Evidence of meeting #3 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cfia.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Executive Vice-President and Chief Veterinary Officer, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
I personally was not at the ministers meeting in Toronto. I can certainly come back to you with a timeline on that. We'd be pleased to do that.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thank you.
My second question is in regard to the SPP. One of the criticisms from those people opposed to this is that, in trying to reach harmonization, we lower our standards. In other words, if we have a higher standard, and in this case, the Americans, who have all the clout, have a lower standard, we adopt their standards, whereas somewhere over in Europe they have standards even higher than we have.
How do we go about getting a standardized system so that we can ensure, in Canada, we have a program of safety and of inspection that really meets the top-quality standards? This is a question that many people have.
Executive Vice-President and Chief Veterinary Officer, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
If I could, Mr. Chair, I would ask Paul Mayers to respond. In that particular area, I think Paul has the background and vision that would be helpful to the member.
Paul Mayers Executive Director, Animal Products Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
You raise an extremely important point as we think about the issue of standards, and harmonization in relation to standards. As Brian noted in his opening remarks, our first priority is consumer protection, and that does not change in our discussion around harmonization of standards. So the issue in the context of harmonization of standards that becomes important is understanding from a science perspective what standard provides an appropriate level of protection, and working with other countries to define that standard that will deliver the level of protection we all seek.
As Brian has noted, an important element in that regard is to work within the international context. The international standard-setting body for foods, Codex Alimentarius, is an important venue, and Canada, as Brian noted, is extremely active in that venue in this regard. Our interest in harmonization is not seeking the lowest common denominator but seeking the right standard, based in science, so that we can then deliver the consumer protection that Canadians would expect, so that we achieve two things, efficiency in how we operate the regulatory system and confidence in that system—confidence for Canadians as well as confidence for the industry that is regulated.
November 21st, 2007 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I'll just touch on SRMs. One of the concerns in my area is the effect of this policy on rural municipalities, who are often asked to bear the brunt of disposal. In many cases, they don't have the facilities, or the particular disposal facility or unit isn't equipped for this, or it's not mandated. We're not talking here of large slaughterhouses that are getting these facilities built or working on them.
Is there some kind of funding available through infrastructure or through the agriculture department, specifically to regional districts and municipalities, to cope with the problem of SRM disposal, apart from the other money that's been set aside in the federal-provincial agreement?
Executive Vice-President and Chief Veterinary Officer, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, in order to respond to the member in the most appropriate way, I would ask Freeman Libby, who I think has appeared before, to talk about the implementation of the SRM food ban and the negotiations with the provinces and the department around providing that level of support.
Freeman Libby National Director, Feed Ban Task Force, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Good day.
We're talking basically about the small abattoirs and the small producers in rural parts of Canada. There are a number of things we've tried to do. One of the things they are allowed to do is that if they have enough land on site, they are allowed to bury right on site. They do not need permits to do so. It's deemed to be a very minimal risk. That's why we made that decision.
On the second front, as in some parts of Canada we have small abattoirs where they do not have appropriate land on site on which to bury, we've tried to work with the industry on that aspect. What we've come up with there is a policy where, if they have land not adjacent but non-contiguous to the abattoir, they can also bury or compost that product on site. The only difference is that they would need to have a permit by regulation to do that, but the permit is free of charge. There's no cost for that permit.
On the funding side, basically the only funding I know of is the federal-provincial funding of $131 million, $80 million coming from the Government of Canada. The provinces are using that in various ways across Canada. A lot of them are putting it into the small rural abattoirs, trying to help them as much as they can, and also some of the producers. They're either providing bins for them to do it or they're working with the renderers to try to have it picked up at a decent cost. But outside that, right now that's the only funding I know of that's in place.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
Time has expired for our first round.
We're moving to our second round of five minutes, please, starting with Mr. St. Amand.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, lady and gentlemen, for your presentation this afternoon.
Just following up on what Mr. Bellavance was asking, the information that I and others around the table have been provided is that on a weekly basis, some 4,000 metric tonnes of specified risk material are necessarily disposed of in Canada. It strikes me as being a gargantuan amount, and I know, Mr. Evans, that in your earlier answer to Mr. Bellavance, you touched on the process. So my questions are coupled.
How safe should the citizenry feel that the deep burial process, for instance, is fail-safe? Second, relative to other countries, particularly the countries within the European Union, is our process as modern, as efficient, as cutting-edge as theirs? Or are we somewhat behind the Europeans in the area? And last, vis-à-vis the federal government's role and the exploration or the research into the potential of using SRM as a biofuel, what, if anything, is the federal government doing by way of incentives to the private sector to advance that ?
Executive Vice-President and Chief Veterinary Officer, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Thank you for the question.
At the outset, I may not have been as lucid as I should have been with respect to other avenues of use of this material. One of the areas we have been actively pursuing with industry, of course, has been.... With the removal of SRM from the top end of the feed chain, one of the ways of managing not just the SRM element but the meat and bonemeal, which would previously have been considered prohibited material, is to work at the international level to try to adjust the international standards to allow for recovery of some of that cost, and recovery of some of that product, by being able to use meat and bonemeal from which the SRMs were removed prior to its manufacture. We have been successful in respect of certain markets that very much value that type of product for use in their own production systems.
So we have been able to assist industry in finding new international markets for some of that feed material, which would not be at risk for BSE because the SRM has been removed from that as part of the production system. We're working towards having the international community recognize that more broadly with the hope of continuing to expand that opportunity.
As far as the environmental safety of disposing of SRMs goes, again, as a scientist, I will tell you that there are still many questions about BSE and this class of diseases--prion-based diseases--that we do not have all the answers to. Certainly, from the evidence that has been accumulated since 1985, when the first cases in Europe were identified and Europe itself experienced the challenges of managing the diversion and disposal of that level of feed, we have yet to identify, with respect to BSE, that there is, in fact, environmental contamination that would allow for the spread of the disease between animals or humans.
It's important to recognize, again, further to Mr. Libby's comments, that where disposal is followed, the disposal is not simply a case of having land and being able to bury it in that spot. Again, the disposal sites are subject to environmental assessment by the provinces to ensure that there is no leakage and that there is no contamination of groundwater associated with disposal in those locations. So again, at the provincial level and at the environmental level, we are mitigating seepage that would cause concerns in other areas, and it is, in fact, contained there.
As I said, all evidence, in terms of composting and other approaches, seems to continue to support the fact that, unlike scrapie, and CWD in elk, environmental contamination is not a factor in further spread or transmission of the disease at this time. Obviously it's an area of research that we're very active in and will continue to monitor.
With respect to the EU and the relativity of our measures, certainly our feed ban was designed recognizing some of the challenges and shortcomings experienced by other countries. Our feed ban is not as broad as the European Union's, which prohibits all animal proteins from being fed back to animals. Ours goes only so far as to prohibit specified risk materials from being fed into animal feed. So other types of animal proteins are still eligible to be used and do provide some salvage value and cost return to producers at the point of slaughter that the producers in Europe would not have access to.
In terms of the integrity of the control measures, in terms of the delivery of the system, in terms of the quality of the surveillance being conducted, we are on par with the European Union, and that has been the basis under which we achieved controlled-risk status by international recognition and peer review.
With respect to SRM incentives for biofuel production, again, I would ask the committee to perhaps consider having Freeman come back to the table. Alternatively, it may be an area to pursue directly with the department.
Again, we at CFIA do not provide funding. We do not have grants and contributions authority in this area that would allow us to make those investments, but we are cognizant of the fact that agriculture is involved in the programs. In order to have all the factual information, I would perhaps suggest that you raise the question with departmental officials when they appear.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. St. Amand, your time has expired.
To follow up on what Lloyd was just saying, Dr. Evans, on the issue of SRM disposal, has there been any funding that has gone to different research projects on incineration or on using SRMs as a source of heating or energy production on-site for a facility?
Executive Vice-President and Chief Veterinary Officer, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Yes, in effect, the $131 million also supported, at the provincial level, the ability to fund that type of validation study and research. In addition, from the health perspective, some of the honourable members would recognize that one of the other institutions that was established in Canada was a research group called PrioNet, in addition to the Alberta-based Prion Research Institute. Both of those receive federal funding, and this is one of the areas they are pursuing, both with research in Canada and internationally on disposal and deactivation of prions, including SRM material, through various processes.
The committee will recall from one of our previous appearances that there is a company in Canada with technology for alkaline hydrolysis, as well, which is continuing to be validated and which is extremely promising for commercial application.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair--and if you're done with my questions, then I can ask them.
Thank you very much, Mr. Evans.
You talked a little about standardization, or your colleague talked about standardization, and using the proper science to base this on rather than the lowest common denominators. Are you satisfied that we've achieved this based on science at this point in time, or do we have more work to do with this?
Executive Vice-President and Chief Veterinary Officer, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
If I may, honourable member, by “this” you're referring to food safety standards?
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Yes, food safety standards in terms of the conversation we were having earlier.
Executive Vice-President and Chief Veterinary Officer, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Okay, thank you very much for the question.
Paul.
Executive Director, Animal Products Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Thank you very much.
I certainly wouldn't characterize the work as done. In fact, within the work that Canada does in Codex Alimentarius, we participate in a broad range of committees in Codex Alimentarius that look at issues from food safety and nutrition to issues of maximum residue limits for chemical contaminants and additives.
We recognize that the food industry is not static. The issues facing the food industry aren't static. Therefore the issue of standardization continues to be important. We recognize in Canada that we continually run into issues when different countries' standards aren't aligned.
Right now part of the challenge that the pork sector faces is the issue that China takes a different view around a veterinary drug that Health Canada has authorized in Canada, has established the maximum residue limit for, and the fact that pork exports to China are impacted by this is an issue of concern to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. So we engage China around that discussion and we have been working in Codex Alimentarius to establish an international maximum residue limit that is, in our view, an important example of the value of standardization.
So by no means would I characterize the work as being complete. However, the work that has been done has yielded real value in terms of allowing, through standardization, that predictability on the part of Canadian exporters that products produced that meet Canadian standards will be acceptable in other countries in terms of our imports. We will continue to work in that regard, because we see it as important.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I think predictability and stability are among the key aspects of any industry. If we are looking to open markets in other countries and help out both our pork and livestock industries, it's going to be very important that we work through this and we work through it with organizations such as this.
Dr. Evans, you mentioned the 99% eradication of BSE. I'm jumping around a little here because I have lots of different topics. But when it comes to the enhanced feed ban, the 99% eradication of BSE, you must have some documentation or study that would prove that. Could you submit that to the committee? I'm a new member; if you've already submitted that, I'd love to see it for a first time.
I'd like to know how the implementation process is going in regard to the enhanced feed ban and if you could comment a little about the implementation process. Also, you mentioned follow-up consultations that you've done. Could you comment on these consultations, on who they've been with, and the results you're getting back from these groups?
Executive Vice-President and Chief Veterinary Officer, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Thank you very much for the question.
Let me begin on the issue of the statement that was made. The statement said that with the current restrictions we have in place, we are removing upwards of 99% of known infectivity for BSE from the food chain. So in terms of those tissues that are defined as specified risk materials--brains, spinal cord, eyes, various other nerve bundles, tonsils, and certain parts of the small intestine--the cumulative work of research suggests that although there may be micro other elements in the animals that we will still find with additional research, the materials that we have defined and are removing cover about 99-plus per cent of all known infectivity. And in removing that, again, as we said, we have done the modelling and we would be pleased to share with you and the committee the modelling work that has been done and previously published in various fora around the timeline projections of having moved to that level, how that decreases the eradication time period. So we will be pleased to provide that to you and the committee.
With respect to implementation and update and further discussion around the work of the industry and governmental working groups in terms of the assessment of the impacts and suggestions, again, with the permission of the chair, I would ask Mr. Libby to come back to the table, if that's possible.