Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2012

Food Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Guelph is absolutely right. This is something that is of great concern to Canadians.

Here we have a ministerial responsibility and the minister is not responding to questions on this at all. What he needs to do is rise in this House of Commons and tell Canadians why, when food was not safe for American families, it was safe, according to him, for Canadian families. He needs to explain that. He needs to come clean to Canadian families. He needs to come clean to the families that are sick as a result of the government's actions. He needs to explain why, for 72 hours or three days, it was okay for Canadians to eat meat that was contaminated but was not okay for American families to eat. The Conservatives need to answer that question. I hope sometime tonight someone will answer that question for Canadian families.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Conservatives will answer that question because they are around and they will not get to that. The Conservatives keep getting up and talking about Bill S-11 in the Senate.

We are in 2012. Does the member really believe that we need a new law for the government to take the responsibility that it should have taken before? Does that mean that in our country we did not have the law to ensure the safety of Canadian men, women and children? Is that what the government is saying right now?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think more and more Canadian families who are watching tonight are absolutely perplexed and dramatically concerned by the reaction of the government. We have heard some of the government spokespeople stand tonight and say that there is a piece of paper in the Senate that will solve all the sickness that people are experiencing right now, that the inspection system that has broken down because of Conservative cutbacks will be fixed by that piece of paper in the Senate. Really, everybody, that piece of paper in the Senate is going to solve all our problems.

We on this side of the House know that it is not a piece of paper that will make a difference for Canadian families. It is having in place a food safety system that Canadian families deserve. That is what will make a difference.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my heartfelt concerns to the patients and families impacted. I know that all members of the House hope for their speedy recovery.

As someone who has spent her career in the health care field, I am honoured to rise and speak to this critically important issue today.

As the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said in Calgary earlier today, Canadian consumers and their families have always been and will continue to be our government's first priority when it comes to food safety. Our government and all Canadians expect a strong food safety system and that is why our government is doing its part.

It is important that we refrain from hyperbole and rhetoric. We must stay focused and we must keep our discussions firmly rooted in science and those things that focus on Canadian families. That is why I want to provide some facts.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency acted to contain contaminated products beginning on September 4 and has been acting ever since. The XL Foods plant will not be allowed to reopen until the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has certified that it is safe. Our government has hired over 700 food inspectors since 2006, including 170 meat inspectors. Our government has implemented all 57 recommendations from the Weatherill report.

If the opposition believes that the powers of the agency are not sufficient, it should support the government's legislation, Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, to ensure that the CFIA has greater authority.

We increased the CFIA's budget by $156 million, $744 million total budget, for a 20% increase.

I would also like to add as a health care professional that I am happy to see that our economic action plan 2012 facilitates Health Canada to respond faster to new scientific and safety information. Previously, a 36-month delay existed in the implementing of approved food additives to stop the growth of harmful bacteria. Now it is six months, a huge improvement that benefits Canadian patients and the Canadian consumer.

Those are facts. What the opposition is doing is resorting to hearsay and fear-mongering, which does a grave disservice to Canadians who rely on us for the sound, factual information they need to protect themselves and their families.

E. coli refers to a large group of bacteria that is commonly found in the intestines of humans and animals. Most strains of E. coli do not cause acute illness in humans. However, some strains, such as E. coli 0157:H7, can make people sick. Serious complications of an E. coli 0157:H7 infection can cause kidney failure and other challenges for patients. E. coli infections are generally caused by eating contaminated foods, drinking contaminated water or coming into direct contact with someone who is sick or with an animal that carries the bacteria.

The Public Health Agency of Canada closely tracks E. coli cases across the country. Over the past decade, we have seen a marked decline in the incidence of E. coli 0157:H7 as reported by the Public Health Agency of Canada's national enteric surveillance program. In 2001, the number of cases of E. coli 0157:H7 was half that reported in 2006. The data reported in 2012 is undergoing validation currently. It continues to show a downward trend. This is a positive trend based on fact not fiction. However, we must remain vigilant.

The Public Health Agency of Canada works closely with the provinces and territories to track the number of certain E. coli cases across the country. When people get sick they go to the doctor. The doctors, in many cases, take samples from the patients and send them to local, provincial, territorial or federal labs for testing. That is the normal practice. These labs test the samples to identify the organism causing illness and may conduct further testing to identify the genetic footprint of the bacteria.

It is important to note that the provinces are the lead when it comes to these health issues. Provincial and territorial labs report weekly to the national enteric surveillance program the number of E. coli cases identified in their province or territory. The laboratories may also then post the results of the tests of the genetic fingerprint on the PulseNet Canada system, a national network that allows microbiologists to track and share genetic fingerprints for comparison across the country.

All labs then compare their results with those posted on PulseNet to find matches and identify outbreaks. PulseNet Canada is coordinated by the Public Health Agency of Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.

The Canadian notifiable disease surveillance system also tracks the total number of E. coli infections each year, as well as the age and sex of the cases. This system is best for understanding if there is an increase or decrease in illness over time.

Outbreaks may occur in a community, a single province, or multiple provinces, and not all outbreaks are reported at the national level.

We are taking every means possible to ensure that consumers have the information they need to protect themselves and their families. We know that E. coli infections can be caused by many things, whether it is improper cooking of beef; raw fruits and uncooked vegetables; untreated drinking water; unpasteurized raw milk products, including raw milk cheese; unpasteurized apple cider or juice; or direct contact with animals at petting zoos or farms. We are acting to make sure that Canadians know of these potential causes of E. coli infection.

Food can also be contaminated when it is handled by a person who is infected with E. coli or by cross-contamination because of unsanitary food handling processes. Raw fruits and vegetables can become contaminated with E. coli in the field from improperly composted manure, contaminated water, wildlife, or poor hygiene by farm workers. As well, E. coli infections can spread easily from person to person, as we see often in hospital settings.

Proper hygiene and safe food handling and preparation practices are key to preventing the spread of E. coli. Handwashing is one of the best ways to prevent the spread of food-borne illnesses.

I am hearing a fair amount from my colleagues in the Liberal Party. I think it is extremely important that every Canadian understand that handwashing is the best way to prevent the spread of food-borne illnesses.

Contaminated foods may look and smell normal, and it is important to ensure that consumers thoroughly cook foods to destroy bacteria.

As the Right Hon. Prime Minister noted in this House earlier today, Canada's food safety record is among the best in the world. In fact, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development has said:

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.

However, we are not complacent. Our government will continue to improve the food inspection system through the safe food for Canadians act, which we introduced this spring.

Bill S-11 would consolidate food safety authorities from several existing acts, allowing all foods to be inspected in a uniform way. More consistent inspection will provide Canadian consumers with even stronger food safety outcomes.

Furthermore, the safe food for Canadians act would enable the CFIA to better address certain food safety concerns, such as tampering. It would also enhance our capacity to trace food from farm to fork and introduce greater controls for imported foods. Canadians can be assured that we are confident in our ability to implement these improvements once the legislation is passed.

The member for Welland, on the one hand, I must say, likes to talk about increased food safety, but he then says that he opposes this important legislation. This is the same member who claimed that the CFIA would allow roadkill into the Canadian food chain. This is quite outrageous. The member has zero credibility when it comes to food safety.

The proposed legislation is only one part of our ongoing efforts to enhance the food safety system. We are building a stronger foundation for the delivery of CFIA's programs through an update of regulations.

Our existing regulations continue to serve Canadians well, but we want to take advantage of opportunities to reduce overlap, address gaps and provide regulated parties with clarity and flexibility.

Although renewing our legislative and regulatory base is important, it is the work of inspectors that is central to a modern and effective food safety system. This is why the CFIA has hired more than 700 inspectors since 2006, including 170 meat inspectors. It is also the reason budget 2011 provided the CFIA with $100 million over five years to modernize food safety inspection in Canada.

We are improving inspection delivery, training and tools for inspection staff, scientific capacity in food laboratories and information management and technology.

This funding and additional investments in food safety clearly underscore the CFIA's pledge to deliver to Canadians the protection they deserve and expect.

Budget 2012 reaffirmed our government's strong commitment to food safety with more than $51 million over two years to strengthen the food safety system.

Our government immediately accepted all 57 recommendations of the Weatherill report. We have acted on all of them and have invested significantly in acting on them. We have improved our ability to prevent, detect and respond to future food-borne illness outbreaks. We have increased our efforts to make information available to Canadians about the steps they can take to protect themselves. We introduced a new food safety bill to simplify and modernize legislation. All of this work is part of our effort to better protect Canadians from unsafe food.

When food recalls happen, all levels of government and industry must be able to respond quickly and effectively. Our government has engaged industry leaders in open and frank conversations about food safety policy, standards and best practices. We are working with experts across the country to continue to strengthen our food safety system. We are continually improving Canada's food safety system, ensuring that the provincial and territorial governments, industry, health and consumer groups, and international food experts are all working together on behalf of Canadians.

Over the last two years, the agencies have improved our ability to share information so that all Canadians can react more quickly and effectively in responding to food safety problems.

Our efforts will not stop here. Our government remains committed to taking the action necessary to ensure that our food safety system remains one of the best in the world. We take the trust Canadians have put in us to protect the safety of Canada's food supply extremely seriously.

Canadian consumers are always our government's first priority when it comes to food safety. We will continue to make sure that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has the resources it needs to do its important job of protecting Canadians and their families. Canadian consumers are, and will continue to be, our first priority.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak with respect to this issue. It is one that has been extremely important to those members and my constituents in Simcoe—Grey.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I just want to wish a happy birthday to my daughter, Mindy. This is where we are at times during those special occasions.

Hearing the speeches tonight, and now this speech from the other side, and talking about zero credibility when it comes to food safety, I have to remind the member that it was under her government that we saw the biggest recall in Canadian history with respect to beef. That is a food safety problem under its watch.

When I was on one of her committees, whatever we heard from the government was in a time of fiscal restraint. Well, in a time of fiscal restraint, the Conservatives are talking about having created all these jobs, but what they are not telling us is that 200 of the inspectors they are talking about were for an invasive alien species program. In actuality, very few meat inspectors were added.

Could the member confirm or deny that in the spring the CFIA will lose 308 positions, many of which are food inspectors, at a time when we find ourselves in a crisis?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish Mindy a happy birthday. Unfortunately, her mother is here to ask me questions at this late hour. I wish she was at home with her daughter, but I wish her a happy birthday as well.

I think it has been said several times throughout the evening here that the first priority of our government is the safety of Canadians. That means that we have been focused and investing and making sure that food safety is a top priority for us. We have invested in having over 700 food inspectors, including 170 meat inspectors, over the last five to six years. We have also made sure that there are additional investments. In fact, in budget 2011, there was $100 million over the course of five years.

The beef producers in my riding of Simcoe--Grey are actually quite concerned about this debate. The level of fearmongering and the concerns being put forward by the opposition are really causing challenges for them with respect to how they need to deal with the beef industry.

What I ask of the opposition is to stick to the facts. The facts are that we have increased the number of food inspectors that are available. I would really like them to stop the fearmongering.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about her expertise as a physician. She also said that she was placing the facts on the table. I want to ask her about those facts and about her expertise as a physician.

We heard a wonderful lecture about public health and epidemiology. That is not helping the people who are now ill. The hon. member should know that as a physician, she is judged on the outcomes, not on what she hopes to do, not on what she knows in her head, but on the outcomes of her patients' health. People are sick. That is a poor outcome for something that was said to be so wonderful. People do not get sick if the job is done right.

Second, the hon. member told us that washing one's hands was important for people to know about. Is the hon. member telling me that if people had washed their hands, they would not have gotten E.coli from the beef? What a ludicrous suggestion from anybody who knows anything about science.

Third, there is a protocol. There is clear legislative authority. The minute a food-borne illness affects humans, and the minute it crosses one provincial boundary or international border, the Public Health Agency and the Minister of Health have to get involved. They have not. They have done no surveillance. They have done absolutely nothing until yesterday. Why?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. This government has been focused on making sure that the safety of Canadians has been put first and foremost. That is why we have provided opportunities for there to be additional inspectors. That is why we provided additional funds.

I will take issue with one thing. One of the most important things in making sure that Canadians are healthy is actually handwashing. We need to basically make sure that Canadians are well educated with regard to this file. The concept that the member opposite would laugh at this opportunity to provide a really basic public health opportunity I find rather outlandish.

To go back to the point, let us be very clear. This government has invested significantly in making sure that individuals are trained and able to do the inspections they need to do, and it has invested in making sure that there are 700 new inspectors.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask my hon. colleague from Simcoe—Grey if she is aware that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster indicated that there were no new inspectors at the XL facility. In fact, there were six new inspectors and two additional veterinarians.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague can confirm for me that as part of our investments in making sure of food safety, CFIA has the resources and the funds it needs to carry out inspections.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my sympathies to those constituents from my colleague's riding who are suffering at this time.

The most important thing to outline is exactly what the member had said, which is that there are certain facts. The facts are that since 2006, two veterinarians and six inspectors have been added to the plant complement at this site. There actually has been an increase of 711, from 2,823 to 3,534 inspectors in March of 2012. That is almost a 25% increase. These numbers are the facts.

I would encourage the members opposite to understand that this government is focused on making sure that food safety for this country is being attended to. I wonder why the members opposite continue to fearmonger and to raise concerns among the Canadian public.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary understands things like reports of the plans and priorities committee because she is a parliamentary secretary.

Therefore, I draw her attention to a fact. Signed and tabled on May 8 by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the plan was to spend $46.6 million less and take 314 full-time equivalences out of CFIA. Does that fact mean things are going down, or does the parliamentary secretary think that was an increase?

To help the parliamentary secretary with her speaking points, she should write out the line that we oppose Bill S-11. I have said for the third time, and others have said as well, that we will support it, in principle, at second reading. However, we have great suggestions and we are hopeful. The member opposite has said that we should all tone down the rhetoric and take a breath. We are all taking a breath. We want to help her make good legislation to ensure the food safety system is safe for all Canadians. I hope the Conservatives actually hear that.

Could she speak to the decline of $46 million and 314 positions, which is a fact because her minister signed it? Does that mean it is declining or does it mean something that I do not understand?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many times I need to say this because I have now said it three times this evening. We have increased the number of inspectors to over 700 individuals. I am happy to say that.

The most important thing to say with respect to this issue is this. We recognize that Canadian food safety is the number one priority for this government because it is so important to Canadians. I encourage the opposition to support Bill S-11, very important legislation, with no caveats. Please help us move this legislation forward so we can ensure Canadians are protected.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

This is a major crisis we are going through. The facts are clear. This is the largest meat recall in Canadian history, affecting more than 1,500 products across the country, and that is not insignificant.

A number of things concern me about the safety of our food, in this case in particular. First, it was the Americans who first discovered the E. coli bacteria in the meat, before our Canadian inspectors did.

I know that the Conservatives, including the Minister of Agriculture, said today in Calgary that there were just a few hours between the time when the U.S. inspectors sounded the alarm and the time when Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors did, but the fact remains that the Americans were first.

If memory serves me correctly, this is the second major crisis discovered by the Americans. The same thing happened when the Sandoz drug manufacturing plant closed in January. I am not questioning the competence or dedication of the officials. I am questioning the reliability of the system in which they are working.

Canadians have to have trust in their government inspection systems, but in this case they have reason to doubt. We must restore their confidence. Unfortunately, the way the Conservatives are managing the current crisis is doing nothing to reassure the public. It took far too long for the products to be recalled and the abattoir to be closed after the E. coli bacteria was discovered.

The statements by the Minister of Agriculture, who initially said no tainted products made their way to grocery store shelves and then had to issue a recall, do nothing to inspire confidence, especially when we see the list of recalled products getting longer every day.

The worst thing in all this is that the health of Canadians was put in jeopardy by the government's inaction. The E. coli bacteria is not innocuous. Most of the people infected will show no symptoms; others will have relatively minor, but very unpleasant stomach ailments, such as cramps, diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, headaches and fever.

Symptoms can appear within 5 to 10 days following contamination, and infected people can also pass on the bacteria to their loved ones. The number of people affected is therefore likely to increase beyond the five confirmed and 23 suspected cases. In the most serious cases, the E. coli bacteria can cause life-threatening symptoms, including kidney failure, epileptic seizures and stroke.

In some cases, fortunately a small number of cases, the bacteria can cause permanent damage such as kidney damage, especially among high-risk groups, which include pregnant women, people with compromised immune systems, young children and seniors. I was very upset to learn that a young boy is suffering from kidney failure.

The second thing that concerns me is the rhetoric being spewed by the members opposite regarding food inspection. I know my colleagues opposite received the same emails that I did. I received hundreds of emails from the people of my riding expressing their concerns about the cuts to food inspection and the changes made regarding labelling. Considering the crisis we are now facing, they are right to be worried.

And yet how many times—today alone—have we heard the Conservatives say that food safety is important to this government and to Canadians, or that our food inspection system is one of the best in the world?

If our system is so good and if food safety is a priority, why was the Canadian Food Inspection Agency not spared from the budget cuts? Why did the government cut more than $46 million and why were more than 300 positions eliminated? Why will funding for the food safety program be reduced from $355 million in 2011-12 to $337 million in 2014-15? Are we aiming for a middle-of-the-road food safety system? Canadians deserve better. They deserve the best system.

These cuts are even more surprising when we consider that, according to the Public Service Alliance, the minister was apparently warned in January 2009 in a briefing note from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that the inspection program could not handle the workload and meet delivery requirements. I do not understand why the minister is now reducing the number of inspectors.

When it comes to food safety, there should be no compromising because Canadians' health is at stake. The Conservatives have been telling us for months that cuts to the public service will not affect Canadians. We know that this is not the case. Cuts of more than $46 million and the elimination of more than 300 positions, including 100 CFIA inspectors, will have consequences. I could say the same thing about the $5 billion in cuts and the 19,000 jobs lost in the public service.

There is something wrong with the system, and we have the right to answers from the Minister of Agriculture. The fact that American authorities were the first to discover the contamination is disturbing. But there is nothing more disturbing than learning that, despite the positive test results on September 4 and 5, the public was not notified until September 16. That is quite simply unacceptable because Canadians' health was put at risk. We need to know what went wrong and ensure that it does not happen again.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct some facts, and I want to ask the hon. member if she agrees with me.

The member for Simcoe—Grey said in her speech that the government had undertaken the execution of all the recommendations of the Weatherill report, when in fact we know the opposite to be true.

One of the recommendations, among the others that were not fulfilled, was the requirement for a comprehensive audit of all CFIA resources, including human resources. We know now, based on a comment from the former president of the CFIA, Carole Swan, that what in fact occurred was only a review and, in her own words, “They didn't conduct it as an audit. An audit is a very specific process. It was a detailed review”. That is my first point.

My second comment is with respect to her proposition that the Bill S-11 is the panacea for food safety, when in fact we know that right now under the Meat Inspection Act, the CFIA has the authority to demand shipping bills, bills of lading and documents on record. This was announced again in February of this year in a government announcement reminding inspectors that it had the authority to demand any record, sample or document whatsoever and reminding the industry that it was required to provide this information.

Does the member agree with me that the member from Simcoe—Grey is in fact in error, that Bill S-11 is not a panacea for food safety and that all the recommendations of the Weatherill report have not been completed?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. opposition colleague for those relevant questions. This is par for the course. I am just as surprised as he is by this government's behaviour.

Regarding inspection, I have a document here that indicates that resources for meat inspection are overextended. It is important to be logical when it comes to inspection. Now the government is allowing companies to do their own inspections. Where is the logic in that? The purpose of inspection is to report what is wrong and what poses a danger to Canadian consumers.

The current inspection system needs to be reviewed and entrusted to an organization that is independent of the producer or plant. Resources for inspection also need to be increased, especially for meat inspection, since that area seems to have suffered budget cuts. The CFIA agrees.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by correcting the member for Guelph that we have implemented all 57 recommendations from the Weatherill report. No matter how many times he says otherwise, we have.

My question is for the member who just finished speaking. One of the things I mentioned tonight was that Canada was one of the best performing countries in 2010 for food safety performance, as the world ranking studies have indicated in OECD reports. We have invested substantially, with over 700 new food inspectors, including 170 meat inspectors.

People in my riding, including beef farmers, have asked us to tone down the rhetoric so that we can actually focus on what the facts are and make sure that Canadian consumers and food safety are our focus and that food is safe for Canadians.

I ask the members opposite, do they plan on toning down the rhetoric and the fearmongering, which are of concern to my residents in Simcoe—Grey?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for the question. I would remind the member that the NDP is not talking about numbers and figures, but rather about facts. I know that our system is one of the best, but it can be even better. The government needs to do better.

If our system is one of the best, then why are we facing the current crisis?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a mother and grandmother, my heart goes out to the families who have been impacted by the tainted meat and E. coli breakout. I cannot imagine how those families must be feeling right now. I know that the same kind of angst, pain and fear they are feeling as a result of their family members being sick is shared by other Canadians, who are wondering if they ate meat from that particular plant and if they should dare buy beef today.

As Christine Lee said when she was interviewed by the CBC, she became very concerned. Indeed, the hospital confirmed to her on September 16 that her son Elijah had E. coli, but it was not until September 26 that a health warning was issued for steaks bought at a northeast Edmonton Costco supplied by the XL Foods facility in Brooks, Alberta. This information is pulled from the CBC article.

I find it unfathomable that any member of Parliament sitting in the House today or at any time could talk about fearmongering when we are actually dealing with the biggest meat recall in our history. We are talking about Canadian families whose loved ones are ill. We are trying to express tonight in this debate a great deal of concern and a call for immediate action. That is what we are looking for, not long-term bills about what we are going to do three to five years down the road, but what went wrong, why and what other steps will be taken to address this issue.

As a teacher, I talked for years about the importance of washing hands to prevent kids from getting colds or the flu. Whenever I fly, I always try to make sure that when I cough or sneeze, I do it the new way by coughing or sneezing into my elbow. Let us be honest that to hear a member of Parliament talking about the need to wash hands in this context makes one wonder if she is thinking that the workers at the plant failed to wash their hands and that is why there is an E. coli outbreak, or if she is saying that when we all wash our hands the E. coli will not affect us. I was left sitting here shaking my head at those kinds of statements being made in the House when the same member of Parliament talks at the same time about fearmongering. The fact that we have the largest recall of beef in our history is causing enough fear.

We are hoping that after tonight's debate the government will take immediate action to assure people that things are in hand. Instead, the agriculture minister is missing in action. I would like to ask him some very direct questions and I am sure I will get the opportunity to do that.

The member's comments about washing hands also bring to mind that we have an agriculture minister who, when making a speech at a dinner, made a lighthearted joke. One could say that he was just trying to lighten the mood because there must have been some tension at that dinner where beef was being served. It was very inappropriate for any minister to make those kinds of comments, saying he was eating beef and that because he was okay, everyone else must be okay too. That is just not acceptable.

I can say one thing: We as Canadians cannot accept E. coli in our food system and allow even one more person to get sick. Maybe I was living in a bit of a naive place, but I always believed that our food inspection was far superior to that of the Americans. I really believed that. However, what has come to light is that the Americans were on top of this E. coli outbreak long before we were. Now I am beginning to worry about the safety of our other foods and the kind of inspections we have.

The current government is very fond of talking about cutting red tape. If cutting red tape means not having enough inspectors to inspect food, hygiene and food health, and we now have to rely on companies to do their own inspection, I can assure members that Canadians do not want that kind of red tape reduction. That is not red tape but a matter of life and death.

We take this very seriously on this side of the House. We do not joke about it. We do not think this is fearmongering. This is a serious and grave concern and one that every parliamentarian should be engaged in and looking to find solutions for, instead of their trying to blame the opposition.

I keep hearing about the NDP apparently not going to support the bill, and yet I have heard our critic say over and over again, the bill has deficiencies but we in the NDP are going to help make it better and will support it being taken to report stage.

However, let us look at some of the policies of the government that could actually have contributed to the very unfortunate disaster that we have upon us.

One of the problems is that the Brooks plant in Alberta has very high staff turnover. When there is a very high staff turnover, things fall through the cracks.

I also learned that a very large number of workers at this particular plant are temporary foreign workers and that they are not on the road to citizenship. We really need these workers in Alberta. It is not as if we do not need meat and do not have an ongoing cattle industry. Yet because of the government's policies, we still bring these people in as temporary foreign workers. They do their short stint, work hard, and probably work for less money than other workers would be willing to do. We are not sure if they get the training.

Here I have some very serious questions. I wish the minister were here to answer them. I want to know what kind of training those temporary foreign workers are given before they work in these plants. I ask because we are talking about the life, safety and security of Canadians. I hear over and over again from the government side how the security of Canadians, the security of Canada, is its number one priority. If that is our number one priority, then I want to know what steps are taken to address that when new workers arrive. Remember that these workers come in and then leave. They come in and then we send them back. I want to know what kind of training they are given. I want to know what kind of health and safety inspections exist.

I also want to point out that there must be a certain amount of fear on the part of temporary foreign workers as to what they can report, because they must be worried about what that would mean, particularly as are brought here to work on a very temporary basis but are not considered good enough to live here. They know they will be sent back and replaced by a few hundred other workers who will fill their vacated positions.

I want to go back to the need for everyone to tone down the rhetoric and to look at what went wrong and implement solutions immediately so that Canadians can feel secure.

Those solutions will not be through cutting red tape, but through making sure the resources are there for appropriate food inspection. I am not prepared to accept food inspection at a lower level than that of our neighbours, the United States.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member's remarks. She talked about the fearmongering coming from the other side. What kind of crisis would it take for the government's spokesmen, and we have two parliamentary secretaries here tonight, to move away from their talking points, accept responsibility and lay out a plan that will give some assurances to Canadians, shore up cattle prices, and restore our international reputation?

This debate is not about fearmongering or partisanship on our side. It is about holding the government accountable and responsible. There is an emergency. People are afraid of food. Beef prices are falling. Our international reputation is in tatters. Is that not what the debate is about, not what the government claims is fearmongering?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that this debate is about the role the opposition plays in holding the government accountable and asking questions on behalf of Canadians, such as what went wrong and how it will be addressed. However, all we hear from the other side are platitudes, that there are more inspectors than ever. We know that in the next three years the budget is projected to be cut by $56.1 million and we have not heard any real answers. Instead, we heard a lot about washing hands and not taking responsibility.

I want to hear from the Minister of Agriculture. At the end of the day he is accountable. He is responsible. He has to stand in the House and answer questions from the opposition. He cannot run away from answering those questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to come back to the point of whether the opposition supports fortifying and reinforcing our food safety system.

I come back to the 700 net new inspectors. I come back to budget elements that increase the financial resources for the CFIA to do its job. It is on record that the opposition members, the New Democrats in particular, voted against these measures. I have a hard time standing here listening to them say they support food safety when at every opportunity they vote against providing more inspectors and against providing more financial capacity to the CFIA. They have to account to Canadians for this.

I ask my colleague to stand up and explain to Canadians the NDP's refusal to support the CFIA.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government presented a budget that was thicker than the phone book for most Canadian cities and then expected to apply one vote to that whole budget. It would take me a whole day to list what I would not support in that budget.

No NDP member has ever stood in the House and said that we are against the Conservative government implementing food safety for our citizens.

It is truly disingenuous to keep making these wild accusations instead of dealing with the biggest food recall. There are people who are sick. It impacts our cattle farmers and ranchers. It also affects families. My grandchildren love beef; they are carnivores. I can tell you, they are scared. They are still at school, but they are scared when they hear the news reports.

Let us try to address that instead of talking about a budget bill that was the size of a phone book and had more holes in it than I could list today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I remind hon. members to direct their comments through the chair.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Prince George--Peace River.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate.

Let me remind my colleagues in the opposition of some of the facts that they choose to ignore.

Fact: as government, we have hired over 700 food inspectors since 2006, including 170 meat inspectors. Fact: our government has implemented all 57 recommendations from the Weatherill report. Fact: if the opposition believes that the powers of the agency are not sufficient, it should support our government's legislation to make sure that the CFIA has greater authorities. It needs to support our safe food for Canadians act. Fact: we increased the CFIA's budget by $156 million, $744 million in total budget, which is a 20% increase. Fact: the XL plant will not be allowed to reopen until the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has certified that it is safe.

It is too bad the opposition does not want to listen to these facts.

Again, no safety system goes unchallenged; that is why it is there. It is how it responds to challenges that shows how well it works. We can see this in the chain of events that began on September 4. Let us look at the timeline.

On September 4, during routine testing, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, identified a positive E. coli 0157:H7 sample in raw beef trimmings produced at an Alberta facility supplied by XL Foods Inc. Plant management and the CFIA veterinarian in charge at XL Foods Inc. were notified of this finding. The problem was picked up by U.S. officials the same day as the CFIA was dealing with it.

The first step for the CFIA was to ensure that the contaminated product had not reached consumers in Canada. There was no delay. The agency determined it had not reached the Canadian marketplace, which is why there was no product recall at that time.

The CFIA immediately began an investigation to determine the source of the contamination. This included enhanced on-site inspection activities, including additional oversight of daily testing to ensure that public health and food safety were not compromised. CFIA officials report their initial investigation found no obvious indication that other products at the plant posed any risk, but they did not stop there. They dug deeper.

On September 6, they requested distribution information and testing results for all products produced on August 24 and August 28, the days when the affected products were made.

On September 7, the agency issued a corrective action request to XL Foods requiring it to strengthen controls around sampling and testing of meat products originating from the Brooks plant. The agency again also requested XL Foods to produce detailed information related to product details, distribution, sampling results and information on the effectiveness of the plant's preventive controls no later than September 10. Their additional analysis, plus more information from the company, revealed shortcomings in the company's procedures that warranted further investigation.

On September 12, the CFIA sent a technical review team into the plant to help on-site staff conduct an in-depth review of operations and assess how and where contamination had occurred.

On September 13, the CFIA removed XL Foods Inc. from the list of establishments eligible to export to the U.S., but with no evidence that any contaminated product discovered in the initial test had reached Canadian consumers, there was again no product recall.

The technical review team determined there was no single factor that would lead to E. coli contamination of products leaving the XL Foods plant. Rather, the team concluded that a combination of deficiencies may have contributed to the contamination.

Based on these findings, XL Foods began to advise customers that it was recalling beef trimmings for August 24, 28 and September 5.

On September 16, the CFIA and XL Foods began issuing health hazard alerts. They warned the public, distributors, grocery chains and food service establishments not to consume, sell or serve specific ground beef products made from XL Foods beef trimmings from August 24, 28 and September 5. The recall has since expanded to include a variety of XL Foods meat products.

From its ongoing data review, the CFIA identified two additional production dates, August 27 and 29, with higher risks for E. coli contamination. As a result, XL Foods began notifying its customers in Canada and the U.S. that it was recalling beef trimmings produced on August 27 and 29.

On September 22, the CFIA issued a new health hazard alert identifying products related to two additional days.

By September 26, it was clear to the CFIA that the Brooks XL Foods plant had not completely corrected its deficiencies. The plant's licence was temporarily suspended and all products were held for testing.

One thing that must be made crystal clear is that XL Foods will not resume operations until the company has demonstrated to the CFIA's complete satisfaction that it has fully implemented the required corrective actions. The resumption of operations, when it occurs, will include additional requirements in terms of test and hold procedures on an ongoing basis. The CFIA wants to be certain that once it has reviewed and approved the plant's control plans, those plans will deliver safe products to Canadians.

As we review this timeline, we see a rapid methodical scientific response to a complex problem. Attention has focused on the time between the initial detection of E. coli, the recalls and the plant shutdown. In fact, the agency was fully committed to investigating the source of contamination and preventing contaminated products from reaching consumers.

If we look at how these events unfolded, we see a food safety system responding to a serious challenge as it should, responsibly and effectively. There is no foundation to the suggestion that there were too few inspectors at the plant as a result of budget cutbacks. The CFIA has confirmed the plant has 46 full-time staff, including 40 inspection staff and six veterinarians, who provide daily inspections in the plant for its two shifts. That is certainly not a reduction. Far from reductions, the number of CFIA staff at this XL Foods plant has increased by six during the last several years.

That is not to say there is nothing to learn from this event, and I am sure the CFIA, the meat-packing industry, consumers and all the food safety partners involved will adopt any lessons they have learned.

I remind my colleagues that our government introduced the safe food for Canadians act last June to protect Canadian families from potentially unsafe food. Those concerned about food safety should give this bill their support when it comes to the House.

For example, the bill would allow the CFIA to create a requirement for the food industry to have traceability systems. We can see how important it is to trace products from farm to fork, and in the event of an incident like this one, to do it quickly. The proposed regulation-making authority would help the agency in its efforts to quickly remove recalled products from the marketplace. The regulation under the bill would also ensure that the company provides documentation in a form that can be easily and quickly assessed without the need for the company to interpret. No one gets excited about streamlining bureaucratic procedures, but when lives are on the line, we see the point.

I look forward to seeing the proposed safe food for Canadians bill move swiftly through this House and into law so Canadians will have the benefit of an even more effective food safety system. I support this proposed legislation because it is time that Canadians felt more protected when they shop for food and sit down at their dinner tables to eat it. It is time to modernize and for Canadians to have comprehensive protection from unsafe food under one single piece of legislation. We have one of the strongest food safety systems in the world. This legislation would further enhance this system.

However, consumer expectations for stronger food safety systems are higher than ever. These expectations have evolved following such food safety incidents as melamine contamination of imported dairy products from abroad and outbreaks of food poisoning from domestically produced food products. Enacting this food safety legislation would allow us to do a recommendation of the report by Sheila Weatherill, the report of the independent investigator into the 2008 listeriosis outbreak. The recommendation is to modernize and simplify food safety legislation. Our government has committed itself to addressing all 57 of the independent investigator's recommendations.

The parliamentary subcommittee on food safety, with representation of both government and the opposition, voiced unanimous support to act on all the recommendations of that report. I urge this House to make good on that pledge by supporting this bill when it comes to us.

The current roles and responsibilities of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food would not change as a result of this legislation. Health Canada would still set policy and standards for food safety and nutritional quality. Health Canada would remain responsible for natural health products, which are not subject to this proposed legislation. The CFIA would still be responsible for enforcing food safety standards.

Here is why the legislation is so important. Currently regulations managed by the CFIA are governed by 13 different pieces of legislation. All of these acts were made into law over the past 50 years or more, and the requirements under these acts related to food sometimes vary. Over the past decades, new safety risks have emerged due to advancing science and technology, globalization and innovation. The world is changing and the food safety environment is becoming more and more complex. Canada's legislative framework needs to be modernized to reflect these changes.

Canada's legislation must also keep pace with its trading partners. We need to evolve our legislative base for food safety so that we can continue to protect Canadians from unsafe food and prevent Canadian food exports from being shut out of international markets.

Trade in food is on the rise. Demographics are changing. Consumer demand and expectations of governments are changing, and technology too. Canada's current approach of five different food safety acts leads to a cumbersome application of food safety regulations. We agree it needs to be changed.

We have one set of rules for meat and quite another for fish. That just does not make sense. The principles of how to produce safe food are not commodity specific. Regulated parties should not have to work from different rule books and, for that matter, neither should federal inspectors.

If the opposition members believe that the powers of the agency are not sufficient, they should support our government's legislation to make sure that CFIA has greater authorities. Canada's system is one of the best in the world and while we do have a strong food safety system, we can and should improve on the current authorities available to the government. This will better position us to face current and future risks and challenges.

In terms of exactly what the proposed legislation will do, there are two key outcomes: safer food and better protection for Canadians, and a more competitive environment for Canadian businesses involved in the food industry.

In terms of safer food, the legislation will provide stronger border measures, better protection from tampering and hoaxes, and higher fines for bad actors and unsafe practitioners in the food business. Indeed, speaking about our legislation, Nancy Croitoru, president and CEO of Food and Consumer Products of Canada, said:

[We] strongly support and applaud the federal government’s strong action to modernize Canada’s food safety laws.

That says it all. I want my colleagues in the opposition to heed these words and finally tell Canadians that they do indeed support safe food for Canadians.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my most sincere sympathies to the families affected by this disaster that we all lament.

I feel like I must be dreaming. Someone, wake me up. This is an emergency situation, we are having an emergency debate and the secretary of state is teaching us a lesson on prevention. We are all for prevention and we think prevention is just great, but now is not the time to talk about it when we are in the middle of a disaster. The hon. member is treating us to a look back at everything they have done so far and everything they might do through the introduction of bills.

This is an emergency situation. The house is on fire. Now is not the time to talk about the five fire trucks and 120 firefighters who are going to put out the fire. It is time to act. This is bad for the economy. It is bad for public health.

What is the government going to do tomorrow, or even tonight, to deal with this crisis?