Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on June 8th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much, Ms. Swan and Mr. Evans.

We'll now move to questioning.

We will go first to Mr. Easter, for seven minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank you folks for coming.

We called you back because there are some discrepancies between what you presented as CFIA officials at the initial meetings you attended and what other witnesses have told us. I'll get into that in a moment.

Both Ms. Swan and Mr. Evans have mentioned the independent investigator, Ms. Weatherill. Do either of you know if the minister has been interviewed yet? Maybe the parliamentary secretary can tell us.

Does anybody know? As of two weeks ago, he had not been.

[Carole Swan]

Mr. Chair, I'm not aware that....

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

He hadn't been, as of two weeks ago.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, maybe somebody could find out.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I think Mr. Easter has incorrect information. It's my understanding that he was interviewed. I'm not sure where he's getting his information.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

He said he had a chat with her, but was he interviewed? Could the parliamentary secretary bring that to committee? We need that information, and it seems strange that he has not.

In any event, to be brutally honest to the officials from CFIA, I had more confidence in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency before we started this process than I do now.

I think everybody tries to do their best in the system, and I don't want to be overly critical. My point of view is that there was undue pressure on CFIA, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and others due to the political situation at the time. We can't seem to get an answer on that either. Certainly the Prime Minister and those in ministerial positions knew there was an impending election, and there seemed to be some concern over political fallout. Whether that had any influence on some of the delays that took place, I don't know. It seems to be a question we can't get answered.

I don't want people thinking this is a comment on them personally, but I do question that in this town we have a predominant majority of people in management positions who may not have come out of the industry they're supposed to be managing. In terms of senior management at CFIA, how many people are there in that level of management? What's the number? Second, how many have actually worked in the field of food inspection in their lives?

I don't want this to be taken personally by anybody, but I will admit right up front that I have a bias that in this town much of the management hasn't worked in the very industries in which they're required to act either as deputy ministers or managers. I have a problem with that, because I don't think the understanding is there on the ground.

Can you answer that question in terms of the number at the senior management level and the number who have actually worked in the field?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have a point of order. We've seen Mr. Easter try to basically smear people's reputations and the way they do their jobs throughout this set of hearings, and I think he's doing that again tonight. I'm a little bit disappointed in him, because if the folks in the senior management were all part of industry, he'd be complaining about that as well. Now he seems to be complaining or trying to find out whether they are a part of it or not.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have a point of order. That's just Mr. Anderson's rhetoric.

I have a serious issue here, Mr. Chair.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

That has nothing to do with whether they can do their job or not. I think Mr. Easter needs to actually take a look at what he's doing here and why he's trying to derail this hearing one more time. I'm very disappointed in him.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I want to make a record of this--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

It's not a point of order, but what you're saying, Mr. Easter, is that unless all of us on this committee were involved in agriculture we don't deserve to--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, that's not what I'm saying. And if it's not a point of order, then why are you commenting on it, Mr. Chair?

I expressed at the beginning, and I express in all seriousness, that this is not a comment on any people in management, but it's something I'm concerned about.

Can somebody answer my question in terms of how many are actually involved in the system and understand it in its entirety?

[Carole Swan]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the question.

I can tell you that at the most senior levels of the CFIA we have a mixture between people who have a background in one of the three predecessor departments that formed the CFIA, some people who have actually worked in the field in the CFIA, and others who have come to the senior level of the CFIA more recently.

If you look lower in our executive ranks, you will again find that mixture. A number of people have “grown up”, as it were, in the CFIA. A number of people have joined the CFIA more recently. I can tell you that without question the CFIA, both at senior levels and levels throughout the organization, are committed to the mandate and responsibilities of the CFIA, regardless of where they come from originally.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Ms. Swan.

On the question of inspectors, I think, Mr. Prince, you indicated that inspectors spend 50% of their time on the floor of the facilities. That was certainly contradicted by the Agricultural Union president and inspection personnel in testimony before this subcommittee. I expect that you've seen the evidence. Could you give us your interpretation?

Secondly, whoever has responsibility for training.... I think it was mentioned in your presentation, Brian, that training is important. But I was told by one of the witnesses here--after the meeting, I will admit--that he had seven opportunities to take training but he could only take one of those training sessions because there weren't enough personnel to replace him to take training. That's the other factor. And we do know the episode this summer and this fall on the swapping that happened, where people were found not to be trained to do the job.

I have two questions, really. What is the time on the floor? Is it 50%? Is it less than that? On training, are people actually able to take the training--due to the lack of replacement personnel, so that they can in fact take it?

[Cameron Prince, Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Easter for the question.

With respect to the amount of time that inspectors spend on the plant floor versus record review, the 50% is a number we stand by as a number that globally describes the amount of time inspectors across the country, in a wide variety of plants, spend on the plant floor. There is a wide variety of sizes of plants, risks associated with plants, the number of CVS tasks that have to be done and the nature of those tasks, so it may be that in one plant an inspector may find that it's 30% or 35%, or it could be the other way. We have data that would substantiate the 50%, so I simply want to emphasize that there's no magic number here. The 50% time spent on the floor versus record review is not necessarily directly related to food safety outcomes. It's about the whole system. It's about doing the right thing, doing the tasks that get at the greatest level of risk.

In answer to the second part, the training, I want to emphasize that all inspectors who delivered the CVS program, when it was initiated last year--every single inspector--had the appropriate level of training with the required amount of training necessary before they could enter into their full-time duties in implementing CVS. These inspectors received what we called FSE, food safety enhancement, HACCP training. There are three modules there; they received those. They learned about audit there. They learned about HACCP. And then that was added to with the CVS training, which was three and a half days, followed by mentoring by more senior inspectors. As a result, we feel very confident in saying that as far as CVS implementation and HACCP, our inspectors who have been involved have been fully trained.

As to your point about freeing people up in order to get the training, I would acknowledge that is an issue, not with respect to CVS food safety essential training, but training that.... In slaughter plants, our inspectors must be there, and we always have to have a full complement of inspectors there. That makes it difficult at times to schedule training. That is the reality of our business, but that is not to say that essential training in relation to HACCP and CVS was not implemented.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Bellavance, seven minutes.

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

On the listeriosis issue, I am sure that no one deliberately did anything to cause that situation and that no one wanted it to happen, but it did happen.

There are two aspects concerning how the crisis and the period after the crisis were managed where I feel the various parties involved should not be contradicting one another so much. That is why it is important to be hearing your testimony once again, since a number of other witnesses have come before the committee since your first appearance, and we have heard contradictory evidence about the crisis.

The time has come to make sure that taxpayers... People often say that it is the public who pays the salaries of members of Parliament, ministers, etc. And we are accountable to the public. The same is true for the public service. All of your salaries are paid for by the public, which has a right to all the transparency, and of course, the whole truth, since this crisis resulted in deaths and people certainly had cause for concern. This failure in the food safety system definitely caused a crisis of confidence as well with respect to our food safety system.

I would like to point out some of these contradictions to you. Of course, I have no need to ask you to be transparent, since I did so in my introduction. On April 20, 2009, when you appeared before the committee, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency told us that the information about the listeriosis outbreak had been received on August 6, 2008.

We then received testimony and a report from Dr. David Williams, the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario. He told us that he had notified the agency about the situation on July 29, 2008. In an e-mail dated May 27, 2009, the Ontario Minister of Health and Long-Term Care also told us that notification had taken place on July 29.

That is a discrepancy of just a few days, but we know that in a crisis of this kind days and hours are extremely important when it comes to taking action and dealing with the problem head on. Where does this contradiction come from? Explain that to me.

[Carole Swan]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can assure members that the CFIA comes here with full transparency.

Before I answer that question, I would suggest that while I recognize that confidence, perhaps, has been shaken--there is anytime there is illness or death--to state that there is a crisis of confidence in our system is perhaps a little overstated. I think we all need to recognize that food safety is a challenge.

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

Ms. Swan, I am going to interrupt you because I am not suggesting that confidence has been shaken. I do not know if you talk to local people like I do, but I can tell you that people's confidence in the food safety system was indeed affected by what happened. There was a great deal of concern.

I am not saying that people stopped eating. On the contrary, we make sure that people in that situation get the reassurance they need. I am not trying to create panic, but I do not feel I am exaggerating when I say that people's confidence in our food safety system has been shaken. When this happened, 22 people died. So people had a right to wonder what had happened.

So please answer my question about the date. That is what I am interested in. That is the question I asked you. You told us when you testified that the agency was informed on August 6, whereas we were told by the Ontario Health Minister and the Chief Medical Officer that you were notified on July 29.

Why is there this discrepancy between the two dates?

[Carole Swan]

Mr. Chair, let me begin, and I will ask Paul Mayers to give more detail on the system I'm about to describe.

In fact, the CFIA was first informed directly of information on possible listeriosis illness on August 6. On July 29, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in Ontario posted a message on a network called the Canadian Network for Public Health Intelligence, noting that there was an increase in listeria cases across Ontario and asking health units to post new listeria cases on an integrated public health information system.

There was no mention at that time in the posting of this information of a cluster of illnesses, or of an outbreak, or of a link to food. In short, when this information was posted on a network by the Ontario ministry, there was nothing for CFIA or the Public Health Agency to act on at that point in time. I just want to be very clear that this information was posted on an Internet network as opposed to a direct communication to CFIA. The direct communication to CFIA came on August 6.

If you would like, Paul can explain--

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

No, that will do for the moment.

On July 29, you were aware of the message, even though you say that it was not directly addressed to you.

Yes or no?

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

Let me be clear. We had no knowledge on July 29 of an outbreak, nor did anyone else in the system. The CNPHI, the Canadian Network for Public Health Intelligence, system and the Kiosk system that is used to exchange information are simply a means of reporting information in the public health system.

The CFIA monitors that system, as do our partners in other provinces and our colleagues in Health Canada and the Canadian Public Health Agency. That system, as our president noted, simply provides a means for the public health communities to draw attention to when changes from the normal background occur.

That's what happened in this situation. They indeed posted information that there were some additional cases of listeriosis occurring in the province of Ontario, and they asked public health units to be vigilant in their reporting. At that time there was no directing of information to CFIA, nor was there any information that could even provide a linkage as to a potential source or attribution for those cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt.

[Paul Mayers]

That's quite all right, Mr. Chair.