Agriculture Committee on April 16th, 2018

[Fred Gorrell]

I know them well.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

—and their volume is increasing. They're going to multiple countries. They're saying, we don't think have enough resources at the CFIA. It sounds like some of that may be changing.

[Fred Gorrell]

We have received money under the budget. Everybody always wants more resources. That's always a key thing. Obviously, the food inspection agency and departments take what Parliament gives them. But I think in terms of the initiatives that we have in using technology, making agreements—your colleague, as well, Mr. Drouin, made reference to equivalency—it's about where can we work with like-minded countries in making sure that we are protecting the food and safety of Canadians at the same time as having opportunities to export.

So, yes, I think we're able to use our resources quite effectively.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Terrific answers, thank you.

Looking towards processed foods, the Premier of Ontario has been really pushing processed foods, value-added agriculture. We look at Japan as being an opportunity for Canadian pork and frozen crab, but also they're the third-largest export market of agriculture and agri-food products for Canada. Looking at what needs to be done in order to increase our processed food exports to Japan, is that different from non-processed foods? As we push into different sectors, does that put pressures on the CFIA or AAFC that we need to know about?

[Fred Gorrell]

It's a good question in a number of ways. First, obviously Canada is a great exporter of primary products: grains, oilseeds, meat. When you look at the economic strategy tables that have been announced by the government, moving forward we want to increase our exports to $65 billion. The idea would be that it has to be value-added. That will have to be a part contributing to it. I think one of the things, quite frankly, is that we have a great opportunity. We have some of the safest and best foods in the world. Knowing the Japanese market, with the ratification, if we go forward with CPTPP—and I'll let my colleague, Mr. Seppey, talk about some details—there's a great opportunity for us to have access to that market. But one of the things I've learned is that many of the Asian markets change their product line continually, so we would have to make sure we also understand the markets we're going into and make sure our exporters are well versed in that as well.

Now, Mr. Seppey, would you have anything to say relative to the opportunity?

[Frédéric Seppey]

Yes.

Very briefly—and it touches on the question that Mr. Berthold asked—one of our best assets in terms of selling our products abroad is the rigour of our food safety system. By putting in a lot of resources, and ensuring that we have and we work with regulated entities, CFIA is able to proclaim—and we do that and Global Affairs Canada and AAFC assist in supporting those messages—that the Canadian food safety system as a whole is at the top of all the systems in the world. This is with clients like Japan, for example, where the level, the expectation, in terms of the quality but also the food safety, is so important. By pooling resources and focusing on the safety of our system at home, there are important ramifications and impacts in terms of our exports abroad.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Tremendous. That's very helpful. Thank you very much, both of you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Mrs. Nassif, you have six minutes.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for their presentations.

My questions is about the science-based approach. Perhaps Mr. Gorrell can answer, or anyone else.

Could you give us examples of how you use science to develop your policies, to carry out risk analyses and to make your decisions?

[Fred Gorrell]

Thank you.

Actually, science is at the root of all the decisions the agency makes. There is science, political science and social sciences. Decisions are based on what is truly science, because it is impartial and it does not involve emotions. Science reassures us that the decisions are good.

There are phytosanitary risk assessments and analyses. Science validates the decisions that are made. In addition, it is always based on international standards. There are international standards for plants, animal health and safety. In short, science validates the decisions.

The science is the base that is used to give an impartial decision that has been researched and analyzed. When we look at risk, for example, we have a rather large ability to do a pest risk assessment, and that determines whether the product coming into Canada is of high risk, medium risk, or low risk. Then, based on that risk, we determine what measures are required to mitigate or balance that, so that our research as well as the science.... It could be our genetics as well, by the way.

You made reference to science en générale, and science is a big part of our innovation agenda as well. Science-based, evidence-based rules are how we make our decisions. At the same time, using science and research is part of our innovation agenda where we're able to in effect have better varieties and better genetics, and able to do things that other countries aren't. That gives us a bit of a cutting edge, a foot up on other countries. It supports our export agenda as well.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you very much.

Could you tell us how you work with other countries to implement risk management and inspection systems?

[Fred Gorrell]

There is co-operation between Canada and other countries in terms of regulations. I will use the same example.

When we do a risk assessment, we work with the other country in regulatory co-operation. Often, we will look at what we can do between the two countries where our regulations are the same. We'll do an assessment of our regulations. At the same time, we're looking at the risk. Part of it would be, if we want them to accept our product, we have to substantiate from a science point of view and in terms of regulations how we're going to protect their country from our product.

We're also a great exporter, but many countries also want to know that we're not giving them diseases or pests, and so on. For regulatory co-operation, working with another country, we look at equivalency if we have it. Is there an opportunity to have equivalency? Is our system the same as your system? At the same time, we will sometimes do joint studies to see what the level of risk is from a regulatory point of view as well.

That said, I'm not sure I fully answered your question.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

You answered it, but it does not fully shed light on the decision-making issue.

[Fred Gorrell]

I will ask my colleague Mr. Seppey to give you more details.

[Frédéric Seppey]

We apply scientific principles to approve biotechnology products in particular. For example, if the genes of a product are modified, some countries regulate the product based on how it's made rather than its intrinsic and final characteristics.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Could you name some of the countries you are referring to?

Is Germany, for example, one of those countries?

[Frédéric Seppey]

The European Union—and this affects some of the traits of canola—regulates products derived from biotechnology such as GMO canola, not based on its final characteristics, but because they are derived from biotechnology.

In Canada, we use an approach based on intrinsic and final characteristics. Under those conditions, whether canola is genetically modified or not, we regulate it in the same way. We examine those characteristics in terms of food safety, its phytosanitary characteristics, the health of plants and environmental impacts, regardless of the production method. This is a classic example of how some regulate their products based on how they are made, whereas others regulate them based on the intrinsic characteristics of the products.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, it's very clear.

How will the way in which other countries, such as the European Union, see Canada affect our exports?

[Frédéric Seppey]

As we can see in the case of the European Union, the main factor is public perception, which has a huge impact on the public policy decisions that those countries make. Canada has consultations, but our regulatory system is based more on facts, science and risk analysis. Instead of talking about perception, we ask ourselves what the real impact a product may have when making decisions related to the environment, plant health or food safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Seppey.

Thank you, Mrs. Nassif.

Mr. Berthold, you now have six minutes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We have talked at length about the countries with which Canada has free trade agreements, but we also import a lot of products from countries with which Canada has no free trade agreements, such as Egypt. Recently, there was an incident with strawberries contaminated with the hepatitis A virus. We have also talked about China.

In terms of Canadian imports, what is the major difference between countries that have no free trade agreement with Canada and those that do?

[Frédéric Seppey]

You are right that Canada has no free trade agreement with those countries. However, most countries in the world, with very few exceptions, are members of the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization has a certain number of rules, including compliance with sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

As a result, our relations and the measures that Canada can take to ensure food safety, plant and animal health protection, for example, are governed by the principles set out in the WTO's agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

Free trade agreements are rarely very specific about the standards to follow—that's more the role of the application principles. Canada, because of its regulatory system and the WTO obligations, must apply those measures for food safety in line with those principles, based on facts and science.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Many people are skeptical about the quality of the inspections carried out in those other countries. Does the Canadian Food Inspection Agency sometimes make visits to check whether Canadian standards are being followed in those countries?

[Fred Gorrell]

It depends on the country and product. As I said, the agency inspects products outside Canada, but it also inspects products when they arrive in Canada.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

In addition to inspecting products, does the Canadian Food Inspection Agency also look at methods?