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.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Why was it so difficult to arrange a meeting with her? Were you refused initially? What was the problem?
4:50 p.m.
Head, Ottawa Office, Option consommateurs
It was difficult to locate her, Mr. Bellavance.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Oh, I understand. Once you did get in touch with her, you were able to agree on something quickly.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
It wasn't clear how you could make yourselves heard. I understand.
I have some additional questions and comments for Option consommateurs. We are all consumers and we are, in fact, at the end of the food chain. A product is handled by a lot of different people before it ends up in our plate, and yet we are the first ones to be affected. Consumers are the ones who became ill and died because of listeriosis. When I dared to suggest, the second time that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency appeared before the Sub-Committee, that there had been a crisis of confidence among consumers in terms of their trust in the food safety system, Ms. Swan, the President, hit the roof. In spite of that, I insisted that consumers on the ground are very concerned, given everything that happened.
Am I the only one to suddenly think that people were affected by the news that food was contaminated? The fact is that there is no need for 22 people to die. When spinach from the US was discovered to contain E. coli, everyone stopped buying spinach, wherever its origin.
It is clear that people are concerned. I would be interested in hearing your views on this.
4:50 p.m.
Analyst, Agri-food, Option consommateurs
I imagine that you also talked to consumers who had contracted food poisoning as a result of listeria. As I recall, no consumer has appeared before the Committee, even though that would most certainly have been beneficial to the Committee's work.
Recently I was talking with a lady who had eaten sausages or cold meat at a family gathering. She was sick for at least two weeks afterwards, and her two sons in their early twenties were not well for several days. In fact, she particularly wanted to talk to me about her pregnant niece. Until she gave birth, family members were concerned, and only felt reassured once they held the baby in their arms. Here I am talking about only one person who became ill from listeriosis, but there were certainly many other cases.
The media talked about nothing else. There is no doubt that consumer confidence in the food and production systems has been affected, as well as the government's ability to monitor and ensure the safety of the foods that we eat. We did not actually count the number of calls we received, but people did contact Option consommateurs to find out whether the crisis was over and what foods they could not eat.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
That is exactly what I thought.
Mr. Attaran, you are not a physician; however, a number of physicians signed the September 2008 editorial about the listeriosis crisis. I believe I heard you say earlier that you had been following the work of the Sub-Committee. We have heard a number of different versions of the facts, including the Agency's and Mr. McCain's. We are told that listeria was present, that the number of inspectors would change absolutely nothing, that this situation was inevitable, in a way, and that we just had to deal with it.
However, the inspectors told us that it is very important that they be on site, particularly because they can check the equipment to see that it is in working order or note any defects, wear or other problems. A number of scientists signed that editorial.
Do you think the number of inspectors is really important?
4:55 p.m.
Professor, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
Obviously, you cannot avoid contact with bacteria, because they are everywhere; however, disease is another matter. Cars are a good example. They are everywhere as well, but you can definitely avoid fatal car accidents. There is no reason to accept the idea that because germs are everywhere, disease should necessarily follow. That is not true. In fact, it is ridiculous. I have heard a number of witnesses make that sort of comment, and I absolutely do not agree. Neither myself nor the other editors of the Journal agree. There is evidence that other European countries, along with the United States and Brazil, in particular, have been more successful than we have in avoiding disease.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to you all for coming.
Mr. Attaran, I was intrigued by our placement in the overall structure. We're number 30 out of those surveyed who test for listeriosis as a pathogen. In the context of when Maple Leaf was before us, they told us that they export similar types of material, that they make ready-to-eat meats for this country, they make ready-to-eat meats for the United States, and now I'm hearing from you, if I heard correctly, that the ready-to-eat meat we consume in this country has a much lower standard for the pathogen than it does in the United States. I guess the question is, why do we allow that?
4:55 p.m.
Professor, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
I don't know why we allow it, because it's certifiably foolish. The thought that a factory in Canada could manufacture one type of meat for export to the U.S. and the same type of meat--same flavour, same cuts--that are consumed in Canada, and that these two packages could contain different amounts of bacteria, the American one zero per 25 grams, the Canadian one 2,500 per 25 grams, has no rational explanation. It's a total abdication of health protection in this area. Let me be clear: it is foolish.
It will have to be changed. I hope it is going to be changed very soon. The people who are most susceptible to listeriosis--Dr. Wilson can elaborate on this--are those who are elderly or those who are immuno-suppressed. Those are vulnerable persons in our population, and they ought not to be placed at risk in this manner.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Which raises the obvious question: why wouldn't we run the Canadian product down the American line and sell it to ourselves, rather than sell it to someone else? I agree that Mr. Wilson can certainly answer, but I was intrigued by what Mr. Espy said about HACCP. I've actually read the comment somewhere, I can't remember where it was said, but I haven't had anybody come before us to testify who said that HACCP is known in the trade, by those who are in the front lines of HACCP, as “have a cup of coffee and pray”.
Yet we use this, according to the witnesses who have come before us, in the industry and CFIA, that this is the gold standard, if you will. In fact, I would suggest to you that they say it's the platinum standard of food safety and that we should all be very secure in the knowledge that this is the best of the best. Yet I've heard today from the former agriculture minister in the U.S. government of Bill Clinton that that's what he hears from front-line operatives. This begs the question, I guess to Dr. Wilson: when it comes to public health, where would that type of oversight be in looking at that type of system that I've heard tonight is “have a cup of coffee and pray”? Where would the public health system or public health authority come in, if it were truly independent, looking at that type of system, and what would it say about it, and what might it do to actually make effective change?
5 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, Canada Research Chair in Public Health Policy, As an Individual
Thank you.
I think the ideal system would be to have the Public Health Agency act as an independent watchdog to help prevent these types of problems from emerging. That would involve the Public Health Agency being able to independently comment on the practices of another agency without fear of repercussions. Again, I don't feel that was the case with listeria. It also means having in place detection systems that, when problems occur, we'll know about them as soon as possible so we can protect as many lives as possible. Again, that's something we don't have in this country and that has been highlighted multiple times.
5 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
I'm listening to that, and we don't have it. I'm hearing that we're number 30. And hearing that the platinum standard is to have a cup of coffee and pray draws me to only one conclusion--that we should call for an inquiry.
Should we ask for a public inquiry of this? In your learned sense, should we do that?
5 p.m.
Professor, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
Without a doubt. When seven people died in Walkerton--we all know the tragedy well--a proper inquiry with the power to compel witnesses and evidence occurred. When approximately 40 people died of SARS, a proper inquiry of the type I just described occurred.
It is inexcusable. It is a denial that something serious has happened, and a continuing endangerment of Canadians that we are not undergoing an inquiry now. There should be one as soon as possible.
5 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
A minute, thank you.
Mr. Espy, if I could, you raised the issue of the HACCP and what you saw from front-line workers. I don't want to overemphasize it, but it wasn't anecdotal. I don't think you would have brought an anecdotal response to this committee. As a public servant in the United States, that's not what you would do. It's not a flippant remark that you made. Clearly you've heard that on more than one occasion in the United States, and yet this is seen as the standard we all live by. If the front-line workers don't believe in the standard, then how do we have any faith in it?
5 p.m.
Chairman, Toxin Alert Inc.
No, it's not anecdotal in that sense. I've been before whistleblowers who are afraid of revealing their true identity and spoke to me behind shadowed screens. They talked to me, in that regard, quite specifically about their fears and what they observed in the abattoirs in the U.S. They talked about the gaps in the HACCP standard where everything is not observable, things fall through the gaps. It's a process-monitoring standard. It depends on how many eyes you throw to review the paperwork, how much you can observe, and really how honest the companies are in presenting the proper material to you as well. Even though they say it's a gold standard, everyone understands that it's not foolproof, nor is it 100% fail-safe. A lot can fall through the cracks, and it does.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you very much.
We'll now move to Mr. Storseth, seven minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Attaran, if I can just say, that was very compelling testimony, serious, well-spoken, and very well rehearsed.
First of all, you're an academic, and you're also a lawyer, I understand. Can I ask if you have ever been employed by, or received funds from, the Liberal Party of Canada?
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
I will answer your question--
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I guess I should just back up one second before I lead into that question. Clearly you're not a parliamentary lawyer, but you do recognize that this committee and this committee's investigation has full powers of the main committee, which has the ability to subpoena and compel people to come, and make people testify under oath if the committee so deems it. Are you aware of that?