Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 21 - Evidence - Meeting of September 25, 2012
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 25, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to which was referred Bill S-11, An Act respecting food commodities, including their inspection, their safety, their labelling and advertising, their import, export and interprovincial trade, the establishment of standards for them, the registration or licensing of persons who perform certain activities related to them, the establishment of standards governing establishments where those activities are performed and the registration of establishments where those activities are performed, met this day at 5:07 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, as the chair, I declare the meeting in session.
In respect of the agenda that was circulated by the clerk, we have two panels this evening. I want to share with honourable senators that I have been advised that there will be two senators making amendments to Bill S-11, to be discussed at the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The chair will hear those amendments at the end of the second panel.
To the witnesses, thank you very much for accepting our invitation to have the committee hear you so that you can share your comments with us. As you know, this committee is looking at Bill S-11, An Act respecting food commodities, including their inspection, safety, labelling, advertising, import, export, interprovincial trade, the establishment of standards for them, the registration and licensing of persons who perform certain activities related to them, the establishment of standards governing establishments where those activities are performed, and the registration of establishments where those activities are also performed and registered.
[Translation]
Having said that, I would like to thank our witnesses for accepting our invitation.
[English]
My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee. At this stage, before we introduce the witnesses officially, I would ask all senators to introduce themselves. I will start on my left, please.
Senator Peterson: Senator Peterson, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Good evening. I am Fernand Robichaud, Saint-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Merchant: Pana Merchant, Saskatchewan.
Senator Mercer: Terry Mercer, Nova Scotia.
Senator Mahovlich: Frank Mahovlich, Ontario.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Buth: JoAnne Buth, Manitoba.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Toronto.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Duffy: Mike Duffy, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Michel Rivard, Quebec.
The Chair: Honourable senators, thank you. Today, we are studying Bill S-11, Safe Food for Canadians Act.
[English]
As you are aware, the government introduced this bill in Parliament to make our food safety system stronger, as well as reducing overlap for Canadian food producers.
[Translation]
This legislation gives the industry simple, clear and direct rules in terms of inspection and application of the act so that it can better fulfill its responsibility to provide safe food to consumers —
[English]
— to put safe food on shelves for consumers.
Today, on our first panel, we welcome Mr. Keith Mussar, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters; and also Ms. Sukhdeep Bilkhu, Chair of the Canadian Association of Regulated Importers.
[Translation]
We also have Robert Devalk, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Regulated Importers.
[English]
Again, we thank you for accepting our invitation. I have been informed by the clerk that Mr. Mussar will make the first presentation, to be followed by Mr. Devalk.
Mr. Mussar, the floor is yours.
Keith Mussar, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Keith Mussar. I am with I.E. Canada, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters. It is a privilege to appear before this committee to testify with respect to Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians bill.
I.E. Canada is a national trade association that has been speaking on behalf of the Canadian trade community for more than 80 years. Our members include importers, exporters, Canadian food manufacturers who import and export food, wholesalers/distributors, retail importers and service providers. We represent some of the largest food importers and exporters in Canada as well as small- and medium-sized businesses. Our members import and export food from across all the food categories.
I.E. Canada supports the modernization of Canada's food safety legislation and we welcome Bill S-11. Bill S-11 will replace and modify the existing statutes governing food safety, packaging and labelling, and inspection under the Meat Inspection Act, the Fish Inspection Act and the Canada Agricultural Products Act; and the food labelling provisions of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.
The act provides authority to the minister to issue a licence to persons authorizing them to import, export or convey food from one province to another. This builds on the CFIA regulatory initiative under the Canada Agricultural Products Act, which will license importers of food in the non-federally registered sector or those food products that are regulated under the Food and Drugs Act. The act thus broadens the authority of the minister to license all food importers. In addition, the act provides the minister authority to prescribe conditions to license such as the requirement to implement a preventive food safety control system as a condition to obtain and maintain a licence.
The new act would allow for a number of other improvements including tougher penalties for non-compliance, enhanced powers of the inspectorate, and consistent inspection and enforcement across all commodities. Also, the act could provide for creation of regulations to establish pre-clearance requirements for any imported food commodity. This could facilitate the movement of imported food commodities into Canada and would be consistent with provisions being proposed under the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act.
As was noted by a committee member during previous testimony on Bill S-11, the devil, however, is in the detail. As such, there are aspects of the act that require further consideration. I will discuss three examples.
First, under clause 4, the general nature of the "prohibitions to import" could result in unintended negative consequences and measurable disruption of the current Canadian food supply chain. For instance, spices imported into Canada that require further processing to meet food safety requirements for human consumption may no longer be available to Canadian processors, possibly resulting in the loss of Canadian jobs. It is estimated that about 50 per cent of the total annual volume of spices imported into Canada are for further processing by Canadian companies.
Second, the requirement for Canadian products manufactured for export to comply with Canadian regulations and the "prohibition to export" such products under subclause 10(3), if they do not comply, may limit access of Canadian manufactured products to export markets. For instance, requiring Canadian manufacturers to use flour fortified to Canadian standards for the production of baked goods and other flour-containing products for export markets would cause them to be out of compliance in markets where fortification requirements differ from those in Canada. A number of markets prohibit fortification of flour with folic acid, which is required in Canada.
Third, allowed under current Canadian regulations, Canadian companies may import a product that is not compliant with Canadian regulations provided it is brought into compliance before being offered for sale in Canada. This is allowed without prior notification to CFIA. CFIA inspectors visit Canadian companies and ensure compliance of these products to Canadian regulations as they would for any domestically produced food commodity. This practice is particularly useful to correct non-compliance related to food product labelling and is a cost effective and efficient alternative to producing a product in unique packaging exclusively for the small Canadian market. The "prohibition to import" under subclause 6(2) may prohibit this practice.
I.E. Canada members have also raised concern regarding two other aspects of the bill. First, the unrestricted authority for inspectors to take photographs under clause 24(2)(g) raises concerns over security and over the possibility of intentional or unintentional disclosure of confidential information such as process and equipment design and function. Many companies have taken steps to prohibit the use of, or possession of, cameras, cellphones and other devices with picture-taking capability by employees and guests in manufacturing facilities to minimize this risk.
Incorporation of documents by reference into regulation is an important authority that will allow regulations to maintain currency and allow for changes in a timely manner that will keep pace with rapid advances in innovation. While desirable, a process is required to ensure stakeholder consultation is undertaken to allow those impacted by a change to have an opportunity to express their views. Additionally, a process is required to ensure changes to documents incorporated into regulation by reference are communicated internationally and opportunity provided to those impacted to provide comment.
In summary, I.E. Canada supports and welcomes Bill S-11. There are provisions that require further consideration. Our members are committed to consultation with officials to address their concerns.
On behalf of I.E. Canada and its companies, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today on a matter that is vitally important to all Canadians. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mussar. We will now hear from Mr. Devalk and then go to questions from committee members.
Robert Devalk, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Regulated Importers: Honourable senators, it is indeed a pleasure to be here. I feel comfortable in this room with people who have as much experience as you do. Certainly this committee has a reputation for doing a good job. I think this is why the government entrusted you with this important bill, which will probably ensure that Canadian food and agriculture has a food safety culture for I would think the next 20 years at least. We are looking at a paradigm shift that was necessary and we are now starting to put it in place.
When we in industry discuss this kind of legislation, we like to keep two things in mind, and I think it is a good thing to do that here as well when you are contemplating this bill. First, Canada is one of those unique countries in the world that has the ability to produce more food than we can eat. There are not many countries in the world that have that.
Canadian agriculture is at par with forestry, minerals and the auto industry — you name it. Canada has some good industries, but agriculture and food should be ranked right up there. This is one of our winners. We need to make sure that it stays that way. This bill will ensure, hopefully, that Canada's place in the world when it comes to agriculture and food will be retained. We need to keep that in mind. If things in this bill stand in the way of the objective of making Canada number one, or two or three in the world, we need to remove them. If it is not there, we need to put it in place.
Senator Mahovlich just indicated to me that he really likes this committee because he likes agriculture. I am glad to see that those kinds of senators are on this committee. We need people who love Canada and who love agriculture to make this work. I think that includes all of you.
The second factor is food safety. Food safety is a culture. It is not something you can impose from the top, something you can hammer into your children's minds. It has to be taught. It must be done by example. It must be nurtured. It is something you must carefully address.
Again, we are at a pivotal point. In Canada, we have a unique situation where we grew up with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We created that together, as industry and government. We said, "This is the way to go. This is the way to do food safety." It is still a very unique thing in the world. Now, we are finally doing some of the things that needed to be done. We have to change the legislation that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is administering.
We are making good strides to do that, but we must be careful. This bill has a lot of tools in it. We do not have a roadmap for these tools, and colleagues behind me will address that more tomorrow. It is sometimes dangerous to give people tools and not give them instructions on how to use them or a plan for how to use them. That is the danger here, but at the same time we need to ensure that these tools are in place because we have had a crisis and realized that we did not have some of the tools we needed.
We will not suggest that we pause until we have the plan in place. We are saying, "Let us put the tools in place and let us also work hard with industry and ensure that the plan also gets put in place." That is why I mention food safety as a culture. This bill could become a bludgeoning hammer to put food safety into the industry. We do not want that. We want food safety to be a cooperative effort between industry and government. That way, the plans do not just sit on the shelves but get incorporated. As you know, we are dealing with a crisis even as we speak. It is very important to know that the people who make the food for you are committed, from top to bottom, to food safety. Again, there are many elements in this bill to do with that point.
To give a little bit of information about our trade association, we are also national, and we represent importers of a very specific set of commodities — chicken, turkey, eggs and cheese. These are commodities that your government has decided to regulate. That is why we are called the Canadian Association of Regulated Importers. We fill holes for a lot of these particular products. We domestically produce certain chickens, but there are certain elements, such as wings, that we do not have enough of. That is where our association fills those holes. That allows everybody in the system to earn more money and not have surpluses. That works out very well.
We were incorporated in 1986 because a lot of the marketing board systems were incorporated just before that. My chairperson is here with me as well. She has a lot of experience in actual importing, so if you have questions about how that works and how our government controls it, she can answer them.
As to the bill itself, CARI supports the modernization and consolidation of the federal legislation related to food. We also endorse the improved oversight that Bill S-11 proposes across all food commodities, both domestic and imported.
Since all food manufacturers and importers of food products compete for a share of the Canadian consumer's stomach, all food products should be subject to the same food safety act. That is what we are now starting to do. Before, regulation of poultry was one thing, beef another, fruit and vegetables another and dairy another. We are now saying, "When we have a rule for safe food, it applies to everybody the same way." We have wanted that for many years, and now the time has come where we can finally put it into place.
The bill also puts in place the foundation for national traceability. Traceability is something that we have pursued as an industry, but we need a national focus in that regard. That is what this bill brings in. It also increases the penalties for food safety violations. That is also necessary. We have also finally dealt with food tampering, and that makes everybody in the food business feel better because that was a loose end that we had to fix.
"Why have a common approach?", you may ask. We have done it differently before. Why are we now talking about a common approach? As consumers demand more and more information, one of the interesting things is the use of the world "natural." You have probably been seeing it on more and more products. You might be saying, "I like these natural products. They are kind of nice. They do not have chemicals in them, and they do not have this or that." You like them. The word "natural" cannot be used for meat or poultry products because the CFIA has said, "Sorry, if you are raising cattle, chickens or eggs in barns, that is not natural. If there is a hog running in your field, yes, if you can catch it, you can call that natural." We said, "Hold it; that does not seem to make sense to us because we see the word `natural' on other products in Canada. Why are they natural and we are not?" We have had that discussion, and the CFIA is starting to recognize that maybe we need a set of rules so that the word "natural" can apply to all commodities. That is why we need a common approach.
The same goes for pre-market label registration. One of the aspects of pre-market label registration that you may not know is that when it comes to poultry and meat, we have to register those labels before we can go to market. That is not required for anyone else in the business. This bill will allow us to do pre-market label registration right across the board, and it will really help with your control over imports, as Ms. Bilkhu can tell you. Once you have a pre-registered label, all you need is a number at the border to control that import. That is the best way to do it. We think that it should apply to all commodities.
There are more comments in my notes, but maybe we can get through them in questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Devalk.
Senator Plett: One of the main focuses of this bill is to ensure consistency between what is imported and exported and what is produced domestically. Under the proposed act, "the Government of Canada will have new authorities that will result in clearer rules for Canadian food commodity exporters and for trading partners importing food commodities to Canada."
"As well, the proposed legislation will be an important step in aligning Canada's food safety system with our trading partners, such as with the Food Safety Modernization Act in the United States. Flexible, modern authorities will allow for timely responses to new international and trade requirements."
I have a couple of questions. First, this legislation streamlines a number of food safety-related acts, including inspection regimes. How will this positively impact your members?
Mr. Devalk: The impact on our members is very much related to that statement you made earlier, that it allows us to keep up with our trading partners. That is a very important aspect. Currently, our systems in Canada and the United States — certainly in the meat area — are considered equivalent. Had you not moved in this direction with this bill, there would be a good chance that in the future we would not be equivalent. Equivalency is very important to the whole meat and poultry industry in Canada.
Mr. Mussar: To build on what Mr. Devalk said, I will give you two examples that will show how this will be beneficial to our members.
First, for a product coming across the border, if it is to be inspected by CFIA, they have to have an inspector designated to inspect that particular product when the truck gets to the border. For instance, if I am a meat inspector, I cannot look at fresh fruits and vegetables. I cannot look at finished product. We have to wait until an inspector authorized to do that inspection arrives at the border, does the inspection and clears the product.
That will enhance the movement of goods across the border, as we understand, by broadening that ability. Rather than pigeonhole an inspector, this will allow an inspector to inspect food in general. They will be "food inspectors" as opposed to "meat inspectors."
Similarly, when an inspector comes into a manufacturing facility in Canada, that company might be involved in manufacturing a variety of different products. They may see an inspector from a number of different food commodity groups within CFIA coming in and doing inspections. Therefore, we are subject to multiple inspections and certifications. Again, by streamlining the system and allowing inspectors to do a variety of things, becoming food inspectors rather than specialized inspectors, it is anticipated that the frequency — though not the thoroughness — of inspection will actually decrease. This will be more efficient for industry, as well as Canadian consumers and taxpayers.
Senator Plett: You answered my second question about the border, so I will go to a different one.
Since the advent of globalization and free trade, Canadians have purchased more and more food products from a wider range of countries around the world and you have alluded to that. How does this legislation improve the safety of Canadian food imports?
Mr. Mussar: The legislation addresses a couple of things. First, and perhaps most significantly, it provides clear direction and guidance to those who import products into Canada about their responsibilities. One of the provisions that we understand will accompany this through regulation is the requirement for all food importers, together with all domestic producers who move product between provinces, to have in place a preventive food safety control system. That process looks at the imported product or the process used to manufacture a product, assesses the risk of that process, and ensures that the importer or the manufacturer puts in place processes to mitigate or address that risk. We anticipate that in general this will increase the level of food safety or at least reduce the risk of a food-borne illness.
Mr. Devalk: I believe the licensing provisions are really the key here. There were some holes previously and it was not clear that all imports into Canada were captured by the regulations that were in place. This bill makes it clear that all imports have to be licensed, if that is the way this licensing regime will go. Once there is licensing, at least the importer is known. Rules can then be put into place to say that you can have a licence, but to be licensed and operating in Canada and importing into Canada you need to have a food safety plan. Therefore we need to know the details of your food safety plan. This is what Mr. Mussar has mentioned.
You can also go that step further and require pre-clearance of all shipments. You have to tell us when you will bring that shipment into Canada so we can be ready. You can say that we would like to see your label before it comes in and if your label is not bilingual, for example, it is not coming into Canada — but right now it is. Pre-registration of all labels would solve that problem very quickly. You would then also know who to get in touch with.
This bill fills some holes we had. Like I said earlier in terms of tools, we want to make sure this new authority gets used properly, but it should give Canadians a lot of confidence that the imports coming into Canada will meet Canadian requirements.
Senator Peterson: Mr. Mussar, some time ago in this committee I had the opportunity to ask Mr. McAlpine of Maple Leaf Foods if, because of the new labelling and packaging requirements, processors would have to move outside of the country regardless of scale and ship back at much-reduced rates. He said:
There is a very real competitive threat. Imports of processed foods are growing rapidly and plant closures in Canada are occurring rapidly.
Could you speak to that? Are we in danger of an exodus of Canadian processors and packagers with these changes in food labelling?
Mr. Mussar: I am not sure I would characterize it as Canadians being at risk of losing our processing. There is no question that the percentage of imported products coming into Canada has increased consecutively year after year, but part of the reason for that increase is looking at the diversity of our population. I believe the last census showed an increase in our population of 2.5 million people and that of those only 1.2 million were babies born to Canadians. The rest of the population sustainability came from immigrants coming to Canada. We are seeing changing preferences in food as a result, in part, of changing distribution in our population.
Another factor is that many Canadians are in the fortunate position of being able to travel for vacation and for other reasons, so we have an opportunity to experience things around the world that our parents never had an opportunity to experience. Many of us are finding that some of these things are really quite good. Who would have thought a few years ago that there would be so many sushi restaurants around?
As Canadians, we are evolving in terms of our preferences and we are coming to grips with the fact that some of these things are only available through imported products.
Mr. Devalk: I believe your comment is correct if you look at the actual statistics. There is no doubt that we are closing food manufacturers faster than we are building them, but it is partly due to the situation in Canada when it comes to regulation. That can be credited for some of that.
However, I think a further processor, which I have a lot of experience with, has a lot to do with economies of scale here in Canada. We need exactly what I talked about very early on. We need a vision of what our food industry should be. We need to remember that Canada has a comparative advantage when it comes to food, and we need policies and regulations that encourage us to take that advantage and sell it abroad. If we do that, then we have economies of scale and we will be building plants in Canada, not closing them.
This bill has the potential to reduce the regulatory burden on our industries and make it clear. Certainly labelling alone will not move a plant from here to Buffalo, but economies of scale will. The government of the day is pounding the table about creating jobs in Canada. We need to make sure that every civil servant in this country is doing the same thing. We do not need to have civil servants who are putting regulations in the way of creating jobs. Those are the kinds of things that are going on. This bill will help to do that.
Senator Peterson: To be clear off the top, as the opposition we are very supportive of this bill. We just have some concerns, and one of them is the fiscal ability to really do what the bill would like to do. Under this bill the government does not anticipate hiring any front-line workers or adding to the staff. However, a long-time food inspector, Bob Kingston, has spoken out by saying:
The legislation is good. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, but our concern is that they won't have the capacity to deliver . . . Whenever we've seen situations where they don't have the capacity to deliver, they turn more responsibility over to the regulated parties.
Could you expand on his comments as to how they impact your industry?
Mr. Devalk: Yes. Bob should be credited for continuing to debate these issues. It is good to bring them to the foreground.
When the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was formed, it was handed 4,000 to 5,000 inspectors who formed part of the agency. One of the first tasks they faced was to try and get a budget that covered their activities and they struggled. At that time, the industry advised the agency that it needed to determine what it wanted to do in terms of producing safe food in Canada and what resources that would require, and then to determine whether they had sufficient inspectors to achieve that goal.
With this new bill, I think it is incumbent again upon the agency to revisit the number of people they have. This is why the earlier discussion about the road map is so important. If there is agreement that you want to achieve the intent of Bill S-11, you can determine whether you have sufficient resources to ensure safe food in Canada. That has never been done and it needs to be done.
In that sense I agree with Bob, but Bob will probably disagree with me when I say the result of that survey may be fewer inspectors, not more. That is a possibility.
You are right that the answer is not out there. He could be right, but he could be wrong as well.
Mr. Mussar: To complement what Bob said, we have been working with a prescribed number of inspectors and we have done what we have had to do with those people. It is widely becoming accepted, not only here in Canada but across the world, that there is a need to better utilize taxpayers' dollars. We have to become more efficient. One way of doing that is to have risk-based inspection, that is, identifying those products that have the greatest risk of a food safety issue and dedicating more resources to that rather than inspecting all food commodities at the same level, and I think that is the direction in which we are going.
Senator Eaton: You talked about a vision of what the food industry should be. All three of you gentlemen represent exporters and importers. Could this vision not come from the ground up? It is always dangerous when government comes up with a vision. It would be very nice if, for a change, witnesses told us what their vision is.
Are your associations thinking about formulating a vision and then telling the government what you need in order to achieve it?
Mr. Devalk: I will be accused of planting a question.
You are absolutely right. The food industry in Canada is exactly at that position. It is time for us to have a Canadian food strategy. Many elements in our industry are working on this. The Conference Board of Canada is doing a huge study on this area. We have had food policies to a degree and we have agricultural policies, but we have never really had a national Canadian food strategy.
Senator Eaton: You guys are the experts.
Mr. Devalk: I agree with you. We should not be looking to government to define that for us. The industry is going to present ideas to government about this. You will hear more about this from my colleague Albert Chambers who will speak to you tomorrow. He will tell you about some of the criteria that form a good food strategy for Canada.
These things are ongoing. Officials at CFIA are engaged in this process now. They think it is worthwhile doing this as well. It is a breath of fresh air. Industry and government seem to be moving together, and government seems to be ready to do exactly as you are saying. They want us to tell them more about what we would like to see.
Senator Eaton: Thank you for that. It is very positive.
Mr. Mussar, you were talking about fortified flour. Educate me on this. Why do you think the government is insisting that all exported flour has to be fortified? Is that an oversight or are there reasons for that?
Mr. Mussar: I am not sure of any specific reason for that. I chose that as an example that I am quite familiar with and with which our member companies have struggled over the years. There is a provision currently that they can import flour that is not fortified to Canadian requirements so that they can use it in the manufacture of products for export.
Senator Eaton: We import flour?
Mr. Mussar: Currently we can import flour.
Senator Eaton: Do we?
Mr. Mussar: We do.
Senator Eaton: We import flour?
Mr. Mussar: Without nutrients.
Senator Eaton: Why do we do that with all the flour we have in this country?
Mr. Mussar: So that Canadian companies have available to them unfortified flour that they can put into products to meet the requirements of export markets.
Senator Eaton: I see; it is a circular chart. That is interesting.
When we go into free trade talks with Korea, Japan and the EU, will things like fortified flour come up?
Mr. Devalk: Yes.
Senator Eaton: That might have an interesting impact on these regulations?
Mr. Devalk: Yes.
Do you know why Canada decided to put folic acid in flour?
Senator Eaton: No, I do not.
Mr. Devalk: It was a social decision by Health Canada.
Help me with this, Mr. Mussar. I believe it has to do with pregnancy.
Mr. Mussar: Folic acid is a vitamin that helps reduce the frequency of neural tube defects in infants.
Senator Eaton: I suppose that if you have a poor diet and you have bread, you are getting your folic acid.
Mr. Mussar: Canada uses bread, among other products, as a vehicle to deliver nutrients to Canadians. Other countries perhaps do not agree with that strategy and, as a result, particularly in the case of folic acid, have embraced different science and have actually prohibited fortification.
Senator Eaton: We know as Canadians that they are wrong and we are right, obviously.
Mr. Mussar: I would defer that to my colleagues at Health Canada.
Senator Merchant: Bill S-11 affects federally inspected meat but has no impact on provincially inspected meat. First, who has the higher standard? Who has more money to put into inspection? How do consumers, who are interested in making the right choice, decide whether to buy federally inspected or provincially inspected meat?
Mr. Devalk: Consumers in Canada can be pretty confident that food safety in both types of plants is not significantly different. There is no doubt that it costs more to achieve a federal registration, but I would be the last to say that that means you automatically get a higher level of safety. There is much talk going on now between provinces and the federal government on food safety. Some 10 years ago, federal, provincial and territorial ministers adopted HACCP principles that would be embedded in the plants in our country. HACCP stands for Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point. It was invented by the Pillsbury company for space food. They wanted to ensure that astronauts in space did not get diarrhea, because that makes for bad business in satellites.
We took that technology and applied it to the food industry. As a result, we have these systems all along the way to check to make sure food is good so that it is safe by the time it gets to the end. Those principles have been embraced by everyone in Canada provincially and federally. I do not think as a consumer you need to be too concerned about where it was processed, whether it is federally or provincially.
You are right that this bill will apply mainly to federal powers, so interprovincial trade and exports and imports. Intra-provincial trade is not covered except we think — this is one question we want to ask — it certainly does cover the movement between two federal plants, and that could be intra-provincial. Once this bill and the regulations are put in place, you will get consultation with the provinces. There is now a set of provincial plants that have met federal regulations with much less money than in the past.
The federal government — the CFIA — has already worked on what we call small- and medium-sized plants and how they can qualify for these food safety programs a little easier. We think with this bill the regulation world will become a little more streamlined, and it will make it easier to bring the provinces and the feds together. In the end, where do we want to be with this? We want one food safety system across Canada for everyone.
Senator Merchant: Regarding fines, I notice that the maximum penalty has been raised to $5 million, but so far the highest fine ordered was $100,000. I think it was ordered by a judge. Do you think the fines will increase? Will they deter people from tampering or making hoaxes or deceptions?
Mr. Devalk: I do not think the fines by themselves are a deterrent in the sense that you can raise them to whatever level. The fact that these fines are there, however, certainly means that companies engaged in any activity that might be in violation of the acts have a lot more to think about. In that sense, they have a comfort level in the culture of the company. They will teach employees that if something is done that is not in line and the company gets caught, the employee will be responsible.
Companies have a way of making that fine work for them to ensure that the culture in the company is in line. However, to me, fines are something you never want to pay. You do not want to wind up in court. The whole idea behind it is to put a food safety culture in plants and these things are there on the outside.
There definitely was no real deterrent in place when it came to tampering, and I think what we have done on that is good because some people were getting away with making a threat about turkeys, for example, or chickens, or whatever it was, and they could get away with it and nothing was done. This does give the authorities power to do it.
As a food industry, we are not hoping that these things get used. We are hoping that we can have regulations, that we work together and that the food safety culture will be ingrained in companies and therefore violations will be very few in between.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Mussar, you agree with the bill. You would like for it to move forward. You mentioned a few clauses where there could be some problems, but then at the very end of your presentation you said that some clauses or things in the bill would need further consideration. Could you elaborate on that? Is that before the bill is passed or after, or both?
Mr. Mussar: There are a couple of ways of managing these items that we have identified for consideration. Our recommendation would be to adjust them before we actually pass the bill. In general, our concern is not with the intent of the bill but with the words that have been selected and put on the piece of paper that have unintended consequences. The best approach would be to find a way of selecting a set of words that address the intent plus reduce the risk of the unintended consequences.
There has been discussion about whether we could at some later stage — perhaps during the regulatory development stage that would accompany the passage of the bill — address these concerns. There is a point of view that would say yes, we could do that. However, the concern that it raises for me is we start to address exceptions, and one of the challenges that we have been trying to address is that innovation happens very quickly. We struggle because the rule of thumb that most of us use is it takes two years to get a regulatory amendment, provided someone is interested in addressing the regulatory amendment. Therefore, to do it at the regulatory stage is a much more complicated step in the regulatory process.
Our hope would be to address the intent of the legislation but use words that actually do reflect without unintended consequences.
Senator Robichaud: Could you give me an example of those words that you would like to change so they better reflect the intent of the legislation?
Mr. Mussar: Yes. For instance, it is our understanding that the first provision that I made reference to is intended to prevent food that is unsafe if sold in Canada from gaining entry into Canada. Having thought about that a bit, we are trying to determine if the food can be stopped. When the government is aware that something unsafe is in transit from point A to Canada, can they stop it? That is the intent; that is what we are trying to do. If we could find a set of words that talks to "when the Government of Canada becomes aware of," then that is the action we take.
Whether that in itself is sufficient I think is open for further discussion, but that is the kind of discussion that would be worthwhile having.
Mr. Devalk: There is example in clause 24(1) with the word "they." We do not know who "they" is because it refers to an inspector, but we think that the word "they" should be CFIA.
Similarly, you need to put the word "documented" before "reasonable grounds." I know other people have worried about this section. This gives the inspectors a lot of power, especially to seize computers and look at anything on our computers. You want to ensure that the inspector has documented the reasons they want to use that computer. You can fix that by inserting the words "CFIA" and "documented," and then have you a process.
Senator Mahovlich: Canada has many regulations and Canadians are doing a lot of travelling in the world. Do other countries look at us? How do we compare with most of the rest of the world as far as regulations go? Do they have regulations in, say, Russia, India and other countries? Do they have the regulations we have? What good is it to have regulations here and then go and travel?
Mr. Devalk: Senator, for one thing, the government here has a responsibility to ensure that Canadians eat safe food. I think every country takes that responsibility seriously, some more than others, and some leave it to industry. Certainly this government is hands-on when it comes to food safety, and I think our industry respects that.
I wish you had asked how we compare to Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Europe. When you do that, Canada compares pretty well. Canada is a leader at Codex, which is another group around the world that sets standards. HACCP was developed with Canada's participation and the very rules we use for food safety are principles adopted around the world. We are no slouches when it comes to government regulation. We are good at it. I guess we inherited that from our British friends.
Senator Mahovlich: When Canadians travel, does our country warn us about which countries we should be more careful about?
Mr. Devalk: I believe they do. If you want to talk to our embassies in certain countries before you go, I think they will give you some good advice.
Mr. Mussar: To build on what Mr. Devalk said, we are in a unique situation in North America because for the first time the U.S. and Canada are simultaneously taking a look at our food safety laws. In both instances we are improving them. I think that will allow us, if we can do a good job of getting ourselves aligned, to provide both Canada and the United States with a very good food safety system. That will allow the movement of goods from Canada to the United States and really achieve some of the other objectives that we have through the Beyond the Border Working Group and the Regulatory Cooperation Council, which is to enhance the prosperity of both Canadian and U.S. companies.
It is a very unique time in our history of our nations.
The Chair: When this committee travelled to Washington, D.C., we did bring food safety to the attention of the senators and the government of the U.S. and that Canada would look at it seriously.
Mr. Mussar: Thank you for doing that because as a trade association we are actively involved with regulators here in Canada but also in the United States. We have provided the same working brief to both countries to encourage some common thinking about how we go about enforcing food safety so that it does not impede the movement of goods between our two countries.
Senator Robichaud: When I asked about words, you said mentioned clause 24 and referred to the word "they."
Mr. Mussar: Yes. That was Mr. Devalk.
Senator Robichaud: I cannot find it.
Mr. Devalk: It is called "Inspection," subclause 24(1):
Subject to subsection 26(1), an inspector may, for a purpose related to verifying compliance or preventing non- compliance with this Act, enter a place, including a conveyance, in which they . . .
Senator Robichaud: There you would like to see "CFIA" or "inspector"?
Mr. Devalk: No, no.
Senator Robichaud: Later the bill refers to "inspector."
Mr. Devalk: I think the inspector is one person at the CFIA. I think it is important when the inspector starts to look at computers and those kinds of things that he has demonstrated to someone at CFIA, with a document, that there are reasonable grounds and this is why we need to do this. It needs to be documented.
Senator Duffy: I think it is important as we wrap up that Ms. Bilkhu address the overarching question. People watching us tonight on TV from coast to coast have to go about their daily business of shopping. When they go shopping, given all the news stories we have heard — I saw someone on TV saying, "I am going to be a vegetarian from now on because of beef" — what is your message to the consumers of Canada about what they should be doing today about their groceries and how they should feel with regard to confidence going forward?
Sukhdeep Bilkhu, Chair, Canadian Association of Regulated Importers: My message would be that we have trust and faith in our CFIA system and our Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Accidents or issues happen in any commodity; it could be in fruits and vegetables, in poultry or in meat. However, our food inspection agency system is on top of things and they should not worry about anything like that.
The Chair: Mr. Devalk, you raised your hand. Do you have a comment?
Mr. Devalk: No, I would like to ask a question. In our speaking notes we have some issues that we were not able to address in terms of time. However, they mention specific clauses that we think should be revisited. I wonder whether the committee will do that or how is it best to proceed?
The Chair: Yes, there is a procedure, Mr. Devalk. I will ask the clerk to see you immediately after the meeting and this will be distributed to the committee.
Mr. Devalk: Excellent.
The Chair: Mr. Mussar, Mr. Devalk and Ms. Bilkhu, thank you very much.
Honourable senators, I would like to introduce the second panel.
Witnesses, thank you for accepting our invitation and for coming to share your information with us on Bill S-11.
We have with us Mr. Ron Versteeg, Vice President of the Dairy Farmers of Canada; Mr. Martin Unrau, President of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association; and Dennis Laycraft, Executive Vice-president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.
I am informed that Mr. Versteeg will make the first presentation. The floor is yours, Mr. Versteeg.
Ron Versteeg, Vice President, Dairy Farmers of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to present on behalf of Dairy Farmers of Canada's interest on food safety as part of the committee's consideration of Bill S-11. DFC believes that the modernization of the regulatory system for food commodities will further contribute to improving an already strong food safety system for Canadians.
I am a dairy farmer and my farm is near Russell, just outside Ottawa. It is about a half hour drive down Highway 417. With my family, I manage a 650-acre operation with 225 head of black and white dairy cows. We milk about 110 of those.
By way of introduction, DFC is the national policy, lobbying and promotional organization representing farmers on Canada's 12,746 dairy farms. DFC strives to create stable conditions for the Canadian dairy industry, today and into the future. We work to maintain policies that foster the viability of Canadian dairy farmers, and promote dairy products and their health benefits.
DFC supports Bill S-11. Following the tabling of the bill, DFC produced a statement welcoming the new legislation, as food safety is a high priority for dairy farmers. We recognize that it is a shared responsibility well understood by our dairy farmer members.
DFC noted that the new legislation will amend the existing Health of Animals Act to include regulations to trace livestock movement and to make animal traceability a reality. Traceability is another tool to mitigate risk related to animal health and, consequently, to lower risk to food safety. Traceability will also speed up market access recovery in the case of a major animal disease outbreak and hasten the return to normal business following such an outbreak.
Those are two important reasons for making livestock traceability mandatory.
DFC views positively the consolidation of a number of pieces of food safety legislation under a single act. Doing so would further clarify the CFIA's role and responsibilities in ensuring food safety to protect consumers. DFC also indicated support for having a more consistent inspection regime across all food sectors, and implementing tougher penalties for activities that put the health and safety of Canadians at risk.
The provision of better control over imports and exports is welcomed, along with adding strength to the food traceability and labelling.
DFC looks forward to seeing how the new act will recognize the role of technology in food production, enhance control over food imports, deter tampering and deceptive practices, as well as maintain the authority to provide standards for food in Canada.
DFC welcomes the government's commitment to provide clear, consistent and straightforward inspection and enforcement rules as they consolidate and modernize the various existing acts that are the responsibility of the CFIA. We look forward to participating in the review of the legislation and in the development of the new set of pertinent regulations.
DFC is interested in the consolidation of the Canada Agricultural Products Act, CAPA, with relevant regulations within the Food and Drugs Act. In particular, we want to ensure that the compositional standards for dairy products presently in the CAPA be incorporated in the FDA's regulations before the CAPA is repealed.
[Translation]
The DFC's commitments to food safety.
Today, consumers of dairy products want to know that the food they are consuming is safe and nutritious. DFC developed the Canadian Quality Milk Program, or CQM, a risk-based, on-farm food safety program to help producers avoid and reduce harm relating to food safety and risks to their farms.
This program is mandatory for all dairy producers and will continue to be until the end of 2015. It will provide consumers with the assurance that Canadian meat and milk are produced safely. It is already mandatory in many provinces, and close to half of our 12,000 dairy farms have already been accredited within the program.
The CQM program helps producers improve food safety management practices, including effective milk cooling and storage, close monitoring and recording of the use of chemical and medicinal agents to prevent residue in milk and meat, disinfection of processing equipment, as well as implementation of staff training processes, such as standardized procedures.
All milk produced on Canadian farms is analyzed for antibiotic residues when it arrives at the processing plant. Any milk that is tested and found to be positive for antibiotics is discarded and not sold to the public.
The milk is traced back to the producer involved using the sample collected at the farm each time milk is picked up by the truck, and the producer is responsible for all expenses related to the disposal of the load. Producers are paid for the quality of their milk, and are heavily fined for the violation of those good standards. When the milk is accepted by the dairy processors, provincial and federal law requires that all consumer-grade milk be pasteurized.
This is an additional protection to assure consumers that their milk is free of any pathogenic bacteria. Other optional processes can be used for other dairy products, such as cheese. DFC is convinced that food quality is directly linked to the health and well-being of the animals, and that consumers care about respect for the environment in the milk production process.
Healthy animals that are treated well produce high quality milk. Mandatory traceability is a necessary step in ensuring individual accountability for each animal along the food chain. Traceability will fill a significant gap by making information available to each partner taking care of the animal.
Environmentally, dairy producers use tools, such as environmental farm plans. DFC is also implementing a program to reduce the effect of dairy production on climate change thanks to a reduction in milk's carbon footprint, by supporting a number of optimal management practices that have been proven to reduce greenhouse gases.
Given the close links between animal health and well-being, traceability and the environment, DFC is looking for ways to integrate these milk production aspects in food safety within one infrastructure, like that of the Canadian quality milk program. Producers would therefore show that they walk the talk by producing safe, quality milk and meat, with healthy cattle they are taking good care of, in a sustainable environment.
[English]
To conclude, Mr. Chair, Canadian dairy farmers support this proposed legislation that further strengthens the acts that ensure Canadian-produced food is safe. DFC is looking forward to the enactment of this legislation and the development of the related regulations with consultation with the industry.
Thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to respond to questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Versteeg. If you have any additional information you want to share with the chair or the clerk, please feel free to do so.
Now we will hear Mr. Unrau. Would you please make your presentation?
Martin Unrau, President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association: First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee this evening. I am a farmer and a cattleman from a place called MacGregor, Manitoba, which is an hour and a half west of Winnipeg. I currently raise cattle and calves, and I feed some cattle and also grow grains and oil seeds. I am currently President of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and, on its behalf, represent Canada's 83,000 beef cattle producers.
To give an update on the industry, Canadian cattle numbers are down from where they have been, and adjustments due to BSE market reactions are still being made. Demographics are affecting our industry just like any other industry, but thanks in no small part to the focus of the current government, market access continues to grow for Canadian beef and cattle. That is positive.
Frankly, one of the biggest challenges we have in rebuilding our herd will be the competition from other agriculture sectors. Grain production is a positive business right now, and it does not involve some of the stresses around raising cattle like late-night calving and winter feeding, so the choice to go into the cattle business, which looks very promising globally in the next few years, is weighed against many things. I am optimistic about the outlook of the cattle industry, and I am working hard to improve it.
The bill we are commenting on today is part of a reorganization of how the government manages the food safety file. This is a legislative step. The regulatory modernization CFIA is undertaking is part of the same process. We support this modernization, as it is important to the competitiveness of beef farmers and ranchers. Our government entities need to be world leading so we can be world-beaters.
We also appreciate the commitment to a one-for-one regulatory regime where new regulations have to be offset by eliminating the same amount of regulation. We are highly supportive of the Regulatory Cooperation Council with the United States and urge lawmakers to ensure that this undertaking lives up to its potential.
The other positive I will mention is the science base of our regulatory regime. This is important for people making decisions within Canada and for international businesses. The option aside from science is political decision making and the uncertainty that comes from that at times. We support science-based decision making for its clarity and for the competitive advantages it can deliver.
The concerns I raise today regard the reach of the proposed bill. Department officials tell us that much of what we are concerned with already exists in current law, but we have real concerns about what could become a needless new burden on producers and others in the value chain. In our opinion, these changes would not add to the food safety in Canada. The first concern we have is in the requirements for licensing and oversight of farmers and ranchers, also for transporters, auction yards or other assembly points as laid out in clause 10.
Those requirements are reasonable from a food standpoint. This bill is undertaking to keep tabs on our food and who is moving it about within the country, importing it or exporting it. However, "food commodity" in the bill is defined as the following:
(a) any food as defined in section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act;
(b) and any animal or plant, or any of its parts, from which food referred to in paragraph (a) may be derived; or . . .
To us, that means all the requirements for registration and licensing apply to anyone who might sell or haul cattle across a provincial border. In a lot of years, that is a great proportion of producers.
It also likely means that if you decide to grow different crops or to grass yearlings or to get into the cattle business, you would need a licence or an extension of your licence.
The bill grants the minister the power to grant these licences in clause 20. This power does a couple of things that we do not see as adding value or safety to the food supply. Another tier of licensing is created for people hauling livestock. It does not have to do with the skill as far as we see it, but it could in the future, as the minister will have the power, according to subclause (3), to add conditions the minister would consider appropriate.
It also is uncertain what the licence acquiring procedure would be, what it would cover and what the conditions of a licence would be.
Another area of concern is the regulations section of the bill. Under clause 51, the Governor-in-Council will make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect, including regulations, and subclause (h) states:
(h) respecting, in relation to establishments where any activity regulated under this Act is conducted, the equipment and facilities to be used, the procedures to be followed and the standards to be maintained for the humane treatment and slaughter of animals . . .
Defining and including livestock in this bill would empower the Canadian government to get more involved in farm production and management decisions than ever before. This is not something that is being called for by today's public and is not something that can be managed in a meaningful way and, most importantly, is not related to food safety.
As I have said, officials say this power already exists and is not looking to be used, but it bears mentioning.
Further on in the regulations, there is provision for the minister to exempt things from the act. This could be a place where the minister could exempt primary production from being covered under the act. We would prefer that primary production was explicitly exempt in the act rather than to leave it to the uncertain decisions of a minister.
We appreciate what this act is aiming for. For the most part, we do not have a problem with it. We suggest that it can be improved by clearly exempting primary production. This would apply to producers of cattle, hogs, sheep and other livestock. It would also apply to grain producers who would also fall under the act's licensing requirement.
This act also amends the Health of Animals Act to enable traceability of livestock. This is an important point. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association supports cattle traceability moving forward in a way that delivers value to cattle producers without adding ongoing costs that outpace the value delivered. It also has to be something that does not alter the efficient ways the cattle business works today in Canada. Animal traceability is an animal health issue; it is not a food safety issue. Using a food safety bill to enable animal traceability is regrettable in that some people will lump the two issues together. This certainly is not the case.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to contribute to the legislative process.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Unrau. We appreciate that.
The first questioner will be Senator Plett, followed by Senator Peterson.
Senator Plett: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming out.
Mr. Unrau, farmers are under the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Seeds Act, none of which are touched by Bill S-11. The Meat Inspection Act already regulates humane transport and animal welfare. The clauses you were talking about apply to processors and not farmers, the way I understand it. Are we not understanding it correctly, or are you not understanding it correctly?
Dennis Laycraft, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association: When we raised the question with our regulators, they indicated these provisions already exist and they are not being used, and they do not see a circumstance where they would need to be used. That signals to me that there is the potential they could be used at some time. We merely raise the fact that we do not think we need to license individuals who raise cattle and pigs; there are ways we can do that certification as an industry without having the red tape associated with it.
Senator Plett: My question is this: Is it in the bill that we want to license farmers or processers?
Mr. Laycraft: As we read the clauses, we interpret the potential exists for that.
Senator Plett: Is it in the bill now? Not can we introduce a bill at some later point that would do that. Anything can be introduced at some later point. Is it now in the bill? You are the witness here.
Mr. Laycraft: The short answer is yes, we believe it is.
Senator Plett: The way I see it, the bill does not apply to what you are talking about, so I would at least like that very clearly stated on the record. In my opinion, you are talking about things that would not apply to you but rather to processors.
Thank you. That is the only question I have at this point. I might ask more later on.
Senator Peterson: Mr. Versteeg, you indicated your support for the bill, and I trust you have met with officials over the summer with respect to this bill. Under the Canadian Quality Milk Program, do you have any concern that it could be changed with this legislation?
Mr. Versteeg: I have no reason to believe that it would. The Canadian Quality Milk Program was developed in consultation with officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. While it is not a formal HACCP program, it is very much a HACCP-based program in that it concerns itself with the particular critical control points where there are risks to the safety of milk and dairy products.
Senator Peterson: You said it would be reviewed in 2015. Is that correct?
Mr. Versteeg: No. In 2015, all of our farmers will become validated on the program. We are currently in the process of implementing this on farms over several years, and by 2015 we expect to be completed.
Senator Peterson: Mr. Unrau, Bill S-11 pertains to federally inspected meat, not provincially. Some stakeholders are saying it is creating a two-tier system. Does it create any problems for your industry, having these two groups that have the authority to inspect, or should we be looking at a streamlined pan-Canadian program?
Mr. Unrau: I think we should be looking at a streamlined program. After May 19, 2003, the cattle industry became very aware of added costs in every area. That was the day we had a BSE cow and our markets were closed. After that day, we became very aware of every single cost regardless of how minute. While to some it may seem we worry about small costs, we learned in those days that you have to allow yourself to be very streamlined in order to survive in a business like ours, the beef cattle business. We are always aware of added costs, so streamlining this would definitely help us.
Senator Peterson: You indicated as well that there are a number of changes you would like to see in the legislation. Did you have an opportunity over the summer to meet with government officials and express these concerns? Did they not listen to them or are they a work-in-progress?
Mr. Laycraft: We have had numerous meetings on a variety of issues, including on the modernization side. We have been very pleased with the discussions we have had. We have had discussions about the clause we were just discussing and debating here, about whether it is included in there. We were assured in those discussions that they do not see a circumstance where it would be applied, but it is written directly in here. We are delighted that if it is not intended to be in there, it would be easy to exempt. Overall, we are reasonably satisfied with the level of consultation.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Today, commercial fishermen and fish farmers are exempted from mandatory inspection in the case of personal consumption. With Bill S-11, that privilege would be extended to dairy producers and cattle farmers. Do you think it is relevant, and do you think there is a danger to it?
Mr. Versteeg: I think the bill relates to public health. If producers decide to put their own health at risk, it is not a public risk; that is how you define the difference between personal consumption and public consumption.
Senator Rivard: In other words, this request to have it introduced in the bill does not come from your respective associations?
Mr. Versteeg: No.
Senator Rivard: You do not see the possible impact; if the producer is confident in his cattle, whether they are inspected or not, there is no danger. If anyone were to be concerned about health, it would be the producers.
Mr. Versteeg: The milk on the farm is going to be produced according to the rules. So there is really no difference between the milk sent for public consumption and the milk the producer would consume. It is the same standard.
Senator Rivard: That is not the most controversial part of the bill. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Unrau, do you have any comments?
Mr. Unrau: Not at this time.
Senator Buth: My question is related to traceability.
Mr. Versteeg, you commented on the CQM Program and the fact that dairy farmers will all be in compliance with your industry standards by 2015, and you clearly supported a national traceability system. Will this bill affect CQM? Will it speed it up, or how will it change CQM standards?
Mr. Versteeg: It should not have any impact on CQM. As I mentioned earlier, the program was developed in consultation with the CFIA, so they have put their stamp of approval on it. They will continue in the future to audit our implementation of the program. Even though it is an industry food, safety and quality program, it does come under the audit of the CFIA. If they see something that does not suit them, they could direct us to make changes to the program to better ensure the safety of our milk and dairy products.
Senator Buth: Mr. Unrau, I think I heard something different from you in terms of traceability. Can you tell us where the beef or the cattle industry is in terms of traceability? Maybe you could elaborate a bit more on your views on traceability in this bill.
Mr. Unrau: Yes, I could. Too often traceability is confused with food safety, and it just is not so. Traceability is a vehicle that we can use for tracing animals for animal health issues. For example, when we had BSE, you could trace back very quickly to which farm that animal was born at, how old it was and so on.
Our concern is that if we link traceability to food safety, we will get this false sense of security around this fact. It just is not so. Food safety is an issue of processing the animal further down the road. It is an issue of looking after the food after you have purchased it and how you prepare it. Traceability as such has very little bearing on the food safety of the product that it comes to.
Mr. Laycraft: If I may add to that, we work on a range of programs, like Verified Beef Production. That is the safe handling of products and the record-keeping, all the things you want to have in terms of quality assurance, and the on- farm food safety tools that producers across this country follow. It is a whole range of tools like that that actually, in our view, contribute to the beginning of the safe production and safe use of the products we use in our industry.
Again, we work in a non-competitive way. By that, our industry has agreed to share information at each level that can contribute to food safety. A big chunk of our research budget is spent on how we can work together. It is really about how we share the efforts — we work with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada, and the Canadian Meat Council — all the way back through the system and the shared responsibility that, as an industry and as producers, we see in the food safety system.
We support moving ahead with enhanced traceability. Our message is that it has to be done in a way that it will work efficiently and that we can create tools around it.
We are working on a beef information exchange system, for instance, that can start to transfer information from the packers all the way back to the original cow-calf producers in our industry. As we work with those, we believe we will be able to take greater advantage in markets around the world by being able to validate our systems.
Do we need this bill to do that? No. We can work on efficient ways. However, we will work closely with agencies like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency so that we have that credibility internationally.
Senator Buth: One of the tools, then, that you are talking about is the beef information system.
Mr. Laycraft: Yes.
Senator Buth: Can you describe that system a little more?
Mr. Laycraft: We are launching it right now. As cow-calf producers, you can enrol in there the birthdates of your animals. You can put a range of information in there. You can put in "Are you a member of the Verified Beef Production system?" which is our on-farm food safety program. Do you have an environmental farm plan, for instance? We are adding additional items such as "Have you taken livestock transportation training?" We can include in there all the different products you raise. As well, vaccines are used in raising animals.
Typically, cow-calf producers raise an animal to about 450 to 650 pounds. They are sold to another person who specializes in either feeding them through to the finish, or what we refer to as "backgrounding," which will eventually be sold to a feedlot for finishing. That person will record the date they purchased that animal. They can record information such as what they fed that animal and whether it received any animal health treatments through that period. That can carry forward to the processor, who then also shares information about the animal, detailed carcass information that can go back to what date that animal was processed.
The intent is that we will share more information all the way back to the cow-calf producer. At the same time, it is part of what we refer to as our Canada Beef Advantage initiative, and that says we market around the world. You will see a logo of our maple leaf and information around that.
We have certain customers who want more assurances about the type of product we sell in Europe, for instance. They may want it to be certified that it was not raised with growth promotants. We have ways to certify and validate that. Lots of people simply like to know that it is an Angus, to be part of a certified Angus program, or it could be another breed program.
We are able to work with a variety of individuals but, at the same time, always working toward how we can work as an industry to have the greatest participation programs, like Verified Beef Production, and how we can share information. We believe we have the best genetics in the world, but it is something we are constantly working on improving. Ultimately, our goal is to be the premium supplier of grain-fed beef to the world.
The Chair: Before I move to Senator Eaton, Senator Robichaud had a supplementary on traceability.
Senator Robichaud: Where I come from, traceability is very important, especially in the mollusc and shellfish industry, because some of those products move directly to market. We have had occasions in the past where it was very important to trace them back to the source. I agree wholeheartedly with traceability. Maybe it does not apply the same way in your industry, but in my part of the country it was very important. I would not want your testimony here to diminish the importance of traceability. That is why I want to make this point.
Mr. Unrau: I would not want to do that either. I think traceability is very important. However, we may become entrenched in thinking that traceability will solve our food safety issues, and it is not going to happen that way. The importance of it is to maintain traceability, and we can do that in our cattle. Every animal is individually identified. We can trace them back to exactly where they were born. We can do that for animal disease purposes. If there happens to be a situation with food or safety of food in some way that is directly affected by the animal and how it was raised, we can go back to that.
An example of that is if a needle found in the meat. We can go back to that. However, to say that traceability is a driver in food safety is irresponsible on our part because it really does not affect the safety and it gives a false sense of safe food.
Senator Robichaud: That is your point of view, but from my point of view I see it differently. I am no expert. We agree to disagree.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see that Mr. Laycraft has a comment.
Mr. Laycraft: Just quickly on the source verification, we were probably one of the first beef-producing countries in the world to introduce a mandatory identification program that allows us to verify the source of where that animal was born. We also keep track of when that tag is retired, which is either during processing or if there is a post-mortem. There is an autopsy if an animal passes away. We will be inspecting those animals for surveillance reasons. If that animal is exported, that information is captured.
We capture information at both ends of our system. We have the source and the point at where that animal is processed. We know both the first owner and the last owner. The real question is that there is some information in the middle. How much of that can we capture efficiently and how much extra value will that add to the system?
Certainly we fully agree with the value of source verification in having that mandatory identification system. It was our association that actually asked for that system to be put in place.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Versteeg, I have happy memories as a child of being on my uncle's dairy farm. He had Holsteins too. You are aware, obviously, of how hard Minister Ritz and our government are working to support supply management in your field, and you are happy with that?
Mr. Versteeg: Yes, we really appreciate the minister's efforts and certainly thank him for that, and the government.
Senator Mercer: I just want to follow up. I want to go back to the traceability issue. I appreciate what you are saying, that traceability is not a food safety tool; it is really an industry management tool. On occasion it could help in food safety, but it is not the primary purpose.
Senator Mahovlich and I were both here during the BSE matter, and it was a tough time. However, your industry responded extremely well in recognizing that traceability became an issue.
The issue that I still see, and what I would like you update me on, is that in your industry cattle cross the border more often than a lot of Canadians cross the border. They travel back and forth several times from the time they are born to the time they are processed. When the cattle are south of the border, are our American friends keeping the same kind of documentation on traceability that we would if the cattle only lived its life in Canada?
Mr. Laycraft: There are two parts to that answer. When we export cattle to the U.S., a few cattle come back that are show cattle, for instance. Those are carefully monitored, but the U.S. does not have a mandatory identification system. They are working on one for interstate movement, but clearly they do not have the type of source verification that we have in Canada. When we export our cattle to the United States, because they have a permanent identification in them, they could keep track of our cattle better than they could keep track of their own.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Mr. Versteeg, you said at the beginning of your presentation that most provinces had agreed to the CQM program. Without naming names, in the provinces that did not, are there any major producers?
Mr. Versteeg: As far as I know, only one province is a little late. They have not refused to implement the program, but it is a small province and there are a variety of herd sizes: small and large. But no one province has only large farms; there are a variety of farm sizes across Canada.
Senator Maltais: You work in the milk industry. It is strange because, as far as I know, you never hear complaints about milk. We hear complaints about poultry, ham and there was the period of mad cow, but not about milk. I do not know if you are really doing your job well, but we hear few complaints and, if we do, it is rare. The farmers are doing a very good job in this respect. A large percentage of milk is consumed by children. If the milk was not good quality, you would have all the parents on your back. I want to congratulate you for that because it is very important. Our children and grandchildren are the biggest consumers of milk, and we now know that they can drink it safely.
To your knowledge, is industrial cheese from the United States being dumped in Canada, in other words, contraband industrial cheese? Is this cheese properly inspected and is it harmful if it is put on a pizza or something?
Mr. Versteeg: In Canada, milk is certainly the most inspected and most verified food of all. It is inspected at the farm, at the plant and after it leaves the plant. We have a reputation; people say that milk is the most perfect food in nature, and that is a reputation that we are trying to preserve. It is an asset for us, and we want to keep it.
Senator Maltais: I think you have.
Mr. Versteeg: The second point you mention was in the headlines today and yesterday. Not all the facts are known, so we are waiting to find out what really happened. I think it is important not to adopt bills based on stories that appear in the newspapers. It is important to have a good understanding of the facts, and then adjust accordingly.
Senator Maltais: I was concerned for consumers who might have, unbeknownst to them, had this cheese on their pizza or in something else, which is essentially dumped cheese that is a lot less expensive. Do consumers know what they are eating? Is the cheese contaminated? I do not know; perhaps it is very good quality cheese. I do not know, but I am concerned about it.
I have one last quick comment: the CQM is LCQ in French, which is a cause for confusion.
[English]
Senator Eaton: My question is about the excellence of our milk, which does not contain hormones. Canadians often say that Canadian milk is more expensive than American milk. In fact, we know they go across the border and fill up. Why do we not put on our milk cartons that they are hormone free and free from all these things? I do not think Canadian consumers are aware of that, because American milk is full of growth hormones and all that kind of stuff that they have put in it. Why do we not indicate the difference? Why do you not advertise yourselves?
Mr. Versteeg: There is an old maxim of marketing — and I am an old school guy — which says that if you do not have anything good to say about your competitor, do not say anything at all.
Regarding the benefits of our milk produced in Canada, we have a logo that identifies products that are produced from 100 per cent Canadian milk so that consumers can find it in their grocery store.
Senator Eaton: If you do not want to say anything bad about American milk that is fine, but do you say that we are hormone free, we are this or that, on the carton?
Mr. Versteeg: Again, we prefer to talk about what is in the milk, namely the 16 essential nutrients as opposed to what is not in it.
Senator Eaton: Yes, but to the normal consumer looking on the shelf, if you have the choice of an American product that is much cheaper and is filled with hormones or a Canadian product and we do not tell them, then they do not know. As a consumer, I think it is a shame that you do not tell me. It was only when I sat on this committee that I heard. I did not know that.
Mr. Versteeg: The danger there is the more we talk about these bad things like hormones, the more concerned the public gets about it and unnecessarily so. We talk about the quality of Canadian milk and the care that Canadian farmers take in producing that product. I think Canadians appreciate the work that we do and they respond positively to that — not all of them, unfortunately, but most of them do.
The Chair: We will now go to Senator Peterson to conclude with Senator Plett, the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Peterson: Mr. Laycraft, on the issue of traceability, do you trace food supply to the animals too?
Mr. Laycraft: Are you referring to processed feeds?
Senator Peterson: What the animals are fed. Do they get genetically modified food? What do they get? Have you traced that as well?
Mr. Laycraft: Certainly in the early part of their life they are predominantly out on the grazing land, so they eat the grass in the pastures. As they move into the feedlots, there are a variety of requirements on those feed mills and feed processors in terms of what they are required to keep. A lot of those have become ISO approved, which goes beyond what the regulations require. For instance, they will be keeping track of samples for a period of time. We have the enhanced feed ban where it is illegal to feed prohibited material, which is related to our BSE control. There are a variety of record-keeping procedures that are required within our system. Depending on the size and type of operation, and are you selling feed grains commercially, for instance, there are strict controls over how they are approved. There are provincial requirements on these as well.
Senator Peterson: Now that supply management has been brought up, Mr. Versteeg, if it is disbanded, how difficult would it be for your industry to remain viable?
Mr. Versteeg: I do not think we would contemplate a future without supply management. It is a system that has worked well, not only for dairy farmers but also for processors. It supports several hundred thousand jobs across Canada. We are one of the top two commodities in seven out of ten provinces. Because we are in a profitable position, we pay taxes, and that helps to support programs like health care and other programs that all Canadians cherish. We think it is a very defensible system and one that should continue.
Senator Plett: Good thing our government defends it as well.
Senator Duffy: Mr. Versteeg, I just wanted to pick up on what you just said. For some time now, there have been some people running around the country warning dairy farmers that the end is nigh. I have had many from P.E.I. speak to me about this issue. Have you been reassured because we have had it from the Prime Minister all the way down that we support our supply management system? I am concerned about undue anxiety being introduced into the equation by people who do not have the farmers' interests in mind but are trying to make some mischief.
Mr. Versteeg: We have had support from all of the major political parties for supply management. There have always been threats. From day one, people have said that the system should be torn apart, but we continue to promote it. I think the system's success speaks for itself.
Senator Plett: I will ask your indulgence, chair, if I go on for a little bit here. I clearly was a bit taken aback by some of Mr. Unrau's testimony, so I do have a few questions for him.
You did not seem tremendously supportive of the legislation, so I have a few questions, Mr. Unrau. Did your organization, on June 7, not put out a press release that you welcome the proposed safe food for Canadians act that was tabled in the Senate by the Government of Canada?
Further, Mr. Unrau, did you not yourself state that you are "particularly pleased that under the act imported foods will be required to meet the high standards that Canadian producers and processors now meet?"
Mr. Unrau: As a general comment, yes, we are pleased with the act. There are just one or two situations where we would like it cleared up.
Senator Plett: I was actually reading a quote. It was not a general comment; it was a very specific statement.
You talk about licensing. Establishments are what are going to be licensed. The bill states:
"establishment" means any place, including a conveyance, where a food commodity is manufactured, prepared, stored, packaged or labelled.
I do not think a cow is an establishment. Maybe you do, but do you not believe that slaughterhouses should be licensed? This is not licensing the farm. If the farmer has his or her own slaughterhouse, should they not be licensed the same way any other slaughterhouse is licensed? Should they get special privileges because they have raised the cow and can then slaughter it without being licensed? Should they have the same rules as every other processor?
Mr. Unrau: We agree that slaughter and processing houses need to be licensed. Absolutely. I think it is a way to look after the food safety of our country.
Senator Plett: Do you agree that an establishment is not a cow but rather a place where a food commodity is manufactured, prepared, stored, packaged or labelled?
Mr. Unrau: I guess our interpretation of an establishment was that it might mean a farm or a ranch.
Senator Plett: Yes, but it does not. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that, if I recall correctly, Minister Ritz clearly told this committee that, with the exception of traceability, this applies only to processors. Why is his definition different from your lawyer's definition, wanting to take the place of the witnesses here, running back and forth?
Senator Mercer: Mr. Chair, time after time in this committee, we allow the witnesses to refer to other people who come with them and either work with or are members of associations. There is no need for this type of comment from Senator Plett. I think he owes the witness and the officials with him an apology.
Senator Plett: That is fine, Senator Mercer. I will simply rephrase my question.
Why would you think that Minister Ritz's definition — when in fact it is the ministry that has presented this bill — would be wrong and that your legal counsel's would be right?
Mr. Laycraft: I think we are arguing over something that we probably agree on. We do not see this act needing to extend to the farmers and ranchers, and we have never made a comment that it should not apply to people who are actually harvesting cattle and processing them in whatever establishment they may be reselling that product and producing food for resale.
We read verbatim sections that are included in the act. If we are interpreting that wrong, we will accept that. We want to raise that concern. If we can be assured that that is not a point that we need to be concerned about, we will be happy with that.
Senator Plett: So you would agree that Minister Ritz's interpretation of an establishment could be the correct interpretation?
Mr. Laycraft: If that is the case, we will be happy to agree with that, but we are simply reading a section from the act that refers to animals.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair.
The Chair: You are entitled, Mr. Laycraft, to put your comments forward. The committee will take them under advisement. However, I have an official researcher from our committee who would like to make a comment for clarification. Honourable senators, do we accept the official making the clarification exactly relating to the act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Martha Butler, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I believe there are sections under the regulation-making authority that do pertain to persons directly. There are certainly ones that refer to establishments, but, for instance, if you look at 51(1)(k)(i), it says, "the registration of persons or issuing of licences to persons under section 20 or the registration of establishments under section 21." I think that is where some of the confusion may have arisen. Section 20 relates to licensing of persons and section 21 to establishments.
The Chair: Mr. Unrau, Mr. Versteeg and Mr. Laycraft, thank you for sharing your information with us. The comments made by our researcher will be added on to your presentation as clarification.
Witnesses, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for being here. You may stay or depart.
To conclude the meeting, I have had two senators who have advised the chair that they want to bring in amendments. One senator has opted to have his amendment brought to the clause-by-clause meeting that we will have for Bill S-11. One senator said that he would give his intention of notice immediately. This is being distributed as we speak. It will be presented by Senator Plett. It is being distributed, as we are witnessing, by our clerk and staff.
These amendments will not be discussed this evening. They will be brought forward, as per the intention of the senator, to the clause-by-clause meeting that we will have on Bill S-11. That is the procedure.
On this I would ask the sponsor of the bill, Senator Plett, to bring forward the amendments that he wants to present.
Senator Plett: There are two amendments. I believe they have been distributed in both official languages. Amendment 1 is as follows:
That Bill S-11, in clause 51, be amended by replacing line 34, on page 21, with the following:
names in respect of any food commodity and . . .
The amendment replaces a word that was wrong in the English translation but correct in the French one.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Plett: Amendment 2 reads as follows:
That Bill S-11, in clause 68, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 25, on page 30, with the following:
68(1) Five years after the coming into force of this section, and every five years after that, the Minister must undertake a review of the provisions and operation of this Act, including an assessment of the resources allocated to its administration and enforcement.
We will discuss those two amendments at clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Thank you for allowing me to put them on the record.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we have two proposed two amendments. As I have said, they are not to be debated now but will be discussed at our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians bill.
Senator Robichaud: I think the senator responsible for the bill on our side, Senator Peterson, has also signified his intention to put forth an amendment, and copies have been given to Senator Plett. I think he would be quite happy to have it circulated to all the members. I just wanted to make that point.
The Chair: The clerk will distribute Senator Peterson's amendment to all members of the committee. It will also be discussed and debated when we deal with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-11.
Senator Robichaud: This does not prevent any other senator from bringing forth other amendments in our clause- by-clause discussion.
The Chair: We absolutely agree, Senator Robichaud.
(The committee adjourned.)