Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on May 25th, 2009

[Bob Kingston]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks very much.

Mr. Easter, seven minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Kingston, I think you're seeing some of the difficulty we're having at this committee getting to the bottom of this issue, because what we've seen here today is a chair of a parliamentary committee running interference for the government in terms of an issue that ended up costing 22 deaths.

In any event, you do have two witnesses with you, I understand. How important are those witnesses to this committee, from your point of view, in getting to the bottom of this issue? Can they add clarity to it?

[Bob Kingston]

Well, I think what they could have given you is first-hand information, because one of them was the local president in Toronto, who dealt with management in Toronto over the issue of overtime not being authorized to get these inspections done and who raised the issue of staffing shortages and issues around the compliance verification system.

The other one was one of our national vice-presidents. He is a processed meat inspector in the Montreal region who was going to tell you that the same thing was going on there, that the time was not being authorized for them to carry out these inspections and those inspections simply went undone.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

Be that as it may, I guess this is where we're at. You do mention, in the documentation you provided, some things that you didn't get time to go through in your original presentation.

What we're really hoping to look at here is process more than anything, and certainly we on this side believe that somebody should be held accountable for the problems within the system as well. One of our suspicions relates to the point you have in your document here that says, “Gag order on CFIA officials during the election”. Are you submitting that, because of the election itself, there was a gag order imposed on CFIA? If so, why?

[Bob Kingston]

That was the feedback we got from various levels of management within CFIA. In fact, because of a cancelled opportunity.... We had what's called a meat inspection reform committee to discuss problems like what was going on within CVS. We had that meeting cancelled in April. We tried to re-establish meetings. That was not responded to. Finally, we agreed to meet in the form of a union-management meeting in September. Then we were notified that it had had to be cancelled because they couldn't speak to us, and this was under political direction, and it was largely because of the election.

This was the same time that the Clerk of the Privy Council put on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen, in relation to health and safety, that departments should still be speaking.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The other point you make, and I'll quote it as well, is this: “Misleading statement about the amount of time inspectors spend on the plant floor under CVS and the number of meat inspectors” My question really relates to the fact that we had CFIA before us and we had the minister before us and we never seemed, even as a committee, to be able to get a handle on the number of inspectors who are actually working on the floor. CFIA declared to us at one point that “the CFIA's current tracking and information systems do not allow us to accurately identify all inspection staff devoted to meat inspection”. And they go on to say they're working on improving that.

Could you address the issue of the number of inspectors who are really operating in federally inspected facilities and whether there actually has been an increase in the number of inspectors in the meat program specifically? That's what we're looking at.

[Bob Kingston]

There are a couple of things. First of all is the numbers. There are systems in place through which those numbers can be garnered. As a matter of fact, as a supervisor I can tell you we had it down to percentages of time that each person spent in every program. That's in the computer, so it's available if they want to find it enough.

In terms of inspectors added, no. The inspectors have been added to a variety of programs. They've been added to maybe a regional office level of the program, but not in the field. There are certain locations where they've increased the numbers in a very small way, and my understanding is that in Greater Toronto they've added a few to the number.

What we've found is that every time this happens they're simply shifting them from another part of the meat inspection program. As a matter of fact, in poultry plants that go on the modernized poultry inspection program, people are being taken out of those plants and put in processing in some cities, even though it's on record that those numbers aren't to diminish in those poultry plants. But they have been. So internally they're robbing Peter to pay Paul, largely.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The staff from the plant you mentioned in Montreal said in your meetings that similar things were happening there. What we have to look at is the system as a whole. Mr. McCain took responsibility. It's just too bad that the president of CFIA herself is not willing to take responsibility. In fact, she said she's not really responsible for food safety in this country, which shocks me.

In terms of inspectors themselves, have there been changes from a full-time CFIA role to a more oversight role? And what are the implications of that for long-term food safety, from your point of view?

[Bob Kingston]

Within the processed meat world, it has definitely happened over the last several decades that they've gone from a full-time presence to one person having multiple plants to look after.

The document in which they talk about removing full-time presence and changing it to an oversight role is the document for which one of the employees at CFIA was fired last year. Those were actual comments in relation to slaughter inspections, such as the poultry plants I was talking about, and those were the plans for the future. Those plans were implemented in processed meat almost three decades ago. In slaughter, they were just in the works.

In fact, ironically, that's what got us involved in this debate. We were going to stay out of it until the minister started saying, “Gee, if only those plans had been implemented at Maple Leaf, maybe this wouldn't have happened and maybe the inspector wouldn't have missed what was going on there.” That's basically what prompted us to get involved, because the minister didn't seem to understand which part of the organization he was talking about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Your time has expired, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Bellavance, for seven minutes.

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

Mr. Kingston, at the beginning of your testimony, you said you're a former meat inspection supervisor. How many years did you do this job?

[Bob Kingston]

Twenty-five years in total.

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

So, your expertise is in the field. You supervised inspectors, but were you ever a meat inspector yourself during your career?

[Bob Kingston]

For 10 of those years I was a regular inspector, and then I became a supervisor. I should note, though, that I wasn't involved in the processed meat program. I've been talking to CFIA about the program now for close to 30 years—because I've been out of the workplace a few—but I was actually a supervisor of CFIA's quarantine section, animal and plant health, in Vancouver. But as I said, we've been discussing problems around this program for close to 30 years. I was a lead auditor and I have a fair understanding of how that process is supposed to work.

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

You must have been following the subcommittee's work. So you know that, when they testify, Minister Ritz, Ms. Swan, the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and representatives of the Agency, as well as Mr. McCain, of Maple Leaf, they try to influence public opinion by saying that it was inevitable and that bacteria aren't visible to the naked eye.

As neophytes, we don't know everything about inspection, but they try to make us believe that this would have happened anyway, even if there had been twice as many inspectors in every plant in Canada. They're trying to demolish your claims and ours. Ever since Mr. Pomerleau revealed the government's secret plan to reduce the number of inspectors, we've been very concerned about the wholesomeness of food and public health.

And now we've been told that there wasn't any point in all that. To listen to these people, including the minister, you'd think we really didn't need inspectors because, in any case, listeria is there, it can't be seen with the naked eye, there's nothing you can do about it, it happens anyway.

You who represent the inspectors, can you tell us what they're doing in the plants? Why do you say that this sort of tragedy could have been avoided, if there had been more inspectors?

[Bob Kingston]

We know that the visual inspections required to do sanitation checks and pre-operational checks--where issues like problems with cutting machines can be addressed--were not done. We know that's a resource problem.

We know that during the pilot project many aspects of the program were not carried out. Whether it was a part of it at a particular plant or another part at another plant, we know that big pieces were missing. It's all based on a lack of resources. If you introduce an audit approach to inspection, put it on paper that you need to do X, Y, and Z to have a valid audit inspection or inspection process, and take away one of the components, you no longer have a valid inspection process. That's what has happened here.

As for it not making a difference, when the inspectors used to do these pre-operational inspections themselves, things like debris on cutting machines or anywhere else in the plant were noticed by the inspectors on a frequent basis. In the past, inspectors ordered that cutting machines be taken apart and cleaned. Since that role fell to plant employees and no visual inspections were being done by CFIA inspectors, those machines never came apart. The manufacturer's specifications said we didn't have to take them apart, so plant employees at Maple Leaf didn't. It would have cost them money, time, etc. When the inspectors are there, they order it taken apart, period.

So I think that very likely could have made a difference. We'd have to turn the clock back and redo it to make sure, but those are the very things inspectors notice when they're present.

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

You reassure me, although I already knew the answer because I'm in favour of our tax money being used to make sure that there are inspectors in place, in the plants. I hope so as a consumer, for my children and the members of my family, who are also consumers. I want us to be reassured and I want inspections to be carried out not only by the industry, but also by people from the government, people from the Agency, to make sure our food is wholesome.

Even though it's true that we can't see listeria, what you have just told me would reassure me, if it were so. When complete inspections were carried out, part of the operations had to be shut down. A truly exhaustive inspection of all the equipment was then carried out; the inspectors regularly required that a thorough cleaning take place. If there is a thorough cleaning and disinfection, the bacteria will be eradicated if they can't be seen with the naked eye.

[Bob Kingston]

That's correct. They don't necessarily shut down the operation. They go in before the operation starts and do a sanitation check that involves watching the actual cleaning and the pre-operation inspection before they start up for the day. It gives the inspector an opportunity to see if there's stuff on the machinery before it actually fires up. That was not done at this location.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Bellavance.

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

Mr. Kingston, are you familiar with the document the Canadian Food Inspection Agency sent us? We had asked whether there were any new inspectors and where they were. I myself had asked where these 200 new inspectors that the minister was bragging about having hired since 2006 were working and what they were doing. A sparsely detailed document was sent to us. It mentioned the province where the inspectors were hired and their titles, that is, farm input inspectors, inspectors in training, veterinarians, laboratory technicians, etc.

Do you see these 200 inspectors on the job? Are they virtual or do they really exist?

[Bob Kingston]

I have already seen the document. I know several of them, and I know they're not involved in meat inspection at all. In fact, they're not involved in food inspection at all. That is simply a list of all the new engineering and scientific support staff they've hired, regardless of what program they were hired for and where they work. Whether they work at the regional office level, in the field, or in the lab, it doesn't matter; they're on that list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad, Mr. Kingston, we won't be going through the machinations of trying to add those figures up again. No one seems to be able to add them correctly. It seems that arithmetic has failed the Conservative government when it comes to new math. When I was in school they called it new math. It meant that two plus two could be 16 or 22, depending on your viewpoint.

I'd like to go back to your report. One of the things I've heard about constantly through these hearings is this whole sense of science-based inspection. I've heard it, to be honest, ad nauseam. I see in your report that the compliance verification system is a cornerstone of this government's shifting the role of inspectors toward the company. You state that it was mandatory as of April 1, 2008, for processed meat. It was piloted, including at the plant where we ultimately saw listeriosis come from, but never evaluated scientifically.

If one was supposed to be doing this from a science-based approach, why didn't we verify it scientifically to make sure it actually worked?

[Bob Kingston]

That's a question you'd probably have to ask the CFIA. We would have expected it. We are still looking forward to a proper evaluation of the compliance verification system.

There were some attempts made to evaluate the process. There is a draft document out there. I don't think you'll ever see it go past the draft stage, because CFIA themselves recognize how flawed it is. Whether there are going to be measures to do an appropriate evaluation at some point in time, I guess, remains to be seen. But at this point in time we've not seen one, and my understanding is that none exists.