Agriculture Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It was a very constructive dialogue. We appreciate it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We will pause for three minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back, committee members and guests.

Joining us now from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is Mr. George Da Pont, president.

I know you have some guests with you, Mr. Da Pont. Perhaps you would like to take the time to introduce them. I understand you have a very brief statement, and then we'll move to questions.

Go ahead, please.

[George Da Pont]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to introduce Neil Bouwer, our vice-president for policy and programs; Colleen Barnes, one of the executive directors in policy and programs, who has done an awful lot of work on this bill; Paul Mayers, the associate vice-president of policy and programs; and finally, Madame Martine Dubuc, the vice-president of science, and actually Canada's new chief food safety officer.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to speak today about the proposed Safe Food For Canadians Act.

As president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), I have an obvious interest in and responsibility for our ability to keep the food supply safe and to keep Canadian families healthy.

The objective of this bill is to strengthen our ability to carry out our mandate and to adapt our legislative regime to the changes that have taken place in the world. Food safety is one of the Government of Canada's highest priorities. While the existing food safety legislation has served Canada well—and our system is recognized as one of the best in the world—it is time to modernize and strengthen it.

The food safety environment is much more complex today than it was even a decade ago. When Canadians go shopping, they can buy food from an increasing range of countries with differing food safety systems. Globalization and increasingly integrated supply chains have increased the role of imports in our food system. In addition, as our population generally ages, it does become more susceptible to food-borne illnesses.

At the same time, lifestyles are changing, and technology is changing food manufacturing processes. These factors highlight the need for more modern and simplified food commodity legislation. Modern food safety science requires a sophisticated trend analysis and risk-based and system-based approaches. The fact is that science-based best practices can be implemented faster if they form part of our legal, regulatory, and food program frameworks.

Food safety is undoubtedly top of mind for many Canadians, as we're all well aware of the large XL beef recall from this past September. Sixteen people fell ill, and I want to offer my sympathy to them and to their families. While I am thankful they have recovered, I very much sympathize with the discomfort and stress they have experienced. None of us want to see a repetition of this type of incident.

There are some key authorities in the proposed bill, specifically on documentation and traceability, which the minister talked about, that would have greatly assisted the agency's investigation and recall process in that instance, as well as in some other instances in the past.

Canada's food safety system is based on legislation that in some cases is almost 50 years old. While it has served us well, it needs to be updated to keep pace with the emerging realities that we find ourselves in today.

The bill before you will consolidate food commodity legislation under which the Canadian Food Inspection Agency operates. Right now, food safety in Canada is regulated under five different statutes that were created at various times over the last half century.

As you know, one is the Food and Drugs Act that is administered by the Minister of Health. There are three commodity-specific statutes: the Meat Inspection Act, the Canada Agricultural Products Act, and the Fish Inspection Act. Finally, CFIA is also responsible for the food-related provisions that appear in the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. This bill will consolidate the various food commodity statutes and the provisions in the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. The Food and Drugs Act will remain separate under the administration of the Minister of Health, and the enforcement of food-related provisions in that act will continue to be done by CFIA.

While the existing food commodity legislation is workable and has served us well, inconsistencies and gaps in the powers there are inconsistencies and gaps in the powers. That became apparent when the CFIA was brought together and created. The existing legislative framework is functional but complex, and certainly can be improved upon.

Right now, in certain cases, we have a cumbersome approach to inspection and enforcement activities. I can give you one example. When an inspector enters a multi-commodity establishment, say one that produces products that combine meat and vegetables that are processed into another product, the inspector has to enforce authorities under several different statutes, causing inconsistencies in enforcement. This bill will allow us to change that. It will modernize and consolidate our inspection enforcement authorities across all food commodities to meet current and future needs.

Let me give you a few specific examples of increased inspection powers in addition to those that the minister covered in his remarks.

As mentioned, this bill includes explicit authority for inspectors to compel information within a specific timeframe and in a readable format. The bill will allow inspectors to request telewarrants, which will aid enforcement actions in more remote areas. The bill allows inspectors to take photographs in support of investigations and enforcement actions related to food. The bill empowers inspectors to look at records on computers, again in support of food compliance verification activities. This bill will ensure a more effective inspection presence by eliminating the differences that now exist in the various pieces of legislation that regulate food products.

In addition, the bill includes broader authority for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in a number of areas: unsafe food can be prohibited from being imported into Canada, and direct authority is provided for dealing with tampering and hoaxes. The bill includes enhanced food and animal traceability authorities and authorities around licensing and the ability to require preventative controls.

As well, as was discussed earlier, much higher fines can now be levied on top of the administrative monetary penalty regime.

In June 2009, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food tabled the Subcommittee on Food Safety report entitled “Beyond the Listeriosis Crisis: Strengthening the Food Safety System”.

The subcommittee identified areas for improvement, such as a common approach to food safety, standards for implementing food safety programs, including hazard analysis critical control point and traceability systems, and increased resources for inspection systems. All parties supported the full implementation of all of the recommendations made by the independent investigator, Sheila Weatherill.

In the past, the CFIA has faced some criticism from some parliamentarians, standing committees, and stakeholders for outdated and inconsistent inspection and enforcement authorities. This legislative proposal addresses these issues. I would like to assure you that this bill does not change accountabilities for food safety. Health Canada remains responsible for setting policies and standards for food safety and nutritional quality. For its part, the CFIA will continue to be responsible for enforcing food safety standards.

My colleagues and I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Thank you again to all of you for being here.

Any kind of legislation, any law that we have, is only as good as the ability to enforce it—I think everybody would agree with that—so I want to talk a little more about inspection, because there has been some confusing information out there.

We were told that 700 new food inspectors have been added to the ranks. From the research we've done, we know that a lot of them include hundreds whose work has nothing to do with protecting Canadians from unsafe food products. For example, 200 inspectors have been added to the invasive alien species program, which obviously is important but doesn't deal directly with food safety.

It's my understanding that since 2006, not a single new meat hygiene slaughter inspector position has been added to the CFIA ranks, except to fill vacancies. I'd like to get some clarification on that. We know that as a result of what happened at Maple Leaf Foods,170 inspectors have been added to the processed meat program. Now we've had this outbreak at XL. Following what happened with Maple Leaf Foods, are more inspectors going to be added, and if so, how many, and when will they be in place?

[George Da Pont]

Thank you very much for the question.

The first point I would make is I agree with you that there has been a certain amount of confusion around the number of inspectors, but we've tried very hard to dispel that confusion. We have the exact numbers posted on our website, running back eight or nine years. We've identified which ones are front-line inspectors--they're the people who do the front-line inspection--and the inspection managers. We've broken down the increase in meat-related inspectors. We have put all this information on our website. It has been there for some time, and there has been a significant increase. If you look at the website, it accounts for the numbers and accounts for the numbers on the meat side.

If I use the XL plant as a primary example, four or five years ago we had fewer inspectors than we do now. Over the last three or four years we have augmented the number of people in that plant by adding two additional veterinarians and six additional inspectors. You mentioned slaughter facilities; that's a perfect example of where we've had a significant increase in the number of people in that particular plant in the last few years.

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

Given the fact that it is a pretty high-production plant, cranking out a lot of meat, and that things move pretty fast, and we've had a crisis there, are you planning on increasing the number of inspectors at that particular plant, and if so, by how many, roughly?

[George Da Pont]

We have a formula that takes into account a variety of factors, including the speed of the line, to determine how many inspectors are needed in a particular plant. What we have in XL is equivalent to what we have in other slaughter plants, taking into account the size of the plant, the amount of production, the speed of the line, and so forth. We have no evidence at this point that this number is inadequate. It is working successfully in other plants. It has worked successfully there, notwithstanding the incident that we obviously had. There were other factors, we think, that led to that. We can get into that a little later in more detail.

Obviously, we very much want to do a lesson learned, an examination of the situation, as we do in any such situation, as the minister indicated, using our expert advisory panel, and I think we need to have a thoughtful, sober look at everything. If, coming out of that, there are recommendations on things that we could and should improve, we'll certainly do that.

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

I have 20 seconds. There is to be consolidation of the inspection system for fish, meat, and agricultural products, the idea being that the inspectors will now consolidate their knowledge. How will Bill S-11 ensure that the differences will be taken into account? In other words, will a former meat inspector have the qualifications to go to other areas? How are you looking at that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Answer in 10 seconds or less, please.

[George Da Pont]

I was going to ask Mr. Mayers, but if you put a 10-second time limit, that may not be possible.

I think there are some things that are very common no matter what you are inspecting. Basic sanitation is a prime example of that. Obviously, there will always within that have to be some particular aspects tailored to whatever the product is and whatever the plant is doing. We see the consolidation being all those things that are in common that should apply across the board, notwithstanding what the food commodity is. That should be standardized. There will always be specific things that relate to whether you're in a slaughter plant, a meat processing plant, or processing vegetables. It will be a combination of a lot of common things and unique aspects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Payne is next.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Da Pont, and your officials, for being here today.

As I said earlier, XL Foods is in my riding. It's a very important facility for that community. It has roughly 2,200 workers in a city of 13,500 people. It has a huge impact on the community, as well as obviously on not just the community but the employees, the company, and the ranchers who are there. It has a huge impact.

I've had a number of opportunities to talk to the media on this matter. Something like 4,000 head of cattle go through there every day. When I think about that, Mr. Da Pont—I know that we have all those inspectors and veterinarians there—I think about the required documentation. It's absolutely huge. I tried to explain that to the media. I tried to explain to the opposition that you can't just flip a switch and everything is okay the next day.

However, I really want to talk about inspectors' powers. Those were just comments I needed to get out on the floor.

The inspectors are our front-line troops. What we want to ensure is that they do in fact have the powers. We have added, as was stated earlier, some 700 net new inspectors. It's really important for them to be able to do the job that is required of them and have a number of powers granted to them by law.

Some of those—as you mentioned, Mr. Da Point—are to examine, test, take samples, open packages, take photographs, copy computers, and move or restrict items, which we saw through the recall process. One thing the legislation does is modernize the inspection powers by, for example, explicitly allowing inspectors to take photographs, whereas before that was not specifically stated in the statutes.

Some, however, are worried that the legislation gives food inspectors too much power. I'm wondering if you could explain why this concern is unfounded.

[George Da Pont]

There are really two aspects that are very important. Our inspectors are critical. You have to give them the full range of authority. You can't micromanage and shouldn't micromanage an inspector in the field. We rely on their training, professionalism, and judgment.

One of the important things in exercising that power is you have to have reasonable cause. This is a test that would apply across the board in looking at all inspection powers. Five or six months ago, the agency tried to capture some of this and lay out some of these things in a service commitment document that applies to our inspection staff and to all of the people we regulate.

There is also another powerful new tool in this legislation. It provides for the creation of a statutory complaints mechanism, which does not exist in statute now. For anyone who is regulated or anyone who feels that an inspector or anyone else in the agency overstepped their bounds or was not reasonable in the use of the powers, it now provides a review and appeal mechanism that can look at the situation quickly, come to a conclusion, and take action if indeed it is founded.

In addition, as is the case now, people would have access to the courts, but this provides a mechanism that should be faster, quicker, and cheaper than trying to go through court.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you. I have 20 seconds.

I want to again reiterate how grateful I am for the CFIA and what they have done at that facility. It's important that we have safe food. I know the difficult work it has been on the inspectors. I just want to say thank you to all of them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Da Pont.

First, you should know that everyone around this table supports Bill S-11. Second, nobody's questioning any of your commitments to food safety in this country. It's not so much what's in the bill as it is what might not be in it. Sheila Weatherill, in the report, recommended a third party independent audit. All sorts of successful companies—private, public—have third party audits, an outside look-see at the total resources.

I have four questions for you.

One, do you see the merit of a third party audit being undertaken every five years? Somebody outside of the CFIA would come in and look at it so parliamentarians and CFIA are informed on what exists, what may be needed, and how efficiencies can be achieved.

Two, you heard the minister say that CFIA could have been a lot more hard-nosed on getting the material from XL, rather than being nice. That tells me they had the authority. It might be a matter of culture in a particular plant where the authority wasn't exercised, whereas it is exercised in other plants. I'm still troubled with this seeking refuge behind some lack of authority under the existing legislation. Do you not feel they actually had the authority and it was a question of culture?

Third, I'm concerned that clause 27 doesn't authorize the inspector to require a specific format in which information is delivered, so time could be lost between delivery of information and the interpretation of that information.

Fourth, would you, Mr. Da Pont, undertake to provide within a week the names of all inspectors at CFIA, their job descriptions, and where they are located?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before I ask you to comment on that, I will suggest that as with all people who serve the Government of Canada and the people, it's policy, not opinion, that you're asked to present.

Thank you.

[George Da Pont]

In relation to your first question, that is very much a policy issue and it is not appropriate for me to comment on it in the context that you raised it, except to note that the legislation being proposed does have a review provision, and that review provision includes reference to resource review. How the committee chooses to deal with that, of course, is in the hands of the committee.

I'm glad you asked the question on the documentation, because we do have the power to compel documentation. That's never been in question and never been the issue. The Meat Inspection Act has such a provision. What's different in clause 27 is that we've added phrases about timeliness. While we have the power to compel it, there isn't a clear authority on compelling it in a certain timeframe. If you look at the situation in this case, we asked for the documentation verbally on September 6, which is quite appropriate. You're working with plant management.

We were not getting the impression that we were getting much action. We formally wrote to them on September 7. We set a deadline for producing that documentation on September 8, so we did take very quick and progressive action to set a deadline.

However, we don't really have an enforcement mechanism. The minister mentioned the only available enforcement mechanism, which is to simply shut down the plant. That is a theoretical option, no question, but if I go back to the point the other member raised, we also have to be seen as exercising authorities in a reasonable manner. Based on the information we had at that time, as the minister outlined, there were no spikes in illnesses, and no product that we knew had tested positive was in the marketplace. It would have been very difficult, in a practical sense, to pass that test.

That's why I think these provisions are important. They were put in the legislation when it was tabled in the Senate, which was well before this particular incident. They weren't tailored to this incident; they were tailored by our experience in other situations that have been replicated here, so we've strengthened the front-line inspector's ability to get action in a timely way by specifically adding that to the legislation.

I don't think the idea of asking an inspector to determine a format is workable. We have over 700 facilities. You don't want 700 inspectors having different formats. To answer that, we would rely on the regulation that we would put in place under subclauses 51(1) and 51(3), whereby we would be able to, in regulation, set out the format of the documentation and the type of information, and it would apply across the board.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Da Pont.

I suggest that we verify whether Mr. Da Pont is actually legally able to provide those names to the committee. If he is, I'll ask that he do it through the chair.

Mr. Hoback is next.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being here this afternoon, gentlemen, to help us go through this new piece of legislation.

I have to say I'm a little concerned, and I'm glad you're here to explain the facts to the opposition members here. There's been a lot of misinformation and distortions in their presentations that have created a lot of confusion and fear.

The first thing I'm going to ask you to do—and it's very simple—is tell them what the website address is. I've told them three or four times where to go to get the information on inspectors, on timelines, and all that, but they don't seem to know it. If you could highlight the website address for them, I'd really appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Allen, on a point of order.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

The request by Mr. Hoback is willingly accepted by this side, provided that Mr. Da Pont is willing to put it in writing to the chair and have the chair distribute it. We'd be glad to accept it. I think it's cfia.ca.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Da Pont—