Agriculture Committee on May 28th, 2013

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I'm sorry, I'm going to be rude and stop you, but thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Lambert and Mr. Horel.

As you know, all of us here support the supply-managed sector; all political parties certainly do. You were talking about the structure in regard to animal welfare, and there seems to be a very strong infrastructure to ensure various policies take place. If somehow supply management were to be modified or if we were to get rid of supply management in Canada, would that have an impact on what you just spoke about today?

If you could, please briefly answer that.

[Tim Lambert]

It would absolutely have a very significant and damaging impact. The reality for supply-managed commodities is that because they're profitable for producers, they have the money to reinvest. They're quite willing to invest in on-farm food safety and animal welfare. We sponsor the research chair at the University of Guelph with Dr. Widowski. If we didn't have the resources to do that it wouldn't happen.

Another thing about supply management is it has existed for 40-some years now. We regard it very strongly as a social contract with Canadians. We don't wait to be legislated or pushed. If there's an issue we see, we take it very seriously and then take steps to address it.

I'll give a quick example on traceability. We've already moved ahead to be able to trace our product fully because we think it's the right thing to do, not because it's legislated.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

The reason I ask is there is an attack on supply management, whether it's from the taxpayers federation or independent business, I see articles in the little community newspapers in my riding. I'm wondering if we've made a strong effort to really point out that it's not just about farmers, it's about safety, it's about our whole food chain. That's really crucial for all of us to get behind.

[K. Robin Horel]

As I outlined at the start of my presentation, one of the things that my members—chicken processors, turkey processors, hatcheries, egg graders, egg processors—have in common is that they all buy their most significant raw material from supply-managed farmers. We support the system.

Over and above everything that Tim said, which is absolutely true, the other point I was trying to make is that in this case, supply management helps facilitate the animal welfare system. We know exactly where all the farms are. We know exactly how much production there is, whether it's hens or turkeys. There are rules in place. There are inspectors from the agencies that go out to do food safety. They can easily do animal welfare. It's why animal care assessment programs work so well.

Does that mean that pork, beef, sheep, and all those things will not have good animal welfare? No. But does that help in the supply-managed areas, the poultry area? Does that facilitate it? Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming.

It was interesting to note that you're working on those codes of practice, so you can all probably jump in on all of the questions I will have on them. I can't recall now but I think it was Robin who said that they're starting to review the codes of practice and that this is the first time in 10 years. Is that correct?

[K. Robin Horel]

Yes, but what I was trying to suggest was that 10 years is pretty quick, and in fact, Jackie and the group are reviewing a lot of codes that are a lot older. Our codes were, up until this new NFACC process, the most recent ones we had. They were from 2003. In 10 years to start going through all the science.... It will be a two-year process to get through the codes, and in eight years we'll be doing it again. It is pretty quick.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

It's just that when you said 10 years, that seemed to me to be a rather long period of time.

[K. Robin Horel]

Sorry, I didn't make my point very well.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

What about other countries and the European Union in terms of their practices? Is 10 years standard?

[K. Robin Horel]

I don't know.

Do you know, Jackie?

[Edouard Asnong]

My understanding is that it's an ongoing process in Europe. Every second year, they're voting changes or adapting the emphasis. Castration is the main topic now. It goes on and on.

[K. Robin Horel]

It's my understanding, and this is anecdotal from my understanding of the industry and internationally, that no one else has this sort of rigorous stem-to-stern process. Something may change with regard to castration in pigs or whatever is going on. It's stuff that doesn't have feathers, so I don't understand it. It's piecemeal, let's say.

In Canada we sit down; we get all the stakeholders; we get all the science; we look at the issues; we decide what needs to be done, and then we do it. We do the entire code, stem to stern. It's not piecemeal.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Tim.

[Tim Lambert]

Specifically in the layer sector, what happened in Europe was the science got subjugated to the emotion and it went directly from the activists into the political process. Legislation was passed throughout the European Union starting in countries like Holland and migrating to Germany, Austria and others and then gradually they moved it to this cage ban. It would take me a long time to articulate the turmoil that happened because it wasn't, as Robin, Jackie and Edouard have all said, a systematic organized structure that involved reviewing the science, having a group like NFACC work together, working with industry, and working as a partnership to move it ahead. They went at it, and it was a rodeo, and not a good one like the Calgary Stampede.

[K. Robin Horel]

From my point of view, something that Frank said early on about not science-informed policy but policy-informed science: I think that's what happened in Europe.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I agree. I think science has to be the basis of all of the determination. I'm making some assumptions that these codes will be an ongoing process and you might do one or two a year, whatever it happens to be, in order to get there.

[Jacqueline Wepruk]

It's important to recognize that our codes are developed through project funding. Project funding is what it is. You have to put forward a project application. Our current project funding will end in December 2013. The two poultry codes will be in suspense while we wait to see whether in Growing Forward 2 the next round of project funding is accepted. We do not have a sustained code development process. We have a fantastic process that enables producers, animal welfare advocates, veterinarians, and governments—those who are using those codes—to have a voice as to what needs to be in those codes, but we don't have a sustained system beyond these five-year blocks of applying for project funding and then always having to make the argument that these aren't ongoing operational kinds of things.

It's always a bit of a balance to try to sustain that code process and then make sure we are reviewing them every five years and updating them every 10, that they are meeting market expectations, and that they are making the best use of the latest science.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Is the sole funding coming from government or the organizations?

[Jacqueline Wepruk]

The organizations contribute. We keep track of probably the tip of the iceberg of what the organizations contribute in terms of human resources. In the last count we had more than 20,000 hours of human resources going into the code development. There's cash that comes from government. I have to say that people who sit around that code development committee table.... You're going to be hearing from Tina on Thursday. She sits on three scientist committees. We have code fatigue right now, updating eight codes at once with individuals who—quite frankly, we can be really proud of the people who sit at those code committee tables because they have dedicated an enormous amount of time. There are people who are taking cancer treatments and still showing up at code committee meetings. It's quite remarkable the dedication of the people who put their time and effort into this, as well as their professional energy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to stop you there. I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Madame Brosseau.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our witnesses.

This is a really interesting and important subject. Five minutes is not enough. I have so many questions, and papers scattered everywhere.

In my riding, in Mauricie, there is a farm that belongs to Jocelyn Brodeur and Christian Poirier. The business is called Porcs Mauricie and is located in Saint-Alexis-des-Monts. The owners realized that their animals' well-being was important to them, and they renovated their facilities accordingly. They are very proud of them, and I am proud for them. I think that that is the direction the pork industry is going to take. It is a very important industry in Quebec.

In Quebec and in my riding there is a lot of pork. A lot of farmers are getting to the point where they have to renovate their buildings.

In what direction are they going? Is there still construction being done for the gestation crates nowadays, or are they moving towards group housing?

[Edouard Asnong]

I don't know the answer to that question.

I think they are smart enough that they go to loose housing. Those who I'm hearing from are Ghislain—he is from the side of Sherbrooke and maybe he's the only one building group housing. I know that the Québec fédération is very supportive to move in that direction of loose housing.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

What are the benefits and consequences of group housing? Are there any benefits of group housing? What are the benefits of group housing as compared to sow—

[Edouard Asnong]

The science report says that if it's well managed it can be more productive than gestation cells, but it has to be well managed. Producers are not used to managing sows in groups. They are used to managing and working with gestation cells. Actually, I have to admit producers do not see many benefits to it.