[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 28, 1996
.0904 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the committee meeting this morning.
Just to fill you in, we're going to touch on a couple of subjects this morning, and the first part of the meeting will be an information session with an opportunity to ask some questions on the very topical subject of the BSE. I certainly hope that doesn't take up a large portion of our meeting. Then we will move on to Dr. Olson and his team and move on from there to discussions on cost recovery and have a presentation again from Dr. Olson on that.
Dr. Olson is the Assistant Deputy Minister, Food Production and Inspection Branch. If you would introduce those who are with you at the table at the present time, we will enter into the first topic this morning. Welcome.
.0905
Dr. Art Olson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Food Production and Inspection Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
I'm very pleased to have with me this morning Dr. Graham Clarke, chief of the red meat inspection programs, Meat and Poultry Products Division, Food Inspection Directorate, Food Production and Inspection Branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Dr. Jamie Hockin is the director of the field epidemiology training plan, Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, Health Protection Branch, Health Canada. Dr. Ron Rogers is the acting chief of epidemiology in the Disease Control Section, Animal Health Division, Food Production and Inspection Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments I'd like to make, if I may.
The Chairman: Go ahead.
Dr. Olson: I'd also like to ask Dr. Clarke to follow on from my comments.
We thought it would be useful to brief you on the issue, because over the past week or so, we've seen a rapid and somewhat panic-stricken reaction to statements made in the United Kingdom regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which is BSE or mad cow disease.
What in the past has been an animal health issue now seems to have developed potential human health implications. There is still a great deal that's unknown about this disease, the way it is transmitted, and what, if any, real threat it poses to human health.
As a result, this problem lends itself to speculation and exploitation by the media. It also means that unsubstantiated statements and rumours are rife. This can lead to further reductions in public confidence in the ability of government and science to handle the situation. It obviously makes a serious situation worse.
This is what has happened in the United Kingdom. We would hope to ensure that an experience such as this is not repeated in Canada.
As a minister mentioned at a standing committee a night or so ago, Canada took extreme actions in 1993. It took more actions, in fact, than any other country that has had an animal diagnosed with this condition on its soil. It's impossible to say at this time whether further action may be necessary in the future, but I would like to assure you that everything possible will be done to ensure that this disease does not gain a foothold in this country.
What we hope to achieve this morning is a briefing on what we know with regards to the nature of the disease and the current situation, and provide an overview of what we're doing in carrying out our responsibilities. We are very aware of the public concerns from health, safety and ethical points of view, as well as the trade and economic complications and implications of the current debate.
With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Dr. Graham Clarke to give you a more in-depth description of the current problem and actions that have been and are being taken regarding it. We would be then pleased to answer any questions from your committee.
The Chairman: Dr. Clarke.
Dr. Graham Clarke (Chief, Red Meat Inspection Programs, Meat and Poultry Products Division, Food Inspection Directorate, Food Production and Inspection Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to give you an overview of some of the common questions we get, to which Dr. Olson has alluded.
First, what is mad cow disease, commonly known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE? This does pose a major potential threat to the cattle industry. It is a slowly progressive and fatal nervous disorder of cattle, with a long incubation period measured in some years. It has claimed approximately 160,000 animals to date in Britain since it was first diagnosed in 1986. That, for your information, is about 420 times the number of all the other cases in the world put together.
The reason it's known as mad cow disease is because some of the symptoms that occur in the later stages of the disease involve coordination and behavioural changes. It can be spread to cattle through feeds containing animal protein contaminated with the infectious agent that is thought to produce the disease. This agent is not a bacterium, it's not a virus, but a protein known as a prion.
BSE occurs in cattle, but diseases of this type, which are commonly grouped as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, do occur in other mammals at very low rates.
What was it that Canada did in 1993, and why was it done? Canada has had one case of this condition diagnosed, which was in Alberta in a cow imported from the United Kingdom in 1993. As a result of that case, the department destroyed the entire herd containing the BSE-infected cow and removed all cattle imported from the United Kingdom to Canada since 1982.
.0910
Following this single case in Alberta, a surveillance program has been implemented whereby brain tissue from any adult cattle found negative on tests for rabies is subject to laboratory examination for BSE.
Further, to prevent the possible introduction of BSE into Canada, the following measures have also been taken. No sort of facility in Great Britain has ever been approved by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to export beef to Canada.
We've taken strong measures to prevent the entry of BSE from other countries by prohibiting the importation of fresh or frozen beef by-products from any country with a reported case of BSE. We prohibited the entry of live ruminants from any country considered to be BSE-infected. We prohibited the importation of bone and meat meals from BSE-infected countries. We have now suspended the importation of all ruminant semen and embryos from the United Kingdom.
What is CJD, the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which is in humans? Is it transmissible to humans through eating meat? CJD is a progressive degenerative disease that affects the central nervous system of people. It belongs to the same group of neurological diseases as the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, such as scrapie in sheep and BSE in cattle.
The latest problems arose through an announcement on March 20, 1996, by the United Kingdom's secretary of state for health that recent studies of people affected with CJD in the U.K. have revealed a new pattern of the disease that is different from any previously recognized pattern.
Although there is no direct proof of a link to beef consumption, the committee responsible for the investigation, which was an independent committee working on behalf of the government, concluded that this new pattern, which has affected 10 persons under the age of 42, may have been caused by the consumption of United Kingdom beef or beef products before the institution of BSE control measures in 1989. The consumption of dairy products is considered safe.
I'll just give you an overview of the past and current situation in the United Kingdom regarding this disease. BSE has been an ongoing problem in the United Kingdom since it was first diagnosed in 1986. As I say, there have been more than 160,000 cases in that country.
The issue has come close to a crisis before, most noticeably in December 1995, when some scientists, most notably Dr. Lacey, predicted a public health disaster from eating contaminated beef. This resulted in some school boards in Britain removing beef from the school lunch menu. At that time, as at a previous time, the British government downplayed the situation and indicated that there was no scientific evidence that beef was anything but safe to eat.
The situation subsequently deteriorated when, after 10 years of categorical statements that this disease was not transmissible to humans, a possible link was announced on March 20, 1996, by a committee of independent scientists advising the government in the United Kingdom.
This has subsequently set off a chain of events in the last week that has resulted in what appears to be a total loss of domestic and international consumer confidence in the safety of British beef and by-products. It has culminated in the European Union demanding, and now implementing, a worldwide ban. All major fast food chains have removed beef products, such as hamburger, from their menus until supplies of beef from foreign countries can be brought in.
At present, the British government is considering the limited slaughter of older cattle, which are those at most risk from this disease due to the long incubation period. The slaughter of the entire 11 million cattle in the national herd has been discounted at present, but it remains to be seen whether public confidence can be restored by the limited-slaughter policy currently under consideration.
The cost of a major slaughter campaign, if carried out, has been estimated at up to $30 billion. This crisis is being characterized by some as the biggest post-war socio-economic crisis to occur in the United Kingdom.
In Canada there has obviously been concern over this crisis in Britain. I would just like to tell you what Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Health Canada are doing at present to handle the situation.
First, in our view, the media in Canada have been very responsible in their reporting of this crisis. To the best of our knowledge, the reporting has been balanced, which is very creditable, especially in a situation in which rumours and unsubstantiated information are widespread.
.0915
Before this latest announcement from the United Kingdom, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Health Canada were in the process of again reviewing all current measures being taken against BSE and all the most recent research to ensure that our policies to prevent the introduction of this disease are as effective as they can be. Now that a possible link to human health has been alluded to, these measures will be reviewed with that consideration in mind.
Our policy to date has been to provide as much accurate information to members of the public as we can on an ongoing basis to avoid any unnecessary concern on their parts. Through recent contacts with the media and the public, it is recognized that there is great concern resulting from this issue. We are doing our very best to allay these concerns and answer their questions as accurately as we are able to.
The situation is changing on a daily basis. We're monitoring it and we're acting accordingly in consultation with other countries. We are currently awaiting some specific details of the European ban on British beef and by-products and the interpretation of the wording of that ban, as well as results of discussion that occurred in Cuba yesterday at the Office international des épizooties, the international organization on animal health, at which we had a delegate.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Dr. Clarke.
We will begin the rounds of questions and comments with the official opposition, then the Reform Party and the government.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Thank you, Dr. Olson, and I wish to welcome your team to the Agriculture and Agri-food Committee.
I remember Tuesday evening hearing the Minister praise one of his senior officials - Mr. Clark or yourself - who made the decision to slaughter the cows in December 1993. Was it you, Dr. Olson, that the Minister of Agriculture congratulated for having taken this initiative, or was it Dr. Clarke?
[English]
Dr. Olson: I believe the minister was pointing at me, Mr. Chrétien. I think in fairness, though, he was pointing at a very large team of people who made a very difficult decision in 1993.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Thank you. Whatever the case may be, we are carefully monitoring what is happening with mad cow disease, BSE, in Great Britain and we see that some are openly pointing to the former administration of the Iron Lady, Mrs. Thatcher, who wanted to present balanced budgets. However, they have also undergone recession and, in order to do this, they had to make cuts to inspections, veterinary visits, and so on, such that a widespread permissiveness crept into agriculture in Great Britain and today there is an incidence of BSE 420 times greater than in Switzerland, which is the second country in Europe where mad cow disease has been reported. Admittedly, 161,500 cases since 1990 is a lot.
It is nevertheless surprising that Great Britain, or rather the media should decide today to alert the public when it has already been discovered that 10 persons between the ages of five months and 27 years have apparently died from this disease transmitted by cows to humans.
We are obviously privileged in Canada. The opposition parties, the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois, did not raise this question in the House of Commons at any time so as not to kindle passions and create a psychosis among consumers. If I remember correctly, there was only one question by a government member to his Minister, but, as you are aware, these are often questions prepared in advance in order to send a message.
Whatever the case may be, I wish to commend all the opposition members who, rightly or wrongly, did not seek to inflame passions, as we can see is the case in Europe. The cost of this is estimated at $30 billion, but if the entire herd must be destroyed, cattle, dairy cows and beef cows, and then recreated, there is no telling how many billions of dollars that would cost. Of course, it could exceed $50 or $100 billion. Then animals would have to be imported for many years and bought at high prices.
.0920
What scares me in reading the Estimates is seeing that some $30 million will be cut in inspections by merging Health Canada, Agriculture Canada and Industry Canada. We must definitely not play Mrs. Thatcher's game and find ourselves in 20 years with herds of mad cows in Canada.
My other fear concerns sheep. In Europe, in Great Britain in particular, it appears that there are 30 or 40 million sheep and that their carcasses - as you know, nothing is thrown away any more, the only possible loss being sheep or livestock lungs - go into the meal used to feed livestock. It appears that scrapie in sheep could potentially be transmitted.
Another version has it that the disease could be transmitted through the food chain. Consequently, a pasture in which sheep may have grazed could, a year or two later - you even mentioned an incubation period that is not measured in months, but rather years, seven, eight or 10 years - contain sheep manure, saliva, lambing remains and so on that could potentially be transmitted to other livestock, which could then transmit the disease to human beings. This is another one of my fears.
I'm going to put a fairly specific question to you, Dr. Olson or Dr. Clarke. In the space of 15 minutes, I found, just in Quebec, about 10 cases in which flocks of sheep had to be destroyed because of cases of scrapie in the flock. If I was able in 15 minutes to find about 10 sheep farm owners who had to destroy sheep, I believe there must be hundreds of cases in Canada in which sheep have had to be slaughtered because of scrapie.
You have reassured us about BSE. I didn't expect anything else, of course. If the senior officials of the Department of Agriculture had alarmed us this morning, the situation would be worse than in Great Britain and Europe. I await your comments, Dr. Clarke or Dr. Olson.
[English]
The Chairman: Dr. Olson, do you want to start?
Dr. Olson: I think the onset of the problem in the United Kingdom probably predated any of the budget adjustments that were made in the United Kingdom and probably reflected a change in feeding practices that may in fact go back to the availability of fishmeal and the shift in ocean currents in the 1970s that resulted in the phenomenon called El Niño, which resulted in a reduction in the amount of fishmeal available as a protein source.
There are a variety of protein sources used in feeding animals. Fishmeal, animal by-products, canola meal, soybean meal and so on are used in that kind of environment and are dependent to some extent on price. I think the issue started with a shift in the United Kingdom sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s.
My understanding - and Dr. Clarke can correct me - is that at the same time there was a change in the rendering practices that were carried out or approved by the United Kingdom government, which resulted in probably not the most complete treatment of those animal by-products. I see them as separate from the shift in the direction of government that you referred to.
.0925
I do agree that in this particular issue, as Dr. Clarke has indicated, the media and all members of Parliament have shown a great deal of responsibility in terms of their public comments. You are to be commended for that, because this situation is very difficult. As you see in the House of Commons in London, the consequences of the debate that is currently going on there is really quite frightening - I guess that would be the appropriate word - in terms of the economy of that country.
In terms of the huge population of sheep in the United Kingdom, I've been told - andDr. Rogers or Dr. Clarke again might wish to comment - there are estimates that one in three of the sheep in the United Kingdom may in fact be infected with scrapie. Canada has a scrapie policy. It's an identified disease. Where we find scrapie, we move into a quarantine mode and depopulate the herd. The United Kingdom practice, as I understand it, Dr. Clarke, is to remove the affected animals. So there is a significant difference in the approach.
Canada's practice stems, I would say, basically from experience with foot and mouth disease just after the Second World War and the control of brucellosis. The only solution to that particular disease in terms of bringing it under control in Canada was to depopulate entire herds. The same practice has been found as the only effective control in terms of the management of tuberculosis within our domestic livestock population, and we've applied the same rigour in terms of the control of scrapie. For that reason, we have the rather special advantage of having a small or almost insignificant reservoir of the infectious agent within the country. I think that is a very large part of why we can say that Canada is free of mad cow disease.
The Chairman: Dr. Rogers.
Dr. Ron Rogers (Acting Chief, Epidemiology, Disease Control Section, Animal Health Division, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): I'd like to make a point of clarification. In the United Kingdom, scrapie was made a reportable disease only a couple of years ago, whereas in Canada we've had this as a reportable disease since 1945 and have had a control program.
I think you also alluded to the fact that there is a number of flocks in Quebec that have been identified with scrapie. For your information, this year in Canada we've only had one newly identified flock in Ontario, none in Quebec. For the past 10 years, in total in Canada in terms of newly identified flocks, there's been 53 for Canada all told. In Quebec, our statistics show that we've had 14 newly identified flocks come down with scrapie diagnosed in them.
Some of the confusion over scrapie in Quebec comes through our monitoring program, because where a flock has been identified with scrapie, we do tracing and we go to other flocks to find out if they purchased from these flocks and try also to identify and order destroyed these animals.
As for the public health concern around the spread of this disease by the carcasses going into rendering or going into the food chain, I can tell you that our policy is that a clinical animal has to be buried or incinerated if there is a risk of exposure. The animals may be licensed to an abattoir where the abattoir provides separation facilities for the offal so that it's not mixed in with ruminant offal. It has to be disposed of.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Mr. Chairman...
[English]
The Chairman: Very short. Your time has gone.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: We didn't speak about the food chain in a pasture where first sheep, then livestock were raised. Can there be a danger of contamination?
.0930
[English]
Dr. Rogers: The agent that causes this disease is known to survive for very long periods of time in soil. However, the amount of infective agent that could cause the disease is believed not to exist. Some of it is destroyed with time and heat and other factors.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Thank you, Dr. Olson and your assistants, for coming before the committee. I too want to express appreciation for the way you've handled this situation. I know from talking to people in the industry, the actual producers and their organizations, that they're also very concerned and have been very cooperative. I think when we're handing out the commendations they not only go to you and your staff but to the livestock producers themselves, who have been most cooperative in keeping BSE out of Canada.
First of all, because you are professional people, I would like to know whether you believe there is a connection between BSE and CJD. I'm using the initials because I'm not very good at pronouncing these. I don't know if you can give me a yes or a no or an I don't know. I don't want a long technical answer, but if you don't know, do you feel there's sufficient evidence to say that there's very likely a possibility that there could be a connection?
Dr. Olson: Therein lies enough of the problem, but I'll ask Dr. Hockin to respond.
Dr. J. Hockin (Director, Field Epidemiology Training Plan, Department of Health): I guess the answer is that we don't know, and I'll give you the short reasons that we don't know, at least with respect to BSE and human health.
This has been the subject of a lot of good scientific investigation in the United Kingdom. In order to not miss the possible association, in the United Kingdom they established a very active surveillance program for people with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. It's as a result of that very active program that the surveillance unit identified ten people who had a different pattern of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease over the last two to two and a half years.
They had collected a lot of information. They did a number of pathology studies on people who had died in order to identify known causes or associations with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, most specifically any genetic predisposition. They drew a blank on all of those studies, but they still didn't have any direct evidence or proof of a link with the disease. Because BSE was such a big issue, they felt it was only prudent and very reasonable to say that was at the top of the list of suspects. That's what led to the announcement in their House of Commons.
This has only increased the level of scientific inquiry into such an association with a view in the U.K. to being able to identify as soon as possible evidence for or against such an association.
Mr. Hermanson: How long is the incubation period?
Dr. Hockin: The incubation period for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease?
Mr. Hermanson: No, for BSE.
Dr. Rogers: The mean time is believed to be between four and five years for most animals, but there's quite a range, from as low as two years to over ten years.
Mr. Hermanson: Is our Department of Agriculture then researching European, particularly U.K. and Irish, live imports from years and years back? May we have imported beef in the early 1980s that was infected? Is that a concern to your department?
Dr. Rogers: I can comment on the live animals. All of those animals were traced and either ordered destroyed or returned to the United Kingdom after the 1993 incident here in Canada.
.0935
Mr. Hermanson: That was for all live animals in Canada?
Dr. Rogers: Yes.
Mr. Hermanson: What about their offspring? Is there a chance it could be passed from the cow to the calf?
Dr. Rogers: We use the analogy of scrapie, and in scrapie we know the females can possibly transmit the disease. Even though there is no science around the transmission of BSE to offspring, we took the precaution of having any first-generation offspring from animals that had possibly come from BSE-infected herds in the United Kingdom ordered destroyed as well.
Mr. Hermanson: What about animals that come through a third country, say an animal that went from the U.K. to another European country or to Australia and then came into Canada? Is that possible?
Dr. Rogers: The certification is such that they state their country of birth. To my knowledge, all of these animals are registered animals and have papers to prove their origin before they're certified.
Mr. Hermanson: We don't import any European beef at the current time, but I understand there was supposed to be 5,000 tonnes of European beef allowed into Canada. I believe July was when they could begin to fill this quota. Are you recommending to the minister that this 5,000 tonnes of European beef now not be allowed to enter Canada in light of this incident in the United Kingdom?
Dr. Clarke: In order for that quota to be recognized, they would have to have slaughter plants approved for export to Canada. There are no slaughter plants currently approved for import into Canada, therefore that's not a practical issue. This cannot happen because of that.
Mr. Hermanson: So no European beef can come into Canada even after the July date when they are allowed to send us 5,000 tonnes?
Dr. Clarke: Correct. In order for any country to export fresh or frozen beef to Canada, they have to go through a number of technical hurdles. The first one is the examination of the animal health status of that country. This recent incident is certainly going to affect our policy around that in some way or other.
Mr. Hermanson: Why is the industry so concerned about it? Even before the BSE uproar in the U.K., the industry was coming to me and saying they were extremely concerned for two reasons: first, that there may be BSE-infected beef coming into Canada, and second, that subsidized beef would be coming into Canada. They expected this was going to begin to happen in July.
Dr. Clarke: That is a concern they had, and it was pointed out to them in fact that for technical reasons alone this was not a possibility without that country applying and going through all the different elements they have to go through in order to export. This in fact would not be a real issue as such. The industry is aware of that, and as I said, this recent problem in the last week will definitely require us to make sure that this is reviewed before -
Mr. Hermanson: This is all of the European Union, not just the U.K.? We're talking about France, Germany, and Ireland?
Dr. Clarke: Right now there are no beef plants licensed for export to Canada.
Mr. Hermanson: There are none in Europe, period?
Dr. Clarke: Well, there is one in Switzerland and one in France. They don't export, and because it's fresh beef and those are countries that have BSE, they're ineligible to export for that reason. So the answer to your question is no.
Mr. Hermanson: A lot of this problem may have stemmed from the bonemeal and meat meal. Is that product manufactured within Canada or is it imported from anywhere in the world into Canada?
Dr. Clarke: Some meat meal does come into Canada from certain countries, and it is manufactured in Canada. It is not allowed to be imported from any country with BSE.
Mr. Hermanson: In light of the situation with the sheep, are we sure that's a good practice? Might we review that and not allow that any longer?
Dr. Clarke: The rendering industry is very responsible with respect to sheep. No adult sheep are permitted in the rendering industry, under a voluntary ban. As Dr. Rogers pointed out, scrapie is a reportable disease, which means that none of those sheep can go into the rendering process in the first place.
Also, the actual procedures used in rendering plants in Canada are very different from those used in Britain at the time it was hypothesized - and it still is a hypothesis, although widely held - that this disease and BSE occurred through the feeding of contaminated sheep and arose from scrapie. As I said, it's a hypothesis, and in fact some people are starting to question whether this latest information is accurate or not. There's some debate around that.
Mr. Hermanson: So you're saying the bonemeal may not be an issue at all. That may not be a source of BSE.
.0940
Dr. Clarke: The hypothesis that BSE definitely came from scrapie has been questioned in Britain, but it still is a widely held hypothesis. Clearly, unless you have a disease in the country - which we have taken great steps to ensure we do not have - recycling it is obviously impossible because it's not in the process in the first place.
The temperatures and rendering and so on are such that they would sterilize the material, although it's true that prion diseases are very difficult to completely remove. But there is a dilution factor. Risk analysis has been done to recognize that beef processes are safe. And the absence of the disease, of course, mitigates the risk. However, I think these will be reviewed in light of the current situation, as will all procedures regarding BSE.
Mr. Hermanson: This situation seems to have been handled very badly in Britain, at least from our viewpoint. It looks like a disaster that's getting worse instead of better. I don't know how you feel about it.
If something like this were to happen in Canada - I don't anticipate it but we have to be prepared for anything. If there were a similar challenge or charge made about the livestock industry or any other aspect of the food industry, does your department have a plan? Do you have a procedure in place so that you would know how to handle this type of situation and provide maximum protection for Canadian citizens as far as their health is concerned and also be fair to industry and have their best interests at heart?
Dr. Olson: I can answer that, Mr. Chairman. We've got a good working relationship with the Canadian livestock industry. We have a series of processes in place to ensure that consultation is continuing at a level of detail that ensures those kinds of concerns would be raised. We work very closely with the processing industry as well. With the shift in responsibilities that we have in terms of economic fraud and consumer protection, we are very much aware of those responsibilities at the same time.
In the sense of how we would respond to a foreign animal disease, sometimes you learn from problems. This country learned very well from the foot and mouth disease scare in the early 1950s. I'm told that in current dollars that would have been a billion-dollar loss to Canada. As a result, we have a series of processes in place to ensure that our people are positioned to handle this kind of an event.
I think the training, the simulations, the cooperation with other countries, the networking and the international structures we've created are all very much part of ensuring that we're able to respond as we did in 1993 and as we've had to do, for instance, for a horse disease this past summer. I think we're well-positioned to managed that. We intend to maintain that. That's a very significant priority from both an animal health and human health point of view and an economic point of view. I'm comfortable in saying we have that capability in place.
Mr. Chairman, this is perhaps not the time for an advertisement, but we know we're going to be facing even more complex problems in the future and I think most of you would be aware that we, with Health Canada, are in the process of constructing a major containment facility in Winnipeg for animal and human health diseases. I have some information with me, if that would be useful to your committee. There are an awful lot of problems that affect animals and humans, and with the complexity of some of them that are coming upon us, we want to ensure that we also have that next generation capability.
The characteristic of animal health and human health programs in Canada is that we have planned ahead. The new laboratory in Winnipeg is an example of that. I hope I've answered your question, sir.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter (Malpeque): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, gentlemen.
.0945
Mr. Olson, in your response to a question from Mr. Hermanson you indicated that we've learned from the problems of foot and mouth disease. Spinning off from a question Mr. Chrétien raised, I really seriously think we also have to learn from the problem England is having. I've been reading the European press and I just can't believe what those farmers are going through in Europe in terms of the situation they find themselves in. We do not ever want to find ourselves in that position.
I know you responded to the question in terms of deficit reduction in the Thatcher era. There is another side to that as well, which is the economic pressure that farmers face in terms of deficit reduction and cost recovery, etc. I'm a farmer and I know we cut every corner we can cut, sometimes to our own detriment if we're really facing heavy financial pressure.
I wonder if you have any information in terms of the European experience in that area of government cutbacks that you could provide with us - not today but at some future date. That might be useful to us in terms of providing some of that material to the number crunchers at Treasury Board. They have absolutely no understanding of what happens down here on the ground in terms of their deficit reduction exercise and imposing those cost burdens on somebody else.
I think we need to learn from that experience, so anything you have in that area would be certainly appreciated. I think in terms of your decision-making you certainly erred on the side of caution. What I'll be saying to Treasury Board is that they certainly damn well better err on the side of caution too when it comes to the cost burdens being imposed on the farm community.
Getting to the nub of the issue, in the case in Alberta you destroyed the entire herd. As you're aware from our previous discussions, you also removed some cattle that were imported. At the time I was not too impressed, because one of those herds was in my particular riding. I might add that the herd was not infected, but I certainly congratulate you for making the decision you did. I do think it is important to err on the side of caution. I do have complete confidence in our Canadian system at the moment.
My concern is - and I'll use the experience of the farmer who happens to be in my riding - with the country south of us, the United States. That particular individual, in terms of the destruction of his breeding stock, was left with no choice but to go to the United States to replenish his breeding stock because of the breed of stock that he had.
I'm wondering where we are vis-à-vis the Americans in terms of the problem in England. What discussions are we having with them to ensure that we don't run into this problem through them? I have confidence in our system but not necessarily in theirs. Where are we with regard to that aspect of the equation?
Dr. Olson: I'll turn to Dr. Rogers in a moment, if I may, Mr. Chairman. But one of the difficulties with this disease is that there is essentially no test until you have an animal that has the symptoms. Unfortunately, with those animals that we had to take in the case of your constituent we were unable to identify whether they were positive or negative, because there is no methodology available to identify the disease in animals that appear to be healthy. That's one of the grave difficulties here in terms of how to manage a disease of this nature.
There was a very interesting article on prions about a year ago in Scientific American that in fact establishes it as an area of infective capability. This is how new this area of science is. The lack of diagnostic aids makes control extremely difficult.
.0950
With regard to your point on the United States, Dr. Rogers was in fact invited to Washington last Friday. Perhaps Dr. Rogers might wish to comment regarding your questions.
Dr. Rogers: The American industry was at this meeting, as well as government officials. All the import policies and restrictions were discussed with the industry. After having listened to their review, I determined that every one of the actions they have taken are comparable to what we have done in terms of import policy with live animals, beef imports, and by-products.
Furthermore, looking at their domestic surveillance for BSE, we did model our surveillance program on theirs in terms of collecting submissions from rabies-negative cows. Our annual rates of submission are comparable for domestic BSE surveillance.
So I'm quite confident that country is BSE-free. The U.S. had imported cattle from the United Kingdon, as we had done, and they have the remaining cattle that are alive under their monitoring and surveillance at this time.
Dr. Olson: I should have perhaps mentioned the lessons of history. One of the lessons of history that Canada learned was to have in place an extensive ability to trace back the source of animals, which is one of our major trading advantages. When we do have a disease problem, we can trace it back to the herd of origin.
In terms of where we're going with food supply - I'm going back to an earlier question about the food chain - that gives us the ability to implement the hazard analysis and critical control point philosophy to the farm in Canada that will provide a pretty significant assurance to our international trading partners. That trace-back experience is the result of the disease problems that Canada had in the early 1950s, and our experience with brucellosis and tuberculosis. They were hard experiences, but they've been very useful in terms of the economic well-being of this country.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter, you have one more?
Mr. Easter: Just a short one. In fact, on trace-back as well, we've even learned that from the plant health area in terms of PVYn.
I just want to say that even in terms of the producer in my riding who lost his herd, I think farmers, that particular individual as well, recognize the need to maintain the kind of health and quality standards we have in Canada. That's one of the costs of our system, but the system creates great benefits as well. We need to ensure that we keep those kinds of protective measures in our system, even through deficit reduction times.
The last question partly relates to what we're going to get into in cost recovery, but I want to raise it now, Mr. Chairman. I have to leave for another committee shortly.
If I thought the European consumer had learned anything out of this episode as well.... I raised this when you were here last year. Don't forget that I want those figures for Europe with what you've got.
We're caught in the user-pay philosophy. Yes, I will agree that the primary producer is the user, but the real benefactor is the consumer, which is clearly shown with what's happening in Europe. So I personally feel that the taxpayer, the general public, also has a responsibility and obligation as a benefactor of our quality control system to share in its cost.
Here's my question: is there any consideration being given to benefactors paying, and what share will they pay in the future?
Dr. Olson: The levels of cost recovery at which we're planning to work are well below the levels of hitting on public good. We are well within what I and the people with whom we've been working would define as private good.
.0955
I think public good is the issue you're talking about. But in any service the government provides, there is some portion of that service that benefits the individual getting the service. There's some portion of it that's private good. There's also some portion of that service that benefits the population as a whole. A number of the services we provide as an organization, food production and inspection, have a very direct benefit to individuals. Others are much broader. For instance, our health and safety inspection, the carrying out of the kind of trace-back system we have here, has a large public-good component.
Part of what makes the debate around cost recovery, cost avoidance, and cost reduction so difficult is that with almost every service there's a different combination of those factors. The easy way is to throw money at all of them, but to live in today's reality of fiscal change and to also deal with what I call the free-good problem, cost recovery provides a vehicle for ensuring that this debate happens.
I mentioned earlier that one of the parts of our system that works extremely well has been that consultation with industry. In the process of going through the debate, whether we're going to be dealing with cost recovery, cost avoidance or cost reduction, in essence, we've looked at every regulatory authority in our organization to ascertain from the client who uses those services what should be the nature and kind of intervention by government.
That's a complex process. In essence, it's the second time it's been done in five years. We first did it in 1991 with the regulatory review. We're doing it now, in the second phase, in fact, through the business alignment plan. It's a complex process. I think that kind of discussion and consultation is pretty critical to having a viable and positive program.
I'm sure that Mr. Thorlakson made the point on behalf of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association earlier this week that if there's a concern about where that line is drawn, they'll stand up to be counted very quickly. The debate is an interesting one, and it's being very useful in terms of our programs.
The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Olson.
We'll go to the next round. I remind members that this is a shorter round. I hate to keep emphasizing the time, but for those who are in the room who aren't aware of it, sometimes members on the sides are very critical of the chair if they perceive the time isn't balanced. I will attempt to stick to that. If we go a couple of minutes over with one at the start, I'll keep that balance.
Mr. Lefebvre.
[Translation]
Mr. Lefebvre (Champlain): Since I only have five minutes, I will put my three questions to Dr. Olson.
Dr. Olson, you said there was a possibility that BSE was related to fishmeal for livestock in Great Britain in the 1970s and 1980s. Would you please give us more information on this subject?
If Great Britain were forced to destroy its herd, would Canada really be ready and would there be a harmful effect in exporting in large quantities? When I say effect, I'm talking about the effect on our future herds.
And I would like to know how much time it would take to reconstitute a herd that has been destroyed.
[English]
Dr. Olson: My comment on fishmeal had to do with some of the pressures that may have resulted in a shift in feeding practices. During the 1970s there was a significant change in ocean currents off the west coast of South America. It resulted in a diminution of the amount of fishmeal that was being harvested and made available for use in a variety of protein sources, some of which would be used for animal feeding.
That may have been one of the triggers. It's a hypothesis only. As Dr. Clarke has indicated, it's like many of the hypotheses that are built into this issue, in that there are relatively few facts. There are many hypotheses that have resulted in the situation we're facing.
.1000
With regard to your second question, if the United Kingdom depopulates their entire herd, that's of grave consequence for the world. The United Kingdom is home to many of the breeds of livestock that the rest of the world utilizes.
We have allowed the import of embryos and semen from the United Kingdom throughout this period, until this past week, primarily to ensure that genetic material is not lost. If they move to a depopulation program of a scale that some have suggested, that's a tremendous loss of genetic material that could never be recovered.
That's aside from the problem of what you would do with the animal material that would be left over if you did the depopulation. The public health concerns alone would be really quite frightening.
Your third question was: how long does it takes to reconstitute a herd? Dr. Rogers.
Dr. Rogers: I could probably answer that for you. There is no real time limit on these things. What they would do first is get rid of the herd.
It's individual herds we're talking about here, is that correct?
Dr. Olson: The entire herd.
Dr. Rogers: The entire country's herd or individual herds?
[Translation]
A voice: Yes, all the herds, all the herds together.
[English]
Dr. Rogers: Oh, I'm sorry. Then I don't think I would be prepared to answer that question.
Dr. Olson: I think you're talking about generations. Normally, to repopulate a single herd is a matter of quite some number of years. You've got to find the replacement stock and the adequate genetic material. To put that in place and get back to a situation in which you have a productive operation can take a decade. If you're dealing with an entire country, you're dealing with generations before you would see a viable livestock industry again in the United Kingdom.
It would have a huge impact. A very large portion of the herd that would be immediately affected. Even by the proposed adjustments that were in the press this morning, it could be as much as 70% of the United Kingdom's dairy herd. There are also implications in terms of the milk supply and so on for the United Kingdom. So the situation is very serious.
The Chairman: I have a couple of points of clarification, if I might, before I go to Mr. Hoeppner.
Does the bovine figure of 11 million in Great Britain include dairy and beef? Dr. Clarke, you're nodding your head, meaning yes?
Dr. Clarke: Yes.
The Chairman: In correspondence, I've had a number of people ask about the size of the bovine herd in Canada. What's the number, so they could get their heads around it? Have any of you a rough idea of how many million there are?
Dr. Clarke: I can you that we slaughter 3 million per year, so I would estimate that it's around 7 million or maybe more.
Dr. Olson: I would guess it's about the same size as that of the United Kingdom. I'm sorry, I didn't bring that figure with me.
The Chairman: We're including the dairy herd, so it's 10 million. It's so people can get a comparison. I've had people ask me: what if they slaughtered them all and it was 11 million? What would that mean? So we're saying it would be equivalent to slaughtering every bovine animal in Canada.
Dr. Olson: That's right.
The Chairman: I'd like to ask one other quick question, just so I'm clear. Have we been and are we now allowing the importation of embryos and semen from Great Britain?
Dr. Olson: No, we are not, not as of this week.
The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Hoeppner.
Mr. Hoeppner (Lisgar - Marquette): Go to Mr. Hermanson.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to get back to this European beef import quota for a minute. If there are no facilities authorized to import into Canada, why did we agree to a 5,000-tonne import quota? I don't understand the rationale there. Why have we done this?
Dr. Olson: I think you'd want to talk to our trade negotiators on that in terms of -
Mr. Hermanson: Did they talk to you before they made the deal? Maybe that's the question.
Dr. Olson: No. I think the issue.... The word ``moot'' comes to mind.
The Chairman: I think you answered that very well.
.1005
Mr. Hermanson: We're MPs sitting around the table and I'm sure we're going to have constituents who are going to visit Britain this summer. If they call our office and ask, should I eat the beef over there, should I buy a British hamburger, what should we tell them? Dr. Hockin?
Dr. Hockin: I'll just preface the answer by telling you the kind of travel advice we normally offer to Canadians. If those Canadians are going to a country where we have reason to believe standards are below ours, we will identify the problems and offer specific advice. I'm thinking of advice about traveller's diarrhoea or malaria, for example.
Because the U.K. public health system and regulatory system and standards are comparable to ours, we don't as a manner of course offer specific advice. What we tell people is they're going to a country where they are able to make choices about where they go, what they eat, what they drink. They should get as much information as they can so they're comfortable eating, drinking, and going where they wish.
No one in the United Kingdom is saying beef is not safe to eat. In fact, they're saying it is safe to eat. Decisions are being made out of prudence or for other reasons. We have no reason to believe beef in the U.K. is not safe.
Mr. Hermanson: Dr. Olson, the European Community - and I suspect Britain is part of this - have put taxpayers' dollars into subsidizing their producers growing beef. In your opinion, would the governments of the European countries have been wiser to put those dollars into inspection and research rather than into producer subsidies? Would that have alleviated this problem? Would that have been a better priority for taxpayers' dollars? How do we in Canada relate to what they're doing there with producer subsidies versus research and inspection and the safety of food?
Dr. Olson: I'm really not sure I'm equipped to handle that question. We look at the equivalence of inspection systems, and obviously from my previous exposure with the research branch at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada I have some understanding of their research capability. I don't think Canada and that environment are so different in the emphasis placed on the area.
About whether or not the moneys would have been better spent in one area or another, we have the advantage of a history of dealing with a very large area of land, Canada, in managing these kinds of problems. They have the disadvantage of being a number of small countries, very closely linked, with overlapping borders and multiple different kinds of legal systems and jurisdictional controls. We benefit from our framework and they have been disadvantaged by theirs.
The European Union, from my point of view, appears to be an attempt on behalf of Europe to resolve that kind of problem with a range of standards from specific products through to animal health and human health concerns. I think they're moving down that path towards having a unitary system, and that will give them advantages similar to ours.
About the subsidies being paid, it's a different economic environment from Canada's, in the sense of size of operations and the level at which many of those operations consider themselves viable. Some of them are very small. The transition funds and the allocation of the common agriculture policy dollars are therefore based on quite different considerations from those we would perhaps use in our more commercial kind of agriculture.
.1010
The one part of the debate that's visible in the European press as of yesterday and today is the question of who's going to pay if those animals have to be put down.
There seems to be a cap policy that in fact will provide some measure of compensation through the European Union for the British animals that might have to be put down. There seems to be a negotiation about how much - as part of this very complex debate.
I hope that's useful for your understanding.
Mr. Hoeppner: You said that the organism can survive for a long time in the soil. Will that allow Great Britain to export meat ever again?
Dr. Olson: Is that the scrapie organism, Dr. Rogers?
Dr. Rogers: Yes. It's not the BSE. I was a bit unclear on that in my first response to the member from Quebec. I believe his theory was that scrapie goes into cattle. Experimentally, the disease that we're seeing in cattle from scrapie right now is quite different. There is no link there. However, there is some concern about soil contamination by this organism, because it is extremely stable.
Mr. Hoeppner: That is a concern to me. You can liquidate the herd, but what do you do with the contaminated soil?
Dr. Rogers: That's why in Canada we had the animals incinerated at very high temperatures, to prevent that possible contamination here.
The Chairman: If I could interject again, what Mr. Hoeppner just brought out - and what you said, Dr. Rogers - is that it's only a hypothesis that BSE in cattle comes from the infection of scrapie, from sheep.
Dr. Rogers: Experimentally we cannot produce the disease of BSE by using scrapie animals and feeding those products to cattle. That is correct. BSE is a completely different disease. It's a cattle disease.
Mr. Hoeppner: But the BSE does carry over in soil.
The Chairman: Does the BSE carry over in soil?
Dr. Rogers: I think the question was this: if you took BSE and put it in the soil, would it remain there? So if you took a BSE cow and put her in the soil, it would be stable there for a period of time.
There are things that they do to try to reduce the level of the organism.
Mr. Hoeppner: Yes, but how many animals have died and have probably been buried without incineration or anything else?
Dr. Rogers: In Britain?
Mr. Hoeppner: Yes.
Dr. Rogers: I have no idea.
Dr. Olson: The United Kingdom was incinerating and the -
Mr. Hoeppner: I know. In a farm operation animals die, and that disease goes with the animal when it's put into the ground.
Dr. Olson: The prion or the infective agent here appears to be very stable. You have to have a sufficient amount of it to create an infectious situation.
I think you're drawing a comparison with another bacterial disease, anthrax, which is a spore-forming bacterium that rests on soil. That can last for extremely long periods of time. I think we are dealing with two different things.
Prion will break down over time. It is very stable and very long-lived. On the question of whether that contaminates significant portions of the U.K. at a level that could cause infection, I don't know whether there is in fact evidence. Perhaps Dr. Rogers knows.
Dr. Rogers: About the only comparison I can give you is that we've been working with scrapie in this country and other people have done a lot of research with scrapie, which is also a quite stable prion disease. Eradication efforts have been done. You depopulate a flock, but if you don't take other precautions, such as cleaning and disinfection and removing manure, before you restock, then possibly you can have a recurrence of the disease.
I'm sorry, but I'm a little bit unclear on this. What I'm trying to say is that if you take only one action.... Our experience is that you can eradicate scrapie by taking all these precautions, and it doesn't come back even though those animals have been on the soil. I might have been a little bit unclear about this.
.1015
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Dr. Olson and his colleagues spoke, according to the translation in any case, of a prion. I don't understand. Is that the transmissible bacterium?
[English]
The Chairman: Dr. Olson, would you explain what a prion is?
Dr. Olson: A prion is a protein with the characteristic of being able to create the infection. It's not a bacterium and it's not a virus. It's been postulated for probably the last twenty years, but it's only in the last few years that the actual agent has been identified. Very little is known about it, but it appears to be the common factor in a series of these spongiform encephalopathies.
It's a protein. It appears to be, as I understand it, related to the membrane on cells in mammalian tissues. It's able to generate the kinds of problems we see by means that are perhaps not the ones we normally associate with bacteria or viruses.
The Chairman: Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): Gentlemen, I think it was Dr. Clarke who made the remark...and again it's out of context, so I'll allow you latitude in your answer.
About the linkages between two types of life, the cattle beast and ourselves, there's a range of hypotheses out there. You mentioned that we are still dealing with attempting to prove any one of these. My interest at this point would be what are some of the other hypotheses, if any, that have been put into debate?
Dr. Clarke: The point I was making was that the most widely held hypothesis on the link between scrapie, which has been around for 200 years, and BSE in cattle in Britain, which originated in 1986 and which they believe may have started in 1983, was that it was the scrapie prion that mutated and became a cattle disease. The other theories are that prion diseases occur naturally at very low levels, one in a million or more, and they occur in other mammals. There is CJD in humans. They've been found in other mammals as well. So there's a theory that says maybe these diseases are naturally occurring at extraordinarily low levels but BSE has become accentuated because of the feeding of contaminated feeds, the recycling, and so on. That is what made an explosion of this disease -
Mr. McKinnon: The food chain.
Dr. Clarke: - yes - which might have originated all on its own, in time.
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): Can you comment at all on the incidence of human deaths from CJD in Canada?
Dr. Hockin: In Canada there are between 20 and 35 deaths a year from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which makes it about a one-in-a-million disease. We know this trend goes back as far as we've been able to count such deaths.
That incidence is the same worldwide. It's actually a little lower than that in the U.K. right now.
Mr. Reed: That really throws a big wrench into the theory that there is a connection between BSE and CJD.
Dr. Hockin: The difficulty is that we don't know where most CJD comes from. We don't know if it arises spontaneously in human cells or if there's an external stimulus of some kind. It's just not known.
.1020
Mr. Reed: Are we feeding any meat by-products in cattle feed now?
Dr. Olson: The answer is yes, as a source of protein. A variety of sources of protein are available. Once it's gone through the rendering process in a feed mill, there would be a choice of what is the most economical ration. We're reviewing that at this point in time.
Mr. Reed: I was in the feed business for several years. I can't remember ever using meat by-products in ruminant feed.
Dr. Olson: Many operations never do. It's used only in certain situations. It's a cost-related issue, depending on the particular kind of ration needed by a particular kind of animal. I don't recall the exact percentage, but in terms of the ruminant population not a major portion of the animal by-products are rendered.
The Chairman: Mrs. Ur.
Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): Thank you for your most informative presentation. I'm going home for an all-Saturday session with MFA, and I'm sure this will be a hot topic. It's well timed.
I guess most of the concern about the consumption of meat is the CJD. Is it just about meat? Are there any concerns about dairy products having contamination?
Dr. Clarke: There is no risk associated with that. Research has been done extensively to try to establish a possible link. That would be the obvious thing to do, because dairy cattle are in fact the biggest risk because of the length of time they live.
Clearly, the British have done extensive research on the possible transmission of this disease via dairy products, and they have come out with a statement that there is no risk. This is further substantiated by the fact that the European ban does not include dairy products.
There's virtually no indication of that.
Mrs. Ur: Not to get into a long health discussion on it, what did the scientists find that could be a possible linkage to human health, not just to animal health, that triggered a concern?
Dr. Hockin: The nature of the supposed link in the U.K. was circumstantial. Having seen a small number of cases of CJD that didn't fit the usual pattern, and because there had been lots of public concerns, and some scientific ones, about the relation that might show up between BSE and human health, they've looked at the BSE epidemic and these ten cases and said that it's possible. That's really the nature of the statement they've made.
Mrs. Ur: Is the large number of cases in Britain compared to those in other countries just because of their feeding of their animals? In Europe I believe it's only 150 cases, compared to 1,000 in Britain. Why is it so bad in Britain compared to in other countries?
Dr. Clarke: I don't have a complete answer for you, other than to say that the disease originated in Britain. It was first recognized as a problem there, presumably for the reasons of the feeding, in the sense that there was an explosion, perhaps, through contaminated feed. That's what has raised the levels in Britain higher than anywhere else.
There has been the occasional case elsewhere through imported cattle from Britain. There have been spontaneous cases in four other countries, which possibly have developed for the same reasons. I don't know if there's any hard evidence to make a decision or a statement on that.
Mrs. Ur: Is CJD always fatal?
Dr. Hockin: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry (Lotbinière): Dr. Olson, I am pleased you are here to close this discussion and to reassure us. My question will go a little further. Your first case was reported in 1993, in Alberta. Is this disease exactly the same as the one raging in the United Kingdom? Second, can the disease be transmitted from animals to humans?
.1025
Dr. Olson, I would like to know whether a man who has contracted this disease could transmit it by blood transfusion.
Personally, this is the first time I have heard that this is neither a bacterium nor a virus, but only a protein. How is it that science, which is so advanced today, cannot detect which protein should be removed? Those are my two questions.
[English]
Dr. Olson: I'll defer to Dr. Hockin on the second question.
On the first question, if I understood it correctly, I think it's also very much part of the Canadian animal health surveillance process. As I understand the initial discovery, the rancher himself grew concerned about the condition of the animal. He identified it as a possible carrier of BSE. He called in his private veterinarian, who brought in a Government of Alberta veterinarian, who brought us into the case.
That says something about the quality of information that the private practitioner, the provincial government, and we ourselves had in the initial identification. Obviously the rancher himself had a very good understanding of the symptoms.
By the way, once we were able to take the brain tissues and do the initial examination, a portion of the tissues was immediately flown to the United Kingdom, as I recall - Dr. Rogers -
Dr. Rogers: That's correct.
Dr. Olson: - and put under examination for confirmation.
That's what triggered the series of actions that resulted in our taking that herd and taking all the animals that had come into Canada previously.... Within a few days we were able to identify where all those animals were, which is very critical from a trace-back point of view.
I hope that answers your first question. On your second question, on CJD, Dr. Hockin will speak.
Dr. Hockin: As you know, the issue of blood and infectious diseases is up before Mr. Krever's inquiry, but I think I can respond to the question by saying that although there was no evidence that blood can transmit Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from person to person, this is certainly an area of interest and it is being studied not only in Canada but worldwide. We know the Red Cross is concerned enough about this to take action to try to avoid such things happening.
About being able to detect the agent of human disease - and I believe this applies also to the animal diseases - no test can be done. The diagnosis of the human disease is made on examination of brains after death.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Mr. Chairman, the answer given to my question on transmission via blood was that there are the Krever Commission and the Red Cross, but to reassure committee members, researchers, in particular those who are in the agri-food field, could make contacts and get back to us with a clear answer as to whether the disease can be transmitted from animals to humans and then tell us what happens with respect to blood. That is what I want to know because I would like to be reassured on this question. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Can you comment more than you have?
Dr. Hockin: I don't think I can comment more. As I say, other people within our department are undertaking activity on blood. I'm really not in a position to respond in more detail, but others within our department can.
.1030
The Chairman: Time is running short. We knew we were going to have to have those people back with you, Dr. Olson. I'll just lay this out to the members before we continue on this.
A topic came up earlier this week, and I think it would be worth while for Dr. Olson and the team he has at the table with him to comment on it today. We could have just his comments, and if there are further questions, we can have them later. That's the Wood Buffalo National Park item. If we get into questions on that, that means we're here likely until 11 a.m.
If that's the wish of the committee, we do so. Or we can have comments on that after two or three more quick questions and then ask Dr. Olson to make his opening comments about cost recovery. We can have them before us and think about them and be prepared when he comes back in the near future. So think about that for a minute.
Mr. Calder.
Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): I want to go back and explore what Jake brought up about the pastures. I understand here that the prions are basically what carries the BSE. I take it it's transmitted from cattle beast to cattle beast by ingestion. From that, obviously the prion must be present in excrement. We're using that as fertilizer, and of course it would be dropped out in the pastures too. What environment is needed for the prion to remain dormant, for how long, and what temperature would be needed to destroy a prion in, for instance, the rendering process?
Dr. Clarke: In a report issued last year the World Health Organization divided the tissues of cattle with BSE into different risk categories. The tissue at greatest risk is the nervous tissue. After that the tissues of secondary risk are the thymus, the spleen - certain organs. The third category is other organs in the body. The fourth category, of no risk, includes excrement, milk, and so on. So I would say that from the point of view of risk of infectivity, based on the results of that report and the research that went into that report, the hypothesis that excrement on pasture poses a risk is nil.
In Britain cattle with BSE are normally burned, incinerated. Normally, with any animal disease, you either incinerate the animal or deep-bury it where you're not going to contaminate the water table. To my knowledge, incineration is the method of choice for this disease in Britain.
Mr. Calder: To follow on that, then, it has also been stated here that there's a dormant stage within the cattle that can be anywhere from five to ten years. If there are cattle that for whatever reason have died of some other disease, then I'm back to the point of what temperature is needed to destroy the prion within the rendering process.
Dr. Clarke: The recommendations of the European Union about BSE and rendering were that the temperature should be approximately 133 degrees centigrade at 3 bar pressure for 20 minutes. There has been some recent research with temperatures in those ranges.
It's not just a question of temperature. It's a question of how long and under what conditions.
.1035
The recent research on rendering systems throughout the world - and there are many types of rendering systems - indicates that some are reasonably effective and some are not so effective. However, prions are extraordinarily resistant to heat, and to guarantee 100% that every prion is destroyed has been difficult to establish.
In that sense, the reason why rendering systems are effective is not only a question of the cooking temperature, which does have a manner of destroying the organism, but also the dilution factor with the tissue, because as Dr. Olson mentioned, you need a certain level of infection in order to get the infection. So a combination of all these factors is what makes the system relatively safe.
Mr. Calder: What would be the percentage of effectiveness of Great Britain's system?
Dr. Clarke: There is an indication that ever since they revised the rendering procedures.... Subsequent to the 1986 to 1989 period, when they realized they were running into a problem, they changed the rendering process and the level of infection, the number of cases, started to drop again. So one would have to make an assumption - although really there's not enough knowledge to be concrete about this - that they were having some effect. That was one of the reasons why the hypothesis that the rendering system breakdown, the change in procedures, prior to that date may have caused this explosion in infection was in fact vindicated.
Again, there are enough unknowns around the problem for us not to be able to answer 100% that this is necessarily the case.
Mr. Hermanson: Seeing pictures of mad cows on TV, you'd almost think they had rabies. If a good livestock person thought he had a cow that had rabies, he'd call a vet and they'd do an exam. But I believe they don't have to.
Is there a chance that a cow could die of mad cow disease and it'd be assumed that it was rabies and no one would ever know? Rabies is far more common than mad cow disease and it might not always be reported.
Dr. Rogers: To answer your question, I suppose that nothing is impossible.
Mr. Hermanson: Are exotics, such as llamas and alpacas, susceptible to this disease, and is that something you're monitoring in the same way as you're monitoring beef and sheep, or is it totally unrelated?
Dr. Rogers: To date, the animal species that have been involved are some exotic ruminants and some large cats from zoos.
Mr. Hermanson: Cats?
Dr. Rogers: Large cats from zoos.
Mr. Hermanson: Are they also susceptible to this prion?
Dr. Rogers: Yes. Large cats.
Mr. Reed: Is the prion for BSE and scrapie in any way breed-specific?
Dr. Olson: As we indicated earlier, one of the hypotheses is that the scrapie prion had mutated to a bovine version. Again, you're back into an area of hypotheses in terms of that particular prion. You have against that, as Dr. Clarke has indicated, the other hypothesis that perhaps this is naturally occurring within the population and something else triggered its presence.
So I don't think that level of information is known at this point in time.
Dr. Clarke: The whole argument is whether these prions can cross species barriers. CJD and BSE and scrapie are diseases of specific mammalian species: scrapie for sheep, BSE for cattle, CJD for humans. If the scrapie prion had mutated to BSE, that's one hypothesis, but to take a scrapie prion per se, without mutating it - the answer to this date is no.
The Chairman: I want to thank Dr. Olson, Dr. Clarke, Dr. Hockin, and Dr. Rogers for informing and answering the questions of the committee this morning. They are informing not only us but also the public in general on some questions they had on this.
Again, I want to emphasize what a number of members have said, what Dr. Olson has said, and the very responsible role that everyone has played on this issue: the media, the members of Parliament, the department officials, the beef cattle industry, and the total beef industry. It emphasizes again how all of us at some time may think in some area we're over-regulated and over-inspected, etc., but I think this type of thing has proven to us that in hindsight, in most if not all cases, we cannot be too cautious, even though at the time those actions.... And it was mentioned around this table this morning by a member of Parliament that maybe some emotion was involved in it, and we wondered at the time whether that was the right thing or not.
.1040
Again, we have pointed out to the Canadian industry, and certainly most importantly to the Canadian consumer, that with the team of people we have collectively - and that's everybody, because as Dr. Olson has pointed out, more than just a few people were involved in this - we have one of the best food inspection systems in the world, and I think I will go on the record as saying the best system. Canadian consumers recognize that, and we will do all we can collectively to maintain that level of food inspection, and therefore food safety, for our consumers.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
I apologize to the other officials who have come here this morning. I didn't know how long this discussion would take. I hope everybody agrees it was time well spent, worth while.
I will ask Dr. Olson to make a quick comment. If there is one question on the issue from each of the political parties afterwards, we will do that. Hopefully the information he gives us for now will be sufficient to inform us on the Wood Buffalo National Park situation. That did come up earlier this week, and I think we need some information and clarity on that.
Dr. Olson: You mentioned the beef industry. I would say it was the entire livestock industry.
When we established compensation for animals we had to take for a variety of disease reasons, we worked with the livestock industry to establish the levels. I think there was agreement with everybody that the compensation levels were adequate for 95% of the animals that might come under the needs of the Health of Animals Act. It's the other 5% that got caught in the net with BSE. The industry put together compensation in addition to that of government to encourage recovering some of the losses the individuals bore as a result of the disease control program. So it was an entire industry effort, one I think Canada can also be proud about.
On Wood Buffalo National Park, at the turn of this decade there was a significant concern about findings of tuberculosis and perhaps brucellosis in the bison in Wood Buffalo National Park, and concerns from a variety of places that the tuberculosis or brucellosis might enter into the domestic livestock population because of the roaming nature of bison or perhaps might infect a number of disease-free herds of bison in northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories. It's a rather significant debate, because for those of you who have had the experience of working with bison, they rank up there with ostriches in terms of their ability to be herded. They tend to be somewhat uncooperative. The thought of trying to collect some thousands of animals for examination in a woody, marshy area like Wood Buffalo National Park was daunting, to say the least.
.1045
At one point in the debate I recall somebody asking if it was possible to erect a chain-link fence around the entire Wood Buffalo National Park. I don't know which fence manufacturer that was, but the thought of miles and miles of chain-link fencing going up, with the understanding that the bison would tend to go straight through it in the first place, didn't resolve a lot of my concerns.
A series of studies was done. One of the proposals was to put down the entire population of Wood Buffalo National Park for disease reasons. There was very extensive consultation with the aboriginal community in that region of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories, and a growing awareness of the level of infection within the herd.
The decision was finally made a couple of years ago to undertake a five-year interim management program to preserve the bison population in that park and to prevent the spread of tuberculosis and brucellosis through what is basically a surveillance program. Agriculture is expending about half a million dollars per year on a surveillance program in auction marts in northern Alberta to ensure we continually test for tuberculosis in particular. Brucellosis as an issue seems to have gone off the table. We'll maintain a bison-free zone between the park and the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary.
I know the Northwest Territories renewable resources department would prefer a more active disease eradication process, but we'll continue to monitor it. This is a major intervention and obviously, from a straight practical management point of view, very difficult to deal with. In my opinion it's currently under control and we do not have a major problem at this time, but we're going to keep our eye on it.
The Chairman: In the consultations and discussions leading up the decision for the five-year program, were Canadian cattlemen involved?
Dr. Olson: They were, as was the Alberta government.
The Chairman: And were they supportive, in the end?
Dr. Olson: That's my understanding. I would put it this way. They understood the complexity of the issue. It's obvious their preference would be that no disease is harboured in that population. But with the reality of dealing with that disease, this was an effective solution at that time, and we think it still is.
The Chairman: Mr. Landry.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Thank you, Dr. Olson, for the information you have given us this morning.
When I was a young boy and I woke up in a bad mood, my father often asked me if I had eaten ``rabid cow". I now believe my father was a visionary.
[English]
An hon. member: So what's the answer?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Dr. Olson, can you assure me that there will be no reducing inspections of animals on farms, in slaughterhouses or elsewhere?
I would also like you, Dr. Olson, to be able to give me an answer in a few months to the question that I put to you a moment ago. Thank you.
[English]
Dr. Olson: The bottom line is that we intend to continue our responsibilities for health and safety within the agricultural food chain and the other areas we touch on. That's not to say we won't encourage a rapid evolution of the kind of inspection services we provide.
The historical inspection services in Canada have been visual. We see a need to move to a systems orientation, a quality management kind of orientation, one based on microbial and chemical analysis. That shift will ensure the goal I mentioned.
.1050
We also are embarking on the proposal with our counterparts in Health Canada and Fisheries and Oceans to deal with the overlap that exists between three federal departments that are involved in inspection. It's my hope that as a result of that process we'll actually be able to augment the safety of our food products in Canada.
Mr. Hermanson: My colleague from Yellowhead wants to talk to you about the Wood Buffalo situation. I told him that you would be here for two days, so I expect you'll be coming back. He had to be on a plane this morning. I know that he is very concerned about that.
Some people who raise buffalo in my constituency say that they are easier to contain than cattle are. This maybe doesn't quite jibe with the information you gave us. It might be better for us to wait till Mr. Breitkreuz is here to pursue this matter further.
The Chairman: Okay, and I would suggest, through you to Mr. Breitkreuz, that Dr. Olson or any of his staff certainly will be more than willing to discuss that with Mr. Breitkreuz at any time, whether it's here or not.
Mr. McKinnon: Could I extrapolate a bit further from your remarks, Dr. Olson? Do you have the same concerns about ranching of deer or elk as you do about buffalo, or are they different types of health-related issues?
Dr. Olson: I think every species has its own set of health problems. As you are aware, a number of years ago we had some major concerns about red deer that had been imported into this country that unfortunately brought to the country a disease, a brain worm, that required that we eradicate the imported animals. Fortunately they were in quarantine at the time.
We've had problems with elk imported from the United States that brought tuberculosis into Canada. That was a major problem in western Canada some years ago. They're being managed in the same way as we do our livestock herd. For that matter, we now really treat those game ranched animals as part of our domestic herd.
The Chairman: I don't think we'll ask Dr. Olson to start into the comments on cost recovery. We have the meeting room for only another six minutes.
Again, I apologize to the other part of his team that came here with him this morning. I promise you that we will invite you back. We enjoy your company, and we look forward to having you play a larger role in the next discussion.
Committee members, there was a steering committee meeting yesterday. We do not have that agenda printed for us to discuss as a full committee, but I can give you the assurance that I don't think any subject came up that we as a steering committee have not tried to work in. We know that in the last agenda we approved having a meeting on the dairy issue. We approved having a discussion about the hopper car.
Naturally, we know we will be having further meetings with Dr. Olson's team on estimates, and with other members of the staff of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
So we will have that formal agenda.
To give the public a little indication of what the committee is going to be doing and is planning on doing, what the steering committee discussed yesterday is a very ambitious agenda between now and the end of June, and some of it likely will have to go over into the start of the fall session. In case a number of people across the country want to watch that, we'll put out a little press release giving some indication.
There is a budget situation - I don't mean that in an alarming way - that we asked the clerk to deal with with the liaison committee. I assume that we will have that to deal with the first time we'll get together after the March break.
Again, I thank everyone for coming this morning. The MPs will enjoy what all of our constituents consider to be a holiday, two weeks away from here, but what we know is considerably different from that. We'll just be working at a different place.
Happy Easter to everyone.
This meeting stands adjourned.