Evidence of meeting #53 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cfia.
A video is available from Parliament.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
We certainly support Health Canada in currently undertaking to review the science surrounding meat tenderizing, absolutely.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
We didn't really talk about line speeds at abattoirs and the ratio of heads of cattle being transformed and the number of inspectors needed. Is that something you can comment on? Are lines going too fast in certain abattoirs? Are they just getting too big?
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
All plants are slightly different. The line speeds are approved, and the lines are staffed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency according to the line speed, the throughput at that particular establishment. The establishment has to present a plan that is acceptable to the government, and they have to prove their system can handle that particular line speed.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
There's no national Canadian norm for saying if 2,000 heads are going to be transformed at a plant, then 10 inspectors and two vets are needed. It's plant by plant.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
That's a good question for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They have the criteria for the particular plants that operate at those speeds.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
With that I'll thank our guests for being here today. We are going to take a brief recess while we welcome our next guests.
Just before we break, the proposed budget has been submitted and everyone has a copy. I'll ask for someone to move a motion with respect to that.
Mr. Allen.
(Motion agreed to)
We will take a five-minute recess while our guests arrange themselves at the table.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, everyone, and welcome back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The witnesses joining us at the table are: from the Canadian Association of Regulated Importers, Mr. Robert de Valk, executive secretary, and Sukhdeep Bilkhu, chair; from the Dairy Farmers of Canada, Ron Versteeg, vice-president. Welcome. You've presented before so I'll ask you to make your opening comments and then we'll move to questions.
Mr. de Valk, would you like to start.
Robert de Valk Executive Secretary, Canadian Association of Regulated Importers
I'm going to ask my chair to make the opening comments.
Sukhdeep Bilkhu Chair, Canadian Association of Regulated Importers
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear during your hearings on Bill S-11, an important bill for everyone in Canada and those outside Canada who buy Canadian-produced food products.
This bill will provide the regulatory environment for food production and marketing in Canada for at least the next 30 years, and therefore, we need to get it right. It is CARI's view that Bill S-11 sets out the framework needed to modernize food safety in Canada.
What is also needed is a Canadian national food strategy that will help guide the creation of the regulations that will quickly flow from this bill. It's like buying a much-needed new car but not having an agreement on how it will be used or where we would like to go with that. A national food strategy is being worked on by both industry and the CFIA, but this work is still far from completion.
CARI supports Bill S-11 because it will put all imported food on the same footing when it comes to food safety. We also note that Bill S-11 will increase the powers and tools available to CFIA's food inspectors.
Recent incidents have shown that there were gaps in the tools available and in which part of the food industry the regulation could be applied. We understand these weaknesses can now be corrected.
One area of concern CARI would like to raise is found in subclause 24(1). This subclause gives inspectors a lot of powers including, for example, the power to access a company's computer if a non-compliance is suspected. CARI agrees this is a reasonable approach providing the grounds to believe have been documented.
There's a difference in the wording between the English and the French versions of clause 24. The English version states “they have reasonable grounds” while the French appears to reference the inspector. We would suggest this difference be fixed by amending both the English and French versions to read “the CFIA” instead of “they” or “the inspector”.
Much like the Competition Bureau has to document the reason to believe before being granted access to company records, so should the reason to believe non-compliance is taking place be documented before an inspector has access to company computers and all the other actions that can be taken under clause 24.
The change CARI is proposing for the English text is the replacement of “they” with “CFIA” and the insertion of the word “documented” between the words “have” and “reasonable”. The passage would read, “in which the CFIA has documented reasonable grounds”. This would ensure that an individual inspector could not decide on his or her own to exercise the powers set out in clause 24, without first convincing the CFIA officials that the powers are needed and putting on file the documentation setting out the basis for the reasons to believe. CARI believes this change will significantly reduce the concern about this clause among industry stakeholders and harmonize the investigation process with other federal acts.
Finally, to balance the no liability clause in Bill S-11, CARI suggests a contingency fund to be put in place as part of the act and to provide firms with access to funds to compensate firms for mistakes made by inspectors, test results, or other actions that proved to be wrong.
Thank you very much for your time.
Ron Versteeg Vice-President, Dairy Farmers of Canada
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the committee's consideration of Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians Act.
Dairy Farmers of Canada places a high priority on food safety and such related standards as traceability, animal care, and biosecurity. These aspects are important for the Canadian dairy sector.
I'm a dairy farmer from Cumberland, Ontario, just outside of Ottawa. With my family I manage an operation of 110 cows.
In June, DFC welcomed the new legislation, stating that food safety was a high priority for dairy farmers. We recognize it is a shared responsibility between the public and private sectors. The consolidation of food safety legislation would further clarify CFIA's role and responsibility related to food safety. DFC also indicated support for a more consistent inspection regime across all food sectors, and for tougher penalties on activities that put the health and safety of Canadians at risk.
DFC looks forward to seeing how the new act will recognize the role of technology in food production, enhance control over food imports and exports, deter from tampering and deceptive practices, and add strength to labelling, as well as maintain the authority to provide standards for food in Canada.
DFC believes that food quality is directly related to animal health and care. Healthy and well cared for animals produce high-quality milk. Consumers also expect that the environment will be respected in the process of producing milk.
Traceability is a tool to mitigate risk related to animal health, and will speed up market access recovery and the return to normal business in the advent of an animal disease outbreak. All dairy cows are already identified with unique ear tags under the existing legislation. The animals we export are identified of course, and all purebred animals are documented in their respective breed herd books. Premise ID information is already a matter of public record. For example, 45% of the dairy animals in Canada that are located in Quebec are fully traceable today. This is the standard we want to see implemented consistently Canada-wide.
DFC and its 10 provincial member organizations have worked closely with the CFIA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to develop on-farm programs: the Canadian quality milk, or CQM, program, and more recently the national standard on biosecurity for dairy farms.
Several stakeholders were also involved in developing the code of practice for the care and handling of dairy cattle. DFC believes in integrating these tools so that farmers can assure the public about how their dairy products are produced and where they come from.
Consumers continue to trust the government's role in the food safety system. External and reputable third party oversight is necessary to continue to maintain strong confidence in Canadian food.
Mr. Chair, DFC is looking forward to the timely enactment of this bill and to participating in the consultations to develop the related regulations.
Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer your questions.
NDP
Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Mr. Versteeg, a dairy producer who owns 110 cows.
We are committed to supply management in this country. Can you explain to us how these sectors are committed to food safety? How are they going to work with this government to ensure the quality of Canadian food products?
Vice-President, Dairy Farmers of Canada
We already have a very good reputation regarding the quality and safety of our dairy products in Canada. We are guaranteed a fair return on our production.
Ensuring the safety of dairy products is part and parcel of our commitment to the population and to our clients who consume dairy products on a daily basis. It is not in our interest to have events occur that shake consumers' confidence.
There are inspection systems for farms. For instance, the purpose of Canadian Quality Milk Program is to prevent such episodes. We continue to improve those monitoring and inspection systems in order to guarantee to consumers that the quality and safety of milk and dairy products are always well-monitored.
NDP
Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC
Some stakeholders object to making the traceability of food commodities mandatory, claiming that this would lead to problems. What do you think about that?
Vice-President, Dairy Farmers of Canada
In the dairy sector, we may be more used to mandatory regulations. It may be a little more natural for us.
I nevertheless think that our obligations must be based on science. These requirements are based on science. These things have to be solid. We have to ensure that all of the producers or stakeholders in a given sector all respect the same basic criteria.
It is also a matter of fairness in competition. If certain stakeholders don't respect the rules, they have a financial advantage in a certain way, because they may have lower costs. Nevertheless, that endangers the well-being and health of Canadians and is not in the public interest. It is also a matter of levelling the playing field, if you will, for all of those involved in a given sector.
NDP
Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC
Some people resist mandatory traceability, but that is not good for their business. It is not good for the sale of their products, because people are going to leave them on the shelf until they are safe.
Vice-President, Dairy Farmers of Canada
The lack of traceability certainly increases risks. This does not necessarily mean that food will not be as safe, but there is always a risk. In this file, risk always has to be managed so that Canadians are not exposed to health hazards.
NDP
Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC
My question is addressed to the representatives of the Canadian Association of Regulated Importers.
Will this bill ensure that imported products meet the standards of the Canadian regulatory system? Will the bill ensure that imported products comply with the standards and requirements of the Canadian regulatory system, so that the food commodities that are imported into Canada, or that are exported from Canada, really meet our standards?
Executive Secretary, Canadian Association of Regulated Importers
Yes, that's the objective of the bill, madam. The bill will give the CFIA powers that it does not now have to license importers. Currently, the importers of meat and poultry products are pretty well regulated by the CFIA, but the imports of most other foods in Canada are not regulated to the same extent.
This bill would fill that hole and correct that. It would ensure that whatever standards we have in Canada must also be met by the imported product.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here this morning. This is very interesting testimony.
Mr. de Valk, I went through your testimony in the Senate committee. I thought I'd give you a chance to elaborate on some of your comments. I'll quote what you said:
Since all food manufacturers and importers of food products compete for this share of the Canadian consumers' stomach, all food products should be subject to the same food safety act. That is what we are starting to do. Before, regulation of poultry was one thing, beef another, fruit and vegetables another and dairy was another. We are now saying, “When we have a rule for safe food, it applies to everybody the same way.”
I think you're talking about the bringing together of the different acts and the different areas.
Do you have an example of a situation where an inspector comes to one facility and then one would have to wait two or three weeks for a different inspector to go to that same facility because they're handling two or three different products?