AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 16, 2000

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)): Okay, members, we may begin.

My apologies to the witnesses for the delay in starting.

We have the pleasure of having back witnesses from the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, namely Larry Hillier, who is the vice-president of operations, and Peter Brackenridge, who is the acting vice-president of programs.

I understand, Mr. Hillier, you'll begin with a statement, and then we'll have rounds of questions.

I understand, members, there is a vote scheduled for 10:40, so maybe with a little bit of luck we can get this done before the vote, because we lose the room at 11 o'clock, so it's all academic.

Please proceed, and welcome again, Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Larry Hillier (Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning to the committee members and everyone here today.

It's a pleasure to be here representing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to discuss the estimates and the 2000-01 report on plans and priorities. I'm joined today by Mr. Peter Brackenridge, acting vice-president of programs.

The CFIA, Canada's largest science-based regulator, manages fourteen programs focused on three business lines: food safety and consumer protection, plant protection, and animal health. The CFIA's 2000-01 report on plans and priorities outlines the agency's commitment to enhancing the quality of life of Canadians. We are working to fulfil this commitment by continuing to enhance inspection services related to food safety, consumer protection, plant protection, and animal health.

The direction outlined in the CFIA's RPP responds to the Government of Canada's commitment to improving Canada's food safety system. It takes into account public perceptions and expectations for better information about food safety and nutritional issues. It also responds to the many technological advances in the food industry and the emergence of new and ever-present food safety risks.

The 2000-2001 RPP outlines the way in which we plan to continue building on what we've accomplished so far. I'd like to talk a bit about each of the business lines this morning, and I'll begin with safe food and consumer protection.

[Translation]

At the CFIA, food safety is our first concern. It is of overriding importance in all we do. And what a high-quality food safety system does, first and foremost, is provide strong consumer protection. The CFIA works in collaboration with other federal departments, provincial governments, industry and consumers. Together we have put in place a risk-based inspection system which we continue to modernize by adapting new and better methods of identifying and evaluating risks at an early stage.

Canada's partnership approach to food safety, and our use of the best available scientific knowledge, a world-class inspection system, and stringent safety standards, have earned us a reputation around the world as one of the leaders in food safety.

Fast response to food safety situations is also a key to protecting consumers. The Belgian incident early in 1999, when it was revealed that animal feed had been tainted with dioxin, is a good example of the kinds of situations that require expert intervention from the CFIA.

Although Canada had not imported Belgian animal feed or animals during the critical period, we took no chances. With Health Canada, we immediately began testing a wide range of imported processed products. The CFIA alerted the public, installed a 1-800 line for concerned consumers, and instructed retailers to pull Belgian products from their shelves. The CFIA makes it its business to be ready for emergencies, with staff on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

• 0910

[English]

The CFIA investigates thousands of potential food safety situations every year. In the first two years of our operations these investigations led to over 400 food safety recalls. More than half of these were the result of products containing ingredients not mentioned on the food label, specifically ingredients that can cause severe allergic reactions.

Fast response is key to protecting consumers. That is in part why the CFIA created the Office of Food Safety Recall, the OFSR. The OFSR consolidates and enhances our food emergency response capability. We've also continued to work with the provinces and Health Canada to improve the coordination efforts and response to food emergencies.

While we are always ready for emergencies, preventing problems before they occur is a guiding principle behind CFIA programs that impact all along the food continuum.

The CFIA is committed to continuing the development and implementation of a long-term strategy to support implementation of food safety enhancement programs such as hazard analysis critical control point, or HACCP, programs. These programs cover the full range of food safety, right from input materials through production to retail and consumer use. They also provide for more rigorous and scientific management of food processing activities.

Already Canada is a world leader in the development and implementation of these programs. We have the tools needed to respond to non-compliance to regulatory requirements or product recalls and to address consumer complaints related to suspected food-borne illnesses or allergic reactions, product quality, misrepresentation, labelling concerns, or product contamination with extraneous matter.

Our 2000-2001 RPP highlights the importance we place on effective enforcement mechanisms and strategies. When an investigation indicates further action is justified, CFIA inspectors use a variety of enforcement methods, including prosecutions, removal of establishment licences, and containment of products.

[Translation]

An important focus of the CFIA's food inspection programs is to verify that manufacturers, importers, distributors and producers meet federal standards for packaging and labelling. The CFIA continues to verify that Canadians receive accurate product information through the development of practical, enforceable, and science-based labelling standards and regulations.

Increasingly, Canadians are enjoying the diversity of a global food supply. The CFIA works to protect Canadian consumers through its import control activities and its work with Canada's trading partners towards equivalency of inspection systems. Because of these activities, Canadians can be assured that foods from foreign countries are as safe as those originating in Canada.

The CFIA also plays an important role in providing consumers with the information they need to practice safe food handling. An ever-growing need for consumer food safety education continues to motivate our work with the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Education to promote safe food-handling practices among consumers.

The Fight BAC! media campaign will continue providing consumers with valuable information on safe food-handling practices to reduce the incidents of food-related illness in Canada.

[English]

Maintaining the health of Canada's animals is another important business line for the CFIA. Animal diseases, if they take hold, can have enormous consequences. Keeping Canada free of diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease, of which we've been clear for over four decades, translates to safe and affordable animal products for consumers and access to world markets for Canadian producers.

For example, during his April 2000 visit to China, Minister Vanclief signed the Canada-China pork protocol. This historic agreement paves the way for Canadian pork producers to export to the vast Chinese market, giving Chinese consumers access to the high-quality pork products Canada has to offer. The agreement is possible because China has accepted CFIA food safety and animal health certification.

The CFIA also plays a role in promoting the safe handling and use of medications in feeds to protect animal and human health and safety. There are over 500 commercial feed manufacturing plants in Canada and several thousand livestock producers who manufacture some or all of their own feed on the farm. The CFIA, after consultation with stakeholders, has proposed regulations that will require licensing and upgraded control measures for manufacturers of medicated animal feeds in Canada. The proposed regulations have been designed to complement voluntary HACCP-based food manufacturing codes of practice recently developed by the commercial feed sector and several livestock producer sectors.

• 0915

The proposed regulations were published in Canada Gazette, part I, for a 60-day comment period. We extended the period for an additional 30 days to May 2, and we are now reviewing the comments.

In addition to the proposed regulations, CFIA representatives are participating in the Canadian Coordinating Committee on Antibiotic Resistance, a multi-stakeholder committee chaired by Health Canada. The committee is developing an action plan to promote control strategies across all sectors, including the agricultural sector.

It's important to point out that the animal health program also provides significant public health protection by controlling diseases such as brucellosis, tuberculosis, and rabies.

I'll now talk a bit about the third CFIA business line, plant protection.

[Translation]

Protecting Canada's plant and forest resources is another key business line for the CFIA. We are committed to reducing the risk of entry of foreign diseases and pests. Preventing the establishment of pests remains a key strategy, as there are few effective controls for many quarantine pests. The consequences of pest incursions can be catastrophic. For example, in the United States, the Asian long-horned beetle has already destroyed over 5,600 trees in New York and Chicago at a cost of over $20 million.

We've seen the tangible results of our efforts. For example, in 1999, a team from the CFIA and Natural Resources Canada was quick to spot the Asian long-horned beetle upon their arrival in cargo shipments to Vancouver and Southern Ontario, and moved quickly to destroy the infested material. Stemming from the quick interception of this pest, Canada implemented a policy requiring that all solid wood cargo crating from China be treated with heat or chemicals. Members of the Asian long-horned beetle team were recipients of the 1999 Head of the Public Service Award. Canada continues to lead the development of an international standard on solid wood packing material to reduce the risk of this pathway of introduction of alien species.

The CFIA will continue to work with partners to protect Canada's plants. Pest detection surveys are conducted in partnership with the Canadian Forest Service in an effort to protect our forest resource base from introduced pests. Working with the Canadian Plant Protection Advisory Committee and the North American Plant Protection Organization, the CFIA continues to develop and influence international strategies and policies to reduce the risk of quarantine pests becoming established in Canada.

In part, as a result of CFIA Plant Protection Program activities, the trade of over $24 billion in plant and plant products was possible in 1999. Last year, the CFIA signed a number of key bilateral protocols with countries including Egypt, Russia, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela. Most recently, Canada signed the first agreement for the export of Canadian seed potatoes to China. No other country in the world has access to this market.

[English]

I'd now like to take a bit of time to speak about some of the key horizontal issues facing the CFIA, the first of which is biotechnology.

Our work is to protect the safety of Canadians, animals, and the environment as the application of biotechnology in the agrifood and agricultural sector continues to evolve. The CFIA is responsible for regulating environmental safety of products derived through biotechnology. Health Canada has primary responsibility for issues related to human health. They are responsible for setting standards for safety of the food supply, including foods produced through biotechnology.

Products of biotechnology go through the same strict regulatory process as any other new food. The reviews of novel foods are rigorous and comprehensive, based on evaluations by experts in nutrition, molecular biology, chemistry, toxicology, and environmental science. Nevertheless, we recognize that some Canadians want to have more information about foods derived through biotechnology.

In response, the CFIA will continue to support the development of information mechanisms by which consumers can obtain information about biotechnology-derived foods. An example of this is the development of the labelling standards for foods derived through biotechnology by the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board.

In the recent federal budget, the government committed a significant investment in the regulatory system for biotechnology-derived products. This will allow the CFIA to continue to enhance and evolve our “safety first” regulatory approach.

As well, in recognition of the need for Canada's regulatory system to continue to evolve at the pace of advancing science, the government asked the Royal Society to establish an expert panel to advise on how we can proactively position the regulatory system to deal with the next generation of biotechnology products.

• 0920

[Translation]

Science capacity is another major area of activity for the CFIA. Canadians expect the federal government's science programs to be "world-class" and demand that policies and interventions be built on a strong science base of high-quality information. As Canada's largest science-based regulator, the CFIA has a critical role to play in enhancing the science behind Canada's food safety, animal health and plant protection programs.

The CFIA will continue to build upon its already strong foundation in science and work to ensure that the Agency's decision-making, policy development and program design are founded on the best science available today.

The Agency will continue to foster relationships in the broader scientific community. We will also be exploring strategies for prioritizing and resourcing research, diagnostics, risk assessments and surveillance.

[English]

In closing, I'd like to say a few words about what's ahead for the CFIA. As Canada moves into the 21st century, new production systems and technologies are bringing to light the need for an integrated national approach to food safety—an approach that requires modernized and consolidated federal food legislation.

It is in this context that the CFIA continues to work towards the development of rigorous and enforceable science-based food safety standards and regulations for all foods. In support of the government's commitment to building a higher quality of life for Canadians, the CFIA will continue to strengthen the inspection system that provides Canadians with safe food and some of the best animal and plant products in the world.

The CFIA recognizes the important role it plays in the lives of Canadians. We take that role very seriously. The expectations on the agency are high, but we are committed to fulfilling them. The CFIA's 2000-2001 RPP delivers a clear plan to deliver federal regulatory services related to food safety, consumer protection, plant protection, and animal health.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hillier, very much.

I think we have at least a good hour, if not more, for questions before the vote. We'll go to Mr. Hilstrom for seven minutes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, gentlemen.

Certainly biotechnology and genetically modified plants are the key points of discussion at the present time. On page 6 you say that you've asked the Royal Society to establish an expert panel to advise on how you can proactively position a regulatory system to deal with the next generation of biotech products.

In terms of the negative reaction from the consumer and the lack of information, what went wrong in the first phase, when we had canola, potatoes, tomatoes, and so on coming out? What was in place at that time to deal with information to the public and this type of thing?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge (Acting Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you very much. Rather than me rambling on about this, with your permission, Mr. Chair, I'll ask our resident expert from the office of biotechnology, Margaret Kenny, to explain the historical aspect of our activities in biotechnology and what work this has evolved to with the Royal Society.

The Chair: Good morning.

Ms. Margaret Kenny (Director, Office of Biotechnology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Good morning, and thank you very much for the opportunity to—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: First of all, you acknowledge that the GMO discussion has gone off track in this country; that the scaremongers are winning the day, scaring people away at the grocery stores; and that in fact misinformation is actually being put out that there's somehow something unsafe about this canola and these tomatoes and potatoes.

Ms. Margaret Kenny: Our responsibility in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is to carry out the environmental safety reviews of these products. In answer to your question about how we've handled the first products that have come through, we have put in the safety assessment process. We have the regulations, we have guidelines, and we have policy dealing with the kinds of products we are facing now to review their safety prior to them actually entering into confined field trials or, further, before they enter into commercialization.

The work of the Royal Society, though, is to look forward, because this science is changing very rapidly. They will be looking forward to the new science that we can anticipate. They will be looking at the kinds of products we can see in the future. These, we anticipate, will be more complex products, products with multiple traits rather than generally the single traits we're seeing now, and the use of new organisms to be involved in biotechnology.

• 0925

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. I guess the best example may be this new rice that technology is saying is going to have vitamin E or something to help prevent blindness in countries where they can't get this to the people in sufficient quantities by normal means.

With these kinds of products coming into Canada onto our food shelves, you ensure through your scientific testing that when it hits our food shelf and a consumer buys it, in fact that consumer is buying a product that is safe for consumption. You certify that, do you not?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: In fact, for a food product coming into Canada such as that—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No, I mean our own food products, produced here.

Ms. Margaret Kenny: We are not the only regulator. There is also Health Canada. Health Canada is responsible for the food safety assessment. So for products that are grown here, before they can be consumed by the public, they have to go through Health Canada's process.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: So you tell Health Canada that you've done field trials. You've had the farmer, or whatever, the researcher, and they've done the field trials with the GMO seed. What do you say to Health Canada? Do you send them a report on, for instance, a new tomato?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: We could use an example like a tomato. What would happen is that before the applicant—it might be a university, it might be a company—can even plant one plant outdoors, they need to come to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for the first environmental safety review. If that is approved, they can carry out a field trial, but a condition of that field trial is that this tomato cannot be fed to humans or to livestock.

They would carry out those trials for a number of years. We have inspection staff that would monitor those trials to make sure they conform to the conditions the agency has put into place, but before the product can be commercialized, the applicant is required to go to Health Canada for the food safety review. They would come back to us for a livestock feed safety review, and then we would also carry out another environmental safety review, this time recognizing that we're not talking about small field trials but we may have many thousands of acres involved.

In a practical sense, we work with Health Canada on a day-to-day basis. We share information on our reviews, the molecular characterization, genetic change in particular.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Have you ever turned down a GMO product under research and trial, a seed?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: The way our system works is that we do not allow anything to go forward for field testing until all our questions are satisfied, until we have the results from all the studies we need to make a proper assessment. There may not be any case where we have not had to go back to the applicant for further study or for clarification. In fact, at the end of the day probably only 5% of those products that were originally in field trial would go forward for commercialization.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. Maybe we'll just switch over. What involvement have you had with this licensing for the farmers, the small farmer who is processing feed on his farm with the small grain handling to put antibiotics into feed and that? Have you had anything to do with that?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Yes, we do. The regulation was pre-published on February 5. There was a comment period. It was subsequently extended until May 1, and we are just now waiting for the final comments.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Is that going ahead on May 1, then?

Comments are coming in. I know what the comments are, because I've heard them down through Ontario. The smaller farmers are not happy here. The big feed companies are okay, but the smaller farmer is very unhappy.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Right, and we've heard those comments.

We've given until approximately May 15—today—for the comments to come in, in consideration of mail delays or things of that nature. We are then going to review all the comments in totality. There had been a steering committee struck to come up with the original regulatory proposal. It's our intention to reconvene that group to review with us the comments that were received and then determine what would be the appropriate next steps to take.

The Chair: Mr. Steckle.

• 0930

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): If I could continue on with that vein of thinking, that has been an issue in Ontario, particularly given that so many of our hog farmers are preparing feeds on-farm or buying pre-mixes where micro-mixing has occurred prior to the delivery of those pre-mixes to the farm.

Being one of those farmers myself, knowing the equipment they're working with, having used that equipment and knowing how precise it is, can you give us some assurances today? Following the consultation period—and you've listened now for another 30 days—do you have an indication, and would you be able to indicate to us today, the comments of those last 30 days and in what direction we might be going?

I think what we're seeing is that for the farmer who is preparing maybe 50 tonnes a week, rather than the large co-ops that are preparing thousands of tonnes a week, there is some great difference in terms of cost per unit for a farmer preparing feed on a per-tonne basis than for the feed companies that prepare in macro-size. I wonder whether you're prepared to address or whether you've already addressed that issue of dealing with the micro-size farmer in a different way from the feed companies, not in terms of the safety but in terms of the cost-effectiveness to the farmer.

If we're looking at taking those costs and spreading them out with farmers paying their share equally to the feed companies, it won't work.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I don't have the exact details as far as what the final resolution of that will be. We have certainly heard some of those types of comments coming from different constituents.

The intent is to pull back the steering committee. I think there was a certain amount of surprise, to be honest with you, in the nature of the comments coming in, because we had gone through such an open consultative process in the drafting of the regulatory proposal, using the national associations primarily as the input groups to the regulatory drafting.

Certainly the precision of the equipment is one issue. We have another question about diluted product versus what is coming in at full strength. There are a number of other issues to be addressed, and really, the steering committee is going to be addressing it. What we have heard from the Minister is certainly that in his opinion the status quo is not on, and we have to do something to enhance the system the way it currently is. There's a real legitimate safety concern about the implications of medicated feeds. So from that standpoint, the work of the steering committee will be quite important to move this forward. Unfortunately, I can't specify exactly which options will be discussed, but I'm sure that will be one of them.

Mr. Paul Steckle: The issue of water dilution, using medications through water medicators, apparently was missed in the first draft. As I understand, medicating through the water was not dealt with. I think it's important that it be dealt with in this issue if we're going to deal with all forms of medication. Farmers have medicators where they can deal with certain aspects of disease and sickness through medicating in the water system. That wasn't addressed, but I think it ought to be.

I think we need to recognize that farmers need to be treated not in terms of the safety—farmers want to produce a safe product—but we have to make sure that the cost reflects the size of that unit. I want that on the record.

The other thing has to do with dead animals. I had a case in my riding where a farmer got caught in a situation where somehow his feedlot was contaminated. There was something in the feed. They still don't know where it came from. Botulinum was realized. He lost some 32 head of cattle. They were sent off to a slaughtering house. The meat was put in containers, and once it was realized what the problem was, a quarantine was put on the units. They were locked by CFIA. CFIA came in and locked the truck units. It was determined that this could be safely used for the production of pet foods, providing a certain heat level was attained in the cooking of this product.

CFIA would not release that meat, even though they said it was safe for use. They would not release that meat or give a certificate basically following it to the point where it would be processed. They would not make that commitment. Therefore there was a gentleman left with a lot of meat he couldn't dispose of. He was told it could be used, but no one was going to take it off his hands.

What kind of responsibility does CFIA have to someone who is caught in that situation? He picked up these animals, as he would at any other farm site, and basically he got caught in a situation. He had all this meat on his hands. He had processed it to a certain point and expected that he would dispose of it and get paid for it. It was at cost to him. He was sort of caught in between.

• 0935

Where does CFIA come in here to say they will see this through? How far do they go in seeing a product like that through to a point where it can be realized at a net gain?

The Chair: I think the question is there. Are you going to answer, Mr. Brackenridge?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, again I think it's best to bring in an expert, Dr. Brian Evans, who's the executive director of our animal products directorate.

The Chair: You have about a minute and a half, Dr. Evans.

Mr. Brian Evans (Executive Director, Animal Products Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To respond to Mr. Steckle's comments, I'm not familiar with all the details of that particular issue, but I would hazard that the control measures put in place are at two levels. Obviously in Canada we have imposed the ruminant feeding ban, so they're subjecting this product to rendering. In light of BSE and mad cow and the preventative measures that have been taken in Canada to control that element, we have to be assured that with the diversion of the product, if it were to go to rendering and to pet food, it did not get redirected into animal feed. I can't comment on the assurances that were in place to preclude that from happening, but that may well have been part of the issue.

Certainly I recognize, as you say, that the individual had identified the disease problem and had made assessments that this in fact was not a form of botulism or that the toxins being produced by this particular form of botulism were not adverse to public health or, in the case of companion animals, pet food health. Obviously there will always be an ethical perception in the public of making sure it doesn't get into the food chain for human consumption.

The issue of pet food is a significant issue for the agency at the present time. We have put together a working group with the rendering industry, Health Canada, and Environment Canada. We also recognize significant environmental impacts associated with the disposal of animals that can't get into the food system.

The issue of authorities and mandate in pet food is not a clear authority and it's one we're trying to address at the present time. I can only comment at this point in time that should we be able to work through the various jurisdictional issues there, we would be able to provide some level of support in the future to protect the various elements in the food system that we're asked to do.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, last week at the Codex Alimentarius Commission they again had to put off a decision on labelling. I assume CFIA was front and centre, representing Canada at those meetings. Can you indicate to the committee what some of the stumbling blocks or sticking points were in that decision to defer it?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again with your permission, I'll ask Margaret to come up. She was actually participating at some of those committee meetings.

To answer the first part, yes, Canada is front and centre with that committee. In fact, we chair both a committee and a working group, so we've been very actively involved in the discussions.

The Chair: Welcome again, Margaret.

Ms. Margaret Kenny: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In fact, the Codex process is a multi-year, multi-step process. This year we've probably made more progress than we have in all of our other years. We had complete agreement on the first piece that moved forward, which was mandatory labelling when there is an issue of allergenicity involved. That now has to go to the commission in Rome, where it will be formally finalized.

There was also agreement and forward movement to the next step on definitions. It sounds like a small matter, but in fact this means that you have all these countries that are now finally speaking the same language. There are 165 countries involved in Codex, so it's no small matter to meet these milestones.

The most contentious issue has been over two options where we've had polarization in the last few years. One option largely deals with labelling for health and safety reasons, and it ends there. The second option is more kin to the European approach, which would mean labelling for the process, the method of production: labelling to identify that these are products of biotechnology, that they've been developed through genetic engineering.

What we were able to accomplish at this meeting was to roll these two options together to put forward the idea of approaching them as a guideline. This needs more exploration, but a guideline can come in many different forms. It offers more flexibility.

• 0940

We certainly are hoping this is a way forward. Canada has again been asked to chair the committee that will undertake putting this option together and then bringing it back to the main committee. Although I appreciate that perhaps it doesn't seem like a great deal of forward momentum has taken place if you were expecting a final conclusion at this meeting, in fact in the context of Codex it was a very successful meeting.

Mr. Dick Proctor: The news story I saw said the delegates who were attending this particular hearing or hearings said the balance of opinion has clearly shifted towards mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods. Would you agree with that assessment?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: When we talk about mandatory labelling, we are on a continuum. There are many countries that are coming up with various schemes for labelling. In Canada, for example, we require mandatory labelling whenever there is a question of health and safety. If we look at Australia, they are looking at mandatory labelling for a little bit more, and they haven't completely defined how much more that is. Europe is looking at mandatory labelling for even more. India weighed in to this meeting and they want mandatory labelling for much more than even what Europe has been proposing. So it's very difficult.

I think we all agree that there needs to be some mandatory labelling and most agree that we need a standard for labelling for the method of production, because this is what consumers are asking for. Many consumers in many countries are asking for it and that's why in Canada we are working with the Canadian General Standards Board to develop this type of standard.

Mr. Dick Proctor: But don't you think that in a world where we're talking about information and information technology, the consumer's right to know is paramount and it's going to continue to grow, that consumers are going to continue to demand more and more information? They will not be satisfied simply with knowing that it contains an allergenic or that it's a safe product to eat. They want to know what the heck they're ingesting.

Ms. Margaret Kenny: This is absolutely a fact. It is the information age and we shouldn't be surprised that consumers want this information. This is certainly why we have participated in and are supporting very strongly the work of the Canadian General Standards Board to put in a uniform standard to provide this information to those who are looking for it.

The Chair: I'm quite sure we'll get into that in much greater detail in a couple of weeks.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Please don't leave us again. Obviously biotechnology and GMOs are going to be a very important aspect. Now that Madame Alarie has returned, I can assure you that she will ask questions on GMOs.

To get back to the mandatory labelling, we know CFIA and Health Canada have a joint responsibility. I guess where Dick was trying to go with this was to get at the position of CFIA. I do know there are a number of stakeholders, a number of blue-ribbon boards, that have been struck to try to position ourselves as Canadians. There are two positions. One is domestic, with a huge request for information from our domestic consumers with respect to GMOs and biotech. The other one is the international requirements we have to look at with the Codex, which you referred to.

We will have you back at length with respect to GMOs, but my question is on the position of the CFIA. Is there a position internally that you can articulate here at this meeting that says whether you at the CFIA are more accepting of a mandatory labelling process or not accepting of a mandatory labelling process? I say that because there have been some conflicts there. There's been some conflicting information, particularly with the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who originally said mandatory labelling is too difficult to be able to implement. What is your position on this with respect to mandatory labelling?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: Our position would be what relates to our mandate. As you heard in the opening presentation, a key part of our mandate is health and safety of food. There is no doubt that when there is a health and safety matter involved, our position is that there has to be mandatory labelling.

To take it a step further, though, we also agree, as the previous question alluded to, that consumers are looking for more information and we have to find an appropriate way to get that information to them, which is why we're supporting the work of the Canadian General Standards Board.

• 0945

The CFIA also has the responsibility to enforce regulations. When we put in regulations, we believe there needs to be integrity behind those regulations. They have to be regulations that are workable by those responsible for implementing them. They have to be feasible—they can be implemented—and we have to be able to actually enforce those regulations.

We're at a point now where we have the responsibility for truth in labelling. Any statement that appears on the label cannot be misleading—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Margaret, I'm going to jump in here, because I get cut off by the chairman very quickly. In your estimation, what percentage of foodstuffs on the grocery shelf right now would have a component of genetically modified organisms in them?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: We see a lot of numbers on that, so I'm not sure if I can give you a better estimate than the grocery industry. But when we look at ingredients such as soybeans, corn, and canola, these are ingredients in all of our processed foods. So in processed foods—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can you extrapolate, approximately?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: The grocery industry has said there would be over 60%. I have no problem believing that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, thank you.

Don't go away. I'm sure Madam Alarie will want to talk to you.

There's one other question I have. We are here for estimates, which is surprising, because we haven't touched on estimates at all.

Your source of revenue forecast for 1999-2000, which is the cost-recovery revenue I'm referring to, is about $47.8 million. The same number, $47.8 million, applies right through to 2002-2003, with no change at all. We know there's a moratorium on cost recovery at the present time.

Can you tell me two things very quickly? What did you achieve from cost recovery in your fiscal year ending March 31, 2000? I know there's a moratorium, but that doesn't mean you simply have to keep the number the same at $47.8 million. There should be some additional revenue derived from increased activity in your department, so why leave it at $47.8 million?

The Chair: You have 40 seconds.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So I have two questions. What did you receive in the fiscal year-end, and why did you not change the number at all over four years?

Mr. Larry Hillier: Thank you for the question regarding increases in workload, because it's not static in terms import-export activity, as well as increased activity on the domestic front—new shifts and additional establishments opening.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You have 40 seconds. Do you have any answers?

Mr. Larry Hillier: The total revenue for the last fiscal year was in the range of $51.7 million.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So now we're going to drop it to $47.8 million? But you just said your workloads were increasing.

Mr. Larry Hillier: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But we're reducing the revenues that are achieved from cost recovery.

Mr. Larry Hillier: That's not reducing the numbers at all.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What did you achieve in cost recovery there?

Mr. Larry Hillier: It was $51.7 million. Again, it's difficult to anticipate the workload increases, based on the baseline data that indicate in the high forties, in terms of revenue. That's our basis for extrapolating. Again, there are fluctuations, in terms of export markets, so our plans have been fairly consistent.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: They're fairly conservative.

Mr. Larry Hillier: We have to match our funding based on the cashflow, and again we have to be able to pay our bills.

That's our process to identify a key baseline number for us to be able to anticipate reasonably, but given current workloads, we can anticipate that cashflow.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Are you correct in saying you achieved a higher revenue in the year ending March 31, 2000, than what you're budgeting for in the coming year?

The Chair: That will have to be your final answer. It's the longest 40 seconds in history.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Final answer, no more lifelines. I would like to be put back on the list.

The Chair: You don't even have to pay me $20 million a year. Final answer.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is that it?

The Chair: All right, let's go to the next contestant.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: How do I get back on the list?

The Chair: If you're good, we'll select you out of the next ten.

Rose-Marie, five minutes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): I have about four or five questions, so I'll go fairly quickly through them. If you want to take notes, maybe we can get through them more quickly.

I can't agree more that food safety is important to everyone, but consumers have to be educated that, guess what, the primary producer eats what they produce. So we don't have one field for the consumer and one for our own families. The concept has to be proven to the consumers that we eat what we grow. I eat what I grow, and I'm still quite well.

• 0950

The Canadian Quality Assurance Program has been in existence for a year and a half. Over half the producers in Ontario are enrolled. Eventually all those producers will have to be certified, or the packers won't accept their products. They're saying the CFIA is just more regulations overlapping the existing ones. Has there been a cost analysis done to see whether the CQA is working and the CFIA is needed to improve the industry?

They're also stating that the CFIA is adding unnecessary costs to the primary producer. A suggestion is that the big feed companies are behind this—this is regarding the medicated food now—to sell more complete feed. I can see the profits perhaps in this industry going up a little bit higher.

On the CFIA, do you have a chart or goalposts that exporters need to meet? Are those goalposts fixed, or are they on a moving basis? I've had complaints from my riding on that. They meet the requirements and all of a sudden, for whatever reason, the goalposts are changed and they're back to zero again.

Were there representatives from the hog industry at the discussions? My local producers seem to think this is a new concept on medicated feed. To my knowledge, there was somebody there, but I'd like that on record.

Also, which sector in the agrifood industry is affected by CFIA's cost-recovery policy the most? If I have more time I'll ask the rest.

The Chair: Three minutes.

Your microphone is on, Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Larry Hillier: Perhaps I could answer the last question first, while Dr. Evans makes his way to the table to comment on the feed programs.

In terms of cost recovery, the largest revenue source for us is the meat hygiene program—meat inspection. We have resident inspection in slaughter facilities across the country in the range of $22.2 million a year.

The Chair: Dr. Evans has come off the bench.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That's 50 seconds used.

The Chair: It's a long bench. You have a great team. Go ahead.

Mr. Brian Evans: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the questions, Ms. Ur. I think I captured them. You were asking questions as quickly as I usually try to answer.

Dealing with the issue of the medicated feed, yes, the Canadian Pork Council and the other representatives from the pork industry were involved in the three-year consultative process with the master steering committee, along with the Canadian Federation of Agricultural and a number of other producer-based organizations that had input into the draft regulations.

You made reference to on-farm quality assurance programs and the critical role they play in terms of the fact they are the front end of food safety. What happens on the farm is extremely critical, and the agency has been consistently supportive of on-farm food safety programs.

One of the aspects around the proposed legislation on medicated feeds is at two levels. One, there is an 18-month phase-in of whatever the final regulations will be, to allow for checks and balances and adaptation in the industry to deal with the regulations. It's not a case of regulations coming in and everybody being stuck with them. There is an extended phase-in period for those regulations proposed.

At the same level, part of the proposal behind the regulations is for them to fit, sort of hand-in-glove, with on-farm food safety programs and HACCP-based programs, so inspection frequencies, costs, records, and those types of issues that are associated with the medicated feeds can be offset by existing on-farm food safety programs.

You also raised the question around export certificates—are they gold standard, are they etched in stone? The export certificates—and I believe you're referring to live animal shipments specifically—are prepared in consultation with the importing country. The Health of Animals Act requires us to certify in accordance with the importing country's requirements. We do not establish, obviously, their appropriate level of protection or the standards. We negotiate them to the best scientific ability, and hopefully to the best practicality of the Canadian industry. But in reality, they are subject to change. They can be dynamic documents based on changing disease status, either in the country receiving the animals or in Canada. They have to be adjusted for those situations.

Normal operating procedure on export shipments is a requirement that we sit down with the exporter in advance of him signing a contract to negotiate the timeframes on delivery of the testing programs, and to do an interpretation with the exporter of all the requirements, to make sure they are well versed and understand them well. Again, when we deal with 170 countries on export, the English translation of a document and the country-of-origin translation of a document are sometimes problematic. We need to be assured that the interpretation being applied will meet the importing country's requirement and not jeopardize our long-term market access.

• 0955

The Chair: We'll have to leave it there. Thank you.

Madam Alarie, are you ready for five minutes?

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Five minutes? Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: You missed your first round. There's a price to pay. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: One cannot be everywhere.

I see that your expenditures amount to $314 million and that, in order to make up the difference between this amount and the votes that you receive, you are using cost recovery. Since I have only five minutes, I will not ask any direct questions; I will instead make some comments. It seems to me that there is a conflict of interest between the job of ensuring food safety in order to protect consumers, and cost recovery as a means of balancing one's budget, which has the result, as your inspectors note on a fairly regular basis, of reducing the number of inspections and changing the manner in which risks are managed. I am expressing my views in the form of comments, as I do not wish to disappoint my friend, who expects me to talk about GMOs, which I will in effect do.

In the budget, there are no significant changes from year to year or for the future. When the Deputy Minister of Health Canada recently undertook a restructuring of the health program, he affirmed that, in the last five years, they had ruled 43 products to be GMOs or transgenic products, and that in the next five years this figure could increase to 500, thanks to this reorganization. Well, that absolutely blew my mind—if you will excuse the expression—because I do not see how this can be achieved without additional resources and standards. This is disturbing.

Furthermore, you are no doubt aware that the American government has created a special agricultural committee to deal with mandatory labelling, not voluntary labelling—which is generally open to nearly all the sectors associated with agriculture and consumers. I think that the Americans have already taken the lead, while we are still thinking in terms of voluntary labelling and, in addition, in terms of years. Those are the thoughts I wanted to share with you in these five short minutes.

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead, Margaret.

Ms. Margaret Kenny: Thank you very much for those questions.

The first point that I would respond to deals with the fact that we may be getting more products we need to regulate into our system.

There are couple of things we are doing here. One is that Environment Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Health Canada have asked the Royal Society to put in place an expert panel to look at the new science, to look at the new product, and to provide for us their recommendations for what we need to do, for what kind of new expertise we perhaps have to bring in and what kind of new standards we have to look at developing in order to ensure that we have a system in place to deal with these future challenges that are coming our way.

It's not just the Royal Society. In fact, the Canadian biotechnology advisory committee, which advises seven ministers, is also looking at food biotechnology. They are looking more at the non-science issues. They're looking at social implications. They're looking at ethical implications. Our understanding is that they will have their report in the fall. They will then take their report, together with that of the Royal Society, and carry out some public consultations on this matter.

In terms of labelling, I am not familiar with the initiative that Madam Alarie has referred to. I am certainly aware, though, that just last week the FDA in the United States announced that they will in fact be following Canada's lead and facilitating the development of a guideline for voluntary labelling. This is something Canada has been involved in for many months now, and the U.S. is in fact taking our example.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Calder, I'm going to cheat you out of ten seconds.

• 1000

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): You're going to cheat me out of ten seconds?

The Chair: No, I promised—

Mr. Murray Calder: Oh, I have an extra ten seconds...?

The Chair: No. This is not a precise game we're.... Go ahead.

Mr. Murray Calder: Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

In regard to the poultry industry right now, in my other life I'm still an active chicken farmer.

Some hon. members: No!

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, I know. What can I say? I had to get that plug in.

Mr. Dick Proctor: We had no idea.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I didn't know that.

Mr. Murray Calder: Anyway, the poultry industry is working right now to become HACCP compliant in regard to its products; we're working on that on our own farming operation. I see this as probably a logical step to becoming ISO-effective when we put out food products from this country to the international market. I'd like your comment on where you see that going.

Last year I had a chance to promote the “Fight BAC” program, and I was wondering how that is progressing right now in regard to consumer education on how to properly prepare food.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you, Mr. Calder.

I won't talk specifically about the poultry industry any differently from any other group, I suppose, at the producer level. Certainly the concept of the on-farm food safety programs is an extremely important initiative for us. As Dr. Evans has mentioned, we're doing a lot of work in the design and development of on-farm food safety programs with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and with individual producer groups as well. We've also been working very closely with our provincial colleagues; the jurisdictional responsibility at the farm level rests with the provinces in a lot of cases.

Through the Canadian food inspection system, we have two or three different working groups that are actively engaged right now in on-farm food safety programs to make sure that we have the design components as well as the recognition aspects of it in place, because this then becomes an important next step to making the programs useful. How do you, in fact, de-accredit someone if they get onto an accredited type of program? What are the enforcement tools? Who is going to do it? Will it be a third party? There are those types of things, so we're working actively on that right now.

The anticipation, as we've talked for a number of years on this gate-to-plate or gate-to-fork campaign.... It's important that we have the production component as a key aspect of it, so we're continuing to work through on that.

Mr. Murray Calder: Do you see, then, that the next step would be to become part of ISO, the international standards of operation?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: It could be. I don't think the decisions are exactly made yet as to where it will fit in the international community. We're doing a lot of work through our international bodies. Again, we're looking at it, whether it's through Codex Alimentarius or the Office international des épizooties or through the International Plant Protection Convention. There are always different aspects to it that we are trying to get recognized. ISO is one international standard-setting body.

Again, we're trying to demonstrate that no matter what the importing country's requirements and standards are, the Canadian system meets those requirements.

Mr. Murray Calder: There's going to have to be some sort of an international standard, and I think that's what we're heading towards right now. If we have the record-keeping, which is what HACCP is here in this country, it has to be compliant to whatever the international standard is going to be, which is probably ISO.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: It could very well be. In fact, I don't think that at the international level there's complete consensus yet as to what that international standard will be.

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: What we're trying to do is to position ourselves to be the big influence here, so that whether it's ISO or some other standard it really reflects the Canadian system, because we are seen as world leaders in this area.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: With regard to the “Fight BAC” campaign, I think the program has been quite successful and has really gone a long way towards achieving its objectives. The first phase of it was to get a lot of material prepared, to have the partnership come together, the partnership for consumer and food safety education. The next phase, which was recently initiated, and which I think you were directly involved with, was for schoolchildren.

We heard from consumers' associations and from various other groups—public health members—who said that if we really wanted to make a difference in food safety and in the handling of food in the home, we really had to get to the children at a good, influenceable age. So they chose this program, which I believe was aimed at children from six to nine years old, children in the early primary grades. They've distributed a lot of material and it has been quite successful to date. That's about the only update I have on it at this time.

Mr. Murray Calder: Good.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): I'll be very brief, because we have bells coming up.

• 1005

I believe there is a fear out there among the producers that some of these increased costs of inspection, etc., are eventually going to tumble down to them. In a country that produces the cheapest food of anyone, Canada, the producer is not rolling in money at the present time. I have a fear that somehow that is going to dribble down to them.

Let me give you an example. We've done a great lot of work in developing potatoes that are resistant to the most common of all of the insects, the Colorado beetle. But because these new varieties have been declared GMOs, they have lost their world market and so on. So the grower is going to have to go back to the old variety, and in doing so is going to require three or four applications of a very strong pesticide.

What you're doing on one hand is knocking the producer who gets away from that expensive procedure, because of a fear, which has not been proven correct, that that particular product is unsafe for human consumption. So we're in a bit of a cycle here, and my fear is, as this cycle develops, you're going to hurt the one you love, and that's the producer. I can't see any other way out of it. If some of these things are not allowed to develop....

Where I come from, we've been doing it for years. We can't go back to Red Fife wheat. We can't go back to the first varieties of canola. We can't go back to the first Golden Ball durum soft wheat. So if we can't continue in this production, the cost to the producer could in fact put him out of business. I have a real concern about that as this evolves now. Your comments, please.

Mr. Larry Hillier: Thank you for the question.

I want to refer to our process around cost recovery. This goes back to the days of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, before the agency. In 1994, in developing a cost-recovery policy, a few of the key principles we respected during that time in particular—and this goes back to Madame Alarie's point—are as follows.

Health and safety services will not be compromised in the delivery of services and in the issue of cost recovery, but also, any negative impact on the competitiveness of the agrifood sector will be minimized. We again have had several consultations with many producers and processing groups—stakeholders in the industry—around the impacts, and on several occasions the minister has invited these groups to make the case in terms of the impacts. We've been very sensitive to that. In fact the minister's recent announcement about the freeze on cost recovery fee increases until the end of 2002 is a major decision in recognition of the difficulty this sector is experiencing.

From that perspective, we are attempting to focus on cost reduction and cost avoidance in the area of provision of services. We certainly have our ear to the ground and are working closely with producer associations, processors—all stakeholders—in trying to make sure this policy respects the guiding principles we established jointly.

Thank you.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make an additional comment.

I believe, Mr. Bailey, you were also inferring that, depending on the approval process that may be used, decisions may be made that impact on the producers from a commercial standpoint. I'd just clarify that, again, our role at the CFIA is to do the appropriate assessments, whether they be environmental assessments for feeds, for fertilizers, or for plant products, and food safety assessments being done by Health Canada. I'd just reinforce that we're involved in approvals from that standpoint.

Once an approval has been given, it really becomes a commercial decision at that point between the buyers and sellers of the product. We understand the pressures the producers, the farmers, are under right now in trying to make decisions as to what types of crops to plant. But from our standpoint within the CFIA, all we can do is our job, and that is to make sure the products go through the appropriate approval processes. Then it really becomes a decision between the buyers and the sellers at that point.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two questions. One, do you have the scientific capacity in your agency to address all these new varieties coming in and all the testing required? You said there were an awful lot of new seeds, new foods. Do you have the scientific capacity within the system now to do a good job on that, and have you budgeted for any increase in scientific help?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: Thank you, Mr. McGuire.

• 1010

In fact we were fortunate in having the base to work with when we had the first products of biotechnology come to us. We already had a system that had been there to protect the environment in terms of testing diseases, for example, since the legislation going back to the early 1990s. So we had a complement of staff: an entomologist, a soil scientist, an environmental scientist, a toxicologist, a nutritionist, etc. We have had to bring in some additional expertise in the new sciences, such as molecular geneticists.

We recognize that the science is moving fast, and part of what the Royal Society is doing is advising us of what else we will need. We've also been very fortunate in the last budget for having received funding. All federal departments involved in regulating a biotechnology received a sum total of approximately $19 million over three years. Certainly you can be assured that this money will be very well spent in preparing us for the future.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Is there any country in the world that has legislation on the books in implementing legislation on biotechnology and labelling? How do we compare with what other people are doing, say in Europe or the United States?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: In terms of the mandatory labelling, as I had mentioned previously, there's a range of thoughts in terms of what should be mandatory and what should be voluntary. We have legislation requiring mandatory labelling for things like allergens, for example, but in terms of the method of production labelling, there have been a number of countries that are talking about going this way. Japan is one of them. They are first. They're going to work out exactly how they would implement it, what would require mandatory labelling, etc. They're not there yet; they're giving themselves another year to come to some conclusions. Australia has said the same thing, but again, they are studying the matter further; they're looking at various economic implications, for example. There's a study that should be out very shortly on that matter.

Europe has actually put in laws and regulations; it's coming in pieces. One of the earliest pieces goes back almost a year and a half. They have a different approach, though, and that is they put in their law and then they start to look at how it could be implemented and how it could be enforced. They have recently come up with a threshold limit, for example. It took them well over a year to work that out. The “threshold” means at what level...there could be 1% of a GMO in a product before you have to label. They did choose 1%, but they haven't determined if that's going to be volume or if it's going to be weight. Those pieces are still to be worked out.

Mr. Joe McGuire: So they haven't implemented anything?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: You will see labelling, but it has not been fully implemented, nor is it being enforced yet.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I want to pick up where Mr. McGuire ended on his first question.

I think consumers know that there's a handful of companies that are involved in the biotech industry and in the pesticide industry. Some of the detractors of the federal government say that things like the federal risk assessment process is based entirely on data provided by the industry and that this lack of independent government testing is a serious abdication of public responsibility. How do you respond to those kinds of allegations coming from people who apparently are supposed to know something about this?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: I can explain how the system works. We have the responsibility for setting the information requirements. To do so, we work not only with the experts in Canada, but we have also gone into international fora such as the World Health Organization, FAO, OECD, etc., to make sure that we have the best expertise in setting those information requirements. It is the proponent's responsibility to generate the data that would address those information requirements. They ultimately benefit from the sale of the product, so it's at their expense that this research is carried out.

We then have a team of experts—I mentioned some of our expertise a little earlier—who look over the data. They're looking over the data, so it's subject to peer review in that way. Then they go back, ask questions, require further study, and obtain clarification before they can provide an approval. This is not unique to the area of biotechnology. This is the way most product approval processes work to date in the federal government.

• 1015

Mr. Dick Proctor: I have a perception question again. My feeling would be that over the last several years, in terms of biotechnology, if you wanted to use the stoplight analogy, it's been very much of a green light: everything was full systems go. I think with McCain's, Frito-Lay, and McDonald's now talking about wanting to be sure it's GMO free, all of a sudden there's an amber light. I don't know if it's come on yet, but it's certainly a flashing yellow light at this point. Does the CFIA agree with that assessment, or do you think it's still full steam ahead for the development of genetically modified foods and products?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: I don't know if I have an answer to that question. That's really a market question that companies themselves have to answer. If we receive the applications, we will do the safety review; if we don't, our workload becomes much more manageable.

Mr. Dick Proctor: This is perhaps a related question from a different angle. Are you aware of any counties or regions in Canada that are endeavouring to be GMO-free and they don't want any genetically modified products in that county? Is there anything that's come to your attention on that basis?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: I'm afraid I'm not personally familiar with a whole area that has declared themselves GMO-free.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks.

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Borotsik and then to Rose-Marie Ur and Madam Alarie.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: First of all, a comment was just made that it's the CFIA's responsibility to deal with the issue in science and then it's basically a decision between the buyer and seller from that point on. Does the CFIA not believe that there's an educational component there for the consumers as well? This is one of the shortcomings we have in Canada with respect to the GMOs. There's a lot of misinformation out there, but there isn't any organization based on science that's putting out the proper information.

You said it's a decision between buyer and seller. At that point in time we've done our job, we've based it on science. Don't you believe there's an educational component beyond that through CFIA that should educate the consumers to what actually has happened?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: The short answer is yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But you're not doing that. You just said it's the decision—

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: That's right. It's a yes, and I will ask Margaret to explain the details of what we do in that one.

Ms. Margaret Kenny: The way we see our role is to explain to people what it is we do. We don't have a vested interest in the technology per se. It's certainly the taxpayers who are paying for the process we put these products through, so we feel we have a responsibility to explain what that is. We have a website that provides, for example, something called “decision documents”. After we have carried out our review we develop a document that identifies what we have looked at, what we've found, what conclusion we came to and why. We provide that in hard copy or to the public. Are we perfect at providing this information to the public? Probably not quite.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't think we're asking you to be perfect. I guess what I'm asking now is whether or not there is a strategy that's beyond the website. You have the knowledge. I think you do your jobs extremely well. I think consumers are looking for something else other than just this part of the one piece of the puzzle as opposed to the real information. Do you have a lead spokesperson who is actually going out there and trying to give Canadians the proper education? A website is one component of a very large marketing plan. You're probably good at what you do in science, but you're not terribly good marketers. Do you have anything that's going forward in that marketing?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: We do have people. It might be our evaluators, sometimes it might be myself. We certainly have folks in my office who get out there and speak to groups. We have recognized that probably within our area there is more of a need just to speak to soil and crop associations. It might be a 4-H Club. It might be at a local library. And we have not really had people who can explain our system at that level. In recognition of this, it's the funding that I had mentioned.

• 1020

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have just one final question, Mr. Chairman, and it may be a quick one.

The CFIA is responsible for regulating environmental safety of products derived through biotechnology. Health Canada has primary responsibility for issues related to human health. Is there a conflict between CFIA and Health Canada in those two areas? Departments historically have conflicts when their mandates dovetail a little bit or maybe overlap. Are you finding a conflict between Health Canada and CFIA in developing these types of mandates?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: No. In the area of biotechnology, absolutely not. I think we work extremely well with Health Canada.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Good. You see—those are simple questions with simple answers.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Ur, Madam Alarie, and then we'll go to Mr. Hilstrom.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the first page of your brief this morning, under “Safe Food and Consumer Protection” you state:

Together we have put in place a risk-based inspection system which we continue to modernize by adapting new and better methods of identifying and evaluating risks at an early stage.

With that in mind, I've had a lot of representations from people in my riding who own or run abattoirs. I realize some are under provincial jurisdiction while others are under federal jurisdiction. A lot of them are closing down because, as you state, you continue to modernize. These people can't afford the requirements that sometimes they feel go beyond reason of safety for the consumer. I wonder, do you ever go back and see some of these individuals when they present their cases?

I've visited with them, seen what their operations are about, and I can't understand why there are such regulations put forth that are really tying their hands behind their backs and putting them out of business.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can start, and maybe Dr. Evans would want to make his way to the table, as he is directly responsible for the animal products program. I'm not sure—my apologies—whether these are provincially licensed abattoirs or whether they're federally registered abattoirs.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: The ones who have visited me have been both, but one has been for exporting purposes.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: For exporting purposes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Again, I think what we have at the federal level is a very comprehensive set of regulations that have both stringent health and safety requirements as well as additional requirements that are required by international trading partners, so that we can have the recognition of our system meeting requirements, whether it be for Europe, South America, or the United States.

Our provincial colleagues have had somewhat of a patchwork of different systems for meat inspection regulations and application of the standards, and we've been doing work with the provinces to have a more standardized approach, what we call an outcome-based approach to regulations—the national meat code and regulations.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Right. But can you tell me how a heated kill floor or a paved parking lot are beneficial? How does that make sure the piece of meat I'm getting is going to be really safe? That kind of stupidity....

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: On whose part?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Whoever is making the rules. It's very frustrating when those kinds of things come forth. I have to try to sell it. My philosophy is, if I can't buy it, I sure as heck am not going to sell it.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Perhaps I'll defer to Dr. Evans at this point.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You're lucky you have Dr. Evans to defer to.

Mr. Brian Evans: I think my card and my number are well known, Rose-Marie, so you're welcome to call it anytime.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Good. Maybe you can share that with me.

Mr. Brian Evans: I recognize, as you say, that particularly small operators and people who are involved in the niche markets are certainly being impacted by a number of events.

In terms of establishing standards, I think Peter made reference to the fact that in a number of situations, particularly those abattoirs that do put product into the international marketplace, there are external factors—adjustments in pathogen reduction programs in other countries that become their domestic standard and must be met for import. That's in the European Union as well, although we try to work on the basis of equivalency that says you can achieve the same end by various means.

As you say, how a paved parking lot versus a gravel parking lot impacts on the food quality, other than the fact that perhaps if employees are walking through manure on gravel it's not as easy to hose it down and get the manure off.... I don't mean to go to extremes. But again, this is one of the difficulties we face in dealing with other countries' standards, when they try to impose them on imports, that aren't really outcome- or results-based.

If we can demonstrate in a number of cases—and this is where the discussions have to go on with some of the small operators—that the procedures and the operating conditions they have still produce a quality product or meet the same health standard, then that gives us the opportunity to try to work through an equivalence discussion with the importing country.

• 1025

In a lot of these situations, as I say, particularly those small establishments that are in the export field with the global food supply situation, a lot of countries establish a standard in their regulations and they then try to enforce it on the Canadian establishments that want access to that market. Although we do our best to try to deal with those situations, it isn't the easiest negotiation.

But certainly I agree that in niche markets—small poultry, quail, and pheasant operations—we're very sensitive to that reality. And as I say, we're very open to sitting down with the operators and looking at alternatives that we think we can then scientifically or regulatory-wise take to another country and say we think this achieves a standard. We can demonstrate by testing of the product, environmental sampling, or whatever. Hopefully through that we can minimize the types of adverse impacts you're talking about.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Alarie.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: My relationship with the Agency began when the scrapie crisis occurred. There was a crisis at that time and there was no president. The problems were significant and it was quite normal for Cabinet to discuss the matter since we had to find a solution to the crisis. I think that this crisis was well managed.

What I have a hard time understanding is that every time I ask a question about a given area that pertains to the Agency, it's as though there were a line that went directly to the Cabinet. I am never, never able to talk to an official from the Agency. When I call the Agency and ask a question about sea cucumbers or I draw your attention to another subject that has been raised by one of my constituents, I receive the answer from the Cabinet. In my opinion, this is not normal. And when I don't receive an answer from Cabinet, I have to go through the Office of the Commissioner of Access to Information. To obtain an answer to a simple question I asked one year ago, namely, what process do you follow in order to certify GMOs, it cost me $1,000 because I had to file my request with the Office of the Commissioner of Access to Information. I received boxes of petitions that I could send to you. Nevertheless, I still have not received the information I requested.

Last week, a constituent asked me why we could not buy grapefruit fibre in Canada. I do not even know what you do with grapefruit fibre, but I am conscientious as a member of Parliament and I asked you why we could not buy grapefruit fibre in Canada. Believe it or not, I was again told to go through the Office of the Commissioner of Access to Information and to shell out $5 in order to obtain the answer.

Do you have a service responsible for answering questions from MPs? Were you told not to answer MPs? My questions are not malicious in nature; I am passing on requests for information that my constituents have sent me. I don't think that we will be bothering anyone in Canada by trying to find out why grapefruit fibre is not sold here. I just want the answer. I feel a bit awkward with respect to this situation because, in all honesty, I want to answer the people who have asked me these questions and I want to do the work properly. I do not understand what is going on. Could you explain what is happening, please?

Mr. Larry Hillier: Thank you. First of all, I would like to answer your question about access to information. My response will not explain everything that happens, but I can tell you that one of the factors that justifies the intervention of a third party, in this case the Commissioner of Access to Information, is the fact that some information is trade-sensitive. We do not want to disclose information about companies or about the technologies that they use. This requires coordination and we have to ensure that we respect the rights of the companies. I realize that my answer will not satisfy you entirely nor will it explain the situations that you have described.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: No.

Mr. Larry Hillier: We feel that this is a very important factor because we are working in a relatively sensitive field. We consult our legal services to find out whether or not the information that we are planning to disclose will not violate the provisions of the Act. We want to be as open and transparent as possible and also comply with the requirements of the regulations. A great deal of information is posted on our Internet site so that we can meet the needs of industry stakeholders. Our objective is to adopt a transparent approach and to disclose information freely to the public.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: At any rate, my wish is that one day you will start answering my questions.

Let's go back to the example of the grapefruit fibre because I can't get over it. If it is banned in Canada, it is probably because no studies have been done or because there is no demand. I am not asking for information about a company or about very specific things. I want to be able to tell my constituents that this fibre is not marketed in Canada because there hasn't been any demand for it and therefore no analytical studies have been conducted. It would be easy to provide me with an answer like that and that is all that I would need.

• 1030

It annoys me when I'm told that, in order to obtain an answer to such a question, I have to go through the Office of the Commissioner of Access to Information and spend $5. It's not the $5 that hinders me because I already paid $1,000 a previous time and that didn't kill me. But I don't understand why.

Do you have a service that answers the enquiries made by people and by my research assistant, because I am not the one that calls, at any rate? Do you have a service that provides general answers to our general enquiries? If we ask more in-depth questions, I can understand your reluctance and the fact that you have to ensure that you are in compliance with your own laws. I am not against that at all. But do you have a service that replies to the public's general enquiries?

Mr. Larry Hillier: We have a communications office, and I could ask one of my officials to call you in order to confirm our guidelines.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: That would really make me happy. I will not have come here this morning for nothing.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In all these things we tend to forget about the primary producer. You don't hear him mentioned very much in any of these issues here, even though that's really what we're all doing here. But you said, Mr. Brackenridge, and I appreciate your candour, that in fact you're surprised by the feedback that's coming in on this medicated feed issue and the licensing and that. You mentioned that you talked to all the national associations and all the farmer associations. And that's what we found on this committee itself, that the committee tends to not want to talk to the primary producer.

I'm going to give you a suggestion that you can take back to the minister, that had you somehow built into your system of consultations talking to actual producers outside of their organizations, who also have a political agenda along with whatever else they're doing, and they're representing a broad spectrum of the farming community.... In fact, you need to consult directly with producers and you'll find that you won't be surprised by the feedback you get from them by doing that. That's a suggestion you can comment on.

In terms of cost recovery, which is really another name for user fees, somehow we have to have the government rethink their cost-recovery application of fees onto the primary producer. Everything we're talking about here today, including GMOs, is for the benefit of the consumer, the ultimate consumer of the product, and these user fees, these cost recoveries, have traditionally always been done out of the taxpayer's pocket—who is the consumer, since every taxpayer consumes. This government moved away from that over the past years. It's only when the minister is so embarrassed at the gouging he's doing of primary producers that he holds back on actually applying more fees.

A case in point would be the Canadian Grain Commission. The last $80 million that's going in there is from the taxpayers; it's not coming from the producers. It's just a case that he's embarrassed he couldn't do any more for it.

So I'm leaving those points with you, that somehow when you're discussing how to do cost recovery, I think you could look at the consumer somehow, as opposed to the primary producer all the time.

Do you have any comment in regard to those questions of user fees and how to get it over to the consumer, as opposed to the primary producer?

Mr. Larry Hillier: Thank you for the question.

I'd suggest again that we're looking at 2003 before we're back into the discussions formally on cost recovery. We intend to go forward with the guiding principles, and of course one of the key driving factors is that fees will only apply to activities from which a private benefit is obtained. From that perspective, it isn't just producers. In fact, when I talk about the $22.2 million paid in fees in terms of meat inspection, it was paid largely by meat processors across the country. And many of our fees, I'd venture to say the majority of them, are paid by processing establishments.

We've left the invitation on the table in terms of impacts for associations or individuals to make the case around the impact on their sector, for us to be able to consider that as we move forward with our plan to introduce the discussions around cost recovery leading up to 2003. So we certainly are open to those comments.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The problem that everybody recognized.... I guess it's up to the political parties to figure this out, but the farmer, the primary producer, is the only one who can't really pass along his costs and say “I'm not going to produce any wheat unless I get $5 a bushel for it”. That's what the problem is. Our government should look at the true user of some of these services, that being the consumer.

• 1035

You recognize that in fact the only reason these cost-recovery fees are put onto producers and others is because of government regulation. The government passes a regulation or law and then as a result it incurs a cost onto the production cycle, etc. So I'd like you to advance that argument also, that this is why the fee should come out of the taxpayer, as opposed to the primary producer, because if you didn't pass a regulation they would have their own safety things and whatever.

Mr. Larry Hillier: In fact the import-export certification process is a key one, which does generate fees from the point of view of export certification, a key element in terms of requirements to move products offshore, both from the raw product and processed product dimension.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, there are certainly two aspects, certainly the export and import in that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Murray.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to follow up on Madam Alarie's question about essentially access to information about food inspections.

A year or so ago I was warned by someone who works for your agency to be very cautious when buying olives. And this person would not go into any greater detail, but left me wondering, every time I had an olive, what was wrong with them. So where can we find out information on inspections themselves? For example, if you find x number of rodent hairs in a box of imported cookies or whatever, is it possible for us to find out the results of inspections? I realize that there can be all kinds of trade-related issues.

On a more personal note, has there ever been a time when you personally—and I'm addressing all three of you—have avoided some food product that has come into this country because you were aware of something wrong with the inspection, although perhaps it wasn't bad enough that it would keep it off the shelves, and this stuff was released to the general public?

As I say, this little comment about the olives I find quite disturbing. I wonder all the time now when I look at olives what it is that was wrong with them.

Mr. Larry Hillier: In particular, with respect to products coming into the country, we take that responsibility, as I mentioned in opening remarks, very seriously. And food safety investigations are becoming an increasing part of our delivery mechanism, making sure that in fact products domestically and internationally are safe for consumption by Canadians.

So if we find situations that do represent a risk, and that's based on an assessment by Health Canada supporting us, we in fact move ahead very quickly with a class one, class two, or class three recall and of course a very strong communication plan to make sure that Canadians are made aware of any risk they may be exposed to.

Mr. Ian Murray: Could I just interject for one second? Is it not possible we could have some filth that doesn't mean there's a risk to health but people still want to know about?

Mr. Larry Hillier: Again, our focus is health and safety, from that perspective, to make sure the product doesn't pose a risk to Canadians. That's our top priority, obviously.

On the second point, relating to ATIP, I have a comment on information on inspections. It's difficult, of course, to comment generally on that. The best way to approach it is to say that we'd need to see what the question is and understand what you'd like to obtain and then see if we can find a way to provide that information. Again, if there are commercial implications or third-party business interests, processes that may be patented, whatever, we need to look into that to obtain agreement to release the information. But we're certainly willing to work with you in providing—

Mr. Ian Murray: It's very similar to a debate going on in Ottawa right now about restaurant inspections, for example. A lot of people would like to know what restaurants pass, what restaurants fail, which have been warned to pull up their socks. It's very similar to the food inspection. It would be appropriate if there were some way Canadians can have a sense—maybe country by country, or product by product—of who has the best record in terms of health and safety. Maybe it's too ambitious, but it should be possible.

Mr. Larry Hillier: I take note of the point.

As a final comment, Mr. Chairman, I'd note that we had in 1999 seventy successful prosecutions because of our regulatory role, with fines in the range of $330,000. So it's certainly an increase in average fine and number of prosecutions. So we're looking at certainly being more visible—

Mr. Ian Murray: I assume that's all publicly available.

Mr. Larry Hillier: —and communicating that very aggressively.

Mr. Ian Murray: Information on why the fines are there is publicly available?

Mr. Larry Hillier: People are now aware of what kinds of products may be in question, and they can make their own informed decisions around purchasing.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thank you.

The Chair: So those olives go into your martinis?

Mr. Ian Murray: I'm not a martini drinker.

• 1040

The Chair: Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire: As a rhetorical question, do you expect in any decade soon that people will have the same attitude toward genetically modified foods as they have to the same sort of work that's being done in medicines today? There's nobody throwing rocks at pharmaceutical companies, or doctors' offices, or people who are trying to advance medicine using changed molecular structures or whatever. Yet when it comes to food, there are the alarmists—and we need alarmists. Do you think there will ever come a point where we'll have the same sort of acceptance of genetically modified foods as we do of cures in the medical field?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Maybe I can't answer that question very well, because in that situation, who knows? But I think our attitude has been that for food products to succeed, it will be dependent upon the strength of the regulatory system that's behind it. That's why we're so adamant about the fact that we have to keep a very strong regulatory framework in place, whether it be ourselves with environmental checks or whether it be Health Canada on the food safety checks. In order for products to be marketed, they have to be safe. People have to have confidence in what they're buying, and they have to know that it has gone through a very stringent system. People will make their own choices, presumably, and who knows what the future will bring?

Mr. Joe McGuire: But McCains were saying there's nothing wrong with the science; it's PR that we're lacking. If the science is there now, if the food is safe now and it's still not accepted, what do we have to do? Do we just wait this game out, or how do these products become acceptable? Is it just over time, or...?

As Margaret says, this is not stopping. It's getting more prolific, all these new foods. What are we doing wrong in getting our message out if there's a positive message there? I expect there are a lot of positive messages there. How come we're not getting it out to people and having people believe it? They will label everything and go to great expense that way.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Mr. Chair, again, there's no magic answer to this. There are probably communications experts who would make comment on what the general public looks upon, bureaucrats and public servants and the credibility, and all these types of things, and who is best to deliver messages.

We do have a lot of consultative processes underway. We work a lot with the Consumers' Association of Canada. We work a lot with the various regulated sectors. We explore different options. We provide our contribution from the standpoint of what the system is, what it does. We try to explore different vehicles through polling and other means that we think would be the best way to get information to people. But to be honest, it's a very strong challenge to try to meet.

The Chair: With that approach, one tries to prevent some of the polarization that has gone on for the last few years. These kinds of issues assume almost religious proportions, and the firmer the respective sides become, the more difficult it is to respond to some of these concerns.

Am I right, Mr. Hillier?

Mr. Larry Hillier: I wouldn't disagree.

The Chair: Okay, we're running out of time. I understand that the bell for voting can happen any time, and it's not necessarily going to be a 15-minute bell or a 30-minute bell. So we're asked to leap out of our seats as soon as we hear the bell.

I think Mr. Hilstrom has a short question.

Did you have a question, Mrs. Ur?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Only if you have time.

The Chair: We're into tiny questions here.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, I have a very short question.

I'm 100% in favour of Mr. Vanclief and yourselves doing everything possible to educate people on GMOs.

I've been corresponding as of late with Mr. David Suzuki. He seems to be getting all the news media coverage, and you folks and the government seem to be getting limited coverage. I'll read this statement to you. This is a direct quote from him. “At this time”—and this is May 14, 2000—“I cannot support the widespread use of genetically modified food crops because I believe that current testing has been inadequate and industry-biased.”

Do you agree with that statement? What do we tell the Canadian public to counteract...? Well, maybe you agree with it, but I doubt it. So what do you say to that?

• 1045

Ms. Margaret Kenny: When I hear a comment like that, my first concern is that it's a very broad, sweeping comment. All our regulations and all our guidelines and policies are available for anyone who wants to critique them. If someone has a specific concern with a specific information requirement we have, then we welcome that kind of input into improving our system. The statement you have read does not provide that.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you.

The Chair: Mrs. Ur, you have the final question.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: In your opinion, would consumers receive information on food safety better from Agriculture Canada or from Health Canada, or a combination of both?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Let me take us back to the brochure, “Food Safety and You”, which was distributed to every Canadian household. It was a joint effort of Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It received some public attention through the media, some of it good, some of it controversial, which was somewhat upsetting to us, because we thought it contained good information.

But having said that, as far as I'm concerned, I think we have to do it jointly. People have to recognize that the strength of our system is the checks and balances that are in place, with Health Canada setting standards and with us having a very qualified, dedicated, and committed staff actually enforcing the standards. So there are two aspects to the whole food safety system, and that's why it's important for us to be so close with Health Canada as we go forward with these messages.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I agree.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you for coming. I think today's session, at least for Margaret, serves as a bit of a dry run for what we'll be doing in a couple of weeks. So take this as a rehearsal, and I'm sure you'll come back even more fortified than heretofore.

Thanks to all of you.

The meeting is adjourned.