Health Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

[Carole Swan]

The training aspect of our workforce is a very important aspect of CFIA work, as you can imagine.

I'm going to ask Dr. Paul Mayers just to address training for a minute.

[Paul Mayers, Associate Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you.

The approach we have taken to training is to enhance our entire training approach, both for new inspectors and for existing staff. As the president of CFIA has noted, there are significant numbers of new inspectors being hired. There is a substantive training program that they go through before they are on the line, so to speak.

As well, existing staff also are being offered the training. The training becomes a mandatory component of the overall program. Having additional inspectors allows us to move existing inspection staff through training, because, as you know, we need the inspection staff to step back from their daily duties to take training.

It is the combination of both things—the availability of a comprehensive program of enhanced training, which we have developed for inspection staff, and the availability of increased inspection capacity, which frees up staff to ensure they are available to take that improved training—that addresses the issue staff legitimately have raised with us of their interest in continual improvement of their skills.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Mayers.

We'll now go to Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to each of our presenters who are with us this morning. Certainly we realize this is a serious issue, and we thank both departments for the due diligence that has taken place as a result of the Weatherill recommendations.

One thing I wanted to point out, listening to everybody this morning, is that it sounds as though there has been a greatly increased amount of cooperation and communication between the different departments. Could you comment on whether that is in fact the case and whether you see that continuing in the future to help improve the situations?

Dr. Plummer, do you want to make a comment on that?

[Dr. Frank Plummer]

I think it would be better for others to comment on that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Okay.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Frank is sitting in Washington at the global health security discussions that we do on a range of topics, so maybe I'll address it to start.

Obviously we had good cooperation even before listeria, but we've been able to refine that in terms of a more formalized process augmenting the ad hoc kinds of things, finding ways to work more closely together. The communication is not just on an event basis but on an ongoing basis as we continue to improve our own processes. Actually it's been very helpful for us as a public health agency because of the perspectives from both Health Canada and CFIA, as well as the provinces and even local public health. Dealing with outbreaks or the potential of outbreaks and finding ways we can better prevent them as well is a constant learning thing. So I think it's all been to the good.

It's actually quite interesting. Recently when all the provincial and territorial chief medical officers came together, a number of them remarked on the improvements at the local and provincial level in relations with CFIA, for example, and in the management of outbreaks, response, and communication. Even the field is recognizing the value of the work that we've done.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Do you feel the same, Ms. Swan?

[Carole Swan]

I absolutely do. As Dr. Butler-Jones has mentioned, I think, we've seen improvements in a number of levels of collaboration and cooperation. Certainly in senior levels in Ottawa, we have better mechanisms, whether they be protocols or meetings, for keeping informed, for making sure people are aware of their roles and responsibilities. At the federal-provincial level as well, there is excellent cooperation and much closer relationships.

Dr. Butler-Jones mentioned the Siena outbreak last year. Our cooperation and collaboration with the Province of Ontario to very quickly deal with that was very good.

Last but not least, at the local level where a lot of these issues are first picked up, the cooperation and collaboration between chief medical officers of health and CFIA staff I think has improved immeasurably and is continuing to be very strong.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

We've heard from each of the different areas on your progress as you've moved along. Do you feel that you're on track with where you wanted to be at this point in time?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

I'll start.

Certainly we're on track. The target is obviously September of next year, but many of the things, for example the FIORP, are in place. We're using it, and we will be testing it shortly, etc. Many of the recommendations have actually already been implemented. For many of those that are in process, it's a matter of refinements. It's not a matter of “what would we do if something happened?” It's really about getting the t's crossed and the i's dotted as much as anything, to make sure we have the legal people and everybody on the same page. But in the event of something happening, as we've demonstrated--and we have a long list of outbreaks we've all been involved with just in the past year--it is not only better, but it is continuing to improve with each learning.

[Glenda Yeates]

I would certainly support that. We have actually set ourselves some deadlines, in terms of moving forward, and we are seeing that the work is progressing very well.

I think through this process we have learned that Canada is moving ahead in some cases of work that any jurisdiction has done, and that has been very beneficial. Some of the really ground-breaking work of Health Canada has required a very significant research effort, but we've been able to move forward with that and have tracked to the deadlines. In the meantime, it's not as though, while we've been waiting for these things to occur, we haven't been implementing things as we go. So I think we've had a good combination of setting ourselves final product deadlines and moving toward those, and while we've gathered the science so we could move the evidence we've been implementing and using it as we go. I think it's been a very energetic time on this file.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Dr. Butler-Jones, you referred to FIORP in your presentation this morning. You talked about the key document guiding how governments work together and you talked about the provinces and territories, but it's also national and international outbreaks that this protocol will be addressing. Is that correct?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

The protocol is how we as a country relate to the outbreaks, whatever the source, when it comes to food-borne outbreaks. So if there's something international affecting Canada, then clearly it outlines how we as a nation respond at each level of jurisdiction and across different organizations, including the communications. There are other events that are not within Canada but are of interest to us even if they are happening in other countries, because of the potential of what they might do, not just in food-borne illnesses, but water contamination. That's why, with the surveillance system we run, the Global Public Health Intelligence Network, WHO tells us that it hears first from us about somewhere between 40% and 60% of all the outbreaks in the world, not from the affected country. It used to be 80%. Other countries are implementing their own surveillance and reporting in better ways. So it has been a net benefit internationally.

We're very interested in that. We do the analysis about that and engage the WHO or other countries and our partners in Canada as appropriate.

So it's of interest to us, but the FIORP really gets implemented when there's something that directly affects Canada and Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Dr. Butler-Jones and Ms. Davidson.

I remind you that we do have Dr. Plummer on video and he's here with us to answer questions as well. Often when we have people via video, I have to keep reminding the committee, because you see people in person and you see them on the screen, so we want to make sure that everyone is included here.

We appreciate your taking the time, Dr. Plummer, very much.

We're now going into the second round, five minutes for questions and answers, and we will begin with Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to everyone. It's a pleasure to see you all again.

I'm wondering if I can ask, before I start, to have a document tabled. I'd be grateful for a chronology of the Siena meat recall and the salmonella Chester outbreak—for example, when the cases started occurring, when they were being picked up and by whom, the dates the samples went to the lab, when the samples came back, when the companies were informed, and when that was communicated with the public. This was done for the 2008 outbreak, and I think it would be useful to be able to compare the response times among the three outbreaks. So I would like to have that.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Yes, we'll probably.... We have stuff that we use to track these things and review them internally, but we'll put a chronology together for you.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Good. Thank you, Dr. Butler-Jones.

Now to pick up on the questioning of my colleague. Again, before the Maple Leaf Foods listeriosis outbreak, there were approximately 220 non-slaughter meat hygiene inspectors. According to their union, these inspectors devote the vast majority of their day to CVS tasks, so that would equal approximately 200 FTEs. We learned today that we're up to 150. If we look at the results of the independent review of CFIA by PricewaterhouseCoopers, we see that it thought there were maybe 155 FTEs but that what was really needed was 260.

Can you comment on this, please? I'm concerned. How can we conclude that the meat hygiene program will be better than it was before when we're up to the 150? It really looks as if we've got fewer than we had before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to respond?

Mr. Mayers.

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think it is important because in talking about the numbers it's always quite easy to get a little bogged down.

When Carol overviewed additional inspection capacity, it's important to recognize that of the 170 additional inspectors we're adding, we have already reached 150. That is over and above the inspection capacity that was already in place. So we're not at 150. This is our additional inspection capacity that has enhanced.... So with the 170, taking account of the review that has been conducted, we will now be very confident that we are covering the entire capacity necessary to deliver on the CVS tasks as reflected in the review of those resources.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Sorry, I meant not the global but on the non-slaughter meat hygiene, strictly.

[Paul Mayers]

Absolutely. The 170 inspection staff that are added are all in relation to ready-to-eat meat. This is all in the context of non-slaughter, as additional inspection capacity in that area.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

What is the total capacity?

[Paul Mayers]

The total capacity will encompass—