Agriculture committee  I'll answer part of that. On the “Product of Canada”, it's been just over a year since the implementation of the policy, and as is typical, we look at our policies to see how they are being implemented and whether they are effective. There have been concerns expressed by industry, in particular related to those substances or foods that aren't homegrown in Canada, so we are beginning consultations both with industry and with the consumers, because the consumer's view might be somewhat different.

Agriculture committee  I would say that Canadians have no need to be concerned. The U.S. audits the Canadian system on an annual basis--

Agriculture committee  Yes, as we are presently auditing theirs. If there were serious food safety concerns from an outcome perspective, we would not be able to send meat south of the border and they wouldn't be able to send meat here. And as Cam said, equivalent time spent in a plant: no two countries' food safety systems are identical as far as the technical requirements go.

Agriculture committee  Now, that's a very hard one for me, given that I'm fairly new to the agency.

Agriculture committee  Those are two very good examples. The agency is taking very seriously the paper burden reduction and the target of 20%. Some of what will need to be achieved in this area we can achieve through just looking at what our policies are and doing what we can to streamline. Some of it is regulatory and the process is somewhat longer in terms of achieving real benefit.

Agriculture committee  Yes, of course, we have plans. We work very closely with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on the trade promotion. Their responsibility is for the trade promotion, and work very closely with industry. The role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is more in technical market access.

Agriculture committee  There's a process to follow. We don't yet have the funding in our reference levels. There's a requirement for a Treasury Board submission.

Agriculture committee  Oh, right. The $113 million that was provided for food safety in the budget was for the Food Inspection Agency and for Health Canada. This money is to be used to make investments in food safety, with particular focus on imports.

Agriculture committee  I don't want to prejudge where we're going to end up with an assessment of options that we're examining, and I'll give you an example. Most other countries have what's referred to as a gold standard, where essentially the entire product, if it is going to use a label, would have...in other words, entire Canadian content.

Agriculture committee  We will be hiring.

Agriculture committee  We're not looking to enhance the safety of food imports through third-party arrangements.

Agriculture committee  Yes, we're trying to do what we can.

Agriculture committee  With respect to question number one, “Product of Canada”, “Made in Canada”, again, just a quick context so that everyone's aware. The current policy is that you may use the label “Product of Canada” or “Made in Canada” if at least 51% of the total direct costs of producing or manufacturing the goods in Canada is Canadian.

Agriculture committee  I will make an attempt at answering question two. With respect to our work on a review of user fees, perhaps first as a quick contextual piece, you're all aware that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has been operating under a moratorium for new user fees, for the most part, since its inception in 1997.

Agriculture committee  I will try to address the first question, which relates to resources for food safety, in particular in relation to imports. Not showing in our supplementary estimates, which is our budget for this year, are resources that were announced in last week's budget: $113 million over two years allocated to the Food Inspection Agency and to Health Canada to enhance our ability to deal with food safety issues, particularly focused on imports.