AGRI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

1110

The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.))

Dr. John Taylor (Director, Animal Industry Branch, Department of Agriculture and Food of Manitoba)

The Chair

Dr. Merv Baker (Director, Food of Animal Origin Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

1115

The Chair

Dr. John Taylor

1120

1125

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance)

1130

Dr. Tom Baker (Director, Food Inspection Branch, Department of Agriculture and Food of Ontario)

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Tom Baker

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. John Taylor

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. John Taylor

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

1135

Dr. Merv Baker

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Merv Baker

1140

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. John Taylor

Dr. Tom Baker

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.)

Dr. Merv Baker

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Merv Baker

1145

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Merv Baker

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. John Taylor

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. John Taylor

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. John Taylor

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Tom Baker

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Dr. John Taylor

Mr. Rick Borotsik

1150

Dr. John Taylor

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. John Taylor

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Merv Baker

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

1155

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. Gérard Binet

Dr. Merv Baker

Dr. Tom Baker

The Chair

Dr. John Taylor

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

1200

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Merv Baker

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Merv Baker

The Chair

Dr. Merv Baker

The Chair

Dr. Tom Baker

The Chair

Dr. Tom Baker

The Chair

Dr. Merv Baker

The Chair

Dr. Merv Baker

The Chair

Dr. John Taylor

The Chair

Dr. Sarah Kahn (Director, Animal Health and Production Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

1220

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

1225

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance)

Dr. Sarah Kahn

1230

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. Dick Proctor

1235

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

1240

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Sarah Kahn

1245

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Sarah Kahn

1250

Mr. Dick Proctor

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Sarah Kahn

Mr. David Anderson

Dr. Sarah Kahn

The Chair

Dr. Sarah Kahn

The Chair

Dr. Sarah Kahn

The Chair

1255

Dr. Sarah Kahn

The Chair

Dr. Sarah Kahn

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

NUMBER 017

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1110)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call the meeting to order, as I see quorum.

We have this morning a number of witnesses with us. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have with us Dr. Merv Baker, Director of Food of Animal Origin Division; from the Department of Agriculture and Food of Manitoba, Dr. John Taylor, Director of Animal Husbandry Branch; and from the Department of Agriculture and Food of Ontario, Dr. Tom Baker, Director of Food Inspection Branch.

We look forward, over the next hour, to having a productive time. We will also be meeting with other witnesses at 12 o'clock for the remaining hour, so we want to begin.

How many people are speaking this morning? Two people. We will ask that you limit your time to at most 15 minutes combined.

Dr. John Taylor (Director, Animal Industry Branch, Department of Agriculture and Food of Manitoba): I'll try to limit it.

The Chair: We have to, because of the time constraints we have. We don't want to limit witnesses giving their important issues, but we also have to have time.

Let's see how it goes. Try to limit yourself. Give us the facts as concisely as possible.

We'll begin. Dr. Baker is first.

Dr. Merv Baker (Director, Food of Animal Origin Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to provide some background information on this issue.

Currently there is a variety of approaches to meat inspection in Canada applied by different levels of government and applied at various places in the supply chain. The federal system administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is the largest component, overseeing the slaughter and processing of more than 90% of the meat produced in Canada.

Under the authority of the Meat Inspection Act and regulations, the federal system covers the inspection of all meat and meat products moved interprovincially, exported from, or imported into Canada. If a meat plant wants to trade internationally, it must be federally registered and inspected. The federal meat inspection system enables the export of Canadian meat and meat products to over 100 countries.

The provinces apply their own mandatory and in some cases voluntary measures for meat and poultry products consumed only within their borders. There's been some movement towards harmonizing federal and provincial standards for meat inspection through the development of a national code. The main benefit from this would be to set a consistent standard of food safety for all Canadians, no matter where they live.

The code is also seen as a means to reduce internal trade barriers by establishing the code as the basis for interprovincial trade in meat and meat products.

In spite of these potential benefits, there is as yet no unanimity among the provinces on the adoption and enforcement of such a code.

To explain some of the challenges, I'd like to go back about ten years to 1993 when the federal and provincial governments developed a blueprint for a Canadian food inspection system that proposed significant changes to food inspection activities carried out by all levels of government across Canada. The intent was to provide a high-quality and safe food supply for Canadians, to harmonize standards, to reduce barriers to trade and regulatory pressures on industry, and to make the inspection system more cost-effective and science-based.

The development of national codes was seen as the primary tool to achieve these goals. For example, a national dairy code was one of the first to be developed, and the provinces and territories are now in the process of implementing it. The CFIA and Health Canada are in the process of incorporating some of the dairy code into their regulations as well.

In October 2000, the Canadian Food Inspection System Implementation Group approved the national meat and poultry regulations and code, commonly referred to as the meat code. In 2002, a parallel review was initiated to determine to what extent the new code could be regarded as equivalent to the federal regulations, policies, and guidelines related to food safety.

It must be remembered that the CFIS Implementation Group is an intergovernmental committee, and as such it is not a law-making body, and therefore proposed regulations and codes are not enforceable unless endorsed and adopted by each respective government.

The federal government, along with Ontario, carried out the parallel review. The committee struck to conduct the assessment concluded that the meat code is equivalent to federal food safety requirements and that the meat code is an adequate and acceptable safety standard for domestic meat slaughter and processing. In other words, it's a good code.

The CFIA has indicated agreement with the results of the review, with some qualifications related to differing views on the significance of a number of non-equivalent food safety issues. However, with appropriate amendments, an active ongoing amendment process, and effective implementation, the CFIA does believe that the meat code could serve as the basis for provincial meat inspection systems capable of achieving food safety outcomes comparable with those of the federal meat inspection system.

The code is now in the hands of provincial governments for consideration of regulatory amendments and allocation of resources for enforcement. It is understood that stakeholders within the provinces either have been or will be consulted.

Á (1115)

It is becoming clear that the implementation and enforcement of a harmonized national meat code will not be easy. In some cases there will be costs for both industry and governments associated with the move to the new standards.

Mr. Chairman, the federal and provincial governments have all agreed on a code to enhance the safety of the meat and poultry system across Canada. It should be implemented and enforced by the provinces, with appropriate sections adopted by the federal government where it would improve the federal system.

Our understanding is that some provinces are moving ahead with appropriate changes to legislation and regulations. Through the CFIS Implementation Group, we have asked for an indication from all provinces of their intentions with regard to the code.

What is the position of the CFIA on the meat code, Mr. Chairman? I'll make three points.

First, it is our position that the code should be built upon the unanimous agreement of the provinces to endorse, adopt, and enforce the code. Unanimous agreement will set a consistent standard for food safety across Canada.

Second, because we recognize the possibility that not all provinces, in the end, will choose to implement and enforce the code, we have asked each of them to tell us what their intentions are with respect to the code.

Third, we have asked the provinces to suggest how they would see the meat code operating in the event that we do not have unanimous endorsement by all provinces. How will the system function if there's less than unanimous implementation and enforcement of the code, and how should the CFIA respond to such a scenario?

Mr. Chairman, the CFIA believes implementation of a national code would benefit consumers and could create a nation-wide marketplace that would benefit producers and processors. Federal, provincial, and territorial officials have worked hard on this code, and we continue to demonstrate our support. For example, we are participating on a working committee that was formed under the CFIS to develop an oversight mechanism for the meat code. We believe we have a good code. We now want to encourage implementation and enforcement of the standards.

The CFIA will continue to do its part, including participating in the amendment process for ongoing improvement of the code, contributing to discussions and possible oversight mechanisms, and fulfilling other requirements that may be asked of us.

At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, we all want a food inspection system that sets high standards for food safety and consumer protection, enhances Canada's international reputation for safe, high-quality food, contributes to the branding of Canadian products, and creates opportunities for producers and processors within the broader Canadian market.

Thank you for inviting me here today, Mr. Chairman. I'd be pleased to answer any questions members may raise at the appropriate time.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Baker. You have been succinct, and we appreciate that. There will be questions later.

Dr. Taylor.

Dr. John Taylor: Thank you very much for the invitation to make a presentation to you. Dr. Baker and I very much appreciate the opportunity to put forward some proposals on the national meat and poultry regulations and code.

I'm making a presentation on behalf of Roseann Wowchuk, the Minister of Agriculture and Food in Manitoba. Dr. Baker is here to help answer questions on the regulations code, as he was on the committee that developed it.

As Dr. Merv Baker indicated, the code was developed and put in place by the Canadian Food Inspection System Implementation Group, which is responsible for implementing the blueprint for the Canadian food inspection system, which was approved by ministers in 1994. CFIA, Health Canada, and the provinces and territories are all involved.

As Dr. Baker indicated, the majority of the meat slaughtered and processed in Canada is done in large, federally inspected plants. From a provincial point of view, the Meat Inspection Act restricts the interprovincial trade of meat products to federally registered plants. In the provinces the slaughter and processing of locally produced livestock--in particular, sheep, lamb, veal, bison, deer, and elk--are primarily carried out in plants that are provincially licensed and inspected. Western Canada in particular has seen a tremendous growth in these industries since the change in the Crow rate. Ontario has seen a great increase in lamb production.

These plants are an important part of rural sustainability in all jurisdictions. Their products are not allowed to cross provincial borders or enter federally registered storage facilities. With the consolidation of the retail markets that we're starting to see, it's difficult for these plants to get shelving space. It allows competitive products, such as lamb and venison, to get onto the retail shelves at the expense of our locally produced product.

In Manitoba there have been discussions with our small plants with regard to being able to ship interprovincially. There's one very good plant, Pioneer Meats, in Altona in southern Manitoba. The family has grown up and joined the business, and they want to move product interprovincially. However, federal legislation doesn't allow this.

Meat inspection in Canada, as Dr. Baker indicated earlier, is a very complex situation, with federal, provincial, and municipal authorities involved. The consequences are extensive gaps, excessive legislative burden, increased impediments through trade barriers, and less than the most efficient deployment of resources to focus on areas of greatest risk.

In my discussions with Mr. Proctor last summer, we discussed some of the issues around the slaughter of elk, bison, and deer. As you can appreciate, there's only a small number of plants that do that, let alone are able to ship product interprovincially. Besides the lack of local elk and deer processors that can move product interprovincially, the industry is also faced with trade barriers, mainly based on the disposal of entrails and diseases such as CWD and P. tenuis, which do not allow animals access to plants in other provinces. There has to be some development of local packing plants that will allow their product to be shipped interprovincially.

Internationally, Australia has developed a system to allow the interstate movement of meat. In the U.S. there has been some consideration of allowing the interstate shipment of meat from their state plants.

In Canada we need, as Dr. Baker indicated, a single meat inspection system that will allow uniform food safety for meat across Canada while not creating a burden on the small plants.

In Canada we have five levels of meat inspection: the federal system, a joint federal-provincial system, provincial mandatory and voluntary systems, and in some areas we have no inspections at all. Even among the provincial governments we have some different inspection requirements. In the second chapter of the presentation I gave you it shows the differences among the provinces for the licensing and inspection of slaughter and processing and inspection required for the retail level.

If you go back about five years, ministers of agriculture discussed a national standard for meat inspection. They concluded that they didn't want anything that was too stringent because it would have a significant negative impact on small plants in rural parts of the provinces and territories across Canada.

Given the very diverse standards, major driving forces for national standards created by international and domestic trade agreements, and market forces driven by retail chains that want a higher food safety standard and are starting to limit their purchases to federally inspected meat, the federal government and the provinces and territories developed the national meat and poultry regulations and code. The provinces and territories expected that this would allow for the interprovincial shipment of meat.

Á (1120)

At a meeting in Calgary about a year ago the CFIA expressed concern as to whether the meat and poultry code was equivalent to the federal legislation and in fact adequate for interprovincial trade. Representatives around the table were really astounded at this, because CFIA had led the discussions on the development of the regulations and code. The code had met Canadian legislation and international standards, and besides that we had the Canadian Meat Council and Ontario Independent Meat Processors at the table in the development of this document from 1996 to 2000.

Subsequent to that we had the inspection agency, Health Canada, and Ontario look at the regulations and code and compare it to the federal meat legislation. Generally it was concluded it was equivalent but there should be some minor changes to it, and it is hoped this will be incorporated by 2003.

During the same time, our Department of Agriculture had some discussions with the president of the CFIA to see whether we could move this discussion up to the deputy ministers and do a pilot project in western Canada. CFIA rejected this and said it should be all provinces.

Minister Roseann Wowchuk raised this at a ministers meeting. She realizes the technical work is just about completed, and now there needs to be discussion at the political level as to the willingness to set the national food safety standard for meat. So at the political level there needs to be discussion of legislative requirements, the implications on small plants, and a request by provinces to move meat interprovincially.

Our deputy minister had further correspondence with the CFIA president. In summary, the response from CFIA was that we needed to have a review committee that included all jurisdictions, and there should be an oversight mechanism and a unanimous adoption of consistent enforcement and compliance by all jurisdictions.

CFISIG, at its fall meeting in Saskatoon last year, developed an oversight committee, which Tom Baker and I will be sitting on, to use a format similar to the national dairy regulations and code for an oversight mechanism. This is what has been put in place in the dairy industry to satisfy some U.S. requirements. So we think that is a good model. The oversight committee will look at provincial-territorial legislation and delivery systems, and the oversight system will give Canada a formalized document to show that there are controls in place for equivalent food safety outcomes.

The concerns by most jurisdictions is why CFIA is requiring unanimous adoption of consistent enforcement and compliance by all jurisdictions. As you can appreciate, with lots of small plants across Canada, this will be probably difficult to do unilaterally at the start. So what our minister is saying is she would like your committee and the ministers to have a bit of a discussion on that to see whether we can put in place some sort of an interim step that would allow trade until we get to full implementation of the national meat and poultry regulations and code.

Something being put on the table for discussion is that pending an amendment to the federal meat inspection legislation--and we'll say if that is required--there be an establishment of the federal pilot program, which would allow a transition period to implement the national meat and poultry regulations and code. We think paragraph 20(r) the Meat Inspection Act allows for these exemptions. Another way would be to look the implementation of the national meat and poultry regulations and code as a separate regulation under the Meat Inspection Act. Plants could then work within the framework of section 8 of the Meat Inspection Act and allow interprovincial trade.

In my particular branch in Manitoba we have several acts that are enabling acts, and you put different regulations under these. We'd ask that the CFIA consider this. Also, to satisfy CFIA, we assume that we would have to have some identifying of products so when product does go interprovincially they can track it.

If we put something like this in place we would like to suggest that plants that meet the national meat and poultry regulations and code can ship product interprovincially, and we set a target date of approximately September 1, 2004, to do that.

For plants that do not want to ship interprovincially, we would allow them seven or eight years to upgrade to the national meat and poultry regulations and code so it wouldn't be a total financial burden on them. And any new plants that wanted to come in place must meet the national meat and poultry regulations and code.

Manitoba Agriculture and Food believes that such an approach allows the provincial plants that want to ship interprovincially a certain timeframe to establish new markets, to upgrade their plants. I also think it would help the elk, deer, and bison industry to move operations closer to their farms to open new markets for them. For the smaller plants, it would give them time to upgrade to meet the national standard. I think it meets what the minister said about five years ago...to stop having an immediate impact on small business.

Minister Wowchuk would like to discuss the national meat and poultry regulations and code with her other ministers, and she's very interested in hearing the recommendations of your committee. She would like to ensure that provincial plants like Pioneer Meat in rural Manitoba and similar plants in other provinces can meet the national standard, that they can ship interprovincially, and that these plants would ensure the sustainability of similar plants in Manitoba and other provinces and territories. When it's fully implemented we'd have one food safety standard for meat and meat products across Canada.

Á (1125)

Dr. Tom Baker and I would like to thank you for the opportunity of making this presentation. We'd like to answer any questions you may have, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Taylor.

We will begin the questioning with the member from the Alliance Party, Mr. Anderson, for our first seven minutes.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, remind when we're at about five minutes. Mr. Breitkreuz has a couple of questions as well.

This is very interesting. I think we need to spend some more time on it as well. I'm not that familiar with your issues, so I hope I can ask some good questions here. There also almost seems to be a rural-urban issue here as well as some other issues. But it doesn't sound to me like you have a food safety or a health issue here. Is that true? We're dealing primarily with the bureaucratic issue. The plants that are operating, the smaller ones, as far as you know they're safe and operate safely right now?

Á (1130)

Dr. Tom Baker (Director, Food Inspection Branch, Department of Agriculture and Food of Ontario): I think, as John mentioned, it varies a bit between provinces. We feel that a number of provinces, Manitoba and Ontario as examples--we can only speak for those today--certainly have mandatory inspection of all livestock that's being slaughtered and very similar food safety standards.

John did mention, though, that there is some variability and there are some provinces that are further behind and they have voluntary systems or in a few cases really no-hands on inspection, more of a facilities inspection rather than a meat inspection as we traditionally think of it.

Mr. David Anderson: I'm from Saskatchewan, and normally we eat healthy food there. Are you suggesting that because they have a different system there the food is not healthy and the system is not taking care of the food safety of the residents there?

Dr. Tom Baker: I can't speak for Saskatchewan. I'm just saying that there are a number of provinces where all livestock has to be inspected for disease before slaughter and the carcasses are all inspected after slaughter. And there's an inspector present every day of slaughter to make sure that the dressing procedures are properly done, that there's no contamination, or minimal contamination, and proper procedures are being enforced.

Mr. David Anderson: Have you done any evaluation of what percentage or number of small plants will survive the implementation of a national standard?

Dr. John Taylor: At this stage there has not been any study that I'm aware of to see what the effect would be if it were implemented. I think this is going to vary from province to province, because, as indicated earlier, different provinces have different standards, so each province would have to do their own evaluation.

Mr. David Anderson: Can you tell me a little bit then about some of the bureaucratic complexity that's involved here? It seems to me that both of you said that this is a major issue, a complex issue. This is meat inspection; it shouldn't be that complex.

Does the complexity come out of the fact that you have at least three levels of government trying to supervise this, or does it come out of organizations trying to protect their turf? What makes this so complex that you can't come to some resolution? It's been quite a while now that it's been an issue.

Dr. John Taylor: I think overall in food inspection within Canada the decision-making processes are complex. There are something like 32 departments involved in food safety inspection across Canada. There are 31 ministers, there are 32 deputy ministers, and 47 ADMs just in the bureaucracy, let alone private industry.

To answer your question, it's not a very simple process. Some departments have the legislative authority, whereas others are delivering it. So there are very few forums where all those people can get together to have a discussion on the complexities of this. That's why we're suggesting that maybe the ministers of agriculture take a lead to have the discussions among the various jurisdictions and then go back and discuss with their colleagues who may be responsible in their area for meat inspection.

Mr. David Anderson: It's amazing we never get sick.

I'll turn it over to my colleague here for a minute.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

I listened to your presentations with interest. I think national standards may help foster our international reputation, in the same way that the organic agricultural producers are trying to get one national standard to make it easier for them to export. And you've just made the point that the inspection system is quite complex and there's really no uniformity. I think we're all concerned with safety for human consumption and we should try to foster trust internationally, especially in Canada's export of animal products.

Chronic wasting disease is something you mentioned, and I think it of course impacts on our interprovincial trade. Could you elaborate on the concerns within the game-farming industry with chronic wasting disease impacting on the export of other animal products? Secondly, are you prepared to comment on what the federal government could do to address concerns beyond just improving the inspection standards of slaughtered animals in relation to CWD?

Á (1135)

Dr. Merv Baker: CWD is a particular problem, of course, as a type of disease linked to BSE, or mad cow disease. There's a lot unknown about its potential to act like mad cow disease and cross the species barrier to humans. As a result, there are many countries that have a particular concern about it. In case CWD could turn out to be like BSE, they are concerned about it.

There have been restrictions placed on the movement of farmed game species that are susceptible to CWD out of the country as well as their products. And there could be some concern that those countries would become concerned about other products from Canada simply because of CWD. So far I can't think of one offhand where that has occurred, but it certainly is an ongoing concern as countries look at Canada's status with respect to BSE. And if they choose to factor in CWD it could affect the risk rating, if you will, in relation to Canada, which could extend to other products.

The Chair: Thank you. I'll have to move on to Mr.--

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, could they comment on my second question at some point, if time allows?

The Chair: If they can do that. I'm sorry, we're so really short of time this morning, and in fairness to our other people here....

Mr. Proctor.

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

Thank you, gentlemen, for the presentations.

I want to start with Dr. Merv Baker, because it seems to me that the meat, so to speak, in the paper Dr. Taylor presented is really on page 4, where he's saying that the national meat and poultry regulaltions and code were developed by the provinces, the territories, and the federal government, and that the provinces and the territories expected this would allow for interprovincial shipment of meat and meat products. And then, as I read it, it sounds like out of the blue the Food Inspection Agency expressed concerns about whether the national meat and poultry regulations and code was equivalent to the federal food safety legislation and whether in fact it was an adequate standard. And, as Dr. Taylor said, they were simply astounded by this development.

So the question I have for you, Dr. Baker, is what happened? You were working along with the provinces and territories and all of a sudden you're asking for equivalency. What was the rationale for that?

Dr. Merv Baker: The main issue was related to the fact that the code, although it had been developed, had not been implemented by anyone. So they were asking a hypothetical question: if we implemented the code, would you recognize it as the basis for interprovincial trade?And currently, as I mentioned, you can only trade interprovincially out of the federal system, so this would be a substantial change.

We weren't prepared at that time to simply say sure, we were involved in developing the code, so it must be equivalent because there were many other people and factors influencing this development. However, we did lead the group that carried out a review of the code in comparison with the federal regulations and standards, and we believe that the code can serve as a basis for interprovincial trade, when it's implemented.

Mr. Dick Proctor: What is the length of time for this to be implemented? What do you see from your vantage point at CFIA?

Dr. Merv Baker: Well, that would depend on the response of the provinces. We've asked the provinces to declare their intentions with respect to the code, and from that we will be able to determine how many are in fact planning to implement the code in the short term. That will give us a basis then to determine with provinces what the next steps should be--what would we have to do with respect to the federal legislation, for example, in amending it.

Á (1140)

Mr. Dick Proctor: Now, as Dr. Taylor indicated in his paper, Australia has recently done something similar to what is being proposed here. Have you looked at it? Is it uniform across the six states of Australia and the northern territories there?

Dr. Merv Baker: We haven't actually visited Australia to observe it in action, but we have talked to a number of Australian officials. We believe they have succeeded in implementing a national standard uniformly across all of the states and territories. They seem quite determined to maintain it.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Just a question, if I may, Mr. Chair, to Dr. Taylor. What would be the impact of having a national meat and poultry code here, so that bison producers and people like that could ship interprovincially? What does it mean? You mentioned Pioneer, but as I understand it, this is something that the industry feels is currently holding them back from being able to develop that industry. Could you elaborate if you agree?

Dr. John Taylor: I agree that it's needed for the elk, bison, and deer industries in each of the provinces. These animals are not that easy to handle. You need some specialized facilities to handle them and you need that product also to be further processed. The closer you can do it to the farming population--closer to the farms--the better off you are in regard to the quality of product that you get at the end.

In my province we've had a problem with the bison industry, because we've had to ship to North Dakota to get them processed, and the plant there is 700 days delayed in paying. If you're a farmer, that's a little bit tough to have cashflow sustained for that time. What we really need is a made-in-Canada system that allows people to process it in their jurisdiction, relatively close to their farm so there's less stress on them, and allows them to access into other provinces to sell their product. There's a great demand for EEC. If ever we could get an EEC plant for these non-traditional livestock, it would be a fantastic benefit to them.

Dr. Tom Baker: Mr. Chair, if I could just supplement that question briefly, the other issue here is the tremendous consolidation that's taken place in the retail industry. There's a growing number of retail chains that just are not comfortable, frankly, bringing in product that's from anywhere other than a federally inspected plant. There may be some legal restrictions in terms of they're a federally registered storage establishment. This has definitely put a....

Speaking from Ontario's perspective, our lamb industry now is growing. It will reach a level, I presume, where there will be no further growth because they can't get into the large retail chains, so people looking for lamb have to buy imported lamb or even seek it out from potentially illegal sources in some cases. So those are issues.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Proctor.

I will move to Mrs. Ur, please.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you for your presentations this morning.

Dr. Baker was indicating that the industry and provincial and federal governments are working on this code, but not all provinces have come on board. What is the hold-back on some of the provinces? What are the concerns?

Dr. Merv Baker: That's a very good question, Mr. Chairman. In the discussions we've had, it appears that the economic factors are the most significant--the investment that would be required by the industry, the establishments, and/or the provincial governments in order to implement the new standard.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Has there been a major problem out there that we're not aware of, that this new code has been implemented? What is the reason behind the new code? Is it more for public safety and health, or to address the trade concerns?

Dr. Merv Baker: I would submit that it's for both. As Dr. Taylor explained, the regulation of meat inspection right now is very complex, with a great many players in it, and we certainly have different inspection standards across the country. The decisions back in the 1990s were that we really need to harmonize those standards, that things should be a lot more alike across the country.

As to the advantage of interprovincial trade, it's certainly attractive to the provincial sector and could serve as an economic lever to help achieve the ultimate goal, which is harmonized food safety standards.

Á (1145)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So would this move in that direction, if everyone accepted this meat code?

Dr. Merv Baker: I believe that's where everyone expects it will end up, yes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I can't imagine those numbers that Dr. Taylor had given. Meat would be pretty well rancid by the time you went through all those inspections. I think we need to look at that bureaucracy, because that's just unbelievable, to have those kinds of numbers.

Dr. Taylor.

Dr. John Taylor: That was the reason for another paper I've quoted from, that we need to consolidate and refine our decision-making processes in food safety inspection in Canada. But that's not for around this table right now.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Right. Also, it's mandatory inspection, as you had indicated, in Ontario and Manitoba. You said this inspection is mandatory, whereas some of the other provinces may not have as much stringent legislation. So is there is no avenue to proceed with those other provinces, to bring them up to standards and it's out here if you want to sign on? You can't really have a national agency if not everyone participates. It would have to move beyond voluntary.

Dr. John Taylor: We still have a way to go as regards the bureaucracy, as regards this equivalency determination that Dr. Baker and I both spoke about. I doubt whether that will be finished by the end of this year, to refine that to go through the bureaucratic process, because we don't meet that often.

The other side of it is this oversight committee I talked about earlier, just to start developing the framework. I'm chairing that, and Dr. Tom Baker is on the committee. We got our marching orders last fall in Saskatoon. We've developed the draft document, and our first conference call is March 6. So we still have to weigh in the bureaucracy to refine the process, and then I think once that is all laid out on the table, and if we can develop a process, if the federal government will work with us to develop a step-wise process.... We don't want much implication on these very small plants, because we'll put them out of business right now.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: They went through that in Ontario a while ago.

Dr. John Taylor: Yes, and that's not politically acceptable for lots of provinces, so we're trying to get a step-wise process. If we can get that and get buy-in like that, I think it will be the best acceptable method.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Are there any different criteria used with domestic animal inspection, meat inspection, versus game animals, when you're doing inspections? Maybe that's not what you're here for today, but I just want to know, when we've been meeting on elk and deer and all the rest.

Dr. Tom Baker: There are obviously some species-specific differences, but the essential elements are the same--every animal inspected before slaughter and every carcass inspected after slaughter, and laboratory tests taken if appropriate. It's pretty much the same type of system.

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

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik, for five minutes.

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

First of all, to Dr. Taylor, did I hear you correctly when you said there was a 700-day delay in payment?

Dr. John Taylor: Yes, 700 days.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And they're still shipping to that particular plant and killing in that plant?

Á (1150)

Dr. John Taylor: Generally, it's a co-op plant. You own one share, you ship one animal. Instead of producers getting paid now or waiting for their payment, some of them are taking product and bringing it back up into Manitoba and selling it themselves. So that's the way the cashflow....

The enterprising producers are making money that way. The others that are not--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: They're waiting 700 days.

Dr. John Taylor: --for 700 days, their banks are talking to them.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I can well imagine.

I thought I heard right. I just couldn't believe it.

Thank you for a wonderful presentation. I think it speaks specifically to the problems we have with interprovincial trade barriers, not just in meat, but obviously in other commodities that we try to trade across provincial barriers. It's a huge problem.

Dr. Merv Baker, I have a federal plant in my constituency. That federal plant is able to export anywhere throughout the world. Because it's federally inspected, it can do that. I have provincial plants in my district that I buy meat from. They're provincial; they have the provincial regulations they fall under, and not the federal. They can't ship outside the boundaries of Manitoba. Are export customers, international customers, better served by the meat they receive than I am from provincially operated abattoirs in Manitoba?

Dr. Merv Baker: Mr. Chairman, that's an interesting question.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's why I asked it. We're shipping out all over the world in a federally approved plant. I buy from my provincially approved plant. Are the people who receive the meat federally better served than me provincially?

Dr. Merv Baker: I can't comment on things like variety—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm not talking about variety; I'm talking about safety. I'm talking about a hog I buy at a provincial plant.

Dr. Merv Baker: In general, the meat produced in Canada is safe whether it comes from a federal or a provincial plant.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

Dr. Merv Baker: What we have are differences in standards because we are in fact operating different systems.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, but there's no safety risk for me buying from my provincially approved plant? I understand the requirement of CFIA for a federal plant inspection. We do have a necessity to make sure our meat product is the best in the world. We have to maintain that.

But if you've just said there's no difference between the provincial and the federal, why could the provincial product in Manitoba not be traded interprovincially, then, from province to province? Is there any risk, if it were traded interprovincially from my provincial plant?

Dr. Merv Baker: It is a hypothetical question, because—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But is there any risk? I eat it in Manitoba. Should it be any different in Saskatchewan or Ontario?

Dr. Merv Baker: Mr. Chairman, the main risk would be that you'd be breaking the federal law.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's where I'm heading right now. Thank you so very much.

That's what we're attempting to do here: change the federal law and come up to a standard so that we can get rid of those interprovincial trade barriers and help people not only market domestic meats, like cattle and pork, but also some of the exotics. That's what we're trying to do.

It seems to me, Dr. Baker—and help me on this one—that CFIA seems to be the sticking point here. You've just said there doesn't seem to be any risk, but we can't come up with a meat and poultry regulatory code that's going to allow this to happen. Why is that? Is it the CFIA that has the problem here? I see the provinces working fairly well together.

Dr. Merv Baker: Because of the legislation, yes, CFIA is a sticking point, because we administer the legislation. But we're not the only sticking point.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What are the others?

Dr. Merv Baker: Dr. Taylor has many other colleagues across the country yet to be convinced that implementing the code would be a good idea.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Dr. Taylor has outlined the options for implementation, and I've read them briefly. It seems to me at first blush to be fairly reasonable, when we have this implementation plan we could put into place. In fact, there could well be for other provinces the opportunity for a transition program for up to seven years—pick a number; it doesn't matter. We could pick the numbers.

Do you have some serious difficulties with the options in the transition plan that's been put forward in Dr. Taylor's paper?

Dr. Merv Baker: Well, only in the sense that this isn't an issue that can be managed bilaterally between CFIA and Manitoba. It's really one that needs to be resolved with all of the provinces—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: With all of those bureaucrats who've just been identified in that book.

Dr. Merv Baker: Or a subset of them.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do you agree with me also that interprovincial trade barriers are in place for specific reasons: there are provinces that don't wish to have that competition moving into their area? Do you not believe that some of the people in that book are going to try to stop under any circumstances this trade moving into their provinces?

Dr. Merv Baker: Mr. Chairman, that's certainly possible. I have not been made aware of any province with that intent.

The Chair: The questioning must cease—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Through the chair.... Oh, cease? No, I was just getting on a roll.

The Chair: We're going to move to Mr. Binet, who has not had the floor yet. Then we'll go back to Mr. Anderson, who has deferred for this gentleman.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I congratulate you on your presentation. I'm fairly new to the Agriculture Committee. This morning I was briefed on your agency, which has a very good reputation, as everyone knows.

With globalization and market development, it's extremely important to ensure the safety of the food supply. I represent a region that is home to many small businesses. As I understand it, you have not assessed the costs of these new standards for a small business. Correct? Is my question clear? It is?

I'm curious as to what this will mean for small business in terms of costs. Will they be able to manage? I'm a Member of Parliament and people are going to be telling me that their business is being threatened as a result of these standards and they're going to ask me what my government is doing about it. I won't have a problem explaining to them the importance of national standards, because quality is important when it comes to interprovincial and international exports. However, are these standards so stringent that they actually threaten the livelihood of many businesses in my region?

Á (1155)

Dr. Merv Baker: Mr. Chairman, it's difficult to estimate costs because of the differences between medium-sized, small and very small businesses. The provinces will likely have to estimate these costs as they proceed to draft regulations. However, to date, no province has actually done these kinds of cost estimates.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Do you mean they haven't yet assessed costs?

Dr. Merv Baker: That's right.

[English]

Dr. Tom Baker: Mr. Chairman, if I could supplement that briefly, I agree, certainly the size would vary what the costs would be.

One of the things we were trying to do with the national meat and poultry regulation code was to allow for less prescriptivity, giving smaller plants more flexible ways of achieving the same food safety outcomes, perhaps through operational controls in addition to physical structures. We think we've been successful doing that.

A plant that meets national standards may look a little bit different from your federally registered plant. There may be different amounts of stainless steel, or what have you, but it would be meeting the same food safety outcomes.

I'm not speaking on behalf of my colleague, Dr. Baker, but I would argue that many of the federal standards are based on international trade requirements, and many of those are perhaps over and above food safety. But I don't want to speak on behalf of the CFIA.

The Chair: Mr. Taylor, do you have any comments?

Dr. John Taylor: I would just like to concur.

I'd just take two plants in Manitoba. One is a little bit north of Brandon. It's only a very small plant, and for it to upgrade to the national meat and poultry regulation code is very different from what it would be for Pioneer Meats down in Altona, which I talked about, which has expanded and probably needs minor construction changes because of process controls.

It's very difficult to make a blanket statement. We have only 27 plants in Manitoba that do provincial slaughter, and each one of those would have a varying economic impact, I would say. So it's very hard to answer your question specifically.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Binet: I see, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Anderson, for about two or three minutes.

Mr. David Anderson: I have a couple of questions.

You have a myriad of laws here. That's obvious today. And as Mr. Borotsik talked about, we have safe food provincially, but for some reason it seems we need to complicate these regulations exponentially for those producers and plants.

I'm just asking, why do we have to complicate these standards? It appears they're making them much tighter, much more difficult for people to achieve. Can't there be some agreement on some level that will allow these provincial plants to continue to operate as they've operated? Why does the system need to be, from what I can see, far more bureaucratic than it is right now by the time you get done?

The second part of my question has to do with this. Why did the CFIA spend the amount of time it did working on a national code with people, and then turn around and have to go back to find out if that code was equivalent to its own federal standards? I mean, if we talk about slowing a system down and making sure there's extra bureaucracy, that seems like an ideal way to do it.

How did that happen, that you got to a national code and then didn't know if it was equivalent to your own safety standards?

Â (1200)

Dr. Merv Baker: The CFIA was participating in the development of the code; it was not controlling the development of the code. So we were a player, but one of many players at the table.

Furthermore, at the time the development of the code was initiated, I don't recall equivalence with the federal system being one of the benchmarks. They did look at the federal system, but the focus was very much on the European standards, Australian standards, U.S. standards, and the Codex Alimentarius standards, which are international, looking for ideas on which they could base the code. It was this process that led to the development of the code, not the federal meetings.

Mr. David Anderson: You spent that much time on a code you didn't know was compatible and equivalent to your own national standards? I understand that you worked with people, but what was your organization thinking at the time? Didn't you know you would have to come back and make sure it was equivalent to those, or were you not considering that at all?

Dr. Merv Baker: We were not considering that at that time.

Mr. David Anderson: So what use would the code have been without that consideration?

Dr. Merv Baker: The code would have still served the purpose of harmonizing food safety standards across the country, and as a basis for interprovincial trade.

I don't think any disservice has been done to the process by having the equivalence assessment take place afterwards. The concept of equivalence itself is not that old.

Mr. David Anderson: Is there a two-year delay though?

Dr. Merv Baker: It took almost two years to carry it out. It had to be spread out over a period of time.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

At this time I want to thank you, on behalf of the committee, for appearing this morning.

We've heard from two provinces this morning. Dr. Baker, would you agree to stay with us for the remaining hour? I think it's important to hear from you again on this matter. It pertains to matters on which you may have some information and background.

Dr. Merv Baker: I think it's the other Dr. Baker you want.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Dr. Baker.

Dr. Tom Baker, would you be agreeable to staying on? Dr. Kahn will be appearing.

Dr. Tom Baker: Is this on the medicated feed?

The Chair: Yes.

Dr. Tom Baker: I'm not sure if I'll be able to add a lot to that discussion.

The Chair: Is there anyone at the table who could?

Dr. Merv Baker, could you?

Dr. Merv Baker: I could remain if the committee wished.

The Chair: Would you be able to add to the information we might be seeking?

Dr. Merv Baker: I'm really not an expert in the area of feed regulation.

The Chair: I was given to understand that one of you gentlemen--I'm sorry, I may have had the wrong Dr. Baker--might be able to help us with that. We want to make sure as much information is at the table as possible.

Dr. Taylor.

Dr. John Taylor: I may have misinterpreted. I thought the question initially given to me dealt with dead stock rendering. Dr. Tom Baker had just done a very good paper on that, surveying different parts of Canada. If I misinterpreted what the discussion was going to be about it's my fault and I apologize to the committee.

The Chair: That's fine.

We will adjourn the meeting for a few moments. I would ask all members to remain.

Â (1205)

Â (1215)

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I want to call the meeting back to order.

We are proceeding, as we did this morning, to continue to look at issues relating to food inspection and feed inspection. This afternoon--we're now into the afternoon hour--until we have enough people here to form a quorum for the purpose of hearing a motion, I will proceed with listening to our witness.

Dr. Sarah Kahn is with us this morning, from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. She is the director of the animal health and production division. We're dealing primarily on this subject matter with animal feed, so we will proceed.

Dr. Kahn, perhaps following your presentation, if there's the correct number of people here, we may adjourn for just a moment from hearing questions and deal with the motion at hand.

Dr. Khan, you may proceed, and if you could, perhaps keep it within, we normally say, 10 minutes, but since you're the only presenter, if 15 is required, we won't stop you short of that. Thank you. You may proceed, Dr. Kahn.

Dr. Sarah Kahn (Director, Animal Health and Production Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to have this opportunity to address the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I've been invited as the director of the animal health and production division of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to provide some information about our legislation on feed for farmed game animals.

I'd like to start with a brief overview of the agency's feed program. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency delivers programs and services that enhance the safety of Canada's food system and protect the health of Canada's plants and animals. Safe and effective animal feeds contribute to the efficient production and maintenance of healthy livestock that produce safe meat, milk, eggs, and other food products.

The CFIA administers its national feed program under the Feeds Act and regulations. We control the manufacture, sale, and importation of feeds for traditional domesticated commercial livestock species, which are defined in the Feeds Act and include horses, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, foxes, fish, mink, rabbits, and poultry.

[Translation]

The feed program is based on pre-sale product evaluation and registration. The Feeds Regulations establish conditions for the registration of feeds; standards for feed nutrition, composition, freedom from contaminants and other aspects and requirements for labels on commercial feeds.

In addition to establishing these requirements and standards, the CFIA conducts sampling and analysis for the presence of residues of chemicals, pesticides, contamination by heavy metals, mycotoxins and salmonella and verifies compliance with requirements for drugs in feeds.

[English]

Agency officials conduct investigation and traceback of contaminated food and feed in commercial establishments and farms. Feed program officials review labels on medicated feeds for accuracy and conformity with requirements, precautions, and warnings to enable safe use of feed. Our field staff carry out inspections of commercial feed mills, renderers, and farms involved in the preparation of medicated feeds.

The feed regulations do not apply to feed for pet animals, wild animals, and exotic farm species like ostrich, bison, and llama. In addition, provincial governments have responsibility for control over the feeding of wild or free-range animals. These controls usually address whether or not wildlife can be fed. They do not address the products with which they are fed.

The feed regulations do not apply to feed for cervids--that is, deer and elk--and to date the agency has not been asked to include them in the definition of livestock under the Feeds Act.

Â (1220)

[Translation]

Having said that, I would like to mention that in December 2000, the Canadian Cervid Council inquired as to whether coverage of cervid species under the Act would enable farmers to avoid payment of GST on cervid feeds. The CFIA referred this request to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) and we were informed that ratite producers (ostrich and emus) had successfully petitioned the CCRA for similar consideration. The CFIA does not intervene in or arbitrate disputes between producers and feed vendors, other than to determine whether any non-compliance with the Feeds Regulations has occurred. In cases of serious regulatory non-compliance, the CFIA may prosecute feed vendors and impose fines.

[English]

It is not the agency's role to identify whether damages have resulted or to assess the value of such damages. The CFIA has no legal authority to provide compensation to purchasers for damages, and purchasers have to seek such compensation for damage through the civil courts.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to provide the committee with some background information on the feeding of cervids in Canada. Most cervids are fed forages, such as hay or straw; cereals, such as oats and corn; and other lower-cost, lower-nutrition feeds: this type of regime is considered sufficient to keep the animals in good health.

It is thus unlikely that captive or wild cervids have been fed animal protein, such as meat and bone meal. Protein meals are relatively expensive and are used in livestock feed to boost productivity--for example, in the production of meat or milk. So factors relating to economics and animal husbandry would limit the use of protein meal as a component of cervid feed.

As a precautionary measure to prevent an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, in Canada, the CFIA amended the health of animals regulations—as distinct from the Feed Act and regulations—and we banned the feeding of mammalian proteins, with exceptions, to ruminants, including cattle, sheep, goats, deer, and elk, in August 1997. The exceptions to this rule include pure porcine meal, equine meal, and ruminant blood; tallow that is free of protein impurities; and gelatin. These exceptions are consistent with the recommendations of the World Health Organization and the Office internationale des épizooties, which is the world animal health organization.

Through the routine inspection of commercial feed mills and renderers in Canada, CFIA officials verify that prohibited proteins are not being used in feed for ruminants, and this includes deer and elk.

Mr. Chairman, that's the conclusion of my opening statement. I'll be happy to take questions from members of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Kahn. I believe there is a person here who would let us constitute quorum. We'll deal, then, with the motion that is now before us, if we can just beg your indulgence for a time.

We will proceed with the motion that's been put forward by Mr. Hilstrom. Who wants to bring that motion forward?

Mr. David Anderson: I would like to move that the committee investigate the impact of chronic wasting disease on the domestic elk and deer herds in western Canada and would move that the committee invite elk ranchers from Saskatchewan and Alberta to appear before the committee to discuss the impact CWD has had on their operations.

I also move that the committee invite officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to appear before the committee to discuss the government's plans to deal with this persistent and growing problem.

Mr. Chair, this is an issue we've needed to study for a while. I think it's important that we do it, so I would ask that the committee pass this motion.

The Chair: Do we have a seconder for that motion?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I second it.

The Chair: We have a seconder. Is there any debate?

I might just say to the mover that we certainly want to entertain the motion, but you might want to include in it that this would be implemented on condition of funding being made available for it, because we have to bring in witnesses, and that hasn't yet been approved.

On that condition, I would have the motion put on the floor.

Yes, Mr. Borotsik.

Â (1225)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just for clarification, are we having a steering committee meeting?

The Chair: Yes, we are, tomorrow at one o'clock.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's what I thought.

Could this motion not be sent to the steering committee? Obviously, it's going to be striking some agendas over the next little while. I think it's best to see the big picture, with everything on the table, rather than deal with every individual motion piecemeal.

The Chair: There's another point on that same motion.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: If we pass it here, that would clearly indicate this is something we want on the agenda.

The Chair: I would agree with Mr. Breitkreuz that if it were passed today, we could then look at it and see how it would fit into the agenda, which would come forward at the steering committee.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Again as a clarification, if it's passed here, would it then be seen as a priority on the steering committee agenda?

The Chair: That is something the steering committee would have to deal with. They could make it a priority or make it less a priority.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I accept that comment. If that's—

The Chair: And I would defend the right to have someone at that committee decide that, yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. David Anderson: I was just going to point out, first of all, that it's dependent on the funding being available, which the steering committee would have to recommend; and second, I think this has gone on long enough that it would be good that we start to bring it up the level of priority.

The Chair: I think it also fits in with what we've already done.

Are there any other questions or other comments on the motion before we ask the question?

I'm calling the question.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: It is carried. This will come before us tomorrow at the steering committee meeting, and we will make the determinations there.

Thank you very much for bringing your member in.

We want to continue with our meeting. We now move again to our series of questions.

Mr. Anderson, you have seven minutes.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Does the CFIA regulate the feed of any of the game farm animals you've indicated? You do not regulate the food regulations for cervids. Is that correct?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: It's important to differentiate between the feed ban, which does apply to all ruminants—it's under the Health of Animals Act—and the Feeds Act, under which the animal species has to be listed in order to regulate the production and sale of feed to that species.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay. I just have a question, then. What would change if cervids were added to the regulations? How big a project would that be? What would change in terms of what the CFIA would be responsible for, the size of the bureaucracy, and those kinds of things? And are you suggesting that it should be added? Are you approaching that, or are you happy with the way things are right now?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: I'm not really making a suggestion either way, just reporting the way things stand at the moment. I suppose I would say we're not aware that stakeholders, producers, or others have requested the introduction of cervids into the act. Equally, that could certainly occur. It would require a regulatory amendment, and we would then need to explain the regulatory impact—the costs it would bring to producers and to government.

Having said that, I'm not really an expert on what types of feed are given to cervids, but as we understand it they're not fed a great deal of compounded feed. To the extent that they're fed things like hay and grain, there wouldn't be a great impact. If there were some specialized sector—where the animals were in feed lots, for example, and were being fed compounded feed—that's where the impact would be felt.

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): I'm sorry, I'd just like to ask: you don't understand what cervids are fed? I think that's a problem with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Until cervids are put into agriculture and this perception of an exotic is taken away from them, they should be under the same rules and regulations as cows or any other livestock, basically, because they are farmed. They eat hay and grain just like cattle. Do you not agree that if they were put into the livestock or the domestic animal act, it would be better?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: I have no objection to their being covered under the Feeds Act. Most of our expertise on this relates to looking at possible causes of chronic wasting disease, because the first question that came up was whether this is another feed-borne disease like mad cow disease. When we looked at the industry and at the feeding practices, it seemed there was very little likelihood that meat and bone meal had been fed to cervids, and that's pretty much been ruled out as the likely origin of chronic wasting disease. So my remarks about the feeding of concentrate really reflect our investigation into this as a source of chronic wasting disease.

Â (1230)

Mr. David Anderson: Knowing what you know about cervids and their feeding habits or their choices of feed, are you comfortable that there are not health issues related to the regulatory system we have right now; that there are not other problems in that system that might bring out some of these diseases?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: We're certainly confident that it's not a source of chronic wasting disease, to put that one to one side.

We're not aware that people have been asking for cervids to be included under the Feeds Act. But if somebody puts it to the agency that it would make sense, and particularly if there's some rationale, we would have no objection. We would need to follow through the normal process of making a regulatory amendment. We would do that and would certainly attempt to find out the costs and the benefits of such an amendment, because we're obliged to do that for parliamentary accountability.

Mr. David Anderson: What would be the timeframe on a regulatory change such as that?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: It would take some months. I couldn't give you a more specific estimate.

Mr. David Anderson: Not years.

Dr. Sarah Kahn: I shouldn't think so. It depends on the regulatory priorities. If other work is going through that is more urgent because it's needed to protect the health and safety of consumers or livestock, then that would get priority, unless it was drawn to our attention that there was some real reason for urgency around this inclusion of cervids in the Feeds Act.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Proctor for seven minutes.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you very much.

Dr. Kahn, it's nice to see you again.

For the animals that are covered under the Feeds Act, such as cattle, pigs, and sheep, what does that entail? I assume that somebody who has cattle and buys feed from a mill has that feed produced to certain specifications as required under the act, such as trace minerals and things of that nature. Am I on the right track there?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Certainly. But the producers are perhaps not quite so aware of this because the process really happens pre-sale with the makers of the feed and the people who are manufacturing the basic rations. The people who deal with the premixes, the nutritional supplements, and so forth are really the ones who have the obligation to satisfy the agency so that we will give them the necessary approval to market the product or equally to import a product. So the producer just sees the product in the marketplace.

Mr. Dick Proctor: At the same time as that company is satisfying the Food Inspection Agency, they are in turn satisfying the producer so that he or she knows what they are purchasing for their animals. Is that right?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Yes, in terms of formulations and so forth.

Mr. Dick Proctor: The folks who have spoken to me about this issue are saying that because deer, elk, or bison aren't covered under the act, not only do they not know what a feed mill may be supplying them, but also it's a lot more costly for them. In the case of deer, for example, incorrect feed may result in the death or abortion of the young. One person with whom I spoke the other day said that an acquaintance of his bought deer ration that was selling for $300 a tonne. A bull ration, which was quite similar, sold for $145. For another $25 or $30 they would add the ingredients required to satisfy the producer's idea of what was necessary for the deer. He's saying that there's quite a sharp increase in costs, and it's more difficult for them to turn a profit because of the high cost of feed.

Â (1235)

Dr. Sarah Kahn: It's difficult to comment, really, because I don't know how the agency's involvement in regulating the feed could affect that one way or the other. Normally, the involvement of government isn't seen as making things cheaper, necessarily. Perhaps it's a matter of economies of scale in production. If it's a very specialized type of product for cervids, then perhaps the manufacturer charges a premium because it's a small run. I'm not sure that would change with the agency's involvement, because I suspect it reflects perhaps a specialized nutritional need.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'm interested in your comment that CFIA hasn't been asked to get involved in regulating feed for cervids. CFIA wouldn't wait for an invitation in every instance to get involved in feed regulation. In this case you're saying you haven't been asked, so therefore....

Dr. Sarah Kahn: We're not aware of any specific health risks. Where we would initiate including something in the program is if we were aware of health risks.

In regard to the feed ban, even though there's no evidence that chronic wasting disease originates through feed, nonetheless the feed ban applies to all ruminants. So it includes cervids. That's why we call it a precautionary measure. It's in the absence of definitive science. Where we see, suspect, or have any concerns about a risk, that's where we would make a move. But, equally, if the producers or provincial governments were to request putting cervids into the act, then we would look at that. Certainly we have no objection.

Mr. Dick Proctor: It's just that, to the best of your knowledge, you've never been asked. So if we get back to these folks and say “Submit an application, and there's a reasonable chance that they will decide to include you or include cervids”, we can pass that on to them.

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Yes, we'll look at that.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chair: Moving to Mrs. Ur....

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple of quick questions.

Could you tell this committee why regulations are still needed when there has been an industry-led HACCP program that has been very successful? Why do we need to continue in the regulation vein?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Which regulation specifically do you speak of?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What you're intending to implement presently.

We have a HACCP program in Ontario. It's voluntary, I understand that, but I just wondered, are we going down the same path regarding the Feeds Act as there already is under the HACCP program?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: As I understand it, where there are HACCP systems applying on farms, that is voluntary. So where there is a need to address specific health and safety risks, we would need to keep in place a mandatory system of regulation.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But this has been ongoing for eight years. So if there is such a serious health and safety risk there, should CFIA not be moving a little bit more quickly to address these concerns?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: I think the act and the regulations do specifically address safety risks. We're working closely with the industries and other partners in developing the details of HACCP programs and developing the technical requirements that would apply. But as long as those are applied on a voluntary basis, I think there would still need to be some sort of a safety net, if you call it that, of regulatory controls where there are specific health and safety risks.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Following on Mr. Proctor's questioning about cervids, you said at this point you didn't know whether there was really a health risk out there. Shouldn't CFIA have a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach on that, though? Should you not be looking in that area?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: We meet pretty regularly with the cervid industry, the cervid council, and at the provincial level, with provincial associations. Whatever is on the program for discussion, we'll look into it and find out as much as we possibly can about health risks and other issues.

To the best of my knowledge, the industries at the moment are concerned about animal health in the sense of controlling diseases like chronic wasting disease, and also about getting back into export markets.

So in the absence of either any knowledge on the part of the agency of a risk or in the absence of the industry coming to us saying they think we should look at this, there's nothing that has really pushed us in that direction.

Â (1240)

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: In your presentation you had indicated that “In cases of serious regulatory non-compliance, the CFIA may prosecute feed vendors and impose fines.” Has this happened?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: There have been instances of investigation. I don't have before me specific details on prosecutions or fines.

It's normally the case that if there's a concern about an animal disease that is thought to have occurred due to the feed provided, we would require a veterinary opinion on that, or perhaps advice from a provincial government person who's involved at the farm, an extension officer or some type of technical person. We don't really go out and do a lot of investigation without having some sort of veterinarian's opinion that suggests we go out and investigate.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Are you aware of the product, gentian violet?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Yes.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do you know what kind of feed that was mixed in?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: No.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Was it ever authorized for sale here in Canada?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: I'm not aware that it is, but I could certainly look into it. I'm certainly not aware that it's in use in feed.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Well, it was. I'd like to have some more information brought back to the committee on that.

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Certainly. Is it a particular feed, or are you interested in gentian violet generally?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It was incorporated into feed, and it's known to have a problem.

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Pardon? It's known...?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's known to cause medical problems in human health.

Dr. Sarah Kahn: What era are we talking about, what timeframe?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It would be the early 1990s. I don't know when and if it was taken off the market, but it was being used in Canada.

Dr. Sarah Kahn: I'll certainly look into that. I've been in the present job since 2000; that was why I asked the era, because I don't recall hearing any discussion of it. But I'll look into it and certainly get you some information on it.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

Do I have any more time?

The Chair: Yes, you have more time.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Concerning the medicated food regulations, does the CFIA have the resources for enforcement if and when these regulations are in place?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Some resources have become available under the agricultural policy framework. At the moment we're looking at exactly what resources are there, but I believe it addresses the concerns we've had previously about the capacity to enforce the regulations.

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

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Borotsik with some interesting questions.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have a few very quick questions.

Thank you, Dr. Kahn, for being here.

As I understand it, since 1997 we have banned any use of flesh or bone meal—mammal meal—for animal feed, which is a catch-all that includes ruminants and would include elk and bison. Am I correct on that? Since 1997 we've banned the animal feed?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: For feeding to ruminants, yes, with exceptions. There are some exceptional products, such as blood.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, sure; I've got that: blood products and the like. It's assumed that it's a catch-all, and that the cervids as well that we have—the deer—won't be getting it.

About 40% of the feed, I'm told, is actually processed on-farm: 60% is from national feed mills, and about 40% is on-farm. Is there any concern that perhaps some of that on-farm feed, or the 40%, would in fact include some of the banned substances, the flesh and bone meal that we get from mammals?

I just don't know. Do they have access to it in any way, shape, or form, such that it could be getting into that on-farm mix?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: There have been some inspections at the farm level—not as many as we would like—but the results we've had so far have been good. Perhaps one of the things that works in our favour is that quite a majority of farms work in single species; it's not so common nowadays that you have a dairy and that the farmer's also raising hogs.

That works in our favour, because if people are working with cattle, they're not allowed to have what we call “prohibited product” in the feed, so there's less chance of a mix-up. You're not handling both types of products side by side, and there's less chance to have an accidental mix-up. That works in our favour.

Certainly the opportunity is there for us to do more inspections on-farm—that is as a result of resources available to the agency for investigation of veterinary drug residues in animal products, and also with the medicated feed program—so I'd hope we'll have more presence on farms.

Â (1245)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: In the limited number of on-farm inspections that have happened through the agency, have there been any instances where in fact there has been either a medication issue, or for that matter, a meal issue going into feed? Have you written anyone up, so to speak?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Not a meat meal issue, no. No, the results have been good. I would say the results of inspections at feed mills and rendering plants have also been good. I think there's a good level of awareness.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is there any different level...? We've just had some gentlemen here dealing with another aspect of CFIA, which was the inspection of slaughter animals going through. Is there any difference in the process of inspection of wild game, or an elk or deer slaughtered carcass, from that when a domestic animal is being slaughtered?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: My colleague, Dr. Baker, is really the expert on slaughter. From an animal health perspective, depending on the source of the animal it might not be even possible to look at the animals ante-mortem. If you're dealing with game animals and are just looking at the carcass, you don't have the capacity to inspect the animals while they're still alive.

That limits to some extent your capacity to look for things like chronic wasting disease or BSE, because the signs really manifest in the live animal, not in the carcass.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We'll move to Mr. Anderson, if he has any further questions.

Mr. David Anderson: I just have one more.

There's a bit of a political battle going on here. That is that the game farmers would like to have their animals declared as “livestock” because they would really like to be seen as the legitimate farmers they are rather than have their animals seen as wildlife and be regulated by the Wildlife Act.

I'm just wondering, are you familiar with that struggle that has been going on, and do you have any comments on it? I know you're involved with the feed part of it, but putting those farmers under the regulations would make them farmers, or the animals would then be considered livestock rather than wildlife. Has that had any consideration in what you've been doing?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: I can't really comment about the slaughter and inspection side of it. As I said, that's my colleague's domain.

I think it's important, though, that for animal health purposes there have been programs dealing with farmed deer and bison since the 1990s, because there were concerns about diseases like tuberculosis. They have actually had quite a strict regime of control under animal health, involving movement permits, identification of animals in the herd, keeping herd inventory. Because of that, it's given us a much better capacity to deal with chronic wasting disease.

From the point of view of whether you call them a livestock animal or a farmed game animal, for animal health purposes I think in a sense it's a moot point, because we've had these controls since the nineties.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay, but I don't think the farmers think it's a moot point, because it makes a difference to them if their animals are considered livestock, because of the government departments they then have to deal with. They deal with the Department of Agriculture rather than environment, wildlife, or conservation. It does make a difference for them, but apparently it doesn't at your level, or from your—

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Well, from the health of animals point of view, you can have controls, and we have had controls for more than a decade on farm deer and farmed bison for animal health purposes.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I have just one other area, Dr. Kahn. I think you were in the audience in the first hour. We talk about the absence of livestock in the Feeds Act, but on the other hand, animals such as deer, bison, or elk are inspected under the Meat Inspection Act.

I guess the point I'm getting at is did the CFIA not see some symmetry in ensuring that the Feeds Act also applied to elk, deer, and bison, since they are eventually inspected before they're allowed to be sold?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Yes, I would say there would be some symmetry. As I've said, I don't think we have an objection to including them; it's just something that hasn't really come up. As we try to address areas of risk and management of food safety and animal health issues, it does not really emerge that there's a driving need. But I don't think anyone's objecting in principle.

Â (1250)

Mr. Dick Proctor: All right. I'm assuming from your answer that CFIA hasn't drafted any amendments to this but would be open to amendments if a request were to come from a recognized association.

Dr. Sarah Kahn: That's right.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Are there further questions?

Anyone on the government side?

Mr. David Anderson: I have one question about buffalo. You haven't done anything towards moving bison into being covered by the regulations. They would be more like cattle in terms of the feed and some of the feed mixes they would use. Have you looked at that at all, apart from cervids?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Not that I'm aware of. I'm not sure they.... Obviously they're a very similar animal, but I guess the method of husbandry is quite different.

If you think that the focus, for purpose of the Feeds Act, is on things like high-producing dairy cattle and feedlot beef animals, you know there's quite an emphasis on feeding for productivity and for very efficient production.

As I understand it, the interest in some of these free-range industries has more been to exploit the kind of slow-growing, very lean meat—the whole traditional approach to farming—that you don't really see so much in say a high-producing dairy cow.

Mr. David Anderson: And organic...?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Yes, absolutely; in fact some of their export markets have been very much built on this idea of free-range, organic meat. Once you start feedlotting animals, you can't really make that claim.

The Chair: That's the end of the line of questions.

I just want to pose one question to you, Dr. Kahn, and it may take us a little off the topic, but maybe I could have your comment.

This morning we've explored the possibilities of expanding your mandate to include other species to which the animal feed regulations would apply. We talked about cervids and other species that might be included in that. I'm just wondering whether it's even comprehensible that CFIA has the manpower to do it, given its record going back to the regulations that were proposed by the then-minister in 1998 to bring forward some guidelines and regulation for on-farm feed production and feed produced in mills.

We still haven't seen an action plan. I'm just wondering when we might see something that could be brought forward that will appease both sides on this issue. Obviously, nothing much has happened; the stakes are being moved very slowly.

Do we have manpower to do what we've been asked to do, and now we're further examining where we might go in the future? What is your comment in terms of the physical manpower capability of CFIA to do this and to do the work that was to have been mandated to do, but which you still haven't completed?

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Well, as you would be aware, in the recent budget the agency received significant additional funding over the next two years. Certainly, depending on the decisions that are made by the president of the agency, Mr. Fadden, and the executive there, it's quite possible that some of the additional resources would go into this type of inspection and regulatory type of work, which is what the feed section deals in.

When you mention an action plan, are you speaking in terms of the medicated feed grains?

The Chair: Yes, I am.

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Certainly we're working closely with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada at the moment to develop this process more. Once we have a better idea of the resources that are specifically available for this, for implementing medicated feeds, we should be able to produce such an action plan.

The Chair: Do you have a timeframe in mind, or does the department you serve have a commitment to a timeframe? Is there something that you see happening in the next year?

Â (1255)

Dr. Sarah Kahn: We're still working through the technical requirements. We're developing manuals of procedures in consultation with the feed industry, the regulated industries, and we're working out some of the technical details. So until we get to a final point where we have something that's clearly practical and enforceable, I'd be a bit reluctant to put any specific deadline on it.

The Chair: Okay.

Thank you very much, Dr. Kahn, for appearing this morning. Obviously we haven't exhausted this issue, but I think you have whet our appetites in terms of what we might be looking at down the road. Certainly it's a subject that is relevant to our time, and we need to be addressing it.

So thank you again for appearing.

Dr. Sarah Kahn: Thank you.

The Chair: We need to remind those who are on the steering committee to meet tomorrow at one o'clock.

Thank you for being here today.

The meeting stands adjourned.