Ted Menzies

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, you do reaffirm my belief in the wisdom of the Chair. I can do this on a very repetitious basis, drawing every example I use back to the fact that it requires comprehensive legislation. If the opposition wishes that I do that, I may fall into what you have suggested is not appropriate, and that is repetitiveness. I will try not to do that either.

What I was speaking about was Europe and the threat to the global economy, the indecisions, the lack of a comprehensive plan among the European Union community.

I will go back to my first statement that a comprehensive plan requires comprehensive legislation. That is what the budget implementation act, Bill C-38, was. I suggest there will be comprehensive legislation following soon to implement the rest of a comprehensive plan to keep Canada on track.

Another example I would use is in the U.S. There seems to be some indecision down there, a lack of being able to make a firm decision, perhaps a lack of a comprehensive plan such as we had in Bill C-38, which was a comprehensive legislation.

The U.S. needs to get its fiscal house in order. We are well on our way to doing that. It also needs to ensure that there is certainty in the short term so markets and investors can be confident that economic growth will not be interrupted. That is what we saw in our comprehensive legislation in the spring.

In these uncertain times, Canada's economic stability depends on the implementation of a clear plan, a comprehensive plan to safeguard our economy. This situation demands that Canada cannot be complacent. We cannot allow political gridlock and instability to stall vital economic and fiscal reforms as we are witnessing in the U.S. and Europe.

Moreover, in a rapidly changing and global marketplace where Canada faces tough competition from emerging economies like Brazil, Russia, China and India, we cannot afford to delay action to support our economy and measures to return to balanced budgets.

Therefore, in budget implementation one, Bill C-38, we actually put forward solutions to allow our Canadian companies to compete.

I think the argument is very valid, that in order for our economy to continue to grow, we need to put in place legislation and we need to do that soon. We gathered it together in a budget implementation act and we will have the second one coming soon that actually does that. It will allow our Canadian companies to compete internationally, to be able to export their resources, to streamline that process and to ensure that it is an environmentally sound plan. That is all part of our comprehensive budget plan.

The challenges that our economy faces are not small and one dimensional and neither is our plan. It is comprehensive and ambitious. It responds to the magnitude of the threats that Canada faces in this uncertain climate today.

In order to implement the plan, certain measures require legislation to be adopted by Parliament. In April 2012, we introduced Bill C-38, the one I would suggest the Liberals are referring to here today, which included provisions to spur job growth, to keep social programs sustainable, to eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending of taxpayer dollars and much more, hence, the comprehensive budget implementation bill.

Let me give the members opposite some examples of this action and explain how we plan on spurring job growth. One is by developing our resources responsibly. The NDP, when it comes to resources, has suggested it would like to implement a job-killing carbon scheme that would increase the price of absolutely everything we buy and consume. That was not part of our plan and it never will be.

Our government knows that this would not work. Instead, we are focused on responsible resource development, which will streamline the review process for major economic projects by providing predictable timelines for project approvals. It will prevent long delays that kill potential jobs and stall economic growth by putting valuable investments at risk. Most important, responsible resource development will create good, skilled, well-paying jobs in cities and communities all across this great country while at the same time maintaining the highest possible standards for protecting the environment. That required a comprehensive piece of legislation, Bill C-38.

With emerging economies in Asia and around the world providing the potential to create even more jobs and growth, our government will act swiftly to implement its plan for responsible resource development in the interests of the Canadian economy.

However, that is not all, as we have much more to do. We are making employment insurance a more efficient program, one that is focused on job creation and opportunities by removing disincentives to work and supporting unemployed Canadians.

We are also helping build a fast and flexible economic immigration system to meet Canada's labour market needs by reducing the backlog in the federal skilled worker program, returning applications and refunding fees to those who applied prior to February 27, 2008.

Our government is also making fiscally responsible decisions to ensure that spending stays in check and does not go down the path that we have seen in many European countries. To help achieve this we are modernizing Canada's currency by gradually eliminating the penny from Canada's coinage system. This as well requires changes to legislation and is why we table comprehensive legislation. This alone will save taxpayers $11 million every year.

Nonetheless, this plan is about much more than reducing spending. As a government we have a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that Canada's social programs remain sustainable over the long term. That is why in budget 2012 we took action to ensure that the retirement security of all Canadians, now and into the future, is sound by placing Canada's old age security program on a sustainable path. Beginning in April of 2023, the age of eligibility for OAS and the guaranteed income supplement will gradually begin to increase from 65 to 67. These changes reflect demographic shifts in Canada's population and are necessary to ensure that OAS and GIS are available for future generations of Canadians. This also requires comprehensive legislation so that we can enact the necessary changes to make both of these programs sustainable.

The problem with the members opposite is that they do not think down the road; they do not realize the changes that we need to make to make sure that these programs stay sustainable.

Our government is taking real action to ensure that Canada's economy continues to create jobs and grow. What, you may ask, does our government's plan do for Canadian families and communities? That would be one of the best questions to ask here today and I shall answer it.

I will talk about economic action plan 2012 and how it builds on our government's strong record by proposing new measures for Canadian families. For example, our action plan will improve the application of the GST and HST and income tax systems to a number of health care services, drugs and medical devices to reflect the evolving nature of the health care sector and to better meet the health care needs of Canadians.

That was required both in the comprehensive legislation that we passed and in legislation that will be forthcoming soon. Specifically, it would mean exempting from the GST and HST pharmacists' professional services, other than their prescription drug dispensing services, which are already zero-rated under the GST and HST.

It would also mean expanding the zero-rated treatment under the GST-HST for corrective eyeglasses or contact lenses supplied on the prescription of an eye-care professional to include corrective eyeglasses or contact lenses supplied on the order of a qualified optician who is authorized, under provincial law, to issue such an order.

It would mean expanding the list of health care professionals on whose orders certain medical and assistive devices are zero-rated under the GST and HST so as to reflect the increasing involvement of health care professionals, such as nurses, in giving orders for these devices.

It would also mean adding to the list of non-prescription drugs that are zero-rated under GST and HST.

It is obvious that we needed to open up the Income Tax Act to do that. It is part of the budget. It was referred to in the budget. It is part of our action plan. It requires comprehensive legislation to do that. That is just one of the reasons I will be opposing the motion today.

It would also mean expanding the list of GST and HST zero-rated medical and assistive devices and the list of expenses a person may claim for income tax purposes under the medical expense tax credit to include such things a blood coagulation monitors for use by people who require anti-coagulation therapy.

Every time I say zero-rated, I see a confused look on the faces of the opposition members. This is not surprising since we all know that the Liberals actually favour higher taxes. Perhaps that is why they actually opposed our budget implementation act, Bill C-38.

We know what the Liberals do when they have a chance to support initiatives that would lower taxes for Canadian families. We have seen example after example. They simply vote against these measures. That is exactly what they did with policies like the refundable working income tax benefit back in 2007. That is exactly what they did with our government's economic action plan.

Let us take a look at some of the initiatives that would also help Canadian communities but which the opposition also voted against.

Our government's plan would make direct investments in research that would support our communities. Canada's position as a world leader in research excellence is a key source of the discoveries, innovations and advanced skills that not only result in better health outcomes but also drive job creation and opportunities in the knowledge economy.

The measures in the economic action plan would help strengthen Canada's leadership position by supporting industry/academic research collaborations, as well as advanced health and public policy research initiatives of strategic importance. We all understand how important that is. The minister sitting near me here today is leading that incredible challenge, and we are winning on that.

We are announcing new chairs at universities and colleges across this country. Why is that? It is because we enacted legislation that would allow and fund that. We are proud of that record.

We have many examples. For example, in the area of health research, we have allocated $15 million per year for patient-oriented research. That was part of Bill C-38, which the opposition voted against.

I could go on and on about all the things the opposition voted against, However, I think the fundamental comment I will finish with is that I am proud to oppose the opposition motion this morning. We have great reason to think we are on the right track.

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, not very much of this speech actually reflects on the European situation. We can certainly expand on that, but I would suggest I am drawing a link. The lack of being able to pass legislation to actually react to the world economic crisis is why Europe is still having trouble and I am trying to explain that we do need the comprehensive legislation that was passed in the House in the spring. We need a second one. We have more to do yet and I would suggest that everything I am talking about is actually drawn back to why we need to table, discuss and pass comprehensive legislation.

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak against the motion brought forward today. I know my Liberal colleagues will be shocked at that but I do take exception to some of the comments that have been made here this morning and I will reflect on those.

To sum it up, we on this side of the House recognize that not only the Canadian economy but the economies of the world are in a fragile recovery mode right now and so it takes comprehensive plans to ensure we can deal with that fragile recovery. I would argue, and I will go on to explain why, that comprehensive legislation is required to enact a comprehensive plan.

We tabled a comprehensive budget early in the spring and it requires comprehensive legislation to enact that, just like it has for every other budget that has been tabled in this House throughout the years. There is nothing different about it. A government puts forward a budget that is actually the plan for the government and that plan impacts different pieces of legislation that need to be changed. That is exactly what was done in the first budget implementation act and we will see the continuation of that in the second budget implementation act. Because of that, I would argue that Canada, because of this comprehensive plan, is in the good recovery mode that it is in.

We have actually helped our businesses create jobs and grow the economy. On March 29, our government introduced the 2012 budget, the economic action plan 2012. It is a prudent and long-term plan to grow Canada's economy, create jobs and return to balanced budgets. When discussing this plan, we must consider it in a global context, as I referred to earlier. Thanks to the help of our Conservative government's economic leadership, Canada has fared much better than all of our G7 counterparts.

I will go through some of the examples. First and foremost, since July 2009, and I spoke to the job recovery, we now have 820,000 net new jobs, which is, by far, the strongest job growth record among all of the G7 countries. That is because we have a comprehensive plan and because we put forward legislation to enact that plan.

Second, more than 90% of all those jobs created since July 2009 are full-time positions and more than 75% of them are in the private sector.

Third, both the IMF and the OECD project that Canada will have among the strongest growth in the G7 countries in the years ahead.

Fourth, for the fifth year in a row, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's financial system as the safest and the soundest in the world. Our comprehensive budget implementation bills helped reaffirm that.

Fifth, three credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's, have all recently reaffirmed Canada's top-tier triple-A credit rating. In fact, it was Fitch that recently praised Canada when it said:

Years of fiscal responsibility and a strong institutional setting created the conditions for an effective fiscal policy response to the global financial crisis. An early commitment to balance the budget over the medium term placed Canada's fiscal credibility ahead of many peers.

The list goes on, but the global economy does remain fragile and it is a different story than we see here in Canada.

In Europe, tremendous economic challenges remain, of which we are reminded all too frequently. The eurozone's real GDP contracted in the fourth quarter of 2011, was virtually flat in the first quarter of 2012 and has since contracted again in the second quarter of 2012. The most recent indicators out of Greece indicate that unemployment is about 25% and Spain is not far behind.

In budget implementation act one, we addressed those issues. That was a comprehensive legislation that needed to address EI and we did that.

In short, the situation is not pretty in some European countries and that is why their leaders need to firmly and permanently deal with their economic problem. The recent announcement by the European Central Bank in support of the European sovereign bond markets is a step in the right direction—

[Ways and Means, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I have the honour to table a notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget that was tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012, and other measures.

I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

[Food Safety, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of nonfactual comments in that. We have a system in place to deal with the processes we have in place. It is all wonderful to think that we can go back to only providing food for a 10 mile radius around our homes. That would be a bit of a challenge in downtown Toronto.

We have a safe system that deals with our modern way of producing food, whether it is apples, strawberries or beef. The world moves on and the CFIA has moved on to meet that. We have recognized that.

I would like to correct the hon. member. We actually have more meat inspectors than we had in 2006, 700 more. That sort of rhetoric is what frightens people. That is not helpful. We need to reassure people that the plant is closed. There is no more meat coming out of that plant until the CFIA says that it is safe to do so.

[Food Safety, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we offer our sympathies to the community of Brooks, to the employees of that facility, as well as those who have fallen ill from this.

Indeed, the member is correct. Cargill has a large meat processing facility in my riding of Macleod. It encouraged me to come and tour its facility. It is not a simple process. The company does not just let anybody in. We had to jump through the hoops because of the security involved to protect the safety of the products in there. One goes in there completely covered in plastic to ensure there is no cross-contamination whatsoever. I met with the CFIA inspectors. I have lost track of how many CFIA inspectors I met with. They talked about their role. They are proud of their job. They are out there trying to protect consumers. That is what the Canadian Food Inspection Agency does.

[Food Safety, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, is that not just like a true Liberal to suggest that the government needs to shore up the price of beef. It never ceases to amaze me how a Liberal thinks that government should intervene in everything.

Government has a role. The government's role is to put in place the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. That was done years ago. Its role is to inspect food, whether it is beef, whether it is pork, whether it is vegetables or fruit crops. It does that. We have increased the number of inspectors.

As I said before, this is not a zero risk situation. It has done its best. It is working on it as we speak. The plant is closed. There is no more beef being produced at that plant. The CFIA is doing its best.

[Food Safety, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for finally seeing the light and telling us he is actually going to support a piece of legislation.

I would encourage members to check the record to see the last time New Democrats actually supported something that is good for Canadians. I think this is going to break a record, I really do. Anything we have done for seniors, for the unemployed, or to help Canadians get back to work, they have voted against it. We need to put that on the record. If New Democrats are actually going to vote to help us fulfill our promise to complete the suggestions in the Weatherill report, it is great that they are finally coming on board.

[Food Safety, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and take part in this debate. However, I want to clarify a comment that was perhaps made by me earlier. My friend from Burnaby—New Westminster pointed it out. When I was being heckled by the loudest heckler in this House, the member for Malpeque, I perhaps misspoke. He is renowned for his heckling. He can heckle from P.E.I., even when he is not in the House.

I want to clarify that this is a serious and major event in the Canadian food industry. There is no getting around the fact that it has impacted lives, and it is very important that we recognize that. Our thoughts this evening go out to the families of those who are impacted by this, who have become sick from this. It is the worst outcome for any Canadian that an individual can become ill from eating food grown in this country.

My friend from the Interlake, in Manitoba, has talked about his experience with the cattle industry. I too grew up in the cattle industry. It concerns any producer of livestock. It concerns any vegetable producer in this country when E. coli is traced back to vegetables. As members know, that can happen in this country. There is no such thing as zero risk when people are producing food. Farmers do their best to ensure that the products they provide to the slaughter facilities are in the best shape possible, and they trust them to the slaughter facilities.

We have a lot of information going across this floor tonight. Certainly there are some serious problems.

I will refer to the Cargill plant in my riding, which has a very good track record. We do not want to condemn the whole industry. It is an important industry. It is an important source of protein for Canadians.

I cannot help but repeat the fact that I am very disturbed that the opposition members are playing pretty loose with the facts. We have a food safety system in this country that is revered around the world. We have a Canadian Food Inspection Agency whose role is to do its best to protect Canadians and the food they are going to consume.

They are only human beings, and people make mistakes. We need to learn from those mistakes. We have learned. We shut the plant. No more meat is coming out of that plant until it is proven safe. A lot of the rhetoric that has happened here this evening is simply political posturing. The plant is not producing any more meat. The meat has been recalled. Perhaps more needs to be recalled, and that will happen, because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is on top of that. It is making sure that the meat comes back and that consumers are reimbursed for it.

I repeat that there is no such thing as zero risk. CFIA brings the risk down as low as it can. CFIA is there in numbers. I have visited plants in my riding and have watched the number of CFIA inspectors. I have met and talked with CFIA inspectors as they do their jobs. They do an incredible job. They are dedicated people. Their role is to protect me as a consumer and all Canadians as consumers. They are dedicated people. They do their best, and we respect those individuals for what they do.

It is unfortunate that we are seeing a lot of misinformation being spread. There have been many references to the number of CFIA meat inspectors we have. The number 700 has been mentioned many times. That is 700 more than we had before. That is important. As I said, at the plants I have visited, there are a lot of inspectors. We now have 700 more.

The Weatherill report told us that there were concerns, so we added to the number of inspectors. That is what is important. There have been 700 more inspectors since 2006. If I recall, under the former Liberal government, there was a slashing of the number of meat inspectors. I forget how many, but it was quite a few. That was part of why the Weatherill report recommended that we ramp that up and get it back up to where it should be. In fact, we are now higher than we ever were.

Speaking of the Weatherill report and its 57 recommendations, we have increased the budget for CFIA by $156 million.

I hear my heckling friend from Malpeque. I would think that by this time of night he would be starting to lose his voice, but apparently not.

There is a total budget for CFIA of $744 million. That is an increase of 20% to make sure that we have the right number of people on these lines to ensure that we catch incidents such as what happened at XL, which is very unfortunate.

If the opposition believes that the powers of the agency are not sufficient, it should support the legislation referred to many times to this evening, the safe food for Canadians bill, to make sure that the CFIA has greater authority to demand reporting. That is very important.

Let me be clear that the plant will not reopen. That is a critical fact. What we are hearing tonight are suggestions that this meat is being spread around. It is not. What is out there is being recalled, and no more is leaving that plant. That is not without impact. It is important that we protect people, and that is why that was done.

While we are putting facts on the table, let me also refer to CFIA's response, which started on September 4 when it first detected E. coli O157:H7 in products produced at the XL meat plant in Brooks. That very same day, the CFIA was notified by the United States Department of Agriculture about the detection of a positive sample of E. coli O157:H7 found in trimmings from XL beef.

The CFIA quickly verified that no affected product from that September 4 batch was in the marketplace, and it immediately launched an investigation into XL to determine the source of the contamination. This led to some products produced on August 24, 27, 28 and 29 and on September 5 being recalled to further protect Canadian consumers. The CFIA is continuing that investigation.

I have just given a vastly short version of a very complex series of events. A more detailed account is available on the CFIA website for anyone who is interested in seeing it. As the situation changes, CFIA updates it on its website to provide information to consumers and protect them.

My point is that these situations and what we know about them are constantly changing. As a result, the severity of the risk to the public must be constantly assessed and then reassessed. On any given day, the CFIA can communicate only the evidence that has actually become available, with the understanding that events are changing minute by minute. It would be useful to recap what we know so far.

As I said, the events began on September 4 with a routine inspection that revealed that E. coli was present in raw beef trimmings. The CFIA quickly determined that no potentially harmful products had ever reached the Canadian marketplace. As a result, there was no immediate recall of food at that time. Instead, the CFIA notified XL Foods about that contamination and began investigating the possible sources of it. On the same day, the CFIA's American counterpart notified the agency that it too had found E. coli in beef trimmings from that same plant.

Over the next few days the CFIA moved forward on several fronts. On the one hand, inspectors augmented their level of oversight at the plant. On the other hand, the agency continued to investigate the source of the contamination and whether there was a connection between the Canadian and the American test results, because at that time it was not confirmed.

During the early days of the investigation the CFIA and the company worked around the clock to determine the cause of the contamination. Under normal circumstances the CFIA has 40 inspectors and 6 veterinarians assigned full time to the XL Foods plant in Brooks. As a result of detecting E. coli, the CFIA added even more oversight at that same plant.

The company took initial steps to protect the safety of food being produced. It also committed to take additional steps to deal with all of the issues and make sure that this would not happen again.

The CFIA then sent in a team of technical experts to turn the Alberta plant upside down. They looked at preventative control measures, food safety policies, laboratory methods and quality control systems. The technical experts did not identify any one single factor that would lead to E. coli contamination. Instead, a number of isolated deficiencies were actually uncovered. Together, they played a role in the overall contamination.

On September 16, the CFIA had sufficient evidence to issue health hazard alerts. The company began recalling beef trimmings for three specific days of the production. In the meantime, the agency continued its investigation and on September 18 issued five additional requests to the company for corrective action.

The CFIA is working hard to identify potential products that could be contaminated. Once the beef leaves the plant it can be turned into anything from sausage to frozen meat patties or be further processed by other companies into pizzas, lasagna or whatever. It could end up in a number of different retail stores. It is a very complex tracing process that has been undertaken.

This information is not available at the click of a mouse. It requires sifting through production and distribution records from industry, as well as conducting tests on samples. As a result, the CFIA issued several health hazard alerts for the same food recall. Each one had more updated information than the last.

Events continued to unfold very rapidly. On September 21, new evidence compelled XL Foods to recall beef trimmings produced on two additional days. On September 24, there was a report of positive E. coli on a sample from XL Foods in California. A day later, Alberta Health Services had linked four illnesses to steaks originating from XL Foods. On September 26, based on the company's information and the CFIA's investigation, it was clear the company had not corrected all of its deficiencies. The very next day, the CFIA temporarily suspended the company's licence to operate. At the same time, the company expanded its voluntary recall of products produced on those same dates in August and September.

The CFIA continues to take comprehensive action in response to the E. coli issue. To that end, the CFIA will reinforce its commitment to protect consumers. As a result, if additional products are uncovered in the days ahead, CFIA will continue to alert consumers immediately. The agency is running a transparent investigation and publishing information on its website as soon as it is available. Canadians can also sign up for email updates or tweets to get information on recalls and food safety concerns even faster.

Let me add that the plant is closed and will remain closed until the president of the CFIA satisfies the minister that the licence should be reinstated.

In an investigation of this kind, evidence is not handed to specialists on a silver platter. The facts emerge slowly but surely, and when the facts become known, they are shared with Canadians.

I want to take a few minutes to express my support for how the government is addressing the need for updated food safety legislation in Canada.

I want to inform the House about some aspects of the new food safety bill, the safe food for Canadians act. As members know, the NDP agriculture critic has said that his party will oppose this proposed legislation. I fail to understand how that would have any benefit in protecting Canadians.

The proposed legislation fulfills a recommendation of the report of the independent investigator into the 2008 listeriosis outbreak. The independent investigator's report made it clear that legislative renewal was necessary for the government to fully meet its mandate and the expectations of Canadians. Our government committed to address all 57 of the independent investigator's recommendations. This is the last piece needed in order for us to follow up on that commitment.

New legislative provisions are needed to position Canada to deal with new technologies and the realities of food production in the 21st century. The food safety environment is more complex today than it was just 10 years ago. The right tools are needed to properly manage today's risks and to better protect Canadians from unsafe food.

Canadian industry has long been requesting a provision prohibiting a person from tampering with, threatening to tamper with, or falsely claiming to tamper with food products.

The government also needs the authority to directly address those who perpetrate hoaxes on the public. Hoaxes generate unnecessary public fear around certain products and can also be economically devastating for the producer of the product that is targeted by a hoax. With this bill, we would have the ammunition to deal in a much more immediate way with hoaxes and report them to the public. Of course, the NDP is committed to opposing this important legislation.

Lifestyles are changing and the world is changing due to advances in science and technology. Technology is changing food manufacturing processes. International best practices, new scientific tools and advances in developing food safety systems have guided Canada's move to strengthen its risk-based inspection system. The bill continues this and supports that direction.

The proposed legislation would also provide for more flexible and effective tools to thoroughly and efficiently assess innovative food products and claims so that Canadians can have timely access to the safe products they want. Indeed, consumers want this. They are seeking updated food safety legislation. We have long recognized the need for modernization.

Consumer groups, producers and industry have gone down this path with the government before. Several attempts have been made over the past decade to get this done. This proposed legislation, one could argue, is the culmination of 10 years of consultations, as there were previous attempts to modernize.

I am pleased to have been able to contribute to this debate. Once again, I want to offer our sincere thoughts to those people who have fallen ill from this.

It is good that we are talking about this, but I would implore the opposition to keep the rhetoric down and not to frighten people unnecessarily. People understand this is a serious issue. I would beg the opposition not to politicize it further.

[Food Safety, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly sad that the health of people is at risk and that individual keeps heckling. There are serious consequences to people becoming ill.

We have expanded the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We have increased the number of individuals who are working on this issue. The opposition is scaring Canadians and making partisan points regarding a food system that has some minor problems. We are looking forward to fixing those problems.

I would ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat if his constituents are concerned about how the opposition is making a partisan debacle out of this issue. This is a very serious issue that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency—