Agriculture Committee on Aug. 18th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Order, please. We'll get this meeting going.

This is meeting number 42. As you have on the orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), a meeting has been requested by four members of the committee to discuss their request to consider holding a meeting in order to review the government's funding cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Are there any opening comments?

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We thank you for the cooperation in holding the meeting. I know there's not much choice under Standing Order 106, but you and I have chatted, and we thank you for that cooperation.

We will be looking to see if there's unanimous support to table a motion. The issue relates to what was reported in the media about a secret document at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that talked about cutbacks at the agency.

Now, there are some facts that we know. We know that a scientist happened to come across such document, or partial document, and because that scientist was concerned, he sent it to his union. For informing the public about a safety risk based on cutbacks at the CFIA, the scientist was fired. I believe that firing is now under appeal.

We know that the document, although we haven't had access to it and we believe this committee should have access to it, was approved by Treasury Board in November. The government's stated reason for not releasing it so we all know, as should be proper under parliamentary procedure, is due to significant communication problems.

We believe--and that's why we requested the meeting--that the move will cut funding for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and that it will download inspections to industry itself. Therefore, it goes in the opposite direction, which every member of this committee knows we have talked about, of there being more inspections to ensure that imported products meet the same standards as Canadian standards and that the public treasury should pick up more of the costs of inspections, as is done in other countries around the world. If the government doesn't do that, it makes our farmers less competitive.

It's a serious matter. It really goes in the opposite direction to the way we believe, and we think the committee actually believes, we should be going.

The key point is on foreign product coming in. We know, as we talked about at committee, that Canadians are greatly concerned about the safety of foreign product coming in. There was the paint scare on Chinese toys coming into Canada. That set off basically an avalanche of concerns over whether foreign products, food or otherwise, were meeting Canadian standards.

Farmers have asked, as this committee well knows, that the border be strictly controlled and that products coming in meet the same standards as our producers.

Basically, the bottom line is that this secret document, we're led to believe, is all about cuts and transferring responsibility. We're concerned that it could jeopardize our food inspection systems. Instead of imposing less cost on farmers, it could actually impose more costs, either directly or indirectly.

I don't want to get into a whole lot of quotes, but it was quoted by University of Guelph professor, Ann Clark.... I want to outline this. If we transfer inspections from a public authority to industry, does anybody in this room really believe that industry is not going to transfer those costs back to primary producers and maybe, in the process, instead of operating at cost, as we expect a public agency to do, add in a little profit for themselves?

I've seen the potato industry operate when they have control of processing grades of potatoes at the plant level. They can put undue influence on a producer and say, “Look, if you don't toe the line, if you speak out in public against us, maybe your grade may not meet standard.”

Those are the kinds of games that are played out there. And the government, in terms of transferring inspections to the industry, puts at risk the farming community, puts at risk food inspections, and gives more control over to companies that already have too much control in the food production industry.

Ann Clark, who is a professor at the University of Guelph, states this, and I quote:

The proposals are illogical. Companies are in business to make profit, pure and simple, and we, as a society, have fully accepted and bought into that, but with the understanding that somebody will be riding herd on them--minding the shop--to safeguard societal interests. Otherwise, history has shown that we are at risk.

Professor Clark cited industries such as tobacco and asbestos.

The point is that I think by transferring it to industry, it possibly puts greater costs on producers, takes control out of the public sector and gives it to companies, and the bottom line is that it could put the health of the food supply for Canadians at risk.

Before I close, Mr. Chair, I want to mention this. Canada is seen as one of the most reliable suppliers of food around the world because our inspection system works, generally. It's one of the better ones. If we had even one incident, and Canada being an exporting nation where we export so many of our products, imagine what one incident would do in terms of our international reputation abroad and how it would impact, as was seen with BSE, on primary producers on the ground.

I guess the point is that this proposal could be perceived as the government cutting corners. We know, it's been stated, the government has managed to manage the fiscal situation of the country into a deficit, so are they cutting corners because they have basically made the country broke financially, or is it for other reasons? What the proposal is basically doing, as far as we understand it, is asking the industry to police itself. We believe it could put public safety and consumers at risk.

For all those reasons, we basically asked for this committee meeting so that, number one, we could put forward a motion--and I'll ask for unanimous consent on that--asking that the committee have the so-called secret report put forward to the committee so we can see first-hand what that report does say. I talked to the chair earlier, and he suggested that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency might be available today to appear, and certainly I think we would be in agreement to hear from them, as an initial step.

We've talked through my office to the union, PIPSC, and they would certainly be willing to come as early as eight o'clock tomorrow morning, so that would give us the agency's side of the argument. We know they can't speak out against the government, so it would give us the union's side of the argument. Then maybe we could determine where we meet down the road.

The motion that I have, Mr. Chair, would read as follows, and I put it forward for your consideration:

The Committee demands that government provide the Committee with the plan to abandon critical food safety inspections as was reportedly approved by Treasury Board in November 2007 and that the committee begin a study of the plan to abandon food safety inspections and report the results back to the House of Commons.

I don't know if others want to speak first before I move that motion. I think maybe it would be appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You've moved the motion that's on the table—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I haven't moved it yet; I just stated the motion.

I'll move the motion. Then we can get into a debate on the motion and discuss it at the same time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

So we're debating the motion tabled by Mr. Easter.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think we know what this particular meeting is about. It's about changing the channel on the infamous carbon tax.

[An hon. member]

Oh, please. That's just insulting.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

It's about fear-mongering.

The truth of the matter is that there have been no funding cuts. This meeting was called to review the government's funding cuts. There have been none. We have the CFIA officials standing by. I would like to adjourn this current meeting, go into a new meeting, and call the CFIA officials. Let's get the truth from the CFIA officials. The fear-mongering has to stop now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. I have Mr. Dewar on the list to speak.

Just so you know, I don't see that as a point of order. It's a point of debate on Mr. Easter's motion. We have to deal with Mr. Easter's motion first, and then we'll move on to the other motion that you're suggesting.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the public was quite shocked by the revelations that were brought forward by an employee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I think many people who have seen the story unfold, instead of wanting to give him a pink slip, actually want to give him an award for bringing this information to the public.

Again, it seems the government is not wanting to share this information with the public, otherwise it would concede it. I guess the question is, what is the government hiding? We need to probe into this. This is an issue that has seized all Canadians.

Mr. Easter talked about what the implications would be on the food industry, and then he picked up on the most recent case of BSE. BSE was something that had been on the radar of scientists who were working for the government, and there's still an outstanding case being fought by Dr. Shiv Chopra, who told the government a year before the first case, a year before the first case of BSE arrived, that this was going to happen--a year before. What happened? He was fired.

So don't tell the public to trust you, because they don't.

We need to shed some light on this. BSE is not gone, and we need more stringent regulation, not less. There are better methods of dealing with it—European Union, Japanese, to name a couple—and if this government is going down the path of deregulation and handing it over to industry, the public needs to know that.

I might add, Mr. Chair, that this also touches on the problem of what this government considers sensitive documents and how they arrange that. That's probably for another committee, but I think it's clear that they have problems with what they consider is...I think everything is confidential according to this government. I suppose the milk calendar that comes out every year would be seen as confidential by this government if they thought it was going to undermine their political interests.

I think we need to have some light shed on it. I think this proposal, from what we can glean, is heading in the wrong direction. We've seen what has happened in other jurisdictions, when you hand over what is a core service of government to industry. It's not a pretty sight, and Canadians will not have it. Producers will pay the price.

I want to share some facts—and I think it's important in terms of this motion—that many Canadians will be interested in, which is the skyrocketing cost of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency over the last number of years in hiring temporary help agencies. In front of me--this is from government, a government document, and I'll table it later-- a document that shows that as of 2005-06, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was spending over $1 million on hiring temporary help agencies to do its work.

Mr. Chair, do you know what that clocks in this year? And we're not even finished. This is only for half a year. Almost $4 million. I cite this evidence, Mr. Chair, because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency seems to want to get out of the business of using public servants, who are experts, who are trained and work for the public interest.

This is order paper information that I have. The government has gone in the last five years.... The data I have here starts with 2002-03, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency spending $280,000 per annum on temporary help agencies--in other words, external from government and bringing them in--clocking in at $3.575 million, and we haven't even finished the year.

I cite that as evidence, Mr. Chair, simply to underline the point that has been made, that many people have serious and grave concerns, myself included, about the direction in which the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is going. This government seems to want to go down the path of getting out of the business of.... The least we can have from this government is some transparency by tabling the documents that people have been concerned about and, for their benefit, clear the air.

The worst thing we can have in our food industry is speculation and concerns about what goes on people's table. The last thing we need is for our government to walk silently out of this room without providing evidence that Canadians demand—and mind you, this is a government that said it was going to be different and be accountable and transparent.

I guess that's what the motion is about, so we will be supporting it. Hopefully the government will see the wisdom of that and will do the same.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

It's too bad that it took an unfortunate event, the dismissal of a Canadian Food Inspection Agency employee, for the government to reveal its plan for cuts. I don't know where Mr. Lauzon learned that no cuts were in the offing, since all the media talked throughout the summer about the plan for cuts at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Perhaps he was on vacation.

Even if the media hadn't talked about it, our committee had already expressed its concerns over the matter. Mr. Lauzon can't convince us that he wasn't aware of what had happened since the committee held a meeting on May 15 at which some committee members, including the one speaking to you, expressed their concern about the budget cuts between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.

Obviously, the fact that there is less money means a cut in services and in the possibility of conducting adequate inspections. And yet, every time we ask the people at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency whether there will be fewer inspectors and inspections, they reassure us by saying that there won't be fewer inspections. They even claim there will be more inspections and that they will manage to do better, even though they haven't yet found a way to do that in view of the cuts to their budget.

Considering all the cuts that have been made in other sectors—no need to tell you what's going on in the area of culture, Mr. Chairman—we realize this government has a plan for cuts at each department. It isn't pleasant to see cuts in the field of culture or elsewhere. Only the armed forces are not subject to budget cuts. However, in the case of food inspection, we're playing with people's health.

In the United States, it's the industry that handles food inspection. What is strange is that all the foods that have been subject to recalls in Canada, including one case that dates back to August 10, come from the United States. Ground beef from the United States, which is also an organic product, contained the E. coli bacterium. Tomatoes—a recent case—cantaloupes and spinach, were also recalled. The public is aware of these recalls of products, most of which come from the United States. So that's not a model we should follow. And yet that's precisely what the government is still doing: it's following the Bush model. It's a very, very bad idea.

I don't think anyone has cried "Wolf!" And yet this matter is urgent. We must prevent this at all costs. This matter has come out in the media, and it's important for us to meet immediately to hear not only the people from the agency, but also the union representatives. I moreover agree on Mr. Easter's motion that the union people be summoned before the committee. One employee disclosed what happened, particularly since this supposedly secret document was on the website or was accessible to employees. That employee acted correctly. Perhaps the secret was invented after the fact, but it would be important to say that that employee should be congratulated and protected. Parliament has a number of measures it can use to protect public servants who engage in this kind of whistle-blowing. This is a good example in which a person was right to take action.

Our duty is to examine this matter. If the agency people are available right now, let's proceed. If the union people were available tomorrow morning, that would be perfect. We'll at least have managed to conduct a summary of the question before Parliament resumes. If we could obtain the document, that would enable us to continue this study as soon as Parliament returns.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci.

Mr. Miller, you have the floor.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's always good to be back here in Ottawa to discuss things of importance to agriculture in Canada, and hopefully we'll get to the truth here when the CFIA officials come in, and what have you.

Things must be really hot in Malpeque over the carbon tax this summer to bring us down here. But that's okay. As I said, we're willing to talk about that anytime.

Just going back to some of the comments that Mr. Dewar made about the public being surprised, they absolutely were when they found out that a government employee in a place of trust could take documents and release them. I had a lot of people comment on that at the time, and I'm sure that Mr. Dewar did, too, if he'd talk the truth on it.

As well, he talked about the BSE and—I don't know whether it was fictitious or not—some person who was fired a year before the BSE. He seemed to be insinuating that it was this government that did it.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I never spoke while you were talking.

I know he has a lot of farmers in his riding; I don't know whether they're on Bronson Avenue or Queen Street, but anyway, I'm sure that he consulted with them. Or if he had consulted with them, he'd have found out that the BSE crisis started in 2003. It was under the former government. And I'm not point any blame at them. The BSE was something that happened, and what have you. I just point it out because it's a mistake in some of the things that he said and it should be pointed out. So there could be other mistakes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I never talked about which government. And just for the record, I have three farmers markets in my riding.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's not a point of order; it's a point of debate.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Good for you. That wasn't a point of order.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It was a point of order with some clarification of which government. I never said it was yours.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller, you have the floor.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

As well, Mr. Chairman, some of the things that have come out here are over a proposed strategic review of inspection and everything that the CFIA does. Of course, everybody wants, at the end of the day, to see that food is inspected, that it's safe, whether it's produced here in this country or whether it's food that comes in, and a strategic review is very, very important. Frankly, what surprised me—and maybe I shouldn't be surprised—is that the two former ministers across the way should know what a strategic review really is all about.

The other real issue here that I didn't bring up, but Mr. Easter did, was about fear-mongering. If you go back to fear-mongering here, I'd just like to bring out a quote.

My colleague across the way, when she was a former public health minister, basically accused anyone raising questions about the federal government's preparation—that would have been her federal government at the time—for a potential avian flu outbreak.... Well, it wasn't basically; she did accuse them of fear-mongering. She didn't deny that there was more work to do, but at the same time, she chastised those who criticized the plan as doing so out of partisan politics or fear-mongering.

She made another quote:

We all have to be in the business of expressing legitimate concern and legitimate action, but fear-mongering and giving misinformation is really not in the public interest.

Well, amen to that, Mr. Chairman. I can agree with that statement. Back in those days, if she'd have contacted all the poultry farmers in her riding on Bloor Street, or wherever it was, I think she'd have found out then, too, that there was an issue out there.

So we know what this is all about, but I'm prepared to get down to the work of having CFIA come in here, and let's hear the real facts today, not just more fear-mongering.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Bennett, you have the floor.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Thanks very much.

I think there's quite a difference between fear-mongering and asking for the facts, and those of us who have been ministers do understand very much what program review can mean. So for Mr. Lauzon to say that there have not been any cuts...there is a very different thing in terms of cutting a budget and cutting what should have been an increase. That's why we need to see the report, that this still is cutting back.

Fooling with the numbers is not going to increase the confidence of Canadians in their food supply. We want, this summer, every Canadian to know that what they're putting on their barbecue, what they're putting in the ground, is safe for Canadians.

When it comes to avian flu, the idea—

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.