Agriculture Committee on May 3rd, 2007

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, honourable member, for the question.

I think it's important to recognize that the 1997 version of the feed ban did not prohibit a rendering plant from handling ruminant material. The regulation was designed to ensure that what was processed did not find its way back into the feed system. So again, as with any regulation, it requires everybody at all levels of the system to be doing their part. To say that the rendering plant was somehow non-compliant by having rendered animals is not the issue.

The issue then becomes, how were products derived from that rendering and how were they segregated and separated? And then further down the system, in fact, at the commercial feed mill level, were they dedicated to separating those materials? Trucking, transportation, contamination, and storage issues, all of these factors, have obviously contributed--not just in Canada, but also globally, as Dr. Gravel has indicated--to why every country with BSE cases and with appropriate surveillance has shown animals born after feed bans and has moved to enhance measure.

But having said that, as a result of the investigations—and obviously we're very early in the investigation of the most current animal and we've not had the opportunity to look at the feed records of the producer and trace them back to source. What I think is very important in doing the investigation, as in previous investigations, is that if non-compliance is found, we have the tools to deal with it. There can be administrative monetary penalties and there can be prosecutions. There is a suite of enforcement tools that have been brought to bear in the past and that will continue to be brought to bear in the future.

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

Okay, but the one thing that needs to be spelled out clearly, so that it's on the public record, is whether this was an accident or deliberate. You're either pregnant or you're not. There is no grey area in there; it's one or the other.

[André Gravel]

We're not pregnant, Mr. Chair.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

No, no, I wasn't implying that!

What I need to know is, was this an accident? From what I gather, I don't believe it was, but I need to hear it from CFIA.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Certainly, as I say, we will have that degree of rigour in the investigation and we will come to a determination as to whether it was—

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

So you're not sure.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

—complicit or whether it was an accidental cross-contamination. As I say, having just confirmed the results yesterday, we are now just engaging with the producer. We anticipate that it will take us two to three weeks, as other investigations have done, to get to a determination of how contamination got from point A into this animal's food ration.

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

Taking this further, there were a lot of innocent producers with cattle out on feed—some from my riding, as you may or may not be aware. I guess there is nothing in law that really gives CFIA the power to force the insurance companies of the rendering companies, or what have you, to address the financial losses that some of these people have, because they can't move their cattle to Ontario, for example, from the west. But regardless of that, CFIA can still apply pressure.

Do you feel that CFIA has done everything within their powers to lean on these people, if I could use that term, to straighten up with these farmers, and this kind of thing?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

As the honourable member pointed out, there's accountability across the entire production chain. That's been well recognized, as has the success of our programs. I wouldn't want anybody to walk away saying the success of BSE is based on CFIA. It is based on producer participation. It's based on every component of the production system doing its part.

We have, as you have pointed out, identified over the past period of time, as we've increased our degree of vigilance with additional resources looking at compliance with feed bans—and in fairness, with the full support of some of the industry sectors, which themselves have identified that they had a problem, that a mistake had been made, which led to restrictions being placed on various animals for a period of time until we could ensure traceability, for our future surveillance purposes, but also to meet our international certification obligations....

In the vast majority of those cases, it's been our experience that those companies have come up to the plate and have entered into a settlement with the producers affected. It hasn't been 100%. Negotiations are under way to try to resolve those that haven't been done.

CFIA feels that although we don't have the legislative authority, as you say, to jump in and make it mandatory for these companies, we are able to point out to them that beyond the economic impact directly on the producer, who are their primary clients in use of that product—and they have an obligation to meet that marketplace need—they are also creating other economic disadvantages for other components of the Canadian industry, whether in feed exports, whether in meat exports.... It's not always just the live animal component.

What we have been trying to do is facilitate a collective pressure to come onto these organizations, saying that they have to stand up and do the right thing. It's also important for the international community to see them stand up and say, “We've taken responsibility for this and have addressed it.”

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Evans.

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

I'd like to also echo Wayne's comments and thank you for the work you do. It's not easy in today's day and age. Thank you for being here.

I'd like to pursue, Madame Mountjoy, country of origin labelling.

Just so that I understand clearly, if we have fresh apples that come, hypothetically, from China that are ground up and made into apple juice concentrate in Canada, then we have to identify the fact that this product is, at least in part, from China. Am I right?

By contrast, if we get powdered concentrate from China that comes in and is mixed in, and I buy apple juice from concentrate, because it's made in Canada, is it okay just to label this product “made in Canada”, because it isn't fresh produce coming in?

Did I understand that right? Do you understand my question?

[Krista Mountjoy]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. I'll just clarify and restate.

Imported agricultural products are required to indicate the country of origin, and those would include fresh fruit and vegetables, as the honourable member has suggested.

If those incoming products are processed and there's a substantial transformation that occurs here in Canada, if 51% of the direct costs of producing or manufacturing the goods is Canadian, then the product can be labelled as “product of Canada”. The agency draws its requirements from those of Industry Canada.

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

That's the main criterion, then, the cost, and not so much.... But if they came in and only 49% was Canadian, would they then have to be labelled “product of China”?

[Krista Mountjoy]

They would not be eligible to use the “product of Canada” designation.

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

So it doesn't matter whether the original product comes in in a fresh state or in a concentrate state; it all depends on the cost. Am I understanding that right?

[André Gravel]

Mr. Chairman, it's the value added that may change the status of a product. If somebody brings a pork carcass into Canada, as an example, and takes the belly out, cures it, smokes it, and then makes bacon out of it, then obviously the value added to that product means it becomes Canadian product.

Canada is not alone in applying these types of guidelines. It's very hard to define whether it's 49% or 51%, as you indicated, but generally speaking, we consider that if there's a substantial processing of the product, then the value added component means it's a product of Canada.

It would be illegal to bring, as an example, fresh apples from China and remove the packaging, repack them in a new box and call them products of Canada. That would be illegal.

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

Then, to pursue this, I'll take a hypothetical case. If we have a product, whether in concentrate or fresh form, coming in from a country that has different safety practices and where different chemicals may be used—different safety standards—and that product is then used and transformed in Canada, and over 51% of the cost is Canadian, that product can be classified as a Canadian product. Is that correct?

[André Gravel]

Mr. Chairman, the issue here is that the ingredients or components coming to Canada have to meet Canadian requirements. If there's a chemical in the product that is not allowed in Canada, then obviously that product cannot be used as an ingredient in a composite product or for further processing.

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

We are told, for example, by farmers in the food industry, or other people, that we can import fresh produce from other countries that have different standards, and they can use different chemicals that we can't use here, yet we import the produce to eat.

I don't understand.

[André Gravel]

I mentioned briefly, earlier, that the agency has a residue monitoring program. Canada uses some pesticides that the U.S. doesn't use and vice versa. Our residue monitoring program targets a broad variety of pesticides. In some cases we find pesticides that are not approved and are not allowed in Canada, and if such is the case and if the maximum residue limit is exceeded, that product is not allowed entry.

Obviously, we're not testing everything, but we have a monitoring program that plans the risk, looks at the product, and makes a decision on the basis of what is acceptable or not.

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

I have a second question. I hope I have enough time.

We touched briefly on Tuesday on pet food. It is my understanding that CFIA is responsible for pet food when it's for animal health such as livestock. It's also responsible for the export of pet food from this country. But there's no regulatory framework for pet food that is for domestic cats and dogs and other animals. Yet now there is a border lookout for gluten from China to be stopped and tested, for wheat, rice, corn, and soy, as a result of what happened.

I would like to know exactly where we are with respect to controls and regulations on pet food. I will probably get better answers here from the experts than if I raise it in the House.

[André Gravel]

I will not make comments on that, Mr. Chair.

However, with pet food, the agency has a responsibility for import as it relates to ingredients and whether the ingredients can cause disease in livestock. If Canada is importing, for example, beef from a given country to be made into pet food, we issue an import permit that will be on the basis that the country of origin does not have major animal diseases that can be transmitted to livestock in Canada.

That's what it means; that's what our role is. We're looking at the ingredients as they come in to make sure we're not bringing foreign animal diseases into the country. That's what we do on imports.

On exports, there are countries that demand certification for export purposes that the ingredients have such and such characteristics, or that Canada is free of certain animal diseases. We will provide that certification on a cost-recovery basis.

For safety and security standards for pet food, the agency is not involved. There is no regulatory framework that frames the quality and wholesomeness of pet food. There is none.

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

Okay. Is the possible transfer of this into the human food chain through the gluten something that could happen, in your opinion, from your experience with the deaths of the pets? In your opinion, would it be a good idea to start the process to have more regulation?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Give a short reply, please, because Mr. Atamanenko's time has expired.