The post XL Foods – a Few Facts on the Biggest Food Recall in Canadian History appeared first on Elizabeth May.

In spring 2012, Ritz announced that the Plant Health Centre on East Saanich Road would be shut down as part of budgetary austerity measures. The axe was swinging wildly in the wake of the March 2012 budget. We lost jobs in Parks Canada, losing critical capacity in the Gulf Islands National Park. The entire Marine Contaminants Programme, with 80 scientists across Canada under the leadership of Dr Peter Ross at the Institute for Ocean Science, was cancelled. The National Round Table on Environment and Economy was killed. And critical science and research facilities, from the PEARL lab in the Arctic to the Experimental Lakes Area in western Ontario, were on the hit list.

So many cuts all at once have the effect Naomi Klein described in Shock Doctrine–it becomes hard to think clearly with the repeated body blows of repealed laws, omnibus bills and lost programmes and facilities—radical agenda can be imposed as civil society is shell-shocked.

It is even more difficult to fight back in Harper’s Canada because civil servants are not allowed to speak to Members of Parliament–even their own.

In the case of the Plant Health Centre, the new plan was to transfer all the functions of the centre to Summerland, BC. It would mean the loss of about 40 jobs in the area, including contract and part-time staff. I have learned a lot about the Plant Health Centre (PHC) since the announcement of its pending execution, but I knew then that it is the national facility for the quarantine of viruses for fruit growing-plants and trees. Not being able to speak to personnel at the PHC, right after the news of the cuts, I stopped by the centre and helped myself to all the public information brochures in the lobby and went online for the description of the mandate of the Plant Health Centre.

Two things immediately struck me. Firstly, that the Plant Health Centre is run by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, while the Summerland facility was run by Agriculture Canada (potential for inter-agency rivalry?) and, secondly, that the isolation of viruses on Vancouver Island made more sense than having that function in the heart of the fruit growing Okanagan region. I began to see the possibility for persuading the minister to change his mind.

Now, before I share all the rest of the developments, I want to emphasize that I do not know which factors swayed Minister Ritz. As my mom always said, ‘you can accomplish anything you want if you do not care who gets the credit.’ So, at the request of our dauntless Island Tides publisher, Christa Grace-Warrick, I will share what steps I took, while not claiming saving the centre was due to my efforts. I can be sure that, at least, my efforts didn’t hurt!

I wanted to assemble a science package supporting keeping the quarantine centre on the Island to share with the mostly Conservative MPs from the Okanagan. I hoped they would review the information and speak to Minister Ritz to suggest leaving things as they are, rather than risk a quarantine facility in the Okanagan. My first hurdle was finding a credible scientist willing to help me. Every scientist I approached currently working in plant virology has some relationship with Agriculture Canada and was unwilling to attach their name to my background package. But as I kept calling experts, I was told of the retired scientist, holder of the Order of British Columbia, Richard Stace-Smith. Dr Stace-Smith turned out to be my saviour. An octogenarian living in Vancouver, Dr Stace-Smith was intimately involved with the decision to place the national quarantine centre with the Plant Health Centre in 1965. At my request, he wrote a detailed, foot-noted, letter to the Prime Minister, noting:

‘The Centre for Plant Health was selected for its location because there is always a danger of serious pathogens being imported together with the plant hosts from other parts of the world. Despite using extreme precautions, pathogens may escape and the danger is reduced when imported material is tested distant from the commercial agricultural industry. It made sense in 1960 when the Plant Quarantine and Diagnostic Services was established in Saanichton and it seems to me that it makes no sense to move it to Summerland today.’

I hand delivered the letter to Stephen Harper, as well as Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz. I also put together more background details and gave packages to the five Okanagan MPs. Fortunately, through one thing or another, I was already friends with all of them. Within days, Ritz told me he would reconsider the matter.

Meanwhile, the Summerland facility was shown to be inappropriate for other reasons. It would need at least two new large greenhouses to handle the work done by the PHC, and there was not enough space for them in the current facility. The idea of cost savings began to fade.

So, for the last few months, whenever I have seen Gerry Ritz I have asked him how the review was going. I have to say, on any issue on which I have ever approached Gerry Ritz, he has been accessible and fair. And on this wonderful reversal, I can only thank him for being willing to re-examine a flawed, hasty decision. I wish the same dynamics could work to get more money flowing back to our parks and to science. But, for now, a victory is very sweet.

The post Spared the axe: the arguments that helped save the Plant Health Centre appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Given limitations of words and space, let me cover some of the main points.

Budget 2012 cuts government spending, overall, by about $5 billion for next year. (Green Scissors, my submission to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, cut by $6 billion, but went after very different things—like government advertising and the Prime Minister’s Office budget.)

Budget 2012 delivers the expected news of increasing the age of entitlement to Old Age Security to 67, while deeply cutting CIDA, CBC, Environment Canada, Statistics Canada, Parks Canada, Library and Archives, and DND (cuts there largely due to the end of involvement in Afghanistan). It also cuts $7.5 million from Elections Canada, $14 million from tourism, and over $50 million from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (leading to the announced closing of the Canada Plant Health Centre on East Saanich Road). It also did away with the youth volunteer-service program, Katimavik.

There is no mention of climate change. The hoped for extension of the eco-Energy home energy retrofit programme was not to be, ditto hopes for funding to keep the Polar Environmental Arctic Research Laboratory–Canada’s critical research lab on Ellesmere Island and the world’s closest to the North Pole–from closing. No reprieve there, nor for funding of climate science. Scientific research through the National Research Council is now directed to focus on work that is ‘business-led and industry-relevant.’ (I can just imagine what Einstein would have said about that.)

Also announced in the budget was the surprise termination of the National Round Table on Environment and Economy– the only effort remaining within the government to develop consensus between industry and environmentalists to pursue sustainable development. As I was feverishly reading the budget document in ‘lock-up’ (the invitational, embargoed preview of the budget), I scanned for any reference to climate change, I got excited when I saw the word ‘climate,’ only to focus and realize it was a discussion of the ‘investment climate.’

Instead, Budget 2012 commits the country to expansion of fossil fuel production: oil sands, pipelines, super-tankers, seismic testing and off-shore drilling. Consistent with that is the funding of an attack on environmental charities with a new $8 million to spend on going after groups alleged to be conducting ‘political’ advocacy, a charge which has been directed at groups opposing the Enbridge super-tanker scheme.

The budget was very grim news indeed, but did not really prepare me for the introduction of the omnibus Budget Implementation Bill. It’s bizarre tabling was without prior notice—not even the usual advance ‘lock-up’ with technical briefing.

I picked up my copy and made for my desk in the House, where I sat, reading, near tears, for the next three hours. C-38 is over 400 pages repealing, amending or otherwise revising 70 different pieces of federal legislation. Aspects never even hinted at in the budget itself include removing oversight from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, changing entitlement to Employment Insurance (this is still vague but appears to allow refusing EI to anyone if there is any job available, even one not in their field), and allowing the Cabinet to overrule the National Energy Board (NEB).

Not Mentioned In the Budget

Nearly half of the budget implementation bill is directed at rewriting Canada’s foundational environmental laws. The Budget itself never mentioned that the Fisheries Act was to be re-written, gutting habitat protection and restricting federal action in many instances to commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries. This essentially means that if humans aren’t catching a fish, there is no protection for its habitat.

There nothing was mentioned in the budget speech about the changes to the Species at Risk Act which put the NEB in charge of permitting destruction of endangered species and their habitat along the proposed route of a pipeline; nor about the supplanting of the NEB as arbiter of pipelines under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The NWPA is amended such that pipelines are no longer considered an obstruction to navigation–even if they are.

Although it was abundantly clear that a large focus was to be ‘streamlining’ the environmental assessment process, the advance hype focused on time limits for hearings. It was nowhere mentioned that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was to be repealed. C-38 wipes out the entire CEAA and introduces an entirely new law. Under the new act, ‘environmental effects’ (that which is to be studied under a federal EA), is, for many circumstances, restricted to fish and migratory birds.

Not Clear On the Concept

With so many new laws and the repealing of old laws and complex text, the Conservative ministers speaking in the House in support of C-38 frequently claim the budget implementation act will include measures that are simply not there at all, or misstate how the new laws will operate.

I go up to them afterward and, for example, ask ‘I cannot find any reference to increased tanker safety in C-38. Can you show me what section you were referring to?’ Or, ‘I can’t find anything that says environmental reviews will only be transferred to the province if the environmental assessment in that province is ‘as good or better’ than the federal one. Where is that?’ Of course, when I ask these specific questions, it is because I am pretty sure that I haven’t missed anything.

The ministers tend to look back at me, blinking slightly. They mention that it is a very long and complex bill. Yes it is, but I have read it and I missed the section they just told the House was in the Act. Where is it? Then the look on their face is like the ‘lapine’ word from Watership Down for a rabbit caught in headlights on a road: ‘tharn’.

There is much more, but for now, I urge constituents to join growing calls for removal of environmental laws from Bill C-38. The Harper Conservatives have gone too far. Previous Progressive Conservative Fisheries Ministers Tom Siddon and John Fraser have both spoken out against the horrifying changes to the Fisheries Act.

Write letters to the editors of the nation’s newspapers. Contact the other Opposition leaders (Rae and Mulcair) and urge that they join me in a strategy to derail this juggernaut of abuse. For more details about Bill C-38, go to www.elizabethmaymp.ca. Together, we can make Stephen Harper regret taking aim at nature.

The post Budget 2012: environmental laws run over by an omnibus appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to take this up with the parliamentary secretary. I have voluminous comments on Bill C-38 because it touches on so many aspects of environmental protection.

In relation to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency facility in my own riding of Saanich–Gulf Islands, the Centre for Plant Health, I really hope to gain the co-operation of government members to keep this facility open. This facility has been in place since 1912.

The following is from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency material. “…in 1965 a plant quarantine function was added on the advice of the Advisory Board of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act to protect the Agricultural Industry from disease risks of international importations of propagation material which could spread to other crops in Canada.”

I heard my hon. friend say that the facility in Summerland to which this quarantine function is being moved has “a better equipped facility”. At this point, several greenhouses would need to be built to have anywhere near the capacity that the Centre for Plant Health has on the Saanich Peninsula. Moreover, it would be a risk to all the economic crops of the Okanagan to move a quarantine facility into the heart of that region. I urge the government to reconsider.

Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, none of the places where we are finding savings affect food safety. Efficiencies can be realized, particularly with the relocation of personnel or functions. For example, the activities at the Centre for Plant Health in Sidney, B.C., as I mentioned in my speech, will be moving to the research station in Summerland, B.C. Labs and expertise will be combined to make sure that the important work is carried out in a better equipped facility and with a critical mass of expertise. There will be a larger pool of scientists on which to draw. Some modification might be required but the overall efficiency would make this a worthwhile endeavour.

Canadians have looked at the expenses of government. They see that we are in challenging economic times and they expect savings to be found. We have proposed some savings. These savings would not affect food safety, and Canadians know that. The only people who do not know that are members of the opposition.

The post Opposition Motion—Health and safety of Canadians appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Food and food safety are top-of-mind issues for Canadians. The deaths caused by listeriosis contamination at the Maple Leaf plant remains a serious warning of the perils of losing food inspectors.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has a credibility problem. CFIA has an inherent conflict of interest, mandated to regulate for food safety, while at the same time mandated to promote Canadian food products in Canada and abroad. This, plus a lack of preparedness, accounts for the delay on blowing the whistle on the listeriosis outbreak due to Maple Leaf luncheon meats in 2008, in which 22 people died. The report on the outbreak from independent investigator Sheila Weatherill (former head of Edmonton’s health system) noted that increasingly large, factory food preparation increased risks to health and safety.

However, the recommendations focused only on more inspections and more chemical cleaning instead of reforming the food system to encourage smaller, more traceable operations.

Just as Canadians were reeling from the listeriosis outbreak, a memo from inside CFIA was leaked indicating the Harper government’s plans to cut the number of inspectors. The inspector, who found the Treasury Board memo outlining the planned cuts (on a shared server at CFIA) and sent it to his union, was fired.

Naturally, one would expect the minister to have a high degree of sensitivity around food safety issues. The budgetary changes in the 2012 budget are a bit hard to track. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is being cut by $56.1-million over the next three years. Elsewhere in the budget, there is a new $51.2-million for “strengthening food safety.” These funds are described as being required to meet the commitments to the recommendations of the Weatherill Report. The funds are to be distributed between CFIA, the Public Health Agency and Health Canada.

Some food labelling information is to be removed from labels and placed on websites. It is not certain how this represents a savings.

While there are many issues about how CFIA will protect human health going forward, there are many more issues related to plant health. This is a core area of federal responsibility for agriculture. Science is required to identify threats to plant health. Plant health is, in turn, essential for the health of the industry. The announced closure of the Plant Science Centre on the Saanich Peninsula is a case in point. (I admit to having a very strong personal interest in pleading for the centre to remain open as it is in my riding).

The research there is key to maintaining the growth of the wine industry, as well as other fruit tree-based sectors. Having the research conducted on Vancouver Island has been a traditional safety feature for the quarantine of plant viruses from imports, as well as during testing for elimination of viruses in other plants. What may have looked like a simple bureaucratic fix (“let’s close the centre on the Saanich Peninsula and consolidate operations in Summerland B.C.”) was made without consultation with the scientists working in either location. It really doesn’t make sense to move plant quarantine facilities from Vancouver Island to the heart of B.C. wine country.

Health and safety of humans and plants are part of the core mandate of the CFIA. Let’s not risk the health of either through too rapid cuts and hasty decisions.

Elizabeth May is the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party of Canada.
Originally published in The Hill Times.

The post Food and food safety top-of-mind appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Since the first Earth Day in 1970, Canada has seen steady progress in environmental legislation and protections  — until this year.

This Earth Week was marked by announcements from the Harper Conservatives —  undermining environmental assessment and attacking environmental groups as “radicals.”

“This year on Earth Day, we need citizens to speak up and speak loudly to demand a healthy environment. Our government should not be ignoring the values of Canadians in favour of the oil patch,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

The attacks keep coming:

• Slashing the budgets of government departments in charge of environmental regulations;
• Turning environmental assessments into rubber stamps;
• Giving Revenue Canada $8-million to specifically target environmental charities;
• Pressuring funders to stop supporting Canadian environmental charities;
• Crafting a budget that supports supertankers, pipelines and fossil fuels, but does nothing to address the threat of climate change;
• Eliminating the National Round Table on Environment and Economy;
• Continually muzzling Canada’s scientists;
• Cutting funding to scientific research stations, including Canadian Food Inspection Agency research centres and PEARL, a world-renowned atmospheric research centre;
• Planning to gut the Fisheries Act by removing provisions for habitat protection;
• Closing the emergency response stations under Environment Canada to respond to oil or chemical emergencies, and leaving only one office in Quebec.

“We have never seen an assault on nature of this scale and determination in Canada’s history.  As communities across the country come together to celebrate Earth Day and to take steps to reduce their ecological footprint, we need to speak up and expand our political footprint.  Let 2012 be the year we return to Canadian values — protect the planet for our children’s future, stay in Kyoto and invest in the green energy revolution that creates tens of thousands of jobs,”  said May.

The post Earth Day more important than ever appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The research centre maintains a collection which includes rare plants that require protection such as fruit trees and English hollies. Staff also studies plant health, specifically viruses and pests of  grapevines, tree fruits and other crops. “Tree fruit and grapevine health are an important component of our wine industry in particular.  The concern  is that the testing of viruses and imported plants at this facility had the  benefit of the Salish Sea preventing any accidentally released virus  from reaching the mainland.”

“Taking a scientific project and simply transplanting it elsewhere often doesn’t work well.  The research scientists should have been consulted to ensure that their projects can continue successfully,” said May.

“Is this another example of the Harper Conservatives’ disdain for science?,” asked May. “This decision was reached without any consultation with the industry or scientific communities. It is arbitrary and wrong. The top-down orders from Ottawa to close the centre come without any plan for the protection of the knowledge base, the research or for protection of the large area of land on which the centre is based.”

The post Loss of CFIA research centre part of unfortunate anti-science trend? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Witness testimony this week came from public servants, a number of private, and quasi-public organizations. Much of the focus of these groups was on food safety and food inspection processes. Bob Kingston from the Agriculture Union made waves on Wednesday when he told the Committee it had received false information from public servants with regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In a normally amicable Committee some tension was present as a result of this testimony and in the Conservative MPsʼ tact in questioning the witnesses. 

Discussion was generated about buffering local food processing and localized markets. Witnesses called for Growing Forward 2 to invest in food processing infrastructure as well as significant investment to local small-to-mid-sized farms and tax incentives for transition to organic agriculture.

The Committee briefly undertook its activities ʻin cameraʼ on Monday to deal with future business and to accept a Subcommittee motion noted below:

Your Subcommittee met on Thursday, February 9, 2012, to consider the business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendations:

1.  That, at the completion of the hearings on growing forward 2, the Committee commence a study of the food supply chain, which would be divided into a number of components.
2. That the Committee consider the following topics for an eventual study: food standards (food origin, food content, food safety, biosafety, etc.) and red tape reduction at the farm level.

The post Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food (AGRI) appeared first on Elizabeth May.