Agriculture Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I guess my last point is this. I would suggest that until they clean up their act, we should do something a little more drastic and maybe stop accepting it. That might be the only way to force their hand to clean up their act. To me, it looks like it's been a problem.

[Bashir Manji]

One point is that we are still in discussions with the FDA. In fact, there's a meeting of CFIA officials with the USFDA on Thursday.

Based on our discussion, I totally agree with you. If there are issues where the USFDA cannot assure us they have taken some strong measures in order to assure us of the safety of leafy greens and spinach, we will definitely have to do something drastic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Atamanenko, for seven minutes, please.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I have a couple of questions. The first one is more specific, and the other one is general.

I represent fruit growers in the southern part of the Okanagan in British Columbia. We had a problem. It wasn't a major problem, but it was a problem for some of the fruit growers and cherry growers this summer in regard to the fruit fly and Taiwan, which I'm sure you're familiar with.

The problem was that the shipment was stopped before being exported to Taiwan because of the fact that the fruit fly was discovered. I'm not sure what the term is, but it's not an item that is specifically in the agreement; in other words, it can be passed. The reason for this was that it resembled the apple maggot, which is a quarantined item in Taiwan. In talking to your officials, I learned this was a precautionary measure.

Now, the question is this. One farmer I talked to was upset because this wasn't a quarantined item and yet his shipment was lost. He had to basically repack and do it all over again. That's the rule. Could you clarify or shed some light on this?

The other thing is this. If we have to determine whether it's the apple maggot or the fruit fly, is there some way of doing it quickly? As it stands now, I believe it has to be sent to a laboratory in Winnipeg or somewhere for a test to ensure it's not the apple maggot.

We may see this more and more, because apple maggot is creeping north and invading our sovereignty, so to speak, or this may only have been an initial case. Is some kind of measure being thought of by your department to make it as easy as possible for our cherry pickers?

[Gary Koivisto]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, I believe I am familiar with the case that's the basis for your question. This particular grower or exporter was shipping cherries to Taiwan, and our inspector, upon a statistically valid sampling and with growing technique, found early-instar larvae. Of course, the problem with these early-instar larvae is that it's difficult even for entomologists to identify exactly what they are—whether it's going to be the cherry fruit fly, the apple maggot, or another quarantine pest.

I'll answer your last question first in. No, I'm not aware of a quick identification for it. Even for entomologists to identify it sometimes would require weeks, because they have to grow these things out to the point where they are in a form that's identifiable, which of course is not a practical solution for somebody wanting to get a perishable product across the Pacific Ocean.

But going back to this decision, when our inspectors find these larvae, the policy is to refuse to issue the phytosanitary certificate—thus, as you put it, stopping the export. Without that certificate, it wouldn't make it into Taiwan.

The reason for this is that even if he were able to identify it for sure, upon arrival in Taiwan, they apply an inspection sampling program that, from what I'm told, is far larger than ours. If they were to have the same find in Taiwan, they have the same problem of identification. Then they would give the exporter a choice of refused entry, finding another country, fumigating it, or waiting until we can identify it—which of course brings us back to the problem of having a perishable product here.

The decision to not issue the phytosanitary certificate—to make all of those marketing decisions here in Canada—is I believe the right one. Further, if this becomes an habitual situation in Taiwan or in any country, what quite often follows is that they step up their inspection program, they step up their sampling program, and we get more of this identified.

Thus the Canadian policy is strict, yes, we are thorough back here, but we believe this is the best way to protect the exporters and the reputation of the Canadian export system.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

So the way I read this—and hearing what you're saying and also what your inspectors have told me—is that it's an important measure because it could affect all exporters of cherries. In other words, if Taiwan finds this in the shipment, they could shut down all exports.

[Gary Koivisto]

Or they would put in measures that make it more difficult to gain access to Taiwan, such as more inspection measures. They would take more samples, and there would be more delays upon arrival. From our perspective, it's much better to maintain that assurance in Canada. You can sample safely at the smaller level, knowing that we have an intense program back home.

So yes, it could affect all cherries and, as I say, then extend to other products if they lose confidence in the Canadian phytosanitary export program.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

So following up on my initial question, it appears as if this problem could get worse because of what's happening. Are there measures being discussed to minimize the effect on cherry producers, in this case?

I think this case was isolated. It was one, maybe two, but if this starts happening on a regular basis to people exporting, specifically to Taiwan.... I'm not sure how it works. Is there something that can be put in place to try to minimize the effect?

[Gary Koivisto]

My understanding last export season was that there were four shipments that fell into this category, where we refused to issue the phyto. Could it get worse? I really don't know the biology of this pest, as to whether or not it's increasing now.

There are a lot of production practices that can be put in place to minimize this. There aren't necessarily export practices, certification practices, that will do it. There are control measures to put on the front end. I don't want to introduce a pesticide or whatever, but are there control measures that would protect those trees to begin with?

So a lot of this would be front-end and extension work. I could check with my colleagues in the province of British Columbia and the entomologists there to find out if in fact there are some control measures we can recommend to the growers.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Would it be possible to get some of that information once you get it?

[Gary Koivisto]

I'll do my best, yes.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

In regard to being able to distinguish between the apple maggot and these other larvae, there is no quick test that can be done on the spot, you're saying. It's my understanding that it takes time, and there's no technology available anywhere on the planet to do it. Is that correct?

[Gary Koivisto]

You're asking me a greater question that.... I dare not say no technology. There's no technology, to my knowledge, that would speed this up.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Easter, you have five minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

Gary, concerning your response to André earlier, I have just a little worry over what a consumer might think out there about golden nematode. Perhaps you should explain—I don't want a consumer coming back and saying that a golden nematode got into the food system—that really the golden nematode is not a food safety concern. Maybe you'd better explain that.

[Gary Koivisto]

Thank you very much, Mr. Easter, for that opportunity to put on the record, as you put it, that golden nematode is not a food safety issue; it is a phytosanitary issue. It's a serious pest that would affect the production of potatoes, but the potatoes themselves are safe to eat. The pressures and the stigma I was referring to are that allowing any of these potatoes to go out adds a level of risk that certain people are just not willing to accept, the level of risk being the further propagation of the pest, not the safe consumption of the potato.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to clarify that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Gary.

Concerning Larry's point, I think you'll find that generally the farm community is very concerned about.... Certainly there's a perception out there that when there is a problem with one of our products, the border slams shut. As we're seeing with BSE, it's still not open for over-30-month cattle.

When it's the other way around, we tend to be maybe more accommodating in terms of working with them. I think you'll find there's general agreement in this committee that we need to be as strict as everybody else about product coming in, because we export a high-quality product and don't appreciate the political games being played by the United States.

In part this relates to your discussion with Alex as well. In the potato industry in Prince Edward Island, one of the big areas we run into a problem with is that we ship, for example, seed potatoes to one of the danger spots, the Caribbean. A shipload of potatoes gets to port, and their inspection agency—more political than not—says no, there's a problem with the shipment.

Now, I will say that CFIA is good. They send inspectors down; they try to do everything they can to work with the exporters. But from my perspective, I hear from these individuals. They have a million dollars' worth of potatoes sitting on a ship in 35-degree heat, with the seed potato season closing in fast, and the quality of the product is certainly going to deteriorate quickly.

Is there any more rapid way to deal with this than the way we're currently dealing with it? You have a producer who has a shipload of potatoes, and the risk is huge. In my view it's strictly political on the part of their system, but it's sure a problem for us in Canada. It's not a criticism of CFIA; you've done all you can to help us any time I've asked. But is there another way we can be going about this?

[Gary Koivisto]

Thank you very much for that question. The concern I have with the question is with your comment about a rapid way.

Canada puts a lot of emphasis on these international standards—the NAPPO standard, the International Plant Protection Convention standards—which set out a way in which commodities have to be treated. Other countries have to react to that in such a way that they make their decisions based on quarantine science, not on any other factors. That is why we invest so heavily in these multilateral standards. Ultimately this provides us the basis upon which we can make the arguments that allow us to go and defuse those situations. But it is not the rapid process, perhaps, that you would be looking for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Are you done, Mr. Easter? Okay, great.

Is there a decent dispute mechanism for when things do go sideways, as we've seen at times?

[Gary Koivisto]

Right now, there isn't a tried dispute mechanism outside of the World Trade Organization, which doesn't work all that well either. It's difficult.

Under the International Plant Protection Convention, there is a dispute resolution mechanism; it has just never been tried. This is certainly a group in which we've invested a lot and that I would like to think would be effective. But neither Canada, nor any other country, nor any other trading partnership has gone that route.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Good. Thank you, Gary.

Mr. Gourde, for the final couple of minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Good morning. My question concerns feed exports and imports.

In my previous incarnation—before I became a politician—I exported hay to the United States. Exporting feed to the US is a relatively simple process. However, it is extremely difficult to import hay from the US. Quebec and Canadian horse breeders would dearly love to be able to import certain varieties of feed, for example, South American alfalfa. Sometimes, if the colour is unusual, our hay is not allowed into the US, even though we cannot take it back. If a shipment is turned away in Vermont, theoretically we could bring it back to Canada, given the small distance involved. Our exporters are thus faced with a dilemma. US buyers know that it is extremely difficult to return feed to Canada and so they offer ridiculously low prices, which leads to certain consequences. When our exporters are offered lower prices for their product, regardless of the reason, producers are left holding the bag.

Why haven't Canadian and US feed export and import policies been harmonized?

[Gary Koivisto]

Thank you for the question.

Without knowing the source of the hay from the United States, or the place of arrival, I can't comment on the phytosanitary concern that could create some of that. So I don't know. I could follow up a little more, from a phytosanitary perspective, with what it is you're referring to.

From a quality perspective, however, you did say that colour...and no doubt there are other factors that would impact on the movement of hay. Again, this is not a phytosanitary concern, so I wouldn't be up on those other quality factors that would impede the trade.

Quite frankly, unfortunately, I'm just not in a position to really be able to comment without getting a bit more information as to the source in the United States and where into Canada. With that information, I could deal with the phytosanitary issues, if any, that would be arising. Then I'd be able to properly respond to your question.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Regardless of where the hay is grown in Canada, it's relatively easily to ship feed into the US. However, regardless of where the feed originates in the US, it's difficult to bring it into Canada. This is true even of Canadian hay rejected by a buyer. The latter may have rejected the hay because of its colour and the Canadian seller is forced to accept a price that may be 40, 50 or even 70% lower because he cannot bring the shipment back to Canada. Once the hay has crossed the border, it becomes American hay, so to speak, and the CFIA requires a phytosanitary certificate before the hay can be brought back to Canada, even if it was originally grown in Canada.

Can you explain this policy to me?