Agriculture Committee on Aug. 26th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, did we get agreement to extend the time? We have no problem--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I'm just coming to that, Mr. Easter, yes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have a suggestion that I think we could agree on, Mr. Chair.

Could the committee agree on giving the clerk direction that during the week of September 14 to September 18 we hear from Ms. Weatherill and the minister on this report, where they're at and where they're going? That gives them both ample time. I don't think we need a motion on it. I think we could certainly agree. That's well into the future. Parliament will be sitting. It won't be inconvenient to anyone. We really need to hear from the minister and the special investigator as a committee.

So could we give the clerk direction to that regard? Is there disagreement?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Order.

Unless it's a big problem, this is looking at our future business. Unless there's a consensus here....

We're not going to debate on this, Mr. Storseth, Ms. Bennett, Mr. Easter.

Listen, if there is consensus that they will be our first two witnesses when Parliament reconvenes, so be it. We're not going to debate. If not, we'll just move on, and Mr. Bellavance will take the chair.

Is there a consensus on that?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

There's not a consensus.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The government's opposing.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

So if I may, is it the will of the committee to extend this--if it's all right with the witnesses, of course--for another round of five minutes for each party? Is there consensus there?

Mr. Bellavance, do you have another Bloc member who will ask questions for your party?

That being said, will you take the chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

Thank you.

I would like to thank Committee members for agreeing to extend the meeting out of respect for our witnesses, who have not had that much time with us. This way, our meeting will be a little more productive.

Mr. Easter, for five minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm shocked, actually, that the government doesn't want to do some planning for the first week that Parliament is back to hear from the minister and Ms. Weatherill on an issue that 22 people died from. Anyway, that's beside the point.

To my questions, I guess they are mainly to you, Brian.

There is some discrepancy in the protocols now in place, and it could even just be a matter of interpretation. On April 29, when the Minister of Agriculture was before the committee, he stated:

If a plant finds any positive test, they are now required to immediately report that positive to the CFIA. These results are immediately submitted for further laboratory testing. In fact, results from those accredited labs will be sent back directly to the CFIA, not the processor.

Then this incident happened at the Hamilton plant. In the documentation Maple Leaf sent out on the nine wiener products recalled at that Hamilton plant, their tenth point was:

When did you notify them?

To that they said:

We notified the CFIA on July 14, upon obtaining lab confirmation of a positive environmental test on a single line at the plant and advised them of the actions we were taking to address the situation.

So it seems to me that the protocol the minister said was going to be applied is not being followed. There seems to be some discrepancy here. Maybe it's a matter of interpretation.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

I certainly thank the honourable member—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I guess I'll put it this way, if I can simplify it.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Sure.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

When the positive test was found in the lab, on the line, they seem to have waited a period of time before notifying you. That is my interpretation of this.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

No, in actual fact, if I could be very clear on that, while it is true that the sample, the swab you're making reference to, was taken, the reality again is that they did notify us immediately upon return of a positive lab result. Now, again, this touches on the issue that from the point of sample taking to the point of reporting, there is a period of time necessary for the lab testing to take place.

But they fully met the requirement of the listeria directive, which is to notify us of every positive result on a contact surface or in the end-product. They met their obligation in that regard. The follow-up, which they did, then requires them to do further testing to demonstrate that there is no persistence and that their sanitation protocol is working, and that was undertaken by them. And on the basis of a second contact surface positive, they went to an immediate test and hold of all product—which again is what the protocol provides for.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

So that is a new procedure, an upgraded procedure, from what happened a year ago?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Correct. That is the new directive brought in by CFIA last fall. As I say, it was part and parcel of making sure the product was contained early. And in fact, the recall was issued in the absence of any reported illness from our counterparts at Public Health.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On the CVS issue, we had discussions when you were before the Subcommittee on Food Safety. We were informed at committee that there really was no report on the pilot. Yet Ms. Weatherill, in her report, states:

We were told that an evaluation of the CVS pilot was prepared but was not discussed throughout the CFIA hierarchy.

We heard that, because these essential steps were not taken, gaps between the Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures—the regulatory framework—and the CVS were never identified and, therefore, not resolved.

Again, there's a discrepancy between that and what I think we were told at committee. Certainly the CVS pilot was implemented back quite a time by the previous government. I think the intent was that the pilot would be evaluated to see if it worked, what could be learned by that process, so that better procedures could be brought into place. I find it hard to believe there's not a report written and that the evaluation isn't available to us. When Ms. Weatherill talks about it in her report, she certainly states there was one prepared, but it was not discussed through the CFIA.

What's your view? What happened here?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

Please give a very brief answer, because Mr. Easter's time is already up. I will give you a chance to answer, however.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd certainly benefit from rereading the testimony, but I think the question that was posed, honourable member, if I remember correctly, at the time we appeared was whether there had been a third party formal evaluation of the CVS program. We testified at that time, quite openly and honestly, that we had not submitted it to a third independent party.

I believe that in the combing of all the evidence on the part of the independent investigator it was recognized that there had been an internal assessment—and I would ask Cam to validate that—but that was not reviewed by senior management in the organization. We recognize that, and this is one of the areas we have taken on board to ensure that with these inspection programs, when there are changes, there is a third party validation and that they are formally assessed.

With respect to the manuals of procedures, I think we provided testimony prior to the conclusion in June that the manuals of procedures have in fact been updated in their entirety. We blitzed the manuals of procedures for the meat program. They're presently completing translation and posting. So they are now being brought together and that information is being provided to our operational staff.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

Thank you.

Mr. Malo, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kingston, I have a brief question for you as a follow-up to the answer Mr. Evans gave Mr. Richards a little earlier, when he said that the situation has improved, compared to a year ago, and that a year from now, it will be better still.

In your opinion, will it indeed be possible, one year from now, to say that things have improved compared to the current situation?

[Bob Kingston]

I don't have quite the crystal ball Brian does, but I'd say that I would hope so.

From last year to now, in certain areas, they've improved. The positive requirement for a plan to report and the clarity around that and the requirement for third party labs to submit results back to CFIA are very important steps. So those things have improved safety.

I think the requirement for inspectors to validate through their own testing is an important step. The requirement to review daily listeria records of the plant is a very important step as well. These things are all good. Every one of those requires more time from an inspector than they were expending before. My problem is, given the mathematics of the situation, that means something is being dropped somewhere.

Yes, in terms of listeria, it's being shored up to the extent possible with the existing resources, but you're robbing Peter to pay Paul; you have to. They have no choice. That's my concern.

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

Mr. Raizenne, we were talking earlier about the many players involved in this issue. Can you tell me what more the Public Health Agency of Canada, for example, could be doing to prevent crises such as the one caused by the listeriosis outbreak?