Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You're doing a great job.
Let me speak briefly and quote Sheila Weatherill. We recall Ms. Weatherill prepared the report following the listeriosis outbreak. It became very apparent during their investigation that there was information not available to them that would have helped them in their investigation. She said this:
Due to the lack of detailed information and differing views heard, the Investigation was not able to determine the current level of resources as well as the resources needed to conduct the CVS activities effectively. For the same reason, we were also unable to come to a conclusion concerning the adequacy of the program design, implementation plan, training and supervision of inspectors, as well as oversight and performance monitoring.
Accordingly, she recommended, and I believe it was recommendation 7, that:
To accurately determine the demand on its inspection resources and the number of required inspectors, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should retain third-party experts to conduct a resources audit. The experts should also recommend required changes and implementation strategies. The audit should include analysis as to how many plants an inspector should be responsible for and the appropriateness of rotation of inspectors.
Since that time a survey was undertaken. Questions were asked of Carole Swan, former president of the CFIA. It was determined that there was a question about the equivalency of 260 full-time inspectors and where they were placed. But during the questioning of her, she told reporters that a firm was hired by Agriculture Canada. It was PricewaterhouseCoopers. She indicated that they conducted a survey and not the audit that had been requested, urged, suggested by the Weatherill report.
I am quoting her. She said, “They didn't conduct it as an audit. An audit is a very specific process. It was a detailed review.”
The specificity of an audit is something that the Weatherill committee clearly, I would suggest, given the seriousness of the circumstances they were investigating, gave some very careful consideration to. One does not, just for the fun of it, recommend a third-party audit. So there are some very real reasons for it.
Since then we've had the E. coli outbreak at the Brooks plant. I know there is an independent panel looking at it. I'm not going to comment on anything with respect to their investigation until it's completed and we've had an opportunity to look at it. But what has become clear to me and those on this committee who have a memory of any time the CFIA has come before this committee in the last four years that I've been on the ag committee is that it's really difficult to get a clear visual of what's going on.
That is not to suggest that CFIA isn't conducting its business properly, but it's very difficult to get a handle on what's going on—whether the resources they have are adequate to fulfill the intent of the legislation, or whether the systems they have working are functioning effectively and creating the desired outcomes, or whether it be CVS or any other strategies that they deploy, of which there are many.
In my former business life, on at least two specific occasions I can think of, where, because of the size of the firm, the number of employees, the technical work that was going on, all the computers and everything, I thought, “Who am I to just walk around here and decide that this works? They're all working as efficiently as they might. There are no other systems that I can introduce. They have all the resources they need, human, financial, and otherwise, to effectively carry out the duties they are supposed to.”
I dare say that probably every one of us around this table involved in business knows the value of an audit, a third party who comes in and gives an objective perspective and takes a picture of what's happening and what might be useful to make it happen better, and what resources are needed to make it happen better.
Several of the witnesses who were asked about a third-party audit saw the merit of that. The idea of a review, at the very least, was brought up at the Senate. There was discussion at the Senate about the merit of an audit as well. This is with the understanding that everyone embraces this legislation as nothing but the best of intentions when we're talking about making certain amendments to this legislation. This is not gamesmanship. This is not trying to make anyone look like something has been missed, but we have all, including the government, found the merit of the Auditor General's audits of different ministries, different functions that are undertaken by the government from time to time.
Regardless of whether it brought any form of embarrassment, I have never—well, maybe once or twice—heard the government dismiss unequivocally the comments made by the Auditor General. We know how serious those are. We're talking about people's safety. In this instance, we're not talking about how much we might be spending on planes. We can argue that back and forth, but with other audits the Auditor General has done we're not talking about matters of safety. In this case, we are talking about people's safety.
I already spoke of the conflict, that constant dynamic between the minister’s having to make sure that trade continues...and that's an important function I don't want to diminish. You can't shut down a plant unless there is real cause. Obviously, there was cause in this instance at XL Foods, but you also have to consider safety.
I get concerned when somebody says “I'll self-examine”. There are certain things that we can do when we self-examine. We can examine our conscience from time to time, but it's generally better when you run these things by other people and get an objective opinion. We can do physical examinations of ourselves, but even at that, it's always better to get an opinion from the doctor or the dentist or the psychotherapist, whoever it may be who would render an objective third-party opinion, because we lose objectivity when it's our reputation on the line. We lose objectivity when there may be something we are trying to protect. We lose objectivity perhaps when we fear that we might even lose the messaging opportunities over which we might want to maintain certain control.
Of all the amendments...it is so important that at the beginning of this legislation being brought into force an audit be undertaken, so that we actually know the resources that exist, so that we actually know that the human resources that exist are adequate, more than adequate, to undertake all of the responsibilities of the CFIA. We don't even have a baseline right now, so that five years from now we know what should have existed and what should have transpired over the five years. As the legislation reads now, even the review that is undertaken doesn't happen for five years—five years from when the section comes into effect. I think in itself it is a tragedy that we can't examine this now.
I really, unemotionally, ask that the government consider accepting this amendment, so that it is not a self-examination, so that it is not the minister hiring somebody that he thinks will do a good job. I'm not questioning the integrity of the minister. I'm not questioning the integrity of any of the people who might be on a panel or who may be brought together to undertake this review; I am questioning the fact that it is a review that's going to be managed, monitored, by the agency and the minister, and not somebody from outside who has nothing to gain or lose from looking at the agency and saying, “This is where things are and this is where they can be improved. These are adequate. These are less than adequate.”
Those are my remarks, Mr. Chair.