Agriculture Committee on May 30th, 2006

[Dr. Brian Evans, Chief Veterinary Officer of Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, André.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, honourable member, for the question.

With respect to the fifth case, which was detected through our domestic surveillance program earlier this year, the comprehensive epidemiological report of the animal traceouts and the feed investigations is expected to be posted within a matter of days. We are reviewing that document, and we're very close to having that document circulated internationally--because a lot of our trading partners are interested in that document--as well as for the benefit of all Canadians, so they can fully understand the BSE story as it continues to unfold as we progress to eradication.

It is safe to say at this point, with respect to that animal detected in British Columbia, that we have identified some commonalities with the previous cases through the feed system in terms of the source of rendering material. There are multiple sources of feed on the farm. We don't want to overemphasize or underemphasize, but we can identify shipments of materials and ingredients used by the local feed mill producing feeds linked very tightly in production time to the case found in January, which is tied to that same geographical source we have identified with all our cases in Canada. We believe the findings, as they are published, will fit within the comprehensive analysis released in January that ties all cases in Canada and explains their occurrence to the satisfaction of the scientific community.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Dr. Evans.

Mr. Bellavance?

Madame.

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

For a few years now, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has permitted the word “product” to be used to designate standardized dairy products such as processed cheese, for example. It's standardized under regulations, and consumers expect it consists solely of cheese.

However, it is now common practice to use the word “product” to alter the name of a standardized product that is not manufactured in accordance with the method prescribed by the Agency's regulations. As a result, consumers are being deceived. We wonder whether it's not the Agency's role to put a stop to this kind of practice. We have to make sure that consumers can choose what they want or don't want to eat in full knowledge of the facts.

Will the Canadian Food Inspection Agency shoulder its responsibilities and ensure that it carries out its mandate with regard to labelling? The point here is to use more reliable labelling so that consumers can make more informed choices.

[André Gravel]

I know that the Agency takes its labelling mandate very seriously. It's spending a lot of time and energy on this matter. It also has a mandate to protect against fraud, and its actions are clearly guided by policies on this matter.

On the subject of cheese, Ms. Mountjoy could provide us with more details, with your permission, Mr. Chairman.

[Krista Mountjoy, Vice-President, Programs and International, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Dr. Gravel, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be delighted to respond to the question.

It is true that at this time these ingredients can be incorporated in cheese products. It is permitted under the regulations. The agency is pleased to support the work of the dairy producers, the dairy processors, and the department in looking at what would be the path going forward. We're very engaged in those discussions, providing technical expertise and advice in support of those discussions. We're hopeful that the path forward will be established. We'll take our guidance from there in terms of how we deal with this issue from a technical perspective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you.

You have nothing to add, madam?

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

Do we have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Very short.

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

In the last Parliament, Bill C-27, which concerned labelling, was introduced. Mr. Gravel, you said you were highly attentive to everything pertaining to this kind of question. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper. It contained an amendment on the names of dairy products.

Has the Agency already prepared to propose a way of proceeding to the government? If so, has it set it aside? Could you potentially work by yourselves, or would you need very specific provisions in order to do so? Would you be able to propose strict regulations regarding directions for use, packaging and so on?

[André Gravel]

Mr. Chairman, some committee members will recall that the Agency spent a lot of time and energy on Bill C-27. Unfortunately, as a result of deadlines related not to the Agency's priorities, but to those of Parliament, the bill could not be passed. As a result of that, many cases could not be resolved and are still pending.

You referred to one instance in particular. The Agency is completely aware of that situation. Many other cases concerning the Agency's actions with regard to farms are still outstanding. The Agency's still seeking solutions in that regard. Bill C-27 was the vehicle we had selected. Whatever the case may be, we know there are still deficiencies to correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Bellavance.

Mr. Atamanenko, three minutes please.

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

I'll try to be quick this time.

Having visited pork slaughterhouses, for example, I understand that there is a national standard when we export out of the country, and that there has to be the same meat standard from each part of the country. Other slaughter facilities that don't export have their own provincial standards, I believe. Is there a standard between provinces? That's the first question.

As well, in British Columbia right now, as you know, the government is consolidating and changing the act to tighten up on slaughter facilities for our meat packing plants, which is hitting the small producers hard. I'm talking about someone who slaughters a cow, sells it on the market, and travels around to different farms to do that. It's really hitting people in my riding who have these really small operations.

From your experience, has there been this question in other parts of Canada? Is there somewhere I can go to find out if any flexibility has been built in here, in some of the provinces, to enable the small-time producer to continue slaughtering without having to drive 500 kilometres to a major facility that may already be overtaxed, putting that person out of business?

I hope you understand my question. Thank you.

[André Gravel]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chairman, the federal standards for meat inspection apply to premises that are engaged in interprovincial and international trade. These standards are a combination of Canadian standards and input that countries that accept Canadian meat have given to us over the years. If you were to look at the standards that Canada implements in those federal facilities, you would see a combination of food safety standards that are driven by our own expertise and a combination of input that we receive, as an example, from the U.S., the EU, Japan, and countries to which Canada ships. Those standards are normally very high standards.

The next level of standard has to do with what the provinces have implemented. Mr. Chairman, there's a great variation in terms of how these standards are derived and how they are implemented. There is a whole range or scope of standards that are associated with these small plants. In some provinces there is no mandatory inspection, and there is an inspection in some provinces. There is a wide variety of standards.

As far as we are concerned, we've initiated discussions with the provinces to come up with a national standard that would potentially allow trade to take place between provinces, as the minister previously mentioned. There is some level of agreement in terms of what these standards would be. It's going to be a matter of deciding how they will be implemented, how the provinces will deliver that system themselves, or whether the federal government will deliver it on their behalf.

Those of you who are from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and to a certain extent B.C. would know that we deliver provincial meat inspections for some plants on the behalf of provinces. There is a lot of work being done with regard to standards and their applications.

In terms of your last question on where you should go in terms of flexibility for small producers that are stuck with no place to go, it's going to be very hard to come up with an answer on that. The majority of provinces that have implemented mandatory inspections have been facing these situations, where small plants did not meet the standards and had to be taken out of commission. It's a hard case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you for answering.

Mr. Maloney.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Plum pox continues to be a problem in the Niagara region. There was a plan under the eradication program that was to go to 2010 to help compensate farmers. That fund is almost expended. Is there a possibility of additional funding for that compensation program? If the eradication mode is not to be continued, what does management in fact mean?

[André Gravel]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll ask Madame Krista Mountjoy to answer.

[Krista Mountjoy]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to respond to the question.

The objective of our activities with respect to plum pox in the Niagara region continues to be eradication at this point. We understand the sensitivities around a couple of things. One is the activity that the agency undertakes when eradication is the goal and when positive trees are detected. How many trees around that tree need to be removed? It has an impact on the producer.

There is also the question of compensation. As you know, the agency compensates for the replacement value of the tree. There has been additional programing supported by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, as well as the Province of Ontario, with respect to business costs that go beyond the replacement value of the tree.

We have engaged in discussions with stakeholders who have been directly affected by the situation in the Niagara area. There is a plan to continue with the sampling over the course of the summer and to then work with stakeholders, as well as with international experts and scientists, to determine what the goal will be in going forward and the complimentary programs that would be associated with this. We are looking at the funding programs with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, as well as the Province of Ontario.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you.

Mr. Boshcoff, you have one minute.

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

Thank you very much.

Is there room in your department for a philosophical edge, especially internationally to offset international pressures, for a “buy Canada”, for support for Canadian farmers, and for support for Canadian agriculture as an overriding philosophical direction? Earlier I mentioned self-sufficiency for abattoirs and meat products.

[André Gravel]

Mr. Chairman, the agency has a lot of expertise in a great variety of areas. We have veterinarians, chemists, biologists, and lawyers. Unfortunately we don't have too many philosophers, because some of these questions are philosophical questions.

With regards to that type of question, the agency's mandate is a little restricted in terms of what the government has asked us to do. It concerns mainly the technical aspects related to implementation of these other government policies. So regarding the issue of buying Canadian product, the agency would be reflecting in its implementation plan some of the philosophical questions that have been translated into regulations and acts, with regards to labelling, as an example. We don't think it's within the agency's purview to put these types of issues on the table.

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

When you design your mission statements and all of these kinds of things, is there not an opportunity...? I know, you're the technical side. I'm just going to leave that with you. Thanks for nodding. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Boshcoff.

Mr. Miller, you have three minutes.

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

Thank you. I'm going to split my time, if possible, with Mr. Anderson.

I would just like to hear a few comments on progress made towards a national meat strategy or meat code. I think we can all agree that if we had had something in place at the time of the BSE crisis, the impact wouldn't have been so bad.

There are problems around the country, particularly in my part of Ontario, to do with the deadstock industry--rendering and what have you--and I'd like to hear your comments on whether there are any new ways we can deal with that part.

[André Gravel]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chairman, I briefly answered the question of the meat code earlier. There's a whole segment of history that I did not mention. In fact you will agree that I'm not the youngest guy on this panel, so I've been around for some time. I can tell you that before the agency was created at the Department of Agriculture we started to work on a national meat code in the late 1970s. With the agreement of all the provinces, we came up with a draft meat code that was to be adopted by the provinces. Unfortunately the difficulty has always been how this meat code is going to be interpreted and implemented. The major difficulty so far has been that maybe provinces are not eager to implement the standard in a way that would be acceptable to their neighbours. Basically what this means is that if Ontario agrees to a Quebec meat inspection standard, as an example, then a product that is inspected by either Quebec or Ontario would move freely between the two provinces on that basis.

Over the years there has been a certain reluctance, I must admit, by the provinces to agree to the implementation of the standard. That's one part of it. The other difficulty has been related to international trade. We have to be very careful in terms of how we set that standard, because there is a danger that whatever standard we have as an interprovincial standard becomes a norm for imported products. I think the agency has always been conscious of that.

On the deadstock situation, with your permission, I'll ask Krista or Cameron to provide comments.

[Krista Mountjoy]

Mr. Chair, regarding the deadstock and renderers, I'm assuming that perhaps the trigger for the question was the discussion on strengthening Canada's feed ban and the need for renderers and deadstock collectors to be able to implement any future decision about strengthening Canada's feed ban. I'm pleased to tell you that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has, to a great extent, led the discussion with stakeholders, provinces and the industry, including the rendering or deadstock industry, toward developing the capacity and the ability to respond should there be a decision made to strengthen the feed ban. Funding has been considered in those discussions with stakeholders.

In terms of additional specifics on that, I will leave it to my colleagues from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to address those, if I may.