AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 12, 1998

• 0911

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. Good morning, everyone.

If you look on your agenda, we're going to do our witnesses first, the opening statements and questions and so on. Then we'll deal with Mr. Hill's motion on the dairy subcommittee. Then we go to adjournment.

The other complicating factor this morning is that in approximately one hour we have a vote in the House, so we'll have to decide whether we want to come back after that. I don't know your schedules or anything, but it will be at least 10:45, or later, before we come back here.

Mr. Chrétien.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): I'm going to ask my question right away since you've given me the floor.

In the Executive Committee, I asked you if we could talk about sheep scrapie and its effects and you told me I could bring it up this morning. May I still do so now?

[English]

The Chairman: It's up to you if you want to ask a question of the witnesses on scrapie, but I don't think we have a special time to discuss scrapie today. I don't think I said we would discuss scrapie today. I wasn't sure if scrapie came into some of these topics we had listed.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: In the Executive Committee, we submitted a list of topics that were of particular importance to us and that mainly concerned our regions. Since, in Quebec at the present time, cases of scrapie are becoming more and more frequent and costly, I put that topic on the list. You told me at that time that I could discuss it with the Food Inspection Agency when they came to the Committee. So, I would like to know if I can do so even though we didn't put that point on the agenda.

[English]

The Chairman: If you want to ask him that, you feel free. You can ask these witnesses any questions you want. If your topic is scrapie, then ask about scrapie.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Perfect. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just wondering about my motion. I doubt we'll get to it before the vote and I have doubts I'm going to be able to return after that, because I'm going to have to be in the House for the continuation of the report stage debate of Bill C-4. I may have to drop the motion or ask the committee's indulgence in putting it off until next week or whatever.

The Chairman: Is it agreed that the motion be postponed until next week?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Hill's motion will be tabled until next week.

Our witness are Mr. Brackenridge, director general from the Food Inspection Agency; Mr. Tom Beaver, chair of the task force on legislation; and Mark McCombs, director of legal services. Mr. Brackenridge.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge (Director General, Federal/Provincial Relations and Corporate Planning, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure for us to participate as witnesses this morning.

• 0915

Our objectives this morning are, first, to provide you with an overview of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency—or CFIA—legislative renewal initiative; second, to give you an update on our consultations to date; third, to answer any questions as best we can; and finally and most importantly, to receive any comments you may have to offer.

By way of background, the creation of the CFIA consolidated all federal food inspection and animal and plant health activities into one organization. It was an important step in enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the federal food inspection system. CFIA is responsible for the administration and/or enforcement of thirteen pieces of legislation. During the consultations on Bill C-60, the act to create the CFIA, we indicated that one of the first orders of business would be to undertake a comprehensive review of the legislation to identify opportunities for modernization and consolidation.

From comments received during our various consultations, it is believed that new legislation could facilitate a more uniform, consistent and comprehensive approach to food safety and quality standards; provide more effective and adequate compliance and enforcement mechanisms; contribute to a reduction in interprovincial trade barriers; address international trade requirements; and reduce overall system costs. Recognizing that food regulation and inspection is an area of shared jurisdiction among the various orders of government, it is important that the CFIA legislation provide a strong foundation for harmonized federal-provincial legal authorities.

I'll now ask Tom Beaver, the director of the task force, to provide you with an overview and update on the task force activities.

Mr. Tom Beaver (Chair, Task Force on Legislation, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you.

Mr. Chair, my comments are included on the handout that we left with the clerk this morning. I believe it has been passed around to you.

To begin with, I'd like to thank you, the chair and the committee, for an opportunity to discuss our legislative renewal initiative. My objective this morning is to outline our review process, which began in June; to discuss the scope and the policy context for our discussions with you; and also to set out the next steps—where we expect to go beyond the current round.

Peter has provided you with a bit of a background on our initiative. I would like to add a few points. First of all, the modernization of federal legislation covering animal and plant health, agricultural inputs, and food has already begun in earnest. Last year, when this committee approved the act to create the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, a number of consequential amendments to existing legislation were brought forward and approved at that time. For example, some of the legislation is very old. Contraventions to the legislation resulted in fines of $5,000 in some acts, and very short sentences in jail, while in other acts the fines were $50,000, and even $500,000 in others. There was quite a range of fines, and some of those things were just too inconsistent to live with. Within the agency bill, we therefore introduced amendments that were already passed.

As Peter also pointed out, this is a logical next step as we try to better redesign the programs and services of the agency to take a very hard look at the legislative base on which these programs are based and make sure they are up to the tasks that lie ahead. We are already looking around the world at what's going on in other countries in this regard. In fact, in virtually every jurisdiction, all legislatures are engaged in discussing their food laws. We have the benefit of doing it in a tranquil and serene environment. Our food supply is considered safe, is safe, and we are not living through a crisis as they are in Europe, in the U.S., and in other countries. We have the luxury of doing this in a very organized and routine manner, whereas some of the other countries are scrambling to try to get new laws and new prohibitions in place to protect their consumers.

As I mentioned, the task force was set up in June 1997, and the mandate of the task force was simply to prepare a plan and strategy for how to modernize and consolidate the agency's legislation. I'll explain the terms “modernization” and “consolidation” in a moment.

• 0920

Some of the guiding principles and objectives we set out for the task force are found in our consultation document. We want to ensure that the future legislation of the agency contributes to consumer confidence relating to the safety of the food supply and the health of animals and plants. We want to facilitate market access both domestically and internationally while protecting against product misrepresentation and economic fraud. And we want to ensure that our legislation is based primarily on science and risk assessment. These are goals that I think we all share. They're very important goals. There are a few other guiding objectives. They are in the book.

We began a consultation process last fall. The first order of business was to take a look at the 13 acts we administer and we billed it as an internal review. We identified a number of changes in the 13 acts, which we have now parked and which we are having more research done on. We are now in an external consultation phase and today represents one other part of that process. We prepared a document called “Legislative Renewal: Exploring Options for Legislative Change”. I believe it was passed out to you as well. It lays out a context for the discussions. We'll get into that in a moment. We have distributed 3,500 copies of this to provincial and territorial governments, industries and consumer groups. A long list of our regular clients have all received a copy of the booklet.

We have had a series of meetings across the country. We've met with all ten provinces. We have met with 46 industry associations to date, and had a total of 35 meetings. We've had discussions with about 300 individuals to date, similar to the one we're having today. So far we have received a number of submissions from industry associations, and we expect more in the very near future. We have asked all of the interested parties to get back to us by the end of February. We have spoken to a number of them recently and in fact it's fair to say that we have developed a high level of interest in this subject and we expect a number of very good submissions over the next few weeks to help us finalize our plans.

Once we have consolidated both our internal review and the comments from the interested stakeholders, including yourselves, we will prepare a plan that will be presented to the executive committee of the agency to whom we report at the end of March.

The next point of discussion is the agency's legislation itself. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act provides the agency with the authority to enforce and administer 13 pieces of federal legislation. We have grouped these 13 pieces of legislation for the sake of convenience of discussion. In food legislation we have five acts. We have the Canada Agricultural Products Act; the Meat Inspection Act; the Fish Inspection Act; the Food and Drugs Act as it relates to food, as opposed to drugs or medical devices—the enforcement of the food portion of that belongs to the agency; and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. We also administer the regulations pertaining to food labelling.

With respect to animal and plant health, those are two acts that are primarily a resource protection in nature. They are designed to control diseases in the animal and plant health populations.

Regarding agricultural inputs, feed, seeds, and fertilizers, this is more of an on-farm type of legislation—not on farm per se, but it's agricultural input legislation and there are three acts on feed, seeds, and fertilizers, as I mentioned.

Finally, there is one other group of legislation. It's the everything else category. It's the agency act itself, which has the structure of the agency but there are also some prohibitions and recall orders, for example, in that legislation. So that's part of our administrative tool kit.

We have an Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, which comes into effect in March or April—at the end of March. It's a civilian remedies provision so that everything by way of sanction doesn't have to run through the court system. It's an easier way to handle enforcement of the legislation.

• 0925

Finally, we have the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, which is a patent act, I guess. It allows companies to register unique varieties with us. We issue a patent for a period of time.

So we're blessed with a broad base of legislation, which is an advantage, and, as I'll show you later, also a bit of a disadvantage, in that these acts have grown up over the last five decades and some of them need updating badly. The Health of Animals Act and the plant health legislation are both newer pieces. They both belong in this decade, and we find through our internal review and through discussions with industry that there are not too many problems in these particular acts. They haven't presented us with any major challenges at this time.

I'm now going to deal with sources of issues. When we created the agency.... I've already mentioned this. Bill C-60 has already started the legislative renewal process and we have made a number of amendments to the bill. But at the standing committee on agriculture last fall a number of witnesses made the point to the committee and to us as well that it was fine to do our housekeeping work, get our house in order and get a brand new agency, but that we shouldn't forget the business we're in after the agency is created. They wanted us to take a hard look at the legislation and that was a bit of a starting point for these discussions.

Next is another part of the committee's agenda. The Fish Inspection Act, Bill C-60, was referred to you last fall. That act died on the order paper. The current Fish Inspection Act we're trying to administer was passed in 1948. That's even before I was born. It's quite old, like me, and needs a lot of revision. When that bill was before the House I think it was accepted as a very good bill, so we want to make sure we deal with that issue. It contains a lot of good enforcement law, a more modern way of administering these sectors. It had a lot of support from the fishing and fish-processing industry at the time and we hope we'll be able to package that properly and deal with it in this round.

In 1992 and 1993, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada and Health Canada both took very extensive regulatory reviews, which have resulted in long, legislative regulatory plans from those departments. During those reviews they identified issues that were not regulatory but legislative in nature. They identified a number of issues that we have now brought to our table to deal with by way of legislation.

And finally, now we are in the process of talking to consumers, industry and other stakeholders. And there's no doubt that other issues have already come to the table and will continue to. We'll deal with them in our plan.

Why now? And why are we doing all this so early in the life of the agency? As I mentioned, the acts are quite variable. Some are 50 years old and some are rather new. They were developed and administered by four separate departments before the creation of the agency—Agriculture, Industry, Health Canada and Fisheries and Oceans. They were adopted to deal with specific sectors and issues at the time, so it's not surprising that the legislation lacks some internal consistency. These discrepancies are difficult to live with because they treat the sectors very differently, and I think it's time now to take a hard look. This situation is not acceptable in the long term.

In addition to our own needs, we also signed an agreement with the provinces in 1994 under the Canadian Food Inspection System, the CFIS initiative. A blueprint was signed in 1994 by the Minister of Agriculture at that time. Part of the blueprint dealt with legislation and the inconsistencies in standards and requirements between the federal legislation and provincial statutes of the same nature.

• 0930

In 1994 there was an agreement in general that all governments would pursue a process by which they would harmonize or make equivalent their legislation, particularly dealing with food. The purpose of the harmonization was to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, have access to a safe and wholesome food supply, regardless of what jurisdiction that food supply is manufactured and distributed under.

There was also a discussion at that time about the trade aspects. With varying standards from province to province there were barriers to trade that were not necessarily good for consumers, so harmonization of standards and requirements would help eliminate some of these barriers.

In addition to my role as chair of the federal task force, the other job I hold is working with the provinces. What we're doing is creating a piece of model legislation. It's called the Model Food Act at this point. We hope to have it on the Ministers of Agriculture agenda in July, when they meet.

The Model Food Act, as we call it, is an attempt to agree to the core requirements both the federal and the provincial governments should have in their statutes. Once we establish the model, then we examine our legislation against the model and prepare changes to legislation.

All the provinces have endorsed this. They are all working with this now. A whole series of meetings are coming up over the next several months to deal with this matter.

I mentioned at the outset that we're using the words “consolidation” and “modernization”. I don't want to leave any ambiguity. Modernization simply means updating, incorporating new policy thrusts, and making the legislation easier to administer. Consolidation basically means taking several similar statutes and bringing them together into one. We have both goals; and I'll explain each in detail now.

On the consolidation front, the two questions—well, three, but generally two big questions—we're asking are whether we should combine our food legislation into one statute. I listed the statutes earlier: the Meat Inspection Act, the Fish Inspection Act, the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the food provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. Many countries are examining the feasibility of doing this right now. It brings the benefit of a more consistent and simplified administration for us, in that you can have inspection staff cross different sectors and still know what business they are in and how they should administer it. More importantly, it brings consistency to standards and requirements that the sectors are expected to meet by way of federal law. Enforcement and other administrative provisions can also be harmonized through this process. We've asked the question of stakeholders, and we still await their answer.

The second consolidation we are hoping to get some input on is whether we should combine feeds, seeds, and fertilizers legislation into a single statute. Currently the statutes are very short. At the moment they have to use different statutes in order to administer them effectively. At one point in the not-too-distant past these three pieces of legislation were in fact one. They were split off some 20 years ago, and now we're looking at actually bringing them back together again, but for a very good reason, basically the same reason as the food legislation I mentioned above.

Another consideration we are looking at is moving many of the administrative provisions that are in the current statutes into the agency act. For example, we have four different acts that allow us to set fees. The provisions and the means by which we set the fees of course vary from statute to statute—and we wonder why industry is sometimes confused. We really don't need four or five different provisions to set fees. We probably need one. That way we would have a better equitable treatment of the sectors.

These types of things we are all in the midst of discussing and coming up with solutions for.

Our research shows that several countries are considering the consolidation of statutes, as I said, particularly Australia and the EU countries. In fact, the EU currently are going through a very serious review of their legislation. They are at the end of that consultation process, as we are, and they hope to be able to recommend major changes. But one of the things they're really discussing, as we are, is reducing the number of statutes to have better consistency across the sectors.

• 0935

I'll now make more direct reference to our document. We've divided the debate into four topics for simplicity. First is flexible and simplified administration; second is international direction; third is working more harmoniously with our federal, provincial, and territorial governments; and fourth is merging issues we are now in the midst of debating and hoping we can bring them into the current legislative process.

For example, in the document on the matter of flexible and simplified administration, we're asking questions like whether the use of voluntary codes and other voluntary instruments can be expanded to complement government regulation. This is a process that other sectors have endorsed and are working toward. Also, on the role of non-government bodies, for example the Standards Council of Canada, we're asking how it might participate in the standards-making process.

This is not self-regulation by any means, but it's a way of making the whole business of regulating these industries easier to do.

Mr. Jay Hill: On a point of order, I just wonder how much longer the presentation is going to take. I notice we're rapidly cutting into the question time. With all due respect, Mr. Chrétien has a line of questioning he obviously wants to pursue with these guests.

The Chairman: How much longer will you take?

Mr. Tom Beaver: I could wrap up very quickly.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Tom Beaver: I'll take five minutes.

We are also looking at an adequate range of compliance and enforcement provisions and legislation and asking whether we have the full range of compliance and enforcement legislation we need.

In the international direction, we basically have three choices: we can keep up with the world, fall behind the world, or do nothing. I think it's quite apparent that with our international trade in food we want to make sure our legislative base is consistent with where the world is going, and continue to keep a good legislative base for Canadians and our trading partners.

On the federal-provincial-territorial harmonization, we want to make sure that what we do is consistent with the provinces and in keeping with our goal of an equivalent set of legislation across the spectrum.

For the sake of brevity, I'll just go to the final concluding comments.

We will end our current round of consultation in February and at that point we will try to bring all this broad information together and prepare a plan. We will deliver the plan at the end of March.

I'll be pleased to take any advice that's offered here today as part of the planning process. You also have our document, and we'd be pleased to hear from you later, which is more appropriate, I think.

Following the consultation process, we will begin the necessary approvals to proceed with legislative drafting. Of course, as you're aware, the ultimate decision to introduce legislation will be made by the minister and by cabinet in due order, but if all goes well we expect to come back before this committee to discuss a modernized set of legislative provisions maybe as early as the fall.

With that I'll end the presentation and be quite happy to take any questions you may have.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I think the way things are going today we may need you to come back before the 28th, because we'd like to have a little fuller discussion about what's going on here than we're going to be able to do today.

I was just wondering, before we go to Mr. Hill, on the harmonization of standards, whose standards are we looking at, provincial or our own?

Mr. Tom Beaver: The standards will hopefully be joint standards we can develop in partnership with the provinces, so we will not reduce federal standards to meet those.

• 0940

The Chairman: It won't be going down.

Mr. Tom Beaver: No. In fact, most of the provinces are introducing legislation as we speak and are introducing higher levels of standards.

The Chairman: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today. I have a number of questions that I certainly would pose, but I think I'm going to turn my seven minutes over to Mr. Chrétien so that he has a lengthened period of time to pursue his line of questioning.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Thank you, Mr. Hill. I think I just made a new friend this morning. I thank you very much and I'll try to return the favour.

I don't want to seem alarmist, but I would like to clear up a few things. It seems that there is more and more sheep scrapie and that this disease arose from the dispersion of the flock at the Lennoxville Experimental Farm.

I think we have to be very careful about what we say here and about the questions we ask since everything is going into the minutes. Besides, there is certainly at least one journalist in the room and we also have to watch out for public opinion, especially when we talk about a link between sheep scrapie and mad cow disease, given that it has been scientifically proven that there is no link since they're not of the same species, and even less so as concerns transmission to human beings.

This point having been cleared up, I would like to tell you that, in Quebec, following inspections done by your organization, we are seeing more and more farms where flocks have to be slaughtered. I have here a report that Gilles Rivard, a member of your staff, helped write and I'm going to quote a passage from it:

However, since the beginning of 1997, as of September 4th, 7 infected flocks have been identified, 3 of which were decimated. As of September 4th, by tracking back high-risk animals (to be destroyed) from just one decimated flock, Agency personnel were able to identify and order the destruction of sheep in 59 of the 84 flocks visited.

So, that's very disturbing. Could you give me, if possible, a brief rundown on the sheep flock situation as of yesterday, mainly in Quebec and in Canada?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you, Mr. Chrétien. Unfortunately, sheep scrapie is not within our jurisdiction. We have no information on that subject. However, I think we could note the topics that are of concern to you this morning and perhaps set up a meeting with someone who is up on the situation and who could answer your questions. Unfortunately, we are not in the animal health inspection division.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Then, let me ask you, Mr. Chairman. The Agency is supposed to come back on February 24th if my memory is correct. Clerk, is that the 19th or the 24th? If that's the case, could you commit yourself this morning to invite some people who could give us some information specifically on the sheep problem? Clerk, is it the 19th?

The Committee Clerk: No, I don't think so.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: It seems to me that we are supposed to have two meetings with the Food Inspection Agency. What is the other date then?

The Clerk: The second date has been changed, but I don't know yet when to. I could ask the officers and decide on a date.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Let me rephrase my question. Can you commit yourself this morning before the Committee to invite some people who are knowledgeable about the sheep scrapie issue to the next meeting with the Food Inspection Agency?

• 0945

[English]

The Chairman: I think we can do that, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I hope we'll get a date as soon as possible. I have no other questions.

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chrétien had raised this issue previously, Mr. Chairman, and it's very unfortunate that the guests weren't asked to come better prepared to address those questions.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chair, on a point of order, were the witnesses informed that they were going to be speaking on scrapie today?

Mr. Hill, they were not informed. I think that's an unfair statement.

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I know, but why weren't they? That's what I'm saying.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Your meeting was yesterday afternoon?

A voice: Yes.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chair, how long has the group been scheduled to come in?

The Chairman: About two weeks.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Thank you.

Perhaps that might help explain a little bit why they weren't—

The Chairman: They weren't requested to come in on a particular item of health or a disease, in this case scrapie. They were to come in to deal with the legislative task they were charged with on the Food Inspection Agency.

If we want to have a special meeting on scrapie or on disease, we can do that. It was mentioned by Mr. Chrétien in the list of things he wanted to discuss. He was told last Tuesday that all his suggestions were incorporated into the schedule except scrapie. You can check the transcript for that, but that is what I said. There was no intention today of discussing scrapie at all with these people.

If one of them had had expertise in it, then they could have answered Mr. Chrétien's questions, but obviously they don't, so we'll have to do it another day. We'll do it as soon as possible.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: At the next meeting with the Agency, we'll have somebody that knows the issue from A to Z.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll endeavour to do that, yes.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Thank you.

Mr. Jay Hill: My question is to the chairman then. How soon will we be calling some people back who can address this issue? They've indicated they might be back as early as this fall, right? Is that your intention, Mr. Chairman, to wait until the fall to address this issue?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: You're not paying attention.

The Chairman: We have a meeting scheduled for the 24th. Changes had to be made with the MAI people. We will endeavour to bring in the experts on scrapie at our earliest convenience.

Mr. Jay Hill: On the 24th? Is that the date?

The Chairman: No, I can't tell you that today. We'll have to see what the MAI people....

We can only do so many things at one time. The next time we come in, whether it's the 24th or the following Thursday, we'll bring them in. I can't tell you today exactly the date, because there are changes made in here. Changes had to be made with the meetings on the MAI.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

Mr. Brackenridge, you said one of the goals or objectives when Bill C-60 was brought in was to reduce overall systems costs. How do you feel you've done in that regard and what evidence can you provide to the committee that you have achieved that?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: We're working on that right now. It was intended to be a more effective and efficient way of arranging the system. By pulling together the four groups, we now have a more streamlined approach to dealing with food issues, more consistent across the stream.

Again, I don't have this morning a series of figures or numbers on that. We're continuing to work on it. It was seen as a transition period. The agency was created April 1, 1997. It was always understood the first year would be a period of transition, and we've been working on developments in regard to how to balance off the effectiveness, the efficiency components, the roles we have for food safety, the market access responsibilities, consumer protection, and things of that nature. So it's a big, wide swath that's being cut.

• 0950

We're looking at having a number of efficiencies put in place, whether they be of an operational nature or on the program support side of things. When you pull together a number of different groups of this nature, there are bound to be administrative efficiencies, and that's what we're exploring right now. I don't have with me the specific numbers and figures on that, but we expect that over the next year it will be quite obvious, and I'm sure the types of information that will be tabled by the minister will reflect the types of efficiencies we've achieved.

Mr. Jay Hill: So you've just about completed your first fiscal year then, I assume. How do you feel it's going to balance out for this year? Is it going to be a bit more costly, because you just had to get up and running, or is it going to be a kind of break-even proposition for this year, compared to the old system? You must have some handle on it.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: It's one of those things you don't like to speculate on. Certainly the savings, the economies associated with the creation of the agency, were targeted for 1998-99. We're just entering the 1998-99 period. We are trying to maximize the opportunities of workforce adjustment types of arrangements that were available to us in 1997-98. The creation of the agency on the human resources side provided two-year employment guarantees to the staff that came in. It makes it an interesting balance, I can say, in trying to deal with that.

We're looking at a new design of programs and things of that nature. That's why the legislative component is so important, to make sure we have the proper authorities. We're looking at a new regulatory approach where we call them outcome-based regulations, as opposed to being very prescriptive and defined.

We expect that we will achieve all of our targets in 1998-99. Personally I think things have gone extremely well, for what that's worth—maybe I have a bias on that—throughout 1997-98. The objectives that were established have been met, and I'm confident that we're going to be able to continue to meet the expectations.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): First of all, I would like to commend you on this legislative renewal. It is clear that, under the present system, as regards meat inspection, we must first, for transparency reasons, bring into question the present process and then try to adapt ourselves to very rapidly evolving technological processes.

While I was listening to you, several thoughts came to mind for setting out the base principal for a recommendation. Obviously, all this must be done with an eye to protecting consumers. We talked about transparency, we should talk about education, both at the industry level and at the level of the consumers as such, and we should talk especially about prevention and about means of enforcement when the law is broken.

Personally, I believe we should take certain things into consideration at the legislative process level, particularly as regards the link between the law governing pesticides and the meat inspection situation.

I understand from your presentation that this includes a number of acts. Do you not think that we could merge the act on pesticides and the present legislative process?

I am going to ask my questions all together and you can answer me after because I think it'll go faster that way.

Secondly, even if it's a global trend, I personally have problems with risk-based scientific inspection methods. I'm talking about HACCP as opposed to the direct inspection issue.

I can give you as an example the abattoir question, particularly small abattoirs. Obviously, when we're only talking about the provincial level, there are provincial standards. But, if an abattoir wants to do business in interprovincial or international markets, there is perhaps a grey zone. And the fact of being bound to industry, since we are talking about a system that is managed by industry but controlled by the State, leads, in my opinion, to far too many grey zones that could bring about real problems.

Don't you think we should take a good look at this HACCP system, even if it's what's being done at the international level.

I'm asking you this question about HACCP because I'm aware of consulting companies being set up to deal with this method and I also know that some retiring civil servants intend to join these consulting companies.

• 0955

It seems to be a promising market, and a former Ministry of Agriculture official can very likely land a contract faster than anybody else. It also seems that there are holes in the HACCP regulations.

I'm getting to my last point. I have had some problems with a chicken abattoir where there were cases of salmonella. It was at Clova. The owner had abattoirs at Clova, at Mont-Laurier and in the Val-d'Or area. The problem came from the way things were done even if its clear that the priority in meat inspection is the health of our citizens.

I would point out that the chickens at this abattoir came from the Coop fédérée in Drummondville and from Ontario. So, I wonder if, to the extent that we "play by the book", we are not being a bit too rigid on the question of eliminating flocks. If the trail had been followed all the way back to the co-op, I don't know how many chickens would have had to be killed.

I wonder then, since you talk so much about flexibility and adaptability in your legislative process, if we shouldn't take another look at the way this process is applied. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Tom Beaver: I'll start and Peter may add to the response.

I guess I neglected to point out that we're working as a team with Health Canada. The food standards remain with Health Canada in terms of the agencies, the enforcement arm at the federal level, but food health and safety standards, nutritional quality standards, are still with the Minister of Health. He's responsible for the administration part of the Food and Drug Act, for setting those standards.

The health department is now in its own review of the legislation, and I think when you see the proposal coming forward from the government you'll see that there's actually an attempt to strengthen and make more consistent the health and safety standards that would be covering all the sectors. Hopefully we'll be able to improve the health and safety standards at the federal level and make them applicable to all sectors. There are some inconsistencies at the moment.

The health department also administers the PMRA legislation. Of course, because we are working with them, this is an integrated team approach to the thing. PMRA indeed is a very important piece of legislation for the food supply, but it also has environmental connotations. That's why it's slightly off the food issue. No doubt any residue issues that have to do with meat or any other plant or animal health will be discussed as part of our legislative review. I believe the health department is currently reviewing PMRA legislation with the objective of updating and modernizing it.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: When you make legislative changes, that has a direct impact on all other related acts. Isn't that right?

[English]

Mr. Tom Beaver: But we are doing it at the same time. We're using a harmonized team approach.

The next issue is the tendency to risk-based standards. As you probably know, the Codex Alimentarius Commission of the FAO and the World Health Organization has been promoting outcome-based standards for a number of years.

We have recently had the experience of working with the provinces to establish for the first time a national dairy code. There was an agreement in principle at the officials level in Winnipeg a few months ago on a national dairy code so that all the provinces and the federal government will move forward to harmonizing dairy standards in the country. The issue of outcome-based regulations wasn't theoretical at this point. It was very practical.

• 1000

We had to try to deal with how to implement a national framework for dairy. Actually, the first few drafts of the national dairy code were rather outcome-based, but as we got closer to the final decision a lot of those outcome-based standards gave way to more rigid and prescriptive standards.

So the evolution is a mixture of outcome-based and prescriptive standards, always to ensure the legislation and the regulations are enforceable, and I think the attempt is to balance but not have outcome-based standards that can't be enforced.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I would just like to add a comment about meat. Tom mentioned the situation with dairy products. At present, Canadian food inspection system officers are attempting to establish national standards for meat. The situation is certainly far from clear for some companies that are wondering what's going to happen.

As far as international trade goes, it is just as important to know what should be done at the imports level as at the exports level. That's a completely different matter, but a study has been done and there is a paper on the subject. If you want a copy, just let us know.

As for the role of former Agency and Agriculture Canada employees, I can't comment on that because I'm not up on the question. In my opinion, there is no conflict. There is no problem with civil servants setting up a business to serve private customers after leaving the government. Perhaps you have other information though?

Mr. Denis Coderre: It would only be necessary to ensure that contracts are given to existing companies that don't have Agriculture Canada personnel, because it seems that companies get contracts much more easily when they have former civil servants on their staff. I don't know if that's true, but I'd like for you to check.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: The last comment I have to make concerns flexibility. I'm sure that Tom wants to make some other comments. I believe that flexibility is necessary to deal with each situation in the best possible way, but application methods have got to be consistent. I'm going to give the floor to Tom.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Proctor.

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

Mr. Beaver, you've indicated that there have been a number of submissions and that you're hearing from all the provinces and a number of other groups. I wonder if you could provide some insight to the committee this morning: Are there one, two, or three overriding issues that you're hearing? I appreciate that your consultation process is not yet quite complete, but it's going to wrap up at the end of the month, as I understand it. What are you hearing so far, in order of importance?

Mr. Tom Beaver: The judgment is still out. But having said that, there is general support for consolidation of legislation, coming from all quarters, particularly industry. They understand and know the discrepancies better than we do. Importers, for example, now in certain cases have to deal with three or four acts to get a product into the country, so they hope we can deal with those kinds of issues.

Also, as I said, the inconsistencies between the various acts were easier to live with, although not appropriate, when different ministers controlled the legislation. But now that it's all under one, it's more difficult to live with.

The comments are that they generally support the initiative and I guess will publicly support it as we move forward, but the idea of consolidation and modernizing and ensuring we have world class legislation seems to be on industry's mind.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Are you going across the country to meet, or are people coming here, or is it a combination of both?

Mr. Tom Beaver: We've had meetings from coast to coast. A number of the meetings were in Vancouver, and we actually go into the Maritimes later this week to meet another industry group. So we have been both in Ottawa and out.

• 1005

Mr. Dick Proctor: Are consumer groups part of this process as well?

Mr. Tom Beaver: We've been in contact with the Consumers' Association of Canada, which is the largest umbrella group here in Ottawa. We expect that they will invite us to meet with them, and we certainly expect a submission from that group.

We've also distributed our consultation document to a number of other non-agriculture and non-fisheries groups, to more consumer-oriented groups, and we expect to hear from them very soon.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I notice a concern about a question of food transportation on page seven. The question laid out here is “Are legislative changes required to address the food production continuum”? What is the issue or concern that exists there?

Mr. Tom Beaver: There's not much by way of legislation controlling food transportation at this point in time. We can regulate the sale of food, the manufacture of food, the development, the processing of food, but there's very little by way of actual transportation. It's an area in which there is just a lack of regulations, so the question is whether we need anything there.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Are we talking about transportation both into and out of our country?

Mr. Tom Beaver: Yes, certainly, both from the place of production to the place of processing, and also from processing to distribution. Of course that includes international as well as domestic.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you very much.

Mr. Tom Beaver: Thank you.

The Chairman: Paul.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): I think I'll continue the line of questioning that Mr. Proctor has just raised, and perhaps I'll just go to the issue.

I realize that you may not be prepared to look at the issue of pseudorabies. It brings up a great question. Canada has been concerned about pseudorabies coming into our country because of certain arrangements that we have, and this has been on our agenda for some time. Do you feel the new legislation, as you would anticipate it, would deal more harshly or severely with or would more adequately address the issue of pseudorabies coming into this country based on the way we deal with transportation? Because of its very nature, pseudorabies is transmitted not only in one way, but in many ways, and certainly through transmission by wind drift and that type of thing.

Mr. Tom Beaver: I'll attempt to answer that.

The answer I gave with respect to transportation dealt primarily with the food sector, not the live animal sector. We've been discussing these types of issues with the regulators of that program, but there hasn't been a whole lot of discussion on animal control issues or transportation issues at this point in time. We may go back now and ask for discussion on your specific issue, but nothing has been put forward to us in terms of there being a legislative problem. It could be another type of problem, and we may have the rules and sanctions in place to deal with this issue. The problem may also have another genesis, but I'm not sure.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I don't want to belabour this point, but having had it raised here, I think it's very important that you look at this again, because it's a serious issue. It's not a matter of trying to meet certain trade commitments. It's beyond all of that, because it's something you just simply don't eradicate by legislation; it's something you have to prevent. So we have to do preventative legislation in this case. I therefore ask you to please look at that issue.

The other thing I'm concerned about is consolidation. It's a wonderful concept, and I applaud you for doing that. Through the consolidation process, though, I'm wondering whether we're looking at the reduction of staff personnel or whether we're looking at cost savings. It was raised earlier.

At the personnel end of it, oftentimes when government bodies merge and there's consolidation, rather than a reduction of numbers—not that it is the end in itself or should be encouraged—we end up increasing bureaucracy. We also have the other side, where in many cases we've reduced our numbers to the point where we're no longer being effective. How do you see that whole thing emerging?

Mr. Tom Beaver: Mr. Chair, at this point we're trying to deal with the legislative provisions and we're not spending a good deal of time on the program administration. Obviously, though, there is a link between the two.

• 1010

This is an attempt to allow for, on the efficiency side, better utilization of staff across the various sectors. We want to be able to have the type of inspector who can go from a meat plant to a fish plant, for example, to actually increase our efficiency. This is not a part of a larger upscaling or downscaling. It is hopefully a “right-sizing” of the legislation.

There have been no discussions as to the implications even for the programs at this point in time, except for the fact that it would undoubtedly be easier to administer our broad range of programs. We do have a broad range. We're the envy of the world for having that range because we cover gate to plate from an enforcement point of view. But there is lots to do, and the legislation efficiencies gained could probably translate into better programming.

Mr. Paul Steckle: In the consolidation process, are we in harmony with what the Americans are doing? We're talking about a world-class update and we want legislation that is world-class, as you had mentioned earlier. Are the Americans in tune with what we are doing? Are we coming into line with they've already done?

So much of what we do translates into trade across international borders. It's always been the view, as I understand what we have attempted to do in the most recent years, that we should try to do things so that we don't become repetitious and repeat the process. This should be the ultimate objective of this overhaul, as I would see it. How do you feel about that?

Mr. Tom Beaver: I have two answers to that. One, the American budget process has just set aside $450,000 for the American Academy of Sciences to study consolidation of the existing programs of the Food and Drug Administration in agriculture. They're looking at our model—the CFIA model, essentially—of bringing their organization together as we did, for the same reason we did it, to bring the efficiencies.

From the organizational point of view, it would be immodest to say this, but we're probably ahead of them. They have in fact been contemplating reorganizing their system for some years, and are now taking much more direct action and are seriously studying consolidation.

On the legislative front, there's the presidential commission on food, which is pursuing a five-point plan, and part of that plan is updating their legislation similar to ours. They have been working at the regulatory level at this point in time. They've introduced regulation pertaining to salmonella contamination rates and E. coli. Those regulations were introduced, I think, in 1996. So they are pursing the legislative agenda, but slightly more modestly. The U.S. already has a model act, which has been adopted by the federal government and many of the states. So in effect we are pursuing their objective to this point—trying to have harmonious legislation.

We have reviewed the model act, and of course it will be taken into consideration as we develop the national model. The U.S. is our biggest trading partner both ways. The gate may be in the U.S. and the plate in Canada, and vice versa in a lot of cases, so it's very important that we work very closely to make sure that the legislative basis in these two countries at least is very much in harmony or equivalency.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I have just one short, little question, on a follow-up to one of my first questions in terms of the movement of live hogs back and forth. Let's take the empty vehicle coming back. Even though we're moving live hogs into the U.S., there are empty vehicles coming back. What jurisdiction do you have or do you foresee in terms of new legislation or regulations in governance of that kind of activity?

Mr. Tom Beaver: You've actually hit the nail on the head. That's where we lack regulation up to a point, and that's the area we are looking at now.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I would encourage you to pursue that with due diligence.

Mr. Tom Beaver: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: The last question by my friend Mr. Steckle was very pertinent and I appreciate the way you answered it.

• 1015

I would like to know what is the percentage and the number of workers that were laid off following the establishment, over a year ago, of the Food Inspection Agency.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I don't think anybody was laid off following the creation of the Agency. At the Agency, there is a two year guarantee for Agriculture Canada, Fisheries and Oceans and Health Canada employees who came to the Agency. Because of this two year guarantee, people can't be laid off, but we are looking for people who would leave the organization voluntarily. There are support programs and we are looking at how many people would be interested in leaving voluntarily.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I'm asking the question because in some places an experimental program has been put in place. In the Joliette and Brandon areas, 12 inspectors were replaced by two who were supposed to do the same work. That worked for a while, but they went back to where they started because of pressure brought to bear by certain people, me being one of them.

It seems they now want to go back to that way of operating. If you start with 12 and go down to two, some people will surely have to give up their jobs at all the abattoirs.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: That is part of the same equation because we are also redirecting the programs. I'm not an expert on the situation in Joliette, but it was a pilot project designed to test a situation and a system.

What we really want to do is evaluate the present system. Are inspectors needed in the present system? Are there other risk-based priorities? Are there other places in the system where more inspectors are needed than at present? We're trying to evaluate all that.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: If two people can do the same work today as 12 did before, I can only conclude that it was really badly administered. If that is not the case, I would conclude that the health of our citizens will probably be at risk in the medium term, if only two people are assigned to supervise the slaughter of 5,400 chickens an hour. What do you think?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I'm not an expert on the question, but it's not the same work. The 12 people were not doing the same work as the two people now. In a factory inspection, they check that the employees are capable of assessing the carcasses that are passing in front of their eyes.

In the government, we want to assess the possibilities and do more checking on what is happening in the factories. It is perhaps not necessary that it be a government employee that checks all the carcasses going through a factory.

So, it isn't exactly the same work and you can't compare the work of the 12 people with that of the two new people. It's not just a cut, it's another kind of work.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I want to come back to Mr. Steckle's question on the exportation of pigs on the hoof to the U.S. when we don't have any control over the trucks that might come back contaminated. I'm thinking, for example, of rhinitis, which is a quite contagious hog disease. It would be worthwhile looking into whether it would be appropriate to assess this health issue. That's not a question, it's just a suggestion.

I have a very practical question. In Canada, the use of rBST to increase the milk production of our good cows is banned. At present, we are importing more and more butter oil, a large portion of which comes from Mexico where, it seems, they use large doses of rBST to increase milk production. And it seems you can't test for that here. We have banned rBST because they still have some doubts at Health Canada, but Canadians may be eating rBST in their ice cream. What do you think about that?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Again, I must say that I'm not an expert on rBST and I'm not up to date on the situation.

• 1020

I also don't know what tests are done to detect rBST in dairy products. I don't know what exactly the situation is.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I'm going to come back to this question. I think we should be able to find the answer.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I could come back with somebody that knows more about the subject than I do.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: My last question is on growth hormones. I imagine it's the same thing and that growth hormones can be detected if they exceed authorized limits.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I couldn't say. I don't know.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Excuse me.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: But I can pass your comments on to the Agency and come back with answers the next time.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks, gentlemen, for being here.

On page 7 in your legislative renewal document, point 2.2, “Opportunities and Emerging Issues”, I looked at that, because with respect to the challenges that come from the emerging issues these challenges do bring opportunities.

I want to ask about food labelling. You're saying there are pressures to adopt international food-labelling rules. I sense that we're also going to hear and see more demands for requests for food labelling domestically. Of course it can't help but include the labelling following any approval in the future—if there is approval—of rBST.

I have a second question, and I should know the answer because I've retailed a lot of agricultural products. Is it a requirement that labelling has to exist for the country of origin?

Also, when we have inspection services.... And it's fine when things are inspected in the midwest United States to be exported to Canada, but sometimes people are not as sure about the standards in some of the other countries around the world. We have to work together. I just wondered if you could share some thoughts on that with us.

Mr. Tom Beaver: With respect to the first point, we currently have authority to label products for health and safety reasons, for economic fraud reasons and for reasons of fair market practice. Those are mandatory requirements and we have the law in place to enforce those three areas. When you go beyond that, we don't have the law in place.

So with respect to rBST—that might be a genetically modified organism, for example—I think if the industry decided voluntarily to label a product, they could go ahead and do that, but there is no requirement at this point to make them do that. Country of origin is required on product.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick, the bells are starting to ring, but we think it's a 30-minute bell, so there's no rush to go to the House for a vote.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Maybe I could just comment briefly on Mr. McCormick's question about recognition of other systems. Again, it's an area we're looking at and the legislative task force will be interested in opinions on it. There is a variety of different situations right now. There's a very strict situation with the meat inspection, where each individual company that may be shipping to Canada must have its labels registered and there must be recognition.

We have some other systems in the fruit and vegetable sector. We do a foreign assessment based on the types of documentation they submit to us. So again, it's from the standpoint of the most effective system. We're trying to determine as best we can how equivalent a system they have and then audit product or verify product when it comes to the border to ensure that it complies.

• 1025

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

Mr. Beaver, you mentioned how groups could possibly use the labelling of a biotech-produced product. I've put this on the floor before, and I'm not looking forward to pushing it, but it's going to be pushed. An issue in the United States this year is Ben & Jerry's request to label rBST-free ice cream. Biotech is fascinating and wonderful, and I believe in the great safety in the supply of our food here, but I just wonder whether our law allowing for labelling is different from that of the United States.

Mr. Tom Beaver: I'm not familiar with the situation in the U.S. with respect to labelling. I do believe it has introduced new labelling provisions. I've heard about that, but we haven't studied it and it hasn't come to my attention to this point. But we will be considering labelling as part of our review, and hopefully the people at the agency who are responsible for labelling will ensure that whatever we do is in keeping with our Canadian interests and those of our trading partners.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I believe there's a product in the United States called tomato savers. It's an altered tomato that is being widely accepted. It's been approved and is healthy and all that. And of course what is genetically altered? I mean, we could spend a lot of time on that for a few years. If this tomato or squash were produced and is being marketed and yet I have the one that's not, whether it's organic or not, could the producer label that as such today here in this country?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I seem to be qualifying every answer. Sorry if we've missed the mark in what the questions may have been with our lack of expertise.

I think that type of thing falls under the truth-in-advertising side. Part of the challenge is being able to demonstrate that it has been either produced under a certain set of conditions or is rBST-free, as in the previous example. How do you actually demonstrate that? How does the consumer know the information on the label is true? That's quite a challenge. You have to have an appropriate type of framework to be able to support the type of claim you're making. I don't think there's a problem making the claim if you can show you have a system to be able to demonstrate that it's in fact truthful.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I think the record should show there is a 30-minute bell sounding, and although we have made arrangements for the expert witnesses to be here, the only members who have chosen to stay and question the witnesses are the Liberal members. So in future if there are any repercussions from our Reform colleagues, the record should show that they chose to leave the meeting early. Thank you.

The Chairman: I'm sure you'll remember that, Paul.

Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I have a further question, if I might. I would ask that the rest of my Liberal colleagues remain with me while I ask this question.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I just told him I was sneaking out.

An hon. member: We're with you.

Mr. Paul Steckle: The question is this. It goes somewhat back to the question my colleague, Mr. McCormick, asked. We know that in the past many products have come into Canada that were grown and chemicalized with products that were not allowed in Canada. I name specifically corn, where a product accent was used that is now legally used in Canada, but at the time it was brought in, in great numbers, for the human consumption industry, we did not allow the chemical to be used here but were bringing in the product.

Is there anything in the future...? And I guess that's why we need consistency in terms of what we allow to be used here. That comes under the PMRA, and I understand that. In the consolidation and the processes you've gone through in the consultations you've held, has this been brought to your attention? While we can't do a certain thing in Canada, we can bring in the finished product, such as apples from California that have been treated with a product we know is used there, but we can't use it here. The same thing would apply in many other products.

• 1030

I don't think we're fearful of the product and I don't want to be fearmongering. That's not the point. The point is that I believe there are certain products we should be using and could be using safely here in Canada, and I suggest that we should always consider the safety of food when we do these things.

We're bringing in products that are treated, which we can do here. How do we address that problem in the future?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Perhaps Tom could speak briefly to whether we've heard anything on the subject. It's certainly not a new subject from the standpoint of understanding that it's an issue. I guess the Pest Management Regulatory Agency is really the group that's dealing with the legislation, the registration of the chemicals allowed for use, and that type of thing.

Certainly there's an actionable level specified under the Food and Drugs Act for certain components and compounds. Again, because of the differing Canadian and U.S. approaches to dealing with that, it has created some issues. Personally, I'm not up to speed as to exactly where it's at. I know it's an issue that the Canadian Horticultural Council and the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, for example, have been working on very closely with the PMRA and Health Canada colleagues as far as what the standards themselves are.

I believe there's been a Canada-U.S. group and there may even be a NAFTA group now that's dealing with the levels of acceptable compounds, the approval processes, and trying to streamline those types of things. That's about the base of my awareness on this.

Tom, I don't know whether any groups have specifically referenced that in the consultations to date.

Mr. Tom Beaver: There have been some internal discussions and we also expect the external stakeholders to bring some of these matters to our attention.

One of the issues is the standard-making authority. As I mentioned earlier, we now have several statutes that have what we call compositional standards making authority within them. They define what is a thing. There are not a lot of discrepancies but there are a few. The compositional standard in one piece of legislation is slightly different from another. Those things will have to be addressed and if we consolidate or even if we don't consolidate, we are not going to live much longer with this inconsistency from one statute to another with respect to standards.

That is certainly on our agenda as a modernization issue. If we put it all under one act we can't have different standards, but we can now and we do under the Meat Inspection Act, the CAPS Act, the Food and Drugs Act, etc.

The compositional standards may in fact sometimes be food health and safety just by their very nature, things like peanut allergies and the like. It doesn't look like it's a toxic substance, but a non-toxic substance to some people is death to others.

Hopefully we are dealing with that matter. We'll try to bring some uniformity to Canadian compositional standards.

The Chairman: Mr. Beaver, it's inevitable that when you do things like this with the provinces, with different departments, somebody loses. Especially in maritime communities, where they have an agricultural inspection office, a fisheries inspection office, and sometimes a health inspection office, when they are put into one office there are two or more offices closed.

Are you having any problems? Does their location take precedence over ours or does agriculture take precedence over fisheries? How do you come to decide which offices stay open and who gets the further training, whether it's agriculture officials or fisheries officials?

Mr. Tom Beaver: We haven't been addressing that particular issue of program delivery as of yet. Despite the old legislation, the fisheries program has done a very good job of modernizing their program. They've moved people out of the plants but increased the safety of the product coming out at the same time, using this HACCP approach that we all know.

There's also an experiment now in the poultry programs, which I think was referred to by Mr. Chrétien a while ago. In fact it's just a different approach. In the case of the fisheries program, I know that what they were able to do with reducing the presence in the plant has actually increased the safety of the overall system. They were then able to move out of a routine, production line kind of approach, which is rather controllable, and put more money and people into aquaculture, which tends to be more dangerous. So there haven't been overall efficiencies, but more targeting of the risky areas by way of redesigning and delivering the program. Hopefully the consolidation will not disrupt the delivery. In fact it should enhance it.

• 1035

The Chairman: This morning we got a little off track with scrapies, and with the very emotional bill being debated in the House this morning we sort of lost our—

Mr. Larry McCormick: A very popular bill.

The Chairman: —focus here a bit. But I think we should bring you back before the end of February to give us better input into what you're doing on the legislative side in this process.

Thank you very much for coming this morning. It's too bad we're having a vote that is interrupting everything, but these things happen.

Mr. Tom Beaver: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'd be happy to come back and further discuss this matter.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.