Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on May 25th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired, Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Easter, for five minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The inspection report documents from the period February 11 to August 6 were amended. I believe they were all amended sometime in August, which would be, in one case, almost six months after the fact. I have them here. They were all amended on the same day. Is that common practice to go in and revise reports?

[Bob Kingston]

Six months after the fact is not normal. It would depend on the circumstances and what kind of documentation the inspector might have had to back that up, but to alter the report six months after is not normal.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On the amended reports, I mean, I simply find it extraordinary. Did some inspector in the middle of the night all of a sudden wake up and think, “There are seven reports, stretching over six months, that I need to revise”? I find it absolutely startling.

In any event, the inspector who signed the original and the amended documents was Dan Schlegel. The second inspector, Mario Zalac, did not affix his name to the amendments to the reports of February 27 and March 13, which were in his name. Did you have any contact with him to figure out why one inspector signed and the other didn't?

[Bob Kingston]

I was speaking to the inspector the morning this became public, and my understanding was that, in his words, he was asked by his management to come in and make the changes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's a pretty serious allegation. How would management be involved in terms of the amending of a report? They would have seen the original reports?

[Bob Kingston]

My understanding was that there was an audit team looking at the reports in the course of the investigation of what happened at Maple Leaf Bartor Road and they had questions. They thought there were some pieces missing, and as a result of that, he was asked to come in and add those pieces.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay, we may come back on that at a later date.

Mr. Shipley talked about the environmental testing that was removed in 2005. That's true. Do you know if there was ever an evaluation? It was my understanding that there was to be an extensive evaluation of the environmental testing if it was dropped, and that the report would be put up to the minister. Of course, the original minister was gone by that time, and it would have gone to the new government.

Do you have any knowledge as to whether it was a pilot project and whether or not there was a report that would determine whether there was higher risk as a result? It's clearly showing now that there is.

[Bob Kingston]

There were none that I ever was privy to. None were ever shared with us, and we did have a consultative forum where that information would have been shared. The answer is no.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The other thing is that in preparing for this committee I talked to quite a number of people across the country and I happened to talk to a couple of retired inspectors who were auditors of the auditors, that sort of thing, and what they indicated was much the same as what you have. It was a long time ago when they really did strenuous audits on equipment, which I think, as you said previously, were much more severe inspections of the equipment than the manufacturer's recommendations.

You mentioned earlier that maybe there's a possibility that it could have been prevented if there had been a strenuous audit of the piece of equipment. Do you have any further comments to add on that?

[Bob Kingston]

I know I was asked if I could guarantee it. Well, basically you have the system, the CVS, the compliance verification system, with all its component pieces that, when added up, are supposed to provide a more scientifically based and rigorous inspection program. All we're saying is that if you're going to write this system and put all these component pieces together, have the resources to actually do it. If you're thinking that's going to provide you a safe food environment, do what you say you're doing on paper and make sure you've got the ability to do it. That would be my concern there.

I do think that if all the component pieces of the system had been in place, including review of what we now know was an ongoing trend of positive finds of Maple Leaf prior to this crisis, if all those things had in fact been seen, if the inspectors had had the resources and the time to actually do all the required pieces and to actually have all that information in front of them, then I think there's a high likelihood that we would not be sitting here now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Bellavance, for five minutes.

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

Mr. Kingston, a while ago we were talking about the list given to us by the Canadian food Inspection Agency concerning the number of people hired, that is, some 200, between 2006 and 2008. It was concluded from the questions that I asked you, that there were not 200 inspectors assigned to inspecting food, meat. We're agreed on that. Obviously we don't have anything against laboratory technicians, veterinarians and inspectors in training being hired. Still, we understand that, when we denounce to the government the fact that there is a lack of resources, we always get the same answer, that is, that 200 new inspectors have been hired. We understand that it's not just the meat inspectors and we also understand, from reading the study that you conducted in the four major areas, namely Toronto, Montreal, Northern Alberta and Greater Vancouver—and this was proved, moreover, in the case of the Maple Leaf plant in Toronto—that the inspectors are responsible, on average, for over five plants each.

In your recommendations, you say that an inspector should not be responsible for more than two processed meat product plants. So, in spite of this addition of inspectors, it seems, or of employees at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, it remains that today, on May 25, it may be said that there are still inspectors who are responsible for over five plants in the major centres where you conducted your investigation. In the case of Maple Leaf, the inspector was responsible for seven factories.

[Bob Kingston]

It was. That has been redistributed. I believe now that's the only facility this person has in Toronto. So there have been some adjustments in the Greater Toronto Area--not enough to actually carry out the program the way it's written, but there have been some adjustments made.

In terms of that list, what I find interesting is that it's a list of all new hires over a two-year period, and it doesn't give you a picture of how many people are actually doing processing work. Yet at the drop of a hat, if they want that information, they can have it, because as a result of the information we released.... I know that messages were sent out to the major centres today from the CFIA asking their managers to put those numbers together for them so that they could argue with us about this. They could have done that anytime, so I'm a little disappointed that they didn't have the accurate information for you.

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

As part of your recommendation, you say that processed meat inspectors should not be responsible for more than two plants. We can also infer from this that these people shouldn't just be in an office doing paperwork.

During the testimonies heard here on April 20, one of the people seated at the table of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Cameron Prince, said that he had himself met with some inspectors. In fact, he told us he'd met with 100 of them. Often the criticism that came from the inspectors themselves was that often there weren't enough of them on the floor. That means that they're stuck in an office doing paperwork. Maybe their bosses asked them to correct their reports, but they're not inspecting on the floor, in the plants. So it would be good if they weren't responsible for more than two plants, but also these inspectors should be doing the work they were actually trained for, that is, inspecting what is going on in food processing.

[Bob Kingston]

Correct. And the paperwork part of the process, the evaluation of lab results from Maple Leaf, or just the reading of thermograph results or other reports that they can find while they're sitting in the office, is valuable work. They do have to see what the company is reporting. But then they have to be able to do the visual checks to see if what they're seeing on paper is actually real life.

You'll have times, for example, when the maximum temperature that can be reached in a room might be 10°C or something, and every single report comes in exactly at 10°C. Well, the inspector knows that's phoney. He knows they're not going to hit that right on every time, but they don't have time to go down and do a visual check these days.

So you really need both, and they just don't have the resources to make it all happen.

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

You were saying a while ago, in response...

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Just make a closing comment, Mr. Bellavance. You're right at your limit.

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

A while ago, in response to a question from Mr. Shipley, you said that that could have been avoided. Here. Before the committee, government officials have often told us that it was inevitable, that it was fate. In your recommendations, however, I see that, in your opinion, it might have been avoidable. Obviously, as we see from time to time, we unfortunately cannot prevent everything, just as we cannot prevent car accidents or illness from happening. However, it is certainly possible to tighten up measures so that this kind of drama, in which 22 people died, does not happen again. And it would have been possible for this not to have happened in the first place. That's what you said a while back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Bellavance.

Mr. Allen, five minutes.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have no idea what inspectors make wage-wise, but I'm sure you do. I heard from my colleagues across the way here about the amount of money their government has put into the system. So I've taken a gross approximation of what I think inspectors might make, doubled the 200, and said I'll give them 200 more to work in ready-to-eat facilities. And by my calculation, I come out with a number that's probably about 18% of the money they attributed to their new increase, if indeed we could quantify that. I'll take their word for it.

It seems to me, for 18% of the money they qualify for, we could have had a doubling of those inspectors inside ready-to-eat plants. The reason I concentrate on ready-to-eat plants is that one of the previous witnesses talked about food safety. In a sense, there's a difference between listeriosis in the ready-to-eat plant and listeriosis in other plants. You usually cook the other food. And according to those folks who have come before us, if you cook the other food thoroughly, you kill listeriosis. In terms of the ready-to-eat plant, clearly we don't necessarily cook the food after we receive it because it's cold meat, usually. So we're not cooking it again, unless we go back to the time we were poor university students and cooked the big slab of bologna we all used to have to eat.

Beyond that, for 18% of the money they come up with, it seems to me that's a pretty cheap fix for a food inspection system so we can tell Canadians to have faith in ready-to-eat food. I think it's incumbent upon us as government, as the CFIA as an arm of the government, to be able to tell Canadians that. As well, the professionals who work for the CFIA want to be able to say that. They want to be able to go home. They have neighbours, they have family, and they have friends who I'm sure say they know what they do for a living and ask whether they should buy this product.

Do you have comments about my sense of 18%, give or take a percentage or two?

[Bob Kingston]

You're probably accurate in terms of your math. Unfortunately, the money went elsewhere. And I know I heard--I can't remember who said it--that somewhere around 14% of the people were destined for meat inspection.

The people who were hired in meat inspection lately were to replace people who were leaving or to fill long-standing vacancies. I believe that if the percentage of new money went to beefing up the numbers, it would make a significant difference, but that hasn't happened. In fact, in meat hygiene as a program, we're still operating with a large number of vacancies across the country. We have large plants where up to 25 inspectors were supposed to be, something like a giant Cargill slaughter plant, for instance, where they routinely run seven positions short. So in terms of all the new positions added to meat inspections I'm hearing about, it's just not so, other than to fill the vacancy of somebody who has left.

But no, I wouldn't argue with your math. And yes, they do get requests every day about what to buy and eat.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I'm sure. And if one of your inspectors were my neighbour, I'd ask him or her.

If it's that cheap--and I don't say that word in a negative sense--it seems incumbent upon us to do it. One of the things Canadians are saying--and I read the survey your association had done for them by a reputable firm--is that they don't have faith in the system. It seems to me, for such a measly amount of money, the least we ought to do is spend it to restore confidence with Canadian consumers so that when they go to buy product, they feel they're buying a safe product. Ultimately, if we're inspecting it and we're following the science-based procedures we keep hearing about, if we're doing them and using science-based facts, we can tell consumers their food is safe.

Nothing in life is a hundred per cent. Getting out of bed in the morning involves taking a risk, but that doesn't mean to say one doesn't minimize risks. And one of the ways to do that is to have a system that attempts to get to zero risk of your getting a food-borne illness. That's the ultimate goal, it seems to me, for all of us. And inspectors are the front line. So it seems to me the least we ought to do is make sure that this front line is a whole front line, not a partial front line. And at the moment, from what I've read in your report, Mr. Kingston, we have a front line with gaping holes in it. Far too many things are happening that are adversely affecting consumers through the food industry.

I'm not sure whether you'd agree or disagree with that summation.