Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on May 25th, 2009

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I find it troubling, to be honest, if indeed we've decided to go in a different direction from where we once were, from CFIA inspectors doing almost all, if not all, of the work, besides the cleaning, sanitation, and ordering certain things, to this model, when we've never proved to ourselves that it really works in a science-based sense. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me that a majority of the folks who work in the CFIA are actually scientists, if you will, or have extensive scientific backgrounds. They would be looking to see those verifications actually come about so that they would actually trust the system they've been asked to be part of and so, ultimately, they would have that faith. So I find that really troubling.

But let me take you back through, because I know you had to get through this quite quickly.

When it talks about little real progress since last summer, by “last summer” I'm assuming you mean since we saw the outbreak of listeriosis last year and the ultimate death of 22 Canadians who succumbed to the disease. You outline here that it talks about a hiring freeze, and of course, we have a sense of how many we got or did not get. Those numbers clearly don't add up. There were two new serious breaches of food safety protocols at Maple Leaf plants in Toronto in January and February of this year, according to what you've said in your report. We ended up with a new listeria policy, which was reported on here at this committee in February. Then it was stopped because of the lack of training for inspectors to actually participate in the program.

And according to your tab--and we did get it in both official languages, by the way, Mr. Kingston. I know earlier you thought we didn't, but I believe we did.

Mr. Bellavance, yours is en français?

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

Yes.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

In your briefing notes you actually look at the number of hours, under tab 2, and break out the number of hours you presently do in the inspection system versus what you're being asked to do--if indeed you're going to be asked to do additional pieces--and how one fits it in, and yet you're saying there are no new resources, even though the new listeria testing policy represents a 10% workload increase.

So I was wondering--since we had difficulty counting the inspectors before--whether we had generated any new hours in the year to perhaps allow these folks to do the extra work.

[Bob Kingston]

I guess one can hope.

I want to make one thing clear. The changes that have come about in policy since then are, I think, wise changes. I think they're in the right direction, for sure, even though they do add to the workload for people who were already overworked. I think that needs to be addressed. The changes are definitely good changes--the positive reporting requirements, the inspectors doing their own testing, etc.--but they take time, and I'm hoping something can be done about that.

I also want to make clear that we don't fault the compliance verification system as a system. We fault the fact that it's not a properly evaluated and resourced system. But having a checklist--a scheduled approach to verifying that the people you're regulating are doing what they say they're doing--we can't see as a bad thing. Simply asking people to do it without the tools, the training, and the time is what we have a major problem with.

As far as whether they're going to come up with additional hours goes, we're certainly hoping they're going to come up with additional people to fill those hours.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

What we're really looking at is how we adequately do this. I'm not suggesting the CVS system is a good or a bad one; it just hasn't been proven scientifically that it actually functions yet. And really, that's important to do in a science-based organization that says that science-based is what we're trying to achieve when it comes to it, so that we don't get into the rumour and innuendo that things aren't well. We can actually point to the science and say it's done correctly because here's the proof of the pudding, if you will.

But I agree with you that there are difficulties with some of the things that have come up as changes, that are productive and, indeed, that are to be encouraged. It's like my wanting to be six foot four; it's probably not going to happen in this lifetime. And if we don't get the resources, then the policies and all of the good things we want to do can never get done—unless, of course, you can explain to me otherwise. If we don't have the resources, which means the people in the field who have the ability and the training to do it, then we can simply write as many procedures and policies to enhance the system as we want, and ultimately, will the system be any better?

[Bob Kingston]

That would be a very tough call. I can't see how it could be. I mean, maybe it would be a little more encouraging to Canadians from a PR perspective, but in reality, if you're not doing the pieces that you say you're doing, it's a ticking time bomb.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Anderson, seven minutes.

[David Anderson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to what I think you were talking to Mr. Bellavance about.

You seemed to be implying that you have to have employees or inspectors on the floor in order to get the companies to clean their machines properly. Are you saying they're not doing that, in line with the requirements of the manufacturer and the safety requirements that are in place?

[Bob Kingston]

No. Actually, in fact, I'm saying they did it exactly to the manufacturer's specifications. That was the problem. With an inspector on-site, the inspector would have recognized, by looking at the machine, that the manufacturer's specifications were inadequate.

When an inspector identifies--

[David Anderson]

I want to interrupt there. No other witness who has come here has suggested that there was any possibility of anybody finding listeria visually on those machines. Nobody has even come close to suggesting that. And you're saying that?

[Bob Kingston]

What I'm saying is that they can see organic debris. They can see that the machine is dirty. Whether or not it's actually contaminated with listeria or any other microbial at that time wouldn't be known until after a test.

So the test would still take place. Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not trying to undercut the value of doing the testing. It's very important. But the visual observations that an inspector makes, which are then supported by the tests, are even better, because that trains the inspectors to do the prevention part of their work.

Inspectors in the past have seen debris on the machines and ordered them taken apart. The manufacturer's specifications weren't good enough.

[David Anderson]

There was no suggestion at all that this was taking place here. You said that the inspectors could recognize symptoms that lead to listeriosis, and I hadn't heard anybody else say that. You've explained that a bit.

So why did they miss last summer's outbreak? It went on for three months. There was testing being done. If they were able to visually recognize those symptoms, why did the inspectors...or why are you saying that your inspectors missed that?

[Bob Kingston]

Because they missed the inspections. They didn't have time.

At the time that this took place, that inspector at Maple Leaf Bartor Road had seven facilities that he was responsible for. I know that you heard earlier, from CFIA, that he spent 50% of his time on the plant floor at Bartor Road and that the majority of his time was actually spent at that facility. I can tell you that this is misleading at best, and nonsense at worst. The fact is that the only place that person had access to a computer to do all the paperwork for all seven facilities was in that office at Maple Leaf. He would go around to seven sites in the Greater Toronto Area, take all the paperwork back, and sit in that office. It was the only place he had a computer, and that's where he'd do all the paperwork--

[David Anderson]

I want to go on, because you're going places where other witnesses have not suggested there was even a problem.

I want to talk about CVS a little bit. CFIA and others came here and said that data trend analysis is an important tool for the future, and that it needs to be put in place. Dr. Brian Evans said, in a remark about environmental testing, why it was important: “Looking at aggregate environmental tests over a period of time will provide us with early warning of potential problems, so that corrective actions can be taken before a positive test is found in food.”

Now, that seems to me to be a far better approach than visual inspections on some sort of micro level where you've.... I understand why you'd need to do them on a macro level, but I think this seems to be far more effective. He was clear that with the history of this positive test, CFIA can determine these problems.

You have said that instead of the new rules, instead of heading to the plant floor to inspect with their own eyes, inspectors are sent to the office to confirm that the packer has performed the required tests and the results are satisfactory. CVS, I would argue, is not taking inspectors away from their job. It's assigning specific tasks to them. That includes checking these tests so that things like listeria are picked up.

Why are you opposing this so strenuously?

[Bob Kingston]

What I'm opposing is putting in place a system like CVS without the resources to do it properly.

If it were actually carried out the way it's supposed to be.... If all the test results, for instance, that happened at Maple Leaf leading up to the crisis had actually been analyzed the way a proper-resourced system would have allowed them to be analyzed, they would have seen a recurring trend of positive environmental listeria finds at Maple Leaf.

[David Anderson]

Didn't the changes on April 1 require that to take place?

[Bob Kingston]

No, the changes on April 1 kept them so busy doing paperwork components of the program that they didn't have time to look at all the things they're supposed to look at. If you go back and look at even the pilot project, all kinds of chunks of the assigned tasks were missing and incomplete and not done for lack of time reasons, including these ones at Maple Leaf.

First of all, there was no onus on Maple Leaf at the time to positively report these positive listeria finds to the inspector, and they didn't.

[David Anderson]

We haven't heard from hardly anybody else that the problem is inspections, that we need more inspections. In fact, we had a number of witnesses tell us that is not at all what we need.

I understand that you'd like to grow your union, and that's part of what you're doing here as well in this whole situation. We all agree that what has happened is unforeseen, it's unfortunate, but the problem was not inspection. We've been told that time and time again. You're saying that it is.

[Bob Kingston]

First of all, I've heard Michael McCain himself say that CFIA needs more resources to verify that what the plants say they're doing they are actually doing. That's what we're saying, that you need more inspectors to do that verification.

When you talk about there being no problems related to the resources and that they spend all this time on the floor.... I heard CFIA make those comments. This is after we pointed out that their figures were wrong last summer. It's after they retracted what they said last summer. It's after they sat across the table from us and conceded to us in person that everything we said about the time that inspectors were spending was in fact true. Then they came here and said something else totally to you. So I'm at a total loss as to why they said that to you guys.

[David Anderson]

Well, the focus on food safety is why we put that extra money and resources into it. This government has been good about that. We put $130 million in, and another $250 million for improving federal labs in budget 2009. We've hired 200 new inspectors, and I guess we have a bit of a discussion about where they've been.

The only ones who have cut back funding—and I just want to point this out—were the Liberals in 1994 and 1995, and they did it again in 2005. So you understand that it's only under the Liberals that the funding has been cut over the years.

[Bob Kingston]

Actually, if you take a look at the documents on the Treasury Board site about what the plans are for CFIA, you'll notice that, in every single year, CFIA has planned a cost reduction the following year, and every year they run into some kind of problem that has resulted in their getting more money to do a patchwork cover-up of the problem. It ended up that they got more money than they anticipated. So the idea that only one party has cut funds from CFIA I don't buy at all. Take a look at their website and take a look at Treasury Board's website, and you won't be able to argue with me on that point. Every year the plan is to cut--every year.

And in terms of putting more money into it, it has certainly never shown up at the front lines.

[David Anderson]

The reality is that only the Liberals have cut. We've added money each of the years we've been in power.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you have five minutes.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was quite worried when my esteemed colleague and friend made a remark that his voice was dying. Whenever it comes to raising a voice for those farmers and their issues and all his passion, he has always been there. It's great work that he does.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'm glad.