Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on April 22nd, 2009

[Sheila Weatherill]

Yes, our report, with our findings and recommendations, is due on July 20.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's to be reported to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Sheila Weatherill]

That's correct.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

And he is the minister responsible for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

[Sheila Weatherill]

My mandate is to provide findings and recommendations to the minister by July 20.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

To come back to the earlier statement by the Prime Minister on September 3 that he would be calling for an arm's-length investigation, you're reporting to the very minister who's in charge of CFIA. Do you believe that to be an arm's-length investigation?

[Sheila Weatherill]

My mandate gives me the power and resources to complete this review in an independent way. We're well under way with extraordinary cooperation in a collaborative approach. We will have our recommendations ready by July 20.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I understand that, Ms. Weatherill; however, our responsibility as the official opposition is to hold the government to account. The minister has some responsibility. I was very disappointed on Monday by some of the statements of the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and I outlined that then. We will have to call them back, I'm sure.

In my view, part of the reason we're having this parliamentary committee is to get to the bottom of whether or not it was possible that the minister or the Prime Minister, who knew an election was coming--nobody else knew that--was more concerned about the political spin and damage in the initial stages of this problem than the safety of food in this country, which is the responsibility of CFIA and the minister, in my view. So we have to find some way of getting to the bottom of that issue.

As far as your authority, how will you get information from the minister you are reporting to? The Minister of Agriculture stated publicly before the full committee on February 10 that you as the investigator have obtained “the full cooperation of all parties involved”. Is that statement accurate?

[Sheila Weatherill]

Mr. Chairman, yes, we've had full cooperation from all parties involved, including the federal departments and agencies, and full cooperation from Maple Leaf. All people we've invited to meet with us have attended, and all documents we've requested we have obtained.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired, Mr. Easter. You can follow up on that.

Mr. Bellavance, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank your for testimony, Ms. Weatherill. I must add to what my colleague, Wayne Easter, said about what the Conservatives implied or have already told you. As for your appointment, I would like to tell you that the Bloc Québécois would never, ever, call your expertise into question, be it in writing or in any other form. Everything that was said following your appointment had to do with the overall process chosen by the government five months after the listeriosis crisis. An investigation process was established. We spoke with a number of stakeholders. The media reported the concerns of numerous people who were either directly or indirectly affected by these events, including scientists. The lack of transparency surrounding the process is being called into question, not you, personally. It is our opinion that your mandate does not allow for full transparency.

This crisis has affected a number of people and, what is worse, some have even died. Families have been affected by this problem. My fellow party members and I feel that the process should have been as transparent as that followed by this subcommittee, as I am sure many parliamentarians, Quebeckers and Canadians would agree. We had to act despite the opposition of the government, which went to great lengths to keep us from setting up this subcommittee. That is where we are.

As it happens, my question has to do with perception. When you were appointed, the government had already given you a mandate....

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have a point of order, Mr. Anderson.

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

If Mr. Bellavance is going to talk about the committee and the formation of it, he should be accurate. It is my belief that there was a unanimous vote at the House of Commons agriculture committee to form this committee. So the government was certainly supportive of it and has been supportive all along, and we're actually the ones who wanted this to be done. We suggested a deadline date that's going to be held to. And we've certainly been cooperative and are more than interested in reaching good conclusions on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Point taken.

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

Obviously, I would like to mention that when we were trying to form the committee, Mr. Anderson filibustered all meeting long.

I mentioned perception, Ms. Weatherill. You were also asked to head the Prime Minister's advisory committee on public service renewal. Are you still chair of that committee?

[Sheila Weatherill]

Mr. Chairman, there was a series of questions. I'll do my best to respond to them, and I'll start with the last question, which was the question about my role on the advisory committee on public service renewal.

I'm not the chair of that committee, Mr. Chairman. The co-chairs are Paul Tellier and Don Mazankowski. I am proud to serve on that committee as a member. I think there's never been a more important time to have a strong public service in Canada, so I'm pleased to participate in that. However, my role on that committee and my role as the independent investigator, Mr. Chairman, are not related in any way, although there is a relationship, in a way, in that both of these roles are in the interest of having a strong federal government to serve Canadians.

On the question of transparency, we have a fair and effective process under way. We're getting full cooperation. I'm personally fully dedicated to getting to the bottom of this. It's something Canadians care deeply about. The process we have under way I am confident will yield strong recommendations that come from people who are providing information to us and who are willing to participate with us.

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

I understand that you have the cooperation of those who testify before you, but you must admit that it is all taking place behind closed doors. Your work is not accessible to the media, nor to us. The only person to whom you are accountable is the minister, and you will submit your report to him by July 20. So, the process is certainly not transparent.

I want people to understand that when I mentioned the public's perception, I brought up your participation in the Prime Minister's advisory committee on public service renewal because the purpose of that committee is to revitalize the public service brand. At the same time, you are called upon to investigate a matter that is completely separate, but in doing so, you have to meet with people from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada, who are obviously public servants, not to mention the minister himself. That is why I think there may be a perceived conflict of interest.

So, you were not uncomfortable when the Prime Minister asked you to head this investigation? You did not think that it might be wise to leave the other committee? I am not making this up; it was talked about in the media. Consequently, I wonder whether, when you were offered the position, you ever thought....

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

On a point of order, Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bellavance starts his testimony by saying he doesn't want to discredit the witness and then goes through the next seven minutes trying to get to a point where he feels the witness is in a conflict of interest.

I think it should be stated that Ms. Weatherill's credentials are above reproach. As a former Edmontonian, she has spent a good portion of her professional career enhancing our public service as well as our health care system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Point taken.

Mr. Bellavance, I've allotted for that in your time. You have about 30 seconds left.

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

I will give you time to respond, Ms. Weatherill. Again, I was not trying to call into question your expertise. You did not consider how the public would perceive your holding both positions?

[Sheila Weatherill]

Mr. Chairman, no, I do not believe there is a conflict between the two roles.

On the matter of the transparency of the process we have under way, I believe that the structure we have in place—the independence and the collaboration and the environment that we have created—provides the best setting to have people tell us what happened and to give us their recommendations on what can be done to improve the system. That's not just with the federal departments and agencies, but with Maple Leaf staff as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Allen for seven minutes.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mrs. Weatherill, for being with us, albeit it may be at a time when you're not able to give us as much as you probably would like, or could, if you were indeed at the end of your report and we actually had it to look at and you were able to explain what has transpired. So I appreciate the fact that you're here trying to deal as best you can with some of the situation.

But I will carry on with how the committee and Canadians look at how your investigation was formed—albeit late, as has been indicated. The Prime Minister talked about it last September, and it is no fault of yours when it actually started. Your appointment didn't come until January, and now, rather than getting a report—which we could have had in March if indeed it had been done by the government, when we thought it had—we're not actually looking at a final report as part of this committee, which you might have been the person to defend here and explain to us.

We're now faced with a situation where your timeline is actually after the timeline of this committee, which is problematic, to say the least. It would have been advantageous for the committee to look at your report, simply because it would have been more fulsome in helping all of us understand what happened--because that's really what we want to do--and to find a way to assure Canadians that it won't happen again.

So it really it is a case of having all Canadians understand that their food supply is safe.

I think part of the problem we're having in the opposition is the way the committee has been structured and how it looks to Canadians, who are looking to have their faith in the system reaffirmed and know they truly have a safe food system. Of course, part of that is the terms of reference of your mandate, which require you to report back directly to the Minister of Agriculture, a minister of the crown, rather than you as independent investigator reporting directly to Parliament, which would give Canadians a sense that the results were being reported back directly to them—albeit I'm not accusing anyone of changing or nuancing anything.

There are a few things I think you can answer, and I'll put them out here. As we understand, there are numerous documents and hand-written notes here and there in the Department of Agriculture and PMO dealing with this particular situation. Do you know they exist, and have you been able to get them? Will you be getting them, if you haven't received them already?

The second part of the question, which ties in with this, is whether you know through communications logs that Maple Leaf Foods was in contact at least 24 times with various ministries just prior to the outbreak, during the outbreak, and subsequent to the outbreak. Have you had an opportunity to see those? Did you know that they exist, and will you, if you haven't already, be looking at those particular documents?

[Sheila Weatherill]

Mr. Chairman, on the question of documents and whether or not we have requested or are getting them, the answer is yes. We have a lot of documents, more than one million documents amounting to less than 10 million pages, much of which are electronic. We have had 100% success in getting all of the documents we've asked for, including from Maple Leaf Foods. We are now analyzing those documents and linking them to the various investigative interviews we're conducting.

On the question of timelines related to Maple Leaf Foods and their documentation, again, we are aware of that and we have asked and are looking at those specific issues.