Agriculture Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Cameron Prince]

No.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I would like you to clarify one thing. You said in your comments that there have been no other positive test results on any of the other exposed fields on these Alberta farms. I believe those were your comments. In particular, you did very extensive testing on the field where you had found this one deteriorated sample. Did you find any more infectious samples in that field?

[Cameron Prince]

No, we did not.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

What would the rate of infection be in a field, traditionally? I believe it's thousands of positive samples you would find. What would you expect to find on an infected field?

[Cameron Prince]

I may ask the experts who are here with me today to help with that, but it can vary tremendously. The evidence we have to this point, based on the one positive sample, is that we are looking at a very, very low rate of infestation on those Alberta farms, but keep in mind that these are very small organisms and very large fields, in some cases. This is how sampling works. If you find a positive, it doesn't mean it's the only one in the field. It's indicative of the presence, albeit at a very low level.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

You guys are good at this, right? You know exactly where that sample was taken. You've heard all this. You know exactly where that sample was taken in that field on that farm. How many samples did you take from that exact spot where you supposedly found this potato cyst nematode? How many samples do you know you took from that exact spot, samples that have now obviously come up negative?

[Cameron Prince]

I don't have that detail. I don't have the details around the exact amount.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

They were significant numbers, though.

[Cameron Prince]

A significant amount of sample was taken.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

It was from the exact spot.

[Cameron Prince]

We were trying to find it. That's our job.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

And you're very good at your job. Nobody here is disputing that.

It is also my understanding that the deteriorated sample was tested in the same lab that had just tested thousands of positive samples from Quebec farms in the previous week. Is there no chance whatsoever that this test result was a mistake? It seems obvious to all the members of this committee who heard the testimony from the farmers today that there is at least the chance that it may have been an error.

[Cameron Prince]

I'll ask our vice-president of science, Dr. Martine Dubuc, to respond to that question.

Thank you.

[Martine Dubuc, Vice-President, Sciences, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

I can provide more details about how the samples are transported to the laboratory so that members of Parliament and the committee—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I'm sorry, you only have 15 seconds.

[Martine Dubuc]

The samples we received from Alberta arrived several weeks after we finished dealing with the Quebec samples. Between the two, there was a period during which there were no samples from Quebec in the lab where the tests were performed.

Everything was checked, and quality control measures were taken. The agency's labs are recognized and accredited by the Standards Council of Canada. All procedures were followed. We were assured that there was no contamination from the Quebec samples because several weeks had elapsed between the two processes, and disinfection procedures had been followed.

To ensure that equipment has been cleaned properly, we always validate using negative control samples. That is done before we begin testing on samples from new fields. When it comes to results, we do everything possible to ensure that the samples have not been contaminated by other samples processed in the same lab.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much. We will now move to the Liberals.

Mr. Murphy, welcome to our committee. You are no stranger to the potato industry, being from Charlottetown. You have five minutes.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Prince, I can sympathize with your job. You dread the day you get one of these calls; it throws the agency into disarray for quite some time.

I noticed one thing. Are there any existing protocols with our major trading partner in the United States for dealing with these situations? We went through the PVYn, and you people and I have been in the same room with 300 or 400 screaming potato farmers. What starts off as a legitimate scientific issue morphs into what they believe is a trade issue.

Are there any protocols for exactly how these situations are dealt with and resolved?

[Paul Mayers, Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you very much.

There is a protocol, and as a result of that protocol, the actions you heard described were implemented by our trading partner, in this case the United States. Prior to the work we have recently done with the United States to develop new guidelines, the automatic response was province-wide closure of the market. What you heard in the remarks made by my colleague is that with the new guidelines we have negotiated with the U.S., there will no longer be province-wide closure, there will no longer be an impact on the entire farm, and the focus will be on fields instead. There will of course still be work to do, in the event of a positive find, to demonstrate the scope of that particular find and act only on that scope.

So there are indeed guidance documents, which are now being revised and which we believe will improve the situation, will narrow the scope of impact as a result of a find, and will limit the impact of a find much more than has been the case in the past.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I heard the evidence of the producers. It becomes a difficult issue for them, as to when they can deregulate their lands and get back into business. Is there any established protocol as to when and under what conditions the land can be returned to normal agricultural production?

[Paul Mayers]

This was one of the very serious limitations of the previous protocols: that there was not a clear basis on which to return lands that had been identified as positive to production.

In the new guidelines, this has been addressed. Now regulatory action with regard to a field will cease after two negative test results from separate intensive surveys. We now have a very clear basis to remove regulatory controls from a field that had been subject to those controls, based on those fields' being demonstrated not to be positive.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

So that's the protocol, and it is well known and available to the people in the agriculture industry.

[Paul Mayers]

That's correct. The guidelines have not been concluded. Both the CFIA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's animal and plant health inspection service have agreed. The protocol is now in the hands of the industry on both sides of the border for their input, and it is our hope that we can conclude this protocol quickly so that we can move to implement it.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand—although probably nobody knows for sure—that the best scientific evidence is that this nematode problem was domestic to Canada and not imported from another country. Is that correct?

[Paul Mayers]

Yes. We have had potato cyst nematode in Canada for many decades, albeit in specific parts of the country and clearly at a very low level of prevalence.