Evidence of meeting #13 for Subcommittee on Food Safety in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was public.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Just because she's not a judge does not make her less qualified; just because she may not be a lawyer does not make her less qualified.
5:15 p.m.
Professor, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
I am announcing for the fourth time, may I finish my answer? May I, Mr. Chair?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
The time has actually run out. If Mr. Storseth wants to hear your answer, then yes.
5:15 p.m.
Professor, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
He said he would.
5:15 p.m.
Professor, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
The standard of using a judge in an inquiry is one that has been the practice of governments of all parties, the Mulroney inquiry, for instance, being one. It is an honourable practice. It has the backing of law in the Inquiries Act and it's what should be done here.
It is not necessary for you to raise your voice to make your point with me. I simply urge this government to do what other governments have done in times of a public health crisis and carry out a proper judicial inquiry.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Just on that line, for the record, can you explain the part of Ms. Weatherill's mandate that is, to your view, too narrow to actually get the full story in looking backwards as to what happened?
Would you also tell us, while we're looking backwards, what needs to happen in the government right now going forward that would fix this lack of communication that seems to have been deadly? Under the international health regulations, where is Canada now in violation of the regulations by not having these information-sharing agreements in place?
5:15 p.m.
Professor, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
On the international health regulations, I'll defer to Dr. Wilson to answer that part.
With respect to the investigation conducted by Ms. Weatherill, as we wrote in the CMHA--I and the other editors--the missing pieces are that the investigator is not necessarily going to be at arm's length from the government. I quote the following:
...the investigator will not have any power to subpoena witnesses or documents; the investigation will be closed to public participation; and there is no commitment to publish the investigator's findings or to report to Parliament.
Further, I do not understand that the investigator's mandate stretches to examining possible political interference.
Those are all the weaknesses with that process.
On the international health regulations, I'll pass that question, if you will, to Dr. Wilson.
5:15 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, Canada Research Chair in Public Health Policy, As an Individual
Thank you.
Under the international health regulations, all countries are required to assess emergencies within their borders within 48 hours and then transfer that information to WHO within 24 hours of assessment. This requires, obviously, communication of information from the local source of the outbreak to the federal level. In Canada that would require the presence of data-sharing agreements that are comprehensive and detailed. Those are not present.
It is the nature of our federal system of government but of note that Canada approved the regulations without any proviso. The U.S. actually issued a condition that they would do their best within the federal system of government. So currently we cannot guarantee that we can meet the reporting requirements of the international health regulations.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
In the Public Health Agency report, in terms of the process for dealing with a food outbreak.... That plan was before the Public Health Agency actually existed. Would you have recommendations as to how you would set up those structures and those agreements in memorandums of understanding in a different way, now that the Public Health Agency exists? And who should take the lead the minute an outbreak is in the food chain?
5:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, Canada Research Chair in Public Health Policy, As an Individual
I would just recommend that they follow the recommendations of the Naylor report and the Public Health Agency of Canada Act, which is that the Public Health Agency and the chief public health officers are the lead of any public health emergency. As far as I could tell during the listeria outbreak, the Ontario report stated that did not appear to be the case.
We need to be assured as Canadians that the Public Health Agency is acting independently in the best interests of the public, and I don't think we can say that, given the current set of arrangements.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Okay. I do have a question for Ms. Bose.
You mentioned the dual role of CFIA. There's been a lot of perpetuating of that out in the public domain. In reality, they do not have a dual role. If changes need to be made there to make it more clear, then maybe they should be made.
Their role in export is that they may accompany other people who are in trade. Their role in export is really just to outline the kinds of food safety protocols that we have in Canada so that importing companies or countries understand our food safety system. Their role is not a dual role; it is just to explain the food safety system elsewhere in the world.
When you talked about it being dual, you said there were two roles of export promotion and food safety in Canada. It isn't split. If you look at their mandate, it is one, but they are on trade delegations to explain our system within Canada.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I just wanted to make that point. Maybe she wants to respond to that.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Well, I just wanted to apologize to these distinguished academics, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal and in many other ways, who distinguish themselves among many other witnesses that the Conservatives brought forward, and--
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
--we did not treat any of their witnesses in the manner these witnesses have been treated this afternoon. I would like the chair to apologize.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Ms. Bennett, your time has long expired.
Mr. Shipley, five minutes.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for coming.
There's been a lot of discussion through this whole issue, actually, about communications: that actually the minister hasn't been in front and wasn't part of it. I think Mr. Wilson has indicated that fairly clearly in his reference to us, saying, “In the listeria outbreak the Public Health Agency of Canada, however, was not the public face of the response.” They were at every one of the public meetings and announcements that were there.
He said, “The primary communication of the status of the outbreak was conducted” and carried out “by the CFIA and the Minister of Agriculture.” We've always said that this has been a joint effort in terms of communications. I don't think, quite honestly, that there's.... When we've listened to witnesses, we know there are lessons to be learned. We will always do that.
Mr. Attaran, you've gone back over the number of incidents. I would like to have a discussion around Walkerton, around the value of that one, because I don't agree with you on all things, certainly not in terms of what our inquiries will do for the protection of the general public.
I'd like to go to Ms. Bose for a second. In your comments, you talked about research. Actually, after listening to quite a bit of it, I'm sort of wondering why we're even here. It sounds like we have such a terrible system in Canada that most people will not survive our public health system, which we know isn't true.
You have a research document that is pretty damning, quite honestly, to the health system. That was carried out by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. It was taken, I guess, between April 25 and May 3. Would you present the questions to us, please? I know there's an e-mail here. I'm wondering if you could present to the committee, actually, the questions that were asked during that survey so that we would know the context in which you got the answers. That is a request I would like to make.
Secondly, I think you made the comment.... I forget the word here. You said you had an awful time; it was “sleuthing” to meet her. When did you meet with her?
June 10th, 2009 / 5:25 p.m.
Head, Ottawa Office, Option consommateurs
I'll answer that question first. I did not meet with her. Mr. Décary-Gilardeau met with her about three months ago.