Agriculture committee  Thank you. Health Canada remains responsible for the health and safety claims that are made on labels and also for the standards that are to be met on labelling. The CFIA is responsible for consumer protection and for other non-health-related claims that might be made on a label.

Agriculture committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I covered a little bit on the tampering side already, in terms of the new prohibitions against tampering and also threatening to tamper. On the labelling side, the new act basically brings over the authorities that were in the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act that are food-related provisions.

Agriculture committee  The Criminal Code, under “mischief”, does cover tampering. Normally, property-related mischief offences are prosecuted under the Criminal Code. Of course, that is not pursued or enforced by the CFIA. The new tampering provisions enhance and clarify the penalties for tampering to make clear that it's a clear prohibition.

Agriculture committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. In response to the question, in particular with respect to tampering, there are explicit authorities in the bill in regard to tampering or those who threaten to tamper with food commodities. The increased fines and penalties for these offences are clearly detailed in the bill.

Finance committee  Certainly. If the member is interested, we can certainly provide whatever we can in terms of the results of those pilots.

Finance committee  Respectfully, I'm not sure I know how to answer that question. I would have to get back to you with that information.

Finance committee  In general, we are consulting in these areas. This is something we have had requests for in the past in terms of increased flexibility. I think the community wants to ensure that the integrity of seed crops is maintained, and we share that interest, but the producers are looking for flexibility in terms of how that is achieved, and this initiative seeks to allow for those flexibilities.

Finance committee  The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has conducted some small-scale pilots in this area, and we have had success with those pilots. There is an alternate service delivery program for the inspection of seed crops of hybrid corn in Ontario and one for hybrid canola in Alberta. Those have been running for about 15 years.

Finance committee  This proposal does not relate to the laboratories.

Finance committee  This initiative is $700,000 per year. It's a relatively small initiative.

Finance committee  The savings will result from the agency's having the flexibility to look at alternate arrangements with other providers that will be able to carry out the function. The savings that we foresee will be handled through attrition and other measures over time. We are taking the next while to further develop the proposal in its specifics.

Finance committee  The savings would come from the alternate service delivery of the function, which would be performed by another party. That's correct.

Finance committee  Absolutely. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency would maintain its regulatory oversight role. Certainly when it comes to plant health, those functions would be retained by CFIA. With respect to the other elements of crop inspection, like quality and grade, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency would maintain its ability to verify that the oversight role was being performed and that the alternate service delivery arrangement was effective.

Finance committee  This has nothing to do with any of the budget-related initiatives that might exist in other areas of the agency. I can't speak to those, but in this case the savings result from the alternate service delivery of the inspection function itself, and not the laboratories or any other functions within the agency.

Finance committee  The CFIA will make sure that the inspectors are adequately trained. Whether they will be trained by CFIA personnel or not, I can't predict.