AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 5, 2001

• 0910

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone.

Today, pursuant again to Standing Order 108(2), we have the consideration of foot-and-mouth disease.

Before we begin this morning I would like to compliment the members of our committee for their participation in the debate on foot-and-mouth or hoof-and-mouth disease. I think it was very well received across the country. I know a number of you put a considerable effort into making sure the public is aware of the facts and difficulties surrounding the outbreak in Europe.

This morning we would also like to make just a brief comment on foot-and-mouth, which Canada had an episode of back in the 1950s, which many Canadians referred to as hoof-and-mouth. We've changed the terminology, but there is no great difference.

For those who have probably called some of our offices about this disease, it affects animals with hoofs. When people call about dogs or other animals we can assure them that we're not speaking of a foot disease that affects all animals, other than those with hoofs.

As witnesses this morning we have with us, from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Dr. Gravel, and from the Department of National Defence, Captain Bruce Donaldson. We welcome our witnesses and their presentations.

Dr. Gravel, are you first? We'd like to thank you for coming back. If we can have a 10-minute or 12-minute presentation, after it we'll hear from our armed forces friends. Then we'll open the meeting to questions from the different members of the committee.

Welcome back and thanks for being here. I can assure you that our committee, all parliamentarians, and the people of Canada are very much concerned. We know that you and your group are making a strong effort to watch what's happening overseas and hopefully to prevent any situation that might affect our Canadian animals.

Welcome to our meeting.

Dr. André Gravel (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'd like to thank you for inviting us here today to talk about the current outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the U.K. and in Argentina as well as several other member countries of the European Union.

With me today from the agency are Monsieur Jean Chartier, vice-president of public and regulatory affairs; Ms. Suzanne Frost, who is the director of the agency's enforcement and investigation services; and Dr. Douglas MacLeod, district veterinarian in the agency's Kingston office. Dr. MacLeod is one of the vets who actually went to the U.K. to provide support to U.K. on the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak.

Mr. Chairman, I want to keep my opening remarks very brief today so we can answer questions from the members and hear your suggestions regarding the measures we're taking to inform Canadians about this disease and what we're going to do to keep this disease out of Canada. As you said, Canada has been free of foot-and-mouth disease since 1952 and we intend to keep it that way.

Foot-and-mouth disease is a severe, highly contagious viral disease of cattle and swine. It also affects sheep, goats, deer, and other cloven-hoofed ruminants. Although foot-and-mouth is not a significant threat to human health, it can be spread by people. It can also be spread by animals and infected material like farm equipment, food products, or vehicles.

The CFIA is taking strict measures to prevent this disease from reaching Canada, but we're not working alone. This disease has a potential to affect many parts of our society, and keeping it out of Canada and dealing with an outbreak should it occur requires the participation of numerous facets of government, industry, and civil society.

[Translation]

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has set up a task force to coordinate action to prevent foot-and-mouth disease, both within the Agency and with other departments and groups of stakeholders.

• 0915

We have also established an interdepartmental working group consisting of representatives from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, National Defence, Transport Canada, Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada and Immigration Canada.

In addition, we are also continuing to work together with the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, formerly Emergency Preparedness Canada, along with other departments, the provinces and groups of stakeholders.

Measures include the suspension of all import permits and the monitoring of products at risk from the European Union or Argentina that are imported into Canada. These may consist of live animals, embryos, semen, meat and unpasteurized cheese. These measures will remain in place until further notice.

Anyone who has been on an international flight recently knows that Canada has stepped up its inspection measures at our airports, and we are doing the same thing at our seaports.

As soon as they arrive at international airports in Canada, travellers from countries threatened by foot-and-mouth disease undergo simple but effective disinfection procedures.

International travellers are also selectively inspected more closely to ensure that all those arriving from a threatened country are inspected a second time by Canada Customs officers.

Canadian airports have also tightened up their surveillance to detect products that are at risk; one such method uses sniffer dogs, and another provides travellers with warnings about the risks of transmitting foot-and-mouth disease.

[English]

Compliance investigations for the handling and disposal of international garbage at airports and seaports have been increased and we're listening to suggestions and constantly monitoring our preventative measures to improve their effectiveness.

The agency is also collaborating with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, Canada's four veterinary schools, the provinces, and Health Canada to provide veterinarians, producers, and the public with information about foot-and-mouth disease. This includes a toll-free number.

New communication tools are being developed, including a new brochure being developed for distribution to travellers, print ads for Canadian dailies, domestic TV ads, and new posters and signs for airports, travel agents, passport offices, etc. Of course, the agency's website already contains a very significant volume of information about foot-and-mouth disease and we are constantly updating the site with new information.

As the committee is aware, the CFIA continues to send Canadian vets to the U.K. to assist in eradication and control of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. This has provided a valuable opportunity for Canadian field vets to acquire first-hand experience with an animal disease that we don't have in Canada. This will enhance Canada's own foreign animal disease preparedness, particularly in surveillance, diagnostics, and outbreak management.

[Translation]

Finally, I want to confirm that on March 30, 2001, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency refused entry into Canada to a ship containing military equipment from the United Kingdom, most of which had suffered ground contamination. The ship left the Port of Quebec City on April 3.

It is clear that we are working very hard to minimize the risk of the disease reaching our shores.

Nevertheless, the risk of an outbreak somewhere in Canada is genuine. If that were to happen, the battle to eradicate foot-and- mouth disease will be very costly.

The outbreak in the United Kingdom led to the imposition of serious trade restrictions that have affected the whole country and many other industries, including tourism. Some reports estimate that the outbreak will cost the United Kingdom the astounding sum of $20 billion.

If there were to be an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Canada, the Agency's resources would, without a doubt, be sorely tested, but as I mentioned at our last appearance before the Committee, Canada is prepared to intervene to effectively battle and eradicate foot-and-mouth disease.

The Agency has prepared a very detailed emergency intervention plan, a health measures plan that aims at controlling any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease that might occur in Canada.

We are pleased to submit the plan to the Committee members today, accompanied by an information kit about foot-and-mouth disease.

• 0920

[English]

In addition, veterinary assistance agreements are in place with Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Since 1982 Canada, along with the U.S. and Mexico, has been a contributing member to a North American foot-and-mouth disease vaccine bank to ensure a timely and assured supply of vaccine should circumstances warrant.

Last November Canada ran a tripartite exercise with the U.S. and Mexico to simulate a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in North America and to practice the CFIA's emergency response. The tripartite simulation exercise was the first of its kind in the world. The exercise was designed to expose weaknesses in areas that need improvement, and it did just that.

Since the exercise we have reviewed the current emergency management structure, and the team has proposed the establishment of a national emergency management centre. The agency is in the process of reviewing this proposal in concert with the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness.

Also the CFIA is currently undergoing a resource review, which has provided an opportunity to examine and optimize how the management of emergencies can be improved in the agency. We are continuously taking important steps to make improvements where they are required. However, let me reiterate that, if an outbreak were to occur tomorrow, we are ready to respond quickly and effectively to control and eradicate foot-and-mouth disease.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the members that the agency with the help of industry, provinces, other government departments, and stakeholders is doing everything possible to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of Canada. We know, however, that we must be prepared to deal with this disease should it arrive in Canada.

[Translation]

We will be happy to answer any questions from members of the Committee and hear any proposals.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Gravel.

We may be wondering about the military being here, but some time ago we were alerted to the fact that the British army are conducting training exercises in the west, in cattle country. Captain Donaldson, I would like to welcome you, but I would also like to say as chair of this committee that in view of the situation in Great Britain and the fact that a ship arrived in Quebec with contaminated soil aboard, or soil that might be contaminated, it was very surprising that they were allowed to leave Great Britain with materials that had soil.

I'm not sure how this fell apart in terms of directions, but we certainly would hope that maybe you could explain to us what is going on with the military and why our British counterparts were not aware. It certainly is embarrassing to have to send their ship back, but I would like to say that it's in the best interest of Canadians to take all forms of precautions.

So welcome to our committee, and hopefully you can relate to us what has happened there.

Captain Bruce Donaldson (International Security Policy, Department of National Defence): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you will allow me to make a few opening remarks. I have not been able to provide these to the clerk, but I have said that we will get them later today if that's acceptable to you, sir.

Thank you for allowing me to speak today. The Department of National Defence, as the federal agent for foreign military training in Canada, shares responsibility with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in preventing the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease to Canada from this activity and takes this responsibility seriously.

Foreign military training in Canada is a mutually beneficial activity for both Canada and Canada's allies. Canada can offer vast training areas and non-crowded airspace to allies while at the same time significantly enhancing our critical interoperability with those allies.

Foreign military training in Canada also provides direct economic benefit to Canada, and in particular to those communities adjacent to established training areas. That said, the Department of National Defence also recognizes the need to mitigate the risk of transmission of foot-and-mouth disease into Canada.

Our European allies have been entirely cooperative, and together, in concert with our colleagues from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we are taking every appropriate step to manage the risk and to prevent the transmission of foot-and-mouth disease into Canada.

DND, in response to guidance and recommendations from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, has put in place a process whereby military personnel from European Union and NATO nations are required to sign a declaration indicating that they have not visited a farm, a training area used for livestock agriculture, or a quarantine area in the NATO-EU region in the 14-day period preceding their arrival in Canada. These declarations are collected and administered by national authorities and are available to customs or Canadian Food Inspection Agency officials on arrival.

• 0925

For military personnel from the United Kingdom, this period has been extended to 28 days. We continue to refine our policy in consideration of areas of particular sensitivity like Suffield, Wainwright, Cold Lake, and Goose Bay. These areas will see a high volume of military training activity and are located close to livestock areas.

In addition to this quarantine period, a thorough process of decontamination of personnel and their effects, approved again by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, has been put into effect both before these military personnel depart their home nation and immediately on their arrival in Canada before deploying to the field. This includes laundering of all clothing prior to departure from their home nation and the separate packaging of footwear cleaned of soil.

On arrival in Canada personnel proceed through a disinfectant footwear bath, and their remaining footwear is removed from packaging and disinfected. Canadian Forces personnel returning from the U.K. are subject to a similar routine. They're required to clean and to disinfect their footwear, and any clothing being shipped home must be soil-free and laundered before shipping.

In addition, our people have been reminded of the need to ensure that all parcels mailed to Canada from abroad do not contain any food or agricultural products.

Any Canadian vehicles being repatriated to Canada that have been operated in the United Kingdom are being delayed re-entry into Canada. This measure will remain in effect until the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the U.K. has been stabilized.

The Department of National Defence continues to work in close cooperation with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and with our allies. We remain highly sensitive to developing conditions and additional requirements should they arise.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Captain Donaldson.

Howard, are you going to lead off?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen and ladies, it's nice to have you here.

I think that one of the things I'd like to deal with first is the confidence that Canadians and farmers and ranchers have in the CFIA. Your reputation was tarnished, of course, by the big suspicions over the Brazil issue on the BSE that in fact that was a political decision as opposed to a technical decision.

We also have a confidence issue in regard to the foot-and-mouth disease. I asked last Thursday to be given this manual at the committee. Have I been given that yet?

Dr. André Gravel: The summary of the manual is available here today for members, and the manual itself will be posted on the website of the agency.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. Do you see what the confidence problem is here? Since February 20 there's been a big disease problem spreading like wildfire, and now all of a sudden we're unable to get the manual until maybe even a few days from now. What's the name of this emergency manual? Is there a name for it?

Dr. André Gravel: There are several manuals that the agency is using. There is an overall emergency preparedness manual that is used for any emergency that the agency has to deal with. Whether it's animal disease, a food emergency, or a plant emergency, this is what is guiding the overall intervention of the agency, so that's the first step. The second step is being refined a little bit more with a foreign animal disease emergency manual, which is a second one. The third one is a very specific foot-and-mouth disease emergency manual.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, now that's what we want to get our hands on. On March 23 John Morrison, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, was quoted in the paper as saying there is no emergency response plan available to all players that could go into effect within hours of the disease's detection. There's a lack of confidence. The Canadian cattlemen were right here in Ottawa asking for that, and they weren't able to get it at that time.

Mr. Doug MacLeod, I appreciate you being here today. You were interviewed, of course, in London. Coming over, you said Canada is not heavily populated with vets and training personnel and we have to review contingency plans and make sure we have the trained people and resources if they're ever needed.

• 0930

I'd ask you, Mr. MacLeod, have you since been reassured that in fact there is a complete plan here? We're not going to have time to go through it today. Is there a complete plan there that you trust will take care of any outbreak of disease in this country?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod (District Veterinarian, Kingston District Office, Animal Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): At the field level we have had access to contingency plans for years, and I have no lack of confidence at all.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'm a Manitoba cattle rancher, not really big but big enough that I have quite a number of cows, over 160 out there. I've never received anything or been invited to any meetings, and neither have my neighbours.

How can any contingency plan operate without bringing in the players, the farmers and ranchers, who would be involved? Can you tell me how, at the field level, you've brought in farmers and ranchers on this issue?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: There have not been any specific meetings in the past with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. We do have meetings with local veterinary associations. The feeling has been that the veterinarians themselves would communicate to us any concerns they had, and vice versa back to the producers.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: An outbreak's already two weeks old by the time it's discovered, from initial contamination until the farmer or rancher sees it, so there's a couple of weeks there.

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: Are you talking about in the event of an outbreak or in the circumstances we have now, where we do not have the disease?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Oh, no, I know we don't have the disease. This is in the event of an outbreak. This is what this contingency plan is partially for. As long as it's outside and prevented, that's fine, but if it comes here, this is where the players have to know what's going on.

To this point, the farmers and ranchers, including me, as Mr. Morrison says, have not been brought into this plan sufficiently to contain an outbreak at that time. We don't even know what to expect if a neighbour five miles away has the disease show up. Sure, the vet identifies it and so on, but then what do the rest of us do?

That's what's missing, and that's why I've been calling for this plan to be fully released and to certainly have all the players brought in.

As well, was the RCMP part of formulating or developing this “what if” contingency plan to deal with any outbreak?

Dr. André Gravel: I'd like to go back, if I may, to the issue of communication with producers. Several levels of communication need to take place in terms of Canada's preparedness for foot-and-mouth disease. One of them, clearly, is with the producers' association. You also mentioned that the cattlemen were here. I was here as well to meet with them, and we had a very frank and open discussion on Canada's preparedness for foot-and-mouth disease. The Canadian Pork Council was also approached by me on that issue. So there is a high level of communication.

Then you have to move from the association down to the members, and this is where we are—that is, developing the best tools to reach individual producers in terms of how well they can deal with an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. This is where we are.

In terms of the plan itself, it's a joint effort by several people who potentially would be involved in an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. It involves basically everybody who has a stake in it, including industry, provincial police, our colleagues from DND, and other departments. It's a joint effort.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay.

Just to finish up quickly, would you comment, Dr. MacLeod, on whether or not in Alberta there's a hotline for vets to call if something happened? Now, don't rely on the fact that it's not here yet, because we have a mammoth number of visitors coming in for the Calgary Stampede later on, and vets have to have a place they can call within seconds.

There's one last thing I'm going to bring up here. This is an e-mail I got from a rancher who talks about their return, on April 2, from London, after visiting family in the United Kingdom. April 2 is not too long ago. They wrote:

I was extremely disappointed when entering Canada that the Canadian customs did not even question us about where we had been in the U.K., despite the fact that I clearly marked on our customs declaration that we would be returning to the farm within 14 days.

What do you say about those two issues? What about the hotline, and what about people coming into this country on April 2 and still saying that procedures are insufficient at our points of entry?

• 0935

Dr. André Gravel: Maybe I can answer your question about the hotline. CFIA has a hotline on foot-and-mouth disease that's available for anybody in Canada, and it's clearly identified. There are kits that have been passed to members and the 1-800 number is in there. So clearly, that was established a long time ago.

In terms of the specifics about somebody coming from London on April 2, maybe Denis.... I'm not sure whether you can provide an answer to that.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre (Assistant Commissioner, Customs Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency): Mr. Chairman, we have established that all travellers coming to our airports from any points of origin, not only the areas of higher risk, but from all points of origin, because some people are in transit, will be questioned specifically respecting this disease. This is an anecdotal report that this did not take place on April 2.

We are constantly reminding all officers—every day when they go on shift—that this has to take place. We will just heighten our sense of alert and the sense of alert of all our officers in that respect. But that's the clear procedure for all international travellers at the present time.

The Chair: You owe me two, Howard, later.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I thought you were going to give me two.

The Chair: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Yes, thank you very much.

Thank you very much for appearing this morning. It's very timely as we go for a two-week break, since we're going to be addressing this issue back in our own ridings—I'm sure almost on a daily basis.

I just want to bring an awareness to the fact that I've had two calls in the last two weeks from people returning from the U.K. who even though they had signed the declaration cards were not asked to go through a foot bath. There were no other questions asked. In fact, there was someone who even made the comment, and I'm passing this on second-hand, as it wasn't said to me personally.... When the person who was returning asked this officer why are there no greater securities here, this person said—he or she, and I can't confirm either he or she—that some day we'll likely have it anyhow. I thought that was a pretty flippant comment from someone who is in a position of being there as an officer, ensuring that the safety of Canada's food supplies remain safe and secure.

I'm just pointing this out. Check those sources again. Make sure that these destination points are secure. Because Canadians have come to believe that they are, and when we hear these stories, it casts some doubt in our own minds as to whether or not they are. So please carry through on that.

We've never been world-free of this disease. There are countries in the world that have this disease on an ongoing basis. I'm not going to name them this morning for fear I may be naming a wrong country—I'm getting this again from other sources—but there are these countries. What kind of an awareness program do we have to ensure that when we come from these countries where we know this disease exists on an ongoing basis, we have the same level of awareness of that disease being there, and we take the precautions coming back, so when we return from these countries we share a little different level of an awareness and precaution than when we return from countries that don't have this disease? Can we address that question for a moment?

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, a very good question. Thanks.

Foot-and-mouth disease is not a new disease. It's been around for a very long time. There are many countries that have had it on a regular basis. That included Europe before they actually declared themselves free of foot-and-mouth disease.

The mechanisms we've had in place were low-key because the disease was low-key itself. Nobody paid any interest to foot-and-mouth disease. However, it has been effective. Canada has been free from foot-and-mouth disease since 1952, so we must have been doing something right. That includes a pamphlet that has been distributed for a long time to travellers from Canada going abroad called Don't bring it back, and you will see in your kit that we've updated that.

• 0940

As to the issue of awareness, I think anybody in Canada that doesn't know what foot-and-mouth disease is must have been in hibernation, because there is very extensive media coverage, which certainly helps us. People know why now at the airport we're confiscating a piece of sausage, cheese, meat pie, or whatever. In the past they used to think this was due to food safety issues. It is not. And I think everybody now understands that.

On the issue of people coming in without going through the foot bath and statements to the effect that we're going to get it, I think this is very bad. I agree with you, it shouldn't be. If there are specifics about which airport and all that, I think that would help the customs and revenue agencies trying to upgrade.

I can tell you my personal experience. My daughter's boyfriend came back from England last week through Philadelphia. He got his feet washed in Philadelphia, he got his feet washed in Ottawa. I wanted to make sure this was happening, and it did. So we're not missing all of them.

I'm not sure whether the volume of calls you're getting about that is increasing or decreasing. Hopefully, it's decreasing.

Mr. Paul Steckle: To answer that question, I've had two calls. I haven't had any this week. This was Pearson International where both incidents occurred.

It used to be hoof and mouth, now it's foot and mouth. Can you give us some sort of descriptive definition of why it's now foot and mouth, so we can go back with some sort of an educated response to that question?

Dr. André Gravel: I think both foot and mouth and hoof and mouth are good. They both represent the same disease. There's no difference between the two of them. The only confusion that may arise, as I said last time, is that there is a disease humans have called almost foot-and-mouth disease, and it's not this one. So the two names are acceptable.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Has Britain ever been free of foot and mouth? If it has, from where have they determined the disease has come back into the country in this latest outbreak? Where did they trace it to? How did it come into Britain again, if they were ever free of it? If not, we've been trading with Britain for a good long time and we've remained clear here. What has happened there? What are they basing the recent outbreak on?

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Britain was indeed free of foot-and-mouth disease until that outbreak started. Their last outbreak dates back to 1967. So they had a pretty long period of peace, not having foot-and-mouth disease.

As to how it started, I think we're going to have to wait until the investigation is over. There are speculations, however, that I can share with the committee, if you're interested. The most probable cause, as the British authorities have said, is an illegal shipment of meat coming from China, and that meat was for Chinese restaurants. The scraps were served to pigs in a garbage feeding operation, and potentially this is where it started. Pigs are a very good vehicle for disease development. In fact, they have about 3,000 times more viruses than cattle. So if you have it in pigs, the likelihood that this will explode is very great.

The second thing that happened, according to the investigation, is that these pigs, having acquired the disease, passed it on to sheep. And the problem is that sheep don't necessarily show the symptoms of the disease very well. So it went unnoticed for a good period of time. And sheep in the U.K., apparently, travel more than U.K. citizens. They go from north to south, to east to west, and by the time they found out they had foot-and-mouth disease, the sheep had gone almost everywhere around the country and planted the disease. That's why it looks as if it's been planted in several places, but it hasn't. It's just that movement of sheep caused it.

Mr. Paul Steckle: My last comment—

The Chair: Thank you, Paul. I've gone over, sorry.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Fine.

• 0945

[Translation]

The Chair: Madam Tremblay, please. No? Marcel Gagnon, then.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I find the concerns raised this morning about a matter that is extremely worrisome for the very future of agriculture here in Canada to be extremely interesting.

I do not feel highly reassured by what we have been told. That is because there is somewhat of a gap between what we are hearing here and what we can see in the field and what we can see on news reports on the CBC.

The disease can certainly enter in many different ways and it is impossible to seal it out completely. On the other hand, when we see what the cameras have to show us, with baggage arriving at the ports of Montreal, Quebec City or elsewhere, much of which comes from Europe, and which enters without any form of inspection, there is every reason to worry. Some people who have been interviewed say that it is not that they do not want to do the work, but simply because there is a shortage of inspectors.

Personally, I am very worried by this aspect of the situation. You say that the disease occurred here once before in 1952; it entered the country by means of a sausage brought in by a traveller. That's all it takes.

I would add what Mr. Desautels mentioned here, which was that there was a shortage of staff to inspect food. In addition, in our own districts, we hear evidence from people who work in the food inspection field. They tell us that they are in danger up to a certain point because there are simply not enough of them to do the work.

What I have just said raises a number of questions which, I believe, explain the widespread concern.

Before turning things over to you, I would also like to mention that in view of how large our farms are... A colleague told me that he had in his herd 180 head of livestock, I think. He said that some farms had 10,000 or 12,000 pigs. Trucks drive there regularly. It's not the way it was in 1952 when travel could be controlled. Trips occur every day and everywhere these days.

As a citizen, I would like to feel more reassured than I am. I know full well that if we were ever to be unlucky and costs were to run into the billions of dollars, not to mention the harm caused to the farming sector... I would like to share your optimism and believe that it is not going to happen and hope that what you are saying is true.

My question relates to the points that I raised. Is it possible to reassure us by telling us that efforts will be made to do something about the shortage of staff at seaports and airports?

Mr. André Gravel: Thank you for your question. I will begin by giving you a brief overview of the situation and then ask Denis Lefebvre to make a number of comments.

There are several lines of defence against foot-and-mouth disease, and I will mention these somewhat later on. Clearly, the first line of defence is the way passengers and goods entering Canada are received, which is the responsibility of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

When we were on an interdepartmental committee Denis and I did an overview of the various possible ways of entering Canada. Perhaps Denis could comment on our survey of the various ways of entering Canada.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Thank you. The risks we identified of the disease being transmitted into Canada are related to the various modes of transportation. You mentioned airports, where procedures have been tightened up. In addition, all commercial products containing food are referred to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

• 0950

There are also products that arrive by mail and courier services. In these instances, we are working with Canada Post to have them sort parcels and set aside any arriving from high risk countries. We examine these parcels very carefully. We do not necessarily open all parcels that arrive, but those involving a degree of risk are opened. Similarly, we are working with courier companies to have them pay closer attention to parcels arriving from high risk countries.

As for the seaports of which you spoke, some people may move from a farm in England to a farm in Canada. When they arrive, the bills of lading for the ships are inspected and we bring to the attention of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency all containers or parcels that may involve a risk.

I think that this gives you an idea of the effort currently being deployed to lower the risk of foot-and-mouth disease.

[English]

The Chair: One minute.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): But there is nevertheless a question that remains. Prior to the risk of foot-and-mouth disease, none of the things that you have listed were done systematically. You say that you now refer to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency all parcels, containers or other commercial products entering Canada via airports, seaports, Canada Post or courier services.

Barely a month ago, the Auditor General was saying that there were not enough employees at the Agency. How are you now able to add so much extra work to the usual tasks of the Agency when it has no more staff than before and it was already unable to do its work? There is something that does not add up in all of this. As I was telling my colleague, it is intended to be reassuring, but when you think about it more carefully, it becomes extremely worrisome.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment. Before this alert for foot-and-mouth disease, we were nonetheless already referring to the Agency all commercial products containing food that reached us. At airports, we used form E-311 to ask people to tell us whether they were bringing in food. So, these people were referred to the Agency. I did not mean to imply that we were not in any way doing before what we are currently doing. It is simply that we are now doing it much more strictly.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam.

[English]

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chair—

The Chair: I'm sorry. I have to go to Dick now. Perhaps we can come back to that, Dr. Gravel.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Gravel, I'm quite surprised that we don't have a contingency plan here today, because the minister said publicly yesterday that we would have one. So I would like an explanation as to why we don't have one this morning.

Dr. André Gravel: You do have a copy of the salient points of the contingency plan. I think the contingency plan wouldn't be very useful for this committee in terms of all of the details that go in there. As an example, you certainly wouldn't be interested in knowing that the contact that Dr. MacLeod has at the provincial level is this person with that phone number. So there's a certain degree of detail that I think would not be very useful for this committee. The four-pager we have there outlines what our approach would be in the case of foot-and-mouth disease.

And as I mentioned, in terms of the complete plan, it's going to be posted on our website. There are charts in there, there are decision-making trees. I don't know how useful this would be in terms of reassuring you.

Mr. Dick Proctor: And it's going to be posted when?

Dr. André Gravel: It's going to be posted on the website today or by the end of the day. It's been ready. The only difficulty we have is translation. Some of these very complex matrices, flowcharts, and decision trees are very complicated to translate and that's what's been holding it up.

Mr. Dick Proctor: How serious do you take the risk of sabotage? We've heard from some of the committee members this morning about reports on some airports where the inspections aren't as thorough as they should be. And, Mr. Lefebvre, you could add Vancouver to this list. But what about sabotage? The president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, for example, is quoted as saying that she hopes foot-and-mouth disease will come to North America. How seriously do you treat those kinds of remarks, and what are you doing about it?

• 0955

Dr. André Gravel: I read the same thing. I almost fell off my chair when I read that American citizens would say something like this, and I find it a little bit difficult to accept.

Mr. Murray Calder(Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): That's treason.

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, it is. I agree. It is treason.

The agency is not involved in guarding the security of Canadians. CSIS is, and clearly the agency is in contact with people from CSIS in terms of determining the potential of bio-terrorism. It is a real possibility, and things have to be done to prevent it from happening.

We can't do everything. The problem is it's very easy to do it if you want to do it. At one point I was wondering whether in the U.K. it was a case of bio-terrorism. It doesn't look that way, but it's a real threat and clearly a real possibility.

Mr. Dick Proctor: The Canadian Animal Health Institute has put a plan in place. They call it a voluntary cease movement for animals in the event that we were to have an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Has the Canadian Food Inspection Agency looked at that plan? Are you working with the coalition? Can you comment on it?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, indeed. In fact, when the Canadian Cattlemen's Association was in town a week ago or last week—I've lost the notion of time, I've been too busy—there was also a meeting of the Canadian Animal Health Institute. I was invited as a guest to look at some of the proposals they had, and clearly the proposed voluntary cease movement they have is something the agency endorses.

We have looked at the draft and it was discussed at the committee level, and for us it's an excellent idea. The first thing you need to do when foot-and-mouth disease, or any other animal disease, enters a country is to limit the movement of animals. The way this disease is distributed across Canada—somebody mentioned that we have a lot of movement of animals—is through movement of animals or contaminated material. So if the industry on their own, when there is a suspicion of disease, decide to stop moving animals around, it certainly will help us a great deal.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Dr. MacLeod, can I ask very briefly, do you practise in Ontario or in another province?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: I am employed by the CFIA in Ontario.

Mr. Dick Proctor: In Ontario?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: Yes.

Mr. Dick Proctor: The reason I'm asking this question is because there was a veterinarian who contacted us in the last couple of days about the replacement of some veterinarians for the auction sales. They're replacing veterinarians with what they call lay inspectors in Ontario, where animals are checked before sale and ones that are found to be unsound are segregated and then a qualified veterinarian comes to examine them. Are you aware of the program, and are you concerned at this time if relatively unqualified people are stepping in to do this work?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: I was aware of the program to have animals inspected that were going through livestock markets. I wasn't personally aware of the changes to the program, so really I couldn't comment.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Dick.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

First of all, I would like to say that you're not the enemy. You are the ones who are in fact helping us with a very difficult situation here, and I want you to know that. I thank you. I'm sure you've had some sleepless nights, Dr. Gravel, and I suspect you'll have more sleepless nights before this is over.

I have a couple of issues. First of all, we all know that there are staffing problems, staffing complaints and not enough staff. There is the potential of a strike. I'm not going to get involved in the management-labour disputes. That's not my position. My question is, if that should happen during this period, you now have another problem on your table, and that's a contingency plan with respect to people reacting to this situation. Do you have that contingency plan in place? I hate to throw another problem on your shoulders, because it is another huge problem.

• 1000

Dr. André Gravel: That's fine. I like problems.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Sure, but you get paid highly for the problems.

Dr. André Gravel: Not as much as members.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's my time. Short answer, please.

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, it's a big concern of the agency that at a time when we're facing a very serious possibility of introduction of foot-and-mouth disease we're also negotiating with one of our unions.

The negotiations are ongoing. Hopefully there won't be a strike. If there is a strike, however, the majority of our lay inspectors, the primary products inspectors who work in packing plants and in animal health programs and others, are designated. So a strike for a great percentage of them is not an option.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do you have other people you can bring in?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes.

The other saving grace is that vets are not in the same union as EGs, which will allow us to use veterinarians.

In terms of whether we're going to have enough, with a combination of a strike and foot-and-mouth disease, I think we would be a little short on the ground. Hopefully that won't happen.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have very limited time and I have a couple of other questions.

How long would it take for Britain or any other country to get their disease-free status back? Now Canada has a wonderful reputation for its food safety. How long would it take us to get that status back if, heaven forbid, it should ever happen here?

Dr. André Gravel: There are two levels of freedom. There is a freedom of foot-and-mouth disease with vaccination and without vaccination.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We can get into that question too. I'm assuming you're not looking at vaccination.

Dr. André Gravel: In theory it's not an option when the disease is introduced. Our first line of attack is eradication.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Exactly, so with no vaccination, how long would it be to regain status free?

Dr. André Gravel: If I'm not mistaken, it's six months.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Six months.

Dr. MacLeod, I know you've had some first-hand knowledge of this thing. My question is just how prepared are we to make the decision immediately to do what has to be done? I've seen your four-page response here, and as emergency plans go I agree with you that the whole hierarchy is not necessary for Dick and myself and other members. I don't think we need that detail. However, what you do have to have immediately is a decision-making capability to go in and react now, and that means close them down, quarantine, destroy cattle, slaughter cattle. How quickly are we prepared to react to that decision-making should it happen and a vet goes out to a farm in Manitoba or Saskatchewan and sees the disease? How long does it take to react to that?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: I can address part of that question. The higher-level decisions wouldn't be made at my level—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But walk me through it then, please. Here's the scenario. You want an emergency plan. Here's the scenario. A vet has gone to a farm in Manitoba and sees the disease. What happens from that point?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: First, I'll transpose it to Ontario, which is what I'm familiar with.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: All right, just do Ontario.

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: I'm assuming that the pattern is duplicated in the prairies. If a veterinarian sees the disease, or is suspicious the disease is there, they would give people in my position a call. We have people on call with pagers 24 hours a day, seven days a week at this point in time.

We immediately move to that property and start implementing. We collect samples, we do examinations, and everything else. We contact our contacts at the next level up to advise them that we're in a high-risk situation.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Would you quarantine at that time?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: If there was any doubt of disease, yes, most definitely. We have the authority to quarantine.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The next level is slaughter. Where does that come from?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: The decision would move up to the emergency response team and the decisions would be made at that level.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is that Dr. Gravel and the CFIA?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: It's the CFIA, but it's not at Dr. Gravel's level.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Walk me through, please. I'm interested in it.

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: I'll hand over to Dr. Gravel at this point in time.

Dr. André Gravel: If a case of foot-and-mouth disease is suspected in a farm, the first level of intervention is as described.

As soon as this happens there are limits that are imposed on the movement of animals within a five-kilometre radius around that farm. A sample is sent to the lab and we could have the results of serology within about six hours. If that is positive, then the next level is virus isolation, and this takes 24 to 48 hours.

• 1005

At this point in time, after six hours, if we determine that the likelihood is great that this is foot-and-mouth disease, we may pre-emptively slaughter those hogs. As I mentioned before, they're a great reservoir for the disease, and even without confirmation we could proceed there and then to depopulate that—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can I just jump in here for a second?

The Chair: Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: This is a reportable disease. There is compensation, is there not, for the—

The Chair: Rick, your time is up. You're a minute over.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: This is important, Mr. Chairman.

There is compensation for those animals, right?

Dr. André Gravel: There is.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: I'm sorry, I don't want to get into compensation. We can do that later. But it's another one, and we'll get back to you.

Mark.

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Dr. Gravel, it looks like you guys are doing quite an exceptional job.

My question is pertaining to the tripartite exercise we have with the rest of North America. You know, we do almost $1 billion in trade a day with the U.S., and I think almost 50 loads of farm products come out of California. Is the U.S. doing as good a job as we are at their borders with stuff coming in from Europe?

If, for instance, there is an outbreak in California, how do we react to that—if it's in a dairy operation or whatnot? Then, vice versa, if we had an outbreak in Nova Scotia, for instance, how would the U.S. react to us? Would the rest of Canada be affected? Because what happened in P.E.I. with the potato wart was that it was one isolated area, but the whole province got shut out.

So I guess those are my two questions.

Dr. André Gravel: Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. They are good questions.

Is the U.S. doing a good job? I'd say yes. Both we and our colleagues from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency are in constant communication with our U.S. counterparts to ensure that the measures that Canada has implemented are mirrored in the U.S.

For us, not having to worry too much about the Canada-U.S. border would be a plus. In other words, if the U.S. is taking care of their perimeter, and we're taking care of ours, then we don't have to worry too much about what's moving at the U.S.-Canada border. I'm reassured that the U.S. is doing a good job—as good a job as we are.

In terms of should there be an outbreak in California, how would we react, there would certainly be restriction on movement of animals from the whole of the United States at first. This is how we would be treating it. Without being reassured by the USDA that they have taken all measures necessary to limit the disease—there's a case in California, and who knows whether there's going to be a case in Wyoming tomorrow, and then Nebraska the day after—this is the first thing that we would do.

Now, upon being reassured by the U.S. that they've limited the disease to California on farms and they've taken adequate measures, we would be willing to look at regionalizing that disease. In other words, California would be restricted, and the rest of the country, provided the right controls are in place, would be allowed to ship to Canada.

The answer to your question about what if we had it in Nova Scotia is the same. I'm sure the U.S. would first of all close the border to make sure that we have things under control. Then progressively, as they see what controls we have in place—movement control, eradication, slaughter, etc.—they would also look at regionalizing the disease.

Mr. Mark Eyking: Again, I guess that's reassuring, but the Americans being such a big trading partner, especially when we ship so many cattle and that into their markets...to do fair both ways is my biggest concern. If there is a livestock operation in California, I'm not just concerned about livestock movement up here. It would be stuff like lettuce, grapes, and oranges where their pallets and stuff would be coming into our country. How would we be dealing with other products besides livestock if it was in a certain area?

Dr. André Gravel: Well, in that case we would have to rely on our overall policy of limiting, the same way as we do with the U.K. We would have to evaluate the risk of certain products coming in and spreading foot-and-mouth disease. Animal semen, meat products, embryos, and certain cheeses would have to be limited.

• 1010

In terms of produce, it's all a matter of soil. The product in that case would have to be free of soil. We'd have to look at how well the U.S. in that case is able to guarantee to us that the stuff is coming in without being contaminated by soil.

Mr. Mark Eyking: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mark.

I'm going to go now back to the Alliance and maybe....

Madam Tremblay? Okay, no, after.

With the RCMP, Howard here is a former RCMP officer. Under the present system, what authority would the RCMP...? Would it take an Order in Council? Would it take an emergency measure from the government? How would the RCMP become directly involved if a farmer or a farm group refused to abide by what the CFIA have set up as a regulated, quarantined area? Is there any problem with the methods that are available right at this moment in terms of the RCMP having to forcefully deal with a quarantined situation? Could someone answer that before I go to Mr. Anderson?

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, thanks.

We've been there, done that in a way. If you come to our CFIA headquarters, you'll see an old photograph dating back from 1952 that shows an RCMP officer posting a quarantine notice on a farm. I've been myself involved in having the support of the RCMP to enter a farm to do brucellosis testing because the owner was refusing to do that. It's quite an easy process. It's been done before. It presents absolutely no complication.

The Chair: So the authority is vested at present in terms of peace, order, and good government of our country.

Now for David.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to offer a serious educational program for travellers to Canada. I was on the back roads of Ontario this morning looking through a couple of your handouts that are obviously intended for travellers. There's no mention of foot-and-mouth in these pamphlets. You have other material, do you, that you're handing out to people?

Mr. Jean Chartier (Vice-President, Public and Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Yes, sure.

There is much more material in development. In fact, just in the kit that you have in front of you, you've got some specific fact sheets on foot-and-mouth that are available. Obviously there is a whole series of other activities that are in development. I might go through them if you want, but there's a whole series of things that are in development.

Mr. Chairman, maybe I could just run you through some of these things. Maybe I should preface this by saying what the overall approach is in terms of communication so that it can be very clear in terms of the goals that we have set for ourselves in all of this.

We would very much like to have a balanced approach that would do basically two things here. It would not only provide Canadians and travellers to Canada with information on what the federal government is doing, but we'd also like to be able to provide information on what travellers and citizens can do, actually, to prevent the disease from entering Canada.

You will see in all the material that will be developed a mix of these two objectives whereby, obviously, we will also provide ways of ensuring that Canadians play their part in all of this.

Just this very coming weekend, there will be printed ads in newspapers—advertisements in all major newspapers in this country, along with all agricultural print media—with some advertisements that will speak to what is happening and what can be done.

We're also developing some television public service announcements that will be aired in the next couple of weeks. Just yesterday we had final approval on the concepts by the central agencies. We're also thinking of turning those into in-flight videos that will be aired for travellers coming from those countries that are at risk. All of these things will also be developed.

We have some information brochures and some cards that are also in development that would accompany what travellers are given along with the card where they declare what they are bringing back. There will be some more of that type of information that will accompany the information given to travellers.

We're also working on some—

Mr. David Anderson: Can I interrupt for one minute?

Mr. Jean Chartier: Yes.

Mr. David Anderson: Something that concerns me here is that you're talking a lot about things that are in development. We've been trying to deal with this for a couple of months now. I would expect that this should have been out there a while ago, and it should have been done. It's been held up.

• 1015

I have one other question—my time is short. This is something I brought up several times with the parliamentary secretary. We have young people who are trying to make the right decision about whether or not they should be going to Europe over their Easter break. It's causing problems in our communities because they don't know what decision to be making.

Are you making any recommendations about travel advisories, which would then allow those young people to get their money back? The lack of opportunity to get their funds returned is making decisions in some places where people would like to stay but are not able to because they feel that they can't afford to give up that money. In other places, people have made those decisions and it's costing them a lot of money.

Have you made any recommendations, or will you make a recommendation on a travel advisory that would then allow those students to get those refunds back if they choose not to go?

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will ask Susanne Frost to provide some input on that.

Ms. Susanne Frost (Acting Director, Enforcement and Investigation Services—Operations, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Actually, I met Tuesday with the Air Transport Association of Canada, Air Canada, and Air Transat, discussing how we get these various communications pieces into the hands of the airlines to serve their passengers. Because of the distributions systems being unique to each airline, each local airport authority has its own rules. That will take a certain amount of time to actually get it live, but I'm getting extremely good cooperation from all parties.

One of the comments made to me by the Air Canada representative at that meeting was that they are taking the FMD situation into account in the request for refunds and that they are looking at them case by case. They have approved a number of total refunds already. So I believe that has already been dealt with at the private level.

Mr. David Anderson: I think it needs to be dealt with quite a bit more aggressively than it's being dealt with right now.

The Chair: Thank you, David.

Murray.

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

I'm going to switch to Captain Donaldson. He has been very quiet.

I know we have a signed agreement with the U.K. on troop training, and we have some Upholder class submarines that are at stake within this agreement. Regarding that ship, the Brits promised us that when they bring over equipment, it's either going to be new or clean. It wasn't.

The troops who were on board that ship had interaction with that equipment. They came off that ship, and I know ammunition came off the ship too. Mind you, the ammunition was taken out of the containers. What happened after that?

Capt Bruce Donaldson: The inspection of the ship was done by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It's really their mandate to inspect the equipment as it arrives in the country, and also customs, and to make sure that all the protocols are carried out.

I would characterize the problem with the vehicles as a mistake. It is acknowledged as a mistake. I would emphasize that there was a lot of equipment on the ship, and the equipment that passed the CFIA's standards was allowed to be off-loaded and to proceed.

The vehicles did not pass the standards. We have a system in place for making sure the right stuff comes in and the wrong stuff does not.

Mr. Murray Calder: That's all commendable. My point is, I'm focusing on what did come off the ship—the troops. They've had interaction with the equipment. Whether the equipment was contaminated or not, we are making the assumption that it was, and that's why we sent it back.

So those troops came off. What happened to their clothing, and so on, when they came off?

Capt Bruce Donaldson: I understand your concern. There were no troops destined for training in Canada on the ship. They were just members of the ship's company.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay.

Capt Bruce Donaldson: They were treated the same way that all other people arriving from ships are met. I believe there were disinfectant baths as they came ashore. All the normal procedures that are in place for dealing with arriving people were carried out. They remained in the Montreal area, in accordance with the normal screening process.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, but I know the normal entry procedures were carried out in their case.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay, thank you.

Dr. Gravel, on the tripartite emergency preparedness plan that was tried out in November 2000, we're doing a follow-up study on it and improvement of the plan. I know that's going on.

I know we have a very good tracking system for cattle. What type of a tracking system do we have for pigs, and what type of a tracking system do we have in particular for sheep?

• 1020

Also, within the abattoir system, I know CFIA now does inspection of the abattoirs, both federally and provincially. How well are we taking a look at the abattoirs that fall under provincial authority because the product that's being processed stays within the province and doesn't go across the country?

Dr. André Gravel: Animal identification is key for tracking and eradication of a disease. It's a must and a key component not only for disease eradication, but for residue problems and all sorts of problems.

The fact that there is now mandatory animal identification for cattle in Canada is definitely a plus. We consider that a key component in our eradication program.

In terms of hogs, I don't think it has ever been a problem, given the fact that the current practice is to tattoo those hogs before they reach the plant, and through the provincial marketing schemes, it's always possible to find the farm of origin.

On sheep, we're not completely there, but we're getting there. There is progress being made. We've had discussion with the sheep industry association, and clearly for reasons other than foot-and-mouth disease, including scrapie, they're quite keen on having an animal identification system, because our intervention when we can determine that the animals are properly identified is much less traumatic for them.

If we find scrapie in a herd that is identified on an individual animal basis, we can be a little bit more discriminatory in terms of our intervention. So the issue of identification is clearly a key component.

In terms of the provincial abattoirs, CFIA is providing, under contract, slaughter inspection in some provinces, including Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and some areas of B.C. So in those cases, we are present.

If your question is related to how well we are covered in terms of finding foot-and-mouth disease in provincial abattoirs, for example.... Is that what the question is?

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes.

Dr. André Gravel: We've been in touch with provincial governments to sensitize them to the fact that foot-and-mouth disease is a possibility. They have a role to play in terms of sending the information to their abattoir vets to make sure that if ever there is a suspicion that foot-and-mouth disease is present, they know what to do with it. That has already been covered. That link has been established.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay.

And finally, Dr. MacLeod—

The Chair: Sorry, Murray, maybe you can pass your question along to another member from your side.

But to follow up quickly with Captain Donaldson, normally it was a land unit that was coming for training in Canada, and I would think the Canadian Forces would have had a liaison officer with that battalion or regiment, or whatever it was. Did that liaison officer inspect that equipment before it was loaded or when it left Great Britain?

In other words, do our military people have a system to avoid that shipment coming to Canada before it arrives here, or do we have to wait for the CFIA to deal with it?

Capt Bruce Donaldson: First of all, in terms of inspecting equipment, this is the mandate of the CFIA, and I wouldn't—

The Chair: No, I'm asking, did the military people have someone on the ground in Great Britain liaised with that unit, who cooperated with that regimental commander to see that the equipment was loaded and inspected before it left Great Britain?

Capt Bruce Donaldson: We didn't have a member of the Canadian Forces in situ with those responsibilities. The British do have protocol that they follow. Clearly in the case of the vehicles themselves, there was a problem with that protocol.

The Chair: Yes.

Capt Bruce Donaldson: But this is why we have a system in place at the port of entry in Canada and a system of confirmation at the destination base to ensure that as it arrives in Canada, we deal with the problem ourselves.

The Chair: So really, in effect, do you have an officer with that unit who was involved with that shipment? I'd like a yes or no on that.

Capt Bruce Donaldson: No, sir.

The Chair: You did not have an officer? I think it might be advisable that you have somebody within the military working with those groups from overseas who are coming here, trying to give a cursory examination or inspection before it gets to our borders and before it's put into the agency.

With that, I'll go to Madame Tremblay.

• 1025

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I too would like to return to the issue of military personnel.

You said very mildly that there was a little protocol problem and that Great Britain had admitted it was a mistake. I think we could call it a lack of social conscience on the part of the armed forces, which considers itself above the law in every country of the world it would appear.

I don't understand how a responsible government or a responsible armed forces could agree to placing a wolf among the sheep in Western Canada when it is known that it had been unable to follow the protocol. You returned the ship, and that's fine. We were told that there were a number of things that had passed the inspection and that had been unloaded in Quebec City. Now, to what extent were those things really protected from contamination, when one considers that most of the cargo was returned to England? Really, you don't give people much credit. How can you think that people might believe that. They do not believe you at all.

It is now generally believed that in Western Canada our herds are endangered because of the armed forces presence, the armed forces who are visiting us and who failed in their responsibilities. Any armed forces contingent that is derelict in its duties to that extent ought to return home. It ought not to come and contaminate our herds here, because that is where the outbreak might occur. They are the ones that are in danger. I find that completely unacceptable. I do not understand why the armed forces did not cancel everything, even though things had been signed, once it had been discovered that the protocol had not been followed. It could have said: too bad, but we're returning the troops as well. I don't understand.

Could you explain to me how this can constitute a sense of responsibility. Explain on television, because Canadians will be watching, how you think this involves a sense of responsibility. For me, I do not understand.

[English]

Capt Bruce Donaldson: I'd like to emphasize that we have procedures in place to ensure that the risk of foot-and-mouth disease being transmitted into Canada by foreign military activity is managed responsibly. We work very closely with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to apply the standards and to make sure they're applied for equipment and personnel entering Canada. We have received tremendous cooperation from our allies who are training in Canada and we are extremely sensitive to the concerns of Canadians and extremely sensitive to the risk of transmission of this disease.

I emphasize, though, that we do have standards in place and that they are being applied. I emphasize that we are working closely with our allies, but we must accept that we need a system to ensure that mistakes are not made. The particular case of the vehicles gives us an example for demonstrating the effectiveness of the system that is in place—that is to say, we rely on the cooperation of our allies and we receive the cooperation.

It's regrettable that in this case the specific requirements of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency were not met for the vehicles. They were met for all equipment that was off-loaded from the ship. They were met for all personnel who have arrived. In the case of the vehicles, they were not met. The vehicles remained on board and were sent back to the United Kingdom.

I believe it is a mistake to characterize this mistake as a lack of trust and a lack of responsibility on the part of the British. I think we must acknowledge that they have a significant stake in the prevention of the transmission of this disease. They have a significant problem, which they're dealing with.

I do not believe at all that this was an example of lack of responsibility or an intentional act, Madam. I believe that this was a mistake and I believe we have a system in place for dealing with these mistakes.

Do you want to comment, Dr. Gravel?

Dr. André Gravel: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the cooperation we've had from the Department of National Defence over the years has been tremendous. It's not the first time that troops have come into Canada for troop exercises. It's not the first time that Canadian troops returning from abroad conduct exercises in Canada. The biosecurity protocol that has been established between DND and the agency to prevent the introduction of disease is very tight.

• 1030

In fact, speaking of cooperation, the U.K. has agreed, as an example, that the quarantine that was imposed on their troops for having visited a farm was 14 days originally and was extended to 28 days. So I think the British and Canadian armies are acting very responsibly.

The fact that we returned the ship shows the system works. They couldn't get through the net there. It's unfortunate that we discovered it at this point in time, but it did work. The stuff was not unloaded, it was sent back. Of course, when something like that happens, any organization, whether it's the military or the CFIA, relies on some of these problems to improve their procedures.

Be certain that if there's another shipment of equipment, we're going to make sure it's properly inspected abroad before it's allowed here.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to accept all these explanations.

Mr. Gravel, in your brief, at the beginning, you said that it was an extremely contagious disease. You are telling us that for several years now the military has been going from one country to another. That is true, but this is the first time that military personnel have come here from Great Britain when that country is in a serious crisis because of a contagious disease that is spreading very rapidly. This is the first time something like this has happened since 1952. Even though troop exchanges occur every year, this is the first time that this situation has occurred. If the disease is so contagious, how can you expect me to believe that although the trucks and other vehicles were placed back on the boat because they did not pass the Agency's inspection, the rest of the cargo passed the inspection, when we know that the incubation period is 14 days? Do we know that the people who were on the boat were not carrying the germ, somewhere on their boots, in their hair or in their equipment. We have nothing to guarantee this, even though they may have appeared to be clean.

That is what I find extraordinary, unless you feel ready to go on television to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt how you made a distinction between what was clean and what was not. Otherwise, people will not believe you. It is very clear to the people. We are being told that they do not believe you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Suzanne. Madam Tremblay, you are most expressive.

Bob, you're next.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): What I'll do, Mr. Chair, is follow up on her question, because I'm trying to get a better sense myself—and maybe you can tell Canadians—whether people carry it. How do they carry it? Would they carry it through direct contact with an animal? We hear all kinds of things.

Along that line too, I'm trying to think down the path. What animals can have it? If deer can have it and it's in a deer population, how do you stop it? Maybe you can just start by explaining to Canadians how they can get it, and how they they take precautions against it. And why 14 days?

Dr. André Gravel: Thanks very much for the question.

There are two ways that foot-and-mouth disease can be transmitted through humans. The first one is if you're in close contact with an animal. If you're a veterinarian and you're diagnosing the disease, it's quite possible you will have the disease in your respiratory system. It shouldn't take any more than 36 hours before the virus actually dies and there's no danger of exposure.

The virus likes humidity and coolness. If you have humid soil on your shoes and the stuff is maintained in a cool place, the virus will survive some time, so that's another way of bringing the disease into the animal population.

The third way would be through clothing that has soil on it, so that also is a vehicle that would allow contamination of product.

• 1035

I mentioned at my previous appearance that animal products are a very dangerous way of transporting the disease. This is why we're paying a lot of attention at airports, with our detector dogs, to make sure that people don't bring in food products from countries that have the disease.

Mr. Bob Speller: How long will it last in that food, in salami, for example? You're talking about processed food.

Dr. André Gravel: Under the proper conditions, I would say that a good 14 days is a good estimate, and if I'm not right, Brian Evans is in the room.

Mr. Bob Speller: To pass it on, would you have to feed that to an animal?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes.

Mr. Bob Speller: Can one human give it to another human through a respiratory...?

Dr. André Gravel: No.

Mr. Bob Speller: These are the sorts of.... When we're looking at the risk I'd like to get a better sense of where it actually comes from.

Dr. André Gravel: Human to human transmission is not happening. It's human to animal through contaminated material on your clothing or your shoes, or through a piece of contaminated meat, as an example, or through a product that contains the virus.

Mr. Bob Speller: What about the deer population?

Dr. André Gravel: Thanks for asking the question.

In regard to the deer population, I think this is one of the greatest risks that the U.K. is now running. Given the fact that there are new cases being discovered on a daily basis, the probability that it gets into the deer population in the U.K. is increasing. If that happens it's another ball game, because restrictions on the movement of wild animals cannot be done very easily.

In regard to your question, if I may, Brian generously provided me with some information. On wool as an example, if you bring in a sheepskin, the virus can last for two weeks, four weeks on cows' hair—

Mr. Bob Speller: Cows' hair?

Dr. André Gravel: Cows' hair, then eleven weeks on boot leather, thirteen—

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Eleven weeks?

Dr. André Gravel: On boot leather.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Did you say weeks?

Dr. André Gravel: Weeks. It can last thirteen weeks on rubber boots, fifteen weeks on hay, and twenty weeks on bran. This is on the understanding that the proper conditions for sustainability of the virus are met. It won't survive eleven weeks on your boot leather if the boots are dry or maintained at a very high temperature. That is the longest possible period.

The Chair: That was very interesting.

Do you have a bit to add?

Mr. Bob Speller: I have just a bit to add for Mr. MacLeod, who was there. When I look at the TV I see all those carcasses lying around. There are buzzards and birds. It is possible to transmit the virus that way? Is there not a system whereby they could be destroying these animals a lot quicker than they seem to be?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: The area of the U.K. that the Canadian team was in was not one of the so-called hot spots, so I can't really address what was going on in that other area.

In the Reading and Chelmsford areas, carcasses were not lying around. Usually the animals were killed in the morning and on the pyre if not that night then the following day. There was also a watchman who made sure there were no carnivores coming in to feed on the carcasses while the pyre was being built.

The Chair: Thanks, Bob.

I'm running a little short of time. I'm going to give three minutes to Dick.

Do you have another question?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, just picking up on Mr. Speller's question, can birds carry this disease?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: In the U.K. there was some concern that the virus in some species of birds is not inactivated as it passes through the digestive systems of the birds. There was no evidence of transmission by birds in the U.K. that I was aware of, but it was certainly something they were looking at.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I guess I'm just wondering. It's springtime and we have birds migrating back to North America that have travelled thousands of miles. I'm thinking that even if we did everything perfectly, if everybody went through the foot bath, and all of the other precautions were taken, is it still possible that this virus could come in quite accidentally?

• 1040

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: I'll have to defer to Dr. Gravel.

Dr. André Gravel: It's a very difficult question to answer. I don't think birds migrating from Argentina and getting into Canada would carry the disease. If that had been the case, I think we would have had it before. It's present in Central America and South America, so I don't think it's a likely mode of transmission.

Mr. Dick Proctor: This is my last question. In 10 days, I guess, there are going to be many thousands of people coming to the Quebec Summit of the Americas. Are there any extra precautions that are being taken for that group? We're talking a lot this morning about foot-and-mouth disease in England, but in fact the same strain is in Argentina.

Ms. Susanne Frost: In fact, we are enhancing precautions at the Summit of the Americas. We will have a detector dog there. The international protocol does allow us to search the baggage of international personnel with cause, which will be a positive check on the declaration form or a verbal declaration of presence on a farm or a hit by a detector dog. We are working with DFAIT right now just to ensure that the information on those procedures is made available to the delegates well in advance so that they are prepared for that when they arrive.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

Thank you, Charles.

The Chair: Thanks, Dick.

I'm going to go to Claude now.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask two questions, very briefly, because time is short.

I would like to know if it is more likely that the disease would enter here through people and transportation, or goods received. I realize that you monitor goods that enter the country very closely. On the other hand, I am not so certain for people. We have been told that there is an effective control system and complete disinfection has been mentioned, but it is certainly not possible to disinfect travellers when they come into Canada. Attempts are being made using the carpet, and then people go all over the place.

What bothers me is the issue of informing people. I am sure that during the two weeks we will be at home, we will receive many telephone calls about what to tell people. I know full well that the dissemination of information to make people aware is often what is most difficult,. I suggest that advertising be placed in regional newspapers, which are often published in rural districts, which are most affected. You were speaking of national media.

What would be the easiest thing we could tell people to help them contribute to stopping the spread? Mr. Speller spoke about the incubation of the disease. What can you tell people concretely to help them? That when people arrive they have to walk over the carpet; but perhaps they went to places that have been affected by the outbreak with a bag, a camera or suitcases. What should they do with these items?

Mr. André Gravel: Thank you for your question. You have asked me to identify the proportional risk of transmission by clothing or shoes, as opposed to transmission by animal products. Without question, animal products represent a greater risk than clothing or soil.

With the co-operation of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, all people who say that they have visited a farm within the past 14 days are sent to us and we do a second examination of their baggage. If high risk items are found, they are confiscated by the Agency. We make recommendations to them about how long they should wait before any possible visits to farms. For example, it's all very well to walk over a pool of disinfectant with the shoes that you were wearing on the aircraft, but if there are dirty boots in the baggage, this clearly represents a high risk. We tell people that such items need to be cleaned, and we will do it at the airports if necessary. We take advantage of situations to speak to people who need to go through the second level, if I may use that expression, to educate them more about how the virus can be transmitted, about what precautions to take, etc.

I believe that the system functions reasonably well. There is a big net at Customs and Revenue and some people are sent to the second level by the Agency. I think we have reasonably good control.

• 1045

Mr. Claude Duplain: This week, we were told things and heard discussion earlier about people who entered through the United States and then came to Canada by car. Do you believe this presents a problem? These people may contact us, and I would like to be able to give them the right answers.

[English]

Ms. Susanne Frost: We are implementing at the Detroit-Windsor border a pilot project in cooperation with customs to determine whether there is a significant population. The best sense so far is no. Most people are not doing that. We will do it at the land border. Most people come into Canada by plane from Europe and other countries, the vast majority direct, a small percentage through the States. If we do get significant numbers coming through the border, we will be expanding that out across the other land border points that are transborder. We're looking at that with regard to the Summit of the Americas as well, in terms of the land border points there, to see if that's an appropriate place to put increased surveillance also.

The Chair: Okay, we'll go to Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

I have a couple of things. First of all, I want to go back to my other question with respect to reportable disease. I think it's very important to have Canadians know, and particularly producers know, that it is reportable, and there is a compensation package. This is not something we want to hide from. Can you tell me basically what the compensation package is, very quickly? I have one other question after that.

Dr. André Gravel: Given the fact that foot-and-mouth disease is a named disease under the Health of Animals Act, if the agency orders destruction of animals, there will be compensation paid to the farmers. Compensation can also be paid for treatment, vaccination, and cleaning and disinfection costs associated with control measures.

Also, in terms of income loss, it's all well and good to be compensated for your herd of cattle. If the herd is taken out, you're going to have no revenue during that period of time. An income loss program can also exist under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's safety net program.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have one other question, very quickly.

The Chair: Very short, then, because I—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We've heard about the deer population—we've heard about that. Has there been any testing in the deer populations, either in the U.K. or in Canada? You said yourself that one of the greatest fears anybody would have is to have this disease within the wildlife. Has there been testing in the U.K. or in Canada for that matter that you know of?

Dr. André Gravel: I'm not aware that it has spread to wildlife in the U.K. Testing of deer would be a bit of a problem due to catching the deer. If they're dead—

The Chair: Mr. Gravel, I'm going to have to move now.

Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for being here.

I first think I should reply to the opening political comment by one of my colleagues from the Alliance. Just a few moments ago, Dr. Gravel did mention Central America and South America. I'll come back to that, but we were informed—people were informed in my riding and across the country—that it was a political decision regarding the beef situation in Brazil, and it was. But I want to put the fact on the table again that now Brazil, on their own, has made a decision to destroy more than 6,000 cattle, these ones that were imported.

Now, doctor, I want to go back to the U.S. border and Central America, or Mexico there. Are we looking at whether the U.S.A. is tightening up their precautions along that border? I'm sure they are because they produce a lot of beef in the southern states. I realize it's in many countries of the world at one time or another in a small way, but today when we hear it's in Central America, or could be.... I just thought we should clarify that for people, please.

Dr. André Gravel: Thanks, then, for allowing me to clarify that. As I mentioned before, we are in constant communication with our colleagues from the USDA, and CCRA is also constantly speaking to their U.S. counterpart to make sure that the measures that we have at the periphery of both countries are being respected.

• 1050

With regard to your comment about South America and Central America, the disease does exist in many countries of the world. The high visibility it now has is due to Britain. The disease hasn't changed. It's still the same. The controls that have been in place so far have been sufficient to control it.

That doesn't mean we have to be complacent, and in fact we haven't been complacent. The agency, from the very beginning, established a 1-800 line to allow people to phone in and get information about the disease.

We've also implemented a procedure by which all passengers travelling on Air Canada get a statement in terms of foot-and-mouth disease. Along with our colleagues from Canada Customs, we've been distributing fact sheets at the airports. We've installed posters at the airport. We've also dealt with customs and immigration people in terms of workers who may be going to farms.

In fact, there's an exchange program of young workers working in agriculture, and these people, with the cooperation of the immigration department, are identified to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and brought back to us.

I must reiterate that CCRA has been focusing their questioning of travellers from Europe solely on visits to a farm. They are no longer asking whether you're bringing booze and cigarettes into the country. So maybe it's a good time to do it, no?

All these actions together clearly demonstrate that the agency was not asleep.

Mr. Larry McCormick: No, and certainly your foresight to have a test of this program in November 2000 was great. We can all win, and learn, from that.

I have two questions, short ones, on this disease. I'm glad you shared how long it can live on certain surfaces—it's very important, and it's not scaremongering—but what about the airborne possibility? I'd like you to comment on that.

As well, I would like to encourage the CFIA to work closely with the international charter companies. As my colleague Mr. Anderson said, and as we've heard from across the country, some groups up until now have not been able to get a refund. The insurers for these companies say it's not a great enough threatening disaster. I just want to encourage you to contact all the international charter companies.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. André Gravel: On the airborne transmission of the disease, it is a possibility. It has happened in the past. As I mentioned last time I was here, when Denmark got their outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease some time ago, they got it from East Germany, airborne. Keep in mind that the conditions were ideal for that. You're talking about a very humid, over-the-ocean, cool temperature, which allowed the virus to travel.

On the possibility that it would come from the U.K. to Newfoundland, or to Canada, I don't think it's a mode of transmission.

The Chair: Kevin, you're going to give your time to Howard?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): A little bit of it, yes.

The Chair: Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Back to this contingency plan, Dr. Gravel, we needed that here today. That's what this was all about. I can't believe the contingency plan would not have been useful for this committee, as you said.

I would like to see you deliver that plan to us, in hard copy. I believe that's what was asked for, and that's what you should have brought here today. I question whether you even have a full plan written out—

Mr. Paul Steckle: Oh, come on.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: —because you say it's “in development”, and you talk about “in transit”.

You also are talking about the tagging system of the CCIA. Do you not know that ranchers are not tagging cattle yet on that system? This disease has been around now for 45 days. It seems like this is very slow action.

I think maybe the minister should take a lot of responsibility for the lack of action by your department. I'd hate to think that it was you.

I have one question for you, Dr. MacLeod. I'd like you to quickly compare the agriculture system in Great Britain, where there's a lot of small farms, a lot of sheep, and very close quarters and so on, with the system in Canada. Is it not this multi-functionality in Britain that is causing a lot of the problem there? Because we do not have that in Canada, wouldn't we have, as a result, a much better chance for containment and elimination?

Dr. Douglas MacLeod: I'd have to preface my remarks by saying that I am not an expert on the U.K.'s agricultural system. I can only comment on what I observed while I was there for the three weeks.

• 1055

There are certainly differences between Canada and the U.K. with regard to the movement of animals. I think that has certainly been a complicating factor for the authorities in the U.K. I don't believe we would have to deal with the same degree of problems, but certainly livestock identification and livestock movement are key to the control of this disease.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. MacLeod.

Now, just for a few quickies. You have one minute, Suzanne.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I would like to know whether, in the emergency plan you have developed in the event the disease were to break out here, you have planned to incinerate or bury animals. I was told that burial was faster and more effective than incineration.

Mr. André Gravel: Thank you for the question.

I would like to begin by commenting on the statement made by Mr. Hilstrom about the fact that the Agency probably did not have a plan. I took the trouble to bring along the Agency's emergency plan. Thus, saying that the Agency did not submit a plan because it did not have one is inappropriate.

As for the matter of incineration versus burial of animals, there are environmental issues that need to be taken into consideration. Incineration is a good method of destroying the virus. However, I have heard that the British were currently doing research to determine whether it was possible for the virus to still escape from animals when they were incinerated. We therefore have to put a question mark on that one. It is a good method until it is proven that it is not a good method.

When animals are buried, there is no longer a possibility of the virus getting into the atmosphere. However, there are ecological considerations, and the Department of the Environment will definitely have to get involved to identify sites appropriate for the burial of animals. For example, animals ought not to be buried in a location where the soil is porous to avoid polluting the water table. This needs to be done in co-operation with people who know the environment.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Doctor.

I'll go to Paul, then, and then back to Kevin.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Yes, I have just a very quick point. I think what we have done, in terms of how.... We commute from one country to another so easily today, and we have based on the premise on honour.... When we're doing the new signage at our airports, are there mechanisms for us to place on those signs penalties that would be imposed if someone were to sabotage or to hijack our system and to deliberately misrepresent or not give the factual information required of them? Is there any way we can discourage people from doing that by being forthright, in terms of the kind of penalties that would be placed upon those people, should they do that? I think that's very important. We should not leave this meeting this morning without giving the clear impression that, for anyone who would do that, there are serious, serious penalties.

Ms. Susanne Frost: Mr. Steckle, that's already in place at Pearson, Vancouver, Mirabel, and Dorval because we implemented the administrative monetary penalty system a year ago, last May. The signs are approximately twice the size of the doors here and are bright safety yellow: They say, you must declare; penalties of up to $400 or prosecution; detector dogs on duty. Again, we worked very closely with customs and with the local airport authorities. The signage is large and placed where all passengers coming into the primary inspection line will see it and will be aware of the penalties. It's in the materials that are going out, and the new brochure points out that failure to declare generates the penalty.

The Chair: Thank you. One minute for Kevin here. He's been very patient.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Camp Wainwright is in my constituency, and the southern part of my constituency comes very close to Suffield, so we have been in contact with those camps, especially Wainwright. They've been excellent in relaying some of the concerns that they had. Initially, the British troops were bringing in food in their rations.

But my question is not so much to do with that. It has to do with the plans of our local municipal governments or county governments. They have an emergency preparedness week coming up here in May. Are they part of this plan? Do they understand their responsibility in the plan?

• 1100

Secondly, I'm an auctioneer and I've worked in livestock auctions, and in terms of the impact on our auction markets, on those places that are in the business of and seeing livestock coming and going, would they be one of the first facilities to take a huge economic hit? Does the compensation plan consider some of those? I would take it it doesn't.

For farmers, the market will drop immediately if an outbreak were to hit. Compensation only covers those animal that are found with the disease. How far do these plans reach out?

Dr. André Gravel: First, in answer to your last question, compensation can be paid for animals that are suspected of having a disease as well, not only those that have the disease.

In terms of the link with municipality, this is part of the overall emergency preparedness structure that is existing for any type of emergency. Emergency Preparedness Canada and ourselves are part of this. So municipalities would be linked in on that basis, whether it's an ice storm, whether it's flooding, the structure is already in place.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Are they aware of that?

Dr. André Gravel: What we need to plug in there is the specifics of that outbreak, which is foot-and-mouth disease. So it would be our role in that case to say here are the additional steps that have to be taken to prevent the spread of this disease.

In terms of auction, auctions would certainly be one of the first things that would suffer, clearly, because as soon as we discover foot-and-mouth disease there will be restriction of movement of animals. So clearly if you're an auctioneer you would certainly be one the first ones to suffer from that.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: It could effectively close down auction markets and businesses.

Dr. André Gravel: Potentially it could, yes.

[Translation]

The Chair: Marcel, please.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I raised the problem of ports. It worries me and I would like to ask you whether you are going to review the situation. Unless the reports we are being shown are false, they represent a danger; at the ports in Quebec City, Rimouski, Sept-«les, there are really not enough inspectors.

Mr. André Gravel: I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that the Agency was here to provide information, but also to report back on any suggestions made by members of the Committee. If you have identified a vulnerable point, rest assured that we will look into the matter with our colleagues at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you to all the witnesses. We are very much involved with, and you more than us, trying to educate and bring information to our Canadian people about the problems with the disease and the significance of their cooperation and their good will in making sure that our farming communities aren't adversely effected.

I know Mr. Hilstrom has brought up the necessity of his obtaining this document, but I'm not sure that all members are interested. I had to reflect that General Eisenhower said he would invade Europe at D-Day with a one-page plan. I know that people do like long plans in some cases, but when he—

Mr. Larry McCormick: A point of order, Mr. Chair, on the fact that you said you're not sure whether all members are interested. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. We're all very interested in the plan, but I'm not so sure that we need the detailed manuals, perhaps the bullets. I just want to clarify that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes. I think it's good to clarify that.

Mr. David Anderson: Can I say something?

We're trying to work with the government. And if we do not have some understanding on what it is that we're trying to defend and work with these people on, we're putting ourselves in a place where we're saying we have confidence in what's being said here. We need to know what that situation is so that we can say that we have confidence. We don't have any information or plans. The same with our municipal governments, local authorities. If they don't have the plan and don't know what they're doing we cannot continue to say we have confidence in the system.

We need that. We need that information out, at the ports of entry. We need to know that's being done, if we're going to say, as politicians and as non-partisan people, that we believe that you are doing your job.

I'm getting calls every day about this and I'm trying to tell people that we believe the plan is in place. We don't even know what it is.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, the plan is supposedly in translation. Well what about the unilingual Quebec people who are supposedly farming, and veterinarians there? I mean, this is what we're trying to put across, that the plan should be here. It should have been ready and it's not.

• 1105

The Chair: Again, thank you.

To clarify, apparently there's a very thick document that outlined names and numbers all across the country. I'm not sure that would benefit each member of the committee. Perhaps Howard does need that, but most of us are satisfied with a brief plan that would outline the major steps, the major concerns, and how you plan to look after this.

So I know there are all sorts of.... In the military there are part one orders, part two orders, standing orders, and all of that. In any case, Howard in particular would like to get a very detailed plan. And if it's a foot thick, hopefully you can deliver it to him. But most of us would be satisfied with a short synopsis of how it is to work.

Thank you for coming. Hopefully you'll have heard our observations and questions, and you'll be able to take those back. I know I was a bit hard on the military about your liaison officers—perhaps you should look into that. But hopefully we'll not be embarrassed by another ship coming, and hopefully we'll have success in dealing with this outbreak in Europe. And hopefully, above all, we'll never see it here in North America and more specifically in Canada.

Again, thank you. Keep us posted. We're home for two weeks back in our constituencies. If something should happen or if there's need for further information, I hope we can call you and get good information. We know you've cooperated in the past and we appreciate the work, the long hours that all of you have put into trying to make sure Canada remains safe and our farm communities are looked after.

With that, we'll adjourn the meeting.