Agriculture Committee on March 4th, 2008

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the witnesses for coming here today.

I have three questions. The first one is on our inspectors themselves. From hearing from my constituents and from some personal experience, there is no doubt in my mind that inspection standards have got tougher since BSE. I make that comment because over 30 years of shipping cull cows, I've never personally had an animal condemned. The odd time you may have an injury--a shoulder or a back leg or something--and you expect that for whatever reason, but I know of lots of incidents involving a dozen or fifteen cows. I know of one example in which four cows were condemned out of that load. The whole cow was condemned. I'm quite aware of the load. There was one that did have one injured leg.

Where I'm leading with this question is that the load was actually sold to four companies, but one inspector condemned all four animals. My question is basically whether records are kept on every inspector--on how many cows per thousand it is, compared to the next guy on the line. I'd like to see those figures, if possible.

Second is the report that was asked for by this committee last fall in order to do an initial review for the minister on inspection fees at slaughter plants and border crossings and what have you. I understand the first part of that study has been done. I'd like to see the results and maybe hear a general summary today.

You may not get time to answer the third question, but I hope somebody else here will follow up. I'd like to be clear on that $16.7 million that was basically paid to the inspectors. I'm not clear on this. Were they not inspectors before, and now they are, so we're giving them another $14,000 or $15,000? I need that clarified some more.

I'll throw those three questions out there.

[Cameron Prince]

I'll do questions one and three.

On consistency and enforcement, I believe you're talking about humane transport regulations. That's what we enforce at CFIA, humane transport regulations.

We do about 30,000 inspections a year at sales, barns, we do roadside blitzes in cooperation with the police forces, and a lot of these inspections are done at slaughterhouses and abattoirs, big and small. Of those 30,000 inspections a year, there are records of what inspectors look at. There are about 200 administrative monetary fines issued per year on humane transport. So we have all those records on how that is done.

We have a quality management system that provides clear guidelines to inspectors on how they're to conduct their business, how they're to do their inspections. The system allows for a checkup on how that's going, how inspectors are doing, to make sure they're consistent in how they approach their work. There's always a challenge in a big organization all across Canada to get consistent approaches on all programs. We have had some challenges, but we've been able to bring a lot more consistency, and we've actually put a lot more effort, in recent years, on humane transport.

Shall I go to question three?

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

Maybe let somebody answer question two, and then we'll come back if we have time.

[Sandra Wing]

I will make an attempt at answering question two.

With respect to our work on a review of user fees, perhaps first as a quick contextual piece, you're all aware that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has been operating under a moratorium for new user fees, for the most part, since its inception in 1997. Meat inspection and animal health related user fees were, at that time, ten years ago, negotiated with industry stakeholders. It was a very lengthy and comprehensive process. The most recent fee changes for meat inspection and animal health were phased in ten years ago. But we have been working with industry since the fall on examining our user fee system that was developed ten years ago. We have worked to compare it to the U.S. user fee system, which is quite different from the Canadian system. We continue to work with them.

You may be aware that the minister announced last Monday that we would consult over the course of two weeks with industry on specific user fee issues that industry has. We have already started. We are in the second week of that consultation period. We've had a couple of meetings and we have a few more. We don't yet have the complete results of that consultation, but it should be available next week.

[Cameron Prince]

In clarification on the payment to the inspectors, this is entirely in the meat slaughter sector, so this is the largest inspection group that we have in the agency. Those are the inspectors who work on the line in the slaughter plants. They had been assigned a rating in the hierarchy of salary at an 02 level in that EG grouping back when the agency was created. It had been a sore point, and we went through the very lengthy labour relations process to arrive at a conclusion. What it meant was that all those slaughter inspectors went from, essentially—to simplify it—an 02 to an 03 level. So there was a corresponding salary and retroactive salary change. It has been a very complex issue, but it certainly has helped greatly in the labour relations environment at the agency. It has cleared the air and we're able to move forward. It also reflects the changes in the meat inspection program, the modernization and the need for more advanced skills for inspectors.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Thank you very much for being here and for taking the time.

Ms. Wing, you mentioned in your report that you're looking at the policies of Product of Canada, Made in Canada. As you are aware, our committee made a recommendation that “Product of Canada” labelling should have 51% content and not just the cost of production. Are you recommending to government to adopt that? Is that the line you're following, and will we see that implemented in Canada? That's the first question.

The other concern is that I notice this government seems to have the philosophy of deregulation, privatization, pulling out of certain programs. You mentioned there has been $113 million earmarked over two years for food safety, and yet there was a concern I raised, and I guess others raised, a few months ago, that the CFIA was one of the 17 initial departments that were doing a reassessment of programs. My concern at that time was whether this will have an effect on food safety.

So I would like to know if any inspections have been cut. Have we moved to some voluntary inspections in certain areas? Conversely, are we hiring more people to deal with the food safety that Canadians are becoming more and more worried about? In other words, does your budget earmark that we're going to hire more qualified people to ensure we have more programs in place to really look at that safety aspect that is a concern to all?

The concern is this. Are we doing enough and are we actually doing more by having professional people there on behalf of us to inspect?

[Sandra Wing]

With respect to question number one, “Product of Canada”, “Made in Canada”, again, just a quick context so that everyone's aware. The current policy is that you may use the label “Product of Canada” or “Made in Canada” if at least 51% of the total direct costs of producing or manufacturing the goods in Canada is Canadian. So it's actually a calculation you have to do.

Consumers, though, are demanding more and better information about the Canadian content of the products they're purchasing. We're reviewing that policy of the 51% based on total direct costs. We're looking at Australia, the U.S., Europe, and other countries that have recently made changes to their “Made in U.S.A”, “Product of Australia”, and developing options, and we're going to be consulting industry and consumers groups, hopefully very soon.

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

Could I just interrupt? What's your opinion of our recommendation that 51% should be content as opposed to cost of production? The committee made that recommendation. Should government be following it?

[Sandra Wing]

I don't want to prejudge where we're going to end up with an assessment of options that we're examining, and I'll give you an example.

Most other countries have what's referred to as a gold standard, where essentially the entire product, if it is going to use a label, would have...in other words, entire Canadian content. That's one option we're looking at. Another would be an option of 51% Canadian content. The current policy is 51% direct cost.

So we're evaluating all the options, and I wouldn't want to prejudge what recommendation the government may come up with based on that analysis.

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

And my second question.

[Sandra Wing]

Oh, right. The $113 million that was provided for food safety in the budget was for the Food Inspection Agency and for Health Canada. This money is to be used to make investments in food safety, with particular focus on imports.

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

Are you hiring more inspectors?

[Sandra Wing]

We will be hiring.

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

So there is a--

[Sandra Wing]

There's a process to follow. We don't yet have the funding in our reference levels. There's a requirement for a Treasury Board submission.

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

Is there a danger of farming this out to voluntary inspection by some of the players? I know that was a concern raised by your union a little while ago. Has that been addressed?

[Sandra Wing]

We're not looking to enhance the safety of food imports through third-party arrangements.

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

So we are tightening up, then, in a nutshell. We're trying to do what we can to tighten up any problems that may arise.

[Sandra Wing]

Yes, we're trying to do what we can.

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

Good. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Boshcoff.

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

Thank you very much.

As Ms. Wing identified, paper reduction is a major goal for the coming year. I'm sure it has been in the past, for your own sake as well as for the sake of the people you deal with.

I have two case studies that I would like to use that perhaps would serve as an example of what would change. The first is a process for a farmer who's been trying to develop a new product for export to the United States. He's received an almost instantaneous green light in terms of his product—it's a jam—in the United States; there are no problems. But in Canada he still has not received the go-ahead from the CFIA in spite of numerous.... Well, the paper buildup on this file has been extraordinary.

How do you see the fast-tracking of product development for export, or even domestic consumption—because I'm sure the product would also be utilized in Canada—as part of your paper war?

The second one is an incident that still has not really been fully resolved. During the drought two summers ago, farmers in northwestern Ontario were compelled to get their hay from Minnesota, and there was only one source. Of course, a farmer can't take the entire load all at once. He has to go back and forth with a vehicle of limited capacity. Each time, he would be compelled to have that hay inspected, pay the fee, and have the American inspector travel several hours to do the same thing.

When we can see the situation in the field, how is the public service going to be able to adapt so that you can actually understand what is happening to producers and farmers in a reality situation, as opposed to “These are the rules, so can you please just follow them?” Maybe six or seven of your ranking officers were involved, and no one could come to a conclusion that would be reasonably commonsensical.

[Sandra Wing]

Those are two very good examples.

The agency is taking very seriously the paper burden reduction and the target of 20%. Some of what will need to be achieved in this area we can achieve through just looking at what our policies are and doing what we can to streamline. Some of it is regulatory and the process is somewhat longer in terms of achieving real benefit.

Those are two good case examples that we should take a look at within the context of actions on paper burden reduction. We have until November 2008 to identify our immediate 20%. I'm not familiar with either of those, I'm sorry. But we could take a look at those as two potential areas that, if there's policy, we could do quickly, versus regulatory, which might take a bit longer.

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

I would be pleased to present the documentation, but it certainly wouldn't reduce your paper flow. It may increase it by a large amount.

When we talk about this, the public in terms of understanding what they have to do, in both cases I believe the individuals involved, on numerous occasions, presented what they felt were direct answers. Then someone else in the department would come at them from a different angle and ask for it in a different way. Of course, it's kind of like people writing exams; no one really wants to go through that whole process and resubmit it from start to finish again.

As a way of relating to the public, understanding that these are business people or farmers—and farmers are obviously entrepreneurs and business people too—even those involved in retail find these things onerous. So I know they would be looking at a 20% reduction as a very good start, with the full understanding that there must be some documentation and protection of the Canadian public.

So I will indeed forward that to you almost immediately.