Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on April 20th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Your time has expired.

Go ahead, Mr. Allen, for five minutes.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll make more of a statement, on the first piece, as we talk about this issue--and I spoke to it earlier--on who the public face is. Since you've put together a large document on lessons learned, perhaps one of the lessons should be looking at the late Dr. Sheela Basrur in Toronto in relation to SARS. She really was the public face, a public figure about a very public epidemic. That's what I was trying to allude to in the questions when I talked earlier to you about the sense of who the public face is, and I think she becomes.... In her memory, at least, perhaps we ought to look at that situation to see if we can learn a lesson.

Let me talk a little more about this idea of compliance verification systems. I think that might probably go to Mr. Prince again, but anyone is free to take it up.

My understanding is that there is such a system within CFIA and that your inspectors do that sort of thing, but one of the things I've been made aware of--and hopefully you can verify it for me--is that although you normally do pre-operational compliance verifications during the summer period when producers are down or not working, last summer there was actually a cancellation of overtime, and inspections for compliance verifications didn't go into facilities that were down. This has been my understanding. Perhaps you could comment on that. I don't know if Mr. Prince is going to take that on, but if you could comment on it, I'd appreciate it.

[Cameron Prince]

Yes, certainly; I welcome the question.

Last summer there was really no change in terms of cancellation of overtime. In fact, we've always approved essential overtime.

I want to come back to the point about inspection of equipment and inspection of sanitation procedures. Going back to my earlier comments, we had two inspectors in the plant. At the night shift, there was an opportunity for that second inspector to have a look at the company employees actually cleaning equipment. He got to see, just immediately after the shift, the pre-operational cleanup and so on. So there was plenty of opportunity through the course of that working day of two shifts for our inspectors to do pre-operational inspections.

I'll just leave it at that. If you have any further questions, I can answer them for you.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I guess that begs two questions in response.

One, is that normally how we do compliance verification--in between shifts? It sounds more to the effect of what's called a preventive maintenance program, which I'm quite familiar with. It's called PPM work. Industries do that in a global structure. That isn't quite the same, it seems to me, as compliance verification, which is a more stringent piece that you want to be doing. It isn't between shifts or in between lots of things that are done.

The other part is that this was more of a general question, Mr. Prince. It wasn't specific to just Maple Leaf. Yet I think that's what you were referencing when you talked about two inspectors. This question was more general. It may well be there too, but really what I'm asking is whether compliance verifications were being done by CFIA inspectors at all locations, right across this country, when they should have been. Were some missed because of an overtime policy that perhaps was getting in the way of allowing that to happen?

[Cameron Prince]

The overtime policy did not get in the way of completion of the compliance verification tasks. In fact, there was no limitation or cancellation of overtime.

The compliance verification tasks require various elements, including pre-operational and post-operational inspections. That's part of the overall approach. Those things are covered off in the course of a month or a year as we rotate through the various elements of the plan.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I think I have some time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have a minute.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you. You can see my questions are short, Mr. Chair.

I guess the question I'm really asking--maybe you can't answer it for me right this very minute, but maybe you can provide the information--is this: was all of the compliance verification testing done that should have been done last year all across this country? If it was done, and you can provide the documentation to show it, I would appreciate it. If it wasn't done, can you identify the plants where it wasn't done?

[Cameron Prince]

I can't answer your question right now. I can't sit here and say that every single compliance verification task in every meat plant across Canada last year was done. That would be impossible for me to say. But we certainly can provide you with some data in that regard fairly quickly as to what was done in each of the plants.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Anderson, five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd actually like to go to the discussion about some of the other participants in this whole scenario. The Ontario public health officer on Friday, in their lessons learned report, basically said that they think the level of evidence is too high, that you wouldn't.... I guess you were accused of not letting them into the plants and sharing information adequately.

I think the timeline shows that you were talking to Ontario officials, so I want to ask you some specific questions about that. Was the CFIA engaged with Ontario officials from August 7 onward?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

We actually have the individual here from the Office of Food Safety and Recall who was the lead contact point on this. If you would like to speak to him directly, Mr. Anderson, he could walk you through it.

Alternatively, I can say unequivocally that in fact we had good working relations. Again, bear in mind that what we were engaged with, or informed about on August 6 by Toronto Public Health, was a single location with two illnesses. That relationship worked extremely well over the course of the summer, we believe, although there's always room for improvement.

I think it has been pointed out that in fact we did engage with Toronto Public Health. We did not preclude their entry into the plant. We have no authority to stop them from going into the plant. Under Ontario provincial law, they have very strong authorities. They have the right to go into the plant under their own authorities without being escorted or admitted by CFIA.

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

Did they participate in that, or did they choose not to?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

As part of the early process, we had earnest discussions with them about the merits of doing an occupational health and safety assessment in the plant, in the context that potentially, once listeria was identified as a factor in the plant, that would have impacts on employees of the plant itself. Alternatively, could there have been an employee in the plant who was already infected that was a contributing factor? In fact, they did itemize what it was they would like to do as part of the audit team, and they were part of the audit team that went into the plant during the shutdown period to determine root cause analysis of what had happened in the plant. I think it has also been well articulated that in fact we did receive a letter of appreciation from Toronto Public Health for our cooperation, for our information sharing, that helped them be as effective as they thought they could be.

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

So you feel that you provided them with all the relevant information you could and the records that they needed when you were working with them, from your perspective.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

We recognize, and I'm sure others would recognize it as well, that information exchange in these circumstances is extremely critical. We worked very hard to provide the information in a timely manner that people were looking for. Part of that was making sure the information we had was relevant to what was happening, that it was in a format we could all collectively use, and that the analysis indicated it would take us to where we needed to go.

Part of what we need to revisit, I think, as we fine-tune the existing arrangements with all the jurisdictions, is that we have a clear understanding of how information is exchanged, what the time standards are to do that, and what the processes are to make it happen as quickly as possible.

Again coming back to my discussions with Dr. Williams this afternoon, this is one of the areas about which we wanted to assure him, that if he had a specific information need that he felt was outstanding, if they could identify it to us we would ensure they had it before the close of this week. He is reviewing with his staff whether there are any outstanding information requests that they feel would be relevant to the ongoing improvement of activities.

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

Because Maple Leaf was cooperating and it was deemed that a mandatory recall wasn't necessary, would things have gone more quickly if there had been a mandatory recall? Or does this fit into that experience you're talking about where you need to determine that there's an issue before you can move?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

No. Unfortunately, I think people are misconstruing “mandatory recall”. While it is true that under the CFIA Act, section 19, the minister has the authority to require a recall, by obligation, by law, this power is normally executed where a company is either not in a position--they've gone bankrupt--or they've refused to cooperate.

In fact, by all standards, a voluntary recall is much more effective than a mandatory recall, because you not only have your own staff--in our case working with public health units--to go out and verify effectiveness checks and trace through the distribution chain. Normally in a voluntary recall, the company itself contributes by making their salespersons, their distributors, also available to carry out those functions. In fact, voluntary recalls actually unfold in much faster time with a much higher level of achievement than a mandatory recall, where you're working with a supplier who is not being cooperative.

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

You may not know this, but I'm wondering, had this been a provincial plant, would it have been possible to enforce a mandatory recall, or would that have typically been done through a voluntary recall as well?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

I would certainly like to confirm this officially with all the provinces and territories. I know that Quebec has mandatory recall policy in this area in provincial jurisdiction. I would like to verify with all other jurisdictions before I would answer that definitively.

As I said, I know that Ontario officials have extraordinary powers under the Health Information Protection Act, as do the district health units, which in many cases exceed our authorities. I can't say definitively what the trigger in Ontario would be, or the definition of mandatory recall, but we'd be pleased to get that for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired, Mr. Anderson.

Five minutes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the Maple Leaf plant itself, at the time of this incident, was there a pilot program under way with respect to inspection activity, in other words, taking the approach of more of an oversight role and actually direct inspections?

[Dr. Brian Evans]

There were no pilot inspection activities under way at the time of the circumstance, honourable member. The compliance verification program, in fact, was piloted in 123 different ready-to-eat meat establishments as part of the validation process. That had taken place over the previous two years, including Maple Leaf. Maple Leaf was part of the pilots over the previous two-year period. So as of April 1, when it was made mandatory across the system, there was in fact no inspection regime change in Maple Leaf. They had already been operating under that system for an extended period of time.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Just to make sure I have this correct, you're saying the project was piloted, and then the inspection system changed to what was trialled as a pilot. Is that correct?