Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on May 4th, 2009

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'm well aware.

My point is that we are a fairly open market here, even with the quota system. We're a heck of a lot more open than the United States and a lot of others are when it comes down to the short strokes.

[Robert de Valk]

Just to correct you on the United States, there's no import control in the United States. We can ship as much poultry there as we want.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

In terms of poultry, we can. Other products, we can't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you. Your time is up, Mr. Easter.

Go ahead, Mr. Bellavance, for seven minutes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

Are you a veterinarian or a biologist, Dr. Bouchard?

[Réjean Bouchard, Assistant Director , Policy and Dairy Production, Dairy Farmers of Canada]

He is a biologist and I am a nutritionist. I have a doctorate in animal nutrition.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

So if I ask you some questions about the type of bacteria that can be found in food, you will be able to answer them.

[Réjean Bouchard]

Yes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I had an opportunity to visit the Lactantia plant, which is located in my riding, just a few steps away from where I live in Victoriaville. I was very impressed by everything that is done to ensure the absolute safety of the milk and cheeses consumers buy. They were very strict about safety procedures both during the plant visit and throughout all of their operations.

What type of harmful bacteria could be found in milk? Could Listeria be in milk?

[Réjean Bouchard]

Milk could contain Listeria and pathogenic bacteria. Throughout the production process, efforts are made to keep these contaminants at a low level my maintaining the temperature of the milk below 5°. At that temperature, the bacteria do not grow. Once the milk is delivered to the plant, pasteurization occurs at various stages to destroy all the pathogenic bacteria. These bacteria are destroyed by pasteurization, and this is why it is done.

A process equivalent to pasteurization occurs in the case of cheese made from raw milk during the aging process: the acidity changes, the water content is low and the bacteria do not have enough water to survive. So the effect is equivalent to the pasteurization process.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

If a type of bacteria were to be found in a shipment of milk that arrived at the plant that made it unfit for human consumption, would it be rejected?

[Réjean Bouchard]

Yes, the bacteria would be eliminated through pasteurization, heat treatment, and so on.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

So there are very stringent inspection procedures on the plant floor. Nothing can slip through.

[Réjean Bouchard]

No. In addition, these plants are approved by the HACCP, the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points Program. We are constantly taking the temperature of the milk and noting how long it is in the pasteurizer. All this information is recorded. When the product leaves the plant, it is safe and contains no pathogenic bacteria.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Are there inspectors from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in the plants?

[Réjean Bouchard]

There are inspectors in plants that export their product. There are also plants that are inspected by the provincial inspectors.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

So government inspectors are present at all times.

[Réjean Bouchard]

One way or another, yes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Doyle, people started doubting the safety of our food when the cases of listeriosis unfortunately occurred at the Maple Leaf plant. We had heard that the government was planning to reduce the number of inspectors and to let the company do its own inspections.

We are not saying that companies should not be responsible for inspecting their food. However, in the interest of public confidence, and even for you, as representatives of the thousands of agricultural and dairy producers, isn't it preferable that our tax dollars be used to pay inspectors who work in plants, and not in offices pushing paper? If people knew there were experts working to ensure that the food products on their grocery shelves were safe for them to buy and eat, would they not have more confidence in the food production system?

[Richard Doyle]

I would just like to correct one point. To my knowledge, there are no inspectors in plants all the time. There are provincial and federal inspection procedures. However, the inspectors do not work in the same way as those in slaughterhouses; the situation is somewhat different.

Milk is tested at the farm, it is tested again when the truck arrives at the plant, there are tests to detect the presence of somatic cells, bacteria, residues and so on. Milk is the farm product that undergoes the most microbiological and other testing to ensure it is safe. It is tested at plants, there are laboratories there. Even though all producers include a tested sample with a shipment on the truck, the product will be tested again. There is a whole procedure to be followed. If any residues or anything else is found, the truck will be put to one side and the producer, in many cases, will be responsible, and will have to pay all the costs relating to the truck. This would amount to a loss of several tens of thousands of dollars. The system relies heavily on self-discipline, both at the plant and on the farm.

Let me come back to your point. In spite of everything, I do agree with you to some extent. In today's society, it is important to ensure we have a good system, in light of all the potential risks with food, despite all the safeguards we've put in place. There are regulations. To come back to what Mr. Wayne was saying earlier, whether we are talking about labelling or food safety, we have to ensure people have absolute confidence in the food production system. Beyond the self-discipline of food producers, we have to ensure procedures are in place both for imported products and for our own products.

If I may, I would like to add two points. All the studies that have been done of Canadians have shown one of the major issues had to do with our inspection procedures and our regulations. There is a perception on the part of consumers. Our products are subject to much more stringent regulations than those in effect in other countries.

I will not take a stand, I will not try to say whether or not the perception is accurate, but I do think it is important to mention. Our producers have to comply with standards that are becoming increasingly stringent in all regards, particularly safety. They are asking that the same standards apply to imported products, and this is not always the case. In Quebec, there were provincial inspections. So people were wondering about the way the standards were being applied to imported products. Were they just as stringent? The standards are not always as stringent, and that is unfortunate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Bellavance. Your time has expired.

Mr. Allen, seven minutes.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for being here.

Maybe I could start with Mr. Doyle.

You've outlined in your presentation about CQM the pieces you brought together through HACCP as well as practices, no doubt, that have developed over a lengthy period of time with dairy farmers, to try to bring them in a cohesive fashion. If I'm wrong, correct me, but it seems that's what I'm seeing here as part of this report.

It does beg the question--and Mr. Bellavance touched on it in a sense, not from the producer's perspective but from the processor's--about whether we...because obviously we're not going to have an inspector on every farm on a regular basis. I think we all understand that.

I think on page 3 or so you talk about trying to get a national target and getting things set up, and a monitoring program. Now, when you talk about a monitoring program, are you talking about a direct or indirect monitoring type of program when it involves the CFIA? Would it be, perhaps, that someone may come out and actually look from time to time, or would it be simply a paper checklist that some folks would check, or would it be a combination, something in between?

[Richard Doyle]

We're talking about auditors, basically. We'll go on the farms, visit the farms, and make sure that all the practices that are part of the program have been followed by the producers. So they will re-inspect. These are not CFIA inspectors. These are people who are on the program, they're employees under the program, who have been trained under a program that CFIA has approved. The whole process and mechanism is certified and approved by CFIA, and these people go out to farms.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

So they wouldn't be CFIA inspectors; they would be auditors who have been trained and certified by CFIA, if you will, or at least under the program.

[Richard Doyle]

They'd be certified under the CFIA program, yes.