AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 26, 1999

• 0906

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia)): Members, we'll bring the meeting to order.

Today we have some of our old friends from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency back with us. Of course this has to do with the main estimates, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25, part III, report on plans and priorities. With us today is a gentleman we've seen several times in the past, André Gravel, vice-president of programs. He's with Larry Hillier, vice-president of operations, and John Jones, the comptroller. Does that make you the money man or something like that?

Mr. John Jones (Comptroller, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Something like that.

The Chairman: Anyway, thank you for coming. My understanding is that you'll have a short presentation and then be prepared to take some questions. As usual, members will have some of those. You may start, Mr. Gravel.

Dr. André Gravel (Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's certainly a pleasure to be here today to discuss the plans and priorities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for the coming year.

The main estimates in the report on plans and priorities for the CFIA were tabled in the House in March. I'm sure you'll have questions about specific items found in those documents, but let me take a few minutes to provide you with an overview of the agency and its mandate.

Last month the CFIA began its third year of operations. This makes us a relatively new organization, but fortunately we are building on a strong inspection legacy that the agency inherited when part of four departments came together to form the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

[Translation]

When the Parliament created the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in 1997, it gave the Agency a mandate to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of all federal inspection and related services for food and animal and plant health.

As part of our efforts to address this challenge, we have reduced overlap and duplication in program delivery, management and administration, for example, the CFIA currently has 18 regions across the country rather than the 33 regional structures that were in place when the Agency was created.

The Agency has created a management and organization structure which serves the public interest, and the needs of clients while reflecting geographic realities and respecting the need for employee growth and development.

[English]

The agency's success has been made possible by our dedicated and highly motivated inspection staff. As a separate employer, the agency is responsible for collective bargaining with its four bargaining units and two unions for developing its own values-based staffing practices, as well as for creating a new classification system.

This new regime is being developed in consultation with agency employees, managers, union, industry and other key stakeholders. We already have a significant number of agency-specific human resources policies in place. The agency is working to develop a new human resources regime that will foster continued commitment to serving the public.

With a stable organizational structure now in place and significant progress made on human resources policies, the agency is well positioned to deliver on its mandate and its three-part mission of safe food, market access, and consumer protection. Let me take a few minutes to review the three parts of our mission and share some of the initiatives and accomplishments in each area.

First is safe food. Food safety is a top priority for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We are vigilant in our inspection and enforcement activities and are working to further strengthen Canada's food inspection safety system.

• 0910

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is working with the food industry and provincial governments to introduce modern approaches to food safety at every stage of production. This cooperative approach will ultimately lead to the development of an integrated inspection system, or IIS. The integrated inspection system will cover the full range of food safety, from input materials through production to retail and consumer use.

A key element of CFIA's work in the development of the IIS, or integrated inspection system, is our support for the implementation of hazard analysis critical control point systems by federally registered establishments. HACCP, as it is termed, is an internationally recognized approach to food safety and is based on identifying and preventing food safety risks during processing. This preventative approach, pioneered by NASA—bon voyage, Madame Payette, by the way, this morning—is an improvement over the traditional inspection approach that largely relies on testing of products after they are already processed.

[Translation]

To some degree, the number of food recalls the Agency has coordinated since its creation demonstrates the need to move quickly, although prudently, towards a preventative approach rather than inspecting products after they are moving through the food chain. For example, from April 1, 1997 to now, the Agency has efficiently managed some 438 food recalls. It is important to note that many of these recalls took place before the product had reached consumers.

On the federal-provincial scene, memoranda of understanding have been reached with the governments of Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the Northwest Territories that clarify inspection roles and allow for greater efficiency in inspection activities. These agreements are a concrete example of our quest for more efficiencies and effectiveness in the food chain, and our clear testimony to how we have developed and nurtured very sound federal- provincial-territorial relations among our partners.

[English]

Also, as you know, Bill C-80, the Canada Food Safety and Inspection Act, was tabled recently and will provide the agency with a modernized and consolidated legislative framework. The bill represents the most extensive review of Canada's food laws in our 130 years plus history and is designed for today and the future.

I would like to take a minute to note some of the highlights we believe to be the key to a more coherent and integrated food safety and inspection system.

—The numerous definitions in the current acts will disappear in the interest of consistency and will be replaced by straightforward common definitions.

—Different approaches to food inspection functions and different approaches to deceptive or misleading packaging and labelling will be consolidated so that food, agricultural, and aquatic commodities and agricultural inputs—that is, feed, seed, and fertilizers—are all treated in the same way.

—The power of inspectors is enhanced to conduct inspections and to restrict movement of products that don't comply with the law.

—Electronic commerce is recognized as a means of conducting business.

—Provisions are included to deal with food tampering as well as emerging issues resulting from scientific developments.

—A new section will allow the release of information to the public or other foreign and domestic government bodies for reasons of public safety or for the protection of Canada's food products.

—Finally, the existing division of responsibility between the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Health will not change, thereby protecting the current systems of checks and balances.

The second part of our mission has to do with market access, a key priority for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. However, the agency's role in market access should not be confused with trade promotion. By market access, we mean that the agency is in the business of protecting important Canadian resources—Canada's food supply system, its animals and its plants—through measures that help prevent the spread of food-borne illness and maintain a healthy animal and plant population.

• 0915

We contribute to safe food through inspection and certification of producers and importers. This protects Canadians and helps to build international confidence in Canadian-produced foods, animals, and plant products.

[Translation]

The Agency also works to influence international inspection standards and encourage the adoption of Canadian requirements based on sound science principles that reduce technical trade barriers. The recent agreements that allows pork from any federally- registered plant in Canada to be exported to Chili is a prime example of the CFIA's work in this area. The agreement means improved market opportunities for Canadian pork with no compromise in Canadian standards.

[English]

The last part of CFIA's mission statement deals with the protection of Canadian consumers. Accurate labelling is one of the best tools consumers have for comparing products, and the agency is committed to working with industry and consumers to improve the usefulness of labelling. In addition to setting appropriate labelling requirements, there will continue to be a role for government for enforcement at all stages of the food chain. For example, in the past year the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has obtained eight convictions related to olive oil adulteration in Ontario alone.

[Translation]

Whether it is because the aging population is watching its fat intake more closely, or concerns about food allergies or biotechnology, labels and the regulations governing them are being scrutinized as never before. At the same time, the Agency is taking a leading role in the Codex Alimentarius Commission's efforts to develop an international agreement on the labelling of products of biotechnology. As you know, Canada is chairing the Codex Committee on labelling, and the committee is located here in Ottawa. Last May, there was a meeting of the Codex committee on labelling at which the labelling of products of biotechnology clearly dominated the discussion.

[English]

The CFIA has also taken innovative steps to communicate the importance of food safety and the role consumers can play.

The agency is a strong proponent of partnering with stakeholders to disseminate food safety messages. We have been successful in raising the general public's awareness of safe food handling procedures through our collaboration with the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education and the FightBAC! campaign.

The campaign, launched in five Canadian cities in November 1998, has achieved a number of communications objectives in its first year. For example, the FightBAC! website receives an average of 1,900 visitors per week, 12,000 supermarket retail and community action kits have reached consumers, and over 20,000 bookmarks have been distributed to schools and community and health units. The CFIA will continue to seek partnership opportunities to raise awareness among the general public about the role governments, the industry, and consumers can play to make Canada's food supply safe.

Finally, in the year to come we will continue to focus our activities on priority areas:

—on redesigning our programs to implement and market the integration inspection system;

—on working on proposed legislative renewal within Bill C-80;

—on enhancing service delivery through quality management practices;

—on enhancing human resource management through the implementation of a CFIA classification system, staffing, and the attraction and retention of highly skilled staff;

—on managing relationships with our partners—federal, provincial and municipal—to achieve a more integrated Canadian inspection system;

—and on enhancing our resource management by continuing to look for ways to use technology to improve efficiencies.

In conclusion, the CFIA has taken steps to meet its mandate to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the federal inspection services. We are working with other levels of government to strengthen the Canadian food system. Subject to Parliament's will, we are ready to work with all of our stakeholders to modernize our regulatory base to make further progress on behalf of Canadians.

[Translation]

Thank you for your attention. I welcome your questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gravel. I'm sure that will generate questions.

• 0920

We'll start with Mr. Hilstrom, for seven minutes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): The Canadian Food Inspection Agency essentially doesn't approve products. Is it an inspection agency only?

Dr. André Gravel: Could you clarify your question?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: For instance, we have new wheat coming—hard red spring wheat that's midge resistant—in about 2002. Do you just wait until it is on the market? What do you do with it for approval purposes? Do you approve or do research on it? What do you do on that?

Dr. André Gravel: Thanks for clarifying that question.

The agency is involved in the approval of products before they are on the market. As an example, with products of biotechnology, such as canola seeds, the agency plays a key role in reviewing the pertinent scientific information related to that product, to ensure there is no harm done to the environment or to animals that could eventually be fed these types of products.

The second part of that approval process has to do with Health Canada. They also conduct a review to determine that the product doesn't actually represent a danger to human health. So those are the two partners involved.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, thank you.

So now you have this new agency and these people are being hired—doctors, research people, scientists, whatever. You mention in your report here that you have values-based staffing practices. Would you just tell me fairly concisely what that means?

Dr. André Gravel: Thanks for asking the question.

Mr. Chairman, I've introduced two of our main partners at the table here today. We also have our vice-president of human resources, Mrs. Shirley Siegel, who can provide some good feedback on that question.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'd ask you to stick to the doctors. I don't care about the clerks, the secretaries, and the other people. I want to talk about the scientific aspect of CFIA.

Ms. Shirley Siegel (Vice-President, Human Resources, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Basically the agency has set out for itself a number of specific values against which it wishes to conduct all of its activities and manage its employee. There are employment values, there are values for its leadership group. Those are articulated in the corporate business plan.

In looking at our staffing practices, which we are in the process of reviewing as a result of being a new agency, we're trying to adopt practices that support and reflect those values that have been articulated for our staff. So in conducting specific types of staffing processes, we ensure the values of judgment, transparency and integrity are reflected.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. The allegation against a lot of the scientific people who are making decisions is that they're biased. They're biased either for GMOs or against GMOs; they're for meat or against meat; they're vegetarian or they're not vegetarian. It's an accusation of bias. When we see the conflict within the CFIA, how do you determine the values of employees? If someone comes in and they're a vegetarian and totally opposed to meat, how can they be an unbiased-type of person that you would hire? How do you screen them out?

Dr. André Gravel: That's a question that has been raised, there's no question about it, in terms of how we as individuals with our own biases can answer to the public in terms of science. However, the agency and other government departments are dealing with that through the use of scientific means for decision-making.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, but did your agency have anything to do with rBST?

• 0925

Dr. André Gravel: The agency would have had something to do with rBST if the product had been approved. The approval of products such as rBST and hormones is done by Health Canada. The agency is responsible, once a product is approved, for ensuring it's used in the way it's supposed to be used, and the labelling is compliant, etc.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: But rBST is used in the U.S. and we get milk and cheese products from there. Do you ever look for rBST in imported products?

Dr. André Gravel: This is a very pertinent question. As you probably know, Health Canada, who's responsible for the approval of rBST, commissioned two groups to look at rBST use. One was a group of medical doctors that looked at the safety for Canadian consumers. The other was a group of veterinarians that looked at the efficacy and safety of rBST for animals.

These two groups tabled their reports to Health Canada, and Health Canada made the decision not to approve rBST, not on the basis of its danger to consumers, but on the basis of some questions related to the impact rBST has on animals: increased mastitis, lameness, etc. The safety of rBST was never an issue. Therefore, a product such as milk that would potentially be treated with rBST would not represent a health hazard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Just to finish with the personnel issue, there's a request from the elk producers to have a tissue sample sent to a U.S. lab in regard to those elk that were destroyed in Ontario. Who is making the decision on why those tissue samples cannot be forwarded, scientist to scientist, for additional analysis? Why are the tissue samples not being sent?

Dr. André Gravel: I'm not sure what the context of the question is, but on the issue of the elk herd that has tuberculosis, the agency is definitely cooperating with the owners of the herd to obtain scientific information about the disease itself, to develop better tools to diagnose tuberculosis. The agency will be doing some of these tests itself. On occasion, the agency relies on labs outside Canada as a validation process for our science.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): I would like to say first of all that the budget is not very informative. We have the same problem with the budget of the Department of Agriculture. There were 11 tables missing regarding budgets for customary expenditures. Your budget is not very informative nor detailed.

In reading your budget, I would have at least liked to determine how much was paid in compensation to producers whose animals got scrapie. I was able to find this information in your budget. However, I did notice that there was a statutory amount of 1.5 million dollars for compensation payments, and that this amount will increase to 2 million dollars this year. That is all that appears.

We are here to approve the budget. Although we may seem critical, we need to know what is going on and how the money is being spent. It seems like we're reading a philosophy text rather than a budget. I apologize if my first comment is unpleasant, but that is the fact of the matter.

My second point is more than a comment. I imagine that, ultimately, you adopt a risk-management approach within which it is reasonable to have a certain percentage of errors. It is impossible to anticipate everything; you merely manage the risk. In these estimates, are the amounts shown under compensation payments available for paying compensation, or are these amounts reserves to cover any errors that may occur? Is that the heading under which this appears?

• 0930

Let me give you a specific example. I don't always talk about sheep; sometimes I actually talk about wapiti. I think that all your officials are familiar with the Beaupré case. I am struck by this case, because it involves a small producer who came up against a big government agency. This man followed all the rules to the letter and really did everything he was supposed to do. When he transported his animals, he called in veterinarians and gave the Agency the necessary documents. However, in the context of risk management, it was decided that since no problem had occurred in Quebec, rather than carrying inspections every three years, they would be done only every five years. So there was no inspection done for some time. Ultimately, this small producer was penalized, and I find that totally unacceptable. His penalty was significant: he lost close to $200,000, because that is how the system works. I'm not calling the system into question, but I would like to know whether you do have a reserve on which you can draw to pay compensation when the system fails.

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you, Ms. Alarie. I have made a note of Ms. Alarie's questions, Mr. Chairman, which seem to cover three areas. Since the first deals with the details contained in the budget, I asked our comptroller, our money man as you called him, Mr. Chairman, to answer that question. I also asked him to deal with the estimates for risk management and compensation.

Your third question was about the case of Mr. Beaupré. We are fortunate to have with us today Mr. Brian Evans, the chief veterinary officer of Canada. I will ask him to make a few comments on this.

John and Brian.

[English]

Mr. John Jones: Thank you.

In relation to the amount of information that's provided in the budget itself, of course the format for the budget is quite restricted in terms of what we are required to follow. Hence, it is correct that there's a limited amount of information and the information is provided in summary form. However, in relation to your question, we have details in relation to the actual compensation payments for 1998 and 1999 in relation to the various diseases. We can provide them to members if they have an interest in them.

In terms of the compensation totals, the amounts listed in the estimates are based on historical information we have, in terms of what we spent in previous years on compensation programs. There's really no accurate way of predicting what that amount will be from year to year, hence the compensation is set up in a statutory vote. That means we have the authority, as the agency has provided for in the act, to draw down against the consolidated revenue fund. So if there are peaks and valleys in relation to the compensation requirements, we have the ability to respond to them in a timely fashion. We are required, of course, to report those changes to the Treasury Board Secretariat, but there is no delay in relation to accessing the dollars that are required to respond to the particular incident.

The Chairman: You have a minute if you want, Madam Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Evans was supposed to reply.

[English]

The Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry.

Dr. Brian Evans (Director, Animal Health, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be very precise and concise in responding to Madam Alarie's concern regarding tuberculosis in wapiti.

As Madam Alarie has indicated, science is not always absolute in dealing with certain diseases. We certainly recognize that the expression of tuberculosis in elk, deer, and other species is different from what we see in cattle and other animals. We are also in a situation of managing these risks without an absolute science base.

• 0935

She made reference to whether there is opportunity in those situations for the agency to recognize that errors may be made. As I said, science is not absolute. We use the best available science, based not only on Canadian standards but on international standards, to protect the long-term interests of the industry and the consumers of venison, to ensure there is no compromise there.

I think her specific question dealt with the issue around whether there is remuneration where there may be errors made in the judgment, based on the science available. As has been indicated, we have compensation programs where animals are ordered destroyed. I think most committee members are well familiar with the compensation program, in terms of the maximum values provided for animals and the reviews that are ongoing at this time.

Compensation has been expanded to include other costs, such as disposal, destruction, and transport of animals where they can be salvaged. Certainly in a situation where an owner has a right to appeal under compensation, he also has a right, through alternate dispute resolution mechanisms on a national basis, to seek redress where he feels a liability has not not addressed.

I think we all recognize that in dealing with disease in livestock, there is a joint shared jurisdiction with livestock producers. Production of livestock is not without risk. We also work with the venison council and other industries in Canada to look at alternate ways for producers to help protect their own investments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): How are you, Mr. Gravel? We'll see. It is a good thing I was not a member of Parliament—though I must point out that I was a candidate in the election—at the time this agency was created, because I would have voted against it. Because of you, I'm inclined to take a closer look at accountability.

You all have fine-sounding answers, and I always have the impression I'm hearing the song Paroles, Paroles, a song about words. You have all these fine-sounding words, and you say some extraordinary things. You have science on your side, and you manage to give that impression. But things are different when it comes to ordinary people, ordinary producers. You have nothing to fear, because a person who lives way out in the country is no danger to you. Expendable. But I have a damn problem with that—a damn problem! Although the term may be unparliamentary, I think Howard would agree that it is appropriate.

As you know, I've been somewhat involved with the sheep issue. Because of their honesty, 11 producers have still not been compensated, and they're losing their shirts. But there are other situations that are even more serious. I got a call from a producer in Saint-Donat-de-Rimouski—which is in the Lower St. Lawrence region, in case you don't know—where her 43 animals have been quarantined since early February. She was told that tests would be done, and she is still waiting. She was told that her 43 animals had to be killed and that she would receive compensation. But apparently, the story has changed: not only has she not received an answer, apparently there are still 26 animals to be tested.

Mr. Gravel, I would be quite prepared to believe you, because I am acting in good faith and I am even gullible. Quebeckers tend to be gullible. We think you are always going to tell us the truth. But the fact is that this woman is still waiting. It's not that serious from your point of view, because whatever happens to her, you will continue to be paid. This producer has still not received an answer. Situations of this type lead to serious social problems, including domestic violence. As we all know, bankers don't wait.

This problem was solved by taking 900 million dollars out of the disaster relief fund, but then politics came into the picture. The federal government provided a certain amount, but Minister Trudel decided to put some money in his coffers. So problems involving sheep, wapiti, blueberries or whatever else may arise will not be solved. I don't want to talk about ducks at this time, because I will cover them in my second question.

When are you going to realize that these people need answers quickly? You have improved somewhat, but you need to do more work. I don't even feel like talking about figures. I feel more like talking about compassion this morning. It is time the Agency woke up. Every time a minister comes along and suggests that a new agency be created, I am a little apprehensive. As the saying goes, once bitten, twice shy.

I come back to the concept of accountability. Ms. Dupont needs an answer, Mr. Gravel. Mr. Jones, you are the money-maker or the money man of the Agency. If you need to request a crisis management fund and some extra latitude in order to deal with this situation and help these people, I am prepared to defend that position. Please wake up and do something, because you are on the borderline.

• 0940

My second question is about ducks. Another disease was detected and the Brome Lake ducks were placed in quarantine. You reacted quickly in that case and the quarantine was lifted, although there are still some compensation problems. People are going to lose their shirts once again, because they have to pay out money without knowing whether or not they will receive compensation. They don't know which way to turn in. I would like you to review the situation for us and tell us what is going to happen to these duck producers. My intention is not to make unkind remarks.

[English]

The Chairman: I want to remind you you've got about three minutes. I know it's a lot of ground to cover, but you've got about three minutes to answer.

[Translation]

Dr. André Gravel: My answer will be very quick. First, I would like to thank Mr. Coderre for his compliments to the Agency, which has improved its practices.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Things are better as far as ducks go, but things are still shaky as regard sheep.

Dr. André Gravel: As you can see, I am pleased to take whatever compliments I get. Once again, I will ask Mr. Evans to tell us about Ms. Dupont's situation and about the duck producers.

The Chairman: Mr. Evans.

Dr. Brian Evans: Thank you, Mr. Gravel.

[English]

I'll start with the duck issue, it being the most recent. The ducks are no longer in quarantine. We were able to deal with that issue over a period of approximately two weeks from the isolation. Velogenic Newcastle disease is probably the most severe disease that could impact on poultry in Canada. During the course of that issue, in terms of dealing compassionately with the situation, again I think we did demonstrate to both the owner of the flock and other affected producers at the time.... I think we went to great lengths to ensure the continued viable operation of the slaughter facility and the movement of animals that weren't at risk from within the controlled area, so that there was an ongoing source of income for the producer at the time. We did allow for material to move under restriction, under quarantine, to other premises for further growing out of the birds so that there was not a loss of the birds. In fact, there were no birds ordered destroyed as a result of the investigation.

I think we've had strong support from both the owner of the affected premises as well as the other individual who had birds on the hatchery. As I say, every effort was made to ensure they had ongoing commerce and there was no destruction of product. Product was held for a period of time to ensure no risk to the international marketplace, and that product is now moving as well. I think there was minimal restriction put in place in that situation.

Again, we are open and engaged in discussions with the individuals involved as to what they see may have been economic harm from these activities, which were, I think, taken and certainly respected by the broad poultry industry in the country as well as by international trading partners to preserve our market access for turkeys, ducks, and chickens.

With respect to the specifics you've made reference to in Quebec, in terms of whether there has been delay in payment for animals destroyed, that's certainly an issue that I'm not aware of personally, but will certainly undertake with our operational counterparts. We normally have a policy—

Mr. Denis Coderre: It's been a problem for the last six months. It's okay. I understand.

Dr. Brian Evans: But, again, I—

Mr. Denis Coderre: All you have to do next time is bring a tape. We always have the same answers.

Dr. Brian Evans: But I think we have seen significant improvement in the relations with the sheep industry in Quebec. They have been fully supportive of the evaluation process that we've undertaken to do. We've had a number of letters of commendation on the research project and the contribution of the animals the industry has made from Quebec—

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Evans, Doctor, I want you to call Madame Dupont this morning. Give her a call and give her hope, because she's on the border of a nervous breakdown. She's been waiting since February. So don't give me those nice answers. I want action. And make sure you deliver this time.

Dr. Brian Evans: Mr. Chairman, we will certainly undertake to make that call, as requested by Mr. Coderre.

If I could just make one other comment in terms of the compassionate face of the agency, certainly, Mr. Coderre, I personally recognize what you're saying. They're not just words. I'd just like to point out to you that my uncle committed suicide following depopulation of a herd for brucellosis by the Canadian government when I was a teenager. So I very much understand and identify with some of the compassion you have raised, and I think that same type of sentiment exists with others in our agency, who feel that the job they do is a difficult job. Certainly we are doing everything we can to have a good bedside manner. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Proctor.

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

• 0945

I just wanted to get CFIA's view on what the environment commissioner had to say earlier this week about chemicals and pesticides. The media related it as a fairly stinging report, saying that the federal government's knowledge of their effects—this is toxic chemicals and pesticides—is incomplete, and the risks are still unknown. It goes on to say that the departments responsible for managing the risks are themselves deeply divided on how it should be done. They even disagree on the importance of the risks.

I contrast that with your statement, Dr. Gravel, on page 4, where you say that the existing division of responsibility between the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Health will not change, thereby protecting the current system of checks and balances. I contrast all of that with page 20 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency estimates, where it talks about reduced inspection and certification requirements to facilitate market access. I'm just wondering if you can lead us through that labyrinth, please.

Dr. André Gravel: The report that was tabled about the environmental impact of the use of pesticides and how the different departments are treating that is certainly a good piece of information in terms of what's happening. The agency is not in the business of approval of chemicals. The agency is in the business of compliance to standards, or the monitoring of compliance to standards. The agency has a very significant system of residue monitoring, as an example, for fresh food and vegetables. That's our responsibility, and we're doing that.

From the standpoint of the approval of different chemicals—pesticides—and their impact on the environment and all that, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency is responsible for that. I understand they're in the process of reviewing many of these products that were approved over the years to determine whether they're still safe and efficace. However, this is not our file.

We take the file at the point where Health Canada establishes a maximum residue level for chemicals and we monitor to ensure that fresh produce, as an example, is within the tolerance. That's what we do for a living. We do a significant number of tests associated with fresh food and vegetables and other commodities to ensure that the food products that are offered to the consumers are safe and wholesome.

Your comments about the different roles and responsibilities between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health are very pertinent. One of the assumptions behind the creation of the agency was that the standards centre had to be different from the inspection arm of government. That's why Health Canada resides outside the agency. They're setting the different standards independently from us. We get the file at the point the standard is set, and we monitor the application. Health Canada is also responsible for verifying that the agency is doing its job. They have a role in monitoring the effectiveness of the agency to ensure the standards they set are actually implemented.

Mr. Dick Proctor: So you're saying the level of pesticide residues is the responsibility of the Department of Health and not the CFIA. What is the approximate number of pesticides that are currently in use in Canada? Is that your department, then?

Dr. André Gravel: No, it is not, and I don't have that information. I could, though, provide it to the members if they're interested.

Mr. Dick Proctor: That's all for now. Thanks.

The Chairman: Just before I go to Mr. Borotsik, if I have it right, Mr. Gravel, it's up to Health Canada to lay down parameters and to develop guidelines for the application of chemicals, and your job is to determine whether those parameters or guidelines are honoured. It's not your job to determine whether those guidelines are goofy for some reason, or may lead to some negative consequences. That's the job of Health Canada. That's my understanding. Is it correct?

Dr. André Gravel: Well, I think you're correct overall. Health Canada is setting the tolerance and the guidelines. We monitor against those guidelines. If the guidelines or standards are not met, we take enforcement action.

The Chairman: But if they are met, regardless of the consequences, then it's okay with you?

Dr. André Gravel: Well—

The Chairman: I don't say that in a pejorative sense.

Dr. André Gravel: You're right. We're not the standard-setters. We're the enforcers.

• 0950

The Chairman: Good. Thank you.

Mr. Borotsik.

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

I'll ask one budget question first, and then we'll get back to the market access that you talked about as part of your mandate.

As for the budget, as do other agencies, you have a philosophy or mandate with respect to cost recovery within the system. Mr. Jones, I suspect, can tell me whether you've done any cost-benefit analysis at this point in time on how it has affected your department. Can you tell me if there is, at some point in time, a level where cost recovery is going to be a detriment to your operation? Can you tell me if there are going to be any shortfalls in your budget this year with respect to cost recovery, and if so, how you are going to make those up?

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'll ask Mr. Hillier to answer the question.

Mr. Larry Hillier (Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to begin by saying we've had an open and transparent process around cost recovery, and several discussions with members of this committee dealing with all commodities and sectors of our client industry. We did proceed on a principle of equity across commodities and we worked with that as a percentage of our cost. So the fees, in that respect, are reasonably equitable.

As you are aware, we're in a period now of moratorium in terms of new cost-recovery fees until the year 2000. At this point, we have had a review done by colleagues at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in terms of the cumulative impact of cost recovery on the sector, and we're confident that there is no major negative impact on individual sectors. There are some areas that are more directly affected than others in relative terms. The minister of the day did invite industry clients, if there were situations specifically, whether in fact it was negative impact, to submit those cases individually for consideration.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have there been some submitted?

Mr. Larry Hillier: There's been very limited feedback in that regard. From that point of view, we are now in moratorium mode.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Are you anticipating a shortfall in your cost recoveries on your budget?

Mr. Larry Hillier: Our targets now are in the range of $47 million. That is straight-lined at this point to the year 2000.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is it achievable?

Mr. Larry Hillier: Yes, in terms of current collectibles.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You say you've done basic cost-benefit analysis and there hasn't been any impact on industries. What you're saying is there's no feedback, therefore there's no impact.

Mr. Larry Hillier: That is a feedback, that there is no impact. But in fact the study done by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada did indicate no major negative impact on the sectors.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. I get different views on that. I understand there has been some job loss because of the cost-recovery aspect of your department.

I'll go away from the budget and back into market access. I find this rather interesting, and I appreciate that there is a bit of a conundrum. You have two functions. One obviously is that of food protection—and by the way, I think our reputation as Canadians is very high throughout the world, and that has a lot to say for the CFIA. The other part is the market access. I refer to it as promoting trade. You were very specific, Dr. Gravel, in saying that this isn't trade promotion, it's market access. There are two aspects I would like to touch on right now. First of all, maybe you could just expand a bit on how your department, in fact, is going to achieve this particular goal of market access into a global market right now.

Secondly, in regard to Codex, which obviously ties into market access with respect to biotech, can you expand a bit on your role as the CFIA and how you see yourself playing that role in the next five years in accessing the market with our products?

As I say, it's a bit of a conundrum there, with food safety, and market access beyond that. There's a bit of a problem, certainly within Canadian society right now, where they see the CFIA taking a more expanded role in the market access side than in the food safety side of it. Maybe you could just touch on that.

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you. That's a very good question. I'm glad you asked the question, because it will allow me to expand a bit in terms of the perceived difficulty in meeting the two mandates.

As you pointed out, market access is not trade promotion. The agency is in the business of market access from two standpoints. Read market access to also mean the protection of animal and plant health status of Canada. This is also market access. A good animal and plant health status allows Canadian products to be marketed around the world. From that standpoint, visualize the CFIA in its market access role being stationed at the border monitoring those products that are coming in to ensure they are safe and wholesome, and that live animals, semen, or embryos that are being imported into Canada and also safe and meeting the requirements.

• 0955

The second part of it is related to exports. There are two roles in market access: one is export and one is import. On the export file, for the life of me I can't see a contradiction between market access and safe food, because you cannot market unsafe food. So saying that the agency will do market access today, and we're not going to do food safety....

By doing the inspections we do on food safety, by inspecting the animals that are coming in, we keep Canadian herds and Canadian forestry products and plant products healthy—by inspecting plants, registered establishments, to ensure the safety standards are met. That contributes to food safety, but also promotes, to a certain extent, the possibility of Canadian products being on the market.

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

Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We appreciate you being here, witnesses.

Doctor, I want to thank you and congratulate you for your involvement in the best and safest supply of food in the world. We do need to keep that reputation up. It sounds as if the government bill, this new Bill C-80, will bring some very strong steps for the CFIA and the public will benefit.

I want to speak about labelling for a moment, because our daughter has been talking.... I think the public some day will realize how much they wrote the last federal budget and how much they'll write the next federal budget. The nutritional labelling we have to do, and I think we have to do it sooner rather than later. It seems somewhat straightforward to me. There will be a cost and there will be a compliance factor, of course, all leading up to cost recovery, the public good, and all that. But it sure seems to me and to many Canadians that it's not a fair process up until now, the cost recovery in this agency and many others. The producer is the one who gets hit severely with this.

Then if we go on from that labelling into the other labelling, the big label that will take a few years to work out, the modified labelling, again the demand will be there and is there. I hope you realize the cost this has, the hurts, and how strong a factor this is to our producers in Canada, because it's really hurting them. And it's hurting them more today with the low commodity prices than ever before.

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you very much for the question.

If I understand correctly, your question is related to cost recovery and the impact on producers on one hand. On the other hand, I think you would be interested in getting some information on nutritional labelling and the labelling of products from biotechnology.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, on the impact of cost recovery to producers I'll ask Mr. Hillier to provide an answer. On the issue of labelling of biotech products, we have Margaret Kenny in the room. She's our biotechnology expert.

The Chairman: We have about three minutes for the answers. Go ahead, Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Larry Hillier: Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that in fact the cost-recovery initiative has, from our perspective.... Our priority has been to achieve cost-reduction initiatives before moving to cost recovery. It's a last resort for us. In fact cost recovery has been very effective in driving cost savings in the agency, bringing the groups together to create the agency, reducing overlap and duplication, allowing a lot of cross-training of inspection staff, but ensuring, wherever possible, the consolidation of the delivery function as fiscally responsible as possible from the point of view of not passing costs through to clients.

So we've made significant efforts, and that continues. In fact it's been quite a useful initiative in driving that cost reduction. So we're very sensitive to that. We have initiatives looking at other delivery possibilities, such as the P.E.I. potato study. We're looking at possible options for delivery by non-government, arm's-length associations, as an example. There is a process under way now.

• 1000

We are very open to those kinds of initiatives in discussing with clients the possibility of looking at other ways to deliver programs. That's a very open alternative, but we are in fact still inviting any feedback on impacts, negative impacts of cost recovery for consideration, so we can look at actions if it's necessary perhaps to correct those situations.

The Chairman: Ms. Kenny.

Ms. Margaret Kenny (Associate Director, Biotechnology Strategies and Coordination Office, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just briefly, with regard to questions dealing with labelling of foods from biotechnology, certainly the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has an appreciation of how big a question this is and how important it is for the public and for producers.

We try very hard to look at the ramifications in terms of what is necessary to protect the health and safety of Canadians. There we have mandatory requirements. If there are changes in food that would affect the nutrition of the food, for example, there are mandatory labelling requirements.

We also, though, do look at the feasibility of having general labelling requirements for all foods developed through biotechnology, and in that we have to take into consideration how food is produced in Canada when we're dealing with bulk commodities such as canola and soybeans and corn, but we also recognize that there's a need to meet the very real needs for consumers, particularly in the area of information.

So under the legislation we work with there is provision for what we call voluntary labelling. That is, if a food company has a market for foods not produced through biotechnology, then they are free to label their products as not being developed through biotechnology, providing it's truthful and not misleading. The law does allow them to meet market demand and meet the needs of consumers who want their foods produced in a certain way and not the other way.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go into the issue of food recall. Could you explain somewhat to us, are these mostly meat products? Are these locally produced foods? Are they imported foods? When I see 438 recalls in two years, that's kind of scary. I'm wondering when you say we should probably go toward a more preventive approach rather than after the manufacturing of the food, what is the problem here that we have this much food being recalled?

The Chairman: Who would like to answer?

Dr. André Gravel: Concerning the types of food that are involved in recall, out of the 438 that I mentioned, the majority of these recalls are related to the presence of allergens. For some reason unknown to me, the population in general is getting more allergic to, as an example, peanuts. So many of these recalls are related to the products that contain peanuts or nuts undeclared on the list of ingredients.

If you're allergic to peanuts and you buy a chocolate bar and the list of ingredients doesn't mention peanuts, if there are peanuts in there you may die. It's as simple as that. It's a very strong allergic reaction. In many cases we found that especially for imported products, imported chocolate bars around Easter or Christmas from, as an example, eastern Europe, the list of ingredients is not adequate. In those cases, the agency does not hesitate. It's a matter of life and death, and we issue a statement to the press indicating that the product has to be recalled.

Mr. Coderre is not in the room, unfortunately, but if he had been here he would be happy to know that the agency has a power and authority the U.S. is very envious of, and that is the authority for the minister to order a recall. The U.S. doesn't have that authority. Not many countries have that. Generally speaking, recalls are voluntary, and that's been our experience, but in the case where there would be a problem the minister can order a company to withdraw the product from the market.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Am I right in saying that if you have that kind of a product coming into the country or manufactured here and it's not properly labelled, they don't include the contents of peanuts, why should your agency pay for recalling that? Why shouldn't there be some kind of a fine or some way to recoup the cost that you input into getting these products off the market? Surely it's not fair that the taxpayer or consumer pays this cost.

• 1005

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you for your question.

The agency is not actually doing the recall itself unless it's ordered. The recall is normally done by the manufacturer himself. The agency is involved in the logistics surrounding the issue and the press release, and also monitoring the effectiveness of withdrawing the product from the market.

That's one consideration, the issue of the presence of allergens in food. The second one, of course, is the issue of the presence of bacteria in products where there shouldn't be. Ready-to-eat products containing salmonella is an example of a situation where the agency would also issue a recall. There are other instances where we're not talking about life-threatening situations, where, as an example, the labelling is not quite adequate; it does not reflect the ingredient listing. We would be involved in that case as well.

The third part of your question was whether it is imported or domestic. It's a combination. It depends. The agency has overall responsibility for recall regardless of whether the product has been manufactured in a registered establishment or not. In that case, we're also partnering with the provinces and municipalities. We're connected with Health Canada as well, because Health Canada makes a determination as to whether a product has to be withdrawn from the market. The agency doesn't do that. Health Canada looks at the situation. They do a health risk assessment, in cooperation with the agency, to withdraw the product from the market. As I said, provinces are sometimes involved; municipalities are involved. So I think we have a well-run system.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our meeting today is very timely, with the situation in my riding.

As you stated, in the report on plans and priorities the CFIA has defined three principal objectives. One is market access—and market access is market access, not trade promotion. But it goes on to speak of facilitating trade by negotiating technical requirements for international movement of foods, animals, and plants.

With that in mind, I have a particular situation in my riding where this business certainly does not want to compromise any health standards. They have been around for many years, and are a large operation that exports turkey eggs to Germany for hatching. Germany uses only the toms. This company is experiencing a shortage of hens here in Canada, and they need the hens back in Canada before the summer. This firm is asked to pay $1,200 to do a study. They don't have that kind of time to sit around and wait to see what's happening. They're told they have an eight-week quarantine.

I'm glad to see the ducks were quarantined for two weeks and everything was okay, but we're saying we want to speed up the process. When these kinds of hindrances come in, these people do not have eight weeks. They need the birds back. What can we, as your agency, do to help improve the working relationship for businesses such as this? They don't want anything that's bad; they run a high-quality operation. But they seem to have this roadblock in front of them.

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you for raising the issue of market access from the standpoint of products that are imported into Canada. I'll ask Dr. Evans to comment, but first allow me to make a few general comments with regard to importation of live animals or products into Canada.

Canada is doing risk assessments for products coming in to ensure that the health of Canadian livestock and poultry is maintained and that we don't run the risk of introducing diseases into Canada that we do not have.

Specifically, about the conditions for importation of chickens and turkeys from Germany, I'll ask Dr. Evans to come to the table, please.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Excuse me. Before you move on with that, the egg is coming from Canada and going there and the birds are being hatched there. So I'm sure there's an inspection that egg goes through before it leaves Canada over into Germany. What would be the major concern? Would that not be detected when that first inspection happens?

• 1010

Dr. André Gravel: For Dr. Evans' benefit, because he's going to have to answer the specifics on it, the eggs are exported to Germany, they are hatched in Germany, and we're importing the live animals from Germany.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Dr. Evans.

Dr. Brian Evans: You made reference to a $1,200 fee, which is normally associated with the conducting of a risk assessment, which is normally undertaken only in those instances in which we have not had a previous import history with that country or with that particular commodity from a country. So it's not a case of duplicating and going through a bureaucratic piece; it's a matter of looking at the disease status in that situation.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So that's only done one time, then?

Dr. Brian Evans: Yes, it's a one-time effort, and then once we've established that the disease status of the country and the control measures in place in the country meet our standards, that does not have to be repeated.

In the particular situation you're alluding to, I would think there would be a measure if these eggs were going into a controlled hatchery situation in Germany, not being exposed to the domestic poultry population in Germany. Germany, unfortunately, as we just recently went through, has an ongoing Newcastle problem in their flocks, and unfortunately, although it's not passed from parent to offspring through eggs in ducks, it can be done in chickens and turkeys. So the main concern there would be the biosecurity of the hatchery involved.

If they could demonstrate to us that these eggs were coming in after being fumigated, were set and hatched, and there was no common contact either by the handlers in the hatchery or with other domestic birds, I'm sure we could look at alternate ways to manage the risk to meet the timeframe you've described. So I would be very open to going back and reviewing with the company involved what's involved with the people they're dealing with at the other side, and we could follow up with the German authorities in a reasonable time.

The particulars you're describing seem to be a unique situation. If the application to import said they just want to import young hens from Germany, without all of the other background information that said these were Canadian eggs being dealt with in a controlled situation, it would trigger a whole different scenario of pathways for us to follow.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Hilstrom.

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

I saw a figure that 1.2% of domestic produce has pesticide on it, you've determined, above the legal limit set by Health Canada. Is that an accurate figure or not?

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you for the question.

There is an article in the Globe and Mail that indicated that 24% of tested shipments of fresh Canadian produce contained pesticides. This article doesn't take into consideration the fact that science has gotten better. In a way, the detection limit of our test has improved very significantly.

Again I bring you back to the comment I made about maximum residue level. There may be a certain pesticide or contaminant in a product, and if Health Canada has determined that this is not a health hazard, then it's sort of a scientific finding that is not really that significant.

Generally speaking, as I mentioned, the CFIA is doing a great number of tests. In fact, in the last four years we've done 41,000 tests on fresh produce, and the compliance level that we find is close to 98% to 99%. For example, in apples, which is one of the things that was mentioned in the article, I think the compliance level in those we did showed 99%.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: What about imported produce? Is that contained in that figure?

Dr. André Gravel: Imported produce is included in that figure, and generally speaking, the level of compliance is also very good.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: In the past year, have you rejected any foreign produce coming in with excessive levels?

Dr. André Gravel: The way it goes is that there are basically three types of residue detection activities the agency is conducting. The first one is monitoring. Monitoring means that the agency wants to know what the background level of contamination of certain chemicals is in the population in general. As an example, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation monitors the speed on Highway 401. They just have a radar there. They want to know what the traffic pattern is and how fast the cars are going. In that case the agency does not hold that product.

• 1015

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, so there haven't been any. That's fine, then.

Dr. André Gravel: No, hold on, let me finish. There's a second part, which is compliance monitoring. If we find that by monitoring the situation there is a compliance problem—for example, if we find that the product you send on the market as a producer is contaminated with pesticides in our monitoring program—then we will target you as a producer for residue monitoring. In that case the product will be held, tested, and if it's positive it will be taken off the market. And if we find that the situation does not resolve itself, then every load will be held and tested and taken out of the market.

To answer your question, yes, there have been situations where product has been taken out of the market.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, we don't have a number, but that's fine; maybe we can get that later.

The last question I'd like to deal with here concerns certainly the scrapie in sheep and turkey. It seems that there's very slow movement in getting a formula ready for the other animal units outside of turkey and sheep. And it seems really strange that just before the election in Quebec the Liberal leader, Jean Charest, seemed to get a lot of benefit out of the fact that the compensation for sheep has doubled from $300 to $600. And then turkeys were included in that also. I'd like to know why that happened. And I'd like to know why there hasn't been quicker movement on getting other animal species, including elk, a new formula. Why isn't that in place now? If you're able to do it with sheep and turkeys, why isn't it for cattle, lamas, elk, and everything else? Could you answer that?

A voice: Not enough elections.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: There are elections in Saskatchewan and Manitoba coming up.

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I will ask Dr. Evans again to bring the members up to date in terms of the process that is used to review compensation caps.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: And the status, because you can't get from the minister what the status is. That's why we have to ask you people these specific questions. What is the status of these new formulas for the other animals?

The Chairman: I want to remind Dr. Evans that we're actually out of time for this round, but I'll allow the answer. Try to make it as short as you can, Dr. Evans.

Dr. Brian Evans: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The caps, as the honourable member has indicated, for sheep and turkey were put in place based on consensus after we met with all of the industry sectors through the consultative form that we run on compensation with all represented industry sectors. It was an industry decision to proceed with the advancement on those, given the economic pressures of the situation in Quebec on the sheep producers, an issue that had been some 18 months ongoing at that point.

The caps are also now in place now for cattle, for horses and swine, in addition to sheep and turkeys, which were done before Christmas. My understanding is the docket has been registered now and those caps are in place for those other domestic species.

The process that was agreed to with the broad consultative group of the 126 industry groups was that we operate in two sections. One section would deal with the domestic livestock, because of the economic parameters and the ease of measurement in domestic livestock versus those for non-traditional livestock, which include the elk, the zoo animals, the ostriches and the ratites, and some of the camelids and other new species that have been introduced into the country in what we would refer to as game ranching, or alternate livestock production. My understanding is that the process is under way.

Those industry sectors have submitted economic data to be evaluated by the contractor for those particular species. There is a process in place by which that same industry group will operate using the same principles that were developed in phase one, which look at again shared industry accountability and industry top-up funding scenarios, as well as the realities around what are the marketable conditions for those industry sectors.

My understanding is it is in progress and that there has been economic data supplied by some of the industry groups.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Evans.

Dr. Brian Evans: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Murray.

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

Dr. Gravel, I'd like to ask you if your agency ever acts as an advocate for new technologies. I realize you're an inspection agency, but I'm thinking specifically of food irradiation, and I have a parochial reason to ask the question, which is that MDS Nordion is in my riding. There's considerable consumer resistance to the idea of food irradiation. However, it would make your jobs perhaps easier if for example E. coli bacteria could be eliminated in ground meat or other pathogens in other products as a result of using irradiation. So my question is whether or not you as inspectors recognize the value of new technologies, including food irradiation. If so, do you act as advocates in government to try to promote the use of those new technologies?

• 1020

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, irradiation is viewed by the agency as being a useful process to destroy bacteria that represent a significant health hazard in some instances. The agency, as I mentioned, is a regulator. In that context, the agency cannot be a promoter of technology. However, we recognize certainly the usefulness of a technique like this.

The approval of that technology, as such, in its application for different types of food, whether they be meat or spices or potatoes, etc., is not done by the agency. The approval process, again, is an issue Health Canada is dealing with. We also recognize the fact that the technology itself hasn't definitely taken off the ground in a significant manner. As you mentioned, there's some consumer resistance to it, and probably the resistance is due to the fact that people don't understand very well what the technology is all about. In that context, certainly the agency can provide adequate and factual information about the process itself. Or Health Canada, for that matter, could also provide the information.

It's the same thing as whenever a new technology is introduced. Remember when microwaves were first introduced there was definitely some resistance associated with them. Now, even I, as an old person, have a microwave at home. So it goes to show that as technology gets implemented progressively, consumers get a little bit more nervous about it.

I think there's consumer education associated with it. It's a useful process, there's no question about it. It's something that could, as an example, take care of some of the problems we have with salmonella or E. coli, etc.

Mr. Ian Murray: As front-line troops, though, in this commitment to food safety, do you engage in active discussions with the Department of Health? Did you take an initiative to do that? As I say, it strikes me that it may not make your job easier, but it would eliminate a lot of the problems. I don't have the sense that there's an awful lot going on right now in that area. I could be wrong, but I'm wondering who would get the ball rolling, so to speak.

Dr. André Gravel: I think there are two very significant players, apart from the agency, involved in this. First, whoever is in the process of marketing that technology clearly needs to get the necessary clearances from Health Canada on the technology itself. And I think the second stakeholder that clearly could push on the envelope and make representation is definitely the meat industry, or any other industry that sees a usefulness for that technology.

I remember as an example that the meat industry has been involved in lobbying Health Canada to change the list of additives that are permitted in meat because they see new technology and new products on the market. So I think by a combination of the manufacturer of products and also the people who develop the technology that file could go forward.

Mr. Ian Murray: Okay. Thanks, Dr. Gravel.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I'll start with a rather lengthy comment. Despite all the respect I have for Mr. Evans, I'm disappointed with his answer. First, I've never doubted that it's necessary to protect the health of Canadians—and I congratulate you for doing so—as well as protect our international markets. That goes without saying and that is, of course, the goal you are pursuing. I also am in favour of motherhood and apple pie. However, I am against inequity and for accountability. When, despite all the rules being followed, an agency makes a mistake—and I think that in both the cases I have quoted, mistakes were made—then it has to pay compensation. It is no more than a mote of dust in the general budget because you get your funds from Treasury Board. You don't necessarily draw from your own budget.

• 1025

My last comment has to do with the indemnity process that establishes distinct classes for domestic animals and others. When you raise livestock, you raise livestock. Whether you lose a herd of Holstein cows or wapiti, you still wind up broke. I find that contradicts the departmental policy promoting rural diversification. We're told to leave the beaten path and produce something else, because we want to remain rural. If we don't protect this from the other end, then it's nonsense. That was my comment.

Now I'll put my question concerning access to markets. You must work with a view to harmonizing international standards and do a follow up on transgenic production and the new products of biotechnology. I can see here that your budget is on a decreasing trend and that the receipts credited to the vote remain constant till 2002. There's something I don't understand here. Taking into account everything that's happening and about to happen, changes in the agricultural world meaning that there's a whole area to explore, transgenic products, biotechnology, and our relations with the WTO, I thought you were an organization in full expansion and I expected to see an expansionary budget, not a decreasing one.

Dr. André Gravel: Thank you for your comments. Maybe I could make a comment also before answering your question. As Mr. Evans mentioned, concerning the equity of compensation, we're presently proceeding with a review of the compensation ceilings for species other than domestic. I think it wouldn't be possible to deal with the two kinds of species during the same exercise because we're talking about two really different things. Will we examine indemnification for wapiti, turkey and deer? Absolutely. We will use the mechanism we used to determine the maximum indemnification values for domestic animals. So we'll adopt the same philosophy. We'll give out a contract and wait for the recommendations.

As for our presence on international markets and the process through which the Agency can influence standards, the Agency has already made a very significant contribution at that level. The agency is fortunate enough to be very well positioned with those world organizations that manage trade. Last week, our president, Mr. Doering, made opening comments at the annual meeting of the International Office of Epizootics. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this office serves as referee in those conflicts drawn to the attention of the World Trade Organization. Our country and our Agency are happy that Mr. Norm Willis is the president of the International Office of Epizootics. I think that we are strategically very well positioned to influence the standards process. As I was mentioning before, Ms. Anne MacKenzie, who's also a member of the Agency, chairs the labelling Codex committee. We're very well positioned to exercise our influence over world standards. Moreover, most problems concerning access to markets are settled through bilateral negotiations with the different countries.

The Agency has definitely invested a lot of time, effort and energy in facilitating the access of Canadian products to foreign markets. For example, every year, over the last three years, I went to China to negotiate with the Chinese authorities concerning access for Canadian pork, Canadian potatoes, Canadian beef, Canadian tobacco and other Canadian products with a view to facilitating trade. Our role isn't just promoting Canadian products, but rather solving problems of a technical order having to do with market access for Canadian products. Although these activities are not necessarily reflected in our budget, Mr. Chairman, the Agency does make a very significant investment in that area. If Parliament passes a motion to grant us more money, we will accept with pleasure.

• 1030

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Just for clarification on the translation here, please, on the use of the term “domestic animals”, is it domesticated animals? Is the translation coming through correctly from our translators in French to English there? It doesn't seem quite clear to me. Do you understand?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, I do.

Maybe I was a bit confusing myself, in the way I said it, but what I meant was domesticated types of animals, such as cows, pigs, sheep, as opposed to zoo animals and exotic species that are not normally found on a farm.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Because wapiti or elk are domestic—

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, I know.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: They're native. Okay.

Dr. André Gravel: But they're not sort of regular, run of the mill type—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I go back to cost recovery. Dr. Gravel, you've basically laid it out that internally you've taken a look at your organization and you're trying to run yourself as efficiently as possible. You're trying to keep the costs down, and you're trying to balance your budget. So you've done all that internal analysis.

In my other life I'm a farmer, so I'm interested in looking at it from my side of the fence. The cost recovery from your food inspection agency is only one of many that I am shouldering as a farmer. I'm getting hit with cost recovery from PMRA, I can get hit with cost recovery out of transportation, any number of things. Have you done any external analysis of how it's affecting the agricultural community, not only the cost recovery that comes out of your agency, but all the cost recovery that I'm having to shoulder now? Have you done any analysis on that?

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, with your permission I'll ask Larry Hillier to answer the question.

The Chairman: Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Larry Hillier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The cumulative impact study I mentioned in fact did deal with all federal cost-recovery impacts on the sector. So that work has been done. The analysis was done. In fact the conclusion was that no major negative impact on the sector was observed. It does include the global evaluation, so it is not just, for example, cost-recovery charges, fees for service from within the agriculture and agrifood envelope. It's across the board.

Mr. Murray Calder: When you did that study, did you find any particular sectors in agriculture that are more sensitive than others?

Mr. Larry Hillier: We had some areas in terms of impact, yes.

Mr. Murray Calder: What areas?

Mr. Larry Hillier: Areas like small and medium-sized meat processors, the seed potato area, those kinds of areas where in fact there are some impacts that in relative terms are perhaps a bit greater than the so-called average.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay. In that situation, when they were sensitive because of cost recovery, is it adding too much to their overhead cost of production that it doesn't make them competitive any more? Is that what you found?

Mr. Larry Hillier: No.

Mr. Murray Calder: I mean through cost recovery, which is an overhead cost. It's a cost of doing business. And if it's an expensive cost of doing business, then it puts me in a situation where, if I were exporting, I'm not competitive as an exporter.

Mr. Larry Hillier: We have done that assessment. We're talking in relative terms between sectors, of course, and products.

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes.

Mr. Larry Hillier: But we found that the impact has not been significant. Again, the invitation is standing for the industry section, as in groups, to submit information in some detail for us to analyse. Again, working in the moratorium mode we're looking, hopefully, to be able to go back to the table and have discussions regarding fine-tuning.

In situations like seed potato, for example, we were not able to move ahead with a second planned wave of cost recovery, a second initiative. In fact people have made the observation that it isn't a totally level playing field in that regard. We recognize the need for us, at some point in the future, to be able to discuss that, based on input from all of the clients, the extensive consultation we've done, to ensure that we have an equitable approach to it.

As I said before, this is driving cost savings and cost avoidance inside the system, and that's our priority at this point—quality service, but at minimal cost.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay. So those processors and what not would still have the capability of coming in and taking a look at how you're doing business. They can agree with whether you're doing it the most efficient way possible or not, is that right?

Mr. Larry Hillier: In fact I should mention, Mr. Chairman, that the Auditor General has done a review of our cost-recovery process and will be issuing a report shortly that will perhaps shed some more light on the process itself.

• 1035

Again, we remain very open to interventions from industry clients on the concerns around the initiatives in the commodity areas.

Mr. Murray Calder: When I was in New Brunswick in 1996 doing a study, the potato producers were very upset with the fact that for potatoes going into the United States there would be a certificate issued, which cost them so much money, and if that truck got turned around at the border for no good reason, which was the case as far as they could see, they would in fact have to turn around and get that load recertified. Basically, if the United States wanted to play games with them at the border, it could. It was costing those producers and making them uncompetitive. Does that situation still exist?

Mr. Larry Hillier: That brings us back to the mandate in terms of market access and dealing with trading partners in terms of barriers to trade and making sure that from the point of view of market access, we respond quickly to those kinds of situations and in fact intervene in order to resolve those issues and ensure open borders with minimal delay. That again is a key challenge of ours, and that's one we're very vigilant on.

Mr. Murray Calder: In other words, you're working hard to support our producers.

Mr. Larry Hillier: Indeed.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Calder.

Members, we've heard at least once from those members who have indicated a need to ask questions, so at this point I would like to take a few minutes out, before getting to Mr. Borotsik for his second round, and dispose of the motion that is before us. I'm hoping we can do it without debate, which might be a bit naive on my part, because I would like to show courtesy to the witnesses and not have them wait very long.

Members, this motion comes before us now to my genuine surprise because I thought we had passed the motion on Tuesday. I'm advised by the clerk that the motion wasn't passed. As things have turned out, maybe it's just as well.

Let me just offer a few remarks, but I hope we can have the vote and not get into a debate. On Tuesday, in your show of hands, and not the motion—as it turned out it was simply a show of hands—you indicated that all the parties in this room, all five political parties, support in principle the plan to go to Europe in the fall. You also indicated by your show of hands that you would like to send a total of twelve people in the delegation—that is, twelve MPs and two staff, for a total of fourteen. That was what you indicated your willingness to support. However, I think all of that is moot, because Mr. Hilstrom of the Reform Party has indicated that he would support a delegation of only six MPs.

An hon. member: Maybe you should stay home, Jake.

The Chairman: Please, I'd like to just explain the situation. That being the case, I want to advise you that the liaison committee, which has to deal with the request for the travel budget, operates on consensus only. So if the Reform Party says that it will support only six and not twelve MPs, it will not go any further. I can tell you that the Board of Internal Economy, which is really the ultimate authority on this issue, operates exactly the same way.

So we could indicate a desire to send eight, ten, twelve, twenty, a hundred, whatever, but if one party says it will support only six MPs, that's it. It will not go any further. I am simply advising you, and I hope we don't get into a debate, because I really don't think there's anything to debate here.

Since we do want to go to Europe, I would suggest that we support the motion asking for a budget of $68,500 to send six members of Parliament and two staff, for a total of eight. If there is no debate, and I hope there isn't—

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, there is debate.

The Chairman: Okay. I knew my naiveté would win out. Go ahead, Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to mention for the benefit of a colleague or two who weren't here the other day that it was my—

An hon. member: You can stay home.

Mr. Larry McCormick: That's fine if I stay home. It really is, and I'll sign that it's fine if I stay home.

• 1040

To my friend across the floor here, the reason I made the amendment that we should look at sending more members is because when I'm in any province across this country, rightly or wrongly, I tell people that probably the most important issue for rural Canada over the next several years is the WTO negotiations. If we could plant any seed or seeds, it would make a difference. I think this is so very important, this expenditure of money. Yes, I pay taxes, and I recognize there's money involved.

I recognize that the chair is trying to get this through, but if we only ask for the six with that amendment.... I was just on my way over to ask someone if they were going to support my amended motion, but I didn't hear my amended motion put forward at this time. Could you clarify that, the fact that I thought we were looking at twelve members?

The Chairman: We have only one motion before us, and it simply leaves a blank. What you've given us is not a motion, Mr. McCormick. I have the one motion. It simply leaves a blank that would include the sum of money for the delegation decided upon.

I'm sorry, witnesses, but we just have to get this done.

Mr. Hilstrom and then Mr. Murray.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I agree, Mr. Chairman, that this is important committee travel, and I fully support the committee travelling to Europe. You're certainly not naive in the belief that this is so important that it needs debate.

The initial proposal for six members and $65,000 was based on the fact that we could accomplish the job that needed to be done by the committee in Europe with six members. It is very clear that in this time of budget considerations by the government and in consideration of the budgets of the farmers in this country, if we can get the job done with six MPs—and I've discussed this with my party whip—I believe we should stick with the six and save the money. We'll still get the job done. That's going to be my recommendation to Mr. Williams, our MP on the approval committee. In speaking to this budget motion, I would state that the figure of $65,000 should be the figure that would go in there—

An hon. member: It's $68,000.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: —or $68,000, whatever, and I believe the original decision on that budget was a good one.

The Chairman: Next is Mr. Murray and then Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make a comment.

I believe it's bizarre that we have a delegation of eight people going, and out of that delegation of eight, the majority party in the House of Commons will have two members and the opposition parties, which combined have fewer than the government party, will be sending four members, and the other two are staffers. I just make the comment because I believe if you're going to have a committee do anything, it should reflect the makeup of the House of Commons.

The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, if I could just get a clarification of your remarks, I do understand that if one party objects, the motion would not be accepted by the Board of Internal Economy. Do I take it from your comments that you feel confident that in fact the trip would be approved for eight total and would not be approved for fourteen? If that's the case, it's a fairly moot point.

This can go forward, obviously, to the Board of Internal Economy for the full fourteen, which, by the way, I don't necessarily disagree with. I believe we're a committee. I believe we work as a committee with a number of witnesses before us. In some cases the government side of the table has even supported me in some of the things I have put forward. It is a committee. Needless to say, there is going to be an awful lot of discussion with regard to the WTO. We've had the take-note hearings. A lot of people here have a lot to put forward, and certainly they have a lot of very valid comments. But it's a moot point in saying that. If you take it forward with any more than what the chairman legitimately feels is going to be approved, then none of the committee would go to what I consider to be a very important first step in the WTO negotiations.

• 1045

Mr. Chairman, although I don't agree with not allowing the other one going forward, I will support Mr. Hilstrom's position on this.

The Chairman: To answer your question, Mr. Borotsik, I can't presume what the powers that be will ultimately decide. But given this requirement of consensus, I think I can answer frankly and with some precision that without the support of the Reform Party for a delegation of fourteen, that simply will not go through. It's simply a dead issue.

Mrs. Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Just a comment, and no disrespect to my honourable colleague in the Reform Party on your saying that a team of six could do the job well and why have the extra dollars. I just reflect back when this committee went to Washington and I thought did a very good job, and then subsequently a team of Reform Party members went back to Washington. So are we having two sets of rules here? I strongly support a delegation of twelve being put forth. If that's refused, then we have to reflect on what comes back to us. But we're here as a committee, and I think it should be percentage representation, as my honourable colleague stated earlier.

The Chairman: Did you want to say something, Mr. McGuire?

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Yes, I'd like to make a personal observation here.

If we are working as a committee month in and month out, it's my belief that the committee will go to Strasbourg—not six of the committee or eight of the committee, but the committee will go—

An hon. member: Or won't go.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Or won't go, period.

The Chairman: The final comment goes to Mr. McCormick, and that's it.

Mr. Larry McCormick: It's just a question, Mr. Chair. I wouldn't want to take away from anyone's comment.

Sincerely, because I don't know enough about how business is structured here, where does the requirement appear that we have to have this agreement from this committee for the proposed trip, that we have to have unanimous agreement around this table before we can apply?

The Chairman: There is no requirement for unanimity at this committee. I'm simply telling you, Mr. McCormick, that without the consensus—and it's been already indicated by the Reform Party that there is no consensus—it simply will not go forward. It's as simple as that.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to ask you a question.

The Chairman: I can't make it more clear. I don't agree with the Reform Party position. I'd like to send all sixteen. I'm just telling you it's a fact.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, I guess I'm naive. Does the Reform Party control the government here?

The Chairman: No. I don't like the consensus system, Mr. McCormick. I think it's crazy. But we live with it because that's the system that is used.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, do we need a motion that the committee will go to Europe?

The Chairman: Madam Alarie, and then we'll have the vote.

Mr. Larry McCormick: This motion is no good.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I may be naive, but I'd like to draw the attention of my colleague Mr. Hilstrom to the purpose of the trip. Upcoming negotiations with the WTO, that's fine. Better understanding of the European multifunctional agricultural model is, in my opinion, rather important. A better understanding of their vision concerning genetically modified organisms is crucial for future relations. It seems to me we have major problems in understanding Europe and that we would benefit from such a trip. Our whole group will have examined these matters which will probably be the topic of our discussions throughout the fall. I would ask you to think about this from that perspective. I agree that the trip is expensive, but someone once told me that the most expensive trips were the ones we didn't take.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, let's have a question.

Okay, Mr. Hoeppner, we had no debate, right?

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: No.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: I only want to add this comment. I'm in enough hot water with my party already as it is, and I don't care to get into some more, but I don't think it's up to this committee to decide how many are going if my House leader or whoever makes that decision and wants to more or less sabotage this trip. Let it. He's going to be on record and he's going to be held responsible. I won't be part of this issue to try to cut down the committee. If that's any weight at all, that's the way I feel and that's the stand I take.

The Chairman: Let's have a motion. I just want to make myself clear as chairman. I personally support the twelve. I don't think it has a hope in Hades of getting through, but I personally support the twelve. But what we will do is we will move the motion based on asking to send a delegation of fourteen—twelve MPs. If that fails, then we go to six. Okay?

• 1050

Mr. Larry McCormick: If it fails? Mr. Chair, what kind of a world are we living in? Is this how we're going to settle? Is this how we're going to look at the WTO situation regarding the producers in my riding? I'm sorry if there are people on this side of the table who don't....

The Chairman: Okay—

Mr. Larry McCormick: No, no, hang on. This is one of the most important, serious things. I know the negotiations won't start for real until next November, because of the U.S. election, but I'll tell you there are a lot of people talking now behind the curtains, and we're a pretty small player.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Okay. I will read out the motion, the first one to be voted on, and maybe there will only be one needed. The motion is that the chair be authorized to request funding from the liaison committee for a proposed trip to Paris, Brussels, and Strasbourg of about $109,300, and that he also seek the House's authorization for the said trip on the upcoming WTO negotiations on agriculture with our European counterparts.

Do you understand the motion?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'd like this to be a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

The Chairman: Just as an addendum, members, my assumption is that if this fails, as I predict it will somewhere along the line, either at liaison or the Board of Internal Economy, I suspect what they'll do is just pare it down. I mean, I don't think there will be a necessity for a subsequent motion. They'll simply say we can't afford to send twelve; we'll send six, or eight, or whatever. That's my guess.

Anyway, Mr. Borotsik, after that non-debate....

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I just have one very quick question.

It was mentioned a number of times by Dr. Gravel how the relationship between the provincial governments and the municipal governments has been developing quite well with CFIA. As a matter of fact, I think Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec were mentioned specifically, because of the integration of the inspection systems between those provinces and CFIA.

I wonder if very quickly you could just tell me, and I don't mean.... Don't take this the wrong way, but is that development of relationships with provincial governments particularly an abdication of the inspection function of the CFIA, and are those now being seen as an off-loading, if you will, to the provincial governments? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but is this the philosophy the CFIA is going to follow now and into the future?

Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It may well be that provincial governments can provide that function much more efficiently, and you used the terms “efficiently and effectively” in here. Is that the way you're going in the not-too-distant future?

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'll ask Larry Hillier to answer the question.

Mr. Larry Hillier: Thank you. I appreciate your raising the point.

It's a very important initiative for us to work under the Canadian food inspection system implementation group with partners at the provincial and territorial level. This is anything but off-loading, in the sense that we're working on partnerships with key players in the inspection system across the country, and it's very important, particularly with provincial ministries of health and agriculture, fish and food, to have a very tight network. We do invest significantly in that network to make sure that in dealing with issues like recalls, making sure that following up on food-borne disease investigations, epidemiology, we have a very comprehensive, tightly linked system.

So that simply is partnerships and making sure the effective Canadian system works, working through the creation of codes, together as equal players around the national table. Those kinds of initiatives are very important to us. As I say, we've had good success in the area of dairy code, for example, retail food service, working on a meat code, making excellent progress in those areas to have a single national standard for Canada.

• 1055

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do you see inspections at any point in time becoming the responsibility of the provinces? You do have federally licensed food inspection, and we have some provincial food inspection facilities. Do you see the provincial expanding into the federal side eventually?

Mr. Larry Hillier: Again, it's a jurisdictional issue, Mr. Chairman, in terms of interprovincial and international shipment of products, of course, which are federally registered and licensed. So from that perspective, we're open, working with Alberta in particular, about the possibility of federal-provincial corporations for types of inspection or services, working more closely with provincial counterparts to obtain efficiencies in the system, and making sure that we understand respective roles and we make it work for Canadians.

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

The Chairman: Thank you.

We're pretty well out of time. I want to thank the witnesses. I especially want to thank you for your patience during our debate on the motion. I felt it had to be done, because this motion has to go to the next stage on Tuesday. I appreciate your comments very much.

This meeting is over.