AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 23, 2001

• 0908

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder) (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)): Please come to order. It is my pleasure this morning to chair this committee.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Well, thank you for your support. Thank you. It scares me, but it's nice to see that I do have your support.

We have in front of us this morning the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, with Dr. Gravel and Ms. Werry.

Dr. Gravel, please proceed.

Dr. André Gravel (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have this opportunity today to address the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I have been asked, as the executive vice-president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, to talk about the safety measures we have in place to protect our agriculture and food sector.

As you said, Mr. Chairman, I also have with me today Trudy Werry, who is the manager of the office of emergency management at the agency.

Let me begin by saying we certainly recognize that the events of September 11 have changed the world for many people. We are now considering potential threats to our security in a manner never before imagined. Indeed, during my last appearance before this committee I conceded that a threat to our agriculture sector was very real. However, I also think most people would agree we must be strong and resolute in our efforts to counter terrorism.

At the Canadian Food Inspection Agency we are always on alert, and I am confident we are always vigilant in our work.

• 0910

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 for a living will not change. Our priority is always food safety, animal health and plant protection, regardless of whether there is a terrorist threat or not.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is in the business of protecting the food supply, and in fact we have extensive experience in preventing and responding to various contaminants in the food supply. We have strategies and systems in place to protect the food supply from animal diseases, crop diseases, environmental hazards, and contamination of food products at the various stages of food production. We are ready to respond to hazards in the food supply, find hazards, contain them, and eliminate them, regardless of whether these hazards are the result of criminal threats or accidents.

Essentially, it really doesn't matter to the agency whether a threat to the food supply is the result of terrorism or not. Our response will be to control and remedy the situation, according to the emergency plans and procedures we have in place. Having said that, we remain cognizant of the new environment we are living in, after September 11.

The agency is evaluating its various emergency response plans, to assess whether they are adequate and appropriate in the event of a threat to the agricultural sector. We are always looking to improve our emergency preparedness, and we have many dedicated professionals in the agency who are ready to respond immediately to any food safety emergencies.

[Translation]

Today, Mr. Chairman, I would like to concentrate on four areas that involve the Agency, which contribute to our capabilities for protecting the agriculture and food sector in Canada. I will talk about our presence at points of entry, including land crossings, airports and seaports. Our inspection activities at points of entry are the first line of defence for preventing unwanted agents from entering the country.

I will also touch on our surveillance and detection activities, which primarily concern our activities domestically to prevent threats to the food supply. I will talk as well today about our science capacity, which represents important resources in our detection and disease control programs.

And finally Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on our overall emergency management framework, which is essential to the effectiveness of our response to food safety hazards.

[English]

The best way to prevent contaminants from affecting the Canadian food supply and domestic livestock, of course, is to keep them out of the country in the first place. Import specialists with the agency are continually assessing products from other countries, and constantly monitoring new and emerging developments in potential food hazards, in order to make necessary adjustments to our import requirements.

Our import regulations provide a framework for restricting the entry of animal, plant and food products that may pose threats to the safety of our food supply. However, import restrictions are certainly not the only preventive actions we take. Agency inspectors are involved in several different activities at Canadian borders. Perhaps the most visible enforcement activity of the agency is the use of detector dogs at airports.

Detector dogs are specially trained to sniff out plant and animal products that may be coming into the country illegally. These products could pose a hazard to the food supply, and many of them are seized at the border. The use of detector dogs has been an extremely successful program for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We are currently training more of both the detector dogs and the handlers, to further enhance this important activity. This type of surveillance measure to detect susceptible products at the border has been increased by the agency recently, in light of worldwide threats to the Canadian food supply.

The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom earlier this year serves as an excellent example of how the agency can respond to a threat to our agricultural sector from outside our borders. Travellers from countries infected by foot-and-mouth disease are required to follow simple but effective disinfectant procedures at Canadian international airports, including the use of disinfectant mats. You may recall the Prince of Wales visiting Canada this summer, and walking through one of our disinfectant mats over the red carpet on the airport tarmac.

• 0915

In cooperation with our partners at Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, we have also increased surveillance of passengers and baggage arriving on international flights. These measures include secondary inspections of luggage, the use of additional disinfection mats, and cleaning of packed footwear or other gear that may be soiled.

Other measures include signage at Canadian airports informing passengers of the risk of foot-and-mouth disease. Travellers are receiving advisories as well on the risk of transmitting foot-and-mouth disease. In-flight announcements are ongoing, advising travellers of preventive measures.

Compliance investigations for the handling and disposal of international garbage at airports and seaports have also been increased. In addition, inspection service has been increased at mail-sorting facilities.

[Translation]

The Agency and the Government of Canada continue to respond in a manner appropriate to the prevalence of animal diseases overseas, with preventive actions and contingency planning. Some of these measures include the distribution of educational information to industry groups, agricultural association events, public information sessions and rural communities. There has also been official release of information through the media and paid advertisements in major newspapers, magazines and agricultural publications.

In order to co-ordinate these preventive measures, Mr. Chairman, the federal government formed an interdepartmental committee earlier this year which continues to review and assess our actions.

[English]

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency remains vigilant and committed to its efforts in preventing foot-and-mouth disease and other serious animal diseases from entering Canada, just as it remains on alert for any other hazards, such as foot-borne pathogens and contaminants, or plant pests. Preventing entry of these potential threats from outside our borders is critical to protecting our food supply, but the agency also places a high priority on monitoring our food supply inside Canada's borders.

The agency's surveillance and inspection programs are designed to detect the presence of hazards in food, animals and plants. These programs are intended to provide an early warning for any kind of threat, whether it is accidental or intentional.

As I previously stated, the agency has strategies and procedures in place that are designed to respond to any hazard or threat, regardless of whether it's the result of terrorism or a naturally occurring event.

I reiterate that the agency is committed to food safety and consumer protection. We maintain a strong presence with our programs and inspection activities at abattoirs, auctions and food processing plants. The agency inspects food produced at federally registered slaughter houses and processing plants, and carries out enforcement activities related to food.

To carry out its mandate, the agency has a highly qualified staff including vets, inspectors, research scientists and lab technicians. Agency staff investigate potential sources of contamination at federally registered meat plants, and we enforce corrective measures to be taken, if necessary, to protect consumers.

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 food emergency response capabilities. The agency acts in conjunction with Health Canada to request voluntary food recalls when the scientific evidence indicates there is any likelihood that a potential fatal bacterium or other hazards such as allergens are present in food products.

[Translation]

Surveillance and detection activities of the Agency also range from overseeing the feeds, seeds and fertilizers that growers use, to assessing new types of vegetables and fruits for safety. As well, through our animal health activities, we have the authority to quarantine or destroy diseased livestock that may pose a threat to public health.

• 0920

Our work almost always involves the collaboration of partners in food safety. For example, provincial and territorial governments are responsible for inspecting food processing establishments that distribute products provincially and territorially. In many cases, municipalities are responsible for inspecting restaurants.

All of these food safety measures are important to protecting Canada's food supply. But they would not be effective if not for our science capacity to verify and confirm various hazards.

A key component of our science capacity is our network of laboratories.

[English]

The agency operates 22 laboratories that are equipped for timely and efficient analysis of food safety hazards, animal diseases, and environmental contaminants.

The flagship of our lab network is the Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health in Winnipeg, which we operate with Health Canada. This level four bio-security lab is at the cutting edge of science for animal diseases, as well as human health.

The agency is working with other federal and provincial partners to share expertise and to enhance the ability of Canadian laboratories to rapidly identify agents of bio-terrorism. In light of the recent terrorism activity, the agency is increasing security at its lab, which handles agents that could be used as weapons of terrorism against the public, livestock, or wildlife. We are also advising other laboratories on security issues.

Canada is continually assessing new international scientific information as it becomes available and modifying our policies and procedures as required. The science capacity of our lab network is crucial in the ongoing approach. When creating our lab directorate, the agency incorporated an enhanced system of allocating resources strategically so that our labs are positioned to react to new developments in science. This integrated approach also helps our lab to facilitate technology transfer and expand the scope of scientific research through collaborations with other scientific communities.

While delivering on immediate needs, the integrated approach is conducive to maintaining national standards and strategically placing resources in support of critical directions in scientific research and development.

The lab network, Mr. Chairman, is a vital component in the overall food safety system that protects Canadians. Canada has in place well-planned emergency response procedures aimed at protecting food, plants, and animals.

The agency, which is responsible for food safety, animal health, and plant protection, along with other departments and provinces, continuously explores different ways in which it can improve all aspects of emergency preparedness. With Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the agency has established a food and agriculture emergency response system. This system outlines the emergency management framework for the agency and is designed to link the federal, provincial, and private sectors in an emergency response.

In addition to the agency's basic emergency plan, functional plans dealing with disease control, pest eradication, and food safety have been in place, in some cases, for over 50 years. We are also committed to continually improving these emergency response plans, as evidenced by the tripartite exercise on foot-and-mouth disease, which involved Canadian, U.S., and Mexican officials last year, along with the continuing activities that have evolved from the exercise.

[Translation]

The Agency has a well-established emergency food recall system, as I touched on earlier. The Office of Food Safety and Recall provides a consistent and co-ordinated approach to recall decision-making and to enhancing the Agency's food emergency response capability. The Agency, Health Canada and provincial and territorial counterparts have also developed a Food-borne illness Response Protocol, which is designed to improve co-ordination and response to food emergencies by all partners.

• 0925

The health and safety of Canadian consumers is the Agency's primary concern. The federal government, through the Agency and Health Canada, operates a rigorous and comprehensive food safety system to protect the health and environmental safety of our food supply. It is a complex system that requires scientific expertise, among other factors.

Canada's food safety system is indeed well respected internationally. The dedicated professionals that operate this system are proud of the work we do on behalf of Canadians. But in science, as in many other disciplines, there is no such thing as zero risk.

[English]

We must be cognizant of potential threats to our food supply. We must take these threats seriously. We must try to prevent any hazard and we must remain prepared to deal with any emergencies that are part of the risk we deal with in the business of food safety.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm thankful for the opportunity to make this presentation to the committee, and I now welcome any questions from members of the committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you very much, Dr. Gravel. It was a very interesting presentation. I know these are times in which we have to be very vigilant after September 11.

We'll go to the Canadian Alliance. Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): The food supply in Canada of course is safe, and I suppose the purpose of your meeting here today is to ensure as best we can that it remains safe. I think we all thank the CFIA for all the efforts they've put forward in this regard. The questions we'll ask are to try to determine if in fact you're covering all the bases in that.

I understand that the federal veterinarians have not yet had their contract agreed to and signed. Is that true?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, it is true.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Why is it? What's the main issue?

Dr. André Gravel: There are currently negotiations with the professional institute that represents the veterinarians. There is a little bit of disagreement on the issue of designation. Some of our professionals are designated in case of emergency to continue to deliver inspection programs, and this is one of the areas the agency is negotiating with the union about. As much as I'm sure you do, we certainly wish to put this thing behind us, especially in the case of a potential threat through bio-terrorism.

Regardless of what happens at the negotiation table, we are dealing with a very professional group of people who will not do anything to jeopardize our activities.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's good.

The urgency of this in light of today's world is such that I believe—and this is just a statement to you—that in fact the PMO should get involved in these negotiations and get them set.

The second part of the veterinarian question: In your organizational plan for dealing with terrorists or any other threat, is there a portion in there that includes an agreement with non-federal vets? For instance, there are the rural vets, whom we'll assume would be involved, but what about the cat-and-dog vets in the cities? Do you have an agreement with them so that if there's a big outbreak we can immediately put all of our veterinary services together? Do you have that agreement with their organization, their association, in each province?

Dr. André Gravel: If we're dealing with a big emergency such as foot-and-mouth disease in the U.K., there's no way the agency can handle that alone.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's why I'm asking.

Dr. André Gravel: Yes. There is an agreement with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. We've been in contact with them, and we have agreements with provinces as well. We have agreements with foreign countries whereby we can bring in additional resources if needed. The dog-and-cat vets, of course, if they're qualified, could be used. We have no formal agreement on that with provincial associations, but I'm sure the veterinary profession would mobilize in a case like this.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: In an emergency situation, even if they're not fully trained or experienced in a given thing, you give them a crash course and you get it in.

The other issue is what happens if there's a bio-terrorism of say foot-and-mouth disease? We'll use that as an example because it's what we're most familiar with, and you could tell us later about other possible contaminants. But say in Nova Scotia there's an outbreak in three different places on the same day, or on the same two days, and all of a sudden you have three different places, so it's obviously not some accident, whatever. Is there a plan in place to sectorally divide this country up so that, for instance, Ontario and the west could keep on exporting and this kind of thing?

• 0930

Dr. André Gravel: There is indeed a plan in place to zone Canada according to the prevalence of disease in a given county or a given province. The agency is ready to deal with this. However, regardless of what we do, we're dealing with importing countries and it's their decision as to whether they want to accept a product from Canada or not.

In the case of foot-and-mouth disease or any serious animal disease happening in a country, you would expect that the total country at first would be blocked from export until the agency and the others can demonstrate that the disease is well located and controlled, and then after that you can start negotiating with foreign countries for access from other provinces.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: When you seize a food item at a customs point, a border point, or an airplane, whatever, does your laboratory check that food item out for disease, or is it simply seized and destroyed?

Dr. André Gravel: Normally it's simply seized and destroyed, but given the situation now, if the inspector has any doubt that this could be more than illegal import of product, we can send it to one of our labs.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That inspector is not going to have any reason to believe anything is suspicious. Is there racial profiling or something that you're doing? I suspect you should be checking all these items, as opposed to just assuming there's nothing suspicious about it.

Let's get into this then. Is there in CFIA an investigative unit—i.e., one, or two, or three people who are in close liaison with CSIS and with the RCMP?

My experience in the RCMP indicates that bureaucracy is not able to establish those relationships that get intelligence quickly, directly to the area where there might be a problem. Do you have such a unit, or do you rely simply on the Solicitor General and the bureaucracy to get intelligence over to you? I'm talking here about prevention, preventing something happening, not responding to it. Do you have such a unit, and how does it work?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, we have an enforcement unit that investigates potential illegal situations. The linkages with the CSIS and RCMP are established.

In regard to your comment on bureaucracy, the agency, even though it's a large organization, is swift to make these decisions. I can tell you that what happened with foot-and-mouth disease really put the Government of Canada together on this.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The last question is on imported items, imported foods. There has to be CSIS intelligence to the effect that some imports from certain countries, or certain types of foods, are more susceptible to being contaminated. There may be a food that has a wide and quick distribution throughout the country. What are you doing in regard to imported foods from higher-risk areas of the world? And from the terrorism side, what are you doing? Are you doing more sampling? Do you have any intelligence from those areas of the world? What's happening there on imported foods?

Dr. André Gravel: Our import policy is risk-based. The level of inspection we apply to products depends on the country of origin and the possibility of a product being adulterated or contaminated. If a country is a country we've had problems with in the past, or if the exporter is an exporter that has given us problems, then our frequency of inspection will be much higher than for countries and producers that have a good track record.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you very much, Howard.

Marcel.

• 0935

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Given the times we are going through now, it is quite easy to panic. Just look at the number of false alarms there have been. But the situation, as you said, calls for caution. I think the Agency is doing a good job in that regard.

There is one thing that concerns us. Just one year ago and again six months ago, we were told that the Food Inspection Agency was short of staff at various points of entry. This was discussed particularly during the foot-and-mouth epidemic. We know that you now have to be very vigilant, not knowing where the next strike will occur or come from.

What have you done? Have you increased staff or signed contracts with private businesses to ensure that all points of entry and all places where food is handled are inspected?

Mr. André Gravel: Thank you, that is a very good question.

When it was set up, the Agency had about 4,500 employees. At last count, the agency had over 5,000 staff. So the Agency's resources have clearly been increased. The number of inspectors, our front line defence, has also increased quite significantly.

Last year, the Agency was given additional funds, for example, for biotechnology. The Agency received annual funding of $10 million to develop its biotechnology capacity. We also received $32 million this year and $20 million annually to increase our ability to detect food contaminants. Treasury Board has also given us additional funding to put more staff in airports. We have 54 more inspectors in Canadian airports since the outbreak of foot- and-mouth disease.

All of those resources we received last year enable us to do a better job. It is obviously a huge task to tackle, and we still need more staff, but I think we are in a better position than we were about a year or a year and a half ago.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Over the summer, I personally had to defend the Agency, because people arriving at the airports were kind of making fun of the much talked about green mat. They were saying that the Agency was doing that to show us that it was doing something and to reassure people. People were saying that it was not worth the bother. I even heard comments on the radio, particulary following the royal visit, making fun of the requirement for people entering Canada to disinfect their feet.

Was this requirement just to reassure people, or is it—because it still exists today, I believe—effective, necessary and essential?

Mr. André Gravel: It is effective, but were it the only requirement the Agency had imposed, I believe it could have been considered inadequate. Let's not forget that the Agency's first line of defence in this area is import control over products from countries affected by foot-and-mouth disease. For example, no products from England were allowed into Canada during the foot-and- mouth epidemic. The use of detector dogs in airports is our second line of defence. The mats are obviously of limited effectiveness; nevertheless, if someone came into Canada with muddy shoes, there was a possibility that this mud could transmit foot and mouth disease. The mat would have eliminated that possibility.

Keep in mind, too, that CCRA refers passengers to us who have answered yes to questions asked in flight, and that in some cases, we search their luggage. If, for example, we find more shoes that have been in contact with the ground, we decontaminate them.

So that is one of the steps the Agency takes. It is not the only one.

• 0940

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: It is part of a whole set of steps.

Mr. André Gravel: Precisely.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Perhaps this is not the case for every flight, but on the flight I happened to take, there appeared to be a lack of information. People needed information on the risks and answers to their questions. Has the Agency ensured that on all flights entering Canada, then and now, people are given all the information they need to understand that this is not a joke, but rather an essential protection measure?

Mr. André Gravel: I think you are raising a good point. The Agency has made substantial efforts to inform the public. As I said in my presentation, we have placed notices in the newspapers, bought television air time in the summer and made a video to be shown just before landing to inform people. There are also flyers that are handed out. In airports, we have posters explaining why the Agency is concerned.

It is never perfect, but we must keep on investing heavily in this area, because it is truly essential.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): We'll go to the government side. Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank you, Dr. Gravel, for your presentation this morning.

In my riding, and I'm sure in other ridings too, they annually carry out local emergency preparedness and emergency exercise programs. I've noted that in the late 1990s the United States, with defence and agriculture, conducted a multi-agency exercise based on a biological contamination of food. I'm wondering if we have ever conducted something like that here in Canada. I know we have the CFIA here in Canada. What do they do in the United States that is comparable to the CFIA here?

Dr. André Gravel: With your permission, Mr. Chair, I'll ask Trudy Werry to answer the question.

Ms. Trudy Werry (Director, Office of Emergency Management, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Under the Emergency Preparedness Act, first of all, all government departments regularly develop emergency plans to deal with events that fall under their areas of responsibility. The CFIA has done that on a regular basis, and we've also participated with the U.S.A. on emergency exercises, such as the one that was done last year on foot-and-mouth disease. It was an international, tripartite exercise with Canada, the U.S.A., and Mexico.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Are we, that is, Agriculture Canada, presently involved in Mr. Manley's team?

Dr. André Gravel: The agency is part of the overall government effort looking at improving our capacity to combat bio-terrorism. As I mentioned, we are a significant player at the border in the country. It's very important that the agency get its activities reviewed so we can determine the right level of protection.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Are we on Mr. Manley's team, though? Is Agriculture Canada part of that team?

Dr. André Gravel: I'm not sure. I don't think so.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You know I'm a strong supporter of CFIA. Looking within Canada, I think you've done a really good job.

What can the CFIA do to prevent acts of terrorism? If someone, a terrorist, really wants to do something, they're not like you, me, or the people sitting around this room. They have a different mindset—if they even have a mind; I don't know. How can CFIA ever predict what will happen? Is there additional expertise on terrorism that has been incorporated into CFIA to deal with the situation that presently exists, other than what was there before? Is there a new strategy?

Dr. André Gravel: The agency's business is food inspection, animal health, and plant protection. We're not a spy organization. However—

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But you need to have expertise in that field too to correlate your work.

Dr. André Gravel: I think we have to rely on the Canadian government's expertise in these areas. There are very well-trained people in CSIS and the RCMP, and linkages have been established with these organizations.

• 0945

As far as the agency's activities are concerned, as I mentioned, our first line of defence is what we do at the border. If it gets through the border—it can happen, and we don't pretend to catch everything—then the next step is to have a good team to detect these things as early as possible. Once we detect them, we need to have the laboratory's support in order to analyse these products, perhaps to determine whether it's a bacteria, a virus, or a chemical. We have that expertise in place.

I'm not saying the border is sealed tight and nothing will come in, but we have at different levels, through our vets and abattoirs, for example—you know that foot-and-mouth disease in the U.K. was discovered by a vet working in meat inspection. We have these people in all slaughter plants in Canada. We also have our vets going to auction marts to monitor animals, and we have in the course of our activities some of our staff going to farms, as an example, to do follow-ups on biological residue levels. We have these mechanisms in place, as well as our network with the provinces and their provincial labs. Everything has been put together, and if ever something happens, the earlier the warning is, the better it is for us.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But by the time it gets to an abattoir, down to that part of the system, it's almost too late, don't you think?

Dr. André Gravel: It is late, but better late than never. With respect to what happened in the U.K., it took them about a month to find out that they were dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. By that time, the sheep population had dispersed the agent throughout the country. If it gets to an abattoir, the agency now has a regulation that mandates beef cattle identification. When an animal is discovered with lesions, it will be identified and the farm of origin can easily be traced. I think this will certainly help in restricting the propagation of the disease.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Could you take the agriculture committee through what would happen if you detected some terrorism act? What would automatically go into play? What would happen immediately?

Dr. André Gravel: Let's use the example of foot-and-mouth disease being introduced—

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But could you talk about something beyond even foot-and-mouth, something even more dramatic than the foot-and-mouth we went through? What would be the red flag that would go up? This is not to make light of foot-and-mouth, by any means.

Dr. André Gravel: Well, foot-and-mouth has cost the U.K. $20 billion. That would take care of the Canadian surplus, for sure. However, I don't feel very comfortable using an example that could give some people some ideas.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I respect that, and I apologize for the question.

Dr. André Gravel: This is a public forum.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): We'll move on to the NDP. Dick?

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Dr. Gravel.

[English]

Has the Canadian Food Inspection Agency hired additional inspectors following September 11?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, indeed. We've significantly increased our inspection force, as I mentioned, to ensure that the agency is well positioned to detect and prevent potential threats.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Would all or most of these additional hires be for our border crossings?

Dr. André Gravel: A good part of them are for the border, but the agency has also hired people for our 14 different programs. The introduction of a threat in the food chain could be anywhere from inputs such as feed to live animals, to plants, or to water, so we need to have a good look at all these activities.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'd just like to pick up a little on where Rose-Marie was a minute or two ago.

Shortly after September 11 there was this story about crop-dusters in Saskatchewan and the possibility that people were snooping around there for malicious purposes, for potential terrorist activities or threats. Is that something the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was involved in, or was it a matter for the RCMP or other law enforcement agencies?

Dr. André Gravel: No, the agency was not involved in this case. Somebody else in the federal government had that responsibility.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Do you work with farmers in terms of cautioning them and advising them about the storage of fertilizers and other things that can and have been used in terrorist activities?

• 0950

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, at present the Solicitor General is leading a consultation with the provinces to identify gaps in the fight against terrorism, and also to identify the capabilities of the different provincial governments.

In the context of our education campaign on foot-and-mouth disease last year and this year, we had quite a few meetings with farmers in terms of how to detect and prevent the introduction of animal diseases to farms. The principles and actions are similar: controlling visitors, reporting suspicious people, making sure farmers know their suppliers—all these measures are the same. The provinces also have some responsibility in this regard: they meet with farmers on a regular basis through their extension programs. I'm sure this is something they'll discuss as well.

Mr. Dick Proctor: As I'm sure you're aware, by happenstance there was a meeting on terrorism for emergency personnel in Regina at the end of September, three or four weeks after the incident. They concluded—and I'm quoting here—that:

There are no national guidelines or response templates to guide municipal and provincial health services in the development of response plans for biological terrorist incidents.

The report went on to warn about the lack of set plans to deal with attacks involving chemicals, radiation, and nuclear weapons. What is the CFIA's position on that? What is your organization doing about it?

Dr. André Gravel: With your permission, I'll ask Trudy to answer the question.

Ms. Trudy Werry: This consultation has been a two-year initiative, with the federal government leading a discussion with the provinces and municipalities on enhancing or strengthening our capacity for counter-terrorism—especially dealing with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear events. That discussion mainly focuses on managing the consequences of such an incident. How do we deal with it and mitigate the impact? Our agency has been involved in these discussions, and we're working with the provinces and others to develop those options.

As you mentioned, one of the recommendations is on how to strengthen our inter-organizational or inter-agency emergency plans.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thanks very much, Dick.

Before I go to Rick and the PC/DR, I just want to make one point. André, in your question and answer to Rose-Marie, you said you weren't aware that agriculture was part of Minister Manley's response team. Is that true?

Dr. André Gravel: Well, I don't think the minister himself sits on that committee, but I could be wrong. There are definitely linkages with the committee, and the agency's position certainly gets addressed in an appropriate manner.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): So in your opinion, is it important for us to be involved in that response team?

Dr. André Gravel: I think it's important that our input is considered in the overall plan, because we're a significant player.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Okay.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't think the Minister of Health sits on that committee either, which is rather disturbing. But perhaps we can deal with that in another venue.

Dr. Gravel, thank you for being here. You haven't instilled a lot of confidence in me right now: I know there are a lot of questions to be asked with respect to food safety. As a matter of fact, an Ipsos-Reid poll was just done, and 75% of Canadians—a full three-quarters—indicated that they are concerned or very concerned about food safety, in the light of what's happening with bio-terrorism right now.

This study shows that most of these Canadians feel the major vulnerable area is food processing. Do you agree with that? The farm gate is actually quite low, and in the home it's even lower. Could there in fact be food contamination by bio-terrorism at the processing level?

Dr. André Gravel: Very clearly, the area of processing needs to be considered. In terms of our presence, that area probably has the highest level of inspection. The fact that Canadians are concerned about food safety is a significant worry for us, for sure.

• 0955

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can you just touch on that, Dr. Gravel? You say the highest level of presence we have in the government is CFIA. Weren't the processors themselves more responsible for inspections and safety procedures in the past? Didn't government depend on the processors themselves to put those safety measures into place?

Dr. André Gravel: They have their own system of quality assurance and safety, and the agency monitors what they do.

But what I was trying to express, in my imperfect English, is that if you compare the intensity of our inspections at the farm level to their intensity at the processing level, then processing is where we have the most presence.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But you do agree that the processors themselves are perhaps more responsible for their own inspections now than they were in the past?

Dr. André Gravel: Absolutely.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just to touch on that, then, I'll go back to the provincial-federal relationship. We recognize that in some provinces, and I won't mention names, they have in fact reduced their inspection resources, both financial and human. We know that provinces with processing are responsible for those areas. That could be very damaging if a major province in this country were targeted by bio-terrorists. That is certainly disturbing. So how involved is CFIA with provincial abattoirs and processors?

Dr. André Gravel: In some provinces, the agency delivers inspection services on behalf of the province. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and B.C. are three examples. We deliver meat inspection programs on their behalf, so in those cases we are present.

In other cases, such as in Quebec and Alberta, the province is responsible for the inspection systems. We normally don't go to these provincial plants unless there's an emergency. But we're responsible for recalls, and for investigating food safety problems.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

I wasn't quite comfortable with the answer to an earlier question. If there was an incident of bio-terrorism in agriculture—whether at the processing plant level, the abattoir level, or the farm gate level—which agency would take the lead on that incident and move it forward? Let's talk about a processing plant in one of the provinces you don't have any involvement in. What would be the lead agency? Who would we call on right away, under this plan that doesn't seem to be very well in place?

Dr. André Gravel: The first detection would probably come from the provincial authorities. Depending on the magnitude of the problem, the agency would get involved very soon. For example, if it was a serious animal disease, the agency would take over the management of the emergency—regardless of whether it was in a provincial plant.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: One other thing. You said you didn't want to talk about any issues that might give people ideas about what they could do. In most cases, Dr. Gravel, these people have probably already thought about those ideas. Terrorists tend to think outside the box, perhaps more so than the agency. I guess my question is whether you're comfortable that your professional good guys are in place. Will your agency be able to find those professional bad guys?

Dr. André Gravel: Well, finding the bad guys is not the agency's responsibility.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, then, identifying the damage they could inflict on our food processing. Are you comfortable?

Dr. André Gravel: I'm very comfortable with the agency's expertise in most of the areas that could potentially present a threat. In fact, the agency has hired Paul Kitching, the guy who dealt with the foot-and-mouth disease in the U.K. He's the world expert, and he now works in your province, in Winnipeg. You can't find anybody more qualified than him. And we also have people at the leading edge of science in many other areas.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You keep coming back to foot-and-mouth. I had a phone call a couple of days ago from a constituent who had just come back.... She and her husband are farmers in Manitoba, and she was totally disappointed with the questions that were asked, and whether you even had any protective situation in place for foot-and-mouth. They didn't ask her about footwear; they didn't tell her to disinfect. I know you can't catch everybody, but it was a matter of two days ago that I had that comment.

• 1000

Dr. André Gravel: Certainly we don't pretend to be perfect, and if there are areas that need improvement, identify them to us with the specifics and we'll follow up for sure.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here.

Anthrax is in the news. I don't know whether I'm asking the right people or not, but you're very well informed, and you are an excellent agency. But anthrax is found in the wilds of Canada, in our great, beautiful, magnificent national parks. So I think we should put to rest some of the fears that I have heard people talking about.

I'll give you an opportunity to tell us how it's found. I believe extensive tests were done at random—whether it's your agency that did these few hundred tests or not. Does this come from the carcasses of buffalo or bison? Has it ever been spread to any other animal? How are these carcasses destroyed?

Maybe we'll just start with that for the moment, please.

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, thank you.

Anthrax is certainly not a new disease, and you're right in saying we find the occasional case of anthrax in western Canada. Your comment about buffalo is probably a valid one.

Anthrax is a serious disease; however, it's not very contagious. The problem with anthrax is that the spores can remain silent for a while, and then, as soon as a host picks them up, they become virulent again. I was told that spores can survive up to 50 or 60 years in soil. So it is definitely a cause of concern. However, there hasn't been what we call an epidemic of anthrax cases. There are localized cases that are normally associated with, for example, a new pasture being used that hasn't been used for a while.

Disinfection kills anthrax rather easily, so there are ways and means of getting rid of that disease easily.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I believe I heard that disinfecting is a very simple process. If you go again to the example of a dead animal—and in animals, it does happen in the wild—are you able to disinfect the ground around that animal, and what happens then to the carcass of that animal? As of today, do you test animals that are found in these parks? I'm sure you do.

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, we do extensive testing when a case of anthrax is discovered. Our staff is mobilized to get on the premises. Samples are sent to our labs for analysis to confirm that it is indeed anthrax, even though the symptoms are easily recognized, and cleaning and disinfection and disposal of a carcass is done according to the procedures that the agency has established.

Mr. Larry McCormick: As to the disposal of the carcasses, I expect that they're now disposed of and probably contained right on the spot, or as close as possible. I would just like to have that confirmed. I think perhaps we should, if we could.

Dr. André Gravel: In the case of any animal disease that potentially can be contagious, the decrease, as much as possible, of movement of the animal for disposal is a very desirable thing. So if there's the possibility of disposing the animal right on site, this is a much better solution than hauling the carcass 200 miles and risking the spread of the disease in other areas.

Mr. Larry McCormick: In case someone thinks I'm alarming anyone on this.... If a person went to a location in one of those national parks in the west and was looking for these spores that could remain in the soil, is there any way that a person could see where they are? I'm sure there's not, but I think we should make it very clear that I might spend my life looking for it and not find any. I think we should clarify that.

• 1005

Dr. André Gravel: You're right. You would need to have very sophisticated equipment to be able to detect the spores. In a way, it's like finding a gold mine. You need to do a lot of prospecting and a lot of analysis. It's not easily found.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Certainly in regard to your comments about the gold mine, I've been prospecting for some 30 years, and I haven't found a real....

Do you feel that your department is working with the Solicitor General, who is a very busy person, as to where we go in case there are any additional threats, or any threats appear with our food due to terrorism, and so on?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, the agency is very involved in the Solicitor General exercise. Our president, Ron Doering, and I have been attending interdepartmental meetings to look at capacity and at areas that potentially could have gaps. So we're well in the loop on this exercise.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much for now, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you very much, Larry.

Before I go back to the Canadian Alliance, I have one question. In the United States they take a look at their food from the federal, state, and local levels. Of course, we now have the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. There has been a lot of talk about both systems, that there's a sameness. Is the United States looking at one body to inspect food?

Dr. André Gravel: That's a good question.

I read this morning in Food Chemical News that the General Accounting Office, or the GAO, which is the equivalent of our Auditor General, is a little worried that there are so many agencies and departments in the States. In these articles, they quote anywhere from nine to twelve departments and agencies involved in food inspection. In a normal situation, if it's not an emergency, it's difficult, but not as difficult, to get a concerted government effort. However, GAO is saying that given bio-terrorism, given the state of emergency, if you have twelve players around the table, the decision-making process is much harder. There's a strong recommendation that they put things together under a single umbrella.

There are pros and cons. The previous Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, indicated after he left office that this is a good idea, that there should be a single food inspection agency.

In our experience, in the case of Belgium, the dioxin, as an example, I was managing that emergency, and in our boardroom I had representatives from every area of food—the feed, the seed, fertilizers, processed food, animal, milk.... All these people worked for the agency, and it was very easy to make decisions. We made decisions collectively. The only two other players we brought into our high-visibility issue, or HVI, meeting were somebody from Health Canada, to provide guidance on the standard to be set, and somebody from Environment Canada, who we asked, if we find product contaminated with dioxin, how do we dispose of it? But beyond that, everything was at our hand. I think the United States is starting to see that, once again, Canada is in the lead.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you very much.

David.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

Thanks for coming today.

If we have an emergency, our laboratories are obviously a front line. You've talked a couple of times here about them being a key component of our response.

We had a situation with localized disease, with chronic wasting disease—one area, one disease—that did overwhelm your lab organization. It also overwhelmed your field personnel. Can you tell us what you've learned from that experience? Do you have the facilities you need?

I know you don't need to keep people there. We can't afford to hire enough people permanently to deal with those issues. But what has your response been? How have you been set up to deal with a situation like that or a similar thing that would come up?

Dr. André Gravel: It is true that in the case of an emergency, especially in the case of a disease like chronic wasting disease where the number of cases is suddenly going up to a level we're not expecting, we can't be permanently staffed to deal with these situations on an ongoing basis. In that case we contracted out some of the analysis to a lab in the States that could give us a hand.

• 1010

In the case of other emergencies, the agency doesn't necessarily do all the routine testing. We have significant contracts with the private sector to do routine analysis, for example, on pesticides, heavy metals, or bacterial contamination. We do have that network and the possibility of diverting some of the samples to other laboratories, whether government or private.

We're now on top of the situation with regard to chronic wasting disease, and hopefully the number of cases we find will plateau and eventually decrease. Our intention, as we stated when we listed chronic wasting disease as a reportable disease, is to eradicate it.

Mr. David Anderson: I have a second question about labs and research. Are there any research programs specifically going on studying defence against attacks against animal and plant life?

Dr. André Gravel: The agency itself is not a research organization. However, we do have some research capacity, and even though there is no specific project to deal with bio-terrorism, the agents that could be used in bio-terrorism are certainly subjects of research projects.

Mr. David Anderson: I guess it strikes me that there's difference between bio-terrorism and criminal stupidity, but sometimes the results are the same.

I'm not for a lot of government involvement in our lives, but do you think we need to implement traceability throughout our food system? Is that practical, and how would you suggest we go about it? We have that beginning in the beef sector right now, but do we need it in the other areas of our food supply?

Dr. André Gravel: I think it's a key component, and already, with the beef identification program, we've seen some of the benefits. We had to do some trace back on animal disease investigation, and that proved to be very useful. It's a start. I think it's the first building block. The rest of it needs to be established.

I was listening to a report from a meeting that took place in Quebec, and the Premier of Quebec is indicating he wants to set legislation to ensure traceability. So some provinces are already thinking about that, and I think it's good for all of us.

Mr. David Anderson: Do you think there's a way of doing that without making it too onerous for producers and consumers?

Dr. André Gravel: You have to look at the cost benefit. I know in some cases the investment is somewhat significant, and that's probably what some of the animal producers are faced with now. I think the cattle industry has decided this is something vital for them. This is not government forcing industry to do it. They asked us to have regulations in place.

So it's desirable. There's a cost associated with it. But if Canada wants to remain a significant exporter of food products, this is something we're going to have to have in place sooner or later, with as little government involvement as possible.

Mr. David Anderson: The United Nations has begun to launch a rapid alert system to help officials around the world deal with food safety problems. I'm wondering, are we part of that, and is the Government of Canada moving to implement such a system within Canada so that provincial, municipal, and local governments will know what they need to do in a situation?

Dr. André Gravel: I will ask Trudy to answer, with your permission.

Ms. Trudy Werry: First of all, all of our program experts are connected with their international colleagues through standard-setting bodies, and often there are notifications that will be received by our officials through those bodies.

The second aspect, of course, is the whole Government of Canada emergency management framework system that's in place with OCIPEP, which is the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, coordinating on behalf of the Government of Canada all government agencies. So our agency is connected with that emergency response structure and we would receive notifications regarding any emergency or alerts.

Mr. David Anderson: Okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): David, you've run out of time. I've even given you an extra minute.

Mr. David Anderson: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Marcel.

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

You mentioned, once again, that Canada is an example in that area. That does not cut much ice with me, because sometimes, there are areas where we hold ourselves out as an example, and when you scratch the surface, like we did last week in another committee, you find out that we are not such a good example after all. But I do want to believe you, because we do need reassurance these days, and I think this is no time for panic; it is a time for confidence.

• 1015

In response to Rose-Marie's question, you said you did not want to give any examples, and I understand that too, but can you say whether, internally, you have come up with scenarios and are ready for any contingency, for starters?

I am going to ask you another question that you can answer at the same time. Rick referred to the agreement between the provinces and the federal government in the case of an emergency. Would it be fair to say that the co-operation in Quebec during the two big disasters—the flooding of the Saguenay and the ice storm—was not only exemplary, but also created structures such that we now know better how to deal with a major disaster?

Mr. André Gravel: Thank you. To answer your first question about scenarios, obviously, for security reasons, I am not going to elaborate or provide any recipes.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: No.

Mr. André Gravel: I have already seen some on the Internet, so I will not be providing any others. But as I said last time I was here, the Agency has an emergency response plan, which is a general plan. It is a plan that encompasses food, animal health and plant health responses. We also have a secondary emergency plan for animal diseases, and a very specific response plan for example, for foot-and-mouth disease. So with respect to scenarios for the main diseases that could be introduced into Canada, we have a fairly good operational framework in place.

As for your comments on co-ordinating emergency measures, I think we learn through experience and in the case of the two examples you gave, the ice storm and the Saguenay flood, the Agency got involved—

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Yes.

Mr. André Gravel: —significantly. Even though, really, this was not our area, we did mobilize and the Agency did intervene.

Clearly, in those cases, we identify those places where things are going well and we have proper co-operation. We also identify those areas where there are things missing and both examples allowed us to plug some holes.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: I notice that the American Department of Defence, in 1999, went through a kind of exercise, I think, to get ready for emergency measures or a possible contamination catastrophe. So does that mean that you do just about the same thing to be ready for anything?

Mr. André Gravel: Yes, we've already had that kind of exercise. I remember, for example, that the Agency took part in an exercise in BC; it was an earthquake simulation. The Agency was involved in that scenario. Those are exercises we're doing all the time. I think that with what's going on and what happened in the USA, it's now very important for us to continue examining scenarios and preparing even better. But we're always involved in those cases.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: And it's also important for you to have the resources and the staff you need in the field, wherever that may be. You did reassure us with your answer to my first question.

Could we say that the additions to the budget that you have mean that you have all the staff necessary to do the work in the field?

Mr. André Gravel: That's a question that is very hard to answer. Do you have enough money in your bank account? Maybe you'll say you do, if you have a million dollars, and maybe you'll say you do if you have $10,000.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Not much of a chance I'll be saying yes to that.

Mr. André Gravel: The Agency has the resources that were attributed to it by the government of Canada and we do our best to use them wisely basing our interventions on the risk factor. So I don't think you could say that we're perfect, that we're everywhere, but we always use what we have in the areas we feel to be the most important or that represent the highest risk.

• 1020

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you, Marcel.

[English]

Before I go on to Mark Eyking, I have one quick question. We've talked a lot about this gate-to-the-plate strategy, and it would seem that in the beef program David talked about, where we have bar coding, we can trace the calf all the way up to the plate—the HACCP-style programs and everything. Are we looking at any type of strategy with that for food security?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes. The agency has the advantage, as I said before, of being involved at all levels of production, even before the gate. As I mentioned, we have a feed program and an animal disease detection program, so we go inside the gate of the farm.

Our approach is one of detecting contamination in the food chain as early as possible. An intervention at the farm level to prevent the introduction of, for example, animal drugs in a carcass, would result in large benefits downstream. If there's an adequate control program at the farm level, you don't have to test as intensively at the processing or export levels.

So the agency clearly supports the initiative of producers associations to do on-farm HACCP—hazard analysis critical control point programs.

I know in some sectors such as pork and chicken, they're well advanced in terms of having the program designed, and in some cases they've already started implementing these programs. Whatever is done at that level doesn't need to be duplicated later. The agency has been involved in the development of these programs by providing expertise and input.

We also introduced last year, in part I of the Canada Gazette, a proposed regulation to deal with medicated feed. Again, the approach the agency has taken in that case is to use a HACCP-based type of regulation under which producers who mix their own feed would have to have certain preventive controls in place. Feed mills would as well.

So clearly, this is the way we're going. We want to integrate everything.

I was speaking to a representative of a large Canadian corporation the other day and he mentioned that vertical integration was key for them. They've looked at the different sectors, and interventions they make at the feed level has a repercussion on the hogs they sell and the meat they sell. So we're going in this direction for sure.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you very much.

Mark.

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): I think overall you're doing a good job within the borders, especially in the last year with the foot-and-mouth disease. I have to commend you. I also see it personally. On our own farm we have a good relationship in regard to food safety for the consumer.

My question is more on an international scope. We buy and sell a tremendous amount of food with the States, and over the last year we had the issues of foot-and-mouth disease, bio-terrorism, and the debate on GMOs. My question is about the relationship your agency has with the U.S. agency. I'm not really a fan of totally open borders, but I think we have to be on the same wavelength with what they're doing down below, and I'm hoping we're more proactive than reactive.

How are we relating with the U.S. on all these things that are happening?

Dr. André Gravel: Well, the U.S. is indeed a very significant trade partner with Canada. I was looking at some statistics the other day, and there are 5,000 shipments of food every day coming into Canada from the States. So they are an important player.

We have a very close relationship with the USDA and the USFDA. They're our two main partners, and at the working level these links date back to the 1900s. The U.S. has always been a very important customer or partner with us, and it's important we know what they're doing and when they're doing it.

• 1025

Whenever there's a new administration it changes a little bit at the highest level of the organization, so it's important that we re-establish these contacts with the higher level of the administration. However, at the working level, somebody like Brian Evans, our chief veterinary officer, is an example. He has contacts on a daily basis with his counterparts in the U.S. and Mexico. So we're there.

Mr. Mark Eyking: On the GMO, where do you think this is going in the States? It's more of a health issue here, and it's being debated, but is it a non-issue down there?

Dr. André Gravel: I'm not sure how to answer. From what I read in the paper, there doesn't seem—and this is my personal opinion, not CFIA's opinion—to be a very big debate on it. The press is currently dominated by what happened on September 11. I can't see too much coverage on it.

Mr. Mark Eyking: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): We'll go over to the NDP and Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks again, Mr. Chair.

I neglected to ask in my earlier question, but how many additional people has CFIA hired?

Dr. André Gravel: If you look at what we had and what we now have, we had about 4,500 and we're now up to a little over 5,000, so we've hired 500 to 600 over the last four years.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay. But specifically since September 11, have there been...?

Dr. André Gravel: I can't give you a very precise number. I know we've increased, but I can't give you that.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

I know we've all had border delays since September 11. What impact, if any, has there been on perishable products coming into the country, live animals, etc.? Has there been a noticeable change, or has it been pretty much business as usual despite the delays?

Mr. André Gravel: Business as usual was not the case in the week of September 11, for sure. There were long delays at the border. My colleague, Denis Lefebvre from CCRA—given foot-and-mouth disease we have a good relationship with them.... They were in contact with their counterparts in the States to make sure there was a special line for perishable goods and live animals, so they were not stuck with the rest.

The CCRA is in the early stages of developing a website to provide information to exporters in terms of where to go, and we've established a link on our own website. I'm told the situation is almost back to normal now.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

While I appreciate that you don't want to get into hypothetical examples of potential terrorist activities, way back in April, five months before the attack, the Solicitor General's office warned of circumstantial evidence indicating that some major animal disease outbreaks in this country may not have been accidental. It went on to talk about how anti-livestock and anti-crop agents have been weaponized. Can you elaborate on what the Solicitor General's office was getting at on that occasion?

Dr. André Gravel: It's pretty hard to provide specifics on it, but one can imagine that using foot-and-mouth disease as a weapon is quite an easy thing to do.

Mr. Dick Proctor: But you're not aware of any evidence that it was deliberate in the U.K.?

Dr. André Gravel: No. I spoke to Paul Kitching, who is managing this emergency. And even though it appeared at many places very rapidly, they still think it was not a deliberate introduction, but rather that they took a long time to discover it.

It got into the sheep population, and sheep in the U.K. move a hell of a lot. They go from one place to another. This would explain why it popped up in the north and the south and the east and the west, as opposed to being deliberately introduced.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Let me say you're doing a wonderful job in the chair, and I really appreciate that. I'm serious, I really am.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): You're scaring me.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Dr. Gravel, I have one question.

In the United States they have, and I quote, a “National Committee on Biological Threats to Agricultural Plants and Animals”. I have a listing of the membership on that committee. It's made up of industry and academics, and a fairly impressive listing of individuals. I assume it's a committee to blue-sky just what we've talked about, the hypotheticals: what happens when and how.

• 1030

Are you familiar with that committee? Have we had any contact with it? It seems like a resource we should have some sort of access to. Do we have one in Canada? Do we have any stakeholders, or any academics that we can pull together, or have pulled together, to blue-sky this situation?

Ms. Trudy Werry: I know our officials have participated in discussions and meetings with U.S. officials. It's likely the same committee you're talking about. Again, this is all part of the Solicitor General's initiative that I mentioned earlier.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But if I can just interrupt, this is, and I quote, the “National Committee on Biological Threats to Agricultural Plants and Animals”. This has nothing to do with the Solicitor General, as I understand it. Looking at the membership, all these people deal specifically with agriculture. There are veterinarians here; there are geneticists, with respect to the GMOs; there are people who have dealt with nothing but swine. We're talking about some really serious experts here.

This is the Department of Agriculture's area, not the Solicitor General's. Have you, as Agriculture and CFIA, had any contact with this committee?

Dr. André Gravel: I think by saying that the Solicitor General exercise is something different, you're downplaying what's happening. The Solicitor General exercise involves all sectors of government, including agriculture.

Trudy was mentioning the links that are happening at the working levels on these types of committees. All this work needs to be coordinated.

In Canada the file was given to the Solicitor General—I think for good reasons. All these things need to be fed to a central location, and this is where it is. Even though the Solicitor General's department is not necessarily preoccupied with agriculture, certainly the coordination mechanism is in their hands, and we provide input.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is your department aware of this committee?

Dr. André Gravel: Yes, it is.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Your department is aware of this national committee in the United States.

Dr. André Gravel: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have you had any contact, department to committee?

Dr. André Gravel: I'm sure that agency staff have been involved in discussions with that committee.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You're sure.

Dr. André Gravel: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): We'll move over to Claude.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Good morning, Mr. Gravel. Thank you for coming. What you have to say is always of interest.

Mr. Borotsik and I have just heard the answer to part of a question of ours. I think that with the means you have, you're doing excellent work. You have proven that you do excellent work.

What concerns me a little is that no matter the means you have available, I think it's up to the population as a whole to be aware of the threats that hang over us, to know how to avoid them and how to help those organizations that have to take charge.

What also concerns me a little and what I'd like you to address, is faltering attention. We can do all kinds of good exercises; you had a good one on foot-and-mouth, but it's often when attention falters, because we think it's less important, that risk rears its head. Because we did good work during an intense moment, attention falters and that's when you get problems. For example, in the foot-and-mouth case, I don't think the problems are totally over yet. We still have to be vigilant. The population also must be vigilant.

Since 11 September, we've concentrated on how to be careful and prevent attacks. In that respect, governments are often a machine that is hard to turn around. Organizations talk to one another, but often, and this is what I've noticed, problems often surface exactly because the left hand isn't talking to the right hand. That's what I'd like you to reassure me about. I'd like to be sure that through those organizations, through the whole multitude of people involved in safety and security, the right hand is talking to the left hand and we are properly organized.

So I'd like you to address the question of vigilance, again today, and the question I put as to whether everyone is talking to one another as they should and as to whether you, the Agency, might have recommendations to make to the committee concerning things that aren't moving or that should move faster, things that we should really be addressing.

Mr. André Gravel: Thank you for your question. You're absolutely right: the co-ordination of efforts at the departmental level is very important. It is crucial, essential and I think that at that level there is a good co-ordination mechanism. There's an interdepartmental committee that sits regularly; we're part of it. There are also relationships established with the provincial governments. It's very important to have co-ordination at that level and the information has to be transmitted quickly throughout the different departments.

• 1035

In my opinion, contrary to what people may think, the government, in that area, is well organized. People know exactly what their role is, discuss things amongst themselves, get their staffs to co-operate. For example, one of our main partners is the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency. That agency is routinely in communication with ours. They both have a presence at our borders. We're very well co-ordinated also with Citizenship and Immigration since the foot-and-mouth matter.

You will remember, for example, that English students came to Canada during the summer. We had an interdepartmental committee where people from Citizenship and Immigration sat, and they offered to refer those people to us automatically for secondary inspection to be able to give them the necessary briefing because these were people going to visit farms, and who came from farms.

So from that perspective, personally, I feel reassured. We also have very intense links with Health Canada. So I think that co-ordination at that level is rather good.

As for vigilance, once again, you are right concerning human behaviour. Because there's a crisis, people are very alert. They're interested in getting rid of the crisis. Once the crisis is over, in some cases, we become quite complacent. I think that in this case, the crisis isn't over yet.

There's no room for complacency in our agency. We're far from having decreased our efforts to detect foot-and-mouth disease, for example. In view of the circumstances of September 11, we increased our vigilance, we increased our resources for the possible detection of those sources of contamination.

As for recommendations, I don't really see any part of the mechanism that might be broken or need your intervention to repair it. I can't really suggest any recommendations in that area.

Mr. Claude Duplain: Could I have a second question, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): I'm sorry, you've run out of time, Claude.

We'll go on to the Canadian Alliance for the third round. Howard, I'd ask you a favour. Marcel has to go. Could Marcel ask his question first before we come back to you?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Oh, absolutely.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Marcel.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I just have a point of order before leaving. I see that the Health Committee is examining the matter of transgenic foods and especially labelling. As we discussed that here, at the Agriculture Committee, I would have liked to hear witnesses addressing this matter, which might have been addressed by the Agriculture Committee or, at the very least, perhaps work in close co-operation with the other committee.

I simply wanted to make a point of order. It would be interesting if we could also participate, because the labelling of genetically modified foods is a concern which, among other things, directly affects agriculture. I wanted to make that point and ask whether it would be possible, some time from now, to study the issue amongst ourselves or jointly with the Health Committee. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): It's definitely something the steering committee can take a look at. I think it's a very valid point that you raised, and we should look into it.

The parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just thought, because of a previous question or two on a topic—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): And shortly, because we're going to the Canadian Alliance.

Mr. Larry McCormick: But it's very important, Mr. Chair.

On the gate-to-plate story, yes, we have traceability coming along with the livestock industry, which is great. With the grains and oilseeds, is this possible? Is there a way...? I mean, you have so much technology for tracing that.

My second half of that question—because of a previous question, Dr. Gravel—concerns GMOs. Is there a test, to your knowledge, today available in Canada or in the world that will tell whether a product has GMOs in it?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1040

Dr. André Gravel: Those were two good questions.

On grain and oilseed traceability, I think everything is possible, provided people in the industry are willing to make the investment to ensure that there's adequate traceability established. So I think it's a matter for the producer of grains and oilseeds to decide whether it's worth their while to do that. It is possible. There are tools that are at their disposal for doing it.

On the GMO detection, if your question is if there is a test for whether there's GMO in a pizza here on the table, the answer is no. On GMO you have to know what you're looking for if you want to find it. So in processed products this is, as far as I know, impossible to do.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you for clarifying that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you.

The parliamentary secretary has hoodwinked the chair on that. I thought you were on that point of order.

The Canadian Alliance, please.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to delve a little bit into the frame of mind, if you will, of the CFIA and the Department of Agriculture—that is, your frame of mind and the urgency with which you see this situation. Did you write this presentation today personally, or was it written for you and then you approved it?

Dr. André Gravel: I'm not a good writer, but for this presentation I gave pertinent points that I wanted to raise to somebody who is a professional writer.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I see.

I have a little bit of concern. On the second page you say:

The events of September 11th may change the level of activity for some of the Agency's functions, but many of the things we do for a living will not change.

And the use of the word “may” indicates to me that you have no sense of urgency about this, that you in fact, and the agency, and the Minister of Agriculture, have done nothing since September 11 to really initiate some new big initiative.

You can comment on that, my interpretation of your presentation. Also, can you tell me of any major policy initiative, any major activity change whereby the Minister of Agriculture, Minister Vanclief, has directly instructed the CFIA to change and/or do something new and different in order to respond to bio-terrorism?

Dr. André Gravel: I think your comment on the lack of urgency in the agency is not appropriate. I don't think you can say that, because on September 11, at 11 a.m., the agency already had mobilized its emergency team and we were dealing with the situation as an urgency. We had to deploy some of our staff to places like Gander, where some of the flights were rerouted, and other areas where the agency is not present. So clearly this is not business as usual.

What I wanted to express with the comment is the fact that in the agency's activities, whether it's for the detection of a threat or a hazard that has been introduced voluntarily, or a threat or a hazard that has been introduced as an accident, we do basically the same thing. We monitor what's happening at the border. One of the first things we did is to increase our presence there. We're present in food processing plants. Our vigilance has increased. We're doing the same things we did, with a higher emphasis on greater areas of risk.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Do you believe that we are in a war? Do you believe that there are people from outside Canada who are trying to kill Canadians and are trying to ruin our economy? Do you personally believe that?

Dr. André Gravel: Absolutely.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Does the minister believe it?

Dr. André Gravel: You can ask the minister.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: So tell me of one thing he has instructed you and your agency to do that is a major change from your normal activities prior to September 11. Name it.

Dr. André Gravel: Minister Vanclief has been quite involved, and I was reading some of the quotes he made in the media regarding the involvement of CFIA and the department in the management of that emergency. He is following the situation on a constant basis. I briefed him on a couple of occasions with regard to what the agency is doing, and he certainly supported the efforts the agency is making to increase our detection capacity and increase our vigilance at the border. He firmly supports what the agency is doing.

• 1045

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: He's supposed to be leading the agency, not supporting the agency. Is Samy Watson leading the agency? Has he done anything that is major and different since September 11? Has he done anything by way of major policy changes, major changes other than adding a few staff at border points and going to Newfoundland to check additional people coming into the country?

Dr. André Gravel: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is downplaying what the agency is doing. There is good cooperation and good involvement of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We do what we have to do. I think these comments are not appropriate.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: So you're telling me that the agency was so perfect on September 11 that there's really been nothing you've had to change in a major way to respond to the threat of bio-terrorism? That threat, I'm telling you, is actually real. So there is nothing in the activities you've been doing all along, other than a bit of an increased staff, that you have changed at all?

I'm not talking about you, personally, because you're not in charge of anything. The minister's in charge of this CFIA. You can't name anything?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): That's your last comment.

Dr. André Gravel: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I really appreciate that.

I don't know, Mr. Chairman, what I can say in terms of comments. I've made it very clear that the agency and the minister are quite involved in this crisis. We had a good opportunity to polish our plan when we were fighting foot-and-mouth disease from February on. It gave us the opportunity to establish links with industry partners.

I think the agency is well prepared. We're not perfect, but we're well prepared to deal with it. Through foot-and-mouth disease and the tripartite exercise, we've certainly looked at situations that needed improvement and we're constantly making these improvements.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Now we'll go to the government side. Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I have a couple of questions.

In your briefing notes it says “Surveillance and detection activities of the Agency also range from overseeing the feeds, seeds and fertilizers”. Since you mentioned feed a couple of times—and this is maybe in a different vein that I'm taking this—what action does the CFIA take when they notice a negative additive in a particular feed? What response do you take? Or what is your authority?

Dr. André Gravel: The agency has authority over feed. The agency registers feeds on the basis of them meeting nutritional requirements that are necessary for animals.

The agency also monitors feed mills for compliance to the regulations and compliance to regulations with regard to labelling, content, or possible contamination.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Regarding content, when you find something that's an additive that is questionable, what do you do? What is your action?

Dr. André Gravel: If we suspect that a product is contaminated, we take samples. If the results show that the feed is contaminated we put it under detention. Eventually, if the situation cannot be corrected, that feed is ordered destroyed.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I have one quick question for Trudy. You're director of the office of emergency management. Could you tell me which department you're associated with, how long the office has existed, and how many people are actually within it? I've not heard of it, and I'd just like to know a little bit more about what umbrella you come under.

Ms. Trudy Werry: I work for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and I coordinate on behalf of the agency our emergency preparedness program. So for that, it means developing emergency plans that fall under our legislated mandate. It also means exercising or training on those plans.

I work with many colleagues in the agency, in the animal health, food safety, and plant protection programs, to carry out our responsibilities.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So has your position heightened since September 11? Have there been any changes? I know I've been told before you can't give out confidential information, and I respect that. But I'd feel a little bit more comfortable if I knew there were some heightened opportunities taken under the circumstances.

• 1050

Ms. Trudy Werry: Very much so. Anybody who is involved in emergency planning right now is in a heightened state to ensure that, with respect to plans, policies, and procedures, everything that's in place now covers this new threat environment. I'm very busy and am working with my colleagues both within the agency and with other government departments.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Have you been there since the beginning of CFIA?

Ms. Trudy Werry: Yes, I have.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: No, I mean has your office been with CFIA since the beginning of CFIA?

Ms. Trudy Werry: Pretty much. At the establishment of the agency, the Office of Emergency Management was formed.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I'm fine, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Claude.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: Coming back to the issue we discussed a little earlier, I feel that the public should be involved in implementing those measures. Canada is a huge country. What about farm accessibility? Do you feel that the information on those measures is getting to farmers? Do they know what to do to prevent a terrorist act from being committed? I can't imagine that it is easy to transmit the information directly to farmers.

Mr. André Gravel: That clearly represents a huge challenge. As I mentioned earlier, in the spring of last year, the Agency held many meetings with associations and farmers throughout the country. In Quebec and elsewhere, meetings were held at night to tell farmers how to prevent animal disease. It still is a huge challenge to get the information to farmers.

We make ready use of electronic means of communication. The agency has a Web site which tells people what to do to prevent the spread of animal disease. We encourage industrial associations to visit our Web site. We are constantly in touch with major industrial associations and provide them with information which they, in turn, can pass on to their members. It's a challenge. I'm not saying that we are perfectly up to date in that regard, but we are working hard, because we realize that if a single farmer is vigilant, he can prevent eventual problems from developing, which would otherwise not be possible if he was not aware of the problems.

Mr. Claude Duplain: Is enough being done? Does the Agency feel that farmers are aware of all the issues?

Mr. André Gravel: I met with many producers and there were not many who were not aware of what needed to be done to fight foot- and-mouth disease. I think big associations like

[English]

the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, and the Dairy Farmers of Canada

[Translation]

have done much to inform their members. In my view, there can't be many farmers in Canada who don't know what foot-and-mouth disease is, for instance.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we have seven minutes left. I have three people who want to get in some short questions, so do the math and take about two minutes each.

I'll go David, Charlie, and Rick.

Mr. David Anderson: Is foot-and-mouth now under control in the United Kingdom?

Dr. André Gravel: My understanding is that it is. I haven't looked at the website this morning, but last week I think they were up to 12 or 13 days without an outbreak. It seems that they've done the right thing and that the situation is coming under control now.

Mr. David Anderson: You made some comments about traceability and the necessity for intervention at the farm level. It's my belief that producers are probably the most responsible part of the food chain. You need to work on a basis of cooperation. The government is going to find out with species at risk that it does not work to be confrontational with producers. I would just urge you that if you're talking and if you feel you need to begin to intervene at the farm level, it needs to be done on a cooperative basis. You can't coerce producers, and that will soon be obvious.

Dr. André Gravel: I agree with you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you, David.

Charlie.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): I'll speak very briefly, Mr. Chairman.

Anthrax is the biggest fear the Americans and probably we in Canada have right now in terms of biological terror. Aside from that, of course, we have anthrax based in livestock. With respect to transmission, if it is found in livestock, they have to be destroyed, and we have safeguards there. Is there any possibility of transfer from livestock to our food chain and to our people? I think you've witnessed this past year in western Canada some cases of anthrax in animals. Is there any fear, or do we have any concerns, that this could be transmitted from livestock to humans in terms either of food supply or contact with livestock?

• 1055

Dr. André Gravel: There are two ways you can catch anthrax. The first way is breathing the spores, and that's the most serious form of the disease. The second way is through contact, through a wound on your finger, for example. So people who are handling carcasses of animals that have anthrax need to be very careful and be properly protected.

If detected, clearly those carcasses will not get in the food chain. As I mentioned earlier, our intervention there is to dispose of the carcass as close as possible to where we found it, to prevent any transportation, and these carcasses that are known to have anthrax never get in the food chain.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thanks, Charles.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Dr. Gravel, I hope you realize that the majority of people around this table recognize the difficult job you have to do. It's very complex. Anything can happen. We recognize that Canadians need you to do your job well so that we can maintain our confidence in our food supply, and I thank you for being here.

In saying that, I would simply like to say that a lot of the comments that were made are to give you perhaps better direction, better understanding as to where you should head.

Regarding the committee that I mentioned, I don't know if your organization has talked to them or not. It's simply a matter of giving you some ideas as to how they can perhaps be a resource to you. As well, perhaps we as Canadians should be looking at a similar resource, if we don't have one already. I know you say you believe you've had contact with this committee. I wonder if you could confirm with me at some later date that in fact you have had some discussions. It may not even be worth while, but at least let's turn over every rock and every stone and try to find out what we can do.

In closing, as I said, I would like to thank you and your organization for all that you have done, but we have to go perhaps one step further. Are there people out there who think differently than we do? Now we have to think outside the box, and we're depending on you, Dr. Gravel, to think outside the box too. So the next time you come here, perhaps we won't have this circumstance.

Right now, we know—it's not a secret—that perhaps the next target will be water, or perhaps energy, or perhaps food. That's why we depend on you to make sure that target is well protected here in Canada.

Mr. David Anderson: What about air?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That has been done—airline food.

Dr. André Gravel: I certainly appreciate that I'm dealing here with very experienced people. We're always open in terms of improving what we're doing, so I take these suggestions and comments in a very positive manner. I know you're trying to help us, and clearly we're going to check into this committee and get back to you on it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you very much.

Howard, you have one minute.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: This is a positive suggestion: Will you and the CFIA look at examining every smuggled foodstuff—for instance, a meat sandwich coming in with somebody, or whatever—for foot-and-mouth disease or for a bio-terrorism ingredient, as opposed to just looking whenever it might be considered suspicious? As a former RCMP officer, I know that collecting information and being able to prove it is very important, and that doesn't sound like too expensive a business for you to do.

Dr. André Gravel: That's a good suggestion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Colleagues, I would like to thank you very much. We've completed three rounds and a bunch of quick, snapper questions.

Dr. Gravel and Ms. Werry, thank you very much for appearing in front of us.

The committee is adjourned.