Thank you. I'm not exactly sure where it was lost, but I'll begin at the second paragraph on that page.
Further to the suite of BRM programs, we'll use an example in the poultry sector to illustrate our point. Poultry farmers do not receive sufficient compensation through the Health of Animals Act regulations in the event that their flocks are ordered destroyed due to animal disease. The new maximums are insufficient for some of our commodities. This fact was acknowledged by the federal government in the regulatory impact analysis statement that accompanied the amendments. In the past, the industry was told that a phase two compensation program was forthcoming and that the gaps in coverage would be addressed. Phase two, however, continues to elude us. We have recently been told that the only compensation that will be available to farmers is what currently exists through the BRM suite and the Health of Animals Act, despite the government's own acknowledgement of the current gap in coverage.
In addition to disease outbreaks, cleaning and disinfecting a barn that has housed disease is critical in preventing further spread of the disease. It's also a prerequisite for renewing Canada's disease-free status for trade purposes. Both are for the public good and the industry's benefit. However, current regulations place the responsibility for cleaning and disinfection entirely on the affected farmer. Keep in mind that this is after the farmer has lost his or her livestock and any potential income from that livestock because of disease. This cannot be the basis of a strong disease eradication policy.
It's urgent that the federal government address the shortcomings on matters such as cleaning and disinfecting. A matter as important as this to the Canadian public should not have to be shouldered by an individual farmer or farmers, and this is only one example. Farmers are also being asked to fund other farm programs, such as on-farm food safety, bio-security, and traceability, all of which provide public good and industry benefit. These concerns are not specific to poultry, dairy, and eggs, but exist across all of agriculture.
Finding solutions is even more critical when we look at the breadth of issues confronting Canadian farmers. A farmed animal health pillar is also required. Many of these issues are touched on in the statement of principles for the development of a national farm animal health strategy, to which all of our organizations were signatories. We appreciate the committee's support for the farmed animal organizations' request that the development of such a strategy be part of the new policy framework. We acknowledge your priority for this, Mr. Chairman, by highlighting it in your June media release.
While the government's response to the committee acknowledged the importance of a national animal health strategy with regard to achieving the policy outcomes of Growing Forward, we're disappointed that it was not recognized as a necessary pillar of the next generation of agriculture and agrifood policy. We will continue to encourage the government to recognize the breadth of sectors that came together on their own to reach a consensus agreement on the principles for a national farmed animal health strategy.
These programs are being implemented on farms, and that is why we have no problem, as members of CFA, in supporting the federation's “Grown in Canada” proposal—which is also referenced in the committee's recommendation 9—regarding labelling and the “Product of Canada” designation. The “Grown in Canada” label will allow Canadian farmers to benefit from the significant investments they have made in these on-farm programs. Related to this, we think the government needs to improve its enforcement on truth-in-labelling legislation and regulations.
Dairy, poultry, and egg farmers are pleased to have been part of the process in developing Canada's current ag policy. Although we still have much to achieve and clarify on gaps in coverage for disaster programming and the development of a comprehensive government policy on a farmed animal health strategy, significant progress has been made in the acknowledgement of supply management as a business risk management program.
We look forward to continuing our work with the government on the development of agriculture policy, and would like to thank the committee for hearing our concerns.