Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on April 22nd, 2009

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

I have 30 seconds left. Ms. Weatherill, since you started to answer my question, I would ask you to please continue.

[Sheila Weatherill]

I believe the question was whether Canadians will see value for money with this review. I want to say as strongly as I can that I believe this will be a substantive report with concrete, detailed findings. This is something that Canadians care a lot about. They are anxious to hear how it happened and get to the bottom of it and hear recommendations. I know we will have a high level of substance in the report. I know this is money well spent and there will be value for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Ms. Weatherill.

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

In spite of what my colleagues might be inferring about innuendo or looking for the proverbial conspiratorial theory in the closet, this is really about Canadians' faith in their food supply. When it comes to faith, there's a different parameter than in hard science. When you take the leap from one plus one equals two, which is an accepted value that we know how to compute, to actually having faith, there's a difference. One needs to have something beyond one plus one equals two. One has to believe that you showed them one and then you showed them another, so that you can come up with two. That leads to faith that you've actually done it correctly. So this isn't an issue, at least not for this member.

There's no issue about folks not trying hard. Everyone has the best intentions at heart. They want to assure Canadians that they have a safe food system, because we all happen to be consumers of that food. There's nobody on the other side, on this side, or out there watching who doesn't eat. We all have to eat, so it is imperative that we all feel that it's absolutely safe. Part of the dilemma we face is making sure Canadians have their faith in the system restored. It's been shaken, and justifiably so. Twenty-two individuals died last year in this country from listeriosis. That has shaken the faith of Canadians in their food supply. They need to have their faith restored.

This is not so much to suggest that something untoward is happening as it is to help make sure we actually open all of the doors, look under all of the rugs, ask all the right folks, seek out all the right questions, and actually come back and tell folks that we found it all, and restore their faith. That's part of the dilemma we face. That's a difficult task no matter who ends up having to do it, whether it's you as the independent investigator, this committee, government, those of us in the food safety business, or those who produce the food. It's going to be a significant challenge as we go forward.

There are some technical questions on this. There is the documentation you're asking for. No doubt you have a list—you talked about having forensic auditors, and they'll have a list. In your mind, will that list be part of the report? If not, do you think it should be?

One of the ways to restore the faith is for folks to be able to look through a list of documents that were requested and received. Perhaps someone will ask if you requested a document that you hadn't thought of. You would then ask for it, and it would become a supplement to the report. This would help to restore the faith. The knowledge that we looked everywhere humanly possible will go a long way towards restoring people's faith. I can't emphasize that word enough, because we can see that people have lost faith in the food supply and its safety. That really is a great change. So that's one of my questions.

I've sat on investigations before. Quite often the terms of reference are written for us and we just accept them because we're okay with them. Sometimes we get input into those terms of reference, because we see them as being too broad or too narrow, and we need to move this around based on our experiences going into the investigation. Please comment on this if possible.

I'll leave it at that for the moment.

[Sheila Weatherill]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll speak first about the broad topic of consumer confidence.

I couldn't agree with you more. This is something that's top of my mind, and I strongly believe that the public wants to know how this happened. We have to tell them the story of exactly what happened and when it happened and why it happened. That's why a key part of our investigation will be communication.

In support of that, we have found two family members who have spoken with us already and will actually be coming to meet with us. Just hearing the ideas families have and about what their experience has been has been very helpful so far and will continue to be.

Additionally, we know that family physicians across Canada have advice for us, and we are reaching out to physicians through a survey. We think that will be helpful, because to restore confidence we have to answer the question of how this happened. Family doctors and other physicians are a big part of supporting families and supporting Canadians in understanding that.

On your question about documentation, it is our plan to submit all documents supporting our recommendations and findings along with the report. So those will be available.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize if I've forgotten part of the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Just mention it, because you're well over your time.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I understand. Ms. Weatherill indicated that she forgot part of the question. I'm simply going to repeat it. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence.

As we approach different inquiries--I've done this before, as well, although not to this magnitude, obviously--the terms of reference quite often are written for us. Were you able to have input into those terms of reference, or did you simply say, no, they work for me, so they're okay?

[Sheila Weatherill]

I apologize for forgetting that part of the question, Mr. Chairman.

On the terms of reference, no, I did not have input, but my mandate does give me the power and I do have the resources to get this job done, and I'm absolutely fully committed to getting to the bottom of this. I know that we will be producing a report with substantive and detailed recommendations and findings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Storseth, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to welcome Ms. Weatherill here and thank her for taking on the huge responsibility it is to deal with this.

I would like to start off by saying that part of what you're doing is helping to restore confidence in our food safety system. Part of our government's obligation has been to not only restore confidence but to take the lessons learned and take them a step further to better the food safety system in Canada, which is already one of the best in the world. We shouldn't forget that.

I have to tell you that I got some phone calls from my local area when people heard that you were doing this job. As a former CEO of the Capital Health Region, you might remember Joan Hertz or Jack Dennett. They called. Jack, a former board member of yours, talked about how knowledgeable and dedicated you are and how aggressive you are when it comes to getting the job done. He also gave you credit for very modern thinking and a way of working with staff and working towards getting your angle very aggressively. So it has all been very complimentary. I have the utmost confidence, and the people in our area who have worked with you have the utmost confidence, that you will do an excellent job for us.

Now I want to get back to some of the testimony you have already given. You talked about a subpoena. We have had the unfortunate job of having to subpoena witnesses to some of our committees in the past. You know that it's generally--not generally, but always--when a witness refuses to come forward, when you're having trouble eliciting information from them, that's very important. Have you had any of these problems with any of the people you've been trying to meet with--and in fact, not just meet with; I believe your words were “participate in investigative interviews with”? Have you experienced any problems that would lead you to believe that you need the subpoena power?

[Sheila Weatherill]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To date, we've had full cooperation. All individuals we have called, whom we've asked to meet with, have agreed to meet with us and have been fully participative. We have many more sessions scheduled, and so far we've had full cooperation.

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

Thank you for that.

As you may know, the opposition and in particular the NDP wanted to focus solely on partisan witch-hunting and an exercise in politics. What the government was able to elicit at the main committee was to broaden the scope a little bit so that we could get some positive solutions on food safety to come out of this subcommittee as well. I think your coming forward is going to definitely help that. I look forward to your report.

I'm sure you're aware that our government has recently taken action to improve food safety. We've hired 200 new inspectors and put an additional $113 million for product safety. I'm sure you're aware that the Conservative government recently put out new directives for listeria control. For example, we brought back environmental testing for listeria, which was cut in 2005 under the previous government and the Minister of Health at the time, and in the last budget, in our economic action plan, we actually invested another $250 million into strengthening our lab capacity around the country to better the lab results.

In looking at these, can you give the committee your thoughts on some of these steps? Do you see them as being positive steps for government and, as we talked about in the beginning, restoring confidence and taking that next step with food safety in Canada?

[Sheila Weatherill]

Mr. Chairman, while we're only partway through our investigation, it would be preliminary for me to give you my view. But I can tell you that we are looking at, for example, the new listeria policy and at the changes that have occurred since the outbreak and assessing those against what other countries are doing, and so very much looking at progress to date and what has changed, as well as other factors. Again, we will be producing a substantive report, and it will have detail and specific actions in it.

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

Thank you very much.

I do have a bit of a reputation around the table as being very hard on government bureaucrats when they come to testify before committees. So we have had Michael McCain here. He had great testimony and I found it very insightful, with very fulsome answers. We've had CFIA before this subcommittee, and we'll also be having more government officials coming before us.

Do you believe the government officials you have talked to have given a fulsome and honest attempt at giving you everything they have? Do you have any concerns with that part of the process at this point in time?

[Sheila Weatherill]

Mr. Chairman, we've had very good cooperation from all parties. We have the additional benefit of having the support of a large amount of documentation, and we have the ability to invite many staff members from all parts of the organizations. We have had good cooperation, and we expect that to continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you. Your time has expired, Mr. Storseth.

I have a question, Ms. Weatherill, if I could. I know that we've all, myself included, read a lot about listeriosis since the outbreak. Something I've read would give one the idea that listeriosis is kind of a common thing, but it's not really something that's on the public mind. Being a farmer, I know some other diseases that are in animals from time to time, but it takes stress or other things to actually bring them out. Is that a fair assumption of listeriosis as well?

[Sheila Weatherill]

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your question. I'm not a microbiologist—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm not either.

[Sheila Weatherill]

—but I have to tell you that I know more about listeria than I did a few weeks ago. One of the scientists we met with explained it this way, and I hope I get it right, because as I say. I'm not a scientist.

Listeria is one of the bugs that...you have to think about it as a house with so many rooms, and if the rooms aren't filled by other bugs, then listeria will move in and fill the rooms. So that kind of gives us the concept that when we've sanitized away other bugs and removed their predators, then there is more listeria. But as you know, it's a bug you can't see, and it's complex.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Easter, you have five minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me start this way, Ms. Weatherill. As an individual, a former minister, who has gone before a public inquiry and has spent many hours before a public inquiry and come out clear at the end of the day, I think this investigation just doesn't get there. Now, that's not your fault, and I accept your word that you will do the best you can do. I sincerely believe you in that and I do believe you will come up, as you said, with reasons why it happened and how it happened.

But there's a broader concern here. We live in a system of government that is supposed to hold and accept ministerial responsibility. This investigation doesn't go there. I would say to the government members, in terms of the ministerial responsibility, that it cuts both ways. Yes, it can be found that you erred, or also it can be found that you didn't err—the error was somewhere else in the system and you no longer have to deal with that cloud over your head, which I will admit is a relief when it happens.

I think we've determined from the discussion here today that you really have no way of assessing political responsibility in terms of your investigation. I submit to you—I go back to my original point—that I am worried that you are being used in a way so we don't have to deal with the question of the involvement of the PMO or the minister's officer. I say that in all sincerity, and there are questions around there.

The other point—let's make clear—that we've determined thus far today is that you do not have the power to subpoena witnesses; you depend on goodwill. You do not have the legal authorization to demand documents, although you do believe you're getting full cooperation. One of the people who is indicating to you that you are getting full cooperation is the minister himself; he said so before this committee on February 10. The fact of the matter is that he's the minister who should be under investigation.

So there are some concerns here, so let's be honest and just lay them on the table.

Now, here's just a note of caution, going forward, on the agencies you're involved with, and we'll leave the minister and the PMO alone.

I would suggest you maybe read the minutes of this committee. I hope it doesn't get political. This is a committee to look at the food safety issue. I am very, very, very concerned. I can't express enough concern about the statements that were made by the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on Monday. In my view there was an attempt...and I quote her: “It is quite clearly industry's fundamental responsibility to produce safe food”. I would caution you in your discussions with the agencies that they not try to transfer blame to the industry. Michael McCain has taken a lot of responsibility, yes, indeed. In my view there's a higher authority in this country that is responsible for food safety in this country, and that's the government, its various institutions, and its ministers. I just express to you a word of caution in that regard. Do not allow the agencies to transfer blame to the industry, because Michael McCain was the only face we had out there at the time accepting responsibility in assuring Canadians on public safety. I just raise that as a note of comment.

My question to you is about your secretariat, and I know people are seconded or not. Can you assure us at least that in your secretariat your investigations, people being seconded are not from areas of the federal government that are directly under potential implication here? Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada, Canadian Public Health Agency, CFIA, Industry Canada, the Prime Minister's Office, and the Privy Council Office are all in one way or another implicated here. Do you have any staff from those offices that you know of? You may not know, and I'm not going to force you to it, but could you get back to us on this, if you don't?

[Sheila Weatherill]

Mr. Chairman, we will do specific checking and get back.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Anderson, you have five minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm disappointed to hear Mr. Easter, because it seems he's already made conclusions.

I get the sense that he wants failure out of the investigation you're doing. The reality is that this investigation is set up to succeed, it's set up to be open, and it's set up to be transparent. I think that is frustrating the opposition. We can see this today in some of the things they've been pointing out. They want to find blame; they want to find political damage.

The problem is that this government has set this up so that it will work, so that it will open up the facts and will, as we said earlier, independently examine the factors that contributed to the listeriosis outbreak and make recommendations. I understand how that may frustrate him.

Also, I want to point out that he sees grounds for criticism in your not having the power to subpoena and not having the power to demand documents. You have indicated multiple times today that this has not been an issue; that you've been able to obtain the information you need and have been able to obtain cooperation of witnesses as you've wanted it. This is a red herring that the opposition can't be allowed to get away with putting forward.

I would like to talk to you about one of the issues that came up the other day. That is that both Maple Leaf and CFIA indicated, as a root cause of the listeriosis outbreak, that biological material was deep in the slicers in establishment 97B, which ended up being the breeding ground for listeria.

Mr. McCain said that Maple Leaf had had positive test results for listeria in the environment for a few months before the outbreak, but because the mandatory reporting had been cancelled in 2005 under the Liberal government, they didn't feel the need to report this. Brian Evans expanded on this point, that environmental testing is critical to seeing a problem. I think he pointed out that it might not have identified this specific issue, but at least the information would have indicated that there was a trend of some sort. That's why the government has acted and on April 1 made a number of changes to the protocols.

Are you in a situation now to make any comment about those protocols and about whether you feel they've improved the situation? Or is this something on which you want to reserve judgment?