Health Committee on June 10th, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Excuse me.

Thank you. It's now Ms. Davidson's turn.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks very much to our presenters for being here. You're becoming very familiar faces around this table.

I see in the document that was handed out, “Progress on Food Safety As of March 31, 2010”, that the government is going through the response. They certainly are moving forward on the recommendations. From what we've heard this morning, there has been a great deal of progress made. It also says that the recommendations and the way forward are being put into three different categories: reducing food safety risks, enhancing surveillance, and improving emergency response.

As I glance through this and I see the different categories, I wonder if you could outline for us this morning how you're moving forward on those three categories and how you may be cooperating with Agriculture, which I think has been expressed as a bit of a red herring but a bit of a problem, too, because the issue does fall under two different departments. I think there is cooperation and collaboration, but maybe you could just point out the different ways you're doing that.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

It happens at multiple levels. Part of it is the clarity around the pieces. In general terms, as it relates to the human health impacts of food, it's Health Canada, in terms of the guidelines, standards, etc., working very closely. CFIA manages the farm to the store, or the distributor kind of thing. For us it's the overall engagement around prevention, but also, when there are outbreaks or human health concerns, making sure there's a public health perspective to that.

What supports that are a number of committees at different levels, as well as day-to-day ongoing collaboration and consultation, discussion, to make sure we are taking into concern--so CFIA and agriculture--human health issues and are considering how the system works, so that we have an understanding of it and so that it moves as seamlessly as possible. So clarity in roles has been very helpful and is very important.

As I mentioned, there is a deputy ministers committee that meets regularly that I'm part of. It looks at the overall work plan to ensure we're making progress on each of the items. There are also ADM and DG committees that support that work, and then those who are actually doing the work themselves. So we meet regularly to go over where we are, what we have accomplished, what we still need to do, what other issues we're facing, etc.

It's a huge collaboration, but I must say it's very effective and useful. Generally, having been in public health now for too many decades, it really is gratifying to see the level of collaboration across departments federally, but also with other jurisdictions in terms of the desire, the willingness, the interest, and the capacity to work together to solve these problems. None of us owns them alone, and all of us are necessary to create the solutions.

I've never seen anything as good as this. There's still a lot we can learn, but I'm quite gratified.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Is there anything you want to add on the different categories--for example, improving emergency response and how that is being coordinated?

[Meena Ballantyne]

On improving emergency response, we have the FIORP in place, which we've discussed at the various levels, so we're all made aware as soon as there is an emergency. The communication protocols are in place and people know who's responsible for what, so you're not wasting time in an emergency trying to figure that out.

As Dr. Butler-Jones said, we have committees at various levels. We go through all of these recommendations to make sure we are able to respond. To me, the governance part is the most important part of improving the emergency response--just knowing who's responsible for what, who you are going to call, and what information we're seeking.

For example, in the listeria tragedy that happened, now we know what information the lab needs and what the timelines are, so we can make sure the request is clear and the information we need to make the health-risk assessment is clearly identified, clearly provided to us. The protocols are in place as to where you send it, what information you send, and what is the expected timeline for a response from the Health Canada labs. All those protocols are now in place to make sure we can respond very quickly to an emergency.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Does the general—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Thank you. That's the end of the time.

Mr. Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning and thanks to the witnesses for being here.

Ms. Ballantyne, after your presentation, three questions occur to me. I am going to ask you those three questions and anyone who wants to can reply.

You mentioned a policy on listeria monocytogenes. We are well aware that there are a number of bacteria and we really do not know which one will cause the next outbreak. Does this policy just apply to listeria monocytogenes? Can we move away from listeria monocytogenes and apply it to various kinds of bacteria that might cause a similar problem to the one that occurred in 2008?

You also said that, using the process that you are putting in place, we will be able to find replacement oils that can reduce the amount of trans fat, which we know to be harmful. That is what you are saying. My question is simply this: with the work you are doing and the process that you are currently putting into place, will we really find a definitive solution to the problem of trans fat in food?

Now for my third question. You say that Health Canada is also working to improve its operational methods to support Canadian Food Inspection Agency investigations. We know that, in report after report, the Auditor General has pointed to ongoing problems with information management and internal communications in that agency. Given those problems raised by the Auditor General, I just wonder how you have been able to establish links to ensure that communication between Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is really effective.

[Meena Ballantyne]

Thank you for the questions.

I would like to start by answering the last question, if I may. Then, I will ask Dr. Farber and Dr. Godefroy to answer the first two.

For the third question, concerning processes with CFIA, we work very closely, as I said, with CFIA—extremely closely, at a variety of levels. Dr. Farber and his team are in virtually daily contact with CFIA; I'm in weekly contact with CFIA, at the very least; and we have these meetings every two weeks at which the ADMs and DGs get together to go through whatever the issues are and walk through each of the recommendations and the progress and discuss how we're advancing these issues at the health tables and at the CFIA tables.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

One way you do it is through senior management, but my concern is with the operations. I am sure that the senior managers talk to each other.

[Meena Ballantyne]

Of course.

I would like to ask Dr. Godefroy to reply.

[Dr. Samuel Godefroy]

Thank you for the question. Since the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was established, in fact, protocols have been put in place to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each and to make sure that we work together under very precise conditions. Of course, we saw the tragedy as an opportunity to review all the protocols and to strengthen the communication protocols.

We have 24-hour coverage, seven days a week. Our technical experts follow up on the investigations of potential food incidents. Each of those experts knows who to call and where to call every day, including weekends, for example.

The goal of the protocols we have established is to increase our response capability in peacetime, if I may use that expression. Maybe there are no incidents, but we are managing potential incidents every day. We also want to strengthen our ability to respond to a food emergency, or the beginning of one. The FIORP in particular is a very precise document that clarifies the roles and responsibilities not only between Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, but also with the Public Health Agency of Canada.

So we definitely follow very strict protocols and operational procedures that go beyond individuals. The objective is for operations and procedures to be transferable from person to person.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Thank you, Mr. Godefroy.

It's now Ms. McLeod's turn.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to take a slightly different tack to this. I know the absolutely critical importance of having a safe and secure food system. And we've certainly seen the tragedy of the listeriosis crisis. I also know that sometimes in our efforts to secure safe food systems, consequences come down the pipe that perhaps are unintended. I'll take a local example: community outrage, not related to what we're doing federally, but in terms of not being able to have bake sales at flea markets or not being able to take a birthday dinner of a culturally appropriate food into a seniors' home. These certainly hit the newspapers in terms of issues that are outcomes from our desire to protect the health and safety of our citizens.

As we implement these recommendations, do you see anything that is going to filter down to people at the table, and should we be anticipating any kinds of impacts?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

What you're describing is what will always be a certain amount of local variability in terms of the application of principles.

Having been a local medical officer, taking over a health unit where steelworkers who had no sick-leave plan would be put off work until they were clear of giardia, even though it was no threat to anybody in a steel workplace...but again, interpreting the rules very strictly. As another example, people were not allowed to have cream in a mug; it had to be in the little packets, even in a four-star diner. So that is local application and interpretation.

The way we need to address this is through education as much as possible, whether through the Public Health Association and its work or through the inspectors and sharing information so there is more consistent application of the principles, so it can be respectful of some of these things. There are just so many examples. I remember schools wanting to have muffin programs, and you had to have three sinks and you had to have this and you had to have that. Well, that's silly. So we worked out, with the inspectors, the school boards, and the communities, some simple ways to make that food safe, without getting stuck in the same rules that apply to major restaurants and vendors.

One of the challenges is making sure that people have an understanding not only of the rules and what we're trying to do but also the principles and approaches, and how you can accommodate that. That's like when you see laws being interpreted by one policeman a little bit differently from another. And that's why there are rights of appeal, and all these kinds of things.

We hope to see more and more education, more and more engagement in these issues, and more and more understanding. The decisions that are made locally will be more consistent because they will have a more consistent understanding of the principles, the objectives, the processes, and what really is a big risk versus a small risk. The whole HACCP approach, which is really looking at risk-based things, has facilitated that much more than let's say 20 years ago when people were often focusing on the wrong things. There was a regulation for the height of a railing. It was a quarter of an inch short. And they weren't focusing on the fact that they were leaving food sitting out too long. So it really is something that requires both education and engagement.

Just to pick up on Monsieur Malo's point very quickly, we are looking at all forms of food poisoning.

We are looking at all viruses, bacteria and parasites.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

We have 17 recommendations from Weatherill, which you've put into three categories, and you've indicated you're making good progress. Which one is your biggest challenge to move forward on? Of course, you still have some time to get there, but....

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

The biggest challenge--it always will be, as Dr. Bennett was referring to--is that in every jurisdiction their laws, their privacy issues, are a bit different. It takes a lot of work to get the formal agreements. It doesn't stop us from doing the necessary work, but getting formal agreements in place is difficult.

That being said, the FIORP revisions were remarkably well done quickly across multiple departments and multiple jurisdictions. One of the things I thought was going to be much more difficult turned out to be a great success because of all those involved.

Some of the more formal agreements will continue to take some time to get in place, but they're not related only to this issue.

[Meena Ballantyne]

I would say that--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Thank you. That's it for the time.

Dr. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Go ahead, Meena.

[Meena Ballantyne]

Thank you.

I would say that all of these recommendations—there are 57 of them—present their own challenges in terms of how you move it forward, because you are coordinating across jurisdictions and across the industry sector, governments, and consumers. As we've learned, protecting health and safety is a shared responsibility and all of us have to do our part. We were talking about the local communities, and consumers have to do their part in terms of making informed choices. Industry has to do its part in terms of making sure that the products are safe to begin with, and utilize all the processes that are necessary. Government also has to do its part, through the regulations, but through the standards-setting and policies and procedures that we have.

My view would be that we're making great progress on these recommendations. We're aiming to implement them all by September 2011. But as we continue, some of them are going to take longer to implement and to make sure that we get these principles entrenched in ourselves: it's only now that we're learning that we shouldn't leave cut fruit or cut tomatoes out for longer than two hours, for example.

Food safety has become an increasing part of our psyche and we are, as a population, absorbing the things that we can do as Canadians. All those things take time to permeate.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I guess what we had hoped and thought is that, of the 57 recommendations, there would be ability to give an update--i.e., completed, almost there, or nowhere there. Between yourselves and CFIA, could you send us a proper briefing as to where you think you are on each of the recommendations? As parliamentarians, if it's a resource issue, if there's something we then can advocate for you, to get it done more quickly or to make sure that you'll complete it by the time that was there, that would be very helpful.

Also, on FIORP, you said it would be tested. Is that a formal tabletop exercise with all the players?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Yes.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

This is about the confidence the public has that there have been some lessons learned, so would that tabletop exercise be made public? Could you let people know that it's being tested?

I think practising these things and letting the public in might be very interesting and might raise the confidence of Canadians that these kinds of things are worked through.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Certainly most people find it kind of boring if they're not involved. But if, for example, someone from the committee would like to be an observer to see how it works, I would have no issue with that.

Dr. Raizenne.