Agriculture Committee on Nov. 1st, 2012

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I wouldn't disagree with you, but in the same breath, the act has an umbrella and the regulations serve a purpose, and to change an act is even harder than to change regulations. I think we have to make sure that we clarify what should be in the act and what should be in the regulations, but that's a different debate from what I want to get into today.

In the Senate committee you talked about the example of the prohibition of imports that are going to be, and I'm not sure if manufactured is the right word. Maybe you could give me an example to help everybody understand. This is when an ingredient is brought in and it goes through the process, and when it first comes to Canada it doesn't meet the regulations but once it goes through the process in Canada, it meets the regulation.

Can you give me an example of a food product or a spice in that situation?

[Dr. Keith Mussar]

Currently, many spices that are imported into Canada are not safe for human consumption either because of a high microbial load or because they may contain sticks and stones and other natural substances that have to be removed.

What Canadian processors do in Canada is they treat them so they're microbially safe and they process them to remove the sticks and stones. Then they're packaged for either sale directly to consumers or for further processing with other Canadian manufactured and exported goods.

If these products are prohibited from being imported into Canada, which is what the act currently says, access to those raw spices, which currently support those jobs in Canada, will be lost.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay, so you'd need an exemption for those types of situations. Again, the regulations would probably come into play there.

[Dr. Keith Mussar]

Spices are just one example. The challenge is going to be going through and identifying all of those specific exemptions and finding a way to incorporate them adequately in the regulation.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay.

One thing this bill is doing is bringing the different departments together. Instead of having three different types of food inspection, there is one. How do you see that's going to impact the importers and exporters? I would assume that's going to be viewed fairly favourably.

[Dr. Keith Mussar]

I think there's an opportunity for this bill to do a lot of very good things for the import community.

First, one of the areas that we've had challenges with is the compartmentalization of the inspectorate. For instance, if a truck comes to a border crossing in Canada from the United States and there is a meat inspector there, that meat inspector cannot open that truck to inspect it if it has fresh fruits and vegetables or other commodities.

One of the things this bill will do is make general food inspectors, which will then allow that individual to inspect a broad variety of product commodities. That's going to enhance the movement of goods across the Canadian border. It's going to prevent delays of trucks getting to their final destination. There are a lot of good opportunities.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay.

I'll leave it there, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

My questions are for Mr. Mussar and Mr. Lacasse. You've each expressed concern about unintended consequences. I wrote that down.

Mr. Mussar, you talked in your last answer with respect to the possible incidents of shutting down the export industry when you spoke of flour being fortified in Canada but it is not allowed in Europe.

Mr. Lacasse, you discussed issues relating to traceability, I think it was, and the requirement that there would be certain licensing if your produce remained within the province as opposed to being exported out of the province for sale or processing.

This is an important question because we're not making rules for a children's board game here. This is legislation that's going to be around for a long time and, as everybody knows, it's going to take a long time to amend. Are you concerned that the legislation itself needs amendment and needs deeper thought and review in consultation with the stakeholders? Or are you satisfied that these concerns you have can be addressed through regulation, and before those regulations are made you want more consultation? If it's the legislation, then we've got to deal with it here, and not wait.

Mr. Mussar, if you would answer that first, and then Mr. Lacasse.

[Dr. Keith Mussar]

Thank you very much for your question.

Our clear preference is to amend the legislation rather than allow the regulations to address the concern. Not having seen the regulations, we don't know whether we can adequately address it through regulation.

Again, one of the biggest challenges is going to be how we carve out the set of exemptions when we're looking at a broad cross-section, potentially, of Canadian food products that are exported to foreign countries. We have a habit of having positive lists in our country, which runs the risk of having somebody or a product always left off the list. If that happens, then what do we do?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Go ahead, Mr. Lacasse.

[Christian Lacasse]

We think the way the issue of traceability has been incorporated into the bill is rather vague. It talks about new powers that could result in new traceability requirements. The definition is going to be included in the regulations; we understand that principle. However, if the regulations are written without us being consulted or brought into the process and there are negative elements that we do not find acceptable, it could be too late to react.

We hope, at least, to know what the objective is in the case of the new powers included in the bill. We do not have that information and we want clarification in that regard, so there are no unpleasant surprises when the new regulations are ready.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

One of the risks we have is that we hear from the minister first; we hear from the CFIA first; then we hear from those who it really impacts later. We're not given the opportunity to ask the minister and the CFIA to clarify the issues that you bring before us. That is regrettable, particularly when we have limited our time in reviewing the bill.

Mr. Chair, I think if you seek it, I'm hoping you'll find consent that we add a couple of days at least to this review of the bill. We all agree with the value of the bill and the need for reform, but I'm concerned that a number of amendments and suggested amendments have come forward.

We only have until tomorrow to prepare, submit for translation, and get the amendments to you, and we're hearing witnesses on the eve of the day that those amendments have to be submitted, which is logistically impossible. Because this is important legislation, we're all trying to be participatory in this and make it good. I don't think we can assume that the comments these witnesses have made are irrelevant. They are quite relevant. If we're going to give them the weight they deserve, I think we should give ourselves a few extra days, bring those from the minister's office before the committee and ask them for that clarification. By necessity we'd need an extension for the date in which to submit amendments as well, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Your time has expired. I will say it's not the chair that makes that decision; it's the committee. If you are prepared to make a motion—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I am prepared to so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have set aside time at the end of this meeting for that discussion. If you want to deal with it now, we can.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I have said what is necessary for the purpose of the motion. I would move it.

We want to get it right. For the sake of an extra week, I think there is value in our bringing people from the minister's office before us so that we can ask them direct questions about traceability, about confidentiality of information that Mr. Lacasse has referenced, and about the impact on exporters that needs to be clarified, so we can determine whether or not, in fact, these issues can be dealt with by regulation or whether it needs to be dealt with in the bill. Yes, I would move, then, that we add at least two days onto these hearings for the purpose of clarification and satisfying all of the stakeholders that we're going in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

There has been a motion put forward—it's on the floor and it is open for debate—that the committee extend the discussion of Bill S-11 by two meeting days.

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I think we should get through the witnesses first. Perhaps you could set aside a block of time at the end to deal with this. I think that would be more appropriate, if you would agree with that, Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm happy to do that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I just don't want to use—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

No, that's quite fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you. I have actually booked some time at the end of this meeting to deal with some committee business. We'll defer it until then.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today. It's important that we hear your issues and concerns in regard to Bill S-11. I believe most of you have already said this is potentially a really good bill to ensure food safety. I think Canadians across the country are certainly in agreement with that.

That has been very much highlighted as a result of XL Foods in Brooks, which is in my riding. I am happy to also say that they are up and running again. I think they processed about 1,200 to 1,500 head of cattle over the last few days. That's very positive not only for the community, for the employees, and for the company, but also for Canadians across the country. I believe CFIA has done its job to make sure that the facility is up and running and that they meet all the requirements set out.

I thought I would make that comment up front.

Mr. Hoback, Mr. Valeriote and a number of you have talked about the regulations. It's certainly much more difficult to change the bill. The regulations are probably the right place to address all of these issues and concerns you have. I understand there will be an opportunity for consultation on those regulations. I think that's an important point to note, that there will be an opportunity. I suspect you will be able to get that information into the appropriate officials at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or CFIA to ensure that in fact happens and help allay any of those concerns you may have.

There are a couple of concerns. Mr. Laycraft and Mr. Lacasse talked about licensing for producers. I don't think that is anything in terms of the bill itself. That is contained under the Health of Animals Act. I don't think there's a concern there. If you want to make any other comments on that, please feel free.

[Dennis Laycraft]

Thank you.

I would like to make a comment about the consultation on regulations. From the beef sector, I can say that every time we have a beef value chain round table, we are fully updated on the progress of the modernization work that's being done and we've been invited directly to participate actively in those regulatory changes. From our sector's point of view, we've been closely consulted on those changes, so I feel pretty confident in saying there is a fairly strong process of consultation on the development of the regulations as they impact the beef cattle sector.

We're hearing discussion between lawyers as to what it really means in the act. We're not sure how to respond to all of that, but our concern is that it appears that if you're moving animals from one province to another, and there are people who routinely do that as part of their ordinary business, we don't want to see a time when they would have to be licensed in order to do what they've normally done. If we can be shown that the bill will not lead to that, we'll be happy. If not, in our opinion it would be fairly easy to create an exemption so that a licence is not required to move animals from one location to another, which now takes place in the ordinary course of business for a farmer or rancher.