Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on April 29th, 2009

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Well, she is completely independent from me, Mr. Easter. She's completely independent from the government. She will decide, at the end of the day, what will be in her report. I know that she has millions of documents to go through. I know that she's had a tremendous response from everyone she has called forward to make presentations. She is quite excited by the response, in that everyone is looking to get to the bottom of this, as we are--you as a committee, me as a minister, and of course the CFIA in their involvement. I look forward to what she reports.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'm very glad that she's excited, Mr. Minister, but as each day goes by we seem to be finding new documents. The one I asked you about in the House today and my question, at least in this round, concerned whether there was political involvement that may have extended the timeframe for some of these actions we're taking. We do know that in your conference call, which has been reported on widely in the media, you seemed to be more concerned about the political damage--or that's what was reported--than about the safety of Canadians. We also know that the Prime Minister knew there would be an election called, when none of the rest of us did. Was that a factor? Did the fact that there may have been more concern about political spin and damage control have any impact on the CFIA or other departments and agencies getting to the core of this problem as rapidly as they should have?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

For my part, Mr. Chair, I can honestly say I never did politically interfere in the operations of any of the agencies involved. I can also say that I think Mr. Easter is being a bit mischievious with some of the facts in front of him. Having said that, I would certainly have my colleagues from CFIA, who were involved in those calls and involved in the daily meetings we had, comment, if they care to, as to whether there was any political direction.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, we'll get to those folks at another time. We had them as witnesses the other night, and we will have to be calling them back, I'm sure. We have the minister here today for only an hour.

On September 3 it was reported that you were ordered by the Prime Minister to do a press conference on the crisis. I have two questions. Were you ordered by the Prime Minister to hold that press conference on September 3, and were you also involved in preparing the terms of reference for Ms. Weatherill?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I'll answer on the last issue first. No, I was not involved in the terms of reference for Ms. Weatherill. That would not be appropriate at all. I have not had a discussion with Ms. Weatherill other than a welcome-to-Ottawa visit that we had. It was about ten minutes long. I assured her that she should follow wherever the evidence takes her and come back with a report, and she agreed to do that.

As to the September 3 press conference, Mr. Easter, I'm not sure why you're singling that one out. We did daily press conferences for some two weeks or better, so I'm not sure exactly what specifically you are targeting on the September 3 one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired. If you can answer that in five seconds, I'll allow you to, but other than that, your time is up.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Certainly I can answer it in a very short time. The fact of the matter is that it seems the minister was very ill-prepared for that press conference, was unable to answer questions on the investigator, and one of his former communications directors had reported that. That goes to the heart of my question, which is what about political responsibility here in what happened or didn't happen?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You can follow up with that.

Mr. Bellavance, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, during today's Question Period, you were asked a question concerning an inspector who produced a report following the detection of listeria bacteria in the Toronto Maple Leaf plant. You then responded that it was not your responsibility but rather that of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and that this question should be directed to the President of the CFIA. The inspector in question had been asked to add written notes to a report. This would normally be done within a few days of the publication of the report, but several months, a request of this nature is much more surprising . Basically, you are washing your hands of the matter, no pun intended.

This is a matter for the committee to deal with. Who has the guts to assume some responsibility for what happened during the listeriosis crisis? Mr. McCain of Maple Leaf was the first to testify before the committee and he accepted full responsibility. We asked him why, and he answered that it was because it was produced in his plant. It was very noble of him, of course. Furthermore, I am convinced that people appreciate a CEO who assumes responsibility instead of pointing fingers at other parties.

Furthermore, he agreed that the responsibility for food safety is after all a shared responsibility. We also heard from other witnesses, including Ms. Swan from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It was very difficult to get her to admit that food safety is a shared responsibility, and as far as the listeriosis crisis itself was concerned, the agency was not prepared to accept any responsibility whatsoever.

We took note of Dr. Butler-Jones' testimony and that of other public health officials stating that the Ontario and Toronto health systems were much more to blame, in their opinion, because they had sent samples to the wrong place. The buck was passed to others in this case as well.

You were in charge when this happened. As I said the other day, it was not a joke, the health minister at the time Mr. Clement was attending the Democratic convention in Denver, and he did not return. So then, it was up to you to assume responsibility for this crisis. From the outset, we have never heard you state that the government had learned from what had happened, that the government was accountable for what had happened and that the food inspection system must be reviewed in order to avoid a recurrence of this type of tragic event.

Today, you have the opportunity to admit some responsibility, even though we do not have the means to carry out a true inquiry, with a judge sitting all day. We had to strike this subcommittee to make up for the fact that you have commissioned an inquiry that is meeting behind closed doors and in secret with Ms. Weatherill. Despite all her amazing qualifications and abilities, we do not know what she is doing or what is transpiring at the inquiry.

You will receive the report and you will make it public if you wish, when it suits you. At least here, it is a public hearing before television cameras. You have the opportunity to state tonight to the public that you are responsible. You are the Minister of Agriculture. You should have accepted responsibility for this issue when it regrettably occurred. I really haven't heard you say that you accept some responsibility for the incident. You have the opportunity to do so tonight before this public forum.

I would like to know if you feel that you do have a responsibility to the public, both as the minister and as a member of the government.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you for that intervention, Mr. Bellevance.

What I responded to Mr. Easter in question period today was that I am not responsible for the day-to-day operations of CFIA. That falls under their mandate. They are the ones who operate day to day. I am their conduit to cabinet. I am their conduit to budget changes. I am their advocate when it comes to changing regulations, and so on, at the government level. The day-to-day operations fall within the purview of this management team. Overall they do a very adequate, very good job.

As to accountability, certainly Mr. Easter likes to talk about ministerial accountability. I certainly agree with that, and that's why I'm here with my colleagues from CFIA. That's why you've had interventions from the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, and all the other players within this.

When the listeriosis situation broke out, there were a number of agencies involved, some provincial, some municipal, some federal. At that time, when it came to the federal level, the work was to be done by the CFIA, which has the recall powers, if required—the province called them in. We have lab capacity to do the proper testing to find listeria. As I said, it's odourless and tasteless. You can't touch it; you can't feel it; you can't see it; you can't taste it. CFIA is well versed in tracing those types of things, and they did do that.

One of the lessons learned is that when you have that many different levels of operation involved, communication and coordination become paramount. One of the lessons we have certainly learned very quickly is to have a lot better communication in between, and we did develop a lot better communication and coordination in our daily meetings and briefings, and so on, as it went along.

I was proud to be the lead minister on that. Of course, it kept me awake at night listening to the cries of Canadians as to how to get to the bottom of this, of families who were involved, one in my own riding. There were a lot of people in my own riding who became ill. I've talked to them since and during the crisis. Yes, I am accountable. Yes, I am responsible, as the lead minister. But our responsibility, as is yours as a parliamentarian, is to make sure the agencies we represent at the federal level have the resources—the human resources, the people, and the money—to make sure they are able to do the job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'll go to Mr. Bellavance, for a quick question.

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

Regarding the issue of accountability, at a certain point, you have to take the bull by the horns and say, after this kind of crisis occurs, what should have been done and what's going to be done.

I have to admit that as far as the handling of this crisis is concerned, we did not get the impression that you really wanted to accept the fact that... You simply said that Mr. McCain admitted it was Maple Leaf's fault and that you wanted to try and put this behind you. Moreover, you struck a commission or launched an inquiry chaired by Ms. Weatherill—a secret inquiry. The whole thing left a bitter taste in the mouths of Canadians and it gave them the false impression that you had accepted some responsibility.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I differ a little bit on the idea that Ms. Weatherill is not serving a public good or a public need. I think she has the tools. She has said so. I think she will come through with a great report. I look forward to it. There are tough lessons learned.

Nobody is pulling their punches on these, Mr. Bellavance. We want to get to the bottom of this. We want to make sure what we offer Canadians is a safe and secure food supply.

It is a shared responsibility. There is no doubt about it. All the agencies I've talked about, from municipal levels on up through to the federal government, as well as industry itself, have a stake and share the responsibility of making sure what we serve Canadians, and export for that matter, is top quality product.

I would not want to predetermine the outcome by second-guessing what's going to happen. Certainly things got slowed down by an election. There is no doubt about it. Having said that, we're making up good ground with the hearings you are having at this committee, with the work that's being done at public health and Health Canada, and of course at the Ontario health committee as well.

I think at the end of the day we'll have some responses and some results that will benefit Canadians, and we will put them into play.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Allen, you have seven minutes.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, and welcome to those from CFIA.

Mr. Minister, I'd like to touch on the CFIA website. It is actually their mission statement that says, and I quote, “Dedicated to safeguarding food, animals and plants, which enhances the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment and economy.” Under “Who Are We”, it says CFIA will “protect consumers through a fair and effective food, animal and plant regulatory regime that supports competitive domestic and international markets”. Those are quotations from CFIA's website.

Under testimony earlier at the committee, Mr. Minister, Ms. Swan had talked about the government's responsibility for setting strong standards to monitor the industry and holding them to account, and that the industry is really responsible for safe food in this country. That was her testimony at this committee.

Dr. Evans, on the other hand, said in a letter to the editor on April 29, 2009, that protecting the health and safety of Canadian families is the number one priority for the CFIA.

So let me frame it this way, through an expert panel report commissioned by the CFIA, as well as Health Canada, from the Royal Society of Canada. It says:

If the same government agency that is charged with the responsibility to protect the public health and environmental safety from risks posed by technologies also is charged with the promotion of that same technology and if its safety assessments are, by official policy, balanced against the economic interests of the industries that develop them, this represents, from the point of view of both the public and the industrial stakeholders, a significant conflict of interest.

Mr. Minister, I think none of us would disagree here that most Canadians actually believe that food safety is the ultimate responsibility of CFIA--not quite what it says as its mandate.

What I guess Canadians are looking to us, the ministry, and the CFIA for is that not only do they have the technical ability and the competence and the people and the resources to do the job, but indeed that's its sole mandate. But clearly--and I'm talking about the Canadian public--the CFIA mandate is a dual purpose one. At its core it says public safety and economic viability for the stakeholders.

If you could, comment on that sense of how we balance the two. How do we on one hand have the same group look after our safety, and at the same time, the same group--not different people--goes out and promotes the industry as a whole to make sure that it actually can prosper? Is that really the way we should be doing it when it comes to public safety?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

I think you are paraphrasing what Ms. Swan said in her testimony. I've actually had a chance to review and read a lot of that. I question the way you've worded it. So I would suggest you go back and read it again.

You are quite right, in that there are a number of players involved in food safety. It depends on what you're talking about, where you're talking about it, and so on. There are a number of different players, including whoever is working with that chicken on the kitchen counter before it goes on the barbeque. That's a major, major component of it.

A lot of what CFIA does and did over the years is reactionary. They came in to mop up after the spill. Some of the new regulatory powers and policies that have been asked of them, designed by government and implemented by government, ask them to be more proactive when it comes to inspecting produce coming in from offshore, or inspecting different things at different levels.

You would also recognize the fact that Canada is not an island in a global community. The situation that we face as a government, and that regulatory bodies like CFIA face when it comes to economies of our industry, is that we have to make sure that our regulations are not burdensome. They have to get the job done without adding extra layers of cost and time delay when we're talking about “best before” products and so on, whether it's meat, vegetables, or so forth.

You're absolutely right that there is always that quandary. I've heard this from producers when it comes to an export situation and they'll ask me, “Who the heck does CFIA work for? Because they are tougher on me.” Well, that's the nature of being a regulatory agency. Sometimes you do have to be tough to enforce those regulations.

I think we have learned a lot from this, as we do from every situation. CFIA always does a retrospective report whenever there's a situation such as this or even lesser situations. They always do that and then they always adjust. They come back to government to say we need this addressed, we need this policy changed, we need new regulations in this area, and then we go to work as a government. Most of those things come back through the agriculture or health committee and we strive to build a better system. It's never a done deal; it's always a work in progress. We can consistently work day and night to do a better job.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Since you said I should go back and make sure of what I said, let me just quote from the transcript of the meeting, because I have it in front of me:

Hon. Wayne Easter: Who is ultimately responsible for food safety in this country? Ms. Carole Swan: Government is responsible for setting strong standards, monitoring industry, and holding them to account. Industry is responsible for producing safe food in this country.

That's exactly what I read to you, Mr. Minister, initially. But we'll leave that as it is.

Let me put it this way. You talked about time and cost to the industry; I believe that's really part of what you--

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Ultimately, it would be time and cost to consumers--

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

No, I understand you want to answer that, but let me just finish the question. Then you'll be able to answer the whole question.

So time and cost are things that industry is concerned with. The consumer ultimately may be; if it costs a few pennies more to buy that bologna or those wieners or whatever the product happens to be, then, no question, that may indeed be a concern of theirs. But looking back at the death of 22 Canadians, I would ask you to comment on time and cost versus public safety.

Is that really what part of the mandate for CFIA should be, to look at time and cost for industry, or should it ultimately and only be concerned with--perhaps we need a separate regulatory body that talks about the other pieces, Mr. Minister--and be about what Canadians believe it's all about? In other words, “Canadian Food Inspection Agency” tells Canadians, “I'm not thinking about time and cost, or how to enhance an industry, when I say CFIA; I'm thinking about public safety.”

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Yes, and you make a good point. The ultimate role for CFIA, and for public health, provincial health agencies, and so on, is public safety, to make sure that the food supply is safe.

There are always concerns as to extra regulations being added that overlap. We have departments in this government, committees that meet, that look at scrutiny of regulations to make sure that we're not overburdening any particular body within our governance and causing them to add extra costs, or creating crippling regulations.

We constantly do that in the food supply as well, Mr. Allen. We strive to produce the best-quality, safest-quality food we can. There are always lessons learned. Cost is a minor factor when we come down to that. It is a social good. It is, as you said, something that consumers have come to expect in Canada, and they have been served well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Shipley, for seven minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and others, for joining us today.

When you opened, Mr. Minister, you talked about what happened last summer as a tragedy, in anyone's definition. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I want to talk a little bit about the investments I think we have made, not just then, but now. If I get a chance, I may talk about some of the responsibilities, because as you said, all levels of government work together to build food safety systems and policies. The government also works with players throughout the food chain that make the system work, from farmers to processors, retailers, and to our kitchen counters. That is the full value in terms of trying to understand food safety from start to finish, to the plate, most basically.

Minister, I'm going to talk about some of the investments we've made and I'll ask you to expand on those. I think Canadians appreciate not only what you have done, but what the Prime Minister has done in terms of some of the steps that were needed to be taken to improve food safety, not only in the past but for all Canadians now. I too am a father and a grandfather, by the way, and every day, as your grandchildren now make their lunches and often use packaged meats, these are concerns--not only for the elderly, but certainly for us who are a little older who have a very young generation following us.

I'd like touch on a few concerns in budget 2008, where you allocated, Minister, $113 million for food and product safety. I understand part of that included the hiring of some 200 new inspectors. In 2009 you allocated $250 million for improving our federal labs, and I think that's significant; we hear this from others. In fact, some of the panel members have told us how important the improvement of our laboratories is. CFIA has taken some criticism, but they have also introduced mandatory environmental testing for listeriosis.

Minister, that's something you brought back in. When we listen to all the complaints on the other side, actually it was the Liberals who cut that. They took it out in 2005 because they really didn't think food safety was important. When I listen today in the House, when they talk about creating all their surpluses, well, in fact this is how you create surpluses, Minister. They cut out the security of food safety for Canadians, along with other things. We've not done that. I want to thank you for introducing and bringing back that testing.

CFIA has also increased its testing and training. I think we need to talk a little bit about the training and how that all fits in. You originally signed agreements with the provinces for a new “growing forward” framework and for an agricultural policy that includes an almost unprecedented federal investment of almost $100 million for food safety systems. I think the next part is the traceability initiatives. Also, in budget 2009, through your initiative, we added another $50 million. Although it may seem on the side, this was for slaughter capacity. That money is meant mainly to help improvements in technology and food safety.

Mr. Minister, as we listen today I'm wondering if I can get you to help all Canadians. It is about the past, but the past brings about a new future in terms of what we can do and what we can help to do to help prevent another situation like the one that happened last summer. I'm wondering if I could get you to expand a little bit in terms of some of those commitments, particularly those you had the most initiative in bringing forward in terms of food safety.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

You're giving me credit for things I really can't take a bow for. The allocations for those budgetary items are by my good friend, Jim Flaherty, the Minister of Finance. I was excited to work with him in putting forward those programs and policies, which are much-needed.

Even in tough economic times, food safety is still paramount, and we have to start allocating the right resources at the right time. I am looking forward to the reports and all of the interventions that will come to us in the next short months that will give us a better definition of where to spend money. We're not just going to throw money at the target, Mr. Shipley, but we're going to make sure that it hits the target and actually helps us get the job done.

I think we've had a good track record in that. I know that CFIA, after years of struggling under a mandate that has called on them to do a little bit of everything and to take responsibility for everything, has been burdened. In the meetings I have with these good people up here at the table, we are constantly working through their budgetary process to make sure they have what they need to continue the battle to make sure that food is safe for Canadians.

I've been proud to be part of the process that has reinvested resources, both human and fiscal, into CFIA. It is a world-renowned organization; and as we work to open up trade flows around the world, CFIA does play a huge role.

One of the things that you neglected to mention—and I won't go back over the list you went through, on which you did a good job—is the market access secretariat. For us as a trading nation, that secretariat is very, very important, and CFIA plays a huge role in it, giving us the credibility to go into those new and emerging markets and to start to bring our product there. The secretariat has helped us very much to open new markets.

Everybody here would agree with me that Dr. Brian Evans was the major salesman during BSE. I'm not sure he was home that much; I know I've seen the travel stickers on this briefcase. He did a fantastic job for us, and continues to. There's a tremendous amount of credibility here in the world as well as in Canada.

Certainly we've suffered a black eye, but when I talk to farmers, when I talk to processors, when I talk to consumers across this country—because I am the Minister of Agri-Food as well—they all tell me that they still respect and support the CFIA and the work they're doing. They all tell me to get past the politics of this issue and to move forward with the proper and practical application of what CFIA does in this great country.

We are expanding the testing capacity in our laboratories, and we are finding some tremendous slippage, as I'd call it. New equipment is required when you look at trying to identify the DNA fingerprint of listeria. I wasn't that great at chemistry in high school, and I don't think most of you were either, but the ability to do that, the quality of people we have and that we continue to have, just amazes me. We have to keep building that system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Shipley. Your time has well expired.

Mr. Easter, for five minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We were led to believe the other night by Ms. Weatherill that her office is located on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada property. Is that correct?