Evidence of meeting #53 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cfia.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
Vice-President, Federal Government Relations, Retail Council of Canada
I can't see that our members would object to such an audit. It's always a good thing to look internally at whether you have the right resources to match your requirements and your mandates and, especially given a new piece of legislation, whether you've matched up the right resources. Certainly we wouldn't object, but we have complete confidence now in CFIA and have worked very closely with them.
I wouldn't see there being an issue with that.
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
I believe that was one of the amendments made at the Senate.
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
Oh, not an outside audit....
Well, I would agree with Karen. I don't think our members would object to it.
I guess that determining who would be appropriate as outside auditor would be a good question.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
One of the new approaches being taken here is the consolidation of inspection systems for fish, meat, and agricultural products, with the combination of the four pieces of legislation.
Do you have any concerns regarding the consolidation of these three or four pieces of legislation, with respect to the efficiencies of an integrated inspection system? In other words, all of a sudden inspectors are going to become jacks of all trades and masters of none, if you know what I mean.
I'm wondering whether we should be concerned about whether they will be adequately trained so that they can move from inspection of meat to inspection of fish to inspection of agricultural products.
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
I personally believe it's a good idea for a couple of reasons. One is that it gives the inspector the opportunity to see what's happening in other sectors.
One of the messages we always give is that when some food safety event happens, we want to learn what happened. We also look to inspectors to provide some guidance, because our members don't know everything.
An inspector who goes around and sees many places, including other industries, is given the opportunity to say, for instance, that In the dairy sector there's a particular piece of equipment that has worked really well in a certain application and perhaps it should be considered for another application. I think there are a lot of positives to that.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Here is a final question for Karen.
Karen, we don't have the benefit of seeing your amendments. You submitted them in English. They aren't translated. Could you please tell us about some of those amendments more specifically and about why you're recommending them?
9:15 a.m.
Vice-President, Federal Government Relations, Retail Council of Canada
Certainly.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, there are a few things concerning where we feel that the authorities are a bit broad specifically around disclosing confidential business information, which the minister has broad authority to do, and for which there don't seem to be a lot of restrictions. “Restrictions” is not the right word, but there's not a lot of structure around it. We feel that there's language in the consumer product safety legislation that puts restrictions or parameters around the minister's being able to disclose, but in such a way that the various parties are given notice and are able to discuss. That's one key area.
We feel that within the legislation there's the power for inspectors to look at computers within a particular establishment, yet there are no parameters around what they would be looking for. We're suggesting that they be given this authority, but for the purposes of inspection, rather than just leaving it a broad authority.
There are provisions within the legislation that the inspector may bring someone to accompany them on an inspection. We'd like to limit that to being for inspection purposes. Anecdotally we've heard from members that there have been cases in which inspectors have brought along family members. I guess they're proud of the job they're doing and want mom or dad to see how things work.
Those are minor amendments that we're suggesting, but we believe they bring the right amount of authority to the minister while creating the proper constraints around the exercise of the authority.
October 30th, 2012 / 9:20 a.m.
Vice-President, Federal Government Relations, Retail Council of Canada
Yes.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I will advise committee members that the document is being translated. There is some technical language, so it takes a few days longer. I assure you that you'll get it as soon as it is transcribed.
Mr. Richards.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both witnesses for being here today. I appreciate your testimony and the questions that you've answered so far. I have a couple of questions for each of you.
I'll start with you, Mr. Laws.
You testified before the Senate committee concerning this bill. You said that the Canadian Meat Council “support[s] the consolidation and modernization of the legislation presented in Bill S-11”. Could you explain to the committee a little further why you feel that consolidation and modernization of Canada's food safety legislation is so important, particularly to your meat industry here in Canada?
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
Certainly. It surrounds the fact that if you look at the frequency of inspection at meat plants, it's a daily presence with veterinarians there at all times; whereas in other sectors, for instance, at a fish plant, it's my understanding there might be an inspector there only once a month, or at dairy facilities the inspector is there only once every six weeks. It is quite a paradox.
There are also some things in the Meat Inspection Act. The meat sector requires, for instance, in regulation 110, that for every new package of meat a label has to be pre-registered with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. If we have a new package of ready-to-eat salami, the package goes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and we have to pay $100.
It might take them six weeks or eight weeks to approve the particular label; whereas the dairy industry can put a new yoghurt at a retail store and not have to get the label pre-registered. We argue that this makes no sense. We still have to comply with all the rules, as does the dairy industry, but it just doesn't make any sense. We have seen several examples in which the label's being approved doesn't add anything to food safety, for instance.
What does, though, is that in meat factories, because the inspectors are right there every day in the room where a product is being made, they can read the label and say, “The list of ingredients says that there's this, this, and this.” They can see exactly what goes in at that time. That is where the real food safety issue is, because, particularly with labelling, you don't want any allergens that would cause a food safety issue. That's just one example. There are several others.
It's just a matter of fairness. Why are these rules applied to the meat industry that don't apply to other sectors? That's one example.
Just working from Mr. Valeriote's comment, there are probably advantages to having inspectors go to different places. It would strengthen the food safety system, if they can use their expertise from another sector. We believe it builds on their expertise and is an opportunity for the inspectors to bring more to the table. In fact, it probably makes their jobs as inspectors more interesting as well. Rather than having to go to the same facility every day, they could go to different parts of the food chain and build on their knowledge and build a career with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thank you, Mr. Laws.
Ms. Proud, I have some questions for you as well.
It's pretty clear that Bill S-11 is aptly titled as the safe food for Canadians act. It clearly will make Canadians' food safer; there's no question. You look at strengthening inspection, increasing penalties for those who are risking food safety, giving inspectors the right tools to do their jobs, traceability requirements. All these things are going to improve Canadians' food safety and that's obviously something we should all support. I know you do, and that's appreciated.
Probably equally as important is the perception, and for you particularly with the Retail Council, consumer confidence is vital. As much as we need to ensure we are improving food safety, we need to make sure it's visible and known to consumers as well.
I would like to hear your thoughts on whether you believe the changes under Bill S-11 would do that. Do you believe consumer confidence will be increased? Do you think Canadians will think their food is safer as a result of the measures taken in this piece of legislation?
9:25 a.m.
Vice-President, Federal Government Relations, Retail Council of Canada
I believe Canadians already feel very confident in the food safety system in Canada. I think some of the messaging coming out of this bill is going to help boost that confidence, such as the increase in penalties, the consolidation, the harmonization, but by and large, I think Canadians are very confident in the system we have today. I can say it's evidenced by the recent recall where we at the Retail Council did not see sales in beef reduced substantially because of the recall. I think Canadians are feeling very confident that the system does work.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thank you very much again, both of you, for being here.
I have a few questions, but before I do that, James, I want to follow up on a statement you made in regard to national standards. I understand the need for safety in national standards. How can we maintain the safety net and yet allow small local businesses and farmers to survive?
I know in B.C., for example, when they introduced the meat inspection regulations a lot of people were hit hard. They were put out of business, because there were no longer local facilities to send animals to. Some absurd things happened in creating the new abattoirs or mobile abattoirs. They had to have the same size of bathrooms and showers for inspectors. They had to have an enlarged facility, and all those standards. Yet, as a lot of people have pointed out to me, the two major problems we've had with food safety issues have been with Maple Leaf and XL.
How can we continue to allow producers and smaller businesses to survive and still maintain confidence in safety in the food supply?
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
That's a very good question. I think some of the changes that were made, for instance, to the meat inspection regulations recently did allow for more flexibility in terms of there being no prescribed bathroom sizes, for instance. The definition of “pavement” was changed so that it's just impervious to water. It doesn't have to be asphalt. There were several other things. There were proposed changes, as well, to allow for a storefront at a federally registered establishment, which I personally believe is a great thing because it does encourage the smaller ones that had been provincially inspected to continue to operate their retail store. That's great.
Perhaps there exist some situations like in B.C. and currently in Saskatchewan where they're rarely, if ever, inspected, and that does cause us grief. Yes, I realize the issues surrounding those larger meat plants. That's where the recall was from. However, people still could get sick from a smaller facility, as they could from a larger one.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I have another question. Maybe, Karen, you could start off with this.
Do you think whistleblower protection is needed so that food safety issues can be prevented before they reach consumers? Would you support the inclusion of this protection in the legislation? There are those who feel in the last incident that staff didn't feel comfortable in exposing what was happening. In other words, it's to protect consumers in the future.
9:25 a.m.
Vice-President, Federal Government Relations, Retail Council of Canada
In principle, absolutely we would support that. As I keep saying, food safety is paramount for our members. Any opportunity to highlight areas where there might be concerns is very important. I wouldn't have any problem with our supporting something like that.
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
It's a good question. I won't answer it directly, but what I can say is that companies that end up being very successful are those that now have a very strong food safety culture which means that they are continually training their employees, that upper management is committed. This means they should be exhibiting the signs of being open to good suggestions and empowering employees to stop the line if they see any issues.
It would be unfortunate if we had to have that type of requirement in a company that was truly dedicated to food safety.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
If a company were truly dedicated, it wouldn't affect them. What if there were a company—and I won't use the letter X because it implies something—company Z, which all of a sudden decided that they were not going to listen to employees but were going to push such things through, and there was no protection for employees? Do you think in a situation like that, having a standard, and we talked about standards in inspections, would be a good idea for the Canadian consumers and others?