Agriculture Committee on Aug. 18th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order.

We're continuing in meeting 43 with our briefing session with CFIA, to talk about the report we were talking about in the previous meeting.

We welcome to the table--no strangers here--Dr. Brian Evans, executive vice-president; Mr. Gordon R. White, vice-president, finance, administration and information technology; and Paul Mayers, acting vice-president, programs.

Dr. Evans, if you would bring forward your opening comments I'd appreciate that very much.

[Dr. Brian Evans, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In recognition of the important work of the committee, we will certainly be brief in our opening comments in order to provide all members the opportunity to answer those questions that are pertinent to you.

As indicated by the chair, my name is Dr. Brian Evans. I am the executive vice-president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I am very pleased to be present with very competent colleagues here at the hearings.

As you know, there have been recent reports that the CFIA plans to cut back on food inspections. I can well understand why these rumours would concern members of the committee. There is, however, no basis in fact to these reports.

I would like to clear up misconceptions about budget reallocation, and lay to rest any fears about the integrity of our food safety system.

We have a food safety system that is internationally recognized as one of the best in the world, and misinformation can threaten this hard-earned reputation.

We very much value and respect the trust that Canadians and consumers in other countries have in our food safety efforts. However, we also recognize that this is a trust that must be earned each and every day.

It is important to deal with the facts about our inspection system and I hope to clarify those facts today. I also welcome the opportunity to answer your questions about this system.

Mr. Chairman, the health and safety of Canadians has been, is, and always will remain the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's highest priority.

Last year, as part of the government's new expenditure management system, the CFIA was one of 17 departments and agencies that undertook a comprehensive review of its program and services. The objective was to put forward a series of reallocation proposals that would see resources reinvested more effectively to support government priorities.

For the CFIA, as outlined in the 2008 budget, the savings identified in the review were redirected to Canada's food and consumer safety action plan to enhance and protect the health and safety of Canadians. There were no reductions in funding for the CFIA as a result of this exercise, nor were there job losses. In fact, one of the goals of our strategic review was to ensure that the CFIA was allocating resources to areas of highest risk.

In response to a global food supply and the changing associated risks, the CFIA is modernizing the way it performs its core role so that it can continue to effectively manage risk to human health and the safety of Canadians, as well as risk to animal health and plant protection. Canadians expect and deserve the highest standard of protection from preventable risk to food safety. The CFIA is committed to the continuous assessment and improvement of our inspection approaches to reflect best practices.

In terms of efficiency, one of our strategic review initiatives being implemented is to consolidate our import document assessment and release activities. Such a single-window approach will provide increased bilingual service from the existing 20 hours, to 24 hours, seven days a week. It will also increase consistency in the review of import documentation and verification of import admissibility and allow us to better coordinate with our partners, such as the Canadian Border Services Agency.

Other savings were identified due to advancements in science and technology. For example, the CFIA has developed an environmentally friendly and more cost-effective method to dispose of dead birds that result from depopulation activities in the control of diseases such as avian influenza. This has allowed us to reallocate money originally intended for the purchase of specialized disposal equipment, which our experience and capacity now informs us we no longer need.

In no way does this reallocation diminish our avian influenza preparedness, which remains one of our main top priorities. In fact, we have recently begun implementing, in collaboration with producer and industry groups, an enhanced surveillance program.

Mr. Chairman, in budget 2008, the food and consumer safety action plan was earmarked to receive, through this process, $113 million over two years. The CFIA will receive some $62 million of this amount to enhance our system by concentrating on preventing problems, in the first place, in country of origin and pre-border, targeting the products that present the highest risks and providing rapid response to problems when they do occur.

On the subject of industry responsibility in our food safety system, as you know, food safety has always been a shared responsibility. Industry is responsible for ensuring that the food products they produce for the Canadian marketplace are safe. The CFIA's role is to verify that industy is fulfilling its responsibility.

Over the past decade and more, much industry and government effort has gone into developing and investing in science-based preventative systems to enhance food safety. For over 15 years, many parts of the Canadian food industry have already put these preventative systems in place to better detect, prevent, and eliminate problems before they occur. The most familiar of these are the hazard analysis and critical control point, or HACCP, systems. The industry plans must always meet CFIA specifications, and CFIA will always inspect, monitor and verify compliance so that food safety standards are met.

The term “self-policing” has sometimes been given a negative sense to describe this approach. The reality is that industry is responsible for investing in and putting in place science-based food safety systems in line with internationally recognized approaches to producing safer food. And of course there must always be strong government oversight, evaluation, verification, and effective enforcement and compliance action.

Modernization of our inspection systems is a responsive, and responsible, undertaking. The approach is not new. You may have read in the past CFIA reports on plans and priorities about our work on making inspection methods more effective.

Strong inspection presence is key to our success. Over the past two years, the number of CFIA inspectors has increased from 2,820 to 3,020. In previous testaments before this committee in my role as chief veterinary officer, I have indicated how we have grown the veterinary complement of the CFIA from its initial 473, in 1997, to its current 734. It will continue to increase under the food and consumer safety action plan.

Mr. Chairman, as committee members are aware, our BSE controls are a vital part of the CFIA's mandate and activities. These controls play an important role in protecting human and animal health and keeping markets open for Canadian producers. Since the first case of domestic BSE, or mad cow disease, was detected in 2003, more than 230,000 cows have been tested through the national surveillance program. Not only has this program demonstrated the low level of BSE in Canada, it has also helped restore and expand market access. The surveillance program also exceeds the stringent requirements of the World Organisation for Animal Health, or OIE, which now recognizes Canada as a controlled risk BSE country.

Canada's BSE surveillance program remains an important component in our strategy to manage BSE. Contrary to what you may have heard, we will maintain testing and surveillance activities to protect human and animal health from the threat of BSE and to continue to meet our international trade obligations.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we are doing more, not less, to protect the health and safety of Canadians. We are also continually modernizing and improving our inspection systems to meet the challenges of a changing environment, whether it is emerging food safety risks or changes to technology or the marketplace.

When adjustments are made to inspection strategies or approaches, the CFIA has always considered best available science and best practices, and we have consulted with stakeholders and partners before they are implemented. That will continue. There will be no changes without appropriate consultation and foundation.

Canada's food safety system is recognized as one of the best in the world. Our goal is to keep it that way and, indeed, make it even better.

We collectively are prepared to answer all questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Dr. Evans.

We'll go to seven-minute rounds.

Mr. Easter, you'll kick us off.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, gentlemen.

There is no doubt that CFIA has moved substantially ahead since 1997, and we're pretty proud about that. Brian, as chief veterinarian, you're recognized around the world, and I think you're one of the best around the world. I certainly congratulate you on that.

Our concern is not with you, and it's not with the agency. Our concern is with the political bosses and the Prime Minister's Office. It's with a Prime Minister who has made no secret about his desire to basically devolve the federal government to being nothing less than Defence and Foreign Affairs. That's where our concerns arise.

I need to ask you these questions. In terms of your presentation, were you given any direction? I mean, earlier Brian kind of indicated what you might say. Were you given any direction by either the minister or the deputy on what you should say to this committee?

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I didn't indicate that the witnesses would be saying one thing or another. I think it's important to recognize that the facts I got were absolutely fine. If Mr. Easter had taken the time to read budget 2008--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's debate. But as I've done in the past when we've had public servants appearing before committee, I'm going to point committee members to Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 20, page 863:

The obligation of a witness to answer all questions put by the committee must be balanced against the role that public servants play in providing confidential advice to their Ministers. The role of the public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be. Consequently, public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government. In addition, committees will ordinarily accept the reasons that a public servant gives for declining to answer a specific question or series of questions which involve the giving of a legal opinion, or which may be perceived as a conflict with the witness’ responsibility to the Minister, or which is outside of their own area of responsibility or which might affect business transactions.

The witnesses are not obligated to answer things that relate to policy or their relationship with the minister or the government. We're talking about the report in front of us and the strategic review that CFIA did.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's fine. I accept that, Mr. Chair.

The problem we have here, gentlemen, is this. You mention the savings identified in the 2008 budget. So really, in terms of the documentation that the chair has mentioned, the difficult position you find yourself in is that if there is a secret document, which has been stated in the media there is, that allegedly talks about cuts of 5%, cutting $25 million, transferring inspection to industry, eliminating the approval system for labelling, among other things, proposed for the future and in the discussion stages, then at this stage—and we do know this government is secretive—you really couldn't talk about it, could you?

Is that fair to say, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Evans.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

As has been indicated, obviously, in terms of the strategic review process, honourable member, CFIA undertook to prepare a memorandum to cabinet that outlined where we felt there were opportunities for us to make investments that would be part of a transformative process to modernize inspection activities. We were pleased that the submission, as it was reviewed, determined that any allocations from within adjustments to our programming would in fact be reinvested in CFIA and not allocated to other government priorities. We were pleased that the formative process that we went through identified that investment in food safety was an appropriate priority for the government to invest in.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes. I'm not saying that as a criticism of you folks. That's the reality. If the Minister of Finance, taking his direction from the PMO, decides there's going to be a 10% cut in CFIA, you folks, in your job, have no choice but to exercise it. That's the dilemma we're in here without having access to the secret document.

We passed a motion earlier that we hoped to obtain that secret document. The dilemma for us and the opposition is that we don't have the document—although we've passed a motion that we want it—and you can't answer the questions because of the very point that the chair outlined. So we're in a bit of a box here. It makes my argument that we really need that secret document and we really need to know where the government is going, if they could can their secrecy and discuss things with the public. It's well known, and everybody knows in this country, the Prime Minister's resolve to basically get rid of the federal government except in a couple of areas.

I have just one other question, and I don't know whether you can answer this one either, but there seems to be a fair bit of discussion on the proposal to reduce or limit the approval system for labelling. We at this committee have pushed for truth in labelling, that “Product of Canada” be what it actually says, that imported product clearly define where the product comes from, etc. But it's alleged, around this secret document--and one scientist was fired, as you know--that there's to be an elimination of the approval system that the CFIA undertakes for labelling.

Can you say anything on that?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Certainly. I'd just make a point, honourable member, regarding that “Product of Canada” labelling, which was the focus of a significant report from this committee, one that we very much valued and have taken into account, and we have moved forward on the “Product of Canada” initiatives. That initiative in itself is not related to what was announced in the budget, which dealt with pre-market label review for certain commodities in areas where we were currently providing a pre-market assessment and inhibiting the ability of some sectors to get innovative product into the marketplace.

Perhaps, if you would allow, I'd ask Paul Mayers to speak to that issue, because that is one of the initiatives we are currently implementing.

[Paul Mayers, Acting Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

On the pre-market label review, I stress that the change we're pursuing from a modernization perspective is only in relation to the pre-market label review. This would not change the required detail, the level of information available to consumers, or the inspection and verification of labels in the marketplace. But we do propose to reduce the regulatory burden on industry by removing the mandatory requirement for pre-market label review of meat and processed fruits and vegetables. The CFIA would continue to provide information and expert advice related to label design to assist the industry to ensure that they can indeed comply with the requirements related to labelling. The labels would continue to provide Canadians with the information they need to make informed choices about the foods they purchase.

So the only adjustment we would make is to remove the current regulatory burden on the industry to have a mandatory review in advance of its products going into the marketplace.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Mr. Easter.

Monsieur Bellavance, pour sept minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Evans, you didn't beat about the bush in your address when you said that incorrect information was reported in the media. Here I'm talking about the story on Mr. Pomerleau that was made public in the media over the summer. You say that falsehoods were conveyed by the media.

We're going to examine this together. As a former journalist, I always get touchy in situations where blame is laid on the media. In this case, they merely reported the facts. They had definitely obtained information on the matter.

What was this inaccurate information that was reported? We're going to proceed point by point. Is it true or false that part of the plan to change the inspection system involves conferring on the industry responsibilities that currently fall to the agency? Is that a falsehood?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

No, that is not a true statement. The reality of meat inspection modernization, as has been the case with all of our modernization initiatives since the creation of the agency, has been to work to recognize quality assurance and HACCP-based systems, making those mandatory for industry sectors, and then ensuring that our resources are dedicated to verifying that industry is in fact achieving the food safety outcome and standard for which they are being held accountable.

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

And yet you told me here on this subject, in your testimony on May 15, that your program had to be adjusted so that it would be less prescriptive and so there would be less oversight. You added: "...recognizing that industry has their quality management-based systems and their production for bringing quality food to the marketplace..."

So I imagine you're opening the door to those changes. That was your explanation on what the government had asked you at that time. I see a contradiction here with the answer you've just given me. The idea is to delegate responsibilities to the industry. That's what you told us last May.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

No, there is no divesting of responsibility on the part of CFIA. In fact, part of our effort at CFIA has been in recognition of the changing risk environment in which food is produced, intensive agricultural production systems, globalization of food, increased utilization of foreign ingredients in Canadian food, and the reality of new and emerging pathogens in the food system associated with changes in the types of food consumers are looking for. These have required us to continually adapt our inspection systems, our residue monitoring programs, and our oversight activities.

Canada also participates with many other countries through the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the international standard-setting body for food safety. As they update standards around inspection approaches and verification, we in Canada want to be seen as being at the leading edge of international credibility in adopting those methods as well.

So there's no divergence. In fact, modernization, if you will, or inspection integrity improvement is a continuous process that we undertake at CFIA by inviting other countries to come to audit our inspection system. Because we are a major exporter, we are probably one of the most audited countries in the world. We take very seriously the recommendations of foreign audits of our system. In our audits of other countries' systems, we very much aspire to see if there is a better practice that will give us those same outcomes.

So there's no divergence. Modernization of inspection is necessary in a changing risk environment.

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

Mr. Evans, I'm going to give you other statements that were reported by the media, and you'll then comment. We probably won't have the time to address them one by one at this rate.

Is it true that the government asked you to recover 5% of your operating budgets? That was reported in the media, and it leads me to say this: the government made some election-style announcements in cutting the GST, but it looks like it's now up to each department to recover money. I get the impression these people have a budget problem. In short, is it true that you were asked to recover 5% of your operating budgets?

Is it true that you're going to have to cut assistance to agricultural producers for BSE inspections? We're talking about cuts of $24 million over the next three years.

According to the plan that Mr. Pomerleau revealed to his union, the inspectors will now have a general oversight mandate, whereas the industry will verify food safety. Is that true? I think you partly answered that earlier, but I'd like to know whether you deny that all this change in the system was approved by your services last November. Is it true that, for unknown reasons, communication problems, that wasn't known? Did your services already know of this plan in November? Was it then shelved and kept there until Mr. Pomerleau sent it to his union?

Let's start with the 5% cuts?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

As indicated, CFIA was one of 17 departments and agencies that were part of the first of a four-year cycle, a review of all departments and agencies in government under the government's expenditure management system, or EMS, which was adopted by Treasury Board.

Within the parameters of that particular program, CFIA, along with all others who have to go through that process on the four-year cycle, are required to identify up to 5% of their A-base budget in terms of areas where programs are either underperforming or could be redesigned to be more effective, to identify how those savings could possibly be seen, and then it is the decision of government as to whether or not that money would be reallocated to other government priorities.

As I indicated in my comments, in the CFIA approach the government recognized that our proposals to move into enhancing food safety was an agreed priority, so the CFIA did not lose 5%. We lost nothing in that process.

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

I'm going to ask you to answer yes or no.

With regard to the cuts in aid to producers with regard to BSE, is that a falsehood that was reported by the media? Was it a matter of being able to save $24 million over three years by cutting aid to producers for inspections for BSE, that is to say mad cow disease. Is that correct?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

No, that is not accurate. Our proposal is that we maintain BSE surveillance and activities. When we undertook our BSE surveillance program, designed in 2003 on the enhanced program, we identified at that time the need to achieve approximately 30,000 samples per year to achieve our objective of having a very credible system, in line with international standards. You will be well aware from our previous appearances at the committee that in fact we are achieving about double that level of testing over the five years subsequent to the detection of BSE. Our undertaking, through assessing our BSE information that we've gathered and analyzed over the five years since we started our BSE program, has identified to us that we can continue to better target those animals that have the highest possibility of contracting BSE.

In doing that, it would mean we would no longer be testing animals that don't have the potential to find BSE, as is currently the case in some elements of our program.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur Bellavance, your time has expired.

Thank you, Mr. Evans.

Mr. Lauzon.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Dr. Evans and colleagues. We're lucky to have you.

Dr. Evans, for about an hour now--or longer than that, for quite some time now--there's been a lot of misinformation put out by the opposition parties actually bordering on fear-mongering. So I want it to go on record. I want you to tell me and tell all Canadians, because I don't want Canadians to be misinformed here; I don't want Canadians to believe the spin. I think that in your comments you said these rumours would concern members of the committee, but there is no basis in fact for these reports. Is that true? Is that what you said?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

That's what I said, yes.

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

Great. You also said it's unfortunate when incorrect information is reported in the media, as it causes erroneous perceptions and Canadians needlessly worry that their food supply is unsafe. Was that your comment?