Evidence of meeting #54 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
Live animals.
There's quite a bit of concentration in the processing industry in this country. You cannot move an animal without some traceability requirements, and a lot of that's provincial in nature. We're working on things that go beyond what's looked at. We're looking at national livestock manifests, different things that can be done efficiently. There are ways for us to develop tools that will enhance our system without creating more red tape and cost to the taxpayers of this country.
Conservative
NDP
Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lacasse, in the document you gave us, it says that collaboration between farmers and the federal government has led to a number of important developments. One paragraph refers to "post-farm programs".
What are they, exactly?
Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
When farmers adopt a food safety program, they have to buy the inputs. Buying inputs is one thing that falls under the definition of "post-farm". Ultimately, the commodities that farmers sell are a result of agricultural production for which they purchased certain inputs.
Food safety programs ensure that the products that farmers buy to use in agricultural production meet food safety objectives. That ensures that the end product is of very high quality.
That is one of several examples. You have the inputs suppliers. It is the same thing at the distribution stage. When a farmer's fruits and vegetables leave the farm, they will be subject to the same process in order to get into the supply chain.
The aim is to have farm-to-table food safety systems, or traceability systems, that allow the commodity to be followed at all stages and that provide assurance that the product is of very high quality when it reaches the home.
NDP
Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC
Thank you.
A moment ago, you spoke a little about registration and licensing. It seems that farmers do not really understand this very well.
How do you want this problem to be solved?
Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
You say that farmers do not seem to understand the system very well, but I am not sure that is the case. We are questioning the idea that, in order to ship their commodities to another province, farmers have to obtain additional licences, meet further requirements or undergo another inspection process.
If we have a good traceability and identification system, we will be in a position to know at all times what route the commodities follow. That being the case, then even if the commodities go from one province to another, there is no need to add more inspection standards or licences. We wonder what purpose that is going to serve, what need it is going to fill, given that a good traceability system means that all movements of food commodities are known, regardless of where they are moved about in Canada. In that sense, it is not necessary to establish additional standards or inspections.
NDP
Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Laycraft, Bill S-11 says that inspectors are acquiring new powers. They are losing the power to arrest and administer oaths, which the present Fish Inspection Act allows them to do.
Do you think the new powers will make inspectors more efficient, and ensure that requirements for food safety are met by industry stakeholders?
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
I assume you're referring to players in the field, to farmers and ranchers. In this country a lot of the provisions that are more relevant to them are governed under the Health of Animals Act. We've been assured on a number of occasions that this bill largely deals with the matter of animals after they're processed and the impact of the traceability in the system from the point of processing forward, which interestingly is where over 94% of food safety risk actually occurs. If you're going to focus your attention, that is the right place to focus it.
We believe this comes under a number of other bills that are probably the appropriate places to deal with these issues. Let's not forget there's provincial legislation, and in some cases that's on top of federal legislation and overrides within the province. This is largely addressed, in terms of live animal movement, and I think would be the main issue. We work directly with the provinces and through the industry on a whole range of initiatives that we think in the longer term are the right solution, everything from our verified beef production systems to how we are able to look at various training programs for the industry. One thing everyone is gratified with is that virtually every industry in Canada—and I know the meat, cattle, and hog industry—treats food safety as what we refer to as a non-competitive issue. We need to share information freely and we need to share technology freely.
As we take a look at enhancements, and I mentioned a new national manifest, we're trying to get the federal government to modernize its system so we can start to use electronic certification. We've had those discussions for over seven years now, and we're still hearing 2016 as the date that will be completed. If you concentrate on the right areas and get those fixed, I don't think it's a lack of regulation that we're going to find will add other enhancements to our system. It's how we can embrace technology and how we can work together with systems that will improve the overall advocacy of food safety in this country.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you. That concludes the first portion of today's meeting. I thank our guests for being here. It has been very informative.
We'll take a recess and invite our other guests to come to the table. We'll suspend and proceed in about three or four minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, and welcome back to the second part of our study today on Bill S-11.
Joining us from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest is Mr. Bill Jeffery, national coordinator. We have from the Consumers' Association of Canada, Mr. Mel Fruitman, vice-president, and as an individual, Mr. Keith Warriner, from the University of Guelph. Welcome.
I'm not sure if everybody has presented before a committee, but we open the floor to you to make a brief presentation, and then we'll move directly to questions from the members. I will advise the members that we have blocked off a few minutes at the end of the meeting. When we have about 15 minutes left in the meeting, I'll interrupt the proceedings, and we'll do some of our committee business.
With that, Mr. Jeffery, you have the floor.
Bill Jeffery National Coordinator, Centre for Science in the Public Interest
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Centre for Science in the Public Interest is a non-profit health advocacy organization specializing in nutrition and food safety. We don't accept funding from industry or government, and we are supported by 100,000 subscribers to our newsletter, a nutrition action health letter. We have on average about one subscribing household within a one-block radius of every Canadian street corner.
Although the express focus of this meeting is on the food safety implications of Bill S-11, I would like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that, according to World Health Organization estimates, approximately 48,000 Canadians die every year as a result of nutrition-related illnesses, such as too much sodium and trans fat, and not enough fruits and vegetables. We believe that there are some implications in Bill S-11 for that.
Bill S-11 could improve the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's ability to protect public health and safeguard consumers against fraud and help public confidence, but it could do better if a number of concerns were addressed.
Number one, the impact of raising fine maxima may be minor in light of the history of very low fine levels in relation to the current fine maxima. While there are significant exemptions to the proposed higher fine caps, that's the increase from $250,000 to $5 million, in 2011 as an example, the average fine was approximately 5% of fine maxima for indictable offences; nearly two-thirds of fines were for 1% or less of the fine maxima; no fine exceeded 20% of the fine maxima; and the total quantum of fines for all prosecutions under about a half a dozen acts that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency administers was slightly more than $400,000, which works out to a little over $100 per year per inspector. As such, we wonder whether the government's desire to raise fine maxima is matched by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's and the minister's willingness to impose higher fines and to do so more often.
Number two, Parliament needs to raise corresponding fine limits in the Food and Drugs Act to the levels that are specified in the safe foods for Canadians act. If the government's aim is to raise the fine limits to $5 million, and in some cases at the discretion of the board of arbitration, it should also do so for limits currently in place in the Food and Drugs Act, which will continue under the authority of the courts rather than the board of arbitration.
Number three, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency currently devalues nutrition information on food labels as a quality or a minor consumer preference issue, not as a health and safety issue. According to the fines information published by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the website for the period January 2010 to September 2012 shows that not a single fine was levied for inaccurate nutrition information on food labels, despite the fact that at least two of the agency's own product sampling surveys demonstrated significant, widespread inaccuracies in nutrition information provided on prepackaged foods and restaurant websites. We welcome amendments to Bill S-11 to stipulate that nutrition-related offences are as serious as acute food safety ones, without trivializing the importance of addressing mass frauds concerning food quality factors.
Number four, evaluating the impact of food safety measures on public health requires better and more transparent surveillance of outbreaks of food-borne illnesses and the deaths and significant illnesses caused by those outbreaks.
Number five, the bill proposes a due diligence defence, which could significantly insulate companies from prosecution. We urge the committee to consider whether the proposal to permit a due diligence defence in subclause 39(2) would significantly weaken existing protections, whether it would diminish Canadians' confidence in our food supply, and whether it would meet the European Union's confidence in our exports. Apparently, the United Kingdom recently rejected a proposal to so amend its food safety legislation for this reason.
Number six, private prosecutors need stronger measures to discourage risky behaviour by food companies. If the federal government aims to rely on private parties, such as class-action law firms, to enforce consumer protection laws, as it did in the case of the Maple Leaf listeriosis outbreak, which killed as many as 23 Canadians, yet led to no fines, the Food and Drugs Act and other legislation should at least be modified to give courts ample authority to impose punitive damages, triple damage awards, profit disgorgement, or other extraordinary measures to better discourage dangerous, fraudulent, and reckless corporate behaviour.
Number seven, a public interest intervenor mechanism is needed at the board of arbitration and tribunal to balance the interests of companies, on one hand, and advocates for public health and consumers, on the other. Such a mechanism has long been in place to create a modicum of balance in proceedings of the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. Also, the proposed power in clause 105 of the bill, for companies to challenge CFIA recall orders, may be dangerous in circumstances when swift action is vital.
Number eight, the proposal to incorporate by reference standards may permit conflicts of interest to influence policy-making and could abdicate government oversight entirely, even in two organizations with commercial conflicts of interest.
I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to take questions afterwards, of course.
Conservative
Mel Fruitman Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Consumers' Association of Canada, CAC, is pleased to appear before you today.
For 65 years, the CAC has represented the interests of ordinary Canadians in their role as consumers of goods and services as provided by both the public and private sectors. Our mandate is to inform and educate consumers on marketplace issues, advocate for consumers with government and industry, and work to solve marketplace problems in beneficial ways.
Bill S-11 has the potential to provide significant improvements in the matter of food safety, paralleling the mechanisms introduced last year in the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act covering non-food items.
We are pleased to note the intent to make efforts to ensure the safety of all food products sold in Canada no matter what the source and that the bill will strengthen enforcement powers on imports and deliver stiff fines to anyone who purposely endangers the safety of our food. We have always been puzzled and concerned that there was a possibility imported foodstuffs would not necessarily receive the same scrutiny as domestic products. Even though deliberate food tampering is rare, the new prohibitions and strong penalties should dissuade most mischief-makers and make it easier to prosecute miscreants. Hopefully, it might even deter those sick individuals who do things such as putting razor blades in apples that they were handing out last night on Halloween.
The increased traceability requirements should make it easier to determine where foodstuffs came from and where they are at any time in the distribution system. This will enhance the capability to enforce the provisions prohibiting the sale of food that is the subject of a recall order under subsection 19(1) of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. Unfortunately there does not appear to be clarification of what is meant by a recall order, beyond the fact that the product may be recalled or sent to a place designated by the minister. Consumers interpret the term “recall” to mean if they have in their possession the offending product, they are supposed to return it, presumably to where it was purchased. Consumers also expect that they should not have to suffer financially as a result of having purchased a food commodity that is subsequently recalled. It is unacceptable that consumers should be expected to throw it out, as has been suggested by a CFIA official.
Even though we support this bill, we hope that you are not lulled into believing that it will alleviate the deficiencies in our food health protection system. Note that our supportive comments use the conditional tense. There is much more that could or should be done, both preventively and operationally.
There are now available several vaccines designed to reduce E. coli in cattle. A recent study by Kansas State University concluded that they can reduce E. coli levels by 50%. At least one of these vaccines has been approved for use in Canada, the United States, and the U.K. While it is still unclear what the actual cost would be, there have been estimates that it would cost $50 million to inoculate all Canadian cattle.
An additional harm-reducing procedure is irradiation, which was recommended by Health Canada 10 years ago for use on ground beef along with other items. Health Canada concluded that food irradiation could improve food safety and quality by reducing levels of pathogens such as E. coli and salmonella, extending shelf life and reducing insect infestation. A survey conducted for our association earlier this year, before the XL Foods problems, revealed that 70% of Canadians are concerned with potential bacteria in meat products and that three in five unfortunately had not heard of food irradiation. However, when told about its current uses, two-thirds would support its use as a choice for consumers when purchasing these items.
We recommend that vaccination and irradiation be given serious consideration as part of a package designed to deliver to Canadians the safest possible meat products. Bill S-11 will provide new tools. However, tools are only effective if they are used and if they are used properly. The CFIA has adopted a risk-based approach to achieving consumer safety. This can be an efficacious and cost-effective approach. In a risk-based system, procedures are developed to give the desired result. In the early stages of development, each of the steps has to be closely monitored to ensure that it is having the desired result. If it is not appropriate, changes are made. As the process matures, constant monitoring is not required and the emphasis shifts to maintaining documents showing adherence to procedures, spot testing, and auditing for verification. In addition, statistically valid sampling at the end of the process is essential as an overall check that the desired results are being consistently attained. Theoretically, if the testing and auditing procedures are followed, there should not be any problems.
However, if the statistical sampling reveals that contaminated products are coming off the end of the line, there should be no hesitancy in stopping shipment to consumers. Then, as quickly as possible, it should be determined what potentially contaminated products have already been shipped and should be subject to a mandatory recall. Finally, it has to be determined what failed and how to correct it.
Unfortunately this is not what happened with the XL Foods fiasco. Shipment stoppage and recall orders, which for some reason or other were voluntary, not mandatory, were not timely. The delays in gathering information also suggest that the necessary monitoring procedures were not being conducted. There's also the appearance that the proprietors of XL Foods were given time to mount a public relations response, at which their failure is a textbook example of what not to do.
Finally, and maybe most importantly, we feel that many of the shortcomings were because there is a cultural identity problem within CFIA. Are they guardians or promoters? The preamble to the CFIA Act refers to “contribute to consumer protection and facilitate a more uniform and consistent approach to safety and quality standards and risk-based inspection systems” and that the “Government of Canada wishes to promote trade and commerce”.
The agency reports through the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for all matters relating to agriculture. This includes supporting agricultural productivity and trade, stabilizing farm incomes, and being responsible for the inspection and regulation of animals and plant life forms.
As we have seen from the XL Foods fiasco, CFIA has failed on both fronts. It allowed potentially harmful meat to reach the marketplace, and this resulted in the suspension of beef exports to the United States. It is our belief that the dual responsibilities that led to cultural schizophrenia inhibit CFIA's capability to proficiently do its prime job which is to protect the Canadian consumer from harmful food products. Unfortunately, concerns about how certain domestic actions and publicity may be viewed by our trading partners have an effect on the timing, details, and efficacy of response.
Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada
At one time, there existed a federal consumer affairs department. We recommend that such a department be re-established and that the CFIA , with a clear “guardian” mandate, be brought into that department.
Thank you. I'll be pleased to answer any questions.
Conservative
Dr. Keith Warriner University of Guelph, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wish to express my thanks to honourable members for the invitation to testify with respect to Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act
In the way of background, I'm a faculty member at the department of food science, University of Guelph. I also hold the position of program director for the food safety and quality assurance program offered through the department, which aims to train the next generation of managers, HACCP coordinators and inspectors, among others.
In general, I'm supportive of the bill as it makes a decisive decision to follow an outcome-based approach. That makes inspection much more efficient and increases the accountability of processes to produce safe food.
The underlying philosophy of the bill is that you cannot inspect your way to safety. This is underlined by the fact that Canada has a two-tier food safety system, one provincial and the other federal. If anything, history has told us that food safety incidents can occur from the smallest to the largest processor if procedures are not followed, irrespective of the level of inspection.
Bill S-11 will bring Canada in line with its trading partners and provide for a more efficient, dynamic inspection service.
The legislation on tampering, clauses 7 to 9, is timely, given the trend of deliberate adulteration of foods. The new legislation outlined in clauses 10 to 13 is an important part of the new act, given food safety issues linked to imports and the increased concern of counterfeiting foods.
There are, however, some concerns that I would consider when implementing the new act.
Clause 73 represents the main thrust of the bill by combining the commodity-based acts into one. At the same time, clauses 39 to 45 increase the authority of inspectors to work with greater independence.
With power comes responsibility, obviously, and there is concern that inspectors will have insufficient knowledge and/or experience to undertake this task. One has to question if inspectors could inspect muffins one day and fish the next. They are very different products with very different hazards associated with them. Can we expect inspectors to be jacks of all trades?
If we now overlay the increased authority of inspectors, then the chances of incorrect calls being made are highly likely. In one scenario, the inspector could always follow the side of caution and overreact, resulting in disruption to the company that could very well send ripples throughout the sector. Yet, this has to be balanced with consumer safety.
It's interesting to note in subclause 32(1) that the inspectors need reasonable doubt for assessing the safety of imported goods, but this does not extend to domestically produced products.
The freedom to disseminate producer information under clauses 46 and 47 is also potentially damaging beyond the processor under scrutiny. Therefore, it's paramount that the next generation of inspectors will require a broad background and strong decision-making skills. In the meantime, it would be prudent to include in the bill a sort of consultation among inspectors before exercising their power.
I now turn to accountability. Clause 59 provides protection of liability of inspectors and government. Subclause 39(5) provides protection from prosecution of whistleblowers, who could potentially be the very ones causing non-compliance.
In a bid to increase the food safety culture, it is important that everyone is accountable and there are consequences for knowingly causing non-compliance. If this means placing fines on workers, then this should be considered. I doubt a $5-million fine to companies will play on the minds of these workers, the very people who perform a task.
In terms of liability, I would also like to clarify under subclause 105(4), if the implementation of a HACCP plan can be used as a due diligence defence. As we heard earlier, this could counter any sort of prosecution.
My final point relates to the effectiveness of HACCP to control hazards. It would be prudent to include the term “validated and verified HACCP plan” under clause 51. It's not only a case of applying HACCP, but it needs to be sure that it's effective.
In summary, the bill is indeed a major change in the philosophy of how food is inspected, with an increase in self-regulation by the industry. It is my opinion that this is the only effective way to ensure food safety. However, the success of the act will depend on both the industry and the inspection service fostering a food safety culture. This, in turn, will depend on having a carrot to go along with the stick that the bill offers.
Thank you for listening, and I will be very happy to invite questions.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I'd like to thank all the witnesses today.
I don't think we will have any witnesses come to our committee and say they are against a food safety bill. In principle, we're all on the same page. We need to modernize and move forward, but from the testimony we've heard today, the devil is in the details. It's how we move forward, how consultation happens afterwards with the regulations.
I think we're moving forward, but I still am worried about certain aspects of the bill.
Mr. Warriner, you mentioned inspectors being jacks of all trades. That's something that kind of worries me, too. If you're a specialist in something, for example, meat, how do you move to fish or produce? We did have cuts to the CFIA, and I'm worried. Will these people be bombarded? Will our inspectors be overwhelmed with more responsibility? Will they be able to adequately do their jobs when they're inspecting multiple things?
University of Guelph, As an Individual
It's a very good point.
The reality is that to become an inspector doesn't take only qualifications; it takes experience. To be an experienced inspector in one commodity is challenging. One of the big concerns about the act is that, while it's nice to put acts together into nice, simplified form, there's a reason we have different acts and different inspectors.
The way I can only see it happening is that the food industry itself will be ultimately responsible for ensuring food safety and the inspectors will be going in there to verify paperwork. They'll certainly take them off the front line, because they won't be qualified to actually assess anything, and that's a big concern. Essentially, we are handing food safety to the industry. We just have to hope they're capable of handling it.
To suggest somebody who inspects fish can equally be relied upon to inspect fresh produce, I think, is very optimistic.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I've worked in restaurants. I have been a manager of a restaurant, and I know how important it is to create a safe culture. It's everybody working together. Whether you're a busboy, a server, a sous-chef, or a person who cleans, there has to be a culture and a good environment to nurture food safety. Everybody has to be on the same page. It's a team environment.
I was just wondering—I guess I could ask this to all witnesses—what you thought of an audit of the CFIA? Would you think it's something we should do to create a baseline to find out where we are now and how to move forward?
University of Guelph, As an Individual
I'll start since the microphone is on.
The trouble with a baseline is that you've got to remember we're changing the standards, so any baseline we have now would be totally irrelevant. What we have to look for is what the new standard will be. That's my point.
Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada
It's not a bad idea. I'm not too sure about the baseline. As I suggested, we think there are problems with the way the CFIA is operating against its methodology. Perhaps an audit would help show that and show where it needs to make improvements, the type of audit the Auditor General does, which looks at what it's doing, how it's doing it, and if that is having the desired results.
National Coordinator, Centre for Science in the Public Interest
Certainly there's a benefit to having an external party evaluate what the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has done. Obviously the Auditor General has a strong authoritative voice. That has to be complemented by information. It's possible it's already been collected but certainly not reported.
We don't know how many people, according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, die from food-borne pathogens every year. They don't report the number of people who are dying from nutrition-related illnesses. We get that from World Health Organization multipliers. It's fine to say we've got the safest food supply in the world, but you have to demonstrate that with evidence. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, maybe because it has a conflicted mandate, isn't reporting that kind of evidence.
