Agriculture Committee on Aug. 26th, 2009

[Bob Kingston]

Given the strength of that recommendation in the report, I don't see how it couldn't happen, quite frankly. That same sentiment was what brought about the creation of CFIA, for those of us who were around. I know there are several at the table who will remember all that.

Departments, they're territorial by nature. They spent over a decade trying to work out the responsibilities of both communication and operations with respect to food safety, leading up to the creation of CFIA. It's because they could not work it out that they finally decided to create an agency and bring them all under one tent.

So that sort of human nature aspect to it has not changed, not from the perspective of the representatives who watch this stuff take place. I know there was a protocol in place that all the parties were supposed to become aware of and follow. I'm as aware of the fact as much as a lot of people that this simply wasn't followed in this case. If it had been, some of these glitches, in terms of apparent missing leadership, might not have happened.

Again, a lot of good work comes about following these types of crises, but it has to be followed up on. Obviously, the protocol that came about because of previous situations never was given the full life it deserved when the crisis happened. What would be a shame is if we just kept creating more of these animals without ever actually bringing them to life and making sure everybody's aware of what to do and how to follow them, and who, in fact, has the responsibility.

I think the recommendations in the report are pretty clear on the need for leadership and who takes the lead role in each situation, but I think this might have been serious enough that the players may get pretty serious about following it, and I certainly hope they do. I'll tell you, the workers in the field need to know that. As the report indicates, the people in the field level get really busy when this stuff happens--they know their job--and then they start looking for direction. If it's not there, you've got big problems. So I hope that never happens again.

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

In front of the Subcommittee, you said that the lack of resources and inspectors to adequately perform the work was one of the gaps at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. There was the example of Maple Leaf, where a single inspector was responsible for the entire plant. A number of witnesses called primarily by the government side told us that, even if there had been more inspectors, it would not have been possible to avoid the listeriosis incident.

I also note that, in her report, Ms. Weatherill talks about increased spotchecks in processing plants. Based on your experience, would it be possible to increase the number of ad hoc inspections with the current inspector complement, or will additional resources be necessary? There is only one recommendation dealing with the need for additional resources.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Make it short, because we just have a minute.

[Bob Kingston]

Given the current resource level, it would be impossible to increase ad hoc inspections. You're talking about a simple process where the inspector shows up unannounced, walks through the plant, gets a general overview of what's going on, can look at a few records and do spot-checks. Current inspection staff are encouraged to do that when they have time. The fact is that they don't have time.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much.

That wraps up the time for the Bloc, and we're going to go to the NDP and Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you all for your attendance today.

As has been noted, I'm not a member of this committee, so I'll deal with what I do know, which is what is in front of me. What I heard Mr. Kingston say, I thought, was shocking. It should shock and scare everyone—and I wrote it down—that “it's just a matter of time before you see it happen again”.

We even know from the report that politicians have accepted that, “Although safety is a relative notion, since there is no such thing as a zero risk, members still believe food produced in Canada remains among the safest in the world.”

What I'm hearing, Mr. Kingston, is that if we don't get dramatic change, in your opinion we're going to see something preventable and similar happen again. Yet if resources are invested, recognizing that zero risk is not attainable, you would then feel differently about making that statement.

Am I correct in interpreting your statement to mean that if nothing further is done from today forward, it's your prediction—representing the people who are on the ground, the inspectors and others—that we're going to see a similar preventable incident?

[Bob Kingston]

Absolutely. Absolutely.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's terrifying.

[Bob Kingston]

The workload that's given to the staff right now is at a point where it's always a matter of what you aren't doing today. There's just no way you can get all of your job done, so you have to cut corners and make choices about what you can't do. You always try to do that in a risk-based perspective, but at the end of the day, there are parts of the program that just can't be delivered.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The statement in the committee's report that we're “among the safest in the world” is certainly what I grew up believing, but there were cuts made in the mid- and late-nineties, particularly to food inspection. In your opinion, given some of the increases to resources, how close are we, relatively speaking, in terms of our food safety today versus where we were before the cuts of the nineties?

[Bob Kingston]

Well, it's hard to say. Where are we today? We have better technology—again, living within your means.

If you'd walked into a federally inspected plant a few decades ago, there were inspectors all over the place in every aspect of the production of the products, and you don't see that now in any way, shape, or form. So they do rely on technology.

The problem with the sole reliance on technology is that it's after the fact, so you end up investigating why things happened instead of preventing them from happening. You can learn through the after-the-fact analysis how to do preventive measures, but at the end of the day, you're still chasing after things, whereas the presence of inspectors has been shown, time and time again, to actually bring about more prevention and more change in culture within the plant and in practice. It modifies individuals' behaviour on an ongoing basis.

So it is hard to equate the two, but I think that given the speed and, as Dr. Evans mentioned earlier, the way agriculture runs today, the way food is produced—the massive volumes, the massive distribution that takes place—prevention has to be a focal point, not just finding out how things happened after the fact. The presence of inspectors does make a big difference in that regard.

So if you want to keep up with modern trends, it's not only about the technology, but also about having people on the front lines to make sure things are done in the best possible manner on site.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I suspect that if we ask Canadians whether this is a priority in terms of their tax money, they would think so, especially as they think about feeding their kids.

To be fair, Dr. Evans, the statement has been made that it's only a matter of time before it happens again. I did pose the question about a similar preventable incident, and the answer was pretty clear: yes. You can appreciate how that's very jarring, if not outright frightening. What would your answer be to that same question, sir?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Thank you, honourable member.

I guess the short answer is always the reality that there are no guarantees, even in food safety. We've talked in front of this committee about the fact that, as Mr. Kingston has mentioned as well, we invest our efforts at multiple points, not just at inspection, when meat is produced. Safe food comes from healthy animals, and a critical component of how we produce safe food in this country, as I believe this committee heard from others involved in on-farm HACCP, on-farm food safety, is that you have to manage risks at all points of the production system.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt. Forgive me for being so rude. I have such limited time.

I accept—I think we all do; it's in the report—that zero risk is impossible. On the other hand, now we have the representative of the inspectors on the ground saying a similar preventable incident will happen. Narrowly, do you agree with that or not, and why?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You have only half a minute, and then we have to move on.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's why I jumped in. I'm sorry.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

I appreciate the intervention.

Again, I'll be very clear with the committee, as I have been on multiple occasions, that in our circumstance, as to the view of Mr. Kingston that inspectors in and of themselves can prevent this from happening, they are a critical component of what we do. They very much are. I think Mr. Kingston would be the first to say that the skill sets, the competencies of our inspectors today are at a higher level than they've ever been. So again, we bring that each minute of every hour of every day that we work in plants. We recognize the consequences that we are managing, and we work hard to make sure these consequences don't happen again.

We remember what happened a year ago. Our agency has deeply embedded that into the culture of our organization. We are committed to doing the best we possibly can for Canadians, because Canadians expect no less.

We will use technology. We will allocate resources to the fullest extent we can where risk exists. But if you're asking me whether we can prevent recalls, no, we cannot. Can we prevent food-borne illness from happening at any point in the future? No, we cannot, because we know that, again, the vast majority of food-borne illness doesn't occur at the point of production. In fact, the statistics very clearly indicate internationally, in every country around the world, 85% to 90% of food-borne illness is a result of mishandling or abuse of food subsequent to its production.

So I can't give an iron-clad guarantee to this committee or to Canadians that we can prevent every food incident from happening, but I can assure you that we are doing everything possible to ensure the consequences are mitigated.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Evans.

We're going to go to the government now.

Mr. Richards, you have five minutes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today, for making yourselves available, and for your patience in letting us get our agenda sorted out.

Unfortunately, as we sit here today, as is usual with the opposition parties, they're talking out of both sides of their mouths. On one hand, they've done everything they can to try to discredit, devalue, and undermine the work of the independent investigator; and then on the other hand, they've now called this premature meeting to discuss the report, which was released only a very short time ago. The government certainly intends to act on the recommendations, but as we all know, there hasn't even been a meeting of Parliament since the report was released.

On one hand, they're trying to discredit the work of the committee and the work of the independent investigator, while on the other hand they're calling this meeting, using taxpayer dollars to bring us all back here to Ottawa a couple of weeks early, on very little notice, and then, of course, turning around and accusing the government of not making people available, and so on, when there was very little notice given.

As usual, they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. To me, it's very plain from the start that the Liberals and the opposition parties are more interested in scoring political points than they are in improving our food safety system.

That said, I have a few questions. I'll direct them to the members of the CFIA, to Dr. Evans or anyone else who'd like to answer.

First of all, would you say that Canada's food safety system is stronger today than it was a year ago?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Yes. Because of a number of factors, our food safety system is stronger today than it was a year ago. I would also say to this committee that it will be stronger a year from now than it is today.

It is imperative, again, as we've talked about in front of this committee and in front of Canadians, to recognize that risk is not static. The nature of risk is not static. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to be vigilant and to continue to adapt our inspection systems and our inspection capacity to address those risks by using the best available science, and in comparison to other countries, the best practices available to do that. That is part of our ongoing commitment as an organization, to make ourselves better each and every day.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I certainly appreciate that.

We've talked about the independent investigator and the great work that was done, we passed a motion here, and we've seen a good list of recommendations that we feel can really improve our food safety system, yet we have the opposition parties' trying to undermine that work. That's very unfortunate. Would you agree that the independent investigator did an in-depth and comprehensive review of what happened during the summer of 2008?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Having testified in front of the investigator, I feel that the investigator was extremely competent and extremely thorough and examined a wide range of issues beyond listeria that are integral to food safety. Again, I would indicate that the investigator's efforts, complemented by the work of the Subcommittee on Food Safety, complemented by the work done by the Province of Ontario and the reports done by us and by our federal counterparts at PHAC and Health, are all important pieces of the work that needs to be done in order for us to continue to move forward on food safety in this country.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Would you say that the independent investigator has made some insightful recommendations on improving Canada's food safety system, and could you highlight a couple of the key recommendations that you feel are most important?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Again, I think what the investigator has done is bring a focus to a number of critical issues. First and foremost, she did identify issues around coordinated response and relationships, which are absolutely critical, as the investigator herself stated in her report, and as I believe the committee stated in its report as well. We recognize that food safety is a shared responsibility in Canada, and unless every part of that system is doing its part, there are vulnerabilities that exist. I think her emphasis on ensuring that there is good coordination, good leadership, a clear understanding, and good operationalizing and implementation of protocols so that people are aware of their obligations and exercise them appropriately is essential for food safety.

She touched on areas, again, around capacity, and collectively we agree that in order to provide the best possible food safety system in this country we need to continue to look at ways to both maximize our existing capacity and ensure that we can bring additional capacity to addressing some of those issues. She spoke openly about the issue of communication and the fact that knowledge is very important--knowledge on the part of consumers--and that knowledge on the part of others as well, in terms of their obligations, is equally important.

So I think she touched on a number of very important areas for us and for others in the food safety system, and we are committed, as CFIA, to work collectively with all of our partners to ensure that we can give those outcomes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thanks very much for your comments and your answers to the questions. We appreciate that you share this government's agenda to make sure we have a safe food system.