AGRI Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 27, 2003

1105

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

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

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

The Chair

Dr. Stephen Woodley (Chief Scientist, Ecosystem Sciences, Ecological Integrity Branch, Parks Canada Agency)

The Chair

Mr. Alan Latourelle (Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency)

The Chair

Mr. Alan Latourelle

The Chair

Mr. Alan Latourelle

1110

1115

The Chair

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

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

1120

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Mike Wong (Executive Director, Ecological Integrity, Parks Canada Agency)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Alan Latourelle

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Alan Latourelle

1125

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Alan Latourelle

1130

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Dr. Stephen Woodley

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Mike Wong

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Dr. Stephen Woodley

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Stephen Woodley

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

1135

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Alan Latourelle

The Chair

Dr. Gary Wobeser (Professor, Veterinary Pathology, University of Saskatchewan)

1140

1145

The Chair

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

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. David Anderson

1150

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Gary Wobeser

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Dr. Gary Wobeser

1155

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Dr. Gary Wobeser

1200

Mr. Claude Duplain

Dr. Gary Wobeser

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Gary Wobeser

1205

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Stephen Woodley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Dr. Stephen Woodley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Stephen Woodley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gary Wobeser

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Gary Wobeser

1210

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Dr. Gary Wobeser

The Chair

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

Dr. Gary Wobeser

The Chair

Mr. Tom Olson (President, Canadian Bison Association)

1215

The Chair

Mr. Gavin Conacher (Executive Director, Canadian Bison Association)

1220

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

1225

Mr. Tom Olson

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Shaun Grant (Chairman, Canadian Bison Marketing Council, Canadian Bison Association)

The Chair

Mr. Gavin Conacher

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gavin Conacher

1230

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Tom Olson

The Chair

Mr. Shaun Grant

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Tom Olson

1235

Mr. Marcel Gagnon

Mr. Shaun Grant

Mr. Gavin Conacher

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Tom Olson

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Tom Olson

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Tom Olson

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

1240

Mr. Gavin Conacher

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Tom Olson

Mr. Gavin Conacher

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Gavin Conacher

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Gavin Conacher

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Tom Olson

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Tom Olson

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Tom Olson

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

1245

Mr. Tom Olson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Tom Olson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Tom Olson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Tom Olson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Tom Olson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Tom Olson

Mr. Gavin Conacher

1250

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

NUMBER 018

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to call the meeting to order.

Before we get into hearing witnesses this morning there's just one item you will find in front of you, and that is the second report of the steering committee. I would like to have a motion of acceptance.

Mr. Gagnon.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): The first paragraph of the report states that the committee will be inviting Ontario dairy farmers to appear and to discuss WTO rulings. Since 50 per cent of dairy production originates in Quebec, it seems to me that we should also be extending a similar invitation to Quebec dairy farmers.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Could we also extend an invitation to Quebec dairy farmers?

[English]

The Chair: Does that meet with the rest of the committee's approval--dairy producers of Quebec? We'll include that in the report.

Do we have a mover?

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I so move.

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I second the motion.

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

Yes, Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): I accept the second report, and I'll certainly vote in favour of it.

You and I had a discussion with respect to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Can we deal with that after this report?

The Chair: We basically should deal with that, but we can't deal with it in this--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Fair ball. We'll talk about that after.

The Chair: Do we have support for this report?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much, members.

The other matter, which Mr. Borotsik has raised, is the issue of the minister's appearance. Ms. Copps is not with us this morning, but Mr. Borotsik had a conversation with her, as I did later in the evening. She told me the same thing she told you and mentioned her conversation with you. She is willing to appear, but unfortunately because of circumstances wasn't able to be here this morning.

So the letter we had agreed to forward is not being forwarded. We've withdrawn the letter. We will, at her convenience, have her at the table.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't know if you require a motion or not, but I assume the members at this table will make themselves available at a time that's convenient to the Minister of Heritage. This issue is so very important. If she can meet us at any time, I will drop everything I have going to meet with the minister.

The Chair: Can I ask for the committee's indulgence on that matter? Do we agree on that?

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

The Chair: Okay. We will proceed in that way. The clerk will proceed to find a date that is appropriate for her schedule. We will not allow it to interfere with our two-week break coming up.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this morning our witnesses have come to us concerning tuberculosis in the elk and deer herds in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. We want to continue our dialogue, our discussion, and our queries on that issue. It's a very serious issue.

This morning we have people from Parks Canada with us. There's Mr. Latourelle and Mr. Mike Wong, the executive director of ecological integrity. We also have Dr. Stephen Woodley, the chief scientist of the ecological integrity branch of the national parks directorate. Is that correct?

Dr. Stephen Woodley (Chief Scientist, Ecosystem Sciences, Ecological Integrity Branch, Parks Canada Agency): It is.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have a very tight schedule. We know the issue reasonably well, but you have your side to present. Mr. Wong presented last November, and there may be things you want to say that you didn't say at that time.

Mr. Latourelle, are you starting first?

Mr. Alan Latourelle (Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency): Yes, I am.

The Chair: You may proceed. Let's keep it to ten minutes or less if we can.

Who else is presenting?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I will be presenting.

The Chair: That's fine. In that case we'll give you the full ten minutes, or whatever is appropriate. You may proceed.

Mr. Alan Latourelle: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak to the Standing Committee on Agriculture today on what Parks Canada is doing to manage the issue of bovine tuberculosis in and around Riding Mounting National Park.

Parks Canada appreciates the committee's interest in this very difficult issue. The presence of bovine TB in cattle and wildlife is a major challenge for farmers and their families, communities, and the agencies involved.

Previous witnesses before the committee have provided you with detailed briefs on bovine TB, and I will not reiterate that information.

Since 1991, bovine TB has been recorded in five cattle herds, ten elk, and one white-tailed deer. I want to point out that we are dealing with a disease at a very low rate of incidence, but it's still a very critical issue. The overall rate of TB in affected elk and white-tailed deer is less than 1%. We have not detected elk with TB in the last three years, despite having tested 712 animals in that period through Parks Canada. However, we understand that any incidence of TB is a serious issue and we are committed to working with our partners to eradicate this disease. Parks Canada recognizes the hardships that the presence of the disease causes for farmers, ranchers, and their families.

We have been working with others to manage this issue from the beginning. As you have heard from previous witnesses, Parks Canada is part of the inter-agency committee that has developed the Manitoba bovine TB management program. This plan has established a long-term course of action to eradicate TB from Manitoba. It is reviewed annually and is open to new information and new findings.

The goals of the plan are to achieve and maintain TB-free status, eradicate TB in wildlife that pose a risk, and minimize interactions between cattle and wildlife. These management actions are informed and revised by ongoing research and communication.

I'd like to point out that most stakeholders involved or affected by this issue agree on two common objectives: to eradicate TB and to maintain a viable elk population. Parks Canada strongly supports these objectives and is taking action to achieve them.

As part of the inter-agency management committee, Parks Canada has dedicated both staff and dollars to help resolve this issue. Currently we are spending $470,000 per year and have five people dedicated to this issue within Riding Mountain National Park. We have maintained a laboratory in Riding Mountain since 1997 and have processed a total of 2,181 animals, as part of the TB detection program.

In addition to disease surveillance, we continue to monitor the size of regional elk population. The most recent aerial surveys done in cooperation with Manitoba Natural Resources indicate that the elk population has declined significantly in the last year to approximately 2,785 animals. While there are wide confidence intervals in any wildlife survey this decrease appears to be real and may be the result of recent increases in wolf populations.

We are also working to separate cattle and wildlife through a range of programs that have previously been described to you. At all times we want to get the timely information out to producers and stakeholders. We are acutely aware that family farms are being impacted by this disease and that this issue is on everyone's mind in that area. Parks Canada is following the jointly agreed management program and we are open to make adjustments as required.

A key outstanding question is if the in-park detection rate is different from the rate recorded in hunter-killed elk. To answer that question, Parks Canada is implementing a scientifically based test and cull program for elk inside Riding Mountain National Park. We will use this program to conduct further research on the development of a live animal blood test protocol. If the program requires sacrificing animals we are prepared to do that, as we have done in management programs in several other national parks.

I'd like to point out to you and the committee members the example of the testing program that is in place and functioning as we speak today. Yesterday we captured 18 elk for our testing program.

Á (1110)

We will continue to research elk movement in the region, as well as the role of wolves in regulating the elk population. The prohibition of the wolf harvest, implemented as part of the Manitoba bovine TB management program, has led to an increase in wolf numbers. We see this as a positive step in reducing elk numbers.

Separating cattle and elk is a key part of the management program, which will be accomplished through an enhanced barrier fencing program. Parks Canada will work with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to solicit funding from the Manitoba Rural Adaptations Council. This proposal is supported by the inter-agency committee and the Riding Mountain Liaison Committee.

From internal resources, Parks Canada will also allocate a minimum of $40,000 in new funds this year for barrier fences. This money will be part of a larger fund Agriculture Canada contributes to, and will allow for the construction of 75 additional barrier fences in high-risk areas. Given the sensitivity of this issue, Parks Canada will make every effort to enhance our communications on it.

In response to concerns raised that there is not enough information and not sufficient consultation, Parks Canada is establishing a new multistakeholder advisory committee, on which the park superintendent will sit. This committee will work to develop and critique future actions. We will also hold more information meetings as part of the ongoing efforts to get timely information to all parties.

To conclude, Parks Canada has played, and will continue to play, a leadership role in resolving this serious problem. As member of the federal-provincial working committee, we will continue to play an active role in developing timely science-based solutions. But more importantly, we are taking concrete actions. For this year the testing program in Riding Mountain will be increased to 150 elk, focusing mainly on the older elk population and those elk in the western end of the park, which has been raised as a serious issue.

At the end of the two-year program in which each of these elk are currently radioed and tested immediately, if TB is found in any of them, they will be destroyed immediately. For those elk that have not tested positive, we will do a cull of them at the end of the two-year program.

Thank you very much.

Á (1115)

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

We are very tight this morning. I'm going to take the liberty of asking our questioners to limit themselves to five minutes, because we do have other witnesses here this morning. So each party can have one person speak. This gives you the time allocated and allows each party to make some intervention.

Mr. Hilstrom is first, for five minutes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Alan, did you have a meeting with Minister Copps before you came to this committee hearing?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: No, I have not had meeting with the minister.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, but you're making some new announcements here of a new advisory group. So there must have been some ongoing work on this, which was generated by yourself or by whom?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: Clearly, this is an important issue, and we've looked at the discussions that have occurred in this committee over time. I personally got involved in discussing yours.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Can you tell me when TB is going to be eradicated from Riding Mountain National Park?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I think we have to keep our testing program going, and adjust it as we go. Our objective is to eradicate it as soon as possible.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: In the cattle business in Manitoba and across this country, we don't have time for you guys to dilly-dally around. I'll tell you something else, and I'm going to be a little aggressive, because I want you to go back to the minister and tell her what you heard here today. I don't have any faith she's going to come to this committee in the future, so I want you guys to take this back to her.

I want you to explain to me how there were between 4,500 and 5,000 elk in that park a year ago, and today you come in here to try to tell me there are 2,700 animals in the park. The only thing I'm going to assume from that is that some 2,300 have died of tuberculosis. Is that what happened to those other elk?

Á (1120)

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I'll ask Mr. Wong to answer that with the details from the survey.

Mr. Mike Wong (Executive Director, Ecological Integrity, Parks Canada Agency): With respect to the survey numbers, there is a certain confidence interval for each one of these. The latest survey we have received indicates that the average number of elk is around 2,500 to 2,600, with a confidence limit of plus or minus 300 elk.

One of the key reasons for what is happening in the park is predation by wolves. The wolf population is growing in and around Riding Mountain, and they're one of the top predators of the elk population.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We'll leave the numbers, which we'll have to work out.

Alan, you have this great plan now for Riding Mountain National Park, so what are you doing with the bison in Wood Buffalo National Park? What's your plan to get rid of the disease there?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: As you are aware, the plan and the discussions on Wood Buffalo has been a very long-standing issue.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Well, that's exactly my point. We don't want to have a long-standing issue in Riding Mountain National Park with Parks Canada. This disease has already devastated the agricultural livestock industry in Manitoba. It's costing us millions and millions of dollars, and has the potential.... It's affecting our trade relationship with the United States. At a recent meeting between Agriculture Canada and the United States, and down at the National Cattlemen's Beef Associaton, meeting in Omaha, or wherever it was, TB was one of the issues they brought up at the inter-committee meeting. They said they were really worried about Canada, and they'll use it to restrict our imports down there and to cause trade problems.

Do you understand the seriousness of getting this cleaned up—not in five years, but in one year?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I truly appreciate the issue. I have met with the Province of Alberta representative, with some aboriginal leaders in Wood Buffalo, and with the bison association, and understand clearly the issue and the importance of dealing with it in Wood Buffalo. I'll come back to Riding Mountain.

Clearly, our objective over the next few months is to develop a sound action plan with all of the stakeholders to get a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: About a month ago Minister Wowchuk in Manitoba and the CFIA came out and said that one of the objectives of this plan is to get down to 2,500 animals in that park. Here today, you're telling us you've already accomplished this, and that as a result you can now just go on scientifically studying away.

Mr. Chairman, this is the end of my questions. He can answer, if he wishes to.

The Chair: Just very quickly, as we're running out of time. Did you want to respond?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: Yes.

I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying there are 2,500 in the park, but roughly 2,700 in the area. Clearly, we have not achieved the 2,500. We are working with the Province of Manitoba and the others to achieve this objective.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll move to Mr. Gagnon for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I won't use up my full five minutes, given that some are more affected by this problem than I am. Therefore, I'll turn over some of my allotted time to other members.

We have been hearing about this disease and various attempts to eradicate it for some time now. This morning, you informed us that some measures have been taken and that prospects are not that gloomy. There may even be light at the end of the tunnel. Given the efforts made by Parks Canada to eradicate this disease which is causing farmers in some provinces major problems, when finally will be able to say that this disease has in fact been eradicated?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I'll be honest with you. I'm not an expert and we're not the only organization responsible for this problem. You know as well as I do that we must work together with all stakeholders in the cattle industry and in the parks sector. People have pointed to possible sources of contamination within the park boundaries. Plans are this year to examine 150 elk to determine the extent of the contamination and if any is found, to take the appropriate action, that is to destroy the contaminated animal. We plan to complete the program in two years' time. It will also help us keep track of elk movement in the region.

Á (1125)

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you for speaking to me in French. It's a real treat, as it doesn't happen every day.

You say that you are not the only stakeholder. Clearly, cooperation between all those affected is essential. In your opinion, are we seeing this kind of cooperation?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: We're extremely pleased with the level of cooperation, but as some witnesses have pointed out, Parks Canada needs to communicate better, particularly with the industry. I'm not convinced that everything that should be done has been done and I've asked the director of the park to get involved personally and to step up his efforts to involve the associations.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: If cooperation is not in short supply, then could the problem be one of not getting your message across?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I'm satisfied with the level of cooperation between all government agencies in Manitoba and federal organizations. Everything is going well. However, in terms of communicating with the general public, there is still room for improvement.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you. I side with Mr. Howard in demanding you insist the Minister meet with you.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, that is something we will be dealing with.

Mrs. Ur, for five minutes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do hope, too, that the minister will make an appearance, and in all fairness, I am cautiously optimistic that she will be here, given fair notice.

You had indicated that you've started a fencing program, and you've allocated $40,000. I'm a farmer in my previous life, and $40,000 doesn't seem like a whole heck of a lot. How far will that do? Will that do one side of the park? Is that your sole action plan to minimize interaction with the elk and the domestic animals? Where is that going?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: The program has been in place for a year or two, so this is additional funding that we are committing as an organization but to work with the other partners to secure a bigger financial pot, if I can put it that way.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So have you done any fencing around Riding Mountain?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: We have done fencing in terms of hay locations, for example. That's the focus we are taking. We have not fenced the park.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Have you ever done that anywhere?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: Fenced the park?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes.

Mr. Alan Latourelle: The only place I'm aware of where we have a fenced park is Elk Island National Park, near Edmonton, Alberta.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Would that be an option to keep the elk away from our domestic livestock?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I think what we need to understand is where do they meet, where do they exchange, and where do they feed jointly?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Surely to God, by now you know where they meet. There are only so many places they can go.

Mr. Alan Latourelle: That's where we're focusing our fencing program, where in fact they are feeding off the same bales.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: As I say, I was a farmer in my previous life, and I get a little irritated when a department says they have objectives. We have to have more than objectives; we have to have action, because our ranchers have enough problems to deal with, with the weather and whatever, and this is something that we, as government, should be able to address. Having objectives is not what we need; we need to have action.

I believe you said you had 150 elk to do a three-year project on. Is that the numbers you feel will be significant to address this concern?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: Yes, it is, in terms of assessing the level of contamination, if we can call it that, at this time. Basically, again, focusing on the areas where several individuals have identified that potentially there is a high level, we're going to confirm that through this program. I want to reaffirm that once we do the testing, immediately, if there is a TB-infected elk, it will be destroyed, right there.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You said wolves were a real problem in this situation. Are you doing anything regarding wolves to address that problem as well, then? Apparently the wolves are part of the problem as well.

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I think they're part of the solution--

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Oh, okay.

Mr. Alan Latourelle: --because of the prey-predator relationship. What we're seeing now is increased wolf packs and the effects of them.

Á (1130)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I leave it to my western colleagues, because we're very supportive of them, and they certainly have many more questions that they can ask.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs. Ur.

I'll turn to Mr. Proctor for five minutes, and then to Mr. Borotsik for five minutes.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Latourelle, regarding the barrier fences, are they around the haystacks? Is that where they're being erected?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: That is correct.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay, and that's $40,000 annually, and you said you started that program last year?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I'll ask Mr. Woodley to answer as to when it actually started.

Dr. Stephen Woodley: The program, I believe, started three years ago. It was primarily at that time financed by Manitoba. Manitoba Agriculture is putting money into it. There is an effort in place to partner that money with federal money, so that the contribution from Parks Canada would be a combination federal-provincial program to build additional barrier fences in high-risk areas. The whole effort is to get the hay bales off the land where cattle and elk were jointly feeding on them and get them into fenced hay yards.

Mr. Dick Proctor: The concern I have is I thought, Mr. Latourelle, in your comments this morning you were almost acknowledging the fact that if it hadn't been for the work of this committee there wouldn't be as much now being done as should have been done. We know from previous testimony that it took a long time for the CFIA to even bother to inform Manitoba that they had lost their status as a TB-free province. I guess I'm frustrated that it had to come to this committee before it looks like there was action taken. I'm just wondering if we could get an explanation for why it's taken so long.

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I think I've raised the issue of the previous witnesses and the discussion at this committee because you were part of it, but this has been a critical issue for Parks Canada for some time. We have taken concrete actions, but basically I think the bottom line at the end of this is we need to understand better, from a scientific perspective, what is the issue and what are the causes. And that's what we're investing heavily on now and taking action on.

We had started the program some years ago. Now, basically, we're at the third year. And this year we're in fact putting even more effort into it.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Did you have something, Mr. Wong, that you wanted to add on that?

Mr. Mike Wong: If I may, Mr. Chair, when Mr. Fenton and I appeared in front of the committee in November, we provided an overall perspective of the inter-agency action plan and how that was proceeding. Certainly what you're hearing today is the accelerated action within that action plan where Parks Canada, along with our other partner agencies, is accelerating our actions to reduce the elk herd as well as reducing the interactions between the elk and the local livestock.

Mr. Dick Proctor: You're spending $470,000 annually, which includes employing five people. Basically what are they doing? What kind of work do they do?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I'll ask Dr. Woodley to answer that question.

Dr. Stephen Woodley: It's a combination of the barrier fencing program, staff time to develop the inter-agency management program, the research program. Right now there are probably eight people out on the ground in a capture program with helicopters. There are contracts with helicopter companies, equipment such as radio callers on the elk, etc. It's a range of activities like that.

Mr. Dick Proctor: You said that there are five people dedicated, so that means full-time, but then there are other employees that you pick up on a part-time basis, obviously.

Dr. Stephen Woodley: That is correct.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Borotsik, for five minutes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

I have to say I am impressed with the positive comments that you've had here. We haven't been used to that from Heritage Canada and Parks Canada. So I'm confused. Now we have this ability from your department to go forward and try to resolve the issue, which we haven't had a lot of support with in the past. You haven't talked to the minister. You've mentioned that today. I assume you're going to be giving her a briefing before she comes to this committee. And I do believe she'll get here.

My question is have you communicated this to your field staff? We've talked about Park Warden Fenton. Is he also supportive of your actions right now? Quite frankly, he has not been very positive in the past. There hasn't been a lot of real positive support from the park wardens and from the staff who have been in that park. Have you communicated this to them, so that they're not going to be a roadblock?

Á (1135)

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I had a discussion with the field unit superintendent, Greg Fenton, yesterday, clearly, and went through the proposal with them, including the chief park warden.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have they accepted this?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: They implement--get on the ground--today. They're in fact on the ground today doing this.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. I've been involved with staffing and staff before. And although it's nice to be able to pass on a philosophy, there are still roadblocks and barriers. I have to be very blunt and honest. From the activist side of it in the Riding Mountain National Park there hasn't been a lot of support. And Mr. Fenton, for whatever reason, has been part of that activist support. Will he in fact implement your plans, as you have indicated?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I have full confidence at this time that they will be implemented.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And we can get to you if in fact we find that there are deviations from that plan.

Mr. Alan Latourelle: This is why I'm here today.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: This is why I'm really pleased you're here today. So we will use you as that force.

You tell me you're cognizant of the seriousness of this. I don't have to give you the details. You know the impact that is going to be in the cattle industry as well as other industries.

As to the plan you have in place right now, are you confident that we can in fact achieve a TB-free zone? And if so, what timeline do you think it's going to take to achieve that TB-free zone, which is going to be given to us obviously by our major trading partner? What's the timeline for that?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I can't comment on the specific timeline because, for example, if we do all of the testing of the elk--the 150 of them--this year and we don't find any TB, then I think we will have to look again at the strategy.

Basically we're working with the communities and with the inter-agency group. Currently the levels have been established at 2,500, as the level at which according to their best information they feel the TB will be eradicated in the elk.

We will have to reassess that on an ongoing basis. It may reoccur a year from now or immediately. I think it's going to be dependent on the testing of those 150 animals and getting a good sense of what the TB rate is in the elk.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We keep talking about the elk. There are about 8,000 deer in the region as well. We've heard from some witnesses that it has entered into the deer population. That's huge. This is a problem that I think is of huge proportions. Can I hear what your plan is with respect to the deer population, not simply the elk?

Mr. Alan Latourelle: Yes. At this time there has been one deer that's been confirmed. In terms of rate, if I remember the numbers right, we're talking about 0.14%.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, well, one's too many.

Mr. Alan Latourelle: I understand that clearly. But basically at this point, when you look at the deer population, the greater majority of the deer population is not inside the park in that area. It is outside of the national park.

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

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

We are right on schedule, within a minute or two. We want to thank you for appearing.

We want you to understand that this committee has endeared themselves to this issue. This is a very serious issue. It implicates a lot of departments and ministries of this government. We want resolve to this issue and we want you to take this message back to your minister before she appears before this committee. It's already been said by my colleagues around the table, but I want to enforce that: we are serious about this issue.

Thank you very much for appearing. It's always a pleasure to hear from you, and we're glad that you could appear here this morning.

Mr. Alan Latourelle: Thank you.

The Chair: Now we will call to the table, from the University of Saskatchewan, Dr. Gary Wobeser.

Thank you, Dr. Wobeser, for appearing this morning, and we look forward to your input. Is it possible to ask you to keep your comments to ten minutes or less? Can we do that? We want to ask you some questions. Thank you very much, Gary. You're on.

Dr. Gary Wobeser (Professor, Veterinary Pathology, University of Saskatchewan): Thank you very much for the invitation.

My understanding of my role here is to comment specifically on the possibility of culling wildlife for the eradication of tuberculosis. I'll begin by stating my perception of the problem, and then I'll make some comments on culling itself.

The major impact of tuberculosis is on the cattle population and, as has been mentioned, on trade. I think we have to start off by saying that cattle are the natural hosts for bovine tuberculosis. That disease can maintain itself for long periods of time in cattle populations without requiring an outside source of infection. But in most cases around the world, test and slaughter programs in cattle, if they're carried on long enough, have been successful in eradicating the disease unless there's some other outside source. Two examples, which you're probably already familiar with, are New Zealand, where they have a problem with tuberculosis in opossums, and the United Kingdom, where badgers serve as an outside source of the disease.

The other population of concern is the wild deer, particularly elk. Wild deer are certainly susceptible to bovine tuberculosis. They acquire the infection from cattle in the first instance. It seems that under certain circumstances tuberculosis can persist in the deer populations, although in most instances around the world when TB was eradicated from cattle it disappeared from deer as well. When it does occur in deer populations, the prevalence, as in Manitoba, is usually very low except under very unusual circumstances. Michigan would be one such circumstance, where they have artificial concentration and high numbers of deer because of artificial feeding.

From my perspective, there are three unknowns about the situation in Manitoba. First of all, it's not clear how often tuberculosis moves back and forth between cattle and elk and precisely how that transmission occurs.

The second thing is that although the frequency of occurrence in elk is very low, the distribution within the population is not known, to my knowledge. I think that's a critical factor, because it's probably not spread uniformly through the population. It's probably confined to small groups within the population, and that has an impact on any culling program.

The third thing that isn't known is the rate at which the disease is transmitted among the elk. Again, based on experience from elsewhere, there are probably very few new cases in any one year.

I'll now turn to culling. The main aim of culling is to try to block transmission of the disease. In other words, what's hoped is that by reducing the population density the number of new infections will be reduced, and this will be inadequate to maintain the disease.

I want to say a few words about transmission. Transmission of any disease is determined by a number of factors, but the two most important are, first of all, how often susceptible animals and infected animals get together, how often contact occurs, and secondly, how easily the disease spreads when contact occurs.

Around the world the disease does not seem to be highly contagious among deer. In the situation in Manitoba the number of infectious animals in that population at any one time is probably very small. We're talking about a prevalence of 1% or less. That means there are probably fewer than 40 animals infected at any one time, and only a portion of those infected animals will actually be infectious. There are animals that may be infected but not capable of spreading it.

But it's important to remember that an infected animal may last for a long period of time in the population. On average, each of those infected animals has to infect only one other animal during its lifetime to maintain the disease at a current level. We're not talking about widespread transmission.

Á (1140)

In cattle, selective culling--test and slaughter--has been effective. I don't think that's practical in a large population of wild animals spread over a very large area, so what we're talking about is trying to reduce by culling. We're talking about reducing the general population.

One of the uncertainties about that is I have not seen anyone in the world or any model that would tell you exactly how low you have to reduce the population to effectively block transmission. There are some models for white-tailed deer in Michigan, and there's a model for game farms in Sweden, but I don't think either of those is applicable to the Manitoba situation.

The other unknown about culling is it's not known how much effect a general reduction in population will change the populations or the structure within small groups. Will herds get smaller? I don't think it is a given that herds, individual social groups, will automatically get smaller or that contact will be reduced if you reduce the overall population. It may not change.

Regardless of the degree of population reduction that's done, there will remain some infected animals in the population. If you reduce the population by 50%, there will probably be 50% fewer infected animals in the population, but how this will affect transmission is still not clear. It will probably--in answer to some of the questions asked earlier--be a process that takes time. It's not an immediate process. Reducing populations to block transmission is not an immediate process.

The other point that's important is that when we talk about culling, we're not talking about a one-time culling operation. The population will have to be retained at that level every year through culling to keep the population from increasing.

The final thing I'd say is that because the prevalence of tuberculosis in that herd is very low, it's going to be extremely difficult to monitor whether any program is being successful. You have to look at a huge number or at least a large number of animals to actually tell whether you've changed the rate when it's only 1% to begin with. The extension of that is if it is successful and the prevalence goes down, it will be very difficult to tell when it's been totally successful and when the disease has been eradicated. Once you get down to looking at one or two animals in a population, the chances of finding those animals, unless you look at huge sample sizes, are very, very small.

The final thing, and I don't think I need to remind this group, is that population reduction problems are not very popular. They're unpopular with the public. One of the problems worldwide when people have tried to use population programs for wildlife diseases is that once you get down to the point where there are very few infected animals left, then people lose interest and it's hard to maintain funding to carry the programs through to success. That's happened in different places. It happened in Alberta with rabies, for example. Once you have most of the diseased animals removed, it's hard to keep the process going. People lose interest and nobody wants to put funding forward to maintain it to its conclusion.

Thank you.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Wobeser.

We'll now go to Mr. Anderson for five minutes.

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

You made some comments here. First of all, you said the cattle test and slaughter is effective because it's an ongoing, continuous process, but you said it would probably not work in a wild herd. Later you said it's very hard to monitor success with 1% testing. The program we heard about this morning is not going to do the job, is it?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: Maybe I'll start with cattle testing. The advantage with cattle is that you can test most or all of the herd repeatedly. That's the problem with a wild species: you can't test a large proportion of the herd repeatedly. It's difficult even with the current test, with the skin test we have. You have to hold the animals for some time. As for the blood tests, there are still some questions about their usefulness, although they're getting better. The biggest problem is to get a large enough sample.

Mr. David Anderson: You said it was hard to get a timeframe. In this situation in Manitoba, hunting is hit and miss in terms of being able to control a herd, right? It depends on who's going out, I guess.

Do you think we need a proactive cull to reduce the population? One suggestion would be for an immediate, aggressive, proactive cull and then monitoring it from there on. Would that be a way of speeding that control up? Is hunting the way to control it?

Á (1150)

Dr. Gary Wobeser: I can't comment on that being the way. The decision on how you remove the population is not for me to make. The problem is knowing how far you have to go and then using the most appropriate method to get there. I don't think there are suitable models that will tell us in this situation exactly how far we have to go.

Mr. David Anderson: Wouldn't it be wise, then, to err on the side of caution in terms of protecting your trade interests and protecting the health of the rest of the herd and be aggressive to take care of the problem? We've had an ongoing problem in Wood Buffalo National Park as well, one that people have just refused to deal with, and now we have another situation. Isn't the best way of dealing with this to deal with it aggressively, to get it under control, and then to monitor it from there?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: I'm pretty familiar with wood bison and the Wood Buffalo situation, and I was on the FEARO panel a few years ago on that one. It seems to me that culling is only one part of what's going on, and I think the situation of trying to isolate the two populations, the cattle and the elk, is probably the logical first step to try. That's the first step, and then try to identify where the problem lies within the elk population. I suspect--and I can only suspect--that the disease is not uniformly spread in the population, that there are areas, herds or groups, that will be more heavily contaminated than others, and those are the ones that should be targeted.

Mr. David Anderson: They have that information.

Dr. Gary Wobeser: Well, they do in very general terms, and I think from what I've heard from Parks Canada that they are trying to direct their sampling to areas where the biggest problem is.

I'm not trying to avoid your question, but as I said, you pick the most efficient method for getting to where.... If you can do it by hunting, that's certainly the most efficient way to do it.

Mr. David Anderson: The hot spots have been identified. We saw a map at the last meeting we had over this, and it's in one particular area. I realize it's a big park, but at some point they're going to have to take some action.

I heard this morning that we'll test and that we'll put down the ones we find have TB. That is not going to solve the problem when they know they have sections of that west part of the park that have hot spots. Wouldn't you agree to cull that one area?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: I'm really not familiar with the situation in the park, but I think if you have known areas, then population reduction may help. It's not going to be an immediate solution, but it may help.

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

We'll move to Mr. Gagnon for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In light of the doctor's responses, I withdraw my first question as to when we can expect this disease to be eradicated. There's no obvious answer to that question. We know that a small percentage of the population is infected and that very few of the animals infected will actually infect others. Is enough research being done into this disease, or is the problem not deemed to be serious enough? Is enough funding being allocated to research with a view to eradicating the disease? Is the only option available to isolate wild herds from domestic herds to prevent contamination? Is that feasible?

[English]

Dr. Gary Wobeser: First, I'd apologize for not being able to answer you in French.

There are several questions there. First of all, is there enough research? I'm not completely familiar with the research that is being done, so I probably can't answer that question.

TB is really different from most infectious diseases because individuals stay infected for so long that it can persist at very low prevalence levels in the population. I'm repeating myself, but I think the first step is to try to block transmission as much as you can between cattle and elk--that's a logical first step--and at the same time make sure that you're taking every precaution to make sure that the cattle are in fact not infected, as well. And then I think the next step is to try to reduce transmission within elk.

At some point transmission will stop occurring within elk, at some population level or density, but I don't think we can predict what that level is right now. I don't think anyone can predict where it will die out.

Á (1155)

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you.

[English]

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

We'll move over to Monsieur Duplain, our parliamentary secretary, for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: I have one question only for the witness. Other members can have the rest of my allotted time, if they have more questions.

On hearing from westerners, we can appreciate the extent of the problem they are facing, the enormity of their economic losses and the headaches this situation has created with the United States. However, we're basically talking about a problem that is minor in scope. We're talking about 1 per cent of the population, and only a portion of that population can transmit the disease. However, as long as there is one animal somewhere that can transmit the disease, then the problem will remain unresolved.

You argue that if herd size is reduced sufficiently, then transmission will likely no longer occur and the disease will be eradicated. However, we live in an era where everything moves quickly. We are dealing with problems that we didn't face or weren't able to control in the past, but now can. Research is being done and the rate of infection has been found to be higher in some areas than in others.

You also said that people have a hard time accepting the idea of slaughtering animals to cull the herd. However, if this is the way to contain the problem, if we know that infection rates are higher in some areas than in others and that this has resulted in economic problems for some farmers and even threatened their livelihood, why then don't we slaughter the infected animals on a large scale in an effort to eradicate the disease as quickly as possible? Wouldn't that resolve the problem?

[English]

Dr. Gary Wobeser: The question is whether there should be a radical cull. I would be reluctant to go down that road without knowing more about the actual distribution of the disease within the population. Because in most cases, even if the prevalence rate is less than 1%, you know that 99% of the animals you kill will be disease-free. I think if we knew with good certainty that there were pockets within not just the park, pockets within the elk population, where the disease was more prevalent, then I would think directed culling on those areas would be the way to go, rather than a dramatic cull of the whole population.

I think the reality of this is that because it's such a chronic disease, it could persist even in the face of a very dramatic cull. Even in cattle populations, it can persist for a long period of time. The longest I've ever heard of is in Australia, where one cow in a herd lasted for 17 years, and then began to transmit the disease. We don't have those figures for elk, but it's a long-term disease and a long-term problem.

Â (1200)

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: Could the disease be eradicated faster if more funds were allocated for this purpose? Is money an issue here?

[English]

Dr. Gary Wobeser: Fortunately, I'm not involved in getting rid of the problem. It's not my problem as far as getting rid of it.

I think if there were more money, it would be best spent in trying to look at more intensive testing within the elk population to try to sort it out. That's where I think more money could be spent. To understand how the disease is acting in the elk population would be the best place to spend the money for research. I think more money for that would be very helpful to try to understand how it persists in the elk population.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

That concludes our five minutes. We move now to Mr. Proctor for five minutes.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you again.

Just picking up on where Monsieur Duplain left off, you listened to the presentation from Mr. Latourelle this morning. You're an expert in this area. Based on what you've heard, does it sound like their plan now is in the right direction? Are there things that you would add or subtract from the presentation as you heard it this morning?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: I think the direction is correct. It's a matter of intensity. I should say at one time about three years ago I used to sit in on the Manitoba group meetings, but I haven't been a part of that for several years now. But they seem to be going in the direction of trying to isolate cattle from elk as a way. It's the program, which I've read some material about, from Michigan where they have the whitetail deer problem. It seems fairly clear there that the farms that have problems with tuberculosis have certain characteristics. They're associated with a high degree of risk from deer with things like where the hay is left, and when the deer can use it, and where there are cattle.

So that I think is the logical way to go. Then I think continued testing, and specifically directed testing within the park, should be done. And I know, because of a graduate student who works back and forth, that they're trying to get a handle on elk movements, which is important too, to know how much interaction there is among groups of elk, and whether they're going to move, and how big a problem it is. Is it confined to Riding Mountain, or does it span out into other outlying areas where there are still elk?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Latourelle indicated that with the new resources they'd be able to test up to 150 animals a year. I think you obviously indicated that if there were more money, that's the area you would dedicate those resources to. Does 150 with a population of 2,700 sound too low, too high, about right?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: It's not enough.

Mr. Dick Proctor: It's not enough.

Dr. Gary Wobeser: There's a rule of thumb, a little calculation, that when you look at populations you need to test, basically it's really divided by the number you test. So the more you test, the prevalence you can detect goes down. With 150 a year, you're able to detect about a prevalence of 2%; so if we're already at 1%, you probably need to test 300. If it gets down to half a percent, you need to test 600. That's what I said, when you get down to having very few animals there, it's really hard to know if the last one's gone.

Mr. Dick Proctor: So if they're spending $400,000 a year and if you wanted to test twice as many animals, do you have a ballpark figure? How much would that drive up the cost?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: No, I don't.

Mr. Dick Proctor: On one other area, I think I understand it, but there were two things you said that I had to digest for a minute. You said there's an uneven distribution within the population. In other words, I think you talked about pockets or social groups, so-called.

Dr. Gary Wobeser: I'm only using the experience from elsewhere in the world when the prevalence is quite low in deer populations. In New Zealand, for example, that's the way it is in the wild deer population.

Â (1205)

Mr. Dick Proctor: Then later on in your remarks, Doctor, you said that if we reduced the population by 50%, we'd probably reduce the disease by 50%. But to look at it another way, if we could figure out where the pockets were, you could reduce the population by 20% and reduce the disease by 80% or something of that magnitude.

Dr. Gary Wobeser: Exactly. That's why I think directed culling rather than general culling would be a preferable way of going.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Proctor.

We move on to Mr. Borotsik for five minutes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

Fascinating. To touch on what Dick said, there were 712 animals that were tested over a two-year period. We're now reducing that to 150 animals to be tested in this next plan. So it's how many animals? It's 150 more, so how many animals altogether will be tested?

Dr. Stephen Woodley: Probably about 500 per year, because you have to add the 100 killed animals to the directed area in what possibly is a hot spot.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Great. That was my mistake and my misinterpretation. So it's 500.

The Chair: Would you mind saying that again into the mike, please, because it has to go on the record.

Dr. Stephen Woodley: Just for clarification, the 150 animals that are being looked at this year with blood tests being taken are in addition to the hunter-killed survey. So this is actually adding to the total number surveyed for exactly the reason Dr. Wobeser noted, because it's such a low incidence of disease. We're hoping to get in the area of 500 animals tested per year.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: This coming year, 500 animals.

Dr. Stephen Woodley: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Perfect. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chairman; I do appreciate that.

You said the first thing you should do is to block transmission, and that means to stop the elk from meeting the cattle. It's simple. That's pretty much a no-brainer. Is it your belief there should be some kind of a barrier, and not just fencing but perhaps a population barrier of some sort set up between the cattle and the elk?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: I don't know the feasibility of a buffer zone--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's where I want you to head to. Is that what you're considering, some sort of a no-fly zone, so to speak?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: I don't know that it would do anything for the prevalence in elk, but--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Let's be honest: I'm really not too concerned about the prevalence in elk. I'm more worried about the transmission from elk to cattle. That's where the economy is. The prevalence in elk we can deal with; it's going to an automatic cull on an annual basis. But have you considered some sort of a buffer zone in your own--

Dr. Gary Wobeser: I don't know the situation very well, but I've certainly seen it. But I don't know the feasibility of a buffer zone around Riding Mountain. I don't know if there's a possibility of setting up--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: If it's feasible or not. That's not something that's in your mindset, though. That's not what you're looking for.

Dr. Gary Wobeser: If you could do it, certainly it would be a useful thing to do. But I'm not sure that it's feasible.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: All right. You also talked about the Michigan model and their cull with respect to the deer population. You said that the Michigan model wouldn't be useful in Manitoba, that it's just apples and oranges. Can you give me an apples and oranges as to why the Michigan model cull wouldn't work?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: I think the reason it wouldn't work is just the different behaviour of the two species. Whitetail deer don't tend to be in large groups. They're in small groups and contact is probably much more random in the population, whereas I think with elk, because they tend to be more gregarious in a herd, most of the contact or likely almost all the contact is within the group.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So in fact it would be easier to cull?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: If you could identify the infected groups, yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You also said that the public doesn't support a depopulation, or a cull, and I don't think we disagree with you on that. If, however, the herd were to be taken from 2,700 to 1,500, is there a downside other than the public perception? Is there a downside, in your opinion, to go from a 2,700 herd to a 1,500 herd?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: I don't think I can comment on that--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That would be Parks Canada.

Dr. Gary Wobeser: It would certainly make a change in the ecology of the park, but I can't comment on that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Maybe you can comment on the fact that if there were this sort of reduction, do you feel it would make quite a dramatic change in the tuberculosis within the herd?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: I wish I could be sure and say yes, it would, but I don't think I can. If I can go back to Wood Buffalo--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's not a good example, but go ahead.

Dr. Gary Wobeser: But there is an illustrative part in it, and this is that the population of bison in Wood Buffalo Park has naturally, or spontaneously, gone down very dramatically over the last 30 to 40 years, and yet the prevalence of TB is essentially the same as it was. And that's another gregarious herding animal. I think the important point with elk is they're different from deer, in that they're herding, so there's a lot more contact within groups than there is probably among animals that are running more freely.

Â (1210)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Doctor.

The Chair: We've reached the end of our time.

Before Dr. Wobeser leaves, I just wanted to ask something Mr. Borotsik had raised, which is the issue of the public acceptance of depopulation. Certainly we know where that goes; we've seen that all over the country.

I realize there are people who should be at the table to answer this question, but what impact do organizations outside the farming community and the general public, such as WWF and others, have in influencing decisions and people within departments?

Dr. Gary Wobeser: Oh, I don't think I'll go there. I don't know.

The Chair: It was a sincere and honest question. Can we leave it perhaps to the next....

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Dr. Wobeser, we heard the other day that wolves can get TB. What percentage get TB?

A voice: Good question.

Dr. Gary Wobeser: It's a small percentage. In places where there are wolves and there has been TB, a very small percentage of wolves will become tuberculous. They usually develop lesions in their lymph nodes around the head. In everywhere it's happened, I think the conclusion has been that they don't contribute to the spread of TB. Probably the best evidence for this are cattle, because tuberculosis was eradicated in cattle and no one paid any attention to farm dogs.

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

We will now ask our next witnesses to come to the table. We have, from the Canadian Bison Association, Tom Olson, president; Gavin Conacher, executive director; and Shawn Grant, chairman of the Canadian Bison Marketing Council.

We welcome you to the table this morning with your concerns. On behalf of those able to share in your generosity last evening at the reception, I again thank you. We appreciated that, and I think we gleaned a lot of information from the time spent together. So thank you very much.

I believe Mr. Olson is going to be our first presenter. We would ask you to be succinct. Could you and Mr. Conacher limit your presentations to 12 minutes?

Mr. Tom Olson (President, Canadian Bison Association): Yes, we can do that.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's our pleasure to be here today. I am representing the Canadian Bison Association, the national organization for producers across Canada. Our members represent producers in eight provinces and two territories.

The bison herd in Canada today is approximately 200,000, and our producers' herds are approximately just under 2,000. Our herd size has increased dramatically.

Our industry is based on meat sales; it is not a breeding stock industry, nor something that's new and novel and soon to disappear. From its inception, the industry has been based on our ability to sell the meat we produce.

Our herd size has grown dramatically relative to the American herd size. While it is still smaller, we are rapidly approaching their size.

The buffalo, our livestock, are hardy native animals. They were the most successful land mammal on this continent. It is the only megafauna surviving from the ice age, and it is well adapted to our country. They do well on marginal lands and well on areas where farmers are not succeeding. Farmers can succeed in these areas with buffalo.

Our growth and ability to market our product has been dramatic. But we do run into a number of technical problems or difficulties with current government policies and issues, which are clearly limiting our ability to grow. According to our studies and our experience, our product is very popular overseas, where we are not competing with people. It's not a product they're already producing and we are trying to sell back to them. It's a product they simply can't have without us growing it here and sending it over there.

With that brief introduction, we have some technical issues where we need help and where we think the playing field has not been level in our industry. I'd ask Gavin if he could briefly review those.

Â (1215)

The Chair: Mr. Conacher, please. Do you want to walk us through this?

Mr. Gavin Conacher (Executive Director, Canadian Bison Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank those of you who were able to attend our reception last night. We too feel it was of value. I was very happy to meet many of you there.

We'll quickly step through these so you can ask some questions later.

Our first issue has to do with federal equivalence in our provincial plants. We currently face a bottleneck that prevents us from gaining access to certain markets. New plants, or retrofits or upgrades in terms of infrastructure upgrades, would stimulate exports. They'd also reduce the current interprovincial trade barriers and create economic development in many regions of the country.

The bison industry is in a catch-22 situation, where it's too small for the large plants--they require special needs--and the current provincial inspection system is viewed as limiting, particularly given our emphasis on exports.

Another thing is the U.S. practice regarding their state equivalence upgrades. We would hope something similar could be done in Canada. We hope that any pending applications could be put through as quickly as possible to upgrade any provincial plants to federal equivalence. This would be viewed as having a very direct, positive, and immediate impact on our industry.

We also feel that the CFA is going to need the resources to make this happen. Bison is a great product, with growing markets, but if we don't have market access we can't continue the same kind of growth rate we've had in the past.

A question to you would be why is it that bison meat processed in a provincial plant in Alberta is considered safe for Alberta residents, yet somehow unsafe for Ontario residents?

The second issue we'd like to deal with is something that emerged in August 2001. We're working with the embassy in Washington to try to resolve it. It's becoming more and more of a problem for us.

All of our trim exports were restricted from going into the U.S. for further processing. This constituted $6 million to $9 million in sales annually, which is a very small number, but for an industry with $52 million in sales, it's significant. It has compounded drought-related problems in the domestic market and affected prices, particularly in the west.

There's been very little action on the part of the USDA and FDA to solve this problem. Bison in the States is considered a non-amenable species--and if you'd like to discuss that further, we can do so later.

We also have another situation from the last round of talks with the WTO. Bison was coupled with hormone-free and natural beef products exported into Europe. Europe, of course, is a very promising market for our product. We feel that because our product does not compete with existing products in Europe, there would be minimal resistance among the European members because it would be viewed as noncompetitive.

We have other issues. When we enter a European market with a 20% tariff and compound that tariff, it ends up being 50% in the end. There has actually been some precedence set with respect to Australia and the export of kangaroo meat into Europe. They've signed a bilateral agreement working around the WTO negotiation system, and that's something we'd like to see investigated.

There are also issues with respect to the import. Our exports are being blocked, and there are also American exports coming into eastern Canadian markets. The existing programming that we can use for developing markets is export-based, and we have no ability to chase those nasty Americans out of our eastern markets. We would like to garner some support to do that, particularly in some of the major urban centres.

With respect to tuberculosis surveillance, we've been herd-testing since 1989. In that time, there was one bison identified positive with TB. That individual passed a number of TB tests before turning up at slaughter, which deals with the question somebody had here earlier today.

Â (1220)

The CBA believes that the cull rate is now approaching a size to satisfy OIE requirements using slaughter inspection. However, the CFIA requires resources to do a better job of collecting the inspection data from provincial plants to satisfy the OIE requirements.

With respect to Parks Canada, the CBA has been working with Wood Buffalo National Park specifically since its inception. They have posed direct and indirect costs to the bison industry, both domestically and internationally, and to date Parks Canada has not exactly been forthright and active in resolving this matter. We like what we hear out of the officials now; it seems to be a change of tone.

Of course, there are billions of dollars of trade at risk here, and it's very, very important that these two situations be resolved.

There is one thing I would like to comment on, though. Whether it's one percent, a half percent, or a quarter percent, if you have TB in a private herd in this country, that herd is depopulated. It is inconsistent for the federal government to consider treating the situation any differently than they would in a private ranch.

Our main export markets, of course, are the U.S., France, and Germany. We had $52 million in sales last year. Exports have been growing at 9.6% annually over the last eight years as an average growth rate. It's growing rapidly despite some restrictions to the market, including that tariff into Europe.

The domestic market is growing quickly in the west. It's also growing in the east; however, it's growing with American products coming in.

The producer base has grown 160% since 1996. The number of animals produced in this country has grown 219% since 1996. It has grown from a hobby to an established, export-oriented natural food product. It has cultural significance and nutritional benefits. It's environmentally fitting, and it also solves a number of issues around animal welfare, the passive way in which they're raised.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would invite your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You've come right in under ten minutes, and that's what we hoped you could do.

We'll begin our questioning. Mr. Anderson is first, for five minutes.

Mr. David Anderson: I guess I'd like to pursue a bit the conversations we had this morning and get your reaction to what you heard.

If I'm hearing this correctly, we were talking about the elk, looking at 500 animals including the hunters' kills, and about doing scientific testing on 180, but I didn't hear anything this morning about culling animals, other than the actual ones they find that have TB. Now, maybe I've misunderstood, but hidden in all that it sounded to me that there would not be a cull.

I'd like to hear your comments on what your reaction was this morning to what you heard, and any suggestions you have.

Â (1225)

Mr. Tom Olson: I have two observations. Number one, our buffalo went through full-herd testing, so every herd had to be tested 100%, and if there was one animal, there was absolute complete depopulation. There was no study, no hotspots, nothing.

The second observation is that in Wood Buffalo Park, we have plains buffalo that were moved into wood buffalo habitat, diseased. That herd has been diseased ever since the plains buffalo were moved up there.

Depopulation is a difficult thing, but there was depopulation when foot and mouth disease hit Britain, and there was depopulation in Europe. There's been depopulation in Japan. With all due respect, I think there are times when disease requires depopulation. We have a disease-free herd of wood buffalo in the Northwest Territories and at Elk Island that could be used to repopulate with the actual indigenous species, not an introduced one.

I realize it's a much more difficult problem, but I'm just saying if this happened on a private ranch, there would not be study. We would just deal with it once and for all.

I would also suggest the damage that can be done...all it takes is a headline in Europe about diseased buffalo, and nobody is going to draw a distinction among Wood Buffalo Park, hoof and mouth disease, or tuberculosis. That could destroy our industry overnight, and our industry has tremendous promise as an export industry. If it's not dealt with soon, our suggestion is that the headline may yet approach a devastation of our industry.

That's a consumer issue, not a scientific issue.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you.

Mr. Shaun Grant (Chairman, Canadian Bison Marketing Council, Canadian Bison Association): Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment too?

Maybe we could just use the analogy of cancer. If you have a person with cancer and you know there's cancer in that person's body, you do not study it, nor do you remove part of the cancer and hope you got it all. You take all the cancer and you use the most aggressive measures you can. It's a very hard thing on the person who undergoes those treatments, but the return is huge in terms of that person's life.

The second thing is on the testing. Say they catch an elk as part of their program at Parks Canada. If they test that animal, that animal can be disease-free today, but tomorrow that animal can come into contact with a sick animal they have not yet captured and depopulated. The government has an opportunity here to do the right thing, namely to re-establish those parks and make them better than they are now, to remove that problem from the park and save the Canadian economy from a huge hit.

It's not just the buffalo industry we're talking about. This is going to mean billions and billions in ripple effect through the agricultural community.

The Chair: Mr. Conacher.

Mr. Gavin Conacher: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As an immediate measure in Riding Mountain National Park, there has to be a zone put in place with a significant culling program to contain the problem before we start any study. It's simple. Elk travel, and it's as simple as that. Deer travel, and everybody here knows that. Whether it be a fence or a culling program, it has to be done. Your $40,000 buys maybe five miles of fence.

Mr. David Anderson: I want to give you a couple of minutes. You seem to want to come back to the U.S. situation, with market access and some of the trade issues there, so I'd like to give the rest of my time to that if you want to talk about that a little further.

Mr. Gavin Conacher: This has been standing in our way since August of 2001. The way inspection works in the U.S. is that products that are imported from a foreign country and are non-amenable are considered a food ingredient and fall under FDA jurisdiction. Through that process FDA is required under this 1946 regulation to come and inspect foreign plants to certify them. In other words, you need two certifications, one from USDA and one from FDA, to export bison meat. We've been trying to get them to certify our plants, and the answer we're getting back is “We don't know what you're talking about; we've not done this before.” I totally understand that; they probably have not done this before. We have to sort out whose responsibility it is, USDA or FDA, and get those plants inspected. If they're not going to do it, then we need support.

The National Bison Association, our counterpart in the U.S., is actually lobbying to get bison moved into an amenable-species category, which would automatically solve our problem.

Â (1230)

Mr. David Anderson: So how can we help?

The Chair: I'm sorry, I have to cut it off here at this point in time. Perhaps you can insert some of those comments into another question.

We'll have Mr. Gagnon for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you.

You allude to several problems in your presentation and later on, mention this dreaded disease. You referred to US practices that you would like to see adopted here in Canada. It seems that US farmers have a leg up on their Canadian counterparts.

You also stated that meat deemed acceptable in Alberta may not necessarily be deemed acceptable in Ontario. You indicated that there were a number of problems associated with bison herds that didn't necessarily have anything to do with the disease, given that you only broach the subject this late in your presentation. However, it's clear that a diseased herd represents a major problem for you. Am I to understand that you advocate a cull of infected wild herds as a means of eradicating tuberculosis?

[English]

Mr. Tom Olson: I cannot speak to the situation in Riding Mountain as well, because I'm not fully briefed on that, but certainly in Wood Buffalo National Park a significant cull would be what we think is the appropriate response there. It certainly wasn't hard to eradicate the buffalo from an entire continent back in the 1870s, so I wouldn't think it would be that hard to eradicate a herd of 2,000 or 3,000 in a small area in Alberta and then reintroduce the indigenous species at the appropriate time.

As to the Riding Mountain situation, containment is clearly an issue. As to the size of the cull, I can't speak to that. We simply know that if it were in bison on a private ranch, it would be a complete cull.

The Chair: Mr. Grant.

Mr. Shaun Grant: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to remember when we're having this discussion that if depopulation occurs, there are right now animals the government currently owns and sells at public auction to private industry--in other words, genetic reservoirs. The bison at Elk Island are genetic descendants of the bison from Wood Buffalo National Park, and there are other recovery efforts the government has undertaken to preserve those genetics.

We maintain that once the herd is depopulated--and this would go for Riding Mountain as well--the tools are there, the animals are there, and the genetics are there to place a population right back into that park, and that park would begin to flourish. As the science people told you, the population has declined steadily over many years, but the problem is that it will not decline to zero. Were we to depopulate, there would not be a loss there, there would be a gain.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Let's move on to some of the other problems you mentioned. Could you explain to me the problems with meat deemed fit for consumption in one province, but not fit for consumption in another? What's that all about? Is it a question of internal provincial regulations?

[English]

Mr. Tom Olson: It's a question of equivalency regulations; it's the bringing up to federal standards of provincial plans. The irony is, you can go into Montana--and the federal government has already done that--and in the small, old plant in Montana they can kill, process, and ship into Ontario, but I at a brand-new provincial plant in Alberta can't sell into Ontario. They have a clear competitive advantage over us in selling into our own country.

It seems ironic indeed that the Americans were able to get through the transition period and allow people to bring their plants up to standard, but somehow we've either set the bar so high that no one's interested or CFIA has not been sufficiently accommodating in getting those provincial plants upgraded and allowing them to let our industry flourish and compete on an even level with our counterparts in the United States. We view that as a very significant issue. That's a bottleneck. Essentially, the bulk of our domestic buffalo consumption is dumped into two provinces, while the Americans have fifty states and ten provinces into which to sell. With all due respect, that's not fair.

Â (1235)

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Does the Canadian Bison Marketing Council represent all bison farmers in Canada? It does? Then it's a Canadian organization. Are many Quebec farmers from your association members of the Council?

[English]

Mr. Shaun Grant: With respect to your first question, the Canadian Bison Marketing Council is an offshoot of the Canadian Bison Association. Through our marketing research and as we've prepared our market strategy, we have identified market work as the most important area for our new industry because we are so new. Because it's so important, we created a separate entity that deals strictly with market issues. There are not two national organizations in Canada.

Mr. Conacher will have better numbers on the representation in Quebec.

Mr. Gavin Conacher: There are approximately 52 to 55 producers based in Quebec.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We must move on.

We'll have Mrs. Ur for five minutes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I thank you for your presentation and I thank you for the nice evening you hosted last night. It certainly was a good taste-testing evening, and I've acquired a taste for your product.

I certainly agree with the many individuals I spoke with last night as to the issues surrounding your industry, and as a government member I continue looking at other options for our farming community. We should be there to help you, not be a deterrent with interprovincial trade barriers and such. We have a product now...especially with the lifestyles and nutritional knowledge that are being focused on through Health Canada as to healthy lifestyle and healthy eating. I guess bison certainly has those attributes of healthier, leaner meat, or whatever, as you had indicated last night.

Also, in some of our discussions last night you had a problem with vertical integration of slaughterhouses. Is that a major concern as well?

Mr. Tom Olson: It's clearly an issue for us, and very difficult in a small industry that's based on highly entrepreunerial producers, when a large corporation is able to stop the process at any particular point. We do have some difficulties with large corporations controlling key sectors of our industry. This can create major problems for us. The two EU-inspected, federally inspected plants in western Canada are controlled by the same owner--one single owner. And we're just concerned about competition.

Of course, if we could have more plants that we can work with and that aren't concentrated and blocked at one level, it will allow our producers.... Right now most of the animals are killed in federal plants in Canada because of that very blockage problem. Once we get that problem solved, I think it goes a long way to ensuring that no one corporation can stifle our industry at any point in the process, as long as there is some competition.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So we really need to get back to CFIA to ensure that they're a little bit more congenial with the problems your industry is having.

Mr. Tom Olson: I think it's particularly with buffalo. I don't know whose toes we're stepping on. Certainly there's not a food safety question. So why can't we get on with it?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I was led to believe too that there's less medication used within the industry as well, which is another positive selling feature.

Mr. Tom Olson: That's right, no hormones. They're hormone-free, and many of them never see a shot of penicillin in their life--tough immune systems.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I'll leave the rest of my time to my colleagues.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Ur.

We'll move on to Mr. Proctor for five minutes.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks very much.

Thanks for the presentation.

Mr. Conacher, you indicated in your brief presentation that there were three problems. At least that's what I got. Which is the most important of those three, the one we should be looking at to fix? Which is most crucial for your industry?

Â (1240)

Mr. Gavin Conacher: I would say probably this bottleneck regarding access--we'll get a break with these interprovincial trade barriers. That's probably the single biggest matter right now that we face.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Olson, you mentioned that you have two federally inspected plants that are owned by the same individual. How many bison would be slaughtered at those two plants in an average week, and where does the product go?

Mr. Tom Olson: We have annual statistics. I guess I could divide by 52.

Mr. Gavin Conacher: It's 15,900 or thereabouts in those two EU-inspected plants.

Mr. Dick Proctor: And the product, the meat, that goes from there ends up in...

Mr. Gavin Conacher: Mainly France and the U.S.

Mr. Dick Proctor: So none of it then goes to the domestic market.

Mr. Gavin Conacher: Some of it will, yes.

Mr. Dick Proctor: But most of it ends up in Europe.

Mr. Gavin Conacher: Most of it is exported.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Right. But there's no way at this time... That's the whole issue we've heard about this week. If it's not a federally inspected plant, then you can't ship from Alberta to Ontario. It's my understanding that if we change the regulations, the really small abattoirs would perhaps be in difficulty, although a suggestion is that over a period of seven or eight years you could bring them up to that equivalency.

Some of the folks at the opposite end of the spectrum--the two federally inspected plants--might not be too happy about it because all of a sudden they'd have increased competition. But there'd be a lot of abattoirs in the middle that would be quite happy, and bison producers as well, if we could ship product across the country.

Mr. Tom Olson: Absolutely. In fact, I myself have sent animals to the States to get around this very problem. We've had to go to an older, more rundown plant than our local plants, because they have federal status and ours don't. The fact is a lot of those plants are new, clean plants. We may have to give them a little time to pave the parking lot, but I don't think we have any serious food safety issues there.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Have you had an opportunity this week to meet with CFIA officials? Is there some further recognition of this? As I understand it, and we heard it on Tuesday, bureaucrats, not you folks, but the bureaucrats at the provincial-federal level have been talking about this for several years. They thought they were working towards an agreement on these national meat and poultry regulations, and now all of a sudden it seemed to go sideways. Do we think it's back on track, or do we still think we have a long way to go to convince folks?

Mr. Tom Olson: We're concerned that it's not on track. We're concerned that we have a serious problem here and that we don't have a lot more time to spend to deal with it. It's a very serious problem for our industry.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Do you have any suggestions? We've had one hearing on it, but how else could we help? What do you think needs to happen?

Mr. Tom Olson: I would suggest that if we could get some movement and get perhaps a softer entry level, we can get people in a transitional stage. I have contacted many of the provincial plants--the new plants, the brand-spanking-clean ones, much cleaner than some of the old federal plants--and the response has been they're not interested at this point because there's a bureaucracy they're not prepared to deal with.

Perhaps we could just lower the bar a little bit. We're not talking about food safety issues. We're talking about bureaucratic issues. If that requires some assistance, as in the American plants, where we have to help pay for some of the inspectors, at least in the transitional period, to get these provincial plants to be prepared to sign on, that would be significant for our industry and for others. The organic beef industry has the same issue. They're too small. They can't ship pot-bellies of animals into a big federal plant, but they can send 10 or 12 or 30 animals into a smaller plant. The organic beef people are in no different a position.

It would help a lot of these growing industries if we solved this problem, so let's lower the bar. If we have to help them out financially with some of the bureaucratic red tape that's necessary, or perceived to be necessary, my suggestion is let's do that, get on with it, then let the increases in tax revenues help pay for it, because that's what we're going to see. We have a lid on an industry. Let's take the lid off and the thing will expand and we'll see growth.

The Chair: We have come to five minutes, Mr. Proctor.

Let's move on to Mr. Borotsik for five minutes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

There have been some suggestions or proposals with respect to a specific exotic slaughter plant for not just simply buffalo but for other exotics. You talked about organic beef. There are other exotics: there is wild boar; there's ostrich; you name it. There are lots of people getting into some different areas.

Has your organization attempted to try to develop a plant of its own, if you will, a federally inspected plant? We'll get into the bureaucracy, but has your organization attempted to go that route to try to find a slaughter plant that would assist you in developing your market?

Â (1245)

Mr. Tom Olson: There has been discussion off and on about building a federal plant. Those are very costly, and the fact is our producers are spread primarily across four western provinces. It's very difficult to get one plant and ship all the way from everywhere into one plant. There are a number of nice, spanking-new provincial facilities all across western Canada that are taking those buffalo now, and our suggestion would be that's probably where the emphasis needs to be.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Olson, I don't know if you were at that session on Tuesday with CFIA. You should have been. It's not simply bureaucracy, in my opinion. There's a turf protection there, obviously, between the CFIA and the federal inspectors and the provinces. That may be a bigger turf protection than we can overcome. That barrier might be larger than we can overcome at the present time, albeit I think they got the message, I should tell you, on Tuesday. They have to overcome these problems because all are working together.

I agree with you. I think you had asked, Mr. Conacher, why meat products processed in Alberta are safe for Alberta consumers but not for Manitoba or Saskatchewan consumers. That is a simple question that we have to continue to ask our bureaucrats, because there is no really good answer. We'll try to get those standards set in place so that provincial governments and our provincial plants could do that for you.

I'd like to get to trade. Help me with this one. You have an American federally approved plant that can now trade anywhere, particularly into our good eastern markets in Ontario and Quebec. You said yourself, Mr. Olson, that you've gone that route. You've gone down there. You've killed and you've exported from the States into Canada, which to me is absolutely ludicrous. What is it that we can do for you with respect to the trade coming into eastern Canada? Is it simply opening up the interprovincial trade patterns? What is it that we can do to assist on the American product coming in?

Mr. Tom Olson: The biggest single thing, of course, is the equivalency issue and getting us so that we could actually move the product here. The second thing is that we can get funding to market in Europe, but while we go out the front door the Americans come in the back door. Perhaps we could get a little bit of funding to help promote our own market in our lucrative big markets, which are the central Canadian markets. That's where the population is.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You have a very interesting industry, by the way. You really do. It has lots of potential. Let's forget about all the negative stuff. There's a lot of positive stuff in your industry, believe me.

I was told that 50% of your total production is now marketed from the farm gate. Is that correct? Is there the potential for expanding that within your existing provinces?

Mr. Tom Olson: The fact is that our buffalo is primarily marketed in farm communities, and our studies show that our biggest market is going to be the urban areas. That's where there's going to be a greater emphasis on quality of product and the fact that it's humanely raised and environmentally protected. It's the same for Europe and Asia. There's tremendous growth potential there. As far as the growth of that market is concerned, it has been individual entrepreneurs out there establishing a store at a time and a restaurant at a time. That comes with the fact that it's a small industry. That obviously will change over time. But there clearly is a bent to grow.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But is there not a huge market like that already presenting itself to your industry in those urban centres across western Canada?

Mr. Tom Olson: If we could be in Toronto--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Forget Toronto. Calgary, Vancouver, and Edmonton are huge markets.

Mr. Tom Olson: We're in Calgary right now, and that's a growing market. That's where all our product is going. You're taking all the production in western Canada and stuffing it into two or three cities. If we were in Toronto--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But that's just the tip of the iceberg in that market in Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Winnipeg. You have huge potential in those marketplaces. You still have lots of animals you could sell into that market, have you not?

Mr. Tom Olson: We do. But the bigger the market, the easier it is to sell.

Mr. Gavin Conacher: I'd like to comment on that question just briefly.

Over the last three years the U.S. government has purchased $23 million worth of bison meat. It has supported its industry in that manner. They've also offered up hundreds of thousands of dollars in domestic marketing support to develop bison meat consumption in the U.S. It's a cultural thing, as it is here, I'm sure. They're getting the same kind of feedback from their customers. It's a North American thing. It also enables them to better afford an export market, and that's what they're doing.

With regard to direct marketing, last year for the first time ever in the bison industry we culled a significant number. It could be as many as 15% of all the cows in the country. All of that meat is D grade, but a market was never developed for off-grade cows. It put a lot of product on to the market at a reduced price last year. Of course, because of all the things we've talked about today, including the interprovincial trade barriers and the cost involved in the slaughter and transport of an off-grade animal, it forced all of that product into B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.

Â (1250)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

In being fair, both on the basis of gender and the fact that she has added so much to the questioning by her last question, we'll now turn to Carol Skelton for just a short one.

Mrs. Carol Skelton: There's one thing I'd like to say in response to Mr. Borotsik's comments. I think people have to get away from the perception that a bison is an exotic animal. We have to remember that this is a domestic animal that is being farmed, and farmed correctly.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The point I was trying to make is that you could build an exotic slaughter plant and kill the buffalo there.

Mrs. Carol Skelton: I just wanted to put that point on the record. Bison are not exotic animals.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I hear you.

The Chair: It's now on the record. Thank you, Carol.

Mrs. Carol Skelton: I want to tell Mrs. Ur that I'll bring her a suitcase of bison meat next time I come.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning. Again, thank you for last evening.

We look forward to making some notable improvements to the way we do business in this country and hope that this will add to the fact that you can improve and grow your market, as we should in this country.

At this point in time I'm going to adjourn this part of the meeting, and we're going to go in camera for a very short period of time.

[Proceedings continue in camera]