AGRI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

Á

1145

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

Dr. Terry Church (President and Vice-President, Alberta Elk Association, Canadian Cervid Council)

Á

1150

Á

1155

Dr. Mike Bringans (Director and Scientific Advisor, Canadian Cervid Council)

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. Serge Buy (Executive Director, Canadian Cervid Council)

Â

1205

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance)

Dr. Terry Church

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Dr. Terry Church

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Dr. Terry Church

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Dr. Terry Church

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Dr. Mike Bringans

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Serge Buy

Â

1210

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Dr. Terry Church

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Dr. Terry Church

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Dr. Terry Church

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Dr. Terry Church

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Â

1215

Dr. Mike Bringans

Dr. Terry Church

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Dr. Terry Church

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Â

1220

Mr. Serge Buy

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Serge Buy

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Serge Buy

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Terry Church

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Terry Church

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Terry Church

The Chair

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

Dr. Terry Church

Â

1225

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Dr. Terry Church

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

M. Serge Buy

Mr. Claude Duplain

M. Serge Buy

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Serge Buy

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Serge Buy

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Dr. Terry Church

Mr. Serge Buy

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Dr. Terry Church

Â

1230

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Dr. Terry Church

Mr. Serge Buy

The Chair

Mr. Ray Ference (Elk Valley Ranches, Alberta, As Individual)

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. Brian Oestreicher (Elk Hills Ranch Ltd., Saskatchewan, As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Brian Oestreicher

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Ray Ference

Â

1245

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Mr. Brian Oestreicher

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Brian Oestreicher

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Brian Oestreicher

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Ray Ference

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Ray Ference

Â

1250

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Ray Ference

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Brian Oestreicher

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Brian Oestreicher

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Brian Oestreicher

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Brian Oestreicher

Mrs. Carol Skelton

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Brian Oestreicher

Â

1255

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Ray Ference

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Ray Ference

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Ray Ference

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Brian Oestreicher

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

---

NUMBER 037

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)): [Technical difficulty--Editor]...Terry Church, president and vice-president of the Alberta Elk Association, and Mike Bringans, director and scientific adviser.

    We're going to allow you to do your presentation. If you could be reasonably succinct, given the time we have, we'll try to be very succinct in our questioning as well.

    Mr. Church, are you on first?

    Dr. Terry Church (President and Vice-President, Alberta Elk Association, Canadian Cervid Council): Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Steckle.

    Ladies and gentlemen, in the interest of time, I'll just say that we're certainly pleased to be here today in front of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

    My name is Dr. Terry Church, and I am the president of the Canadian Cervid Council. The “Dr.” refers to Doctor of Veterinary Medicine. My colleague Dr. Mike Bringans is also a veterinarian. We represent the national organization that represents elk and deer farmers in Canada.

    Formerly I was a director of animal health and animal industry divisions for the Government of Alberta for approximately 20 years. As I said, we're very pleased to be with you this morning.

    I think as you are undoubtedly aware, the elk and deer farming industry has faced numerous challenges in the past five years, but certainly our greatest challenge has been our severely depressed market values related to an outbreak of chronic wasting disease.

    With regard to chronic wasting disease, I think we can say with certainty now that almost all of our cases can be directly related to animals that were imported from the United States in 1989, traced to a wildlife research facility in Colorado, where the disease was first diagnosed in 1967. While some of the cases are still being investigated, in total we now have had 42 farms that were depopulated, with approximately 8,800 animals destroyed and tested in that process.

    We believe the disease, CWD, is now under control in our industry. I say that because we have had no new cases in farmed elk since March of 2002. The only and last case in farmed whitetails was found in October of the same year, 2002.

    I think it's worthwhile to point out to the committee that there have been no cases of CWD basically east of Saskatchewan, so no cases in animals like red deer, fallow deer, reindeer, etc., either.

    We have a surveillance system in place that's working very well, and we're very proud of it. Our council and our industry and their provincial organizations have worked very closely with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and also provincial counterparts to develop a very rigorous program that is now, I think, second to none in terms of disease surveillance.

    The fact that we have had “transportation authorization permits”, as they're called, and mandatory animal identification for, in some cases, more than 10 years has put us now in the enviable position of being able to easily do any trace-outs or trace-backs for disease surveillance that may be required.

    It hasn't been easy dealing with the challenge of CWD. There certainly are producers, and some are here today to speak to you later, whose lives have been morally and financially impacted, and in some cases ruined, due to the destruction of their animals. Some people are still suffering due to the quarantines that have been imposed upon their premises. They'll enlarge on that.

    Yes, these quarantined farms--I believe four are still under quarantine--have received compensation for the animals that were depopulated, but the compensation does not cover the costs of the cleanup and the decontamination.

    While these types of costs are covered under the Plant Protection Act, they do not appear to be covered by the Health of Animals Act. For the committee's information, in the previous outbreaks of the potato wart virus in Prince Edward Island and the plum pox virus in Ontario, producers were compensated not only for the destruction of their products but also for the imposed cleanup and quarantine.

    On numerous occasions we've made representation to CFIA, and CFIA officials have stated to this committee that they were working on this issue to ensure that the Health of Animals Act would mirror the Plant Protection Act, but as of today, no such changes have been proposed or come forth from CFIA.

    In the cervid industry, four farms have been placed under indefinite quarantine by CFIA, because they are deemed to be highly contaminated premises. While we, the Canadian Cervid Council, certainly respect the importance of ensuring animal health, we cannot accept and cannot agree that these producers will be put in essentially limbo for an indefinite period of time without some sort of compensation.

Á  (1150)  

    For the past two years, our council has worked closely and thoroughly with the CFIA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to try to find a solution to this problem. I think we can fairly say that we haven't met an official in either CFIA or Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada who does not show some kind of understanding and some sympathy. Most are quite willing to help. Where we find the frustration is that, to this point, after two years, no help has been found. When we call upon different players in this issue, the standard answer we get is, “Well, we're still working on a solution.”

    I think we can say now that this is not sufficient and can not and should not last any longer. We do need to find out if these farms are still contaminated. We have suggested, with the producers involved, a research project, and have asked on several occasions that the producers involved, the quarantined farms, CFIA, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada sit down together and find a mutually acceptable solution that will lead to answers regarding this question of whether the ground that those animals were on before they were depopulated has remained contaminated or not. We would certainly appreciate any support and assistance your committee can provide in encouraging people to come to finding a solution.

    We also have some concerns about the compensation process now being applied to producers in Alberta by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In the past few months, our whitetail producers in Alberta have received mixed signals from the agency, and this is not helping an already tense situation.

    I think we want to very much acknowledge that the process followed by CFIA worked very well until sometime in the year 2002 with most of the elk producers. Our whitetail producers in Alberta were contacted by CFIA and have been since receiving confusing messages.

    I think the Cervid Council would adopt a position that we do not see or understand the necessity to change a process that worked very well up until late last year.

    I think it's worthwhile to point out that our producers got into the business to raise livestock. We know of no producers who got into the business who were hoping to suddenly cash in on a discovered disease and cash in on a government compensation program.

    One of the main issues we've had to deal with is the perception of the disease. Some media are quite happy to over-dramatize the situation. I think we've seen a lot of that lately with BSE coverage. Chronic wasting disease was first reported as “mad elk” and “mad deer” disease by some media, which is not unlike today, where BSE is being called “mad cow” disease.

    I think the real problem is that these names create an extremely negative image in the public. No one talks about “mad human” disease when we're talking about the human form. We're firmly convinced that there is syndrome that does exist, and we liken it to “mad journalist” disease.

    We're seeing, unfortunately, the results of one media-fed panic attack after another, with 9/11, CWD, SARS, BSE, West Nile, and so on. So communication and the public image is very difficult.

    I'd like to very quickly conclude by saying that we certainly understand and respect the pain that cattle producers are going through at this time. We know all about that. We've been suffering through it for the past two years related to the loss of markets, the media sensationalism, the loss of consumer confidence in our products, border closures, and, I think most importantly, financial distress among our producers and their families. This is indeed a serious situation.

    We also recommend that CFIA, the Canadian government, and provincial and territorial governments must become more proactive and develop one comprehensive standard for meat inspection programs across Canada to provide assurances to all Canadians and our trading partners that our meat products are safe and wholesome.

Á  (1155)  

    Without getting into detail, I think you may be aware that there's a bit of a hodgepodge of different regulations and different standards across the country for meat inspection. I think we definitely believe the federal government now must take some leadership in this issue and develop one comprehensive system. I think the building blocks are all there, it's just the will to get that standard in place.

    Thank you for your time. Dr. Mike Bringans will now provide you with some brief scientific update on the CWD and then some of the programs put in place by the governments and our industry to control the disease.

    Mike.

    Dr. Mike Bringans (Director and Scientific Advisor, Canadian Cervid Council): Thanks, Terry.

    Just as a quick introduction, chronic wasting disease is a TSE, a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. This is the same family of diseases that includes scrapie in sheep, BSE in cattle, and CJD in humans.

    What do we know about CWD? A few years ago, we were unable to say we knew much about the disease. However, a number of research projects have since been undertaken. There are still a lot of things we do not know, and some research projects are ongoing. The most important thing is that all research projects to date indicate that CWD does not seem to be naturally transmissible to humans.

    This is extremely important. A letter from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to our council last year pointed out that CWD was closer to scrapie than it was to BSE in the way it behaved.

    Another important statement is that CWD does not seem to be naturally transmissible to other types of livestock. In Colorado, cattle were fed actual deer brain infected with CWD. After six years, none are showing any signs of the disease. There is a similar experiment being undertaken where cattle were run with infected elk. Once again, it's almost six years now and they haven't shown any signs of the disease either. We fully expect that they'll die of old age and not CWD.

    Some media outlets have tried a number of times to link the BSE case in Alberta with our deer farms or game farms. Both Dr. Brian Evans of the CFIA and Dr. Gerald Ollis, chief veterinarian of the province of Alberta, have clearly rejected their theory.

    In contrast to BSE, CWD seems to transmit laterally--that is, from animal to animal--and not through the feed. What has generally been accepted is that those infected will spend a lot of time drinking and salivating over the water trough, and we believe that's the way the disease is transmitted. Transmission by ground contamination and from mother to offspring are also possibilities that need to be further investigated.

    In April of 2001, the disease became reportable. The eradication program, similar to the one used in cattle, has been implemented. As Dr. Church pointed out, 42 farms were diagnosed as having infected animals, but it's interesting to note that on the majority of them, only one animal was actually infected. So it's a disease that's not highly transmissible or not highly contagious.

    All provinces or territories with farmed elk and deer have surveillance or certification programs offered to control the disease. The certification program is designed to provide certainty regarding the absence of disease at the farm level, while the surveillance programs are designed to provide certainty at the regional level.

    These programs are extremely rigorous, since all on-farm deaths must be reported and submitted for testing. The yearly inventory verified by a third party must be completed. Certification will give a high level of confidence, as all these programs run longer than the generally accepted incubation period of three years.

    All cervids moving on or off the farm must be recorded and reconciled with any inventory. Producers are actually facing immense difficulties trying to meet these programs. It's not easy to find a dead animal within 24 hours, especially if it's hot. You may not even have that time, because a lot of these farmers do have areas of bush on the farms themselves.

    More research needs to be done. Premises that have gone through a decontamination procedure should be free to raise livestock again. The case of the highly contaminated premise is troubling for our industry, and the CFIA should be involved in a research project on this issue, in our opinion.

    We are pleased, however, to report that two scientific studies, although limited, point to the fact that CWD prions are not present in velvet antler, which shows that even if the disease is present, it is not transmissible to humans through this vector.

    The Canadian Cervid Council completely agrees that no material or product from an infected animal should ever enter the food chain. To provide added confidence in the product in provinces where the disease was found, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the brains of all carcasses must be tested prior to the meat being released for sale.

    All velvet antler must be tagged, identifying the farm and individual animal prior to being sold or exported. These are trace-back measures that would provide assurance in the event of a recall.

  (1200)  

    The Canadian Cervid Council was engaged in the on-farm food safety initiative as well. We also believe these programs are necessary to provide consumers with high levels of confidence. We've had a good relationship with the CFIA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. However, we are concerned about the lack of research done in Canada as compared to research done in the U.S.A. Clearly our government is not investing enough on research into this disease.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Bringans.

    We will now move to Mr. Buy.

[Translation]

    Mr. Serge Buy (Executive Director, Canadian Cervid Council): Every agricultural industry has its strengths and weaknesses. Deer and elk breeding are no exception. Let me give you a few statistics in order for you to get a better understanding of the industry.

    According to the 2001 census, we estimate that our members injected some 140 million dollars into the local economy in 2000. This takes the form of purchases of equipment and materials, including fencing, veterinary services and other basic requirements. Furthermore, any number of velvet antler processing plants, slaughterhouses and cervid meat-packing plants, as well as synergetic farms and companies specializing in the international sale of our products, have created local employment in areas that are often neglected in this regard.

    It is clear that chronic wasting disease has had a major impact. The main impact on red deer and elk ranching was the result of the closing of the South Korean market to our products. We strongly feel that this exclusion is no longer justified and is nothing more than a protectionist device.

    The closing of this border has resulted in a drop of the price of velvet antler from $75 a pound to $25 since 2000. We have tried several times to renegotiate a reopening of the border. A delegation of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in November 2002 has failed to obtain any answer from the government of Korea. We no longer can accept such a refusal from Korean authorities.

    The Committee on Agriculture of the U.S. House of Representatives asked the Korean government for an explanation. Three reasons were given: first, chronic wasting disease is present throughout North America; secondly, Korean incurred cost to solve its own CWD problem that was due to the importation of Canadian products; and, thirdly, the Canadian Wildlife Federation advised the government of Korea not to reopen its border due to a lack of scientific knowledge on chronic wasting disease in cervidae.

    It is ironic that Canadians would be losing their farms, their jobs and their economies because of extremist fellow citizens who are basically opposed to the breeding of cervidae and who advise foreign governments not to accept our products. There is one thing you really need to understand. We, as an industry, have constantly been victims of ongoing harassment by various organizations such as the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Alliance for Public Wildlife.

    It is interesting to note that several of these organizations have charitable status and are able to issue tax receipts. We certainly do not consider ourselves as the lucky beneficiaries of their charitable work.

    Another major impact was the tightening of import controls of live animals by some U.S. states. The Canadian Cervid Council is certainly not opposed to strict protocols based on scientific evidence, but we are totally opposed to the wholesale closing of borders. The fear linked to CWD has also affected the market for meat. Some slaughterhouses have refused to accept cervidae because they fear contamination and others are no longer able to slaughter these animals due to the fact that their offals, like those of sheep and goats, can no longer be rendered. Furthermore, we are faced with strong competition from New Zealand which is using this disease and other problems as an opportunity to invade our market.

    Therefore we need government to work more pro-actively in order to reopen our traditional markets. The government has practically done nothing since November to confront the Korean government. If contacts at the official level have no effect, we need ministers such as the minister for Agriculture and Agri-Food and the minister for International Trade to ask serious questions and insist on answers from their Korean counterparts.

    We would also urge this committee, as the Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives did, to request clear explanations from the Korean government, through its ambassador. Our government needs to be more proactive in promoting the measures we have taken in order to control this disease. This would help to keep markets open and ensure that American states recognize our efforts.

    We also need more resources in order to increase our markets within Canada, but not in order to compete with beef and pork products. How can our government stand by while our foreign competitors destroy our markets and threaten the very foundations of our industry at a time when we are going through such a crisis?

    We have been faced with this problem of closed borders for three years. We really hope our colleagues in the industry [Technical difficulty--Editor] closing of the markets.

  (1205)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    In the minutes left, I'm going to use the chairman's discretionary powers this morning; I have the willingness of the Liberal Party to forgo questions so that we can have people over here, who are perhaps--like you, Ms. Skelton--involved in industry, ask the questions.

    I'm going to give it to you first, Carol. We'll make sure the other parties get in, but we want to defer our questioning at this point in time--just showing the generosity of this committee.

    Carry on, Ms. Skelton, five minutes. We have twenty minutes.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): First of all, to Dr. Church, the Cervid Council represents how many members across Canada?

    Dr. Terry Church: Currently about 2,500 in total across Canada.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Right across, from coast to coast?

    Dr. Terry Church: Sea to sea.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Where does most of your funding come from, then?

    Dr. Terry Church: Our funding for the Canadian Cervid Council is all member contributions through their provincial organizations. In fact, each member of a provincial association is assessed $70 per member, which is the main source of revenue for the operating funds of the Canadian Cervid Council.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: So basically, the Canadian Cervid Council is run by the producers for the producers.

    Dr. Terry Church: Absolutely. Every provincial organization that's a member has representation to the board of directors. The board of directors makes all the policy decisions. It's carried out by the office of the executive director.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Dr. Bringans, since you've been in Canada from New Zealand, why do you think the Canadian Food Inspection Agency treats scrapie differently from BSE or CWD? There seems to be a difference in the whole way they treat it.

    Dr. Mike Bringans: I think scrapie has been around for so much longer, and been identified for such a longer time. We feel, and all the evidence is pointing to the fact, that CWD and scrapie are very similar in the way they behave--i.e., infectivity to people and so on. It's a matter of being conservative, I guess, whether it's correct or not correct.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: There are so many questions I would like to ask.

    Serge, you went to Korea this spring. What did you find with the Korean government? Where did you see the blockage? Was it with our federal government or was it with the Koreans? Are our ministers not talking? Where is the stop there?

    Mr. Serge Buy: I think there is a certain unwillingness by the Koreans to engage Canada in this issue, and I think Canada will have to be much more proactive to engage the Korean government. Every time the food inspection agency or our government has asked questions of the Korean authorities, they say, “We don't want to discuss it now.”

    It was okay for maybe the first few months when there were some questions about the disease, but now we haven't had a case in farmed elk for over a year. Basically, all products exported from Canada come from elk and red deer, and there's never been any case from red deer.

    We have enough answers that we can provide them with safe products and with complete assurance on that. We've been trying to engage them for the last little while. They refuse to participate in discussions. So I think the government has to be much more strong on this issue.

  (1210)  

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Okay.

    I know in Saskatchewan, with every death of an animal the head has to be checked and so on. From what I've been reading in paper the last two weeks, that's not right across this country, is it?

    Dr. Terry Church: In the cervid industry?

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Yes.

    Dr. Terry Church: The difference, I think, is that it's mandatory in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In the other provinces it's voluntary, but if producers opt out, they pay a fairly high price for it....

    Sorry, I missed Manitoba, no slight intended. It's mandatory in Manitoba as well.

    If they opt out, then they are no longer eligible to be under the certification program, which will severely impact their trade. So the compliance is very high in the non-mandatory provinces as well.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: I know in Saskatchewan in our hunting industry we've gone into testing of all heads. It's not mandatory, but we're testing heads, and we're finding it in the wild. Does Alberta do that too? Are other provinces buying into that, getting their hunters to turn in heads?

    Dr. Terry Church: Yes, I think there's a monitoring of the wild population through heads being tested in Alberta, with not as many numbers as Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan certainly is the highest. I think their numbers are up around 7,000 to 9,000 a year. Manitoba is definitely on that program.

    By the time you get to Ontario, it does drop off quite a bit. I think Serge was just showing me that Ontario has looked at about 200, and in Manitoba I think the number is around 500 per year. So there definitely is monitoring going on in the wild population, yes.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: I have just one tiny question left, Mr. Chair.

    With regard to federal slaughtering plants, have you been working on getting provincial borders open to...?

    Dr. Terry Church: Yes, we have had considerable discussions between Alberta and Saskatchewan with the producers and at the bureaucratic level to allow animals to move from Saskatchewan into Alberta for slaughter purposes. We're frustrated with the lack, or slowness, of response of our government. Of course, once BSE broke out that totally got put on the backburner.

    The access to slaughter facilities is an important issue for the cervid industry across Canada, and particularly so in Saskatchewan.

    The Chair: We'll move to Mr. Gagnon for a few minutes.

    If any one of you wish to defer back to Ms. Skelton anywhere along the line to give her time, that's fine. I realize she's a producer and we're limited in time.

    Mr. Gagnon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Madam, I will indeed take very little time in order to leave more to you.

    I wonder about one thing. Every time there is talk about these diseases... Dr. Bringans mentioned that there are not enough research projects going on. But we have been affected by this disease for quite a number of years and it gives us a bad name. I feel we are not investing enough or else the research effort is not sufficiently well directed for us to overcome this disease by means of a vaccine or some other way. I would like to hear the opinion of Dr. Bringans in this regard. He was the one who mentioned research.

[English]

    The Chair: One moment. The technician is going to try to get us back on queue...[Technical difficulty--Editor]

    Mr. Gagnon, carry on.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Did you understand the early part of my question? I simply would like the doctor to elaborate on what a research program should look like in order to solve or at least be able to control this type of disease. Serge was cut short earlier when he was talking about the problems we have with New Zealand in terms of cervid meat products from Canada or Quebec. I would like to hear your opinion on this.

  (1215)  

[English]

    Dr. Mike Bringans: As I understand it, you want us to elaborate on the projects or the research projects to support our industry.

    I think one of the most urgent ones really is assessing the contaminated areas, the farms that are now under permanent quarantine. I think we should be doing some research where there's very valuable material for us to do research with. I think that's something the government should be looking at more enthusiastically than what they have been.

    Terry, are there any other areas that you'd like to elaborate on?

    Dr. Terry Church: I think it's worthwhile saying too that the CFIA has collected a tremendous volume of material from all the animals that were killed. Over time, that has to be just a wealth of information by having most of that looked at and tested. It's going to require certainly some degree of investment and financial support to get that work done, but we're probably in a unique position in the world of having access to that material that was collected from all those animals killed. We definitely would encourage that, as well as the contaminated premises...just to summarize it without going into individual projects.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Therefore, there is a lack of funding for research. There is not enough money for research.

[English]

    Dr. Terry Church: Yes, I think so. Usually when we discuss issues of research priorities and research projects with CFIA or Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the most immediate answer we're given is, well, there's only so much money in the budget, and we don't have enough money to do everything.

    I think we're saying that this might be an area that should be identified as a priority in their budgeting process. You either have to increase the money or change the priority.

    The Chair: We'll move on to Mr. Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, and I'll promise to be short so that Ms. Skelton can get some more questions in.

    As I understand it, Terry, there are three things the council is looking for. Number one is compensation, compensation for not only the animals themselves that have been destroyed but also for the contaminated cleanup. That's the first thing.

    The second thing is marketing or open markets. You think the government has not done a sufficient sales job, with particularly the Korean market, to say that the disease is controlled, and we should get back into the Korean market. My question there is, are there other markets that should be developed?

    The third thing, I guess, is the research we just talked about, that the government or the CFIA has not put in sufficient time, money, and energy to assist in the actual research of CWD.

    Am I okay with those three points? Is that what you're asking for?

  (1220)  

    Mr. Serge Buy: I will answer that for you, Mr. Borotsik, just quickly.

    In terms of compensation, I don't think it would be one of our main concerns at this time for the cleanup. It was mentioned during our presentation. If we're talking about compensation for other industries at this time, such as the cattle industry, we've been in that situation for the past three years in terms of market close. While we do represent 2,500 producers, the cattle industry is 100,000-strong. We cannot be forgotten, and we're begging the government not to forget this industry. This is an important thing for us.

    That would be the compensation we would be looking for on behalf of our producers. We've been in that situation for three years.

    In terms of markets, and markets reopening, Korea is our main market, definitely, in terms of the velvet antler. We need to reopen the Korean market and the U.S. as well for live animals and live trade. And due to the BSE issue, we were banned from exporting meat or live animals or even velvet antler to the U.S. That needs to be clarified and changed. So that situation needs to be remedied as well.

    As well, we need to protect our own internal markets, especially against New Zealand meat coming in. It's somewhat difficult for us to build a meat industry when very cheap New Zealand products are coming in throughout the country and competing unfairly against our products.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I just want to touch on that, because that was my other question. Is there a market in Canada right now for elk meat? You've just said there is. So why is there unfair competition with New Zealand animals? Why is there cheaper meat coming from New Zealand than what our producers can produce here?

    Mr. Serge Buy: There is a number of answers to that question. I think the New Zealand industry is able to produce them at this time probably cheaper than in Canada. They have a much larger group of animals to play with, about three million animals. They're able to redirect--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: How many animals do we have?

    Mr. Serge Buy: We have about 185,000 farm-raised elk and deer.

    They're able to direct their cuts to some countries where the cuts gather a better price. They're able to direct their cuts to different markets. They're very well organized. We're a fledgling industry, and definitely we need to establish our markets and do some work. So we're competing with an industry that's already quite organized.

    On top of that, they have a government-mandated funding system, a checkoff system, that we do not have and that allows them to spend about $4 million a year in promotion, which we are not able to do. We do not have those mandated checkoff systems. We're not in a position at this time to have such a checkoff system. So it's difficult.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: As a last question, is there any market for velvet right now?

    Dr. Terry Church: Yes. There's a small domestic market, but the great majority depends on an export market.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So there's no export market for it?

    Dr. Terry Church: Well, there is; a lot of it now, instead of being able to be sold to Korea, is being sold to China.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: And at $25 a pound, less than what you'd been getting?

    Dr. Terry Church: Yes.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Borotsik.

    I'm going to move to Mr. Duplain, who has a question he wants to ask.

    No question?

    Howard, you have a question.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): I have just one question.

    In dealing with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency--one example is the cleanup of a ranch or a processing facility--has the CFIA provided you with written instructions on how that can be done, or should be done?

    And what about generally; does the CFIA generally try to deal with you on issues through written instructions and criteria, or do they do a lot of verbal talking, which is later hard to pin them down on?

    Dr. Terry Church: It's a difficult question to answer, Mr. Hilstrom, but I think the answer is both. Certainly in terms of overall policy or procedures for contaminated premises, the CFIA has been willing to document that. When they get down to dealing with a processing plant that may or may not have become contaminated, things move so quickly that then it's verbal, through the inspectors and so on, with a lot of input from Health Canada.

    So the best answer I can give you is that both apply.

  (1225)  

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: What's the approved chemical used for cleanup on a facility, either at the ranch or in the slaughter facility, as in a building situation? Is there an approved chemical?

    Dr. Terry Church: Yes, there are a couple. Household bleach is determined to be one of the most effective disinfectants. There is another approved similar cleaner, that doesn't go under the name of household bleach, that's used in plants. The name of it escapes me at this moment, but it is there.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Church.

    I'm going to move to Mr. Duplain for a question. Then I'll allow Mrs. Skelton to finish off.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I really have just a small question, Mr. Buy, on the Canadian association, since this is a part of agriculture I do not know very well. What is the relationship with Quebec?

    M. Serge Buy: The relationship with who?

    Mr. Claude Duplain: With Quebec, the associations in Quebec. What is your...?

    M. Serge Buy: There are three associations in Quebec which are still active: the Canadian Red Deer Breeders Association, the Association des éleveurs de wapitis du Québec, the Canadian Red Deer Association, which represents Ontario and Quebec and has members in both. These three associations are members of our council and are represented at our board of governors, the same as all other organizations throughout Canada, which means that we are a representative organization of producers, as we mentioned in our answer to Mrs. Skelton earlier.

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duplain.

    Ms. Skelton, to finish off, you have about four and a half minutes.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Serge, when the Cervid Council was started, the federal government was behind you 100%, correct? The Minister of Agriculture gave you full support to go ahead and form the Cervid Council and become the spokesman. But when the disease set in, they sort of dropped us, didn't they, and the support left in a lot of ways?

    Mr. Serge Buy: Madam Skelton, the Cervid Council was founded in 1992 by the Canadian Deer and Elk Farmers Association. We did not wait for the government's support to move with regard to our organization.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: But there was full support behind the organization.

    Mr. Serge Buy: Yes, the government has been supportive of a national association representing the industry in order to make sure there would be one united voice for the industry. I think that's been made clear.

    I think there is still government support for the industry and for the council. More needs to be done, and I think that needs to be expressed. I think the government needs to be pushed somewhat and reminded that if they take certain actions for one industry, huge actions, they cannot drop the ball for another industry completely and forget about the elk and deer farming industry.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: What has the Cervid Council done to take away the fears of cattle producers that they got BSE from our elk or deer?

    Dr. Terry Church: That's a perceptive question. I think tomorrow Serge is going on a radio program, broadcast across western Canada, that raises that very issue. We've been dealing with that question through contacts with media outlets as rapidly as possible to stop that as quickly as we can. It's easy, in a time of crisis, to look for somebody to blame, and we seem to be a convenient whipping boy, as it were.

    I think if the cattlemen think a little bit...that's a dangerous game for them to play. CWD is quite widespread in the wild deer in the United States, so if they're going to start making that link, they're basically shooting them in the foot, because they're discrediting the product of our biggest trading partner.

    Other than dealing with it through contact with media....

    Mr. Serge Buy: I have a couple of other things, Mr. Chairman, if you'll allow me.

    We've also contacted the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and several media outlets, such as The Edmonton Journal, which has a definite arrow on us, and Time Magazine is also supposed to issue another article about the industry.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, Canadian Cattlemen is not making the link.

    Dr. Terry Church: Not the cattlemen organization officially, no; it's the odd individual.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Let's be very clear on that.

    Dr. Terry Church: Yes, point very well taken.

    Mr. Serge Buy: We keep contact with them.

    The Chair: I apologize, but we have to conclude this part of the meeting. It's very unfortunate, but I think we've gotten your message. You were able to put your message to the table. The clerk, as always, and our researchers take note of all these things. We have copies of that.

    Thank you very much for appearing this morning.

    We now want to welcome Ray Ference, Elk Valley Ranches, Alberta, and Brian Oestreicher, Elk Hills Ranch Ltd., Saskatchewan.

    Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing this morning. We have one half-hour to do what we have to do, so the more time you give for our questioners, the more questions you have to answer, or you can speak to us, but we prefer that you allow at least some time for questioning.

    Who's first?

    Mr. Ray Ference (Elk Valley Ranches, Alberta, As Individual): I can go first.

    Thank you to the committee for letting me present my case on the CWD problem. I'm going to try to keep it quite short, basically because of the time. I really appreciate a lot of questions, so I'll do just a brief summary.

    I hope you received the letters I wrote, because they basically explain quite a bit of our situation.

    We've been in the business for 18 years. My partner Frank McAllister and I started back in 1985 raising elk, and have found this to be an absolutely great business, although not without some problems. One of the biggest hurdles we have to overcome right now is the CWD problem.

    Our farm was one of the 40 or so farms depopulated because of CWD in Saskatchewan. We had 497 elk, and 25 tested positive for CWD. That's approximately 5%. CFIA classified our farm as a high risk, so in order to get out of quarantine we had to do a major cleanup.

    To give you an idea of what the cleanup consisted of, we had to disinfect our corrals. We had to replace a lot of our corrals. After that we had to paint them. We had to replace the water bowls. We had to remove all the soil out of the corrals, taking six inches off the whole corral system and replacing it with gravel. Where the animals are fed out in the pastures, we had to take and work up the land, or if there was a high concentration they required us to basically dig pits, bury it, and close it all up. So basically it was a major, major task to clean up.

    While we were doing all this cleanup, CFIA basically said, “Once you get this cleanup done, hey, you're back in business.” This carried on for a few months. They'd come and check our situation and then just give us more requirements for cleanup.

    I think in the other presentation one of the questions asked was whether we got anything in writing. It was very difficult to get anything from CFIA in writing. It was all verbal, and one of the verbal comments they always made was, “You'll be back in business right after cleanup.”

    As the cleanup went on, they even required us to clean our dug-outs. You have to visualize, on our farm it's not a grain farm; it's designed mainly for elk, where it's really hilly. What we did was divide up our pens to about 30 to 40 acres. We have a rotation, so we have to have water in each pen. So we had over 20 dug-outs that they made us drain and revamp.

    That means we had to dig pits, flush out all the stuff, put it in the pit, and bury it. So basically we dug dug-outs to clean dug-outs. Where we couldn't do that, we had to bury them and dig new ones.

    It was a tremendous cost. Basically, it cost us over $80,000 to clean up. The problem is, once you get started, you say, “Well, okay, half-way through, what do you do?” CFIA assured us that once it was cleaned up we would basically be back in business.

    Our cleanup was completed back in October of 2001, and on November 1, 2001, we were informed from CFIA that we couldn't go back in business. They said they'd discussed it with other forms of industries, the provincial governments...and of course some of the research they found, and said that we were highly contaminated and we absolutely couldn't go back in business.

    That means we could put no cattle, no nothing, on it. It was devastating to us.

    I know frustrations were high between CFIA and ourselves for the last couple of years, but I think CFIA has done a very good job of trying to clean up CWD in the provinces. As you heard from the speakers before us, there has been no CWD found on farms for quite some time. So I think they've done a very good job on that. The problem is, the job isn't complete. We're still in quarantine. I really want the committee to recognize the fact that we can't do any business on that farm. It's a financial disaster for us.

  (1235)  

    We tried for funding and could not find funding anywhere. CFIA also stated that they've tried numerous ways to put us back in business, but basically there is none.

    I think I wrote in my letter some of the solutions I have that could take place. I'll just mention a few of them.

    We could limit our farm to just cattle or buffalo, since CWD is not transferable to cattle or buffalo.

    We could put short-term cattle or buffalo on the farm. We could graze them in the summer and slaughter them later on. We could test them.

    We could put elk bulls on the farm, which we would hunt later on. We have a hunt ranch that we could put them on. Once they're hunted, we test all the heads anyway.

    The government could buy our facilities and land and turn it into a research project, or the government could rent our land and use it for a test facility, or replace our land and facilities so that we can go back into business. Or they could incorporate a research sentinel program on this farm, which we'd be very much cooperative with. We have absolute volumes of information of our farm. When we got into business we began a very extensive record-keeping system; we know how the disease spread on our farm, pen to pen. We did submit our computer disks to CFIA for the epidemiologists to study.

    In my opinion, I don't think they've done extensive research, because we weren't contacted or asked any questions about that.

    Again, I'm trying to keep it a little short. I could go on and on.

    I think one of the best solutions would be to incorporate our farm into a research project, like a sentinel research project. With the volumes of information we have, I believe all industries would benefit. If a program like that was put in place, we'd encourage having cattle and buffalo incorporated so that in the long term all industries would benefit.

    I'll finish off. I really thank you again. I hope there's some sort of help for us. I don't like handouts, but I just need some assistance to get out of quarantine.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ference.

    Mr. Oestreicher.

    Mr. Brian Oestreicher (Elk Hills Ranch Ltd., Saskatchewan, As Individual): Thank you.

    The Chair: You're going to have to be short or we're not going to have any questions.

    Mr. Brian Oestreicher: Sure.

    I would like to thank this committee for allowing me to present a brief summary of our farm situation due to chronic wasting disease.

    According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, I was a source farm for CWD in the domestic herd of elk in Saskatchewan, beginning in 1989. I believe CFIA was correct to depopulate the elk on our property, plus the elk and deer on 40 other farms in Saskatchewan. That has apparently eradicated the disease from the domestic cervid herd. However, there are many questions still to be answered. The main question is whether the disease remains in the environment on our farm, because this is why we are still in quarantine.

    I, my elk records, and our farm all harbour a wealth of information about this disease, and will prove that CWD is not a concern to the cattle and bison industry, or the wild population of cervids.

    I request your help to solve this quarantine issue. One solution to this quarantine would be a sentinel research project to prove to the general public that Canada's domestic livestock and wild population is a safe food product. Unfortunately, we cannot bear these costs, as we have already spent huge amounts of our money to prepare our property for a sentinel project. CFIA has tried to source money for this project, with no success.

    We are willing to meet with any committee to resolve this outstanding issue on the relationship between CWD and BSE.

    I truly appreciate your questions and concern on this issue.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Oestreicher.

    We'll begin with Mr. Benoit.

    We're going to have to share questions here. I'm going to try to work as best I can with you.

    Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, gentlemen.

    Mr. Ference, I've been in contact with you about this for some time, of course, and I can understand how you'd be a bit frustrated by now.

    Mr. Oestreicher, I've met you before as well.

    I have a letter from Gerry Ritz, the MP from Battlefords--Lloydminster, which he sent to the agriculture minister on the issue of setting up a sentinel research project. I have correspondence between me and the minister and others as well.

    So it has been going on for a long time, but perhaps you could summarize the real issue. I'd just like to start by asking, generally, do you believe it's the responsibility of the individual producer, whether it's elk or anything else, to pay for the costs of running a herd generally, or do you think it's the responsibility of the government?

    I think I know your answer on that, but moving from that to the next stage, why do you think the government has a responsibility in this case, as opposed to normally?

    Mr. Ray Ference: In this case there are a lot of unknown answers to the problem. Take TB; they have a long history of a lot of knowledge, and they have it under control. In CWD there are so many unanswered questions. For example, they claim that CWD can be transmitted through environment, possibly, or other things. An individual can't really bear that cost for the whole industry. I mean, it would be overwhelming.

    The cost for a sentinel program would amount to about $750,000, and it's just unbearable. We'd have to find the funds somewhere else. We just couldn't do it.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: So the reason that you think it's appropriate for government to assume some costs in running a research project, a sentinel project, is that it's for the common good of Canadians and the industry.

    Mr. Ray Ference: Absolutely, and I think not just the cervid industry but also the rest of the animal industry. It would answer a lot of questions.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: If the good were only for yourself, then you would agree that you should pick up the costs.

    Mr. Ray Ference: Oh, absolutely. It definitely isn't just for our benefit. It would be for the benefit of the whole industry, yes.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: In terms of the project, the answers that we've been given and that you've been given from the government--first of all, whether they will become involved in a sentinel project, and secondly, how they might become involved--have really been unclear. The information I've been given and their reasons for saying they're not really interested in becoming involved are very unclear. Really, they won't make a strong commitment.

    Mr. Ray Ference: Actually, that's true. They claim that if we want to get out of quarantine, we could go to a sentinel program, go for four years at our own costs. But they still didn't say we'd be out of quarantine; they'd just look at the information, basically. So it's very unclear.

    I did get a letter back at the end of May explaining some of that. It took me a couple of years to get that information.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Roughly, what would the cost be for a four-year program?

    Mr. Ray Ference: The cost are projected to be approximately $750,000. As for why the cost would be like that, we start off with a small amount of animals. And you have to realize that in this project the animals have calves, and it's a multiplying effect. Plus, in a project like that we'd have to have a lot more staff to monitor the animals. I think it was Dr. Bringans who said that you have to get the animals who die or get sick tested immediately or else you can't test for it.

  (1245)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: What specific reasons did the CFIA give you for not taking on this project?

    And Brian, you can feel free to throw in here on any point.

    Mr. Ray Ference: Their reasoning: totally unfunded. They basically have research money for other projects, and this was too large a project. They absolutely didn't have enough money.

    In all honesty, I think they'd like to see a project go, but they're totally unfunded for it. They have no funds anywhere in the government at this time to direct to this project. That's my understanding, from what they told me.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I could name a few places.

    The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you.

    Have you approached the Cervid Council to do the sentinel project at all? I mean, it's the industry, the Cervid Council; they have a $70 cheque from each producer. Have you approached them to do the sentinel project?

    Mr. Brian Oestreicher: It is a fledgling industry, the elk industry, and it was hit so hard with this CWD issue that farmers are going broke as we speak because of the lack of sales they can produce. One of the main reasons for that is the fact that this sentinel project hasn't been completed, or hasn't even been started. It's a black cloud hanging over the industry.

    Take the fact that there is CWD in the wild. An industry cannot expand without knowing that if you fence off a new piece of property and there is CWD on the outside, your animals on the new piece of property aren't going to come down with CWD. This research will prove that--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Brian, I'm going to jump in here. You both have suggested in your presentations that there should be a sentinel project on both of your properties. You've suggested it on your property, and you've suggested it on your site. It isn't necessary to have two to develop this research. How does one choose which site?

    Mr. Ray Ference: I brought it up with CFIA, and they brought up that same issue. My answer is that I think Brian's farm is a little more unique than mine, just the way we manage them, and they would get a broader knowledge of answers from both projects.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So we're having two projects instead of just one. Is that $750,000 each?

    Mr. Ray Ference: That would be each farm, yes.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: But there are four still under quarantine. Should we have four, then?

    Mr. Ray Ference: There are four different situations.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So there should be four.

    Mr. Ray Ference: I'm not saying that.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, you are, actually.

    A question. You had 400 animals. They were all depopulated?

    Mr. Ray Ference: I had 490-some animals, and, yes, that's correct.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You were compensated for those. Were you compensated at market value for those animals?

    Mr. Ray Ference: We were. We were compensated fairly. In a lot of cases it was under market value, but basically I'm not complaining. It was fair.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's where I'm heading on this one.

    Yours was depopulated. Were you compensated at market value?

    Mr. Brian Oestreicher: We had approximately 400 animals but I owned seven of them. I was in a different situation. I was more or less just working for a wage. We rented our property out and just housed other people's animals.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Were they compensated for their animals--

    Mr. Brian Oestreicher: They were compensated.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: --at fair market value? Your compensation for those animals was what the market was at that time, back when they were depopulated, in 1989 or 1990?

    Mr. Ray Ference: Okay. Your question is on whether we were fairly compensated per animal. Definitely a lot of the animals were valued lots higher at that time--lots higher--than what we got compensated for, but I'm not complaining about it.

    To answer your question, we didn't get compensated for fair market value at that time, because there were a lot of animals that were worth a lot more money.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You paid more money for them?

    Mr. Ray Ference: Oh, yes, absolutely.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: When you bought them you paid more money for those animals than what you were compensated for at that time?

    Mr. Ray Ference: That's absolutely true.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's what I was asking for.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Borotsik.

    Ms. Skelton.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Just to follow up on that, today's value is not the same as what the Canadian Food Inspection Agency...if there was another outbreak, the value is not as high any more.

    Dr. Church did state that you had gotten written and verbal instructions. Did you get written instructions from the CFIA on how to clean up your farm and when you would be released?

    Mr. Ray Ference: I personally did not get any written instructions on how to clean up our farm. They'd come out and just keep assessing the situation and keep adding every time they'd come out. At the last there'd be a group of them, usually about four, who would just look around the farm, literally walk it, and say, yes, you do this, this, and this. But there were no written instructions.

    The only written instructions we got from CFIA was that we were in quarantine. If they ever wanted to change the quarantine during the course of the time, they just kept memos. If something arose....

    Oh, yes, adding to that, they make us maintain our fence now. It's our responsibility to maintain the fence with absolutely no income on that farm. They just keep adding things like that.

    We said, well, maybe we can just go out of business and just take our fence down. Immediately they wrote another memo that it's against the law to take our fence down.

    So it's a hodgepodge of things.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Can you see the feasibility of running BSE, scrapie, and a whole bunch of other tests on this land that would possibly help with the College of Veterinary Medicine in the city of Saskatoon, our University of Saskatchewan?

    Mr. Ray Ference: I think it would be a perfect situation. We have a lot of high fences, a lot of pens, and good checking facilities, so we could easily incorporate any kind of research on the farm.

  (1250)  

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: The College of Veterinary Medicine is the one that has been doing the tests for CWD and BSE, I believe.

    Mr. Ray Ference: Correct.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: What has this done? You have had no income off that land. You're paying your taxes. You kept that all up yourselves?

    Mr. Brian Oestreicher: There are liens on our property now. We haven't been able to pay our taxes.

    See, it's a different situation. I live in Lloydminster, 25 miles away from that farm. The home quarter belongs to my dad. The Elk Hills Ranch owns one quarter and my sister owns another. So it's different.

    It's an expense for me to go out there every day just to go and look after it, or make sure no wild animals get into that property. CFIA has more or less dangled a carrot in front of my nose for the last two years, so I haven't been able to just walk away from the farm and go get a job somewhere else. And the decision has to be made shortly on whether I do that.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Can you be charged if wild animals get on that land...with Saskatchewan Environment or anything like that?

    Mr. Brian Oestreicher: If they can prove that I have done something negligent on the fencing or the gates, or an oil company or...that has access to my land. Yes, they've threatened to charge me already.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: You've had threats?

    Mr. Brian Oestreicher: Oh, I've had an investigation, yes.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: This was CFIA?

    Mr. Brian Oestreicher: CFIA.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Leon, you have something?

    The Chair: Leon.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I do.

    Both of you, I believe, went to a great deal of expense to clean up your property, both believing that after you had done that you would be able to use this property, maybe not for elk but for possibly buffalo or cattle.

    Is that right, for both of you?

    Mr. Ray Ference: That's absolutely correct. As Brian said, they dangled the carrot in front of us all the time until it was finished.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Were there others in a similar situation to you who didn't clean up?

    Mr. Ray Ference: There are four farms. As I understand it, I complied 100% and have a written letter saying that I did complete the specifications, but I never did get out of quarantine.

    There is one farm owned by the natives, and I don't believe they've done anything. There's another one north of our place. I talked to him the other day, and he told me he hadn't started cleaning up because he saw the plight I went through: “Why should I clean it up if I'm still going to be in quarantine?” So he's sitting there.

    Brian, you can explain your situation.

    Mr. Brian Oestreicher: We have another unique situation at our place. When our elk were being depopulated, we had extra pasture, so the neighbour had cattle running on our property too. This was all with the knowledge of CFIA, because they were depopulating our elk and these cattle were grazing on this property also. Nothing was said.

    Later in the fall, that would be in 2000, another 200 head of beef cattle grazed that property, again with nothing said by CFIA. During that winter, as we got compensated for our elk, we purchased bison, which again went on our property. The cattle had left.

    All of a sudden, in February of 2001, one of the CFIA representatives came to me and my sister and told us those cattle and bison were going down as well. We didn't know what was going on, because we'd never heard a thing about it. They stated that because the cleanup was not done first--we had no idea there was any cleanup, because that was never brought up--the cattle and bison were going down.

    Okay, so we accept that again. They go in a pit along with our elk. Then we purchased bison again after that, did the cleanup, and then that's the end. We're stuck with these other bison now on some other property, paying rent on that, with our property sitting there vacant.

  (1255)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Is there any evidence that chronic wasting disease can be spread to any other species?

    Mr. Ray Ference: That's a good question. I'm learning a lot about CWD, and trying to dig up information on research. We've discussed it with Dr. Beth Williams, and she's done extensive research on that. Her comment to us was that she absolutely can't understand why we wouldn't have cattle or buffalo on our property right now.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Is that what you're asking for? Are you asking to be able to put elk back on that property?

    Mr. Ray Ference: I just want to be back in business. If I can put cattle or buffalo on there, I'm happy. I'm not saying that I have to put elk back on there. I understand that maybe there should be more research on that, but I think the research is up front on the cattle and the buffalo.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Has the CFIA--and this is, I think, the least you would expect--laid out in detail why they've taken the position they have?

    Mr. Ray Ference: As I think I mentioned, just a week ago, on May 30, I got a letter from them stating part of that. I just got it, and going through it I have many questions on it, so I'll be in correspondence with them. This is the first real evidence they gave to me. It's very difficult to get anything from CFIA on our situation, but I did get something just a week ago, and I'm going to question them on it, yes.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Basically, then, we saw with the industry that the CFIA came in and did a really good job, but there was no follow-up. Is that right? Because that's what I got from listening to both of you, that you're feeling that way. They did a good job to start with. The veterinarians and everyone were very good, and dealt with it very professionally, but it was that end space. And that's what I'm hearing from some of my cattle producers in Saskatchewan right now.

    Mr. Ray Ference: I have to agree with you.

    I have to compliment CFIA on the fact that the job they did was very professional. They have good field people. But as I said in my talk, it's still not finished. They're leaving us hanging out to dry, basically.

    And that's hard. It's a big hardship to us.

    The Chair: Mr. Borotsik, do you have anything else to add?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I'm fine.

    The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom?

    Carol, do you have anything else?

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: There's one thing I want to put on the record here. You mentioned Dr. Beth Williams down in the United States and the cattle and CWD. Can you explain the testing to the members of the committee? What has she been doing?

    Mr. Brian Oestreicher: Dr. Beth Williams has injected infected brain material directly into the brains of cattle. I think there were 13 cattle. Three of those cattle showed symptoms of CWD but not CWD; it was something similar. But if you inject anything into somebody's brain, something is going to happen.

    The other herd of cattle was fed brain material highly infected with CWD. For five or six years now they've been given this ultra high dosage of the prion, and nothing has happened to those cattle. They're fine.

    So they were, I believe, going to accept a five-year study, but now they've bumped that up to another four years to give those cattle a natural death type of deal to satisfy that study.

    The Chair: Okay. I think that's a good bit of information to close this meeting with.

    I want to thank the presenters for coming this morning, and I apologize for what was beyond my control as your chair.

    Thank you, members of the committee, for cooperating this morning. It's always difficult when we have limited time and many presenters.

    At this time I'm going to adjourn the meeting.