AGRI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

¹

1530

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

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. David Fuller (Chairman, Chicken Farmers of Canada)

º

1630

Mr. Robin Horel (President, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council)

Mr. Ed De Jong (President, Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency)

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

Mr. Ed De Jong

Mr. Gerry Ritz

º

1640

Mr. Mike Dungate (General Manager, Chicken Farmers of Canada)

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Ed De Jong

The Chair

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

Mr. Errol Halkai (Executive Director, Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency)

Mr. Louis Plamondon

º

1645

Mr. Errol Halkai

The Chair

Mr. Robin Horel

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Ed De Jong

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Ed De Jong

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)

Mr. David Fuller

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Mike Dungate

º

1650

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Mike Dungate

The Chair

Mr. Robin Horel

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

Mr. Errol Halkai

Mr. Rick Borotsik

º

1655

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)

Mr. Robin Horel

»

1700

Mr. David Fuller

Mr. Mike Dungate

The Chair

Mr. Robin Horel

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Mike Dungate

The Chair

Mr. Robin Horel

The Chair

Mr. Robin Horel

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)

»

1705

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Errol Halkai

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Errol Halkai

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Errol Halkai

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Robin Horel

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Errol Halkai

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC)

Mr. Ed De Jong

»

1710

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.)

Mr. Mike Dungate

»

1715

Mr. Robin Horel

Mr. Gilbert Barrette

Mr. David Fuller

The Chair

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

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

»

1720

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

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

Mr. Errol Halkai

Hon. Mark Eyking

Mr. Errol Halkai

Hon. Mark Eyking

Mr. Robin Horel

Hon. Mark Eyking

Mr. Mike Dungate

Hon. Mark Eyking

Mr. Mike Dungate

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.)

Mr. Mike Dungate

Mr. John O'Reilly

»

1725

Mr. Errol Halkai

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Errol Halkai

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

---

NUMBER 005

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)): I'm going to call this meeting to order now.

    The first order of business before we get into witnesses is the matter of the motion from earlier today. That is the motion to deal with packers coming to the....

    Do you want me to read the motion, or are you ready to deal with the motion as circulated?

    (Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: This afternoon we have before the committee the Chicken Farmers of Canada. Mr. Dungate, of course, is one of those witnesses. We see him more on television than in person. Anyhow, we are an accommodating committee, and we thought that since you people were in town, why not have you come over to the committee for an hour or so. So welcome.

    Today we want to look at this whole issue of sanitary measures in the chicken industry, to bring us up to speed on what's going on there, given the circumstances over the last number of weeks.

    From the Chicken Farmers of Canada, we have with us, of course, Mike Dungate, as I mentioned, the general manager; and David Fuller, the chairman. We have Robin Horel, president of the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council; and from the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency, Errol Halkai, executive director, and Ed De Jong, president. Thank you for coming.

    Mike, you or Mr. Fuller can lead off. It's yours for about ten minutes, unless you want to share that time with other members.

    Mr. David Fuller (Chairman, Chicken Farmers of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee to give you an update on the situation the chicken industry finds itself in with the avian influenza.

    To start, I'd like to give you a little bit of history. There have been four separate incidents of avian influenza that have had an impact on the Canadian chicken industry over the past month: first, a highly pathogenic flu outbreak in Asia, which has been linked to human deaths; secondly, low pathogenic outbreak in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania in the U.S.; thirdly, an outbreak, again low pathogenic, in two breeder flocks in British Columbia; and lastly, an outbreak of a highly pathogenic virus in Texas in the U.S.

    Overall, Mr. Chairman, we have been pleased with the proactive response of the farmer with the infected flock, with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and with the Canadian chicken industry in relation to the outbreak in British Columbia. We are confident that the virus has now been isolated successfully.

    Today we would like to take a more general look at how we prepare for and manage animal disease outbreaks. We have certainly learned some lessons from our experiences over the past month.

    What is essential is that we need a contingency management plan. We need to work with Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in conjunction with the Canadian poultry industry, to develop a revised written protocol that deals with high and low pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks. We need to develop a communication plan with industry to have in place in advance of an avian influenza outbreak.

    Chicken Farmers of Canada took the leadership role in initiating communications with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada and in communicating more information to both our industry stakeholders and the media. Once industry conference calls were established, the participation of industry representatives was ad hoc and primarily done through self-selection.

    We certainly appreciate, as the chicken industry, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's decision, which was based on sound science. In its communication efforts, however, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency needs to be cognizant of its responsibility to provide assurance and confidence to the industry and consumers whose concerns are not necessarily based on sound science.

    With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn the floor over to Robin.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Robin Horel (President, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council): Thank you.

    Thanks, David.

    The Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council are the folks who buy the hatching eggs from Errol and Ed's folks and hatch them into chicks, and buy the chicken from David and his group and turn it into processed meat for the Canadian consumer. I'd like to take just a minute to talk about the dimensions of the industry, the impact of these diseases, and some going-forward points.

    At the farming level in the chicken business, there are about 3,150 farms in Canada generating $1.6 billion in farm cash receipts at last count, 110 hatcheries, and 130 processing plants. We are a major industry.

    We export about 7% of our chicken production. Our key markets include Russia, China, the Philippines, the United States, and South Africa. In 2003 we exported 70 million to 80 million kilograms of chicken, valued at between $100 million and $125 million.

    Late last week I did a survey of the members of the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council. The results are just in, and we'd be happy to share those with you later--I don't have them translated yet.

    Of note to me were the amazing number of companies that our members export to; the fact that we export meat, both cooked and raw; and the fact that we export eggs, hatching eggs, turkey and chicken poults, and baby chicks around the world. Although in total it's only 7%, for some of the companies, for example Hybrid Turkeys in Ontario, it is their entire livelihood.

    Animal diseases can have a significant impact on our industry and on national economies. At the first signs of a disease, effective contingency plans can reduce the potential impact. In the B.C. case there was minimal economic impact on our industry due to a quick response. The CFIA acted quickly by deciding to depopulate the infected flocks, quarantining the farm, and establishing a surveillance program prior to receiving the final pathogenicity test.

    However, it has been difficult for our industry to obtain specific and timely information on the content and the application of trade bans against Canadian products. Much of the information we've received has been through the media. In the United States the FDA has a list on its website of all the countries applying trade bans, including the products and regions covered by the ban.

    We believe a process needs to be put in place in Canada with the industry to determine which are the priority countries in terms of seeking a future lifting of trade bans, and I echo David's concerns that we need a good communication plan.

    Mr. Ed De Jong (President, Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency): Thank you, Robin.

    I'm going to touch a little bit on what can cause these diseases, or this avian influenza.

    All of the recent avian influenza outbreaks have been linked to backyard flocks directly or indirectly, to live market sales, and through waterfowl--ducks and geese. Despite a significant effort by industry to put in place strict biosecurity measures and HACCP programs, the businesses are being put at risk by very small operators who are not taking similar action.

    The Canadian Food Inspection Agency should undertake a comprehensive risk analysis of backyard flocks and live markets and put in place appropriate risk mitigation strategies.

    Through our marketing agencies, the Chicken Farmers of Canada and the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency, we have been involved in the past number of years in putting together our food safety programs. The Chicken Farmers of Canada have gotten theirs through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency--they have been approved. Ours is there right now, waiting for approval. There are a few minor issues within our program that have to be dealt with.

    The strict biosecurity provisions of the program are a major reason that the avian influenza virus did not spread to other poultry facilities in B.C. The CFIA recognition process gives our program credibility in the eyes of consumers, but the recognition process is not yet complete. It is critical that the CFIA grant recognition of the administrative aspects of our food and safety programs so that the focus can remain on implementing the programs at the farm level.

    Due to the events that have taken place in our industry within the past weeks, a formal presentation has not been submitted, but we would be pleased to follow up with any documentation or information to the committee members as they require. We would also like to have a meeting with the CFIA and the industry to do a post-mortem on how we can get together and make improvements.

    With that, I would like to thank the committee for allowing us to make a presentation to you. If you have any questions, we are all willing to answer them at this time.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: You're finished with your presentations? We will then move to questions.

    As your chair, I should tell you that, according to the rules, I have not been following the rules of procedure in terms of questioning for the last year. I have finally concluded that I should maybe follow the rules.

    On the first round, we will proceed as always, seven minutes, two opposition members, government, and then back to the opposition. Then we'll go back and forth. Those are the agreed rules. We have a lot of people today, so let's try to keep it at five minutes, so we can all get in.

    Mr. Ritz, are you first?

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Yes, I am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Gentlemen, you are quicker than the three-minute egg you always talk about. It's great.

    Was the CFIA protocol adequate when you first had the outbreak in Abbotsford? We heard stories, both sides of that.

    Mr. Ed De Jong: Since I am from Abbotsford and living a kilometre away from the producer, there were some issues that we feel could have been better managed.

    First of all, I believe, and so does our board believe, that the media should be allowed into an area like this for one hour or two hours, and do their videoing within that area. Then they should follow all restrictions CFIA sets up within the five-kilometre zone.

    They went in there and spent a lot of time videoing. Then they went to my farm, which is one kilometre away, and sent their messages, because they couldn't get reception at that farm. They are carrying the disease from one farm to another--themselves, the media.

    I think CFIA has handled it quite well. There have been some issues after the birds were destroyed, or after they were killed, that we would want to talk to CFIA about in regard to how that was handled. Otherwise, I think they have done a great job. They have questioned all the producers in the affected area and are monitoring them as to what's going on.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: In some documentation that I have here, there are five points that chicken producers are asking. Farmers, employers coming from any infected country are being told to...and there's a whole list of things that they want you to do, or not do. Are those being posted at points of entry?

    We saw that with the outbreak in Britain of foot and mouth, yet we never did see it properly implemented at our airports, and so on like that. Are you fellows concerned that you're not seeing...or have you checked to make sure this is being implemented at ports of entry? I'm talking airports, across the border. How do you know it's being done?

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Mike Dungate (General Manager, Chicken Farmers of Canada): We did talk, and it is primarily Health Canada that does that at the points of entry. It's up to them. Once it became.... That was in relation to the avian influenza that was in Asia, and certainly that part was linked more to a human ability to transport the virus. We asked that there be notice.

    We were informed by Health Canada that there was an advisory from Health Canada to Canadian border services personnel there, to not only just ask if someone had been on a farm, because we said we want to know if they've been in contact with live poultry. It was not farms per se that were the problem, it was in live markets and if people had been there.

    There hasn't been anything posted, but we understand they have advised the agents at the border to be asking those types of questions.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: The international standards for all this are being revised as we speak. Is Canada taking a lead role in that? Are we doing the right things from your standpoint? Have you any information on that?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: There are consultations going on right now. Our industry is being consulted right across the country by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It revolves around two strains. One is called H5, the other is called H7. Both have the ability to be low pathogenic, but also, scientifically, have the ability to mutate into high pathogenic.

    We ourselves, as the industry, are trying to wrap our heads around how you deal separately with low pathogenic and high pathogenic. That has been the protocol. Looking at a future protocol, we may want to look at how you balance that out.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: I just have a short question. Ed, you made the comment about unregulated flocks, and you were quite concerned about those. What is the percentage of backyard flocks in this country as compared to the supply-managed side? Does anybody know?

    Mr. Ed De Jong: I personally wouldn't know what the percentage is. We don't go around, as farmers, to check that, because we could pick up diseases from it. So we ourselves would not know, but there are a number of them around the farming community.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ritz.

    Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In 2000, in Ontario, there was a case involving a strain of influenza that was not high pathogenic but low pathogenic. What happened during that crisis? What were the consequences and how long did it take for the market to recover from the effects of the crisis?

[English]

    Mr. Errol Halkai (Executive Director, Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency): With the last low pathogenic incidents in Ontario in 2000, I spoke with CFIA, because we wanted to get some history on this as well. As I understand it, CFIA investigated the flock and decided that the producer and the processor were taking the necessary precautions. So CFIA did not do anything further with that flock. Low pathogenic has traditionally been treated differently from high pathogenic. There hasn't been a lot of direct intervention by CFIA in low pathogenic cases. So with respect to your question, CFIA was satisfied that the incident was being treated properly by the producer and the processor, and they didn't intervene in that instance.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: Did this have any repercussions in terms of the media or the Canadian domestic market, or was this a minor incident?

º  (1645)  

[English]

    Mr. Errol Halkai: I believe it was a minor incident. I'm not positive, but I don't believe any countries placed any import restrictions on Canadian poultry because of that, and I don't recall it having any negative impact on the Canadian market.

    The Chair: Mr. Horel I think wants to respond to that.

    Mr. Robin Horel: In addition to that, from my point of view, CFIA reacted appropriately in 2000. Between 2000 and today, with low pathogenicity, etc., there is no difference, yet we believe CFIA has acted appropriately today as well. It's a different reaction today. This time around they ordered the destruction of the flock, they ordered the surveillance of the area, and they did that because we're in a much different world with the Asian influenza issue. So the reaction today is different from the reaction in 2000, yet both responses have been correct.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: You have come to speak to us today, but what do you fear the most in the coming year, in economic terms, given what happened in British Columbia?

[English]

    Mr. Ed De Jong: What we're concerned about is how it's going to affect chicken sales, because of what happened in Asia more than over here.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: In Canada?

[English]

    Mr. Ed De Jong: I believe it's going to have an effect in all of Canada, because of the perception linking us with the Asian influenza cases. The monitoring within British Columbia on the farms will be much tighter, and we'll make sure we do our utmost to see that this doesn't happen again.

    The Chair: Mr. Calder.

    Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

    Gentlemen, it seems to me that with the avian influenza, it becomes very important that we have a very close working relationship with CFIA. Yet on January 19 we found out that Canada had signed a veterinary agreement with Hungary. We also find that CFIA is considering re-evaluating the European Union veterinary systems. Chile is providing information on its veterinary status to the CFIA. I would like to hear your comments on the close working relationship we should have with the CFIA. Is there any concern within your industry, with the examples I've given you, that we didn't really know that was going on?

    Yesterday in Brussels a press release went out from the European Commission. Basically, Commissioner David Byrne said that because of the A-1 outbreak in Gonzales County in Texas, they are now going to suspend EU poultry imports from the U.S. Should we do the same?

    Mr. David Fuller: With regard to the relationship with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, is it where I want it to be? Absolutely not. Do I intend to get it where I want it to be? Absolutely. We need to have a closer working relationship. You raised some examples. This is another example. We need to be able to work closely with our government departments so that we can look after the interests of Canadian consumers. So we're going to try to improve that relationship. I have already forwarded a letter to the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It is our intent to work closer with them on many different aspects, including some of the ones you pointed out.

    On the second point, I'll let Mike deal with that one.

    Mr. Mike Dungate: Just to clarify your question, Mr. Calder, are you asking whether we should ban imports from the whole of the United States, rather than just Texas?

    Mr. Murray Calder: The European Economic Community has suspended poultry imports from the U.S. What should our position be?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: We're comfortable with the decision at this point to ban products from Texas. I'm not sure if you've seen the list. The list is down to feathers that haven't been cleaned. It covers everything. So we're pretty confident that anything coming from Texas is covered by this ban.

    We've looked at where Gonzales is in terms of Texas. It is isolated from production in other states and therefore is not contiguous. We were concerned, for example, about Delaware. An integral part was Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. We said to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, “If you are going to put a ban on this one, you have to ban all three of those states, because that's where the production takes place”. So I think you need to look at not just a state, but where the production happens. If it's close to the border in a state, you have to look at it in that regard, and you have to look at the transportation links in terms of delivering poultry or other farm products.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Murray Calder: We're incorporating OFFSAP right now, the on-farm food safety assurance program. It's a tracing and tracking system that's second to none. What exists in the United States? How do we know whether those chickens are staying in Texas or have gone to another state?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: I don't think we know for sure. We've looked at where the production of poultry and the processing are done in Texas, and we're comfortable with that. I'm not saying that we would be comfortable with a state-by-state ban if it were in another circumstance, but I think we're okay at this point in time with what we know in regard to Texas.

    The Chair: Mr. Horel.

    Mr. Robin Horel: Perhaps I could just add to that. Monsieur Plamondon asked a few minutes ago, what is your biggest concern? My biggest concern is that emotion would overrule science from here on in. I would agree with Mike that the CFIA has acted appropriately. They're trying to make their decisions based on science. That's what we really have to try to stick to, and not let emotion overrule science.

    The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

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

    I think that message has been given with respect to BSE. In the one case we've had in Canada, believe me, we wish that science would prevail. I wish you the best of luck. I really do.

    I'm not trying to be facetious, but prior to this case of avian flu I did have the opportunity of asking a chicken producer--who won't be named, but he sits around this table--if in fact there was a danger in Canada with respect to our own flocks being affected by this particular avian influenza. I was told at that time that under no circumstances could this ever happen. I asked the question seriously and I was getting a serious answer, I think.

    We have HACCP, we have the protections in place, because of the on-farm animal protections. And I've seen our feather industry. I've seen the barns. I've seen the protections. And I was, to be honest, shocked that we did have this case present itself in British Columbia.

    Has the industry done enough to prevent it? Obviously not. How did it happen? And with the second case of BSE in North America we found out that the impact is devastating. Can it happen again?

    Mr. Errol Halkai: The primary source of A-1 avian influenza is migratory waterfowl, ducks, geese flying all over, and their droppings. If that's the case, I know that in our on-farm food safety program we try to do everything to mitigate the possibility. If somebody walks along his property and steps into duck droppings that happen to be infected, we have steps in place. They have to change their clothes, they have to change their boots--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm glad you mention that, because one of you, in your presentations, mentioned that in our large HACCP operations we are in fact more protected. But there are small operations out there--I've seen them, I know those under 500 operations that we have--which aren't going to be as detailed in their protection of this. Do you as an industry have any suggestions on how to deal with those production areas in any better way than we are currently?

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Mike Dungate: The opportunity we have with an on-farm food safety program in the industry.... And they're coming in now, and we support them. You will see, as Ed mentioned, the Chicken Farmers of Canada have their program approved from a technical basis. The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency has theirs approved. Just about all the processing plants in our industry are now HACCP-approved. The hatching egg group are right there, as are the turkey group. So in terms of an industry, I don't think there is anyone as advanced as the whole poultry industry on trying to mitigate risk.

    There's always going to be a risk. You know, there is one thing about this, and we've tried to talk about it. Can we redraft our on-farm programs to incorporate chicken raised outdoors? Because there's certainly a greater risk of chicken raised outdoors.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: We're referring to free-range, are we?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: Right.

    So how can you incorporate that? A lot of our principles, such as disinfecting barns after every flock and breaking a cycle, cannot be done on an outdoor pasture. So it's unclear what we can do in that regard, and we'd like to have some discussion--and you asked the question--about how many are out there. That's something we don't know, so we don't know what the size of the risk is.

    So I think we need to get out there and find out how many are out there, at least know where they are, because this is the point. Once you get these surveillance zones, you need to know where all the production facilities are. Whether they're regulated or not regulated, you need to know.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I think one of you had indicated that there have been no import bans on Canadian chicken. I don't think that's quite true.

    A witness: No.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, all right. I was trying to clarify that, because I do know that there are. Okay, fine. I thought I had heard that you'd said there hadn't been any import ban.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Easter.

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

    The point Robin raised is that emotion overruling science is the real danger here. When something like this happens, there are two things I want to know. One, what have been the consequences to date—just so we have that information, if you have it available now? If you don't, could you send us a response on what the consequences have been for the industry? If we are banned, as I think we are in a few places, what is the financial impact on the industry as a whole?

    We really need in place a quick response team, for lack of a better term, when this happens, jointly between the industry and the overall organizational bodies like yourself and the CFIA, because the very first newscast is what kills us. That's what kills us every time. With the Asian flu, the consumer is sitting out there in downtown Toronto, and the thing gets out of hand, just bang. We have to find a way of putting in place a quick response strategy, I guess, for all of our agricultural industries, relating to CFIA on these kinds of matters.

    What is in place now, from your perspective, and what needs to be in place?

    Then we can make a recommendation, Mr. Chair.

    Nothing should happen on these things. There shouldn't be any media allowed in anywhere until everything is set up to deal with it strictly according to the facts, so that the facts get out there right off the bat. That is basically what I'm saying. When you get wrong information out there, it perpetuates itself, and you can never seem to correct it.

    Mr. Robin Horel: As to the first part of your question, on consequences and costs, so far the consequences include two flocks out of production in B.C., with the costs yet to be quantified—though they will be. Export bans are a moving target right now. There is no question that costs are being incurred, but they have yet to be quantified; it will take some time before we understand exactly what the costs are. We can get back to you on this, but the answer will be different tomorrow from what it will be three weeks from tomorrow.

    As for the quick response, that's one of our points. We do need to learn from this, and we do need to have a quick response team, method, protocol, and those kinds of things.

    I don't know who else would like to add to that, but this is really one of our take-home messages today. There's no question about that.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. David Fuller: As well, I think one of the other messages, Mr. Chairman, is that right now, there are 12 countries—and the list is growing—who have have banned all Canadian products or products from British Columbia. We need something that is going to allow—once we have proven it by science—these countries to reopen their borders. We have to have quick turnaround, so that we can say: “We've found it; we've tested it; it is gone; we don't have it any more; and take the ban off so that we can continue to export.”

    Mr. Mike Dungate: To add to that, just so people understand, even though 7% in total in the country gets exported, a third of the exports come from B.C. It's one of the areas that focuses more on exports, mainly because of its location for shipping to Asia. The costs will augment the longer this ban from these countries stays in place.

    In that regard, the final set of testing to confirm within the surveillance area that in all of those flocks there are not even any markers of it, or they have determined that there is not even any influenza going through.... But having markers showing that anything has been passed is the kind of science we're going to need quickly in order for our Department of Foreign Affairs officials, or CFIA officials, to go to talk to other countries about removing those bans.

    I know that Robin and his group would like to be involved with CFIA on that, and to identify the priority markets and the first bans that need to come off as quickly as possible, because we don't ship product to some of the countries that have put on bans.

    The Chair: Is there anything further?

    Mr. Robin Horel: Just to add briefly to that, we are in the midst of putting together the list that Mike has talked about. I referred to it earlier. We will send it to you under the heading “Emotion Overruling Science”.

    What Mike says is true. There's an awful lot of product shipped from B.C., but today we have bans on cooked meat exports from Ontario or Nova Scotia, which have nothing to do with any of this. That's emotion overruling science.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: The only other points that I would—

    The Chair: Your time has expired, Wayne.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I know. It's not a question, but if you do have any further information....

    The Chair: We'd better move on. We'll come back to you.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: No, what I want to see is if we're going to have CFIA here, and if we're going to make a recommendation on how to deal with this, then we need any new facts that they have in terms of their recommendations to CFIA so that we're on the same wavelength.

    The Chair: Okay. Your point is well made. That was well worth the time.

    Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: I simply have one brief question. According to the statistics you have at your disposal today, has the incident in British Columbia had an effect on Canadian consumption, in different regions? I can understand how there would be greater consequences in British Columbia, but in the rest of Canada, based on your task groups or any surveys you may have undertaken, do you feel that the market has been affected and that it needs to be reassured? And if so, would it not be appropriate to have some government assistance in order to provide that kind of information?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: I think it is still too early to know what the impact on consumption in Canada will be. We are currently drafting questions for a consumer survey in order to know what the emotional impact of this issue is, but in terms of sales, we have not noted any decline.

[English]

    The Chair: We will move over to the Liberal side again.

    Mr. Robin Horel: Mr. Chairman...?

    The Chair: I'm sorry.

    Mr. Robin Horel: Mr. Plamondon, I agree with everything Mike has said, but I remind you that there have been effects already on my members on Canadian sales for export. There has been no effect yet that we can see on the domestic market. The consumers continue to support our product, and we're happy about that. There has already been an effect on the export market.

    The Chair: Mr. McCormick.

    Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you for being here, gentlemen.

    We certainly want to encourage the CFIA to work with you. It makes us shudder when we hear about the countries putting a ban on your products. Of course earlier today we were meeting, as we do every day at one place or another, regarding the BSE and the bans.

    You mentioned the ban for Texas. I didn't look up on the map where the location was, but there's so much trafficking in everything between Arkansas and Texas. You people know this. Arkansas is the anchor of Tyson and so on. You would almost think that when you ban one, you would ban the other.

    Do you have a comment on that?

»  (1705)  

    Mr. Mike Dungate: I will say one thing: we support the idea of zoning in Canada. I know there's talk--and we're all part of a Canadian animal health coalition--about at least getting two zones in Canada at the Lakehead. There's not much travel of any animals going between those points. I'm not sure how you would zone in the United States, for example.

    I think there is a point, and it comes down to what Robin said. Production in B.C. shouldn't affect production and sales in Nova Scotia, because there is no connection there at all.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, from the little bit of research I was doing, there's an opportunity to get some information here now.

    On the hatching industry, could you give me the approximate number of eggs that are brought in from the United States that will supply the layers industry, the meat chicken industry, and the hatching egg industry, independently?

    The reason I'm asking that is because CFIA is involved. I know there have been disputes with CFIA before, major disputes, which I'm sure haven't all been resolved.

    Can you give me an idea at all on the percentage of product that comes across the border?

    Mr. Errol Halkai: With respect to the number of imports of hatching eggs?

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, sir.

    Mr. Errol Halkai: For the broiler chicken market?

    Mr. Larry McCormick: And for the layers.

    Mr. Errol Halkai: For the broiler chicken market, we import about 21% of domestic production or about 17% of the total requirements. For 2003, that ended up being about 120 million or 130 million hatching eggs.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

    Have you any idea with respect to the layers?

    Mr. Robin Horel: In addition to that, all of the grandparent stock for our broiler industry is imported, either in terms of day-olds or in terms of hatching eggs, and a large percentage of the parent stock for turkeys and a large percentage of the parent stock for the layer industry.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much.

    We encourage the CFIA to work with you, and they need to work more closely. There have been some major disputes--what I would call major disputes. I'm wondering how you're coming with resolution with CFIA.

    Of course, governments, probably, like anybody else, they say, once it gets into a court system then we can't talk. But sometimes talking would help. I wonder if you have any comments on that. I won't get into particular cases at this moment.

    Mr. Errol Halkai: From a hatching-egg perspective, I don't think I can comment because I'm not too sure of the dispute you're referring to.

    The Chair: Let's leave it at that.

    Mr. Hilstrom.

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

    When that farm in B.C. found it had this avian flu, were they and the processor or something getting rid of the birds, or did CFIA come in and say we have to depopulate this barn? Did the farmer get any compensation from the government for those birds?

    Mr. Ed De Jong: That negotiation is still underway as to what he is going to get compensated for in regard to the removal of those birds. They agreed between the producer and the marketing board and CFIA that the flock had to be destroyed, but there was no discussion on what kind of compensation would be available for that producer.

    They do have some guidelines within their act as to what their maximums are. I don't think that's based on a hatching-egg producer-type bird because that type of bird is a much higher-value bird than a broiler bird would be. We pay $6 a bird to get them from the U.S. as day-olds.

    There are other parts of the compensation package that are very unclear in terms of the removal of the birds from the farm and the removal of the manure out of that barn and whether there is compensation for that, because that is also a cost to the producer, and also the rest period of 21 days or 30 days, which is beyond the clean-out and disinfectant.

»  (1710)  

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Per animal or per bird was usually how it was figured out, I thought, according to a set formula. But in 2000, whenever the last case was, the producer was happy with the settlement in the end--they came to an agreement with the CFIA? Yes? Okay.

    We talked about CFIA. What about Health Canada? You must use some pesticides or something in the barns there to clean it up and all that. Do you have any problems with Health Canada in the PMRA business? No, I guess not. Everybody's looking around. That's good, because the rest of agriculture has a real problem with them.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: It's one of the few areas that doesn't have a problem with the help of the PMRA.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The other area that interests me, of course, is the number of small farms that would have chickens. It seems like that is probably an increasing number. We've had the case recently in Toronto. We know that the National Farmers Union, and their second-loudest spokesperson, Nettie Wiebe, are advocating that there be a lot more small farms. Of course, chickens are a natural for a small-farm situation.

    Does the poultry industry that you represent consider it any kind of a threat to the industry to have more and more small chicken farms around, or chicken and cows--they probably have a little bit of everything--or is it just something that bears watching but is not really a concern, seeing as how we have so many wild ducks and geese?

    Does somebody want to comment on that? And I don't think we get avian flu from Nettie Wiebe, either. I think she's clean.

    Mr. Mike Dungate: I don't think the size of the operation is the issue. You can have a small chicken operation. It depends on what production methods they're putting in place. That's the key point: that whoever is coming into the business understands what the risks are, and risks to the whole industry as well, because this is one thing that clearly differentiates avian influenza from BSE.

    BSE you can get in a cow and it stays in one cow. The impact is huge, enormous, but it stays in one cow. Avian influenza, once you have it, can spread through your whole community of production. So there really is a responsibility to the whole industry, when someone comes into the industry, in making sure they are following good production practices.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I just want to raise the concern, because we have greater and greater relationships with China, both in trade and immigration, and movement of business people back and forth. Of course, we've had people smuggled into the country who obviously aren't concerned about regulations and that. I think, regarding the CFIA, we should maybe consider making some kind of recommendation out of the committee that this be looked at a little more seriously, because of underground poultry operations run in B.C., where there's a lot of interaction between Asia and British Columbia. With the risk hazard of a serious strain, like the highly communicable and serious one, maybe there should be a risk assessment done of that, particularly on the west coast.

    That's just a comment. Enter it as evidence, please.

    The Chair: Time has lapsed. We'll move to Mr. Barrette.

    Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Do you have any plan to inform the public about the situation, or if you have one, is it with Health Canada or public health?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: Every time we can get information from CFIA and other sources, we put information up on our website to inform the general public.

    As Mr. Steckle mentioned, we're also speaking to the media often. I think we've probably catalogued in excess of 300 media interviews in the past month on these issues, and we will continue to do that.

    We think it has been good, in terms of the media. I think there has been fair coverage of the story, to reduce the emotion part of it. They've done a good job of explaining the difference between what was in Asia and what we have in B.C., and I think that has helped immensely in reducing that level of emotion that we talked about.

»  (1715)  

    Mr. Robin Horel: In addition to that, most of my members are communicating with their customers--that's the retailers, the food service operators, those folks--who in turn, of course, have to communicate with the consumers. So that's how our messages are getting out: from my folks to the customers.

    Mr. Gilbert Barrette: Are the rules between provinces about the same for safety or health?

    Mr. David Fuller: The on-farm food safety program is a national program. There are no differences between any provinces.

    The Chair: Mrs. Ur.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): I thank you for your presentation. It certainly is timely and follows in the footsteps of what we've been going through with the BSE. This is almost a flag situation in your industry, and of course, with the BSE, the science has been proven. The emotion is there a bit, but the politics are even worse. So I think you've managed to meet that challenge--at least that's not one of your hurdles, I think.

    When you have people review your industry, is it with international scientists or just the CFIA?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: Do you mean the on-farm food safety program? That's being done by the CFIA. There's actually a federal-provincial task force overseeing it, but really, the CFIA is the one that approves the technical recognition, and they do so for provincial and federal governments.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Would you see it advantageous to have done what they have done within the cattle industry to make it more worldly to your export market, for them to see it in a different venue through an international scientist? Would that be of benefit to your industry?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: We have confidence in the CFIA--

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So do I.

    Mr. Mike Dungate: --and the reputation of the CFIA. I think one thing that maybe I could say the CFIA doesn't quite understand is that we have to be partners together on delivering food safety. Yes, they need to oversee us and make sure we're doing the right thing--absolutely. They have to provide that confidence.

    We're not going to do anything in our industry that would jeopardize the credibility of the CFIA, because if we jeopardize their credibility, their stamp of approval on our program means nothing. We lose everything if we jeopardize that. So I think they need to see that we see ourselves as partners, and that's a mindset change.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Sure.

    Is there a timeframe for when these countries will look at you and say they will take your poultry, your eggs, or whatever?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: Do you mean because of the bans that are on right now?

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes.

    Mr. Mike Dungate: That's the question we have. I think we all would say the big apprehension for us right now is about how long those bans are going to stay in place.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You were saying—or maybe I misunderstood you—you really don't know how big the free-range chicken industry is. Do they not have to buy on a quota system?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: We certainly know it in terms of the size of an individual operation. They can't be a big operation, because there are quota exemptions in every province for small-sized farms. The point we don't know is how many of them there are. There can be a million of them if you wanted, all growing a couple of hundred chickens. The minute one gets over.... There are different levels in different provinces. In Manitoba it's 999, so if someone gets to 1,000, then they become regulated. But you can have a whole bunch who are at 999.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Exactly.

    You indicated you weren't really aware of what the health practices were in Texas. Do you know what the health practices are in Asia, then? Or do I not want to know?

»  (1720)  

    Mr. Mike Dungate: I'm fine with banning the whole country in that regard, because I don't know.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Eyking.

    Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): This is the same line of questioning Howard was following, concerning the transportation of people between Canada and Southeast Asia. I want to find out about how many people may have gone back and forth over the last while.

    Besides the people who caught this flu in Asia from the animals, is it just as easy for animals to catch it from people? Is it easily transmitted back and forth? If a person has that flu in Southeast Asia and comes to Toronto, for instance, and happens to go to a farm, does it go back and forth fairly easily?

    Mr. Errol Halkai: First of all, I think somebody has said there are about 130 different strains of A-1. There are seven subtypes and another 15 sub-subtypes, so combinations of those produce a whole slew of strains. There is one strain of A-1 that has been found to mutate to infect humans in Asia. It was the H5N1 strain that was able to mutate and infect humans. I believe a person has to have flu symptoms already to be susceptible to the avian flu.

    Hon. Mark Eyking: You have to have a regular human flu, and this mutates it--is that it?

    Mr. Errol Halkai: I am not a scientist, but that's what I believe.

    Generally, I am not sure of any humans infecting.... Yes, human-to-bird transmission is a major carrier, but I don't think there is any evidence of human-to-human transmission.

    Hon. Mark Eyking: But they can go from humans to birds?

    Mr. Robin Horel: No. Currently the science tells us there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission or human-to-bird transmission.

    Hon. Mark Eyking: So is our biggest concern about poultry coming here and the disease catching on to our flocks, and not so much the people?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: That's right.

    I need to clarify that. The worry concerning humans is that humans might carry the virus physically on them, not internally from having the flu and transmitting it, but because they've been in a live market and have it on their pants or boots or whatever and carry that. They are just a carrier, a transportation mode, not.... That's the concern about human travel from Asia back into Canada.

    Hon. Mark Eyking: Have there been any changes at the border, when people are coming back and forth, since this happened? Has anybody been stopping people in Toronto or Vancouver and asking them if they've been on a poultry...?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: We talked about Health Canada earlier. There apparently has been advice from Health Canada to the border security service to ask more questions about where people have been.

    The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly.

    Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much. I know the bells are going, and we have to leave, but....

    I always worry about market share and pricing and the science involved. I saw a recent program on CBC television that indicated how the flu vaccine is incubated in eggs, and they indicated that the eggs may not be safe. That causes a few bells to ring when someone indicates that if the eggs aren't safe, they have to find another vehicle--the general public then starts to think that eggs aren't safe.

    I just wondered, first of all, would that be a true statement that they made? And second, how do we counter it if it's negative?

    Mr. Mike Dungate: I know it was found in a breeder flock in B.C., and those eggs.... It would be difficult to pass from those birds into their eggs, but if it had got into those eggs, it wouldn't get to an embryo--it wouldn't hatch; that flu would kill it at that point. So there's no risk in that sense, because that egg wouldn't go on. It'd die at that point, once it got to an embryo.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: But science uses eggs to produce human vaccine to combat the flu. Are you telling me if that egg is contaminated, it's still all right to use, or did I get the program wrong?

    You know, I'm looking at it thinking that we could lose a big market share here if that idea's allowed to stay out there as being true.

»  (1725)  

    Mr. Errol Halkai: The eggs that are used to produce human vaccine are not broiler hatching eggs, but hatching eggs for the table market, so they're a different strain.

    As Mike said, there is a separate program in place for the table-egg breeder producers. They divert some of these eggs directly to these companies that produce the vaccines, which is completely separate from the regular stream of commercial production.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: So CBC were wrong in saying that if a pandemic happened they wouldn't be able to use the eggs to incubate the human flu virus.

    Mr. Errol Halkai: I didn't see the specific show, but I've read some reports, and I think the concern was with respect to the time it would take to develop the 30 million vaccines they're looking for.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: I have some concerns because I have a large agricultural riding and I have a large number of people in the feather industry. Those are questions they asked me, and I said I would ask.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly.

    We've come to the end of our allotted time.

    Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing on short notice. I know you people were in town. It's ironic that we have both BSE and this problem arising within a 12-month period, but I think it points to the fact that in the IOE we must come together in our protocols, and this probably necessitates our finding some urgency to the matter to get protocols that are reasonable in terms of opening borders. I think that's important; that's what we all want.

    Thank you again, gentlemen, and all the best to you in your industry.

    The meeting stands adjourned.