Debates of May 14th, 2009

Agriculture and Agri-food--Main Estimates, 2009-10

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, absolutely.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Chair, one of the issues that I have always been concerned about is this at-risk or performance pay for senior executives. It is hard to determine in the estimates where it is and how much it is? Could you tell us for the record just what percentage of your senior executives get this at-risk or performance pay and what is the average payment? It is not disclosed anywhere I can see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will just remind members again to ask questions through the Chair and not directly to other members.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, I can assure the member opposite that those are done in the department outside of my purview. Of course, having said that, there are Treasury Board rules and regulations in place and those are always followed.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Chair, my point is that it is not discernible for any member of Parliament reading the estimates. Can the minister provide us with some undertaking that he will get back to us with the averages? I am not looking for individual payments. I am looking for what the average is and the percentage that get it.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, we will certainly compile that list and provide it for the member.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Chair, the minister is responsible for the Canadian Pari-Mutual Agency. There has been some concern that this agency does not have the capacity to deal with emerging drugs and technologies. That is of some concern in the industry. Does the minister agree with that concern?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, there are new and better ways to make horses run faster. Of course, we look at those on a case-by-case basis. I know I have signed off on several new sets of regulations just in the last months. We will continue to analyze and work forward.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Chair, I did not detect an answer there, but I will go to the regulations. There has been talk for a number of years on these regulations that are supposed to come forward. Can the minister indicate where they stand right now?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, the member opposite would have to be a little more specific. I am not sure which bundle of regulations he is talking about. There are a number of proposals coming forward. We are working with the industry to better the whole facility and we will continue to do that.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight.

I want to begin by giving the minister a well-deserved thanks from not only my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex but from those in this great country of Canada.

I want to take the opportunity to speak a bit about the listeriosis outbreak that happened in August 2008. First, I will put forward a few facts about what happened.

Regardless of where we are in this House, a tragedy happened and, in all fairness, our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of those who have been affected by that outbreak.

In terms of the listeria, it is important to understand that the Canadian food safety system is a multi-faceted system, extending over several government departments and agencies and through provincial and municipal governments.

No single arm of government acts alone in situations like the listeriosis outbreak we experienced last summer. An effective response requires first-class systems, flawless collaboration and communication between various agencies and across jurisdictions. Certainly the listeriosis outbreak of 2008 informed the government that it needed to strengthen its policies and its activities around the issues of listeria in food and the health risks it poses to Canadians.

There were also lessons to be learned about providing a tightly integrated response when several organizations at different levels of government need to coordinate with each other.

I will give a brief timeline of the events of last summer related to this outbreak. I will follow that by letting members know what the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which I will refer to as CFIA, and its government partners have done since to strengthen our food safety system with regard to listeria.

When the outbreak was identified by the Public Health Agency of Canada last summer, CFIA worked closely with the agency, Health Canada, provincial authorities, local units of public health and the private sector.

CFIA was first apprised of the situation on August 6, 2008. It was only then that the Toronto Public Health Unit informed the CFIA of two listeriosis illness cases at a Toronto nursing home. It also had preliminary lab results indicating listeria present in the food that had been served at that same location.

From that point onward, CFIA's Office of Food Safety and Recall led around-the-clock food safety investigations to see if there was a link between the listeriosis illness in Toronto and any commercially distributed food.

During the food safety investigation, CFIA worked with its partners at the federal, provincial and public health unit levels, collecting evidence that allowed them to make the link between the contaminated food and the listeriosis illness.

Early on August 17, 2008, based on information and guidance provided by CFIA, Maple Leaf Foods started to a recall on ready-to-eat meat products produced at that plant. Additional food safety investigations resulted in an expanded voluntary recall of other products from the very same plant. The recall for this outbreak represents one of the largest in recent Canadian history.

In addition to its magnitude, the recall was complex, requiring an extensive effort with respect to product traceability and coordination with government partners and industry.

The process involved included: a sampling blitz, with some 348 sample units being tests; 192 Maple Leaf products recalled; and approximately 30,000 recall effectiveness checks completed nationwide. I think that in itself indicates the complexity of what a recall involves.

CFIA conducted operational reviews after the listeriosis outbreak of 2008. Many aspects of the agency's response were reviewed, including how it communicated and coordinated internally. It also analyzed its collaboration with federal partners, other levels of government and industry. It reviewed how it engaged with the Canadian public and the industry.

Beyond communication and coordination, the agency also reviewed its activities at the Maple Leaf plant at Bartor Road. It reviewed inspection records and actions prior to the outbreak and its subsequent investigative activities there.

As the House may be aware, both CFIA and Maple Leaf investigations pinpointed biological material deep inside the slicers at plant 97B as breeding grounds for listeria as the root cause for the outbreak. As soon as this was confirmed, CFIA immediately gave directives to industry for new deep sanitizing procedures for slicers and has subsequently introduced mandatory environmental testing for listeria.

What many Canadians might not know is that Canada used to have a mandatory environmental testing regime prior to 2005. In that year, when the member for Malpeque was parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture and the member for St. Paul's was the minister of state for the Public Health Agency of Canada in the last government, environmental testing was cut. It was simply put to an end.

We learned from Michael McCain last month at the subcommittee that despite the Liberal government's cancellation of mandatory environmental testing for listeria, Maple Leaf was taking voluntary tests. Mr. McCain testified that Maple Leaf had some positive listeria tests results beginning in May 2008, leading up to the outbreak in August of 2008.

Under the law then there was no legal obligation to report these results to CFIA. It simply filed the results away in a binder.

I want to read what Dr. Brian Evans, Canada's chief veterinary officer, told our subcommittee on listeria what this resulted in. In his opening remarks about environmental testing, he said:

This is important, because looking at aggregate environmental tests over a period of time will provide us with early warning of potential problems so that corrective actions can be taken before a positive test is found in food.

Dr. Evans was very clear that with a history of positive environmental tests, CFIA may have been able to determine problems before something went wrong. It may not have known the specific cause of what was wrong but it would have been in a position to investigate proactively rather than during an outbreak.

Simply put, without reporting the test results to CFIA, the regulatory agency could not have foreseen the tragic outbreak of last year.

All witnesses have agreed that if Maple Leaf's positive environmental test results had been communicated to CFIA prior to July 2008, alarm bells would have rung and this outbreak may have been prevented.

Yes, environmental testing for listeria was eliminated in 2005. Thankfully, however, our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board has taken steps to undo the mistake of the previous government and has ordered that environmental testing and reporting for listeria become mandatory.

The Conservative government has initiated a stringent environmental testing regime which is now mandatory for industry and CFIA to test and analyze results immediately. These regulations became effect April 1.

I have a question that I would like to put to the minister, if I may. After hearing the results of what happened and understanding a bit about the complexity of it, I believe it is imperative that the minister tell the House and Canadians what our government has done and what steps we have taken to help restore the confidence in food safety in this great country.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, there is not a day that goes by that we do not go back and retrospectively have a look at what was done and how it was done. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the victims of that listeria outbreak.

We agree with the member in his presentation that when this began we were looking for a needle in a haystack. My congratulations go out to the CFIA teams and the public health teams, both federally and provincially, that did yeoman service throughout that stressful time and continue to seek a better way to do this. We have analyzed and found the root cause but no one can guarantee that this will never happen again. We are hopeful that we can limit it, that we can get on top of it quicker and that there will never be this severe an impact. We are pledged to do that.

This really tested the mettle of the complete Canadian system. What this brought to the forefront and what we learned, which has already been applied with H1N1, is far better communication and coordination among everyone involved. I think we have seen that borne out as we came to grips with H1N1. It continues to unfold and that compatibility of programming and so on is being redesigned and redeveloped.

To that end, we as a federal government have reinvigorated our efforts under both product and health, in both Health Canada and the CFIA, to reinvigorate the number of inspectors and the volumes of money that will be allocated in budgets. We look forward to a compilation of the lessons learned reports that we have already seen, plus the independent investigation led by Sheila Weatherall. It will give us a better indication of gaps that we may have missed to this point that we can again address by human and budgetary resources. We certainly pledge to do that.

We are quite excited by the tremendous work done by Sheila Weatherall. She has the capacity, knowledge and tools at her disposal to come forward with a great report. I look forward to that coming up in July and to continuing the great work that has been started and will continue to be done by the CFIA.

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

Mr. Chair, the minister just touched on this at the end of his response, which is the independent investigation and Ms. Weatherall. There has been some discussion over her selection, particularly by members of the opposition party who tried to discredit her credibility and the work she is doing. They have tried to discredit the minister as being interfering but then, in the next turn, say that the minister will not talk to her or has not talked to her.

In fact, over the last few days opposition members have said that they are actually on a fishing trip. I think what Canadians want is for Ms. Weatherall to have the opportunity to come forward with her recommendations and get to the bottom of this situation that came about last August. I am wondering if the minister could help Canadians and those of us here understand the credibility and the qualifications that this lady has to bring to that investigation.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, the member makes a good point. The qualifications and character of Ms. Weatherall are beyond reproach. She has done an impeccable job in running one of the largest health units in Canada very credibly. She is bringing that type of attitude to this investigation.

I had the great opportunity to be interviewed by her. I look forward to a return trip if it is required by her. We will wait and see how that goes. She has had tremendous response and great cooperation from all parties involved. There has not been one instance where she has said that she has not had exactly what she has asked for or has been made available to her. I think that is a good indication that everyone, including industry and government agencies, want to get to the bottom of this. We will and we will build our system even better.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, I noticed the minister's comments earlier about Alberta sugar perhaps going somewhere to help with the peaches. I would ask him two questions around labelling and peaches. Sugar is needed in canning clingstone peaches. The problem of course with the clingstone peaches is we do not have a canner because the last canner east of the Rocky Mountains closed a little over a year ago. Consequently those peach growers in the Niagara region do not need sugar because they do not have a canner. So it really does not matter whether sugar was going to take the labelling beyond the 95% to 98% when it would not be called a product of Canada. We just do not can peaches in this country because there is nowhere to can them. If they get canned it will be in the United States and clearly that will not be a product of Canada as it comes back through. That becomes problematic.

Do we see any programs coming down to restore the cannery and restore canneries east of the Rocky Mountains again, so indeed tender fruit croppers can eventually stay in business? They are going to go out of business.

The other part to that question is about labelling. In the wine industry we have two products in the Niagara Peninsula. One is called cellared in Canada and one is called VQA. The VQA is the vintner's quality alliance, while cellared in Canada for most consumers assumes that it is made here, but that is the furthest thing from the truth. We have products that cannot say product of Canada, when indeed they have only a marginal amount of foreign content, and we have a product cellared in Canada that basically is wholly produced elsewhere. The juice that comes in from Chile, Argentina and Australia is put in a bottle and it is labelled as cellared in Canada.

Could the minister address those two issues?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, certainly we are concerned when a processor moves out of the country too because it takes away from a top quality Canadian product. We have programs that are available to re-stimulate that should producers decide they want to do that. With the changes that we have made under, and I will still call it FIMCLA because that is what it is, we do not have that bill passed yet, under that program and the new version of that under the cooperative side, producers can go together. They can borrow up to $3 million backed by the federal government with 51% producer control. They have to be in the driver's chair. Forty-nine per cent could then be added to by outside investors and so on, the community and whatever, to reignite that peach factory. That is a great opportunity to do that.

Having said that, we are also looking at agri-flex. There are positions in that when we talk about innovation, value added processing that we can work with producers to re-stimulate that type of a market. I am quite excited by that. The member opposite is right to point out that we need to retain those types of situations in Canada and get them back working here with Canadian jobs.

When it comes to the wine, that is a situation we are working on with the Canadian Vintners Association. Norm Beal is the president. We have had a couple of meetings so far. We are talking about that. We are working along those lines. I agree that consumers have the right and the need to know where that product comes from.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, we would like to see the cannery. The building still exists and perhaps we can see that fired up again for the Niagara producers.

Let us move on to something else. Last year Mr. Paul Mayers, the acting VP for programs at CFIA told reporters on August 28 that 175 new meat inspectors were hired from March 2006 to March 2008. The day before at a press conference to discuss the listeriosis outbreak, the minister himself said, “there have been some 200 inspectors added to the lines of CFIA over the past two years of this government and we have another 58 that we brought on board before the end of this fiscal year”. That was on August 27, 2008. A few months later the minister said, “Between March 2006 and March 2008 we hired 200 food safety inspection personnel and an additional 87 food safety personnel have been added in the past year”. That statement was made on February 28, 2009 to the subcommittee.

What I have a problem with is the numbers. They do not add up. Initially the CFIA vice president said 175, the minister said 200 and then said there were another 58, then later on he went on to say there were 200 and then there were 87. The problem is in the subcommittee when I asked the vice-president, Mr. Cameron, could he give me the number, he could not. When I asked if he would send me the number, he said he would and of course we still have not received the number.

It seems to me the numbers have bounced all over the place and somebody really has a tough time with arithmetic because no one can actually add them up and make them come out to what they truly are.

I wonder if the minister can actually clarify all of these numbers and tell me how many meat inspectors, not inspectors, but meat inspectors were actually hired and put on the front line from 2006 to the present day?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, it is always difficult to quantify those numbers. It depends on a given day. The workforce is mobile. It depends on who is asked and when it is asked.

I can assure the member that the global number of CFIA employees and front-line inspectors has gone up by some 14% under our tutelage, and we continue to add to that number. The budgets are there to do that. Of course we want qualified people. This is not something that people are hired off the street to do. We continually head hunt for those people.

We are in the neighbourhood of 3,228 inspectors. I have seen numbers that roughly half of those are involved in meat, but of course that number expands and contracts as plants change. We have the unfortunate situation where a plant in Saskatchewan right now has closed its doors for a short time, XL meat processors in Saskatchewan. Right now a number of inspectors have been transferred to other facilities. That number is in flux at all times.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, the fact that we cannot have a determined number absolutely escapes me. In most industries I have ever been involved with there is always an ability to head count. The problem the CFIA has when it comes to its meat inspection system is that the CFIA cannot quantify it. Yet we are supposed to trust it with the safety of our food products.

The other evening the Canadian Meat Council suggested that “CFIA inspectors need to have regular consistent training”.

The Canadian Meat Council said, “It was evident to us after the new listeriosis control policy was implemented on April 1, 2009 that many inspectors didn't know enough about proper aseptic sampling techniques”.

We heard about that in the paper, and I believe the CFIA discontinued doing it for a period of time.

Will we provide the resources to enable the CFIA to make sure that the testing procedures that it needs to complete get done? If it indeed involves overtime, are we willing to pay it to get it done? Has it been completed as of now?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, let me see if I can get the order properly on that.

I am assured that the numbers of inspectors and the breakdowns have been sent to committee. If the information has not been received, maybe it is in translation, but I know it has gone to committee so the member for Welland will have that very soon.

CFIA inspectors, like anyone else in this changing environment, are constantly trained and retrained. The numbers shift; there are capacity shifts depending on where they are in that retraining process.

On the specific issue he talked about, yes, it is nearing completion as I understand. Dr. Brian Evans is assuring me that those projects continue to move forward and that we are making great headway on them.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that response.

Hopefully when it comes to those changes at the CFIA they are not moving at the same speed that Mr. Kyte mentioned last night when referring to the regulations. He suggested that they move like glaciers. Hopefully the training will move a lot faster than a glacier.

The minister did raise the XL plant, so let me go to that. As we know, in less than 40 days the Competition Bureau actually approved the sale of the Tyson beef packing plant to XL. Now that XL has closed, the only major beef packing plant between Toronto and central Alberta reminds me of the cannery in St. Davids that closed, the last one east of the Rockies. It just seems to be going the other way, westward.

The CCA says that the closure may be permanent. “We're not certain”, the CCA's research arm, CanFax, is quoted as saying “The closure will lower prices for both fed and non-fed cattle”. That was in the April 30 issue of The Western Producer. CCA's CanFax also said of the closure, “We're reducing capacity and the plants don't have to go out there and be quite as aggressive on their bids to procure cattle”.

The question really is, did we know this? Did we know that the Tyson-XL sale would lead to less aggressive bidding and lower cattle prices? Is that not what the Competition Bureau really should have been looking at in the first place to ensure that it did not happen?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, there are certainly a number of factors that are negatively affecting livestock at this time.

I happened to have a chance to read the CanFax report today, the new Western Producer issue is out. It reports that there has been no negative impact on livestock pricing since XL announced its closure.

We are hoping that it is temporary. We are hoping that those situations are going to be worked out. I know they are pointing to a number of situations where they are putting their emphasis into the Tyson plant. I welcome that. I think it is great that it is now Canadian owned as opposed to American owned.

The Nilsson brothers, Brian, whom I know, also own a plant in Nebraska. They are constantly giving us instructions, direction and advice as to what they face with USDA with respect to the Nebraska plant and what they expect to see in the Tyson plant. They are willing to work with us as we move forward on SRM recapture and so forth.

At this point I can assure the member opposite that according to today's release from CanFax, there has been no downturn in the pricing due to the XL closure.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will move to agri-stability. The minister may have answered this before. The 2009 budget states:

The Government will also work with interested provinces toward devolution of delivery of the AgriStability program to support improved client service through wider integration and alignment with other business risk-management programs already delivered provincially. Integrated provincial program delivery would help ensure that the suite of programs meets producers' needs.

Saskatchewan producers are saying that there seems to be a negative margin and negative margins do not work with agri-stability. That formula does not work for them. Is the government going to do something to address the agri-stability formula program? They are in a negative balance all the time. The program is not going to look at that except to say no, which means they are not really going to get out of debt.

If it is only going to be loans and they are already in debt, and all we are asking them is to take on more debt, do we have a plan to get them out of debt?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, a properly working market will get them out of debt.

The member opposite is mixing several situations. He talked about devolution. We are in discussions with Saskatchewan and B.C. I firmly believe that closer to the need is the best delivery mechanism, so I fully support that devolution. We are working toward that. It has been slowed down a little in B.C. because of the election, but now we will get back on track.

The member opposite should also know that the delivery of agri-stability is a joint responsibility between the federal government and provincial and territorial governments. We have discussions by conference calls. I had one last week with my colleagues. We are having another one in July which will assess the first year of agri-stability. We will talk about what works and what does not work. We will have those numbers.

Because of the large acreage and the tremendous amount of agriculture in Saskatchewan, it is always one of the large beneficiaries of any program, including agri-stability. We have the numbers as to the payments that have gone to Saskatchewan and I can get them for the member.

In situations where there are negative margins and situations where farmers have multiple years that are keeping them out of triggering a payment, we make an advance payment to them. That goes against future payments that we think may come to them. They have that cash flow to keep them liquid and they will be paid back as they trigger payments in the future. That is the best of all worlds in the situation the member opposite is talking about.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is interesting to hear the minister say that the markets will get them out of debt.

I do not have as many cattle producers or hog producers in my neck of the woods as members out west do, but nearly all of them are saying the same thing. They are not making any money at this. They are all losing money, yet the response is always that the market will get them out of it. So far the market has not done them any good. We have expanded markets and they just keep losing more money.

Hog producers were in the Senate courtyard recently. The president of the Ontario Pork Producers told me that he does not need another loan. He needs money.

The minister said there may be challenges at the WTO. The WTO is not going to save our hog farmers if we just--