Evidence of meeting #6 for Subcommittee on Food Safety in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was food.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I think by virtue of the fact that you're educating people, you're telling them about a structure or system that you've got, so that's certainly promotion.
6:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
I'm an educator myself. I earn my living by educating adults and people who have careers. I can tell you that there's a big difference between promoting and educating.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Okay.
You talked about over-regulation having overtaken the agenda. That was one of your first comments. Yet it seems that the suggestion of another agency would actually add to that again. Do you have any suggestions as to how to reduce that regulatory burden? You're saying you don't know if the information is being managed correctly, so we need another bureaucracy to make people aware, but at the same time, you said that over-regulation is one of your three main points. How do you reduce the regulatory burden when you want to do the things that you're suggesting at the other side?
6:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
I didn't say that we should reduce it.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
You said regulations are unbearable, at the beginning. That sounds like you want something done about them.
6:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
To increase processing capacity in Canada is an issue, especially in the Prairies. In order to increase that processing capacity, we're going to have to make some tough decisions. However, I'm not suggesting that we should reduce the level of regulation we have. What I'm concerned about is that we go into this funk of putting more regulation on the table, inspect more, thus increase cost. What I'm saying, basically, is be careful what you wish for, because at the end of the day you may be penalizing consumers—most importantly, consumers who are not as well off as others.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
How do you put farm-to-fork traceability in without adding a regulatory burden for people? I agree with you that we probably have over-regulation in a number of areas, but I don't know how.... We have to be able to reduce that. That's the solution, isn't it?
6:50 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
Yes. We've been trying for decades to establish a supply chain approach to food traceability. We haven't been successful. Why? It's not because of a lack of regulation. It's because of conflicting interests, as I was saying earlier. I had the same question earlier. It's because people can't agree on who will be accountable and who will pay for the system.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is an interesting discussion. Your comment, Mr. Charlebois, to be careful what you wish for.... You'd better look in the mirror on that one, because if you had an agency, a reincarnation of the CFIA set up to report to Parliament, you'd have one hell of a mess. It would be just unbelievable.
I think there are some lessons to be learned here, given what you're proposing, in terms of how this place works. We work in a system of ministerial accountability and responsibility.
I can tell that you haven't been in cabinet. Who's going to sit around the table and talk about reducing, improving, and changing regulations, on a daily basis or on a weekly basis? In my humble opinion, it just wouldn't work. It would be the worst system in the world, in my view. You'd have a bureaucracy run riot. So that's my point of view, to tell you where I sit on that.
In terms of some of the questions along the lines David was talking about--small plants, big plants--Michael McCain, when he was before us, talked about how maybe everyone should have to go to a federal standard in which everything is CFIA-inspected. I tell you, that would be great for the big boys like Maple Leaf.
Maybe you have these figures, because you researched this area. Where are most of the recalls in terms of the Canadian food safety system? I had a little operator call me from Ontario the other day, a sausage operator who is under provincial regulation. CFIA sent out the new reporting rules, which are clearly designed for a huge company. This is a two-man shop that produces a high-quality product from a local supply of meat. It has a local delivery system. They've certainly never had a recall in their lives. They're not the problem, but they're paying a heavy price in terms of burdensome paperwork designed for the national system, and so on.
When you compare provincial regulations to national regulations, where, in terms of a recall in the food system, are most of the recalls coming from? Are they coming from the small operators or the big operators in this country? Do you know?
6:50 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
In terms of numbers, it is the small ones. In terms of scope, of course, when you look at numbers--the number of products, volume, money--the majority of products are recalled by the bigger companies right now. For example, if you take the Maple Leaf recall, it blows everything out of proportion. That's the problem. It depends on where you're coming from. We get about 300 recalls a year. If you look at the nature of each recall, the majority of them come from smaller outfits.
I see your comment that if we set up the system it's going to be a complete disaster as a clear indication that we haven't gone through the crisis we need to go through to make some clear, evident, strong changes to our system.
6:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
Let me finish.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
--for a second, because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you do not understand the parliamentary system. To have an agency report to Parliament--
6:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
England has a parliamentary system.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
--in the parliamentary system, you'd have no....
Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you. I'm disagreeing with you, and you might as well know that I disagree.
I want to get another question in here. In terms of your comparison, you did a study, The Food Safety Performance World Ranking 2008, which I went through. Can you explain where you see Canada being in that? You didn't have that in your presentation, and I want that on the record. We rank five out of 17. We're five in 17 items. What are the highlights of that report, in summary?
6:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the report in front of me. From my memory, Canada fared well in terms of biosecurity programs and food safety programs in place in industry, as I mentioned earlier. For example, we have HACCP, which is very strong in our country. In terms of risk communications, we were weak.
I'm just going by memory. I apologize--
6:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
We had 45 different variables. I can send you a copy.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thanks very much.
There's a briefing by Public Health Canada at seven o'clock, just one floor up, and I'm sure a bunch of us would like to sit in on it.
I have just one follow-up question.
Mr. Charlebois, you were talking about how at one time 25% of our available disposable income was spent on food. Now, you've said, it's down to 10% to 12%. I've heard figures of 8% to 10%. Are you saying in your comments that there's a link between cheap food and a lack of food safety? I just want to clarify.
6:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Regina, As an Individual
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that before we make any decisions on food safety policies, we need to understand the macroeconomic repercussions of any policy. We need to understand that food is not as much a priority as it was a generation ago. Food is competing against trips to Cancun and 52-inch plasma TVs. We have to be real. We have to acknowledge that. It's a reality.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Well, it's a sad state of affairs when it gets to be that way, but it is the truth.
Thank you very much for coming here today. We appreciate it.
Mr. Easter, did you want to raise a point?
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I'm beginning to worry whether we're going to have enough time for the Agriculture Union. I hear that the potential witness list for Wednesday basically has the Agriculture Union lumped in with quite a number of other witnesses.
We had a discussion in your office last Monday. I do think that the Agriculture Union is one of the main players in this game, in this serious issue, and we need two hours with them, on their own, without other witnesses. There's a couple of inspectors on that witness list who have worked in these plants. We need to give them ample time. We need the groups to drill down into this issue with ample time to get into a thorough discussion with them. I want to be assured that this is what we're going to have.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Your point is well taken. As you know, we had some witnesses back out on us tonight. We also had some who couldn't come before us, for whatever reason, on Wednesday.
My only comment, Mr. Easter, is that if we have single witnesses for two hours every meeting, we'll never get through the list. We've been trying to get them all on there. The gentleman you talked about is scheduled to be here. I don't have any issue with the two hours, but whether you're questioning or whatever, you get the same amount of time whether there are one, two, or three witnesses there to concentrate on.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
You really don't, Mr. Chair. I think it's important for this committee to get ample time with the key people in this industry.