Good day. There's some pretty heavy stuff here today.
I'm Vince Stutzki. I'm an executive member of the Canadian Sheep Federation board and an elected member of the provincial board, the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency. I'm from Paisley, Ontario, where we run, or try to run, a 650-head farm.
On behalf of CSF and OSMA, I would like to thank the committee for providing the industry with the opportunity to participate today and provide our comments on the agricultural policy framework. Jen, my boss here, told me to speak slowly and clearly, so I will try to do my best to follow along with the notes I have.
The CSF, along with the other national sheep organizations--the Canadian Co-operative Wool Growers, and the Canadian Sheep Breeders' Association--have taken advantage of the suite of programs offered through the agricultural policy framework to address some of the extraordinary risks that sheep farmers face today, such as diseases, natural disasters, and trade barriers. The series of pillars that constitute the APF have proven beneficial, as the industry strives to increase its viability and sustainability.
Jen gave a presentation already to this group on the business risk management part, so I'll just highlight a few of the things we think the program must do. To help build a stable foundation on which primary production can build an industry, business risk management programs must be flexible enough to address regional and commodity needs, be predictable and cost-effective, help re-establish all markets that are destroyed, and not impede commerce. I encourage you to refer to the document that was submitted to the committee on April 5 for more details.
I would now like to provide some brief comments on a few of the other pillars that comprise the APF, specifically science and innovation, food safety and quality, and market development and trade.
One of the key points we would like to highlight under the science and innovation pillar is that research conducted by the international scientific community should be recognized in Canada, especially for commodities like sheep, where little research in Canada is being conducted. In the sheep industry there is great difficulty getting drugs approved for use. These same products, however, are readily approved for use in sheep in Australia and New Zealand. This inability to access drugs puts Canadian sheep producers at a competitive disadvantage.
Food safety and quality will continue to be issues that the primary sector works on. Government messaging, though, should not promote food safety programs as an opportunity for new markets. This opportunity is not available in all sectors, and the consequences of such messaging should be carefully considered. For example, if the implementation of a food safety program results in a higher-priced product, the consumer might be in the position of having to choose between food safety and affordability.
In the same breath, implementation and certification should be accessible to all producers because costs should not prohibit participation. The costs of these programs cannot simply be downloaded onto farmers with dwindling incomes.
Canadian farmers contribute significantly to the public good by providing high-quality, safe foods. Canadian farmers should not bear the entire cost of implementing environmental, traceability, and food safety and quality programs. Public contribution to these programs needs to be ongoing.
The importance of a market development and trade pillar cannot be overemphasized. When all proposed pillars--science and innovation, renewal, food safety and quality, environment and business risk management--are effectively implemented, they will strengthen the ability of commodities to maintain and develop markets, helping to ensure that Canadian agriculture remains competitive.
An undeniable component of the market development and trade pillars are value-chain round tables, especially to commodity groups that are trying to increase their share of the domestic market, such as for sheep. Value-chain round tables enable all sectors of the chain to respond strategically to issues associated with traceability, regulatory compliance, innovation, and consumer preferences. In addition, they provide industries with the opportunity to gather and develop market intelligence that aids in their ability to respond in a timely fashion to consumer preferences. The ability to respond quickly to consumer and customer demands is an essential component to ensuring the success and viability of any industry.
Another important component of the market development and trade pillar is the ability to address issues of market access. For instance, most of the lamb processed in Canada is done so in provincially inspected plants. As such, the industry's ability to provide consumers across Canada with Canadian lamb is very limited. Vancouver is the second largest lamb-consuming city in Canada, yet the industry's ability to fill that market is limited because 60% of the lamb processed in Canada is done in Ontario. Of that 60%, 90% is slaughtered in provincially inspected plants. The Canadian sheep industry strongly supports the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers.
Finally, as a member of the Canadian Animal Health Coalition, the sheep industry would like to see animal health issues addressed as a distinct and important component of the APF framework. This would include the development of a national farmed animal health strategy. The reason for this is twofold.
First, animal health as it relates to human health is a public good, and responsibility for it should be shared by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, as well as industry. Second, the Canadian sheep industry is currently dealing with two animal health issues that are directly linked to our ability to access international markets. The handling of those health issues will be most effective when it's part of a national farmed animal health strategy.
While the border was closed in May 2003 due to BSE, it is set to remain closed to small ruminants that were not included in rule II. Some have indicated that this is primarily due to Canada's lack of a scrapie eradication program at the time the border was closed. While the industry has committed to a national genotyping program and a voluntary scrapie flock certification program with the help of ACAAF funding, a scrapie eradication program is not complete without long-term national scrapie surveillance.
The federal government has committed funds for a surveillance program, but the long-term availability of these funds has not been guaranteed. A three-pronged scrapie eradication program such as this is absolutely necessary if the industry has any hopes of being able to access the American market again.
In addition, there have been some recent changes to the import policy in relation to the listing of restriction around bluetongue. The sheep industry supported this move, based on science and a commitment from the government that an ongoing bluetongue surveillance program would be implemented.
Having the government commit to animal health programs and the development of a national farmed animal health strategy would go a long way to ensuring that the Canadian sheep industry has access to long-term disease surveillance programs that would facilitate our ability to re-access and maintain markets.
With that, I would like to conclude what I have to say. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. I'm looking forward to some questions.