AGRI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 15, 2003

Á

1115

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

Mr. Peter Brackenridge (Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

Á

1120

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Rob Dufresne (Acting Executive Director, Financial Services, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mr. David Anderson

Á

1125

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Brian Evans (Acting Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. David Anderson

Á

1130

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Brian Evans

Á

1135

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Á

1140

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Á

1145

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

The Chair

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

Á

1150

Mr. Brian Evans

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Á

1155

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Â

1200

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Brian Evans

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Brian Evans

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Â

1205

Mr. Brian Evans

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Â

1210

Mr. Brian Evans

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Brian Evans

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. John Maloney

Â

1220

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Ms. Kristine Stolarik (Acting Executive Director, Liaison, Preparedness and Policy Coordination, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Brian Evans

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Kristine Stolarik

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Â

1230

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Â

1235

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Brian Evans

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Brian Evans

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Brian Evans

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Rob Dufresne

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Brian Evans

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Brian Evans

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Kristine Stolarik

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. John Maloney

Â

1245

Mr. Brian Evans

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Brian Evans

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Â

1250

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Brian Evans

Â

1255

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

---

NUMBER 030

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 15, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, let us begin our meeting. We apologize for the lateness of the hour getting started. We want to continue our work on the estimates this morning.

    This morning we're pleased to have witnesses from the CFIA. And we have with us this morning some real experts. We have Peter Brackenridge, vice-president of operations; Brian Evans, acting vice-president, programs; Rob Dufresne, acting executive director, financial services; and Kristine Stolarik, acting executive director, liaison, preparedness and policy coordination.

    We want to hear from you first this morning, and then we'll begin the question period, and hopefully, as we move through that period, more members are able to join us.

    Mr. Brackenridge, are you first? It's up to you to decide how you're going to use your time.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge (Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): I'll make a few introductory comments, if I could, Mr. Chairman, and then for responding to the questions, I'll basically act as a moderator. If I cannot answer them directly, I'll quickly pass them to my colleagues.

    I certainly thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here this morning. We are pleased to appear before this committee to answer your questions regarding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's report on plans and priorities for 2003-04.

    In regard to who we are, we are the Government of Canada's regulator for food, animals, and plants. We are committed to enhancing the safety of the food supply. We work with other levels of government, producers, processors, distributors, and consumers. We verify compliance with federal acts, regulations, and standards, working with stakeholders and other regulated parties to adopt risk-based control measures.

    In the past years much of our activity has been focused on the ability to respond to emergencies that threaten food safety and animal and plant health. The committee members will have observed that the report on planning and priorities is built around the CFIA's three lines of business, for which we are the key federal science-based regulator. These three business lines are food safety, animal health, and plant protection. The report outlines our priorities in each of these. We'd be pleased to respond to the committee's questions on any of these areas.

    For the purposes of our opening remarks, however, let me give an overview of our work in the context of five Government of Canada themes that relate to all of our work. These themes and the strategic goals that support them have provided the foundation for the report on plans and priorities and our five-year strategic plan, which will soon be tabled.

    The first federal government theme is public health. Our strategic goal within this theme is to protect Canadians from preventable health risks. We are increasing our inspection, investigation, and enforcement capacities. We are developing risk management strategies in conjunction with Health Canada for emerging health hazards such as E. coli 0157 H:7 and antimicrobial resistance. We are placing more emphasis on emergency preparedness. We will conduct additional emergency simulations and step up our efforts to ensure we have the tools for effective intervention and prevention strategies.

    Within the context of our public health theme, we undertake various initiatives to increase public awareness of food safety and plant and animal health. One familiar example is our partnership with the airlines and the tourism industry to inform Canadians abroad and travellers to our country about the dangers of bringing foreign diseases to Canada.

    We had a very successful campaign in response to the foot-and-mouth scare in Britain and in other countries.

    We will continue to work with stakeholders, from industry to consumers.

    CFIA works with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and other federal, provincial, and territorial partners and stakeholders in support of the implementation of the agricultural policy framework, as a number of elements of the framework fall directly within the CFIA's mandate. These elements include enhancement of food safety and quality through regulatory harmonization within Canada and abroad, and strengthening food safety systems along the food chain, from on-farm food safety for producers, through to hazard analysis critical control point, or HACCP, systems for industry.

    By increasing public understanding of the issues at hand, we help to create a regulatory system that instils confidence in Canadians. This brings us to the next theme, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

    The second theme is economic growth. Our strategic goal that supports this theme is the delivery of a fair and effective regulatory regime. We will increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of our regulatory oversight through such methods as HACCP-based inspection. We will also continue to ensure that our food is safe for export. Canada's competitiveness in a global marketplace is reinforced when our regulatory system has the respect of our trading partners.

    The CFIA helps ensure that plant and animal products meet domestic and international regulatory requirements. Our efforts to negotiate and implement clear, science-based international requirements for agriculture and agri-food trade help Canadians compete globally. We will continue to develop our relationships with importers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers to help foster a proper understanding of Canada's regulatory requirements.

    Under the government's economic growth theme, I would also include the CFIA's efforts to develop and implement food safety and labelling requirements. We do this in consultation with stakeholders so that they will understand and remain committed to regulations and policies that provide a solid foundation for consumer confidence in Canada's food products.

    The government's third theme is environmental protection. Further to this, we help sustain Canada's plant and animal resource base. We have a special responsibility, for example, when it comes to regulating the products of biotechnology, including transgenic animals and novel feed products. We continue to develop and implement programs to support the responsible stewardship of biotechnology and its impact on the environment.

    We have increased our emphasis on surveillance, Mr. Chairman. This has an impact on many of the themes I am outlining here. It helps us detect possible threats to both the environment and public health, and share information with authorities that can help keep problems in check.

Á  (1120)  

[English]

    The fourth area is public security.

    Mr. Chairman, the committee is well aware that this theme has assumed increasing importance in recent years. The CFIA has devoted considerable resources toward countering threats of bioterrorism, for example.

    We will continue to assess the potential threats related to agrifood terrorism. We will increase our cooperation with the United States on emergency preparedness and improve our surveillance and risk pathway analysis.

    The CFIA's laboratories also play an important role, including the development of rapid detection tests and training on exotic animal viruses for first responders in potential bioterrorism situations.

    Within our own borders we are developing innovative inspection and enforcement strategies, some of them expressly in response to agri-terrorist threats. We have increased our targeted inspections of imports, including containers and international garbage.

    And finally, a theme that is directed inward towards our own operations: good governance by providing sound agency management. I would also point out to the committee that section V of the report on plans and priorities outlines both human resource initiatives and modern management initiatives that will contribute further to good governance.

    Mr. Chairman, this is a quick overview of the CFIA's strategic goals and how they relate to the Government of Canada themes. These themes direct all of our work. I could provide further examples of how we apply these themes, and I would be happy to do so, if the committee requires further details.

    At this point we'd welcome the committee's questions.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Brackenridge. I'm sure there will be lots of questions.

    Before we do that, perhaps I may have the indulgence of the committee for a moment. Since the minister was not able to be present on Tuesday because of illness, I would ask whether it would be in the committee's interest to meet with him on the 26th--that would be on a Monday after coming back--at four o'clock.

    Is it a problem for you, Mr. Anderson?

    Some of the members have difficulty getting in much earlier than that. We have to get him in, and going to the 27th or the Thursday of that week isn't going to work because that week we have to do a report.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Can I get back to you before the end of the meeting on that? I know we just scheduled something at 3:30 p.m. yesterday, but I'll just check on that.

    The Chair: What about you, Mr. Plamondon? Would Monday the 26th at four o'clock work for you?

    Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Which date?

    The Chair: That's Monday, May 26, when we come back after the week's break, to meet with the minister.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: At 4 o'clock in the afternoon?

    The Chair: All right, 4 o'clock.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I'll check with Dick, but I think it seems a reasonable proposition.

    The Chair: If it doesn't work, would you let us know immediately?

    What about you, Ms. Ur?

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): It should be fine by me.

    The Chair: In that case, we will schedule it for May 26, coming back at 4 o'clock.

    Our first questioner is Mr. Anderson.

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

    I have a problem, I guess. It seems the accounting procedures and practices change from year to year in a number of the departments, and it's a little frustrating when you're trying to track where money has been spent over time.

    I have a problem, actually, within your document here, and I'd like you to explain it. On page 31, the net cost to your program you have listed as being $513 million, and then on page 36, net spending is $463 million.

    I'm wondering if you could explain the difference in that. Is that the $50 million in user fees you intend to collect?

    Mr. Rob Dufresne (Acting Executive Director, Financial Services, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): That's correct, the $50 million we received in budget 2003 is not included in that.

    Mr. David Anderson: What do those user fees comprise?

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: No, I'm sorry, it's not the user fees. It's the $50 million that was announced in budget 2003. That's the difference.

    Mr. David Anderson: Oh, okay.

    We met with the Auditor General's staff and talked a little about some of these reports. One of the things they pointed out is that often the goals in the reports on planning and priorities are laid out fairly well, but the measurement of results is a much more difficult thing.

    You've laid out your three strategic outcomes of food safety, animal health, and plant protection. How do you measure the results of your goals, of your strategic outcomes?

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: There's no doubt that is a challenge for us. We've also met with the public accounts committee as you're dealing with the measurement of these priorities and results.

    This year we've been working on our performance measurement system. We have enhanced the reporting mechanisms we are putting in place, making tighter links between the goals and objectives we've set.

    You will notice in the document we have laid out what the priorities are within the three business lines and the results we are sharing. We are getting into some specifics in the ability to report back on the number of activities that are taking place. One of the Auditor General's concerns has been activity-based reporting as opposed to results-based reporting, and we're making the transition to try to translate that activity information into results information.

    Mr. David Anderson: Do you have a specific area in which you can talk about changes you've made?

    Mr. Brian Evans (Acting Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Mr. Chairman, one specific example that may be of interest to the honourable member is our results orientation dealing with preventing the incursion into Canada of diseases of significance either to public health, from an animal perspective, or to animal health directly.

    In the past we've tried to capture the number of incursions that actually happened over the course of the year. What we're attempting to do, moving to a results-based circumstance currently, is in addition to monitoring the circumstances in terms of actual physical testing, where we confiscate or prevent the entry of a product, we're also trying to quantify the level of risk that product posed. So we're doing more testing of confiscated product to ensure our resources are being directed to the area that will provide the biggest return to Canadians.

    Equally, more effort is being directed at prevention in the country of origin with more pre-inspection of products that are destined for Canada so we can prevent issues from happening on our soil here.

    So we will be capturing within our performance information the results of those activities and demonstrating where viruses that could have posed a significant impact were detected and that these activities are achieving the results they were directed to achieve.

    Mr. David Anderson: Just in that area, in terms of surveillance and that, what are you budgeting for that? How have you changed your surveillance practices over the last couple of years? You just mentioned a couple of them, but are you doing more than that? What are you doing at the border that you weren't doing before?

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

    There is a variety of different activity that takes place. We look at it in a fairly comprehensive manner when it comes to imports. For example, not only have we increased the number of inspectors we have at border points, but we've increased the activities of the dog detector teams, which some people will be familiar with. We've expanded the coverage to the majority of the international airports, and we have training sessions in place to train additional teams to get them up and running.

    But we have to look beyond simply the slice at the border. We have to go upstream, as we call it, to take a look at what the foreign countries are doing themselves. We've enhanced liaison with foreign countries, with the United States in particular, to determine what types of activities are taking place at the point of origin.

    We are doing additional surveillance work on product as it comes into the country once it gets past the border, responding to complaints, those types of things, when they take place.

    We're also doing enhanced surveillance work at Canadian inspection facilities and at Canadian manufacturing facilities to make sure security activities are in place as they should be here in Canada.

    Mr. David Anderson: What pressure has that put on your budget?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: There's no doubt that it's placed some pressure on the budget. We've reoriented some of the activities. We undertake what we call risk pathway analysis, which is to use a risk-based approach to where we do the deployment of resources. Having said that, though, we have to certainly recognize and give credit to the fact that we have successfully received additional funding through the public security and anti-terrorism activities. We have chemical, radiological, and technological innovation that's been taking place. And there are the additional moneys: we received $36.2 million from the PSAT moneys and we've used that to deploy directly into activities that would help us beef up our security measures, whether it be at the border or in our laboratory capacity, etc.

    Mr. David Anderson: You talk in your document about trying to deal with emerging health hazards. I'm wondering about your changes in terms of security and surveillance. We've all had a reaction to 9/11 and to foot-and-mouth. Are they geared primarily to one of those two things, or are you seeing...?

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: We're certainly taking into consideration those types of activities, but we're also trying to look to the future as well. Part of the challenge that any regulator, such as ourselves, has is not only occupying yourself with the current activities, but being able to try to predict as best you can if there are other events taking place. We have a dedicated group of individuals who are scanning the environment internationally to determine other events that may be taking place.

    We have other mechanisms internally to feed those mechanisms back to us. We maintain liaison, whether it be with Foreign Affairs, Health Canada, or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, just to get a good sense of where the environment is going and then to determine if there are emerging issues that we need to be prepared for.

    Mr. David Anderson: You talk about one of your themes being economic growth, and you talk about HACCP and those kinds of things, and environmental protection as well is one of your main themes. I have a concern that farmers are getting stuck with more and more of the costs of having to absorb the changes that are taking place in the system. I'm wondering, do you have a longer-term plan where you are working with the farmers to give them credit for the amount of money it's costing them in their operations?

    Clearly, one facet of the APF is going to be a lot more regulation and government control of farm operations. Do you have a long-term strategy where farmers are going to get credit for the changes they are making and have already made, or are they just going to continue to absorb the costs of the changes the government is forcing on them?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Again, it depends on your definition of a long-term strategy. I think we have traditionally had an approach in dealing with either the farming community or the manufacturing sector of giving credit where credit was due. We've worked on things like the on-farm food safety recognition program. We've worked with the national associations. We think we're providing a reasonable level of recognition for these types of programs. We're certainly working hard on the export certification front with various exporting sectors in Canada to provide them the support they need to compete in the international marketplace.

    We have not adjusted our cost-recovery fees in a number of years. We've always looked at it in a three-pronged approach: cost reduction, cost avoidance, and cost recovery, with cost recovery being a final effort for us if we can't succeed on the first two. Having said that, what we're trying to do is build in systems that recognize the responsibility that farmers and/or companies have taken. For example, the on-farm food safety recognition program will do just that, whether it be through Chicken Farmers of Canada or other associations.

    I think we're on the same wavelength there, but I'm not sure if I've directly responded to your question.

    The Chair: Mr. Plamondon, for seven minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: I received a call this morning from a honey producer. Producers in my region are experiencing problems with their bees. As a rule, honey producers can sell bees to one another to offset losses. If a producer had a problem with his bees, he could buy others. Now, the bees are diseased. In fact, in Saint-Ours and Sainte-Victoire, 90 per cent of the bees have been destroyed.

    An agreement is in place whereby producers cannot import bees from the United States as these bees could be diseased. This means that honey producers are facing a rather serious problem. They cannot find bees to guarantee usual production levels, and since spring is when bees are moved from one crop to another for production purposes, producers are seeing their revenues dry up. They may be able to rebuild their bee colonies within a year's time. Does importing bees from the United States pose a genuine risk? I realize that the Fédération des apiculteurs du Québec was opposed to the idea, but now, officials are somewhat more receptive. In your opinion, would importing bees to rebuild colonies pose any kind of risk?

    Mr. Brian Evans: Thank you for your question.

[English]

    Certainly we recognize that it is exactly as the honourable member has indicated. Currently there are restrictions on the importation of honey bees from the United States directed at preventing three primary impacts: first, the introduction of diseases that do exist in the United States and that do not exist in certain geographic areas of Canada; secondly, the ongoing consumer and public concern about the importation, inadvertently, of Africanized honey bees, which could pose significant issues for the general public in advancing the northern movement of the Africanized, aggressive bees. In addressing those issues, we and the industry have attempted to work together and through the provincial apiarists, the provincial experts in this area. There have been risk assessments done in each of the provinces relative to their needs and to the relative impacts of being able to zone the United States...for certain areas of the United States to bring in the bees without the diseases.

    Currently, there is not a unanimous position on the part of the Canadian Honey Council or the provinces as to whether the current restrictions should be removed. We have a commitment with the organizations that this is reviewed on an annual basis. We're quite aware that there was a significant winter loss in parts of the country that impacts on honey production. So what we have done in the short term is to expand the opportunities for producers who are at the end of the season now. In New Zealand and Australia they are trying to move bees out of their countries in advance of winter, and we have zoned the islands in New Zealand to permit that to happen on an expedited basis. We're also continuing to work with the industry in looking at sources within Canada to support the overall production of the honey circumstance.

    The current restriction that is in place does not allow us, unless we rescind the ministerial prohibition, to provide emergency permits for direct access from the United States. So we are working with the industry to try to identify other sources, and within-Canada sources, so they'll have sufficient queens and sufficient capacity to bridge us through this year's production.

Á  (1135)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In your Report on Plans and Priorities, in approximate terms, how does funding break down by province? How is the funding allocated to your Agency broken down overall for the CSA? Approximately how much does each province receive?

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: The CFIA's funding is not allocated on a provincial basis. Rather, we allocate funding on the basis of our three business lines.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: And do you keep an accounting of the funds allocated?

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: No. We could always try and determine what the provinces actually spend. As a rule, we do that at year's end, that is at the end of the fiscal year. That's what we're doing right now. However, the figures are not yet available.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: Will they be available in the annual report?

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: In the annual report?

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: What report would that be?

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: Normally, we do not track spending by province in our year's end financial statements. That's not a Treasury Board requirement.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: But you do have these figures.

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: Yes, they are available.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: Could you forward them to the committee once you've completed your report?

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: Certainly.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you.

    When the minister appeared before the committee, he explained to us that AAC research programs had been adjusted and would now be less compartmentalized than before. He talked about there being fewer silos.

    Can you update me on the status of this restructuring process?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister was referring to Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. I'm not certain if he meant...

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: You're right.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: The reference was to Agriculture and Agri-food Canada research programs.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: According to your report, the Agency has an additional 800 full-time employees. Is that correct? Staff levels have increased. In which particular sector is this growth concentrated?

[English]

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: The increase was not oriented towards a particular sector. Primarily, it was in response to the security issues we talked about previously. We increased the number of staff at border points to deal with activities there. We also increased staff who were involved at some of the meat processing establishments so that we could verify the procedures that were in place there. We spread them across. It wasn't oriented to specific commodity line sectors; it was more towards programs, but primarily in the security area.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis for seven minutes.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

    I'm pleased to be back at this committee.

    The Chair: She was referring here to my accommodating her. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has to leave shortly.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You've already accommodated me taking the place of Dick Proctor, and now you are allowing me to jump in ahead of my colleagues on the Liberal side, so thank you.

    An hon. member: We're very liberal.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You're very accommodating and very liberal, yes.

    I'm glad to be back. The last time I was here we had a good discussion on the issue of GM wheat. We were hearing witnesses from the Canadian Wheat Board and the National Millers Association. They had come to our committee to plead with us to get your agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, to include a cost-benefit analysis on the potential market impact prior to the unconfined release of GM wheat variety into the market.

    Those witnesses and others have told us they have been told they can't do this, it can't be done, and in fact we can only use science in deciding whether or not to license GM wheat. So we were somewhat surprised, then, to read in The Western Producer on April 10 that in fact CFIA used to have such a procedure in its operating procedures manual. The Western Producer reported in this article that in March of 2001, you, Mr. Peter Brackenridge, wrote a memo suggesting this procedure be removed, and indeed it was removed in 2002.

    So given the testimony we've heard on this issue, my question to you is, why? Why did you remove this clause pertaining to definition of merit from the operating procedure?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: It was based on legality. The issue, as we had determined or were advised by legal staff, is that the authority did not rest within the statutes we administer to have an economic assessment of that nature within the criteria used by the committees. So at that point we felt it was important to clarify what the situation was, and it was simply an effort to do that, to clarify what the legal requirements were.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On that decision, then, did you make that decision yourself or was it made by others in the department? Was the deputy minister involved? Was the minister involved? How was the decision made and who actually made it?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: It's a matter of interpretation. It's one that we collectively had discussions on, no doubt. I can't remember the specifics of that one in particular. At the time, it was clear there was some misunderstanding about what the role of the registration committees were, what criteria they could be operating under. There were discussions internally amongst the staff who deal with that on a more regular basis. We had discussions with our legal services, the recommendation was brought forward to me, and I approved the recommendation that was put forward. At that time it was seen as a pretty straightforward assessment and one that was simply to clarify what the role of these committees should be.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I appreciate what you're saying, although given the current context, in terms of GM wheat, and the clear cry from the Wheat Board and others to have such a criterion added, I think it does raise questions why it was eliminated in the first place.

    Let me come back to that in a minute. First, let me reference an access to information document, where a researcher used access to information to obtain a memo that you, Mr. Brackenridge, wrote in March of 2001, which reads, and I'm quoting:

If the members of this subcommittee, which includes representationfrom farmers, agronomists, breeders, pathologists, seed companies and grain quality experts, strongly believethat a (Roundup-resistant) wheat could cause marketing risks for other traditional wheat, they could vote to not support it for registration.

    My reading of those words is that it sounds an awful lot like you'd like to have Round-up resistant wheat registered and that you're worried that farmers, breeders, and others on the subcommittee might feel otherwise and that you're in fact heading them off at the pass. Is that a fair characterization of what you wrote?

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: In a word, no. I don't, and we at the agency don't, take a position as far as our desire or not to have the product registered. What we rely on is a science-based regulatory system, and from my standpoint the advice I'm trying to give to our staff is to operate within the constraints of the law and to use a science-based system when they're doing their activities.

    It was not in any way intended to shade the discussion and consultations as those were going forward, but simply making it clear that there is a very strict process that takes place when new applications are received for plants with novel traits. We do an environmental assessment, we do the feed assessment, and we get it to Health Canada for food safety assessment. We've adopted policies whereby all three assessments have to be done before any approvals are granted so that we do not run into a StarLink type of situation. We wanted to make sure it was quite clear that there could be other ways to deal with that--not CFIA at the current time, unless there was going to be a change in legislation.

    If there was a desire to change some legislation, that the minister was prepared to support, or there was some other process put in place, so be it, but under the current authorities we have, our legal services were very clear to us about what we could and couldn't do.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You probably know from our previous discussions on the issues of GM products generally and food safety that we've picked up a lot of concern among folks who are suspicious of links between the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Monsanto--lots of concerns that the department is supporting Monsanto's agenda and not providing that kind of independent, objective surveillance in the field. You've heard it, we've heard it. My question to you today is, what do you say in response to those suspicions and those concerns?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: We certainly try not to fuel them. We treat all applicants in the same manner. Anybody is free to apply for review of a genetically modified event or anything that's been modified through mutagenesis. We conduct our work, we like to think, in a very professional manner. We follow the same criteria for all applicants of product that comes in. We try not to get engaged in that type of perception that some people may be trying to fuel. We certainly don't believe that's the case, and we make every effort to treat everyone equally.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This is the last question on this issue. What would your opinion be of this idea of inserting a cost-benefit analysis on the potential market impact prior to the unconfined release of a GM wheat variety into the marketplace? What's your feeling as professionals, as bureaucrats in this agency, about that request?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I don't think it's appropriate for me to say that I have an opinion. I don't think my opinion really matters one way or the other. When it comes down to the work we're trying to do, we have to follow what we're legally allowed to do.

    One thing I can say is that if there was a decision made to incorporate things of that nature, there would need to be some clear criteria. We have to operate on very clear criteria when we're doing our work to determine what would be the factors that would determine what that cost-benefit analysis component would be. But whether or not there should be one, whether or not it's something that's appropriate for CFIA to be dealing with, whether that's something that's more appropriate for some other department or group to deal with--

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure, but you took it out without legislation. Can you put it back in, and what procedure would be involved?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Mr. Chair, we didn't take it out. I think what happened was that it was actually put in without legislation originally, and we wanted to make sure that we were doing things by the letter of law. The fact that it was made reference to in one of the registration committee's terms of reference was inappropriate, and this happens quite frequently, whether it be the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations or other groups, so we will have to adjust the legislation and regulations on a fairly frequent basis. And that was one of those days where they came forward and brought it to our attention that this was not appropriate. It was creating confusion as to what was meant by that. We went back and sought clarification, we were told it was not appropriate to be there, and we made adjustments.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. Thank you for coming to the committee this morning. We appreciate that.

    Thank you, Mr. Brackenridge. Now we'll move to Mrs. Ur.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you for being here and taking our questions this morning.

    Reading through our little blue books here before you arrived, the CFIA does a performance assessment on various priorities, and looking in the blue book here under “Animal Health” priorities, it says, “Animal health emergencies and incidents are effectivelymanaged”.

    That being stated, what is your assessment on your effectiveness working in Manitoba with the TB outbreak amongst the elk population? How has CFIA addressed that concern? We've had several good presentations from people who are affected greatly out there, and I wonder whether we are doing our job there.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Brian Evans: In terms of measuring overall effectiveness, I think, again, particularly when we're dealing with a disease like tuberculosis, effectiveness can't be measured immediately because of the incubation period of the disease.

    I think that effectively managing the broader issue in terms of its impact on producers in Manitoba, it's important to point out that, from an agency perspective, we're not the only player attempting to achieve the outcome in this circumstance. We are working in parallel with our counterparts, and Parks Canada, which has jurisdiction within the park boundaries.

    I think the jurisdictional issues relative to wildlife outside of the park, with Environment Canada and the provincial authorities, and with the cattle interest groups in the area, are areas where, from our perspective, we are making significant progress. I think we have achieved the original screening of the herds in close proximity to the park in a timeframe faster than we really anticipated we could.

    We have also advanced our discussions with the U.S. in a manner faster than we anticipated, in terms of their recognition of the zoning approach we've taken in Manitoba. We are continuing those discussions and hope to have early returns on that.

    You may be aware that with the full support of the cattle industry in Manitoba and the local group, we are working on a communication strategy, as they head to the summer pasture scenarios, to ensure that animals are fully recorded so that we're not extending the issue beyond the area where it's currently constituted.

    I think the other key component where the industry is very appreciative of the effectiveness to date has been the opportunity to pilot other identification and traceability systems associated with this particular outbreak circumstance.

    It is a complex, multi-jurisdictional issue. I think the overall assessment is that we have made progress. I think it will take a longer period of time to ensure, in the repetitive testing of the herds, that we've actually addressed the circumstance that was impacting on the cattle producers.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

    On page 31 of the blue book, adjustments for 2002 and 2003 include $31.8 million for emergency response. There is $21.3 million of funding carried forward from the previous fiscal year.

    It's a small segment with such importance that I think it should have a page of its own, under the circumstances of the days we're living in presently.

    Can you explain to me how $21.3 million can be put forward when we have been experiencing some difficulties, over the past year or two, under those dollar figures? Why is such a number there?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I'll start and then I'll pass to Mr. Dufresne.

    Part of the challenge we've been dealing with--and we're trying to deal with this with the Treasury Board Secretariat--has been the fact that over the past number of years we have successfully received emergency funds to deal with the activities, whether it be plum pox virus, chronic wasting disease, brown spruce longhorn beetle, or a variety of issues that have come at us.

    The way in which the government funding arrangement works is that the money comes in fairly late in the fiscal year. We have already made adjustments through the early part of the year for our base budgets to cover the emergencies. Then we get the money through in, basically, the winter of the year. It has resulted in some fairly significant amounts previously for the moneys to be rolled over. Then we're able to carry on with our emergency activities early in the next fiscal year.

    Right now we're working on a more defined protocol with the Treasury Board Secretariat as to what would qualify for emergency funding, to have a set of criteria on how emergency funding could be considered by the Treasury Board, so that we can hopefully have approval for that type of money earlier in the year as opposed to later.

    Mr. Dufresne.

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: In addition, of the $21.3 million carried forward, a significant portion is in our capital vote for major capital projects and upgrades to some of our laboratories. A lot of contracts were deferred in construction and delayed. Therefore, they're carried forward into the next year and the expenditures will occur at that point in time.

Á  (1155)  

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Under “Notes”, the budgetary main estimates for 2003 have an increase of $11.5 million, primarily due to collective bargaining. Is that a routine expenditure? It's a fairly substantial amount.

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: Once again, it's money received by the agency for increases to collective bargaining agreements for the various groups we have working in the agency. In this fiscal year, I believe a large portion was due to collective bargaining for our veterinarians. We have a large number on staff.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: We know the budget for CFIA. Do you have a breakdown as to salaries, a general figure as to individual salaries? Do you have a round figure that is paid for the people who work with your agency?

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: Are you looking for an average salary per employee or the total salaries to the agency?

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: No. I want to know the total of the salaries paid by the department to its employees.

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: For 2003-2004, the main estimates figure in pay is $293 million.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's a large amount compared to your budget.

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: Yes, you're right. Approximately 70% of our expenditures are for staff.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Is it for inspectors and such?

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: That's correct.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: When the agriculture committee travelled, as indicated earlier, complaints were certainly brought before us that there weren't adequate salaries for inspectors. There was certainly a will where they wanted to have their salaries and working environment improved.

    Have we addressed that then with the 800 new people?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: It's a constant issue that we're always addressing. When you have that many staff, it requires very close liaison with the unions, for example, the Public Service Alliance, and the Professional Institute of the Public Service. We've enhanced our relations with them. We're working very much with our groups. We have national occupational safety and health initiatives. We have a number of things that are addressing working conditions. We're into collective bargaining with our groups over the coming number of months.

    Again, it's one of those things where you can never say you've achieved the ultimate desire on both sides. We continue to work through it. We feel we have a very good relationship, a management and employee relationship, within the agency.

    The Chair: Mrs. Ur, your time has expired.

    We'll move to Mr. Hilstrom for five minutes or thereabouts.

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

    It's unfortunate that my fellow Manitoban, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, isn't here to receive a little bit of information regarding the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is mandated to orderly market wheat, as opposed to traipsing off to become a farm advocacy group or a government lobby organization. Farmers have no choice as to whether or not the Wheat Board spends their money in a given way. As a result, it should stick to its mandate.

    Have the Grain Growers of Canada made presentations to the CFIA directly, or through the minister, regarding the licensing of GM crops? If so, what are they advocating has happened in regard to the criteria used to determine whether or not a GM crop should be licensed or not?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I don't know the answer to that question. I know that we are in frequent contact with the Grain Growers of Canada. As far as the status of the formal submission and that type of thing, I'm afraid I can't answer.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay.

    My understanding, of course, is that it's science-based criteria you are using. Do you have any comment on the criteria and on the money you're spending in analyzing GM wheat, as to whether or not it should be approved? As part of the discussion on removing the criteria on cost benefits, did that entail discussions that it would in fact be a non-tariff trade barrier that would be subjectively used by not only Canada but other countries to restrict trade? Was part of the discussion on removing that criteria?

  (1200)  

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: It was not, to my recollection, Mr. Chair. We were simply looking at it from the legal authority to have a criteria like that in place. That was the basis of our decision.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, okay.

    You have no intention of putting it back in. Are you actively looking at putting that criteria back in right now, in regard to the GM wheat application by Monsanto?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: We can only look at what the legislation allows us to look at.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: How much money are you...?

    The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom, so we don't go down that road too far, we're having a meeting with CFIA again on June 3. We're going to have them here. Monsanto is going to be here. We're also going to have Agriculture Canada here.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It's good notice that they can take this back to the others who will be presenting and be prepared for those kinds of questions.

    The Chair: We can perhaps sort some of that out at that point.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: You must have put a special budget forward to do your part for the approval process of GM wheat. How much money was put forward?

    A new crop application comes in. You don't say, “Well, we'll just spend whatever it takes there”. You must say, “Okay, we have to figure out a budget for the approval process for GM wheat”, and specifically consider whether or not it's going to be very expensive or cheap, or whatever.

    Can you answer that kind of question?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Yes, Mr. Chair, I can answer it. It may not be the answer you want to hear.

    We do not set up a special budget for that. We have a plant biosafety office that manages the review and registration of plants with novel traits, and for any submission we receive, there's a set procedure that's followed. As I mentioned to the previous member earlier, they get into a line as far as how the applications are reviewed is concerned. A set procedure is followed for the environmental and feed safety component of it.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: What I'm getting at is the accountability of your department, the CFIA, in regard to the spending you do. It sounds like you're telling me it's open-ended. When you get an application, and for all your operations, it's open-ended; whatever you spend, you spend. That seems rather strange. You may want to comment on that.

    I'll try to get some more accountability in here. Have you set a target date in order to say yes, you will approve, or no, you will reject GM wheat?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Perhaps I could approach both questions, Mr. Chair.

    On the first, my apologies if I've conveyed some impression that we're open-ended. It's one of those things. We've always cut our suit to fit the cloth, and we take very seriously the planning efforts that are put in place, whether it be food safety, animal health, plant protection, and the allocation of moneys. That's what we like to report back on.

    So I hope I did not convey an impression that you're running loose on this.

    As far as setting a date is concerned, no, we have not set a date. All of these assessments are done based upon the information we have available. We have a clear set of criteria and questions that have to be answered. A lot of the time it's up to the company to provide that information to us. We need a lot of detail about the constructs of the various varieties that are coming in. Our scientists do an assessment of that. There's a lot of back and forth communication with companies once these applications are reviewed. So we do not set a drop-dead date when we're looking at this.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: On tuberculosis, when was the last confirmed infected herd in the Riding Mountain area or in Manitoba discovered?

    Mr. Brian Evans: We have discovered three herds over the last three-month period associated with the herd testing and trace-out activities that have gone on. I believe we have one that is still under investigation, and the lab results won't be available in terms of the cultures for another four to six weeks. The last positive confirmation from the laboratory side was made back in February.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'm talking of cattle herds. Are you talking about elk or cattle?

    Mr. Brian Evans: We're talking about the cattle herds.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: You're aware, of course, that there was an allegation that an unscrupulous cattle broker had moved female cattle out of Manitoba and out of that area down into the States. Now, you can comment on that, if you can tell us a little more information on that, but the reason I raise that is, I don't believe there's enough money in your budget to eradicate tuberculosis in Manitoba. That's partly from not having enough money in your budget, but also you have not solved the problem of interdepartmental relationships with Parks Canada. Had you solved that problem, you would be able to give us a date; you would be able to give us specific eradication steps of reducing that herd.

    Do you have a target date of when Manitoba is going to be tuberculosis-free?

    From your mention of the infections of new herds, Mr. Evans, it sounds like this is in fact going to continue on for the indefinite future.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Brian Evans: Thank you for the question, Honourable Member.

    Mr. Chairman, in terms of target dates for achievement, we are still working to a target date this calendar year to have the United States recognize the re-establishment...the criteria for recognition of freedom. All of the cases we're currently dealing with trace to a common source, so it's not viewed as a new infection. As long as we can demonstrate that there are no other sources of infection and that we have taken the appropriate steps, as agreed to with the United States, on our tuberculosis equivalency recognition, and in concurrence with the international standard in terms of our detection levels, we will achieve re-recognition.

    On the budget issue, again, within the A-base of the budget, we do have basic control activities in place. But the circumstance in Manitoba was dealt with through the emergency submissions that were referred to earlier, and we did receive some supplemental in-year funding to deal with that circumstance.

    I hope I've addressed the question.

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

    The Chair: Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to talk to you about one particular case with which I'm familiar. It involves Mr. Beaupré, an elk farmer from Aston-Jonction. As you know, in Western Canada, which is home to many elk farmers, herds are inspected every three years, compared to every five years in Quebec. The farmer in question purchased another animal from a fellow breeder in Quebec. Your Agency certified that the animal was healthy, and issued a permit to transport the animal. After the animal was delivered to Mr. Beaupré's farm, it was found to be sick. The Agency therefore ordered that Mr. Beaupré's entire herd be slaughtered. Mr. Beaupré, a father of five, had invested his entire pension fund and well as his wife's pension fund -- both had been teachers -- in this animal herd.

    The Agency ordered the slaughter of his herd. The meat was sold for human consumption for approximately $1,500. In accordance with the criteria set out in the legislation, Mr. Beaupré received a paltry $22,000 for his herd, even though its commercial value was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300,000. The Agency maintained that by law, it could not award more than $22,000 in compensation. However, the CFIA never acknowledged any responsibility for this incident, even though it had issued the permit to transport the animal which had been certified to be healthy, which was not the case. Mr. Beaupré put himself in your hands and you washed your hands of the entire affair by awarding him $22,000, instead of accepting responsibility. The CFIA is the party at fault here.

    Mr. Beaupré should be compensated. He should have been awarded an amount equal to the commercial value of his herd, not $22,000. He almost went bankrupt and was forced to go back to teaching to earn a living. So too was his wife. He invested his life savings and put his trust in the CFIA. Is there anything that you'd like to say to Mr. Beaupré?

  (1210)  

[English]

    Mr. Brian Evans: Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to the question.

    At the outset, I would just identify that certainly we recognize that disease control activities do have impacts, and we recognize that although it is often difficult to understand the broader benefits of disease control programs, they have a very personal impact on individual producers.

    To that extent, the level of compensation awarded is reviewed on a cyclical basis every five years with an industry advisory board to establish the maximum amount of compensation that can be paid under the authority of the Health of Animals Act. We are in the process currently of doing the five-year review to look at those circumstances. These are not figures that are arbitrarily determined by the CFIA but are done on a consultative basis with third-party contracting and people from the industry who actually help us establish what the market values are over that period of time.

    The evaluations of the animals themselves in fact are carried out through an evaluation team that involves representatives from the industry associations, either insurance company officials who are familiar with livestock values or banking officials who are familiar with loans to farmers involved in these types of exercises, as well as the CFIA. So it is not an arbitrary determination by the CFIA in terms of the compensation that is ultimately awarded, and it does take into account sales records from the farm over the recent period of time.

    There is an appeal process associated with the compensation program, which producers also have access to.

    In terms of the status of any individual animal, as has been pointed out by the honourable member, the program is designed, based on known incidents of the disease, to adjust the frequency with which it's carried out, based on relative risk of those particular herds.

    In dealing specifically with the Beaupré circumstance, the animal in question had passed a negative herd test carried out by the owner and his veterinary practitioner, who is accredited to do that testing, during the previous herd test. So there was no evidence in the animal, based on available science, that the animal posed a risk. In the duration that the animal was on the Beaupré's premises prior to expressing the disease, it was unable to be determined in fact whether the animal arrived infected or may have become infected subsequent to its arrival.

    So again, it's a very difficult circumstance, we understand, for the producer. The limits on our compensation program have been recognized. We are also reviewing the scope of compensation in association with the portfolio under the agricultural policy framework to better integrate the type of income protection programs that individuals would have access to in those types of circumstances so that disease control activities could in fact be supplemented by other opportunities that exist in other funding mechanisms that we, as the agency, don't administer.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: You've just said that Mr. Beaupré acted appropriately as far as his herd was concerned. When he purchased a new animal, he consulted with the CFIA and you informed him that the animal was healthy. Mr. Beaupré therefore took the appropriate steps. You said the animal was healthy when in fact it was not. Who is at fault then? Mr. Beaupré, who acted appropriately, or the CFIA, which inspects Quebec herds only every five years, but herds in Western Canada every three years?

    Maybe that explains why the CFIA certified that the animal was healthy and issued a permit to transport the animal and integrate it into the herd, a herd that was subsequently entirely slaughtered. Mr. Beaupré was ruined because he placed his trust in a federal agency, the sole authority in Canada, when deciding whether or not to purchase an animal. Imagine!

    You say that things like this happen. However, Mr. Beaupré is facing bankruptcy, but the Agency is doing just fine. A similar mistake could be made again. It's ludicrous that he was not financially compensated for this mistake. I'm not talking about his receiving the amount set out in the legislation. His case is certainly special because of the CFIA's slip. It is at fault for authorizing the animal's transport and for certifying that the animal was healthy. Therefore, the onus is on the Agency to compensate Mr. Beaupré.

    I totally reject your explanation. I can't understand the CFIA shirking its responsibilities. This agency is involved in serious business and employs renown experts. When consulted, it doled out some advice. That advice was misguided and now the CFIA says that's not its problem, leaving the farmer to clean up the mess. In my view, the CFIA should accept responsibility for its role in this affair. If you were prepared to accept that responsibility, the Minister would undoubtedly then have the authority to order compensation for the individual in question.

    This case has been dragging on for seven or eight years.

  (1215)  

[English]

    The Chair: Can we have a short answer? We're way over our time. I have allowed Mr. Plamondon a lot of time to explain his story.

    Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Evans? I realize we're being a little repetitious here.

    Mr. Brian Evans: The comment I would make is, just to correct the record, he did not come to us to ask where he could purchase animals. We're not involved in that. But to the extent that we did issue a movement permit, it was based on the standards of the program that the elk industry have determined to be the standards under which they would like to operate.

    Certainly we constantly review the program relative to the scientific merits. Where there are incidents like this, we do review whether more frequent testing would be required. But we do recognize that with certain diseases like tuberculosis that have a long incubation period, with tests that are not 100% precise....again, we are trying to apply the best available standards for the protection of all producers in Canada.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Evans.

    Now let's move to Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): I'm from the Niagara region. Plum pox certainly was, and is, a very serious concern for our tender fruit industry. I would comment that the growers, the industry, and the members of Parliament who represent them were very pleased with the prompt, efficient, and I'd say practical response to the situation, so I compliment you and thank you for it.

    Is anyone here today prepared to advise me on the status of the situation in the field today? I think the program was for a specific period, and there was consensus that additional research wasn't actually needed to address this situation. On a longer basis, what is the status of the funding requests that would allow that to happen?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you.

    I know our staff have worked very hard to try to control the situation in the Niagara area with regard to plum pox, and we feel we are making progress. Unfortunately, I can't give you all the specific details of it. Other officials could do that, if you would like.

    But we are going into the third year of a three-year action plan that was conducted. We did have a foreign expert panel that came in and provided recommendations. First of all, we wanted to get some sense from that group as to what the potential was to eradicate the problem as opposed to simply controlling it.

    We received some advice from them. We are working on a longer-term strategy as well, but a lot of that will be determined based upon this year's sampling initiatives, which, if they haven't started now, will be starting soon, so that we can determine what the level of infection is.

    We're maintaining a very strong sampling program--again, one that has been worked out with the tender fruit producers, and one that I think is conscious, from a practical, pragmatic standpoint, of what the needs are, the impact of the disease on the fruit, the ability to process the fruit, that type of thing.

    If I can try to shorten this, we're continuing with the third year of the program. We're working on the next phase of that, trying to make some “what if” assessments based on what we've found to date and how we would improve, whether it would be research or others.

    We do have some research work going on to determine various vectors for the disease. We're working with the United States Department of Agriculture as well to share information. We're also working with the Europeans, because they have had experience with plum pox as well.

    That's about all the detail I can give you today, but if you would like more, I can try to provide that.

    Mr. John Maloney: [Inaudible—Editor]...and I can be assured that the next phase will proceed or is proceeding.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Certainly this summer we have very much the plan to finish off the three-year sampling plan, and we'll be in full consultation with the industry groups as to what the next phases should be.

    Mr. John Maloney: I apologize if the next line of questioning is redundant. I apologize for being late. I was at a committee where the Solicitor General was being questioned on estimates, and some of the issues were about security.

    I was pleased to see that security was one of your themes today. Can you elaborate on what potential threats, as you see them, are related to agrifood terrorism, and what your anticipated responses might be?

  (1220)  

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Perhaps I'd ask Kristine Stolarik to respond to that question, as she does the preparedness coordination for us.

    Ms. Kristine Stolarik (Acting Executive Director, Liaison, Preparedness and Policy Coordination, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question as well.

    Basically we've done a couple of things to enhance our security measures, and we have also received some funding for this. We've received an additional $36.2 million.

    What we've done is what we like to call the three-pronged additions to security. We've increased our presence at the points of entry, which means we basically increased the inspection staff at the points of entry. We're also using more modernized and more state-of-the-art inspection tools, such as the X-ray machines at various border points. We're doing this in conjunction with our partner, CCRA. We're also making sure we're including postal, courier, and cargo inspection in those activities. We've increased our detector dog and handler teams in our major airports, and we've also increased our collaboration with the United States authorities for intelligence sharing to identify some of the risk of foreign plant and animal diseases in PASS. We're very much in sync with our U.S. counterparts--the Department of Homeland Security, USFDA, APHIS, and Food Safety and Inspection Service as well.

    On the preparedness side, we've increased our food safety surveillance and detection activities, including inspections at food processing plants, food hazard investigations, and enforcement of our cattle ID program, the Canadian cattle identification program.

    We've also invested in upgrading our laboratory infrastructure and also the labs' capacity for diagnostics, as well as increasing the security at our laboratories to make sure the appropriate level of security has been increased at those laboratories that are handling our dangerous or toxic agents, which could be used as weapons for terrorism.

    Mr. John Maloney: Is your targeted inspection of imports random or is it based on intelligence, or a combination of both?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I'll start off, and then I'll ask Dr. Evans to complement the answer.

    It's a combination of a variety of factors. In some cases it's product-specific. If we have a history of problems with certain products, we will target those. Our import sampling frequency would be dependent upon the types of understandings and agreements we have with foreign countries and the types of initiatives that would have taken place at the shipping point to bring product in. We may have other blitz activities that may go on to target certain specific border points on a random basis in order to get a more random assessment of what's happening.

    Brian, would you like to add something?

    Mr. Brian Evans: I'd just add a very short supplement to that, Mr. Chairman. The blitz activities Mr. Brackenridge has referred to are triggered by ongoing analysis of the movement of various diseases around the world and the pathways by which they could move.

    Coming back to your first question, if I may, we have worked very carefully as part of the National Academy of Sciences process on counter-terrorism to prioritize certain agents and certain pathways that could be used based on Canada's way of doing business--the integration of our commerce with key countries. We are also looking at the vectors and climate change aspects that are going on in terms of how diseases could be transmitted now that possibly couldn't have been done 10 years ago.

    Having worked through that, both from a pathogen perspective and, as Peter has referred to, the issue of commodity-specific, what we have attempted to do is to work a system of networking with other countries, either the 162 countries through the OIE, which is the animal health international organization, or the IPPC, which is the international plant pest agreement. We update on a weekly basis the migration of certain pests and/or pathogens and investigate how they have moved, so we're learning from the experiences of other countries. We then reassess whether the preventive measures we have in Canada will address how those pests got into those countries.

    Mr. John Maloney: Are your powers sufficient for the task you have? Do you have enough oomph behind the...?

    Ms. Kristine Stolarik: Mr. Chairman, as you know, in the current environment we're working in or living in right now, the agency is very aware of its legislative and regulatory authorities. What we're doing currently is developing proposals to definitely enhance authorities on the enforcement side, including those that would address border issues and offshore inspection, to basically bring ourselves in line with what other countries' regulatory regimes are doing now.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: We must move to the next side.

    Mr. Robinson, please.

    Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): I, too, like Mr. Maloney, was in the Standing Committee on Justice previously, and I apologize if some of what I raise may have already been raised by my colleague, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. I'm actually here on behalf of our spokesperson on agriculture, Dick Proctor, who's been doing a great deal of work particularly around the concerns surrounding GE wheat. I just want to get some clarification here.

    I know that Canadian farmers are deeply concerned about the potential impact on their livelihood if GE wheat is allowed to go ahead. I know that the Canadian Wheat Board has said they're very concerned. What they've said is, look, there may be various science-based criteria here, but the real issue is, is this going to have a devastating impact on our lives and on the lives of farmers in Canada because the market isn't prepared to accept this. The people we want to sell to are going to say, no, we're not prepared to buy that wheat, and they'll look to other jurisdictions to buy wheat.

    I am astonished that the CFIA is saying that you can't or won't take into consideration that critically important factor of what the potential impact might be, not just on the market but on the livelihoods of Canadian farmers.

    I read your memo here, Mr. Brackenridge, from March 2001. At that point you said, because of the criteria that were then in place, that somebody just discovered--apparently you didn't know what your own criteria were--in fact market considerations could be applied and in fact the committee could vote to not support it.

    What I want to understand is, what happened? Why is it that discretion was removed? You say, as I understand it, that you got legal advice telling you that it had to be removed. What was the legal barrier that this ran up against?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Again, Mr. Chair, it's difficult for me to remember exactly the circumstances under which the evolution of this took place back then. But at the time my recollection is that there was confusion among the various committees about what it meant within the criteria for the registration committees and how that should be applied. When they sought clarification and we sought clarification on it, it was made abundantly clear to us that this was not an appropriate criteria for decisions of that nature to be made by us.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: I want to stop here. You say you were told it wasn't an appropriate criteria. Told by whom?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Our legal services.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Your legal services. Did you ask them why?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: When we get the legal opinion from them, they provide us with the justification as to why they give that opinion.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay, well, you're here to testify on this issue. What was the justification?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I don't have the information with me today to be able to respond directly to it. I apologize for that.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, Mr. Brackenridge, frankly, I'm astonished. You knew this was on the agenda. You know this is an issue of great concern. You say now, well, geez, I don't really remember.

    I would ask through the chair...I assume you will provide the committee with that information at the earliest possible date, will you?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I'd be happy to.

    The Chair: I will see that it's passed on to the committee.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: It wouldn't take a change in legislation to introduce the opportunity for your agency to in fact take into consideration market impact, would it? There's no law that would prevent you from doing that.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: What I've been told, and I'm not a lawyer, was that our current statutes do not provide the legislative authority to provide that type of an assessment--a cost-benefit assessment. We're doing it based on a science-based approach, whether or not there's an impact on the environment, whether or not there's an impact on the feed regime with this type of product. That's the basis upon which we do our assessment.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: You're going to be providing us with the background documentation on it.

    The Chair: I should say, Mr. Robinson, we have them coming back along with Monsanto and the department.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: I appreciate that, and I trust that when they come back they'll provide that information, because it certainly looks to many of us--and I'm a city boy, I freely confess that--that what's happening here is being driven by the interest of Monsanto and corporate interests, and that in many respects you're showing contempt for the farmers in this country, for the Wheat Board, the National Farmers Union, and others by ignoring the possibility that there would be a significant impact on their lives because of the market rejecting this wheat.

    I want to ask the agency this. Do you have concerns about this, or do you say, well, no, that's not our mandate, we don't go there?

  (1230)  

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: It's obviously a difficult question to answer.

    First, I would say if somebody interprets that we're in contempt for the position we've taken, which is basically to apply the law as it's written, I apologize for that, in a way, but there's not much I can do about it. At the same time--

    Mr. Svend Robinson: You discovered that after the law had been in force, apparently, for a decade.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: And as I explained earlier, it's unfortunate to say, but when you're administering 13 acts and 30-plus sets of regulations, these things happen. When the legislation and regulations were written...and the committee on the scrutiny of regulations routinely advises us of things we have either misinterpreted or are not consistent between English and French--or for a variety of other reasons--and these things, unfortunately, happen--

    Mr. Svend Robinson: I think Canadian farmers expect you to know what the regulations are, Mr. Brackenridge.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Certainly, and they should. And what happened in this case was there was a criterion within a registration committee's terms of reference--it was not within the regulations themselves, it was in their terms of reference--that had been used in a certain fashion, I believe--this predates a lot of my personal activities--and had been, as with a lot of committee terms of reference, somewhat buried within them. As people started to try to find more clarification on what they could do within the powers of those committees, clarification was sought, we provided that clarification, and it was determined that the criterion was not an appropriate one.

    Again, I can't do more than say that's what my job is, to do that. And I apologize if it looks as though there's any kind of bias, because we pride ourselves on the equitable treatment of applicants.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, whether it's bias or incompetence--or both--is not clear to me, as I come at this from a fairly new perspective.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Neither one is particularly flattering.

    The Chair: I think we ought to be respectful. I believe contempt would require a deliberate attempt by someone to mislead, and I don't think that's the attempt here. If there's information missing, I trust we will find it at the table. Let's move on to the questioning, and hopefully we'll find that information.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact we will be provided with the background documentation that led to this decision. I know my colleague, Mr. Proctor, will review that with great interest.

    In terms of the science here--you talk about the science-based criteria--what independent evaluation is being done with respect to this, and does that evaluation incorporate the precautionary principle?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: That's a challenging question to answer, and I'm not sure I'm the best person, when it gets down to criteria.

    The group that's coming on June 3, I believe, Mr. Chair, will certainly be able to answer that question. They have a strict set of criteria upon which they evaluate, whether it be based upon the weediness, the impact, the transferability of the traits.... Again, you're into a level of science that I, unfortunately, can't address.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: But is it not at least part of your mandate to ensure that whatever those science-based criteria are, you're satisfied they will protect the health of Canadians?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: It's a three-part process. We look after the environmental impacts and the impacts on feed. Health Canada actually does the food safety assessments, and through policy we will not give an approval for one without all three aspects being addressed.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, let's look--

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

    I'm being very generous with time today, and I apologize.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: That's fair enough, yes.

    The Chair: Mr. Anderson.

    Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Brackenridge, don't panic. We think it's important that the CFIA stick with science-based requirements and regulations in determining the acceptance of this weed into our market. But I guess if we do change that and the market accepts, we'll be walking into myriad regulations and restrictions that are going to be used--as Mr. Hilstrom said--to block trade all over the world. So be very careful about going in that direction.

    I wanted to come back to the point Howard asked you about. You don't have a specific budget set out for GM wheat. Is that what you said? It's part of your biosafety?

    The United States has said their approval is going to need Canadian and U.S. approval basically at the same time. Have you been in discussion with other countries about the approval process they're going through to coordinate ours with theirs?

  (1235)  

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Yes, Mr. Chair, we routinely communicate with other countries about their approval processes. I think we all remember going through a pretty unfortunate situation with StarLink corn. What we're trying to do is make sure we are aware of what other countries are doing. Everyone has their sovereign right to approach these situations in their own interests, but we want to make sure communication is not a reason for any misinformation or misunderstanding taking place. So we have regular communications with our U.S. colleagues and with other countries to determine how they're approaching GM approvals and that type of thing.

    Mr. David Anderson: You can see the members' commitment to agriculture, by the way.

    The Chair: You shouldn't refer to us in questioning here.

    Mr. David Anderson: I did want to ask you, then, is there a plan amongst the countries to try to bring this on schedule in the same timeframe, at the same time?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: To my knowledge, there's not a plan in place.

    Dr. Evans, if you wanted to add a comment....

    Mr. Brian Evans: I'd make the comment, Mr. Chairman, that the discussion we normally have with other countries, in terms of the processes, is to have a knowledge of the types of products that are being reviewed in each jurisdiction because of the integration of trade and what we may have to adjust in terms of our own surveillance programs in this country to deal with products that may have been approved in one jurisdiction and not in the other. But at this point in time the level of discussion gets down to this: we're all dealing with the same application at the same time, and therefore where are each of them?

    But I think it's fair to state that what we do try in the scientific assessments is to take on board external science experts who may be in other jurisdictions working with other countries' regulatory authorities on common files. I just make the point that the integration, or the consultation, isn't on any one specific product in terms of where each country is, but what are the criteria by which each country is measuring those products.

    Mr. David Anderson: Don't you think it would be a good idea for the government to try to advance that as a strategy then, that we will get on the same schedule? It's going to affect exporting countries, and if it's going to happen, it seems to me it should happen at the same time. Isn't that a good strategy to be pursuing?

    Mr. Brian Evans: Yes, and it is a strategy that we wish to pursue in the longer term. Unfortunately, currently, the reality is that certain products will not necessarily be subject to application submissions in all jurisdictions at the same time. Companies will determine what the marketability issues are. So whether we're talking plants with novel traits, whether we're talking about antibiotics, or pharmaceuticals, or vaccines, again, we may be dealing with an application ourselves that Europe or the United States may not be dealing with, so our level of discussion is to make each other aware of the types of applications we're dealing with. But you're right, a longer strategic policy is, once we can align ourselves in that way, how can we ensure that we're not placing in jeopardy the international confidence in our markets?

    Mr. David Anderson: There's been a new process developed, and there was a report written on it where they suggested there would be the genetic ability to cause plants just to breed with plants of the same breed, so that GM wheat will only be able to breed with GM wheat. Has your department been involved with that program at all, or funding that, or been any part of that? Do you know?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: No, we do not get involved with funding research initiatives.

    Mr. David Anderson: I wanted to come back to something Rose-Marie brought up before. In 2000 you were under quite a bit of pressure when foot-and-mouth broke out. There seemed to be a lack of personnel. There actually was a real slowness to react to the system as well.

    With the new money going to the veterinary colleges and new employees and those kinds of things, do you feel you're in a better situation now in terms of responding to an emergency if a situation occurs? Would you comment on that?

    Mr. Brian Evans: Certainly. I think I would agree with your assessment that the need for the ability to respond requires a very broad infrastructure capacity that goes beyond simply the CFIA. I think the investment in the veterinary colleges was a very key component of that.

    I would hazard that with the experience we gained by having our 70 personnel go to the U.K. and work through that process with them, and the subsequent investments we've made in our vaccine bank with Canada and the United States--we've doubled our investment in the vaccine bank over that period of time--and because we did do the cross-country/three-country simulation exercise, and there's a three-year plan for subsequent follow-up exercises in terms of testing our capacity, we are much further down the road than we were.

    Certainly, the threats remain, and any effective response is going to require not just the CFIA's capacity to be at the front line but our provincial laboratory capacities and the broader veterinarian animal health community. I think with the engagement we've had with industry and helping industry work through a number of the issues that would be critical to managing that scenario, whether it be zoning or vaccination use, or whatever they are, we're much better prepared than we were. I think that in the assessments other countries have done of us, including the General Accounting Office in the United States, who assessed our preparedness against the U.S., we've come out very well.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom had a question.

    Mr. David Anderson: Go ahead.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We can share.

    On “Major Capital Project Spending”, table 2, on page 33, I need a little help in getting the figures that are there straightened in my head.

    The spending is in millions of dollars, and then you have the current estimated total cost of these different projects. Take any one--for instance, the Nepean, Ontario, one has $40,000 million. What's the actual dollar of that? It's not $40 billion, if you add six zeros after $40,000. Interpret that so I know exactly what we're talking about here.

    Mr. Rob Dufresne: There's a typo on this page. That should not read thousands; that should read millions.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I think that sounds a little more reasonable. I was going to ask you, what can you build for $40 billion? That sounds like a lot of money to me.

    Anyway, you have these major projects, and it is a lot of money. What is the structural building that is going up in Lethbridge that's accounting for this planned spending over the next four or five years? How is that going to add to a farmer's production of food and financial well-being?

    Mr. Brian Evans: Mr. Chairman, the investment in Lethbridge is an existing laboratory. We have a level 3 laboratory in Lethbridge, which is the sister laboratory to the one here at ADRI in Nepean. That investment in the building itself deals with the location of that laboratory. There are elements of that laboratory, given the valley in which it resides.... In Lethbridge, there is some sinking of key components, and that's to reinforce the ability to continue to maintain the level 3 capacity of that facility.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Is that a disease control laboratory?

    Mr. Brian Evans: It's one of our animal disease laboratories that deals primarily with anthrax and BVD.

    The Chair: Let's cut it off at that point. We'll come back; we'll have time.

    Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney: Again, I go back to the security issues. In your brief you indicated that we will increase our cooperation with the United States in emergency preparedness. In response to some of my earlier questions, you certainly pointed out the interaction you have with the United States. Does “will” mean that additional initiatives are being considered or are being planned, or is that “will” a misnomer, and it should be really “we are”?

    Ms. Kristine Stolarik: Actually, we're continuing the dialogue regularly. We just finished participating in an exercise that you may have heard of, and that's the top-off exercise, where we basically put an emergency plan into action, and we reacted to that emergency plan and to all the emergency measures that we would jointly put in place to deal with it. That was conducted early this week.

    Basically what we're doing is making sure we know our role, they know their role, their responsibilities, who has the authority to do what, in the event of an emergency.

    Mr. John Maloney: Go ahead, sir.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Perhaps I could add that there are a number of other initiatives going on as well. We are very much a part of the 30-point plan in phase two of the smart border plan, which has recently been initiated. We're looking at the critical infrastructure aspects of it, and we're recognizing that agriculture and food are actually key aspects, now, of critical infrastructure.

    We have a variety of other initiatives with the U.S. The U.S. is proposing an FDA bioterrorism act, which has an impact on Canadian exporters. We are working with the Food and Drug Administration to try to make sure that while we share the legitimate security objectives they have, that does not impede low-risk goods from a good flow across the border.

    Mr. John Maloney: Also, you made reference to international garbage. I assume we don't accept international garbage on a commercial basis, but probably there are references to boats landing on our shore from foreign countries or planes arriving at our airports. Is there a process for the disposition of this product, this material? Are there designated...only certain people or companies can license...or otherwise we can pick it up? Is it incinerated? In fact, if you are inspecting it, what are you looking for?

  (1245)  

    Mr. Brian Evans: You're exactly right. When we refer to the international garbage, it is materials being removed from vessels and/or aircraft, whether they be commercial, military, or otherwise, that have been sourced from outside of Canada...to deal with potential food risks and to ensure they don't get into rendering or recirculated circumstances.

    Again, based on respective provincial legislation out of some of the international airports, it is in fact incinerated on a directed contract basis that we have with the various airport authorities. In other jurisdictions, where the provinces don't allow that type of product to be burned, we have restricted access to secured landfill sites, for which there are, again, contracted security-cleared transporters of that product. We have a verification enforcement program, where we monitor, on a weekly basis, or more frequently, depending on the nature of the product, the actual delivery to the site and its proper disposal.

    Mr. John Maloney: It's obvious that for ship transportation, it would be on the coast, at Halifax and Montreal, wherever. What about further up into the Great Lakes? Do you have designated...? They must retain it until they get to certain ports, and we'll take it. You can't dump it anywhere.

    Mr. Brian Evans: Yes, that's right. There is a process whereby lockers and whatnot have to be sealed at their first point of landing in Canada, and they can only be unlocked by government inspectors for disposal at certain other key points where they have the capacity to deal with it.

    Mr. John Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

    Do you want to continue on, Mrs. Ur? We still have time here.

    I've been very generous. We're a long way beyond today, on our side, but we're really generous.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: On page 21 of our book on estimates here, it says:

Performance Assessment: In reporting to Canadians on its performance, the CFIA will measure the following:

    How far along are you in addressing those five areas that you have indicated in the book? I won't read them out because they're in front of you. Have you done any performance assessment on that to see where you're at and where you need improvements or costing of those particular five sectors you have highlighted there?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you for the question.

    I think we're at a variety of stages. Part of the challenge we faced--and I was trying to get to this in my answer to the first question that came up today--was that we have a great wealth of information within the agency. It's a matter of packaging it, analysing it, interpreting it, and using it for strategic directions for the organization.

    In many of these, we do have rates of compliance for facilities, animals, and animal products. It's a matter of putting that and interpreting it in such a way that it's meaningful to Canadians, and that's something on which we want to work.

    On analysis of disease trends, we again have very skilled risk assessors in this area, and they do a lot of the risk pathway analysis activities that Dr. Evans was mentioning. Again, it's a matter of taking it beyond the actual work and our internal interpretation of it, but capturing it in such a way that it's meaningful to whether it be parliamentarians or Canadians in general--and also our own management staff, to be quite honest with you, so that we can do our job better.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: The Auditor General has stated that as well.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: We don't disagree, and we're working on that. We are investing more money in trying to deal with that.

    Again, not making excuses, we have tried as we went through the cycle of things like Y2K...we did a lot of work and reduced the number of informatics systems we have. We've made a good start on that, but the practical functionality of some of the systems still has work to be done, and we're dedicating resources to doing that. What we want to get is better information to help us do our job, but also to be able to report back in a more effective fashion.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I guess maybe I'm deviating a little bit from what we're supposed to be here on today, which is the main estimates, but my honourable colleague brought up a happening in his riding.

    The emerald ash borer is certainly a major concern in my part of the country. What is the CFIA doing with that, or how much are they spending to evaluate the problem and its progress within the community?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you, again.

    That is another one that has been very much a challenge to us, and we're working very closely with our partners at the federal level, whether it be Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, or the Canadian Forestry Service. We're also working very closely with the Municipality of Windsor and the surrounding municipalities, and also with provincial groups--the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and others--and with our USDA colleagues.

    We invested quite a bit of money last year and received some emergency supplementary funding to do that, which meant a lot of survey activities were going on to determine the spread of the disease or the pest. We have been coming up with various strategies and options to try to determine whether it's something almost in a plum pox type of way as to whether or not you can reasonably expect to eradicate the problem or at least have an effective control procedure in place.

    Because of the location of the infestation, a lot of the work is very dependent upon what the U.S. does. Just recently, I understand, the U.S. has announced that they are going to invest some significant dollars into the control mechanisms for emerald ash borer in Michigan.

    I think the assessment we've received is that we're in a little more fortunate situation right now from a geographic standpoint in that it's on a peninsula and we can do some perhaps more effective control mechanisms. All these things are extremely expensive, as you can appreciate. We think we have some time to be able to do further assessment about what the current rate of infestation is, and, while we're doing that, to do a type of strategy to slow the spread. Based on how these pests move and the speed with which they move, we still think we have some time to work on an approach to slow the spread, which means doing surveying and taking down trees as we find infestation.

    We're looking at other options that could be more dramatic as to how to stop the spread of the problem. But again, it's being done in a very collaborative fashion with the United States, almost a joint action plan being developed. I think we're spending in the neighbourhood of $2.5 million--I may not be quite right on that, but it's something in that neighbourhood--to do our current strategy.

  (1250)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Hilstrom, I'm going to give you one question, because I have to get Mr. Duplain in. He hasn't been on yet today. Mr. Hilstrom, do you have a question?

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: One question? Gee, you must have more time than that.

    I have to be really careful here, because I wanted to ask about West Nile virus, but I can't ask about that. I also wanted to ask about the zoning plans, so I can't ask about that. So I'm going to ask my most important question, which is, how come the Government of Canada and the CFIA have not seen fit yet to expand what was originally called the terminal feedlot program in Alberta and Saskatchewan to year-round access for cattle from the majority of the northern-tier states?

    That's an initiative that has been pushed forward by the CCA. Neil Jahnke has expressed in fact that he sees no reason why this hasn't been approved to this date. He told me that in person.

    I would like to know why it hasn't been approved to this date, because it is causing a massive trade irritation with those American producers.

    The Chair: That's the question.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's the question, and if you want to talk about anything else too, I'd appreciate it.

    Mr. Brian Evans: It is an important question, and I would like to address that.

    Certainly we recognize again the sincere interest that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association has in this particular project. We in fact have approved proceeding with a pilot this year. We had very positive meetings with Rob McNabb of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association last Wednesday.

    The issue in terms of the outstanding matters on this particular file of course date to the fact that when the project was proposed, we had agreed with the cattlemen that our preferred approach was one of zoning with the United States to prevent the entry into Canada of diseases that exist in the United States that do not exist in Canada.

    When the proposal was put forward, there were significant objections from the Province of Alberta, which did a risk assessment and was concerned about the economic impact on wildlife of the introduction of those two diseases, bluetongue and anaplasmosis. We recognize that from a cattle perspective bluetongue is not a significant disease, but it does kill sheep and it does kill wildlife.

    The province was quite concerned also that it would impact on the cow-calf operators and the genetics industry by having diseases come into the country that previously hadn't existed, and it could undermine international confidence and our ability to market.

    I think the cattlemen have worked very hard to build a consensus with some of the provinces and other federal departments as well, because the protocol proposed by the cattlemen involved the use of antibiotics as a control measure, for which there were some concerns expressed by Health Canada relative to exacerbating anti-microbial resistance issues with a product that wasn't approved in Canada.

    I think we have bridged those issues. We've built a consensus. The Province of Quebec and the Province of Saskatchewan were the last two groups that had concerns about the project. We've agreed to incorporate them in the review of the verification of the measures in place, and we're every bit confident that this pilot will go ahead this year and generate the information scientifically on the potential for these diseases to spread in the Alberta environment, and it will allow us to implement the program more broadly.

    I'll just conclude with one comment. Going back to the regionalization initiative, we were successful in reviewing information from the State of Hawaii. They have now been fully recognized for TB, brucellosis, bluetongue, and anaplasmosis. Hawaii has indicated that they could supply up to 400,000 animals for the feedlot operations in B.C. and Alberta this year without restriction.

  (1255)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Evans.

    We'll move to Mr. Duplain for our concluding questions.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, the questions I had have already been asked. If either Mr. Maloney or yourself wish to put a question, by all means you may do so. Otherwise, I will leave my time to Mr. Hilstrom, who seems to have a great many questions.

    However, I did want to thank the officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for coming here today. I feel the public knows very little about this agency, or the tremendous job it does. In my view, CFIA employees do a remarkable job in Canada and are deserving of our appreciation. That's all I wanted to say. I'll leave the floor to someone else who wants to put a question.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duplain.

    Before we conclude, in one of the comments on the bottom of your second page, Mr. Brackenridge, you made the comment that “Canada's competitiveness in a global marketplace is reinforced when our regulatory system has the respect of our trading partners”. Where are we at with that respect? Where are we going with it? Where have we come from?

    Perhaps it goes back to Mr. Duplain's comment, because there's a confidence level that has to be maintained and perhaps even built upon as we go into the future. There were some wonderful questions this morning, all of them pertaining to the health and safety aspects of our food sector, but I want to know how we are in that respect. I think I know, but I want to have you put it on the record.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity.

    Again, this is all subjective, but without bragging, I think we're doing quite well in the international scene from a regulatory perspective. I think we're seen as being a credible, science-based organization. I think that is what gives a leg up and an opportunity for Canadian exporters to access the international marketplace.

    We take that role very seriously, and we make every effort not to compromise how we do our job. On some occasions, that may be upsetting to certain clientele that are there and regulated parties. Unfortunately, we can't make apologies for that; that is our job.

    My sense is that the creation of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in 1997 was looked upon by a number of other countries as a real example of how to bring together various departments that have a variety of common interests. We have been contacted by numerous other countries to get insights and opinions on how we achieved our successes, what were some of the problems we encountered, and other things they may keep in mind.

    We have a group going to Morocco, for example, next week or the week after. They're very seriously considering a single food inspection agency concept.

    When we deal at the international level, people like Dr. Evans with the OIE, the animal health community, are very well respected and on very senior advisory committees in those international standard-setting bodies.

    You have Mr. Carberry on the international plant protection side, who is very much the same.

    I think the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is the international food standard-setting body, very much values the Canadian participation. We are a country in which they know we have a very good system, but they also know we are collaborators; we are countries that are very interested in bringing consensus to tough files.

    Sorry, I've gone a little long here, but I think our reputation has certainly been maintained, and I think it's being enhanced daily.

    The Chair: Just before we conclude, I would like to remind our committee members that we are meeting at 4 o'clock on the Monday when we return, with the minister.

    We would ask you people to bring to the table the information that was requested this morning by Mr. Robinson, perhaps at our next meeting, and we look forward to our next meeting with you on June 3.

    I believe that's all for today. I thank you very much for your presence here this morning and for bringing such enlightenment to this issue.

    The meeting is adjourned.