Evidence of meeting #37 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was producers.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Paul Mayers  Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Greg Meredith  Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Rita Moritz  Assistant Deputy Minister, Farm Financial Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Martine Dubuc  Vice-President, Science, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

10 a.m.

Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Paul Mayers

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the question.

Indeed, the audit of the imported food program is an important part of our continuous look at how we do our business in order to improve. That audit covered April 2005 to March 2008, so it did not take into account the $223 million in funding for the food and consumer safety action plan, which focuses, of course, on risks related to imported food. That funding was announced in budget 2008. With that funding, we have indeed implemented a number of measures that respond to issues identified in the audit, and beyond, of course.

In 2009 and 2010, the CFIA, in collaboration with CBSA, conducted 62 border blitzes. We've established import surveillance teams, and these teams are conducting targeted verifications. In terms of imported foods, we've increased our testing on high-risk foods that are imported into Canada. Also, we carry out targeted surveys in multiple commodities--for example, in the context of dairy or soy products in relation to melamine. You will recall the problem a few years ago of melamine contamination of dairy products from China. So across the spectrum of our oversight of imported foods, we've used that investment to enhance our coverage.

So absolutely, the audit forms an important part of our continuous improvement, and we've responded to its findings by improving our controls in terms of imported foods.

10:05 a.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Mayers, it seems to me that you are taking many ad hoc measures. I know that funds had been allocated to cover the next five years. You said that more food is coming from a larger number of countries. Will the announcement of an additional $223 million allocated over five years translate into more inspectors and more inspections at the border? This is what people want to know so that they can feel safer.

10:05 a.m.

Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Paul Mayers

Thank you.

Absolutely, the answer is yes: increased inspection at the border and increased action beyond the border. Because long before the foods arrive in Canada...we believe that prevention starts at the country of origin. So we're working outside Canada as well in terms of enhancing the oversight.

So the simple answer is absolutely yes.

10:05 a.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

I would like to know if there are more inspectors and, if this is the case, how many.

10:05 a.m.

Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

10:05 a.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Do you have any idea how many additional inspectors are needed to provide better inspection at the borders?

10:05 a.m.

Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Paul Mayers

In terms of the inspection program, that $223 million in investment focuses not just in terms of programs, but in on-the-ground inspection.

10:05 a.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

But you have not provided us with any figures. Do you not know how many more people have been assigned specifically to imported product inspection?

10:05 a.m.

Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Paul Mayers

We can certainly report back. Those programs, as you know, are operating over a five-year period, with full implementation in 2013. So we would have to report back to you the number of inspectors that will be part of the overall improvement.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Allen, you have five minutes.

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mayers, I'll go back to you since you were here earlier and I recognize that your colleagues weren't. I'm not going to go right through the whole piece on USDA, but I think you heard what I asked the minister. This question is in reference to the fact that we know three plants in the spot check were delisted. We know, in fact, that they weren't shipping product to the U.S. because USDA inspectors said “you cannot”, for whatever short period of time that might have been.

I don't care if it was a day, a week, a month, or a year: we did not report the names of those companies on the CFIA website to inform Canadians that they were delisted. My question is why. Why wouldn't we? And will we be doing it in the future?

10:05 a.m.

Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Paul Mayers

Thank you very much.

In terms of the way the process works, the U.S. does not delist the plants. Canada delisted those plants in terms of their eligibility to export to the U.S. We took that action in response to the finding because they were not, therefore, meeting the export eligibility requirement.

In terms of acting in relation to food safety, we act on the food safety issues directly in terms of corrections at the plant level. That's why we don't.... We have the authority, of course, to lift the licence of a plant if the problem is egregious. In those situations it was not necessary to immediately suspend the licence of the plants to operate, but instead to require immediate action to correct the circumstance. That was the action we took. That is why those plants weren't listed on our website as having been acted on, because we act instead within the domestic context to fix the problems so that Canadians are not exposed to products that might present a risk.

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

I don't quite follow the logic, but I only get five minutes.

We'll go back to CVS, to that system. I'm actually looking at a report prepared by CFIA. It has a lovely chart. The type of establishment is on the top as noted. There are slaughter establishments. We have a lot of numbers. We have the non-slaughter establishments, which are basically the establishments for the ready-to-eat meats or RTEs. The number you actually have for the CVS, according to your chart, is 155.1 FTEs, full-time equivalencies.

Ms. Swan has actually said in the media that recommendation 7 of the Weatherill report has not had the review that Ms. Weatherill recommended. Ms. Weatherill's report was that the review had to be taking place so that you would know how many you required. So how did you manage to come up with 155.1 when indeed you haven't done the initial piece? That was what the minister asked Ms. Weatherill to do: to do the report. They accepted the report and said they would follow through with all 57 recommendations, and you now have a number that says this is the number you need, yet you haven't done what the initial thing is, which is Ms. Weatherill's recommendation 7.

10:10 a.m.

Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Paul Mayers

Thank you very much.

The Weatherill report did recommend that CFIA retain third party experts to conduct a review. In order to ensure that there was an independent and comprehensive review, we did indeed collaborate with our colleagues in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. In fact, it was Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada that then coordinated complementary initiatives that reviewed design implementation and resourcing of CVS.

AAFC engaged an independent auditor to review the calculations of the resources required, and those studies confirmed that the resource requirement was indeed appropriately calculated. That third party review provides the complementation of the calculation that gives us the assurance that the information is appropriate and correct and, taken together, represents the comprehensive analysis that our understanding of the Weatherill recommendation requires.

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

I hate to tell you, sir, but last week or just a little over a week ago, Ms. Swan admitted that Agriculture Canada had not done the recommended audit and they had still not had an independent assessment done. I'll quote: “They didn't conduct it as an audit. An audit is a very specific process”.

Your president is saying the opposite of what you've just told me.

10:10 a.m.

Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Paul Mayers

No, not at all.

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Well, then, either you've done the review or you haven't.

10:10 a.m.

Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Paul Mayers

A comprehensive--

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Yes or no?

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Just let him answer your question.

10:10 a.m.

Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Paul Mayers

A comprehensive review was indeed undertaken. It was not an audit.

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

It wasn't an audit. Fair enough.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

I wasn't cutting you off. Are you finished, Mr. Mayers?

10:10 a.m.

Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Richards, five minutes.