Agriculture Committee on May 30th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Easter, you had a short point to make, and then we'll have Mr. Anderson.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes. I think Mr. Gravel mentioned it in one of his responses. That is, what about the modernization of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act? It did die in the last Parliament after a lot of work by this committee, and I'm wondering if consideration is being given to bringing it forward. There are a lot of sections in that combined bill that are necessary if we're to be up to today's standards, so I'm wondering if that's under consideration. Can we expect it in this Parliament?

[André Gravel]

Mr. Chairman, there are other priorities the current government is trying to address, and the agency will certainly be responsive to the demands the government will be putting on the agency. As far as we're concerned as an agency, as I mentioned, we realize that the fact that we don't have the bill creates some gaps and maybe some opportunities, and we certainly will be continuing to work to address these issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

There are a lot of vegetable producers in my riding, and a number of them drew my attention to the fact that they had to comply with fairly demanding standards on pesticide use. They don't dispute the fact that this produces vegetables that are better for human health, but they oppose the fact that tomatoes are being imported from Mexico, where pesticide use is not governed by the same standards.

Why is it that the same standards are not set for those vegetables, which often cost less than Canadian products and for which products that are considered harmful to human health in Canada were used?

[André Gravel]

That's an excellent question, Mr. Chairman. It lets me talk about the role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with regard to import control.

The standards in effect for products offered to Canadian consumers, whether they come from Canada or from foreign countries, are the same. The standards established by Health Canada for pesticide residues, or other products used in harvesting, are the same, whether the product is imported or comes from Canada. The Agency has an annual plan for sampling domestic and imported fruits and vegetables, which, moreover, you can consult on our Web site, or which I can send to committee members. You can see the annual results, which show that a number of samples have been analyzed and the degree of compliance determined by the various analyses conducted by the Agency.

If my memory serves me, the majority—more than 90 percent—of the samples meet standards. I even believe that the percentage of samples of Canadian and imported products analyzed by the Agency that meet standards is greater than 95 percent. Non-standard products are identified by our import control system and are subject to more frequent sampling.

In addition, the Agency conducts visits to countries that export fruits and vegetables to Canada to ensure that they have established the necessary mechanisms, sampling programs and scientific infrastructure necessary to meet our standards.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Gravel, is it possible to get a hold of the document you just referred to?

[André Gravel]

Certainly, it's the report on residues that the Agency has prepared. I'll be pleased to send it to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Madame.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have just a quick question. One of the fertilizer companies has been trying to get approval for a slow-release nitrogen product. Apparently it's an environmentally smart nitrogen. It's slow release. It reduces greenhouse gases. It will save farmers some money and increase their yields. It was invented in this country and it has been approved in the United States already. I understand there's some holdup on the approval process here.

Can you tell me where we are in the approval process for that product?

[André Gravel]

With pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

I'll ask Krista Mountjoy.

[Krista Mountjoy]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know the file you're referring to. The file is one that involves not only assessment by CFIA. Also, in part, there is a question of a health assessment. We have had discussions with Health Canada, so we're very close to finalizing that.

We've engaged the company--the stakeholder--throughout, so the company is well aware and seems to be reasonably optimistic, as are we, that we'll be able to bring this file to a close very soon.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I hope it's closing in a positive direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Atamanenko. No?

Mr. Steckle.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

There has been a great deal of discussion in various quarters of this country on terminator genes, and I'm just wondering where CFA stands on that . Has there been directive given by government in terms of where you need to go? This becomes, in many people's minds, a moral issue. So where are we going with that, and where is it at, and perhaps where do you see us going in the future?

[André Gravel]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The issue of biotechnology is currently an issue in which the agency has a great investment. We look at these files of biotechnology with a scientific eye. The agency has the responsibility to evaluate new products that come to the market from the standpoint of their innocuousness to the environment and with regards to any impact on the feeding of animals. From that standpoint, the agency reviews very carefully every submission that is made by the private sector with very rigorous and scientific criteria to determine whether these products are acceptable or not.

So it's a long preamble to say that the agency would be looking with the same eye at products that have potentially terminator genes attached to them. In other words, are there scientific reasons why these products should or should not be approved? Do they represent a threat to the environment, to biodiversity, to the insect population, to other plants, etc? We will be making a determination on that basis.

There are other considerations, of course, but these considerations do not belong to the agency. I think Canada has made a decision not to entertain any approval of these products and we've made that determination public. It's clearly not an agency priority.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

So your determinations are based on efficacy, not on ethical matters and ethical principles. The decision to ban or not to ban would be a government decision. Am I correct? Basically you're dealing with it from the efficacy standard.

[André Gravel]

The agency will be looking at the scientific aspect of these submissions to determine whether they are acceptable or not. This is our mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Steckle.

Ladies and gentlemen, we extended the timeframe just a bit. I thank you for your patience in bearing with us today as we tap-danced through three different sets of witnesses.

If everyone would just stay in their seats for a minute, we have a bit of housekeeping at the end of the meeting here. It should take a couple of minutes. Thank you so much.

What we have before us today--and I'll just continue on because I know our guys have to run--is two separate issues. The AMPA legislation is set to be tabled in the House on Friday. Of course, any time legislation passes--I understand there's an all-party agreement to move that through fairly quickly to benefit producers--that means this legislation will come to committee possibly next week, and legislation trumps everything else. So we'll try to work it into our schedule, unless you folks would like an extra meeting or something like that. I'm open to that idea as well. It's just so you're aware that we may have to juggle with the timeframe we've laid out here.

Mr. Bellavance.

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

Are you talking about Bill C-15?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Yes.

The second issue is Mr. Atamanenko's motion. Everyone has a copy before them, and I understand Mr. Easter has some amendments.

Mr. Atamanenko, are you fine with his speaking to the amendments? These are friendly amendments.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Okay. So you're accepting the amendments?

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

Can I just ask about the procedure? Which is the motion that we vote on? Is it the friendly amendments, or my motion as presented?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Well, your motion is tabled. That's before us. Now, Mr. Easter is making some amendments to your motion and we will speak to the amendments. Then if you don't like the motion as it's amended, you can vote against it, but that's basically the procedure.