Linda Duncan

[Business of Supply, October 18th, 2012]

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

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

[Business of Supply, October 18th, 2012]

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

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

[Business of Supply, October 18th, 2012]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, October 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think that shows the sincerity in bringing forward their motion.

When one of our fellow colleagues from Alberta spoke in the House, he made the suggestion that perhaps it was the workers' fault and that they had the option of bringing to the attention of the company issues they found on the floor.

I wonder if the member would like to respond to the information provided to me by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union who has said that it had tried to reach out to the workers, particularly temporary foreign workers who may be struggling, but that it had been denied that information by the company and, therefore, could not reach out to the workers. It also called for whistleblower protection legislation, which is not found in this bill, so workers could feel free to reveal these issues.

Does the member agree that this law should be amended to provide whistleblower protection to all workers in food operations?

[Business of Supply, October 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I come from the province where the crisis originated. Many of our workers are being affected, including inspectors, but definitely those who work in the plant and our ranchers.

One of the things we have called for in the motion is that the minister resign and that the government give consideration to reassigning this important portfolio to someone else. I noticed that in 1997, I think it was then a Liberal government that made the decision to transfer this responsibility from Health Canada to Agriculture Canada under the auspices of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

In view of what has occurred, and it is regrettable, it is not necessarily the minister's fault. He assumed the mantle of this portfolio. He has two conflicting responsibilities. One is to promote our beef industry and the other to make sure it is safe for consumers. Does the member think maybe it is time for the government to reconsider assignment of this responsibility?

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed very much serving on the environment and sustainable development committee with the hon. member. He is always very thoughtful in his analysis.

The hon. member mentioned a lot of the concern raised, not just by ordinary Canadians but also by former ministers of the Crown, about changes made in the omnibus bill and the deep concern about the lack of opportunity for discourse and to look at the pros and cons of those measures.

There has been some joviality in the House across the way about concerns that were raised about the lack of opportunity for the opposition to participate properly in the review of a major omnibus bill. I would like to suggest to the member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the real harm is to Canadians.

As I mention before, one of the members across the way seemed to suggest that once a government was elected, then that was it for democracy, that it was elected and it could make whatever decisions it wanted. We have seen this reflected in its omnibus bills.

Does the member think that the feedback that was given to the last omnibus bill is representative of the fact Canadians are fed up and they want to go back to participatory democracy?

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech and his party for bringing this matter forward.

I note that the member noted the speech by the then member for Calgary Southwest, now the Prime Minister of this country. If I could just reiterate, the Prime Minister at that time said that the omnibus bill, which was a little over 20 pages, was of a matter so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles. He further said:

...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

I would ask the hon. member, who has been in this House for some time, if he recalls the mantra of the Reform Party, which was open, transparent, participatory democracy?

I noted earlier that one of the members of the Conservative Party opposite said, well, Canadians voted for them, so essentially they should be able to do whatever they want.

They have taken the “progressive” out of the Conservative Party. Perhaps it should be the regressive Conservative Party. They no longer believe in participatory democracy.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for an incredible speech. She always grounds her speeches in personal experience, and if she were still an immigrant and I were the minister, I would be happy to make her a citizen immediately.

I have two issues. The first is that we have had a frustrating situation in Edmonton and all of northern Alberta, where the minister has delayed reappointing a citizenship judge for over a year. I am getting letters and calls from applicants who have been waiting more than 18 months simply to have their applications considered.

Does the member think the government is making things even more difficult for landed immigrants and that it could perhaps put more programs in place to provide employment and support for youth who might get in trouble, allowing them to avoid potential deportation and perhaps to become productive Canadian citizens?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question related to the one posed by my colleague previously. It has to do with the increasing movement by the government to give complete discretion, with no criteria, to ministers or some other authority to make decisions that impact the lives of people in Canada.

One thing concerned me about the comment that was made, which I know was meant in all good faith by my Conservative colleague across the way, and that was that it was not the government's intent. Could the member please elaborate for the House?

The very reason we pass laws is to provide legal certainty. That is why laws have to be very clear and provide clear criteria for how that discretion is to be exercised. That is the very idea behind why laws are made. Once that law is passed, there is no way the government can say that is not what it meant by that law. The law is clear on its face until it is tested in the courts.

[Food Safety, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are just discovering how widespread this meat recall is, yet Conservatives only now admit to gaping holes in the rules regulating XL Foods. Still they persist in saying that all is well with the food safety regime, deny responsibility for the E. coli breakout and, when all else fails, blame the CFIA.

The crux of this problem is that the compliance verification system is broken. When will the government come clean about the perils of self-regulation and commit to an enforceable compliance regime for the food industry?