Evidence of meeting #42 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I can assure Ms. Bennett, and Canadians, that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has one of the highest standards in the world. And I can assure them that what Canadians are putting on their barbecues from Canadian stores is safe.
I do not think it's right that the Liberal Party continues to try to play this fear-mongering game. It absolutely destabilizes the market.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Yes, thank you.
One of the main concerns we had in the preparation for a pandemic influenza was to make sure we would be able to keep avian flu a disease of birds. We wanted to make sure that human transmission couldn't happen. It meant that there needed to be preparation with all the poultry farmers of this country, who didn't want to witness with their flocks the culling that was seen around the world a couple of summers ago.
The rumour that $25 million would be cut from avian influenza preparedness, that $25 million could be cut from BSE testing, particularly for our cattle producers, who are in such terrible trouble now, and the idea that actual inspections to feed and meat processors would be deferred to the industry and an American model do not increase the confidence of Canadians. And also, regarding this pre-market assessment that should be there for foreign products coming into Canada on meat and fruits and vegetables, we want to know if these cuts are actually happening.
In the spring, Mr. Chair, Michèle Demers, from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada--the scientists of the Government of Canada--came to lobby members of Parliament that they were short-staffed and to say they were worried that they could not do their jobs in a scientific way. The fact that we now hear about this report, which had been approved by Treasury Board probably in November, makes us understand why they were very concerned. Even at that time they felt they didn't have enough staff, and then there might be the potential of these cuts that had been rumoured.
I think it is extraordinarily important, as my colleague has suggested, that we hear from the CFIA people. We need to see the report, and we need to hear from the scientists in the Government of Canada in terms of what the impact of these cuts could be.
There are those of us who understand what cutting inspectors meant in terms of Walkerton and what happened at the Aylmer meat plant. We have a moral obligation to get the facts on this.
We cannot continue to allow this government, with their Bushisization of ideology versus science.... This is enough already. We heard the health minister this morning chastise the doctors of this country for 30 minutes straight that he knew science better than the doctors of this country.
Let's just get on with the facts. And let's get Canadians confident. Any cuts in this area decrease the confidence of Canadians and the world markets. Let's get on with it and find the facts. If there weren't cuts, and if somehow this report has been reversed by this government, then we will be the first to say that's a good thing. But let's get the facts, and then let's get on with hearing from the scientists to see what these cuts might mean.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Just for your information, Madam Bennett, your examples of the Aylmer and Walkerton situations are both provincial inspections, not federal.
Mr. Storseth, you have the floor.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I think the inspectors were cut. It's a sort of global thing, I think, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First, could I ask for a clarification? Does Mr. Easter have a motion on the floor?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The motion is on the floor, and it has been circulated. It reads:
The Committee demands that government provide the Committee with the plan to abandon critical food safety inspections as was reportedly approved by Treasury Board in November 2007 and the committee begin a study of the plan to abandon food safety inspections and report the results back to the House of Commons.
That was the motion. It's not as though we'd been discussing calling in the CFIA right away, or bringing the union in tomorrow at eight o'clock. That's not part of the motion.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I guess that's my concern. It's that Mr. Easter, while he did deliver an eloquent soliloquy that was well rehearsed, didn't actually address the issues we are here today to talk about. On this side, we're more than happy to get down to the truth of this, to show a little professionalism. Let's have the CFIA come to the table and sit down, and ask them whatever questions you want to ask in that regard. If you want to have further witnesses come forward, we're more than happy to do that, but let's have a level of debate here and not go on a bunch of assumptions.
My problem with this motion is that they've already coined the debate with a whole bunch of assumptions that are surrounded by zero facts. I think the most pertinent thing and the most responsible thing for us to do as members of Parliament would be to have the CFIA come forward today, sit down with them and ask them some questions, and if Mr. Easter has a list of other witnesses prepared that he'd like to ask questions of, fine, then move forward with a motion after that.
Once again, he's moving forward with assumptions and motions and he hasn't even taken the time to get all the facts straight on this stuff. That is what concerns me.
We have one of the safest food inspection standards in the world. There are 200 more inspectors this year than there were last year. There's $113 million more this year than there was last year. Let's get some of the facts on the table, and if Mr. Easter still wants to move forward with his study, or report, or however he wants to put it, we can discuss it at that time. I think we should be taking the time to discuss facts, as we on this committee have done traditionally in the past.
That's what I would like to see the committee move forward with first, and try to keep some of the partisanship out of this. This is about food safety, and we as a government have led the way on this issue. In our mandate the Prime Minister has been a leader on this in this country and around the world. I think we should move forward with getting to the truth of this matter.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
If the report was produced in November 2007, someone must have it. My concern and the public's concern is, what is in this report that is so worthy of being kept secret? If the report was defined as being secret, what does the term “significant communication risks” mean to the public, and is that enough reason for us not to receive it?
Also, the implication here is that farmers, as has been very clear to me, want the same rigorous rules to apply to imports as are applied to them. Does this report change that, or does it actually make it easier for imports to not be inspected? I think that's the concern about health risks to Canadians.
I'm asking that the report be presented to us tonight so that we can study it and at least have some basis for more detailed questioning, Mr. Chair.
The minister has been before us a few times, and in our questioning I don't know if he was duty bound not to tell us about what was in that report in his responses. I would like to know if that tempered the way he responded to some of our questions in terms of the past six months of the committee. It would really come down to, as was mentioned, that we actually see this so we can determine....
Right now there's a lot of speculation. Is there a $25 million cut from avian flu preparedness, yes or no? I'd rather know definitively as opposed to trying to guess, because since November 2007 we probably could have done a lot in terms of avian flu preparedness.
I thank you for the opportunity to make those points, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Chair.
To the health question, I agree that the health and safety of Canadians and food safety is a priority. It's certainly important and it is something this government has taken very seriously and has taken major steps toward improving, with more inspectors, as my colleague has indicated, and $113 million in the budget. There are no spending cuts. There are increases and, certainly, spending maintained to ensure we get the best use of the dollars.
I think this motion by Mr. Easter requesting to have a meeting and much of what he said is a lot of smoke and making political hay for his own benefit. The fact of the matter is that this government has taken a lot of steps in the right direction, including in the area of food labelling and ensuring that products made in Canada are indeed made in Canada. Steps are being taken to modernize the system and get the best use of the dollar.
I agree that we should hear from the officials and others to see the steps that are being taken, but from what I can see from the motion itself, it is a bit of politicking going on.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Briefly, Mr. Chair. I don't understand the coyness, the paranoia with which the government members are operating. In November 2007 this report was found by Mr. Pomerleau. He was since let go or fired, after 20 years of good service to the country, apparently. If the allegations made by him are completely unwarranted, if his interpretation of the report is baseless, as the members opposite seem to be hinting, why not release the report?
Why would the government, last December, not have said, “This guy's allegations are off the wall; here's the report, Canadians”--Canadians who have a clear inherent interest in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, after all. “Here it is, Canadians, judge for yourselves; we are not, definitely not reducing funding for this agency.” Why did the government not do that seven, eight or nine months ago? Why are they now wanting the witnesses to come forward without yet having provided the report to us and, by extension, to Canadians? What are they hiding with respect to the report? I'd like to challenge or ask the parliamentary secretary, why has the report not been released to the Canadian public?
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I make a motion that we suspend debate on this motion and call the witnesses forward. Then we can resume it, if Mr. Easter wishes, after we hear the witnesses.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay, we'll go straight to the vote on this dilatory motion to suspend debate on this motion, to return to it at a later time, and to call witnesses forward.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
No, none. Unless Mr. Storseth wants to clarify calling witnesses--
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Chair, first of all, I think this is common courtesy. This is what we've traditionally done. We have witnesses here, so let's call them forward. We're not saying we're not going to continue this thrilling debate afterwards, but if the witnesses could come forward, maybe they could shed some light on some of the questions that Mr. St. Amand and Mr. Easter brought forward. We could then resume this debate afterwards.
Traditionally, this committee has been very hospitable toward witnesses. Call them forward and move on. If Mr. Easter has more witnesses he wants to bring up afterwards, that can be a part of the discussion after we resume debate. I'm not asking that we adjourn the meeting; I'm asking that we suspend the debate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
If it's only based on a clarification, Mr. Easter. I'm being very, very lenient here.
