Debates of Oct. 18th, 2012

Opposition Motion--Food Safety

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join all the members who have offered their condolences to the victims of this food poisoning crisis, the many workers in Alberta who lost their jobs and, of course, the ranchers who have now lost an important source of income.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, after his defeat in the Bay of Pigs said, “Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.” John Fitzgerald Kennedy took political responsibility for that defeat. Unfortunately, we no longer have men of that ilk in government.

Right now we have a resource problem. Legislation is all well and good, but if the legislation is not backed up by the resources to implement it, it is useless. Can the member tell us how to support legislation with adequate resources?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for his excellent question.

Supporting legislation with adequate resources means making sensible investments. The government must stop cutting funding for programs that are crucial to the health of Canadians and the quality of our food. In order for legislation to be properly enforced, Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors need resources.

Getting rid of inspectors is not the answer. There have been cutbacks to the tune of $56 million. That is not the way to guarantee a decent food safety system and to prevent infections like those that just occurred. People are still sick.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in support of the motion tabled by my colleague, our official opposition critic on agriculture. I fully support the call for the removal of the minister and the reassignment of the food safety portfolio, which I will speak to a bit more; the reversing of the cuts and the deregulation of the food safety regime; and the independent assessment by the Auditor General of whether or not we are proceeding in a way that will ensure food safety for Canadians.

I would like to start with a quote from a former Progressive Conservative Minister of the Environment,Tom McMillan, when he tabled the first version of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in this place.

He also made a historic decision to table an enforcement and compliance policy, and in making that decision he transformed the way of doing business for governments across this country: federal, provincial and territorial. When he tabled this enforcement and compliance policy, he said:

A good law, however, is not enough. It must be enforced—ruthlessly if need be.

In no place is that more significant than in the case of food safety.

Those in the House may not be aware, but back in 1997 the decision was made by a Liberal government to transfer responsibility for food safety from the health department to agriculture, so that the then-created Canadian Food Inspection Agency was designated to report to the Minister of Agriculture.

Very clearly, if we look at the legislation, the Minister of Agriculture is the highest authority in all decisions on food safety. The Minister of Health, though, did retain responsibility to assess the effectiveness of the CFIA in food safety. I think it would be fair to suggest that there was some controversy at the time in that transfer.

It is because of this issue, which a number of people have raised in the House previously, that regrettably the Minister of Agriculture retains a conflicting portfolio where he is to promote the food industry of Canada, including its export, and that includes the beef industry. At the same time, he has this other hat that he is supposed to put on from time to time or at exactly the same time to protect food safety for Canadians.

Interestingly, the government made the decision to remove the regulation of pesticides, the oversight of the use of pesticides by farmers, from agriculture at the same time as it put food safety into agriculture.

That may have been the beginning of the problem and that is why we are sincerely raising the motion today. We are calling on the government to look at this again to see if it is meeting the needs of Canadians in terms of the safety of their food as well as protecting the interests of food producers so that their industry is not put at risk.

Has this crisis in XL triggered a review? So far it appears not. There is a lot of denial of any kind of problem whatsoever. Previously the government, in the listeriosis crisis, called in health expert Sheila Weatherill to review problems and she made a number of recommendations.

Interestingly, when we look at Dr. Weatherill's report, she said that coincidental to the events that led to the 2008 outbreak of listeriosis, a new federal meat inspection system, the compliance verification system, was introduced. The compliance verification system, which we have talked a lot about in this place, was brought about, as I understand, because of this crisis that occurred previously in the food safety industry. Dr. Weatherill added:

—we were told of gaps in [the compliance verification system's] design and implementation as well as in the on-going management and delivery of the CVS. These deficiencies are noteworthy because inspection requirements can only be as strong as the regulatory policies and standards against which compliance is verified.

She then goes on to raise a number of concerns, including a number of sources that said that the lack of staff was a major constraint, as was the pressure of time. I think those are certainly two factors that we have seen raised repeatedly during the time of this crisis with food safety in XL Foods.

The Minister of Agriculture has a duty to identify potential conflicts in his portfolio, as does the Prime Minister. It is the prerogative of the Prime Minister from time to time to reconsider the portfolios within his cabinet and where they are assigned. The minister has been clear in his mandate to promote Canada's beef industry. There is no doubt about that. However, in failing in his parallel mandate to ensure food safety, surely he has put that very beef industry at risk.

Why is there a need for an independent review? The government saw the need to bring in Dr. Weatherill, as has been mentioned, on listeriosis. Why then is there not this need now, when this is the largest food recall in the history of this country? Why does it not appear logical to the government?

One would have thought the government would just stand up and say, “My goodness, there is an even greater problem this time. Perhaps we should take a second look at our system and take another look at the Weatherill report to see if we acted appropriately. Let us talk to the food industry, to the public, to the union and the workers.”

It is important to remind this place of the name of the agency. It is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Why do I point that out? It is because the government has chosen to replace its enforcement and compliance regime, which is common in all the other agencies at the federal level and across the provinces and territories of this country and frankly, from my experience, across nations of the world.

It has replaced the enforcement and compliance policy, which would normally direct the role of the government agency, with what is called a compliance verification system. Generally speaking, a compliance verification system is a system that is applied by the industry being regulated. In other words, industry's role is to comply with the law, therefore it put in place a compliance verification system.

Let us be clear, the government's job is to establish the food safety rules and to enforce them and the government's job is also to ensure that it protects the public. The industry's job is to comply with the law, including training all its workers to ensure the capacity to comply and taking timely action to prevent harm.

As I mentioned, beginning in the mid-1980s, previous federal governments moved to improve the way that they actually enforced the law. They put into place enforcement and compliance policies and from time to time improved them.

I am pleased to say that back in the late-1980s, I actually developed the enforcement and compliance policy for the Department of Agriculture. I further developed enforcement and compliance policies for the federal Department of Environment, for the Yukon and around the world.

I fully credit those governments for having taken that measure. It is very important to have a concise, credible system to show the public that one is sincere about enforcement.

What is the role of an enforcement and compliance policy? It is very clear and simple. It clarifies the roles and responsibilities for inspections, investigations, analysts. It clearly delineates the criteria for response to violations or non-compliance. It identifies the priorities for targeted inspections. It also identifies the needed enforcement staff, resources and training plans so that the government, at the moment that the law comes into effect, is ready to properly enforce that law. These are very important measures.

As the previous Minister of Environment said, the law enacted is hollow, unless there is a sincere, effective enforcement and compliance plan.

The CVS, as we said, is not an enforcement and compliance policy. What does it say? It says that inspectors shall divide their time between assessing establishments' safety assurance programs and conducting on-site inspections. It also says that compliance is normally achieved through co-operation with the plant operator.

Already we are getting an idea of the direction the government is going in. No longer does it believe that the role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is to inspect and enforce the law.

The enforcement and compliance policy actually had criteria set out for what enforcement action to bring. It was based on harm, the history of that operation and the intent. If we look at the situation here, and we look at the past record of that operation, surely that warranted some kind of strict enforcement action.

To date, we do not have any knowledge of any enforcement action taken whatsoever. They did finally, eventually, withdraw the licence but we are waiting to hear what kind of enforcement action will be taken. Will it be a monetary penalty, the maximum of which is $15,000, for a serious significant violation or will they be referred for prosecution?

Again, I wish to reiterate that it is just as important. The government is saying that it solved all the problems. It is tabling a new improved law in this place. We have waited a long time for that law to come. I would encourage the government to table an enforcement compliance policy in the House for review by this place and the public.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the fact that the member said the government had not done much. We have Bill S-11 in Parliament. The opposition has the opportunity to move that bill to committee, where it can be studied thoroughly by the agriculture committee. If the opposition wants to propose amendments, it can do so clause-by-clause at the agriculture committee, yet it is holding it in Parliament.

I have two questions. Has she read Bill S-11 to see what the important measures are regarding food safety and the CFIA regulatory powers within that act? Why will she not allow it to go to committee in the shortest time possible so we can move it through Parliament?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the public is seeing any credibility in this move. It knows that this problem has been going on for quite some time. The government has been in power for six years and now it has brought forward a supposedly improved safety law. I have taken a look at that law and I cannot see a lot except for an increase in the potential penalty if someone is prosecuted.

What I put to the government is this. We do not even see any basic enforcement action let alone moving toward prosecution. A law which proposes higher penalties is hollow unless there is sincerity and commitment from the government to support its enforcement agency by allowing it to be pulled away and separated from this relationship tie to the industry. It should separate it out, make it independent and allow it to enforce the law no matter where it is placed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to put it into the perspective that this is indeed the largest single most significant size of food product recall in the history of Canada. There is no doubt that the government has not been forthright and transparent in reporting it to the public and its actions have been questioned to date.

I appreciate the member's comments with respect to the history back in the nineties of bringing forward the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Does she believe the government is adequately resourcing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency so it has the hands-on to ensure the quality of the product that our consumers will consume and to protect the integrity of our industries, in particular in the Prairies regarding beef?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, I regrettably cannot give the hon. member an easy answer. That is precisely why we called for an independent review by the Auditor General. We have asked repeatedly where exactly these supposed new inspectors have been assigned. It becomes increasingly apparent that these so-called 600 or 700 new inspectors are simply replacing the 600 or 700 that were there before and are assigned to other duties.

As I mentioned, for effective enforcement of a critical law such as food safety, we need a whole framework. Therefore, we need the government to give us that framework. How many inspectors are needed to ensure food safety in these operations? What kind of resources do they need? What kind of training have they been provided? Will the government amend the act to include whistleblower protection for the workers so they can bring those issues to the attention of the inspectors?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague for his excellent speech.

What we are doing here today is quite rare: we are asking a minister to step down. We do not do this every day, and we are only doing so because this is a very serious matter. Indeed, the Conservatives have slashed some $56 million from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, which ensures food safety. What did they think would happen? They are endangering the health of Canadians. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food acted poorly and failed to show leadership or take responsibility. Even now, he is still refusing to take any responsibility for this crisis.

Does my distinguished colleague believe that the minister should step down for failing to fulfill his duty?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a number of the members in the House have said, the request for the minister to resign is not taken lightly and it is not expressed frequently by this party. Many times, this side of the House requested that the Prime Minister intervene and replace the minister. Why did we do that? Because the minister was clearly not accepting his responsibility for this matter to move more expeditiously. He simply was not admitting that there was a problem with the system in place.

Therefore, the minister has the power to resign. He could take on another portfolio. We are simply asking him to do the right thing.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they say that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Never did I think that the government would fail to learn from the frightening lessons from the listeriosis crisis in 2008 that killed 23 people and made hundreds others ill, or from the Walkerton tragedy, which a number of members of the Conservative government's front bench actually presided over, that killed 7 people in 2000.

Yet here we are, three years on from the report of the independent investigator, Sheila Weatherill, into the listeria outbreak of 2008, in the midst of the largest beef recall in Canadian history, with 15 people sick and consumer confidence once again rattled, unjustly punishing Canadian cattle farmers who are producing good, safe beef.

The manner in which the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food handled his file is an embarrassment, trivializing the listeria outbreak, as he did, claiming it was contained. His mismanagement of the recall and communications around the E. coli contamination are directly to blame for the negative impact on our cattle ranchers and exporters.

However, he is not alone in the blame. Every Conservative member who stood and supported cuts to the budget and a number of inspectors at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, before he or she had an idea of what resources were necessary to successfully protect our food safety system, should take a long, hard look in the mirror.

As we stand here to debate this issue today, we are 45 days removed from when American food inspectors found E. coli in a shipment of beef destined for the U.S. and stopped it at the border a day before Canadian officials first became aware of an E. coli contamination at the Brooks, Alberta, XL Foods meat processing plant.

Had the minister learned the lessons from past failures of food safety, this is where our story would end. In fact, had the minister treated food safety on at least an equal footing as trade, the contaminated meat would not have left the plant at all.

Two weeks after becoming aware of a contamination of E. coli 0157, the same pathogen that killed seven in Walkerton in 2000, did the CFIA first issued a recall on XL Foods beef. The minister attempted to have Canadians believe this was standard. However, he neglected at the time to mention that beef only started being recalled three full days after the Americans had delisted the plant, shutting their doors to any more product from Brooks.

On September 25, even as the recall was expanding daily, the minister informed the House:

I reiterate that none of the product made it to store shelves and no illnesses have been linked back to this particular strain of E. coli. We have actually done a tremendous job.

Two days later, the XL Foods plant was closed. Surely, the minister knew the closure was coming when he misled Canadians.

Had the minister waited as long to gloat as he had to initiate a recall, he would have known that 15 Canadians would fall ill due to this strain of E. coli, including a four-year-old girl who suffered kidney failure as a result of coming into contact with contaminated meat.

Now, just the other day, the minister dismissed our concerns by stating that all 15 had recovered and had gone on with their lives, but as I am sure a doctor could tell the minister, one does not just walk away from kidney failure.

We were extremely fortunate that no one died, but that is no consolation, not enough for the victims of this contamination, and it is certainly does not reassure the vulnerable Canadians who might fall victim to the next possible contamination should the Conservative government not correct its course on food safety.

Of course, it is important to note that it was XL Foods that failed Canadians first by not tracking E. coli trends or maintaining adequate sanitation standards, which would have prevented such a widespread contamination, but it was the minister who compounded that failure by refusing to provide adequate resources to inspectors at the front line to investigate and enforce our food safety standards. Senior management of the CFIA, following last spring's budget cuts, acknowledged that we could not cut 10% of the budget without affecting the front line.

The government failed to properly communicate with Canadians. If we learned anything from the listeria crisis in 2008, it is that clear, open communications are necessary to address concerns and reassure Canadians. People want to be told the truth, but the Conservatives do not believe Canadians deserve the truth.

We still have so many unanswered questions. When did the minister become aware of the E. coli contamination? Why did it only take the United States days to initially confirm E. coli contamination, but it took Canadian officials two weeks? How did the sanitation situation get so bad at the Brooks facility to warrant being shut down now for three weeks?

This kind of food safety decay does not happen overnight. A facility does not get shut down for three weeks for a faulty nozzle. It gets shut down for three weeks because there are major compliance problems from the top to bottom.

The minister was clear that the Brooks facility boasted 40 inspectors and 6 veterinarians. How many of those inspectors are fully trained on the compliance verification system? Is he aware that the level of training should be 100% of inspectors and that they are not fully trained because there are not enough inspectors to go around and replace inspectors in training? How about this one, were the 46 CFIA staff on the ground in Brooks enough for the 4,400 head of cattle every day?

Canadians need answers. Simply put, consumers will not trust their food supply until the government opens up about what went wrong and what is being done to fix it. However, as we know, Conservatives do not believe Canadians deserve to know the truth.

There is no trust when the government insists everything is under control and yet the recall continues to expand daily, over a month after initially being put into force. That uncertainty is hurting ranchers across Canada. It is one thing that a facility that processes nearly 40% of our beef is out of commission because if its health and safety lapses and farmers are scrambling to find other processors for their livestock; it is entirely another that because the government does not trust Canadians with the truth about food safety, consumer confidence is shot.

We have given the government every opportunity to explain itself. Earlier this month, I called for and was granted an emergency debate on the XL issue, except the minister could not be bothered to participate and left behind his talking points to act as cold comfort to Canadians. He has since shown his true colours and called the debate, which was an effort to get to the truth, “silly”, an emergency of a nature that the Speaker of the House agreed was worthy of a debate granted only sparingly. What is truly silly is that the minister will not take his responsibilities for food safety seriously and he continues to trivialize it.

I also put a motion on notice for the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to call before our committee all the relevant witnesses and experts from the CFIA, to XL Foods, to inspectors on the ground to discover what really happened.

Hon. members will note that my motion is no longer on notice and the committee will not be dealing with it further. They can draw necessary assumptions as to what happened while in camera on a Conservative dominated committee.

Perhaps some of those members elected from Alberta should reconsider the position of their government in the face of appeals from both the Progressive Conservative government in Alberta and its Wildrose opposition along with Liberals and New Democrats who all agree there is a definite need for a public inquiry. However, we already know Conservatives believe we cannot be trusted with the truth.

Just last week, I sent a request to the minister's office to reinstate a technical briefing for the members and senators on the respective agricultural committees that the minister's office cancelled and while the minister feels comfortable enough making comments about its cancellation, his office has yet to reschedule the meeting or even give me the dignity of a response. The Conservatives simply do not trust Canadians with the truth.

That could be why they have refused to call for a comprehensive third party resource audit of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which we have requested as early as October 3. I thank the member for Welland for including it in his motion today.

In fact, the audit was first called for by the independent investigator into the listeria outbreak, Sheila Weatherill, who said:

Due to the lack of detailed information and differing views heard, the Investigation was not able to determine the current level of resources as well as the resources needed to conduct the CVS activities effectively. For the same reason, we were also unable to come to a conclusion concerning the adequacy of the program design, implementation plan, training and supervision of inspectors, as well as oversight and performance monitoring.

Accordingly Ms. Weatherill recommended:

To accurately determine the demand on its inspection resources and the number of required inspectors, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should retain third-party experts to conduct a resources audit. The experts should also recommend required changes and implementation strategies. The audit should include analysis as to how many plants an inspector should be responsible for and the appropriateness of rotation of inspectors.

To this day that has not yet been done. A mere survey was undertaken. The former president of the CFIA, Carole Swan, stated that the review was not the same as a comprehensive audit. The government cannot answer who its inspectors are, what their roles are or where they are located. The Conservatives obviously cannot answer the question of whether there are enough inspectors or if we might need more. Yet this spring Conservative MPs stood up en masse to slash the CFIA's budget and lay off food safety workers. On that, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has already confirmed that there were $16 million in cuts and 308 jobs lost.

Accordingly, the hon. member for Toronto Centre, the interim leader of the Liberal Party, wrote to the Auditor General at the beginning of October asking him to begin an immediate audit of all Government of Canada resources supporting food safety in Canada, as well as to issue recommendations for changes and improvements.

While the government's new food safety legislation, Bill S-11, was before the Senate, we asked that the bill be amended to require a comprehensive audit at least once every five years. Sadly, that amendment was defeated both at committee and at third reading yesterday by a Conservative dominated Senate.

What possible reason could the government have for voting against our amendment except that it remains afraid of the truth? Even more than it being beneficial to ensuring that further outbreaks would be minimized or avoided, a regular audit would simply be good for any institution. A review is not effective if it is internal either. We need outside auditors without an agenda to make sure that we are getting things right. That is the healthy way to find efficiencies. It is common sense for fresh eyes to see what is missing, and we are fortunate in Canada to have an officer of Parliament who specializes in that, the Auditor General.

One would think that food safety, if it were such a priority for the government, would be at the top of the list for areas under review and scrutiny.

The truth is that the government made a mistake by cutting those resources in the last budget, but even more startling is that the Conservatives have not devoted the appropriate resources all along, and they know it. More concerned with communication victories than public safety, Conservatives are now caught empty-handed as Canadian consumers and Canadian cattle ranchers come looking for answers.

They are not even ashamed that Canadian facilities are now in line for audits by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service. The organization that found the contamination in the first place and was first to shut down shipments from the plant after finding subsequent positive tests is now coming to audit us. That is a standard move by one country importing from another, but how are they supposed to have confidence in our system if we will not open the books up for them to look at? Are we really going to start relying on American food inspectors to catch our mistakes and then clean up after us too? None of that would restore consumer confidence and it would not help our ranchers sell their livestock.

We need some solutions.

First, the government should order a third-party comprehensive audit of all resources, including the human resources of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The minister has shown that outside of lacking the will to act on this file, he is too close to the industry and has proven that he cannot be trusted to do it objectively.

I agree that we need to be opening doors to trade, but to save the government from itself we should make sure that we are working not just to open new trade doors but also that we can guarantee food safety standards that keep those doors open, doors that take years to open and only days to slam shut.

Second, the government should have open communication with the Canadian people. Here is where it should start: “Our beef is safe”. Full stop. “XL Foods went out of control because we did not have the resources in place to ensure it was properly policing itself”. Full stop. “We will have an independent auditor to determine the resources they need and give them what they require”. Full stop.

Canadians need to know that it is not uncommon for E. coli to be present in raw meat and that through safe cooking, proper sanitation and cleanliness, meat is perfectly safe to eat. When it gets into muscle cuts and is as widespread as this, it is a result of a lapse in food security. Canadians need to know that from coast to coast Canadian cattle ranchers are raising healthy, safe beef. They should not be punished for XL's lapses or for the CFIA's lack of resources.

In her report, Ms. Weatherill said, “Until the system is remedied, events like those of the summer of 2008 remain a real risk”. Despite that being three years ago, here we are again and her initial concerns still ring true. When these events recur there is collateral damage. Getting out in front of the situation would have eliminated or minimized it. It is just another example of how poorly the minister handled this.

The Conservatives argue that all of these issues would be resolved by Bill S-11. They have created a myth that Bill S-11 is key to ensuring that inspectors have all the resources they need. It is not true. I will grant that it is an important step toward modernizing; however, it is one thing to build a new car and yet another to ensure there are the resources for a driver and gas.

The authority highlighted by the Prime Minister, his Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary is one that inspectors already have. The Meat Inspection Act already gives powers compelling:

—any person to produce for inspection, or for the purpose of obtaining copies or extracts, any book, shipping bill, bill of lading or other document or record that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains any information relevant to the administration or enforcement of this Act or the regulations.

Additionally, current regulations state:

The owner or person in charge of a place...and every person found in that place...shall give the inspector all reasonable assistance to enable the inspector to carry out his duties and functions under this Act and shall furnish the inspector with any information the inspector may reasonably require with respect to the administration or enforcement of this Act and the regulations.

That is why beef is safe in other abattoirs in this country, because they have the authority. They do not need Bill S-11. For those who remain unconvinced, I would invite interested members to visit the CFIA website and read one of the six new guides for inspection from February of this year and peruse “A Processor's Guide to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Inspections”. The bottom line of that guide is that “You are legally required to provide information to, and assist, an inspector, when requested”.

As we discuss Bill S-11 further, I sincerely hope that none of that is lost in translation and that the members opposite will be more open to constructive amendments than their colleagues in the other place. What remains clear is that this minister and the Conservative government did not learn their lessons from the listeriosis outbreak. Until they do, food safety will remain a question and consumers and producers will be left wondering when the next crisis will arise. For all our sakes, even though it has taken more than a month to do so, I urge decisive action to restore consumer confidence now.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for people listening to us today, or watching us on television, to know that when the government talks about its budget and its measures, we feel like it is trying to sell us a car.

The facts are the facts, and I am going to go over them. On September 13, the meat was no longer good enough to export to the United States. On September 13, the company's permit was revoked and it could no longer export beef to the United States. When was the permit to sell this same meat to Canada revoked? Two weeks later.

Was the government telling us that the meat was good enough for Canadians but not for Americans? Are there two different standards?

The facts speak for themselves. Today, we are not talking about selling a car. We are talking about Canadians' food safety and their lives. Why did two weeks pass before it was no longer safe to sell the meat to Canadians?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain why it took the minister two weeks, and I suffer from the same lack of information from the Conservative government that my hon. friend does. That is why we need the audit. That is why we need funds restored to the CFIA. I quite agree with the member. Therein lies the lapse in our food safety system. Therein lies the responsibility that should have been undertaken by this minister much soon than he did. The Americans beat us at every single point, from finding the E. coli to closing the plant down. We did not even exercise a recall until fully three days after the Americans shut the plant down.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to my colleague's comments, and once again his speech is full of inaccuracies. I will give two examples. The first is that he says we are presenting Bill S-11 as the panacea for all food safety. No one has said that but him. We are saying that this bill has important measures to improve the regulatory powers of the CFIA and that it is an opportunity to modernize the system, taking a good system and making it better. No one has used the word “panacea” except him. That is an inaccuracy.

The second one I would like him to correct. He mentioned that a four-year-old girl had suffered kidney failure because of an XL Foods product. That is false. Our hearts go out to the girl and her family, but she was not sick from an XL product. This was thoroughly investigated. I would ask the member to please tell the House that he was wrong on that point and withdraw his comment.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, five or six times today Conservative members have stood and asked for the consent of the House to push Bill S-11 through right away. Why did they do that? They did that as a ruse. They did it so that the people watching this debate will think that Bill S-11 is the panacea for food safety. Had Bill S-11 been in effect, does anyone think this problem would not have arisen at XL Foods? Of course, it would have arisen. The government had all the time in the world to get Bill S-11 through the Senate last spring. It did not have to adjourn the Senate but could have asked the Senate to complete the bill and send it back to the House quickly.

Again, he trivializes the issue. There are 15 people across this country who are suffering from illness related to E. coli contamination and he should be apologizing to every single one of those people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the comments of my colleague, who has spoken so well on this critically important issue. Canadians are in fact very concerned about this issue. They want to know that their food products are of good quality and that they do not have to run the risk of having health issues from the consumption of beef, pork or any other food produced in Canada.

The government continuously says that it has hired hundreds of food inspectors and is trying to give the impression that it is an issue unrelated to the resourcing of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In fact that is not the case and there is a need to look at the resourcing of the agency to ensure that it is able to maintain the high-quality standards of this great agency.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as was suggested by the Minister of Finance, I did read the budget. Page 168 indicates that the government will give $51.2 million over the next two years to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada. If we divide that amount by the three agencies, that is $16 million each. If we divide that amount by two years, that is $8 million each. Great. However, what the government did not say is that on page 261 of the budget it tore out $56.1 million from where? The CFIA. Therefore, that agency does not have adequate resources.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues opposite, the Conservatives, are telling us that they have the solution and that they want to move forward to solve this problem. However, interestingly enough, I have difficulty trusting people who do not recognize the crux of the problem and their own mistakes. I am a little doubtful about the sincerity and the pertinence of their measures.

I have two small examples. The minister said that no contaminated meat had reached stores because of ongoing recalls. It seems to me that this small, basic error could have been pointed out. The government also does not want to acknowledge the impact of cuts to the CFIA. And I could mention other similar discrepancies that were not raised in my colleagues' comments, questions or speeches.

Could my colleague elaborate on that?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the recall was so large that people in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador suffered from illnesses related to E. coli contamination. There was a recall in over 40 states in the United States, as well as in Japan and Hong Kong. That is how pervasive this is.

The Minister of Agriculture trivialized this by saying, I think on October 3, that nobody was falling ill. It just does not make common sense. Intuitively, we know that he was absolutely wrong. He should have been on this file. He should have been out there filling the gap where the CFIA had failed and providing it with the proper resources it needed. Instead, he just pushed the blame off to the CFIA and to XL Foods and avoided taking any responsibility whatsoever, responsibility that he should have assumed.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here all day listening to this debate and to my colleagues from the opposition talk about this serious event. There is no question that this is a very serious event and that we are very concerned about the people who got sick from this, but I think this needs to be put into proper context.

We need to be cognizant of the fact that opposition members keep blowing this out of proportion. It is not taking this out of context, but they are blowing this out of proportion. They also keep highlighting things that are not true, making statements that are not true, adding questions to the safety of the food and they keep undermining the CFIA.

My question is for the member for Guelph who actually has a packing plant in his riding. When employees are laid off because the opposition members have undermined the industry so badly, will he tell those employees why he did what he did because this has been--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Guelph.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the plant in Guelph. It complies with the rules. It has a functioning relationship with the CFIA and the inspectors who are employees of the industry. It actually knows how to do it right.

I feel bad for the beef ranchers. People should know that if they cook beef to 70°C or 170°F, beef is safe to eat. However, they still need to check for beef that came from XL Foods.

My point is that this could have all been avoided had the minister exercised his responsibility and ensured that the CFIA was doing its job and that it was provided with the proper resources it needed to do its job at the XL Foods plant.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan, Justice; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, Foreign Takeovers.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour today.

It is very rare in the House that we would debate a motion all day that, in effect, calls for the resignation of a minister. However, that is exactly what we are doing. We are doing that because we are faced with an incredibly serious issue in the country around food safety and the lack of accountability at the ministerial level, which is a fundamental tenet of our parliamentary system.

The motion before us calls on the House to restore Canadians' confidence in Canada's food safety system by removing the current minister from office, by reversing budget cuts, halting the deregulation of Canada's food safety system and directing the Auditor General to conduct an immediate assessment of food safety procedures and report to the agriculture committee. That is the motion that the NDP has brought before the House. It has been a very thorough debate today on an incredibly serious matter.

We need to look at the context of what is going on. This is the largest food recall in Canadian history. That, in and of itself, should ring a whole bunch of alarm bells about what is going on. We now have, I believe, 15 cases of E. coli that have been specifically traced to the XL Foods plant in Brooks, Alberta, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has now recalled more than 1,800 beef products due to possible contamination.

This issue is extensive. The recall extends to every province and territory, 40 states in the U.S. and 20 other countries. It is something of incredible magnitude and yet the minister rushed out the door too soon saying that the problem had been resolved , that there really was not a problem and that action was being taken. However, we know that the seriousness of what has taken place is still unfolding as more information finally gets into the public realm.

One of the key questions in this tragic situation that has unfolded in the lack of safety in our food system is the fact that, on September 13, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency yanked XL Foods' exporter licence at the request of U.S. officials. Even though the Minister of Agriculture and his department determined that the meat was not safe enough to be sold to American consumers, they did not pull XL Foods' Canadian licence for another 14 days.

From the very beginning, we have asked the minister why it took two weeks from the initial action that took place in terms of the American market and a willingness to protect American families from possible contaminated products to take the same action here in Canada. We still have not received an answer. To me, that is a very significant issue that strikes right at the heart of ministerial responsibility, which is why the motion is here before us today.

It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to look at this issue in a holistic and systemic way as to what is going on. The XL Foods plant is, I believe, the third largest in Canada. It processes, some people say, up to 5,000 cows a day. It is a major operation, employing thousands of workers. However, we need to look at what is going on underneath and whether we are also dealing with a systemic failure of our food safety system.

For all of us in the NDP, by bringing forward the motion today, we are alerting the Canadian public that this is more than just one plant, that this is about the overall system. It is about a lack of proper inspection and regulation and the failure of a self-policing system that is now thrown into question as a result of what happened.

I have not been to this plant, which I imagine most of us have not and therefore have no direct experience, but everything I have read, like many other Canadians, causes me to be very disturbed and alarmed.

I recently read an article in The Globe and Mail and I will quote from it because it gave me some glimmer of understanding of what these megaplants, these megaoperations, are all about. The headline read, “Can meat factories be safe, at 4,000 cows a day, 3,000 steaks a minute?”. The article reads:

You have 35 seconds: Gut the cow without damaging its organs, and be sure not to drop the stomach on the floor. Do not cut yourself with the swift-moving blade; do not touch the scalding sanitary surfaces. Then, walk in hot water to clean your white rubber boots. Swap your knife out and start over again. Again and again.

This is life on the production line at the Lakeside slaughterhouse in Brooks, Alta., one of the three largest such facilities in Canada that, together, dominate the market. Owned by XL Foods, Lakeside slaughters 4,000 cows on a full day, cutting them into about two million pounds of beef. That’s the equivalent of 3,000 steaks a minute. Plants like this are the reality of modern mass food production....

The article goes on much longer but I do not have time to go into other issues that it brings forward. However, when I read that article and when I see films, like Food, Inc., for example, that tell us about the food production industry and how it is now controlled by massive corporations and how its operation is so concentrated in these megaslaughterhouse plants, it does raise incredibly serious questions about the safety of our food and food security. It raises questions about inspection, how it is done and what kind of oversight there is.

I hate to say it but the situation in Brooks, Alberta, at the XL Foods site has brought this now to the front of public attention, which is actually a good thing. If anything that has happened has been positive, it is that it has alerted a public consciousness about the seriousness of the situation that we face.

I am sure we have all had many emails from people expressing their concern about the situation at XL Foods and wondering what the heck Parliament will do about it. I had one email from someone who pointed out to me that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was originally part of the Department of National Health and Welfare, not the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

When the change was made and it was moved over to agriculture, there were many criticisms that the Department of Agriculture would have an inherent conflict of interest in administrating the CFIA. The question that still remains today is how a department, whose primary role is to promote and develop agriculture and agri-business, also serve and safeguard the health and well-being of consumers. I do not think that question has been answered either in the days that we have now spent on this issue in the House of Commons. That is also very much a part of the question that we are examining here.

I would also like to draw attention to the situation of the workers at the XL Foods plant. We know there are close to 3,000 workers. We also know that the UFCW, their union local 401, has clearly come out and expressed the concerns of the workers themselves that the speed lines are way too fast, that there is sewage backup, dirty washrooms, inconsistent temperatures, a lack of proper training and the list goes on and on. I feel very badly for these workers who have now been laid off. Some of them are having problems with EI. Working in a plant like this, where high-speed production, as we heard, 35 seconds again and again, places stress on workers, particularly if the rules and the procedures are not being followed. This is something that is very serious.

For example, we know that the workers are trained and want to sterilize knives between cuts but they are discouraged from doing so because it would mean falling behind their very stressful schedule of 35 seconds.

We can see again another dramatic consequence of what is going on with the food safety system.

This motion today is very important. It is about ministerial responsibility. It is about good public policy and ensuring that our food system is safe in Canada. I hope members will support this motion.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague sits with me on the Standing Committee on Health and she does an excellent job there as NDP health critic.

In light of her experience, does she think it is right that two weeks passed before the Canadian public was informed of the health risk?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member who also sits on the health committee and does a great job. We are a good team on the health committee and we take our work very seriously.

One of the underpinnings of our work is the notion of public health, so it is very disturbing, from a public health point of view, that there was such a dramatic time lag of two weeks until Canadians were fully alerted to what was going on.

The Public Health Agency of Canada has had information on its website, but we have not heard directly from the chief officer, who surely should be communicating directly with Canadians about the health issues involved here.

I do feel that the whole public health side of this, in a broader way, has been really underplayed. We have a Public Health Agency of Canada. Its mandate is to protect the health of Canadians, but one gets the sense that all the Conservatives are interested in is political damage control. They are interested in saving their own necks and not dealing with some of the deeply systemic issues that are involved here, which are posing risks to food safety in Canada.