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, March 20, 2001

• 0907

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), today we're looking at consideration of chapter 25, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, with the Auditor General, as well as the topic of biotechnology.

We have an extended meeting today, with the Auditor General and his staff the first hour and a half.

We should note that the Auditor General has been very busy in the last few weeks—and for the past number of years. In any case, as we move towards March 31, there are a number of committees that he should meet with, and wants to meet with, before his leaving the Hill and his duties here. With that, he will be leaving our committee around 10:30, or maybe even before that. But Sheila Fraser, his deputy, will be staying with us while we hear from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency between 10:30 and 12 o'clock, if the committee feels that's necessary.

I must say, I'm rather disappointed that one party has not come to our committee on time this morning. I certainly plan to open our meetings at nine o'clock, and give about five minutes. We want to make sure we're on the go, without having people wait for this committee. So I would hope in the future that it will be better represented when we begin our meetings.

With that, Mr. Desautels, I want to welcome you to our meeting this morning. From your experience, you know how these meetings work, so I don't have to explain, but welcome. You can introduce your staff, and the time is yours for approximately 15 minutes. Then our group will want to ask questions in terms of the report as presented here in chapter 25.

Mr. L. Denis Desautels (Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you said, I am expected to attend other committee hearings today, so if I could be excused after we finish our part, Ms. Fraser will continue if it's necessary for us to come back to the table.

I have with me today Sheila Fraser, Deputy Auditor General; Doug Timmins, Assistant Auditor General; and Neil Maxwell, the principal responsible for the audit we're discussing today.

• 0910

As you know, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was created in 1997, an important move that consolidated the food inspection activities of three departments into one entity. As an agency, it has more freedom than traditional departments have to manage financial operations, human resources, and contracting activities. To provide a little bit of perspective, the agency reported its total costs for 1999-2000 at $416 million; $279 million of that was for food safety, and $137 million for animal health and plant protection. It employs approximately 4,400 people across Canada.

Our audit focused on the agency's food inspection programs. It did not extend to activities of Health Canada or those of provinces, territories, or municipalities, all of which are involved in food safety. Nor did we look at issues such as organic farming or biotechnology. Chapter 28 of our report discussed our follow-up of selected issues from our audit of the animal and plant health inspection programs, which was originally reported in 1996.

We examined a number of initiatives that the agency has undertaken to fulfil its mandate—to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of federal food inspection. We found good progress on a number of these initiatives, including federal-provincial negotiations, the drafting of new legislation, and the creation of the office of food safety recall. However, we also found that progress on other initiatives has varied, and I would like to discuss some of these in more detail.

The agency has had difficulty in establishing a process to support risk-based resourcing across all commodities. As a result, it cannot demonstrate that it has adequately resourced its programs based on risk. We did not review whether its food inspection programs were resourced appropriately; however, we did note situations that raise questions about the adequacy of resources.

First, in some cases we noted that actual inspection levels were lower than the planned levels, and lower again than levels designed for the inspection programs.

Second, we noted anomalies in the inspection approaches and the resource levels for different imported commodities. We recommended that the agency assess and report on the appropriateness of resources based on relative risk.

[Translation]

Another area that we examined was the change in approach the Agency has made in managing the non-federally registered sector. This is a complex sector to define, but it represents about half of the food-processing sector. It generally includes many of the domestic processed foods you find in the middle of your grocery store—items like peanut butter, bread, cookies, infant formula, soft drinks and coffee. The Agency's new approach focuses on specific industry sectors, such as bean sprouts and unpasteurized juice, identifying specific product risks and industry controls rather than trying to carry out regularly scheduled inspections of all non-federally registered establishments covered in the previous program design.

We do not have specific concerns about the changes the Agency's approach, but we are concerned that it did not access the overall risks associated with the sector to determine the level of resources needed. We noted that in changing its inspection approach the Agency did not consult widely with the provinces, industry and the public nor did it inform Parliament. Important questions, such as how much inspection attention should be paid to the non- federally registered sector given the Agency's mandate were not widely discussed. Consultation is particularly important in this sector because the Agency shares responsibility with the provinces, territories and municipalities.

The Agency did not agree with our recommendation in this area. It noted that its options for dealing with this sector are limited, given its mandate. We recognize that responsibility for food inspection in this sector is shared, but we still believe the Agency should engage in wider consultation on available options. The Agency also notes that it does not believe an overall assessment of risks is reasonable for it to undertake. We appreciate the limitations but we think the Agency can begin to estimate the extent of risk in the sector.

• 0915

[English]

We also made observations on the implementation of the hazard analysis and critical control points, or HACCP, approach. This approach has been adapted for use by most federally registered industries in Canada. Under this approach, an establishment identifies all the points in its production process where a risk could exist and develops a means of controlling that risk. The agency then verifies that the processor monitors these controls. This approach is an internationally recognized means of producing safer food. However, important decisions on the pace and direction of implementing HACCP-based systems are still being made, and a formal strategy is needed to guide these decisions.

Questions that call for broader discussion include whether the agency should be leading internationally in implementing further enhancements to the HACCP-based systems for meat. These enhancements include the introduction of a pathogen reduction effort and the requirement for industry to perform ante- and post-mortem inspections. Many of Canada's trading partners are moving in this direction in the meat industry, and in particular, the U.S. has moved ahead of Canada. Canadian meat exporters to the U.S. have been required to implement a HACCP-based system and participate in the U.S. pathogen reduction program. Implementation of a HACCP-based system is voluntary for domestic producers, and there is no overall pathogen reduction program.

We also reviewed a number of high-risk inspection files. Our review identified weaknesses in the agency's options for dealing with non-compliance and some problems with compliance actions. While conclusions on all of its compliance activities cannot be drawn from our review, we encourage the agency to correct the compliance problems our review identified and to develop a better means of ensuring that it achieves its compliance objectives.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act requires that the agency publish, in its annual report, information on its performance and an assessment by the Auditor General of the fairness and reliability of that performance information. In our annual assessments we have found that progress towards good performance reporting has been slow and targets have been missed. We are pleased that we recently received a renewed commitment from the agency to improve its performance reporting.

I have summarized some of our findings and recommendations. Through its corporate business plan and other means, the agency has identified a number of initiatives that it believes are important to fulfilling its mandate. In doing so, it has created expectations for improvement. We recognize that the agency is still a young organization and still has work to do. Your committee may wish to review the progress it is making.

That concludes my opening statement. My colleagues and I would be quite pleased to answer the committee's questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Desautels.

We'll go to questions now. Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be covering a couple of broader issues, and my colleague David Anderson will continue with some more specific questions.

Essentially, in your audit you found that generally Canada's food supply is safe and that the CFIA is doing its job, even though there's room for improvement, I suppose. Is that a general overview of what you looked at, that in essence Canada's food supply is safe?

Mr. Denis Desautels: That's a fair statement.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you.

Did you have an opportunity to examine the CFIA's actions at our ports of entry? We understand, of course, that additional measures have been taken by Canada Customs and CFIA people at the ports of entry due to foot-and-mouth disease. Obviously you didn't look at the foot-and-mouth issue, but did you examine CFIA's role down at our ports of entry, and what were your conclusions there?

Mr. Denis Desautels: I'll let Mr. Maxwell answer that question.

Mr. Neil Maxwell (Principal, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we did look at that, and as you noted, this was all work done well before foot-and-mouth disease emerged as the current problem that it is.

• 0920

We did look at the agency's operations in terms of what it calls its import program, and that includes its work at port of entry. In terms of what we found, there are really two things I'd highlight. One was that the agency needs to do more work in terms of ensuring consistency of how it approaches imports of different commodities. Secondly, we noted that it faces some limitations due to the legislation under which it's operating, in terms of controlling imports.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Specifically what? Is there something that you could say specifically?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: In terms of limitations?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes.

Mr. Neil Maxwell: We noted a few examples of the limitations that it faces. One is that it normally cannot inspect commodities being imported at ports of entry because of the legislation under which it operates. It generally would inspect those at the importer's premises.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. It's my understanding that there are only about 35 countries in the world that are free of foot-and-mouth disease, so that this is an ongoing issue. That's why my question was that at the border this isn't just a one-time affair, and that's why we need to have some assurance that the CFIA is performing at a good level throughout every year.

In your audit and your questioning of various people in the agency, did you get any sense that there was any conflict of interest with the CFIA's activities, where as a country—and through Agriculture Canada—we're trying to promote exports and we're trying to promote sales of food, versus the food safety issue? Did you find any occasions where food safety was possibly being compromised in order to achieve these other goals, or is food safety first?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: I guess I'd start by answering that in a sense food safety is something that you can't really put audit evidence on the table to explain. What I would say is that we dealt with a lot of people within the CFIA during the course of this audit. I would say that it's quite clear that they take food safety and their responsibilities in terms of food safety quite seriously. I think that is an overarching concern of the agency.

In terms of conflict of interest, there's been much said publicly—much said in the media—about conflict of interest. I guess it all depends a bit on your perspective. If you take it at the largest perspective, the Government of Canada clearly has objectives both of trade promotion and food safety. It delivers on those two objectives through a host of different organizations.

The Food Inspection Agency itself—and I'm sure the officials of the agency would be quick to and quite pleased to go through this in more detail—does not have an objective of trade promotion. It is involved in some market access issues. For example, it is involved when a foreign country takes actions against Canadian exports. It will get involved in terms of doing analysis to decide and identify whether that's a reasonable action to take. In terms of conflict of interest, I'd say food safety is clearly an overarching concern of the agency.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, that's good. Certainly we want employees to follow CFIA policy, but certainly we don't want them being unable to bring attention to serious issues with that policy. They could bring it to the attention of someone outside of the department.

Is there a process for that? If they disagree with the policy or an action that's being taken at CFIA, did you see any place where they were able to say outside the department that the policy is so bad, or do they have to go to the media to do that? Did you look at that area at all?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: We did not look at that area specifically. We have as an office in past work commented on the need for those kinds of mechanisms. We do make mention of that. There's a companion report to the one we're discussing today, in which we discuss some broad issues in terms of health and safety programs across government. That's one of the issues we raised there, and talk again about the need for some mechanisms by which public servants can raise those concerns.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'll wind up with one last issue.

This isn't an either-or question, because we want to have a good organic food production system in this country, and of course we want the other.... I don't even know how to describe it. To me food production is all organic, but there is this name, organic, put on to food production of certain kinds. Now there's less processing with organic foods, and as a result those foods of course are on the store shelves.

• 0925

Did you find that the CFIA has sufficient regulations and the capability I suppose and the funding in order to be able to ensure that organic foods that are offered to consumers are as safe as those that are produced through the more processed types of operations?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: We did not look at what the agency is doing with respect to organic foods specifically. In many respects the way in which it deals with organic foods is similar to non-organic, or commodities produced in other than organic production methods. So there isn't a strong distinction within the agency in terms of how it deals with different commodities when it does its food inspection, so for that reason it was not something we looked at specifically.

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

The Chair: Mr. Eyking joins our committee. Welcome, Mark.

For those who maybe haven't had briefings on some committee members, Mark is from Cape Breton Island, where his family operates probably the largest, I believe, agricultural enterprise in Nova Scotia. So his background is in agriculture—big time.

Mark, welcome. The floor is yours for about seven minutes.

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Does your agency also deal with imported foods?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Not the food inspection. Our office can audit all of the CFIA's operations.

Mr. Mark Eyking: Well my question—and maybe it's not the right place to ask it—is on imported products. We have some of the strictest guidelines—HACCP being one of them—in our country. I don't know whether you can tell me anything about these other countries we import from, like Mexico and others, but how do we deal with the products coming in?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: The way in which the agency deals with those products is through a host of different measures. The first is one that we discussed in response to an earlier question. It is in terms of border controls—that is, reviewing product at the point at which it enters Canada. The agency also has other means that it uses. It conducts some inspections of foreign plants. Internationally there is an arrangement by which different countries can review each other's systems to determine whether or not they are essentially equivalent. They may not be identical in terms of regulation and in terms of the procedures—the inspection procedures being used—but they can be deemed to be equivalent. So the agency uses a host of means to inspect imported commodities.

In terms of our audit, we looked at the import program as one of a number of different programs that we audited.

Mr. Mark Eyking: If a country does not have adequate.... Let's use HACCP as an example. If a country does not use that practice, could we stop entry of the product before it gets here?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: Yes. And the agency officials may well want to explain further all the things they do. Our appreciation of what they do is based on the audit work we've done over the last year or so. But yes, they do have the means. They do have compliance powers over import products, so if they deem a product to be unacceptable—in the sense of not meeting Canadian regulatory standards—they do have means at their disposal to block that product.

The Chair: Thanks, Mark. Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

What concerns me about the Agency is that, throughout your report, you have spoken out against the lack of resources.

• 0930

In the budget surplus of the new budget which was tabled for the Agriculture and Agri-Food Department, additional resources have been earmarked for the Agency. Twelve million dollars have been requested for operations and for various other things. In addition, $100,000 has been given over to increasing human resources.

In light of what you have looked at, how would you describe the shortage of resources issue? Are we dealing with a lack of inspectors? The association told us that there was a shortage of veterinarians, and consequently, different types of work have to be done. Given that the Agency's work is so important for Canadians, why does the Agency not have the staff it needs to do this work?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, prior to our audit, the Agency had undertaken studies which showed that there was indeed a shortage of resources. At that time, the deficit was estimated at perhaps 500 expert staff in various disciplines throughout the Agency. There was not only a shortage of inspectors but also experts in other areas.

Since that time, more studies have been undertaken. Estimates have been downgraded to under 500. However, there seems to be a shortage of specific types of technicians and employees.

This problem is not unique to the Agency. We have audited and reviewed other science-based departments, such as Health Canada, in terms of organic product monitoring and we have found that there too, there is a shortage of qualified staff in these areas. Firstly, I would like to point out that it is not a problem which is unique to the Agency. It is a problem affecting the federal public service as a whole.

Now, one of the recommendations of our report, was that the Agency should more effectively assess its human resources requirements based on the risks that exist in each of the areas for which it is responsible. I think that if this was done more effectively, the Agency would be in a better position to identify real staff shortages or areas where staff has not been assigned logically.

This is a problem which is not unique to the Agency. However, the Agency must pinpoint where its real requirements lie, identify these needs and highlight them in its budget application.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In a different area, as this study enabled you to identify, within your division, what has to be done to eradicate compliance problems and to enable people to comply? Is there legislation that should be changed? Are there any regulations that should be changed? Don't you think, for example, that the fact that Health Canada is responsible for regulations and that the Agency is responsible for applying them is a handicap? What could be changed to allow the Agency to accomplish its work correctly?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Maxwell?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are several things that could be done to improve the situation. The fact that the regulations are the responsibility of Health Canada is a reflection of the system that has been set up, in which Health Canada has overall responsibility for food safety standards and for setting the requirements, and the agency inspects on the basis of those. So I think the split of responsibilities is one both organizations are working to make work.

As for what kinds of specific things could be done to improve on compliance problems and the like, we note in the audit that in many instances the inspectors did not have a full range of options available to them under the existing legislation. So there is certainly value in looking at improving the options an inspector would have in a plant when he or she determines that there's been a violation.

• 0935

We also thought there was need—within the agency itself, quite apart from regulatory tools and regulations—for better direction to the field staff, to ensure they are rigorous in dealing with problems that persist, problems they find have continued, inspection after inspection.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have one small question on this issue. You said that inspectors should be given more options. Could you give some concrete examples of options which could be given to them to allow them to do their job better?

[English]

Mr. Neil Maxwell: The agency administers a number of different pieces of food legislation. One of them is the Food and Drugs Act, in which many of the powers that are available to them under other pieces of legislation are not included. Under the Food and Drugs Act, essentially, when they identify a problem within a plant, they have to find evidence that it has in fact resulted in an unsafe product. The sections of that legislation prohibit the manufacture and sale of unsafe products. If I contrasted that with other pieces of legislation that the organization administers, it would have a range of different powers available to it. In most pieces of legislation there are regulations that specify certain standards for manufacture, and if there's a regulatory violation, the inspector has a range of possible actions. An inspector could seize product, shut down a production line, or in an extreme case, take the measures necessary to initiate prosecution.

The Chair: Thank you.

Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank Mr. Desautels for his good work over the years. I've appreciated working with him, and wish him all the best in his future endeavours.

With the CFIA, as we all know, three departments went together, and $330 million was allocated for creating the agency and for operating about 4,500 full-time employees. But it went on to say in one of my books here that the agency was expected to cut its budget by $33 million in the first three years of operation. In your presentation you say there aren't sufficient resources in some sectors to carry out their jobs more effectively. We say they're supposed to be reducing their budget—and I'm all for reducing budgets—but on the other hand, if it's going to affect their job, is that realistic?

The Chair: Neil.

Mr. Neil Maxwell: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When we did this audit, we didn't set out to actually review the adequacy of resources of the agency. What we set out to do, rather, was to ask the question, have they set up good systems, have they done a good job themselves of determining the resources they need? In looking at that question, we concluded that they'd had difficulty in establishing good processes to estimate the extent of risk in the different areas for which they are responsible and then translating that into the resource requirements. We were quite careful in the report to say we did not undertake a resource review of this organization ourselves. In fact, that's what we expected they would do. We're pleased to see subsequently that they have taken steps to do that very thing. Our concern is really about whether they're able to do a good job of that or not.

The second thing I would say is that all these questions about the adequacy of resources really depend on the question of the level of risk. Until you can answer that question well and know the extent of risk, you really haven't got a strong basis upon which to say whether resourcing is adequate or not.

• 0940

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: When you look at the makeup of the agency, of the 4,400 people who are employed, it appears to me there really is no one there with the financial expertise that may be needed to make up that agency and to help guide them on their way. There are 1,800 inspectors, veterinarians, scientists, support staff, computer systems specialists, communications people, and managers. Maybe that is an area they need to identify and change.

In your statement today, Mr. Desautels, you said:

In our annual assessments, we have found that progress toward good performance reporting has been slow, and targets have been missed.

What areas were these specific to? Was it just due to lack of expertise? Do you know why that happened? Where did you identify that problem?

Mr. Denis Desautels: I'll start answering the question, Mr. Chair, and I'll ask Mr. Maxwell to finish the answer.

As you may know now, all government departments are required to prepare performance reports, to report to Parliament on their own performance. The agency, along with two other agencies, has even more stringent legislation. They're mandated to prepare this annual report on their performance, and it has to be audited by our office in terms of providing assurance on the reliability and the fairness of the representations.

This has been—and I'm the first to say this—a tough job for all departments to do. Determining the right indicators of performance in a way that is understandable by all concerned is not an easy job, so I recognize the difficulty of getting that done in any organization.

We're really feeling.... We've been at this now for about three years. In the first year, we felt there was a good effort, but we would have expected more progress in the subsequent years than what we've actually seen.

One of the areas, of course, is that.... There are two elements of such a report that seem to be more difficult to achieve. One of them is the proper coverage of all of the key activities of the organization. The second point is the balance of these performance reports. Organizations have to be able to report on what went well, but also report on what didn't go so well. If we only report the former and not the latter, these reports lose their credibility over time. I'm not saying that strictly about the Food Inspection Agency, but it is something departments and agencies have trouble doing well.

So I think we would expect more progress here in the years to come, and subsequent to the last audit, we did get a letter from the head of the agency, saying they're in fact taking the means to achieve in future reports the kind of progress we've been talking about.

Maybe Mr. Maxwell has something to add to that.

The Chair: Thank you, but we're going to have to move on.

Rose-Marie, I'm sorry, but you're over your time. We can come back to you later.

Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair, and my congratulations to Mr. Desautels for his ten years as the Auditor General, and best wishes for the future.

Mr. Chair, also for the CFIA.... Just before I get started, as some will know, the order of the day in the House is agriculture, so I will have to be leaving. Unlike the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, I haven't figured out how to be in two places at the same time yet, but I'm working on it.

The Chair: That's a cheap shot. And Howard isn't even here.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I wanted to pick up on something that Mr. Maxwell had said, and in part it follows up on Madame Tremblay's question.

• 0945

You were indicating that it was a lack of human resources, and specifically technical employees. I'm trying to grapple with the fact that we can't inspect at ports of entry as much as you and your office think would be proper, but also more at the importers' premises. I think that was an answer Mr. Maxwell had given. Is it also lack of equipment at our borders, as well as human resources, that prevents inspections, or is it strictly that we don't have enough food inspectors?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: Technical resources at the border were not something we looked at in any great detail. On a favourable note, we noted that they had improved their computer capacity, their ability to track information. The agency has created what they call import service centres, and those have improved the agency's own operations, their own internal efficiency. They've also been something seen to improve the service quality they provide to the importers, so that was a positive note.

We did something I'm not so sure I'd call a technical equipment problem, but we did note that one of the other existing restrictions in terms of the legislation they operate under is that they're not able to fully access the information the customs agency has in terms of things such as importer history. So in terms of technical resources, there are some both positive and negative aspects to information to information systems.

Mr. Dick Proctor: In paragraph 12 of Mr. Desautels' summary, which is really a summary of chapter 25, high-risk inspection files were identified. I just wondered whether you could provide for the committee some examples of what you're talking about on high-risk inspection files.

Mr. Neil Maxwell: High-risk inspection files were of two types. We looked at a sample of files for which there had been recalls within the last two years. We also looked at a sample of the files for which there had been a prosecution, where the agency had initiated a prosecution against a company.

Mr. Dick Proctor: And these would be in all different kinds of food products? There wouldn't be a focus on one or two specific products, but it would be a wide range of products, Mr. Maxwell?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: Yes, we purposely selected a wide range of files. We tried to spread them geographically so that we weren't looking just at a particular region or two regions of agency operations. We also purposely tried to spread them in terms of different commodities and different pieces of legislation the agency would be using in those different plants.

Mr. Dick Proctor: And you have found that in some cases the agency has been too slow to respond to some of those difficulties when and where they have been identified—is that correct?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: Yes, and I would say there were really two concerns that we had.

First, when an inspector had set a deadline to have a violation fixed, we looked to see whether or not the inspector followed up that deadline to ensure that things were fixed. We found mixed results. About half the time, there was regular follow-up. The other half of the time, there was either no follow-up or the follow-up was irregular.

The second thing we looked for or concern we raised was whether or not the inspector would choose more serious compliance options when there were persistent problems. In the face of a persistent problem, we looked to see if the inspector then took more drastic action. Again, the results were mixed. Of sixteen files, we found six cases in which that didn't happen. In the other ten, we found the inspector took some additional action to try to deal with this persisting problem.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

The Chair: Thanks, Dick.

Paul.

• 0950

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Desautels, I too want to share the sentiment that we have appreciated your work over the last ten years, and I look forward to perhaps joining you on a fishing trip some time down the road in a climate where we can discuss other matters.

I think Canadians have always been concerned about the safety of our food. I think what has happened recently in Europe, and not only recently but it's more pronounced recently, over the foot-and-mouth and mad cow diseases, is an issue that is of tremendous concern to all Canadians.

Over the course of years, perhaps more so since 1994 with the government downsizing, a number of things have occurred. The joint venture of shared responsibility on inspections, involving both provinces and the federal government, has changed. Many of the responsibilities now rest within Ontario alone, or within a province alone, and products are being inspected by provincial agencies. Generally we are only involved in the inspection of those agencies and slaughtering facilities where a product is going outside the country.

I am wondering whether you or your agency are able to look at that whole process in a profound way and be able to determine whether the level of safety is as good today as it was when there were overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. I think there was a good cause to eliminate the cost of that, but I'm wondering whether Canadians should feel as assured today of the safety of that product, particularly as it goes across borders and as it comes in across those borders. It's a big question, but I'm sure we would want the right answer to ensure that Canadians can continue to feel that products are safe on the shelves of this country.

Mr. Denis Desautels: As a quick answer to that question, let me say that we feel the system of food inspection on the whole has improved since we brought together in Canada the different activities that were carried out previously by different departments. I also have to say that we had previously done work on, and had brought to the attention of Parliament, the problems that had been caused by the split responsibilities in the past. And we in fact brought to Parliament's attention the need to move towards a single agency, as had been requested by cabinet back in the 1980s. So we very much indicated in our earlier reports that there were efficiencies to be gained by merging these different activities into one agency, and we believe, from the work we've done in the last few years, that the overall quality of food inspection has gone up since.

Mr. Paul Steckle: We're all pleased to hear that. I'm sure it gives some comfort to Canadians. And given the fact that you've been there to monitor it, I think it comes from a good authority.

Organic food is receiving a lot of attention these days and people are moving in that direction. As a farmer, I'm not in the organic field but I do receive material from those who are in that effort. I believe they've now agreed on a standard, but they really can't agree on the process of how this product should become available on the shelves. I'm wondering whether the assurances the organic farmers are asking for are being addressed as quickly as they should, or is this something that may cause some people concern?

Obviously there are reasons why many of us aren't organic farmers, but there are also reasons why people believe that organic food products are of a better quality. Are they, in your opinion and based on what you've been able to determine in looking at CFIA, as safe as what we would want them to be, or can there be improvements made more quickly than what's anticipated?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: It's a very good question the member has raised.

I must say honestly that the aspects of organic farming the agency is responsible for were not things we looked at in the audit. They are things we're well aware of. We have followed the file, and certainly followed much of the public discussion about organic farming, but it isn't something we've looked at extensively in our audit work.

• 0955

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maxwell.

Mr. Borotsik.

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

I would echo the comments of others. First of all, I've had the opportunity over the last four years to have Mr. Desautels appear, and I would like to thank him for his candour in his presentations and his audits, and also for his professionalism. If he ever needs a reference letter, I would be more than happy to provide him one. I wish him the best, certainly, and I do wish that the audit team and the department continue in his fashion. Management comes from the top, direction comes from the top.

That segues into my first question.

In the House, just after your presentation on the audit of CFIA was made, the minister was asked whether he believed that the inspection system was the best in the world, as he had indicated before. He—and this is the minister speaking—made a comment that the Auditor General was concerned with structural things. I think he referred to such things as paint chips and rooms and facilities that needed to be painted.

I would like the Auditor General to confirm on the record that this audit is more than just paint chips, obviously, and that it has to deal with a very serious issue with CFIA. In saying that the direction comes from the top, from the ministers of both health and agriculture, does the Auditor General feel that the direction is coming from the ministers themselves?

I do know the CFIA is an agency and perhaps doesn't relate well to the departments and the ministers, but does he feel that the direction is coming from the top in the proper fashion to make sure that the CFIA is seen as putting in the proper inspections and making sure that Canadians have the best food?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I think the first part of the member's question dealt with a subject we discussed a little earlier, the high-risk inspection files. All I can say is that the files we looked at and that we describe in our chapter are in essence all issues or situations that the agency's own inspectors felt were serious. So we cannot say, as Mr. Maxwell said earlier, that the inspectors were able to prove that this caused on-the-spot bad products to come out of the plant, but they were identified as being risky and sufficiently serious to warrant some kind of action by the agency.

In terms of the more general questions, we've said in this audit, as noted in my opening remarks, and in earlier audits as well, that the government chose to merge the previous inspection activities into this new agency. It set up the new agency in the corporate format that allowed it more flexibility than your traditional government department, more flexibility in terms of human resources, in terms of financial management, and so on. So the agency, I believe, has been given the legal tools and structures to carry out this new mandate. It's still a young agency, as I said, but I believe it has the flexibility and the tools to carry out the job for which it was created.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have two more questions.

In terms of HACCP, it says in your report that the U.S. has moved ahead of Canada. As everyone recognizes, the majority of the food products that we grow here in Canada are exported to the United States. Do you see, Mr. Desautels, a potential there of perhaps even some trade actions if we don't get further into it? You say in your report that it's voluntary for domestic producers now and there is no overall pathogen reduction program. If we don't keep up with the United States, do you envisage that at some point in time there will be trade issues?

Mr. Denis Desautels: The Canadian producers who wish to export to the U.S. know what they have to meet.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But the CFIA is not the spearhead of this HACCP. It should be. In your report you are suggesting it should be much more effective and much more active in that area.

• 1000

Mr. Denis Desautels: We're saying in our report that there's a policy issue to be discussed. I believe this would be a very good question for this committee to ask the agency. How fast should the agency move in that direction? There are arguments, both in favour and against, that have been raised by different people, including the agency. I think it's a valid policy issue.

At the present time, I believe Canadian producers know what they have to do to export to the U.S. and are managing to do that. But I think the broader policy issue should be discussed, hopefully with the agency.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. We talked about inspection.

The Chair: Sorry, Rick, if it's just a short question....

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It is very short.

We talked about inspection. Dick talked about compliance. The compliance I'm very concerned with. You talked about files and the compliance. There has to be some action with the compliance.

Is that a resource issue as well? Is that a funding issue and resource issue, in your opinion, as to the compliance, or is it a management issue, a mandate issue, from the department itself?

Mr. Denis Desautels: We can't pin those problems strictly to the resource issue. I think resource can be a factor, yes, if inspectors have an overload of work. Of course, they can't follow up on their recommendations and their actions that quickly. But there are also procedural issues that I think could be improved.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Management issues.

Mr. Denis Desautels: As well, as we've said earlier in our report, there are some legislative aspects that could be fixed.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Rick.

Bob.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To echo what my colleague said about your role and the importance you play in the job that we do, we appreciate the work you're doing.

On the CFIA, I recognize what you say about the importance of the CFIA in terms of food safety in this country, and the comments that were echoed also about HACCP and the importance of an HACCP program for the CFIA. I'm wondering, though, if I can ask you a question as to whether or not you think that should go further and talk about whether or not CFIA should be involved in food safety programs on-farm. They seem to be. In terms of inspection, I've read and understood what you're saying there. What about on-farm programs? That's where it all starts. I'm wondering how you see the CFIA's role there.

Mr. Neil Maxwell: Yes, indeed, on-farm food safety is a very important element. During the course of the work we did, we talked to a number of experts in food safety. It's a widely held view, sometimes called “gate-to-plate”, to refer to everything from the farm gate right through to the plate.

Different slogans have been used to describe it. I think all of those recognize that the food safety production system is a chain and it's a chain only as strong as its weakest link.

In terms of the agency's role, it had endeavoured to look at and to build a stronger gate-to-plate, if you will, emphasis in one of its initiatives, called “the integrated inspection system”. It was one of the key elements of its 1997 corporate business plan.

We looked at the progress that was made. We concluded it made some initial progress, some initially good progress, but the initiatives stalled for quite a period of time, close to two years. It has now, we're pleased to see, been regenerated and renewed. But in emphasis, our gate-to-plate was one of the things that was attempted there.

Also the gate-to-plate, or specifically the on-farm safety component, has been one the agency has been making some progress with in the poultry sector, with a pilot project within the poultry centre.

I'd characterize what the agency has done as being a series of initiatives within what it sees as constraints in terms of its mandate to actually inspect things on-farm. I'm sure the officials of the agency would be happy to go through in more detail how they see the band-aid issues in terms of what they're able to do and what they're not able to do on-farm, but they certainly have been endeavouring in those various ways to focus on the on-farm safety system.

• 1005

Mr. Bob Speller: Yes. I guess one of the concerns I have is what they're saying in terms of their responsibilities.

Is it a federal-provincial problem, or is it resources, do you think? I will ask them this question, but I want to get your view. I mean, it would seem to me that you should be starting right at the basics, and that if you're not going to be responsible, whether it be for jurisdictional responsibility or resources, then what comes out the other end is going to be a lot harder to do. I'm wondering whether or not you feel that they should put more emphasis on the farm safety level.

Mr. Neil Maxwell: I'd start answering that by repeating something I said earlier, and that is that all of this depends a lot on risk and where risk is greatest. In many, but not necessarily all, commodity production systems, on-farm is important. It's certainly an element in all, but its importance varies. So I think anything that the agency does with respect to improving food safety has to recognize and has to be focused on the points in the production system where it can best control risk.

In terms of your question about whether resources were an element, I think that resourcing—certainly as I understand it—has in some cases been an issue in terms of what the agency does on-farm. But again I'd note—and I'm thinking of one particular thing that comes to mind, and that is the modernized poultry inspection project which I referred to—the agency has been able to, if you will, extend its grasp back towards the farm gate by provisions such as insisting that what they call poultry flock sheets are prepared so poultry that comes into a poultry plant has to have a well-documented history. I'd use that as an example to say there are means that the agency has within what it is doing to extend its reach back to the farm gate.

Mr. Bob Speller: Did you ever look at...? It's a question I always have: what's public good and what's private good in these sorts of issues? I mean, whose responsibility is it? Is it government's responsibility because there's more public good in the results of safer food, or should the farmer at the farm gate have responsibility because he gets more money for safer products? Did you ever look at the balance of who's getting the most good out of safe food like this?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: The question is a good one in the sense that most certainly those issues of responsibility, private good, and public good underpin all of the system. It's a system in which, in truth, I think almost everyone has responsibility in practice. The responsibilities end up falling on everyone's shoulders. If you think of it from a producer point of view, the responsibilities are responsibilities often to the customer, to the party to whom the producer is selling product.

If you think of the agrifood industry, the responsibilities are multiple. There are very important and strong legal responsibilities. If we look south of the border, we see the extent to which there have been some very major lawsuits successfully won against companies that have not produced safe food. So those corporations, and the industry itself, have that responsibility. Of course it's responsibility to the shareholders.

I think, in truth, what happens, as we've sort of looked at this system, is that when something goes wrong everyone suffers. So in that practical sense, everyone ends up bearing responsibility.

The Chair: I have to move over now to David.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): You expressed some concerns over imported goods. We've just had an example over the last few days of StarLink corn that had come into the country and crossed the border, and it ended up being served in small quantities, apparently, to some animals. There are a lot of products being developed for specific characteristics and purposes. I'm just wondering if you can talk about what the inadequacies of the system are that would allow something like that to get through and any suggestions that you have to deal with that.

• 1010

Mr. Neil Maxwell: I'll start by talking a bit more about what we found when we looked at the import program.

I had mentioned in answer to an earlier question that we had noted some limitations that they face in terms of being able to inspect things at ports of entry. There are exceptions, important exceptions. There is an ability to put special controls on, so there are certain means by which the agency has been able to deal with some of the limitations.

In terms of the specific issue that emerged last week, in terms of that product that is based on genetically modified, GMO processes, we of course didn't.... Since our audit work was much before that, we weren't aware. That situation hadn't happened at that time.

I think what we had highlighted and the way we focused our audit work was on a higher level. We wanted to look at the import program with regard to things such as whether the agency had a good sense of what the risks were, whether it was resourcing and could demonstrate it resourced those programs properly. We looked at questions such as the consistency of approach. Here, too, we found a number of inconsistencies in the way in which they inspect different products. Part of this is simply because the agency is relatively young and has inherited quite different inspection programs from three different organizations.

I might add those were inconsistencies that the agency itself has identified and recognized and has been taking some recent steps to deal with. So, to sum up, we took more of a higher-level focus when we looked at this.

Mr. David Anderson: The second question, I guess, is a structural one. Do you think there's enough producer participation and input into the process? It seems like the CFIA has basically a consumer protection interest there. Do you think there's enough producer participation, and what is it? Where is that at?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: We looked at that issue in terms of looking at the broader question of how it was consulting and dealing with all the many different stakeholder groups—the producer group, the agrifood industry itself, public interest groups, and the like. Again, this is a more general conclusion than your question is getting at, but our conclusion was that it had done many of the right things in terms of consulting with the different stakeholders, and we identify a number of specific examples where they did a good job of dealing with those many different groups. But we also noted that there were a number of areas where they needed to improve its consultation.

That had to do with two specific initiatives we identified, both the introduction of HACCP and the work it's done to change its approach in the non-federally-registered sector. Those were both cases in which we thought there was much more need for consultation with the public, much more need for consultation with producer groups, and more need for information to Parliament on what was being done.

Mr. David Anderson: What was the second category there? The first one was HACCP, you said.

Mr. Neil Maxwell: The second one was the changes that the agency has made to the non-federally-registered sector.

Now, I'd also say, maybe as a second part to this, that, in particular initiatives, I think the agency has involved the producer community quite extensively in some aspects of its implementation of HACCP. For example, in the poultry inspection program that I mentioned before, they involved producers.

But, again, through the course of our discussions of our findings with the agency, it's certainly an area in which they acknowledged there was a need to involve others more broadly.

Mr. David Anderson: You talked a little bit about computer services at the border. I'm just wondering, is the agency capable of getting and sharing the information that's necessary to do their job? I guess the example that comes to mind is foot-and-mouth, and we thought that the response was a little bit slow, particularly at some of the borders. Do they have the information management systems that are necessary to handle what they need to do?

• 1015

Mr. Neil Maxwell: I had noted earlier several examples of information systems at the border. There are some positive aspects, and the fishing program is a good example of a program with good information tracking. But there are other cases where, because of legal restrictions, they're not able to get all of the importer history that would be useful for them to do a good job.

The other thing I would add is that the agency's situation with respect to its computer systems is very much in flux. It dealt with major system changes because of the Y2K problem. It inherited many different systems married to many different dissimilar systems from the different organizations from which it was created. It went through a major system revamping last year. We comment in the chapter that this has not yet finished, in the sense that there are still difficulties, particularly in terms of management information coming out of the systems. The systems were up and running as they needed to be on the first of the year, but being able to get good management information out of them is still proving to be a challenge.

The Chair: Thanks.

Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses. It sounds like an old story to you people, but sorry to be late. I have been sitting around a table for agriculture and agrifood since before 7:30 this morning.

My colleague Mr. Anderson has just mentioned the tracking of products as they come across the border. I don't know whether I should be mentioning HACCP and the tracking here internally or not. But looking at the challenges and the problems around the world in the news today—and, startlingly, even here—I would like to get some comments from you on how much a device like HACCP will help us with our tracking here. I think we're going to have to have tracking throughout our production cycle here in the country, or else, down the road shortly, the rest of the world will not want our products, or we'll sell them much more easily if we do have an excellent tracking system. So I would like to see you go a little further with the tracking, if you could, sir.

Mr. Neil Maxwell: Yes, in what the agency has been doing in terms of implementing HACCP, one of the benefits has been that it does give some additional tools in terms of tracking. I'd cite an example I cited earlier, and that is what's being done in the poultry industry through private projects. One of the requirements there is that there are good flock history sheets. Those things have to be produced. They have to be presented to the processor.

That type of a system does certainly improve the controls that are in place. That's very much in keeping with the concepts behind HACCP, which involve a plant identifying the critical points in its production that can go wrong, and then putting in place controls to make sure that they don't go wrong. One of the ways things can go wrong is right at the gate of the factory, when problems come in through the door of the factory.

There are other things the agency is doing that fall outside its food inspection programs proper. The work that's being done with the Cattlemen's Association in terms of bison and cattle tracking was not an initiative we looked at in this audit. We looked at food inspection itself.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, if I might just have a moment....

I realize we're going past this “audit,” but again, with the way the news is breaking on the televisions, and the fact of our tightening up and forcing our tracking systems, I'm looking for the CFIA to maybe even jump ahead of where they are and offer any suggestions on how we can ensure a better system of tracking on various commodities here, whether it be grains or whatever commodities.

• 1020

Mr. Neil Maxwell: I think it's fair to say, again from the food safety experts we talked to through the course of this audit, that tracking is recognized as a key element of the system. That was one of the lessons that came out of the original BSE crisis in the United Kingdom. It's an issue that is coming back, certainly, with BSE. It has obviously, as I'm sure members are well familiar, become a major issue in terms of control of foot-and-mouth disease within the countries where there has been an outbreak. It's been recognized by North American experts recently in the media as a key element if we were to face an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I just want to drop in the comment on the BSE in Brazil. I even think I'll include the fact that so many people were critical—sorry, I guess Rick has just left—of the government's action on the Brazilian situation. But now Brazil admits and states that they will incinerate 6,000-plus animals when they're finished with breeding them. So there was a little bit of a concern there.

On the tracking, again, I think it's worth noting that in this country we did remove a lot of product from shelves following that enforcement from Brazil, whereas our neighbours to the south said they couldn't track things.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Larry.

Are there other comments? Mrs. Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I just have a quick question.

In your report, I read that in 1999-2000 CFIA collected $54 million, or 13% of its total expenditure of $460 million. Are you satisfied with that collection amount, since you're the auditor?

Mr. Denis Desautels: We don't have an opinion on that as such, Mr. Chairman. We did talk in the past about the whole user fee issue, and I think this committee in fact has shown an interest in the user fee issue.

In the past the agency had been given targets by the government in terms of user fees. I don't believe—and I would have to check that again—that the targets that were initially set by the government have been reached. Not that it's wrong. I think there have to be good discussions between the agency and the industry as to what is a proper level of recovery. That relates to the issue Mr. Speller raised earlier as to the balance between the public good and the private good. I think these are delicate decisions.

Whether or not this is the right level, I can't really judge at this point, but there's certainly a need to have fees established at the right level, so that you're not pushing the costs onto private producers, or having them absorbed by the general taxpayers, when in fact it's serving strictly a private good.

I have no more comment to make than that, I'm afraid, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I guess with that statement, my feeling was, and you moved to the user fee.... Maybe you're not equipped to answer this question, but I can get it from the next presenters, about whether we want to be dumping all the user fees on our primary producers when it's for the public benefit, whether we want kind of a cost-shared effort, and whether that has really been achieved with the program.

Mr. Denis Desautels: I think that would be a good question for the agency, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Also, the CFIA is an independent corporation, and you said it was given the tools to do the job, and you felt that was so. But do you think there is a problem with the legislative limitations within which CFIA has to do its job, or to have sufficient tentacles to have the most impact as an agency? Is there something it's still lacking?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, the agency.... I wouldn't go as far as saying it's an independent corporation. It has an agency status, which gives it more flexibility than a regular department in many areas. In that sense, it's been given flexibility to get the job done.

• 1025

However, as we raise in our chapter and as was discussed here this morning, there are different areas of legislation that could be clarified in order to make their job more doable. We'll talk about imports, because that was one area where that is the case. Making enforcement decisions, when there are problems encountered, is another area. So there is scope for improving the change in legislation to make their work more doable.

The Chair: Thank you, Rose-Marie.

Are there any concluding statements from the witnesses? Our hour and a half is up, so is there any conclusion you would like to draw on our meeting, Mr. Desautels?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, by way of concluding statement, I want to say that this is an area—and the interest of the committee I think confirms it—that seems to attract a lot of interest. There's a deep level of interest in the work of this agency, and we hope the audit we've done has brought some useful information to parliamentarians, to help them proceed with their discussions as to possible improvements that could be made.

I'm sure my successor will want to follow up on this work in due course, and will take into account the deliberations of the committee, will in fact pursue our audit activities in that whole area, to take into account some of the concerns that were raised this morning.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the members for their good wishes. I really enjoyed my role as Auditor General, and I really appreciated the contact with elected members of Parliament. So I want to thank you very much for your good wishes.

The Chair: Thank you, and again, we appreciate your work over the years. Maybe in the future we will see you on one of the carpets up there before.... Thank you for coming.

We'll take a five-minute break now before our next witnesses.

• 1029

• 1034

The Chair: I will call the meeting back to order.

We would now like to invite to the table the representatives of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

• 1035

While we're getting ourselves ready here, I'd like to mention for committee members that tomorrow afternoon at 4:30 we're meeting with the minister, until roughly six o'clock. It'll be televised, and we hope all members will be there promptly so we can fit that in. On Thursday we have departmental officials coming to us to talk about the farms assistance program. On the 27th the deputy minister will be here dealing with the potato wart crisis in Prince Edward Island. The other meeting that's planned is on April 3, when we have representatives of the Canadian Wheat Board in town. That was arranged some time ago. It's not on the sheet, Madame Tremblay, but—

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It's a Tuesday?

The Chair: On a Tuesday, yes. They have requested that. We dealt with it at one of our earlier meetings.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Canadian Grain Commission?

The Chair: Canadian Wheat Board and Canadian Grain Commission, yes.

The 29th is open, and we'll be looking at that date. We will probably have to extend our agenda with the weeks in April, and probably will use the 29th to look at future business. Something may come up for the 29th—it is open—but we certainly have to extend our business into the month of April.

I'd now like to welcome the president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Mr. Doering, to the committee. Ron, I would ask that you introduce the people on your staff. As you know, we have about 15 minutes for a brief presentation, and following that we have a question and answer period, which could go to one o'clock, but I hope we'll get out of here by noon. It depends on the committee's questions and on your answers, but we will try to keep it to form.

Welcome. You have up to 15 minutes to give us a brief report.

[Translation]

Mr. Ron Doering (President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I have with me Peter Brackenridge, who is the vice-president of programs for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, a public servant in these matters for over 25 years. I have as well Dr. André Gravel, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, who has had, again, over 25 years experience in, primarily, the animal health and meat inspection system. For questions relating to biotechnology, we have Bart Bilmer, who is our director of the Office of Biotechnology. And we have other officials available if we get into more detail.

Thank you very much for your invitation, and good morning to members of the committee. I am pleased to be here. I'm nursing a bad back, if you're wondering why I was wandering around a little bit; it's tender today, but I apologize for that.

I'll keep my opening remarks quite brief, to give us more time for questions. I want to share with this committee some of the work we have undertaken since the Auditor General did the audit over a year ago.

As you know, the CFIA's mandate is to deliver effective and efficient federal inspection and related services for food safety, animal health, and plant protection. We are, as you may know, the only country in the world that has the whole food chain in that sense in one agency: seeds, feeds, fertilizers, plants, animals, food, and all commodities, including fish.

• 1040

The agency's work supports the government's commitment to enhancing the quality of life of Canadians by safeguarding our food supply, as well as our plant and animal resources.

In fulfilling its mandate, the agency works with other government departments, provinces and territories, consumers, and industry. We are all influenced by a complex and ever-changing environment, non-stop technological change, new and more complex food processing methods, globalized trade and travel, and changing consumer habits.

To keep pace with the world around us, the CFIA is working with its partners to continuously learn and perpetually improve its programs and inspection methods. The result is that Canadians are protected and confident in the safety of their food. Also, our inspection system continues to be regarded as among the safest and best in the world. Over 200 countries buy food from Canada and that's a testament to the confidence they have in our food supply.

The Auditor General this morning indicated that in his opinion the food safety in Canada had improved since the agency was created. A poll commissioned recently, not by us but by the Globe and Mail, indicated the Canadian Food Inspection Agency enjoyed over 76% approval of Canadians, which I'm told is a number that many organizations and departments would strive to obtain.

Over the past year we have made a number of changes and have made some progress in all three areas of our mandate: in the food-safety mandate, in the animal health area, and in the plant protection area. We've protected Canadians from risk to health and safety. We've caught problems before they happen. When problems have arisen, we've worked quickly and effectively to minimize the consequences.

On the food safety side, in particular, an example of progress is our continued efforts, as part of the Canadian food inspection system implementation group, to improve the coordination of food inspection across Canada. We've continued to achieve success with our provincial and territorial partners in harmonizing inspection services. We have a number of MOUs that we've signed since the agency was created, which we think has done quite a lot to bridge the complex jurisdictional situation the Canadian Constitution gives us.

We've also continued to be effective in our animal health and plant protection activities. These two activities were not part of the Auditor General's audit this time. We have been audited by the Auditor General in the past on our animal activities. The recent work we've been doing on foot-and-mouth disease, on BSE, on potato, or on plum virus, etc., are all things we do in addition to strictly the food inspection. We are pleased to be able to answer questions in this regard today if you think it appropriate.

Another example is our work to advance our capabilities to respond immediately to a disease or a food safety problem. A very good example, one the western MPs here would be very aware of, is the excellent national cattle ID program that we've worked closely on with the cattlemen.

[Translation]

We have continued to endeavour to protect plants, and as a result, we have continued to protect the forestry and agricultural industries in Canada against the spread of the plum pox virus and destructive pests such as the brown spruce beetle.

Let's move on to the HACCP system. The Agency has also made major improvements in many areas which were criticized by the Auditor General.

I'd like to take a few minutes to provide the committee with some information on this subject. I especially want to report the progress that we have made in terms of implementing the HACCP system, in harmonizing monitoring, in auditing compliance and implementation in terms of imports and also in managing our most precious resource, our staff.

The most important area of progress in terms of food inspection is probably the implementation of the principles of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point System (HACCP) on food safety. This science-based approach is currently used in many countries around the world. HACCP procedures enable basic safety problems to be controlled through a production-line-based prevention process.

The system is reliable, but a lot remains to be done in Canada. This is why the Agency will continue to work on this issue.

• 1045

For many years now, the government and much of the Canadian food industry has recognized the importance of integrating HACCP- based systems into their operations. The Canadian food industry has gradually, on a voluntary basis, implemented the HACCP system since the government implemented the Food Safety Improvement Program in the early 1990s. This system is now used by many federally- registered processing plants in the areas of meat, poultry, eggs, dairy products, fruits and vegetables.

[English]

Another important initiative mentioned in the Auditor General's report is the control of imported commodities. Here, frankly, we agree with much of the pressure he indicated. I too wasn't entirely satisfied with how well we were coordinating our efforts at the border. The agency agrees with the recommendations, and we have implemented a strategic approach to manage regulated imported agricultural products. I think we've made some significant improvements in the past year.

It's clear this is an area where the agency has a lead responsibility in government. We are really the border agency for plants, animals, and food.

We recognize that the old ways of doing business have served Canadians well—but they may not be sustainable in the future. While the fundamentals of Canada's system of import controls continue to make sense, the agency must be vigilant. As new information and technologies become available, it must review and update its policies and activities to continue protecting consumers.

The CFIA has drafted a national import policy, a discussion paper designed to guide the direction of the agency's import control activities well into the future. We started this last spring, before the Auditor General completed his work. We have moved quite a long way, I think.

The draft policy proposes an enhanced risk-based inspection approach that cuts across all CFIA programs, focusing on country of origin, the border, and product destination.

Having agency-wide import control policies is an important part of preparing for the future. But this isn't new ground for the agency; we've been enhancing our import controls for quite some time. For example—and I'm pleased to see that the Auditor General has recognized our work—we have created three import service centres in Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto. They process import requests seven days a week, twenty hours a day. This is very important, since we're responsible for the 5,000 trucks of product that arrive at one border point every day.

The agency has also developed, and is already using, a number of state-of-the-art automated systems to streamline the import process.

Furthermore, the agency continues to play a lead role in international standard-setting organizations. These protect consumers by maintaining and promoting the highest possible science-based food safety standards.

We've recently begun the discussion process on the draft import policy with stakeholders and other government departments. The agency will use the comments received to develop a strategic implementation plan that will chart the continuous enhancement of import control activities for at least the next ten years. Certainly that's our hope.

At the CFIA, prevention is the first line of defence. But when things go wrong, the agency can and does use strict enforcement measures to correct problems.

When the agency was created, we identified the need to establish a consistent and uniform approach to enforcement and compliance. The creation of a centralized enforcement division in the agency—the enforcement investigation services, headed up by a very senior lawyer—allows the agency to deal with enforcement and compliance in a more effective, consistent, and fair manner.

I am pleased that the Auditor General acknowledged the important steps the agency has taken to improve the quality and consistency of its enforcement actions. These steps included developing a comprehensive enforcement and compliance policy; establishing procedures for monitoring compliance; carrying out inspections; and conducting investigations. In addition, the agency has provided enforcement training to all its inspection staff, and moved some scarce resources into enhancing our capacity there.

As I said, there are good reasons why Canadians, and over 200 other countries worldwide, have confidence in the safety of Canada's food supply. Probably the most important of these reasons is our staff—the dedicated and highly qualified employees of the CFIA. Many of us, like me and my colleague here, are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We've all got beepers and phones, and we're used to dealing with these kinds of things. Most of our recalls happen on Friday afternoons, you may have noticed.

We recognize the value of our employees, as well as the challenges we face. Like many other government organizations, our real challenge is ensuring that we continue to attract and keep the very best people—now and in the future.

• 1050

[Translation]

The Agency's 2000-03 Human Resources Strategy demonstrates what the CFIA is doing to ensure that our employees remain with us, that they continue to develop professionally, that they have the necessary tools to enable them to continue to contribute to the operational objectives of the Agency, and that highly-skilled potential employees see the CFIA as an employer of choice, both now and in the future.

[English]

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we are committed to contributing to the government's efforts to enhance the quality of life for Canadians. First and foremost, our commitment is to protect Canadians. It's a responsibility I want to assure you, sir, we take very seriously.

Without a doubt, the challenges facing us are complex and numerous. We know our work is never finished, because our mandate—and I participated in drafting it—is to enhance the efficiency of the federal food inspection system. You're never done enhancing. I think we may be a unique government agency in this regard.

I realize the mandate is ambitious, but it's one that answers the expectations of Canadians—and one we will continue to strive towards.

Thank you for the opportunity to express these opening remarks. We welcome your questions, sir.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. President. They say if you don't blow your own horn, there are very few people who'll do it for you. I guess I take that under advisement.

David.

Mr. David Anderson: My first question today is probably an obvious one, but I'm just wondering, with foot-and-mouth disease spreading, and looking as if it's coming over the hill toward us, what specific measures have you taken to prevent it? And if it's necessary for us to control it here, what measures are you taking?

Mr. Ron Doering: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. I think Dr. Gravel has taken a real lead responsibility on the animal health side for us. Perhaps he can go through what our response to this situation has been.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Could you please switch on your microphone? The interpreter is having trouble hearing what you're saying.

Mr. Ron Doering: Could I just interrupt you there, Ms. Tremblay? Mr. Gravel wants to answer the question.

[English]

Dr. André Gravel (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The agency reacted very quickly when we learned that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was taking on such vast proportions in the U.K. Our first precautionary move was to ban the import of products susceptible to the disease, such as live animals, semen, embryos, animal products, etc.

As a secondary measure, we stepped up our import controls on products and passengers coming into Canada. If you've been in a Canadian international airport recently, you've seen that there are now foot baths for people coming in from Europe. These are to ensure that the virus is not inadvertently carried in on people's shoes.

As a precaution, we also banned from the market any products shipped, not only from the U.K., but from France as well, since it had the one case of foot-and-mouth disease. And because at the time it seemed the disease was spreading beyond the borders of England and Ireland into France, we also imposed a ban on the importation of any risky products from Europe in general.

This will be reconsidered in due time. The incubation period of the disease is 14 days, so we want to ensure that France is controlling its outbreak, and that there are no other outbreaks anywhere else in the E.U.

I think it sums up the controls we have in place.

Mr. David Anderson: And for the future?

Dr. André Gravel: Your question was what if it came here. For the future, we'll see. As far as I know, the number of cases in the U.K. is still increasing. They haven't really controlled the outbreak yet. The chief veterinary officer of the U.K. said it's going to take a long time to get this one under control. So we certainly will keep on being very vigilant in terms of what we import from there.

• 1055

We've also, as a measure of help and for our own self-interest, sent teams of Canadian veterinarians over there for periods of three weeks. It does provide U.K. vets with some assistance. But also from our own standpoint—our own selfish standpoint—this is an opportunity. Vets in Canada haven't been exposed to foot-and-mouth disease. This disease last time struck Canada in 1952, and unlike myself, many of the vets that we have in the service were not born at the time, so it's the only opportunity they have to see it.

In terms of what would happen if the disease were ever found in Canada, I think the agency is well equipped with a contingency plan if that ever happens. In fact, along with our colleagues from Mexico and the U.S., we did do an exercise not too long ago to verify our capacity to handle the disease. It's a theoretical exercise, and it's a scenario that we wanted—not only our agency, but also the U.S. and Mexico—to handle. The results show that we could handle it. It is difficult, and it would monopolize a lot of our resources for some time, but we're in good shape there. We have a good plan.

The Chair: Please keep it brief.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to switch a little bit, Mr. Doering, to the facilities we have in Canada for slaughtering—slaughtering facilities and processing plants. You mentioned that consumer confidence is so important. It's so important to many of these industries that they have that confidence that the products they're producing are safe and acceptable, and also to our trading partners, of course—certainly the United States. Do you feel that the standards in our facilities—our slaughtering facilities in particular—are adequate? Are there any plans for change?

We've seen in the past year or so a number of cases where recalls have been put out on our hamburger that seemed to be okay when it left Canada, but the United States wouldn't accept it. Are we doing enough to ensure that the standards are being maintained, that the confidence level with our trading partners is there, and also with our consumers?

Mr. Ron Doering: Thank you for the question, sir. That was a very good question.

I think the answer is that we have done a very good job historically, but that's not a reason to be complacent. We have to continuously strive to do the best we have with the resources we have to meet this.

In the slaughter plants in Canada, more than 90% of the volume of meat produced in Canada comes from federally registered plants. All of these plants are on HACCP now, because all of these plants export to the United States and had to be.

We will continue to have problems from time to time. That's why we have this recall procedure. The Americans are quite envious of us that we actually have a mandatory recall provision in the federal government. They do not.

We haven't experienced—thank God, touch wood—the kinds of major problems that the Americans have had in terms of deaths, for example in the jack-in-the-box case. We haven't had the major Listeria monocytogenes problem that Bilmar had, where many people died. I say that not to be boastful, nor to say that we could be complacent. We haven't had these problems, but we have to continue to really work to meet these new kinds of things that come up.

Canada sells $3 billion worth of meat to the United States every year. It's a testament to the fact that they believe our system is at least equivalent to theirs, and we think in some respects better. We sell meat to 95 countries in the world. All of these countries are satisfied that our system is at least equivalent to theirs. So I think we've built on a long tradition of excellence here. The agency itself may be young, but we're building on work that federal public servants have done for over a hundred years, and so far, so good.

It's a kind of mixed message here. On the one hand, I'm proud of where we are. Canadians have never had safer food, and we believe that we're doing a good job for them. But that is no basis to become complacent, certainly no basis not to be worrying every day that we're meeting the new kinds of challenges we're getting.

Mr. Rick Casson: Do you feel then that the checks and balances in place and some of the audits that need to be done are being done properly, and that if there is something wrong that it's being responded to and being improved?

• 1100

Mr. Ron Doering: Well, certainly in meat inspection. It's our largest program; of the 14 programs that we do, it's our largest. In every federally registered plant we have oversight by very highly trained inspectors. Veterinarians are in these plants, paid for by us. We're the largest employer of veterinarians in Canada. We have over 700 of them or something. So I think we've made pretty good progress there.

Certainly, as far as I'm aware, no country in the world thinks they have a superior system to ours. But the volumes, the kinds of new problems we're encountering, and the sheer size and scale of what we do require us to be constantly vigilant, to do what we can to keep up with the latest science and to improve our systems.

The Chair: We go now to Murray.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ron, you were talking about HACCP within the food industry, which is basically an auditing system. And it's a very credible one as far as I'm concerned. But, as a farmer and as a poultry farmer, we're trying to incorporate the HACCP system on farm. And as far as I'm concerned it's an excellent system because when I have baby chicks come on my farm I know exactly where they came from, whether they came from a U.S. flock or a Canadian flock, the age of the flock, everything. So it's a tool that, quite frankly, I as a farmer would really like to have in place and to use.

And the industry, right now, is moving towards that. Yet we can't really get approval from CFIA. And I find this really contradictory, that you're going to have HACCP through all the food industry except on farm. And so, at that point in time, how credible is the food safety standard that you're trying to establish here, which gets accolades from me, if you don't have the on-farm component invested in the system?

Mr. Ron Doering: Well, Mr. Calder, I thank you for that question and an opportunity to clear up some misunderstanding about the agency's role in on-farm food safety.

We've always talked about the fact that the agency...and you were on the standing committee and went through all the legislation when we created it. You may remember that—

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes.

Mr. Ron Doering: —we were going to have a gate-to-plate system, that we would have all food, all commodities in the same agency, fish included, etc. And that's what we counted on—gate-to-plate. And because there's some significant federal jurisdiction, here one of our 13 pieces of legislation applies to federally registered facilities and processing facilities.

On-farm is not gate to plate. It's inside the gate now. We're now talking about inside the gate. And here there are two problems for us. One is the extent of federal jurisdiction on the farm; historically it has been primarily provincial. And there are other issues relating to what exactly our role would be relative to these on-farm food safety programs.

The Minister of Agriculture and the department have provided funding over the last several years to assist in the development of these. We have worked very long and hard to work with them on the technical aspects of the on-farm food safety programs. Indeed the poultry one is one of the better ones. Probably poultry and pork are the two most developed.

The only issue—that's now the subject, I think, that you're talking about—is what is our role after we've approved their HACCP system? That's the seven steps of HACCP. This is the kind of thing that we do. And we're pleased to do that, very pleased to do that.

The only issue now is a discussion we're having relative to once we do that. This has to be industry-led. Once the industry starts to sign people up, do you want feds on farm doing inspection? And the answer is no, we don't. No, no, no, we don't want feds on the farm doing the inspection. Well, what exactly do you want our role to be? And then we got into quite a discussion about how you'd have a third-party verification of the system, which is somewhat premature, in my opinion, of course, because we still don't have these systems up and running.

And so there is a valid discussion here that the minister, the federation of agriculture, and some of these groups have engaged in. And I welcome the opportunity to discuss it in more detail with you.

These past two weeks, Peter has been quite involved in responding to the write-in campaign and some of the misunderstanding about what our role would be here. Maybe, Peter, could you elaborate a little bit further for me, for Mr. Calder?

• 1105

Mr. Peter Brackenridge (Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): With the permission of the Chair, is there time permitting?

Just to indicate and to reconfirm, as Ron has indicated, there was some, I guess, lack of clarity in the message. We are certainly prepared to take a look at the documentation that the various organizations have prepared and to pass our judgment as to whether or not it meets the HACCP bases that it was developed upon. So that issue, I think, is behind us.

We've also been working very closely with our provincial colleagues because of the shared jurisdictional responsibility. One of the original efforts, through something called the federal-provincial-territorial agrifood inspection committee, was to come up with a national framework such that, if a provincial government became involved in the HACCP overview process at the farm level or in the non-registered sector, we were using a common framework to do that type of an assessment.

There has been a difference amongst the provinces as to the level of engagement they would be prepared to be involved in. The province of Quebec has taken quite a definite approach with the Bureau de normalisation du Quebec. Other provinces are anxious that the CFIA become more involved. Still other provinces are looking at other third parties that could be providing that type of service.

What we have undertaken to do, as a result of the most recent federal-provincial ministers meeting, is to have Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency meet with the senior policy representatives from the provincial governments and meet with the representatives of the industry organizations to come up with a consensus as to where we can legitimately go, to provide the types of oversight and inspection services that people are expecting, to find out who would be the appropriate body to do that, and to determine what type of recognition would be required.

We have a process in place that will be starting at the end of the month of March, and hopefully over the next period of weeks we'll be able to provide better clarification on that.

Do I still have time?

The Chair: I think you've had your time.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Sometimes this is important.

Mr. Murray Calder: Ron, you're talking about the fact this is a provincial issue. But quite frankly, the way that I see it right now, we have an industry already that has standards, that is self-policing, and our industry is ready to take on the HACCP responsibility also.

So if the chicken farmers of Canada come back to you and say “Here are the standards that we're ready to put forward for the industry; we have our own chicken police to go out and enforce this; the growers basically agree to it”, then why does the province have to be involved in this at all? Because our chicken industry is establishing its own standards. All we have to do is get approval from you, saying that you agree with the protocol and the criteria that the chicken farmers of Canada have established, because, quite frankly, unless we have that, we just say, “Well, we're policing ourselves”, and the consumer's going to say, “Yeah, right”.

That's basically it in a nutshell. That's why we need that approval from you.

Mr. Ron Doering: For the technical requirements of the system, working closely with you, we're happy to give that approval. We've said this all along.

It's the next step for us which has never been discussed before. This is a new idea—that we would then come in and audit the system when it's up and running and certify it. And there, there are significant legal implications that we need to work through with people before we finalize this. Certainly the provinces would say these farms are primarily a provincial responsibility.

Mr. Calder, we're very open to sit down and work with people. We want on-farm food safety systems; that's one of the reasons we've encouraged Mr. Vanclief to give this money to help these things be set up. Lord knows, the safer the product that leaves the farm, the better we're all off. It's a matter of sitting down and having those discussions and working this out.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I'd like to clarify one point. The newspapers are reporting that you seem to have a shortage of veterinarians. At the same time, it appears that you are in a position to do without some of these veterinarians, since you have sent them to Europe. I naively thought that they would be older vetenarians with experience of the 1952 outbreak and who would therefore be able to help their colleagues. Dr. Gravel, if I'm not mistaken, you said that you have sent young vetenarians who did not experience the 1952 outbreak and who were not even born in 1952, for that matter, to train them just in case the disease spreads to Canada.

• 1110

If we do indeed have a shortage of vetenarians, how can you justify sending some of them to the United Kingdom at a time when it appears difficult to deprive ourselves of the resources that we need, in light of what is happening in various parts of the world? Canadians are concerned and rightly so. Everything is hyped by the media these days. I remember what happened in 1952. You just have to look at me to realize that I was old enough to be aware of what was happening around me at that time, especially given the fact that my father had a herd of dairy cattle. As a result, I experienced what happened in 1952.

As far as I remember, foot-and-mouth disease was no more serious than the flu. Granted, the disease spread like the flu and for a while it was more dangerous. It was reported that farmers were giving this disease to all their cows at the same time, to make sure that their milk production was not sent off to the creamery for a limited period of time, since until the disease had run its course they did not send their milk to the creamery. Perhaps this stems more from urban legend than reality. How can we do without this staff? That is the real question, especially at a time when Canadians are concerned.

Mr. André Gravel: Thank you. It is a point well taken. Indeed, I would never have guessed that you were around in 1952.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You're too kind.

Mr. André Gravel: I have already mentioned why we have sent our vetenarians to the United Kingdom. It is first and foremost to provide assistance to a country which badly needs it. In addition, for mainly self-serving reasons, it gives our vetenarians an opportunity to gain field experience in the eradication of the disease, so that they will be better prepared should there be an outbreak of the disease in Canada.

Two years ago, the Agency opened a level 4 security laboratory in Winnipeg where we can organize demonstrations for some of our veterinarians and provide them with training to detect the tangible signs of the disease. However, the opportunity to observe the disease in a herd and to participate in measures to eradicate it is something quite different. I think that sending these vetenarians to the United Kingdom was a real priority for us even if we do not necessarily have all the staff we need right now. We assessed the risk and came to the conclusion that it would be really worthwhile to take advantage of this opportunity to send some vetenarians to the United Kingdom.

You mentioned the symptoms of foot-and-mouth disease. The foot-and-mouth serotype which is currently affecting Europe is a very serious one. The symptoms are quite serious also. For example, in the case of hogs, their hooves may drop off. Animals may have so many mouth ulcers that they are unable to eat. It is quite serious.

I don't believe that if people did indeed give the disease to all their animals to make sure that they were all infected at the same time, that that took place in Canada, because if it had, we would undoubtedly have been aware of it. It was thought that animals could be vaccinated in this way and that they would recover. However, the only sure way to control the disease is to eradicate it. I believe that in the short term, the British government is going to face a strong reaction from farmers because the government intends to set up a three-mile buffer zone around farms affected by the disease. The government is also talking about the potential slaughter of a million head of livestock which, to all intents and purposes, have shown no sign of symptoms. This will be the next hurdle they have to face, I think. Farmers will undoubtedly begin to rebel.

As I have already said, this is a very worrying situation for us. We hope that the first contingent of veterinarians to return from the United Kingdom will be able to suggest ways of improving our system here.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Given that the current outbreak of the disease appears to be an extremely vicious one, that hogs are more susceptible than other cloven hoof animals, don't you think that simply disinfecting people's feet is a sufficient measure? It seems to me that the disease could be spread on people's hair just as well as on their feet. Why do you think that the disease can only be spread on people's feet and why don't we require people to take a shower to remove any trace of the disease? It seems to me that that would be a really serious measure to prevent the spread of the disease. It is widely known that the common cold is not only spread by saliva but also on people's hands, among other means of transmission. It seems to me that the footbath is not a sufficiently serious preventative measure, in terms of a disease which seems to spread so quickly and be quite virulent and a justifiable source of concern.

• 1115

Mr. André Gravel: Yes, you are correct. If this was the only preventative measure, it would be lightweight and I think that we would be ill-advised to think that we can stop foot-and-mouth disease from arriving in Canada just by requiring passengers to walk through a disinfectant footbath. I quite agree with you there. However, as I have already mentioned, we have implemented other preventative measures in terms of imports monitoring.

I omitted to mention earlier that the Agency uses sniffer dogs in airports. Remember that back in 1952, the disease was contracted by a herd of hogs through a sausage imported from Europe which was contaminated with foot-and-mouth disease. Consequently, this possibility clearly exists. We are aware that there are many fine food buffs, in both Canada and Quebec, who travel to Europe to bring back products which you can't find in Canada. We are concerned about that. The sniffer dogs working in the airports enable us to detect, in the majority of cases, those people who are bringing back items which could potentially carry foot-and-mouth disease in their baggage.

Therefore, that's the second measure that we've implemented. We have a whole series of measures to fight the disease, such as a freeze on imports, sniffer dogs at the airports, and disinfectant footbaths. We are also very lucky to have the Atlantic Ocean between North America and Europe. The virus is able to spread through the air. A few years ago, Denmark was infected by foot-and- mouth disease which came from East Germany. As a result, favourable conditions had meant that the disease was able to cross the ocean. That is how the disease gained a foothold in Denmark.

We think that the chances of foot-and-mouth spreading here from Great Britain through the air are very slim.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That is just what I wanted to ask you. I am sure that you have the wide-ranging experience and the knowledge to tell me whether when animal carcasses are burnt fire destroys the disease? We have all seen images of the huge pyres with smoke drifting off into the air. Could the disease be spread by this smoke or is it destroyed by fire?

Mr. André Gravel: Unlike mad cow disease, the foot-and-mouth virus is not very resistant to atmospheric conditions and disinfectants. Incineration undoubtedly completely destroys the virus, of that there is no doubt.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Great. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Tremblay.

Mr. Duplain.

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Here's my first question. I don't really have time to watch television, but it seems to me that the problem in Europe is quite serious.

As a preventive measure, shouldn't we have some form of media campaign asking Canadians to really be careful regarding the import of this type of products, products that could cause a problem? When just a little piece of sausage could cause a huge problem, it's unbelievable. That's my first question.

And here is the second question. It is said that 76% of the population is satisfied with the work that you do. We know that there is a growing concern regarding food. You seem to have a good handle on inspecting products, products from within Canada as well as the imports. However, the Auditor did raise a certain number of points: The lack of staff and certain activities where there is insufficient follow-up.

With this in mind, and given what is happening today in Europe which is making the population increasingly aware of such dangers, I would like to look at the future. We are discovering an increasing number of illnesses that we were not aware of stemming from all kinds of cross-fertilizations or crossbreeding that can be done. How do you see, in the long term, a way to calm these fears while keeping the satisfaction level high and making sure that there is no panic?

• 1120

Earlier we asked the Auditor some questions such as whether the lack of personnel was due to a lack of money. Do you need some new legislation? I would like to have your opinion on this, please.

Mr. Don Doering: As to your second question...

[English]

André, you will handle the foot-and-mouth one.

On the resource question, the ministers of the Treasury Board have been kind enough to give us additional resources in the past year, so we have been able to enhance our inspection activities. We have 11% more people on the front line today than we did in 1988. That gives me, at any rate, some comfort that the government recognizes the importance of the work we do and the importance of getting good people with adequate resources. We've been very pleased with the support of Minister Vanclief and the Treasury Board ministers in this regard in the past year.

At the same time, though, we recognize—and I certainly acutely recognize it as the president—that while we've coped in the past, the kind of growth that we were experiencing in all our programs requires us to have even more resources. But you can't just go down there and say you want another $50 million. There are other departments looking for these resources too.

So we persuaded the Treasury Board ministers to fund an over $1 million study through KPMG to take a good hard look at the resource base of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to see if we could demonstrate that, to handle the future kind of problems coming down the road, we need additional resources.

Frankly, examples of TSEs, like mad cow disease or foot-and-mouth disease, demonstrate the absolute importance of the role of the state and the role of the agency in things like animal protection.

It's equally true in plant protection. We need to have the scientists and the laboratory capacity to respond quickly, as we saw, for example, in the most recent case of plum pox virus in the Niagara Peninsula, or potato wart in P.E.I. I'm reasonably comfortable that we have a process underway to get us additional resources to do what Canadians expect us to do.

That doesn't mean, though, that we're into zero risk. It still means that we're going to continue to have growth, and we're just going to have to keep on doing everything we can to enhance our capacities. One of things we need to do is to explain to Treasury Board ministers that we've had growth in all 14 special programs.

For example, in Manitoba—I'm sorry Mr. Borotsik is not here—in the Brandon area, Maple Leaf opened a big new plant there. This is a really state-of-the-art operation for hogs. We didn't have fifteen inspectors and five veterinarians sitting around with nothing to do when that plant opened. We had to respond. There is no automatic mechanism to get additional resources. That's why we've had to work closely with our minister and Treasury Board ministers to get additional resources.

On the resource question, I'll always take more, and if members of Parliament want to give me more, we can certainly use it. But I think we've coped reasonably well in the past and have a process to allow us to cope in the future.

On the broader question of the public campaign on foot-and-mouth disease, and those technical issues, perhaps, Dr. Gravel, you could....

[Translation]

Mr. André Gravel: I agree with you. It is very important that people travelling in Europe be made aware of existing risks. We have done three things to raise awareness amongst the public. First of all, we created a media star, Dr. Claude Lavigne, who is here. He has already given three press conferences and I can tell you that the last press conference, on Friday, even though it was held at our offices which are located on the outskirts of the city attracted a large number of people because there is a great deal of public interest in the issue.

Therefore, we felt it was important to raise awareness amongst the population through the media. And for their part, the media in general have decided that the question is sufficiently important to give it quite a bit of play whether on television or in the newspapers. Therefore, I think that in terms of raising public awareness, the Agency has achieved its goal.

• 1125

Secondly, the agency has a brochure entitled "Don't bring it back." It is a brochure that is distributed to all airline passengers either going to or returning from Europe. It explains that the fact that you bring a salami back to the country does not necessarily represent a danger for human health, but this salami, even though it may be quite fit for human consumption and not present any food poisoning risk, can still bring in the virus of an animal disease into Canada. It's a brochure which explains the reasons why people should not bring home this type of product.

Thirdly, with the co-operation of the airlines, in the majority of cases, the flight attendants deliver a message upon arriving in the country which tells people who have brought products with them either because they haven't read our brochure or because they paid no attention to the media that they can dispose of them before entering Canada. There are waste bins on the planes where people can throw these products away.

These are the three measures that we have implemented in order to raise awareness amongst consumers, specially the travelling public.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Anderson.

Mr. David Anderson: I have a question.

This morning the Auditor General talked about having some concern over high-risk file inspection. When we asked him for a little bit of detail about that, he said those high-risk files are mainly things like recalls and prosecutions. That's fairly reactive to a situation. What makes up a high-risk file for you, and what kind of proactive approach do you have to those items and those issues?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: We evaluate all the programs based upon a variety of risk factors. First and foremost would be the risk associated with the product for food safety. For food safety risk assessments, we rely on Health Canada, and they provide us with information on that on a regular basis, and we request it on a regular basis. In addition, we have some legislative requirements, regulatory requirements, that we are obliged to deliver, and that becomes another factor to consider when we are doing our priorities for the activities that are underway.

We will take a look at the recall situation and determine what have been frequent problems in the past. So if we've had difficulties with allergies, for example, we will enhance our activities both from the standpoint of surveillance to make sure the products do not contain allergenic substances undeclared on the label, and we will take some action to inform the industry groups what they should be cautious of with regard to allergenic compounds, that type of thing. So we use a combination of factors when we're determining the risk factors. We'll use food recall information as well in doing that.

We will then structure the program based upon whether it is something under our trade and commerce acts and regulations, the Canada Agricultural Products Act, or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. We have a set of ongoing inspection regimes for those products, and then we have the food safety investigation programs under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act and regulations and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and regulations, and we undertake to have priorities established by science and technical committees to help guide us in what the priorities should be.

Mr. David Anderson: What would be an example of a high-risk file, then?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Bean sprouts would be, because there have been problems with salmonella in bean sprouts in the past. Unpasteurized juice, ready-to-eat meat products that are not going through an additional heat-processing step, products that would be intended for children—infant formulas and things of that nature—would fall on our high-priority list.

The Chair: Mr. Casson has a small question.

Mr. Rick Casson: I'd like to ask a question that is a little more local to my area.

A year or so ago there was a challenge by a group in the United States, R-CALF, to our beef industry, in that they felt that our beef producers were being subsidized. They went through the whole challenge process and countervailing duty, and it was all ruled in our favour.

But part of the process that came out of that was an awareness that we needed to facilitate further trade across the border with certain parts of the northwestern states in feeder cattle, to make them realize that we recognized the health of their herd and that we were trying to include their feeder cattle into our operations. A northwest beef project was asked for, and I think it was started, but I don't know what the present status of that is—when it will be brought to light, what the mandate will be, what states will be included, the time of year the cattle can be brought in, all of that. Are those details available?

• 1130

Mr. Ron Doering: Yes, they are, and thank you for the opportunity.

The so-called regionalization, the northwest cattle project, is very near completion. Dr. Gravel, we're talking a matter of days, I think.

Dr. André Gravel: The northwest cattle project is something the agency started with the industry in Canada and the States to allow the movement of animals from certain states under certain conditions and restrictions during a certain period of the year. The first year of operation was not very successful. It was felt by the industry that the conditions under which animals were to be imported were too stringent and too expensive. So the agency, along with the industry, readjusted its program to make it a little bit more flexible. The second and third years of operation have been pretty successful. There are a lot of animals moving into Canadian feed docks.

While all this was happening, Canada developed a new regulation, which we call regionalization. This will allow us to recognize certain states in the U.S. and certain countries or parts of countries as having an animal health status that is equivalent to that of Canada. For example, if we were to recognize that Montana has a similar disease status to ours, all that would be needed for the animals to move to Canada would be a ticket of origin indicating the animal originates from Montana. That package is in the final approval process and, hopefully, in the early spring the regulations will be gazetted. That would be an improvement over the northwest cattle project, because it's a global regulation that will allow us to treat certain parts of countries that have an animal-health status equivalent to ours in a more favourable way in terms of their trade with us.

The Chair: Thanks, Rick. I think you've finished your five minutes.

Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

I'm sure we're going to continue to use—and perhaps, Doctor, you'll tell me for the right reasons—the words “foot-and-mouth” disease. Yet I do notice that some scientists have said it's “hoof-and-mouth”. I would like to hear your brief comment on that, if I could, please. In some cases foot-and-mouth disease has been a human disease, which this is not at all. I just thought I'd like to put that on the record, sir.

Dr. André Gravel: The member is right, there is some confusion there. There's a human disease that has a name that is very similar to foot-and-mouth disease. Both foot-and-mouth disease and hoof-and-mouth disease are acceptable terminology as far as this condition is concerned. But it has to be differentiated from the human condition that has the same name.

My advice is use a French word, fièvre aphteuse. There's no confusion. There's only one.

[Translation]

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

[English]

Also, we do hear the British farmers asking for a vaccination. I just think we should clarify it for our people here and for us. Why are they asking for a vaccination? Is there any effectiveness available to any degree with vaccination? You wonder why these people are asking for it when it's in their backyard, Doctor.

Dr. André Gravel: As I said, Mr. Chairman, the outbreak is expanding in the U.K. I think some of the farmers are seeing the impact on a daily basis, and they are concerned about this. The idea of seeing your herd disappearing under a flame is not really a turn on for anybody who has raised animals. So, clearly, they're starting to resist and look at vaccination—I'm talking about the farmers, not the veterinary authorities—as a means of controlling the disease. In some cases it's effective. I think the U.K. is not there yet. They're still maintaining that eradication is the best route.

• 1135

Vaccines have limitations. The first limitation is that there are seven serotypes of foot-and-mouth disease. The one the U.K. has is serotype O, which is an Asian serotype. If you vaccinate for serotype 0, you're going to get protection from that serotype of disease. However, if, as in the case of Argentina, you're hit with serotype A, then there's no protection. The vaccines under very specific conditions are effective, but they're not the be-all and end-all in terms of protection.

The other thing is that in terms of protection some animals don't show as good a reaction to the vaccine as others. Sheep, as an example, are not as well protected by the vaccine as others. So it gives you a false sense of security, thinking that all animals have been vaccinated. The disease is introduced in a herd, and the problem with sheep is that they don't show symptoms. They're carriers of the disease, but they don't show symptoms. That's how, I think, the U.K. lost control of it. It got into sheep, and sheep travel extensively in the U.K. That's how it got transmitted all over the place from one side of the country to the other. By the time they started to see symptoms, the symptoms were in the cattle and hog populations. So that's the other limitation of vaccine, the fact that some animal species don't get the same level of protection you get in others.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you for making that very clear for me.

I like to think our ability to track our food products in this country will help ensure continuing consumer confidence here and certainly very much so with our exports. I don't expect you're going to comment on the $400 half-sandwich that was detected by one of the dogs, which did a great job, at an airport in Ontario. But I'm just wondering if you could give us an overall view of the tracking issue.

I'd like to go back to a question I heard yesterday in the House on StarLink. Yes, we have an excellent system, and yes, we did detect it. Otherwise we wouldn't have even known it was here. Yet now we're hoping we can track that throughout the couple of provinces where it is.

Mr. Ron Doering: There are two parts. Let me, Mr. McCormick, talk about the general tracking issue. This is a very important thing to do because the food system is so pervasive in terms of people touching it. The largest crisis we had to talk about two summers ago when I was before this committee was the Belgian dioxin crisis, where a couple of barrels of dioxin in a remote, little community in Belgium ended up contaminating hundreds of thousands of food products across the world. We don't trade that much with Belgium, but here we had one shipment of chocolate syrup that got into all the ice cream in Canada, and we were having to carry out what was at that time the largest recall in Canadian history. And it came from two barrels of dioxin in that remote, little town in Belgium. It demonstrates just how much food, animals, and plants cross borders and are then touched by so many people through the processing system.

Things like the cattle ID program are extremely important. On-farm food safety programs with voluntary HACCP systems with farmer groups will be of some help.

Industry also realizes they have to do a much better job of keeping track of where things are. Some of the recalls we do are extremely complicated in terms of finding out where particular ingredients are and then sourcing back from where they were because of the way we produce food now.

On the StarLink—

The Chair: Your time is up, Larry. We'll turn to Suzanne again.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No, that's okay.

Mr. Ron Doering: Maybe the always precise Bart Bilmer, who's the director of our biotech policy office, can speak to the more specific issue of StarLink, which is not a new story. The story was published many weeks ago by one of the reporters in this room. This was simply a discovered new story.

Mr. Bart Bilmer (Director, Office of Biotechnology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Perhaps I'll give a little bit of background on it and then get to the specific question that was asked.

• 1140

First of all, the agency is taking the issue of the StarLink corn very seriously. In November we posted an advisory for food and feed imports into Canada indicating that importers needed to take responsibility for products they imported. That advisory complemented an advisory put out already by the Canadian Grain Commission, which is responsible for the importation of grain into Canada.

Following this, the CFIA initiated a testing program for food and feed. It took samples at various parts around the country. Again, that complemented what the Grain Commission was doing; it was carrying out sampling. As part of the Grain Commission's sampling program they detected the StarLink protein at a couple of silos in Quebec, one of which they immediately sealed, the other of which had already been distributed, as has been indicated.

Following that, the agency was notified that this had occurred. We initiated an investigation to find out exactly where the StarLink corn had gone, and at that time we found out it had gone to a number of feed mills around the country, but mainly in Quebec. Sorry, I should be clear on that point: mainly in Quebec, and an Ontario distributor redistributed some of it into New Brunswick.

At that point the agency sought some advice from Health Canada, because the level of StarLink corn was very low; it was trace amounts. We asked Health Canada for advice about the potential risk to human health based on the trace amount in the corn. What they told us, essentially, is that it was a low risk, because the animal would have to ingest it and then the risk would be the potential of humans eating that, which Health Canada said would be quite low.

From that point the agency initiated a recall, and unfortunately at that time we found out that all the grain had been distributed. It had already gone and had been fed to animals. The question that would come up at that point is whether there is a risk to animal health as well. The experience from the United States of farmers who had been feeding StarLink corn, presumably in a lot of cases at 100%, to animals had not indicated any ill effects, to my knowledge.

I should also mention that it was approved for animal feed use in the United States for several years.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bilmer.

Suzanne.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday I looked at the supplementary budgets that you will receive. I think that we will be voting on that today. Quite honestly, I was surprised to see that within the supplementary estimate you required so much money for capital expenditures, purchase of buildings, lands, and equipment, etc. and yet so little funding for personnel.

I therefore recommended that my party vote against these supplementary estimates, because I think you need much more, unless the explanations we were given are not relevant or adequate. It seems to me that when you draw up a budget for the year, you should make provision for the land you want to buy, the building, the business and so on, unless in this case you say that it is easier to buy land because there is extra money in the budget that must be spent before March 31. This type of thing reminds me of the time when we were asked—because our budget ends on March 31—to hurry up and buy all the pencils and paper we might need because we had to spend all the money.

I find it somewhat strange that at a time when we hear everywhere that you are short-staffed—the Auditor General said that, the professional associations said the same thing—the smallest part of the 12 million dollars you are asking for would be earmarked for personnel. You seem to be taking the rest for operations and all of that. I think this is somewhat out of line in the current context.

• 1145

Mr. André Gravel: Thank you for the question.

Clearly, the Agency has needs in a number of areas. The human resources area is an important one. In the last two years—I was looking at the statistics yesterday—the Agency increased the number of front-line inspectors by 11%. Part of the money had already been used for that purpose.

As to the money for computer equipment, as the Auditor General mentioned, this was a very difficult issue for the Agency. We inherited 114 computer systems when we were established in 1997 and...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Did you pass the hat?

Mr. André Gravel: Imagine the type of decisions we had to make at that time. We decided not to keep the 114 systems, but rather to consolidate. And that is what we did. We now have 14 computer systems rather than 114.

However, the operation of these systems, which are much bigger than the little systems we used to have, creates a problem with respect to the computer equipment. Part of the money you saw in the estimates will therefore be used to buy more powerful computers.

We have two systems that I would describe as Boeing 747s. One is called MCAP. It is a system that all inspectors at the Agency can use in the course of all their activities. It is a very heavy system, and, naturally, small computers cannot handle it. The other is a control system that is used to send samples to the laboratory. It is a system used by people in the laboratory and in the field. These two systems cannot be operated on small computers.

There is another aspect that should be considered as well. When I began working, computers were something that existed somewhere in the United States. Only the CIA had them. Today, almost 90% of all our inspectors use computers. Those who are unlucky like myself and have to work in an office here in Ottawa, can have access to the system through a local network. However, most of our people are located in isolated places. They must use telephone lines in order to have access to the system. We need to increase the infrastructure—that is the computer systems that allow us to communicate with people in the field. These are the areas in which the Agency is planning to invest.

The Agency has 22 laboratories throughout Canada. In recent years, we have maintained them as best we could. However, this is something that we will have to examine in the long-term context, not the short term. One of the important elements of the study that will be done with Treasury Board and that Mr. Doering mentioned earlier is the infrastructure of the laboratories required by the Agency.

Part of the money we received this year and that was announced in the House, $32 million—will be used to purchase laboratory equipment to improve the detection of residues. Part of this money will also be used to hire inspectors to follow up on the farms where there were violations as regards antibiotics or other similar products. We need a broad, rather than a narrow, approach.

We also got $9 million a year over three years for biotechnology. Here again, we have to hire people with the skills required to assess the files submitted by industry, to develop the resources for the laboratories that will enable us to track down genetically modified organisms. We also have to hire inspectors who will go into the fields to do audits, when these products are in the restricted development phase, in order to measure their impact on the environment.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have just a brief question. Are you in any way involved with the maple syrup industry? Do you have any role to play in it?

Mr. André Gravel: Yes, the maple syrup industry is one of the fourteen programs. The Agency does play a role there. We have a program to evaluate the quality and safety of maple syrup.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

• 1150

[English]

The Chair: Thanks, Suzanne.

To follow up on residue, in the last probably two months or less, we've experienced trade being directly affected by the interpretations or rulings of your agency. We have talked about the potato wart, of course, and it'll be a future part of our study.

Other countries use various chemicals, especially in the production of horticultural products. You mentioned something about your laboratories getting additional moneys to look into this. I would like to ask, in terms of the produce that we get that competes so significantly with that of our farmers in terms of our market gardeners and that, do you find any evidence of residues coming in on imported products that have been turned back at the borders or have been a cause of concern to the Canadian public?

Mr. Ron Doering: Mr. Brackenridge has had a long experience in the horticulture side, as the former director of the fruit and vegetable program. He can talk a bit about our pesticide residue testing program in this regard.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you.

From our standpoint, we maintain a very rigorous system for monitoring the compliance of imported produce coming into Canada. We've done basically hundreds of thousands of samples over the years. I believe our compliance rate continues to be in the neighbourhood of about 98% compliance for products coming in. That is, the products are complying with the standards that have been established by Health Canada.

With produce, we have a three-tiered system. We have what we call a monitoring system, which is a pre-arranged set of samples from certain countries for produce coming in. We then have what we call a surveillance program, such that if we find a problem during our compliance phase, during our monitoring phase, we have enhanced inspection for repeat importations from that country or from that supplier. And we have what we call a compliance phase, which is the third phase and requires a pre-certification of the produce coming in before it will be allowed into Canada.

I think we've done quite a good job on the pesticide residue front. We're working very closely with our colleagues at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration right now, both from an import standpoint as well as an export standpoint. We share information on our findings. What we are working with right now is from an export standpoint, to try to limit the inconvenience to Canadian exporters who are very proud of and confident in the Canadian system. We do not want produce unnecessarily held up at the U.S. border while they perform testing on Canadian produce. We have no problem being subjected to monitoring tests in the United States, the same as we subject their produce to monitoring in Canada.

That's basically where we are with our pesticide monitoring.

The Chair: With your monitoring, it does sound very good. But have there been situations or instances in, say, the last two years in which certain types of produce have been turned back?

As a Canadian, I've very seldom seen a problem being identified and getting some media attention that a certain product from a certain country has been turned back as not acceptable. Have there been situations that you could give to the committee—maybe not right as of this moment—in terms of a report on that type of activity?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Certainly we could provide a report to the committee on that. Again, I wouldn't have specific examples with me here today, but we are very diligent in our efforts.

We've heard a lot this morning about the import controls and activities at the border. Again, we tend to have a three-part approach to imports upstream, which is looking at the countries before the produce is sent to Canada, at the border itself, and then downstream, which is once the product is into Canadian commerce.

The Chair: Murray, you had a further question.

Mr. Murray Calder: It's just one quick question to Dr. Gravel, and it's a follow-up on Larry's question.

With the hoof-and-mouth disease, you said there is a vaccination and it's virus-specific. Say the U.K., for instance, decided to go on a vaccination program. Would they be allowed to ship to other countries that do not have the problem and therefore haven't initiated a vaccination program of their own? Would those animals in fact be carriers?

Dr. André Gravel: Thanks for reminding me. That's the third reason why there are some limitations associated with the vaccination.

• 1155

It's quite possible the vaccine that is used is a live vaccine that is attenuated. However, in some animals it may be that the animal becomes a carrier rather than developing immunity to the disease, and it could become a shedder of the virus.

In terms of the impact on exports, OIE, the Office international des épizooties, which is the international organization dealing with animal health, provides a certain level of recognition for freedom from certain diseases. A country could be free with vaccination, and that gives such a country the opportunity to ship certain types of products to certain markets. Everybody wants to be in the category of being free of foot-and-mouth disease without vaccination, because in that case there's no restriction on product. You can ship it anywhere in the world. As an example, until it had its outbreak, Argentina was considered by Canada as free of foot-and-mouth disease with vaccination. That allowed Argentina to ship boneless products only.

So as you move up through the levels of freedom from diseases that you have, the more markets get opened up.

Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Suzanne.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Gravel, it is somewhat odd, but I find it a little strange that foot-and-mouth disease originated in the same country as the mad cow disease. Could there be a causal link between the two diseases?

Mr. André Gravel: There is no link. The fact that the English had foot-and-mouth disease and before, mad cow disease... In the case of foot-and-mouth disease, the virus has been well known for a number of years. Mad cow disease, on the other hand, is a new disease caused by prions. The fact that they had both diseases at the same time merely means that they are very unlucky.

[English]

The Chair: Again, thank you for coming. Hopefully everyone recognizes the importance not only of what we eat, but of the entire food chain that's affected by it. As for Canadians, a lot of the future health of our people rests in your hands. With that, we hope you will continue to do a good job with your work, and that everyone will vote tonight to give you the money you may need to continue further with your efforts. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all of you.

I also thank the Auditor General's staff who stayed. I know you've always worked together, some in, some out, and so forth. But hopefully, together, we now better understand the problems that are encountered at all levels. With a new agency, of course, it does take time. There are growing pains—I guess that's the name of the industry.

So thank you for coming, and good luck in your future work.

Mr. Ron Doering: Thank you, sir. We take this responsibility very seriously.

A voice: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It was a pleasure working with you.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.