Agriculture Committee on Nov. 21st, 2007

[Freeman Libby]

I'm talking strictly about the SRM, and not about the creation of the feed for the animal. There's no SRM produced in the feed; the feed is another story altogether. We're just talking about the maintenance and the control of the specified risk material that a farmer would produce on his farm.

They already had to keep their records for a period of two years anyway, so the only difference as of July 12 is that the records now have to be kept for 10 years rather than two years. So there really isn't much of a difference as far as the records to be kept are concerned, except for the period of time.

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

I am aware of that but each farmer will have to record that information, especially the quantities and ingredients used to feed his animals, and he will have to keep those records during 10 years. There are 80,000 farmers in Canada. I am quite sure that your Agency does not have the capacity to visit each of those farmers to check if they have kept those records or not.

I find this totally absurd because it is a heavy burden for the farmers and I wonder why we imposed that on them. You are telling me that there are standards at each step of the chain, which I understand, but I do not understand why they had to be forced to keep those records and I wonder how you will be able to audit that in any case.

[Freeman Libby]

I guess I'd better clarify a little bit too, because you're talking about two separate things. The SRM is one thing, the creation of the feed another.

When you're talking about keeping track of the ingredients in whatever, that's going into the feed program. Those are the requirements of the feed program under the Feeds Act, which is totally different from the SRM.

So I'm not sure where you're going. You want to go towards the feed, which is: the farmer has to keep track of the type of feed he's producing on the farm and is feeding to his ruminants.

Is that where you're going?

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

I am saying that you require that records be kept since July 12. These new regulations relate to specified risk materials. It says, and I have the text before me:

anyone who manufactures, imports, distributes or sells livestock feed must keep records for 10 years that include:

the names and addresses of buyers;

and descriptions of feed, including quantities and ingredients.

It doesn't exist? But it's from your Agency.

[Freeman Libby]

I'll turn this one over to Paul, because it is a feed issue, not an SRM one.

[Paul Mayers]

For clarification, the regulations that came into effect on July 12 addressed a number of issues, including issues related to feed. Those requirements that you have quoted relate to those who produce feed and distribute feed. They are required to keep records in relation to that distribution because those records are extremely important and valuable in any investigation of an outbreak.

When we are investigating an outbreak, it's important to be able to look back at inputs that might have contributed, in the result of a contamination event, to impacting the health of animals. Those requirements, however, are different from the requirements of record keeping for producers as it relates to their controls of SRM. There are different issues between the important requirement that if you produce and distribute feeds, you are required to keep records as to the feeds that you have produced as well as their distribution. And you are correct in terms of the time requirement around their keeping of records. But the important distinction that my colleague was speaking to is that the requirement is different from the requirement on producers or, frankly, on anyone who handles specified risk material, to keep records as to the volume and nature of the materials they have disposed of.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Mayers, I want to follow up on André's question. We're talking feed mills; we're talking about retail outlets; we're talking about renderers who produce meat and bonemeal that may enter the retail feed industry chains; the trucking companies that may haul these products. On top of being part of the system of tracking this information when you guys do tests, are they audited on an annual basis or on an ongoing basis, in some way, shape, or form, by CFIA?

[Paul Mayers]

They are subject to audit. Perhaps my colleague Mr. Prince would like to speak to the specifics around the auditing. But certainly they are, indeed, subject to audit, as are all those involved in the chain of distribution of product.

[Cameron Prince]

In leading up to the implementation of the feed ban on July 12, we developed an audit policy and an enforcement and compliance policy, and we consulted broadly with the industry so that everyone understood exactly what the rules of the road would be in terms of compliance.

A few years ago, additional resources were provided to CFIA for the feed program, as a result of the BSE crisis of 2003, and those resources are available to audit the various links in the chain in SRM. In particular, with renderers handling SRM, we've gone to a 24/7 inspection presence there. So we have a whole audit plan in place to look at all the aspects of SRM handling. In fact, records are reviewed to make sure that record keeping is in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time had expired, André, so I was only trying to get a little more information for the entire committee's purposes.

Mr. Atamanenko, you're on.

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

I'm going to try to get two questions in here.

You mentioned that steps are being taken to protect Canadians from unsafe products. I'd like to know what specific steps and if that involves more staffing, more inspections.

Second, a little while ago, an article appeared in, I believe, Le Droit stating that CFIA is one of 17 departments slated to have—or perhaps has had--a cut in the budget of 5% or 10%, something like that. The article also went on to write about the fact that there are now fewer inspectors, that there was more self-regulation in the industry. In other words, the gist of the article was that our food supply really isn't safe because of this proposed budget cut. I'm wondering what specific steps are taking place, then, and if that means more staff.

Is there any truth in the article?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

I'll try to address the last part. We are not aware of any budget cuts being imposed on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at this time.

CFIA was one of the first group of 17 agencies and departments assessed under the new expenditure management system developed by the government, under what's known as strategic review. The intent of that process was to look at reinvestment of the bottom 5% of programming into other areas where we believe risks could be better managed. From our perspective, it was never the intent of strategic review to be a cost-cutting exercise. We've not been informed of any reduction in our budget in that regard.

As CFIA we do know, and it is in our performance reports, that over the next several years we will see a decline in our overall funding. This is as a result of specific tied funding that is sunsetting. These were part of submissions approved previously for defined periods of time to deliver certain activities, some of it BSE-related, some of it AI-related, for which activities have been concluded. That money is scheduled to come out of the budget.

We are continuing to do the appropriate assessments, from a management accountability framework, to report on the deliverables for the investments the government made there and to make the case, in appropriate circumstances, as to whether some of that programming should continue. To the best of our knowledge, we have not been informed of a cut.

With respect to your question on food inspections, as I say, we do undertake, on an ongoing basis, imported and domestic food. There are residue monitoring programs that look for chemicals, microbiological hazards, heavy metal contaminants, pesticides. These are applied on an ongoing basis, and these programs are adjusted based on the reality of globalization, an assessment of where products are coming from, and what's going on in those jurisdictions.

It's informed by findings in other countries as well. Again, we try to cooperate with the EU, the U.S., and certain key trading partners. If they have found issues in imported food, we try to redirect resources to make sure those issues are not occurring in Canada as well. As we talked about earlier, it is a system that has to adapt to the dynamic nature of the food supply and the system that's operating globally.

Within Canada we are actively looking at trying to take the reality, as I said earlier, that one cannot inspect and test one's way to food safety. It is important that industry has good quality assurance programs in terms of whom they procure ingredients from and how they manage hazards and risks within their operating programs.

Under our legislation it is mandatory in certain programs for an industry to have a hazard analysis critical control point plan that governs how they receive product, handle product, and how they produce, review, and test product. We are involved in looking at those third-party processes to see where they augment and complement the regulatory process and where we can give due recognition for where industry is able to demonstrate the safety outcome that would not necessarily merit government having to impose that cost on industry.

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

I'm going to ask one other question. I hope I have enough time.

With respect to the national meat code, in British Columbia small farmers have really been hit by the meat inspection regulation. In other words, the farmer can no longer slaughter and sell to a neighbour for consumption.

I'm wondering if that is a national standard. I found through some research that there is another province, specifically Nova Scotia, where that is not the case. I'm wondering if the regulation in B.C. was as a result of your organization, CFIA, saying this has to be in place. Or has each province been able to decide how they're going to handle selling at the farm gate? Do you see this as a threat to our food safety if a small farmer kills a cow and sells it to me, providing I don't resell it?

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

[Cameron Prince]

I can comment on the B.C. situation. That was a provincial initiative. They did tighten up the standards, there's no question, which meant that some on-farm slaughter is no longer permitted. It does mean that there will be some additional plants coming under inspection. In fact in the province of British Columbia, the CFIA delivers the program, so we will be taking on some additional plants that come under that B.C. meat inspection program.

The provinces are evolving their meat inspection programs across the country. Ontario has a fairly new meat inspection act, which is very close to B.C.'s--not exactly the same--and other provinces are looking at that.

This links back to my earlier comments about a national meat code. It's an evolution. Provinces are moving forward, and B.C. and Ontario are at the forefront of that initiative. There is a federal-provincial committee working on this. All provinces are very aware of this, and they are working generally towards a common goal.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just for clarification for the record, the $131 million arrangement is a federal-provincial agreement, right, in regard to the enhanced feed ban? And that money is basically distributed to the provinces with maximum flexibility so that the provinces can decide whether it's a local municipality that they would like it to go toward, or...but it's predominantly within each provincial jurisdiction, correct?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

That's correct.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

The enforcement of the enhanced feed ban, who's that left to?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency encountering any difficulties in enforcing this program across the country?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

We've been working very closely with the industry, working well up to July 12 and since the July 12 implementation date, and the industry certainly fully understands the ramifications of the implementation, both internationally and within Canada. What we did is we sat down and developed an enforcement strategy based upon cooperation, compliance, and education, knowing fully that we were going to encounter some problems.

Basically the way we've approached it is that when we do find non-compliance, we have to react. That is our responsibility; we have to react. But what we've been doing with the industry is that when we find non-compliance, we ask how do we get them into compliance as easy as possible with them, as cost-efficiently as possible for the industry, so that we won't have that problem again.

Have we found problems? Yes, we have found some problems. We have an approach where we go from a situation where we would issue warning letters right up to prosecutions. It's a graduated approach. As we're going down that road, right now we're at the starting blocks, so to speak. When we do find the problems, we get the compliance in place, and then if we have to we'll issue a warning letter or take appropriate enforcement action.

I want to emphasize that the industry has looked at this very seriously, and there has been very good cooperation on behalf of the industry right across Canada, from coast to coast.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

From the discussions we had in the spring with some industry representatives, such as the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, it's my understanding that they were working very closely with CFIA and were actually promoting the enhanced feed ban so that we could secure export of our market to the United States and other countries.

Have we received--and I don't know how to word this politically correctly--the same cooperation from the provinces across the board? I mean, there's been a holdup, and there's been a letdown in the process somewhere, and I'd like to identify where that is. If it's not with the industry, one would tend to believe, with a federal-provincial agreement, that it must be with the provinces then.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Again, I think it is safe to say that some provinces were better prepared than others. That's also a reflection of the ability of individual provinces through their treasury boards and their budgeting processes to make sure they were able to provide the supplementary funding in a timely manner to the industry.

Again, as you've described, in order to achieve maximum flexibility on the part of the provinces to work either with municipalities, the private sector, or other organizations to achieve the control of the SRM, in many of those provinces the timeliness of signing those agreements was not uniform, because again they were doing their own internal consultations of how they wanted that to be achieved.

But to the best of my knowledge, and I certainly would expect Libby Freeman to confirm, all of that money has been disbursed out at the federal level. Again, because it was administered through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, I would certainly encourage that you may want to have more directed discussions with the department that administered the program, because we at CFIA provided advice, but we were not in charge of the administrative arrangements.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

There's still time left, if Mr. Miller wants it.

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

Yes, if I could.

Mr. Evans, I would like to go back to the performance report of March that we didn't really get to. There's a statement in there that says discriminatory practices and unnecessary barriers--barriers is a key word--to Canadians farmers are mentioned as a key risk to CFIA's capacity to achieve its strategic outcomes.

I'd like you to speak to some of those barriers, but there's something else I want to quote. There's the issue of the total removal of APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which gives exemptions from inspection for exported fruits and vegetables grown in Canada. I would take it that, basically, if there's an exemption given from the fruit and vegetable side, could that same exemption be given to the livestock side of it? Is that one of those barriers that you referred to?

Also, there's another statement in the report that mentions that insufficient authorities could impede the effectiveness of CFIA. I'd like to hear what necessary authorities you believe the CFIA is lacking.