Public Accounts Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[Stephen Baker]

In terms of what we're doing in the short term around IM/IT, as I said earlier, we try to make investments in systems that have applicability across many programs, because that's the most efficient way to focus the resources, and specifically around applications that will support the plant program. There are three: a client file or essentially a registry of importers, the e-commerce part of the process, and some work towards automating this transfer of information, which is currently done by fax. These are three areas where we're working in the short term.

In the longer term, we recognize we need to assess the needs of the plant program in general. We've committed to developing a strategy, the resource requirements, and the funding strategy to deal with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci, Monsieur Desnoyers. Thank you very much, Mr. Baker.

Mr. Shipley, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you. You caught me. I thought they had one more turn.

I thank the witnesses and the Auditor General for being here again. We actually see a lot of each other. To be honest with you, Ms. Swan, I've come to have a lot deeper appreciation of the complexity of CFIA than I did a little while ago, based on the Auditor General's report and dealing through the food safety issue that we're doing as part of a subcommittee of the agriculture committee.

I have a question, because it takes me back to the food safety issue. It actually has a protocol. When we had the food safety issue, there were protocols for the provincial public health, the municipal public health, and CFIA. What happens when a pest comes into a province? Who takes the lead? How does that unfold in terms of a process and protocol, so that the communications and understanding of not only, for example, the loggers, if it's something that comes in.... We talked about the emerald ash borer, but it could be just about anything. Just help me a little bit in terms of that process, if you could.

[Carole Swan]

Let me ask Paul Mayers to start with this one.

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, when a new pest enters Canada, the first considerations are, of course, its distribution in Canada and the potential for establishment, its impacts, and potential pathways to spread. The CFIA, as the federal regulatory agency, regulates those behaviours that might contribute to spread and responds in the context of mitigation--eradication where eradication is possible, and where eradication is not possible, then in terms of minimizing that potential for spread.

What we don't have is a mandate for pest management in all of its senses, and that's why it's a partnered activity. We're guided, of course, by the Plant Protection Act as well as the International Plant Protection Convention. It falls to us, in that context, to respond. There are specific pests of quarantine significance around which we have particular obligations, and that is the role the agency plays in working with our partners within that shared jurisdiction.

As well, the invasive alien species strategy for Canada provides the framework for the collaborative response that we undertake and for the ongoing management of both forest or horticulture pests across the federal departments and agencies that would be involved and across other jurisdictions, like our provincial counterparts.

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

I think what I'm hearing is that CFIA becomes the lead. If it comes into a province, the province automatically builds that partnership with you, you take the lead, and however that unfolds, depending on what the circumstances are, you deal with it either as an eradication or as a control. Is that correct?

[Paul Mayers]

That's right, because not all of the circumstances facilitate eradication, unfortunately, as we've learned with the emerald ash borer.

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

So when you have something, a pest that comes in--it's not in the truck, it's not on the skid, it actually is carried in by a bird or it gets blown across into an area--how do you evaluate that risk? Because it may or may not be something you're familiar with.

[Paul Mayers]

That's an excellent point. That's why the international collaboration that Brian spoke to earlier becomes so important. Understanding the nature of the risk associated with the pest in its country of origin becomes an important part. The risk assessment process we spoke to earlier takes into account those considerations in defining the nature of the risk--the potential, for example, that the pest will be able to overwinter.

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

I think you mentioned earlier in your discussion that because of our land mass around the United States and our connection to those borders, the majority of them will come in from the United States.

I want to go back. CFIA was meeting with its U.S. counterparts in May. This is now June. You were talking about harmonization, and we're going to have a number of discussions around harmonization between the United States and Canada, what we can do to improve that communication and improve our export and our trade and actually build a consistent field for our producers on both sides of the border.

Tell me, on a scale of one to ten, where are you in terms of the discussions that have been going on with the United States and Canada over the years up to where they are right now?

[Paul Mayers]

It is within the North American Plant Protection Organization--and that is the body within which we work with our colleagues to the south, the U.S. as well as Mexico--where we work to harmonize the risk assessment process for North America, where we work towards what we characterize as a North American perimeter approach, where we collectively take similar approaches to preventing the entry of pests not just to Canada or to the U.S., but on a collaborative basis to prevent their entry into North America.

I would characterize the nature of that partnership in your one to ten scale as an eight or nine. It's a highly collaborative process. The North American Plant Protection Organization plays its part as the regional organization within the International Plant Protection Convention, so it is a highly interactive partnership.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

I just want to ask about a point that arose, and then I'll go back to you, Mrs. Swan.

Mr. Mayers talked about the invasive alien species strategy, and of course $85 million was allotted to that in 2005. But that's time-sensitive. It allowed the agency to have new programs and new initiatives, but it was over five years, and it expires, I understand, in March of next year. Does the department have any plans for a renewal of the strategy, with similar funding?

My secondary question is whether, if the funding of that strategy is not renewed, the programs of the agency are going to be compromised.

[Carole Swan]

Mr. Chair, yes, we absolutely are developing plans to look at the next round of the invasive alien species strategy. You're quite right, it was time-limited funding. We are working with partners in other government departments, and we expect that we will put before ministers, at some point, a recommendation. We are developing the specifics right now as to what that will look like. We want to take into account what was effective over the last five years and what wasn't, and we will, at some point, yes, be asking for another invasive alien species strategy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Christopherson, you have five minutes.

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

Point of order.

Mr. Chair, at any committee I've seen, every member of the committee gets to get their questioning in before somebody gets a second round. Do you not operate under the same rules here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We're in the second round now.

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

You go around the table until everybody.... Is that not the tradition here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We have a different form agreed on here.

Mr. Christopherson, you have five minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

May I remind colleagues, particularly on the government benches, who are trying to minimize this--because we're playing semantics with regard to whether it's food specifically--that the issue at hand.... In the news release the Auditor General released on the day of tabling the report, the first sentence said, “There are serious problems in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's approach to protecting Canada from invasive alien plants, plant pests, and diseases.”

Also, in the first page of her report, it says why it's important:

Canada's plant resources are critical to the well-being of Canadians. Invasive alien plants and plant pests can threaten biodiversity and the economy. Experts have concluded that invasive species are the second most serious threat to biodiversity after habitat loss.

I just want to underscore that.

My first question is based on the comments about the 2003 review and Ms. Swan's comments. I wrote them down as best I could, so if I'm not dead accurate, I accept that.

You said that as a result of that, you were therefore assessing things and monitoring things and evaluating things. That was in 2003. Yet in 2008 the Auditor General came in and looked at a snapshot of 27 shipments. Only 40% of the inspections took place. Of the others, some shipments were simply released without inspection, and in other cases the office that was supposed to do the inspection had no record of having received the related import.

Again, I'm coming back to why there weren't alarm bells going off. This sort of thing must have been going on before. It couldn't have been the first example. How could something like that go on after you said in 2003 that as a result of that, you were monitoring and evaluating? How could the Auditor General possibly find, half a decade later, something as serious as that? Please help me understand.

[Carole Swan]

Let me again say that the Auditor General pointed out what we consider to be very important changes we have to make to the plant health program.

The 2003 audit did indicate some of those issues. Since 2003, the agency has done its best to try to move towards a more risk management approach. We have, as Paul Mayers and others mentioned, tried to adopt more of a perimeter approach in terms of sharing information with our U.S. colleagues. We've tried to make sure that international standards can be applied in terms of what we do in the plant health world.

I absolutely agree with the Auditor General, and that is why we are here today with our action plan. But more needs to be done, and we are committed to doing more.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, you know, I'm growing weary, I must say. Your lines are well practised, but you're not answering my question. You just dodge around it.

I asked a very commonsense, legitimate question after you said, in 2003--your agency, not you personally--that you were going to monitor and review and assess. And half a decade later, we came out with that, and all you gave me was the government line about how wonderful you're doing. I'm really disappointed that this is the kind of information you're giving me.

Let me try something else to see if I can get a clearer answer.

The Auditor General mentioned this morning that in Montreal, for instance, the fresh fruit and vegetable list called for a 50% inspection, and Toronto and Vancouver called for only 10%. Help me understand the thinking that allowed such diverse percentages of inspection.

[Carole Swan]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask Paul Mayers to speak to the issue of differences in risk assessment as it relates to location and the possibility of invasive species.

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you. I will do my best on this front. It's obviously a detailed technical question that might certainly go beyond my expertise.

As was noted earlier, the issue of what particular shipments might enter at a particular border, a point of entry, and the nature of the risks associated with those shipments will define the level of intensity of activity. Now, there are two considerations, of course, that you note. One of those relates to the program design and the second relates to the level of delivery against that design. So the design takes into account the risk, the nature of products, and therefore you can appropriately see a diversity of that expectation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I hear where you're going, sir. I appreciate that. I'm sorry to be rude. I really am.

Let me just ask you this. As a result of the audit, will any of that change, or will that 10% and 50% still remain? What I'm getting at is this. What you're telling me, at first blush, makes sense. It depends on where it's coming from and so on. But what I want to know is whether that has been so thought out that this is really all it is. There's nothing else to it; there is no improvement to be made. The 10% and 50% would stay no matter how much money or study you threw at this. That would stay for very good reasons. If it is true, I accept that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson, your time is up.

We'll go to Dr. Evans and then we're going to hear from the auditor.