:
Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the role of food inspection agencies in the context of free trade agreements.
With that, I'd like to certainly welcome our guests today. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have Mr. Fred Gorrell, assistant deputy minister, international affairs branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. From the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, we have Frédéric Seppey, assistant deputy minister, market and industry services branch. Also, from Global Affairs Canada, we have Jay Allen, director, sanitary and phytosanitary division; and Mr. Michael Wylie, deputy director, sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Welcome.
We shall start with a statement. I understand, Mr. Seppey, that.... Sorry, Mr. Gorrell, you will be giving the opening statement.
As you said, my name is Fred Gorrell. I'm the assistant deputy minister of the newly created joint Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada international affairs branch.
I appreciate your invitation to participate in this study and for giving me the opportunity to explain the CFIA's roles in the context of free trade agreements signed by Canada.
[Translation]
While the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) have different mandates—which continue to be upheld—our new structure offers opportunities, including the benefit of the CFIA and AAFC being able to maximize the use of resources dedicated to the resolution of market access issues and to speak with one voice internationally and domestically.
Concerning the CFIA's role regarding free trade agreements, I will start by clarifying that the CFIA plays a unique role in international trade. The CFIA is Canada's regulatory agency dedicated to food inspection and safeguarding Canada's animals and plants.
The CFIA's main priority is preserving the health and safety of Canadians. However, the work we do also plays a key role in facilitating international trade.
[English]
The CFIA supports the government's free trade agenda by participating in free trade negotiations and implementing free trade agreement provisions related to its mandate, once these free trade agreements come into force. In these free trade agreements, Canada has two main objectives: protecting the ability to take measures necessary to keep Canadians safe, and encouraging the adoption of science-based and risk-based sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
Canada's regulatory system to promote food safety and protect Canadians' animal and plant resource base is respected around the world, and our agriculture and agri-food products are in demand globally. In order to facilitate trade and to protect Canada's food supply and animal and plant resource base, the CFIA is responsible for administering and enforcing legislation related to the import and export of food, animal, and plant products.
For export, the work of the CFIA provides the assurances that export markets need to open borders to Canadian products and to keep markets open. For example, the CFIA is the only regulatory agency in Canada that can negotiate sanitary or phytosanitary export certificates with international trading partners.
For imports, our requirements are designed to protect the Canadian food safety and animal and plant health system. It is the strength of Canada's domestic system that gives other countries confidence in our food and safety and animal and plant health systems, and provides a foundation for advancing a market access for Canada's agricultural exports.
In many cases where Canada's regulatory requirements and oversight for export are recognized as meeting the requirements of an importing country, the CFIA negotiates equivalency arrangements. The CFIA also negotiates import conditions to make sure that food, animals, plants, and related products coming into Canada meet our own high standards.
[Translation]
Now let me get a bit more specific about free trade agreements.
Recently, this committee concluded a study on the impact of non-tariff barriers to the sale of agricultural products in relation to free trade agreements. During the discussions, witnesses testified to the negative impact that the unjustified use of non-tariff barriers can have on exports.
[English]
While there are a number of types of non-tariff barriers, the two categories most relevant to the CFIA are technical barriers to trade, often called TBT, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures, called SPS.
TBT measures are technical regulations dealing with the product's characteristics or how it is made, including procedures for assessing whether a product conforms to a requirement. Then there are SPS measures. Food safety and animal health fall under sanitary measures. Plant health falls under phytosanitary measures.
It is very important to remember that, in the vast majority of cases, the use of TBT and SPS measures are justifiable. In fact, they are often necessary to make sure that imported food is safe and that the agricultural sector is protected from the introduction of pests and diseases that could have a devastating effect. It is only when such measures are not justifiable or become overly restrictive that they become trade concerns.
Because Canada is an export-dependent country and a medium-sized economy on the world stage, multilateral agreements and standards-setting bodies are essential to create the predictable trade rules upon which Canada's agricultural exporters depend. The World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures is the international agreement that establishes disciplines on measures dealing with food safety, animal health, and plant health. As such, the World Trade Organization SPS agreement is the cornerstone of Canada's international trade policy on animal and plant health matters.
As Canada's principal regulator of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, the CFIA leads Canada's participation on the World Trade Organization SPS committee, where the rules on SPS measures are further elaborated.
[Translation]
The CFIA is also involved with international standard-setting bodies and the development of international standards.
The CFIA leads Canada's participation when standards concern animal and plant health.
The CFIA co-leads participation with Health Canada when the standards concern food.
The CFIA works with the Codex Alimentarius Commission for food standards; the International Plant Protection Convention for plant standards; and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) for animal standards.
[English]
In addition to pursuing work multilaterally, the Government of Canada has a bilateral trade agenda that is both ambitious and progressive. This includes negotiating new free trade agreements with a number of fast-growing Asian markets, such as India, as well as negotiating the modernization of existing free trade agreements such as the NAFTA.
In recent years, successive rounds of tariff reduction, through bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, have limited the country's ability to restrict access to certain markets through tariffs. Consequently, non-tariff barriers, including the unjustified use of TBT or SPS measures, would seemingly seek to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, but are in fact disguised restrictions on the international trade they have increased.
Members of the Canadian agricultural sector stress that the avoidance or resolution of non-tariff barriers will make the difference between achieving commercially viable access to critical export markets or not. As mentioned previously, the CFIA also supports the government's free trade agenda by participating in free trade agreement negotiations and implementing free trade agreement provisions once they come into force. The CFIA co-leads, with Global Affairs Canada, the negotiations of provisions that seek to preserve the right to take necessary measures to protect the country's food and plant and animal resource base, and include disciplines that these measures not be disguised restrictions on trade.
Ten of the 13 free trade agreements that are enforced in Canada include stand-alone SPS chapters. As I mentioned before, the CFIA does more than participate in the negotiations of free trade agreements. Once an agreement is in force, the CFIA plays an important role in implementing the provisions outlined in the agreement. For example, the Government of Canada often establishes sanitary and phytosanitary committees with key free trade agreement partners. These committees provide a forum to meet and discuss SPS issues with a view to facilitating trade, enhancing co-operation among partners, and resolving issues.
Seven of Canada's 13 agreements include SPS committees. The CFIA also undertakes the technical work, such as negotiating export certificates, assessing risk for importing goods, and participating in incoming and outgoing audits that support import and export activities as a result of new trade agreements.
Regulatory work to create predictable, science-based rules and regulations is increasingly important for the Canadian agri-food sector to gain access to foreign markets.
[Translation]
The CFIA does not work in isolation in the area of trade and free trade agreements. All of our work is done in active collaboration with other government departments, our stakeholders and like-minded countries.
What we do is bring our food safety and animal and plant health expertise to the table when agreements are being negotiated and implemented.
Following our mandate, the CFIA works to open global markets for the benefit of Canada and all Canadians.
Thank you.
:
Again, I would say it's a straightforward question, and the reply isn't always easy.
If I may, I'll just use an example. Whatever the country is, I want to export my greenhouse peppers. I'll put it in, and we will ask the other country to do it. One of the problems right now with the number of bilateral agreements that are being, if I may say, proliferated around the world, is that there's a capacity issue for many countries the same way there is for us.
Look at China. Everybody wants to export to China, but the Chinese have the capacity to do only so many risk assessments at any particular time. So for those peppers, they come back and say, “Mr. Gorrell, you know what, we'll get to those peppers after we do your blueberries, after we do your cherries, after we do your whatever,” and that is an issue, too. Part of the discussion is about the prioritization, having the candid conversation about what we can do on our side, but also on the other side.
To your question, yes, sometimes there will be, let's say, a less than honourable intent in the delay on it, but often there is a natural progression in the time it takes us. For example, with some of the non-tariff barriers and the access we've had with other countries, it is not unusual—and I'm almost apologetic about saying this—for it to take years in some cases to get things done. There are some less than honourable non-tariff barriers, but in many cases the capacity and the ability to get things done do take years.
:
Thank you. Yes, it is possible. Because of the weather conditions, my colleagues are still in Alberta and they were unable to be here today.
My apologies for being late. The leader of my party was making a statement in the House about the tragedy of the hockey players in Humboldt, and I really wanted to be there to show my support for the community.
My questions may be the same as my colleague's. Unfortunately, I missed your presentation, but I beg your indulgence for that today.
Thank you very much for being here.
Here is one of the reasons why I proposed that the committee study the agency's role in free trade agreements. In my dealings with producers everywhere, both small and large, I have heard all sorts of things. I said to myself that the best way to get answers was to invite stakeholders to the committee.
Among other things, I was told that it is more difficult for Canadians than for others to engage in international trade. Mr. Gorrell, I'm sure you've heard that before. Small producers say that they must follow certain standards to have CFIA's authorization to export their products. Unfortunately, we don't feel that Canada's competitors, when they export to our country, have to undergo the same inspections and constraints. It may just be an impression, but it's the first comment I heard when I became the agriculture critic. That's what I hear most often when I talk about the agency. I hear other things as well, but that's the first comment I get when it comes to international trade.
Could you tell me what you think?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to thank all the witnesses for appearing before the committee today.
Mr. Gorrell, I want to go through a few of the statements you made in your remarks. You said that members of the Canadian agriculture sector stress that it is the avoidance or resolution of non-tariff barriers that will ultimately make the difference between achieving commercially viable access to critical export markets, or not.
When we're seeking that access, there's always a quid pro quo. Other countries are seeking access to our markets, so it goes both ways.
Mr. Fred Gorrell: That's right.
Mr. Alistair MacGregor: You also said that regulatory work to create predictable, science-based rules and regulations is increasingly important for the Canadian agri-food sector to gain access to foreign markets, and likewise they're seeking access to our market.
Going back to the beginning, keeping in mind those two statements, you said that in free trade agreements, Canada has two main objectives. We want to protect the ability to take the measures necessary to keep Canadians safe, and we want to encourage the adoption of science-based and risk-based sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
Keeping all of those in context, it sometimes seems the CFIA has a difficult balancing act between corporate bodies. In many cases the existence of a national border may seem like an inconvenience, because it has operations all around the world. You have corporate interests that seek to move product to maximize profit, but then you have the populations of each country, which may have differing interests and concerns.
Looking at your mandate and the competing interests between possibly the corporate world and what the consumer world wants, how do you achieve that balance? Ultimately, what is it that guides you in trying to find that balance between what may be competing interests?
Actually, science is at the root of all the decisions the agency makes. There is science, political science and social sciences. Decisions are based on what is truly science, because it is impartial and it does not involve emotions. Science reassures us that the decisions are good.
There are phytosanitary risk assessments and analyses. Science validates the decisions that are made. In addition, it is always based on international standards. There are international standards for plants, animal health and safety. In short, science validates the decisions.
[English]
The science is the base that is used to give an impartial decision that has been researched and analyzed. When we look at risk, for example, we have a rather large ability to do a pest risk assessment, and that determines whether the product coming into Canada is of high risk, medium risk, or low risk. Then, based on that risk, we determine what measures are required to mitigate or balance that, so that our research as well as the science.... It could be our genetics as well, by the way.
You made reference to science en générale, and science is a big part of our innovation agenda as well. Science-based, evidence-based rules are how we make our decisions. At the same time, using science and research is part of our innovation agenda where we're able to in effect have better varieties and better genetics, and able to do things that other countries aren't. That gives us a bit of a cutting edge, a foot up on other countries. It supports our export agenda as well.
:
Thank you for your question.
Indeed, before starting negotiations, there are always periods of stakeholder consultation to obtain as much information as possible about export opportunities, but also about the barriers that may exist. Before starting negotiations, we try to clarify or articulate our position to find solutions to these barriers.
The approach we have taken in negotiations with the European Union is a good example. We knew that the problem, as far as the European Union was concerned, wasn't related to tariff barriers, but clearly to regulatory barriers.
Considerable efforts have been made not only to obtain tariff reductions, but also to ensure that the strong regulatory principles that were adopted, such as those contained in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, could be improved.
In this spirit, we always try to obtain as much information as possible to best resolve these non-tariff barriers. For example, in the EU meat market, we negotiated side letters that dealt specifically with methods of decontaminating meat carcasses. The approaches adopted by European countries involve limiting interventions much more, because their concern is more with the functional quality of meat rather than safety. To a certain extent, these countries take a different approach to ours. So we negotiated a side letter to make sure that a principle or a collaboration was embedded in the agreement, which would enable us to have our methods of decontamination better understood and respected by the European Union.
:
Thank you very much. I'm certainly happy to be here to speak to you about some of these issues.
Again, the trade part is something that I am quite concerned about. We have so many non-tariff trade barriers that we have seen, whether in China with our canola or some of the grains that we sell into Europe, and we understand the reasons that happens. We also have a lot of interprovincial barriers as well.
It was just mentioned earlier about the abattoirs and so on, as far as meat is concerned. I think that's one of the other barriers that we need to address, because we try to trade around the world, and then we have all of these other problems because we can't trade here within the country. Of course, there are more and more issues that are cropping up here about how Canadians are able to work with each other.
CFIA was really involved with the TB issue that had taken place in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, and we know how many animals were in trouble. We also know how many were destroyed. Are we working on possibilities with new technology to look at DNA, facial recognition of animals, and all these types of things that we know are out there, so that we can satisfy the consumer who has our product and we can also make sure that we are just attacking those animals that are causing a problem?
We've seen it with BSE. Everybody thinks mad cow is the one that was in Europe where they were flopping around, because that's what CBC showed all the time, but that is not what happened in Canada. Yet we made a special point of making sure that it was done properly. Is the technology keeping up with that?
:
I would say that the technology is there, but it's also for us—and “us” being the food inspection agency, the industry, and our colleagues at Agriculture Canada—to make use of that.
One of the key areas—and you made reference to the TB—is traceability, but it also came up relative to the BSE incident back in 2003.
For example, right now in Canada we do not yet have full traceability, whether it's with the ear tags or not. Recently we had the Canadian Meat Council, the Canadian Pork Council, as well as the Canadian cattlemen, all in together to have a conversation on the next steps on traceability for cattle and other animals. The key thing is that we need to use technology to answer some of the questions you've just asked.
One of the questions that the industry puts on the table often is that there is a cost, and who is going to pay for it. Then you have producers and packers in the room as well, so there is a conversation.
The idea would be, though, that technology is allowing us to do more now than we've ever been able to do. I know that the food inspection agency very much wants to have an innovative agenda to look at new ways of doing things, and given that we export 50% of everything we produce in Canada, it's incumbent upon us to take on this technology.
We do have an innovation renewal group within the agency to look at that. I think it won't move at the pace that perhaps everybody would want it to, but definitely using technology like e-certification on certificates and finding different ways of doing traceability, yes, we are looking at that.