[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 2, 1995
.0904 
[English]
The Chairman: Order. We don't have a full committee at the moment. Some people have commitments and will be here a little later on. We do have a quorum for receiving evidence, so we'll proceed.
I want to welcome our witnesses, Mr. Roth and his associates, and I'm going to invite him in a moment to introduce his colleagues.
.0905
Before doing so, let me remind the committee that once we've heard from the current witnesses, it's our intention to spend a little time on drafting the report relating to aboriginal health issues, so don't run off when this segment of the meeting has concluded.
We want to finish this segment by 10:30 a.m., at the latest. We have, insofar as the second segment is concerned, some decisions to make, and we have to be out of here by 11 a.m.
Mr. Roth, we are the soul of brevity here. We never say in two sentences what can be said in one, and we would invite our witnesses to practice what we preach. Seriously, we're glad to have you, and we'd ask you to be as brief as possible in your opening presentation, thus giving us a little more time to put some questions to you.
Welcome, and would you introduce your colleagues and proceed with any opening statements you may have.
Mr. David Roth (Assistant Auditor General, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have with me Bill Rafuse, audit principal, and Tom Beaver, audit director. They were responsible for conducting the food safety audit last year. We're pleased to be here today to discuss the findings concerning Health Canada that arose from that audit.
[Translation]
The Office primary role is to serve Parliament. I mention this to emphasize the independent nature of our audits and examinations. We do this work to provide Parliament with objective information, advice and assurance. Pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, our reports are referred to the Public Accounts Committee, but we welcome requests for information from other parliamentary committees.
Today, we would like to provide you with the results of our recent audit of the federal food safety system.
As legislative auditor, there are two points that I would like to raise about our discussion today. First, we do not want to introduce new material. While we would be pleased to elaborate on the matters we have raised in reports tabled in the House, we cannot provide, for example, additional cases to support a point or discuss subjects that are not contained in our public reports. Second, we focus our audits on the implementation of policies and programs. We do not express opinions on political issues associated with them. Our audits are carried out against existing policy, although from time to time reports may raise issues that impact on policy and related political debate.
[English]
I'll provide you first with an overview of the food safety audit, and then Bill Rafuse will outline the specific observations concerning Health Canada.
Our audit examined the organization and co-ordination of food safety activities among the five federal departments directly involved in delivering the federal mandate for food safety. Our audit was designed to examine the government's progress in implementing its plan to strengthen the management of the federal food safety system. The cost of this regulatory program was $226 million in 1993-94, with salaries of the 3,600 federal employees accounting for most of that expenditure.
[Translation]
As noted earlier, our discussion today will focus on Health Canada's role and responsibilities.
The planning phase of the audit was completed in August 1992. At the request of the Interdepartmental Committee on Food Regulation, the committee responsible for planning and co-ordinating the federal food safety system, we delayed the examination phase of the audit to give departments time to advance or complete a number of initiatives that were underway. Progress was made during this period and this is reflected in our audit report.
[English]
The federal food safety system has evolved over an 80-year period. The current system involves: Health Canada; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Industry Canada; and Revenue Canada Customs and Excise. Health Canada, under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and a 1986 government directive related to food regulation and inspection, has overall responsibility for health, safety and nutritional aspects of food produced domestically and food imported for sale in Canada.
.0910
The provincial and territorial governments have jurisdiction over public health matters, which also extends to food manufactured, traded and sold within their borders.
The successful operation of the food safety system is dependent on a number of checks and balances. One key check is exercised by Health Canada in setting food safety standards and then seeing that federal and provincial inspectors ensure that the industry complies with these standards.
Health Canada must maintain current and relevant standards to meet Canadian needs and then see that there are reasonable enforcement strategies to safeguard the health and safety of the Canadian public. These conditions were set out in a 1986 government directive.
We concluded from our audit that Health Canada cannot ensure that the food-related health and safety provisions of the Food and Drugs Act are applied fully and effectively to all food produced domestically or imported for sale in Canada.
Gaps exist in the information received from inspection agencies and the coverage they achieve. A number of observations related to food inspection activities have led us to this conclusion.
Bill Rafuse will now briefly outline these findings, as well as some of the observations on reporting to Parliament. At the conclusion of his remarks, Tom, Bill and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. William Rafuse (Principal, Professional Development Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to make some comments about Health Canada's role in food inspection.
The 1986 government directive confirmed that the Minister of Health and the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act have primacy in all matters relating to food safety and nutrition. We found that the department is not exercising consistently its responsibility for food safety across the food safety system.
The department does not have all of the information needed to assess whether federal and provincial departments and agencies are verifying compliance with the food safety requirements of the Food and Drugs Act. These requirements apply to all food offered for sale in Canada.
Five observations led us to that conclusion, and I'll outline those briefly.
First, as directed by the government in 1986, Health Canada signed agreements with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada to review and endorse the food product sampling plans and testing procedures of those two departments. This was to ensure that the departments were inspecting Canadian food processing plants in accordance with the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act.
The current practice, however, is that Health Canada informally reviews the sampling plans and testing procedures of these departments. It does not conclude whether the departments' planned inspection activities satisfy the legislative requirements. Health Canada intends to assess the adequacy of this practice with respect to fulfilling its primacy role.
As the second observation, with respect to imported foods, Health Canada's agreements with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada also set out its role in establishing and reviewing risks, priorities and plans for product sampling and testing related to import control activities.
We found that, as was the case for domestic production, Health Canada has yet to assess and endorse the departments' approaches to product sampling and testing for food imports.
Third, in 1986, the government also directed Health Canada to conduct inspection audits of other federal departments' food inspection activities to determine compliance with the Food and Drugs Act. Between 1989 and 1993 plant inspections were conducted jointly with the other federal departments. However, with this approach Health Canada was unable to reach an overall conclusion on industry compliance.
In January 1994, agreement was reached between Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada to allow for a audit role for Health Canada. This agreement is now being implemented.
Fourth, in 1990, Health Canada formed the federal-provincial territorial committee on food safety to coordinate inspection activities, standards and control of problems in the food supply.
However, we found that Health Canada is not obtaining complete information from the provinces on the nature, extent, timing and results of food safety inspections they undertake. As a result, it cannot assess whether provincial and territorial departments and agencies are verifying compliance with health and safety standards equivalent to those of the Food and Drugs Act.
.0915
Fifth, food processing establishments that sell only within one province are not required to obtain federal registration. Health Canada inspects 4,500 of the food processing establishments that are not federally registered. Although Health Canada increased its inspection activities in these plants, we found that 35% of the 1,400 plants that Health Canada classifies as high risk were not inspected within the planned period of 18 months.
We noted that the government's budget plan released in February 1995 proposes that Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Industry Canada work cooperatively on measures to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the federal component of the Canadian food inspection system. This initiative is to be undertaken in consultation with the food industry and the provinces.
In addition to Health Canada's role in food inspection, the audit examined a number of accountability and reporting issues. We expected to find that the estimates documents would provide information on food safety activities, including performance and results achieved, and given Health Canada's role and responsibilities, we expected that its estimates part III would provide a comprehensive overview of the system.
We found that Health Canada's part III did not describe the federal food safety system. For example, the objectives of the system were not presented, resource requirements were not summarized, and there was no information on the overall effectiveness of the system. We believe the greatest deficiency is the lack of effectiveness information, that is, the degree to which the federal food safety system protects the Canadian public.
Eight years have passed since departments were instructed to make changes to the food safety system. The absence of evaluation activity means little is known about the effectiveness of the system or the impact of the changes. The result is that a significant and serious gap exists in the performance information available on the program and in the accountability that can be exacted.
The Interdepartmental Committee on Food Regulation and Health Canada, as well as the other departments, are planning to address the observations and recommendations of our audit. The committee is finalizing an action plan that will address each recommendation.
While progress has been made in implementing the government's 1986 plan to strengthen the management of the food safety system, our audit identified a number of important steps that must be taken to accelerate or improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal food safety system. It is our practice to follow up on such actions after two years. We plan to report the results of our follow-up work in November 1996.
In the interim, this committee may wish to seek clarification from the department on specific actions it is taking to address our recommendations. I hope the explanation of our audit of the federal food safety system, in particular the observations related to Health Canada, is helpful to the committee. We would be pleased to answer any questions related to our audit.
The Chairman: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South): Gentlemen, about a year ago I took the opportunity to visit the Auditor General and some of the staff and made some enquiries. This particular area was highlighted as an area that we, or I, should particularly look at, because there was some concern. So the report and what you mention here really doesn't surprise me personally. Maybe it does others.
The report you've given here, and some of the details, probably begs the rhetorical question, ``Here's all the bad. There couldn't possibly be any good.''
One of the things that concerns me, David, from your comments was your conclusion. It says: ``We concluded from our audit that Health Canada cannot ensure...''. Would you like to change the word ``cannot''?
.0920
Mr. Roth: No. Our audit was designed to reach conclusions on the management of the food safety system, and the food supply system can never be 100% safe. Nobody can ensure the 100% safety of the food supply system because there are many players involved in ensuring it, from the farmer through to the distributors, the manufacturers, the chefs, and to you and I.
At any one of those points something can happen. For example, if I leave meat out on the counter in the summer, and prepare it, then I'm at fault for anything that might occur. So I can't ensure; ensuring means 100%.
Mr. Szabo: So what you're saying is that there are some matters outside the control of Health Canada, and therefore, by definition, it cannot.
Mr. Roth: That's correct.
Mr. Szabo: But the way this is worded gives a totally different message. It implies that Health Canada is not doing its job. I would rather see a conclusion here to the effect that with regard to those things Health Canada can do, here is our assessment of how they are doing that job.
Mr. Rafuse: Health Canada's responsibilities, of course - in fact all of the federal food inspection activities - are directed primarily toward the processing and distribution components of the industry. As we point out in the report, those are not the source of most problems that occur with the food supply.
The conclusion we reached is that the federal inspection activities relating to that portion of the industry, in particular the processing portion, and Health Canada's specific responsibilities in that system, are in fact not all being carried out as they should.
Mr. Roth: May I also add that Health Canada has primary responsibility for ensuring that the food-related health and safety provisions of the Food and Drugs Act are fully applied. As we said, they don't have all the information to assess whether or not the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act are being complied with.
Mr. Szabo: That was the point Bill raised, that they didn't have the information, and I guess I have to ask the question, why don't they? Should they have it? Is it available or is this one of those other things that is unachievable?
Mr. Rafuse: We believe it is achievable, and I think in responding to our audit recommendations, Health Canada and the interdepartmental committee have agreed that it is achievable.
Mr. Szabo: Just one more question. There is some suggestion that a cost recovery system may be appropriate here and that we could recover as much as $200 million for inspecting various processors.
We do the inspections for the benefit and the safety of Canadians. Is it the practice elsewhere, and do you think it should be the practice of the government, to charge people every time it audits or inspects third parties? For instance, if the government were to do an audit of a taxpayer, should it charge a user fee?
.0925
Mr. Rafuse: The government's cost recovery policy does not exclude health and safety activities from the possibility of cost recovery. We found in the food inspection system that a great part of the inspection activity is driven by trade requirements. As a good starting point we believe those departments, primarily Agriculture and Fisheries, that are conducting inspections for trade reasons should be looking very seriously at cost recovery opportunities.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Paul touches on your main recommendation in the document, 13.8. It says the departments have not complied with the Treasury Board's policy on cost recovery. That's a very specific statement that they have not complied with an overall policy. Is that a direction that is being moved toward, or is this a recommendation in a broader, more generic sense?
Mr. Rafuse: Cost recovery is something the government has promoted in recent years, and the cost recovery policy is quite broad. As I mentioned, it doesn't exclude activities from cost recovery; it considers whether the federal activity is a public good. In other words, is the benefit of food inspection being primarily derived by industry or by the ultimate consumer? That's the question departments must address in arriving at a policy for cost recovery.
In the case of food safety inspections, the question that has to be answered is whether industry should pay for inspections and then pass that cost on to consumers, or whether the government should pay for the inspections. As I mentioned earlier, in many cases and particularly where the inspection was trade related, we felt the benefit was to industry.
Mr. Hill: Could you give me an example of one or two trade-related inspection services?
Mr. Rafuse: With respect to meat and fish, for example, countries may not be willing to purchase a Canadian product without evidence of a federal inspection of the product. In those cases, the federal government will inspect the product and may not recover any or all of its inspection costs. That makes the product more marketable, or perhaps the only way it is marketable, for the companies involved. We believe in those cases industry should be paying the cost of inspection.
Mr. Hill: Then pass it on to the country purchasing the product.
Mr. Rafuse: Exactly:
Mr. Hill: Could you give me an example of any domestic trade-related inspection activities you think are related to the trade?
Mr. Tom Beaver (Director, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): The bulk of the inspection activity tends to revolve around grading, for example the grading of chickens, eggs and fish. A lot of the inspection activity captured in this program is essentially just grading of whether it is a grade A or grade B carcass rather than an inspection to ensure safety. There is a substantial difference in the price the producers can get for grade A versus grade B, so there is a value to the producer at that point. The bulk of the inspection activity is involved in that particular activity.
.0930
Mr. Hill: Are you saying the value of that type of grading is greater to the producer than to the consumer?
Mr. Beaver: Immediate value to the producers is certainly present because they can immediately turn that carcass into a higher-value commodity. The government's cost recovery policy specifically says where a user who gains financially from the government activity - in this case inspection - can be identified, he or she should pay for it.
Mr. Hill: Who are they going to pass that on to?
Mr. Beaver: To the people who buy the product.
Mr. Hill: So this comes back to the question of whether this for the good of the consumer or the producer. I'm trying to get specific examples where you would say it's really not for the good of the consumer but for the producer.
Mr. Beaver: Could I just take you back to the debate of the public good? When it comes to strictly safety matters, it's quite clear there's a public good.
Mr. Hill: You can split them up into safety and trade-related inspection services. I'm trying to get you to be specific on trade-related inspection services.
Mr. Beaver: As I said, the grading of carcasses, chicken, fish or eggs would be trade-related because there's a grading element to that inspection rather than a safety element. They're looking at the grade.
Mr. Hill: Is there no good to the consumer?
Mr. Beaver: Yes, but there is an immediate benefit to the producer.
Mr. Roth: The good to the consumer is in determining a better-quality product; grade A versus grade B versus utility grade. So from the consumer's point of view, the grading has some value. The cost recovery question then is whether the consumer should pay something for knowing it is a grade A, grade B or utility product.
Mr. Hill: Let me go to 13.9 in your main points where it says the estimates don't provide members of Parliament and others with an overall understanding of federal food safety activities. Part III of the estimates is difficult for a guy like me to understand in any event. I would love to have information that would help me have an overall understanding. What specific things are missing? You've talked about information on objectives, resources and performance not being readily available. Are you talking about an executive summary for bozos like me to understand this great document?
Mr. Rafuse: The difficulty with the estimates part III is that it is a departmental document. When you have a program like food safety where perhaps five departments are involved, you have the difficulty of capturing the program in one document.
In the case of food safety, Health Canada has certain primary responsibilities and we felt that given those, the best place to explain the federal food safety system would be in Health Canada's document. Because of the way these estimates documents are structured, capturing these interdepartmental programs is difficult and not particularly well done. So we look to Health Canada to improve upon its reporting. In the current estimates document you have it has made some improvements.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard (Drummond): Good day.
In 1986, an interdepartmental committee on food safety was created and given a mandate. According to your audit, as of 1995, this committee has yet to fulfill that mandate. That is 10 years later. Should we not wonder about the effectiveness of this committee?
.0935
[English]
Mr. Rafuse: The short answer is yes. We found the time that passed was, in our opinion, too long to accomplish the things they had been directed to do. One of the reasons for that, in our opinion, was the fact that the membership of the interdepartmental committee was constantly changing as the deputy ministers of the various departments were changing. We felt over time that this had led to a lack of focus for the committee. We did recommend that the committee should in fact review its mandate and its membership and whether it had the resources required to complete the agenda that had been set out for it.
Ms Fry (Vancouver Centre): The question I was going to ask has been asked, so I don't think I will continue, except to follow up on something Dr. Hill had asked you.
You stated that much of the inspection done for trade purposes is to grade rather than to ensure safety, and the question was who benefited most; did the company benefit or did the consumer benefit. A third party must be taken into account when you do cost recovery, and that is obviously the government's ability to have its way paid. With fiscal restraint it's very important to ensure if a company is getting a benefit for a service the government is doing, that company should pay for the benefit. The question of whether the company then passes it on to the consumer is obviously part of economics and the marketplace.
I didn't understand whether you agreed or disagreed with the concept of cost recovery and ensuring there is good fiscal responsibility within the department for its activities.
Mr. Rafuse: We very much agree with the principles behind the government's cost-recovery policy. I should mention there is an important shift in the industry toward having the controls, inspection and otherwise, for food safety purposes built into the food process, so in fact federal inspection becomes a less critical check in the system. As that happens and more industries move in that direction - the fish-processing industry has already moved in that direction - -what it means is those responsibilities for ensuring food safety are taken on by industry and of course they will recover those costs to the extent they can through their prices.
Ms Fry: Then do you believe the responsibility for safety when we are exporting a product, as opposed to the responsibility for quality, lies with the country importing the product or with the country exporting the product? We have to ensure the products that come into Canada are safe for Canadians to consume. That's part of...pesticide residues, etc. Whose responsibility do you think it should be, the importing country's or the exporting country's, to ensure safety as opposed to quality?
Mr. Rafuse: I can tell you what's happening in world trade.
Ms Fry: I'd like to hear as well what you think should happen.
.0940
Mr. Rafuse: In world trade the responsibility is very much in the hands of the exporting country. This leads to reciprocal arrangements, where we do certain things, the Americans do certain things, and that allows for the freer movement of goods into our countries without the checks at the border, for example, which slow down the flow of product.
So that's very much the direction it's going in. We would certainly agree with that, given the move to building in the quality and safety at the plant level and the fact that it has been proven to be the most effective way to ensure the safety of product to begin with.
In our opinion, that is appropriate. Of course, in any similar activity after-the-fact checks are usually less effective than the ones that take place before the fact.
Ms Fry: What do you think should happen in terms of responsibility for safety?
Mr. Rafuse: I think we were satisfied that the direction in which the federal departments and the food industry are going is a reasonable one.
Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): I'm going to have to differ from you on that last statement. Just in respect to that, we can look at the U.S. system of inspection compared with the Canadian system.
Do you really feel that less government in inspection is going to be what Canadians want? I would hate to see dollars taken back from the inspection system. Canadians know we have a most eloquent system here. Once you go to an inspection system where you have in-store or in-industry people checking carcasses, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that if you reject many carcasses you won't have a job. That's the problem south of the border. We can beat our chest here in Canada because we have had a system that was more stringent than in the U.S.
So I don't like to see the talk of perhaps being less stringent. If anything, we should be ensuring that what we have stays.
Mr. Roth: In many respects what you're asking is a policy question, which is the purview of Parliament. Clearly, there is a trade-off between the degree of inspection for trade versus the degree of inspection for safety.
One of the points we raise in our chapter that could help Parliament, and in fact we believe would help this committee and Parliament and the department, is the use of program evaluation. Program evaluations of the food safety system, as we note in the chapter, would have many potential positive effects in terms of providing information with respect to helping Parliament and helping this committee make the decision as to the amount of inspection we want and can afford.
As I started out by saying, it clearly is a policy decision whether we go to the degree the Americans have gone in terms of allowing in-plant inspections, or having a more separate inspection activity, such as in Canada. What we're suggesting, however, is that information is needed for us and for you and your colleagues to be able to assess that.
Mrs. Ur: As I read some of the material, since 1980 there have been numerous committees working to improve these kinds of activities and there's never been a report. We are in 1995; that's fifteen years later, and we're thinking that maybe we should be looking into it.
Well, I think it's a tad overdue.
Mr. Roth: We agree. As Bill indicated in his response to the question on the Interdepartmental Committee on Food Regulation, we have some concerns about the speed with which things have occurred.
.0945
Mrs. Ur: Another major concern is the labelling of product with the country of origin rather than the country of packaging. Do you see any positive movement in that? I think Canadians would be pleased if they could see that there are Canadian products labelled accordingly, with the country of origin of products. They seem to be quite lax in that, too.
Mr. Beaver: The labelling, again, is somewhat a trade-related issue. The current practice, as you know, is to have the country of production labelled.
The product coming into Canada that's eventually labelled as Canadian product goes through the same safety inspection standards as our own domestic product. That's why they're allowed to do that. So regardless of where it comes from, it has to go through the same sorts of safety checks before that's allowed.
Mrs. Ur: Are they tested for the chemicals, etc.?
Mr. Beaver: Absolutely. Yes, they are.
Mr. Jackson (Bruce - Grey): Mr. Roth, your department has a lot of sex appeal. You guys zoom in here every once in a while and you make all kinds of recommendations and then you zoom out again. I detect this in all your presentations about the responsibility of Parliament and all of that.
How do you police yourselves to make sure that you do an efficient job?
Secondly, you obviously make reports. I'm not going to compete with you. I think you're experts in your department. You know what you're doing when you go through these departments. I don't have all of the staff that you have at your disposal, so I have to trust what you do and what you say. So I'm assuming that you make these recommendations and that the government departments, deputy ministers and what have you, look at them to make sure that any major problems are looked after.
I also detected from what you said today that in this particular department it seems as if some of the core people are not staying. Either they don't have a list or the list isn't made properly. Number two, the members of the department seem to be gravitating from one department to the next. I don't know if you can clarify that point for me.
Thirdly, cut-backs mean that we have to coordinate things. I know that there are perhaps specialists in various departments. Meat, for instance, and what have you, might be different from agricultural products. I wonder how those departments can be harmonized so that some of those inspections can move across panels and if the labs are able to do some work that is a kind of cross-pollination of departments.
Mr. Roth: To answer your first question, on how we police ourselves, there are a number of mechanisms that we use and that are used to police ourselves.
First, we prepare our own estimates with performance indicators with respect to what we do, how we do it, and what value the taxpayers are receiving for our services.
Secondly, we have an ongoing process within the office of reviewing our costs of operation, the quality of our product, the usefulness of our product to parliamentarians, to departments, and to the taxpayer in general.
Thirdly, we have conducted evaluations of our own operations, and every year we appear before the public accounts committee with our own estimates, at which time we are subjected to the same type of questioning as other departments and agencies are. I believe that will be coming up within the next couple of weeks.
In addition to that, Mr. Desautels, the Auditor General, has several independent advisory committees both to help him in terms of the professional quality of the product we produce and the work we do and to advise him on issues and how we should address issues with Parliament.
So we believe, from a policing point of view, that we do a reasonable job of that. Clearly, at the public accounts committee we are quite open with respect to what we do and how and why we do certain things.
I hope that answers the first question.
.0950
I'll let Bill answer the second question.
The third question was on cut-backs and the possibility of harmonizing and making use of limited resources among the departments. The departments have started to move in that direction. For example, recently they have agreed on the consistency of their audit standards. They have begun to look at the possibilities of using common facilities.
I believe Health Canada will be coming before this committee next week or the week after. I think they can explain further some of the things they are currently working on.
Mr. Beaver: A number of activities are going on. We have an exhibit in the text where we're outlining the activities at the federal level in terms of laboratories. We have a number of these located across the country, some of them under the jurisdiction of Health, some Fisheries, Agriculture, and others. In the exhibit we show a number of these labs are capable of doing the same kind of work. So the question we're raising here is whether or not better efficiency could be made with the equipment and the labs that are located in the various areas.
Within each department they have done a rationalization of their labs. I think that's still somewhat ongoing, but they've attempted to consolidate the labs a bit. I think they're proceeding along now with a multi-departmental review of the labs, which may result in some shifting to create better centres of excellence in certain areas.
Mr. Rafuse: About the question on the turnover, we looked at the activities of the interdepartmental committee on food regulation over the years from its formation to the present time. As I mentioned earlier, we found that during that time there had been a considerable turnover in the membership, the membership being comprised of the deputy ministers of the departments involved in federal food safety activities.
We concluded that this turnover had an impact on the committee in terms of its sustained focus and leadership. A consequence of that was that individual departments had taken responsibility for undertaking certain changes that had been directed by the government. But we found that the interdepartmental committee had not provided as much direction to the individual departments as was intended.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds - Dollard): I have two brief questions, the first on food-borne infections.
Health Canada has been compiling data on food-borne infections in Canada since 1975. The most recent information, published in 1994, presents a summary of the situation in 1987.
.0955
We can understand that this type of data compilation can take a certain amount of time, but it is difficult to understand how it could take seven years, especially since the usefulness of this data in solving problems or improving our food safety assurance system leaves room for doubt.
How do you explain this tardiness in the food-borne infection reports?
[English]
Mr. Beaver: The data, as you well noted, is probably only of use to historians at this point, because in 1987 it was almost a quite different era. I would suggest you address this to the department, but I believe the difficulty is that there are not a lot of resources being put into this area. It's not a priority with the department. There are very little resources being directed at collecting the data and publishing the data. It is of little use to ongoing planning and of little use in terms of our work, in terms of looking at what the effect of the programs have been. It really is a historical document.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: You indicate in your report that the inspections that are carried out are not necessarily a function of health-risk categories. We see that 60% of inspections are carried out in cattle and fowl slaughter houses. There are very few inspections involving low-acid canning where the risk to human health is in fact greater.
In light of your results, may we conclude that a portion of the Canadian population is at risk of suffering from food poisoning because a less than effective food safety assurance system means that people who work in fowl canning plants will be subject to food poisoning?
[English]
Mr. Rafuse: I'm pleased you asked that question, because there's an answer I wanted to give and this gives me an opportunity to do that.
Earlier, I was asked a question about whether we were suggesting that we would be satisfied to see less safety inspection. I think part of the response to that is to say that we set out to do an audit of food safety. We very quickly realized that food safety is very much intertwined with trade.
We were unable to make a clean separation between the activities that were being carried out for trade reasons and the activities that were being carried out for safety reasons. Of course, that may be important for purposes of cost recovery, but more importantly we wanted to determine whether the safety resources were being directed toward those processing activities where the risk to human health was greatest.
Some of our findings suggested that this may not be the case. We concluded that there were inconsistencies in the manner in which those safety resources were being spent.
[Translation]
Mrs. Picard: You mention in your report that each year Canadians do suffer from food poisoning and the cost of that can reach $2 million. You also say that this means an increase in health care costs and a decrease in productivity, and that the loss of markets this entails is estimated at between two and six billion dollars each year. Do you think these high costs are alarming, and do you think it is urgent that Health Canada take some steps in this regard?
.1000
[English]
Mr. Beaver: Fortunately, we didn't have to run around the world and audit other systems abroad, but we did do some work in determining what goes on in other countries. It's quite clear that our system stacks up with the better countries. Our system in this country is seen by other countries as being very good. Having said that, there are certainly plenty of problems to go around.
The federal effort, as we mentioned earlier, tends to be directed at processing, so our federal inspection activity takes place mainly in the processing plants. We have an exhibit in here that shows that most of the recorded food-borne illness actually is not related to the output of the processing but rather problems that occur mainly within restaurants and in the homes. That accounts for about 60% of the problems.
More federal effort in plants might not in fact end up in a change in those statistics, but certainly there could be a shift in the resources to more consumer education and certainly better training at the restaurant levels where in fact the problems are mainly occurring.
Mrs. Picard: Thank you.
Ms Bridgman (Surrey North): Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming. I have a couple of questions. I think one has already been addressed to some degree.
When you read the report, and I'm thinking generally now, you tend to get a message that the audit is incomplete because of a lack of information, or there are gaps. Addressing that in a general context, are there gaps in the system from a point of view of not having the programs out there to obtain the information, or are the gaps in the actual implementation of the programs in that there's a communication problem or there's duplication or the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing? I don't quite understand; maybe it's both.
Do we have a system out there that would work if we did everything right? Do we have gaps in how we're doing things, and do we need to maybe address areas we're not addressing? I think that's what I'm saying.
Mr. Rafuse: All those things are true and correct. The main concern is with the activities that, for example, Health Canada would have to carry out to assure themselves that there was compliance with the Food and Drugs Act. As you correctly point out, some of those activities would involve better collection of information from the provinces on the inspection activities they carry out, and we've found shortcomings there.
It would also involve a better audit of the inspection activities of the federal departments involved. In other words, Health Canada's responsibility is to ensure that the inspection activities of Agriculture and Fisheries are sufficient to measure compliance with the Food and Drugs Act. Health Canada has to do a proper audit to obtain that information.
.1005
In aggregating this information Health Canada should be able to reach a conclusion as to whether there is compliance with the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act across the whole system. In fact, our main concern was that they were not carrying out all the activities and not collecting all the information necessary to reach that conclusion.
Ms Bridgman: Now, the other question is about 13.58 and 13.59. That's the joint committee again, or joint inspections. With the system that was in place changing to this new system of getting together in I believe 1990 - I might have my dates mixed up - or 1993, will this address some of these problems with the gathering of information and correlating of activity? An audit should contain the information, especially if it's out there, if we have systems in place, and if it's just a matter of getting the information.
Mr. Roth: I can begin, and perhaps Tom can add to it. Our belief is that coordinating the efforts among the departments so there's an agreement on standards and a consistency of application would be clearly beneficial.
Second, eliminating the duplication of inspection activities allows departments to free up those duplicated resources to do other inspection activities on high-risk areas, such as low-acid canning. Our belief is that more cooperation will clearly be beneficial to the management of the food safety system.
Mr. Beaver: In 1986, when the first study was done, the report clearly pointed out that in one week Agriculture Canada would inspect a plant, and that in the following week Health Canada would be there to carry out another inspection. This was seen, in the eyes of the industry and of the task force that did the study, as a bit of duplication. The question was why these two federal departments couldn't coordinate so that at least maybe one could show up, rather than two every so often.
The response of the departments at that point was to conduct joint visits so they would both arrive at the same time. I suppose that was somewhat helpful to the plants. The real issue at the end of the day was that they couldn't rely entirely on each other's inspection activities because the standards and the inspection approaches are slightly different.
This went on for an number of years until there was finally a realization that it was still a duplication of effort. We really have to get back to basic standards so one agency could do the inspection on the part of the other agency or vice versa. At least you would only have one agency dealing with the plant. It's called the single approach.
That has been a problem throughout the last nine years. With its current audit activities Health Canada is able to withdraw its inspection resources from the federally registered plants and allow the inspection agencies, Agriculture and Fisheries to do the work. Then Health Canada can go and audit the inspection results.
There has been some progress but the standards are still not agreed upon. I think the real question is, what are they auditing? Until common standards are agreed upon, there's still a bit of a problem, even with the audit. It's more efficient but there's still some room for improvement there.
Ms Bridgman: Why do you think there are more inspections done on low-risk food products than on high-risk food products? Is it legislative, is it based on volume or is it easier to do?
Mr. Beaver: The inspections are conducted under the trade legislation. An example is the Meat Inspection Act. Under that piece of legislation there is a requirement that an inspector be present in the plant at all times during processing. Compare that with a safety inspection that happens once every 18 months. You have a full-time person in the plant all the time versus once every 18 months. It's quite clear why there is the resource-skewing you see.
.1010
What they're doing in that plant all the time relates mainly to export requirement and Canadian legislation, that is, not necessarily what we would call safety.
Ms Bridgman: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): Good morning, gentlemen. I have a couple of questions for clarification in my own mind as we go forward throughout this exercise.
On page 13-17 of the report it says, ``Health Canada is not exercising its responsibility for food safety consistently across the food-safety system''.
It goes on to give a little more background about the department, saying basically the department does not have all the information needed or required.
In looking at that, in addition to listening to your comments as you answered various other questions put before you, I guess I am trying to get a feel for what you're recommending. I'll follow up on Margaret's most recent question. As you know, most of the major processors, at least, certainly have quality control departments within their own operations, in which they continually review and test certain products.
Are you suggesting that Health Canada establish the criteria in those cases, that the inspections be carried out by the quality control department within that industry, and that inspectors from Health Canada then go in to see that those criteria are indeed being met by that product? Is that the line you are recommending as an alternative?
Mr. Rafuse: I guess it is. The departments have agreed on the risk of various processes. You will see that in the chapter. There are four categories, and various products appear under those categories based on the risk during processing.
One of the things we would like to see is some agreement on the exact nature and frequency of inspection required for safety reasons. As we discussed earlier, what in fact happened was that for the same process, such as low-acid canning, we found that inspection frequencies differed. That was normally because of trade requirements.
What we would like to see is some agreement on what the inspection frequency should be for safety reasons. And if it must be more frequent for trade reasons then it will be understood by everyone and it would also facilitate, for example, cost-recovery activities.
Mr. Culbert: Relative to that and to your comments, what you're really suggesting is that the consensus come from DFO and the Department of Agriculture, for example, on what is currently being done, and that it be coordinated and overseen by Health Canada. Amongst those criteria is the frequency with which those inspections should take place in certain sectors.
If I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is the possibility of the processors themselves inspecting within given, established criteria and the inspectors from Health Canada coming in to assure the criteria are being met by that product.
Mr. Roth: Yes. We set out later in the chapter an example of where Fisheries and Oceans, for example, has begun to implement such a system whereby they've agreed upon a common set of standards with the industry. The industry is self-regulating, and Fisheries and Oceans does periodic inspections to ensure quality control is being maintained within processing plants.
.1015
A new Canadian food inspection system has been proposed. We are suggesting that Health Canada, in its role of primacy, should have a responsibility for ensuring the food safety system. For example, Agriculture Canada would do the inspections and Health Canada would audit to see that the inspections were actually being done.
This all requires agreements on standards between departments, and ultimately some agreements between the federal government and the provincial governments. It is not a simple matter. It does take some work. But the direction in which it seems to be evolving is one by which we are encouraged.
Mr. Culbert: If I understand it correctly in your report, and relative to your comments and generalities, you were saying that most of the inspections seem to be done in relation to meeting the export criteria rather than the health criteria. Would they not be pretty much the same in most cases?
Mr. Beaver: I'd like to clarify something. We talked about trade as opposed to export, so most of the inspection activity is trade-related as opposed to export-related. Of course, 85% of fish is exported, so you can understand....
Mr. Rafuse: I guess the answer is, no. If it is related to grading, it really may have nothing at all to do with safety. There are grey areas, of course, where quality and safety become difficult to distinguish. As we discussed earlier, for the most part, when we're talking about grading in particular, there are also inspection activities that are quite different.
The Chairman: Hedy has a quick question, and then I have a one to finish.
Ms Fry: I'll go back to the core question, which has to do with safety as one issue and trade enhancement as another. Do you see those two as conflicting? You're saying that what is in fact evolving is inspection by Agriculture and Agri-food for safety and quality, and an audit by Health. If the primary concern is for safety, should it not be the other way around? You then remove the conflict so that, similar to the pesticide agency set up under Health, Health is responsible primarily for ensuring that safety is the number one issue.
A conglomerate of departments that are responsible for ensuring that trade is enhanced and that there's nothing to decrease trade would then work with Health and bring in that concept. Primarily, however, Health would be responsible, because safety is more important, and Health does not, in fact, possess this conflict, which might be inherent in other departments where trade is or may be the number one concern.
Mr. Rafuse: As far as their responsibilities are concerned at the front end and the back end of the system, we don't see a conflict in the activities of Health Canada. What I mean is that at the front end, Health Canada sets standards for safety. The inspecting departments must ensure that these standards are in fact met. At the back end, Health Canada ensures that the inspection activities of Fisheries and Oceans and of Agriculture are adequate enough to ensure that these standards are being met by industry.
.1020
Ms Fry: I didn't mean that Health had a conflict. I meant that perhaps Agri-food might have more of a conflict than Health would.
Mr. Rafuse: They may. In the manner in which they currently operate, we believe it's very difficult for Fisheries and Agriculture to separate their safety and trade inspection activities.
In paragraph 13.71, we gave some examples of the frequency of inspection in low-acid canning. Health Canada, of course, inspects with only a health and safety mandate. We presume this inspection frequency is the one required for safety reasons. If the other departments agree with that - we don't know that they do - it must mean that any additional inspection activity, meaning more frequency of inspection, is being done for trade reasons. That's the sort of area where we think the difficulty arises.
The Chairman: My earlier incarnations included chairman of the public accounts committee in the Newfoundland legislature and chairman of the public accounts committee here. You will therefore not be surprised by the question that follows.
You, Mr. Roth, did say part way through that policy was the purview of Parliament. I'm glad you said that, because much of the exchange this morning would suggest otherwise.
I heard Mr. Rafuse talk about how he would like to see more frequency of inspection - that's one of twenty statements I could quote back to him - and I'm sure he would as a private citizen and as a taxpayer. I'm not sure what it has to do with the Auditor General's mandate, though. In the next minute or so, maybe somebody could relate some of that to your mandate for me, because it seems to me there are a fair number of judgments being articulated that apparently have nothing to do with the mandate.
So if I'm wrong, please help me.
Mr. Roth: Our mandate is to identify areas where efficiency, economy and effectiveness can be improved. When one looks at how a department exercises its mandate and how a department achieves what it is being directed to do, one pushes towards the policy question in some instances. Clearly, if the department has a responsibility for the management of the food safety system, you push towards the policy issue when you look at how effectively or how efficiently they are carrying out that mandate. An example is the area of inspections.
If, as part of their mandate, they are required to ensure that inspections are done at a certain level, we don't question the level. If it's eighteen months, it's eighteen months. Clearly, through policy, that's what Parliament has determined the department should exercise. When we look at it and say that they have not achieved eighteen months or that they have not looked at the high-risk areas, in our mind this is the impact or result of the implementation or non-implementation of the policy and again, this clearly pushes towards policy. When we talk about food safety, it's a very sensitive issue. What we are trying to do is, ``Here are the impacts or the results of the achievement or non-achievement of the policy''.
.1025
We don't believe we have gone outside our mandate on this.
The Chairman: Thank you.
This looks like a pretty good time to wind up this segment. I remind members that we're going to go in camera as soon as we clear the room of all the undesirables and just have purer quality around the table.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Chairman: Thank you to the witnesses. You'll probably hear more from us.
Mr. Roth: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Proceedings continue in camera]