Agriculture Committee on May 15th, 2008

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I might make a suggestion. Given how fast we walk, if we stay here until 10:55 a.m., we will have 15 minutes to go from the Wellington building to the Center Block. Am I right?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Good, I'll do that.

We have two more questioners.

Monsieur Bellavance, you have the floor.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

As long as I get my turn, I agree.

Thank you again for being here. Since my next questions will not be as technical as the last one, you will not have to do any research in your documents. I want to put a question to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

You heard me ask the minister about compensation for avian flu. We know that it has been changed. Some time in the past, the compensation amount was more than $30. Even industry agreed that we could have lower compensation amounts than what had been forecast, but it did not expect such drastic cuts.

I have the feeling that the amount is not always the same. I gave the example of a 21-week laying hen. You came up with a compensation amount of $4.77 while the industry set its market value at $17.21.

It may not be crucial or of interest to some people but it is very important to us.

How did you come up with the $4.77 amount?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Mr. Chairman, the establishment of the compensation maximums alluded to by the honourable member were the result of two phases of review with industry in terms of their being able to document within the scope of our legislation. As was pointed out by the minister, we do not have authority under the Health of Animals Act to compensate for production loss.

The big difference in terms of their ability to substantiate the actual market value of those birds relates to--as the minister alluded--the fact that while a bird has a certain value at a point in time, industry's calculations took into place the time necessary to bring the cycle back through egg, hatchery, poults, and then back to that point of layer, and those costs were associated. By our legislation, those are factors that we could not consider in the compensation values. In that regard, we have worked with industry to try to focus on the exact cost of getting the bird to that point on the first cycle, not necessarily the second continuation of that, which led to the commitment to the reality--

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I am sorry, Mr. Evans, but I have to cut you off. The compensation amount was much higher in the past but, in the piece of legislation you are referring to, it was still more than $30. So, that has been changed and the amount has been drastically reduced.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Again, in establishing the values at the higher level it was pointed out to us by the government that in fact some of those areas had exceeded our authority to do so and we were instructed to bring the values back in line with our regulated authorities.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

So, you are telling me that you were not right previously. The previous minister, Mr. Strahl, had mentioned a second phase that would lead to the establishment of a compensation amount that would be more just and fairer.

You agree that the present amount would not be enough for our producers in the case of an avian flu outbreak, if we had to destroy their flocks. The minister had told us that negotiations were going on with industry in order to adjust the amounts.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Again I want to be very clear that when we were talking about the $30 value, it was against the backdrop of the specific crisis of Abbotsford, where factors were taken into account to deal with those pressures. Subsequent to that, we tried to act in a responsive, flexible way. We were advised after the fact that in fact we had exceeded our authorities, and we were instructed, although not to do a pullback of moneys that had been allocated, to bring those values in line with our regulated authorities. Those discussions led to the values that were established last September.

While we recognize it does pose challenges to the industry, as was commented, we have worked with the department to look at secondary phasing of compensation that would address those factors beyond the authorities that we can administer ourselves. As has been pointed out, we've also tried to adjust the approach we take with producers to offset the full value of their costs, including those issues of disposal of materials to an extent that we probably hadn't exercised before. In the event of economic hardship, we are trying everything we can do within our authority to assist the producers and working in an integrated fashion with the department or other programming, with support then going forward in a sustainable way.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

The minister had said that there were some discussions. What is their status? The industry is telling us, Members of Parliament, that nothing is going on. What is your opinion? Do you have the feeling that discussions are going on and that progress is being made?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

No, there's been very good progress with industry in terms of responding to the issue around a dedicated surveillance program in Canada for avian influenza. The discussions on compensation have been going on in parallel with those discussions. We have come to ground with the industry on a surveillance approach that will meet the obligations our trading partners and, I believe, Canadians would expect of our industry in identifying any potential public health risk associated with avian influenza. The compensation issues have been going in parallel with that and with the efforts of the department to assess the viability of AgriRecovery and other programming to assist them in that area while at the same time working with the industry, as was recently demonstrated by the sheep sector in Ontario.

A pilot has been undertaken by Deborah Whale and the group in Ontario to look at a co-insurance policy, which brings into private insurance a capacity for the poultry industry as well. We think the sheep model has significant merit in Canada in terms of both mitigating the impact on the producer and at the same time recognizing both public and private good.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Time has expired.

Go ahead, Mrs. Skelton, please. Finish off the meeting for us.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

On page 32 you have stated that the objective for producers adopting improved food safety practices is 65% by March 31, 2010. I'd like to know what the current percentage is for producers, and whether we should aim for 100% in the long term. As well, is the department looking at this as a marketing tool for producers?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Go ahead, Mr. Marsland.

[Andrew Marsland]

Is this in the CFIA section?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

The 65% target relates to part of the food safety action plan in terms of producer engagement.

[Andrew Marsland]

Sorry, then....

[Dr. Brian Evans]

But the marketing issue becomes one of how we extrapolate....

Mr. Chair, the targets were established in consultation with industry in terms of what was achievable, recognizing that, across the board, when one tries to describe industry as it relates to food safety, it deals with both domestic production and imported production. Therefore, you're dealing with those who are, I would say, primary agricultural-based groups, versus those who deal more in terms of the importers, who see it as a commodity.

These were targets that industry, with government, felt were achievable. There is recognition that in certain aspects of this, government has said to industry that rather than government introducing a regulatory oversight and creating a regulatory burden in some of these areas, government would allow industry to work forward in developing its own quality control programming, which we would then audit and verify against those deliverables. We're trying to work with a timeline and a percentage that industry feels can be met.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

What percentage is it now?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

It varies across sectors, depending on whether you're talking about the registered sector, which would deal with the meat and fish components, or the non-registered sector. Within the registered sector, I would suggest we're much higher; we're probably in the 85% to 90% range. In the non-registered sector, again based on industry capacity, it would range probably from 20% to 60%.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Okay. Should we aim for 100%?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

I think we always aim for 100%, but at the same time, in order to be fair to all, what we want to show is continuous investment, continuous improvement, and continuous participation.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Okay, good.

And marketing...?

[Andrew Marsland]

I'll answer that.

We introduced a program under the APF, the Brand Canada program, which was based on not just logos and things but on selling our fundamental comparable advantage based on our food safety systems, our environmental performance, our quality systems, etc. Clearly, the more we can demonstrate to our trading partners that we've made concrete actions, the better the position we're going to be in, so we're going to work on that and we're going forward in terms of enhancing that Brand Canada campaign.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I want to thank all our witnesses.

I want to make one comment. We have the votes to deal with, but we want to make sure we get a new report with all the corrections in it....

You have a point of order?