By email: rcc-ccr@tbs-sct.gc.ca

Brennen Young Director
Regulatory Cooperation Regulatory Affairs Sector
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Re: Regulatory Reconciliation and Cooperation

Dear Mr. Young,

On behalf of the Canadian Meat Council (CMC) and its members, we thank the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) Regulatory Reconciliation and Cooperation Table (RCT) for the opportunity to comment on regulatory reconciliation and alignment opportunities that exist in Canada.

Registering annual sales surpassing $28 billion, exports exceeding $6.1 billion and providing direct employment for some 66,000 people in both rural and urban locations from coast to coast, the meat industry is the largest component of Canada's food processing sector.

Founded in 1919, the Canadian Meat Council represents Canada's federally registered meat packers and processors as well as the industry's numerous suppliers of equipment, technology and services. For more than 96 years the mission of the Council has been to advocate on behalf of the needs of its members to secure and improve Canada's global meat competitiveness. The vision of the member companies of the Canadian Meat Council is that "Canada is trusted as a world leader in the provision of safe and wholesome meat".

Opportunities for Regulatory Reconciliation, Alignment, and Cooperation Overview
The CMC represents members who have businesses across Canada, sometimes in multiple provinces, who trade both domestically and globally. It is a shared goal of the Canadian meat industry and the federal government1 to grow and compete globally for

1 Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Mandate Letter (November 2015); Minister of International Trade Mandate Letter (February 2017)

export markets. A barrier to increasing competitiveness and scaling up for many businesses that CMC represents is the lack of alignment across Provinces and federally on several areas of regulatory oversight.

This submission will focus on several key thematic areas where CMC feels work can be done to better align regulations to increase fairness, competitiveness, and reduce regulatory burden for its member companies.

The meat industry is one of the most regulated industries in Canada at the federal level.
Work has been done by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to modernize  and combine several regulations across food commodities into a single overarching legislation, in the Safe Food for Canadians Act and associated regulations. This is a welcome development, and provides a consistent way for all food to be regulated with a common approach to food safety, oversight and enforcement.

The meat industry is complex with many issues related to competitiveness that stretch across several key themes. The examples listed below will provide an overview of
areas that are negatively impacting CMC member businesses and unnecessarily adding to the already heavy regulatory burden.

Any effort to reduce regulatory dissonance and provide a consistent, unified approach to regulations across Canada, is a welcome development for the industry to ensure a level playing field for businesses.

Key Areas for Consideration

The Canadian Meat Council is a national industry association, and as such, can only speak at a high level about the key areas where regulatory reconciliation would have a positive impact on its member companies. Individual members will have more detailed examples of specific regulations and why they are not working. We are happy to follow up at a later time on any of these themes to provide more detailed information, or connect the RTC with individual members who may have specific issues or evidence to support these areas of consideration. In all cases, CMC feels it is important that FPT and industry stakeholders work together on this initiative. A positive example of such a collaboration has been seen in the development of national livestock traceability standards and subsequent regulations.  FPT government representatives were at the table with several industry partners to work together to solve a complex, multi- jurisdictional regulatory issue.

In late 2015, the Regulatory Sub-committee of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Value Chain Roundtables released a report regarding regulatory cooperation (attached to this submission) and the need for FPT and industry collaboration to reduce duplication or conflict when multiple levels of government appear to be regulating the same thing. The top priority of this group was for improving regulatory alignment across jurisdictions. This report was shared with FPT governments at the time, and acts as a unified starting point.

The impact on consumers and industry is difficult to quantify when speaking at a high level, but any reduction in duplication or regulatory misalignment is a positive step and will undoubtedly reduce costs to industry, and in turn allow some of those savings to be passed on to the consumer.  Consequentially, a stronger, more competitive meat industry will continue to contribute to the economy at an even higher level than currently, through further growth in domestic and export opportunities.

Food Safety
The meat industry is heavily regulated at the federal level.  To ensure the same standards are in place for all meat sold in Canada, it is important that the meat regulations and inspection systems across provinces and territories meet the internationally recognized, CODEX based high standards and inspection regime of the federal system. CMC members sell product in all provinces and territories and it should be a basic assumption that regulations placed on any meat company selling product to Canadians should be the same. This is currently not the case.

A single, consistent meat inspection and food safety system should be required by all companies that sell meat in Canada regardless if they are federally registered or provincially inspected.

Animal Health and Welfare
The meat processing industry is regulated for animal welfare based on the Health of Animals Act and regulations, with stipulations related mostly to transport and humane slaughter. The supply chain for the meat industry includes farms that provide live animals to the industry. Farm animal welfare is regulated at the provincial and territorial level, and each province and territory has its own set of regulations.

The meat industry works together with animal livestock associations as members of the National Farm Animal Care Council. This group is responsible for the development of national Codes of Practice for the welfare of various farm animal

species, and are developed by a multi-disciplinary committee made up of industry and government stakeholders along the entire supply chain.

The animal agriculture industry has taken the lead on development of these Codes for each species and farmers are held accountable for implementation of the Codes through established on-farm animal care programs that are audited by a third party. CMC members implement robust supplier assurance programs, and livestock producers are required to follow the Codes of Practice to do business.

In June 2016, prior to the Calgary meetings regarding the next Agricultural Policy Framework, a letter (attached to this submission) was sent to FPT ministers of agriculture that was co-signed by several animal agricultural and food processing associations, including CMC. This letter called for the need for a national animal health strategy and governance model that integrates federal, provincial, and industry responsibilities. The same is true today, and any move towards this goal is supported by CMC’s members.

This is a positive example of industry and government working together to implement a system of controls without significant regulatory oversight. There is no federal regulation for farm animal welfare, and provincial regulations differ across Canada, but the Codes of Practice are national standards that the majority of commercial livestock farmers follow as a requirement of doing business, but also because it is the right thing to do.

Labour Market and Employment Standards
The meat industry is not alone when it comes to labour market shortages. The industry has experienced perennial labour shortages because most establishments are located primarily in rural Canada, which has been plagued by an aging population and outmigration of youth. Migrant workers have become a lifeline — a complement to the work force that keeps those operations running. Temporary foreign workers are a Band-Aid on a problem that requires a permanent solution.

A contributing factor is the differences between provinces and territories in how things are regulated. Whether employment standards (minimum wage etc.) are different, or labour market and immigration and temporary foreign worker programs are handled differently across provinces and territories, this is a critical area of concern for the meat industry. A major factor impeding competitiveness and growth is a lack of available labour.

Consistent regulations that contribute to harmonizing an approach to the labour market and a collaborative FPT and industry approach would contribute directly to increasing opportunity for growth, competitiveness and innovation within the meat industry, but also many other agricultural and food sectors.

The themes that have been outlined above are only three key areas where FPT collaboration with industry and regulatory reconciliation would have a positive impact on the meat and other industries across Canada.  Reducing regulatory burden and conflict by aligning differences across jurisdictions is a noble goal, but needs strong leadership and expert elicitation. Involving the industry in these discussions will allow more  specific case studies and ideas on how to improve come to the forefront.  Success stories like that which has happened in livestock traceability illustrate the power and opportunity that FPT/Industry collaboration can hold.

The Canadian Meat Council thanks you for the opportunity to comment on this initiative, and if you have any specific questions or would like to discuss these comments in further detail, we are happy to contribute to the discussion at a deeper level.

Thanks again for this opportunity and the CMC and its members look forward to being involved and seeing a positive outcome.

Sincerely,

Chris White President &CEO
Canadian Meat Council

cc:	Troy Warren, Chairman, CMC
Chris Nash, Director, Regulatory Affairs, CMC

attachments:	Regulatory Sub-Committee of AAFC Value Chain Roundtables report Letter to FPT Ministers Re: Animal Health and Welfare

2015

Regulatory  SubCommittee Report to the Value Chain Roundtables All Chairs

Table of Contents

Summary	3
Introduction	7
Context	8
Cross-cutting Regulatory Issues	9
Theme A - Service-oriented Science-based Regulatory System and Assessments	10
Theme B - Leadership in Regulatory Coordination Across Jurisdictions	14
Theme C - Consistency in Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement	17
Theme D - Assurance Systems	20
Theme E - Incorporation by Reference (IbR)	24
Next Steps	26
Annex A – Regulatory SubCommittee Membership List	27
Annex B – Methodology for Accessibility, Transparency and Predictability
During Regulatory Assessments Case Study	28
Annex C – Methodology for Opening, Expanding and/or Operating a Food Processing Facility Case Study	29
Annex D – Terms of Reference for the Regulatory SubCommittee	30

Summary

A modern, science-based regulatory environment is critical to supporting a competitive, innovative and sustainable Canadian agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products sector. Canada must strive for a timely, predictable, transparent and efficient science-based regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Canadians, plants, animals and the environment while being responsive to the needs of the sector.

Many initiatives are underway to modernize the regulatory environment, including the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC);
the Red Tape Reduction initiatives; and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) and Health Canada’s (HC) regulatory modernization initiatives. While these represent important steps in creating and maintaining a modern
science-based regulatory environment, challenges still remain.

The Regulatory SubCommittee (RSC), a forum of the Value Chain Roundtables (VCRT), was created to examine cross-cutting regulatory issues impacting
the Canadian agriculture, agri-food, and agri-based products sector. The timing of this industry-government dialogue is opportune given the regulatory modernization initiatives underway and the complexity of the issues facing the sector. Early RSC discussions focussed on identifying and prioritizing cross- cutting regulatory issues. Based on these discussions, the RSC identified five themes as priority areas for further study and as a result, the RSC makes the following recommendations:

Theme A – Service-oriented Science-based Regulatory System and Assessments

2  It is crucial for those in the agriculture, agri-food, and agri-based products sector submitting products and technologies for pre-market evaluation and approval to have access to science-based regulatory assessment processes that are predictable and transparent. It is equally important to have strong communication between applicants and regulators, as applicants need to know when they can expect a final decision on their application and when, during the review process they may be called upon to respond to questions. Looking ahead, a greater number of new and innovative products are expected to emerge due to the accelerating pace of technological change. This influx of new products could increase demands on regulators and their capacity to assess new products and processes, possibly putting a strain on Canada’s regulatory capacity going forward.

It is recommended that the Government of Canada:

Maintain a science-based approach to regulatory decision-making to provide industry with a predictable, credible, consistent and transparent regulatory environment;

Establish industry-government fora as needed (similar to the Canadian Fertilizer Products Forum) to foster innovation and pathfinding in
the development and amendment of regulations and alternatives to regulations, to discuss regulatory and policy issues, and to improve collaboration;

Establish and clearly communicate service standards for key milestones in regulatory assessment processes;

Revise websites to ensure that the information required to navigate the regulatory system and to prepare complete and compliant submissions is easily accessible to all applicants, regardless of business size;

Develop a tracking tool that allows for the consolidation of information from all reviewers in the regulatory assessment processes; and

Work with industry to identify science gaps and/or increase the knowledge base of assessors on new and emerging science.

Theme B – Leadership in Regulatory Coordination Across  Jurisdictions

2 Certain areas of regulation, such as the environment, fall under the regulatory oversight of three levels of government (i.e. municipal, provincial and  federal). A lack of regulatory alignment and coordination between multiple levels of government, for example when something is deemed necessary
in one jurisdiction and not in another, may result in perceived duplication or conflict when these multiple levels of government appear to be regulating the same thing. This can lead to significant confusion and additional cost, which can be burdensome and overwhelming for businesses. This lack of alignment can also contribute to competitive imbalances between regions and provinces (e.g. waste water, particulate emissions). Furthermore,
it can hinder competitiveness and discourage investments.

It is recommended that the Government of Canada:

Expand the mandate of an existing federal/provincial/territorial (FPT) forum (e.g. FPT Ministers of Agriculture meetings) to include the alignment of federal and provincial regulatory priorities, agendas and approval processes particularly regarding science-based risk
assessment decisions (e.g. pesticide approved federally subsequently banned for use by a province) in order to obtain FPT agreement on recognition of regulatory decisions to minimize duplication and avoid regulatory dissonance;

Develop and adopt best practices to increase coordination of policy, regulatory strategies, regulatory interpretation and operations within and amongst federal departments and agencies (i.e. HC, the CFIA, the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC), the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)) and between federal and provincial departments and agencies in order to prevent making conflicting decisions; and

Work with industry and all levels of government to establish a regulatory “concierge service” to assist industry in understanding, navigating
and achieving compliance with the regulatory requirements involved in opening, expanding and/or operating agri-food facilities and infrastructure, as well as, in obtaining regulatory approvals.

Theme C – Consistency in Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement

2  Inconsistent application and enforcement of regulations by inspectors can cost industry time, money and lost productivity while resulting in inefficient use of limited public sector resources. It can also result in a competitive disadvantage for domestic versus imported products and deter investment.

It is recommended that the Government of Canada:

Implement more joint training mechanisms (such as Safe Food Canada: The Learning Partnership) to ensure that inspectors and industry (including importers) have the same understanding of regulatory requirements;

Prioritize hiring inspectors who possess industry or sector knowledge and expertise;

Ensure that consistent and clear guidance documents are available for all regulatory requirements, serving both regulators and regulated parties as common points of reference in policy interpretation, compliance monitoring and enforcement; and

Consistently consult with individual value chains/affected stakeholders to enable them to identify which regulatory requirements could become outcome-based rather than prescriptive in nature.

Theme D – Assurance Systems

2  The multitude of public and private standards that Canadian firms must meet to satisfy buyers along the value chain (which can span environmental, food safety, traceability, animal welfare or any other market-driven attribute/ consumer value claim) can be cumbersome due to potential overlaps and multiple audit systems.

It is recommended that the Government of Canada:

Work with industry to determine on a case-by-case basis whether regulations are required or whether the same outcomes can be achieved by non-regulatory alternatives (e.g. assurance systems), as required by federal regulatory policy; and

Establish terms of reference or guiding principles, in consultation with industry, to determine when government-led assurance systems should be developed to ensure they are developed only as a last resort.

Theme E – Incorporation by Reference

2 Incorporation by reference (IbR) is a broadly applicable tool to help increase the speed by which regulatory changes can be made. However, some stakeholders are uncertain as to when and for which regulatory purposes IbR will be used, how the documents will be scientifically validated and what associated impacts this will have.

It is recommended that the Government of Canada:

Use IbR in the agri-food regulatory frameworks wherever possible, subject to the required consultations with regulated parties, to encourage the development and incorporation of third party standards and codes of practice, in addition to the incorporation of instruments developed and maintained by federal regulators.

Introduction

Regulatory modernization is essential to the development of a regulatory environment that fosters innovation, supports competitiveness, enables market access and attracts investment while protecting and maintaining the health and safety of Canadians.

At present, a number of regulatory modernization initiatives are underway:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is modernizing and consolidating federal food safety regulations and introducing a single food inspection
model under the Safe Food for Canadians Act (SFCA). Key elements of  this modernization include moving toward outcome-based regulations, and
placing more emphasis on specific measurable outcomes and less emphasis on prescriptive requirements to achieve compliance, with industry-generated hazard analysis and preventive control plans to identify and prevent potential food safety issues. These activities complement inspection modernization and should lead to a safer food supply and more informed consumer choice. The CFIA has also modernized fertilizer regulations and is in the process of modernizing its feed regulations.

Health Canada (HC) continues to modernize pre-market food reviews and approvals, based on updated science and dietary guidance, and assisted by the amendments to the Food and Drugs Act (FDA) that enables the broad use of incorporation by reference (IbR) in the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR). The Regulatory Roadmap for Health Products and Food is a multi-year plan to modernize the regulatory framework for food and health products. The intent is to establish a more transparent system that enhances consumer safety, increases responsiveness to scientific developments, fosters innovation and accountability, and helps Canadians make informed choices.

Other Government of Canada regulatory modernization activities currently underway include HC’s Veterinary Drug Modernization Initiative, the Regulatory Cooperation Council to prevent and address unnecessary regulatory divergences between Canada and the United States and the implementation of the Red Tape Reduction Action Plan to reduce regulatory burden on businesses.

Context

The Regulatory SubCommittee (RSC) was created by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s (AAFC) Value Chain Roundtables (VCRT) All Chairs in February 2013, when it was recognized that there were a number of cross-cutting/systemic regulatory issues shared among agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products sub-sectors and their respective supply chains. The RSC held its inaugural meeting in October 2013.

Building on the earlier work of the Agri-Innovators Committee1 (AIC), the RSC was given a time-limited mandate of two years to report back to the VCRT All Chairs with its findings and recommendations.

Members of the RSC included representatives from 12 of the 13 sector- specific VCRT (beef, food processing, grains, horticulture, organics, pork, pulses, seafood, seeds, sheep, bioproducts and special crops), as well as a representative from dairy and poultry. There was no representative from the Bee Health Roundtable (See Annex A for a complete list of RSC members). Representatives from the CFIA, the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC),  HC and AAFC also provided support to the RSC.

The aim of the RSC was to:

Allow discussions on regulatory modernization and cross-cutting solutions to increase the predictability, transparency and efficiency of the regulatory system; and

Provide informed advice to the CFIA, the CGC and HC on the elaboration and implementation of regulations and their related programs affecting the sector.

1 The Committee had a two-year mandate and was tasked with looking at various aspects of innovation with a view to advancing the development and adoption of innovation to make the sector more profitable, competitive and sustainable.

Cross-cutting Regulatory Issues

RSC members decided that due to limited time and resources, its report would not include issues being addressed in other fora (e.g. interprovincial trade), or through legislative and regulatory modernization initiatives of HC and the CFIA (particularly in the area of food safety and inspection). The RSC undertook an issue prioritization exercise based on issues put forward by the AIC, as well as, those identified by RSC members. In evaluating each issue, the RSC determined whether the issue was: horizontal/cross-cutting; within the federal government’s jurisdiction; regulatory in nature; as a result of outdated regulatory requirements; or being addressed via another initiative/mechanism; etc.

As a result of this exercise, the following key themes were identified by the RSC for further study (key themes each encompass a number of specific issues studied by the RSC):

Theme A – Service-oriented Science-based Regulatory System and Assessments

Theme B – Leadership in Regulatory Coordination Across Jurisdictions Theme C – Consistency in Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Theme D – Assurance Systems
Theme E – Incorporation by Reference

In the latter stages of the RSC discussions, the issue of zero tolerance for poisonous or harmful substances in or on foods pursuant to paragraph 4(1)(a)  of the FDA was raised. Although this is an important cross-cutting issue for  food importers and manufacturers, it did not fall within the scope of the above- mentioned themes, therefore this report makes no recommendation other than to encourage industry and HC to work together to find a resolution, facilitated by additional discussions in the Agri-Subcommittee on Food Safety and various roundtables whose members may wish to assign a priority to this issue.

Theme A

Service-oriented Science-based Regulatory System and Assessments Issue
It is crucial for those in the agriculture, agri-food, and agri-based products sector submitting products and technologies for pre-market evaluation and approval to have access to science-based regulatory assessment processes that are predictable and transparent. It is equally important to have strong communication between applicants and regulators, as applicants need to know when they can expect a final decision on their application and when, during
the review process they may be called upon to respond to questions. Looking ahead, a greater number of new and innovative products are expected to emerge due to the accelerating pace of technological change. This influx of new products could increase demands on regulators and their capacity to assess new products and processes, possibly putting a strain on Canada’s regulatory capacity going forward.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Government of Canada:

Maintain a science-based approach to regulatory decision-making to provide industry with a predictable, credible, consistent and transparent regulatory environment;

Establish industry-government fora as needed (similar to the Canadian Fertilizer Products Forum) to foster innovation and pathfinding in
the development and amendment of regulations and alternatives to regulations, to discuss regulatory and policy issues, and to improve collaboration;

Establish and clearly communicate service standards for key milestones in regulatory assessment processes;

Revise websites to ensure that the information required to navigate the regulatory system and to prepare complete and compliant submissions is easily accessible to all applicants, regardless of business size;

Develop a tracking tool that allows for the consolidation of information from all reviewers in regulatory assessment processes; and

Work with industry to identify science gaps and/or increase the knowledge base of assessors on new and emerging science.

Summary of RSC Discussions

There needs to be greater accessibility, transparency and predictability in regulatory assessments as a lack thereof negatively impacts business planning. For example, limited transparency related to service standards and the communication of progress to applicants during the pre-market assessment process negatively affects the applicant’s ability to coordinate product launches, inform end users when new products will be available, and make investment decisions. It can also be unclear to applicants what services exist; where to access these services as well as other information/guidance; what legislative and regulatory requirements they are subject to; which science is being used
in the regulatory assessment process; and what information is required to prepare a complete and compliant submission. An accessible, transparent, and predictable regulatory environment would maintain and attract investment and encourage innovation to keep Canada competitive with other jurisdictions.

A case study was commissioned to examine the accessibility, transparency, and predictability measures in place (e.g. service standards and communication practices with the applicants throughout the regulatory assessment process), using novel plant products (i.e. plants with novel traits, novel feeds and novel foods) in Canada as a proxy for regulatory assessment processes and compare them with transparency measures in other countries including Australia, Brazil and the United States. The case study also compared the service standard and information sharing measures of the regulatory assessment process for novel plant products in Canada to the Canadian approval processes for fertilizers and pesticides.

The case study identified several best practices for communicating with applicants during the regulatory approval process such as:

Strong Industry/Government Relationship

There is a relationship between an applicant’s satisfaction with the predictability of an application process and the overall state of industry- government relations. Where the industry-government relationship is strong, it appears that these two groups are able to work through issues at a
policy or structural level before they become problems for applicants and reviewers.

Service Standards and Clear Processes

Applicants believe service standards, combined with a clear process, are the best tools to provide predictability in the regulatory assessment process. Where service standards exist and are adhered to, particularly where they are broken down into key milestones, applicants can readily calculate, at any given time,   the status of their application. Applicants also rely on their knowledge of the regulatory process in order to gauge where an application might be at any given time, therefore processes that best satisfy applicants’ needs for predictability are those that are clear, well documented and easy to follow.

Tracking Tools

Given their complexity, most applications will go through various stages of review and may undergo more than one scientific review, often at the same time. It is therefore very important for regulatory agencies to have tools that allow them to consolidate information from various screeners and reviewers on any given application. These tools then support the agency’s ability to provide that information to applicants.

Single Regulator/Single Focus

Related to having a clear and simple process, is the concept of having a single regulator for a regulatory system. Regulatory approval systems are inherently complex. It appears that the more focused the group or agency reviewing the application, the easier it is for applicants to understand the process and determine the status of their application.

User Fees

User fees can be effective in providing predictability when they are tied to service standards and those standards are met. As user fees increase, so do the expectations for greater accountability and improved service delivery to better reflect the pace of business.

User fees should also be in line with those charged for similar services in other jurisdictions. User fees that are misaligned and higher than those for similar services in other jurisdictions can result in a competitive disadvantage for Canadian companies, especially for small and medium sized companies as they tend to be more impacted by user fees than the larger companies.

Service Standards under the User Fees Act

In Canada, regulators are held accountable to meet their service standards, based
on the requirements of the User Fees Act and the Treasury Board Policy on Service Standards for External Fees. In fact, those who pay user fees for government services are entitled to fundamental information
on the services being provided and any associated service standards. These service standards need to be

measurable, relevant and developed in consultation with paying and non-paying stakeholders. When regulators do not meet a service standard for a given fiscal year by a percentage greater than 10 per cent, that user fee will be reduced by a percentage equivalent to the unachieved performance, up to a maximum of 50 per cent, until the next annual report is tabled in Parliament.

The case study revealed that applicants need information on the timing of their regulatory assessments to support their business planning. Applicants prefer systems that are simple, clear, well documented and provide clear expectations.

These findings are consistent with the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management (CDRM) which requires federal departments and agencies to: maintain high levels of professionalism in their interactions with affected Canadians, including businesses; develop and publish service standards; and clarify information requirements and processes.

The Canadian Fertilizer Products Forum – Best Practice

In Canada, industry groups and regulators speak highly of the collaboration that exists between the Fertilizer Safety Section of the CFIA and both the fertilizer and inoculants sectors. However, the state of the industry- government relationship has not always been what it is today.

The early 2000’s were difficult times for the Canadian fertilizer industry. Individual
companies were facing significant backlogs in fertilizer registrations while industry and government representatives were working through a combative relationship. In
2006, after a series of broad industry and government consultations, the Canadian fertilizer industry launched the Canadian

Fertilizer Products Forum (CFPF) to discuss and address regulatory
issues and opportunities, and provide centered, consensus-based advice to the government.

The CFPF has become a hub for industry- government dialogue. It has created
a venue for industry and the CFIA to discuss regulatory and policy issues in a collaborative manner and, through that, to build a healthy working relationship. It has also fostered a level of government- industry mutual transparency through its annual conference, training sessions and working committees.

Theme B

Leadership in Regulatory Coordination Across  Jurisdictions

Issue
Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction between the federal and provincial/territorial levels of government in Canada. Furthermore, at the federal level, multiple departments are involved in agricultural issues (i.e. the CFIA; AAFC; HC; Environment Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency; Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada).

Certain areas of regulation, such as the environment, fall under the regulatory oversight of three levels of government (municipal, provincial and federal).
A lack of regulatory alignment and coordination between multiple levels of government, for example, when something is deemed necessary in one jurisdiction and not in another, may result in perceived duplication or conflict when these multiple levels of government appear to be regulating the same thing. This can lead to significant confusion and additional cost, which can be burdensome and overwhelming for businesses. This lack of alignment can also contribute to competitive imbalances between regions and provinces (e.g. waste water, particulate emissions). Furthermore, it can hinder competitiveness and discourage investments.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Government of Canada:

Expand the mandate of an existing federal/provincial/territorial (FPT) forum (e.g. FPT Ministers of Agriculture meetings) to include the alignment of federal and provincial regulatory priorities, agendas and approval processes, particularly regarding science-based risk
assessment decisions (e.g. pesticide approved federally subsequently banned for use by a province) in order to obtain FPT agreement on recognition of regulatory decisions to minimize duplication and avoid regulatory dissonance;

Develop and adopt best practices to increase coordination of policy, regulatory strategies, regulatory interpretation and operations within and amongst federal departments and agencies (i.e. HC, the CFIA, the CGC, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency) and between federal and provincial departments and agencies in order to prevent making conflicting decisions; and

Work with industry and all levels of government to establish a regulatory

“concierge service” to assist industry in understanding, navigating and achieving compliance with the regulatory requirements involved in opening, expanding and/or operating agri-food facilities and infrastructure, as well as, in obtaining regulatory approvals.

Summary of RSC Discussions

In Canada, there is no single source of information on regulations. Challenges associated with navigating the web of regulations and the lack of regulatory coordination between federal/provincial/municipal governments have been cited as a deterrent to new business investments as it can be time consuming and resource intensive for companies to determine which approvals are required
(e.g. regulatory approvals, zoning, environmental approvals) and from which level of government they are required when trying to secure land and approval for new facilities. In certain cases, businesses are required to hire consultants to help them navigate the tangled web of multi-level regulatory requirements.

In certain circumstances regulations and regulatory priorities not only between federal departments, but also between federal/provincial/municipal jurisdictions could be better coordinated/aligned if a forum in which to discuss these issues existed. For example, a pesticide can be approved at the federal level, but subsequently banned for cosmetic or crop protection use at the provincial level. In addition, provincial and municipal government interventions have deviated from federal policy and regulatory approvals. Increased leadership and the alignment of forward regulatory agendas would also increase accountability and facilitate regulatory cooperation.

A case study was undertaken to examine the business impacts of the overlap and intersection of regulatory requirements at the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government by looking at the regulatory processes required to open, expand and/or operate food processing facilities. A key finding of the case study was that it is difficult to determine whether the regulatory challenges that businesses experience actually stem from the overlap and conflict of regulations at the federal, provincial and municipal levels or the perceived duplication or contradictions when these multiple levels of government appear to be requesting the same information because businesses focus more broadly on the regulatory requirements with which they must comply, as opposed to the particular government department and/or agency that is enforcing them.

Throughout the case study, the following factors were identified as contributing a sense that regulatory overlap and conflict between levels of government exists: the inconsistent enforcement of regulations by inspectors; a lack of a “service culture”; poor coordination with and between levels of government; and limited industry familiarity with regulatory processes.

Researchers undertaking the case study identified several implications for

industry and government:

Implications for Industry

Significant time is required to navigate the regulatory process. Businesses not possessing the resources to manage these processes often have to engage external support in the form of a consultant or trusted agency employee.

Exploring the regulatory landscape is an important step before finalizing a business decision that will result in a new or reformulated product and/or process.

A regulatory “concierge service”, or other means to proactively develop and share knowledge designed to foster collaboration between industry and regulatory agencies would be valuable. A similar role is played in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Agencies whose responsibilities or mandates overlap and have historically worked in unison may not continue to do so. If one agency (e.g. HC) modifies its regulations or processes, its related agency (e.g. the CFIA) may not be aware of or recognize the changes. Proactive inter-agency communication is essential for mitigating these inconsistencies.

Implications for Government

Consultation is imperative to better understand how industry perceives regulatory overlaps and conflicts, and its causes. Without this knowledge it is difficult for regulators to establish the appropriate proactive communication channels.

Government needs to partner with industry to improve information sharing.
The recent pilots between the Government of Ontario and the Bloom Centre were identified as best practices.

Government should work with industry to establish a regulatory “concierge service” to help navigate the regulatory system and promote best practices.

Investigate where single reporting windows, such as that established for Environment Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting (MER) can be replicated.

Theme C

Consistency in Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement

Issue
Inconsistent application and enforcement of regulations by inspectors can cost industry time, money and lost productivity while resulting in inefficient use of limited public sector resources. It can also result in a competitive disadvantage for domestic versus imported products and deter investment.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Government of Canada:

Implement more joint training mechanisms (such as Safe Food Canada: The Learning Partnership) to ensure that inspectors and industry (including importers) have the same understanding of regulatory requirements;

Prioritize hiring inspectors who possess industry or sector knowledge and expertise;

Ensure that consistent and clear guidance documents are available for  all regulatory requirements, serving both regulators and regulated parties as common points of reference in policy interpretation, compliance monitoring and enforcement; and

Consistently consult with individual value chain/affected stakeholders to enable them to identify which regulatory requirements could become outcome-based rather than prescriptive in nature.

Summary of RSC Discussions

There is a need for greater transparency and consistency in the application and enforcement of domestic regulations. The inconsistent application of regulations by inspectors can result in vastly different and varied requirements and enforcement practices across the sector, sometimes even across facilities within the same company located in different municipalities or provinces. This lack of consistency costs industry time and money. Furthermore, it becomes a deterrent for business expansion and investment, impacting economic growth and job creation.

Similarly, there is also a need to ensure the consistent application of regulatory requirements at the border. Importers need to be better educated on the regulatory requirements and required level of rigour to ensure that foreign products are equivalent to domestic products. Otherwise, it can result in an unequal playing field creating a competitive disadvantage for domestic versus imported products. For example, pesticides that have been approved in the United States, but not in

Canada, can be used on crops grown in the United States. These crops can then be imported into Canada. However, the same pesticide cannot be used on crops grown in Canada. Similarly, there are food safety intervention tools that are available in the United States that are not yet approved and commercially available in Canada.

Close collaboration between government and industry, including joint training sessions, could lead to better training and competency development for inspectors and auditors, as well as a more consistent understanding of regulatory requirements by inspectors and industry. Alternative Service Delivery for seed crop inspection and Safe Food Canada: The Learning Partnership are examples of standardized and joint government/industry training sessions.

Alternative Service Delivery for Seed Crop Inspection

Budget 2012 announced the reduction of the CFIA direct delivery of seed crop inspection. Alternative Service Delivery (ASD) for seed crop inspection was subsequently developed by an Industry-
Government Working Group made up of industry and CFIA representatives. In 2014, ASD was rolled out for nearly 90 per cent of the seed crops inspected. This meant over 15,000 fields and over 1.0 million acres were inspected by inspectors licensed by the CFIA and through service providers authorized by the CFIA. Those inspections spanned the provinces from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island.

To accomplish that level of transition in the first year required a lot of work by industry and government in 2013 and 2014 leading

up to the inspection season.  Included in that work was the training and licensing of some 288 seed crop inspectors across all regions of Canada. Previously, local CFIA offices would have trained staff
on-hand and/or train seasonal staff for the inspections in their region.  However, in 2013 and early 2014, CFIA trained inspectors working for service providers spanning several regions. This exposed the variations in training, compliance, interpretation and monitoring from region to region.  It resulted in the need to standardize training and the interpretation
of training documents so training would be delivered and compliance interpretations would be consistent across the country.

Safe Food Canada: The Learning Partnership

Canada is considered a world leader in food safety, but opportunities exist to collaboratively improve food safety
training and learning to reduce duplication, inconsistencies and training gaps.

An advisory panel consisting of government and industry representatives has proposed the creation of “Safe Food Canada: The Learning Partnership” to facilitate collaboration across the food sector and academia to:

Define food safety tasks and the competencies required to perform those functions, and quantify labour market needs for food safety workers;

Foster development of courses and programs providing the needed competencies;

Maintain a learning inventory of educational programs, courses, products and tools that have gone through a quality review process to confirm they result in acquisition of the needed competencies;

Facilitate outreach and partnerships to support small and medium-sized business in meeting food safety requirements; and

Facilitate partnerships within the food sector and with academia to support learning and best practices in food safety.

Moving from prescriptive regulations to outcome-based regulations in certain areas will constitute a paradigm shift. Although the increased flexibility afforded by outcome-based regulations will be welcomed by many regulated parties, without proper guidance (models/examples, training, outside expertise, etc.), the lack of prescriptive requirements to achieve compliance could increase the level of uncertainty/misunderstanding for others, particularly for companies that were not previously federally registered, small and medium-sized enterprises or new entrants/start-ups. It could also lead to inconsistent enforcement by inspectors and auditors.

Theme D

Assurance Systems

Issue
The multitude of public and private standards that Canadian firms must meet to satisfy buyers along the value chain (which can span environmental, food safety, traceability, animal welfare or any other market-driven attribute/consumer value claim) can be cumbersome due to potential overlaps and multiple audit systems.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Government of Canada:

Work with industry to determine on a case-by-case basis whether regulations are required or whether the same outcomes can be achieved by non-regulatory alternatives (e.g. assurance systems), as required by federal regulatory policy; and

Establish terms of reference or guiding principles, in consultation with industry, to determine when government-led assurance systems should be developed to ensure they are developed only as a last resort.

Summary of RSC Discussions

The Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management requires federal departments and agencies to consider other potentially suitable alternatives to regulations
(e.g. assurance systems), to achieve their policy objectives.

Assurance systems, either voluntary or mandatory, can be developed by governments (public standards) or by non-governmental organizations (private standards). Even though private standards in the agriculture, agri-food, and agri-based products sector existed prior to the early 1990s, their popularity has
risen markedly since then. Private entities (e.g. major food companies and other non-governmental organizations) have been playing a greater role in applying new rules and standards to the sector.

Private standards are becoming a prominent feature in today’s global value chains to meet buyer/consumer demands for non-health and non-safety attributes. The development and enforcement of these private standards is outpacing government response, therefore the role governments should exercise in assurance systems should be examined, particularly in the interest of effective use of scarce public sector resources. Although governments may not always need to play a role in developing assurance systems when food safety is not
at stake, government oversight of the certification of private standards-based assurance systems could still be warranted in some cases to increase the

credibility of the system and therefore allow Canadian exporters access to certain foreign markets. Furthermore, when government oversight is needed, it should be adjusted following a risk-based assessment (i.e. less government
oversight should be needed when a company has adopted, and is in compliance with, an appropriate assurance system).

On-Farm Food Safety Programs

To respond to consumer demands and concerns, government initiatives, the actions of foreign competitors, and to demonstrate that Canadian food is among the safest in the world, the agricultural community worked with the CFIA, AAFC and provincial and territorial governments to develop and recognize On-Farm Food Safety Programs. These programs provide government recognition of On-Farm Food Safety Systems developed by national (or equivalent) industry organizations. These programs are:

Producer-led, national and accessible

Commodity-specific

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)-based and auditable by accredited third party auditors

Consistent, modular and expandable

Recognized in Canada

Internationally accepted (International Organization for Standardization (ISO)- based criteria)

Affordable and practical

The On-Farm Food Safety Programs are voluntary from the CFIA’s perspective, however, some national producer and industry organizations are making them mandatory for their members.

Another good example of an assurance system supported by regulation can be found in the Canadian organic sector.

Canada Organic Regime

The Organic Products Regulations, 2009 (OPR), which were made under the Canadian Agricultural Products Act, came into force on June 30, 2009. The
regulations were based in part on Codex Alimentarius standards and were expressly developed to:

Protect consumers against misleading or deceptive labelling practices;

Reduce consumer confusion about the definition of organic;

Facilitate the access of Canadian organic products to foreign markets that require regulatory oversight; and

Support further development of the domestic market.

The OPR established specific requirements for organic products labelled as organic
in international or interprovincial trade, or that bear the official Canada Organic logo. These requirements include adherence to Canada’s national organic standards and “permitted substances lists”, developed

by sector stakeholders and published through the Canadian General Standards Board. This incorporation by reference allows Canada’s organic standards to be updated as needed without re-opening the regulations. The regulations of the organic assurance system have also allowed for equivalency arrangements to be struck with major trading partners, vastly increasing market access for Canadian organic products and producers.

In addition to labelling rules and the incorporation of the organic standards, the OPR also describe the roles
and responsibly for compliance and enforcement, and designate third-party verification. The CFIA is the government body responsible for the monitoring  and enforcement of the OPR. Under the Canada Organic Regime, Certification Bodies are accredited based on the
recommendation of Conformity Verification Bodies that are designated by the CFIA. The Certification Bodies are responsible for verifying the application of the Canadian Organic Standards by all operators.

A case study of the Canadian Grain Commission’s (CGC) Canadian Identity Preserved Recognition System (CIPRS), an industry-led initiative that saw the Canadian Seed Institute (CSI) partner with the CGC (government agency) to enhance the program’s credibility, was undertaken in order to identify best practices/lessons learned. Some of the lessons learned and best practices from CIPRS include:

Prior to establishing a voluntary assurance system, there should be industry endorsement/recognition of the need for a national branding strategy coupled with a competitive need (for example, when assurance systems  are already in place in other countries).

Ongoing collaboration with industry from the outset is imperative to explain the value of the assurance system certification for buyers.

Consultation with industry should be ongoing to fully understand their needs and make the necessary adaptations/changes to the assurance system.

There needs to be ongoing diligence in maintaining the integrity of the assurance system, i.e. the proper checks and balances need to be in place.

Partnerships are invaluable, for example, the CGC had the experience and credibility in the grain industry while the CSI had the experience in
process verification and auditing (which did not exist in the CGC prior to the development of CIPRS).

There should be a stable source of funding/revenues to ensure the continuity of the assurance system.

A cost effective service delivery model should be used, for example, the use of accredited third-parties means that CIPRS can be delivered by only one full-time equivalent.

Use existing resources where possible, for example, international standards
(e.g. ISO) as a starting point.

The case study revealed that there is another way of doing business that is proving to be effective. In certain cases, it might be more effective and efficient for the government to allow the private sector to assume responsibility for the certification process while adding credibility to the process by maintaining the ability to accredit the certification body and to conduct audits.

Canadian Identity Preserved Recognition System (CIPRS) Case Study

CIPRS is a voluntary program that certifies that a company’s identity preserved system for the production, handling and transportation of specialty grains, oilseeds or pulses is effective. The objective of the CIPRS is to provide buyers of specialized grains and oilseeds with an enhanced level of assurance that products from Canadian suppliers will meet their specific needs (safe, high-quality, traceable products).

As part of the CIPRS program, a grain company documents and demonstrates

processes that control handling from the grower through to labelling and shipping. CIPRS focuses on process control as the best means to ensure a grain company can deliver the right product to its customer every time.

CIPRS ensures a company’s identity preserved quality management system meets the standard, which is designed to be compatible with quality management systems such as the ISO.

Theme E

Incorporation by Reference

Issue
Incorporation by reference (IbR) is a broadly applicable tool to help increase the speed by which regulatory changes can be made. However, some stakeholders are uncertain as to when and for which regulatory purposes IbR will be used, how the documents will be scientifically validated and what associated impacts this will have.

IbR is a drafting technique that allows regulators to include the content of a document or list into a regulation without having to reproduce the document in its entirety in the regulation itself. IbR may be ‘static’ or ‘ambulatory’.

Static – the document is incorporated as it exists at the time it is made part of the regulation, any subsequent amendments to the incorporated document will not be part of the regulations.

Ambulatory – any subsequent amendments to the incorporated document after incorporation will become part of the regulations.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Government of Canada:

Use IbR in the agri-food regulatory frameworks wherever possible, subject to the required consultations with regulated parties, to encourage the development and incorporation of third party standards and codes of practice, in addition to the incorporation of instruments developed and maintained by federal regulators.

Summary of RSC Discussions

The SFCA and the Agricultural Growth Act provide the CFIA with the statutory authority to incorporate documents by reference into the corresponding regulations. Some of the potential benefits of IbR, include: increasing the efficiency of the regulatory system by saving time and resources by reducing the need for regulatory amendments; allowing for timely updates to address emerging health risks, new scientific evidence, changes in marketplace practices or shifts in consumer demand; facilitating harmonization with international obligations, other federal legislation and provincial regulations, etc.

Guidance principles put forward by the CFIA for internal and third-party documents to be incorporated, namely: accessibility, transparency, consistency, reasonableness and clarity, demonstrates its commitment to accountability, communication and transparency throughout the IbR process.

The CFIA clarified that it will take into consideration several factors, including whether the content of the document is widely accepted and the rigour (scientific, technical, and other) with which it was developed prior to proposing it for IbR. Information regarding these factors will form part of the rationale to be included in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement which will be made available for consultation with stakeholders.

HC’s Food Directorate already has experience using IbR as a result of amendments to the FDA, which received Royal Assent on June 29, 2012, granting it the authority to incorporate standards, schedules and other administrative lists by reference into the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR) and the Marketing Authorizations (Ministerial regulations). According
to the 2012 amendments to the FDA, HC may only use IbR pursuant to Governor in Council regulations (formal regulatory amendments), or Ministerial regulations (such as Marketing Authorizations), and in accordance with federal regulatory policy and World Trade Organization notification. HC was thus able to migrate and expand Division 16 of the FDR to an administrative list of approved food additives and approved uses as a result of IbR in order to enable more timely revisions as warranted outside of the formal regulatory amendment process.

The CFIA is working closely with HC to learn from their experience, both in using the incorporation power, and how to effectively manage changes to the documents after incorporation. In addition, the CFIA and HC are working on a joint IbR Policy, which will be applied in the design of regulatory modernization initiatives under both the SFCA and the FDA.

Whereas documents that are incorporated by reference become part of the regulations, these documents are therefore subject to all the checks and balances and the same rigor of scrutiny as the regulations into which they are incorporated. Regulators must abide by the requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act and the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management.

Next Steps

This report is the culmination of almost two years of efforts from the RSC members, who worked to identify, define, prioritize and study cross-cutting regulatory issues impacting the Canadian agriculture, agri-food, and agri-based products sector. As a result of these efforts, the RSC is pleased to submit
this report and accompanying recommendations to the VCRT All Chairs for its review, consideration and implementation, in keeping with the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the RSC (See Annex D for ToR) .

Annex A – Regulatory SubCommittee (RSC) Membership List

Committee Co-chairs	Organization	Sector	
Andrew Goldstein	Director General, Policy Planning and Integration Directorate - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada		
Gordon Harrison	President, Canadian National Millers Association	Grains	
Industry Members			
Dale Adolphe	Canadian Seed Growers’ Association	Seeds	
Mike Cey	Ag-West Bio Inc.	Bioproducts	
Jackie Crichton	Dairy Processors Association of Canada	Dairy	
Luce Daigneault	Fédération interdisciplinaire de l’horticulture
ornementale du Québec	Horticulture	
Mike Dungate	Chicken Farmers of Canada	Poultry	
Vicki Dutton	Pulse and Seed Producer	Pulses	
Matthew Holmes	Canadian Organic Trade Association	Organic	
Chris Kyte/George Paterson	Food Processors of Canada	Food Processors	
Ryder Lee	Canadian Cattlemen’s Association	Beef	
Rory McAlpine	Maple Leaf Foods Inc.	Pork	
Patrick McGuinness	Fisheries Council of Canada	Seafood	
Corlena Patterson	Canadian Sheep Federation	Sheep	
Pierre Petelle/Ian Affleck	CropLife Canada	Special Crops	
Suzanne Sabourin	Canadian Meat Council	Livestock Processing	

Annex B – Methodology for Accessibility, Transparency and Predictability During Regulatory Assessments Case Study

The case study examined the communication aspects of nine regulatory assessment processes that fall within six regulatory systems to determine whether an applicant is able to obtain clear and timely information on the status of their application. The nine regulatory assessment processes examined are:

Plants with Novel Traits – Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) - Canada

Novel Feed – CFIA - Canada

Novel Food – Health Canada - Canada

Genetically Modified Organisms – Office of the Gene Technology Regulator - Australia

Genetically Modified Foods – Food Standards Australia New Zealand - Australia

Genetically Modified Organisms and By-products – Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança - Brazil

Biotech Crops – United States Department of Agriculture - United States

Fertilizers – CFIA - Canada

Pesticides – Pest Management Regulatory Agency - Canada

In examining each of these processes, the consultant examined whether: the regulator has identified and published pre-defined events that will trigger communication to the applicant about the status of an application; there is a
proactive flow of information from the regulator to the applicant regarding the status of their application; and the applicant is able to make contact with the regulator, when he or she wants, to obtain information about the status of an application in a timely manner.

During the case study, the consultant:

researched and identified what information was publicly available regarding the communication of information to the applicant about the status of an application;

interviewed 18 industry representatives (working for companies or industry trade associations) with experience in each of the regulatory processes to understand their experience regarding communication from the regulator
– proactive and applicant initiated - about the status of an application; and

interviewed at least one representative from each of the relevant regulatory agencies (interviewed 14 in total) to understand the regulator expectations, experience, and limitations in providing information on the status of applications.

Annex C – Methodology for Opening, Expanding and/or Operating a Food Processing Facility Case Study

During the course of the case study, the consultant conducted: a literature review (published reports, and academic journal articles); confidential interviews with eight recognized experts from the food processing industry, industry organizations, and government; and interviews of five food processors, to determine regulatory overlaps or conflicts and their impact on businesses.

The five food processors that participated in the case study were from the bakery, processed produce and starches sectors. Two of the participating companies were small, employing approximately 35 people, while the other participating companies were bigger, employing hundreds of people. The annual sales of these companies ranged from $3 million to over $10 million and all but one company had multiple sites, with their secondary sites being in a different province or in the United States.

Annex D – Terms of Reference for the Regulatory SubCommittee

Introduction

A modern, science-based regulatory environment is critical to supporting  a competitive, innovative and sustainable agriculture and agri-food sector in Canada. Canada must strive for a predictable, transparent and efficient regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Canadians, plants, animals and the environment while being responsive to the needs of the
industry. Given the complexity and interrelatedness of the issues facing the sector, there is a need for the identification of solutions to key horizontal regulatory issues.

Canada’s agriculture and food regulatory framework is currently undergoing significant and extensive modernization that is strongly supported by industry. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) modernization of its regulatory and inspection regimes aims to improve consistency, reduce complexity and strengthen consumer protection. Given that many of the CFIA’s regulations are being reviewed and modernized, it is timely for industry to identify and achieve consensus on those key elements of a modern regulatory environment to move the sector forward.

Efforts are also underway across the Agriculture and Agri-Food portfolio to reform the crop sector by streamlining and modernizing operations and reducing the burden on producers.

Other Government of Canada regulatory modernization activities currently underway include Health Canada’s (HC) Veterinary Drug Modernization Initiative, the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council and the implementation of the Red Tape Reduction Action Plan.

The CFIA’s regulatory modernization is taking place within roughly the same time frame as the implementation of the United States Food Safety Modernization Act, that is bringing forth new food regulation and guidance documents that are applicable to imports of Canadian food products.

Context

Current sector-specific Value Chain Roundtables (VCRTs) include: beef, food processing, grains, horticulture, organics, pork, pulses, seafood, seeds, sheep and special crops2. Given the number of regulatory modernization initiatives underway, it is an opportune time for a broader discussion on the horizontal elements of a modern regulatory system that would foster industry competitiveness and innovation while maintaining and improving the current levels of health, safety and environmental protection.

2 Since the adoption of the Terms of Reference by RSC members in October 2013, a new VCRT was created for bioproducts.

When the VCRT Co-Chairs met at the annual All Chairs Meeting in February 2013, regulatory challenges were raised and it was agreed to create a Regulatory SubCommittee (RSC) to develop a partnership approach between industry and government to discuss cross-cutting/systemic improvements  that may be made to the federal regulatory systems for the benefit of the entire
sector. It was agreed that it is timely and appropriate to establish a new forum to facilitate:

discussion among the 11 sector roundtables on regulatory modernization and cross-cutting solutions to increase the predictability, transparency and efficiency of the regulatory system; and

informed advice to the CFIA, the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) and HC on the elaboration and implementation of regulations and their related programs affecting the sector.

The Agri-Innovators Committee (AIC) – a committee that provides advice to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on various aspects of innovation for the sector with a view to advancing the development and adoption of innovation  to make the sector more profitable, competitive and sustainable – was also supportive of the establishment of the RSC. The AIC has agreed to submit all cross-cutting regulatory issues it identified to the RSC for further review.

Scope and Mandate

The RSC is intended to be a solutions-oriented forum to look at cross-cutting/ systemic changes that need to be made to the system. The RSC will explore cross-cutting regulatory issues identified by the RSC, the VCRTs and those already identified by the AIC including:

government role in evaluating efficacy

regulatory collaboration and alignment with key partners (Incorporation by Reference, outcome-based, alternatives to regulations, e.g. standards)

optimizing use of tools to increase regulatory efficiency

maintaining a science-based regulatory system

improving the interface between regulators and regulated (e.g. increasing transparency and predictability)

novelty as a regulatory trigger for plants with novel traits

small business constraints for compliance

industry capacity to contribute to the regulatory process (and adapt to regulatory change)

the cumulative compliance burden on industry resulting from overlap of regulations at the municipal, provincial and federal levels

The details of the mandate will be confirmed at the first meeting of the RSC.

Operating Principles

Proposed operating principles for the RSC include:

RSC would have a time-limited mandate and will prepare a formal report with recommendations for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food;

RSC will focus on systemic and/or horizontal regulatory issues; (specific regulatory issues will be handled directly with regulators or through a specific or multiple VCRTs);

Initial membership will include an industry member from each VCRT, plus Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), HC and the CFIA. The RSC will determine how to engage provincial and territorial governments;

The CFIA and HC are committed to providing subject matter expertise and resources to participate in RSC discussions;

RSC will consider the issues raised in the AIC regulatory backgrounder and leverage work underway in other forums (e.g. AIC, VCRTs);

RSC will use quantitative analysis (e.g. benchmarking) where appropriate, to assist in defining the issues and potential optimum solutions;

RSC will use a similar format as the one used for VCRTs (i.e. industry/ government co-chair model, with secretariat services provided by AAFC);

RSC will operate in the same cost-efficient manner as other VCRTs and their committees, and will therefore hold face-to-face meetings only when necessary; and

Decisions with respect to the membership of the RSC will be at the discretion of the co-chairs.

**Note that each VCRT will still be responsible for exploring regulatory issues that are specific to their committee.

Delivered via E-mail

June 28, 2016

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Hon. Norm Letnick Minister of Agriculture British Columbia

Hon. Oneil Carlier
Minister of Agriculture & Forestry Alberta

Hon. Lyle Stewart Minister of Agriculture Saskatchewan

Hon. Ralph Eichler Minister of Agriculture Manitoba

Hon. Jeff Leal
Minister of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Ontario

Hon. Pierre Paradis Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Quebec

Hon. Rick Doucet  Minister of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fisheries New Brunswick

Hon. Keith Colwell Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture Nova Scotia

Hon. Christopher Mitchelmore  Minister Responsible for the Forestry & Agrifoods Agency
Newfoundland & Labrador

Hon. Alan McIsaac
Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries Prince Edward Island

Hon. Bob McLeod
Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment Northwest Territories

Hon. Scott Kent Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources Yukon

Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk
Minister of Economic Development and Transportation
Nunavut

2

Dear Ministers:

Re: Animal Health – the Opportunity in Calgary

Animal agriculture contributes 50% of farm income in Canada. This is the foundation of a value chain that generated $27.4 billion in meat and poultry production in 2015, the largest component of Canadian food manufacturing. In turn, the beef and pork industries export 40- 60% of production with $5.62 billion in export earnings in 2015. The animal agriculture value chain, including live animal production plus meat, poultry and dairy processing, provides over 200 thousand full time jobs to Canadians with plenty of global growth potential thanks to new trade agreements.

Nothing is more foundational to our success as an industry than animal health. In recent years we have learned some powerful lessons in this regard through outbreaks of high pathogenic Avian Influenza in poultry, BSE and Blue Tongue in beef cattle, Circovirus, H1N1 and PEDv in hogs and Scrapie in sheep. It is estimated that BSE directly cost governments $2.1 billion and caused total economic damage of $7.3 billion. One estimate suggests a large scale infectious foreign animal disease (FAD) outbreak like Foot and Mouth Disease could cost Canada $58 billion (in 2014 dollars). Increasingly the disease risks we face are zoonotic, i.e. transmissible between animals and humans, and so have equally profound implications for public health. This is also the case in confronting the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance and maintaining the effectiveness of antibiotics for treating infectious disease in both animals and humans.

As value chain partners, we believe that Canada now faces an opportunity and an imperative to build a robust national animal health strategy and governance model that will better prepare us for the risks of the future, one that truly integrates federal, provincial and industry responsibilities. Efforts in this direction began 10 years ago under the umbrella of the Canadian Animal Health Coalition and led to the creation of the National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council (NFAHWC) as an advisory body. But through crises (and “near misses”) since then, and as evident from the solid work of the Livestock Market Interruption Strategy (LMIS) Steering Committee over the past 3 years to plan for future border-closing events, the need for a national, integrated, all-species model for sharing resources and decisions on animal disease prevention, preparedness, response and recovery has become evident. There is simply too much at stake for our globally exposed value chains to accept a “best efforts” mindset.

In this regard, you will soon be meeting in Calgary to define themes and directions for the next Agriculture Policy Framework. We see your meeting as a unique opportunity to signal that animal health will be among the policy and program priorities, going beyond past ad hoc initiatives that have supported, for example, traceability and on-farm biosecurity. We challenge you to affirm support for the vision of a national, sustainable model of animal health risk management, one that breaks down jurisdictional barriers, brings industry into decision making and integrates program management in priority areas like surveillance, biosecurity

3

planning, diagnostic capacity building, regulatory modernization, research and vaccine development, emergency response and financial risk mitigation.

We look forward to seeing the bold leadership you can demonstrate in the “Calgary Statement” and our participation in the dialogue to follow.

Sincerely,

Rory McAlpine
Senior VP, Government & Industry Relations Maple Leaf Foods

Steve Morin
Vice President, Pork Procurement
Olymel S.E.C./L.P.

Dan Darling President
Canadian Cattlemen's Association

Jim Laws, P.Ag. Executive Director Canadian Meat Council

Claude Vielfaure Executive Vice President HyLife Foods LP

Jeff McDowell, CPA CMA
Vice President, Poultry Value Chain
Sofina Foods Inc.

Larry Schweitzer
Chair, Board of Directors
National Cattle Feeders’ Association

John Ross Executive Director
Canadian Pork Council

Arnold Drung President
Conestoga Meat Packers Ltd.

Ray Price President Sunterra Farms

Rob McNabb Co-Chair
National Farmed Animal Health & Welfare Council

Jennifer MacTavish Chair
Canadian Animal Health Coalition

4

Wally Smith President
Dairy Farmers of Canada

Phil Boyd Executive Director
Turkey Farmers of Canada

K. Robin Horel President & CEO
Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council

Giuseppe Caminiti Executive Director
Canadian Hatching Egg Producers

Mike Dungate Executive Director

Chicken Farmers of Canada

Tim Lambert
Chief Executive Officer Egg Farmers of Canada

Chantelle Donahue
Vice President, Corporate Affairs Cargill Limited Canada

Phil Kolodychuk Chairman
Canadian Sheep Federation

Michael Burrows CEO
Maple Lodge Farms