Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on April 29th, 2009

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

There was no analysis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired. Thank you.

Mr. Shipley, you have five minutes.

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

Keep it clean. That was your statement. Sanitizing is important. Cleaning is important--making sure that workers are clean, that they wash their hands. Are we breeding resistant bugs?

I'm listening to you. We're creating a superbug.

The last time I was in a hospital--which was a while ago, thank you, and I very much appreciated it--they didn't have all these little hand sanitizer things in the hospital. But we didn't come out with super-infections. They're all over in here. We have them in our hospitals. We have them in every workplace. When somebody sneezes, we go and wash our hands. Are we creating some sort of superbug? You say to keep it clean. How do we keep it clean when it would appear to me, as a layman, that they keep getting more resistant?

[Richard (Rick) Holley]

I think that the potential for what you're intimating has been realized certainly in the hospital nosocomial environment, where we're using lots of anti-microbials on a constant basis, and those anti-microbials are used in patients who are immuno-compromised, in general. So that provides an opportunity for natural selection to occur. Whenever you put pressure on a microbial population--and microbial populations are a good example because they are large, there are millions and millions and millions--in any life system, any biological system, you're going to find, in large populations, an individual who is able to withstand whatever pressure is being placed on that population. So if it's an antibiotic, you're going to see antibiotic resistances develop. If it's pH resistance, you're going to see some organisms that are able to grow at pH 9, etc.

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

Could I just ask, though, how do we reverse this trend? You're the PhDs, the doctors. I'm not talking about what we can continue to do to make these bugs stronger. I'm asking about how we make them weaker without having to use stronger antibiotics, stronger sanitizers, stronger whatever, and then once they pass through that, we have a larger problem to deal with. I'm interested in the solution.

[Ron Usborne]

We're looking here at a system approach, and it's not that we want to have stronger sanitizers, but through the whole system we want to keep the growth of micro-organisms down. By allowing them to build up in the different pieces of equipment, they grow in large numbers. We're saying keep the numbers low, and that was our philosophy at Caravelle. We figured if we kept the numbers low, from the beginning to the end, there'd be less risk when the burgers got to the restaurant.

I think that we're not necessarily looking for stronger sanitizers, although sometimes we may have to use them, but we're looking, through the system, to keep the numbers down so that they don't build up and consequently contaminate the product.

[Richard (Rick) Holley]

In the food environment our experience is that we're not selecting for superbugs. In a nosocomial environment, yes. So the wise application of a variety of different hurdles has worked for us, and the listeria, as associated with the outbreak in question, in my understanding, was not a superbug.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

I really appreciate your taking the time to come to the committee. There's no doubt about it that both of you have a lot more knowledge about the scientific part of this than most of us do.

We have some committee business we have to attend to. Thanks again for coming.

[Richard (Rick) Holley]

Thank you.

If we can be of further help, we would be more than happy to try....

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

I have a notice of motion and then we have some budgetary items.

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me say thank you to our guests.

I'll read the motion into the record:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1) and the order of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food of February 12, 2009, the Subcommittee on Food Safety send for copies, to be delivered by May 27, 2009, of any notes taken and of any briefing or communications materials provided by lobbyists for Maple Leaf Foods Incorporated to the following list of Designated Public Office Holders on the dates retrieved from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada: on December 4, 2008, to the Hon. Vic Toews; on August 29, 2008, to the Hon. Jim Prentice; on September 4, 2008, to the Hon. Gerry Ritz; on July 24, September 4, and November 5, 2008, to Brian Evans; on October 17, 2008, to Kevin Lynch; on August 25, 28, and 29, September 12 and 17, October 10 and 14, and November 7, 2008, to Carole Swan; on September 12, 2008, to Paul Benoit; on September 4, 2008, to Cameron Prince; on August 29, 2008, to Laurie Throness; on August 23 and 26, 2008, to Stephany Crowley; on July 25, 2008, to Meena Ballantyne; and on July 25, 2008, to Aaron Gairdner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Is there discussion on the motion?

Mr. Anderson.

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

I have a short comment. It seems that the opposition is going fishing once again. They don't have anything. We've seen a number of things that have happened where they've tried to create rabbit trails, if that's what we want to call them, that have gone nowhere.

In testimony here, we've heard about the independent investigator. Early on, the opposition tried to create doubt as to whether she was going to be able to do her job. We've clearly heard testimony that she is going to be capable of doing that, that she's independent, and that everyone's cooperating with her. Even as late as this afternoon, Mr. Easter was still trying to say she couldn't do her job. Clearly she can.

Documents that were requested have been provided in the past. As the committee has asked for them, they've been provided. On other documents, such as the ones that were asked for through ATIP, and that the opposition tried to say were changed, it was good to get them, because, as we've seen, it proves they were not altered in any way, shape, or form and that they in fact clarified the situation rather than amending or changing it in any way.

As well, the opposition has gone after the minister on this issue, as we've heard both here and in the House. Clearly today we've heard his testimony, which was open and forthright, and consistently the testimony from the witnesses has shown that this is an open and transparent process. The minister himself has been open and transparent.

At one point, we heard that there were problems with the recall of the products. We've since heard that the process worked as it should have in the whole mix of events that took place.

Certainly on communication, there were attacks on that as well. We've heard that the minister has been on the job, that he's done a good job, and that communication has been clear.

The other thing that bothers me is that there have been attempts to pollute the independent investigator's report, I think, before it's even presented.

Mr. Allen has come up with a number of motions. Clearly, he's trying to go fishing, and that's okay if he wants to do that. We actually would like to see him come up with some content so we could support a motion, but here, obviously, he has a list of the designated public office holders that listed their contacts with Maple Leaf and is trying to see what he can discover.

From my understanding, I don't think there's anything there, but again, if the opposition comes here with content, we'll certainly be supporting it. If they're just going fishing and looking all over desperately trying to find something where there isn't anything, I think at some point we'll tire of supporting that.

As well, there probably should be a request for copies, rather than a demand from anyone that we send to for copies, because it would take quite a while to get them if people decided they didn't want to send them.

Those are a few comments that I have about this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess you'll allow me the same liberty, because the parliamentary secretary's comments were certainly not on the motion. I do feel obligated to deal with the political spin that the parliamentary secretary tried to put on the table when he was dealing with this motion of Mr. Allen's. He first accused Mr. Allen of going fishing. Mr. Chair, I submit to you that it's what public inquiries do. They look for trails, they look for documents. It's from those documents and those trails that you find discrepancies in terms of the evidence that has been provided.

He made some comments on the so-called independent investigator. I can tell you that from my perspective on her performance before this committee, she's a wonderful woman. However, the terms of references that she has been given clearly indicate that she doesn't have the authority to investigate one of the most important aspects of this whole listeriosis crisis. That was the political control at the time the crisis occurred. She hasn't investigated the minister as yet. That really concerns me. He should have been the first person investigated. We know that there was an election just about to be called at the time, and we know from comments made by his own communications director that the minister was more concerned about the political fallout than he was about the food safety of Canadians.

I am concerned, certainly, that the independent investigator—yes, she may have a report in terms of how to fix some of the things in the system—will not get to the political involvement or lack thereof, in terms of her investigation.

On the verification reports and the spin the parliamentary secretary tried to put on that, Mr. Chair, I would ask him to read them. There is clearly a question here when you look at the verification report starting on February 11 right through to August 6. All of them, Mr. Chair, were changed, amended on August 26, 2008, after it had been confirmed there were 12 deaths in this country due to listeriosis. That seems to me rather strange. These are not simple amendments, Mr. Chair. I would question whether or not this is actual tampering of the evidence.

So I differ from the parliamentary secretary on that point. The minister has been, if anything, not open or transparent. Giving a parliamentary committee an hour to question him today, coming here without having a written submission translated when he has the full resources of the department, not having provided this committee with all the documentation that we asked for previously so that we get it half an hour into the hearing is not open and transparent, Mr. Chair. In my view, that's kind of covering up. I just outline those points, Mr. Chair, to deal with the parliamentary secretary's spin. And that's one of the difficulties that we have with the parliamentary committee versus a public inquiry—which I am more and more learning towards—because the government, for whatever reason, rather than trying to get to the facts of the matter, is trying to provide cover to the minister. That does indeed concern me, so I will certainly be supporting this motion.

It's not about going fishing. It's about finding—and I certainly thank Mr. Allen for doing the investigative work—so we know these documents are out there. They should be brought forward. We need to see them so that we can get to the bottom of this issue in a comprehensive way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

To clarify your point about the documents that were asked for, they were in the hands of the clerk almost two weeks ago. They went for translation. If you want to blame the clerk, which I guess is what you're doing, I don't think that's fair either. The translation came today. We did have the documents two weeks ago.

Mr. Allen, please.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my honourable colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his earlier comments, but I would state quite unequivocally that I don't fish. If I did, I'd actually hook the right bait on and go catch it. This is about trying to glean information the best way we know how.

As you know, Mr. Chair, I've made a couple of attempts, and I think I've been cooperative, through you, Mr. Chair. Earlier on there was maybe a wider net. I listened to some comments and advice and tailored it more so that it became more reasonable and indeed was more specific so that it would give the opportunity for the government side to actually go and get those documents, versus having to go through a perhaps really onerous task of trying to find things, which may indeed have been very difficult for them to do. I have come forward with this in a spirit of cooperating, because that's what it seems to me we intended to do when we started out this process, through you, Mr. Chair. And I know you were part of that intent to make it a cooperative endeavour.

If indeed there's nothing in the documents, I guess I'll simply be up late at night reading them and then, when I'm finished with them, we'll shred them. All I'll have done is to actually find out a lot of things that are of no value to this committee, but may have been of value in some other form, in my understanding, about how the whole system works. That, unto itself, is of value.

It isn't so much, from my perspective as the mover of the motion, about trying to cast a net or go fishing. It really is about gleaning information that can be helpful to me, as a member, and that's why I brought it forward, ultimately for my understanding, to help me work through this entire process. As I've said here in committee and as I've said publicly, my goal at the end of this is to indeed work on public food safety, full stop. That's my intent.

I think, Mr. Chair, some will probably see that for what it is, and I hope they do. So I would hope that all honourable members would support the motion, although they may see it as perhaps a fishing expedition. But for those who truly know how to fish, perhaps you could help me with that, since I don't know how to fish, and you could bait the hook for me. Maybe I'll be able to catch the big one, one day.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Bellavance.

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

I just want to add that the people will be the ones to judge the remarks by Mr. Anderson, the minister's parliamentary secretary. Because he said that as far as he was concerned, our attempts to get transparency, to get information about this issue and the fact that we want to use this information to inform the people properly are nothing more than lowly partisan delay tactics and filibustering on the part of the opposition.

As we have said right from the very beginning, this subcommittee was struck in order to make up for the lack of transparency that the government deliberately and decisively demonstrated throughout this entire crisis. Again today, the minister told the committee that he is very pleased with the way he has been running things. He is always telling us that the opposition is challenging the competency of Ms. Weatherill, which has never been the case. Everyone knows—the media has mentioned this—that it's impossible to find out what's going on during this investigation, which is being done in secret, on the sly.

The minister will receive his report and will do what he pleases with it. That's clear in everyone's mind. The Conservatives are the only ones who are still saying that it was the right thing to do. This is not how SARS and the tainted blood scandal were dealt with. Unfortunately, there were other crises in the past. But investigations were not done on the sly back then. An independent judge was appointed to oversee the inquiry. This is how we should proceed. This is the reason for having this subcommittee. We are not here for the fun of it. Rather, we are here because the people have asked for the truth and they want us to identify possible solutions so that these kinds of incidents do not happen again.

We are not naive; we know that this could happen again, but as lawmakers, we must do all we can to avoid a recurrence of these types of crises. I think that's our job. We are just doing our job. The sole purpose of Mr. Allen's motion is to get to the truth. In no way do I see it as a form of filibustering or as a delaying tactic.

We will be voting in favour of this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. Thank you very much.

(Motion agreed to)

We have some budget business to do, so I need a motion to go in camera.

It is moved by Mr. Anderson.

(Motion agreed to)

[Proceedings continue in camera]