Agriculture Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm speaking of the audit.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I'm really concerned that you're impugning Dr. Charlebois simply because he's an expert and has been named to a panel—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'd ask you to answer my question, Minister, on the audit.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I am answering your question.

You talk about demanding papers. Yes, CFIA has the ability to demand papers, but not in a timely way and in a format that is usable. Those are the changes in Bill S-11, so don't muddy the waters any more than you already have.

CFIA has the ability to decertify a plant. That's a nuclear strike, and CFIA is loath to do that simply because of the recertification process that is required.

Having said that, to answer your question, the Auditor General of Canada has the ability at any time to audit any department, any agency, of this country. We would welcome that, certainly. He has that ability, and we would look forward to that.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Why are you ignoring—

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Coming out of the Weatherill report, the CFIA has put together an expert panel with the ability to insert themselves after a situation such as this—we fully expect them to—and to give it a full overview.

Should you decide that you want an audit, certainly CFIA will stand up to any audit, as they do internationally, on a go-forward basis. We're audited by third parties from other countries all the time.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay—

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

We're more than happy to share those audits with you as to the efficacy and efficiency of CFIA.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Minister, you keep saying that all 57 recommendations have been complied with.

Carole Swan, the former president of the CFIA, said herself that the survey undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers was quite different from an actual audit. She said, and I quote, “An audit is a very specific process.”

A comprehensive report of CFIA resources and deployments in the most effective way would be a meaningful exercise for CFIA, and I'd like you to explain why you continually refuse to comply with recommendation 7 of the Weatherill report.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I think there are a number of initiatives that have been undertaken by CFIA and this government to build the capacity of CFIA, to make them more open and transparent. At CFIA we're in the midst of an inspector modernization piece, which follows on those recommendations. There was $100 million in last year's budget to fund that, over the next five years, to make sure that everyone has the training that is required of them at any particular class of facility and the level of inspection that they're taking part in.

CVS, the compliance verification system, is—as you well know, Mr. Valeriote, since in 2005 your government brought it in—a report card on HACCP, the hazard analysis critical control point program. That is international in scope. We judge other facilities around the world that we import from, as they judge us, on their HACCP controls. When you see breaches in that, or a company not following the written protocols in their HACCP production, as we saw at XL, that's when they become decertified.

So a series of steps are taken that are always done based on timeliness of evidence, and a sound scientific basis for that evidence, leading CFIA to make the judgments and take the action that they do.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Minister, you have indicated that there will be a review undertaken by your expert panel of the situation at the Brooks plant.

My question is this: do you not feel that you very obviously lose independence of a review when the very person responsible for chairing that review and the president of the organization who will have to receive the criticism for efficiencies and remedy problems is the very same person? It lacks independence, and it's independence that's required when you are doing an examination of something that went wrong.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

The reason that the chief foods officer and the president are de facto members of that expert panel is to make sure that CFIA, at whatever level, is forthcoming with whatever information that panel asks for. That's the reason they're on there. That's pretty much standard, I would think, throughout government: to make sure that the panel doing the interview or the inspection has the ability to move forward with timeliness and usable information. That's the major reason that the president is a de facto member and that he and Dr. Brian Evans, our chief food officer at this point, are taking point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Payne, go ahead.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here today along with the officials.

I'm sure most of you realize that XL Foods Ltd. is in my riding in the city of Brooks. I want to thank you, first of all, Minister, for keeping me up to date on a regular basis, on a daily basis, including weekends, with what was going on in the facility. It was important for me and certainly for my constituency.

I also want to thank CFIA. You had stated that this facility should not be reopened until it could be recertified to make sure that it met all the standards. I believe that was the correct decision, and I support that 100%.

I've had the opportunity to give a couple of speeches, Minister, on this facility, and certainly on Bill S-11. I know the opposition has talked about things a number of times, and made a lot of noise about this, particularly around deficit reduction. I belive that CFIA’s reduction is $56 million, over time, and I understand that this is offset by $52 million in new dollars. That's what the opposition has said, and it complained that in fact inspectors have been cut. I understand that these are transfers of meat inspectors from CFIA to the provinces of B.C., Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, as federal inspectors were doing provincial work.

[A voice]

That’s a good point.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

That is no different, Minister, from what happens in some of the other provinces—Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, and of course Alberta.

The opposition has complained about the changes of labelling as well. Once again, I think the opposition doesn't necessarily understand what's going on in terms of labelling in CFIA. Can you confirm to this committee that on provincial meat inspection and labelling, the opposition is mistaken in terms of the cuts?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Sure. With the deficit reduction action plan, CFIA is not immune, nor is any other department or agency of this government. We're all looking for efficiencies, and that's what CFIA strove to do. They have identified a number of efficiencies. Absolutely not one nickel affects front-line food safety, not one nickel. I would challenge the opposition to actually point to that in any way, shape, or form. We do hear some noise from the unions on how this will affect such-and-such, but they cannot show where that is actually true.

You mentioned the $56 million outlined; that's over a three-year period. During that same timeframe, and there are still moneys to be announced, we also have sunsetting programs. This is the problem with Kevin Page's report; it's an incomplete report. It doesn't speak to the renewal of sunsetting programs. We fully expect to renew two for some $25 million, but that takes a vote in the House. You can't claim it until you've actually voted it through.

During the same timeframe that we're removing $56 million in efficiencies, we have on the table $223 million in new money, plus the go-forward over the next couple of years when we buttress or take sunsetting moneys and put them back in again.

This idea that somehow this is a horrendous slash to their budget is absolutely ridiculous. Since we've formed government, the overall budget of CFIA has gone up by 20% because it needed at certain times to do certain things. We fully expect the inspector modernization to be funded out of the $100 million in the 2012 budget over the next four years now, and we have a year under our belts.

Someone pointed out that we'd only spent $18 million. Well, that's the first year, and it takes time to build the capacity and train and get them all in to E-Certs and all those types of things to enhance commerce and still maintain our food as safe.

We've increased traceability from gate to plate. We've done that under other jurisdictions. The Health of Animals Act takes precedence on the farm, but as soon as that animal hits the farm gate on its way to a feedlot or a slaughter facility, then Bill S-11 starts to pull in to play. It's the next step, the logical sequence in maintaining that traceability part of Bill S-11 to make sure that our food is safe right from gate to plate. We have to be able to trace food from a processor on, which we do in a recall, but we also have to be able to trace it back to the farm.

There are people in these slaughter facilities who simply check the head of an animal and the brain to make sure there's no BSE. We also check lungs for TB. We check liver for cysts. A number of different operations are undertaken. That's really the traceability back to the farm.

There all of those things in Bill S-11 that start to build a stronger food safety system from gate to plate.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have four seconds, so I think I'll move on to Mr. Atamanenko.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Then I'll thank the minister and his staff for coming here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Atamanenko.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Minister, and your officials, for being here.

We're here to look at Bill S-11. Obviously the reason there is a new bill is it was felt that the current system isn't working, so we're here to improve it. I would hope, as we examine this bill, that if certain amendments are put forward, we'll discuss this and strengthen it, because that's our purpose here: to strengthen this piece of legislation.

Minister, you stated in your opening remarks that the Canadian and U.S. systems are equally as strong when it comes to food safety and to inspection. I'd like to zero in on what happens at the border for a few minutes, if I may.

I know that in committee in the past we've had witnesses who have stated that only, I think, 2% of the products that come into our country are inspected for food safety. In fact, we have inspection that checks out the pests and checks out other problems, but on the American side 100% of food commodities going across the border are inspected.

I'd like to refer to the testimony made by Paul Caron at the Senate committee, an inspector with 35 years of experience, who questions the fact that our system is as strong as the American one at the border. He states that, for example:

Shipments going to the U.S. have to be screened by the USDA for animal health reasons, plant health reasons, then by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, then Homeland Security, then customs and border services, which directs the load to a meat inspection establishment located in close proximity of the border.

Apparently, according to him, all food shipments entering the U.S. are cleared at the port of entry, while Canadian meat shipments are often released to be possibly inspected later inland.

There seems to be, from what I'm reading, a discrepancy in the way we treat items going back and forth across the border. I'd like you to comment on that if you could, please.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I'm happy to do that, Mr. Atamanenko.

I want to take exception to the line you started with, saying our current system isn't working. I would take exception to that. Audits from other countries around the world are showing that our system is extremely good. Japan seeks to emulate it. It has one of the highest food safety records in the world. The latest OECD report says we have a superior system, so I would take exception to that comment.

When you compare the efficacy of one country's system to that of another country's system, you have to look at equivalency and outcome. I think we have that with the Americans. Certainly they do things differently.

What Mr. Caron is talking about is a bit self-serving, because he owns a customs house. He's talking about the old customs house system. What that did was create unnecessary stress if the animals were live or, if it's processed product, unnecessary work in handling it again.

What we've done is gone to a system whereby the product is tested at point of unload, as opposed to rerouting it to a customs house. Mr. Caron has a problem with that because he owns a customs house. He wants the old system put in play.

What we've done is put in place, through CFIA, a system under which last year, or to this year alone, we've done 480 border blitzes, so to say we don't check at the border is a complete misnomer. We don't do it in a way Mr. Caron would like, because his customs house is not used as it was at one point. That's unfortunate for him, but at the end of the day the system we now have in play is much more effective and much more efficient than it was.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

As a Canadian consumer, if I know that every product going into the United States is inspected at the border and I know that not everything is inspected coming here—there are just spot checks—I tend to worry.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Let me correct you on that. Everything going into the U.S. is not checked. It's not 100% testing at the border, no. The Americans do spot checks the same as we do. They also do equivalencies of plant processors and have almost like a NEXUS card for people travelling. They give pre-clearance to plants that have measured up to the U.S. standard. That's the difference.

They don't measure everything at the border, as some people claim they do.