AGRI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

¹

1535

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

Mr. Michel Simard (Chief Operating Officer, Mediagrif Interactive Technologies)

The Chair

¹

1540

Mr. Michel Simard

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Michael Conlon (Chief Technology Officer, Viewtrak Technologies Inc.)

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Gerry Ritz

¹

1545

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

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

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Michael Conlon

¹

1550

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Jake Burlet

The Chair

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

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Jake Burlet

¹

1555

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Michel Simard

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Michel Simard

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Jake Burlet

º

1600

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

º

1605

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Dick Proctor

º

1610

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.)

Mr. Jake Burlet

º

1615

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Michael Conlon

º

1620

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Michel Simard

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Michael Conlon

Mr. Gérard Binet

º

1630

Mr. Jake Burlet

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jake Burlet

The Chair

Mr. Jake Burlet

The Chair

Mr. Jake Burlet

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Jake Burlet

The Chair

Mr. Jake Burlet

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

---

NUMBER 048

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)): If we could bring our meeting to order, I want to call the witnesses for the first part of this afternoon's meeting.

    We will be continuing our study of the BSE situation. This afternoon we have a number of witnesses from Viewtrak Technologies Inc. with us. Earlier today a few of us had the privilege of getting a preview of the program they want to introduce to us this afternoon. At the conclusion of this session we will go in camera and do consideration of the BSE draft report.

    I'll introduce Jake Burlet, president and chief operating officer of this company; Michael Conlon, chief technology officer; and Michel Simard, chief operating officer as well. Are those your titles? I thought we heard different titles this morning.

    Mr. Michel Simard (Chief Operating Officer, Mediagrif Interactive Technologies): I'm chief operating officer of Mediagrif Interactive Technologies.

    The Chair: Okay. I thought there was something wrong here. Anyhow, you might introduce yourself with your proper title if we have given that incorrectly.

    I want you to make your presentation, after which we will invite our panel members to question you. We'll let you begin.

    Mr. Burlet.

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Michel Simard: Members of the committee, my name is Michel Simard, and I'm the chief operating officer of Mediagrif Interactive Technologies. Mediagrif is a world leading operator of e-business networks and a provider of complete e-business solutions, including content management and e-tendering solutions, and has been ranked among Canada's top 50 best-managed businesses.

    Our company is based in Longueuil, Quebec, with offices in Quebec City, Ottawa, and San Diego, California.

[Translation]

    Our firm has 400 employees; over 160 of these are information technology specialists and 150 are call centre agents who serve more than 30,000 clients in 20 languages in 60 or more countries, 24 hours a day, seven day a week.

    Among the nine business networks operated by Mediagrif are Viewtrak and MERX, the system the federal government uses to publish its calls for tender. In fact, last July, our business obtained the contract to renew the delivery of that service for the next five years.

[English]

    Through its joint venture with the RBC Financial Group, Mediagrif is a shareholder of Viewtrak Technologies and acts as a technology partner. Over the past two years, we have developed a state of the art Internet-based solution that meets all of the requirements of an integrated food source management system for the beef industry.

    I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Conlon, you'll be responding to questions.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): I guess my first question is, do you guys do gun registries? It sounds like maybe you should.

    You're saying in your documentation here that you meet or exceed EU labelling standards. How do you know that? That seems to be a moving target.

    Mr. Michael Conlon (Chief Technology Officer, Viewtrak Technologies Inc.): What we're doing is keeping abreast of those developments and trying as much as possible to anticipate where those are going. As much as those are available, we have ideas of where we think they are headed; we're incorporating that into the system.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: You're also saying, if I read this right, that you're working with some 20,000 cattle now?

    Mr. Michael Conlon: That's correct.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Out of a 13-million herd in Canada, you're just barely getting started or you're just scratching the surface.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Viewtrak has been in existence for three and a half years. The first two and a half years were focused on technology and system build. A solution that was implementable and usable by the marketplace was introduced this spring.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: You're showing that Lakeside Packers, Excel Corporation, and a lot of companies like them are using your product. Or are they just starting to talk about using it? Compared to the 20,000 head you've got on side, Lakeside Packers has a 75,000-head feedlot next door, and they spend that three times.

    So the 20,000 head you've got are a cross-section of what?

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Jake Burlet: In those specific examples of those three major Canadian processors, in all instances, animals with complete birth records from the farm of origin have passed through the supply chain and have been processed in any one of those three processing plants. You're right, that's a subset of the entire population, but the animals that have gone through those operations are animals with complete animal histories right from the farm of origin.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Okay. And the farmer started out with complete sets of records that you guys teed up and worked into your system.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Yes.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: And there are more and more of those happening. I know in my own case, out in my country, farmers and ranchers keep excellent records of their livestock.

    You're starting to look at pork as well. What about any other livestock—sheep, elk? You know they've had a major problem too with CWD.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Yes, the Canadian pork industry started an initiative this spring for food traceability and verification. On chronic wasting disease in elk as well as in other farm animals, such as bison, we've been in direct consultation with each of those groups. They are currently in the process of being included under the Canadian Livestock Identification Agency, and when their identification needs are well defined, then the platform is directly extensible to meet their needs.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: In sheep, there is one genetic code they can pick out that says this sheep will never have scrapies. So that would be a boon to have in your database, because you'd then know which ones to cross and which ones to eliminate.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Yes.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: I think that's all I have for now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): If I understood correctly, you would like the Canadian government to adopt your traceability system. But the Canadian government says that in 1997 it established its own form of traceability; without having a master file, it knows the birth date and the date on which an animal died. In Quebec, there is a traceability system with a central system, I believe, and the animal is followed from the date of its birth. We know if it goes to a cattle show, another farm, or if it comes back, right up to the date of its death. This traceability system was installed in Quebec by the government in cooperation with the producers, I believe. I would like to know how your system would improve what we have today. Please explain the differences between the Quebec system and the Canadian system.

[English]

    Mr. Michael Conlon: You are quite right that the CCIA and the ATQ have actually set up an identification program that is certainly a cornerstone of what we are utilizing for tracking animals. In the case of the ATQ, they are tracking the movement, where the animal is born and each of its moves through the lifetime of the animal.

    Where we're different is that we've gone a step beyond just tracking what the movement is. We're tracking the pedigree, the treatments, and the feeding. Because it is an Internet-based application at the core of it, that data entry and inspection of that data can happen any time, anywhere, effectively around the world.

    So the solution we've come up with has sort of gone beyond that to provide greater, more complete traceability, if you will, in terms of all the treatments and feeding of those animals.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: It is more complete than the Canadian traceability system, but how is it better than the Quebec system?

[English]

    Mr. Michael Conlon: As I stated earlier, the system in Quebec is tracking the movement of the animal through its life cycle--where it was born, where it moved to, and locations. We're certainly not looking at replacing that system, but we have interfaces to that as far as reporting purposes are concerned. But there are market requirements in terms of the EU and the resolution of the current issue with the U.S. where they are going to require much more extensive records on what the animal has been fed, where it has been, in an auditable fashion, and not only that, but so they are able to be inspected at the point of entry.

    Whereas the system in Quebec, and certainly with CCIA, has some movement information, it hasn't been set up to track those additional features, and there are certain market factors that are demanding that type of more complete records.

¹  (1550)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: I have one last question. If we had installed that system, how could we have detected the case of mad cow disease?

[English]

    Mr. Jake Burlet: The Viewtrak system is designed specifically to address that kind of question. Because it's an Internet-based system, entering a CCIA tag number or an animal's identification number into the system would bring forward that animal's complete lifetime history in less than 10 seconds: where it was born; as Michael said, the management practices associated with it; what it had been fed during its lifetime; how it might have been vaccinated or treated. The very tangible difference is the speed at which that information would be accessible. The Viewtrak system has very much been designed to bridge time and space so that market acceptance and compliance can be met very, very quickly.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

    Ms. Ur.

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

    Thank you for your presentation once again. Did you make presentations with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and different organizations when you were putting your program together?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Yes. The founders of Viewtrak are from western Canada and have ongoing conversation with the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency, which is Julie Stitt and her group; the Canadian Cattlemen's Association--all of the national groups, as well as a number of interested provincial stakeholders. That also extends to purebred groups and western stock growers--anybody who has a vested interest in the beef cattle industry having a strong base and being able to export their products.

    So yes, we have ongoing consultation with all industry stakeholder groups.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Are you satisfied with 20,000 registered animals in that timeframe, then? If everyone seems to be on board, is that a goal you've set and met, or do you feel you should be further ahead in your business plan?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: It's an interesting point, because as I said, the first two and a half years of our history were spent doing system development and application readiness, getting ready for the marketplace, and our ability to take on our first set of animals this year came about two months prior to the BSE crisis. From our point of view, I think probably it's one of the things that have been pushed down on the agenda of beef producers in this country. They've been very much cognizant of survival in the short term, and now, just now, with the talk about border issues being resolved and now that there's a clear picture of what's going to be required in the future, there's much more activity and interest in auditable record-keeping systems that have information that meets the market need.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That being said, I'll just piggyback on that. The information obviously comes from the producer, right? Is it sent to you? How do you collect the database? Is it just as good for a producer to have his computer set up, have a disk put in, and collect the database himself? Where is the advantage of going through your company?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Well, there's a clear differentiation between having developed a food tracking and traceability solution that is a stand-alone application installed on a computer and having developed a system that's connected through the supply chain.

    If we go back to the case in point, of the farm in Saskatchewan where the Canadian BSE cow was diagnosed, there was no connected record of her life movement throughout the supply chain. The Internet is a mature enough piece of technology that accommodates that, leveraging off the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency tag number, which was a very far-sighted, proactive thing the Canadian Cattlemen's Association adopted to do. The Internet-based application provides the connectivity across the supply chain.

¹  (1555)  

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: How secure is the information?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Perhaps I'll let Mr. Conlon address that from a technology standpoint--or Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Michel Simard: You're asking about the security standpoint of the technology?

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, for the information.

    Mr. Michel Simard: Every system at Mediagrif--the infrastructure, the hosting facilities--has been audited three times by the Royal Bank, the SAQ--the Quebec liquor board--and also by the federal government, when we took over the Merx company from the Bank of Montreal.

    So as far as security, accessibility, and confidentiality of information go, everything has been audited, and we can provide that information and reassure the stakeholders of the system.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What is the cost to implement this program for each animal?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Well, the cost of the system is very much dependent on what the decision is going to be for whatever record keeping is decided by the industry to be market compliant, so it will depend on the size of the record that's determined to be kept. For example, if the material piece of information was the CCIA tag number and date of birth, that's a different amount of record keeping than is associated with a more broad-based record-keeping system. That's one consideration.

    The other consideration is the scaleability, whether we're talking about.... As was commented, Quebec had a very specific initiative. If we're talking about being able to do this, roll it out and scale it across the entire nation--and certainly this is a Canadian situation we're dealing with--then we're very much talking about dollars per animal. We're very much cognizant of how the cattle industry works, that the cost to accommodate the needs of the marketplace and the industry has to be in line with being able to provide that kind of service.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You can't tell me how much it's going to cost, then. It depends on the amount of information you have to gather.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Yes, and I believe that's yet to be determined.

    Speaking with a number of industry producers and stakeholder groups across the country, we've receive a very clear message: What are the requirements going to be from the federal perspective, not from a provincial perspective? What will we need to do to access international borders? They're not likely going to be different if you're in New Brunswick or Saskatchewan. What are the requirements going to be that we have to do? Then we'll be able to respond to that and say, okay, this level of functionality is provided and we can provide it for this cost to the industry.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Could you answer my question as to how you get the information from the producer on feeding and all that?

    Mr. Michael Conlon: There are several means of getting that information from the producer. The most straightforward way is for the producer to actually sit down, if he has access to the Internet, and enter that information directly. Alternatively, there is the ability for us to work as kind of a data bureauing service, where that information could be recorded on data sheets that we would provide, and then it could be added, either manually or computer-assisted, to the system. The third option is, if they do have an existing system, depending on their size, we do provide interfaces to the most commonly used herd management programs so that the information could be uploaded onto the application.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That seems like a lot of work for the primary producer on top of what he or she already has to do.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Maybe to extend the response to the question a little bit further, as you know, the history of the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency was the introduction of bar-coded tags. Viewtrak developed data collection devices that automatically scan those bar-coded tags so that primary producers didn't have the requirement to write down a 12-digit number. So we automated that data collection process.

    We were ahead of the curve in predicting that radio frequency technology would come to the marketplace. Only a week ago today the Canadian Cattlemen's Association announced that, as of January 1, 2005, the switch will be made from bar-coded technology to radio frequency.

    Being very cognizant of the time demands and the cost sensitivity of primary producers, we developed data collection tools that were robust and worked out in the field, to accommodate data collection at that level.

    The comment was made about industry participants like XL, Cargill, and IBP. In those particular instances where they are handling thousands and tens of thousands of animals, we have not created replacement systems. We have created interfaces to extract relevant data and add it to an ongoing record so that the record can be built. That also ties back to having an Internet-based system where all those pieces are then accessible in one place.

º  (1600)  

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

    The Chair: Your question time has expired.

    We'll move to Mr. Borotsik for seven minutes.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chairman, the technology is fascinating. I must say, it would be nice to be able to start from square one and go through all our animals throughout the country and have this data and certainly this tracking system available. But I agree with Rose-Marie that the data is only as good as the data that's input, and the data that's input is only as good as what the producer provides. That's key here. In fact, some of the producers are still a little reluctant about ear tags, if the truth be known.

    So we're a little ahead of the curve, and I appreciate that. At some point in time in the not-too-distant future, somebody will be sitting around this table and you'll have an updated version of your tracking system that's going to be phenomenal, but in the meantime, we have to start from scratch.

    So I have a question. This is good, starting with your 20,000 animals where you have the data already, but what about the incomplete data? What about those millions of animals out there for which there aren't complete data systems right now? How do we deal with those? Do we start from a point, a benchmark, and then work forward from that? How do we develop those types of profiles, or do we?

    Mr. Michael Conlon: I guess it depends on what the goal is for those animals.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: The goal is tracking. You just said that in order for the border to open we have to have certain protocols; we have to have certain criteria. That's the key here, the tracking. What do we do with those animals?

    Mr. Michael Conlon: What we have done--certainly on a limited scale, because you know the numbers we have--is actually go to some of these animals that are in the system and take existing paper records and put them into the system so that we can play catch-up. We have the processes with our partners at Mediagrif where we can actually do this on a large scale. So if we're looking at a selected group of animals that are destined ultimately for export and need to meet this requirement for the U.S. border, if it does, as rumour has it, open up in 60 days, if those animals are identified--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You've heard that rumour?

    Mr. Michael Conlon: I read it in the paper.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: There you go. Don't believe everything you read.

    Mr. Michael Conlon: But if that was the case and there was the opportunity and desire to bring that group of animals across the border, we have the processes and the mechanisms in place to basically backfill that data.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You've also developed a fairly sophisticated system here that you can expand into a number of fields. What do you believe is the minimum required? It's great to be able to input all the data on vaccinations, feed supplies, and all of the changes to the feeding system. What do you believe is the minimum that a producer in Saskatchewan or Alberta should be collecting in data?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: The clear answer is that the minimum is what the market determines. The market determines, as best we know today, whether those animals are less than 30 months of age. So that is a minimum. It is probably also very useful to know their feeding history, and whether they had any exposure to potential meat- and bone-meal-contaminated food products. The third data point is their lineage or parental genetics--where those animals came from--so they can then be tracked backwards.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: As I say, it's fascinating.

    On the cost, I know it depends on the fields; it depends on the scope we're looking at currently. Based on those minimums you just identified for me, for a normal type of operation with a herd of 200 or 300 animals, what would be the cost per animal of going through the minimum data process?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Do you mean the cost per animal or the cost per herd?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I mean the cost per animal.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: I'll go back to the response I gave to you.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You said it depends on what you choose here, but I'm talking about the minimum.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: The minimum would be about the cost associated with a primary producer putting a mandatory CCIA tag on that animal. The cost of the service to provide the minimum amount of data would be about the cost of an ear tag.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: But you'd still require the ear tag with the bar code, plus you'd need to have all your other systems in place. So it would be double the cost--an ear tag plus the new system.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Yes, there'd be the cost of an ear tag plus the cost of the system. In the scope of the value of the animal, it would be insignificant.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't know. If you're talking about a culled cow right now, it's probably equal to the value of the animal, so we won't go there either.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: But if she were a Viewtrak cow, she'd be worth a lot more.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Oh yes, there we go.

    You talked about the IRAP program. Are you looking for some federal money to offset the cost to the producer or the cost to Viewtrak?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: We've got a really good example of a couple of new initiatives that have the opportunity to provide more completeness for some of the questions you're asking.

    There's the initiative in Atlantic Canada to support the maritime beef producers with a new processing plant. A very specific and defined goal of theirs is to have full traceability and source verification from the farm of origin through the processing plant. That opportunity is there and ready to go. Their producers are ready to go, and we're ready to go with them. A new initiative was announced in Ontario last week, and another one was announced in Saskatchewan this past weekend. So they're very specific, well-defined opportunities where producer groups, being driven by the industry that recognizes what the marketplace is requesting, where there are specific projects that are ready to go, and....

    Also, to respond to your question that the technology is fascinating, the technology is fascinating, but much more importantly, it's simple and it works.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: By the way, software development is simple nowadays. I don't mean to say that what you did wasn't.... You have competition, I suspect. You're not going to have a consistent system throughout the whole marketplace; you're going to have different kinds of systems in different areas. Is there interface between the systems? Who's your competition?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: There are some identified competitors in other parts of the world. The Viewtrak solution is unique--and it goes to some of the other comments I made--because no other one is an integrated, Internet-based solution. It all goes back to the root comment of being able to connect the entire supply chain. If there are islands of primary producers or islands of feedlots, that doesn't help answer the question when there's a situation like a BSE crisis.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is federal legislation required to make this work?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: The cattle industry participants we've talked to recognize that this is a national situation.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So there's federal legislation required to make it work.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: What we're being asked for, or one of the things we get asked for is, we would like to see federal leadership with regard to solving this national problem, because it's not good enough for Alberta, or New Brunswick, or Quebec to make a decision.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So is federal legislation required?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: I think federal legislation would be beneficial in helping to facilitate the cattle industry's adoption of this kind of, at least, minimal record-keeping system, which is going to go a long way in regaining our international markets.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Was I over time, or do I have some more time?

    The Chair: You have gone over time. I've been really generous with you; I've been very liberal with you today, Mr. Borotsik.

    Mr. Proctor.

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

    Just to pick up on something that Rick asked Mr. Burlet about other competitors, are you telling us that your Viewtrak system is leading edge compared to everything else that's out there?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: No question about it, and it's leading edge not just in Canada but also around the world. We're unique in that we have a made-in-Canada solution that bridges all of the three required elements.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

    I'm not as familiar as Rick is with bar codes and all of that stuff, but you're still talking about an ear tag. Are we talking about a computer chip or what? Just take me through this. What do you put on or take off the animal?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: It's an external identifier, so it's not an implant. Right now, it's an external identifier that is a bar code, like you would see on any other product in any other store.

    The decision has been made to change from bar codes to radio frequency chips embedded in an ear tag. If you can appreciate it, the reason is that when you're going through a grocery store, you have to reposition a head of lettuce to get it to the scanner, but it's not quite as easy to reposition the head of an animal. So radio frequency technology better facilitates data collection.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: You talk in your handout about a Canadian brand and you said as an example, NZ, which I assume stands for New Zealand. What do you mean by Canadian brand?

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Jake Burlet: New Zealand lamb is known around the world, and it even dominates the meat case here in Canada, so it would be branding Canadian beef around the world.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay, right.

    You say “Canadian food source regulations are good but not as stringent as some of our competitors and trading partners, such as the European Union and Japan.” Until May 20, the Minister of Agriculture would have said that Canada had the safest food in the world, and yadda, yadda, yadda.So what are some of the shortcomings we have here that the European Union and Japanese don't have?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: To speak to the European example, they have a paper-based passport system to accommodate the collection of management information and animal movement. The cost to deliver that system on a per animal basis in Europe is $50 to $60. Ours is different in that Canada doesn't have that kind of system.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: One of the things that did come up, and one of the realities after May 20, was the fact that it was recognized, I think around the world, that Canada was able to do the traceback very, very quickly. Obviously, it was not as quick as your system purports to do, but at the same time, it was recognized that had the shoe been on the other foot in the U.S., tracing those animals or a similar case of BSE would not have been nearly as fast in the States.

    Is that something you would concur with? Have you looked at the American system or the way they do things?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: From a basic and fundamental point of view, the American cattle industry doesn't have an identification system. It's pretty hard to track something that's not identified. So right out of the gate, the Canadian industry is significantly ahead, because the Canadian Cattlemen's Association saw that need a number of years ago.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Have the Americans picked up as a result of that, or are they recognizing that this could happen there too?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Two specific things are going on in the American marketplace. Number one is that they have now more or less embraced the idea of having a national animal identification system, and more significantly, part of legislation of the U.S. Farm Bill is about a complete and mandatory record-keeping system to accommodate country-of-origin labelling. So the United States marketplace is now embracing animal identification and going very specifically to detailed records, making them mandatory for their entire industry.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Rick mentioned in his questions that some Canadian cattle ranchers were not all that excited about ear tags. I'm assuming that has changed since May 20 and there's a general recognition that we don't have any choice, or they don't have any choice, in this case. Would that be fair?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Yes, it's fair to say that, for sure. And we lived through the implementation of the CCIA tagging program, and it moved from some resistance to 95% to 100% compliance in terms of tag application, from what we hear reported by the CCIA. Certainly if there's ever been an illustrative point for having to identify and further track and trace animals, the BSE crisis has fairly much beaten us over the head with that.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Proctor.

    Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I think most of my questions were answered by the last two speakers, but I want to follow up on what Mr. Borotsik was asking. He was suggesting that there may need to be some federal legislation in this area, or you were suggesting this in response to him.

    The APF has now come forward and there's talk there about doing some of the things and continuing to support some of the things that you're doing now. Have you been involved with that? There's talk about this not only within the animal, but also taking this further within the food industry. Have you been involved in any way with these talks? Do you know the direction they're going in? Are they going far enough? What other things should they be doing?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: I think it's interesting to note that the APF was published prior to May 20 and we went to the public domain and found the information. If my memory serves me correctly, there was $148 million within the APF set aside for developing food traceability and tracking systems to better protect and, furthermore, brand Canadian agricultural products. Specifically, that document was authored and published pre-May 20, so we're aware of that.

    It was because of that documented information, though, that we continued to build the system and we made application to groups like CANARIE and IRAP. We had their farsighted involvement in the Viewtrak system so that we could start to build a foundation so that when things like the APF came to maturity, Viewtrak, in conjunction with the Canadian agricultural industry, would be much better positioned to respond quickly to doing something versus talking about doing it. I think that's the message we're really here to deliver. We're not talking about a concept that has to be delivered; this is ready to go today. And as Michael said, if it just means backfilling information, it's ready to go to meet the market need.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Ritz.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    You're still talking about an external tagging system. I see a picture of a fairly sophisticated scanner system here, and that's what you're purporting? Are we talking about an implanted chip?

    Mr. Michael Conlon: Well, the identification system is, certainly in the Canadian context, external to our system. We're talking advantage of that and building the tools to actually use that.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: So it would be an ear tag.

    Mr. Michael Conlon: It would be an ear tag.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: All right. How about loss? Nobody's lived until they've been looking in the bottom of a cattle pot for lost ear tags. On today's record, you're allowed something like a 5% loss of ear tags. How do you match them up again afterwards?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: I'll respond to that one. With regard to the technology, it's still an external identifier because of any risk of migration for an under-the-skin implant. It might end up in a food product. So that's the reason it's external.

    If we take the example of what happened in Quebec with a dual tagging system, that was implemented to significantly mitigate the risk of one tag being lost. So Quebec instituted a strategy to help to deal with that specific question. In the Viewtrak system--and it's illustrated in one of the screen captures--multiple pieces of identification are cross-referenced. So if there's a CCIA tag, potentially a breed registration number, a herd management tag, all of those identifiers are cross-referenced so, in the event that one external identifier is lost, the animal's record isn't necessarily gone out the window.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: We're going to have to breed cows with bigger ears. You're going to have every animal rights activist two and three times as angry at you.

    On the cost of the hardware, every farmer is going to have to have a scanner regardless of how many cattle he has. Do they rent one from the agricultural representative, or how do you see that happening?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: That's an excellent question. The reason we developed the technology the way we did is that hand-held scanning technology is using proven, robust hardware that's used in many different industrial applications. So the price point of it makes it not out of the reach of medium- to large-size producers.

    With regard to smaller producers, local veterinary clinics or agriculture offices own a scanner, and they use it for data collection in the herds when they're doing routine herd processing events. So if you're a producer who has 18 or 20 cows in one of the regions of Canada, the system is designed not to preclude your participation. The information can be collected in that kind of scenario or, as Michael described, in a bureauing scenario.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Error rates in computer data are generally tied to the number of users, and you're talking about everybody in the country having access to a scanner to input these data. What kind of error rate do you foresee?

    Mr. Michael Conlon: Because it's a supply chain solution and the animal does change ownership as it moves along the supply chain, we've spent a considerable amount of time on the design to actually accommodate that. This is not our controlling these users as they put the information in.

    Back to the concept that Jake talked about earlier on the multiple tags, when the animal changes in status, particularly if it changes in ownership, we do a scan, making sure that all those data match up, and if they don't, it provides different levels of--

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: You don't do the scan. The handler does, the seller, the buyer--

    Mr. Michael Conlon: No, I mean a scanning of the database in terms of the data. The application will try to protect--

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Somebody has to input the change. Is it the buyer or the seller?

    Mr. Michael Conlon: It's the buyer. If you receive an animal and you've either changed the tag or you say the cow is a steer and not a heifer, all those sorts of things are looked at by the system to make sure there is some integrity.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: You mentioned that it was traced back to McCrea's farm in Baldwinton. That's in my riding. Mel McCrea, the owner, still swears it wasn't his cow. The tag is one he has never used, and they're saying it's the original tag. So tags are not the be-all and end-all answer, by any stretch of the imagination.

    Mr. Michael Conlon: No. We believe that an identifier does not make a system. If you have an identifier and that's all you have, then you really don't have very much information to go on, especially if there's--

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: An identifier is the basis of your system. It's how you record that identifier.

    Mr. Michael Conlon: It's how you record it and what information you record against it. If all you're recording is birth date and death, then there are not a lot of backup data to go on if something goes amiss.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: That can happen. A calf can die.

    Mr. Michael Conlon: If you're recording the feeding and all those records are building up and there's a mistake, somehow you could recognize that there is an issue and be able to recover from it.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Borotsik, do you have any other questions?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have a couple of questions.

    The Chair: Make them very short. We have one more questioner on this side.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: When the animal is no longer around, when it has gone into processing, is slaughtered, dies, or disappears somewhere, how long does it stay in the system before it's taken off?

    Mr. Michael Conlon: At this point in time the animal will stay on until there is some kind of archiving process. We've only been around for--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You don't have an archiving process. Is there a seven-year timeline on this or a one-year timeline? I've followed my animal right through the system. I have all the data. I have my feed and my vaccinations. It has gone to slaughter. It's finished. It's off the system. When does it go off?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: We have purebred producers, and we backfill their data--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You have genetics.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: They have as much as nine years' worth of historical data. The data are owned by the users, and they are there for as long as they want them to be there.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So they could keep them forever if they wanted to.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Absolutely, and the data are exportable to them.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Ritz was being somewhat facetious, I think, when he mentioned the gun registry. Could the same system be implemented in something like a gun registry? As long as the owners were responsive to a bar tag, it probably wouldn't be that difficult. It could go from owner to owner to owner.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Michel Simard: I can't tell you.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You have a very sophisticated system that's going to follow an animal through a whole number of steps. This may well be only one step. It could work, could it not?

    Mr. Michael Conlon: To answer that question in part, I'd say that one of the reasons we're certainly happy to be working with Mediagrif on the solution is that they have real live experience delivering systems across the Internet to a large number of users. As an example, for the SAQ they deal with wine growers in a number of European countries who are not terribly sophisticated on the technology front and who don't necessarily even have Internet access. But because of their experience, because they've gone through the growing pains of all of that, they understand how to develop an application and the supporting processes to actually make it work.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: The short answer to that is yes, it could happen.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Borotsik.

    We'll have Mr. Binet for a couple of minutes.

    Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Just two minutes?

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: I'll give you more.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet: At first, I was in the retail business, and I took courses on electronic data. We were told that Wal-Mart had one of the best systems for retail. But in that case, a single business makes the decision so things move along smoothly. But in the retail trade the smallest businesses have more trouble and some don't want to get involved. There are small businesses and medium ones, and not everyone is interested in joining the system. Thus, the problem is more complex.

    Are the territories all willing to adopt the system and standardize? Can you also tell us about your competitors—you must have some—and the possibility that you might tell the government that your business will be responsible for all of the follow-ups on animals. You have one minute to answer.

[English]

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Thank you for the question.

    The first part of my response would be that I wouldn't underestimate the ingenuity of Canadian cattle producers and their ability to rise to the challenge of what the marketplace has brought them. I don't want to undersell Canadian cattle producers; they've been tremendously adaptive and entrepreneurial in the past.

    We have lived the experience of dealing with small producers, medium producers, and larger producers who have had systems and applications of disparate sizes, and we've accommodated their wants and needs for record keeping and traceability. What they have uniformly recognized is the need to be part of a solution that's connected across the supply chain. In the end, that's being part of something that is more powerful than being out on an island by themselves and not being able to defend or market their product. We've lived that experience.

    As we stated previously, the Canadian cattle industry is specifically looking for leadership from the federal government with regard to this issue, because it's not a regional issue. The regulatory requirements to meet the marketplace demand are going to be the same for everybody across the country. It's a real opportunity to leverage existing programs like the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency and to use that as a foundation to build around this existing, immediately available technology, to develop record keeping to meet the needs of Canadian producers and to meet the needs of our marketplace partners, which in the end will determine how successful the Canadian cattle industry's future is.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet: I asked your competitors a question. According to what I understand, you are asking the government to designate your company, Viewtrak, as the firm responsible for the system Canada-wide. There must be competitors who also want the contract. Is that the case?

[English]

    Mr. Michael Conlon: No, no. We certainly have competition. I guess there are a couple of models that are conceivable for a system of traceability in Canada or North America--or the world, for that matter. One is that the country comes up with one solution, there's one RFP, and there's one central database. Certainly, another alternative that we suspect is more likely is that there is some minimal set of standards on what data needs to be collected and on what sort of auditability we need to have. Based on those minimum standards, there will be data interchange standards developed.

    So to address your specific question, I think that a retailer, if he's a small retailer, can't afford the same sophisticated application as Wal-Mart. But if there is a data exchange standard where the data is presented in a certain format, it's as available to the small retailer as it would be to the larger retailer, which has its full system. That sort of work is actually going on in Europe, and just as recently as two weeks ago a number of our competitors in the U.S. got together and are now looking at developing a U.S. standard for data interchange. That's something we're tracking quite closely.

    In terms of the small retailer versus the large retailer, our orientation, as Jake mentioned, is to be able to not exclude anybody in the supply chain. We'd expect to provide some services to the smaller retailer who can't afford a sophisticated logistic system; that retailer would be analogous to a small cattle producer.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet: You must be negotiating with the government. Do you have a good chance of getting results? Do you need the support of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food? If you are here today, there must be a reason. Is there a good chance of seeing this come to pass this year?

º  (1630)  

[English]

    Mr. Jake Burlet: From our perspective, clearly the agriculture committee is the one that is closest to and has the best understanding of the current Canadian situation, specifically with regard to BSE. It's also our belief that the agriculture committee is not just focused on the current crisis but is also considering plans for how this can be prevented in the future and how we can get the Canadian industry back to being a world leader in export. And you're not just considering it in the context of cattle but of other foodstuffs like hogs, cereal grains, and so on.

    It's also clear to us that time is of the essence. The Canadian cattle producers across the country are in dire straits, and it's not getting better any time soon in spite of what rumours may have been circulated yesterday. The thing we bring to the agriculture committee today is not a discussion regarding developing a concept to meet the industry's and the market's needs. It's discussing and introducing the idea that there's a solution that's available today and that there are existing initiatives around the country that could be used as pilot projects to very clearly demonstrate to the rest of the broader agriculture community that the technology is sound, it's scalable, it's cost-effective, it works, and it meets the market demand.

    The Chair: We have to shut it down.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just give me 30 seconds. I want it for the record.

    This does not prevent BSE. This is traceability. There could be another case of BSE. We have a whole bunch of producers out there who perhaps don't do everything you say they should be doing, and that's unfortunate; I wish they did. So please confirm that this doesn't prevent BSE. This traces potential.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Yes.

    The Chair: That's a good point.

    I just have one comment. In one of your mock-ups in the presentation you've given us you talk about the restoration of credibility of Canada's beef industry. You say, “If Canada implements the Viewtrak Beeftrak solution now, the 2003 beef industry crash would not happen again.” That is on the assumption, I presume, that not only do we in Canada but the Americans likewise, who are our trading partners, at least recognize the traceability and the verifiability provided by this system, so if this were to happen again, you said, in 10 seconds we could identify where that animal came from. That would exclude it from being from anywhere else but the particular genetic lineage of that particular animal.

    To say that it couldn't happen again...we can't be an island unto ourselves in this if we're going to go this route. If the Americans don't recognize it, then we're only good for ourselves; we're not good for anyone else. Is this not correct?

    Mr. Jake Burlet: That's what we bring to this committee today, a system that has been developed to be compliant with international standards and collect the information.

    The Chair: We need to do this in partnership with our trading partners, particularly the Americans.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: And let them know that all the pieces are in place to do it.

    We're already three years ahead of the United States with identification--

    Mr. Paul Steckle: That's right.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: --and this is building upon that.

    The Chair: It's just building on the argument.

    Okay, thank you very much, gentlemen. I think it's very timely that we hear from you now, since we're continuing to work on the BSE issue.

    It's not over today. It's an ongoing process. But I'm pleased to see that the industry is at least accepting of good technologies, because we're in a different world.

    Mr. Jake Burlet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the members for allowing us to present today.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I would ask those who are not members of the committee to leave the room. We want to go in camera right away so that we can get on with the report.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]