Agriculture Committee on May 3rd, 2007

[André Gravel]

In the case of certain ingredients such as wheat gluten or rice gluten and such types of products that can be used both in human food and pet food, the agency will pay special attention, because clearly there can be cross-contamination. An ingredient could be imported for pet food purposes and through some illegal manipulation find its way into the food chain. We want to make sure that doesn't happen here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Steckle, kick us off on the second round of five minutes, please.

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

I want to thank you for coming.

I think in the past we've had a pretty good history of getting good information from you people. I think we've all been made proud of the way the CFA has handled our food with the security system in this country.

But we're approaching a deadline of July 12, and this has disturbed a number of people in the processing industry. I had a small processor call me just yesterday. This man is running to a deadline as of next Monday because there comes a cut-off point where you can't deliver anymore and he has no place to put this product. What kinds of provisions are we making for those plants that do not have and have not been able to find provision?

It's not necessarily their fault. These are rules that we've brought into play. These people want to continue. In this case it's organic meat, so obviously the volumes aren't that great. He may not have the 50 acres in which he can put up a composting site. Are we going to give the exception to time because we are going beyond a timeframe?

We're going beyond limits. We're going beyond criteria that the Americans have not set for themselves. And they haven't asked us to do it; this is something that's self-imposed. What kinds of provisions are there that I can tell my constituent and other constituents across this country on that matter? I think we have to take some immediate action on that.

[André Gravel]

Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Brian Evans to answer.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Thank you, honourable member.

Certainly we do recognize, as we've testified before this committee on previous occasions, the challenges of the implementation of the enhanced feed ban. I believe we've gone to great lengths to try to work with the industry and the provinces as it relates to the disposal issue, in particular as they have that primary lead responsibility on disposal. Again, as I think we introduced during our testimony, there is a dedicated task force. We are prepared to look at case-by-case assessments to deal with the particular small producer or the small manufacturer issue to see what resolution can be achieved.

On the regulations...I'm not sure I would use the phrase “we self-imposed them” from the context of wanting to impose them for no reason, but certainly the reality remains and was well documented the last time I think that there has been a collective acceptance that we need to do everything possible to meet the implementation date. The economic and market recovery for producers, our categorization internationally, which speaks to consumer confidence and international confidence, are intimately tied to the will, as we've talked about, across the entire production chain--political, industry, private sector, and public sector--to put in place the measures that will be necessary to accelerate BSE eradication.

With the small abattoirs or small producer scenarios, again, there was the six-month window of extension that was put in place. Really, they were obliged to do segregation of the product, but there are opportunities to look at alternate ways of disposing of that product. It does not necessarily place the burden on the small producer to build a facility to deal with the composting. It can be moved under permit to other facilities, or it can be contracted to do that type of work for landfill and other purposes. That was certainly part and parcel of the efforts of the portfolio through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to work with the provinces on a funding initiative where the provinces themselves would step up and work with the industry groups to put provincial capacity in place to do that.

With that particular instance in mind, to the honourable member, I'm sure we'd be prepared to have our task force leader meet with you or your constituent and engage to ensure their case is being assessed either directly by us or in concert with the province to deal with the disposal issue.

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

Perhaps the constituent didn't fully understand, but I think his understanding is that there would be no removal off the property. Whether he understands there would be a permit allowed...but what would the permit cost? Again, another cost assessment. We don't want to go down that road if we don't have to, but I think I need to be able to go to my constituent. What constitutes a small plant and what constitutes a large plant? These are things that I need some answers on before next Monday.

We need to be able to find some resolve. My office is certainly prepared to work with you. I don't want to resolve all my constituency issues here, but I think I'm not alone. We all have constituency issues like this. We have brought this to bear and we should take responsibility for it. I'm looking to you for some guidance between now and next Monday.

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No, no, you're out of time. I'm sorry, Mr. Steckle.

A clarification on what Mr. Steckle was saying. These small plants are dealing with SRMs. What if they are not a CFIA client? What if they're actually a provincially inspected plant without a CFIA relationship?

[André Gravel]

It's the same issue, Mr. Chair, whether or not they're provincially inspected. The member for Ontario's plant is probably a provincially inspected plant. The regulations apply to them as well. In that case, though, the agency is intervening with the province, in partnership, to resolve these types of issues.

I've instructed the task force to speak on a weekly basis with provinces to address these specific problems that are arising. As far as a large segment of the industry is concerned, I think they pretty well know what to do, but the small players' issues need to be addressed as well, because if we want our SRM removal feed ban to be effective, all that stuff has to be taken out of the feed system, whether it's small or large. With the cooperation of the provinces, we're moving to address these specific issues, case by case.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Is the task force on CFIA also looking at new technology that's out there? I know there are a couple of technologies, one in Ontario and one in Manitoba, that are very close to commercialization that could actually handle a lot of this SRM material in a more efficient manner.

[André Gravel]

Yes, Mr. Chair, the agency is fully open to that. We've been really plugged into these new types of processes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur Gourde, it's your time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to the inspection fees charged by the agency to producers, you said earlier that these amounted to 20% of the total. Do you believe that over the course of the year, charges will decrease, remain stable, or increase? Are processors obliged to pay for part of the inspection costs as required by the agency, or these costs assumed exclusively by producers?

[André Gravel]

Thank you for your question.

Since its creation in 1997, the agency has had to freeze service charges. Therefore, there was no increase between 1997 and 2007. When the agency set up a cost-recovery structure, all sectors that receive services from the agency were targeted. Therefore, costs incurred are recovered not only from producers, but also from processors, exporters, importers and so forth.

Generally speaking, all sectors that benefit from the agency's services are subject to cost recovery. It is not our intention to increase costs.

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

Last December, the Government of Canada published new regulations on organic products. I believe that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will now be responsible for certifying goods and ensuring compliance with new standards.

How much of the operating budget will be set aside for this responsibility? How will Canadian farmers benefit from agency product certification, as opposed to certification by a third party?

[André Gravel]

Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Gord White to answer the question on the cost.

[Gordon White, Vice-President, Finance, Administration and Information Technology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Mr. Chair, the budget for the organic regime has been established at $2.7 million, and that's the amount of money we would be investing as an agency to cover that regime.

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

How will Canadian farmers benefit from certification given by the agency, as opposed to certification by a third party? Is it absolutely mandatory for the agency to grant certification, or can this be done by a third party?

[André Gravel]

Mr. Chairman, pardon me for not having fully answered your question.

In fact, certification is not provided solely by the agency. Of course, the CFIA is open to having third parties ensure certification. The agency has put forward draft regulations that set standards for the organic food sector and allow for third parties to provide certification. Agency funds will be used to monitor the third parties that oversee the certification process.

Obviously, from an international trade perspective, the agency's recognition of an organic system and federal regulations mean that some products may be exported. This is why the agency decided to involve itself in this matter.

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

Thank you.

In an effort to make their farming operations profitable, several farmers are now turning to niche markets and specializing in an array of regional products.

Can you tell me how a move to update labelling regulations would give our producers the tools they need to seize the opportunity of marketing regional products?

[André Gravel]

Mr. Chairman, that is a very good question, albeit one that is difficult to answer. I know that in many cases, regulations are viewed as hurdles to technological development and market access. As it goes about its many activities, the CFIA does its outmost to not hinder innovation. However, in the case of certain products, our job nonetheless is to ensure that these products are healthy, safe, and properly labelled. Therefore, we have to monitor these new products, but in such a way that we are not preventing development nor access to new markets.

Generally speaking, if we talk to people working in the industrial sector, many stakeholders view the regulations as beneficial, providing them a way to obtain certification and access to international markets, and to obtain recognition from the Canadian public that food products are safe. It's a bit like a double-edged sword. On the one hand, we don't want to hold up product development, but on the other hand, our mandate is to ensure product safety. This mandate must be honoured. Therefore, we try to work as efficiently and effectively as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Mr. Bellavance, you have five minutes.

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

I'd like to come back to the discussion we had earlier about gluten. Is the product that contaminated domestic animal feed the same product found in contaminated U.S. pork? Are we talking about the same thing?

[André Gravel]

From what I've been told by our American friends, indeed, melamine was the product that had contaminated the gluten used in pork feed, and recently in poultry feed in the U.S. Therefore, the ingredient was either used alone or in domestic animal feed and introduced into the cattle feed chain. This practice is illegal in Canada. In Canada, we cannot feed pork with the same feed used for cats and dogs.

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

Judging from your answer to Mr. Atamanenko's question, procedures were somewhat lax. I wouldn't say that there was laxness from a legal standpoint, but in point of fact, there was no accountability in terms of checking domestic animal food. Therefore, we could still see more incidents like this in Canada.

[André Gravel]

Indeed. In fact, the minister asked the agency to explore regulatory options for the pet food industry. Several options are currently being considered. Pet food manufacturers are responsible for pet safety. Therefore, it is clearly not in the interest of pet food manufacturers to poison their customers. They are concerned for their reputation, and in many cases, as the minister has said, U.S. regulations have not prevented the contamination from occurring in the United States.

Therefore, regulations are not necessarily a panacea. We must proceed carefully in delegating responsibility to industries and ensure that governments will indeed meet their obligations in terms of product verification.