Public Accounts Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Carole Swan]

I will ask Stephen Baker, the CFO, to handle the details of this. I will just indicate to you that IM/IT systems generally are very important to CFIA in the plant health area, the animal health area, and the food safety area as well. We recognize at the agency that it is an area we need to invest more in.

In relation to plant health—and this again was one of the recommendations the Auditor General made to us, with which we agree entirely—we need to increase funding in that area.

I think it's fair to say we have laid the groundwork for increased investment in IM/IT. We have undertaken a number of improvements to our overall infrastructure—our capacity to manage data overall—but we recognize in terms of the plant health program that we do need to do more.

Stephen.

[Stephen Baker, Vice-President, Finance, Administration and Information Technology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Our annual spending on IM/IT has grown consistently as the agency's budget has grown. In 2008-09, the expenditure was $41 million, about 6.4% of the budget, which is about 3% more than it was ten years earlier. As the agency's budget has grown, the investment in IM/IT has grown with it.

Essentially our strategy around IM/IT is to invest, first of all, in the infrastructure and technology that's necessary to support programs, so networks, computers, communications, things like that, and then to develop applications that are appropriate agency-wide. So where an application is useful across more than one program, that's where we put our priorities. In the case of the plant program, our initial investments are going to be in programs that are multi-purpose, if you like, user files, e-certification, that sort of thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Madame Faille.

Mr. Christopherson, seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I thank you all very much for your attendance today. Let me start by saying I certainly have a great deal of respect for the challenge you face and the difficulty in the task you have.

My questions are based on the shock I had when I read some of the findings in the report and the fact that they could go on so long and not be addressed. It's fine that we're hearing some things today, but even that's not satisfying all the needs. The Auditor General gave you a very lukewarm passing grade, if that, when asked about your responses to some things in here. Let me set the stage and try to get an answer from a macro sense.

I guess, Ms. Swan, you would be the appropriate one to answer this question. The auditor said in her report that the agency has difficulty delivering timely assessments. She said:

The yearly pest survey plans of the Plant Health Surveillance Unit are not risk-based and focus almost exclusively on existing invasive plants, pests, and diseases rather than identifying potential new threats before they become established plant health emergencies

The auditor also goes on to say, on page 23, 4.93:

Our findings are not new to the Agency. In fall 2003, its own review of the key elements of Plant Health Program delivery identified problems similar to ours.

Further, on page 25, 4.101, she says:

Plant Health Program officials indicate that they are currently working to see how technology might be used to better support the program in the future. While this is a positive development, information management issues have been known for many years; we raised these issues in our 1996 audit of the animal and plant health programs

In fact, in the news release, the Auditor General said, “Our audit findings are serious.”

So I go to the departmental performance report for the period ending March 31, 2008, and what do I find? I find that you, Ms. Swan, say in your president's message:

The Agency continues to exercise due diligence by effectively minimizing and managing public health risks associated with the food supply and transmission of animal disease to humans. It also contributes to consumer protection and market access based on the application of science and adherence to international standards. Over the past year, the CFIA conducted food safety investigations and initiated food recalls as part of the CFIA’s ongoing commitment to consumer protection.

Then, maybe 20 pages in, at “Effective Risk Management”.... This is where you'd think that you'd be pushing the hot button letting the public and the rest of the government know that you're on the case. What's it say under “Effective Risk Management”? It says:

Recognizing the CFIA’s vast and diverse mandate, the Agency uses prudent risk management to optimally allocate resources and make decisions related to long-standing and emerging issues.

What I want to know is the difference between what you said was going on in your performance report and the auditor's findings. And they're not new. They go back to 2003 and 1996. So I have a couple of questions.

First, why is there a discrepancy between what the auditor found--and she calls it serious--and this glowing report that glosses over risk management like everything is just fine?

Secondly, given that you've already had two reports, if the Auditor General hadn't brought this report down, when did you intend to start dealing with these things as a legitimate health crisis?

[Carole Swan]

Thank you for the question. There are many parts to this, so let me take them in order.

One thing I do want to make very clear, and the Auditor General will correct me if I don't have this right, is that this is not a health-of-people issue. This is an issue about pests, about potential risk to Canada's forests and crops, but we were not interpreting it, with all due respect, as a health issue.

Having said that, it is a very serious issue. I think you can see, from my opening remarks, from our discussion to date, and from the tablings of an action plan that I grant you is not yet complete but certainly offered as an indication of the commitment that we have to this, that we are determined to do something about it.

The DPR is a very important document for us. We are an agency that is based on risk management. In terms of plant health, we agree we need to do better. You point out that the Auditor General has given us indications in the past that there are issues that have to be dealt with. We agree. We have made some progress, and I would be the first to say not enough to deal with what the Auditor General has told us today.

On a risk management basis, we have been looking increasingly, for instance, at working with international standards, at sharing risk assessments with the United States, to try to increase our risk management approach. We know we need to do more.

In terms of the DPR, I do not have it in front of me, but I asked my folks for our results, our indicators, and I note that in terms of our own DPR we've indicated that we have met our targets only 50% of the time in 2007-08. When I challenged my folks as to what this means, I think in part it's reflective of the increased challenges we have. I think in part it's reflective of very high targets that this agency has set for plant health, recognizing the very important role the agency has, with other partners, in terms of plant health.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you for that. But I would point out to you, given that you were trying to minimize the importance of this as a health issue, I was only repeating what you said in your report. You're the one who said, with all due respect, “The Agency continues to exercise due diligence by effectively minimizing and managing public health risks associated with the food supply and transmission...”.

Those weren't my words. I'm not trying to elevate this into some kind of phony crisis. The words are the Auditor General's, and your words in there talk about it as a public health risk. But you still haven't answered my question as to why you didn't do anything when the internal report showed you something in 2003, and the original audit done in 1996. Why did it take this Auditor General's report...? What I'm hearing and what I'm seeing, quite frankly, Ms. Swan, is that if we hadn't had this Auditor General's report and all you had was the DPR to determine what this department is doing, everything's fine, except for a few minor problems.

I still haven't heard an adequate answer as to why the agency ignored a 2003 review and the 1996 audit. What assurance should we take that you're really going to do it this time, when you obviously promised in the past you were going to do it and didn't?

[Carole Swan]

Thank you for the question.

To clarify, in terms of a food safety issue, as I mentioned, the inspection agency has three very important mandates: food safety, animal health, and plant health. This audit is a very important audit in terms of our plant health responsibilities. We take it very seriously, I can assure you. It is--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What does that mean if you don't do it?

[Carole Swan]

It is true that we have had indications before. The 1996 audit actually predated the existence of the agency that was on an Agriculture Canada program, so some of the validity is still there. As far as 2003, we have made some progress in terms of meeting the commitments we made to the Auditor General.

The fact that we have an action plan here today and that the executive vice-president of the agency has in his accountabilities delivering a more detailed action plan to meet this audit I think is an indication of our commitment to carry this out.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You got hauled on the carpet because you got found out by the Auditor General.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Saxton, seven minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming here today. I understand this is the ninth parliamentary committee you've been before in the last few months, so you're getting lots of experience, and there are probably very few questions you haven't already been asked. We appreciate you being here today.

My first question is for the Auditor General. And since my colleague, Mr. Christopherson, brought it up again, I'd like to put this to bed once and for all. Is this report on food safety, and do you believe that invasive plant species directly affect the safety of our food supply?

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I thought about intervening on the last question, but I'm glad the question has been asked now.

This is not an audit of food safety. This is an audit of plant health. None of the cases we note as emergencies, even some that could be--there were some potato nematodes and others that people might think could have an effect--have no effect on personal health. So this is not about health.

I would just add, for the benefit of the committee, that in the agency's DPR, in table 2-6, they indicate that many of their performance targets have not been met as they relate to animal and plant resource protection. So there is an indication in the report that they are not performing as they would like.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I have another question for you, Madam Auditor General. With modern transportation and with import volumes increasing, is it reasonable to expect the CFIA to be able to stop all invasive species?

[Sheila Fraser]

No. I think the president outlined that quite clearly in her report, and we agree. With the volume of imports, it is impossible, probably even impossible if you inspected everything, to find everything anyway. So there has to be a good risk assessment done. There needs to be good information, which I think is one of the underlying difficulties in this program. There is no system in place to track. Everything is paper-based. You can imagine 84,000 shipments coming into the country and having everything paper-based. It makes it very difficult to manage. There is a real need, I think, to improve the information management support in this program.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Do you think a risk management system would be sufficient, or do you think, as some of the opposition members have suggested, that we need a blanket system, whereby just about everything is inspected?

[Sheila Fraser]

That, of course, is a decision for government to make on the level of resources they want to put into any particular program and the risks associated with that. I would doubt very much that there would be a priority of funding given to inspecting every shipment coming into the country.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

I have a question now for Ms. Swan. Can you take us through some of the highlights of the action plan you presented to the committee today?

[Carole Swan]

Yes, and thank you for the question.

There are, in my opinion, four major aspects of our action plan relating to the recommendations of the Auditor General. The first is using a more risk-based approach for plant pest surveillance. We agree that we must be more risk-based. So we are doing things like auditing our pest survey protocols, which we hope to improve in next year's surveys. We are going to eliminate the backlog of requests for risk assessments by March 2010. And we will implement a more formal risk-based approach for plant pest surveillance by December 2009, which will be in time for next year's surveys, thus increasing our emphasis on using a risk-based approach.

Second, we're committing to put in place a comprehensive quality management system for the plant health program. In that regard, we've completed revisions to the import inspection manual, a very necessary tool for our inspectors. These revisions will improve consistency in the interpretation and application of our regulations. The Auditor General noticed the issue, and I would agree with this, in terms of consistency of application. Our inspectors are being trained on the procedures in the new manual, which will be completed by July 2009.

Third, we're enhancing our partnership with the Canada Border Services Agency--a very important relationship--so that we can collect better information about the effectiveness of our import control activities.

Fourth, we are reviewing what information management tools we need to modernize the plant health program. In the short term, we're making essential investments in the tools we use to track imports. We will complete an assessment of the overall information management needs, as they relate to plant imports, by April 2010.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

How's my time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You have two minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

The environment CFIA is working in has become much more complex and must be making your job more difficult, obviously. With increases in globalization, and with weather affecting the range and distribution patterns of pests, it's a wonder that more invasive pests haven't already entered Canada.

What is the CFIA doing to better understand how these pests enter and spread? What is the CFIA doing to mitigate these threats?

[Carole Swan]

It is, in fact, becoming more complex. I'll ask Dr. Brian Evans just to give a couple of examples of how we are trying, on a science basis, to identify additional pathways for pests.

[Dr. Brian Evans]

Thank you.

As has been indicated, this is an area where, when one adds climate change, globalization, invasive species, the reality of a number of different convergent factors, what is absolutely critical, and where CFIA knows and is currently making significant investments, is the recognition that we are not in isolation in this. So a lot of the intelligence-gathering around pest introductions and the ability of pests to propagate and survive in the Canadian context is information we're gathering collectively with our counterparts in Europe, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, other parts of the world, who are also trying to find the best way to deal with this reality that is part of the global circumstance.

We're also working much more openly, I believe, with our provincial counterparts and with the academic sector. I think what's critical, in looking at some of the new technologies, is the recognition that with a number of these pests, the ability to identify them to their specific genus, species, and what not as they adapt to new environments as well requires us to do more than just take out a textbook and try to compare a bug to a textbook. So we're into looking at DNA, and DNA profiling from DNA gene banks, to identify these pests as quickly as possible. Again, working with other sectors and other science communities will help us get that information as quickly as possible and do a lot more in the area of forecasting and modelling, to know with changes in temperature and changes with wind patterns and other things which pests we're most vulnerable to, and then doing the economic assessments of what would that mean to the forestry sector, to the grain sector.

So that's how we're building that data information, which will underpin a risk-based approach, so that we can take decisions that we know can mitigate in those areas that will have the biggest consequence as our number one priority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

Thank you, Dr. Evans.

Before we start the second round, I have a question to you, Mr. Baker, and this has to do with communications, both internal agency communications and communications with other departments and stakeholders.

First of all, when I started practising law many years ago, we had letters and telegrams if it was something important, but we moved on to the mag card, to the fax machine, to e-mail, to other advanced and enhanced forms of electronic communication. But when I read this report, there are several thousand faxes crossing Canada every day, half of them are getting lost, the communications between Vancouver and Toronto and Montreal is deficient, the communications between your agency and the Canada Border Services Agency is almost non-existent. I don't think it conveys to the taxpayer the assurance that things are getting done. It really comes down to, in a lot of cases, when I do read the report, communications.

I have two questions to you. If I went to your offices today, is it still a situation in which we have thousands of faxes going back and forth? Because, again, as I said, it's my belief that you're probably three or four generations behind what's going on in the real world. Is there anything you can tell us that would give us assurance that the agency is using modern, up-to-date communications, both internally and externally?