Public Accounts Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Stephen Baker]

Thanks for the question.

I think the issue with the faxes is that the process is partly automated. So what happens when an import is coming into the country is there is an automated process, a handshake between the Canada Border Services Agency and CFIA. But the importer is required to provide information for the people in the import controls centre to assess the risk of the import coming in.

That information is frankly not available electronically from the importers. So the importer fills in a paper form. It comes to us on paper. It comes to the ISC that it is sent to and it needs to go to the ISC where the inspection is going to be held.

So the fax process is a semi-automated transfer of information. We are building an infrastructure to be able to do that electronically. But in order to do that, we have to automate the front end of it, which is when the importer fills in the information required for us to assess the risk on the product coming in. That exercise is a significant investment in business requirements and automation, because there are thousands of importers and thousands of products and thousands of requirements for information, not all of which are the same.

So the fax process is a work-around that we found to avoid the mail, essentially, because otherwise we would have to mail these forms back and forth. So we have semi-automated it.

I agree with you that it is probably about 15 years old in terms of technology. To advance to a place where you actually have automated transfer of this information requires that we have the capacity to do that. We need to build that, and that is part of our initiative. But the other part of it is to get the importer to fill the information in electronically, which is actually a CBSA and CFIA exercise to the importing community.

E-forms, the way you do that, is part of what we're exploring. But the reality is that at this point in time, a lot of the stuff that comes in to us is actually on paper. Therefore we either have to enter it into a system or transfer it electronically through a fax, which is what we do.

So the answer to your question is we have very sophisticated communications in terms of our operational stuff around inspections. We have lots of systems and telecommunications and all of that's modern. This particular incidence is a case where the environment we're working in hasn't caught up from a technology perspective to what we could do, and we can only do part of that. We can only do our end of it. The other end has to be done through CBSA and the importing organizations to be able to provide the information electronically.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

We're going to start round two now, five minutes each. Ms. Crombie, five minutes.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Fraser, for another thorough audit. But I think my questioning will be for the CFIA group.

Ms. Swan, I am going to start with you. I am going to build on Mr. Christopherson's questions and then Mr. Murphy's as well.

Firstly, it was a very disappointing audit, to be frank. Frankly, it was quite a serious indictment of the management performance over at CFIA. We have a track record of disappointing audits in 1996 and 2003 that revealed similar issues and problems.

I guess I'll ask again: why haven't those issues been dealt with until now? How can we have the confidence that they will be addressed and the action plan will be fulfilled and implemented?

[Carole Swan]

Thank you for the question.

I think it's fair to say you can tell from our action plan and our comments here today that we take this audit very seriously. We found it a very serious audit as well.

I would like to underscore one thing before I proceed with the rest of your question. In no way should this be considered an indictment of the CFIA officials who work in the plant health area. I find them to be extremely dedicated, competent, working around, doing whatever they can do to do their very best. So I want to make it clear that although we recognize there are lacunae and things to do, I can tell you that the agency, in terms of people on the ground who work on this program, are extremely dedicated to making sure this program works the best it can.

Having said that, we recognize that we need to do better. The 1996 audit, as I mentioned previously, was on the plant and animal health programs administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, prior to the creation of the CFIA. However, there were many recommendations made that were important. The CFIA creation in 1997 did render some of these recommendations inappropriate in terms of the mandate that was created for the CFIA.

The 2003 review also indicated to the agency that it had some serious challenges. There was a management action plan put in place in 2003 and assessed over the last number of years at the CFIA as a result of the 2003 review. The CFIA has implemented a number of the recommendations of this review.

However, we agree with the Auditor General that we have to do more. We are trying to focus that on the areas of risk management, installing a quality management program for plant health generally, and working better with partners in CBSA.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

How long has the current management team been in place? Has there been some significant turnover so that there hasn't been follow-through on some of these issues?

[Carole Swan]

The current management team that you see before you has been in place for approximately two years or less. I was appointed in June 2007, as was Dr. Evans as executive vice-president. Paul was appointed fairly recently, this year, and Stephen as well. So as with any department or agency, there always is some churn. I think you see in front of you a team that's been together between six months and two years.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Let me continue, then. With respect to a national tracking system, I found it inconceivable that one didn't exist, particularly with the scale and scope of 84,000 shipments each year. What would be the cost of such a system, and why doesn't one exist?

[Carole Swan]

I will turn to Stephen in a minute for cost. He may not have those figures readily at hand, in which case we will have to get back to you.

We absolutely agree that a national tracking system is an important aspect of being able to monitor and do proper risk assessment on plant health issues.

I can see Stephen perhaps doesn't have that information specifically on cost. We will get back to you on that.

I will ask Paul, though, to speak a little bit about tracking, and how, in the absence of a national tracking system, we have tried to manage risk.

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you very much.

The answer that Stephen provided earlier gives some insight into the challenge we face. The investment that we've already started to make in terms of some short-term solutions on our IM/IT, coupled with, as the president has noted, a broader assessment of where we can further improve in this area, is focused on the improvement that Stephen noted. That means not just what we do in the CFIA, but as well how we can move the yardsticks with our partners. Electronic certification, as an example, is a key area of focus for us in order to facilitate that ability, the enhancement of tracking to be able to move from that paper-based system to electronic systems that allow us to have more real-time information in relation to imports.

In the context of imports, the issues that those imports raise, both in terms of the nature of the product and the particular types of risk it might present, are all areas of focus presented in the management action plan. The reason they're in that plan is for the very concerns that you express, which we have agreed with the Auditor General around, and that is that there is a need for improvement here.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

My time is up, so if you could consider it later--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Ms. Crombie. We can come back to you later on.

Thank you, Mr. Mayers.

Just before we go to Mr. Miller, I want to point out, Ms. Swan, and you brought this up twice, that the 1996 audit was done on the Department of Agriculture, which had the same responsibilities. Your agency is the successor, and of course the management would, or should, have known about the audit and assumed the responsibility. You don't start with a clean slate when the agency is formed; you start with the same problems that existed at the time you inherited this organization. So I don't see that as being an excuse or a rationalization for not doing anything over the years since the 1996 audit.

Mr. Miller, five minutes.

[Carole Swan]

Mr. Chair, if I might clarify that, you're absolutely right, and certainly if I left the impression that we were in any way saying that the 1996 audit was not relevant because we were created in 1997, that wasn't my intention. It was only to say that the audit was on plant and animal health. Only part of that was transferred to CFIA. There were parts of the audit that, yes, were quite relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Miller, five minutes.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to welcome and thank our witnesses for being here today.

First of all, I have to comment on the earlier question from the member of the NDP. It's a typical absurd NDP the world-is-falling kind of attitude on just about anything and everything. No organization, whether it's government or a branch of it, is ever perfect. I can tell you, as a farmer and a proud Canadian, our food supply in Canada is as safe as anywhere in the world. Sure there are issues that come up now and then, and you deal with them.

I bring that up because Mr. Christopherson tried to lead us to believe this was about food, and it's not. It's about pests that come in. The Auditor General, Ms. Fraser, even verified what I just said. If he wants to know about food safety, there's a subcommittee on food safety currently under way. You have a member who sits on it. We're very close to completing our study, and there will be a report.

To listen to Mr. Christopherson you'd think the pests that come into this country all show up at a border crossing with a suitcase. It doesn't work like that. I know that may be hard for him to believe, but I think we need to point that out. Pests don't just come in at border crossings; they can come in on their own, or I presume they can.

How do we monitor how pests come in here? We know they can come by water, air, or however. Could you comment on that?

[Carole Swan]

I'm going to ask Paul Mayers to give us a couple of examples of how we monitor. In particular, he will address some of the issues where we have plant emergencies currently in place.

[Paul Mayers]

Absolutely. Thank you.

As Dr. Evans noted, there are a number of pathways of concern. Those pathways don't only relate to the import of plant products. Wood packaging material and the risks it presents can also be a significant issue. That is why the focus of our activities is really on partnership and collaboration. We work with our provincial colleagues, other government departments, and our counterparts in the U.S. and around the world.

It might be useful if I pause here to note the very premise of our programs. When we as an agency undertake a risk assessment to authorize the entry of a product, we take into account the infrastructure in the exporting country and their ability, through signing an export certificate where necessary, to convey to us the assurance that they are applying appropriate risk mitigation in their country.

So when we look at the issue of a pest having entered Canada, and it occasionally happens--take the emerald ash borer as an example--we conduct survey work in collaboration with others. We work with provincial and municipal governments in responding to that threat, with the aim of slowing the spread of the pest as part of our risk mitigation approach.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you for your comments. But I was trying to establish whether pests can enter this country on their own.

[Paul Mayers]

Absolutely.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay. That's what I was trying to get at.

Some serious issues have been raised here by the Auditor General, and we should all take them seriously. I think I'm convinced that the CFIA is doing that. There were some problems in here, and it's very clear that they were identified under the previous government after severe cuts to the CFIA. They always say about a problem that the first step is admitting you have one, and the CFIA has acknowledged that it needs to do better and is committed to doing better. I'm convinced of that, and that's a good thing.

I know the government is trying to give CFIA the tools and budget to carry out and fulfill its mandate. The budget has actually increased under this government, and more resources are available to the CFIA than ever before. Staffing has increased by 14% since March 2006. The budgets were cut by previous governments in 1994 and 1995, and again in 2005.

Another $113 million has been invested in the CFIA, and there are 200 or more CFIA inspectors. I mentioned the food safety committee, and its inspectors who appeared as witnesses even indicated that the entire system has been improving since 2006.

What else is there other than more resources? More is never enough, but is it headed in the right direction?

[Carole Swan]

As you can see from the CFIA response to the audit, our challenge is risk management. Whether it's in food safety, animal health, or plant health, we have to find the right balance of risk. We cannot inspect our way out of a plant health situation. As others around this table have noted, inspection is an important aspect, but it's by no means the only way to guarantee that invasive species don't enter Canada.

One of the aspects of the Auditor General's report that we take very seriously is her indication that we need to do better in developing a risk-based program, and a large part of our action plan goes to that issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Thank you, Ms. Swan.

Mr. Desnoyers, you have five minutes.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Fraser, Madam Swan, I fully agree with my colleague from the NDP. Looking at this report, there is every reason to be concerned. It makes us wonder. We are talking here about invasive species, pests, diseases resulting from those and potential damage to our ecosystems both in Quebec and Canada. So this could have a major impact on the life of Canadians. If the committee did not look into these problems, it would fail to carry out its duty, unfortunately.

The report of the Auditor General clearly states that invasive species associated with the greatest risk are not given priority. The fact that 42 full assessments are on hold and that four assessments would require a large scale follow-up represents a huge failure.

The report of the Auditor General talks about elevated risks. So the Agency needs to provide clear answers, especially on its action plan. Do you require additional resources? We are being told that the present government provided some, but I get the impression that other needs are not being met. We are told that there is insufficient information management support and that there are breakdowns in information transmission. Do you have a business plan for this information network and, if so, could we get a copy?

Several aspects entail high risk and we must take a close look at these. So I would ask you to tell us what you intend to do according to your action plan. 1996 was a watershed. The program at the time was a responsibility of Agriculture Canada but it seems to me that things have not changed very much since then. Where are you now? Where were you in 1999, or 2001? I do not know, but these recommendations suggest that quick action is required. The Auditor General talks about a one-year backlog of assessments. I wonder how the Agency will be able under its action plan to become an agency for 2010 rather than an agency for 2000.

[Carole Swan]

Thank you. Again, there are a number of questions there. I'll take one at a time, and I will ask Brian to give a little more detail in terms of the action plan.

The honourable member mentioned that a lot has changed since 1996. I think that's quite true. This committee has referenced a number of those things—globalization, trade has increased dramatically—with challenges for plant health. On this being a serious issue, we absolutely agree. Plant health is one of the major mandates of the CFIA. It is a mandate we take very seriously. Absolutely, there are potentially negative things that could happen in the plant health world.

You mentioned the direction of IM systems. We agree. We have had a little bit of a discussion here, and the Auditor General has certainly covered in her report the need to modernize our IM/IT systems. We are making a number of endeavours and initiatives. We are approaching this, first of all, on a system-wide basis. The kinds of specific things we will need on the plant health side need to be supported, first of all, by overall improvement in our IM/IT system. Then we can build on specific plant health issues as well.

We do have a plan of action that we tabled with the committee. It is clear we need to make that more precise. As Dr. Evans works through this over the next few months, we are happy to come back to the committee to table further information. We certainly will be dealing with the Auditor General and her colleagues to keep them apprised of the plans we have as we develop them in more detail.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

In terms of information technology, I asked you to table your specific business plan for this area. It is an important area. Indeed, it is part of your four key priorities. I gather that you developed a business plan and that its implementation will require vast resources, both financial and human resources. We would like a copy of that document if it exists.

[Carole Swan]

Mr. Chair, we are developing that plan. I can ask Stephen to speak to the initiatives we are implementing right now. We are making some essential investments in the tools we're using to track imports. We would certainly be happy to table the more detailed plan as we develop it.