Agriculture Committee on May 3rd, 2007

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

Sometimes, for economic reasons, in cases of self-regulation, industries opt for the least expensive choice possible, regardless of where products may come from, what the supply sources may be and level of food safety, etc. Sometimes, risks are taken. That is precisely why the agency exists. As I see it, just because we are dealing with domestic animals doesn't mean that we should let down our guard. But you are right in saying that there is no magic solution to all of this. Other contamination cases may occur, but I think that we can learn from these unfortunate incidents and perhaps adjust our own ways of doing things.

[André Gravel]

I agree.

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

In the case of the US pork, we have to understand that the case of melamine-contaminated pork has no bearing on our own animals. Our hogs is not fed with that feed. This wasn't a problem in Canada.

[André Gravel]

No.

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

Does the agency take steps to ensure that these types of products are not found in the feed fed to our hogs and other animals? How can you be certain of that?

[André Gravel]

In fact, when Mr. Guimond appeared two days ago, he said that as soon as the agency was made aware of the problem of contaminated melamine from China, quality control tests were carried out on all imports. Products coming from China were targeted, and not only those which were imported by the manufacturer concerned, but products imported by all manufacturers. The alert was then broadened to include all vegetable protein derived from rice, rice gluten, wheat gluten, soya, etc. We acted as soon as the new products arrived, we also carried out retrospective analyses to check all imports received over the last six months from China and to determine how these were used in food for human consumption or in cattle feed. Our investigation did not uncover any problems similar to the ones experienced in the United States. As I said, you have to remember that in the United States, small animal feed was fed to cattle. This is how the contamination spread.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci.

Mr. Devolin.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for being here today.

I'm sorry I was a bit late. I'm dealing with a bit of an issue in my riding today. I hope I'm not asking something that someone covered before I arrived.

During the past couple of weeks the committee travelled across the country doing hearings. I participated in the eastern swing last week. One of the issues that we often hear about is how we can help our farmers become more competitive internationally, how we can cover some costs--we, meaning Canada--for our farmers to help them in that regard.

For example, one suggestion that came up at different times was that the cost for things like the CFIA, rather than being on a cost-recovery basis that the producer pays for, might be the kind of cost that, if paid for by the government, would make our farmers more competitive, and it would not precipitate trade challenges to Canada that we were somehow subsidizing farmers. I appreciate that it's a public policy issue.

That being said, you would be familiar, I would think, with your counterparts in other countries. I'm curious, from your experience with our trading partners, the United States and European countries, in terms of the kind of work that you do, how are your counterparts in those countries paid? How are those costs paid? Are they covered by the farmers or are they covered in another way?

[André Gravel]

Mr. Chairman, as you will remember, I provided some element of an answer to that question already. I've mentioned that the agency will be providing to the members of the committee a comparison of cost-recovery cases in Canada and the United States.

But to answer your question in two words, it varies, depending on the commodities. For example, we charge for meat inspection on the basis of inspection stations. If we have five inspectors there, there will be a certain amount of money that we'd recover on the basis of their presence in the plant. In the States, they recover, over time, at a rate that is an actual rate.

When we implemented cost recovery in 1993, we looked at the overall cost to the different sectors in the States and in Canada, and we did not see that Canadian industries or producers were disadvantaged, comparatively speaking. The measures are different, but the overall cost was compatible at the time.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Okay.

Several of my colleagues have been asking questions around issues of food safety and foodstuffs that are being brought into Canada and further processed, questions around standards in other countries.

What I'm trying to figure out is that somewhere there's an overlap in jurisdiction between what the CFIA would do and what Health Canada would do in terms of looking after food safety for Canadians. I'm wondering if, in your view, that situation is clear. Is there a need for that to be reviewed? Is there a need for that to be structured in a different way? Are there things that are falling between the cracks?

We've heard the examples of the Chinese cucumbers that become Canadian pickles. There are the olives, and you used the example of peanuts.

But also, you were saying you were concerned that certain meat products coming into Canada may have a disease that could be passed on to other Canadian animals--and that's an agricultural connection. But in terms of how that links to human health, do you manage all of that? What is Health Canada's role? Is it structured the way it should be now?

[André Gravel]

Mr. Chairman, this is a good question too. In fact, the agency was created in 1997 to avoid some of these overlaps between federal departments in terms of jurisdiction over the food safety issue.

The agency's mandate involves food safety at the delivery end and animal and plant health from a policy and delivery perspective. What it means is that for food safety, Health Canada develops standards, and the agency's responsibility is to make sure that these standards are implemented. So from that standpoint, there is no Health Canada inspector going around looking at food plants. The agency does that.

Health Canada has also been given the responsibility to oversee how the agency does its inspections. So from that standpoint, I think we're in good shape.

When I started, way back in 1972, I was a veterinarian in a slaughter plant. The manager of the plant saw a procession of inspectors. There was one from Health. He had us. There was somebody from CCA. This is all gone. There is only one presence now in the federal sector in terms of food inspection, and it's us. I think we're in good shape from that standpoint.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, on cost recovery, you would need about a 10% increase in budget if there was no cost recovery. May I ask, then, whether the cost recovery comes back to you or it comes back to Treasury Board? Is it your revenue or is it their revenue?

[André Gravel]

Mr. White will answer this question, Mr. Chairman.

[Gordon White]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's about 10%--you're correct--on our base budget. We have the authority in the food inspection act to re-spend those revenues, so that money comes back to us and is re-spent for purposes of food inspection. So it's built into the budgets of our inspection activities.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

So in essence, then, the $500 million--nearly $600 million--includes or excludes that 10%?

[Gordon White]

It includes it right now. What you see in the main estimates is what you're being asked to vote on as part of our appropriation.

What we've been given authority for is to collect $55 million annually on top of our appropriation, which we use for budget purposes to carry out our inspections.

So our budget is a little bit higher--$55 million higher.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

If a company, we'll say Atwood Pet Food, were to run an ad for farmers with swine or poultry, advertising that they have pet food for sale for those who have their own processing plants on-farm, would that be permitted or not?

[André Gravel]

No, Mr. Chairman, that would be illegal. Pet food cannot be fed to livestock in Canada. It's illegal.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Where is the CFIA when you see this word “food”? When you go into the grocery store, there is a lot of food that you really have no control or little control over--processed food, which is apparently regulated by the provinces. I'm thinking of bread, for example. I want to ask a question on bread, because of our grain farmers. We go to the grocery store, and I don't think we have much control over bread.

I'm always concerned with the life expectancy of bread. They are apparently putting ingredients into bread that will allow it to sit around for maybe two weeks before it becomes crusted. Who controls that formaldehyde--I think it is--or formaldehyde product that is injected into bread?

We see the same with apples. They take apples now, and they can do something to the apple to make it fairly fresh for a long period of time. You see it in other products to increase the life expectancy, the edible life.

It's amazing to think that you can put a loaf of bread on a shelf on a supermarket here in Ottawa and it can sit there for two weeks and still have a date that hasn't expired. As a consumer, who do I worry about? Maybe Mr. Evans is going to answer that question, but who controls it? Is it a good product?

I opened a piece of bread today that I got at a local restaurant. I opened it, and it was mouldy. I took it back and said, “Are you selling mouldy bread?” The answer was, “Oh my, we just got that from the distributor”. But it is a product that we have to be concerned about.

André is getting worried.

[André Gravel]

Mr. Chairman, the honourable member looks very healthy.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

That's today, but tomorrow....

[André Gravel]

Obviously the food safety system in Canada is relatively safe.

To be more serious, all food manufacturers in Canada are subject to the Food and Drugs Act and regulations, which has standards that allow certain ingredients in certain products. So if a loaf of bread includes a product to increase its shelf life, it will have been reviewed and approved by Health Canada as a non-threat to the food safety system.

For apples, they use a controlled atmosphere to reduce the aging of apples. This is not really something that is added to the apples. It's the atmosphere in which the apples are kept that makes a difference.

There is mixed responsibility for it. The provinces have some responsibility for what we call the non-registered sector. Something like bread, for example, would be in a non-registered sector. From that standpoint, the province has the overall responsibility to ensure that what's offered to consumers in that province meets the requirements.

If there is a problem related to an ingredient that is not allowable because it's an allergen or a bacteria and the product needs to be recalled, it's the agency's business. So we oversee action taken to remove products from the market, and the province has the overall responsibility to ensure that stuff that is not necessarily registered by the feds meets the requirements.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Shipley, you're on.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you very much, and thanks for coming today.

After July 1, are we going to stop pet food containing products from hogs and chicken that have been fed SRM from coming into Canada?