Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

Canadian Food Inspection Agency - Food Inspection Programs
(Chapter 25 - December 2000 Report of the Auditor General)

I would like to thank your Committee for this opportunity to discuss Chapter 25 of our 2000 Report, Canadian Food Inspection Agency - Food Inspection Programs.

With me today are Doug Timmins, Assistant Auditor General and Neil Maxwell, the Principal responsible for this audit.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency was created in 1997, an important move that consolidated the food inspection activities of three departments in one entity. As an Agency, it has more freedom than traditional departments have to manage financial operations, human resources and contracting activities. To provide some 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 focussed on the Agency's food inspection programs. It did not extend to activities of Health Canada or those of any provinces, territories or municipalities, all of which are involved in food safety. Nor did we look at issues such as organic farming or bio-technology. Chapter 28 of the Report discussed our follow-up of selected issues from our audit of the animal and plant health inspection programs reported in 1996.

We examined a number of initiatives the Agency has undertaken to fulfil its mandate - to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of federal food inspection. We found good progress on a number of these initiatives, 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. 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 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.

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 in the Agency's approach, but we are concerned that it did not assess 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.

We also made observations on the implementation of the hazard analysis and critical control points (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 inspection. Many of Canada's trading partners are moving in this direction in the meat industry and, in particular, the US 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 can not 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 toward 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.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement and we would be pleased to answer your Committee's questions.