Agriculture Committee on March 14th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I just read what is given to me.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Mayers, that was not a fulsome answer at all. I'm sure Mr. Valeriote has more questions for you.

[Paul Mayers]

I'd like that.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

But I don't get to ask them.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

No, it was very well done, and quite frankly I'm getting a little worried that my wife's going to get jealous given the number of times I've seen you in the last month.

I'd like to get us back on track to what we're supposed to be talking about here a little bit.

At the end of the day, obviously we're not the only country that is talking about modernization and effectiveness, streamlining, and getting rid of red tape. Can you talk about the importance of this with regard to our relationship with our neighbours in the United States and some of the other countries that we are looking to do international trade with?

[Paul Mayers]

Certainly. Thank you.

Our colleagues in the United States have embarked on a very ambitious agenda by working with us through the Regulatory Cooperation Council to look at where greater alignment is possible, as well as to look at where approaches can be more reflective of today's environment.

If we look at the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations, we're talking about a piece of legislation and regulatory framework that's over 50 years old, and it simply didn't envision some of today's business practices. So that very prescriptive model that frankly hampers innovation—innovation that in fact might yield a more effective food safety outcome—is really what we're talking about in working with our partners in how we move forward.

If we look at our colleagues in Australia and New Zealand, who have introduced some very interesting approaches to oversight that really foster a stronger partnership between the regulated parties and the regulator in terms of delivering the outcomes, we're very interested in what we can learn from some of those best practices.

Colleagues in the European Union have embarked on modernization initiatives, so we don't believe that Canada can stand still and be successful in continuing to trade with those markets as they move their regulatory frameworks. We want to work closely with them. We want to learn from their best practices, and we want to share our best practices with them. That's the approach we've taken.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I'm not surprised that the opposition would want to be far more prescriptive. They generally like to believe in social engineering. As it is, I don't see they would be any different on trade or CFIA initiatives.

Are you telling me that you believe it's actually going to be beneficial for us to be less prescriptive, to be more out of the box? That it will help align us better with our trading partners, provide better trade relations, help us be more efficient—less red tape—and at the end of the day also possibly give us better inspection services and better food protection in Canada.

Do you have any examples of this? Is SRM something that we've been working on that would be an example?

[Paul Mayers]

Certainly our objective is for continuous improvement in the system. If we use the example of SRM, we've taken very much to heart that the industry has noted that the compliance cost in response to SRM removal is an issue. What they've said to us is that they share the commitment that we have in terms of consumer protection. What we want to do is ensure that the framework enables any innovation that they may be able to bring forward to meet the food safety outcome at a lower cost. If they can do it at a lower cost, then we believe compliance goes up, and that ultimately serves Canadians well. And that's what we want.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Voluntary compliance goes up.

[Paul Mayers]

Absolutely.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to seeing you next week when they call you back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have a little bit of time, but not very much. You're okay.

Ms. Raynault, five minutes.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

We see that there are several stakeholders in Canada's food supply chain, including the Canada Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada, the provinces and territories, and the Canada Border Services Agency.

Is that to say that our food is really properly inspected and that there is a lot of oversight? Then, does that mean that Canada couldn't experience the health crisis that happened in Europe in 2011, because of this oversight?

[Paul Mayers]

Certainly that's our aim. If, through our actions and our partnership with the various agencies that participate in the regulatory framework, we can prevent the types of situations our German colleagues experienced with contaminated sprouts, then that is exactly what we will do.

We recognize that biological systems are inherently changeable. We work hard to enhance the preventative side of the regulatory system as well as the reactive side. That's why we've invested in strengthening our food safety assessments and recall activities.

If an event arises—and we recognize that we cannot provide assurance of absolute protection—we want to be ready to respond. In collaboration with our provincial partners and the Public Health Agency of Canada, we routinely exercise our system so that we are ready to respond should events emerge. We want to be able to contain emergent events and bring them back under control as quickly as possible. At the same time, we continue to redouble our efforts to improve the preventative part of the system.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

I would like to hear what you have to say about the alert system you have in the event of a food crisis. How does it work and who takes responsibility for it?

[Paul Mayers]

It is indeed a combination of partners. Our colleagues in the provincial public health systems are important players when something goes wrong. Quite often, the first signal may be an increase in a type of illness that no particular food is associated with, and our provincial counterparts in public health become the first responders in investigating these situations. When cases of illness of that type arise, the CFIA goes on alert. We support them, but because no particular food has been identified at that point, we're not the first players.

The Public Health Agency of Canada works with the provinces to investigate those situations. If they identify the potential for a food to be linked, that's when the CFIA leaps into action—supporting the investigation, collecting and analyzing samples, and seeking to identify what food might be associated. It's a bit of detective work. If we can identify an associated food, within 24 hours we will be into product recall.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have time for a question.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

You say in your document that “these prescribed requirements are often seen as inflexible and potentially stifling in terms of innovation.”

What are you doing to show that this is not necessarily stifling innovation?

[Paul Mayers]

Our aim in reviewing the frameworks is to provide greater flexibility so that industry can find solutions to the challenges they face without having to fit into a simplistically predictable and prescriptive model. When we look at existing frameworks, we recognize that industry has been innovative where they've had room to innovate. For example, in the aftermath of the listeria tragedy, industry was keenly interested in incorporating bactericidal interventions in the production system.

Our counterparts at Health Canada have been bringing interventions to the front of the line in order to get them into industry's hands and approve them more quickly. We want to encourage this type of flexibility in the control systems that industry employs in its facilities. We believe that this flexibility helps industry to improve food safety. We want our system to be able to accommodate that, to assess it, and to allow it to come into use more quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Lobb, you have five minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mayers, the last time you were at this committee you were asked a bunch of different questions and provided answers. I believe Mr. Bob Kingston came into the next meeting and he kind of threw out his answers or rebuttals to your answers. So for Canadians out there, where do they cut through both and find out where the real answer is?

Mr. Valeriote had three questions from a website. Does the CFIA have a website that Canadians go and look at, where a lot of these myths are dispelled, so you can kind of get the facts?

[Paul Mayers]

There is certainly a tremendous amount of information on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency website. In addition to that, in terms of food safety, healthycanadians.ca is also a great source of information for Canadians wanting to better understand the steps taken by the various partners in protecting them.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Taking that 2% question—that 2% is inspected—is there a good answer on the CFIA website to rebut that claim?

[Paul Mayers]

Unfortunately I can't tell you off the top of my head if there's a nice, simple, clear explanation. But I think that's an opportunity, because there's clearly an interest.