Agriculture Committee on April 3rd, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time has expired.

Mr. Steckle, go ahead.

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

Good morning. Thank you again for appearing.

Through the chair to you, I want to pose a few questions.

From the outset I would just say that if there was such a thing as dominance, I think that we share a dominant view on the issues before us: that in both cases--both with CFIA and with the Competition Bureau--there are serious inequities that need to be corrected.

I would like to place my first question to you on the issue of truth in advertising. You would agree that we need to have truth in our advertising practices. I think we would agree. When we talk about dairy terms, do you understand what I'm referring to when I speak about dairy terms?

[Debra Bryanton]

Yes.

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

Why was there such a reluctance in terms of CFIA, Health, and other agencies—in terms of our committee a couple of years ago—to put into practice a piece of legislation that would dictate what dairy terms are and that there should be compliance with those dairy terms?

[Debra Bryanton]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First I'd like to say that we do work very closely with industry and with consumers when it comes to discussion on information that does appear on food labels. Certainly the dairy sector has been in close contact with us as it relates to the use of dairy terms and, more generally, the use of highlighted ingredients. CFIA did undertake an extensive consultation on highlighted ingredients, which did include dairy terms, and of course they did receive submissions from the dairy sector more specifically to dairy terms.

What the CFIA seeks to do is create a level playing field so that when we look at an issue that may be raised by one sector, such as the dairy sector for dairy terms, we consider that in light of other commodities and consumer expectations.

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

We're getting pretty soft here. I don't want to cut you off, but either we believe in the fact that terms should be clearly and explicitly given so that they're understood.... When a company like Kraft challenges the committee for taking an action in committee, in terms of putting forward part of a bill that they felt was intruding into their territory, where they threatened to pull Kraft out of Canada, it's ridiculous; it would never have happened, but this is how it impacted. This is what kind of power these people have.

When you list butter as part of the product or cheese as part of the product, there should be a requirement that at least there should be some element of that in there in terms of the way it's advertised, and that's not happening today, as we speak. And what is being done about it?

We talked this morning about taking action. Mr. Taylor has indicated they do take action when it's warranted. Sometimes we're working from guidelines rather than from principles of law, where basically a law has been broken and therefore we need to take the pecuniary action that has to be taken because of that.

I think in many cases we're sitting back and letting the big oligopolies and monopolies of this world dominate, and they are dominating. It's been said time and time again, and we'll hear it again before you leave this morning. I can go on and on.

I think we have to start looking at what we're doing and whose responsibility it is to change the way the labelling is done. If we want to say “Grown in Canada”, then it should be grown in Canada. But we should have a defined descriptive of what that is: “Grown in Canada” means this.

Another question is this. Do taxes, in terms of excise taxes on wine or liquors, factor into the 51%? Those are taxes that are not put on at the end; they're put on ahead of the pricing.

[Debra Bryanton]

With regard to the first question, I'm trying to pull out in my mind the specific question. So I think the first question related to what is being done to enforce the provisions that relate to--

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

Yes, these provisions are there now; we have truth in advertising. If they're breaking the law and doing that, why are we not taking action against Kraft and others? And I mention Kraft because it's indomitable.

[Debra Bryanton]

Okay. What had been identified previously...we had done a consultation on highlighted ingredients. As an outcome of that consultation, we are working on a sectoral approach to identify areas that may be of concern and to work to correct some of the issues that relate to those particular sectors, and we are following up on that basis.

In general, when it comes to some of the non-health-and-safety labelling provisions, we do direct our resources to responding to complaints. Where we do find there are some issues that relate to a particular sector, we do focus more closely on improving compliance as may relate to a sector.

With regard to the second question on how the laws may be changed--a labelling issue—as with any other issue, if there is a change being considered by government, that is certainly subject to consultation, and if it is to be reflected in regulation, we follow regulatory policy following that. CFIA does follow Canada's regulatory policy very closely in looking at any potential changes to legislation.

With regard to the third question about excise tax, it is the cost of producing that product that is considered, and we don't take into account the taxes, no.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time has expired. I forgot to remind everyone that this is the five-minute round.

Mr. Lauzon.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our guests. It's good to have you here, and I'm enjoying the discussion.

I think it's worthwhile mentioning that, thanks to a whole bunch of cooperation amongst a whole bunch of people, starting with our agricultural people—with the farmers—Canada has the safest source of food supply. Sometimes we lose sight of that. This doesn't mean we can't make it better, but I think it's important to appreciate that we have a wonderful food supply, a good source of food. When I go home to eat dinner this evening, there's a good chance I'm not going to get food poisoning, because I know that the quality of the food is second to none—as long as I don't cook it, I suppose; I think that's what Brian was saying.

The whole idea around “Product of Canada” labelling is to give the consumer the opportunity to make informed decisions. I think everybody is on the same page here. When I go to the supermarket, I want to be able to make an informed decision, so that I know what I'm consuming.

One of the good things about Minister Ritz, our Minister of Agriculture, is that he, I understand, has commissioned a full review of “Product of Canada” labelling. Am I correct in that? So we're going to get there. We're going to settle once and for all this labelling of Canadian product. That's a step in the right direction.

Another step in the right direction, I thought, was when, a few months ago, the Prime Minister announced Canada's food and consumer safety action plan. Mrs. Bryanton, is the $114 million you referred to going to be part of that? Will it fund part of that? Okay.

The whole idea of the action plan, I understand, is to preserve and to strengthen—not only to keep what we have, but to strengthen—the safety of Canada's food supply. Am I correct in assuming that?

Now the million-dollar question: what has happened since December, and where are we on the progress list?

[Debra Bryanton]

With regard to the action plan itself, there was a discussion document posted on the healthycanadians.gc.ca website in January, and there was a consultation held with targeted stakeholders on the first phase of the action plan, which is a review of the legislation that would be required to support some of the objectives of the action plan. Involved in that targeted consultation were producer organizations, consumer groups, industry organizations, and other public interest groups.

When that document was posted on the Healthy Canadians website, there was an offer to all Canadians to forward their views concerning the discussion paper that was proposed on the website and some of the action items that were identified in it. The results of the consultation are currently being compiled, and they will be posted on the website.

Associated with that, the departments involved have been asked to put together action plans that respond to what the government has identified, and the government will make further decisions, I'm sure, in the near future.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

The minister has a reputation now for consulting with industry. Has the consultation you received through this been significant? Are people buying into this? Are people coming forward?

[Debra Bryanton]

There has been a lot of support for the objectives that have been identified in the action plan, and there have been some ideas forwarded as well on ways to achieve some of those goals, as well as some concerns expressed on some means to achieve those goals. But in general the response has been very positive.

Also, both Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have met with stakeholders who are interested in further discussion on the objectives of the action plan and the discussion paper, and we have received some very positive comments there as well.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

You mentioned Health Canada, which is a bit of a segue, and I appreciate your mentioning it.

My follow-up question is this. In the short time I've been part of this agriculture committee and have been working with the Minister of Agriculture, it's become very apparent that the agriculture minister and the health minister have to work very closely.

What is CFIA's relationship? How closely do you work with Health Canada to ensure and maintain the quality and the safety of our food? What kind of relationship is there? Is it working? Maybe you could elaborate a bit on how it's working.

[Debra Bryanton]

CFIA has a very close working relationship with Health Canada as well as with our Agriculture and Agri-Food portfolio partners.

When the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was created, there were roles identified for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food as well as the Minister of Health that were consistent and that supported the health minister's role as the food safety standard setter for Canada and the agriculture minister's role on behalf of the agency in verifying that industry is meeting the standards identified by Health Canada. Because those roles are very clear, we do work very closely with Health Canada, both as they work to develop standards and as we look at ways to verify the effectiveness of industry in meeting the standards set by Health Canada.

So the working relationship is very strong.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gaudet, you have five minutes.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is for you, Ms. Bryanton, because you didn't answer the question about food safety.

In Quebec and in Canada, food inspection is very good. That's not what worries me. In Quebec newspapers—I don't know if the same is true elsewhere in Canada—we read this week that only 2% of foods imported into Canada were inspected.

How come products from the United States, from Brazil or elsewhere are entering our country in vast quantities, when these countries are allowed to use pesticides, fungicides and herbicides that we're not allowed to use in Canada?

What are you doing about all this? Our system is 100% safe. I'm not afraid of eating any food produced in Quebec or in Canada, because I'm sure they're good. Our farmers have enough inspectors and agronomists on their backs to make sure of that.

How come foods that come from elsewhere are not inspected? This makes me furious because I get the impression that foods from elsewhere are unsafe. What is your responsibility in all this? Don't talk to me about Health Canada. It's all very nice to say there are action plans, but let's stop coming up with those and let's actually do something. This is 2008. We have to stop coming up with action plans. You are aware of the problems.

I'd like you to answer that question.

[Debra Bryanton]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As the member has pointed out, the provinces in Canada have also played a very important role in food safety and food inspection, that being part of the shared responsibility of the federal government and the provinces as it relates to food safety. And we certainly do congratulate the provinces on that.

When it comes to imported food products, of course that is a federal jurisdiction. The measures we have put in place verify the safety of imported foods against Canadian standards, similar to the way we verify that the Canadian industry is meeting those standards.

Those import programs are based on risk. That risk can be associated with some of the pesticides or microbial issues. It could be associated with a particular food product as well as the volume of the product, and the origin of the product may also be taken into consideration when we're doing that risk profile.

We do monitor a large number of products through our pesticide residue monitoring programs. We do hundreds of thousands of samples of these products, and that does include imported products as well as domestic. The compliance rate is very high. When it comes to pesticide residues on foods coming into Canada, the compliance rate is very high.

If there is a pesticide residue that is identified on a food product, for example, we follow up on that. We work with Health Canada to determine if there is any health risk associated with it. If there is a health risk, appropriate follow-up action will be taken, and that can include a food recall.

When we do find a pesticide residue that is of concern, we also follow up with the importer of the product, and quite frequently the country of origin as well. So if we do find an area of concern that relates to an imported product, we certainly work with the importer, because the importers are responsible for the products they bring into the country. But we may also work with the foreign government to make sure they are aware of the issue as well, and that they are taking steps to bring a product back into compliance with Canadian law.

Reference is quite frequently made to pesticides being used that are not approved for use in Canada. It is important to understand the difference between a pesticide that has not yet been presented for registration by PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, versus a product that has been banned--it has been assessed and determined to be unsafe. If a pesticide or a veterinary drug has been assessed and is identified as being unsafe, our action is very clear and quick. We take very rigorous action on these products. If a product has not yet been assessed, there are provisions under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations that provide for a 0.1 default level. We assess the product against that default level.

When we do identify a problem area--

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Stop, you're telling me a story. That's not what I wanted.

Let's go back a bit and talk about the lead found in toys at Christmastime. These toys were sent back to China. There was no talk of doing any testing. You know that, in imported products, there are pesticides, fungicides and herbicides that we are not allowed to use in Canada. You simply have to shut the door to these products, that's all. We have Canadian and Quebec products that we do not manage to sell here because we are importing inedible products from China and the United States.

What are you doing? That is what I am asking you. You are going to be receiving another $100 million. Food safety does not come from outside the country. At any rate, up until now, you have not proven to me that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing a good job.

I have been an MP for five years, and you have been hearing the same thing for five years. This is the third time that I have sat on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and in five years, nothing has changed. Why is that?

The same thing applies to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). We're going to have to fire you and hire someone else. At any rate, personally, I am not satisfied with the Food Inspection Agency, particularly with respect to the inspection of foreign products. We are tough when it comes to Canadian products. It's not possible to be any tougher. But when we import foreign products, this is not important, it's free trade. Let's stop talking about free trade and defend ourselves, so that our products can be good and so that the products we eat are good as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Skelton, you may have the floor.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

I have a really interesting piece of information. Mr. Miller talked about his grapefruit juice, and I see that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada shows that over a four-year period we will have imported from China just about $111 million worth of apple juice, non-fermented and non-sweetened concentrate.

When meeting with apple producers this year, I found out that they get less than 5¢ per apple. A child's sucker costs more than that. We're importing all this juice and concentrate from China, and our producers can't make a living. They're losing their orchards.

Mr. Miller made the point about “Made in Canada” with the grapefruits and no grapefruit. This really bothers me, because I'm seeing our producers losing their markets, and we're importing food and telling Canadians that it's “Made in Canada” or that it's a “Product of Canada”.

If you say 51% of the total cost is the guideline, why can't we say it's 51% total Canadian content? Why can't we do that?

[Debra Bryanton]

As was indicated in the action plan, the concerns and expectations of Canadians were noted, and the government did commit to a review of “Product of Canada” labelling provisions as it related to food. Certainly these types of considerations would be taken into account in review of that policy.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

How many “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” claims are verified, and how often, and how many inspectors do you have in charge of verifying these claims? Do you have statistics?

[Debra Bryanton]

No, we don't have statistics on that. We can indicate, however, that we receive quite a number of consumer complaints in the run of a year.

In considering complaints related to “Product of Canada” labelling specifically, over the years we have received very, very few--probably fewer than one a year. More recently, of course, we have received a fair amount of correspondence on “Product of Canada” labelling, and consumers indicated they did have an interest in the fact that “Product of Canada” labelling did not necessarily indicate the food itself originated in Canada.