of these diseases have a long incubation period, some longer than others. But in the case of BSE per se, the science presently is that the incubation period is a minimum of two years, and there have been some cases documented of eight years and even more. So it can be an extremely long incubation period.

That's one of the factors that makes this disease difficult to follow in an investigation and difficult to study in science and research.

Â (1205)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I have one more little question: can whatever this virus is be killed by heat, by cooking the meat?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: The agent, which is called a prion, which is an abnormal protein, is not a virus or any of the classic microbes. This is extremely resistant to both heat and normal or ordinary disinfectants. That's why it can withstand the high heat treatment of rendering.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz.

We'll move to Mr. Maloney, for five minutes.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): One of the potential causes of this is the cross-contamination of feed. Do we regulate abattoirs or feed mills to ensure that in the practices they're using, this cross-contamination doesn't happen?

Mr. Robert Carberry: Yes. As I said, since 1997 we've had a feed ban in place, and we have had an ongoing surveillance of that industry to determine their levels of compliance. So, yes, we do inspections of feed mills.

One of the elements of those inspections includes the BSE-related types of activities that are found within the inspection program. Other ones deal with medicated feed, those kinds of things as well.

We have done surveys over the last number of years, and what we're seeing with respect to the BSE elements is a fairly high degree of compliance.

So we are in those establishments, we do inspections on a regular basis, and the results have been relatively good.

Mr. John Maloney: Your comment “fairly high degree of compliance” would suggest that it isn't 100%.

Mr. Robert Carberry: It's a high degree of compliance. I don't have the exact number. I know if we do find any problems, we go back and it's corrected immediately. So we do end up getting 100% compliance when we find problems.

Mr. John Maloney: Do we import feed from other countries?

Mr. Robert Carberry: It's primarily from the U.S.A.

Mr. John Maloney: Nothing from Europe or any BSE-infected countries?

Mr. Robert Carberry: Regarding BSE-infected countries, there are bans on any of the protein-bearing material that may contain this prion to which Dr. Lavigne was referring. So when a country is known as being BSE-present, there are certain restrictions that go into place to prevent any of that prion protein material coming into the country.

Mr. John Maloney: Have we given any consideration to banning protein material in our feeds?

Mr. Robert Carberry: We have banned protein material from ruminants to ruminants since 1997.

Mr. John Maloney: Is Health Canada playing any role in the present situation?

Mr. Robert Carberry: Yes. Health Canada has been certainly with us right from the first steps in this exercise. They're looking primarily at the public health risk. They're continuing to help us in such things as the pet food statements that are going out, those kinds of things, but their primary role is looking at any human health risk that may exist in this exercise. They will help us with risk assessments, and certainly on the communication side as well.

Mr. John Maloney: We heard yesterday that the minister said money is no object in this current endeavour. Do you have the expertise available? Even though you had tons of money, do you have the experts? Do you have the people trained to do it?

I notice that you have sent some product to England for testing and that you have some American personnel here as well.

Mr. Robert Carberry: The reason we sent the sample to England was not because we didn't have the expertise, but when declaring a change in status or the presence of a disease of this order, there's actually a world reference laboratory that's referenced by the OIE, the Office international des épizooties--that is, the international standard-setting body--that they like to get things confirmed in. So that was strictly a confirmatory test. It wasn't because we didn't have the expertise. It was because there is a requirement to get that level of confirmation.

With respect to expertise within the agency, we're in good shape. We have right now on standby all sorts of world experts who are willing to come in and help us. We've had offers from the United Kingdom, from the U.S., from a number of European countries that have dealt with these things. We've also brought on stream a resident expert from New Zealand who's going to be with us in the next couple of weeks.

Right now we can't accommodate all those offers. We don't need that much expertise. But we're in pretty good shape. We're not suffering from any lack of science at this point in time.

Mr. John Maloney: If the original source of this situation was cross-contamination of feed, would you be able to trace that?

Â (1210)

Mr. Robert Carberry: Given the incubation period Dr. Lavigne referred to, of between two and eight years, and if it was a feed source, this theoretically could have been feeding five or six years ago. That's going to be pretty hard to pin down. It may be possible that we never determine the precise feed source.

Mr. John Maloney: Is it still safe to consume dairy products?

Mr. Robert Carberry: Yes.

BSE is not transmitted through milk or milk products. We don't have any restrictions on milk products at this point; you can still buy French cheese or cheeses coming out of Europe. There's no risk associated with dairy products at all.

With respect to the maternal transmission we spoke about before, I just want to confirm that this transmission does not come from transfer of the milk. It's something that would have occurred within the animal prior to giving birth. It's not transmitted through the milk.

The Chair: Mr. Plamondon, for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Like John, I too would like to talk about staff levels. In her latest report, the Auditor General of Canada stated that a staffing crisis was looming at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The AG estimated that nearly half of the CFIA's staff was poised to retire. Alberta's minister commented on the serious shortage of pathologists in his province.

I also recall the president of the Lotbinière branch of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec mentioning that there were five veterinarians in Victoriaville, and that all five had decided to treat only dairy cattle. They no longer treat other cattle. Therefore, officials need to search for veterinarians outside their immediate region. Confusion abounds as to who will replace the retiring staff and about current staffing practices as well. Is it possible then that the inspections may have been carried out somewhat hastily?

I don't quite know how the cow was found to be ill, but according to something I read—and you can confirm if this is in fact the case—an inspector noticed that one cow's head was lower than the heads of other animals. That cow was temporarily isolated and five months later, namely in January, it was diagnosed with BSE. Therefore, each animal is not automatically inspected. Inspections are conducted at random.

How many head are inspected in a herd? How many head are inspected at the slaughterhouse? Do you carry out systematic inspections, one animal at a time, or do you conduct random inspections on the cattle?

Mr. Robert Carberry: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency employs 580 veterinarians, who represent 11 per cent of CFIA's overall staff. Of this total number, 80 per cent are assigned to meat and animal health inspection programs. Over 2,000 inspectors work on our inspection programs and the majority conduct inspections related to meat and animal health.

Since January 1999, the number of veterinarians working for the CFIA has increased by 36 per cent. Over the past 15 months, numbers have risen by 7 per cent. Last year, we hired 15 regional veterinarians for the express purpose of carrying out inspections at slaughterhouses. Our attrition rate is very low, namely less than 4 per cent. Our veterinarians are loyal employees.

The overall number of pathologists is a problem, but this is in fact a global problem. A number of countries are grappling with a shortage of pathologists, not just Canada. Compared to what's happening elsewhere, our situation is fairly positive. Our biggest challenge lies in the West and in Ontario, which explains why we have developed a program in cooperation with veterinary associations and universities to hire younger workers, students and so forth. We have also developed a program to attract veterinarians to our organization.

Our budget for 2003 was increased by $50 million and we plan to use this money to target our priorities. Part of the money will be used this year to address the shortage problem. We have developed programs with a view to retaining current employees and hiring new ones as well.

Â (1215)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before we move to Mr. Borotsik, Mr. Breitkreuz reminds me that perhaps the question he asked was not fully responded to. It had to do with the blood plasma and the blood issue, and whether there was transmission—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I don't know if it was during the conference call last week or whether I read this in some background information, but there is a possibility of a transfer through the blood or plasma. In your discussions with the feed manufacturers, are you looking at changing some of the regulations restricting this? It seems to me that if that's a possibility, it's something that maybe should be dealt with as soon as possible.

You never did answer that part of my question.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Blood is a tissue that is not adapted to transmitting this disease agent. Blood is not a risk material.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: But the agent could be transferred through blood if the blood is contaminated with this agent, because sometimes the processes are not pure and clean enough in the slaughtering plants to make sure the blood is not contaminated. That's what I read or heard in regards to this. So I'm just wondering....

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Scientifically, that would be such a long shot that it has to be a negligible risk. Basically, blood is not an infective material.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay, notwithstanding—

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lavigne, for your clarification on that matter.

Mr. Borotsik, for five minutes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You said, Mr. Carberry, that the American and Canadian beef systems are integrated. I'm going to ask you a couple of questions. Are you confident in the American trace-back, but even more so in the American inspection process, at the present time because of the integration? Are you confident they are as clean as we anticipate being, or attempt to be?

Mr. Robert Carberry: We have a very similar system with respect to meat inspection in Canada and the U.S.—and certainly in those establishments that do the exportation in either direction. There are systems by which we go to look at each other's systems, so we are verifying that on a regular basis.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's integrated. We move live cattle across to the United States, both ways. We move feed, as we've just identified, both ways through Canada-U.S. We move boxed meat from Canada to the U.S. on a continuous basis.

I appreciate the fact that you do your inspections on a regular basis to make sure their system is as safe as our system. The reason I'm heading in this direction right now is that we don't know whether any of the offspring, any of the meat, or any of the feed that may have well caused this, if in fact that was or was not spontaneous, made its way across the U.S. border. We have a lot of boxed meat coming into eastern Canada from the United States on a daily basis. We have a closed border right now to all of our beef to the U.S.

I know this isn't just CFIA's responsibility. I know trade comes into play. I know health comes into play. I know that agriculture comes into play. Is there a possibility now, under the circumstances, that we could utilize perhaps some of the beef that's coming back and is turned back from other countries—utilize our excess capacity of beef in Canada—and stop the American beef coming into eastern Canada, so that we can offset some of that usage?

Again, I know there are lots of areas we're treading on here, but you just heard my rationale. There is a possibility, although slight, that it may have been transferred to the U.S. I know we haven't found it. Why not, until all of this thing works out, use excess capacity in Canada to satisfy Canadian markets?

Â (1220)

Mr. Gilles Lavoie (Senior Director General, Operations and Agricultural Industry Services Directorate, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): We have to be very cautious. The attitude so far that has been taken by the industry--we met with them yesterday and late today and we'll have a meeting tomorrow--is to try to let the market exercise its hold here. It's true that we do export $2.2 billion of meat and out of that $1.8 goes to the U.S., the really large share. We do import from the U.S. alone $456 million.

We have to act responsibly. We export more than four times what we import from the U.S. There is no indication that the U.S. meat is not safe.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm not suggesting it isn't. And by the way, the Americans aren't suggesting ours isn't safe either. They put on a temporary closure. All I'm saying is, let's put on a temporary closure until we work this whole thing out and satisfy Canadian demand by Canadian beef. That's all I'm saying. I'm not suggesting theirs is tainted, by any stretch of the imagination.

In saying that, back in 1991, I think it was, or 1993, I can't remember, we had another case of mad cow here, although it was an animal that was sent from the U.K. At that time there was no temporary ban at the border. Can you explain why at that time there wasn't that temporary ban and now there is a temporary ban?

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: What were the rules at that time? I don't know the rules at that time.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I find it strange. We had a similar situation--

Mr. Claude Lavigne: The situation might have been similar because it was BSE at the time, but it was vastly different. We had one animal that was an imported animal and--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It was imported, correct, so you took the feed out. Maybe it was spontaneous. Did you go through the trace-backs? Did you look at all the offspring? Did you look at all of the other things that had to go forward?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: We took out this animal. We took out the herd mates. We took out its offspring. We even took out some embryos that had been taken from one of these animals. We took out all of the cattle that had been imported from the U.K. back to 1982. We were very thorough in eradicating everything that could have brought the infection in.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But there was no closure of the border at that time.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: No.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Again I find that an inconsistency, to be perfectly honest. All of a sudden we have a temporary closure of the border now. We had the same situation, one animal, and you're doing the same things. You're going back, taking out the offspring, taking out the herds, taking out everything else, yet now we have a border closed.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Probably the thinking, without wanting to presume, of the importing country or countries now is that if there is one case in what seems to be an indigenous animal, maybe there's another one. Maybe there are more. That was not the case at the time.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That goes back to my other comment. We've sent cattle down there too.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Claude, do you want to finish your answer?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Yes.

That's it. They think there might be more at this point. At the time they were imported animals, so the disease had no roots in Canada. Not that it has roots now, but it could have roots now. We'll have to see if....

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I think we should close off the--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Howard Hilstrom): Thank you, Mr. Lavigne.

Mrs. Ur.

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

I have a couple of questions. With respect to feed inspection, you carry out comprehensive inspection of commercial feed mills and on-farm inspections. Do you check the feed mill portion on farms, as well, with medicated food? Is there an analysis you do as to the composition that they're using with the medicated food on the farms, so that you could detect the possibility of whether it's on a farm feed mill?

Â (1225)

Mr. Claude Lavigne: The issue of medicated feed is a completely different issue, you realize. What we're trying to do here is to make sure that everybody has followed the regulations to the letter and that there is no possibility that feed, which could be suspect to a small extent, could have been fed to susceptible species. That's the extent of our investigation at this time.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: When you're checking this feed, what would you be looking for? What would you find that would be a red flag that this feed is contaminated?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: For instance, we'll be looking at the labels on the feed bags or on the documents that came with the delivery of these feeds to make sure they are properly labelled. We will look at what species of animals are sitting on the farm and how the feed is being handled and fed to the animals in order to see that there is no possibility of feeding restricted feed to ruminants such as cattle.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: As you say, this agent, this prion that's found in brain tissue, is it channeled out into the rest of the animal or is this protein only in the brain tissue?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: We know that it's mostly in the brain tissue and the brain stem. We also know that it's not in the striated muscle. It's not in the meat itself. It doesn't go there or in the milk or in blood. What I have here is 64% in the brain, 25% in the spinal cord, which doesn't leave much for other organs--

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: There's a possibility.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: There is 2.6% for trigeminal ganglia—the nerve ganglia—and 3.8% in other ganglia. We're still in nervous tissue here. There's one internal organ where there is a little bit of it—3% in the ileum, which is in the digestive system. Also, there is 0.3% in the spleen and 0.04% in the eyes. You can see that the scientists have gone a long way to try to find the agent in various organs. Overwhelmingly, it's in nervous tissue and it's not in the meat.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You had indicated in the questioning, I think, from Mr. Borotsik on the meat aspect that we have this meat perhaps coming back into Canada but you will inspect it to see if we can resell it here in Canada. What kind of inspection would you carry through to make sure it wasn't tampered with, to ensure Canadians that it is indeed safe? What process would you go through? Not radiation or....

Mr. Claude Lavigne: This meat obviously, when we certified it for export, was certainly fit for consumption in another country as well as fit for consumption in Canada. If there is physical evidence that this meat has been well conserved and has not been tampered with, there is no reason for us to refuse entry and use of this meat in Canada. If there is the slightest evidence that the seal on the container has been broken and it comes from a country that has diseases, we don't want to import the meat, let alone BSE. This meat is not going to be let into Canada.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Is my time up?

The Chair: You can have a short question.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, a short one.

I know the agency is working 48 hours a day right now; you're really busy. But have you spent any time thinking about how things could change, what could be done differently down the road? Have you given much thought to that?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Well, certainly we don't have a lot of time to do much else than react to this event right now, but we're starting to think our policies are going to have to be reviewed with the help of industry and other partners. Certainly after this incident, all of our policies are going to be reviewed to see if they are still current, if they are still appropriate to our situation, and if they need to be changed.

Â (1230)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I have to congratulate you. I think you've set an example for the rest of the world, because there is, I think, very little politics being played with this. I think it certainly sets an example for the work you have all done.

I congratulate you.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Casson wants on, but I do need committee concurrence, as Mr. Casson doesn't have a signed form. He's qualified to be here. He's here as a member. Do we have concurrence that Mr. Casson speak?

Hearing no objection, Mr. Casson, you're on.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the committee for their consideration.

Gentlemen, I want to emphasize to you the urgency of what you're doing. I have a letter here in front of me from a couple of gentlemen in my riding. They are two of many, as you know. In southern Alberta we have more than half the feedlot capacity in this country. We're talking about a total herd in Canada of 13 million-plus cattle, almost a million cattle on feed.

This is the scenario they've given to me. For week one, each animal lost $100. Week one has passed. This week, there's a further $50, at least. If it goes to week three, it's another $350 a head, and if it goes for a month, it could be over.

We're looking at spinoff ramifications on the economy of Canada that are uncountable. I don't disagree with this progressive scientific movement. I think consumer confidence has to be maintained as we go through this. However, if this goes on for three to four weeks without that border being reopened, there will be no industry left to save. Once the bankers lose confidence, once the consumers lose confidence, as this drags on, it gets more dire.

So I am not convinced, Bob, that you have the resources, that you can stack these things on a “do in one day” what you think you're going to need to do in a week. It has to happen in a quick manner. I'm not telling you to circumvent the process, but I'm telling you, you have to do it quickly or there isn't going to be a lot left to deal with.

That's a comment; that's not a question. Those are facts. We have to do this on more than one track. At the same time as we're maintaining the confidence of our consumers, we have to restore the confidence of our customers, and we have to move forward with lightening speed on this thing.

The Chair: Mr. Carberry, do you have some comments?

Mr. Robert Carberry: Yes, just a comment. I just want to reiterate that the agency is moving forward on this investigation as fast as it possibly can. We are moving into areas we've never moved in before. We're leasing airplanes. We're using National Defence to move samples around. We are pulling out every stop, and all parts of government have provided assistance to us in this exercise.

We're in the heart of it right now. I think there will always be demands to move faster, but we're moving it as fast as we possibly can. If we end up in a situation where we see a larger challenge that we can't face with our existing resources or existing means, we'll seek other ones.

We understand the tremendous pressure this is putting on ranchers out there. We understand what the economic impacts are. We're focusing on the public health, of course, as our first priority, but that's going to be ultimately what opens up all of our trade doors anyway, so that's where we're putting our efforts. We are doing this as fast as it can be done.

Progressive doesn't mean slow. Progressive means logical and something that will stand up in front of critics in other countries who will want to understand how this thing happened and how we proceeded.

So we're doing everything we possibly can. I wish to assure you and this committee of that.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Mr. Casson, was there anything else?

We'll move to Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Earlier, you responded to the first part of my question. I believe you wished to comment briefly. Mr. Lavoie seemed to...

[English]

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: The other part was on the inspection....

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Lavigne: The second part of your question dealt with the type of inspections that we conduct. You also wanted to know how the diseased animal had been diagnosed.

The cow in question was brought to a slaughterhouse inspected by the Alberta provincial government. The cow's owner had sent the animal to the slaughterhouse because he thought it didn't look well. When the animal arrived at the slaughterhouse, it couldn't get up, likely because of the stress experienced during transport. It was lying on its side. The animal was slaughtered and the lesions found during the post-mortem indicated that it was suffering from advanced pneumonia.

This animal was handled in accordance with the procedure set out in the ongoing BSE surveillance program in which the CFIA and the provinces participate. Pursuant to the program, when an animal exhibits symptoms of this nature at a federally or provincially inspected slaughterhouse, inspectors ensure that brain tissue samples are taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis to determine if the animal is infected with this disease. That's how this cow came to be diagnosed with BSE.

The surveillance program has been in place for over 10 years. It was initially launched on a modest scale, but expanded quite rapidly. Last year, over 3,000 samples were taken from animals presenting certain symptoms. Let's compare this with the steps taken in the United States. In all, there are 13 million head of cattle in Canada, and over 3,400 samples were taken last year. In the United States, there are over 100 million head of cattle and approximately 30,000 samples were taken as part of a similar program. Therefore, if you compare the two countries, the proportion of samples taken is similar. The number of samples taken greatly exceeds the standard suggested by the International Office of Epizootics, which sets international standards.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Do you inspect each animal individually in the blue and yellow zones?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Each animal is inspected and identified. We gather all of the information needed to link an animal to its owner. Eventually, depending on the investigation's requirements, all of the animals in the herd will be slaughtered and either analyses will be done to determine the presence of BSE, or DNA will be used to determine if various animals are related.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yesterday, MP Mark Eyking mentioned that there were approximately 100 slaughterhouses where no inspections, either federal or provincial, had been carried out. Do you think slaughterhouses like this are located in every province? That's a fairly significant number. Do you think they pose any kind of danger?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: The situation as regards meat inspection in Canada is well known. Ninety-five per cent of animals slaughtered in Canada are slaughtered in federally inspected facilities. Furthermore, each province has a separate system in place, systems that often call upon the services of inspectors who are not veterinarians, but who can place a call to one if they see an animal with lesions or one that is not behaving normally. I can't say what the exact figure is, but of the remaining 5 per cent of slaughterhouses, a good portion are provincially inspected.

That leaves very small facilities, after family-run or local operations, that slaughter Canadian cattle, for the most part, for local consumption.

Â (1240)

[English]

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Lavoie, I think we're optimistic and perhaps confident that my friends in CFIA are going to wrestle this issue to the ground. But when all the dust settles, we've got the possibility of a problem with consumer confidence both domestically and offshore. Are there any initiatives in the works to promote Canadian beef to the country and to the world, and if so, can you enlighten us on what you may have planned?

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: As you know, we do support and contribute to the export market development strategies of the Canadian Beef Export Federation and other groups in the cattle sector, as we do for other export products and agrifood products. We have meetings going on at the moment with the industry to revise the strategies they have developed in order to develop markets and see the type of adjustment and where we should put the emphasis to maintain consumer confidence. So far, it seems we have been fortunate in terms of consumer confidence in Canada. We have not received any report of any significant shift in the demands of consumers away from beef.

Of course, it has only been one week. It's too early to have the statistics. But we are talking with the grocery distributors, retailers and so on, and it's what we are told. So far the consumers have maintained a high level of confidence in Canadian beef. The country has also been shown by the inspection authorities around the world following the information received on a daily basis from CFIA and also from the chief CFIA officer when he was in Paris at the OIE, indicating that the authorities of other countries have also maintained a high level of confidence in our capacity to deal with the current situation. It's only one single case.

We believe that, yes, we do have to adjust a strategy that will be developed and approved for contribution. The industry is in town. We are going to have meetings tomorrow and the day after, on Thursday, to look at any adjustment that would be required to the plan to make sure we maintain the highest possible level of access to our target countries in terms of markets.

Mr. John Maloney: We've heard some rather, perhaps, disparaging comments or inaccurate information coming from the United States, some of the western senators...I don't know, was it North Dakota? However, I don't want to name anybody, Mr. Borotsik. But do we have a rapid response team to address exaggerations and misinformation that may be disseminated by individuals, for whatever reason?

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: Yes, we do. When we hear somebody in Canada or abroad making statements that are not accurate, we do pass the correct information to the proper authorities or to our Canadian embassies abroad and so on, to make sure the correct information is being communicated as rapidly as possible. This is done jointly by CFIA, by DFAIT, and by us to make sure we do have the correct information.

Mr. John Maloney: Practically speaking, if we deal with our Canadian ambassador in Washington, how quickly does it get back to where the source inaccuracies are coming from, like from Washington to North Dakota?

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: The CFIA is leading a media call every day, and the U.S. media are part of the call. It is an opportunity for the person from CFIA who leads the call to transmit the proper information to the media in the U.S. The same information is then communicated around the world to our embassies to make sure this is done. From the feedback we've received from our embassies, it seems to work well, and the feedback they receive from the countries is positive in terms of the way we communicate the information.

Â (1245)

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: One question. Initially, when this whole thing started, the information out was that the case animal itself was an animal of approximately eight years of age. I've heard differing views on that. You've been through this process, you've traced it back, you've gone into farms. How old was the animal?

Mr. Robert Carberry: If it comes out of the blue line, it's about six years old. If it comes out of the yellow line, it's about eight years old. That's why you're hearing differing stories on the animal. We knew when we looked at the animal that it was older than six. At this point, it comes down to confirmation of origin to determine the exact age of the animal.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: If it comes out of the blue line, it was six. If it comes out of the yellow line, it was eight. If it comes out of the blue line, feed was banned in 1997. That's about six years. It gives you another stream to follow, I suspect.

Mr. Robert Carberry: The animal, as I recall, was born early that year. The ban came into effect around October of that year. There would have been a period of time when it was exposed to feed before the ban.

If our situation was similar to the situation in Europe, there was also a period where stocks were used up and those kinds of thing.

Again, some of our feed comes from the U.S. They were going through the same challenges in putting that ban in place.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Was the U.S. ban not later than ours?

Mr. Robert Carberry: I could check on the date for you. I'm not precisely sure about it.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: It was approximately the same time.

Mr. Robert Carberry: Yes, it was approximately the same time.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: We may have done it a couple of months before them, but it's very close.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay. We move to Mr. Anderson, for five minutes.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Carberry, I want to go back to the depopulation issue again. You said that we'll take down all herds with a probability or a connection to this. Yet you say that you're only taking the first blue herd at this time. If you're taking them out one dot at a time, progressive does mean slow.

Mr. Casson's letter, and other information that I have, basically says that we have two to four weeks before our feedlot industry is in a very serious situation. It will probably be two to four months before most cow-calf people start to run out of operating funds. If we follow this one step at a time, we're looking at over a month before we get to the end of this line alone. We're already into the second week. You're talking about a third week to get confirmation, a fourth week, and a fifth week.

Is that fast enough for you?

Mr. Robert Carberry: We're not moving one dot at a time. In fact, we're depopulating both of the herds, the gold boxes, if you like, or yellow boxes, at the same time as we're depopulating the first blue circle or the first herd in the line that goes down to Saskatchewan. We will not be moving dot by dot; we will move in waves on this thing.

In terms of taking five weeks to get through that line, it's not going to take that kind of time. We will move to depopulate all herds that continue to have a linkage to the line of investigation, and we will do so very rapidly.

Mr. David Anderson: You're going to take those herds out. Is it a matter of resources that you can't do it more quickly?

Mr. Robert Carberry: It's an issue of getting things to the lab and getting our people on the ground to oversee this. We have about a two-day turnaround time. In the lab, we're batching a number of samples at the same time. It's going to happen fairly quickly, very quickly.

Mr. David Anderson: How soon will it be before you get through the two lines?

Mr. Robert Carberry: I don't want to give a date, because some result may send us off in another direction. We are going to get through this quickly.

Go ahead, Claude.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Don't forget that testing of the herds is only one tool in our investigation. In parallel to this, we're doing a lot of investigation on feed. This is one tool.

The animals cannot be killed sometimes until their usefulness as live animals is finished. There's a lot of information that we can get from these animals, DNA testing or other things, that needs to be done before they are killed. We're doing it as quickly as possible, but we're doing a lot of things in parallel.

Â (1250)

Mr. David Anderson: I'm going to pursue that a little.

You said that you have to do DNA testing before they're killed. You can do that anytime. What things are you doing with the live animals then, if you have to keep them alive? I'm interested in that.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Identifying these animals is not a simple thing in many cases. DNA is one tool that we want to use. There's the famous reading of brands on animals, which is a difficult operation and requires a lot of expertise. We're not going to kill the animals until we know that we've exhausted all of the possibilities of identification for live animals.

Mr. David Anderson: For the possibility of identification, on one hand Mr. Carberry is saying that you're taking the herds out. Now you're saying that you're not necessarily depopulating the herds.

Mr. Claude Lavigne: I'm not saying that we're not going to depopulate the herds. I'm only trying to explain why they're not already dead.

Mr. David Anderson: I don't think there's a good explanation, other than the fact that you don't have the resources to deal with the tests, which is something you should be telling us because it's something we can try to do for you.

These connections have to be made. The only way you can make them is with dead brains, right? And you need to be willing to do that quickly. We don't have months. We don't have three or four stages to go through of following this trail. It has to be done as a group. These animals have to be examined as soon as possible.

I understand you may be going in other directions. I know that can happen. I hope it doesn't. But at this point, that, to me, seems to be just an absolute essential of what you're doing.

I want to go on to talk about a couple of other things as well. Mr. Maloney talked about the communications strategy a little bit. We were at a farm forum last night and one of the things we heard from the ranchers is that the communication to the consumers is not being done well. They feel our food is safe; we have a problem with one situation here, but our food is safe for consumers. We need to reassure other countries, and they feel that the message was not getting out.

I'm just wondering who is in charge of your communication strategy. Is CFIA or Agriculture Canada in charge of it? What is it? We've heard a little bit on it from Mr. Lavoie, but who's in charge of the general communication about this situation, reassuring people that our food is safe, and trying to reassure our neighbours as well? Is that your department?

Mr. Robert Carberry: We've been going into these daily briefings and we continue to repeat that the supply is safe, the problem has not increased, the investigation is ongoing. We have no reason to believe there's any increased problem out there relative to other BSE finds. We are carrying those messages on a regular basis. Health Canada has indicated as well that there is no major problem related to this.

I haven't heard those same comments back about the Canadian consumers. I'll certainly take it on board and share it with our communications people at this point. But CFIA has been leading the technical briefings at which other agencies are represented. So I'll carry that to them.

Mr. David Anderson: Have you committed money to advertising?

The media will carry it. We understand it; they want to carry the sensational, the items that point out the problems--and we have Mr. Dorgan and his intemperate remarks, which we've come to expect. But are you advertising? Are you taking an aggressive campaign in order to convince the public and our neighbours that we have safe food, or are we just sitting and reacting?

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: It has not yet been discussed as an option to have a massive campaign.

As I mentioned previously, we're going to meet with the entire food supply chain at a round table tomorrow and Thursday. This is one of the things we'll be discussing together.

The Beef Information Centre, which is a figurehead of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, is answering many requests for actual information. They already have a campaign in terms of beef promotion and so on. They are active in this domain.

But a massive, bold campaign has not yet been developed as an option. We'll see what the industry is considering as the best way to go tomorrow and the day after.

The Chair: Do you have a short comment, Mr. Carberry?

Mr. Robert Carberry: I just wanted to add that our media monitoring unit is looking through literally hundreds of media articles, either from Canada or from other sources, on a regular basis. We're not picking up any major concerns around the safety of the food supply out there. We do build our messages based on what we're hearing back from these media monitoring resources.

Â (1255)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, the continuity of this question requires that I ask permission and consensus from the committee to ask one short question. It's very short.

The Chair: Okay, we'll agree, but I may not be able to get back to you again, depending on what the mood of this committee is.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We have the room until 3:30 p.m.

The Chair: I know, but--

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: In the newspapers, the Canadian Health Coalition wrote an article with facts that were not correct in it as to the importation of meat scraps up to the year 2000 into Canada. Maybe you saw it; I have it here if you wish to see it. It was full of inaccuracies. Will CFIA's or the department's communication people try to correct the record in the media on that?

Mr. Robert Carberry: These are the types of things we're monitoring on a regular basis. We are aware of that one, and it's in our communication people's hands right now. I don't know what the determination is. That's one of the things we were to discuss today; unfortunately, I wasn't here.

But I would like to get on the record that the information we understand was given was Statistics Canada information that allows the coding of a whole different bunch of things into that code. In fact, no high-risk material was being imported through that period from those countries. We did a full survey from 1990 to the year 2000 and determined that no products of risk--meat and bone meal products--were fed to Canadian animals from sources other than the U.S.A.

The Chair: Okay.

We'll move to Mrs. Ur for five minutes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I want to just ask this question about your investigations as to source, where this has originated. Is it being hampered by lack of funds, lack of facilities, or lack of inspection people? Is there any problem there?

Mr. Robert Carberry: Not at this point, and we have certainly had the nod from other sources, such as Treasury Board, that if we need something they would certainly be willing to listen to us.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Prior questioning here alluded to the fact that because you don't have sufficient dollars and sufficient facilities, whatever, the process was being held up. I just want to make it clear that everything is at your disposal. As you say, all departments are working together on this. So we need to let the Canadian public know that everyone is working on this, not just CFIA. I think that's another good-news story to send out on that.

Over the past week or so I noticed a newscast where a game farmer was being interviewed on this particular issue. Has the CFIA done an investigation regarding game farming, feeding with game farms? Do game farms pose a risk to our cattle ranchers out there? What risks to animal health are posed by feed intended for farmed game animals? Is there a problem there that perhaps could move over to the cattle industry?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: First of all, the feed regulations prohibit the feeding of cattle--or deer and elk--with feed that comes from these species. They're treated in the same way as far as the feed regulations are concerned. CWD, a disease of the same type that affects cervids on game farms, is not transmitted by feed. Each of these diseases are in the same category or family of diseases, but they're all transmitted in a different way. While BSE is transmitted by feed, this one is not. Really, there is no relationship between these two diseases and they need to be treated completely separately.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: When herds are depopulated, are they all depopulated at the same slaughterhouse or in various parts of the country?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: It depends. In this particular case of our BSE investigation, when a herd is depopulated, it means that after evaluation for compensation purposes we put the animals on a truck and bring them to our facility in Lethbridge, where they are humanely destroyed and sampled in a controlled environment. Then we will dispose of the carcasses properly.

· (1300)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Is there a different sterilization or cleaning agenda at the slaughterhouses when this is taking place?

Mr. Claude Lavigne: Again, this is not a slaughterhouse; it's a laboratory and they have all the facilities to clean and disinfect that are needed.

Mr. Robert Carberry: Just to add to that, the carcasses are actually disposed of after we have the results, so we would have determined whether there was a risk of BSE or whether BSE was present, which also drives how we dispose of the carcasses. If there is BSE, obviously then we move to high-temperature incineration.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Is that the end of your questioning?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It is.

The Chair: We have one minute left on your time. I will ask this question. There have been statements made in the last number of days in terms of how we can trace food. We have a great traceability system in Canada, but perhaps we've gone a step too far in suggesting that we can trace meat from the source at the farm, from the live animal to the plate. Is this possible or not?

Mr. Robert Carberry: We use a variety of means to do these types of trace-backs. We use bills of sale, transport records, farm records, eartags if they're there--they're now for calves or animals moving off a farm. So there's a great variety of things that would allow us to theoretically bring it back to the farm for animals.

That's precisely the exercise we're having to go through right now in getting back to the herd of origin. As I've indicated, our probabilities are getting quite high. We would like to also confirm things with DNA evidence and we're moving to do that where it's possible.

The Chair: You've answered part of the question, but can we trace it right to the plate?

Mr. Robert Carberry: To the plate?

The Chair: Can we trace it to the plate on which the person consumes it in a restaurant or a residence?

Mr. Robert Carberry: I'm not familiar with our potential for tracing forward from an abattoir to the plate. I would have to look into it.

The Chair: Mr. Anderson. You thought we'd never get back to you.

Mr. David Anderson: I have a couple of questions.

Yesterday Mr. Vanclief mentioned that improvements would have to be made to the food safety component of the APF to make sure this doesn't happen again and to boost consumer confidence. I'm just wondering if you know what improvements he's talking about specifically. There's $290 million set aside for food safety. Is that going to be sufficient to accommodate these improvements?

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: Obviously it's an excellent start, these additional dollars that have been made available. We will have to revise the plan in light of our current health status and see whether or not we have enough money there.

There was money there to improve the tracing and tracking of various species--not only in the animal sector but also in other sectors--when appropriate, from the farm to the consumer. There was a HACCP-like system on farms or post-farm. There were elements in terms of quality as well.

These elements remain important. We are reviewing the programming that was instituted there to see what type of thing we should accelerate.

For example, in terms of tracking and tracing, to complete the system as it was initiated a couple of years ago, we were targeting 2008. That's not only for beef but for the entire agrifood industry. We will obviously see how we can accelerate it and what the implications are in terms of resources that may be required to accelerate the system. You have to develop the system; it has to be audited, accredited. You need surveillance for a system after it is developed. It is not a simple one-step process, but we are working with the industry on it.

Mr. David Anderson: It seems to me that the best part of the system right now is the part that has been producer initiated and producer managed, which is the tagging system. So I think you need to be aware that government is not going to be able to solve all these problems. The producers have to be onside. Probably the producers have a better understanding of how to do it than the government does.

He mentioned yesterday as well that compensation formulas are in the early stages. And I guess we want this to be resolved. The APF risk management program isn't going to compensate losses of the potential magnitude this could have if it spreads. Has the department received a commitment for additional funds from the treasury if the crisis continues? Where are you at with that?

· (1305)

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: No, obviously at this point we have not sought any additional funds for compensation. It's only a one-week-old event, only one single case. We hope we will get back to the normal situation as soon as possible. If there was deterioration of the situation, we would have to see whether the amount of dollars currently available under the programs would be enough or not.

Also out of that there are some statutory obligations in the sense that we will have to make the payments in accordance with the program and the legislation as approved, and of course we'll have to seek Parliament's authority if we need additional dollars. The programs are there and the payments will be triggered if the income of farmers falls below the trigger.

Mr. David Anderson: Are you saying you haven't done anything yet to start talking about an increased compensatory method if this continues? If you haven't, you should.

What's in the APF isn't going to come close to covering the problem if this continues for more than just a few weeks. You have to cover all the rest of agriculture in Canada, supposedly, with that $1 billion as well. You need to be moving on that already.

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: Yes, but the $1.1 billion referred to the amount of investment made every year under the business risk management program, particularly crop insurance and NISA. It's not necessarily the amount that has already accumulated under the NISA account, for example, or the amount of payment that could be made out of crop insurance if there is a disaster.

For example, crop insurance is a statutory obligation. If you have a $3-billion payment trigger, because of weather conditions, we will pay out $3 billion. Under NISA, obviously, the ceiling is the amount of the loss and the amount that you have under your individual NISA account. But the fact that we do invest $1.1 billion a year doesn't mean that's our payment when triggers are limited to $1.1 billion.

Mr. David Anderson: Their payment will cover whatever disaster is triggered by that program, no matter what the amount?

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: In this particular case, the program that will trigger most likely, if the income of farmers is significantly affected, depending on the period of the situation, will be the NISA account. It is the first one that will--

Mr. David Anderson: The old or new?

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: The new. They already have some dollars accumulated in their account that may be accessed.

Mr. David Anderson: The problem the producers have with this is they don't know what the program is yet, because you haven't come out with it.

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: The implementation agreements are not signed, but they know pretty well what is on the table, and what has been accumulated in their account will be available as per the agreement. But you're right, the agreements are not signed. Until such time as they are signed...yes.

The Chair: Mr. Anderson, your time has expired.

I think we should clarify. The minister made clear yesterday the money for compensation does not come out of the APF moneys. That is not part of that money. This is separate.

Mr. David Anderson: There is no plan yet.

The Chair: For the animals that are destroyed, is that what the question is?

Mr. David Anderson: Oh, no, I'm not talking about that. I understand that part of it.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Borotsik, have you any further questions?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just one more. Very quickly, you said you're meeting tomorrow with the retail and also the cattle producers.

Mr. Gilles Lavoie: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Are we going to continue with the communication strategy so we can find out what in fact it is you're resolving with these organizations and how that's going to be implemented? I guess that's my question. How do we follow up with this?

The Chair: I might just say this. We have in the audience this morning the vice-president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. He has given me some notes here.

It might be helpful for us to know the banks are having positive discussions with the cattlemen. They're aware of our situation, and they appear to be wanting to work and to assist farmers through this crisis.

The second item is the matter we talked about this morning: consumer confidence. The Beef Information Centre, I believe, is something that's been put forward by the cattlemen as well, and they're tracking consumer purchases to see just exactly what's happening at the consumer level--but promoting food safety, again.

On the communications, the Cattlemen's Association, again, is concerned there be a consistent message and they're working with the CFIA on that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But I'm taking it a step further. That's very good and it's nice to know, but they're going to have their meetings. Are we going to continue with our communications update with the CFIA, now that we're back? We have better communications when we are away from the House than when we're here.

· (1310)

The Chair: No, I think they've been fairly good. We had communications yesterday and today.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No arguments, no arguments.

The Chair: We meet again on Thursday.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So we will continue to have these updates?

The Chair: Yes, sure.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Anderson, for final comment.

Mr. David Anderson: I just want to come back to the question, are you working on solutions? Are you prepared to suggest any?

I guess a number of things come to mind in terms of what you are doing--and this will be later--in terms of getting quicker testing done. Are you doing anything about trying to get the market partially open in terms of ages of animals or those kinds of things? Are there any steps being taken to make sure this rendered feed is not being fed where it shouldn't be? You have enough other people in your department. Are you working on solutions as well?

Mr. Robert Carberry: Yes, we have teams working on all these issues. For example, what are the potential post-crisis policy changes we have to make? What would some of the systems look like for testing in the future? How would we do those tests? How would we accredit methods? All these things are going on simultaneously.

We have a series of teams working on all these. We have an international team working on market access. We have all of these things ongoing right now. Cooperation has been extremely high between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with the CFIA, with any of our embassies or posts abroad. Things are working very well together, but we are working on all of these fronts right now.

Our focus, of course, is getting this investigation done as quickly as possible. That's where the majority of our resources are going right now.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you for your communication last week as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Thank you, members of the committee, for staying with us. We are not going to stay until 3:30--this will be a relief to Mr. Borotsik.

For our panel of people who have come from the CFIA and from the department, we want to thank you for coming this morning. You've been forthright. We appreciate your candidness on the responses to our questions, and we do want to remain in the loop because it's important we have a clear and transparent communications program so that everyone understands where we're going.

Thank you again, Mr. Lavigne, Mr. Carberry, and Mr. Lavoie.

The meeting stands adjourned.