PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 1, 2001

• 1532

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), we are considering chapter 25, entitled “Canadian Food Inspection Agency—Food Inspection Programs”, of the December 2000 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

From the Office of the Auditor General of Canada we have Auditor General Sheila Fraser and Assistant Auditor General Douglas Timmins. We also have Neil Maxwell, principal.

From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency we have Mr. Peter Brackenridge, vice-president for programs; Sarah Kahn, director of the Animal Health and Production Division; and Greg Orris, director of the Bureau of Food Safety and Consumer Protection.

We will hear first from the Auditor General. After her opening statement we will hear from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Then we'll open it to questions and answers. Hopefully we can adjourn before 5 o'clock.

It's all yours.

Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to discuss chapter 25 of our 2000 report on the food inspection programs of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

As you mentioned, today I'm accompanied by Doug Timmins, the Assistant Auditor General, and Neil Maxwell, the principal responsible for this audit.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency was created in 1997. It was an important move that consolidated the food inspection activities of three departments into one entity. The agency is responsible for food inspection activities as well as animal health and plant protection activities.

The agency is unique in that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act requires that it publish in its annual report information on its performance and an assessment by the Auditor General of the fairness and reliability of that performance information. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss performance reporting in CFIA and other new agencies at a future hearing given the committee's interest in this matter.

• 1535

Our audit focused on the agency's food inspection programs and was completed about a year ago. It did not extend to activities of Health Canada or of the provinces, territories, or municipalities, all of which are involved in food safety.

We examined a number of initiatives the agency has undertaken to fulfil its mandate—to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of federal food inspection. We found good progress on a number of these initiatives. However, we also found that progress on other important initiatives has varied. I would like to focus my discussion today on two issues we reported, regarding two initiatives.

The first issue I would like to discuss concerns non-compliance by establishments. We reviewed 21 inspection files that were high risk because they had been involved in a recall or were being prosecuted. We found a number of cases where inspectors did not verify that establishments corrected problems within given deadlines. We also identified cases where, in the face of persistent non-compliance, the inspector did not choose to take more serious action to have the problem corrected or because of legislative limitations was unable to do so.

[Translation]

While conclusions on all of the Agency's compliance activities cannot be drawn from our review, we urged the Agency to correct the compliance problem we identified and to develop new regulatory and legislative options for dealing with non-compliance. We are concerned that a high proportion of our file reviews identified cases where problems recurred or persisted for up to two years.

At the time of our audit, the Agency had drafted legislation that it saw as significantly enhancing its compliance and enforcement tools and its controls over imports. Your committee may wish to obtain an update on the draft legislation from the Agency. As well, it may wish to ask the Agency about how it intends to address the compliance issues, both with and without legislative changes.

The second issue relates to the management of the non-federally registered sector. Management of this sector is a challenge due to its size and the variety of commodities it produces. It represents about half of the food-processing sector and generally includes many of the domestic processed foods you find in the middle of your grocery store—items like peanut butter, bread, cookies, infant formula, soft drinks and coffee.

We are concerned that the Agency has not assessed the overall risks associated with this sector to determine the level of resources needed to manage the risks. Instead it is focusing on identifying specific product risks, such as for bean sprouts. The Agency disagreed with our recommendation, noting that it does not believe an overall assessment of risks is reasonable for it to undertake. We appreciate the limitations, but we think that it is crucial, and possible, for the Agency to conduct an assessment of the overall extent of risk in the sector.

[English]

The agency also believes it cannot implement our recommendation in this area as it is constrained in its activities in the non-federally registered sector by legislation and by the Constitution of Canada; the agency shares responsibility for this sector with the provinces, territories, and municipalities. Nevertheless, the Food and Drugs Act gives broad food inspection powers to the agency that are sufficient to support a variety of different inspection approaches. Moreover, because responsibility is shared, we expected the agency to consult widely with the provinces, territories, and municipalities on its activities. We found that the agency had not.

We believe questions such as how much inspection attention should be paid to the non-federally registered sector do merit public debate, a debate in which parliamentarians could play a valuable role. Your committee may wish to ask the agency if it intends to launch a broad consultation on its role in this non-federally registered sector.

Apart from these two particular concerns, the chapter examines a number of other important issues, such as human resources, import controls, and the agency's implementation of its hazard analysis and critical control point approach, also known as HACCP.

That, Mr. Chairman, concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to take part in any discussions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you very much, Madam Fraser.

Peter, you wanted to start.

• 1540

Mr. Peter Brackenridge (Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

A set of opening remarks has been distributed to the committee. Recognizing the time limitations of the committee, I've taken some liberties in cutting some sections. I've not adjusted the content. Committee members can read, at their leisure, the complete comments.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee members. We thank you for the opportunity to be here this afternoon to talk about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. As was mentioned at the outset, I am joined by Mr. Greg Orris, director of the Bureau of Food Safety and Consumer Protection, and Dr. Sarah Kahn, director of the Animal Health and Production Division.

About eight months ago both the agency and the former Auditor General appeared together before a parliamentary committee to talk about the work of the CFIA. Today I would like to provide the committee with an update on the work the agency has been doing to address the recommendations made by the Auditor General at that time.

Last March the former Auditor General, Mr. Desautels, indicated that the agency had made good progress on a number of initiatives to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of federal food inspection. We agreed with the former Auditor General that work still needed to be done. I'm pleased to report that the agency has continued to make progress on all three areas of our mandate—food safety, animal health, and plant protection. That said, we recognize that there is still, and will always be, work to do.

CFIA is comprised of approximately 5,000 employees who work closely with Health Canada and other government departments, provinces, and territories, as well as industry and consumers, to provide Canadians with the food regulatory system that encompasses all stages of the food continuum, from the farm gate to the family plate. The agency's work supports the government's commitment to enhancing the quality of life of Canadians by safeguarding our food supply as well as our plant and animal resources.

[Translation]

We work in a complex and dynamic environment which is influenced by ongoing technological advances, new and emerging food processing methods, globalized trade and travel, changing consumer habits, and of course, now, an acute awareness of our vulnerabilities.

Today's complex and ever-changing food production sector means that we cannot be complacent. We are continuing our work to strengthen the safety of the federal food system.

As I mentioned, we have made progress towards enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of our programs.

The CFIA'S National Import Strategy and Policy, for example, is moving forward as anticipated. The policy sets the direction for a uniform risk-based approach with focused attention on the countries of origin, Canadian border control activities, and domestic distribution. Our improved information systems are also helping us with our efforts to better track and audit imported goods.

[English]

We are also continuing to make progress on the implementation of the hazard analysis and critical control points, or HACCP-based, approach. For a number of years, the Canadian food industry and government have recognized the importance of integrating HACCP-based systems into their operations. The Canadian food industry has gradually, on a voluntary basis, implemented the HACCP system since the government implemented the food safety enhancement program in the early 1990s. This system is now used by many federally registered processing plants in the areas of meat, poultry, eggs, dairy products, fruits, and vegetables.

While HACCP is already mandatory in all federally regulated fish-processing establishments, the agency is moving forward in other food sectors. The amendment to the meat inspection regulations permitting the use of a modernized poultry inspection program, a HACCP-based system, was published in Canada Gazette II last May. We are now in the process of consulting with industry and stakeholders with the objective of implementing mandatory HACCP in all federally registered meat and poultry establishments.

Beyond its work at the establishment level, the CFIA is committed to food safety throughout the food continuum, from primary production to the retail level, through horizontal support sectors and across commodity lines. The CFIA is active on the Canadian On-Farm Food Safety Program, which covers food safety from the field and barn to the farm gate. The program, a component of Minister Vanclief's agricultural policy framework, is a partnership with industry that encourages primary product associations to develop the strategies and tools to enable producers to implement on-farm food safety initiatives consistent with HACCP principles.

The CFIA's inspection programs are based on statutory requirements and intergovernmental agreements. The agency's work planning is based on a careful analysis of the risks to Canadians. Our work to deal with unpasteurized juices, ready-to-eat meat, and 3-MCPD in soya and oyster-flavoured sauce are but a few examples of where we have focused our attention. This work relies on science-based surveillance work. We also continue to work with Health Canada to review and exchange food-borne disease information.

• 1545

[Translation]

The Agency investigates thousands of potential food safety situations every year and has an excellent track record on food safety decisions. Through our Office of Food Safety and Recall, we are always working to enhance emergency response capabilities. The Agency acts in conjunction with Health Canada to request voluntary recalls when the scientific evidence indicates there is any likelihood that a potentially fatal bacterium—or other hazard such as an allergen—is present in food products.

Because food regulation and inspection is an area of shared jurisdictional responsibility, the work of the CFIA almost always involves collaboration with our food safety partners. For example, provincial and territorial governments are responsible for inspecting food processing establishments that distribute products within provincial and territorial borders. And in many cases, municipalities are responsible for inspecting restaurants.

The Agency also continues to play a lead role on international standard-setting organizations to maintain and promote the highest science-based food safety standards possible.

[English]

Here at home the CFIA continues to participate with Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and other organizations on the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety. The education partnership continues to build on the successful FightBac consumer awareness campaign, which is focused on fighting the bacteria that can cause food-borne illness.

In chapter 25 of his report, Monsieur Desautels identified the need for improved consistency in the agency's compliance strategies and approaches. The enforcement and investigation service, or EIS, which was created around the time of the audit, has since provided specialized training to our inspection staff right across Canada to help ensure consistency and effectiveness in our enforcement actions. And the work continues. More training is planned, and the implementation of a national compliance and enforcement tracking system in 2002 will allow the agency to better track the enforcement actions referred to the EIS.

The Auditor General also recommended that the agency create a workforce capable of delivering its mandate in the future, and the agency agreed. The CFIA's work depends on the dedication and skill of its employees. We recognize the value of our employees, and we are focusing on measures to recruit and retain the best people for the job.

We have made progress on the agency's human resource strategy for 2000-03. Our goal is to ensure that our staff remain with us, they continue to grow professionally, they have the necessary tools to continue to contribute to the agency's business objectives, and top-notch new entrants to the workforce see the CFIA as an employer of choice, now and in the future.

[Translation]

The CFIA has developed a number of innovative recruitment initiatives including a long-term university recruiting drive for veterinarians and other key groups; a national biotechnology recruitment campaign; an Officer Training Program designed to recruit new and recent graduates; and a Student Internship Program developed to attract recent graduates into positions that are traditionally difficult to fill.

Most recently the preparedness and dedication of our employees has been tested by emergencies such as incursions of Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle, Plum Pox Virus and, most recently, the upheaval following the events of September 11. Our response to these challenges has demonstrated that we are both ready and able to protect Canadians.

[English]

The events of September 11 may change the level of activity for some of the agency's functions, but many of the things we do every day will not change. That said, the agency's emergency management program must now address new and very real challenges. These include increased threat awareness, heightened consumer expectation, greater vigilance on the part of the agency and its partners to detect new hazards, and the increased need to strengthen partnerships both across government and with industry and international agencies.

The CFIA has in place well-planned emergency response procedures aimed at protecting food, plants, and animals. Canada is ready to act rapidly and effectively to emergencies impacting the agricultural sector, whether the event is caused accidentally or intentionally. However, in light of this new environment, both we and our partners are in the process of reviewing and updating our response plans to ensure they address any emerging hazards.

Earlier this year, the former Auditor General recognized that the agency takes its responsibilities for food safety very seriously. We are proud of this, and of the fact that Monsieur Desautels spoke confidently about the fact that the system of food inspection as a whole has improved since the government brought together in Canada the different activities that were carried out previously by different departments. However, we recognize that the challenges facing us are numerous, and they warrant our constant vigilance.

• 1550

We thank the Auditor General and her office for their continued work, and we commit to continuing our work to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of federal food inspection services.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you very much, Mr. Brackenridge.

Monsieur Gagnon.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am substituting for a colleague today. I must say that, as far as asking questions are concerned, I am just getting my feet wet. This is not at all easy.

I know that the Auditor General criticized the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for, among other things, some comments that are often made and not perceived by the Agency in the same manner. You pointed this out and you said that perhaps some questions should be asked. I believe that the Agency responded to some of your concerns.

We have had to deal with some quite significant crises over the past year. There was, for example, the hoof-and-mouth crisis that occurred last spring, when the Agency was called in to be questioned.

From what I can gather, the Auditor General is stating that you do not currently have all of the staff required to make us feel truly secure. Given the problems that we have experienced in the past and that we are still dealing with now, would you say that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is currently in good shape, that it has the staff it needs so that we can feel secure?

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you very much, Monsieur Gagnon.

From our vantage point, certainly we've made the best of it with the resources we have available. And to the credit of the central agencies, I think, and the government as well, we have received some additional resource relief. Basically, it's received on an annual basis in response to particular situations we bring to their attention. And certainly in response to emergency types of situations we have received some additional financial support.

We have approximately 11% more inspectors on the front line now than we did have two years ago. This has been largely in response to such crises as foot-and-mouth disease, the brown spruce longhorned beetle, and the plum pox virus. We had situations with the potato wart. So whether it be food safety, animal health, or plant protection, we have deployed our resources to the areas of greatest need.

That said, there's no doubt there is a constant wave of issues we have to deal with, and we have an ongoing responsibility to Canadians to maintain the base programs that are in place. As I say, to date, we have received good relief from the central agencies. The Treasury Board has been good to us in this regard. We are continuing to work with central agencies to identify what we feel would be areas that could benefit from additional resource assignment.

That said, I would feel comfortable in saying that the security of our food system continues to be well in hand. And I think the Auditor General...or at least the former Auditor General felt that way, from his comments last March.

We're continuing to make the best use of the resources available—cutting the suit to fit the cloth, if I can use that term.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Yes, that is what the Auditor General thought. However, there were some doubts about the staff. You have told me that you believe that you have the necessary staff, but there also appears to be a doubt about your budget. Do you have the money you need to hire the required staff? Obviously, providing that there are no incidents, you say that everything is fine, but in order to prevent incidents from occurring, do you think that you need additional money in your budget to enable the Agency to truly fulfil its entire mandate?

• 1555

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: That's a difficult question to answer, because in our opinion we've made the best use of the resources that have been made available to us. We have a base set of programs that have a certain requirement for resources to be assigned to them.

When emergency situations arise, there's no doubt we have to be nimble. We have to be flexible to redeploy resources as need be. At the same time, we're also realistic enough to know that you cannot do resourcing levels based on an expectation or an anticipation of an ongoing emergency type of situation. With the events of September 11, certainly that has created some pressures on us. It's changed everyone's lives, both personally and professionally, and we are reviewing those types of needs right now.

In the Auditor General's comments—and I'd certainly invite the Auditor General to speak for herself on this—it may have been oriented towards what we call the “non-registered” sector, which is a group of establishments that are not federally registered, such as a wide range of restaurants, bakeries, and companies of that nature. A base of resources who came to the agency from Health Canada formerly administered those programs.

We have continued to maintain that base of inspection resources, but based on the volume of production at that level, certainly questions could be asked about whether or not there's an adequate level of resources to cover it. Our interpretation is that, based on the jurisdictional authority of the Criminal Code for the Food and Drugs Act and regulations, and the consumer packaging labelling regulations, we are providing the appropriate type of coverage and orientation, as need be, for that sector.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Ms. Fraser.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add a few comments.

First of all, at the time of our audit, we spotted some indications that there were problems related to inadequate personnel. For example, there was a problem in the number of inspections carried out. Fewer inspections were carried out than was anticipated, and some of the follow-up was inadequate. Sometimes follow-up was not done for months.

The Agency itself at the time had done an analysis indicating that it was short some 500 employees. I know that a more in-depth analysis is required. Unfortunately, our audit was done one year ago. Consequently, we do not have the results. Perhaps you could ask the Agency what has become of this study.

I bring this whole issue back to the fact that it has been said that the resources must be based on the risks and on the risk assessment. However, no overall risk assessment has been done in the non-federally registered sector, for example. It is difficult to determine whether or not resources are adequate when no assessment has been made of the risks or of the effort required to counter these risks.

This is one of the messages that you may wish to discuss today.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Ms. Phinney.

If you have further questions, we can have another round. Each person gets eight minutes and you have had eight minutes and three seconds. We will not, however, penalize you.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you for being so generous about these three seconds.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Think nothing of it.

Ms. Phinney.

[English]

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): If I walk into my grocery store—let's say it's one of the big ones they have now—how many items in that store have been inspected by somebody? I don't mean a voluntary following of the guidelines; I mean what in that store has been inspected, if anything?

I'm asking Mr. Brackenridge, because he should know who's inspecting what.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Yes, and that's a good question, thank you. It's also a very difficult one to answer.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Just try to give me a short answer.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I'll do my best.

Ms. Beth Phinney: For instance, would seven actual articles in that store have been inspected?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: It's very difficult to try to quantify it that way. At the federal level, with routine inspection programs for food products, we cover such things as products made in federal establishments for meat, fish, dairy products, eggs—I'm going to miss some here—processed fruits and vegetables, and fresh fruits and vegetables. So if it's from a federal registered or licensed establishment, it's been subject to some type of ongoing scrutiny or oversight by the federal government. You will have another category of products that may have been manufactured within a province and sold within that same province. That may or may not have been subject to provincial inspection. It may depend on the province you live in.

• 1600

Ms. Beth Phinney: You say it may or may not have been inspected provincially, and it may or may not have been inspected federally. I mean, who knows? Is there a big chart somewhere that says, okay, in this particular place the federal government goes in and checks that, and in this particular place the provincial government goes in and checks that? Or do you people just hope that the provincial government's been in because you don't have enough people to send that week, and do the provincial people just hope that the federal people have been in? Is there a big chart up there somewhere that shows that?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: The brief answer is, no, there's not. We do a lot—

Ms. Beth Phinney: Do you communicate regularly with the provinces and the municipalities?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Very much so. We have something called the Canadian Food Inspection System Implementation Group, which is both provincial agriculture and provincial health officials, with whom we meet regularly, along with Health Canada. There is also a variety of ways in which municipalities get involved in the inspection activities as well.

If you would bear with me, maybe I can ask Greg Orris to comment briefly on the question.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, briefly, please, because I have a whole lot more questions.

And I've read the book. I've read what you said.

Mr. Greg Orris (Director, Bureau of Food Safety and Consumer Protection, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you very much.

All foods offered for sale in Canada are subject to the requirements under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. As Mr. Brackenridge indicates, there are specific requirements for registered establishments that fall under the trade and commerce legislation, dealing with a variety of commodities.

Those commodities that are not federally registered also fall under the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and regulations, but there is a shared jurisdiction that varies from province to province. It's fairly complex. Each province has specific legislation that they enforce with respect to food safety, and depending on the province, the extent of the legislation will vary. However, all food offered for sale in Canada is subject to the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and regulations.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Is this compulsory?

I'll tell you why I'm asking.

A couple of years ago I was chair of the health committee, and we put suggestions forward for natural products. We had a choice of putting the responsibility under health of food, drugs, or by itself. We didn't put it under food, because we were informed, by all the studies and from what the research people said, that under food, most of that is voluntary. It's voluntary guidelines they're following. So these natural products would be checked, we decided not to put it under food. We finally put it by itself, because there are going to be regulations made that these natural products are checked.

It left the whole committee sitting there and realizing our food is not checked. We don't know who's checked the peanut butter, or if anybody has, or if anybody even knows if the peanut butter's checked. We don't know about the vegetables. You talk about 5,000 food processing establishments that are non-federally registered. Then you have 100,000 altogether, if you take in the retailers and the restaurants. How do I know anybody's checking these places? You people obviously don't check them.

I think Ms. Fraser wants to say something.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'd just like to add, Mr. Chair, that we raised the issue that we really believe there should be an analysis of the risks across the sector. We're not proposing that the federal food inspection agency should be out inspecting everything, but they should know what is being done in the provinces and where the risks are.

One of the other points we make in our audit is that the sharing of work plans between the provinces and the federal agency remains very limited and should be expanded.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay.

With regard to this non-federally registered sector, was the public consulted or was Parliament consulted on your management practises of this non-federally registered sector? Who was consulted when you decided to set up this new scheme?

Mr. Greg Orris: Essentially, there was no change in our mandate in this sector. We've tried to establish a more rational way of looking at addressing some of the issues that are actually raised by the Auditor General. We are in the process of addressing those in terms of looking at how we can environmentally scan to identify all food safety issues that exist, regardless of whether it's from the registered or the non-registered sector, identifying and prioritizing these things based on risk.

Ms. Beth Phinney: And what have you done? Have you something in writing?

Mr. Greg Orris: Yes, we do. In fact, we've established three science committees. There's a committee on food chemistry, a committee on food microbiology, and a committee on food composition.

Ms. Beth Phinney: So they're still thinking about it. They don't have anything they're using.

• 1605

Mr. Greg Orris: No, the committees met in January, and they have established priorities. In fact, next week we have specialists from across the country who have been working on the development of specific projects to manage the priority risks in those areas.

Ms. Beth Phinney: So they're developing a project. They haven't done it yet.

Mr. Greg Orris: No, there are projects under way. This is an evolving area. We're continually monitoring the environment to see what new risks Canadians may be exposed to. For example—

Ms. Beth Phinney: Does “monitoring the environment” mean monitoring the peanut butter or monitoring the air?

Mr. Greg Orris: It's monitoring any kind of food safety issues. If you would allow me to give an example, recently we had trouble with Pomace olive oil. We became aware, through international information, that there were some problems with a chemical called polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which are cancer-causing chemicals. We didn't worry about waiting to go through a formal process. We took action immediately to contain the products that we felt represented a risk to the Canadian public, to withdraw those products through recall. We've established a broader project now to scan the environment further to see if—

Ms. Beth Phinney: So that's one product that somebody brought to your attention.

Mr. Greg Orris: But this is ongoing.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): What was that brand of olive oil, Greg? I eat lots of olive oil.

Mr. Greg Orris: Pomace olive oil. It's of lower quality.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: It's not a brand name, certainly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): I buy President's Choice sometimes.

Sorry, Ms. Phinney.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Is my time up?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): You're 12 seconds over. We'll come back to you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me start by saying that I think I speak for most Canadians when I say that we're really very glad the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is there. It is, by and large, a vibrant and effective organization. We all feel there's somebody out there watching out for us, and we have some sense of confidence that it is there and it is working well.

That said, it's worrisome when the Auditor General finds reason to comment and goes so far as to make some pretty strongly worded recommendations, or asks some questions that need to be asked.

Even though I've learned a lot from listening to my other two colleagues and the very good questions they asked, maybe I can focus on a specific detail. Just to follow up on the question asked by my colleague from the Bloc, is it adequately resourced to do the job that needs to be done, and is there in fact a reduction in resources from when it was in its former incarnation to when it became the agency it is now, its current structure?

Short answer: Is it ultimately a net loss? Do you have more or less resources to deal with things now than when it was under the government directly?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I don't know if there's an exact short answer to that or not. When the agency was created in 1997 there was a target established for financial savings during a period of what they called “program review”.

Mr. Pat Martin: I remember.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: There were a number of effectiveness and efficiency gains to be achieved. The agency did achieve a saving of, I believe, $44 million at the time, which was approximately 10% of the total budgets that had come together. Most of those savings were achieved on the administrative front. By bringing together three, or some people would call it four, different departments into one agency, there was a sense that you should be able to save 10% on your administrative functions and reorganization of office locations, things of that nature. Thankfully, we achieved that.

That said, the world has become, in our opinion, much more complex in what we're dealing with. We've had a number of situations we've had to be concerned about, whether you talk about mad cow disease situations, foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks, or plant diseases and pests. Having the wide scope of responsibility that we have, with 13 acts and 46 sets of regulations, it's always a challenge to know the right place to be putting the bar.

We have succeeded in enhancing our budget since the time of making the reduction. We have built our way back up, largely through some assistance and support we have received fairly regularly from central agencies when we put forward a good justification for the need for additional resources. Through supplementary estimate exercises they have come to help us out.

• 1610

Mr. Pat Martin: What about this year for supplementary? We were only given this book today. I have found your page. Is that reported in here or not?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Depending on how much detail you would like on it, my executive director of financial affairs is here. I understand in the neighbourhood of $95 million is coming to the agency.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, that's the figure.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Again, by getting that amount of money, we feel that is certainly helping us. We are continuing, though, to identify other areas where we could stand to have more resources put into our programs.

Mr. Pat Martin: Perhaps I can stop you there and take it a little further. It says in this document that in the 1999-2000 year, CFIA reported annual costs of $416 million, $54 million of which was recovered through user fees. The total estimate, even after the adjustment now, will be $345 million.

From a layman's point of view, it looks as though you'll have less money to deal with in this budget year than last year again. Is that accurate?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Mr. Chair, just so I don't frustrate the member, perhaps it would be useful for our executive director from the controller's office to explain the dollar numbers.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Great.

Mr. Pat Martin: Just to repeat the question, the booklet put together for us by the Library of Parliament says, “For 1999-2000, CFIA reported total annual costs of $416 million”. And then looking at the adjusted estimates, total estimates would be $345.888 million. Am I reading this correctly?

Mr. Gordon White (Executive Director, Financial Affairs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Two issues. First, of the $416 million, you have costs incurred by other departments on our behalf, which are paid for out of their appropriations—for example, Public Works for accommodation.

In terms of our budget this year, we're going to be around $422 million by the time we add in our estimated cost recovery.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay.

Mr. Gordon White: If you look at the supplementary estimates that were tabled today, you have $346 million in total; $16 million in total for capital; another $10 million for our compensation payments; and about $50 million that we're estimating for cost recovery.

So we'll have about $422 million to spend.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's very helpful. I wasn't really sure how to read these things right.

Mr. Gordon White: It's a bit of a trick reading the estimates.

Mr. Pat Martin: How are we doing for time?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): You're doing fine. You still have one minute and fifty seconds.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay.

I actually represent the riding Winnipeg Centre, which has in it the new virology lab, the disease control centre. There's a lot of unease in the immediate area, especially because of the fear spreading in the world. We already had spills there, of Newcastle disease and things like that, in its first year.

So I guess I'd ask, when you say your costs have increased due to your emergency measures and the steps you've had to take because of the international emergency we're facing, what types of tampering are you contemplating that you'd have to take special steps to deal with—if it's not revealing any secrets? Are you worried about agricultural sabotage? I know Newcastle disease spread through Australia and wiped out the poultry industry there. And I used to work for a microbiologist whose job was to reduce botulism down to its purest form.

Are these the things you're...?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Well, we're worried about all of it. Certainly there are the direct public security and food safety types of issues where botulism, or microbiological contamination, or introduction of pathogens into the food supply would be very much of concern to us.

There's a whole other concern that we have to be conscious of, and that relates to the economic side of things. Again, you've mentioned some animal diseases that could be quite crippling to the Canadian economy. Certainly you would run into the same type of thing with plant diseases.

So we're continuing to have our antennae up and to maintain our contacts, whether it be with security agencies, our provincial colleagues, or veterinary communities to make sure that people can contact us.

• 1615

We're doing a lot of work on the prevention front as well, at the border points. We've enhanced our laboratory capacities. We've done some additional work in stockpiling reagents, etc., if we had to step up our testing if there was a problem. We're working on that. We are also working on preparedness plans so that if there was an introduction of some type of foreign animal disease or plant pest of some nature we would be able to take appropriate controlling actions and determine eradication steps, that type of thing.

It's a hard question to answer.

Mr. Pat Martin: All of those will be cost factors, then.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Mr. Bertrand.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): You have a total of four minutes for both the questions and answers.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: What department do you come under?

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: We're a departmental corporation. We're a separate agency that reports to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. So we report directly to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand: In her presentation, Ms. Fraser referred to a bill that had been tabled in 1999. Was that C-80? I am presuming that it disappeared because of the election. Do you plan to reintroduce a new bill through Agriculture Canada?

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Yes, that's very much a topic of discussion. We were instructed and requested to review the draft bill at the time because of some comments that were coming in at the time it was first tabled. We have done that. We are in the process of doing analysis of the comments that were received on the draft Canada food safety and inspection act. I guess introduction of whatever changes that would be made to it would be dependent on the parliamentary legislative agenda, that type of thing. No decisions have been made at this point as to when it would be appropriate to reintroduce it.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand: There is one issue that bothers me a bit. From what I have read, the expression "non-federally registered" is a term which, in my opinion, has quite a broad definition. I am assuming that there are many organizations that are not being monitored by anyone so long as nothing happens, if I understood correctly.

Who monitors the company that does business in two provinces? I am talking about a company that does business in one province but delivers its products both to this province and another one. For example, let's take the example of a company that is headquartered in Quebec and delivers its food to Ontario.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: That depends on the situation, but in the case of most products, we are responsible for monitoring plants that manufacture products in one province and sell them to another, both for interprovincial and international trade. But that depends on the product.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Do you have the same regulations as the province where the plant is located? I do not know if I'm explaining myself properly. If the plant is located within the province of Quebec, for example, one group does the inspection, but if these products are sent to another province, this becomes your responsibility. Do you have the same regulations as your provincial counterparts?

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I'm hoping I have time, Mr. Chair, because this is a very complex subject to explain.

First, as Mr. Orris has said, everyone is covered by the Food and Drugs Act and regulations, which provide general requirements that everyone has to meet from the standpoint of the safety of the product, the finished product standards. There are then some other trade and commerce provisions for certain commodities that have more specific requirements, usually for establishment construction, sanitation in the establishment, and so on. Then, if you have other standards at the provincial level, generally the objective is the same for the safety and security of the food product but they may have slightly different ways of expressing it. So as to whether the regulations are identical, they may not be identical but the objective to be achieved is essentially the same.

There are then agreements reached between the federal government and the various provinces for the delivery of the inspection activities at those facilities, generally speaking.

I'm generalizing quite a bit here, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for that, but it's difficult because of the different provincial situations.

• 1620

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you, Mr. Bertrand. We'll come back to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Gagnon and Ms. Phinney.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Is the purpose of the legislation that you just talked about to provide better monitoring of imports? Is this the legislation that Mr. Bertrand was referring to when he talked about a bill that had already been tabled? Are we talking about this bill?

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Well, that was one point it was going to strengthen, our ability to control on the import front. One of the perceived weaknesses of the Food and Drugs Act and regulations is the inability to take strong action at the border point itself. Basically, the product has to be offered for sale in the country, which means it's more difficult, whereas some of our trade and commerce authorities, under other acts, allow us to stop product directly at the border. So we're at a little bit of a handicap under the Food and Drugs Act scenario, the way it currently is.

So it is addressing that, but there were a number of other components to the act as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: We can therefore assume that this bill will be reintroduced in order to resolve this problem which you're talking about.

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I think the only thing I can say is that we've reviewed comments. We did additional consultations and received comments. There may be other opportunities to achieve the same objective, either by amending other acts or introducing a consolidated act.

Again, it's to achieve the same objective, but the way to get there has not yet been determined.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Since September 11, we know that just about everybody is on edge, everybody is looking over his shoulder. Is there an agreement between the various organizations responsible for monitoring food quality and perhaps, eventually, verifying problems related to terrorism? Can it be said that there is a plan between, for example, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the provinces and the municipalities? Has a plan been established to ensure that all of the issues are covered as much as possible?

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Yes, there is very much work going on in that field right now, on a number of different levels. There is very much cooperation going on, coordinated by the Solicitor General's office. In the area of food inspection, we work collaboratively on a food and agriculture emergency response system with the provinces. That has been engaged since September 11.

There is a lot of discussion going on with our provincial counterparts and municipalities as well. A lot of that is being coordinated by the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness and the emergency measures organizations at the provincial level. So we have been doing a lot of work domestically on that front.

We are working interdepartmentally to validate such things as laboratory capacity, and to make sure we have the right laboratories identified should there be a need for some specific product testing. There is also a lot of international discussion, coordination, and collaboration going on, particularly with our U.S. colleagues at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

So there's a great deal of communication happening.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you.

The Auditor General blames you for persistent problems of non-compliance. It says that you don't seem to have taken any measures, serious ones in some cases, to settle the problems or that there was no follow-up to an inspection where non-compliance was noted. I have that on page 2. Could you say that those problems are now settled?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chairman, we didn't do any follow-up audit to the audit. We will certainly go back to follow up on the recommendations, but maybe the Agency's representatives could give us a better answer as to what has been done so far.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Could we get that answer right away?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): We're going to have another opportunity, Mr. Brackenridge.

Was Mr. Timmins going to answer? No, okay.

Ms. Phinney.

[English]

Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you.

Health Canada is responsible for policies and standards, and you're responsible for the enforcement, so I shouldn't get mad at you. If there's anything I'm mad about, I should phone Health Canada.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: That's usually a good rule of thumb.

Voices: Oh, oh!

• 1625

Ms. Beth Phinney: How much consultation goes on between the two of you?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: In two words, a lot. We've established a very good relationship with Diane Gorman, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Health Products and Food Branch. In fact, we just had a meeting of our management teams yesterday.

We've established a process whereby our management teams meet on a regular basis. One of the objectives of that group was to provide some oversight and guidance to activities going on. We asked for an inventory of the number of working groups or activities that are happening amongst officials. I was surprised, and I think Ms. Gorman was as well, that between the CFIA and Health Canada there were 96 groups working on a variety of different priority issues.

Ms. Beth Phinney: It scares me when you say you were both surprised.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I guess I shouldn't have said that, then. It's just that when you get up into numbers that high.... We knew people were talking to each other, but again, it's the volume that is sometimes surprising.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Perhaps I can stop you there. I'd like to know who tells you that you have a problem, who tells you that this jar of jam doesn't taste very good and there must be something weird in it. I don't know whether you then send it to the province, because you don't inspect jam; I don't know if jam is ever inspected.

I happen to know of a place that takes water out of the tap, puts it in jugs, and sells it as fresh water. It's supposed to be better than the water that comes out of the tap but it's just come out the tap at the back of the store. They put it into jugs and sell it at the front of the store.

So I know—and I have a private member's bill coming up—that water is not inspected. Is there any way of knowing how many other things on the market are not inspected without saying, well, half of it's provincial, so I don't know? Does anybody have a list that says these things you buy are not inspected, ever, by anybody?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Unless Greg corrects me, I'd say, no, it's not possible to have that list, because it does vary quite a bit.

Ms. Beth Phinney: How could it vary?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: It largely depends on your definition of “inspected” in terms of who is doing the evaluation of product. For example, you asked how we would find out if there was a problem, or who would let us know. Well, we would take information from any source, and certainly if consumers are concerned about the taste or smell of a product, we would like to know about it.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Is it possible to find out, either from you or provincially? I think your mandate, if I understand it, is that all food produced in Canada or imported is governed under the Food and Drugs Act, which is federal.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: That's right.

Ms. Beth Phinney: That's all food, imported or not. The buck stops with you people.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Certainly.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Whether you're going to push it off to the provinces and the municipalities, it stops with you people.

So is there any way of knowing—when I go into this grocery store I was talking about—that these fifteen products at least have a standard they're supposed to meet, whether it's voluntary or not? And I still don't really understand why, from what I understand, most things are voluntary in the food processing. How many things in that grocery store have never, ever been inspected and the soil they grew in was never inspected? We don't know the contents in that jar. Is there any way of knowing so that I wouldn't buy the product if it's not even sometimes susceptible to inspections?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I'll ask Greg to maybe explain a bit better the inspection side of it, but I would just clarify that there is nothing voluntary about meeting the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and regulations or any other set of regulations.

Ms. Beth Phinney: That was my next question.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: You have to meet their requirements. Their requirements state that the product shall be safe. The requirements are that it should contain no more than x amount of bacteria. It should contain no chemical residues whatever.

Now, there are different ways of determining whether it complies with that standard. It could be based on complaints and a follow-up investigation. It could be based on some regular frequency of inspection. It could be based on some other type of risk-based approach, as Greg has already referenced, that we are using now, to monitor the non-registered sector.

So it largely depends on what you determine by inspection, and whether going to visit a site once every three years is adequate to determine somebody's in compliance, or whether you should take other routes of doing it, based on science. That's where some of the disagreement of approach has come about in our discussions with the Auditor General's office.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Madam Fraser, very briefly, because we are way over time. We still have about four in the first round and then another four in the second round.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I will try to be brief, Mr. Chair, but I would like to clarify the last issue on the disagreement.

We do not disagree. We are not proposing that all non-federally registered establishments should be physically inspected by the food inspection agency.

• 1630

What we are saying is that there needs to be an overall risk assessment of food in this country, for the Food and Drugs Act, and that there needs to be a good analysis of the kinds of questions Mrs. Phinney is asking: What is being done by the provinces, and where are areas of risk?

The food inspection agency can then concentrate their resources. They can determine, first of all, the resources needed to address those risks, and then focus on them.

I would just point out that only 5% of the resources of the food inspection agency are spent on the non-federally registered sector, which represents 44% of the grocery bill. So I can't make the comment that it's insufficient, because there is no risk analysis overall.

Ms. Beth Phinney: You're lucky you know which of those things are; we don't know.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I could refer you to the exhibit on page 25-8 of our chapter. It gives only the federal portion, but it shows the food and under what legislation it falls—what's registered and what's not registered. That might help a little bit.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Mr. Martin, Mr. Bertrand, Mr. Finlay, back to Mr. Gagnon, and then the circles keep going. If we keep the questions pointed and the answers brief, we can get out of here on time and get the maximum juice out of the system.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to stay with some of the hard numbers. I thank the Auditor General for pointing that out, because one of my questions was going to be how much of your overall resources are dedicated to the non-regulated sector as compared with the other work you do.

The Auditor General points out, in the brief she gave us today, that it was raised with the agency that they weren't satisfied or were worried about the amount of attention paid to the non-regulated sector. The excuse given...or the agency disagreed with the recommendations made for the reason that, either by legislation or by the Constitution, it's the overlapping of jurisdiction that stopped you from being more vigilant in that arena.

I'd argue that it might be resources as well. I mean, if you're dedicating only 5% of resources to the 44% now, if you were to cover that area adequately you would need a larger budget.

Again, I found the actual brief very useful. It says the Auditor General expected the agency to consult widely with the provinces, territories, and municipalities on its activities, but found it had not:

We believe that questions [like this] merit public debate—a debate in which parliamentarians could play a valuable role. Your Committee may wish to ask the Agency if it intends to launch a broad consultation on its role in the non-federally regulated sector.

So I guess that would be my question. Is there an intention on your part to revisit this whole debate? And should this be something Parliament should be helping you with?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Certainly we'll take advice from wherever we can get it, and certainly parliamentarians and the general public are good places to get that advice.

We are embarking on a consultative process, probably starting in the winter of next year, to talk in general terms about strategic priorities for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This will be one of the items that would be included within that type of consultative process. It is not specifically oriented to it, but it would be one of many items.

It will be time for us to take a look at our strategic priorities again. In that context it will be a good opportunity to engage people in that discussion. Provinces will be very much part of that discussion.

As Mr. Orris has indicated, when we were looking at the realignment of the way in which we were approaching this sector, it was not changing what we were setting out to achieve but how we were doing it. So we were looking at that as an internal type of arrangement.

There's no doubt that we have to do additional consultation with our provincial partners, and we've done that on at least two occasions since the publication of the Auditor General's report. We had a Canadian Food Inspection System Implementation Group meeting in Calgary, where there was a broad discussion about it. Mr. Orris himself has been going out to a number of the provinces to have discussions, to explain the legislation the way it stands, and to talk to people about how we work more collaboratively together.

Mr. Pat Martin: Time?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): You still have 10 seconds. You can make a quick statement, but there will be no answer.

• 1635

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm going to do that, then.

For export purposes, obviously, when you answer to the Minister of Agriculture rather than the Minister of Health—you're concerned about exporting agricultural products—does the issue of GMOs come up in content as far as your exports go?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Yes, no, or maybe.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Yes or maybe, depending on the market.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Mr. Bertrand.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Fraser, in your report you state that:

We reviewed 21 inspection files that were high risk because they had either been involved in a recall or were being prosecuted.

How many complaints did the Agency lodge against producers, processors?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chairman, in the audit it is indicated that in 1999-2000, the Agency participated in 243 recalls and 59 legal proceedings were undertaken.

[English]

Mr. Robert Bertrand: So 59 successful prosecutions, but how many charges were laid?

[Translation]

Maybe Mr. Brackenridge knows.

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Mr. Orris may have the most recent information.

Mr. Greg Orris: Thank you.

Over the past year, there were approximately 60 successful prosecutions. In some cases we lay more charges than were successful in terms of completion through prosecution, but over 60 prosecutions were successfully completed in the past year.

We established in the fall of 1999 the enforcement and investigation service, and they have staffed across the country, from Moncton to Vancouver, enforcement and investigation officers who are providing training to our staff across the agency to ensure consistency in the application and enforcement of the legislation.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Were these charges from across Canada or were they in one province more than another?

Mr. Greg Orris: I don't have that information. However, I should indicate that, under any circumstance, if we find a food to be unsafe for the Canadian public, that food is immediately contained.

We work through our office of food safety and recall. If we find an unsafe food in the Canadian marketplace, we take immediate action to effect a recall of that product from the marketplace to protect the Canadian consumer. In fact, in the past year, I think we conducted approximately 370 recalls to remove such products from the marketplace. The information comes from a variety of sources that will instigate such an action. It could be a consumer complaint, it could be an inspection finding, or it could be international information that we follow up on. So it could be from a variety of sources, but if at any point in time we find there is an unsafe product on the marketplace, immediate action is taken to remove the product from sale.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Very briefly.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Dr. Kahn, can you give us an update on foot-and-mouth disease? Is it still a problem?

Dr. Sarah Kahn (Director, Animal Health and Production Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): We continue to be on high alert, but the situation is much better under control now in the United Kingdom. They haven't had cases for a couple of weeks or longer, so they really seem to be getting on top of the problem there. Of course, the few cases they had in continental Europe were cleaned up and addressed very quickly. We have lifted the restrictions we had in relation to continental Europe.

As I said, we maintain high vigilance. We continue to have measures at airports and for the travelling public—a heightened inspection of container goods, for example.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Mr. Finlay, four minutes.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize to the presenters for not being on time for what is obviously a very interesting discussion.

• 1640

Perhaps you can help me with something on page 2 of your brief, Ms. Fraser. It says, in paragraph 9, “The second issue relates to the management of the non-federally registered sector.”

You may have explained that before, but it seems to me we're talking about maybe half, or up to 40%, of foods in grocery stores and so on. What's the definition of the “non-federally registered sector”?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, I wish I had an easy answer. It's the exception. There are certain food products that are...that the establishments have to be registered. Generally it's meat, dairy products, honey, and maple syrup. If you look at the table in our report, the one I mentioned, it shows those ones that are federally registered. Anything other than those are non-federally registered.

Mr. John Finlay: So at the farmers' market at the fairground on Saturday morning the meat pies and the fruit are generally not federally registered.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: The agency could probably answer that, but I would presume it would not be, because there would not be interprovincial trade.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Are you done, Mr. Finlay?

Mr. John Finlay: Yes, sir.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Ms. Phinney.

Ms. Beth Phinney: One of the areas of weakness seems to be in the surveillance and monitoring of incidents of chemical residue, microbiological contaminants in food, and the presence of pathogens in the food supply. What can you people do to make the food consumed by Canadians a little better? Is it money, and more people, or...?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Again, I'll ask Mr. Orris to give more detail on those programs, but certainly we like to use a multi-faceted, multi-pronged approach with this, ranging from education at the producer level about good handling practices, good farming practices, and good production practices. There are other acts and regulations in place—for instance, the Pest Control Products Act—that provide certain standards. We have the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which sets standards for pesticide residues, and that type of thing.

So in a number of facets the educational mode kicks in. We do a lot of work, and the producer and processor associations themselves take a lot of responsibility in this regard. I mentioned in my comments the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the work they're doing with on-farm food safety programs. We feel it's important and appropriate for them to be doing that.

We're also working through things with consumers about proper handling practices, because in many cases we find that the product, when it leaves the processing facility or the retail store, may be fully in compliance, but if it sits in somebody's trunk for two hours on a summer's day before it's consumed, or is left on the counter, you can have problems. The FightBac campaign was largely responsible...in that regard.

We've been doing some additional work with regard to pathogens and chemical residues. Greg has touched on it briefly, but if you have a minute, he could explain what we're trying to do from our standpoint in terms of priorities.

Mr. Greg Orris: On the chemical residue monitoring side of things, we will be picking up approximately 350,000 samples this year, looking at various chemical residues, from veterinary drug residues through pesticide residues and so on. We will look at both imported and domestic foods through those monitoring programs.

On the food microbiological side of things, we also carry out monitoring programs. We're currently establishing, or we have in place, a surveillance and monitoring program for hemorrhagic E. coli in ground meat. We're looking at everything that can be done to reduce the levels of pathogen contamination to levels as low as practically achievable.

Even beyond that, we're working with Health Canada to look at other measures that can be taken, such as the introduction of food irradiation and the approvals of additional processes that would have an impact, or products that would have an impact, on reducing the level of carcass contamination, for example.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you.

• 1645

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Ms. Fraser.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'd just add that in our report we recommended that the agency improve its information management systems, the collection of information on food-borne illness and pathogens. That that's an important element in the whole food safety issue.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you.

Monsieur Gagnon, final question.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: I'd like to conclude with the question Mr. Martin had before on GMOs. He asked you for an opinion and you said that yes, it could be of concern but that it depended on the markets, if I understood you correctly. I'd like you to elaborate a bit more. Don't you think that we should make labelling of products containing GMOs mandatory?

[English]

Mr. Robert Bertrand: A loaded question.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: It's always so that the consumer can at least have a choice.

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Obviously, I'll steer clear of the politics around this—

Mr. Pat Martin: Good luck.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: —but to get back to Mr. Martin's question, it depends largely on the market. There are certain markets that have put in requirements that talk about no GMO components within their products; they will not accept that. They have also put in some labelling requirements.

There are other markets, such as the United States, where we do have arrangements to export products because they also have evaluated genetically modified products and ingredients. We at the CFIA do environmental assessment for plants with novel traits, and we also do the feed assessment component. Health Canada does the food safety component of genetically modified ingredients.

We've also been a strong supporter of the voluntary labelling committee, the Canadian General Standards Board approach to at least developing a set of guidelines for voluntary labelling standards. We provided advice and information on it. We've also responded to the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee and the Royal Society, who have made comments on labelling as well.

That doesn't mean we are against mandatory labelling. What we have been saying is that there needs to be a credible, meaningful type of system for labelling. I don't think anybody disputes the consumer's right to know, but it's the credible, meaningful side of things that's very difficult in GMOs. What tests are you going to use? What is the level of tolerance, if any? How are you going to determine that?

So at this point it makes it very difficult to have a system that would meet those types of requirements. My understanding of Bill C-287 was that, notwithstanding this, they have referred it to the health committee to do an assessment of labelling for biotech products. So I guess we'll see where that falls out. But we would be the body who would be responsible for the enforcement. Whichever direction it goes, we will be the ones who will be responsible for doing it. That's where our concern about meaningful, credible...and ability to verify is important.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Ms. Phinney has a quick question on manure. We are on a little bit of a slippery slope, getting out of the scope of the chapter, but I am going to allow this question so that we can close.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I know you don't inspect the water, and we know that manure is affecting....

Oh, he wants to say that you do inspect water.

At any rate, we know it's affecting our water. I lived on a farm for only about five years, so I don't know the right words—maybe somebody else does—but manure and other things that are put out on the fields are affecting our water. Is this manure affecting any of our foods? Does the manure going into the ground affect the meat? I know things are getting into the water, but is it getting into any food we're eating? I don't know if it can; I'm just wondering. Can it go into the apples growing off the trees that had manure put around them? In some areas there's too much manure out there.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: You're into a pretty complex area.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, and nobody's looking at it.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Again, it's very hard to give a short and quick answer, but we're certainly looking at the products themselves.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Good.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: We're checking for microbial or chemical contamination of apples or whatever it may be. We will determine whether or not there's any type of a problem there.

Certainly the provincial agriculture ministries working with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on the ag policy framework have talked about the environment as being one of the five components. Agro-environment is a very strong component of that, because the environment file is largely provincially handled. Environment Canada is also involved. We have regulations, for example, related to fertilizers and their use, and we do a lot of assessment of fertilizer compounds. They have to go through an approval process as well.

• 1650

Again, regulations will get you so far in dealing with things, as will inspection programs, but there are also education programs for good manure handling and disposal. You have to have systems in place to check that those regulations or guidelines are being followed. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, for instance, has taken a very strong lead in this as well. They've established an environment group to look at this and provide guidelines to their membership and different groups.

I think we may need to clarify, just for the committee's purposes, what we do or don't do with water so there's no misperception at the end, if we can.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Okay, quickly.

Mr. Greg Orris: I'll make it very quick.

All bottled water falls under division 12 of the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. It sets specific standards for both safety and labelling and the associated issues.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you very much.

I didn't ask any questions, but I do want to make a statement. You probably have noticed the collective concerns of my colleagues—overall risk assessment, consultation with other players, ensuring compliance, sharing of information, consultations. I think we probably have repeated this issue over and over again. It's our hope that you will take the recommendations of the Auditor General to heart and have a second, fresh look at it. This is an issue that really interests this committee very much. That's why we asked you to come before us.

It is our hope that within a reasonable timeframe you could, either through consultation with the Auditor General or thorough whatever measure necessary, come back to the committee and say, look, we have heard out the Auditor General, we have heard out the committee, and this is what we are trying to do in order to respond to some of the excellent points raised collectively by members from all parties on the committee.

So I want to thank you on behalf of all of my colleagues.

I also want to call on the Auditor General to give us a closing statement before we move to adjourn.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chair and the members of the committee. I think it's been a good hearing.

As I mentioned in our opening remarks, the two issues of major concern to us are non-compliance and the non-federally registered sector. I think the information we had today on legislation, Bill C-80 at the time, was viewed by the agency as addressing many of the difficulties it had. I think the delay has to be of concern to the agency in fixing those issues.

I would like to suggest that perhaps it would be good if the agency had a concrete action plan to address some of the recommendations, in particular in those two areas.

I thank you for your support.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you very much.

Mr. Brackenridge, is that agreeable to you, to have an action plan and come back to the Auditor General at some point in time?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Yes. I am not sure exactly what the details of the action plan would be, or in which sections. Although the Auditor General has referred to two items, I think on many of them—and I tried to touch on those in my opening statements—we can demonstrate that we have in fact put in action plans to deal with most of those. On these two, we'd be happy to have additional discussions with the Auditor General to make sure we satisfy ourselves on exactly where we're going with it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): That would be very good. Probably the Auditor General, through either a letter to the committee or when she appears before the committee, can bring us up to date in terms of what's happening with those consultations.

With that, I thank you greatly on behalf of all of the committee members.

We are adjourned until Tuesday, November 6, 2001.

Thank you, colleagues.