Agriculture Committee on March 17th, 2010

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Are they going to plants that have U.S.-destined meat?

[Cameron Prince]

No. The 35 new inspectors are for listeria-related, ready-to-eat meat inspection. I can give you the details of where they're located. Obviously there are quite a few processing plants in Ontario and Quebec, so most of those 35 inspectors are going into Ontario and Quebec, but they're going across the country. We'll be hiring an additional 35 inspectors to do that same sort of work as quickly as we can get them on strength in the new fiscal year.

The other part of your question was about attrition. I think you're saying that we're hiring people on and people are leaving. It's the same in any large organization. Those kinds of things happen, so we're going out with an aggressive national recruitment campaign to keep ahead of that all the time. To do the ready-to-eat meat inspections, we get the best people we can to come in, and we also promote people from within.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Minister, I meant no disrespect by cutting you off earlier--

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Hey, I haven't been home lately, so it was welcome. Thank you.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

--and I mean no disrespect by this question as well, but I'm having trouble reconciling something you said in the House yesterday with something that I'm hearing today and something that we've heard from the industry. You've already alluded to the issue, which is the difference in times that food inspectors are present in plants where there is U.S.-bound meat versus the times they are present in plants where meat is domestically bound.

You said the inspection rates for domestic consumption and for international trade are exactly the same: they work on a 12-hour cycle. Now, Mr. Prince indicated that you're working towards making them equivalent. Unfortunately, Canadians are concerned that U.S.-bound meat, and the U.S. population, are receiving greater consideration than Canadians are.

Frankly, it's been quite some time since you've had the opportunity to respond to the Weatherill report, and that concerns us, especially with the recent scare of another outbreak, so when you talk about the total amount of time being equivalent to the presence required under the USDA, what does that mean? When will you have the full complement on the ground to meet the very same standards of a presence every shift, every 12 hours, that you will be meeting with USDA? We need to know the timing.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Before I turn the logistics over to Cam, who does run the programs, I just want to point out that the 80% we're targeting off the front--the big plants that produce 80% of the ready-to-eat meats--serve both domestic and international markets. These aren't isolated in the sense that one does domestic only, while one does international only--

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I know that.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

They are integrated programs. When you have a vet on, he's inspecting a meat line that may go international or may go domestic, so it's very hard to say that he quit working for international here and he started to work for domestic there. Meat is meat coming down the line, and he doesn't know where it's going to go; he just wants to make sure it's safe.

Cameron, do you want to expand on that?

[Cameron Prince]

I just want to reiterate my points a bit.

I said that there's an equivalent amount of time spent. The U.S. requires it. There's a bylaw that products being exported to their country are under a regime that requires a presence on every shift.

What I'm saying is that the total amount of time spent for inspection presence on plants operating only for domestic sale versus those that are shipping in Canada and to the U.S. is the same. We've had to adjust to cover off those second shifts in order to meet that requirement. We've done that through overtime and by extending our current resources, and we've been able to cover that off. Now, with these new resources, we're moving very quickly.

I think you asked what the timeframe is.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes.

[Cameron Prince]

The timeframe would be, well, as quickly as we can get the people on and get them up and running. I hate to promise, because there's a staffing process and a training process that has to take place, but it's certainly within four to six months.

We'll have the people hired within a very short period of time. It's the training that takes the time. These people will be on the ground, and there will be a combination of classroom training and mentoring by senior inspectors, and they will be out in the field doing this work.

It's about getting them in the door in the next two months and then getting them trained over the next three to four months, so within six months we're going to have this fully covered off.

My colleague Sandra Wing is our main contact with the U.S., and she would like to add something.

[Sandra Wing, Vice-President, Policy and Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

I would say that Canadians have no need to be concerned. The U.S. audits the Canadian system on an annual basis--

[Cameron Prince]

As we audit theirs.

[Sandra Wing]

Yes, as we are presently auditing theirs.

If there were serious food safety concerns from an outcome perspective, we would not be able to send meat south of the border and they wouldn't be able to send meat here.

And as Cam said, equivalent time spent in a plant: no two countries' food safety systems are identical as far as the technical requirements go. In the U.S., you may operate eight-hour shifts, two eight-hour shifts, three eight-hour shifts, or a twelve-hour shift, and similarly here in Canada. But the U.S. requirement is a “presence”, and that could be that you show up at the plant for 10 minutes of a particular shift. So we're not talking about food safety outcomes here. We're talking about technical requirements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Storseth and Mr. Richards are splitting the next five minutes, I understand.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will do my best to leave Mr. Richards time for some hard-hitting questions.

Mr. Minister, I want to thank you not only for taking the time to open up markets, which you have been going around the world to do, but also for the time you have taken for our local producers. Unlike previous parliamentary secretaries, you actually believe that rural round tables mean getting out into rural Canada. You have been to St. Paul, Mayerthorpe, and many other places where you get to meet real farmers and real producers. I know that in our area they appreciate your straightforwardness.

I don't want to leave you with the impression that the meeting we had this week with pork producers was all negative. I actually thought it was a very good meeting. They came forward, as you know, and stressed cashflow, which is something that we're working on, and they stressed market access.

But one of the things they really stressed is ratifying some of the free trade agreements that are already signed, such as the one with Colombia. I'm wondering what we can do as a government to help expedite this. Or maybe the opposition can help us out with this.

Then, of course, as an Albertan, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that I hope you continue working with our provincial government on AgriRecovery. We had a severe drought in our area this year and it's very important that we find a good resolution for our farmers. I know you're working on it.

But my real question here goes to a truly western Canadian issue, and that is marketing choice and marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers. I asked this question when I first got on the agriculture committee and when you first became minister. I'm wondering, and I'd like to know from you, what we are doing as a government, and what you are doing as the minister, to come forward with a plan to help western Canadian farmers access the $450 million to $628 million a year that the June 2008 Informa document shows western Canadian farmers aren't able to get at by having access to open markets.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

To begin with, on Colombia, even the Wheat Board, love 'em or hate 'em, supports the Colombia free trade agreement. They know there's a tremendous opportunity down there for farmers to grow that market exponentially. We do need that one done very, very quickly. For livestock and pork, for the wheat growers, and for canola as well, the farmers all say that's a tremendous market opportunity. It is a portal into the rest of South America, and we recognize the expansion that could go on through that portal.

When it comes to the Wheat Board itself, even the board has recognized that western Canadian farmers are voting with their trucks and their air seeders. We've seen tremendous growth in the canola and pulse acres, and we're going to see more of that because of the innovation going into it and because they can market what they want when they want. We're missing that with the Wheat Board.

Even the Wheat Board recognizes that. They've tried to come up with some programming to mirror the free market, with more cash up front and more things like that. They just can't seem to do the business model that works. They do a terrible job in the futures market, and then they do a terrible job of taking from the pool accounts to cover that off and putting it back and so forth. It has gotten to the point where they are constantly at odds with the elevator association, which of course includes terminals owned by farmers, into the car allocations.

I know there's a lot of concern about producer cars, which are actually under the auspices of the Canadian Grain Commission. That's one of the reasons why we put money back in there, because we couldn't get that bill past Parliament to give them the capacity to do more work on behalf of producer cars.

There's a tremendous amount of change required. Everyone has concerns with the rail line abandonments that took place over the last decade or 15 years out there in western Canada. We've all come to grips with the fact that we have to haul our grain farther, but in order to do that we have to make more money off the end and do more value-added processing in western Canada as well. Globally, there's a shortage of some 500,000 tonnes of malt. We grow the barley, yet we can't malt it in western Canada without doing that crazy little buy-back thing, which involves freight and elevation charges to tidewater--and it never left my bin.

There are a lot of different things that we need to work through.

We're committed to seeing that change. The first step will be to make some changes in the elections law for the board of directors of the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board actually agrees with us in moving forward on that. We're talking a 40-tonne requirement: you must have grown that in the last two years in order to be called a farmer. That's not a lot. You can do that in your garden on a good day.

So there are a lot of things that need to be changed. We'll move ahead as quickly as we can, working with the board. There are certain things I can do by regulation, but I'm loath to do that. I always end up in court. We win, but in the end, farmers lose time. We'll move forward as fast as we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Richards, you have time for one question.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Certainly at the very top of my mind was the Wheat Board. I certainly do appreciate the comments you just made. It was very comforting to hear in the throne speech the comment that we will ensure freedom of choice, for which western barley farmers voted overwhelmingly, and now to hear the comments you have just made. One of my barley producers is here in the room today. I am sure he'll be very thrilled to hear those comments. I do appreciate that as well, and all the work you have done on opening up the markets for our producers.

Just very quickly, because I don't think there is much time, I wonder if you could just elaborate further on some of the work you have been doing on market access for our livestock producers as well. I know you have had some discussions recently with our pork producers, and maybe you can share some of those.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

We've made a commitment over the last year or year and a half that every break week we will do a major trip offshore. We've done that.

Before we did that, we sat down with industry and correlated which countries and which market access would give us the most bang for our buck when we did these trips. We've dealt with the livestock sector--cattle and pork. We've dealt with sheep and goats. We've dealt with the grain sector, soy, and everybody.

They have identified certain markets where they see huge potential, and we've gone there first and had some good success. In other cases we have followed up. The Russian market has tremendous potential, but you have to court them as you do with the Chinese. The more we go, the more they expect to see us, the more they want to work with us. We're now starting to see countries like India, where there is tremendous potential for our pulse crops and canola and so on, coming back to Canada and asking where they can inspect what we're doing and how they start to do that and how they can mimic that.

There is concern at times that we sell our genetics and that somehow Russia is going to take over the dairy sector or they are going to take over the beef sector. But the genetics change constantly. We've also developed feed rations and housing infrastructures that go along with handling those genetically superior animals, which other countries have yet to mimic. We are not concerned about there being competition. We think that is good. However, we are getting more and more demand for Canadian product, whether it's still on the hoof or in the box. It's just amazing to be a part of that shift.

Our mantra is that it's marketplace, not mailbox. Farmers are starting to get their heads and minds around that. Government programs come and go. Government money does get clawed back at times, and agriculture ministers come and go. But if they can start to develop a solid marketplace, that can weather them through any type of change in government, and that's the end.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I must excuse myself and rush off to cabinet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks very much for staying a few extra minutes to finish that round.

We'll let the minister go.

I just want to remind everybody that we have votes at 4:45, which I had forgotten about until Mr. Easter reminded me. Also we have about a dozen very short motions that we need to pass regarding the estimates. We can either do them right now while the minister is leaving, or we can leave them to the end, but they have to be done before the bells go off.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We have to vote on the estimates.

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

Do we have them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

They're the main estimates, and I'll just be reading them off.

You won't have a copy of them, André.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's all in the blue book.