Agriculture Committee on Nov. 29th, 2012

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Da Pont, Mr. Ritz, Ms. Vinet, Mr. Meredith, and Mr. Mayers, for coming in today.

You keep touting our commitment to food safety, and yet all the evidence that keeps coming out suggests otherwise, from the listeria outbreak to this outbreak of E. coli and now the revelation of yesterday.

I am quoting: “...ensure that non-Japan-eligible carcasses are not inspected for spinal cord/dura-mater, other carcass defects, and minor ingesta...”, and the note continued, “Ignore them.” It said to ignore them.

There are some who would say, Mr. Da Pont, that this is wilful blindness. There are some who would say that not only do we need a third party to come in, such as an auditor, for whom the opposition has been asking for some time, but in this case there are also some who would say we should be calling in the RCMP to investigate what may amount to criminal negligence.

Can you tell me why you don't believe that this wilful blindness does not amount to criminal negligence, when the CFIA has placed the health and safety of the lives of Canadians at risk?

[George Da Pont]

Respectfully, sir, I simply have to disagree with your analysis.

As I've been trying to emphasize, that memo was from a supervisor giving specific instruction to one individual whose job and task at that station was simply to certify the requirements for Japan for export. That individual was being told “That is your job.” All of our other people were focused, as they should be, on food safety and dealing with all of the other issues.

As I've explained—and if you want more detail, Mr. Mayers can provide quite a bit of detail—the critical control points for dealing with those contaminants were after that inspection station, so I would disagree that we were not focusing on food safety. This is simply an instruction given to one particular position on what the individual at that position is supposed to do.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

This instruction, Mr. Da Pont, was given four years in a row. I would suggest to you that the reputation of CFIA, after last night's revelation, has been sufficiently brought into question that a third party needs now to be brought in, because nobody is going to believe any internal audit or any internal survey or any internal investigation or any investigation of a blue ribbon committee that the minister has created, because it will be seen to be designed to cover up what actually happened.

Frankly, I think those who are objectively looking at this right now are seeing these explanations as a cover-up, Mr. Da Pont.

[George Da Pont]

Again, I respectfully don't agree with that analysis. We have posted the memo. I would invite anyone who is interested to read the actual memo. It makes it very clear that the instruction is to that particular position. It is not a general instruction to all staff in that plant to ignore food safety, and respectfully, sir, I don't see how anyone could interpret that memo that way.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Time after time at this committee we have asked CFIA for the number of inspectors, their actual jobs—delineating them—and I have yet to see....

I don't refer to the document that we received that said CFIA understands the numbers don't add up. You're right, the numbers don't add up; they never have added up.

Can you tell us at the very least who the person was who received that memo, who watched those carcasses go by time after time with fecal matter on them? Can you give us the name of that person?

[George Da Pont]

There would be a variety of people over the years, sir. It was an instruction for that position. As you know, our inspectors rotate the jobs they do within the normal tasks, so it would not be one individual for the last four years. It was anyone assigned to that particular station at that particular time.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Then answer this: why would they need instruction? Were they concerned about something? Were they concerned about their job, if they didn't allow this fecal matter to go by? Why did they need absolute instructions?

[George Da Pont]

I will ask Mr. Mayers to provide you with that detail.

[Paul Mayers, Associate Vice-President, Policy and Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you.

It is actually quite simple. The position confirms for Japan a requirement that for Japan is unique in the world, which is that Japan accepts at present, in the Canadian context beef from animals less than 21 months old. That means for CFIA that in any plant eligible to export to Japan, we have to add a specific station that provides that assurance in order to certify products to Japan.

That station is unique for plants exporting to Japan, and—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Mayers—

[Paul Mayers]

No, please. Let me—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you. I have to stop it there.

I'm sorry, Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

The Japanese—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here this afternoon.

Here's another classic example. You could present the information to the opposition, but they wouldn't know how to read it.

The reality is that when I first heard about this, I was shocked too, but when you start to see exactly what was going on, it was just a matter of process and of how the beef moved through the plant and where it was inspected.

Can you assure me whether there was any beef that left that plant with fecal matter on it, whether it went to Canada or Japan?

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you.

I can provide that assurance. In fact, the regulations are explicit in this regard.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

So you had processes in place after that inspection point that ensured there would be no fecal matter, or any other matter, on the beef?

[Paul Mayers]

Absolutely. In fact, that inspection station, as I was trying to explain, is not related to product destined for Canadians or for any other market, which is why the instruction was explicit to Japan and was provided to the individual who at any point in time was working on that position—the expectation that they not inspect carcasses not destined for Japan, because that's not the role of that station.

The role of the system, however, is very different. Fecal matter and ingesta on a carcass at the final stage renders that carcass adulterated, with absolute zero tolerance. That means that product would not be considered edible, would not be permitted into the food supply. There is no question in that regard, and as the president has noted, the steps in the process that provide that assurance, including steam pasteurization and antimicrobial washes, occur after that station.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Is it fair to say, then, that this is a memo talking about a process, among the complete 20 processes that it goes through, just explaining that there is a difference in process because the beef is going to Japan rather than to domestic consumption?

It doesn't matter what end comes out of those 20 processes, it's safe. Is that fair to say to Canadians?

[Paul Mayers]

Absolutely. Fecal matter and ingesta on product are unacceptable and render the product adulterated; it cannot be placed on the market.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

The issue that I see here is another example in which, if you don't have all the facts and all the information, at first glance it looks horrible, but when you dig into it and you start to see the facts and lay them in front of people, you realize that this is not an issue.

Is that fair to say?

[Paul Mayers]

Well, you have to understand that the process of meat production starts with a live animal and concludes with the meat that is available to Canadians for their plates. Along that process, there are a series of inspections and tasks that are appropriate for that point in time for that carcass and for the condition one would expect of that carcass.

For example, one would not expect at slaughter, with the hide on, that a carcass would be sterile.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Exactly.

[Paul Mayers]

It would be unreasonable to expect that. That's why we have a very systematic process of oversight and inspection to provide this assurance.

What's happening here is that someone has taken one point in that entire process and attempted to attribute the entire safety system to that single point of inspection.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Exactly.

I think I'm going to leave that issue.

Minister, since you're here, I really would like to talk about some of the changes we've made in the Canadian Grain Commission and the grain trade. We had a group of farmers in here last week, and I'm just amazed at how happy they're looking right now, with $8.50 wheat and the movement of grain right now.

Could you talk about the CGC and the changes that are going on in Bill C-45, and maybe about changes in CWB and how the transition is impacting the market?