Agriculture Committee on March 14th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, just getting back here, but your time is up, Mr. Payne.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I would have been a lot nicer to you, LaVar.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I know. I really appreciate that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Rousseau, you have five minutes.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back, Mr. Tierney.

I would like to go back to my colleague's question.

According to the UN, one third of food production is either lost or wasted along the chain. Several witnesses who appeared before us have confirmed this.

Given that producers are often on the losing end, how can the government or the department help them reduce their losses and maximize their profits?

[Steve Tierney]

My understanding is that, whether in a developed country like Canada or a developing country like many in the world, the percentage of waste is about 30%. The difference is, though, that in a country such as Canada or the United States, most of that waste is on your plate at home, so the farmer has gotten the money. We just put too much on....

In the developing world, it's true about the transportation system, the storage system, and so on. That's my understanding. In that sense, the farmer and the processor have gotten their money, and the restauranteur has gotten his or her money. It's the consumer who has left a fair bit on their plate and has not taken a doggy bag, so to speak.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

So wouldn't producers be the weak link in the chain in terms of losses?

[Steve Tierney]

Generally speaking, a modern Canadian farmer is focused on minimizing waste and being as efficient as possible.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Are some products more at risk than others?

[Steve Tierney]

I'm not sure this is risky in the sense that you are using the word, sir, but in the case of consumer-friendly products in which the consumer has a role through their choice of purchase, they don't like a carrot that's misshapen because it has a bend to it. That's the area in which these things such as purées and so on.... I don't think that's anything that the producer can deal with. That's nature.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you.

In Quebec, many small producers represent the whole food supply chain, from beginning to end, to consumers. So they are the producers, processors and retailers. Has this situation been discussed at round tables? At first glance, that does not seem to be the case.

Are there measures that could help them better market their products?

[Steve Tierney]

I'm sorry, I tend to think in specifics. I'm having a hard time pulling out a specific example of what you're talking about.

Susie, maybe you can....

[Susie Miller]

I think this is more relevant particularly in the organic industry.

We have many organic producers who are also marketers. We have organic marketers who are also producers.

In the other parts of the industry, we tend to see bigger, commercial producers who are focused and specialized in one area, but food processors constitute another area in which we see this. The round table itself doesn't exclude them, but we find them most frequently in the organic sector.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

On the topic of organic products, we hear that research and innovation are crucial for the progress of the sector. Your report says the following:

The OVCRT has worked with the industry and the federal government to establish the first science cluster for organic products and it has helped direct the work of many researchers to meet the sector's business needs.

The demand for those types of products is increasingly higher. What has the federal government done to address that?

[Susie Miller]

The organic sector, as part of the round table process, developed a strategy that was reflective of the whole chain. They used it to apply to federal government programming, whereby they got 75% funding, with the industry contributing 25%.

In fact, in the process they were the first ones, because the table had provided them with the opportunity to discuss the research.

Also, organic is a bit different from all the other commodities, because they don't have check-offs. They don't have a regular way of funding, because the check-offs at the provincial level are commodity-based. Their money came from processing companies rather than from the producers themselves.

So it was win-win for everybody. It was quite effective.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Do I still have time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired.

Mr. Hoback, we are getting close to the time when I was going to recess.

Mr. Hoback is just going to waive his time for CFIA.

I have just one question, Mr. Tierney, or Ms. Miller. There were some comments there about product of Canada labelling, and what have you. I've always been a believer that we've given the tools—and it's voluntary—for industry processors to use product of Canada. Short of putting a gun to their heads, which obviously we don't want to do—and keeping it voluntary—what can we do to encourage the value of it? Because the excuses they use are exactly that as to why they don't do it.

Do you have any comments on that at all?

[Steve Tierney]

Just to perhaps clarify my earlier comments and elaborate, the product of Canada is a great label. There are other labels that people can use as well. You can say manufactured in Canada. There are some soup products that are going to be using vegetables from another country because you just don't grow them in Canada. There is strawberry jam, and there isn't a year's supply, perhaps, of Canadian strawberries to put into the jam. So there are ways of labelling other than “product of Canada” to help you get around the various restrictions of nature on our capacity to have Canadian product year-round, or mixtures of products that are both Canadian and non-Canadian.

We've been working with the food processing sector doing that, as well as demonstrating to them that when you can get the maple leaf and Canada on the front of your label—not the back, not the side—people seem to be willing to pay a premium price.

A lot of these are very small manufacturers who can't afford that kind of market research capacity, so that's been an area where the government has filled in to provide some information, and then let industry question it, comment on it, critique it, and do what they will with the outcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Tierney, and Ms. Miller, it's great to have both of you back here. Thanks very much.

We'll just recess to allow CFIA witnesses to come and continue.

Thanks, again, for being here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We're back.

Ms. Jordan, it's good to see you again.

Mr. Mayers, thanks for being here.

With no further ado, we'll turn it over to you, Mr. Mayers.

[Paul Mayers, Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We extend our appreciation to the committee for the invitation to appear.

As you well know, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is Canada's largest science-based regulatory agency, and is dedicated to safeguarding food, animals, and plants. This work promotes the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment, and economy.

The activities of the CFIA benefit Canadian farmers, fishers, processors and distributors—including importers and exporters—by promoting confidence in the safety of Canadian food products all along the value chain. This confidence is necessary if Canada is to continue to enjoy market access to foreign markets.

The success of the CFIA is underpinned by five factors: sound science, an effective regulatory base, effective inspection programs, effective risk management, and strong partnerships. I will relate some recent initiatives in these areas in the course of my remarks.

The agency endeavours to develop policies and regulations that are in keeping with international best practices and sound science. We take a very active role in the work of the international standard-setting bodies: Codex Alimentarius for food standards; the International Plant Protection Convention for plant health; and the World Organisation for Animal Health, the OlE, for animal health.

In this way we seek to ensure that Canadian interests are represented in the development of international standards. In addition, in developing our domestic policies, we seek to dovetail these with the international standards and with those of our trading partners, so as avoid creating unnecessary trade barriers. Globalization continues to be a driving force for change in both the agriculture and food industries, and these sectors are becoming increasingly complex. Consumer demand and international competition drive innovation. Science and technology are enabling factors in terms of faster go-to-market strategies for new products and processes.

The environment in which we operate has evolved considerably, presenting us with both challenges and opportunities in the context of regulatory frameworks, legislation, and inspection methods that govern all of our activities. All of our current decision-making in these areas is guided by the Red Tape Reduction Commission's specific recommendations for the CFIA.

To that end, the agency is currently reviewing its regulatory and program frameworks with a view to reduce unnecessary burdens on stakeholders while contributing significantly to the high food safety outcomes that are expected by Canadians and by our trading partners.

The objective of this exercise is to develop modern risk- and outcome-based regulations that are consistent and easy to understand, while keeping pace with science, technology, and innovation.

Some of our guiding principles include enabling modern and consistent inspection approaches for the protection of public safety, while fostering consumer choice and business opportunity to facilitate innovation and competitive advantage. Following through on our commitment to transparency, we will develop policy objectives through engagement with industry, consumers, and other government partners. At the same time, we will strike an appropriate balance between the cost of administering a program and the benefit derived from it.

Within this regulatory modernization initiative, the CFIA has already begun work with stakeholders to review the animal feed and fertilizer regulatory frameworks.

The agriculture and agrifood sectors, as I noted, are highly competitive domestically and internationally. We're aware that we need, as regulators, to be sensitive to what is required to remain successful in the global economy. Current regulations tend to be prescriptive requirements and processes rather than focus on being protective of the outcome itself.

These prescriptive regulations are often seen by industry stakeholders as inflexible and potentially stifling in terms of innovation. In the future, we intend to be more focused on the desired outcome. Those involved in the production and distribution of food will have some latitude on how to get to the outcome, but no latitude on the outcome itself: safe food.

This modernization effort will allow Canada to maintain its alignment with key trading partners who have also begun to review their regulatory approaches.

One area of critical alignment continues to be the Canada-US relationship. The scope of trade between our nations demands the highest levels of efficiency in addressing regulatory requirements in order to enhance regulatory transparency and coordination. This work is taking place under the auspices of the Regulatory Cooperation Council—the RCC—where CFIA is engaged in multiple initiatives aimed at aligning approaches and promoting mutual confidence in the regulatory oversight of the other's system.

In addition, the Beyond the Border initiative with the United States is also a key Government of Canada initiative that seeks to facilitate legitimate trade and expeditious movement of goods across our shared border while maintaining appropriate security. The CFIA is pleased to also support this initiative through its activities.

For the CFIA, in complement to our regulatory modernization initiative, we also pursue a modernized inspection regime that will align the model of verification and oversight of industry controls in achieving food safety and regulatory compliance under a single system, regardless of commodity.

Modernization will also include enhancements to the recruitment and training of the inspectors of the future for all programs and all commodities. This will allow us to gain efficiencies and improve effectiveness in program delivery by developing uniform, cross-commodity inspector training modules.

On the technology side, our goal is to leverage robust systems that allow for better analysis of our inspection programs and improved transparency for Canadians and our trading partners.

In terms of accountability, we know that producers and stakeholders would like more information about what they can expect when the CFIA inspects their processes and facilities. So the CFIA has developed a statement of rights and service.

This document outlines what the agency does and what stakeholders can expect when they interact with the agency. It also provides information on the different ways the agency can be contacted if a stakeholder has a question or an issue that needs to be resolved. It also provides for a more efficient, transparent, and accessible way for businesses to register complaints and concerns on the CFIA's decisions. Prior to this, regulated parties had to seek redress through a federal court, though that option is still available if needed.

Mr. Chairman, the mandate and activities of the CFIA touch on many aspects of the food supply chain. I've tried to outline some of our key modernization initiatives that I hope will give you a sense of our future directions as we pursue continuous improvement of the regulatory system.

I'll pause here and we will be happy to address the questions of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much and we'll move right into questioning.

Mr. Allen, you have five minutes.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mayers, for being back. We may have to get you an extra seat around here, you seem to be here a lot. That's probably because you like us.

[Paul Mayers]

Absolutely.