Evidence of meeting #83 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was birds.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Chief Executive Officer, Egg Farmers of Canada
We will try to mitigate it. Any time you lose research capacity it has a negative impact.
I also understand there is a lot of competition for resources. Ideally we have continued research, but we will fill the gap.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council
I mentioned that along with Tim's group and the other poultry groups we are part of the Canadian Poultry Research Council. The council did write a letter to the minister outlining some of our concerns. The easy answer is yes, we have some concerns. Like Tim, we are in the midst of trying to figure out how we react and what we're going to do going forward. As I'm vice-chair of NFACC, it includes as we go forward at NFACC, and as you pointed out, as we use science as part of the process to develop the codes, how we are going to get the research science we need.
We are in the midst of trying to figure out what to do about it, but yes, it will have an impact.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Jacqueline and Edouard, we spoke before the meeting. You responded emphatically to something I said. I was quoting from a Library of Parliament document that I have, “Codes of practice remain voluntary and are intended to promote sound management and welfare practices.”
The National Farm Animal Care Council recommends its voluntary national technical guidelines be reviewed every five years. Codes such as those for animal transport appear to have been unrevised for quite some time, I think about 12 years. I'm curious why it takes so long. I'd like you to tell me how many times in the last 12 years they were reviewed and what resulted in the lack of revision. Could you comment on the use of the term “voluntary”? Why does it take so long to revise these codes so they're up to date? Why are they not keeping pace with those in other countries? I've read that New Zealand and Australia are getting rid of gestation cages, that McDonald's, Tim Hortons, Safeway, Wendy's, Burger King, and others want the cessation of gestation cages. Tim talked about the United States moving from battery cages to enriched spaces.
Could you answer those three questions?
General Manager, National Farm Animal Care Council
Do I have his five minutes to do it?
General Manager, National Farm Animal Care Council
All right.
Around the National Farm Animal Care Council table we very purposely have had this conversation about whether codes are voluntary any longer. If you look at the modern codes, codes that have been developed through the National Farm Animal Care Council, you don't see that word. They're called codes of practice and they do contain requirements and recommended practices. Certainly recommended practices are voluntary. The requirements refer to an industry expectation, whereby industry, or the collective that sits around the code development committee, has said this is no longer acceptable and so thou shalt not, but they also can refer to regulatory requirements themselves.
In addition, a number of our provinces are referencing the codes of practice in their provincial animal protection legislation. Manitoba is one example of a province that uses the codes in its animal protection activities. Newfoundland is probably the most recent one that's also done that.
Talking about their being optional in any way, increasingly that's less and less the case. Plus, as both Robin and Tim have pointed out, a number of commodity groups have developed animal care assessment programs, and they are making some of those programs mandatory. They're basing them on their codes and saying you have to follow your code to market your product.
Those are the reasons we say it's not accurate any longer to refer to them as voluntary codes of practice, because efforts are increasingly under way to make them less and less so. The points is that these are a national understanding of what we expect around animal care requirements and recommended practices. To build that common understanding and to make sure that all the different users of the code are using the code in the same way, we have to make sure that everyone understands what's expected and what might be optional in the recommended practices.
Conservative
General Manager, National Farm Animal Care Council
Two more questions are unanswered. Does someone else want to ask them?
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I'll answer them. As my colleagues know, Chair, I have all the answers.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
First of all, thanks for being here.
I'm very glad that there was some discussion about the vested interest farmers have in the care of their animals. That's really important because sometimes this discussion gets polarized immediately, that somehow farmers are against animal welfare when in fact the animals, their livestock, particularly when it comes to birds, are their living. They very much have a vested interest in caring for their birds and livestock.
I do have a question about how your three organizations communicate with the public. For example, I know that the National Farm Animal Care Council exists, but I would bet that the average Canadian doesn't know that. I know many of the details that are contained in the table. For example, moving the birds off the ground reduces the incidence of mites and bone breakage. It removes feces because it just falls through the cage and is taken away for further processing.
When there are organizations or people who are very concerned about animal welfare, they may pick some isolated examples, but they move right into the public realm and they interface with the public on a very emotional level. You've got very well organized groups, and you definitely have communication tools at your disposal. Do you see value in your organizations also communicating directly with the public to counteract some of this?
I think there are two scenarios being painted for the public. One is being painted that somehow farmers aren't caring for their animals properly, and on the other side, there's not much.
Could you comment on that?
Chief Executive Officer, Egg Farmers of Canada
What we have done so far is we've focused more on retailers.
We find on the layer side that we aren't getting a ton of pressure yet from broadly stated consumer groups. We get a lot of pressure from activist groups.
Together, Robin and I often go out and meet with retailers. The presentation I give to them is similar to the one I presented here. I talk about pros and cons, and the potential cost and disease management implications. We see that the retailers have started to move a fairly modest 1% of their production to be sourced from alternative forms of housing. Tim Hortons is an example. They are not necessarily going to free run or free range. We've chosen to engage the retailers more. There is a challenge in engaging directly with the public because, as I said at the beginning, we represent all forms of production and I don't really want to go out and say that birds are cannibalistic. I'll say things to a group like this and to retailers that I'm leery about saying publicly.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
There is, of course, messaging that you have to decide you want to communicate to the consumer.
Activist groups are talking to the consumer. The consumer is talking to the retailer but not necessarily with you. The retailer then makes a huge policy change that actually impacts your farmers, when in fact animal welfare is at the core of what you do, but it's just that it wasn't known, it wasn't defended, and now a big policy change has been driven through by your retailers.
I think plugging into retailers is good, but I'm concerned that the public is not hearing the good animal welfare story we have to tell, particularly here in Canada. Instead, they are hearing activist groups which are using isolated examples.
I think if we juxtaposed a number in terms of how many birds lay eggs in Canada every year against an isolated incident that is perhaps used by a group to promote what it is they want to get across, it would be way out of whack.
We have a good animal welfare story to tell, but I think it has to get out to the public because it's the public that they're targeting. Working with retailers is good, but I'm also encouraging working with the public.
Robin, could I quickly hear from you on that?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council
I don't want to take too much time because I think you also need to hear from the NFACC folks.
From my organization's point of view, our outreach is to our customers, whether it be to Egg Farmers of Canada on the egg side, or on the chicken and turkey side, we talk to the customers. We are also all members of NFACC, and one of the reasons we are members is to do the things we talked about: produce the codes, make sure we're consultative, make sure we're collaborative, but also to start working on messaging from an animal welfare perspective.
That's my lead in. Edouard, it's your turn.
Chair, National Farm Animal Care Council
Thank you for that question. Certainly the NFACC at our level, we don't talk about specific commodities. That's up to the commodities. What we can promote and provide them as a tool is our credible system to review codes and maybe eventually benchmark the uptake and compliance with them.
Certainly because a code is credible—just look at the stakeholders around the table—and it's consensus based, I think we have a nice story to tell. I also have to tell you that we work on a very tiny budget.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thank you very much for being here. I have a few specific questions. Ms. Wepruk, did you mention that the equine code will be reviewed in early June.
General Manager, National Farm Animal Care Council
It's going to be released. It's had its public comment period. It will be final and released in June.
General Manager, National Farm Animal Care Council
Yes. It's from 1999, I believe.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
The reason I'm asking is there are a lot of people concerned about the state of horses bound for slaughter and some of the conditions. It's good we're going to have the code.
I have another question in regard to your organization, which I must say is pretty impressive with lots of members. Do the three SPCA members represent all of the SPCA organizations? Are they in Canada? Do you have any contact with other animal welfare organizations? Do you communicate with them even though they may not be part of your organization?
General Manager, National Farm Animal Care Council
We have a coalition of SPCAs that are responsible for animal welfare enforcement in Canada. Collectively those three have come together to share a membership on NFACC. Certainly it's within their realm to expand their coalition if they so desire, but at this point it's those three.
Our primary organization we work with is the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. One of the things when we're talking about animal welfare, we're talking about how farmers care for their animals, yet there's a public perception that they don't. Everyone looks at animal welfare very differently. As I said, it depends on where you're coming from, your experiences, what you value in terms of animal welfare. Animal welfare is a multi-faceted issue. It involves animal health. It involves—
