:
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our Standing Committee on Health. It is a pleasure to have some of our people back at committee today.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is a study of the implementation of the recommendations of the Weatherill report on the 2008 listeriosis outbreak.
We are very fortunate to have with us, from the Public Health Agency of Canada, Dr. Butler-Jones, Chief Public Health Officer; Dr. Mark Raizenne, director general of the centre for food-borne, environmental, and zoonotic infectious diseases.
On video conference, we have Dr. Frank Plummer, scientific director general from the national microbiology laboratory.
Dr. Plummer, welcome this morning. Can you hear me?
:
Wonderful. I'm glad that with your very busy schedule you could join us this morning.
We also have, from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Carole Swan, president, and Paul Mayers, associate vice-president, programs. From the Department of Health, we have Glenda Yeates, deputy minister, and Jeff Farber, director of the bureau of microbial hazards, health products and food branch. Welcome.
This morning we'll start with the Public Health Agency of Canada. We have five to ten minutes for a presentation--ten minutes maximum.
We'll start with Dr. Butler-Jones.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
For the benefit of new committee members, I would like to begin with some context.
[English]
Whether it is from the farm to the kitchen or from the kitchen to the table, food-borne outbreaks can and will happen. Food-borne illness normally occurs at home. It happens after unsafe handling or preparation, even when the food supply itself is safe. That's why, whether we're in the business of regulating, policy-making, educating, selling, or consuming, each of us plays a very important role in preventing illness.
In June I had the opportunity to update this committee on many of the government's food safety initiatives, acting on the recommendations contained in the Weatherill report. Government action on all 57 recommendations is either well under way, ongoing, or completed. We have never been in a better position to prevent, detect, and respond to food-borne illness outbreaks in Canada. There is excellent coordination among federal departments, provincial and territorial partners, and key stakeholders. Within the federal government, senior managers are meeting regularly, thanks to valuable forums such as the food safety review special committee of deputy heads.
[Translation]
We have seen the benefits of this improved coordination in action.
[English]
It has helped us manage several recent food safety outbreaks, such as the Siena meat recall late last year and the salmonella Chester outbreak this past summer. Today I'll focus briefly on the most recent developments since June related specifically to the agency's role.
I'll begin with outbreak response. The food-borne illness outbreak response protocol, or FIORP, is the key document guiding how governments work together when managing national or international food-borne outbreaks. You will recall that this protocol was endorsed by the provinces and territories in June and posted on the web. The agency will be conducting exercises of the FIORP with provinces and territories this fall and winter. We're also planning for a national exercise in the spring of 2011. To support this, the agency is also developing a food-borne illness emergency response plan and an incident command structure. This will enhance coordination and capacity among all the partners.
Work on a model plan has begun. We'll be seeking input shortly from federal, provincial, and territorial partners on the plan so that it may be finalized the next fiscal year.
Second, I'd like to focus on enhanced surveillance and early detection activities. Surveillance and detection are directed at early identification of outbreaks so that suitable measures can be taken by all involved.
In this context, we are continuing to expand our participation in PulseNet Canada, a national network of federal and provincial labs using DNA fingerprinting to match bacterial samples from humans and food, and we link ourselves to other countries as well. Training and certification programs for PulseNet member labs have now been expanded, as has research capacity at our national microbiology lab in Winnipeg.
I'm pleased to report that the agency has initiated plans for a pilot implementation of Canada Health Infoway's Panorama system. This pilot process will be very useful for us in testing our surveillance to help manage multi-jurisdictional outbreaks. Currently we're testing its integration with our existing alerting systems and seeking input from our partners. We are aiming to complete this process before the end of September in fiscal year 2011-12.
The agency has also made improvements to the national surveillance of listeriosis by adding listeria monocytogenes to the national enteric surveillance program.
The independent investigator recommended the development of surge capacity in dealing with major food-borne illness outbreaks. I'd like to note that key stakeholders are being consulted through a national workshop this month on the development of an agency-led public health reserve pilot, the model for which we aim to complete by March 31, 2011.
[Translation]
Exercising of reservists and assessment of the pilot will be completed by January 2012.
[English]
Finally, I'd like to address communications.
One of the issues raised in the Weatherill report was the effectiveness of public communications during an outbreak. We now have a suite of plans in place to guide our actions.
The FIORP, which I mentioned a moment ago, includes provisions that clarify communications responsibilities of the federal, provincial, and territorial partners during an outbreak. The focus is on collaboration for a timely communication with the public and those at risk.
Further, to better achieve coordination at the federal level, the agency worked with Health Canada and CFIA to develop a communications protocol on food safety issues. This protocol identifies the agency as the lead on communications to the public during a national food-borne illness emergency. It is already helping us to improve how we work together when communicating with Canadians during an outbreak, as we saw with H1N1. To help identify how it might be strengthened and to ensure that staff are familiar with it, the protocol will be tested with a series of tabletop exercises over the coming months.
The agency has also developed a strategic risk communications plan that will guide how the agency communicates to Canadians during food-borne illness outbreaks. The plan, which we have begun to implement, includes messages tailored to specific at-risk groups and makes use of a variety of traditional and innovative formats. These formats include the food safety web portal, stakeholder and media briefings, and webcasts. If a national outbreak were to occur, the agency is ready to assume leadership and implement the major elements to the plan as part of its response.
Madam Chair, this provides a broad-strokes overview of activities since June. These and many other activities are detailed in the collaborative report that you have before you, the October 2010 update to “Progress on Food Safety”.
I thank the committee for their interest in the implementation of the recommendations of the independent investigator.
[Translation]
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about the Public Health Agency of Canada. Thank you.
:
Madam Chair, honourable members, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today to provide you with an update on the efforts of Health Canada in fulfilling the recommendations of the independent investigator in her 2009 report.
Joining me today from Health Canada is Dr. Jeff Farber, Director of the Bureau of Microbial Hazards in the Health Products and Food Branch.
[Translation]
As previously expressed to this committee, protecting and promoting the health and safety of Canadians, their families and their communities is of paramount importance to Health Canada.
[English]
We take very seriously our role to protect Canadians by minimizing risks not only from listeria but also other food-borne pathogens, chemical contaminants, and other potential hazards.
[Translation]
Health Canada fulfills its regulatory role using its scientific capacity and through effective collaboration with its partners, such as the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and its international counterparts.
[English]
Today I'd like to summarize three key areas in which we have taken action in response to the Weatherill report, these being regulatory guidance and approvals, health risk assessments, and communication to Canadians about food safety.
Starting with regulatory guidance and approvals, we have made significant progress in updating our listeria policy. In collaboration with our federal partners and in consultation with industry, academia, health professionals, and consumers, we have revised our policy on listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods. The revised policy was published for consultation in March of this year. After receiving and incorporating feedback, the final revised policy has been made available recently with an effective date of April 1, 2011, to allow for an orderly transition by both industry and compliance and enforcement agents.
It is important to note that our ongoing discussions and interactions with our food industry partners have allowed them to move forward and initiate improvements to their food safety programs throughout this period and to enhance the control of listeria in high-risk foods, such as ready-to-eat meat. The changes made will encourage early identification of contaminants in processing facilities and enhance prevention and early detection. This will allow corrective action to avoid contamination of finished products.
In addition, to improve timely detection and identification of food-borne pathogens, Health Canada has been validating a novel method for the testing of listeria. This method shortens the current analysis timeline from seven to ten days to three to five days. We are now in the last steps of the validation process and anticipate that the method will be available for use in April 2011.
We are also collaborating with the National Research Council to develop a microchip-based method for listeria detection, which if it proves successful would allow for results, in future, in 48 hours.
To address another finding in the independent investigator's report, Health Canada has established a new process that allows us to prioritize and fast-track the approvals of food safety interventions with proven health benefits. Through this process, Health Canada has been able to approve the use of two food additives that can help control the growth of listeria monocytogenes as well as a novel high-pressure manufacturing process to reduce microbial hazards from food. To further address this issue, Health Canada is developing guidelines for industry that set out the criteria being used to prioritize submissions pertaining to these interventions.
With regard to health risk assessment capacity, we continue to strengthen our surge capacity by hiring and training more scientific risk assessors to respond to food safety events and to continue to provide 24/7 health risk assessments to CFIA. In Health Canada, we have increased our capacity by six full-time equivalents over the last two years and we are in the process of hiring an additional seven scientific health risk assessors. We have also cross-trained additional staff to provide surge capacity, if needed, during food safety events.
Using this improved capacity, between April 1, 2010, and September 30, 2010, Health Canada evaluators conducted 108 health risk assessments to assist in food safety investigations conducted by CFIA. All of these were completed in less than the eight-hour service standard established for the most serious level of risk.
[Translation]
Finally, in terms of communications, we are continually looking for ways to improve how and when to communicate the risks of food-borne pathogens to Canadians.
[English]
For example, we are well under way with a three-year risk communication and social marketing campaign. This campaign kicked off in March of this year and seeks to provide Canadians with information not only on listeria, but on issues of how to handle food safely and how to avoid food-borne illnesses in general.
[Translation]
We are making a particular effort to target those segments of the population that are at a greater risk of complications from food-borne illness, such as older adults, pregnant women and those with weakened immune systems.
[English]
Currently, our campaign includes magazine advertisements and the addition of booklets designed specifically to target each of the previously mentioned vulnerable groups. The combined circulation of these magazines is close to two million.
We've also launched web-based communications efforts that feature videos and interactive tools, which can also target these groups and identify specific actions that can be taken to help reduce their risk for food-borne illness. For example, in our video targeted for older adults, there are tips for buying and storing food products safely, as well as information on those foods to avoid.
Health Canada will also be working with our partners at the provincial, territorial, and local levels to ensure the food safety material developed is available in multiple languages. We will complement the efforts that are already being made to ensure that all Canadians are able to obtain and understand the steps they can take to help reduce the risk of food-borne illness.
I hope my presentation today provides the committee with a sense of our progress in response to the recommendations from the report of the independent investigator.
[Translation]
These measurable improvements enhance how we assess the risks to our food products and better enable us to collaborate with our federal partners to better address those risks.
[English]
In closing, as I mentioned at the outset, I reiterate our commitment to promoting the safety of food for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before the committee today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have later. Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the progress that has been made by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on the recommendations made by Sheila Weatherill.
[English]
We are working closely with all the players in the food safety system, including producers, processors, other levels of government, and consumers, to improve food safety for Canadians. All of us--government, industry, and consumers--share responsibility for an effective food safety system. Our food safety system in Canada is among the best in the world.
As my colleagues have noted, the government's recently released food safety progress report sets out our progress on the recommendations of the independent investigator. I would like to briefly highlight three goals against which we have made significant progress: inspection capacity, communications and information, and collaboration.
First, on inspection capacity, significant new resources have been added for food inspection activities. We are hiring 170 additional inspectors. As of this week, we have 150 of those inspectors on staff. The rest will be hired and trained over the next few weeks. This will improve our capacity significantly.
[Translation]
In addition, significant effort has gone into improving our training program for both new inspectors and existing staff.
While our initial effort is focused on training new inspectors, more systematic and updated refresher training will be delivered to all inspection staff. This training will help agency staff keep abreast of developments in science, technology and new testing methods.
[English]
The second area I will highlight is communications and information. Recognizing that an informed public is an important factor in the fight against food-borne illness, we are using new means to provide better information on food safety risks. The consumer centre section of the CFIA website has been redesigned to provide more information on important food safety issues and to more clearly explain the roles that consumers, government, and industry play in food safety. In addition, we are in the process of setting up a consumer round table as an ongoing mechanism for better communications between the CFIA and consumers. Technology such as Twitter is being used by the CFIA to communicate information on food safety issues and recalls.
We continue to engage with Canadians through national public information campaigns. We are also sharing more information on lower-risk recalls and on food-producing establishments that have had enforcement actions taken against them.
In terms of collaboration, the CFIA continues to work closely with its federal food safety partners, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada. The CFIA has worked with the Public Health Agency to develop a comprehensive risk communications strategy that will guide how the agency communicates to Canadians during a national food-borne illness outbreak. Health Canada and the CFIA are improving and validating detection methods for listeria and other hazards in food to reduce testing time and enable more rapid response during food safety investigations.
Several of the Weatherill recommendations were directed at industry. The CFIA is meeting regularly with representatives of industry and uses these opportunities to assess how best to work together to further improve food safety within the context of our regulatory responsibilities. As I noted, we have one of the best food safety systems in the world due in large part to the professionalism and dedication of agency staff and staff in Health Canada, Public Health Agency, and the collaboration of our partners. We will continue to work with our partners to improve the system and to inform Canadians of our progress in this very important area.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I thank all of you for being here.
I have essentially two questions, and they're for CFIA.
You have given us some information about the number of inspectors. A release was issued by the Agriculture Union this morning. In light of that, I'm going to ask you a question.
They estimate there were more inspectors working in the non-slaughter meat establishments before the Maple Leaf Foods outbreak than the number of inspectors CFIA estimates are required today. Prior to the outbreak, there were approximately 220 inspectors who devoted the vast majority of their working day to CVS--compliance verification system--tasks in these meat establishments. Today, CFIA estimates it needs only 155 FTE inspectors to cover the same territory. Even adding the FTEs for non-CVS work—and you know all that jargon—the total would still fall short of staffing levels before the outbreak.
You've given us some numbers, and I don't know whether they tally. I just quoted from the press release that came this morning.
This is a very serious allegation, if it's true. Could you please respond with specific data—not with what you might have thought this morning or yesterday, but with very specific data—to the statement from the Agriculture Union?
:
Madam Chair, I'd be pleased to answer that question.
The CFIA takes the compliance verification system very seriously. It is one of the essential aspects of ensuring that we have safe food.
Following Sheila Weatherill's recommendations, we took a very hard look at our compliance verification system. We did that in many ways. We asked experts to actually look at the tasks that make up CVS, and they produced a report, which I believe has been made available to this committee through the progress report the government has tabled.
We conducted a front-line assessment, for which we met across the country with a variety of front-line inspectors with the Agriculture Union present, to make sure that we had discussions on how CVS was being implemented and what the challenges were. We took all that information together, and there were in fact recommendations for improving CVS. We have acted on those recommendations.
The recommendations related to more inspection capacity, which we're putting in place. There were suggestions about tools, and we are improving connectivity among inspectors. They related to the nature of updating the meat manual of procedures, which we have updated and are keeping up to date. They related to the number of CVS tasks, and in fact we took a very hard look at the CVS tasks and added CVS tasks.
I'm quite confident in saying that we took a very hard look at CVS, in conjunction with the union. That information is public, and we are acting on what we found to improve CVS.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, absolutely we did.
I believe what you're referring to is an audit that we posted, which was done of the CFIA's import policy. The audit covered the period from 2005 to 2008 and it identified shortcomings. We have, in fact, had a very clear look at the shortcomings and are implementing a number of measures, which have dealt with what might be shortcomings.
I would also point out that the government announced the food safety action plan in 2008 with money for CFIA, among others, to focus exactly on risks related to importing foods. We have taken those funds, we are doing more border blitzes, we have increased our testing of high-risk foods, and we have basically used the audit to help define how we should be spending the money in order to improve our inspection of imported foods.
We are very clear that the level of safety of imported foods and domestically produced foods, of course, has to be the same. We cannot put Canadians at risk from import foods. So we did use the audit, we did use the money the government gave us in the food safety action plan, and we focused on imported products.
:
Thank you very much to the honourable member for his question.
No, we are on the schedule as outlined by Meena Ballantyne, our ADM, health products and food branch, when she was here earlier.
We went through a multi-stage process, so in March we posted the draft guidelines. We took a process of gathering the best science and information we could worldwide. I think Canada is now a leader in listeria guidelines as a result of the time that it was taken. We did extensive research prior to posting the draft in March. We then accepted comments and had consultations, because again we felt we wanted to have the best possible document. We did that over the summer. We received over 400 comments from 33 respondents. We reviewed those comments and have now incorporated them into the policy. So the policy is posted.
When I mentioned April 1 as the implementation date, it's because there's always a transition period for both the CFIA inspectors—obviously training and procedures need to be put in place to match the policy—and also for industry. So we are saying to them that this is the standard to which they will be held, this is the policy, and they then have the time to implement the specifics of the policy. So it was always intended that we would post the policy in this timeframe, and we know industry has been doing a great deal already to bring themselves up to standard again. Because of the consultation period, it's not as if this is new to them, but our practice is always to give some time before we finally implement it so people can adjust.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for being here to address this very important issue.
Sheila Weatherill found, and I quote from her report, that
Although the CVS is regarded as a sound system and has broad support, it needs critical improvements related to its design, planning and implementation.
Then she also indicated that
If senior management had been more engaged, the CFIA executives might have recognized that the new inspection system was being implemented without a detailed assessment of the resources available to take on these new tasks....
I want to ask you about the PricewaterhouseCoopers report released on October 21. As I understand it, PricewaterhouseCoopers was commissioned to conduct the resources audit Weatherill called for in her recommendation number seven. I'll read you recommendation number seven:
To accurately determine the demand on its inspection resources and the number of required inspectors, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should retain third-party experts to conduct a resources audit. The experts should also recommend required changes and implementation strategies. The audit should include analysis as to how many plants an inspector should be responsible for and the appropriateness of rotation of inspectors.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers report includes the following statement:
This review does not constitute certification or guarantee the accuracy of CFIA's calculation since the review did not involve, for example, either of the following: detailed testing, analysis or validation (for reliability or completeness) of data sources (e.g. timesheets or CVS reports) underlying CFIA's calculations; or technical or other assessments of CVS tasks in terms of the appropriateness of their nature, frequency or duration.
It sounds to me as if CFIA has not yet complied with Weatherill's recommendations. I'm just wondering, when will you?
:
The compliance verification system is an absolutely essential part of the agency, and Sheila Weatherill quite properly spent a fair bit of time on it in her report.
I'd like to talk about a couple of things we have done. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report was an independent look at the calculation CFIA had done of inspection resources needed to deliver CVS. We opened our books to PricewaterhouseCoopers. We opened our doors to PricewaterhouseCoopers. We gave it whatever it wanted. In its report PricewaterhouseCoopers, in my view, did confirm that it has found our estimates of resources required were accurate.
We did not leave it at that. As Sheila Weatherill challenged us to do, we looked at how CVS is actually being implemented. We talked to front line inspectors across the country in conjunction with the union again, I might add, because we recognize the union as an important partner in making sure CVS is effective.
We commissioned specific experts to look at the minutiae of CVS tasks and understand if we had the right tasks and the right time allocated to those tasks. We found there were things we could improve, and we did improve them.
For instance, we added additional CVS tasks. This is quite technical, but we did add additional CVS tasks. We gave more time, in fact, for inspectors to do certain CVS tasks, as we heard from inspectors themselves. We improved the training they were given in how to implement CVS, and we improved the tools they have in the organizations, again, to implement this very important verification system.
The approach we have taken to training is to enhance our entire training approach, both for new inspectors and for existing staff. As the president of CFIA has noted, there are significant numbers of new inspectors being hired. There is a substantive training program that they go through before they are on the line, so to speak.
As well, existing staff also are being offered the training. The training becomes a mandatory component of the overall program. Having additional inspectors allows us to move existing inspection staff through training, because, as you know, we need the inspection staff to step back from their daily duties to take training.
It is the combination of both things—the availability of a comprehensive program of enhanced training, which we have developed for inspection staff, and the availability of increased inspection capacity, which frees up staff to ensure they are available to take that improved training—that addresses the issue staff legitimately have raised with us of their interest in continual improvement of their skills.
:
Panorama is the name for an integrated suite of tools, not just for surveillance but also case management. In the budget--I think it was in 2004--money was given to Canada Health Infoway for the development of a surveillance tool that could also serve as a case management tool. There are a number of aspects to the modules. The one we're piloting is around food-borne illness.
All provinces have been involved in the discussions, and a number of provinces have signed on to it. Different provinces use different systems. The reason for the funding in the first place was the recognition of the value of a system that could bring together the work of a public health nurse, a public health inspector, and immunization records. You can interrelate the data more efficiently and have more timely data in terms of reporting, for instance.
There are many systems out there, but this is the one it was felt would be valuable to put together. Now it's coming to the point where provinces are actually looking at implementation. Not all provinces or territories will be implementing it at this point. Some have other systems they use. Our chief concern federally is that whatever systems are used, the systems are able to either talk to each other or we have a way to recognize when a potential outbreak is developing and gather the data for the information we need to do our collective jobs.
In the old days we used to do that by paper--or if there was something urgent, a phone call, etc. Now, with the advent of the linkage of the public health laboratories across the country, the PulseNet Canada system allows us to say, “Oh, this particular listeria is the same strain of listeria we're seeing in the three cases in Ontario, the two cases in B.C. What are the characteristics of that?”
That's what allowed us to figure out that we actually had an outbreak with the listeria outbreak at Maple Leaf Foods. At the peak of that outbreak, there were only five to seven cases a week reported in Canada, against a background of 20,000 to 30,000 of us every day with those symptoms.
There is the combination of the laboratory surveillance we do and the work in comparing with other surveillance systems--and if there is time, perhaps Frank can speak a bit more to that--so that we have the picture we need to identify when something is going wrong.
Whether it's for this, or the next H1, or whatever, Panorama will hopefully give us faster, more accurate data because of the ability to electronically roll up that information. It doesn't keep us from doing our jobs--there are other ways we get that information--but it will make it more efficient. It will make the work of inspectors and nurses hopefully easier in terms of the collection of information and the management of cases.
One of the important things about surveillance is that when someone gets ill, they may or may not go to the doctor. If they don't go to the doctor, there's no diagnosis—and the majority never go, and never need to actually. Then those who go to the doctor may or may not get tested. Generally, you're not going to test everybody, and that's quite appropriate clinically. But if they're not getting better, then you'll test; or if they're severely ill or in hospital, you'll test. Then if it's tested, you may or may not pick it up in the laboratory, and then whether it gets typed....
So what we've done in the system—and Frank has described the laboratory system—is to make it better integrated, which increases the chances that if someone is tested, we will actually figure it out and be able to do something and recognize the links. It's far better today than five to ten years ago. If the listeria outbreak had happened ten years ago, we probably would never have actually found it until it was so big that it was just overwhelming.
Just to clarify this, I didn't say I couldn't identify the number of inspectors. We can very clearly state that on, for example, March 31, 2010, the CFIA had just over 3,300 field inspectors. What I said was related specifically to the question of how many non-slaughter inspectors there were prior to the listeria outbreak. I simply don't have that number with me here today. Those are two very different things.
The agency, in its work around inspection and increasing inspection capacity, has made this a very clear area of focus. When we speak of non-slaughter meat processing, we have to understand that it includes broad meat processing, read-to-eat meat, cold storage, etc.
So the inspection coverage for our non-slaughter capacity is the area of focus that the honourable member's question went to. In speaking to that, what's important is that in addition to the capacity that existed prior to the review undertaken by the independent investigator, the CFIA has added to and augmented that capacity to the tune today of 150 inspectors, with an ultimate target of 170 additional inspectors.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your question.
For us as well, the challenge is to continue to be aware of new scientific methods and all the international developments in this and other areas.
[English]
For us, I think it is that challenge of making sure we keep up with the science. At this moment, we're very comfortable that we've combed the world, that we have gathered the scientific experts and have built the linkages with our international partners. We are very much focused on the current state-of-the-art science. But we also know that just as nature will change and throw us new challenges, science will continue to develop very rapidly.
I think for us it's never a matter of a point in time. It's never a matter of just one disease--listeria versus salmonella or E. coli or others. It is really to keep on top of the totality of the challenges in the scientific world. That is, I think, what our experts do.
Madam Chair, perhaps I will ask Dr. Farber if he could expand on that.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, witnesses.
Through the agriculture committee, I had the distinct privilege of actually sitting on the subcommittee on food safety, which came out of the report I have in front of me. It talked about a number of issues that brought us to the 57 recommendations that Ms. Weatherill brought forward. I'm very happy to hear the comments about how that is moving and what has been accomplished, and at the end of the day within a very great timeline, with some of the complexities, they're actually all going to be met.
My understanding is that this is an agreement among all three agencies on how you're working together to make this happen. Would that be a fair statement? Thank you.
In the report, Dr. Brian Evans again said:
What was critical to this whole event was this determination at the end of the day that in spite of cleaning and disinfection and breaking down of equipment according to manufacturers' specifications, beyond the cutting and contact surfaces, a new threat, a new issue, was identified in this particular circumstance, which we had no knowledge about, that could colonize deep into the equipment.
Then Michael McCain, on numerous occasions, said,
“No amount of inspection, be it higher or lower, would have changed the outcome. If you want to go to the exact cause of this outbreak, it was not about a lack of inspection. It wasn't about the lack of product testing or a lack of inspectors.” Witnesses directly involved in the Maple Leaf plant repeated Mr. McCain's opinion that the inspectors at the plant did their jobs and were adequate.
Is this a true statement?
I'll talk to Dr. Butler-Jones first.
:
I want to go, actually, to a comment my colleague Dr. Duncan made earlier. Her comment was about needing more numbers, and quite honestly all sides over there are talking that. They are questioning the numbers and saying how important is it to have more inspectors.
In 2005, in the previous government—and I know you weren't here, Ms. Duncan, at that time, but some people on that other side actually were here—mandatory testing and reporting by CFIA was cancelled. As a result, Maple Leaf Foods was not required to submit its environmental test to CFIA in the months leading up to the outbreak. For three months before the outbreak, Maple Leaf Foods collected periodic positive environmental test results for listeria but were not required to submit, were not required because it had been cancelled. As a result, CFIA was not informed of the listeria problem in the Maple Leaf Foods plant.
Since April 1, 2009, plant operators must now conduct environmental testing and immediately report any positive listeria results to CFIA. This new policy, which was brought in in 2009, also adds that additional environmental and end-product testing be done. I don't know, Dr. Butler-Jones, or to the CFIA, whether that actually would have stopped it. I'm certainly listening to what Maple Leaf has said, but I guess what I'm wondering about is whether this is a reality in terms of that change.
Secondly, quite honestly, we heard the same comments during our discussions at the subcommittee, about the union always saying more people needed to be hired. I understand that's what their objective is, but I'm wondering now what this conflict is in terms of not having enough people, when actually the former government cancelled a lot of the testing that had to be done. Can you talk to me just a little bit about the significance of the numbers we have? Actually, this new protocol that was brought in in 2009, does it have value?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Once again, I'd like to bring this discussion back more to the mandate of this committee, if we can do that, and talk about the health aspects, for which this committee does have the mandate.
One of the things Health Canada has done is strengthen the risk assessment capacity. I think you talked about that, Ms. Yeates, in your presentation. You talked about increasing the capacity by six FTEs over the last two years and being in the process of hiring an additional seven scientific health risk assessors. As well, you talked about the cross-training to provide surge capacity.
I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more on that. Also, when you're talking about that, could you address one of the findings in the Weatherill report that stated that there were gaps in Health Canada's ability to provide 24/7 response to the CFIA requests for risk assessment?
In terms of our cross-training, for example, we have an evaluation division in our bureau and we have two or three sections. One, for example, would be a policy section; another would be a risk assessment section. What we've actually done is to train people in the other sections in case of surge capacity, so they can also get involved in doing the risk assessment work. As our deputy mentioned, we've already increased the numbers and have added to the roster of risk assessment people we can call upon when the CFIA requests a health risk assessment for us.
In terms of the gaps that were mentioned in the report, I just want you to note that, in terms of the risk assessments that were actually done during the listeriosis outbreak, we met all the service standards at that time. We believe that some of the gaps that were mentioned were possibly when there was extra surge capacity. Let's say there were two or three or four outbreaks going on at the same time. We may have been overwhelmed at that point, as you can imagine, and that's what we've addressed now by hiring these extra people. In case we need that extra search capacity, we now have that on hand.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
As you know, we work very closely with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The outbreak of listeria, as you know, occurred in meats. We now have to take that one step further, because our Health Canada policy applies not only to meats but also to all foods sold in Canada, including dairy, seafood, and produce.
We've had to work very closely with the CFIA on when our policy comes out, giving them the overall general direction. They have already started to work with the various industries to see what the capacity or capability of some of these industries is to implement some of the things we have recommended in the policy.
I just want you to realize as well that when we are looking at listeria and some of these outbreaks, the United States, just to give you an example, had about seven or eight years to deal with some of the things that were going on with their meat outbreaks. We've had to do since 2008 what they did in seven to nine years in trying to get a better handle on things.
So overall, I think we have done an excellent job. We continue to work with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They've done a very good job. We've already also met with industry in pre-consultations. So a lot of this is really not going to be new to them; we've already consulted them and they know what's coming down. CFIA has also worked with them.
So I see it being a fairly smooth transition towards that April 1, 2011, date.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity to respond and to provide more information.
[English]
At Health Canada, we have two policies in this area on which we have given the committee our deadlines and achievements. I've updated you on the one, and I'd like to have a chance to give you the information on the other as well.
I spoke about the implementation of the listeria policy, and we've talked a bit about that here. But in addition, the independent investigator suggested in her report that we also come up with a mechanism for giving priority either to food additives or other interventions that might have public health implications. So rather than simply considering them in the same lineup or queue as other food additives for review, the investigator suggested we have a mechanism for putting them in a fast track for approval if they have these broader implications.
I think my colleague, when she was here, also spoke about this timeframe. It's in fact the case that we've put in place this fast-track mechanism now. So we are now in the position of pulling things out and putting them in that fast-track process when they have these broader public health implications. In fact, we have used that process to approve some of the interventions I mentioned.
In addition, I think my colleague spoke about the fact that we wanted to put out a guidance document to industry so that they would know how to qualify for this faster-track process, so there would be a clear set of guidance to industry about how to identify their intervention as something that might qualify for the fast track. That's the guidance document that we said we would have out. We are on track to do that within the next month, in accordance with the timeframe mentioned before.