Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on June 8th, 2009

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you. It took a while to get here.

In any event, coming back to the key to going forward on the public's information, it is getting proper information on how many inspectors are actually on the floor in certain plants doing certain jobs. Regardless of all the evidence that we've had here tonight, we do have contradictions around that from the Agriculture Union.

I forget who answered that question, whether it was you, Mr. Prince, or Mr. Mayers, but the information presented to the committee was on meat inspectors available to work in meat processing and cold storage facilities. They said that in Toronto the average was 4.6, and in Montreal, 4.7--that's facilities per inspector, sorry. In northern Alberta it was 5, and in Greater Vancouver, 5.9. Regardless of where the numbers are at the moment, in going forward—and I don't think it's in the lessons learned documents—how do we get credible, accurate information? What can CFIA do to get credible accurate information on how much time is actually spent on the floor?

We know for a fact that if the key inspector's computer is in the Maple Leaf plant, then he certainly is going to spend 50% of his time there because that's where he has to take his reports to put them in the computer. So it goes as time spent in that plant.

But is there not a better system than what we currently have? Are you working on getting to a system that can take out the duplications and give people who ask about time the proper information? There must be time in, time out, etc.

Could Ryan or Cameron, or whoever, answer?

[Cameron Prince]

Thank you for the question.

We saw the report, or the information, I should say, that came from the Agriculture Union. We were very anxious to analyze that and share that information. Since that time, we've understood...and we've had conversations with the union about the data they presented. We've shared information. Their way of counting was somewhat different from ours. Our numbers did not match up. We're working with them to get those numbers all lined up. So I don't really think that at the end of day there's going to be disagreement about the number of plants and the number of inspectors.

They had counted a different geographic area in Vancouver, not including the Fraser Valley, for example. We will come to ground with the union on those numbers, because they're there. It's just a matter of how they're counted. We didn't have an opportunity to have the dialogue before Mr. Kingston presented that information, and we've done so since.

You mentioned also the issue of computers and whether inspectors have sufficient access to computers. I can say that in Toronto, many of the inspectors have laptops, and they have a choice as to whether they take those laptops from plant to plant and enter the data there. In the case of the inspector at Maple Leaf, it may be that that is where he's most comfortable with entering that data. That makes sense. You go to your different plants, go back there and enter it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I guess, Cameron--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're right on the edge, Wayne.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

--the key point going forward is that we get it right, and that we're all—sorry, Mr. Chair—working somehow on the same numbers. We need to have accurate information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Bellavance.

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

Mr. Prince, I will continue our discussion about the number of inspectors. You said that it is not easy to find an ideal ratio, because this depends on the size of the plant and on other factors. However, you mentioned a ratio of one inspector for every three plants.

Have I understood this correctly? Would this be an acceptable ratio for the agency? Without necessarily saying that it is an ideal ratio, would it be possible to try to achieve it?

[Cameron Prince]

As I indicated, I can't give you an ideal ratio because there are variabilities in the plants, and I explained previously why there is no set ratio. I can tell you that overall there is a ratio for all the plants and all the inspectors; there's a ratio of slightly over three plants per inspector. That means that some may have six and some may have one. We have that information.

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

In this case as well, we note that there are some contradictions, right from the outset of the meeting. When Mr. Kingston appeared and provided information about his union, there was absolutely no question of having one inspector for every three plants. We were talking about four, five or six plants.

Is it true that the working agenda of the Toronto region shows a ratio of one inspector for every six plants in 2009? Is this information accurate?

[Cameron Prince]

Just to be clear on the question, yes, the one inspector for the Maple Leaf Barter Road plant had, I believe, six plants, maybe seven. Before, those were cold storages, which require less inspection effort. I don't believe it's correct to say that overall in the Toronto area the ratio was one to six.

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

I do not know how you go about this, but I would like to know if there is an agenda that states that inspectors have a given number of plants to inspect for the year 2009. For the Toronto region, does the ratio require one inspector for every six plants?

[Cameron Prince]

Maybe I should step back and describe how the work is assigned. Our inspectors are grouped in complexes. We call them complexes, and that means a complex of plants. For example, there may be a group of 10 plants in western Toronto, and for those 10 plants there would be three, four, five inspectors. It depends on the nature of those plants. There are CVS tasks for each of those plants that must be done. Those inspectors share those plants and move from plant to plant, so if somebody is off sick, if there's a night shift, we can get the best use of the time of those inspectors to cover off all those 10 plants to make sure that all those CVS tasks get done.

We are on track, meeting the targets for CVS. In that example I gave you, you would have four inspectors for 10 plants and you would establish the ratio based on that. That is fairly typical. Again I have to say that it varies depending on geography; if they're all close together, perhaps you need fewer inspectors. If they're far apart, obviously travel time comes into play, and it's important that you adjust for that. So it's a very complex analysis and management challenge to assign inspectors to all these processing plants.

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

According to the agency, 50% of the tasks are dedicated to data analysis and the remaining 50% is dedicated to inspection. I would like to know how many hours a day an inspector must spend in a plant while inspecting it.

Let us take, for example, the Maple Leaf plant, on Bartor Road, where the incidents took place. How many hours must an inspector spend every day, not in analyzing data, but in carrying out on-site inspections in the plant?

[Cameron Prince]

First, I would say all the work is inspection work. There is really no distinction in terms of food safety outcomes. Reviewing records, reviewing tests, reviewing sanitation records, this is inspection. It's looking at the records that are part of the HACCP plan in that plant. Those records are verified by going onto the plant floor, looking at the in-plant lab. There are a number of functions where you look and verify what's in the records. What we've said is that on balance, that's about 50% of the time. But that can vary on a daily basis. It can vary from plant to plant.

For example, the scheduled CVS task in a given plant on a given day might require the inspector to spend 80% of his time in the plant, either taking samples or doing other in-plant activities, and only 20% of his time doing record review. The next day it could be the reverse. It depends on the CVS tasks assigned to that inspector for that particular day and the nature of those tasks. So it is a fluid situation. There's no straight answer day by day for your question. Overall it's 50%, but it can vary greatly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Allen, five minutes.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Swan, you had said earlier, when I had asked about phone calls, that you didn't keep notes but you thought you might have made some notes. We did request them and they didn't come forward. The only request I have is, could you go back and take a second look? There were seven phone calls with Maple Leaf during that timeframe and you've indicated you might have made some notes. If you could take another look for that, I'd appreciate it.

And the same for you, Brian. You made quite good notes in your phone logs, except for the one meeting in November where you made none at all--November 5, 2008, Maple Leaf Foods, Brian Evans. There is no phone log, and no notes, but prior to that there always were. Perhaps it was just misplaced. I would just ask you to go and look. I don't need you to answer. Just go back and take a second look, and if they're there, send them to us. If they're not there, then the same response is here, so I don't need a second response to say you didn't have any.

My question really is around what was sent to me in response to the questions about the inspection numbers and CVS tasks. The one task that wasn't completed out of five is number 4, which is the HACCP system design and reassessment. Now we have changed some things, and Brian, you talked earlier about recognizing some things at the Bartor Road facility and that you made some changes. Environmental testing is back, which is really part of the HACCP design plan.

The note in the documents provided to me indicates that we're not going to have that verification of that entire system for two years, because it's a two-year look, according to the note. In other words, they started it last year and it won't be complete for two years. So my sense is that because of the situation we faced, and we have changed the HACCP system in Maple Leaf Foods, why didn't we simply go in and do a complete verification of that particular system and do it right away? And if we are, why didn't you indicate it to us?

[Cameron Prince]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, honourable member, for the question.

In fact, in reply to your last question with respect to why didn't we go right away and do a comprehensive look, we did that. The policy required an in-depth listeria review. We sent a team of food safety experts into that plant, and as a result of that there were some corrective actions required.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Let me stop you there. And you know, Mr. Prince, I don't like to interrupt, but this was a question that I specifically asked the group when you were here the last time. The response you gave to me, and to all of us on the committee, was in this chart. It shows that 1, 2, 3, and 5 were all completed 100%-plus. Number 4, says “see explanatory note”. So I go to the note, and I quote now your document back to me:

Section 4 verification tasks are associated with periodic comprehensive assessments of the company quality systems by a specialized team of food safety specialists once every 2 years. CFIA does not have complete data for Section 4 tasks at this point because they are to be completed over a two year period ending March 31, 2010.

You're now telling me that you've done it, or almost done it.

[Cameron Prince]

No. What I'm saying is that for the Bartor Road plant we did an in-depth evaluation. Now I want to move on to the section 4 tasks. We have started those tasks. They are to be done for all plants over a two-year period, and that's where we, as you indicated, bring in a specialist team to look at the whole picture in that plant, to look at the HACCP system. What I'm saying is that we did that for Bartor Road and now we're moving across all of the plants across Canada over the next two years.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I have to say, Mr. Prince, that's not what you said here. You've just told me that you've done the Bartor Road piece, but you didn't indicate anything. You said you've done none here, absolutely zero. If that one plant gives you 2%, I would have taken 2% and you could have made another note to me that said, we've done Bartor Road, because that's really what I'm looking for, right? I'm not looking for some plant in Alberta where there wasn't an issue. I'm looking at a plant that basically had an incident that resulted in 22 people dying. You don't indicate that to me.

Sir, that's an absolute monumental oversight, not to report it to us. It really is, truly. No offence, but you could have said that to us. You're now telling us under testimony. You could have written it down. I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to actually tell me, we've done a good job here, because that's a good job, Mr. Prince. You telling me now that you've completed CVS in Bartor Road and that is a good thing. I'm surprised you just didn't write that in the response to the question. I'm disappointed by that. I really am. That's unfortunate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, thank you. Your time....

If you want to respond, you can, Mr. Prince.

[Cameron Prince]

No, that's fine, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Shipley, you have five minutes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Prince, if you want to respond to that...you were attacked at the end there. Mr. Allen is trying to make something out of nothing. If you want to respond to that, feel free to take some of our time to do that. Clearly you've been doing.... We've got two different things going on here: an investigation of the one plant and a series of checks that need to be done. Mr. Allen is trying to confuse people with that.

Go ahead if you want to. If not, Mr. Shipley has some other things to say.

[Cameron Prince]

I would just like to clarify that the section 4 tasks are a very important part of the CVS. We are working very diligently to put those section 4 tasks in place. That was part of the original design of the CVS, that those would come over a two-year period. They're an additional safety measure in the whole system, a stop-gap to make sure we have covered off all of the big-picture look at these plants. I believe those section 4 tasks are very important to look at all of the plants across Canada, to make sure the food coming out of there is as safe as possible.