In mid-November, the Canadian Produce Marketing Association held its third annual Fall Harvest, which saw members of its organization come to its nation's capital to talk about some key produce industry issues.

CPMA President Ron Lemaire said there were three main topics on the table: the Safe Food for Canadians Act; establishing a single produce license administrator; and creating some type of bankruptcy priority position for produce sellers similar to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Trust in the United States.

Lemaire said the event was successful and the produce industry does have the ear of Parliament, but there are difficult challenges to overcome in achieving CPMA's stated goals.

The Safe Food Act effort is furthest along, with many in Parliament expecting the final regulations to be released in the spring and in force by Jan. 1, 2015.

Lemaire said the act received "Royal Assent" in 2012, and similar to the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act, it is now in the regulations promulgating stage.

"Our main concern is we do not want to go down the same road that the U.S. did with the Tester Amendment," said Lemaire. "We believe the Food Safety Act should protect Canadians from all sources regardless of the size of the farm."

Lemaire was speaking of the Tester Amendment included in the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act, which exempts some small farms from the regulations because of their size.

Lemaire said comments on the proposed regulations were due by Nov. 30, and while CPMA did submit some changes, he said that in general most of the industry was happy with the regulations and the tone of the law.

"The regulations are outcome-based, which is what we want," he said.

He explained that in most instances the regulations are looking for a result and leaving it up to the food handler to implement a system that achieves those results. Consequently, anyone along the supply chain that has instituted a Good Agricultural Practices program will most likely be in compliance with the Safe Food Act.

The licensing issue is also contained in that same act. Ever since the Dispute Resolution Corp. started in 2000, Canadian producers have had two licensing agencies: DRC and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Currently, about 90-95 percent of Canadian licensees are members of DRC but there are still a hundred or so CFIA licenses still valid. Under the Food Safety Act, Canada will institute a single licensing agency.

CPMA, as well as California-based Western Growers Association, have made comments endorsing DRC as that agency. Lemaire said the new act would also require some additional licenses be issued, most notably to non-resident importers who take responsibility for the product they ship into Canada.

He explained that under the new Food Safety Act there has to be a party of responsibility for all produce. That individual or company has to be licensed and it has several duties, including notifying the government when there is a food-safety issue, maintaining records, and having a written recall and preventative control plan in place. The initial regulations require all licensees to have an office in Canada where these records are maintained.

Lemaire said this regulation is being scrutinized by the industry as well the government. He explained that the situation occurs sometimes when a non-resident shipper sells directly to a Canadian retailer, which is then requiring that shipper to take responsibility for the product.

Under the current iteration of the regulations, that shipper would have to have a license and also maintain an office within Canada. Having a license through DRC is not overly problematic, as many U.S. shippers are already members of DRC to take advantage of its dispute resolution procedures. Having an office in Canada, however, could be quite an expensive proposition.

While there is a clear path to the conclusion of these first two issues, creating a PACA Trust-type program is much more nuanced. Lemaire said Canada has a Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act, and while there is interest is adding priority for agricultural producers, there are many who are not interested in opening up that act for fear of other amendments that might be offered.

"We need to get creative," Lemaire said.

He explained that a number of other options are being explored that might offer protection to producers in another piece of legislation without opening the current act. Because it is a thorny problem, he candidly does not see a quick solution. He said it almost certainly will not happen in 2014 and beyond that is too far out to predict.

He added that the concept has support, but getting there is a challenge.