Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of October 6, 2011
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:04 a.m. to examine and report on research and innovation in the agricultural sector.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators and witnesses. I welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
[Translation]
We are meeting today to examine and report on research and innovation efforts by the federal government in the agricultural sector.
[English]
This overview is of the current regulatory framework governing federal agricultural research activities.
As you know, the proposed order of reference, witnesses, is developing new markets, enhancing agricultural sustainability and improving food diversity and security.
Today we welcome the following representatives. From Health Canada, we have Jeff Farber, Director, Bureau of Microbial Hazards; and Jason Flint, Director, Policy and Regulatory Affairs Division.
[Translation]
From Environment Canada, we welcome Mr. David Morin, Acting Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, and Mr. Jim Louter, Manager, Biotechnology Section.
[English]
From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency we have Dr. Primal Silva, Executive Director, Animal Health Science Directorate; and Tony Ritchie, Executive Director, Plant Health and Biosecurity Directorate.
Witnesses, thank you for accepting our invitation and sharing your knowledge and expertise with committee members.
Dr. Primal Silva, Executive Director, Animal Health Science Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Thank you very much. My colleague, Mr. Ritchie, will deliver the opening statements.
Tony Ritchie, Executive Director, Plant Health and Biosecurity Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency: I am joined this morning by Dr. Silva from our animal science directorate.
My name is Tony Ritchie, and I am the Executive Director of Plant Health and Biosecurity at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The CFIA is Canada's largest science-based regulatory agency, with over 7,500 dedicated employees working across Canada. Simply put, the agency is dedicated to safeguarding food, animals and plants. These activities contribute to a safe and accessible food supply and protect Canada's plant and animal resource base. The agency undertakes this important work to enhance the health and well-being of Canada's people, the environment and our economy.
[Translation]
Several agencies are involved in the regulation of agricultural products. The main regulators are the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, as well as our partners and colleagues from Health Canada and Environment Canada, who are here today.
[English]
The CFIA is the lead agency responsible for regulating agricultural products under, amongst others, the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act, the Seeds Act, the Fertilizers Act and the Feeds Act. The CFIA works through three business lines that are focused around managing food, animal and plant programs.
The agency's mandate is to regulate the production of safe food, protect our animal and plant resource base, and provide consumer protection that facilitates market access. These components are complementary. Safe agricultural products are a prerequisite for market access. The agency's inspection system and certification programs are meant to protect consumers by developing and maintaining domestic and international standards. This inspires confidence in Canadian products and allows trading nations to feel comfortable about importing Canadian products.
The agency is responsible for regulating both the performance and the environmental safety of agricultural products. This regulatory rigour provides international confidence in the credibility, efficacy and safety of Canadian products, thus providing an environment where profitable market activity can occur, providing the regulatory foundation for Canadian exports worldwide.
[Translation]
The CFIA also plays an active role in international standard-setting fora, working to ensure that the international framework does not represent a barrier to trade in Canadian products and that Canadian producers have a predictable regime under which they can trade.
[English]
The agency, under the leadership of the Market Access Secretariat within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, will support bilateral negotiations when trade disruptions occur. We work in collaboration. For instance, when Canada's exports of canola to China were under threat, the agency and the department worked together with our science colleagues to demonstrate that the risk was not substantiated by science.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's role in all of this is to help ensure that the agriculture, agri-food and agri- based products industries can compete in domestic and international markets. The department's scientists work to develop healthy, safe, high-quality and functional food for Canadians.
Since the 1990s, they also have developed greater knowledge of probiotics and nutraceuticals to boost the health properties of food. This knowledge has also helped the pharmaceutical industry better understand food-drug interactions.
Scientists at AAFC also work to protect animal welfare and our environment. A few recent examples of some of the achievements from their labs include: a new flax de-hulling technology that has been used commercially to create health and beauty products in global markets; and a unique fruit dehydration system that helps Canada tap the U.S. market for dried cranberry products. The discovery of naturally occurring bacteria strains has been key to developing feed additives in feeding systems to manage grains and animal feed contaminated with microtoxins, which is a serious threat to livestock and human health. Those are just a few examples of the work that the AAFC is doing.
Their support of the sector drives economic return to the Canadian economy. Through this work, the department strives to help the sector maximize its long-term profitability and competitiveness while respecting the environment and the safety and security of Canada's food supply.
[Translation]
The success of the CFIA relies on five interrelated factors: sound science; an effective regulatory base; effective inspection programs; effective risk management; and strong partnerships.
At a future date you will hear my colleague, Dr. Martine Dubuc, discuss how CFIA science and research supports agricultural innovation in Canada. Today my focus will be on the regulatory framework under which we operate, and how that supports the agricultural sector including responding to sector innovation.
[English]
The agency's activities contribute to the protection of Canadian and international consumers, Canadian agricultural production, including forestry, and our environment. In turn, these activities benefit processors and distributors, including importers and exporters.
The agency's programs provide a foundation for the agricultural sector to enhance agricultural sustainability and improve food diversity and security, which consequently supports the development of new markets both domestically and internationally. We strive to build a regulatory framework that is consistent, science-based and outcome-oriented.
The agency's programs oversee several aspects of the agricultural value-chain that relate to innovations. Our programs include assessment and approval of new fertilizers, new plant varieties, plants with novel traits, veterinary biologics and novel feeds.
Before a new agricultural food product can be produced and marketed in Canada, it is thoroughly assessed for safety to protect humans, animals and the environment. The CFIA is responsible for the regulation of a number of agricultural products derived through biotechnology, including plants with novel traits and novel feeds.
For example, the agency is responsible for the administration of the Seeds Act and regulations to help ensure that seeds that are sold in or imported into or exported from Canada meet established standards for quality. They are labelled so that they are properly represented in the marketplace and are registered prior to sale in Canada. Our activities in support of the Seeds Act provide guidance to industry. We ensure up-to-date science and seek to create a consistent and predictable environment for industry to operate in. All this work facilitates innovation while protecting the health of Canadians.
[Translation]
Of course we do not conduct this work in a vacuum. The agency works with many partners to achieve positive outcomes for the agricultural sector. The CFIA and our regulatory partners have clear roles and mandates, and well- developed relationships and processes to ensure cooperative working relationships.
[English]
An excellent working relationship has been developed between Health Canada, Environment Canada and the CFIA because of shared regulatory mandates. Joint reviews are conducted on plant biotechnology products submitted to both Health Canada and the CFIA for premarket assessment. This approach has resulted in applicants receiving a consistent review of their product submissions from the Government of Canada, and any requests for further clarification come from a single source.
In the context of our mandate for animal health, Environment Canada is the first point of contact for the producers of biotechnology-derived animals. If someone wants to manufacture, import or sell such an animal in Canada, they must contact Environment Canada so that the animal undergoes a full safety assessment for potential impacts to the environment. The agency does have expertise in animal health and has jurisdiction in these areas under the Health of Animals Act. Environment Canada does consult with the agency on animal health matters during this particular process of assessing animals of biotechnology origin.
[Translation]
Concertation plays a primary role in our work. The CFIA cooperates with stakeholders and other departments in charge of regulations so as to accelerate those aspects of regulations that are not well defined and correct gaps in the system.
[English]
The agency provides timely and clear direction on how new products can gain access to the Canadian market. Appropriate client service delivery standards are in place for most of our processed to ensure that we do not experience backlog and that applicants do not feel stymied by the bureaucracy. To this end, the agency adheres to the cabinet directive on regulatory streamlining; and we strive to incorporate the principles under that particular directive. We will also be putting a special focus on inspection modernization in the coming years. This will have a positive impact on the way we execute within our regulatory framework. Several regulatory modernization initiatives have been undertaken in recent years to reduce the burden on industry while maintaining an appropriate level of government oversight. The work we undertook to create a more flexible seed variety registration system is a good example of this, where requirements were streamlined to continue to maintain the integrity of seed certification in environmental food and feed and safety.
As well, we are modernizing our fertilizer regulatory framework. This includes the revision development of our standards and precautionary labelling statements for fertilizer, supplements and products to ensure that products are safe and used in an environmentally sustainable manner. As you can see, CFIA science and research do much to contribute to the health of Canadians, agricultural innovation and the robustness of our economy.
[Translation]
However, the agency is part of a cooperative work that involves many partners.
I would like to thank the committee for its examination of this important sector. I appreciate the opportunity to address you today, and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
Jeff Farber, Director, Bureau of Microbial Hazards, Health Canada: My name is Jeff Farber and I am Director of the Bureau of Microbial Hazards, which sits in the Food Directorate in the Health and Products Food Branch of Health Canada. I would like to thank everyone for the opportunity to speak with you this morning about Health Canada's role in the regulation of agricultural products in Canada.
[Translation]
Health Canada's mission is to help Canadians maintain and improve their health. Of course, a big part of Health Canada's role in this is to provide regulatory frameworks and guidance to the agricultural and agri-food sector, both within Canada and abroad, that help ensure Canadians have access to the products they are seeking.
[English]
Within Health Canada, the Veterinary Drugs Directorate, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Food Directorate all play a role in this regard. Through the Veterinary Drugs Directorate, also known as VDD, the department evaluates and monitors the safety, quality and effectiveness of veterinary drugs. The directorate sets standards for and promotes the prudent use of veterinary drugs administered to food-producing and companion animals. Their work also includes the establishment of maximum residue limits, also known as MRLs, for drugs used in food-producing animals.
Division 8 of Part C of the Food and Drug Regulations provides governance on the sale of new veterinary drugs in Canada and prohibits the sale of new drugs unless the manufacturer has filed a submission that is satisfactory to the minister. The Veterinary Drugs Directorate oversees the review and assessment of these new drug submissions so that they fully satisfy all of the scientific requirements set out in the regulations.
Various strategies focusing on workload and continuous improvement to VDD's regulatory performance are being implemented, including strengthening international cooperation and harmonizing review requirements with our major trading partners. Collaborative efforts between the directorate, users, producers and drug manufacturers also allow VDD to continually build upon and improve its regulatory systems so that it remains robust and responsive and supports the agriculture and agri-food industry and their activities in both research and innovation.
As well, Health Canada, through the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, also known as PMRA, administers the Pest Control Products Act with a primary objective of preventing unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the use of pest control products. Agricultural producers have identified pesticides as critical tools in modern-day agricultural production. These are typically chemicals designed to kill pests such as weeds and insects but have the potential for unintended impacts. Care must therefore be taken to control their use for the protection of Canadians' health and environment and to encourage the use of newer innovative products that minimize these risks.
Under the Pest Control Products Act, pesticides must be registered by the PMRA before they can be sold or used in Canada. Scientific studies provided by applicants are assessed to determine if risks to the health and environment of Canadians are acceptable and that the product has value. Risks can often be mitigated through conditions of registration conveyed to the user through legally enforceable label directions. Maximum residue limits, MRLs, in foods are established in parallel with the registration process and set under the authority of the Pest Control Products Act.
To ensure that pesticides continue to meet modern standards for the protection of health and the environment, pesticide decisions are re-evaluated on a cyclical basis. Over 90 per cent of all registered pesticides have undergone a modern assessment in the last 15 years. Information for the re-evaluation of a pesticide can include scientific information from registrants, journals and incident reports, as well as from research and monitoring conducted by other government organizations and foreign regulatory reviews.
Efforts over the last 15 years to align scientific data requirements, timelines and review processes with other pesticide regulatory authorities through international organizations, such as the OECD, have made it possible for PMRA to work closely with other countries to cooperatively assess new products.
In addition to providing Canadian agricultural producers equal access to the innovative crop protection products, cooperative work with regulators internationally improves the quality of our regulatory decisions. Global work sharing is becoming the norm for pesticide regulation.
Finally, within Health Canada, the Food Directorate is the federal health authority responsible for establishing policies, setting standards and providing advice and information on the safety and nutritional value of all food sold in Canada.
The Food Directorate is responsible for, among other things, conducting scientific research, conducting health risk and benefit assessments, and evaluating submissions from the food industry for products such as novel foods, including genetically modified foods, food additives, infant formula, packaging materials, et cetera.
In the context of innovation in the agri-food sector, the directorate has a major role to play via its oversight of novel foods. Novel foods include so-called GM foods, but also include foods resulting from a process that has not previously been used for food. An example would be something like a high pressure processed meat or other type of product, and also food products that do not have a history of safe use, such as phytosterols.
In Canada, novel foods are regulated under Division 28 of Part B of the Food and Drug Regulations, better known as the Novel Foods Regulations. Division 28, which came into force in November 1999, requires companies to obtain a letter of no objection from Health Canada about their intention to sell a novel food prior to marketing this food in Canada. They must submit detailed scientific data for review and approval by Health Canada before such foods can be sold. Once Health Canada is satisfied that the novel food is safe and nutritious, it is allowed for sale in the Canadian marketplace.
In addition, the Food Directorate provides guidance to industry through its guidelines for the safety assessment of novel foods. These guidelines are an important tool for companies to understand what is required of them to demonstrate the safety of their products.
For those novel foods derived from genetically modified organisms, for example, our guidelines are derived from internationally established scientific principles and guidelines developed through the work of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the WHO and the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It is important to note that Health Canada plays a key role in the development of these documents along with these international organizations.
These robust guidelines provide for both the rigour and the flexibility required to determine the need for notification and to conduct a safety assessment of the broad range of food products that are being developed. This flexibility is needed to allow novel foods and food products to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and to take into consideration any future scientific advances.
By continuing our involvement in the work of the OECD Task Force for the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds, Health Canada, in collaboration with the CFIA, continues to contribute internationally by leading the drafting of consensus documents on various crops, which serves as an important tool for promoting a harmonized approach to assessing GM foods.
Furthermore, Canada has also led capacity-building workshops in collaboration with CFIA and other countries in various regions of the world such as Asia, Eastern Europe and South America to further promote harmonization. We recognize that this is a key driver to ensure broad market access to innovative products worldwide.
Since 1994, Health Canada has approved 127 novel foods, 96 of which are GM crops. These include mainly things such as corn, canola and soybean, but also other things such as cotton, squash and papaya.
To continue to improve upon the regulatory environment, the Food Directorate is undertaking work in a number of areas, including improving our submission management processes, exploring new opportunities for harmonization and work sharing with like-minded jurisdictions, further strengthening our collaboration with CFIA and Environment Canada, and, when appropriate, revisiting our policies in order to be current with scientific knowledge and understanding.
[Translation]
Health Canada has been and remains open to consultation with companies, the research community and others, to discuss new and innovative products, to ensure timely access of these products on the Canadian market.
[English]
Thank you again for the opportunity to come to this committee.
[Translation]
David Morin, Acting Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Environment Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and honourable senators. My name is David Morin. I am the Acting Director General of the Science and Risk Assessment Directorate at Environment Canada. I am here this morning with Mr. Jim Louter, Manager of the Biotechnology Section. He is one of our experts in this area.
The purpose of today's presentation is to give you an overview of Environment Canada's role in the regulation of organisms used in agriculture under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the CEPA, and of the work that we do.
[English]
The purpose of this overview is to describe work with regard to regulating organisms under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but we also focus on the New Substances Notification Regulations and specifically the organisms component of those regulations.
On slide three of this overview we see that we have a part in Canada's shared federal approach to protecting the environment and human health from a range of potential risks.
On the left-hand side of this slide we see a series of federal acts identified. They start with the Feeds Act and the Seeds Act and go down to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. They serve as a filter when different products or uses are brought into commerce. They require evaluation of whether there are any concerns associated with these products. For example, anything considered a seed would be evaluated by CFIA under the Seeds Act.
Environment Canada fits into this at the bottom. If anything falls through this filter, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act deals with it. We look at everything that filters through and falls out. That said, very few things land at that level with regard to agriculture.
Slide 4 provides a bit of context for work done on products of biotechnology under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. My colleagues have raised some of the key principles of CEPA with regard to some of the work done under other departments. For example, one key principle of CEPA is pollution prevention. CEPA is responsible for application of the precautionary principle, protection of the environment and human health, and sustainable development.
One of the components of CEPA under Parts 5 and 6 has to do with the New Substances Notification Regulations of organisms, chemicals and polymers. This regulates the import and manufacture of substances that are not in commerce in Canada and are subject to a new substance notification evaluation.
Part 6 of CEPA is entitled ``Animate Products of Biotechnology. `` That part focuses on notification requirements as it relates to organisms.
The purpose of all of these evaluations done under CEPA for new substances is to determine whether or not any risk associated with the manufacturing or importation of these organisms or substances into Canada meets the definition of ``toxic'' under section 64 of the act. To do that, we look at whether or not there is going to be a risk to the environment, human health or the environment upon which life depends. If any risks are identified at that level, we do have the opportunity under CEPA to impose certain conditions or restrictions with regard to the use or import of these products or substances.
Moving on to slide 5, in terms of a notification process, we get an appreciation that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is jointly administered between Environment Canada and Health Canada. We have a notification that comes in and, from an ecological perspective, we determine whether or not there is a risk for the environment and/or its biological diversity. From a human health perspective, we determine whether or not there is a risk to human life or human health. It is definitely a joint approach. There is a collaborative approach with regard to the risk assessments, and we also work together jointly with regard to conclusions and proposed risk management measures, if necessary.
Moving on to slide 6, I think it is important to note that before getting into some of the reporting requirements and types of organisms that could be covered under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, there is a series of exemptions that should at least be considered to know where we are going in regard to what is regulated under the New Substances Notification Regulations for organisms. Anything that is regulated under a listed act — as we saw earlier, essentially under the Feeds Act or Seeds Act — is exempt. These other acts are listed under Schedule 4 of CEPA as equivalencies, and no further action is required.
As well, chemical production at quantities less than 1,000 kilos or 100 kilos a year is exempt. We also have anything that is listed on the domestic substances list, which is a list of about 27,000 substances, chemicals, organisms, et cetera, that are in commerce in Canada, and there is no need to re-notify those.
We also have research and development exemptions. Essentially, if you are engaged in quantities or volumes less than 1,000 litres, there is an exemption from reporting on that. We also have a research and development exemption for higher level organisms such as genetically engineered livestock and fish. However, this exemption is only there if there are appropriate containment facilities.
Moving on to slide 7, here are the different schedules associated with the new substance notification regulations for organisms. The first four of these schedules deal with micro-organisms. The level of notification requirements, the degree of an assessment done and the time allocated to an assessment all depend on the use of micro-organisms. For example, is it a micro-organism that could be used anywhere in Canada? In this case, we have a 120-day evaluation period. We are really going after a more in-depth type of assessment. If it is a microorganism that is not intended for use outside of a contained facility or for export only, we have a 30-day assessment period, recognizing that those containment protocols are key to ensuring that the microorganism is not released to the environment.
I will not go in detail through all these different schedules, but one thing to note particularly as we talk about flexibility of regulatory systems as it relates to agriculture is that we have a pre-notification consultation. Anyone who wants to import or manufacture some of these organisms into Canada, be it for research and development purposes or actual use, could take advantage of this consultation approach to meet with us informally and explain what it is they want to do and the purpose of what they want to do. We give them an overview of the regulations, what we will be doing and also guide them in the preparation of their notification process.
Moving on to slide 8, we have a few examples here of new organisms that are covered under the new substance notification regulations, and some of them are very basic. For example, up on the top left hand corner, we see transgenic grain that is used for processing. Keep in mind that this is not planting, but the grain can be crushed and used as an animal feed ingredient. Others examples include genetically engineered animals, such as fish and pigs that are covered. Keep in mind, though, as an interesting twist, that we do look at evaluating these organisms with regard to environmental impact, so if the organism does escape to the environment, what happens, but from a human health perspective, we look at indirect human exposure. It is not for use as foods, but if an animal were to brush itself up against a human, what could be the known effects. Our colleagues in CFIA and Health Canada look at the other uses.
The most common, and we get anywhere from 15 to 20 notifications of these per year, are micro-organisms used for industrial fermentation process. That is the bread and butter of what we do.
Moving on to the last slide of this overview, it is fair to say that rarely are agricultural products subject to the new substance notifications regulations. As we saw earlier on in the presentation, I think at slide 2 or 3, there is a series of acts that filter out and capture a lot of things that could otherwise be subject to these regulations.
As I previously mentioned, our regular line of business has to do with microorganisms used mostly in industrial fermentation processes, and we have a few exemptions that I talked about before. We mentioned, for example, genetically modified organisms. We do have the Enviropig. That was an example we had over the past few years. It is a pig that is genetically engineered to produce an enzyme that produces a significant reduction in phosphorus pollution from pig manure. That is an example of something that we have gotten in, but it is relatively limited.
With regard to these types of assessments, we have included what we call a significant new activity control — that was published in the Canada Gazette — to essentially ensure that any other activities with regard to those types of organisms are re-notified so we can evaluate the proposed use and, as appropriate, control measures could be implemented.
I am cognizant of the time. I think it is fair to say that, very similar to my colleagues who presented previously, Environment Canada continuously strives to improve the regulatory process and ensure that we are up to date with what is going on and have a process that is flexible and amendable to work with various people who want to import and manufacture these substances in Canada.
[Translation]
Thank you very much for your time, it is much appreciated.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Morin for your excellent presentation.
Senator Robichaud, you have the floor.
Senator Robichaud: I thank you the witnesses for their presentations. We could spend more than an hour on this topic, and perhaps at some point we will ask the witnesses to return, as they have provided us with a great deal of information.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency plays a role here in Canada with farmers. It also plays a role with those who want to export Canadian products. For instance, what sort of services does the agency offer to someone who wants to sell potatoes in Europe or Africa?
You can probably see where I am going with this. A producer is currently behind bars in Lebanon. Apparently some potatoes that were not appropriate for export were found. And yet that person had a certificate from Canada.
And so I would like to hear you discuss that situation because I think that it affects all producers, particularly ours in New Brunswick for whom this is a very important question.
The Chair: Senator Robichaud, since this case is before the courts currently I would ask the officials to not comment.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I absolutely disagree. All I am asking is what the agency offers those producers, without comment. You can delete the part that dealt with that individual in particular.
The Chair: Honourable Senators, that question is allowed.
Mr. Ritchie: With your permission I will reply to the question in English because I want to be sure that I am giving you the right information.
Senator Robichaud: Yes, please because otherwise I would not be able to use it!
Mr. Ritchie: Thank you.
[English]
The agency plays an active role in terms of exports. It is our intention to ensure that there is as fair a trading environment internationally as possible. We work with our international colleagues through international organizations. In the plant world, we work through the International Plant Protection Convention, which brings together a number of countries to develop common standards to facilitate trade. On the food side we work through Codex Alimentarius, which is a similar organization. On the animal health side we work through the OIE, which is the international animal health organization.
The role of those organizations is similar. Canada goes to the table and works with our colleagues to ensure that there is as fair a trading environment as possible. Before going to the table, we consult with our stakeholders, our exporting community, because we want to ensure that what we try to advance at the table is in our collective interest, so we work with our stakeholders and the international community together.
As well, an importing country can set its own requirements for the import of a product because that country, like Canada, has the responsibility to protect the sustainability of its natural resource base. When those import requirements were established, the potato exporter, for example, who wanted to export potatoes to another country would have to meet that other country's import requirements.
The agency, through the international environment, ensures that the import requirements from the other country are at least scientifically based and make sense. That way we can provide assurance to our exporting community that what that country is asking for, although it may be different from what Canada would ask for because the environment is different, is scientifically valid.
We then have an obligation, as the national plant protection organization in Canada, to certify that exports into that country meet the standards of that imparting country. If that importing country says that Canada's exports must be free from soil, for example, then the CFIA would be obligated to ensure that when the potato shipment goes to that country we can certify freedom from soil.
Senator Robichaud: So you would not certify it if it does not meet the standards of the importing country?
Mr. Ritchie: That is correct. It is the responsibility of the exporter to understand what the requirements are of the importing country. We can certainly help in that regard, but at the end of the day it is really the exporter's responsibility. Yes, if the exporter wishes to export to that market, it is obligated to ensure that those products meet the requirements, and we would be the certifying agent that would state that.
Senator Robichaud: What happens if you certify a product for exportation to a certain country and that country says it does not meet their requirements?
Mr. Ritchie: Such situations can happen. We would have a discussion with the importing country to ensure that the standards of testing and monitoring those products are in line and that we are not using different methodologies. In some cases, because of the volume of activity, the testing results may vary slightly. We would have discussions with the foreign country to ensure that our scientific processes are aligned. At the end of day, it is a science-based process. Our processes meet international standards and have been internationally recognized. We continue to adhere to the most advanced science possible and continue to deal with our international colleagues to ensure that there is complementarity in the standard setting processes so that the system is as safe and predictable as the science that underpins it can ensure.
Senator Finley: In a year, roughly how many export certificates would your organization issue?
Mr. Ritchie: We issue a considerable number of export certificates. I can provide further detail to the committee.
Senator Finley: Would it be thousands?
Mr. Ritchie: Yes, it would be in the thousands.
Senator Finley: In an average year, approximately how many rejections or problems would you have with those?
Mr. Ritchie: I do not have that answer for you, and I cannot give you an approximate number. I am prepared to provide that detail.
Senator Finley: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: If at the destination there is a dispute concerning a product you have certified, and if at the other end it is established that the product does not meet the standards whereas on this side you are convinced that all of the practices established by the international agencies were followed, what is the appeal process for that decision? It would be too easy to say that the requirements have not been met and that the product is worthless.
[English]
Dr. Silva: In cases where there is a discrepancy or a different interpretation by the importing country, we look at the information to see why the interpretation of the importing country is different scientifically, because these are internationally accepted standards that are respected by both the exporting and the importing country.
In some cases, if the importing country has retested an exported product and their results are different, we look to see whether they have used the same methods that were validated here in Canada because we follow a very strict regime to validate our tests. We do not use invalidated testing in our certification.
If a method that is not validated or internationally accepted has been used in the other country, we go back and say it is not an accepted test for this type of testing. It is a scientific evaluation.
Second is the concept of risk assessments. The detection of something does not necessarily mean that it poses a risk to that country. It has to be placed in the context of the environment of the country and the exposure in that new country. Therefore, a risk assessment analysis must be done. These scientific principles form the basis, along with the standards, of bilateral negotiations between the two countries in order to resolve the issue.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: My next question follows on that put by Honourable Senator Finley. You issue a lot of certificates of qualification. How many times a year does the importing country challenge your inspections?
[English]
Dr. Silva: As my colleague Tony Ritchie mentioned, exact figures are not here, but as a percentage the number is very low. Canada exports a lot of shipments in both the plant and animal worlds. Our exports are not challenged in the majority of cases. They are accepted but, from time to time, a certain very low percentage of issues do arise due to some of the circumstances that I just described. In those cases, we try to resolve them bilaterally.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: So volume is not a problem. You have the time and the expertise to process each of these cases as there are not many of them.
Dr. Silva: Certainly, the question can be framed in that way.
[English]
Senator Eaton: What a fascinating presentation; thank you, gentlemen. I have many questions.
Do we spend enough money on our agricultural research? This is a very important industry for Canada, certainly into the future. You can answer quickly with a yes or a no. It is probably ``no,'' but I would like to hear it from you. How much more should we be spending on plant-based and animal-based research?
Dr. Silva: I will try to answer that question.
The majority of Canada's agricultural research is done within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. A comprehensive program is conducted on this. The CFIA is in that innovation chain as the products come through. New ideas are turned into products of innovation. As it comes through the regulatory system, the CFIA conducts research to make it go through the system in terms of answering the regulatory issues that arise. The research done within government in conjunction with our partners is boosted by the research done outside of the government system. Many partnerships have developed over the last few years working with universities as well as industry.
The question of whether the research is enough needs very careful attention. Reports coming from the OECD compare Canada's investments in research to that of others. We are comparable but certainly not the leading investor in research. There are two issues: first, coming up with good research and second, turning it into innovative products.
Senator Eaton: I will not name the university, but one said to me that they are having trouble attracting people to the agricultural sector, either as a producer or as a researcher, because the sector is not thought to be as cutting edge as some other sectors, such as engineering, et cetera. Have you found this to be so?
Dr. Silva: It is an expertise issue partly related to the new kinds of expertise needed. Much of the work is moving into highly sophisticated research. Of course, the government and the universities are in competition with other countries for the same pool of expertise. Our science and technology strategy in Canada places high value in people's expertise, so the realization of that strategy would place us well. There is a recognition that we are in competition globally for the same pool of expertise.
Senator Eaton: Are we making headway with genetically modified seeds? Are we still doing research on creating more GM products? Are Europe and Africa still very opposed to GM products?
Dr. Silva: The government is not into producing GM products, but of course we regulate GM products. Industry has taken leadership on that aspect.
Once our colleagues on both sides of table determine it is safe, we do not see a difference between a GM product and a product that is produced by conventional means. The research is industry led and usually by multinational companies.
Mr. Farber: You are right in saying that Europe still takes an anti-GM stance. Even in the food safety world, they are generally against food additives and chemicals. Even the simple use of chlorine on poultry they are heavily against. We have to deal with those types of issues regularly.
Senator Mercer: Dr. Silva and Mr. Ritchie, as Senator Eaton said this is fascinating; we could be here all day.
To carry on with Senator Eaton's comments about research, can you tell us what conversion rate from research to production is? Perhaps Canadians fail to realize the value of the work done by all of the people in the agricultural sector — Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the various agencies — in terms of the discoveries made that have been converted into production to change how the world grows and consumes food. Do we have a conversion rate that shows how many times we have taken a product in Canada and through either research and/or innovation converted it into a usable product?
Dr. Silva: Certainly, such data is available. There are very good comparisons in terms of Canada's ability on a global scale. Canada places very high with regard to developing new scientific ideas. The research output is very high in Canada. However, when it comes to turning those ideas into innovative products, compared with a number of other countries, we tend to be in the mid-range. There are about 15 other countries ahead of us on that scale. Much attention in recent years has been paid on stimulating the innovation part of agricultural research and other areas too to determine how we convert those good ideas and promising results into usable products and applications. As a percentage, we will have to provide that information to the committee, but we are in about the middle when compared with other countries.
Senator Mercer: I had hoped that Canada would be higher on that scale because we have done some good work, particularly in grains and fruits.
We talked about development of products to protect animals against disease, which down the food chain, protects humans against disease. We should talk about the Walkerton issue.
There is a company in Belleville, Ontario, that I know is developing a bovine vaccine to help prevent E. coli in animals. It is in the approval process. If a new product like that comes on, how quickly does it get approved in Canada? Do we help that company get approval in other markets? Our markets are limited, and they will really make their money when they start to sell elsewhere.
Dr. Silva: Yes, that type of product that is preventative, a vaccine that prevents against E. coli in this case, is regulated and licensed in Canada. A product from a local manufacturer first needs to get licensed in Canada, and then they go into the international markets.
Our regulations in this area comes under veterinary biologics in the agency, and they are well harmonized with the other countries, including the U.S., which is one of the biggest markets, as well as in other countries. The Canadian licensure of a product is seen as a certificate, because we do a comprehensive assessment. With harmonized regulations, it is easier for the producer to access other markets, but each country has its own assessment scheme as well.
Senator Mercer: Before I ask my last question, I cannot help but tell a story that I noticed in my local paper in Halifax this week. We are actually growing bananas in Halifax, and they are being consumed locally and will be used in local restaurants. The banana belt has moved east, folks.
Mr. Morin, with respect to slide 6, you talk about exemptions. No. 2 is chemical production of less than 1,000 kilos. You can do a lot of things with 1,000 kilos. I am curious as to why anything would be exempt from the regulations. A lot of things can go wrong. A lot can happen. Why 1,000 kilos?
Mr. Morin: That is a good question. In terms of 1,000 kilos, we have the domestic substances list in Canada, which lists about 20,000 substances that were grandfathered in when the New Substances Notification Regulations were brought on board. Anything not on that list is considered to be a new substance and is subject to the New Substances Notification Regulations. Those substances that have been in Canada are exempt.
Anything that is new has two reporting triggers. One is 100 kilos, and the other is 1,000 kilos. The 100 kilos is for a substance that is not listed on the United States Toxic Substances Control Act, not if a substance is listed on the Toxic Substances Control Act and has been there for more than a year. Essentially, in order for any substance in the States to get on the TSCA, it is either grandfathered in, like ours, or is subject to a new substance evaluation. An evaluation in the States has already been done for those substances, and it has been in commerce for a year, hence why we reduced the reporting burden on industry, recognizing the close trading and working relationships we have with our colleagues in the States.
Senator Meighen: Supplementary to that, Mr. Morin, what is the extent of our acceptance of approval or non- approval procedures in other countries? You just alluded to the United States and the work done there. We accept that work. Does this apply to the United Kingdom and to France? Are there protocols? How does it work in terms of relying on the work of other countries?
Mr. Morin: Canada is a member of the OECD. As part of the OECD, with regard to the existing substances, there is a series of protocols, what is called MAD, or the mutual acceptance of data, whereby countries that are members of the OECD chemicals committee work to agree on testing protocols. The purpose of working to agree on testing protocols is regardless of where a test is done, as long as it is done by an OECD member country, we have agreed to the good lab practices and these testing protocols. The results inform the hazard side of the equation, so the danger associated with the substance should be universal as long as we agree to these protocols for certain endpoints. Canada takes this data and looks at it from a Canadian standpoint. From an exposure standpoint in Canada, how does that compare? What is the Canadian exposure to these products? That is one example, but there is a lot of work done internationally with other countries. It is important that we continue to work internationally with other countries, recognizing that Canada is a relatively small player in a lot of these chemical markets. We do have to work with other players, but we do need standards such as those under the OECD to ensure a certain uniformity, if you want.
Senator Meighen: How would you compare our approval process, generally speaking, in terms of its speed and efficacy? The complaints one hears, probably from uninformed people, maybe, is that our processes take far too long. You have alluded to international cooperation, which would allegedly speed this up. Do you think that criticism is well founded?
Mr. Morin: We would have to frame it within the context of what we have talked about. You have asked a broad question. Within the context of the new substance notifications regulations, depending on the type of notification, this applies to chemicals, organisms and polymers. We have evaluation times that are anywhere from 30 to 120 days, and these are calendar days. If we get a notification in the middle of summer holidays, we cannot say, ``Sorry, half of our people are on holidays, so we need more time.'' As soon as we receive that notification, it is stamped and we check it for thoroughness. If everything is in there, the evaluation date starts when we stamp it. We are bound by these times. On the new substances side, we are very progressive in terms of the speed at which things are done.
Mr. Farber: To add on the novel foods side in terms of acceptance, we are very comparable to the U.S. Right now, Europe is much longer than us. We are doing okay. We definitely see room for improvement, and we are trying to do that.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: My question is for Mr. Morin but other witnesses may answer if they wish to. Our main agriculture and agri-food clients are the United States, some of the South American countries and Europeans countries. Is Canadian policy and asset are an obstacle to our exports? And conversely, when we important, our conditions constitute a disadvantage for Canada?
That was a general question but if you have particular cases to refer to, involving either fruit or vegetables, please do so.
And finally, do you have any suggestions to improve the regulation or at least to eliminate barriers so that our exports can be more competitive?
Mr. Morin: It is difficult for me to answer your question with regard to agriculture and agri-food. The notifications that Environment Canada receives are very limited in that regard. My colleagues from Health Canada or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency would probably be in a better position to answer you.
Insofar as the importation of products is concerned, however, generally speaking, regulations on new substances constitute neither an asset nor a barrier. In fact, they are an advantage in the sense that they allow us to ensure quality control for the health of Canadians and the environment. Those who import our products can also derive reassurance from the fact that our products are assessed.
As for agriculture, it is difficult for me to answer your question. In the course of a given year, we typically receive about 20 general notifications concerning organisms. Of that number, very few are related to agriculture.
Senator Rivard: Would any other witnesses like to answer?
[English]
Mr. Farber: As was mentioned before, we work very heavily through the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which, in the Health Canada food safety area, has over 150 member countries. When we go to these meetings, we try, as a whole group of countries, to come to a common agreement on what constitutes safety standards for the whole world so that we do not run into problems with imports and exports. I think the whole world is moving toward relying on risk assessments and work done by Codex to harmonize globally.
In terms of your question about suggestions, another important area that everyone is moving into is looking at equivalence of food systems in a whole country, rather than what product is coming from what farm or what company. There is a big push now to look at equivalence of countries in terms of their food-safety systems. We have had a number of meetings recently, and there will be another one in Europe in a couple of weeks, to get all of these countries together and to compare the equivalency of all of their systems to see how we can harmonize. I think this will be a huge step forward in this area.
Senator Ogilvie: Thank you very much for your presentations. You have spent a great deal of time talking about the regulation of food products and the Canadian situation. I would like to ask one general question and, if the chair would permit, ask you to provide follow-up information.
Obviously our title here is Research and Innovation Efforts in the Agricultural Sector. That is not just for its own purpose but, rather, ultimately, to develop an industry, which means products on the market, both in the regulatory and the supply side of things.
All of you referred, to one degree or another, to some numbers of new products that had come on the market. Could you take a recent useful reporting period, say the last five years, and tell us about the number of new products? By that I mean products that have a knowledge base to them. Whether they are modified through chemical or genetic means or otherwise, they are new products that you have approved for entry into the marketplace. I am not just referring to food areas. Obviously, if you are dealing with plants, you are also dealing with those that go into the floral markets and things of that nature where there is sometimes a greater market. Could you provide us with those numbers?
Do any of you carry out evaluations under the plant breeders' rights legislation? If you do, can you tell me the degree to which that is now fully implemented? For a long time, Canadian producers had no intellectual property rights on new plants, regardless of their mechanism of development. The plant breeders' rights legislation was seen as an enormously important act in order to give Canadian producers the opportunity to protect intellectual property. They were also essential in terms of international sales or importation of new value-added products. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Ritchie: I am glad you asked that follow-up information be provided. We are prepared to do that because I do not have those specific numbers at hand.
Senator Ogilvie: No, I realize that.
Mr. Ritchie: However, as an agency, we are active in pre-market-assessment activities that involve, for instance, fertilizers, new plant varieties and seed. A considerable amount of work has transpired over the course of the year in registering new varieties and fertilizers. I can provide you with those particulars as a follow-up.
Senator Ogilvie: I appreciate that.
Mr. Ritchie: It is an active area. The novel plants area is of growing interest as well from year to year.
In terms of plant breeders' rights, the agency is responsible for implementing the Plants Breeders' Rights Act. We have specific responsibilities in that particular area, and we understand the connection to innovation and the importance of being able to protect the intellectual rights of plant breeders. We are very active in that area, and we are processing a number of applications under that particular area.
We have been a signatory to improvements at the international level with respect to our plant breeders' rights requirements. We are moving forward in trying to address those international requirements.
Senator Ogilvie: I have one final question. You spent nearly all, if not all, of the time talking about products in Canada. I assume you also regulate those products that arrive, foodstuffs, for example. Let us say a shipload of some plant product aimed at the vegetable market in Canada arrives in one of our ports. I assume you regulate that. Can you tell me how you carry out inspection of large quantities of food materials arriving from other countries? Just stick to the plant area as an example.
Dr. Silva: The products that are coming in, not yet approved for sale in Canada, are assessed before they can gain entry into Canada. The same rules go into play in terms of looking at that shipment.
Senator Ogilvie: If I could interject, I understand that. My question relates to it actually arriving here. It is one thing to approve their protocols in terms of how it is produced. It is another thing to ensure that the material arrives here free of chemical pesticides that are not acceptable regardless of the regulations of other countries. I am thinking of certain countries specifically; I will not mention them. However, there are issues around some of them. When that load of new cabbage that has been approved in terms of how it has been produced arrives here, what do you do to ensure that it is free of contaminants, surface or otherwise?
Dr. Silva: We have programs where we check for the presence of contaminants. Usually, when it comes to importations, it follows a complaint. That is the way that the system works normally. However, in areas where unauthorized shipments come, we are within our full rights to check or reject that shipment if it does not meet the Canadian regulations in terms of importation.
As a general rule, there is a percentage of shipments that are checked.
Senator Eaton: When you talk about novel plants and the interest in them, does the Canadian government maintain a seed bank?
Dr. Silva: We maintain seed banks in terms of any of the new varieties approved in Canada. Agriculture Canada also has collections of the seeds of any of the varieties that are registered in Canada. Collections are maintained by Agriculture Canada.
Senator Eaton: I do not know whether I mis-expressed myself or I am misunderstanding you. Many seeds now are hybridized over and over again. Do we maintain banks of the original seeds? If the hybridized seeds are wiped out or there is some disease, can we go back and start again?
Dr. Silva: Yes. The preservation of the genetic material has been one of the areas that people have been working in. Agriculture Canada, in their Saskatoon laboratories, maintains a collection. A division is looking at conserving both on the plant and on the animal side.
Senator Mahovlich: I want to commend our witnesses. This is very important for Canadians.
About a week ago, 15 Americans died, and the culprit was cantaloupe. The next morning, I came down for breakfast, and my wife had a nicely sliced cantaloupe.
Senator Meighen: Did you get the message?
Senator Mahovlich: I did not feel comfortable. I said, ``What are you doing? You should throw this cantaloupe away.'' Should Canadians have been concerned?
Mr. Farber: No, Canadians should not have been concerned. With the CFIA, we had tracked it. None of the product actually entered the country.
Senator Mahovlich: We were monitoring that?
Mr. Farber: Yes, the CFIA would. Any time there is any case of food-borne illness, there is always a check of what products come into the country. We are in constant dialogue with both the FDA and USDA. We share information almost immediately. We have various working groups with them to share information. We are very aware. We are consumers as well. We want to be sure none of this comes into the country. We do cross-checks. Even with recalls within the country, we do checks in terms of going to the stores and ensuring that the recalls are done effectively and efficiently.
This particular outbreak of listeria is unique. This is the first outbreak that has occurred with cantaloupe. The U.S. has been puzzled as well. They are trying to find out what exactly happened in this particular case because it is very unusual for this organism to cause an outbreak in that particular type of product. We have a lot to learn in terms of looking at these organisms. We call it the ecology of the organism, how these organisms do in the environment of these farms.
Senator Mahovlich: They have not come up with a solution or what really happened. I have a daughter living in Seattle, and she washes her cantaloupe, or cleans it. I do not know if that helps or not.
Mr. Farber: Health Canada recommends scrubbing with a brush and with hot water to try to get it off. Again, in this particular case, we still feel that something very wrong happened. Usually, you need growth of the organism to occur before you get infection. The organism to be on the surface alone would not cause infection. Something very wrong happened, and we need to really find out.
Senator Mahovlich: Do you monitor wild animals in this country, say deer or moose? A lot of Canadians hunt, and Americans come up and hunt. Up north now, we have many golf courses loaded with deer. Pesticides are sprayed on these golf courses, I am sure. Is there any concern about our wild animals?
Dr. Silva: When it comes to wildlife, the rules that govern Canada's wildlife are somewhat different. The provinces have a lot of authority in terms of the wildlife. For example, with CFIA, the regulations mostly cover domesticated animals. We control a disease that affects the domesticated species, but the wildlife falls into the provincial jurisdiction.
Senator Mercer: I have a supplementary to Senator Mahovlich's first question about the cantaloupe. Obviously we have this problem that happened someplace in the United States. They do not know what caused that. Do you have a protocol that follows that up and monitors what they discover so that we retain the knowledge for future reference and for the better protection of Canadians?
Mr. Flint: We do. We actually had colleagues from both CFIA and Health Canada down to visit the FDA a couple of weeks ago to discuss this, among other things. As I mentioned, we are definitely in constant dialogue with them, and we are working closely with them. Actually, again through Codex, there is a guidance document now being prepared, ironically, looking at the safety of melons. This will be discussed. We have our big Codex meeting with 150 countries in December, and we will be discussing this whole issue. We will be getting constant updates from the U.S. on this.
Senator Fairbairn: Mr. Morin, I went through the document that you brought, and I am glad you did so. On the last page, I am looking at how things are seemingly being explained about what people get concerned about after things that have happened in past few years. You talk about human health risks and this kind of thing that we are concerned about.
In public ways, do you have an organization that pulls out what you are considering to ensure that the fish feed and everything else is where it should be and not elsewhere? How do you move this across the country, in towns, in villages and in bigger places?
Mr. Morin: I can respond to a certain part of that question, but I also think that some of my colleagues at CFIA would assist, as you referred to animal feeds and things like that.
You refer particularly, perhaps, to the genetically modified pig that is referred to on that slide.
Senator Fairbairn: Yes.
Mr. Morin: With that animal, and my colleague Mr. Louter could add additional insight, we have done an assessment of the pig. Currently it is a pig that has an enzyme designed to metabolize phosphorous so there are less releases to the environment.
In terms of the control we have put on it, which is the crux of your question, on those types of animals we have containment requirements in place to ensure that this pig is not released to the environment and does not escape, et cetera. We want to ensure that that is very much contained. They are contained in barns and do not go outside. There is a series of things like that. Mr. Louter may want to add additional insight on that.
Ultimately, is the animal used and processed for feed for other animals or for human consumption? That is something that our colleagues at CFIA and Health Canada do. I will probably defer to them on that question. Mr. Louter, do you have anything to add?
Jim Louter, Manager, Biotechnology Section, Environment Canada: The point of that slide and information was to show that there have been very few cases in which agricultural products have been regulated under our regulation, not withstanding its importance.
On the example of the fish ingredient, and CFIA can provide more information there, I understood it to be a feed ingredient. It does not fall directly under their regulations until it becomes a formulated product. It is just an ingredient in a product, and that was the distinction in that particular scenario. It is very rare that that happens. That was the situation there. We did put what we call a significant new activity on that situation so that it could only be grown and used for that particular purpose. Any other purpose would require a re-notification under our regulations.
Dr. Silva: This application in terms of the Enviropig is not authorized in Canada so it has not kicked in either the animal feed or the food approvals. The approvals at this stage are only for research purposes and it is confined to a research facility in a Canadian university. It is not approved for any other purpose.
It has not been approved for either animal feed or food. With food we work with Health Canada. With feed we work with CFIA, but we work very closely in a situation like that.
Senator Fairbairn: Does it continue all through the year?
Dr. Silva: It is a continual assessment. Our system is open so anyone can make an application into it.
Senator Finley: I am not a regular contributor to this committee, but your observations and opinions are very much valued.
My question is of a generic nature as opposed to a specific regulatory or agricultural question.
Most departments, businesses and governments go through internal rethinking or repositioning on a regular basis. They usually come up with some form of strategy statements, mission statements, objectives or targets. I would imagine that each of your parent departments go through this.
My question is several-fold and has to do with innovation. I would rather we looked at the innovation, the research, the conversion to product as opposed to the day-to-day regulatory housekeeping.
First, is there a mechanism for your directorates to produce such a mission statement specifically with regard to innovation and research? If so, how frequently is that done? How would you couch your objectives, your mission statement or your accountability? Is there a document, a website or something where I could see that communal collective thought process? I would like you to stick specifically to the innovation-product part of it.
Dr. Silva: That is a very broad question. With regard to innovation and the departments working together, in each of our missions there is a component that addresses part of the innovation, as you heard. The Government of Canada has done a good job in bringing forward the Going Forward framework of Agriculture Canada. This brings together not only the government departments but also the provinces as partners. Under the Going Forward framework, innovation was the key. Significant investment was made under that framework. There was stimulation of research and support for market entry in terms of moving the products through the system. Science clusters were created as were specific commercialization suites to move products as well.
The statements in the innovation mission are available. The Agriculture Canada website carries that information. We can provide anything else that you need from our agriculture colleagues. I will be appearing again before this committee when the Department of Agriculture comes. That information is available.
Looking at the next generation of the agriculture framework, the ministers at the provincial and federal levels came together and endorsed the Saint Andrews Statement. That is a mission statement that promotes innovation in agriculture. It is a powerful statement to create synergies between departments and the provinces targeting the innovation question.
Senator Finley: I think it was you, Dr. Silva, who mentioned that much of the hard research is being done by large or multinational corporations, presumably at some considerable risk and, hopefully, reward to them.
What role, if any, does your collective group play and how early with private industry in terms of a recognition of a potential development and the degree to which you work with them to achieve that development? Also, is there ever any endeavour to seek cost recovery or product recovery as part of a patent or whatever?
Dr. Silva: Yes, we do, and it is the government departments that carry out research that results in a commercializable innovation. It results in licensing schemes which can generate revenues in terms of royalties that come back to the Crown. Each of the departments have their own guidelines to ensure that some of the funding generated in that way is put back into research. On one hand it rewards the researcher, but it puts money into the laboratory that produced that research to enable it to continue with that work. Our scheme is through intellectual property and commercialization.
Senator Finley: Mr. Chair, I would like you to ask that the witnesses produce any documentation they can vis-à-vis strategy statements, mission statements or objectives, please.
The Chair: Witnesses, would you please provide that to the clerk of the committee?
Dr. Silva: Yes. Quite a few of the things that I mentioned are with the Department of Agriculture, but we work closely. I will make that request. They will be coming before you as well, but we will certainly provide that information.
Senator Finley: I will probably asking that question again of the officials from the Department of Agriculture.
The Chair: Before moving to a second round of questions, I will inform honourable senators and witnesses that at 9:50 we will move into an in camera session.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: My question is rather general. Cantaloupes were discussed. There are also references to lettuce and prepackaged products.
Have you noted an increase in cases where foodstuffs are found that are not really inedible but do pose some risks? Are there more now than there were in the past or is this just an impression we have because we hear about them more often? Does this concern you?
[English]
Mr. Farber: In Canada we have approximately 11 million to 13 million cases of food-borne illness each year. It is not insignificant. One in three people experience an episode each year.
We are asked whether we think there has been an increase in food-borne illness. It is a complex question because, as you may know, our methods are getting better at detecting outbreaks. We are using the DNA bands, like they used in the trial of O.J. Simpson, to compare bacteria isolated from the food and from the lettuce. We can actually match them up and determine that the lettuce caused a particular outbreak.
In the past, we saw only individual cases scattered throughout the country and were never able to put the pieces of the puzzle together to say that it was part of a large outbreak involving contaminated lettuce.
Produce is one area where we feel there has been increase in food-borne illness. It relates to looking at on-farm food safety issues. We are trying to get a better handle on what is going on at farms and how we can improve practices on farms. We have to look at the whole farm-to-fork process in terms of interventions. Where do you get the best bang for the buck in terms of interventions? Is it at the farm level, the processing level, the retail food service level or in the consumer's home where they might mishandle things? We try to look at the whole farm-to-fork process to see where we can get the best bang for the buck, and we look at it in detail.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Research is being done on genetically modified pork to control odours, so as to make its production more acceptable to those who live close to hog farms. We have a lot of cranberry producers — what we call field berries in our area. That fruit and its juice have properties that make them really beneficial to health. Is research being done currently to replace chemical products with natural products in hog farms? Is there a market for our cranberry producers? My question is bothering you?
Mr. Morin: Your question concerns me a little. What I can tell you is that we received a request from a stakeholder who wanted to market — not necessarily commercialize, this is always in a research and development perspective — that famous pig that is genetically engineered to significantly reduce the phosphorous it releases into the environment.
We obtained a risk assessment as to what would happen if this pig escaped or were introduced into the environment. Where human health is concerned, what we have been able to look at up till now is whether if anyone touches the animal during its life cycle this could produce a reaction — like dermatitis or something of the sort — but we did not examine what you mentioned. It is very interesting but we have not looked at that.
Senator Robichaud: That would be innovative, would it not?
Mr. Morin: Yes, indeed it would be.
The Chair: Perhaps you could send us a written reply to that question?
Mr. Morin: Indeed.
[English]
Senator Eaton: This is blue sky: In any of your capacities, do you ever worry about food terrorism or any of the bio- products coming out of forestry in a food being used as a terrorist element? Does that ever enter your conversations or is that not on the table?
Dr. Silva: It is a concern, particularly after 9/11. The government started a new program under the direction of the Department of National Defence whereby a number of initiatives were taken to look specifically at the whole system, including the food system, the vulnerabilities of the food system and where such deliberate contamination can happen. The CFIA, working with a number of partners, has undertaken numerous research projects and initiatives to safeguard that system. Some of the newer technologies that we developed under that program are advanced in terms of their sophistication in being able to detect disease agents that are normally present in other countries, but not in Canada, that could be introduced deliberately to harm us. We have good capabilities in terms of detecting them. It cuts across animal, plant and some food disease agents.
A comprehensive area of work has been done by not only the CFIA but also by the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada and the Department of National Defence working together to develop that capability. The work also connects well with the U.S. government's efforts in this regard.
Mr. Farber: We do tabletop exercises in terms of simulations of such potential events. We all get together and look at this issue.
Senator Mercer: One innovation is the development of new drugs that are used by veterinarians to treat animals. Mr. Farber mentioned the VDD. Every time we hear about the VDD at this committee, it is in the context of complaints about the slowness of the new drug process from innovation, to approval, to delivery to the farmer. Has that improved? Have you been able to streamline the process so that new innovations come online and get to the farm gate as quickly as possible?
Mr. Farber: My colleague from the VDD will address that.
Louis Boulay, Manager, Submission and Knowledge Management Division, Health Canada: Good morning. I am Louis Boulay, Acting Director of the VDD.
Yes, there has been a lot of improvement in the performance of the VDD. Several years ago there was a several-fold increase in the speed of review. We are doing a lot of work with the U.S. to try to do a simultaneous review. Our time is compared with what the U.S. is doing now. We are trying to convince our industry to file in both places simultaneously. Quite often the sponsors will file in the U.S. when it is approved there and thereafter they will file in Canada. Obviously, we are a bit behind because we get the file a year or two later. When it is done in both countries at the same time, we get the approval faster.
The Chair: Senator Rivard has informed me that he will not ask the last question.
Before we close this part of the meeting, I want to bring something to the attention of honourable senators and witnesses. Over the last three weeks, a panel of economists across Canada and North America were saying that the country or the state that has the four Fs will certainly have a better quality of life for their people. I listened carefully and naturally thought that the best country in the world is Canada. The four Fs are food, fertilizer, fuel and forestry.
Thank you, honourable senators and witnesses. This was a really interesting quality overview. As we progress with our mandate, we might ask you to come again. Please follow our mandate closely. We will not hesitate to send you written questions through the clerk of the committee. You may answer in writing as we progress. No doubt we will ask you to come again.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are now in public broadcast.
You have in front of you, to be adopted, the budget of activities that will end on March 31, 2012. The total budget requested of Internal Economy will be $220,695. If there are no further questions, can I have a mover?
Senator Ogilvie: Mr. Chair, I think we need it adjusted to accommodate any change as a result of a switch from New Brunswick to the Annapolis Valley. Is that right?
The Chair: Yes, the clerk will take that into consideration and adjust for the Annapolis Valley.
Senator Robichaud: It is not a switch; it is just a rearrangement.
Senator Ogilvie: I am just dealing with allowing them the flexibility in the motion. The motion did not include the allowance for adjustment.
Senator Mahovlich: We are going all the way down to Mexico City. I see we are only spending three nights there. Can we allow for another couple of days? There are other cities in Mexico. We should visit a farm.
The Chair: The chair is open for any other comments on this.
Senator Eaton: To follow up on your good question, Senator Mahovlich, are we going to a research station? Are we seeing the ministry? What will we be doing in Mexico City?
The Chair: It will be two-fold. We will be seeing the officials at the level of the embassy and also of the Government of Mexico. To add the comments made by Senator Mahovlich to visit a farm or/and visit research centres would definitely need an addition.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Chair, I do not mean to be disrespectful to the steering committee, but what role can we play in Mexico with the officials who are dealing with NAFTA?
The Chair: When that came to the attention of the steering committee, it was to find out, following the presentation we got this morning, the impact of harmonization of regulations, for example, since NAFTA, to have them give us a report card on the performance.
Senator Eaton: Do we have to go to Mexico City for that? Could we not have officials from NAFTA come here? We are trying to cut, and we have been told to cut. I cannot see standing around the embassy in Mexico, having a lovely time in the winter, talking to NAFTA officials about harmonization. I guess I am not getting it. I do not understand the justification.
Senator Mahovlich: It is very important to us, and Mexico is part of it.
Senator Eaton: I can see the Canadian public will think we are going on a lovely junket to Mexico in the winter to sit around looking at NAFTA officials.
The Chair: That will be taken into consideration.
Senator Ogilvie: Chair, I do not think we need to worry about it. If you are successful with this budget, you have more clout than the chairs of all the rest of the committees put together.
Senator Mercer: There is your challenge.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Mahovlich, this will be taken into consideration.
Senator Mercer, do we have a mover?
Senator Mercer: I so move.
The Chair: It was moved by Senator Mercer, with the comments made to the clerk.
Is the motion adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
With that, honourable senators, I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)