Evidence of meeting #3 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was we've.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
All right. I will proceed with the votes.
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Department
Vote 1--Agriculture and Agri-Food – Operating expenditures..........$742,448,000
Vote 5--Agriculture and Agri-Food – Capital expenditures..........$49,998,000
Vote 10--Agriculture and Agri-Food – Grants and contributions..........$551,244,000
Vote 15--to guarantee payments of amounts not exceeding, at any time, in aggregate, the sum of $140,000,000 payable in respect of Line of Credit Agreements to be entered into by the Farm Credit Canada...............
Vote 20--Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency – Program expenditures..........$345,000
Canadian Dairy Commission
Vote 25--Program expenditures..........$3,981,000
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Vote 30--Operating expenditures and contributions..........$534,261,000
Vote 35--Capital expenditures..........$36,378,000
Canadian Grain Commission
Vote 40--Program expenditures..........$4,924,000
(Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 agreed to)
Yes, Mr. Easter.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I would hope you would report that we believe there is not enough in these estimates, though, to do the job. There is not a new dime in this budget for agriculture.
We agree with these estimates. We don't want to take from them, but, clearly, we wonder where the government has been. Farmers are suffering out there.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
It's not really a point of order. It's just a comment.
They voted in favour of every single line item you just read, and yet they voted against the budget. There's a real disconnect here in terms of what they support and what they don't support.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Okay. Would you gentlemen have your discussion later, please?
Now we'll turn to the votes under supplementary estimates for Agriculture and Agri-Food.
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Vote 30c--Operating expenditures and contributions..........$22,417,058
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Vote 35c--Capital expenditures--To authorize the transfer of $600,000 from Agriculture and Agri-Food Vote 30, Appropriation Act No. 2, 2009-10 for the purposes of this Vote and to provide a further amount..........$660,000
(Votes 30c and 35c agreed to)
Shall I report supplementary estimates (C) 2009-10 to the House?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
We'll now move to questioning.
Mr. Bellavance.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
We still have people from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
I had a fairly recent case where there is still a recall. I want to understand the distinction that the agency makes regarding certain products. There was a recall on products containing Salmonella, products that came from a U.S. plant in Las Vegas. A number of products were recalled, including potato chips and all sorts of food supplements. Yet, the agency made a distinction between ready-to-eat foods and those that required cooking. The situation went almost unnoticed.
Can you tell me why that distinction is made? Is it that there are a lot of foods that require cooking and you think it would cause economic problems? I read the agency was of the opinion that, if people followed the instructions on the labels of the foods in question, there would not be a problem. But it is important to understand that some people do not always cook certain foods enough. For example, a young kid coming home for lunch will throw the product in the microwave. They may be in more of a hurry than other people, and so they may take it out a little sooner than recommended.
Can you tell me how come these products were not recalled, unlike the others, those that are ready to eat?
Martine Dubuc Vice-President, Science, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, when the agency issues food recalls, it is always based on a health risk assessment. As for the recalled products, Health Canada assessed the risks.
When Health Canada does a risk assessment, that is how we categorize recalls. You mentioned foods that usually require cooking. That fact is often indicated on the package. For example, certain soups need to be cooked, while other products do not, these being ready-to-eat foods. The ready-to-eat foods were recalled. In the case of those that need to be cooked, cooking kills the Salmonella. That was the distinction that was made.
But it is a bit more complicated than that, because there are different kinds of products on the market, different processes used by the food industry, such as cooking processes and steam-based processes. All of that is assessed before a recall is issued. Then it is shared with Health Canada's experts, who determine whether a risk exists or not. That is how recalls work.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
You must understand why I am concerned. I said that if people follow the cooking instructions carefully, they can eliminate the risk of Salmonella being in the product. But instructions indicate that cooking time can vary from an 800-watt microwave to a 1,200-watt microwave. So to come back to my example of the young kid, but it could also be an adult, myself included, that person may decide to cook the product for less time than what is recommended on the package.
So the onus is on the consumer because if they decide to cook the product for less time, they may be putting their health at risk. According to the precautionary principle, I think that if there is Salmonella in the product, it should be taken off shelves no questions asked.
Vice-President, Science, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Consumers have a role to play. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has posted on its Web site a whole slew of measures and guidelines on how consumers should cook a product. It also says to be careful when consuming certain products.
When a label indicates that the product can be cooked in the microwave, it means that the item is ready to eat, and the microwave is used solely to heat it up. The microwave heats the product up but does not cook it. It is very important for the consumer to read the label to know how to use the product.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Is this the first time that you have issued these kinds of recalls, where there is a distinction between ready-to-eat foods and ready-to-cook foods? Has it always worked that way, or are we just noticing it? That really concerns me.
Vice-President, Science, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
The risk assessments are done by experts at Health Canada. The agency follows the risk assessments that are done. They are always done in relation to the risks that the pathogen poses. How did it end up in the food? Does the product need to be cooked or not? How much does it contain? All of these factors are part of Health Canada's risk assessment. Health Canada then determines whether a risk exists or not. Finally, the agency issues a recall. That is the normal procedure that has always been followed. Health Canada assesses every product that may fall into a grey area.
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
André, your time has actually expired. We may get back to you before we're done here.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you all for being here today. It's a unique opportunity for us to sit around the table here with you guys and talk agriculture, which is my favourite subject, and I'm sure yours too.
One of the things that we've been going through as an agriculture committee is looking at the competitiveness of the Canadian agriculture sector and what we can do as a sector to make it more efficient, more productive, and of course generate more revenue for the farmers.
One of the areas that always keeps popping up, it seems, is regulation. It seems like we have more regulations here in Canada than they do, competing with other countries around the world.
Have you guys done an internal review on the regulations and how they compare--let's say Canada versus the U.S., or other countries?
Greg Meredith Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Thanks for the question.
I think the issue of regulation is quite an important one. Right now we're embarking on some consultations with the industry that are leading to the next framework that will succeed our current Growing Forward framework. The regulatory issues in that discussion, I think, have to be very paramount.
I don't know that the department has done a specific regulatory comparison with the United States, so I'd have to do a thorough check back at the department. Historically, perhaps there is one.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Okay.
Again, we always hear examples... I'll use IVOMEC as an example. Why can I get my IVOMEC cheaper in the States and not get it back in Prince Albert for the same price? There are numerous examples. Whether they're true or contrived, fact or fiction, there's always that question out there. I guess I'd encourage you to definitely look at that, just as this committee's been looking at it.
I'm going to turn the page and just go towards some of the things I've seen happening out in Saskatchewan. The minister talked about the Wheat Board and how it's forcing farmers to diversify. It's actually really interesting. Right now guys are looking at this year's crop and trying to figure out what they're going to seed. With wheat, they really don't worry about their return per acre on wheat because it's something they have to grow in the rotation anyway. They're more concerned about how they get their profit out of the pulse industry and how they get their profit out of the canola industry.
You've done some interesting investments in the pulse industry in Saskatchewan. Do you want to just highlight a little bit of what you've been doing there and where you're going with that?