Agriculture Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I appreciate that.

If you had known about the drought, would that have changed your response? This has been happening since late July or early August, which is when I started working on this file.

I'm more concerned about process. I don't want to talk about an individual case. Would it concern you, as a section head, that you wouldn't have had even that very important component of the briefing passed on to you? Would it concern you that it would be fundamental to a decision-making process here? Of course, these inspections have already happened fifteen times, so they have cost a huge amount in a crisis situation in terms of time and additional money.

[Gary Koivisto]

It's difficult to answer your question as to what I would have done had I known information earlier. However, I forget the number of years earlier--four or five years--there was that major drought in western Canada and there was a shipment of several rail carloads of hay from eastern Canada to western Canada to address it. And even during that crisis, we were still applying our phytosanitary measures and protecting the area from cereal leaf beetle.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

When we talk about a process like this in terms of a government's response to a situation it sees happening in the field, where there are guidelines and all these kinds of things, is there no possibility of adapting to such a situation, say, for drought or crisis, where we're essentially going to the same homogenous source, yet requiring it each and every time, as opposed to saying...? It takes so long to do it. Why can't we understand that the same results come back each and every time because it is the same source?

If you used the analogy of a cake, you would simply go to the refrigerator and take one piece at a time. Would you expect to have it inspected each and every time you wanted a piece of cake?

[Gary Koivisto]

Again, I take your point and I agree. We are working with the USDA-APHIS to try to find an alternate way of not taking our cake one slice at a time in this case, yet still providing the assurance that we require for the identification of the source and that in fact the product is free from cereal leaf beetle.

In this particular instance we are dealing with a grower from northwestern Ontario, and even the pest we're talking about may not be a major pest in that area, yet it would be a significant pest if established within the Prairies. That's the whole concern, and that's why we are very cautious before we make these changes.

Yes, it is a slow process. I regret that it is a slow process, but that is the background in this particular situation. As I've said, I've asked staff to meet with USDA. I haven't heard the results of that, but we certainly will keep you informed as to the status of this particular case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Ken, do you have one short follow-up point, very briefly?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Again from a process standpoint, when a member of the public service is dealing with someone who obviously has what they perceive as a valid need, are your staff primarily scientists? I ask this because when the response was, “What's the big deal, it's only $70 an inspection”, do you not think that some ordinary humans out there would take umbrage to that?

[Gary Koivisto]

Certainly our staff are scientists, and any response they come up with is from a scientific perspective. But I would certainly take umbrage if a staff member were to ask, “What's the big deal?” to any one of our clients.

I'll follow up on the attitude that you have expressed. That's not the professional attitude that we would expect from our inspectors. But going to the first part of your question, the answer is yes, we do make our decisions based on science.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Boshcoff.

I have one point on what Mr. Boshcoff was asking. Does a state certificate carry the same weight in your mind as the USDA? You were saying that the state does do the certification, but then you're going directly back to the USDA. Does it not carry the same weight?

[Gary Koivisto]

Thank you for that question, which allows me to clarify. In this case, Mr. Chair, the state issues the USDA certificate, so they have been given the authority and the oversight by the USDA-APHIS to do that inspection and issue one of their certificates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you.

Mr. Bellavance, you have seven minutes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your testimony, which is proving to be very timely. We would prefer that there not have been a crisis, but unfortunately, that's not the case. Having to resolve problems regarding animal or plant products is a fact of life. Recently, you have had to resolve some issues with the United States, particularly the cyst nematode problem affecting the Saint-Amable region in Quebec.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency was slated to produce a report on this matter. Do you know when we can expect to have a full report of the events that transpired?

[Gary Koivisto]

Thank you very much for the question.

It is my understanding--and I am only a witness here and do not know the proceedings of this committee--that in the near future there will be a more fulsome discussion on the golden nematode situation in Quebec.

On areas of clarification, I will speak from the CFIA perspective on the resumption and normalization of trade with the United States. When we first announced in mid-August the positive find in Quebec, we all agreed that the reaction from the United States was overkill and not necessarily what was required to address the risk this situation posed.

I'm very pleased that in less than two months, which is a remarkable amount of time for this in-depth bilateral discussion and agreement, my staff were able to negotiate...with the help of everyone from parliamentarians, ministers, down to our field samplers taking samples to provide the evidence that it would take to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the United States to recognize the regionalization of the problem in a small area. Unfortunately, if you're in the area of Saint-Amable, you would consider it to be a major area. But relatively speaking, to all of Quebec and all of Canada, it's a relatively small, controlled area.

So there's the recognition of that, and then the normalization of trade for other products, including potatoes, for the rest of Quebec and the rest of Canada. I was very pleased with the results of that.

As you are aware as well, just last week the minister announced the establishment of a ministerial order. At that point, it signalled the method of control we were putting in place to ensure the golden nematode established in Saint-Amable would stay in Saint-Amable. We would work to lower the incidence of it and to prevent its further spread.

Those were two steps, and as I've said, I'm very pleased about the establishment of this and how quickly it went. Yet it is still a very serious issue that we continue to work with.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

You stated that the Americans overreacted by banning all products from Quebec, including plant products and even machinery and equipment. In your opinion, was the US reacting to Canada's decision regarding Idaho potatoes? I believe the embargo on Quebec products was lifted around the same time as the Idaho potato issue was settled.

[Gary Koivisto]

Thank you for allowing clarification on the bilateral agreement.

Yes, it was very much an agreement that recognized the situation in Quebec, how we would handle it in Quebec, and how it's going to be handled in Idaho--it's relatively the same situation. More than that, this is an infestation that's been long established in the state of New York and on Vancouver Island as well. It is an all-encompassing agreement as to how we are going to manage golden nematode or potato cyst nematode in both of our countries and how we will react the next time, if and when there is another find.

So yes, it was a two-way negotiation that allowed for trade. The same agreement applies to both the state of Idaho and the province of Quebec.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I'd like to talk about the compensation awarded when serious animal-related problems arise. I'm thinking here in particular about the serious poultry crisis in British Columbia. In that case, the government, or the agency, compensated poultry producers for the losses they incurred. Similar action was taken when mad cow disease was discovered. Section 39 of the Plant Protection Act provides for payment of some form of compensation to producers.

I understand the growers in Saint-Amable were forced to destroy their crops. An order was issued to destroy potato crops infected with the cyst nematode. Now that the problem has been addressed in Quebec and in Canada -- except in the case of these growers -- could the CFIA look to section 39 of the Plant Protection Act to provide some compensation to these growers who stand to lose this year's crop, instead of resorting to the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program, in view of all of the associated problems that could arise?

[Gary Koivisto]

Thank you for the question.

First, before I get into compensation and a few remarks relative to that, I want to clarify that the potatoes in Saint-Amable, several acres...and if we get into where we have a more fulsome discussion, I would bring statistics and have the exact numbers. Many acres of these potatoes had already been harvested and had been safely shipped to a processor in Quebec City or in Montreal, where they were made into potato chips. We recognize that despite the fact that these potatoes were coming from a golden nematode infested field, we had put in place safety programs that would allow the marketing of these potatoes.

Other potatoes that are left in the Saint-Amable area, either in storage or in the field right now, if they come from a field where golden nematode has not been detected—and to date, there aren't that many fields where they've not been detected or where we've gone through the full process and they've not been detected—we would allow these potatoes to be washed and marketed in a controlled area outside Saint-Amable. That said, though, there is a market stigma on these potatoes; the market itself is saying it is really reluctant to purchase them.

Table-stock potatoes in storage or in the ground now that are from a positive field, we would allow to go for processing in a controlled way. But there are the same market pressures where the processors are saying, we don't necessarily need these potatoes, nor are they the potatoes we would like or prefer to process.

All these market pressures are restricting the ability of these potatoes to move.

All that is to say we have not ordered these potatoes destroyed. That's the first point. CFIA has controls on them. We would allow them to be marketed in a controlled way, yet the market itself is putting these constraints on them that make them very difficult for a producer to market.

As to the question of plant health compensation as it fits into the whole picture of financial assistance, I'm not the person to address that. In this particular instance, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is leading this discussion. We're involved in it, so is the Province of Quebec, and so are producers. I'm not in a position to say what part, if any, the plant protection compensation regulations could play in assistance to these growers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Bellavance.

Mr. Miller, seven minutes please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, gentlemen, for coming today.

Just recently we've had the spinach E. coli problem coming out of the States, specifically California. My understanding is that some Canadians got sick from it in the States; someone may even have died from it.

What we did, and correct me if I'm wrong, is pull the product off the shelves, but we didn't close the border to it. I've got a lot of beef producers in my riding, and they've mentioned it since this spinach outbreak. When the BSE happened no one got sick, no one died in North America or any other place because of any Canadian cattle, and the reason was that it was kept out of the marketplace, it was controlled, yet the border was closed. So they ask, what's the difference? How do you justify that? I'd like to hear some comments on that.

Also, related to the same issues, to deal with the border and what have you, is the nematode issue, which we just talked about. The border was closed there. It started, I believe, five or six years ago in P.E.I. I forget the potato disease, but it was closed there as well.

So it seems to me there are different rules here, and I'd like to hear some comments on that from you, if I could.

[Gary Koivisto]

Thank you very much.

You have several questions within a question. The first one is dealing with the food safety of spinach, and although it's not a phytosanitary issue, I did anticipate that we could quickly get into food safety issues. That's why I asked Dr. Manji to accompany me, so I'll ask Dr. Manji to address the food safety parts of your question.

[Bashir Manji]

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to clarify our position on spinach.

Basically, you're right, there was at least one Canadian consumer who was sick with spinach. We did confirm that it was linked with the spinach originating from California. The steps and the measures we took were, number one, that we did a recall for the spinach that was implicated, and that was from California, in the area of Salinas. In addition to that, we did issue a border alert, so as we speak right now no spinach from the U.S. is allowed to enter Canada.

Now we are in the process of discussing this issue with the USFDA to, first, find out what they have found in their investigation, to find out what exactly went wrong for that spinach to get contaminated in that area, and then subsequent to this, what measures they have taken to make sure the risk that was identified has been mitigated. Until we have that assurance, it will be very difficult for us to open the border. So right now spinach from the U.S. is not allowed in Canada.

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

Thank you.

Carrying on with the spinach and California, I understand that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over the last three years has issued several warnings about some products coming out of California. Do we have the bleepers out, the radar out, looking for this? Given the problems that they recognize even within their own country, what are we doing here? Is there extra testing or extra people put to it, extra attention given to it? Can you talk about that part of it?

[Bashir Manji]

Again, yes, that's true. There have been, I believe, up to 20 outbreaks in the California area, and we have our bleepers out. It's not only spinach, but it has been lettuce, tomatoes, green onions, etc. We have been taking additional measures, incremental measures, as we find more information, with fresh produce in Canada. We have worked very closely with the industry in drafting what we call good agricultural practices, in basically trying to minimize the risk on fresh produce. This has been a partnership project with industry as well as the CFIA.

From the sampling perspective, we have increased our sampling and basically targeted fresh produce. In our sampling program, again, we do some risk analysis so that we target problem areas, which I mentioned, leafy greens, onions, tomatoes. So we have increased our sampling on that.

Because we import a lot of our produce from the U.S. and some from Mexico, we have partnered with them to share information on an ongoing basis in order to develop some better methods and strategies so that we can collectively do prevention so that we don't get into this issue of food-borne illnesses.

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

Again, with this product, it's taking extra testing and monitoring by your organization. Is this extra cost and attention being passed on to U.S. exporters, who are putting in here, or is the Canadian consumer eating the whole cost of a product that we know has been pretty iffy at times on food safety?

[Bashir Manji]

Right now, no, the cost is not being passed, but what we have is our normal sampling program. We designed this program based on our radars, what we have found as problem areas. So within the same sampling program, we reorient what we were spending before, we reorient our resources to areas where we are finding issues. So within the same resources we had, we have targeted our sampling to cover issues where we have found issues and problems, such as spinach, leafy vegetables, etc.

Basically, the sampling program is statistically oriented. The same numbers of samples are done collectively for all produce, but now there is a reorientation to do more sampling in areas where we are finding problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

This is your final point.