Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on June 8th, 2009

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

Maybe I could ask the association then.

Do you have any comment on the impact of COOL on the trucking association, and, actually, in terms of maybe the number of animals being moved and the situation you find yourselves in?

[Ron Lennox]

I'm just not familiar enough with animal transportation to be giving you an answer on that. I'm sorry.

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

Okay, that's fine.

Let's go to the border, then. We've had a couple of witnesses who've come in and said we need to really do a whole lot more inspections right at the border, and we've had presentations that explain that there's a certain number of vehicles that are picked out that can also.... Most vehicles are inspected away from the ports themselves.

I'm just wondering if you find the border to be a reasonable place to be able to transit now. Or do you think it's too onerous? Is it too easy? Does it need to be tightened up?

[John Gyoroky]

I think for us, our drivers who drive down to the United States in our international division are carrying FAST cards for quick access. We have pre-border clearance prior to the departure of the unit. In talking with the vice-president of our international division, they really don't have a problem with that. We are compliant with C-TPAT also. With the FAST card, we don't really see a problem with that in crossing the border.

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

Is it fairly similar going both directions?

[John Gyoroky]

I would say so. I'm not too familiar with the inbound to Canada. I'm mainly concerned with going inbound to the United States. I would hear of any problems with that, and we don't seem to have that. But we have taken the necessary precautions or measures to expedite that process through, again, the FAST program and the C-TPAT compliance.

[Ron Lennox]

One of the things that I talked about in the competitiveness study last week was the importance of electronic manifests for moving trucks across the border. The U.S. already has them in place, and Canada should be rolling its out this year. That will be of big benefit, in terms of expediting traffic across the border.

There's just one other thing in terms of whether the border is a good place to actually inspect vehicles. It tends to be a very busy, congested place with limited space. Certainly goods can move in bond, and, to the extent possible, of course, we would prefer that goods be inspected away from the border, provided you can maintain the integrity through seals, and there isn't an issue surrounding a perishable product or something like that.

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

Ms. Crews talked about the importance of incentive-based systems, as she put it, in dealing with HACCP and putting them in place. You found that you've been dealing with incentive-based systems.

It sounds like you have a fairly cooperative relationship with CFIA. Have you been able to work at that level, or has it been a more regulatory system? I think you said in one comment that “we realized that if we didn't get involved, somebody was going to do this for us”. I'd like your thoughts on that.

[Ron Lennox]

You're absolutely right. Our relationship with CFIA during the development of the program was very positive. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada came in later as well.

I'm not so sure that I would say we're involved with any sort of incentive programs, but certainly the federal government and I guess the provinces were involved in the food safety and quality program as well and funded all our out-of-pocket expenses for the development of the program. They were fairly significant. Before I came here today, I checked that, and they were about $350,000.

Our role was to provide in-kind contributions only. There's just no way we would have been able to come up with that kind of money internally, I don't think, to do that kind of project.

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

I would actually like to go to the Growing Forward traceability, but before I do that, I just want to ask you, then, do you find yourselves dealing with different situations in different provinces? Or, because you're exporting, is it pretty much a consistent standard that you have to deal with?

[Ron Lennox]

As I've said, there really aren't that many regulations on trucking itself, so what we're responding to are shipper demands, to a large extent, for food safety. That's really one of the primary drivers for why we developed this HACCP system. We didn't want to be faced with different sets of requirements for everybody we operated for.

We wanted to have our own program so that we could say, look, we understand your need for protecting the integrity of this load, here's what we're doing internally to do it, and we'd like those systems to dovetail. That was the principle.

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

What are the main elements, then, of your HACCP program? You talked about cleaning your trailers and standards and that. What would those main elements be, since primarily they don't have to do with food safety itself?

[Ron Lennox]

Do you want to answer that, John?

[John Gyoroky]

Certainly. The main elements of our HACCP program travel all through our conveyances, through the cleanliness of our conveyances or trailers and our straight trucks. That also pertains to the sites where we cross-dock freight. Many of our customers, I think, have the understanding with the freight that at times when we're in the LTL business, the freight that we pick up on trailer A we might not necessarily deliver with trailer A. With our full truckload division, that would be the case.

But they are putting it on a trailer that has to go across a cross-dock facility or a warehouse, so our sanitation, pest control, cleanliness, and training of employees in personal hygiene and also in health and safety pertain to this program. On construction of our trailers, all of our trailers have aluminum-ribbed floors and Bullitex walls. There is no wood in the containers. They're all reefered units and dual-temp trailers. Our trailers can maintain two temperatures, a fresh and a frozen, within the one unit.

All those things pertain to it. I guess it would the building and all of our conveyances, along with our staff, through the pest control, the conveyance cleaning, and the regular monitoring of this. We do self-audits once a year and we're also subjected to an audit by Kasar Canada. That usually keeps me very busy.

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

Do I have a minute or two?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired.

Mr. Lennox and Mr. Gyoroky, there's a move out there by some--I'll say extreme--animal rights groups to change some of the rules for transportation of livestock. I think some of them would like to take it as far as having carpet on the bottom of the trucks. We all know what the practicality of that is.

I guess my question on it is on some of the things that I'm sure you've heard about for what they are proposing or asking for. Do you think that, in any way, has any connection to food safety?

[Ron Lennox]

I'm actually not familiar with what exactly they've been saying, Mr. Miller, but--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You maybe wouldn't want to know.

[Ron Lennox]

Okay. I mean, I can imagine, but does it pertain to the safety of the food? Probably not. What we're talking about is.... There are animal welfare codes that the carriers have to comply with in order to move livestock, and that's what carriers adhere to. Are they perfect? Could they be made better? Short of the carpet on the bottom, I don't know, but I don't see it as a food safety issue per se.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Just part of that code you talked about is one example. I brought a number of cattle from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta down to my part of the country. I think the line is west of Moose Jaw or Regina. Any cattle that are in transportation on their way to Ontario have to be unloaded in Thunder Bay. That is costly, but I certainly don't dispute it or argue about it.

[Ron Lennox]

I very briefly described our program. There's the core, with the sanitation, pest control, all the prerequisite programs, and the standard operating procedures, as well as some commodity-specific modules, depending on what's being carried. One of them is on live animals. But most of the references in there are to these various codes for animal welfare, making sure they're transported humanely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks very much to all of you.

These bells are calling us for votes. We will have to get back, and the chance of us being back before our allotted time is probably nil.

So I'd like to thank all of you for coming here and participating in our food safety study. I'm sure we'll see you at committee again.

We'll recess until after the votes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We will call our meeting back to order and thank our witnesses from CFIA for being here.

I understand, Ms. Swan, you're going to start.

[Carole Swan, President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee again. As I indicated to the committee at our last appearance, all of us at the CFIA were saddened and disheartened by the food-related illnesses last year, and we do express our sympathy to all those affected.

I would like to make three main points. First, I share the view that has been expressed by many of the witnesses who have appeared before this committee that food safety is a shared responsibility that starts with the stewardship of producers and concludes with an informed consumer. It is not the sole responsibility of any one group or organization.

These various responsibilities are set out in statute. Government is responsible for setting standards for food safety. Specifically, Health Canada is responsible for deciding what constitutes a health risk. The CFIA is responsible for setting strong standards for food production, verifying industry compliance with those standards, and undertaking enforcement actions and recalls when necessary. Food producers are responsible for producing safe food.

Second, I want to emphasize that CFIA employees are professionals and dedicated public servants. CFIA employees worked hard to identify, understand and respond to the factors that contributed to last summer's outbreak.

We took action to reduce the risk of this happening again. We took a hard look at what we could have done better. These efforts are described in the Agency's "Lessons Learned" documents, which have been shared with this committee and the general public.

Finally, I want to emphasize that the agency looks forward to the advice of this committee and that of the independent investigator, Sheila Weatherill, on how improvements can be made to reduce risk and enhance food safety for Canadians.

Thank you. I now turn it over to Dr. Evans.

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

Thank you, Madam Swan.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate as well the opportunity to appear again before this committee.

Despite the best efforts of the CFIA last summer, Canada bore witness to the tragic loss of life for 22 Canadians and serious illness for many others due to listeria contamination in ready-to-eat meats. It was a situation the likes of which we never want to see repeated. So the CFIA wholeheartedly supports the work of this committee and the independent investigator to provide recommendations that will further contribute to food safety in Canada and mitigate against any similar circumstance happening in the future.

Well before the appointment of the independent investigator and our first appearance before this committee, the CFIA undertook a thorough and frank review and analysis of our protocols, procedures, and activities as they related to the listeriosis outbreak. This important work was necessary to determine where vulnerabilities may have developed in an ever-changing and dynamic risk environment for our food safety system and to make immediate adjustments.

Armed with that knowledge and a resolve to maintain the highest standards of safety possible for the over 100 million meals consumed each and every day in Canada, we have turned our attention to the future. We have gained valuable insight as a result of the findings and lessons gained from the outbreak. Those insights have resulted in many key initiatives being brought forward which will demonstrably enhance protection for Canadians against this potentially lethal pathogen. Time does not permit me to outline all of the actions taken but allow me to cite a few examples for you.

Inspector training has been stepped up. This is especially necessary since we have mandated greater stringency in listeria environmental testing. Furthermore, we are strengthening our coordination with the other key players in the food safety network, such as Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the provinces and territories and their public health units. Key among those partners, as Carole alluded to earlier, are the food producers themselves, whose commitment to the provision of safe food is also paramount.

Investments have also been made at the laboratory level. There is ongoing work to validate new and more rapid test methods and to increase our capacity collectively to conduct genetic fingerprinting. We are continuing to fine-tune a robust inspection regime called CVS, with the full engagement of our inspection staff, that aligns with HACCP principles, which is a strong and proven approach embraced by international leaders in food safety.

While the CFIA has taken these measures to enhance protection against the risk of listeria, taken alone they will not be enough. We need to look at the food safety network holistically to ensure that all contributors take strong action to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring in the future. Just as a chain is as strong as its weakest link, vulnerabilities in any of the elements of the production continuum can have dire food safety results. That is why I have been heartened to see representatives from other government authorities, industry, academia, and unions come before this committee to share their perspectives and commit to improvements to the system. We all have a role to play.

In hindsight, it is clear that opportunities were missed to both reduce the consequences of the contamination and to reduce the potential for contamination to occur.

It is our collective earnest desire and obligation to do better.

While improvement is always possible and necessary, I reject the notion put forward by some that CFIA resources and staffing were inadequate to meet the situation. The CFIA has more resources now than at any time in its history.

Food safety inspection numbers have steadily increased since the inception of the agency, as has the educational quality and competencies to perform these tasks. The same can be said of lab technicians and food safety investigators who were key players in determining the source of the contamination. Professionalism, passion for public service, and recognition of the importance of the work they do is the hallmark of CFIA employees. Those who say otherwise serve a different agenda and constituency.

The tragic loss of life may have been reduced or avoided if this type of food, with its known associated risk to vulnerable populations, had either been heated prior to serving or had not been served to the elderly or people with compromised immune systems, in line with the long-standing guidance from Health Canada. The contamination of product may have been averted or detected earlier if positive environmental results had been reported or assessed in more detail.

Another significant contributing factor to the timelines of the situation was the speed and quality of information flow between public health and food safety authorities. The proper collection, identification, handling, and testing of food samples was also a contributing factor to the time necessary to confirm contamination at production and not during preparation.

While information flow may not have been ideal, it is evident that all jurisdictions brought a high level of intent to protecting the public and getting to the answers as quickly as possible. While lives were unfortunately and regrettably lost or forever changed, your search through the evidence will inform you that no effort was spared and undoubtedly it prevented further illness and loss of life.

By all international standards, the food safety investigation was thorough and rapid, resulting in actions to recall even before the confirmation of the typing of the listeria as the same as the illnesses and a week before the first death was confirmed as due to the deli meat contamination.

There is one overarching theme that I would like to leave you with today, and that is complexity. The interaction and interventions of many players are required to provide safe food. That necessarily introduces complexity to our food safety regime. This complexity is further compounded by the globalization of food production, changing consumer demands, demographic shifts, new production and processing technologies, and so on. The nature and the sources of risks to food safety are evolving rapidly, and our inspection systems must keep pace.

To use a military metaphor--and I do so with some reluctance, in light of what was celebrated over the past weekend in terms of D-Day remembrance--the war against food safety risk is currently being prosecuted by an alliance of units, each with its own specialty and command structure. The enemy they face is dynamic and evolving. The terrain on which they fight is constantly shifting. That is a very challenging and complex environment. To expand on the metaphor further, what is required is a broad view of the campaign and an understanding of all the assets that can be brought to bear on the challenge before us. Vision and strategy are required at the highest levels, while strong, coordinated execution is required from all the supporting units.

The CFIA is one of these many key assets in the defence against food-borne illness. We look forward to playing our part in executing the broader strategy that will be put forth by this committee and from the office of the independent investigator.

In closing, let me assure all members of the subcommittee that any and all who bring in earnest an ability to contribute to high standards of food safety and their effective implementation in Canada will find a committed, willing, and collaborative partner in the CFIA.

Thank you.