Agriculture Committee on Aug. 26th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mrs. Swan.

We're now going to go to Mr. Kingston for 10 minutes.

[Bob Kingston, National President, Inspection Supervisor, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (Burnaby, B.C.), Agriculture Union]

I don't think I'll be needing 10 minutes.

Since the report came out and since the inquiry and this body of inquiry took place, quite frankly, given what CFIA have to work with, I think they've made a Herculean effort to bring about the technological changes asked for. I think if you look at their history, though, you'll find that's an ongoing practice. They've never been shy about bringing in new technology to achieve these things, and that wasn't our main concern from the beginning.

Our concern still remains that they have a very limited budget. I know they will always have to put on the best face, and I expect that in terms of dealing with what they have, partly because that's their job and partly because there's an issue of public confidence. But the fact still remains that they have seen no increase in resources, which, at the end of the day, is going to define what they can and cannot do in a lot of these measures.

In fact, some of the measures they've brought into place since all of this are more work intensive and the new practices require more time of each inspector to be devoted, and there are no additional inspectors put in place. As a matter of fact, I've shared with CFIA management some of the actual staffing level reports coming from the regions in the very area where this tragedy originated, and they're still showing massive overburdens on the inspectors. I think any objective view of this would agree that when you have inspectors who are assigned anywhere from five to seven plants--and that's still going on--then you have a problem.

While they're doing everything they can within their confines, we've seen no commitment whatsoever.... There have been recommendations from the parliamentary committee that there be a joint look at resources, both what's available and what needs to take place, and there was the recommendation in the Weatherill report that an independent third party take a look at this in terms of both what's needed and what's available.

Without that taking place and without a commitment to live up to the findings of that review, we think it's just a matter of time before you see it happen again, quite frankly. We don't think there's any other way it's going to go. Unless we hear a strong commitment that if these reviews of needed resources show that it's true they need help, they will get it, then this is all a waste of time.

I think admirable changes have already been made. I think they are good to the extent they can be put in place and delivered on, but without additional resources, it's just a matter of time before it happens all over again.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

That's it. Thank you very much, Mr. Kingston.

I'd like to let the committee know that we also have Mark from the Public Health Agency here. He's not making comments, but he's here to answer questions, so for anything on the health side, he's available.

Because we have to wrap up at five o'clock, I have a suggestion for the committee. If it's all right with the committee, each party would have five minutes, and that will pretty well get us close to five o'clock. If that's agreeable to everybody, we'll go with that, with the usual list. We'll go five minutes for each party.

Mr. Bellavance.

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

Is there unanimous consent to extend the Committee meeting by 30 minutes?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

There's a problem for the chair. I have to be out of here at 5:10 or 5:15 at the latest to catch a flight--unless you could take the chair, and then it would be up to the witnesses if they could stay. Originally we asked them to stay until five o'clock, but if they're willing to stay a little longer and you could take the chair, I see no problem at all.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On that, Chair, given the fact, again, that Ms. Weatherill is not here and the minister's not here, is there an interest on the part of the committee to agree to hold a follow-up meeting where we can continue these discussions? I mean, 22 people died. Five minutes each is not really a lot of time on that, and two of the key people in these discussions are not here.

So it would make sense, if the government's serious about having these hearings mean something, that we would do a follow-up and guarantee that those two people are there.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thanks for your comments.

Let's get on with the questioning. We're not into debate, we're into questioning. We have witnesses here.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I understand, Mr. Chair, but I just want to point out that this was a rather inappropriate statement made by Mr. Christopherson. As I pointed out, he was not here during all of the discussion we had as a subcommittee. We did a full subcommittee study and report on this issue, and we discussed this at the agriculture committee--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I'm not going to have--

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

But Mr. Chair, I'm just pointing out that he's making it sound like nobody is making any time. We are definitely making time today, and we've made time previously.

I think Mr. Christopherson should guard his comments.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay. You two are finished. We're going to move on to questioning.

Mr. Valeriote, you're first. You have five minutes.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Kingston and the rest, thank you so much for taking the time to come before this committee today.

Mr. Kingston, you made two comments that are echoing in my mind right now: one, short of resources and inspectors; and two, just a matter of time that it's going to happen again.

It's for that reason, really, that we were compelled to request this meeting today. We're convinced that of all the recommendations that have been made through the various reports that have been presented--in fact, this Conservative government is failing to really implement any of the recommendations--that's of concern to us, that you lack the resources.

I'd like you to comment particularly on an understanding we have that in fact the human resources that you have, the number of inspectors that you have, somehow defies numbering.

Ms. Weatherill's report says, and I'm quoting at page 39, “we were unable to determine the current level of resources”. Yet on May 14, 2009, in the House of Commons, this is what the minister said: “We are in the neighbourhood of 3,228 inspectors. I have seen numbers that roughly half of those are involved in meat, but of course that number expands and contracts....”

Could you clarify for us in some way what exactly is happening? My sense is that somebody is being misled, and it's either the Canadian public or the investigator.

[Bob Kingston]

Well, I guess it depended on what question you asked.

For example, 3,200 is the total number of a category, a classification known as EG. All of the people in CFIA who are part of the technical category come under that 3,200 number. Whether they're working on soil sampling for golden nematode, certifying log houses leaving the country, or working in a lab somewhere testing seed germination, they all come under that 3,200. So that was where you got that number from.

We had tabled at one time the number of working-level food inspectors where that's the focus of their job. The other thing we tabled to the inquiry was the number of inspectors, city by city, who are actually involved in the program under discussion, which is the processed meat products inspection program.

Now, let's say you asked the agency specifically how many inspectors you have in the field carrying out processed meat inspection. I'm telling you right now that I could sit down with folks from the agency and come to a hard and fast number within half an hour. There is nothing magical about that. It just depended on what foot they wanted to put forward, and I'm not saying CFIA; the questions were coming from various people on the committees, various politicians, and so on. I guess it depended on what they wanted to express. That's why the numbers were so vastly different.

As to why Ms. Weatherill could not categorize that in a way that made sense in her report, as I commented earlier, it escapes my ability to comprehend why that wasn't done, because those numbers aren't secret. Yes, they fluctuate to a minor degree from day to day and from season to season. That's to be expected. But the numbers really aren't that hard to come to.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

So are you saying that it's possible she didn't ask the right question and didn't ask the right person when trying to determine those numbers, hence her inability to give a finite number?

[Bob Kingston]

Without knowing exactly who said what to her, I can only speculate. But yes, it's certainly possible.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You have one more minute.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I read with interest a comment made by Rick Holley of the University of Manitoba. He's a member of the CFIA scientific advisory panel on food safety. When he was asked whether we're better off today than in the summer of 2008 with respect to food safety, he's quoted as saying, “Oh, hell no.”

If scientists who have a role in advising the CFIA have little confidence in the government's efforts to improve the food safety system, my question is, first of all, why should Canadians have any more confidence? And second, can you explain why you think Mr. Holley would have made that comment?

[Bob Kingston]

No, that would be unfair. I couldn't. I've had a couple of discussions with the gentleman, but it wouldn't be fair for me to try to figure out why he made that comment.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Can anyone in CFIA, any of you guys, explain this?

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

Honourable member, Chair, I'll do my best.

I believe that Dr. Holley's—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You have a short time to do it. I'm sorry about that, but it's the way she rolls here.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Yes.

Dr. Holley's comments, when viewed in their totality, are reflective of the discussions we've had at committee, and they are about the fact that food safety is not determined by any one point of inspection. While a lot has been done and a lot of changes have been adopted, and the food safety system has been turned upside down, Dr. Holley is very adamant about the fact that food safety in Canada is a reflection of intensive agricultural production, animal feed systems, in terms of what gets recirculated in animal feeds in terms of bacterial pathogens, and the scope of what Rick is talking about is part and parcel of what we, at CFIA, are taking on with the panel to re-look at the entire food system.

So that's where Dr. Holley is coming from. His three key points remain that Canada needs a surveillance system for food-borne illness at a level that we currently do not have; his view is that Canada needs to rethink how food is produced in Canada, if it really is serious about food safety, and how we measure food safety in Canada; and that Canada must also address the issues around multi-jurisdictional attributes of food between federal and provincial. That's where Rick is coming from, he's very open about that, and we are fully engaged with Mr. Holley, as we are with the balance of the academic panel.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much, Mr. Evans.

We're going to go to the Bloc now, with Mr. Bellavance.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kingston, in the aftermath of the listeriosis crisis, someone that the Committee is fairly well acquainted with, but does not see often enough for its own liking, stated that the different departments are like an orchestra whose musicians have never played together. Do you agree with that statement? Mr. Ritz is the one who said that.

When he made that statement, what crossed my mind was that what is really missing is a conductor. Ms. Weatherill's report, even though we deplore the fact that her investigation was carried out behind closed doors, does contain some interesting recommendations. She spoke, in particular, of a lack of leadership, especially on the part of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

However, the Minister is shifting the blame, saying that it's like an orchestra that has never played together, as if there had never been any food safety issues in Canada previously, which is completely untrue. Indeed, in the late 1990s, the Auditor General made recommendations in that regard, in the wake of incidents involving food toxicity.

So, there was no one leading the orchestra and there still isn't. Since the report we have been discussing today has now been issued, in your capacity as representative of meat inspectors, do you think that there will finally be some leadership?