Agriculture Committee on Nov. 21st, 2007

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

If you could get back to me, I would appreciate it.

[Gordon White]

Yes, we'll get back to you.

Just to confirm, you're referring to our DPR for 2006-07?

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

Yes.

[Gordon White]

Okay.

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

Dr. Evans, you mentioned the prions. You said that you have about 99%, models saying that we're getting rid of all these prions and everything in it. You mentioned that you know that prions are spread through animal contact in CWD and everything. Have you done models to prove that?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Most of the current work we have, honourable member, deals with BSE-specific, because that is an area where there's been obviously much more extensive research done internationally.

In the case of CWD, Canada, the United States, and Korea are basically the only three countries at this point in time where the disease has been identified. On the level of international investment, although Europe is now making a significant investment in CWD, we don't have the same capacity to model there.

As I did indicate with CWD and scrapie in sheep, there is a long-standing recognition that the transmission opportunities for that type of prion disease are significantly higher than what we see in BSE in cattle. So as I said, the shedding in the environment--through urine, through blood, at the time of calving or lambing--and the distribution of prions in the tissues of those particular species are different from what it is in cattle.

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

Well, I--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You're out of time, unfortunately, Mrs. Skelton.

There is one thing I do want to follow up on, though, with Mr. White. We were talking about the fees and the revenues that are generated back. You do have a lot of that in your performance report, but could you get us a detailed list of all the fees that CFIA charges, whether it's export inspections, inspection in packing plants, or inspection of cranberries out on the farm? If we could have that list, I think it would be useful for the committee.

Mr. St. Denis.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

I have a short question on fees, and then I'll move to something else.

I accept that the fees aren't covering your costs, and so on, but I will not involve myself in that debate.

Is there a distance calculation in the application of a fee? If there is an inspection 100 kilometres away versus 10 kilometres away from where your officials leave, is there a different fee for the distance, the location?

I'm thinking of one of my constituents, Max Burt, who raised that important issue with me. I may have misunderstood.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

In effect, most of the fees were based on an activity base, not necessarily the time base.

When the initial negotiations took place with industry back in 1996 and 1997, at the time of the creation of the agency, there was an attempt to look at the relative investment the agency was making on a per sector basis: our overhead costs for surveillance; what we were currently doing in export certification in the beef sector; the level of inspection and overtime we were doing in slaughter plants to meet the commercial demand. At that time, there were sectoral tables that sat down and said, “Well, if this is our relative percentage of your operating cost, then we will figure out as an industry how those fees could be achieved, or how that target could be achieved.”

In actual fact, it was an inclusive process with industry, where industry helped to define how they felt they could best manage to deliver those fees.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I appreciate the history there. Basically, a smaller, more rural operation is not disadvantaged vis-à-vis a closer operation to the--

[Dr. Brian Evans]

No, in effect, if it's a--

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

It's like a postage stamp; it's basically the same wherever you are in the country.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

That's right. If he's looking for an export document, there's a set fee for that export document based on the number of animals being certified.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Site visits aren't--

[Dr. Brian Evans]

That is not a factor. Our mileage cost is not a factor there.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much.

I was surprised in the last number of weeks by the number of constituents who raised the issue of imports particularly, and their confusion over terms such as product of Canada, made in Canada, 51%, and packaging. I don't want to pick on China, but let's use them as a good example. Could you explain a bit about that, and maybe make our constituents feel better about the situation--or worse, as my neighbour friend here says?

Thank you, Dr. Evans. That will be my last question.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

It would certainly be our earnest desire to make all the constituents feel much better about it.

The government policy as it relates to country-of-origin labelling is broader than just a food policy. It obviously reflects the reality that in the past there was recognition for labour costs, manufacturing costs, and other factors that were borne in Canada. They ultimately determined at the government's broader policy level that 51% of the direct costs of getting that product into the marketplace, whether it was the labour costs or otherwise, would determine whether a car is a U.S. car or a Canadian car, irrespective of where the parts came from. It's a much broader policy issue.

As it's been applied to food--and this is an area that we have agreed to revisit within the scope of the policy--again, there are issues on imported products. For certain classes of product, there are regulatory requirements that the product would have to indicate imported by or imported for. It would have to give information to consumers about whom they could contact them to verify where the product was actually from.

Again, we have also been looking at what's been done more broadly internationally. We've met with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has made a proposal around a Canadian logo that would define that the ingredients themselves are Canadian-grown. We have started that type of analysis to ensure that we can bring our policy in line with ensuring that consumers have the right to an informed choice and can make the choice they would like to make in the marketplace.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I could be wrong, but I understand that some of the baby food or apple juice is coming from China. I may have misheard or misunderstood that. In picking up a can of apple juice, right now a consumer can't be certain that it is actually made from apples grown in Canada.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

There are limitations within the current policy. Again, that's what we're trying to address, so that consumers can interpret what that label is telling them in a factual and honest way.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Lauzon is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being here, Dr. Evans.

Just to follow up on a question from Ms. Skelton, you mentioned that you had approximately 600 veterinarians on staff.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

We have 630.

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

Okay. Of those, how many would be CFIA permanent employees? What would the ratio be there?