Agriculture Committee on Aug. 18th, 2008

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Certainly under the food safety action plan a number of those elements looked at how we can better ensure that before the product arrives at the border it has met our standard in terms of working with and reviewing in concert with other countries importing from various countries and, more broadly, sharing inspection reports so we can jointly identify areas where we both have concerns so it can be addressed collectively. It will certainly involve much more of a presence from Canada in the country of origin, either through audit processes or other means of validating that their methods are in line with our standards. It will involve our activities at the border as well, to ensure that importers and others who are importing products into Canada can demonstrate the products they are bringing into the country meet our standard.

We will continue to do any investigations and compliance activities to the highest level possible. Should something enter the marketplace where it legitimately does not belong, we will exercise our full authorities on the food recall basis, and we will continue to inform Canadians of any risk that has somehow entered the system.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I think it's fair to say that Canadians want to be sure our system is working properly. You've taken the steps to ensure that. They're also interested in knowing that items being imported meet standards that we've grown to expect. They want to be sure that somebody is on top of what's coming into the country through imports.

From what I hear from you, there is an audit process with the country of origin. I would take it that you also have a product inspection and tests that are conducted at the point of entry. I'm assuming you're doing at least what you've done in the past, perhaps more. Maybe you can elaborate on that a bit.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

We certainly do have an annual residue monitoring plan. Residues can be chemical, they can be biological hazards, they can be direct tampering, and they can be physical hazards as well. That program is published on an annual basis on our website.

In addition to our scheduled frequency of testing, we do random and unannounced testing of products entering into Canada, in conjunction with the importers of those products before they enter the marketplace, and we have programming that also tests product in the marketplace to a single standard, whether it's domestically produced or imported.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

So it's fair to say that as Canadians we can rest assured that through your reallocation of funds and the proposed funding, the whole objective in what you're doing is to ensure that food is safer, not less safe, and that Canadians can continue to expect the great service that you've been providing to this point.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

We recognize again that the risks, as we've said, in food safety are ever-changing, and therefore we're adapting our programs to make sure that the standards we are meeting are those that Canadians expect from us and deserve to have from us, that we are protecting them and their families to the full extent possible, with the best available resources and the best available design of programs that exist anywhere in the world.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Komarnicki.

Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask some fast questions and give you lots of ice time to elaborate.

First, when will we see the report?

Second, on May 15, when the senior executives appeared here, there was no mention of the presentation of any plan to modify the food inspection systems. I'm asking if the senior executives were aware of the plan when they appeared. If they did, how do you explain their failure to mention it?

Third, since the proposed reform of the inspection system would affect your expenditure budget, wouldn't the transparency obligation binding on deputy ministers have required the witnesses to tell us about the intention to cut CFIA spending?

Fourth, is the proposed reform not part of your 2008-09 report on plans and priorities? Shouldn't it be part of it? If so, why wasn't it included?

Fifth, I would like your definition of what is a communication risk.

Last, for us all, why was this report not made public?

Thank you.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

If I may, I think I've captured the points.

I am not in a position to dictate or respond to the first question of when any submission made to cabinet would be made public. As a non-partisan public servant, I am not privy to that information, so I regret I cannot provide you a fulsome response to that.

With respect to the appearance on May 15, which I believe was the appearance on main estimates...if I'm not mistaken, that was the main estimates appearance. Our main estimates in fact have been tabled, and those main estimates certainly do account for the planned expenditures on the part of CFIA. I'm aware that at that time there was brief discussion around the budget announcements of February and how the agency intended to implement those over the period of time, as reflected in our estimates, and at that time, as I recall, we had an extended discussion around not only this fiscal year's but projected fiscal years' impacts on the agency as a result of the sunsetting of tied funds that we had received for other initiatives in the past.

The 2008-09 report on plans and priorities, like all of our reports on plans and priorities in previous years, do make reference to adjustments in our inspection systems that are planned. The issue around, again, inspection modernization has been a theme through our submitted plans and priorities reports to Parliament that have been tabled over a several-year period and have reflected the changes in many of the sectors where those types of adoption of HACCP plans have been implemented.

The CFIA does not use the term “communication risks”. Risk communication is something that we do engage ourselves in. Risk communication is that effort on our part to inform Canadians of the environment in which we are operating, and to inform Canadians of ways that they can undertake measures that also protect them beyond the efforts of regulatory programming and industry efforts in that regard.

In that respect, with food safety we have undertaken programs, like FightBAC! and others, with food retailers and food processors that speak to Canadians about how food should be handled from the point of purchase in order to avoid cross-contamination, whether it be E. coli or salmonella. That is part of our efforts on risk communication and would be the type of construct that we would use to help inform Canadians so that they can take actions and make choices that best protect their family as well.

I hope I've answered your questions, honourable member. Unfortunately I can't read my written note of your last point.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

It dealt with why the report was never made public. Who really would attach the label “communication risk” to a report? Would it come from the minister's office, because making it public would not be politically feasible? It wouldn't be the public service doing that. You wouldn't say, gee, I don't think the public should know about this; it would be the minister who would say this is pretty volatile.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Again, I'm not privy to the phrase “communication risk”, because it is not one that we use within CFIA. We talk about transparent disclosure and working with Canadians to understand risk.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Okay. No, no, I know.... When we talk about the public service in terms of its obligations for transparency, is this not something on which it would be incumbent to tell a standing committee what the intentions behind these modifications are?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Again, as public servants, we endeavour to the full extent possible to share with the standing committee our views of what we're trying to do and how we attempt to achieve that. But as has been mentioned before, there are processes we have to respect, as non-partisan public servants, that deal with cabinet confidences, which we are not in a position to comment on.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Now we have Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions, and then I'll split my time with Mr. Miller.

Mr. Evans, presumably the 5% of potential duplicity and changes that could be made, as put forward by your organization, were signed off by you. Is that correct?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

The submission of the strategic review is signed by the chief financial officer and the president of the agency.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Now, we have already established, and even Mr. Easter has established, that you have a long history with this agency, since its inception. There's no doubt that you have done a lot of great work for our country and our food safety program and the science we have in place. Would you ever sign off on a recommendation that you thought would be detrimental to the health and safety of Canadians?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

I appreciate the kind comments of the committee, and I would just like to clarify and to have on the public record the fact that as the current executive vice-president and chief veterinary officer, I am extremely proud of and amazed at the level of professionalism and competency that our almost 7,000 staff bring to the task each and every day in what they do. Certainly in my responsibilities as executive vice-president or associate of the president, I can assure you that with any opportunity I have to review submissions on behalf of the agency, I undertake on the most dedicated basis possible to use every ounce of my professionalism and scientific understanding to ensure that we are providing our best advice on what we think is absolutely in Canadians' collective best interests to ensure that we can continue to meet the standards necessary to protect them and their families.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Absolutely, and I have no doubt about that; I just wanted to give you the opportunity to put that on the record.

Mr. Mayers, maybe this question will go to you, but when we talked about modernization, such as the hazard analysis and critical control point, you mentioned some of the countries that the opposition is a little scared of following, such as Australia and some other countries, and you and Mr. Evans also mentioned that some of these preventative systems—and it makes sense to catch the problem before it hits the food chain, which we do—have already been in place for the better part of 15 years now.

Could you give us an example of some of these systems and how they've been working?

[Paul Mayers]

Certainly the best example is the application of the hazard analysis and critical control point in meat production. While that approach is now mandatory but was not for 15 years, it has been in the system for that period of time and has demonstrated its effectiveness, not just here in Canada but around the world. In fact, it is well recognized, as I believe my colleague made reference to earlier, within the international community under the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the international standard-setting body for foods, which recognizes HACCP as an effective system for controlling risk in food production.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks.

I have another question. I think Mr. Dewar earlier had the impression that either—and I'm going to use BSE as an example—every cow was checked or maybe every animal should have been checked. I don't think any country in the world checks every cow to see whether it has BSE, or checks every hen or broiler to see if it has avian flu. You put in place what I'll call random checks, for lack of another term.

I was reading about canned goods, as an example. It's my understanding--and you can correct me if I'm wrong--that about 2% of canned products actually get checked and that kind of thing. Is that a fair statement?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

If you're amenable, honourable member...it's not random testing. This is targeted testing, based on analyses that are determined as to higher-risk products and lower-risk products, and those targets are set and reviewed, depending on findings. There is an ongoing flexibility in the system.

For example, you made specific reference to canned testing. Canned testing can be in regard to can integrity; it can be sampling of specific products for specific risks associated, whether they be biological pathogens or other things. The nature of the very programming is such that you have an expected level of find. If it exceeds that level of find, you up the ante, and that testing is then immediately increased.

In a number of our programs—a good example would be fish inspection—we have an ongoing level of detection based on demonstration of the country of its compliance. If we find a shipment out of compliance, we go to 100% testing for the next 10 shipments. That's the very nature of the program. It has to be responsive to what it finds.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller, your time has expired.

Madame Bennett, you have the floor.