Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2012

Food Safety

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, food safety and the health of Canadians are a priority for our government. Our government has taken the necessary initiatives to enhance our system and improve food safety.

The member has been saying that I have been able to say whatever I want, but in my speech I was talking about facts. Unfortunately, the opposition has been making reckless comments. I have been saying that Canadian food is safe and Canadian beef is safe. There is a problem at XL. That is not what the opposition members have been saying. They have been waving their arms saying that all Canadian food is unsafe. That is unhelpful to Canadians.

If I wanted to get specific, I could mention specific measures to reinforce our food safety system which the member's party has voted against. I will encapsulate it. We have hired additional inspectors. The member's party voted against it. We put additional funding into the CFIA and food safety. The member's party voted against it. Those are facts. He might not have been here at the time, but he can check the record because that is true.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I met with some representatives from the beef industry in Canada earlier this afternoon and they have a couple of requests. One request is that members of Parliament refrain from using exaggeration and hyperbole in discussing this issue. They said that the Canadian beef industry does not need to be threatened as it has had enough pressures over the last few years. They are asking if we would refrain from doing that and try to deal with the issue of food safety, which is the important issue here.

My first question tonight is to ask if the opposition will listen to the voices of beef producers across this country.

My second question is for the parliamentary secretary. He mentioned that the in-depth review of the plant actually determined that there was no single factor in the plant that led to the H7 E. coli contamination. Could he talk about some of the deficiencies that were identified and how the CFIA is now beginning to deal with those deficiencies in that plant?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's first comment echoes my last response, in that I think all parliamentarians need to be responsible in the comments they make about food safety, particularly at a time like this.

I want to assure Canadians that Canadian food is safe. I think Canadians see all of the additional resources that we have delivered to the CFIA to ensure that Canadian food is safe. Canadian beef is safe as well. I want to highlight that.

There is a problem at XL Foods. It has been shut down and will not reopen until the CFIA determines that the XL plant is safe and that the product leaving the plant is safe.

In talking about the problems at XL, there have been corrective measures that the CFIA has demanded XL undertake. The plant will not reopen until those specific measures have been undertaken and the XL plant is determined to be safe by the CFIA.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary was around in 2008 when the opposition successfully pushed for the creation of a special committee to study the listeriosis crisis. He knows very well that, at that time, the Minister of Agriculture and even the then Minister of Health refused to accept any responsibility for the crisis. When I say that, I do not mean that they had to be accountable for everything that happened. However, four years later, we have the same minister, and he is again refusing to accept any responsibility for the health and safety of Canadians.

Will he not admit today that it is time for the minister to get serious and ensure that the same problems that surfaced in 2008 do not happen again? Did they learn nothing from the 23 deaths caused by the listeriosis crisis?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the minister and our government have taken steps to strengthen our food safety system and to provide the CFIA with more resources so that it can do what it needs to do. The member and his party voted against all these measures.

They have to account to Canadians for letting down Canadians when it comes to reinforcing our food safety system.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for joining in this emergency debate on Canadian food safety. It is an extremely troubling issue that has come back to haunt us once again.

Let me first say that we feel for those who are ill, especially the young one in Alberta who suffered kidney failure and is drastically ill, and whose mom's pleas for help because there was something wrong went unanswered for, in her words, far too long. We on this side of the House would like to extend our best wishes for a speedy recovery to all of those folks who have fallen ill because of E. coli. Hopefully, they will have a speedy recovery with no ill effects in the future.

I would say unequivocally to the ranchers out there that we on this side of the House understand the dilemma they face. The ranchers across the country have done nothing wrong. They have worked hard to produce the best quality beef they can and they have been let down by a processor. Unfortunately, all of the links must work well in the value chain we have. The primary producers are doing the remarkable job they need to do and have done for decades, indeed eons if we go back to the early days of the pioneers on the Prairies.

What has happened in the processing part of the equation is the beef producers have been let down by a single processor which has now tarnished their image unfairly. We need to make sure that Canadians understand that. Indeed, we stand with those ranchers and say to Canadians in general that it is not the fault of the ranchers. What we need to do is address the situation that has happened at the processing plant.

I want to refer to some of my friend's comments about facts, as the parliamentary secretary likes to call them, and deal with the 700 net new inspectors.

The problem with the net new inspectors is that the CFIA has this sense that everyone should be labelled as an inspector. There is this catch-all category of inspector in which everyone is placed. With most employers, inspectors are called inspectors, assemblers are called assemblers, and clerks are called clerks, but not at the CFIA. Everyone is called an inspector.

My friend from Malpeque will remember during the listeriosis crisis that we asked the vice-president of operations, the head counter, the bean counter, how many meat inspectors were on the front line. I could not have been any more specific when I asked that question. After giving five wrong answers because he had the numbers mixed up, he finally said that he did not know. He is still there, by the way.

To suggest that somehow there are 700 net new inspectors doing meat inspection is a fallacy. Of that number, there are 170 inspectors doing meat inspection, but they only do it in ready-to-eat meat plants. What is the distinction? XL is not a ready-to-eat meat plant. Maple Leaf Foods on Bartor Road in Weston, Ontario is a ready-to-eat meat plant. There is a huge distinction between the two.

There are 46 inspectors in a plant that actually slaughters and processes, on some days, 5,000 animals a day. We divide that number by 46 over two shifts. Technically, there are only 23 inspectors on the plant floor on one shift and 23 on the plant floor on the second shift. There are two shifts in that plant. Maybe they move a couple here and a couple there. Some may work day shift more than they work afternoon shift, but nonetheless, that is how we divvy it up. We are talking about 23 folks looking after 5,000 head of cattle and working in a facility that literally is city blocks large. This is not a butcher shop on the corner. It is an industrial plant. That is how one has to think about the scope of that facility.

Let me talk about facts. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency report on plans and priorities, signed and tabled by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food himself on May 18, 2012, reads, “Planned spending is declining by approximately $46.6 million and 314 FTEs,” which means full-time equivalent. The member's minister signed the document just months ago saying that he intended to take out that amount of money and take out that number of people. That is a fact.

My hon. colleague across the way, the parliamentary secretary, should review the plans and priorities document that his minister signed.

He loves to talk about the $100 million that the Conservatives have put in. The truth is that they have not put it in at all yet. They have spent $18 million this year. It is a five-year phase-in program that talks about a specific program and then it ends. It does not go on forever. It ends, just like they sunset the listeria program. They stopped $26 million in that program. That will end too. They will also take that money out. If we want to deal in facts, then we really need to put all the facts on the table, not just some of them.

What do we look at in the Conservatives' budget document, that massive omnibus bill they presented to us earlier in the year, and now we can see what it was about. They want to try to hide things in this great big document. What do we find? In budget 2012, the next three year outlook for food safety indicates a projected cut of $56.1 million on an annual basis, not just for a project, but on an ongoing basis, a continual basis, every year, year after year. That is a fact in the Conservatives' budget document.

My friend across the way will always say to me that I vote against that. He is absolutely right. If the Conservatives intend to bring another piece of legislation forward that says that they will take money and resources out of the CFIA, I will probably vote against that as well. Perhaps they should bring in something that is positive.

My friend wanted to talk about how all of this unravelled and what the timeline looked like. The CFIA actually has a very good timeline on its website. Anyone can go visit and take a look at it. There is a debate on who saw it first, but the Americans actually caught the E. coli on September 3. They did not tell Canadians until September 4. Canadians saw it on September 4 too. That is accepted. That is true. The parliamentary secretary has said that and it is true.

However, the Americans started to do some other things. They started asking questions because they do things in a different way. They destroyed the shipment and then they started to do other testing. What did we do on September 5? We issued what is called “a corrective action request” of the company. We did not issue an order. We did not make a demand. We said, “Would you please”. That was on September 5. We got to September 6 and we were still going on, and they believed that August 24 and 28 were the days that perhaps were affected by E. coli on those particular slaughter days.

The parliamentary secretary wants us to believe it was just one incident but it was multiple pieces out of this one incident. Those were two different days. It was not one day, not one event. It was two different events. We cannot have one event on two different days. I guess we could when we think the facts are not real facts but might be facts.

What happened on September 7? The CFIA issued another corrective action request. It already issued one two days before. It had to do another one because the first one did not work. What was the company asked to do now? I am quoting now from the CFIA website. It reads:

XL Foods Inc. was formally requested to produce detailed information related to product details, distribution, sampling results, and information on the effectiveness of the plant's preventative controls as soon as possible but no later than September 10th.

It was also required to strengthen controls around sampling and testing of the products originating from the facility. It was a request on September 8 and 9. We are still waiting. Of course, it was a request, so we wait.

September 10 and 11, the CFIA requested that XL Foods, back on September 6 and 7, give the information to them. The CFIA finally gets stuff identified on August 24 to 28. Now, September 5, the third event. That becomes an interest of investigation, not anything more than that. September 12, the CFIA's investigation continued. FSIS, which is American, notified the CFIA that it had found two more contaminated shipments from E. coli in sample beef trimmings from XL Foods.

What did we do? We are still on September 12. The CFIA, based on its investigations and the new U.S. findings, not Canadian findings, which found the next two cases on September 12, sends in a team of experts. We knew back on September 4 that something was amiss. We gave them two corrective action requests. Now the CFIA says that maybe it should send in a team now that the Americans have said that there are two additional E. coli samples from a different batch. The CFIA thought maybe it should do something, so it sent in a team to do an in-depth review. It went through all of that on September 12.

On September 13, the CFIA removed XL Foods from the list of establishments eligible to export to the U.S. What happened to us? If the stuff was not good enough to send to the U.S., why was it good enough for Canadians?

In any case, it went through and articulated some more requests. Here is what it came up with. It said that although XL Foods Inc. had monitoring measurements in place, trend analysis of the data collected was not being properly conducted. The CFIA knew this on September 13 but it still allowed XL Foods to continue. The CFIA said that while the company's measures for dealing with meat that tested positive for E. coli were properly laid out, they were not always being followed correctly. The company knew how to do it but it just was not.

That is our food safety system? The company knows how to do it but it is not going to do it. That is basically what the CFIA found out on September 13. The CFIA also said that it knew the containers that were contaminated by E. coli were not bracketed, in other words, those were not taken out of the stream before or after they were allowed to go to the fresh meat line, which is totally contrary to the protocols involved in health and safety. It continued anyway.

In the CFIA's own words, it said that it found out that sampling protocols were not always followed by plant staff which could have resulted in inaccurate tests. So now we are hearing that maybe staff cannot do it properly.

Then we get to September 16. The CFIA and XL Foods begin to issue health hazards. The Americans had already stopped shipments at the border three days earlier. They did not want any more. The CFIA agreed that the Americans did not want anymore. Now, three days later, the CFIA and XL Foods think that maybe they should tell the public there is an issue, and they issue a hazard alert. They said that it was probably the shipments from August 24 to 28 and September 5 that were contaminated and that they would look at them even closer.

Then we get to September 17. The CFIA said that when dealing with potentially unsafe food it needs to be sure that the right products are identified, and so on. It said that it takes time. However, it did not take the Americans that much time or the CFIA. It is not about the Americans saying, “No, thank you”, which they actually said. It is about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency saying, “I am taking away XL Foods' licence to export to the U.S.”. It was not the other way around, as much as the Americans did not want the product.

On September 18, the CFIA issued five additional corrective action requests. We are now at number seven by my count. There are corrective action plans now, not on a specific incidents about the thing it was supposed to do, but new plans. Heaven knows why we would want to give people a new plan when they cannot do the old one, but this is the food inspection system.

It looks as if there are varying dates of corrective action. Depending on the risks, it moved around. Meanwhile, the U.S. has said, “No, thanks.” The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has said, “No, thanks. We will not send it to you.” They are still being sent to Canadians.

On September 21, the ongoing data review by the CFIA concluded that there were two additional production dates. There had already been three. My friend said that there was one. Now we are looking at August 27 and 29. Now we are August, 24, 27, 28, 29 and September 5. I am only a Glaswegian but I did learn my arithmetic and that is five events, five different days, five different things happening. Based on those conclusions, XL Foods began to notify customers in Canada on September 21 and recalled beef trimmings produced on August 27 to 29.

Then we jump to September 27. The CFIA announces that it has temporarily suspended the licence to operate establishment 38 XL Foods Inc. in Brooks, Alberta. The CFIA determined that inadequate controls for food safety were not fully implemented in the facility. The CFIA identified a number of deficiencies during an in-depth review of the facility. It went on to say that as of that date the company had not adequately implemented and agreed upon corrective actions and did not present acceptable plans to address longer term issues. What a marvellous conclusion. It only took seven corrective action requests but it only took two from the United States.

On September 3 and September 13, the CFIA said that no more products from the plant would go to the U.S. What about us? What happened to Canadians? Seven requests were made and none of them were followed through on.

At the end of all this, the CFIA finally said that the plant had to be closed. It t is still closed, and so it should stay closed until such time as it is ready to operate in a proper way. However, in my view, there can be no faith in a self-regulating plant that does not know how to do the things it is supposed to do, does not understand how to do them and, when it is given specific requests by the CFIA, it does not carry them out. This begs the question: Why does the CFIA not take over the entire plant and stop the self-regulating process in that specific plant until it comes back on stream and credibility is back in that facility? That is what really needs to happen.

Where are we with all of this? I watched the minister's news conference today. I thought it was wholly informative, mesmerizing and captivating. He said, and I am paraphrasing because I do not have the exact quote, “We want safe food”. We all do. Canadians are saying that they want safe food. The minister did not tell us anything else. However, as soon as the president of the CFIA stepped to the microphone and was about to answer a legitimate question and started to say that the agency did not have the authority under the present legislation to do anything else, which is inaccurate but maybe he misspoke, a political minder said that the news conference was over and asked Mr. Da Pont to move on. He is the president of the CFIA and a media staff person from the minister's office is telling him not to speak to Canadians in a public way and tell them exactly what happened. That is disgraceful. That is not transparent. That is not about telling Canadians how to build credibility back into a system that the government let fail them. That is not how credibility is built. Credibility is built by allowing the president of the CFIA to answer the questions and to tell Canadians exactly what happened.

Unfortunately, there is a bigger problem. The president of the CFIA does not understand that there is legislation in place today under section 13 of the Meat Inspection Act that allows inspectors to demand, not request, information they need to do their jobs now, not next week, not next month. The CFIA has a real problem when the top of the house does not know the legislation. That is what is wrong with that CFIA and that is what is wrong with ministerial accountability, because at the end of the day it is the minister who is responsible for ensuring that the system works, and the system is broken and it needs to be fixed.

To speak to Bill S-11, if my friend across the way had bothered to watch CBC today, he would have seen me say that we support Bill S-11 in principle, but we have some really good ideas and maybe for once the Conservatives ought to listen.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Welland for his opening comments in particular.

First, we do want to express our sympathies to the families who are dealing with illness right now because of E. coli. We also want to recognize that the cattle industry here in Canada is the best cattle industry in the entire world.

My background has been as a cattle rancher. My father and three brothers are today still cattle ranching. In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake, we have 2,500 ranches and those ranch families there and farmers right across this country who raise our cattle do a fabulous job of raising healthy, wholesome livestock that are turned into wonderful food products.

However, I do have to take exception to some of his critique of the CFIA.

We have 170 new front-line meat inspectors in our plants in Lakeside. In the XL beef plant in Brooks alone there are 46 food inspectors. The way food inspection works is that in every plant, in every food inspection plant, they do what is called hazard analysis of critical control points, HACCP. Those critical points are where there are inspectors, where there is accountability, where there is a paper trail, and where there is testing so that we can catch whether there are going to be problems with food. Therefore, the CFIA was doing its job. It was doing the inspections.

To talk about transparency and accountability, everything is on the website. The CFIA has unveiled it to the press. It has unveiled it to the consumers. The CFIA will continue to build confidence among consumers and police the industry the way it is supposed to be policed.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully my friend from Selkirk—Interlake will pass along our thoughts to the cattle ranchers, his family specifically, and to others in that area. We understand the devastation that they are going through, unfairly so. I cannot say it often and loudly enough that it is of no fault of their own; they are caught in a situation not of their doing. This is not a fair place for them to be. However, it is a reality in a complex system where one piece of the system, a large piece, has failed. It is a plant that produces 35% of the beef in this country and it has failed us.

However, let me speak to this idea of 170 inspectors that we keep hearing about. Not one of those 170 inspectors went to the meat hygiene plants, which is XL, in Lakeside or in Brooks, or at Cargill or any of the others. They went to ready-to-eat meat plants. That is where they went. We can argue and debate the numbers. We know there are 40 inspectors and six vets in that plant at Brooks. That is true.

My friend talked about HACCP. There is no question that HACCP is a new system that folks have been implementing and that is supposed to work. The reality is that even the CFIA is now saying that the plant personnel, not CFIA inspectors because it is the plant personnel who actually do the spot-checking under the HACCP program, did not understand how to do it.

I do not care what the plan looks like. If they do not know what the plan is and they do not know how to implement the plan and they do not know how to do it because they are either not trained well enough or just do not know how to get it done, I do not care what plan they have, because a plan is bound to fail when folks do not understand how to make it happen.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Welland for his thoughtful comments and insight. I have spent some time with him on this issue and I want to thank him for clearing the air on Bill S-11. It is not the panacea for food safety.

As members know, the CFIA already has the authority to demand whatever documents it requires. Frankly, in February of this year, the industry was reminded of that, that anything requested by the CFIA was to be produced and they were legally required to provide that information.

However, my question, more pointedly, is about the comprehensive audit that my party and I have been asking for. Every single time I have asked the parliamentary secretary when the audit would be provided, he has said, “Go to the website. It is there.”

Interestingly, I learned that in November 2010, Carole Swan, the former president of the CFIA, was asked about that very audit and if it had been completed. Do members know what she said? She said that the firm that had been hired, PricewaterhouseCoopers, had not conducted a traditional audit. It did not conduct it as an audit. An audit is a specific process. Instead, it was a detailed review.

I wonder if the member for Welland agrees with me that either the Auditor General or a third party should conduct a comprehensive audit of all of the CFIA resources and the adequacy of those resources, including human resources, to deal with this issue of food safety.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the compliance verification system, or CVS, is now the backbone of the government's safety regime. That is how the government wants it.

Sheila Weatherill said quite clearly in her report, and New Democrats said something somewhat similar in the subcommittee on listeriosis, that the pilot program being run in CVS, which was all that was happening in 2008, had to be evaluated and measured and a determination ultimately made whether it actually worked, because at that point it was just a pilot. No one knew if it worked or not.

That was not really done, although there was an audit by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. We can go back and forth on whether or not it was comprehensive on this or that. In my view, what ultimately happened was that we did not evaluate the pilot program to indicate that it was the program we should indeed build the backbone of the food safety regime on. Nor did we ever do an official audit in the traditional sense that would have given us adequate numbers to say how we should resource and purpose these particular CVS inspectors to make sure that the job gets done properly.

In my view the government, unfortunately, has taken the easy route out when it comes to that review by PriceWaterhouseCoopers rather than actually doing what New Democrats would consider to be an exhaustive audit to make sure that the program truly works and helps Canadians in the area of food safety.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Welland for directing us to the budget. We were told by the parliamentary secretary that the budget would contain new money for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I think what we have here is a case of bait and switch.

If we go to page 168 of the budget, we will see the figure of $51.2 million in new resources under “Strengthening Food Safety” in big letters. That $51.2 million is over two years, split between three different agencies: the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency. By my reckoning, that is about $8 million a year if it were distributed evenly.

If we go to the fine print on page 261, which my friend from Welland noticed, we see $2 million less this year, $10 million less the next year and on an ongoing basis $56 million less. Does my hon. friend agree with me that there is less money for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, relying on the facts in the budget?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as much as the other side continues to say that opposition members do not read its budget, lo and behold, we do.

There is one thing I can say about being a Glaswegian, that when it comes to numbers and money I am always looking. I will always find if someone is trying to shortchange someone else, because a nickel or penny to us Scots is expensive, and we are going to hunt for it.

I found that the budget intends to give less on an ongoing basis, as we head forward. Yes, my colleague is correct. It is written in tiny print, but I do wear glasses and if I have to really work at it, I shift the bad lens to the bad eye to make it look bigger and I can actually see it. That is how I am actually read that tiny print.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very thorough analysis of this issue and his sincere approach to it. The beef industry is very important in Alberta, but so is the slaughter industry. They go hand in glove.

I have spoken in the House before about my background in enforcement. We really need to get to the crux of this. The CVS, compliance verification system, is about the company verifying that it is complying with the law in any system it has in place. The enforcement role is for the government and we are seeing gaping holes. Does the member agree with me that it is time for the government to come clean and produce a clear enforcement compliance policy with clear directives on what enforcement action should be taken in each situation in the food industry?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my friend from Edmonton—Strathcona. She clearly understands what it means to have enforcement and regulatory teeth to make sure that we no longer get back to a situation where we are making requests. The requests did not work. Enforcement works. That is what we need.

I want to thank the member for her insight and the work she has done on the environmental file in her previous career in understanding that enforcement is what we need in all of this to ensure that those who will not do what they are asked to do will be forced to do it because they have no other choice. That is what is missing in all of this, that enforcement mechanism.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.

As many members know, XL Foods is located in my riding in the city of Brooks, Alberta. I know many of the people who work there and know that they are very hard-working people.

First, I will reiterate what my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, said. Food safety is a top priority of our government, and I will give some examples.

We have hired over 700 food inspectors since 2006, including 170 meat inspectors. Our government has implemented all 57 recommendations from the Weatherill report.

If opposition members believe that the powers of the agency are not sufficient, they should support our government's legislation to make sure that CFIA will have greater authorities. Unfortunately, the member for Welland has already said that his party will challenge this important legislation. That is hypocritical.

We increased CFIA's budget of $744 million by $156 million, a 20% increase. It is clear that our government takes its job on food safety seriously.

The Liberal member for Malpeque has said that he personally believes our food is safe in Canada.

Moreover, an independent report states:

Canada is one of the best-performing countries in the 2010 Food Safety Performance World Ranking study. Its overall grade was superior—earning it a place among the top-tier countries

How about what Albert Chambers, executive director of the Canadian Supply Chain Food Safety Coalition, who said:

[The government] will position Canada's food safety regime well in the rapidly changing global regulatory environment.

I agree with these assessments and with the people of Brooks who strive every day to produce good quality food.

When Canadians buy food at the grocery store they expect it to be safe. When there is a recall of unsafe food products, it can shake people's confidence in our food safety system. It is easy to think that the system has broken down and needs to be replaced.

The ingestion of bacteria such as E. coli can cause serious and potentially life threatening illnesses. Our government takes any threat to the safety of our food supply very seriously. In fact, an OECD report has demonstrated that Canada has one of the best food safety systems in the world.

However, no system is foolproof. That is why there are safeguards in place to detect problems, and clear procedures and policies to address these problems as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

Clearly, there is still some confusion about how the food safety system works. Given the ongoing concerns about E. coli in beef produced at XL Foods Inc., I think it would be useful to examine the elements that make up Canada's food safety system, including food recalls. I will also comment specifically on the expanded alerts issued by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Everyone plays a role in food safety: consumers, industry and government. Research shows that most Canadians know how to handle food safely, but many do not follow through on a daily basis. For example, in a survey, half of the respondents said that they sometimes defrosted meat and poultry at room temperature. However, this practice can allow bacteria to grow on food and can lead to illness.

There are four key rules to food safety that bear repeating: clean, separate, cook and chill. Food safety rules in the kitchen will still go a long way towards keeping families safe from harmful bacteria.

Industry obviously plays a critical role in the food safety system in Canada. All federally inspected meat and fish processing facilities must follow strict guidelines and rules for food safety. This involves identifying what can go wrong, planning to prevent a problem and taking action when a problem is identified.

Industry must adopt science-based risk management practices to minimize food safety risks. To that end, industry works to identify potential sources of food contamination, to update production practices to reduce risk, to comply with inspection and testing protocols and to pull unsafe product from the market.

I will come back to the process of food recalls in a few moments.

Food safety begins with effective laws. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, delivers all federally mandated programs for food inspection, plant and animal health products and production systems. In short, food safety is CFIA's top priority. As Canada's largest science-based regulator, the CFIA holds industry to account for the safety of its products, responds to food safety emergencies, carries out food recalls and prevents the spread of animal disease to humans. However, food safety is a complex mandate. That is why to protect our food supply, the CFIA works closely with a variety of partners, including Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

One of the CFIA's key jobs is to inspect both domestic and imported food. It also inspects, audits and tests products to verify that industry is complying with food safety regulations and enforces those regulations in federally registered food processing facilities.

Once the food safety system has identified a contaminated food product in the marketplace, an investigation takes place that can lead to a food recall. As in this case, most companies initiate a recall once a problem is identified with their products. They do this to protect the health and safety of Canadians and certainly to protect their own reputation.

When dealing with potentially unsafe food, the CFIA's investigations are driven by three considerations: accuracy, thoroughness and expediency.

First, the CFIA works to get the facts straight. It analyzes production and distribution records, which can be in several locations. It locates food samples and conducts tests. It reviews labels, distribution and information and identification codes to help inform consumers about potential risks. In this way it strives to identify all affected products.

The gathering of facts is critical to a science-based thorough investigation. In the case of XL Foods, routine testing identified a positive E. coli sample on September 4. The CFIA has been investigating the problem and taking appropriate measures ever since.

The CFIA must balance the need for accurate and reliable information with the need to inform the public as soon as possible about potential risks. To achieve this balance, the CFIA issues regular alerts for recalled products while an investigation is ongoing. As a result, it may issue several public alerts for the same recall. Once a product is posed a health risk, it is recalled immediately. The CFIA does not wait.

This is an important point. The series of expanded alerts issued over the past weeks related to XL Foods reflect new information obtained during the course of a continuing investigation. This is a normal part of the recall process and in no way indicates unnecessary delays in informing the public about a health risk.

The CFIA expects industry to monitor higher than normal detection rates and to modify control measures accordingly. The agency's investigation has shown that XL Foods did not conduct its monitoring measures consistently at the Alberta facility. Moreover, the agency has discovered deviations from the company's control measures for E. coli. The company was not able to take adequate corrective action. As a result, the CFIA temporarily suspended the company's licence, and the meat plant remains under government oversight until further notice. At the same time, XL Foods continues to work with CFIA to identify and trace contaminated food products that may be in the market.

Let me be clear. The XL plant will not reopen until CFIA has certified it is safe.

As soon as it was aware, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency acted immediately to address the concern about the presence of E. coli in beef produced by XL Foods. The investigation continues, informed by science-based evidence and an ongoing commitment to protect the safety of Canada's food supply and the Canadian confidence in that food supply.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about the proposed safe food for Canadians bill introduced by our government in the Senate earlier this year.

In 1997 the CFIA was created to improve and modernize federal inspection activities related to food safety, animal health and plant protection. However, the creation of the agency was only the first step. Even in 1997, it was recognized that the legislative base for the agency would in time need to be modernized.

The aim of the proposed safe food for Canadians bill is to modernize and consolidate CFIA's food inspection and enforcement authorities. The successful passage of this bill will deliver more consistent inspection and enforcement authorities covering the food safety aspects of CFIA's mandate. In this way our government can provide a more consistent and comprehensive approach to the agency's inspection enforcement and compliance activities around food.

This new food safety statute falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. It enhances public and food safety security by modernizing and consolidating provisions in the current Canada Agricultural Products Act, CAPA; Fish Inspection Act, FIA; Meat Inspection Act, MIA; and provisions related to food in the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, CPLA.

The proposed legislation strengthens the agency's ability to protect Canada's food supply. It provides more consistent authorities for the food commodities regulated by CFIA. What we will have is a uniform set of powers, duties and functions for all CFIA inspectors, no matter what sort of food product is being inspected. This can only deliver better food safety outcomes for Canadians.

Let me mention some of the major provisions of the bill. The proposed legislation will allow our government to take appropriate actions when safety issues arise by issuing tougher fines and penalties, establishing a system to better track, trace and recall harmful products and prohibiting unsafe foods from entering the Canadian market.

An extension of regulation making authorities for export certification will provide Canadian exporters with business predictability if trading partners make certification a condition of market access. This will be accomplished by providing credible assurance to importing countries that Canadian exports are safe.

The bill would make it illegal to knowingly submit false or misleading information to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food with regard to any commodity or products covered by the act. This would protect consumers from fraud.

There are elements of the bill that industry would like to see enacted. The bill includes specific prohibition related to threats of tampering, making claims to have tampered and actual tampering. It covers hoaxes with regard to food and packaging. Currently these activities fall under the general of mischief in the Criminal Code. They need to be specifically identified for what they are: criminal activities which should be covered by very specific legislation.

Of great importance to all Canadians is that the bill prohibits the import of food commodity that is adulterated, that has poisonous or harmful substances, that is unfit for human consumption or that is injurious to human health. Products that are labelled contrary to the proposed regulations will also be prohibited.

I do not want the House to misunderstand and believe there are no current provisions protecting Canadians from such things, but the proposed bill consolidates the various pieces of prior legislation so these prohibitions reside in a single act instead of several different acts which only had bearing on specific commodities.

These acts, enacted at different times in our nation's history, provide an uneven and outdated legislative base that makes it difficult to deal with various issues in a uniform way. We need to enact this new legislation which brings all of these various commodities under a single umbrella.

By consolidating the authorities in the act into one consistent set of authorities under the bill, we give the CFIA the tools it needs to better protect Canadians and to enhance industry compliance. The CFIA will be better able to strengthen the security of the food supply and better protect Canadians' health.

They will give the CFIA enforcement and inspection powers that are similar to those in the consumer products legislation, Bill C-36. The bill will enhance existing inspection and enforcement tools at the Canada-U.S. border, providing the Canada Border Services Agency officers and CFIA inspectors with better controls when enforcing CFIA legislation on our border, at airports and in our shipping ports.

It is important to make clear what the bill does not do. The current roles and responsibilities of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will not change as a result of the bill. The Minister of Health remains responsible for setting policy and standards for food safety and nutritional quality. The CFIA will be responsible for enforcing these standards, as well as setting and enforcing other standards.

We are all familiar with the tragic deaths and illness resulting from a listeriosis outbreak in 2008. Hard lessons were learned from that event. Since the agency was formed, we have also had to deal with BSE, salmonella, E.coli and other threats that keep the importance of food safety in the Canadian consciousness.

It is because of this awareness of the potential threats that the concept behind the proposed safe food for Canadians bill has support from stakeholders and is seen as a benefit to all Canadians.

The listeriosis outbreak of 2008 prompted the Prime Minister to name an independent investigator, Sheila Weatherill, to look into the circumstances of the tragedy and make recommendations to our government on how to avoid having similar events occur in the future.

One of the recommendations, number 43 of 57, states that the government should “simplify and modernize federal legislation and regulations which significantly affect food safety”.

That is precisely what this proposed bill sets out to do. Our government committed to addressing all 57 of the independent investigator's recommendations. We are therefore duty bound to protect Canadians from future tragedy and see this legislation through.

Our government has a solid reputation for the safety of our food supply and we want to give the CFIA the inspection and enforcement capabilities that it needs to maintain that reputation and to build on it. I urge all hon. senators to join me in supporting this bill.

I want to reiterate that the XL Food plant will remain closed until such time as it meets all regulations and requirements of CFIA.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me first indicate what I said when I first started my speech about Bill S-11 in the Senate. Perhaps the member did not hear what I said, which was that we would support Bill S-11 in principle and that we had some very good ideas to help make it a better bill. Hopefully the government will hear those better ideas. The parliamentary secretary said to me that we did not support it. That is not true. At this point in time, we support it in principle.

Regarding budgets, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said on May 8 in the planned spending and priorities for the CFIA, “Planned Spending is declining by approximately $46.6 million and 314 FTE's from 2012–13 to 2014–15”. That is in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's report on plans and priorities, which was signed and tabled by the minister.

Does the member not agree with me that he is actually taking resources away from CFIA?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Welland and I sit on the agriculture committee, so I often have an opportunity to congratulate him on some of his comments during our committee meetings.

In terms of the budget, we have added funds for new programs. My response for my friend from Welland, and I am sure as a member of the opposition he may not quite understand this, is that sometimes when we are reorganizing, we are looking for efficiencies and ways to save some funding. However, those probably do not have anything to do with inspection. They include administrative issues. Therefore, those budget changes will not have any impact on CFIA inspections.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, send my sympathies to the patients and families in Alberta and also to the workers in the member's riding who now are without work for an unlimited length of time. This must be tough for the member. The ranchers in his riding also are very concerned that this needed to be dealt with differently.

The member raised the listeriosis issue. I hope the member has read all the reports that have come forward. We are very concerned there is a difference between committing to the 57 recommendations and actually implementing them. The member for Guelph has pointed out in terms of this audit of where the bodies are.

My understanding is that once an organism is in the food chain, that then becomes a public health issue. Does the member think that the Minister of Health and the Chief Public Health Officer for Canada should be the people to look at the camera and talk to Canadians about what to do to ensure their food safety is everything it can be and to ensure this outbreak is contained as quickly as possible in order to get the people in your riding back to work and your ranchers back and able to sell their product?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would like to remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than to their colleagues.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's sympathy and empathy for our cattle ranchers, for those people who are sick and may have been affected by E. coli, and certainly for the workers in Brooks. Certainly, there is a much broader picture than the employees as it does affect people right across the country. What I can say is that the CFIA is responsible for ensuring that inspections take place in that facility and that the food is safe.

The CFIA reports to the Minister of Agriculture. For that particular reason, he is one of the individuals who will communicate with Canadians, as well as consult with our colleague, the Minister of Health.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to take part in this debate tonight, but I do need to share with hon. members that I am a little saddened that such a serious issue has become such a partisan debate. People have become ill because of this unfortunate situation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

You are responsible.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

There are many people working on this. We have broadened the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's mandate.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

You should call for the minister's resignation.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are hecklers from the meat department over on the far side who are still trying to make this a partisan debate and that is sad.