Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on June 1st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Order, please.

I hope everybody had a good weekend.

I'd like to thank all our witnesses here in the first segment for being with us here today. We have representatives here from the Bison Producers of Alberta, Piller Sausages, the Canadian Pork Council, and the Canadian Sheep Federation; and we're televised here, I see.

Anyway, who's going to start off here? The Bison Producers of Alberta.

Mr. Olson, you have 10 minutes or less.

[Thomas Olson, Chairman, Bison Producers of Alberta]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Thomas Olson. I am the chairman of the Bison Producers of Alberta. Perhaps I can give a little background to the BPA and its interest in food safety.

Bison producers in Alberta represent approximately 25% of the bison production in the world. We supply bison throughout Canada, the United States, and Europe.

Food safety is an important issue to us. A previous failure in Canadian food safety almost destroyed the bison industry in Canada and Alberta, through no fault of the bison producers. In 2003, BSE was discovered in a beef cow in Alberta. The borders immediately closed. Bison meat, which was mostly exported, was now unable to move across international borders and, unfortunately, because of rules in Canada, was not able to move across provincial borders either. A disease that bison does not get, from feeding practices that bison producers do not use, caused a financial meltdown in the bison industry from which it has not yet recovered.

This was a problem that we understand was due to irresponsible behaviour by CFIA in failing to prohibit feeding practices that could reasonably cause BSE. We understand that it was not a failure of science, but a failure of political and bureaucratic will--a failure to do what was right. Unfortunately, those who caused the problem did not bear the consequences of that problem.

What is the role of a primary producer in food safety? Bison ranchers expect to do their part. Clearly, food safety begins on the ranch, and ranching practices can affect not only the quality of the food but the safety of the food also.

Because bison were the keystone species on the prairies, they have a natural ability to deal with our climate and our rangeland. Bison are naturally healthy animals, with highly evolved immune systems that help them to deal with disease more effectively than domesticated and imported livestock species. Accordingly, bison producers avoid using chemicals that could have the effect or perceived effect of compromising food safety. Antibiotics are not common with bison producers. Many ranchers do not use them at all, and those who use them use them sparingly and with the advice of a veterinarian. Certainly, they are not part of the regular diet of bison.

Because bison are well adapted to native rangeland, there is less need for producers to rely on various pesticides, which have become perhaps all too standard in agriculture. We do not use growth stimulants, including hormones, in bison. We adhere to the philosophy that bison are healthiest and produce healthy food when they are not unnaturally crowded or subject to unnatural stressors.

The BPA would like to emphasize two objectives for food safety.

First, BPA believes that the protocols and enforcement of food safety must be effective; that is, they must achieve the desired results. It should be done with a scalpel, not with a meat clever. It must precisely deal with the potential food safety problems. Without effective food safety protocols, we cannot assure the consumers in Canada of the safety of their food, nor assure our trading partners of the safety of our food.

Secondly, food safety protocols must be reasonable and practical. In our rush to ensure food safety, we cannot substitute effective protocols with endless paperwork and other busy work; otherwise we will have either more expensive food or a food industry that is not competitive, or both.

The cost of food safety is a societal cost and should not be borne by the producer alone. There is a tempting trend amongst governments to offload the cost of food safety onto primary producers or perhaps others in the food chain. Food safety is a public issue and needs public funding. If all of the costs of food safety are borne by producers, the following consequence will arise: the cost of food will increase. To the extent that food safety causes increased food costs, it becomes a regressive tax. Certainly the costs of food safety should not be borne by those most vulnerable in our society, including children. This is a society cost and must be borne by society.

Primary producers and others in the food chain may become uncompetitive in Canada and abroad. This will mean a reduced food industry in Canada, less tax revenues and less employment. Certainly there is no need to hamstring the cashflows of the food industry with the costs that should truly be public costs. Food safety should be part of the Canadian infrastructure.

Already, over half the bison in Canada are exported live to the United States to be processed there. There are many reasons for this, but the main reason is that it is simply cheaper to process animals in the United States than it is in Canada. Adding more costs to the Canadian system will only cause it to sink under the weight of endless bureaucracy.

Processors and, indirectly, producers already pay for food safety features, including the cost of inspectors, rendering costs, and the costs of increasingly expensive testing. These costs are significant and make our industry less economic and our food more expensive.

Food safety protocols must be practical and reasonable. The BPA has had great frustration with CFIA and its political overlords, who have accepted some of CFIA's practices that might be summarized in some cases as straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

A costly example of CFIA's failure is its failure to provide for interprovincial meat sales from provincial processing plants that meet food safety requirements. We understand that CFIA does not dispute that most provincial plants in Alberta meet all reasonable food safety requirements, yet CFIA has not allowed interprovincial meat sales from Alberta plants. This exacerbated the problem that arose from BSE when Alberta producers, who produce a quarter of the bison in the world, had to consume most of that bison in Alberta because we could not get it across provincial borders.

The issue of the lack of bureaucratic will masquerading as food safety has been on our agenda for a long time. I met with the former Prime Minister and the former Minister of Agriculture and explained the problem to them. The former Prime Minister said, “So you're telling me that a bison slaughtered in Alberta and processed in Alberta is safe for an Albertan but not safe for an Ontarian.” When I replied “yes”, he turned to the Minister of Agriculture and said, “That's stupid. Fix it.” It's now several years later and it's not fixed. In fact, it's on the waiting list for surgery and may never get fixed.

I would like to say just as an afterthought that while this committee is looking at food safety, I cannot help but comment that it seems odd that we focus so narrowly on disease that comes from unsafe food but, at the same time, do not discuss disease that comes from unhealthy food. If we were to solve all of our food safety issues, we would still have a food supply that is often unhealthy. Never has so much “safe” food caused so much disease in the people of this nation.

Illnesses from unsafe food, while important, pale in comparison to illnesses that arise from unhealthy but safe food. We have a nation with a tremendous amount of obesity, heart disease, adult onset diabetes, and similar diseases. Bison is low in fat, high in protein, and high in micronutrients, yet schools are full of unhealthy food and snacks. There is little consumer education or awareness about the healthy Canadian food choices that are out there. When will the healthy food that we produce in this country get the support from government to compete with the unhealthy food that is far more lucrative and far more promoted in advertising?

In closing, I wish to reiterate that food safety protocols must be effective, practical, and reasonable. We hope this will start with the Government of Canada properly bearing its share of the costs of food safety and with CFIA providing for the interprovincial sale of meat from safe provincial processing facilities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much, and thank you for keeping under the time. I appreciate that.

Now we'll move to Piller Sausages and Delicatessens Ltd. Mr. Stein and Mr. Laws, you have 10 minutes or less, please.

[James M. Laws, Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council]

I'm going to be speaking first. I'll do my comments in French. Peter will complete his comments in English.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is James Laws and I am the Executive Director of the Canadian Meat Council in Ottawa. With me today is Peter Stein, Director, Quality Assurance and Food Safety, Piller Sausages and Delicatessens Ltd.

Piller's is one of North America's largest producers of European sausages and delicatessen-style meats, famous for award-winning products, such as Black Forest ham and European- style dry cured salamis. They also make the number-one selling dry- cured pepperoni in Canada according to ACNielsen data. They are headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario.

Their customers are nation-wide and they also export to the United States. And some of their customers are considered high-risk customers like hospitals, retirement homes etc. They recognize, as do others, the responsibility of supplying these types of customers from the top down.

Piller Sausages and Delicatessens Ltd. has been a member of the Canadian Meat Council for 35 years. Just last month in Montreal at our 89^th annual conference Wilhelm Huber Senior, the founder of Piller's, was presented with our President's award for outstanding service and support to the Canadian Meat Council. He served on our board for many years as does his son Conrad Huber, now a past president and a member of our executive committee.

Wilhelm Huber Senior is the founder and chairman of the board of the Piller's group of companies and he has been a fourth generation master butcher and sausage-maker since 1949—that's 60 years. He immigrated to Canada in 1954 from Austria with only two suitcases and got his first job in Montreal with Sepp's Sausages as master sausage-maker. In 1957, he moved his family to Waterloo, Ontario with $500 and started a company called Piller Sausages and Delicatessens Ltd.

Today, the Piller's group of five federally registered companies consists of Piller's Sausages, Kretschmar, Golden Valley Farms, Piller’s Fine Foods and Piller's Distribution Centre and employs over 700 people. And Piller's is still a Canadian family-owned and run business with Wilhelm's two nephews and three sons on the senior management team. In fact I believe there is a history book on the family that is currently being passed around the table.

As meat processors we are one link in the food safety chain in Canada. From the farmer to the slaughter and cut plants to the processors like Piller's to the retailers and finally the end user we all need to have food safety up front and centre so that we pass on a safe product to the next link in the chain. This chain is the same and carries the same responsibility no matter if you're a local, provincial or federally registered establishment. It's a matter of principle, attitude and accountability.

Piller's was a provincial plant 41 years ago. And then they made the change to become federal in 1968. They have been very successful since then proving that the successful transition from provincial to federal is very possible.

Peter Stein was hired by Piller's in February of this year to be their new Director, Quality Assurance and Food Safety. Peter has been active on our technical committee for 12 years and has been a member of our Listeria working group since last summer. He is also on the industry best practice committee specifically contributing to the sanitization component. Peter worked for over 20 years for JohnsonDiversey—a leading global provider of commercial cleaning and hygiene products and technical support for food safety. Peter specifically provided the technical support to the meat and poultry sectors in plant hygiene and sanitation programs. Peter has been through most federal meat processing plants across Canada and many in the United States, and he likely knows more about in-plant Listeria control than anyone I know.

Listeria control is about good plant hygiene—good manufacturing practices, and cleaning the plant and equipment. But, it's also about equipment and building design; it's about proper maintenance and cross-contamination control; it's about control of the flow of people and products in the work environment and it's about environmental sampling of the packaging room and slicers and beyond.

I'll pass it over to Peter to explain what's been happening at Piller's.

[Peter Stein, Director, Quality Assurance and Food Safety, Piller Sausages and Delicatessens Ltd.]

Thank you very much, Jim.

What I'd like to do first is to pass around some of our products, just to show you some of the things we make, and then I'll continue on with my thoughts.

Good evening, everyone. As Jim said, my name is Peter Stein and I'm the director of quality assurance and food safety for Piller's.

I first wish, on behalf of the Piller's group of companies, to extend our condolences to the families who experienced loss during last year's listeriosis outbreak.

As an industry, we share in the responsibility of food safety in Canada and beyond. We believe that food safety is not a competitive edge, and we are working with the Canadian Meat Council and industry to focus on improving food safety in our own plants and across the industry. At Piller's, we have internally raised the bar in food safety and we take full responsibility and ownership of the commitment to ensure that our plants produce safe product for our retail and food service customers and, ultimately, the end consumer.

I have been looking forward to presenting to you today and discussing who we are and what we are doing to improve food safety in our facilities. Of course, I can only speak for our organization on these matters, and I look forward to your questions afterwards.

Last summer the processed meat industry changed forever in public perception and confidence. This, in turn, has changed the food industry, and I think the same can be said for the CFlA. We all need to work together and do the right things to improve and restore consumer confidence and product safety, by walking hand in hand down the same road in the same direction.

I assure you that recently the pace of change has increased significantly: changes in what the end consumer expects from our industry, confidence in the food safety of the products they buy. But end consumers also want more value, lower salt, less fat, allergen controls, and a cleaner ingredient list. As well, our customers have expectations for us to produce products with a longer shelf life, and we experience market pressures from imports and changing Canadian export regulations.

For us at Piller's, we are singularly focused on stepping up a number of programs and initiatives in each plant to be proactive in an ever-changing environment. As a result, we have been continually improving our food safety programs and systems corporately. We look for potential issues and concerns, then investigate the risk and follow the science in making our corrective action decisions.

These would include more aggressive sanitation practices, including two equipment inspections during the sanitation shift. We have implemented daily food-contact surface sanitizing before production starts, at breaks, lunch, and shift changes. We have new sanitation equipment that allows better cleaning of parts that are normally difficult to clean by hand. We are changing sanitizer chemistry to a more effective and aggressive program that is less affected by water quality and is specific to proteins. We have implemented a three-tier program for packaging equipment disassembly and cleaning protocol, including deep internal testing for bacteria. We are increasing our quality assurance staff in every plant to improve our monitoring capabilities. We hired a corporate quality assurance and food safety director to help bring an overall consistent focus on food safety. We are on track to double our micro-testing across the board for environmental and product testing. We are actively looking for problems even where we currently have no surface evidence of there being any.

Our most recent food safety news is that we have installed two new high-pressure cold pasteurization machines that cost our company over $8 million. We are taking food safety seriously. We invested heavily in this new processing technology, including the two largest high-pressure processing units in North America. Piller's had looked into this technology years ago and decided to move forward in November 2006. The initial reason for entering into this $8 million investment was for removing additives and preservatives from the ingredient lists, as requested by our customers. This technology kills all bacteria, including pathogens, from the products already in their retail packages without the additives. I have some examples here of samples that are treated and untreated just to show you that there really is no difference in the appearance of the product.

Having said all this, Piller's did have their first voluntary product recall this April. There were no illnesses reported. It was a small recall, with very little product, involving only one plant and involving only one piece of equipment in that plant. We did go over and above what CFIA recommended and voluntarily recalled any product that was still in circulation from that line. We acted quickly and made the right decision with no hesitation. What happened to us this April just confirmed to us that listeria is a clean-plant concern, and no matter what is being done in the name of food safety, there is always opportunity and the need for improvement.

In every one of our four production facilities in Ontario, we use state-of-the-art meat processing equipment, the most up-to-date smokehouses, and the highest quality slicing and packaging production machinery. All of our facilities are fully networked with the most advanced high-tech computer systems. As a result, we have the capability to manufacture all our products at any one of our facilities, so we can meet the demands of any customer, any request, any time of the year.

As of April 1 this year, the new listeria testing program has caused our registered warehouse facility in Waterloo to store over 700 additional pallets of product on a hold and release program, waiting for test results at any one given time. Meat processing facilities, including ours, employ highly professional food science and microbiology experts to maintain their food safety programs. We also endeavour to work closely and openly with CFIA to help them understand our processes and to implement and follow federal programs correctly. We do encourage CFIA to implement their new initiatives fully and properly in all federal establishments equally to ensure consistency and uniformity. We have recognized that this can be a challenge at times.

I didn't want to close without presenting a comment or a wish list. So some of the things we at Piller's feel strongly about are as follows:

One, imported products must meet the same standards and regulations as we face here in Canada.

Two, all plants, both provincial and federal, should be included in the scope of the new listeria policy released this past April 1. This safeguards all potential customers.

Three, more and faster access to new industry innovations and interventions is needed.

Four, the food industry is now the largest in Canada, recently surpassing the automotive industry. Therefore, we need the same access to government research and innovation funding to facilitate widespread food safety improvement nationally.

Five, we must have clarity of interpretation and consistent implementation of existing and new regulations and programs across Canada.

Thank you very much for your time. We look forward to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much, Mr. Stein.

We now move on to Canadian Pork Council. We have Mr. Rice and Ms. Lawrence here.

[Martin Rice, Executive Director, Canadian Pork Council]

Thank you.

Ms. Lawrence is going to make the presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, thank you.

[Dawn Lawrence, Canadian Quality Assurance (CQA) Program Coordinator, Canadian Pork Council]

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to present to you today the views of the Canadian Pork Council on food safety issues.

The production of safe food is of primary concern to all involved in the agrifood industry. Canadian hog producers see the implementation and demonstration of production practices that address food safety at the farm level as central to their business activities.

Beginning in 1995, the Canadian Pork Council assembled a team of food safety and production experts to develop a system that would be used by primary producers to evaluate, document, and have their production practices verified to demonstrate due diligence in their activities. When the program was launched in 1998, the hog industry was about to face a crash in the price of hogs, and producers questioned the necessity of implementing a program that reflected practices that were largely already in place. The answer then, as now, is that the program allows producers to demonstrate what they are doing.

The CQA program introduced the HACCP approach on the farm. At the time, HACCP was being widely adopted by the processing industry but was new to the farm sector. Since that time, 19 commodity groups, including the CPC, have agreed to create HACCP-based on-farm food safety programs. Simply put, we are HACCP-based rather than pure HACCP, because the risk analysis that is conducted is done at the national level and translated into materials for producers to use on the farm, rather than having each production unit develop its own HACCP model.

Participating production units are enrolled through the provincial hog boards and implement the program as it is laid out in the program materials. To gain and maintain recognition on the program, a production unit must undergo an annual validation, essentially an audit, to ensure that all CQA requirements are being met. These requirements address potential chemical, physical, and biological hazards that may be introduced to the pig during production. Hazards such as drug residues, broken needles, and bacterial contaminants are controlled on the farm through the implementation of strict protocols related to the use of medications, whether these are administered directly to the pig or delivered through feed or water; the storage, mixing, handling, and delivery of feed; barn sanitation and bio-security, including rodent control; and staff training. Bio-security will also be addressed through the newly created Canadian Swine Health Board, ensuring that hog producers have the latest information and approaches to minimize disease risks.

The success of the CQA program tells the story. There are approximately 7,000 production units, representing over 70% of total Canadian production and over 90% of hogs slaughtered in Canada. Almost all federally inspected packing plants and many provincially inspected plants have made CQA recognition a condition of sale. That is, producers can sell to these plants only if they are on the program.

The program provides assurances to customers and consumers that Canadian hog producers are committed to doing all they can at the farm to control potential food safety hazards. With pork exports to over 100 countries valued at $2.7 billion in 2008, providing these assurances is critical.

Although in its 11th year, the CQA program continues to evolve. Administrative and technical committees conduct ongoing work to ensure that the CQA program maintains currency in scientific understanding, production practices, and legislative developments.

With the program structure in place, we are now able to add new elements. Animal care has been identified as an important public concern. In consideration of that, an animal care program was introduced in 2005. While participation in this element is still growing, the CQA program and structure have made launching this initiative a smoother undertaking.

Additionally, new activities for access to specific export markets are also easier to implement. For example, a protocol for Paylean-free pork exports to certain countries has been developed, and we are looking at other possible initiatives.

The existence of a solid national on-farm food safety program is critical. It means that one standard is set for food safety, preventing a proliferation of company-specific or province-specific initiatives. While on-farm food safety programs are industry driven, government involvement is key. The collaboration of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in the development of the programs and the recognition process is essential in providing credibility to customers of Canadian pork.

It can also be argued that government funding to help in the ongoing maintenance of these programs is important. Funding has been available for development and implementation, but not for ongoing program maintenance. Producers bear the cost of implementing these programs; there is no premium available to them. While these programs offer a benefit to the industry and a public good, they essentially add to the cost of production for our producers.

Funding for food safety research and the role of on-farm controls is also required.

Government commitment to on-farm food safety also needs to be in the domain of an efficient and streamlined regulatory system. Hog producers have been unable to access new veterinary products in as timely a fashion as producers in other countries. Despite the continual examination and review of Canada's drug licensing system, Canadian producers remain at a disadvantage. We recognize that Canada is a small market for veterinary products, but our sector is competing in the global market. It is critical that our regulatory system be the most competitive possible.

We cannot appear here today without mentioning the financial crisis facing Canadian hog farmers. Our industry has been a solid contributor to the Canadian economy, yet it has been faced with severe market shocks over the past three years, the most recent being the H1N1 influenza A, unfortunately known more commonly as swine flu.

Surveys conducted in the aftermath of H1N1 show that while most Canadian consumers remain confident about the safety of pork, fully 8% of those surveyed believed it was possible to get H1N1 from eating properly cooked pork. In addition, while 90% of consumers will not change their pork consumption as a result of H1N1, or will eat more pork, 10% are eating less pork. Some of this is likely to be permanent. These are serious impacts on consumers as a result of a virus that has nothing to do with food safety. This has impacted hog producers at a time when they can ill afford any more shocks.

Farmers are doing their part and will continue to do their part to produce safe food. Governments need to support these efforts and to ensure producers can operate in the most competitive environment possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We now move on to Ms. MacTavish from the Canadian Sheep Federation.

[Jennifer MacTavish, Executive Director, Canadian Sheep Federation]

Thank you, members of the committee, for the opportunity to be here today.

The Canadian Sheep Federation is a national non-profit organization that represents over 11,000 Canadian sheep producers. It has eight provincial members and three associate members: the Canadian Co-operative Wool Growers, the Canadian Sheep Breeders' Association, and the Canadian National Goat Federation. The Canadian Sheep Federation plays a key role in the development, implementation, and management of programs that enable the industry to remain competitive, innovative, and responsive, such as the voluntary scrapie flock certification program, the bluetongue insurance program, the Canadian sheep identification program, and the food safe farm practices program.

Food safe farm practices is a national HACCP-based program that the industry began working on in 1997. The development of this program was truly a collaborative initiative, with representatives from both federal and provincial governments, member associations, and producers working together. In 2005, the program received technical recognition from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This producer-driven program examines all areas of production and outlines management options that are designed to minimize food safety risks. It is based on "must do" good production practices. Good production practices are operating procedures that promote food safety and production efficiency. The program also makes recommendations on practices geared to facilitating the production of a safe, high-quality product.

To date, the CSF has provided training to over 1,000 producers, either through workshops or through online training. In addition to training producers, the federation is working towards technical recognition for its management manual. Canadian sheep producers understand the importance of, and are committed to, supplying safe, high-quality lamb. The food safe farm practices program is just one program that they have access to. They also participate in the Canadian sheep identification program and various health programs that contribute to the safety and quality of their product. Together, these programs allow producers to anticipate problems, develop troubleshooting techniques, and reduce on-farm risks to food safety. The food safe farm practices program, in particular, allows producers to prove that they are doing what they can to minimize food safety risks.

One of the challenges the industry has with the food safe farm practices program is the producer's ability to recoup the additional costs of implementation. There needs to be some incentive for producers to participate. In the best-case scenario, producers will be implementing the program in response to market incentives under which they get paid a premium for the added assurance that they have been certified by a food safety program.

Especially in the lamb industry, where so much of the lamb being consumed is imported, there is a real need to ensure that the programs producers participate in do not put them at a competitive disadvantage. It is the issue of competitiveness that may cause some producers to hesitate when being asked to implement the program. One way to ensure that Canadian lamb producers remain competitive is to require imported products to meet the same standards that Canadian producers must meet.

Work also needs to be done to harmonize meat processing codes in Canada into a single standard. Currently, it is difficult for Canadian lamb producers to access some Canadian markets. With 60% of Canadian lambs being processed in Ontario—90% are processed in provincially inspected plants—it's difficult for Canadian producers to have access to, let alone compete in, markets such as British Columbia, which is Canada's second largest lamb-consuming market.

Producers must also be price competitive. The food safe farm practices program has the potential to increase production costs for lamb producers, and they have limited options for cost recovery. This could cause the program to be too costly to implement, or it could drive up the cost of Canadian lamb, making the imported product more attractive to consumers. Both scenarios are troubling. In both cases, there is the potential to lose Canadian producers and there is limited ability to ensure that Canadian consumers have access to high-quality, safe product, especially when the imported product does not have to meet the same standards as the Canadian product does. Food safety is not just the responsibility of Canadian producers.

If we are going to continue to deliver the safe, high-quality food that Canadian consumers have come to expect, then a collaborative approach, which includes producers, processors, retailers, consumers, and government, is required. With such an approach, the cost of ensuring the supply of safe, high-quality food is shared.

To date, the industry and government have enjoyed a collaborative approach to on-farm food safety. Both recognize the need for on-farm food safety programs, and while the government has provided some financial support, expertise, and guidance during the development, they have recognized that in order to be successful, food safety programs need to be developed and managed by industry in order to ensure that they are practical on farm and meet individual industry requirements.

Government support with development and training has been greatly appreciated. However, the issue now is program implementation, ensuring that producers are audited and that commodity organizations have the resources for ongoing maintenance of the program.

It should be noted that the costs of developing the on-farm food safety programs have not rested solely on the shoulders of government. One of the real benefits of this process has been the recognition of producer time as a contribution to the cost of development. Additionally, national and provincial organizations, which are funded through producer levies, have also contributed substantial amounts of time and money.

Canada's collaborative approach to on-farm food safety programs is also seen among the commodity groups. The commodity organizations that are currently working on their food safety programs sit together around the Canadian On-Farm Food Safety Working Group table, where they can discuss common challenges and share information. The capacity to do this has proven to be invaluable. It is vital that this collaborative approach to on-farm food safety continue. While Canadian lamb producers remain dedicated to the production of safe, high-quality product, the Canadian government must make this same commitment and ensure that Canadian producers remain competitive.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We now turn to questioning, with Mr. Easter for seven minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, folks, for coming.

Peter, I'll start with you because you are involved in basically a family operation.

What we're looking at is the experience of listeria and the overall food safety issue, and we—certainly on this side—would like to find some accountability in the system as well. Accepting responsibility and accountability seems to have been missing, but we'll set that aside for the moment. In the experience of the listeriosis outbreak last summer, it seemed to fall on plant management or ownership to be the spokesman for the Canadian people on food safety. Mr. McCain was out there; he accepted responsibility.

How should that be handled in the future? It seems to me that we need government responsibility or independent agency responsibility at the end of the day--an independent body that can talk about food safety in the Canadian system. To leave it up to plant management, I think, puts them in an impossible spot. They have a role to play, yes, but what's your view on it? How can we ease the strain on an operation that may find itself in a similar position to that of Mr. McCain, when its people have a whole lot of other things to deal with and seem to be the spokesman on food safety as well?

[Peter Stein]

Thank you. That's a very interesting question.

When you go through a situation like that at any scale, certainly the responsibility is with the facility and with management, whether it be ownership or not. However, you are dealing directly with CFIA, and dealing with different branches of CFIA, whether operations or the OFSR. It would be better, in my opinion from having gone through it, to work as a team and to approach the media and the public as a team, to work together in that sense rather than have the onus of response be on the facility or on management.

I understand your question very well. It's not to say that CFIA, when we had our incident, wasn't there. They were, and the people we know and work with every day were very helpful. At the same time, different programs and different departments kick in once this happens, and because of that, at least we noticed that there was a bit of a disconnect. We took the initiative and did what we had to do, above and beyond what was required or even necessary. That's just the way our company is. Those are the morals and the ethics of the way we do business.

But yes, it would be nice to work together with CFIA or with government agencies, to approach the public together and move forward that way through any kind of incident like that, absolutely.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Olson, in terms of the food safety protocols, you mentioned the words “rational” and “practical”, which seems difficult in this town. I'm not sure who else it was who talked about the requirement for import products to have to meet the same standards as we do.

My question is really to the group as a whole, whoever can answer it.

I think we're finding--not only, Mr. Chair, at this particular committee, but at the regular standing committee as well--that Canadian producers.... It doesn't seem to matter what they're in--Dawn mentioned veterinarian drugs--our system is slower. As a result, it hurts our competitiveness. We have regulatory requirements on food products and safety standards, yet the countries we compete against that are sending product in here don't seem to have the same requirements, and yet their products end up on our shelves. Product from countries that are using different veterinarian drugs that are not approved within Canada--in fact, a lot of American pork--is on our shelves these days.

How do we get around that? How do we get to a system that, as you say, Thomas, is rational and practical, not overburdensome, but has the requirements that are there in terms of meeting the needs of Canadians and food safety? Do you have any suggestions?

[Thomas Olson]

Let me give you an example of things that I think are not practical. On the question of provincial plants and federal plants, one of the issues we discussed with the former Minister of Agriculture was the fact that federal plants require things like paid parking lots, while provincial plants don't. It's not a food safety issue, yet it's a regulation; it's a requirement. The point is that if we can get to issues that really matter, then let's focus on those and let's not focus on all the other stuff that really isn't critical to food safety. If we focus and keep our eye on the ball, then we're not going to miss it. If it's too diverse, we have too much regulation of stuff that really doesn't matter, we run up the costs, and we miss the ball.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Does anybody else want to add to that? Martin.

[Martin Rice]

Thank you.

I think we should be looking at trying to have greater international standardization on food safety tolerances, on maximum residue limits, things of that nature. We do have reference to the Codex Alimentarius of the FAO, and the World Health Organization bulletins, and so on, but I think that until we have a greater commitment to using those international tolerances, and not only using them when they're to the U.S. or anyone else's advantage, I think it would help us get over this matter of each country doing its own separate examination of safety data. I think it would remove some of that situation that we find right now, going into China, where we use a product that they don't allow. The largest international producer of that product is China. Obviously they aren't officially using it in the country, but it's the largest source of it in the world.

We have these strange situations in which I think we may have to require some greater commitment to use these international tolerances and not only use them as a reference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks, Mr. Rice.

Mr. Bellavance, seven minutes.

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

Ladies, gentlemen, thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Laws, welcome back. During your last visit, the meeting was rather short. We would have liked to continue asking you questions for a little longer. We will therefore take advantage of the fact that you are with us once again.

I would like to go back to the testimony you gave the first time you came. You spoke about the rate of testing. You said that the Canadian Meat Council participated in CFIA consultations on the new Listeria control measures that came into effect in April. You said that you still had questions that have not been resolved around this issue. I would like to ask you some very specific questions. You said that the policy should be amended to set the rate of testing based on the risk of the product produced. Do you want to create two categories? Are we to believe that some industries would require fewer tests, whereas others would need more?

I am concerned about the rate of testing. When I listen to Mr. Stein's testimony, I believe they are doing everything in their power to have the most tests possible, in order to ensure that their industry is bacteria-free. And yet, it seems to me to be quite a big business.

I would like more details on this issue. It appears to me to be somewhat contradictory; I would like you to talk a bit more about this subject.

[James M. Laws]

Thank you for your question.

Perhaps Martin could pass around a few of our products. Please note that in the case of a product like pepperoni, which is dry and salted, Listeria cannot develop, from a scientific perspective. We have a policy that varies according to three different categories. If you use an anti-microbial agent, the number of mandatory tests is reduced. If you use an anti-microbial agent and there is a packaging process, the number is further reduced. On the other hand, people want the policy to be the same for a product like pepperoni and for a product that contains much more water, in which Listeria could very well develop. We believe that makes no sense, from a scientific point of view. We want to have some flexibility.

Perhaps we could get some products from the corner and pass them around.

There is the process that Peter explained to you. The company is using very high pressure. A product that is processed in the big machine we are talking about and that has been submitted to a pressure of 87,000 inches per... It is impossible for Listeria to survive under this pressure. We therefore believe that the policy should be amended to reflect this reality. That is why, in our opinion, there is not enough flexibility.

Furthermore, imagine that someone has built a state-of-the-art plant, that is only one or two years old, and that has separate rooms for each line. Then imagine that there is another building, perhaps even older than I am, that requires much more testing because of its design. There must be some kind of compensation for companies that show they always have excellent results. We are talking about mandatory agency tests.

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

Mr. Laws, I understand what you are saying very well. However, consumer confidence is at stake. Perhaps I do not clearly understand what you are asking for, but if there are fewer tests for certain categories of food or businesses, I do not know if consumers will have confidence. That is what worries me.

[James M. Laws]

We believe this should be the case.

It is simply a difference in mandatory testing. Plants will almost certainly have their own testing. When they are able to prove, on occasion, day after day, that they have a very state-of-the-art process, there should be some flexibility. It already exists in the policy. If we use anti-microbials, we can reduce the number of mandatory tests. That is why we want a more flexible policy based on the risk.

This is right. It is a policy being implemented for the first time. We accept the policy, but we also want to be able to show that we have new processes, new technologies and we want to be compensated for our investments.

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

The issue of new technologies was addressed the last time you appeared before the committee, but only very briefly. I believe the committee meeting was over, but you had given us more explanations.

Perhaps Mr. Stein could explain how this new technology works. I believe it is Spanish. We're talking about a machine that produces an enormous amount of water pressure. It uses pressurized water which kills the bacteria. This would seem to be of interest for all companies, except that I see that it is very expensive. You have two machines that cost $8 million.

Is this a technology that will become more and more popular, and perhaps, as is the case for many technologies, it will become cheaper over time? Do you use it for all of your products? Could you explain to us how it works and how it eradicates the bacteria?

[Peter Stein]

Absolutely. Thank you very much for the question.

I think everybody has seen this picture. This is a picture of one our machines in one of our facilities. We use these two machines to treat or process all the products that go through that one particular facility.

The product is packaged in its finished package, and then it is put into this machine. The machine is closed, the chamber is filled with water, and then the water is pressurized to 87,000 pounds. It sits at that pressure for a number of minutes, then the pressure is released. The product comes out the other end and looks the same as when it went in.

What happens in the process is that any living organism cannot withstand that pressure, the microbial functions that bacteria go through can no longer function, they're disrupted, and they die. That's why it's in its finished product, in its package, and nothing can survive that process. It's a very clean, efficient process. The only net effect to the product is it comes out a little bit wet, and then we dry it off and package it off.

It's a very good procedure for killing the bacteria, if there are any in the product. We already have typically less than 10, or even less than three, count per gram going in anyway, which is a very low count. But you get a four-, five-, or six-log reduction from going through this piece of equipment, and you really have no bacteria. There are no bacteria left. We are continually doing tests. We have zero count coming out the other end. It's a great technology for that.

The problem is that it's very expensive. It's a batch system, not a continuous system, and to be able to do all the volume that we have in all our facilities would require many machines. So it's an expensive proposition, and of course you have to pick the products that you put through there, whether they be a lower-salt or a higher-risk product or what have you. But the technology is excellent, and we're using it on a full-time basis.

I think yes, absolutely, it's something that the industry is going to use and embrace, and you will see more of this technology in the coming years.