Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on May 6th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I call the meeting to order.

I want to thank all of our witnesses. We have a number here today, but rather than our usual two-hour meeting, we have four hours. Anyway, we'll get started.

I understand, Mr. Fuller, that you have to leave around 7 o'clock for a flight.

[David Fuller, Chairman, Chicken Farmers of Canada]

Yes. My flight is at 8 o'clock, so I'll probably leave a little before 7 p.m.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Very well. Whenever you have to go, we'll certainly excuse you, and we appreciate you being here.

Mr. Easter, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The original motion for this subcommittee directed that the hearings be televised, and very few of them have been. This is a subject that Canadians are interested in. I would like an explanation for why they're not being televised.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm going to be honest with you, Mr. Easter. I thought they were being televised.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Well, I don't see any cameras here, Mr. Chair.

I would like the clerk to report to us which ones were and which ones were not.

Secondly, on a different point, I did table this with the clerk, so I've given notice of a motion in which we're looking to schedule in a specific timeframe. The motion reads:

That representatives of the Agriculture Union be invited to meet with the subcommittee on food safety, May 13, 2009 from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. and that no other witnesses be scheduled during that time.

I will submit as well, Mr. Chair, that as soon as they're translated I will have two more. I do that because I think there's a reluctance somewhere, so we can drill down on this issue, to hearing the witnesses who were in the plants where the problem occurred and the people who know the issue on the ground at the plants.

I simply notify the committee that those resolutions have been tabled for debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That's fine, Mr. Easter.

In your reference to witnesses, I can tell you that the clerk has had a very tough time to get some witnesses for some nights, and that has been for a number of reasons. The H1N1 flu that's out there right now has been part of it. I remember one witness is away on maternity leave, and another witness who was asked to come is no longer in the industry and refused to come. There are some other ones, but it is our intention to have every available witness and make every effort to get them here. We will continue to do that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

My concern is that these critical witnesses who were in the plant and on the ground, basically, on this file of listeriosis at the time, not be diluted with other witnesses present, the key one in terms of getting to the bottom of the issue. I was of the understanding that the Agriculture Union would be here in a two-hour slot today. I thought that was the agreement I had with you the other day, but obviously that's not....

I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that had the clerk called the Agriculture Union, they would have been here in a two-hour slot, if you were willing to give it to them.

I've made my point. The motion will be on the floor and we will debate it, because that's the way we're going to get a move to ensure that the witnesses are here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I recall the other day you made it very clear and you never mentioned about having them here today, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Storseth, please.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I have a point of order.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's simply a clarification from the government side. We've agreed any time there's been any request for a televised meeting, but Mr. Easter has been a longstanding member of Parliament and I'm sure he knows that Standing Order 119.1 indicates that it is up to the committee to request each committee meeting to be televised.

Actually, if you look at the blues, the actual motion was for the committee meetings that were televised. That's what the motion is about. If you want more, according to Standing Order 119.1, you have to put another motion forward for each committee meeting.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I don't want to debate it, Mr. Chair, because--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Allen, please.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I appreciate what Mr. Storseth has said, and I don't doubt his veracity when it comes to quoting M and M, but clearly the parliamentary secretary is here, and clearly when we met he'll remember that it was abundantly clear what we had stated—and specifically what I had stated--when we debated how we would set the committee up. It was abundantly clear to me, since I moved the original motion, that indeed all—and I repeat the word “all”—of these committee hearings be televised.

Mr. Lemieux was perfectly clear about saying yes, he understood and would do that. If it's a procedural matter, Mr. Chair, that somehow we needed to do that in every single meeting, then I would have appreciated that understanding so that indeed I could have done that. But I felt we had an understanding. I believed we had understood each other, in the sense that in a spirit of cooperation we were going to do that. We also met with you, Mr. Chair, and my understanding between us was that indeed that's how we would do this.

To find out now that it hasn't happened.... If it's simply a technical issue from the perspective that someone didn't tell someone they needed to come, because I understand this room doesn't automatically have it, then I understand that. Since we're quite often going to be here, I would hope from now on that information would be sent to the correct department, so they can be televised.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

While you were initially speaking there, I spoke to the clerk about this. There are only three rooms, and unfortunately we got shoved out. So that's the reason.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I would like to comment on that.

Certainly, we did have discussions between me, Mr. Allen, Mr. Easter, and Mr. Atamanenko at the time, regarding the subcommittee. There was a discussion about televised meetings, and you're right, I indicated that there was not a problem--and there's not a problem. It is from a procedural point of view where there are two points to consider. The first is how the committee itself.... I am not the committee, and I think we all know that. We all work together on committee and we work with motions. So I can't speak on behalf of the committee, but I can certainly speak on behalf of the government side. We have no problem with televised meetings.

But there are two factors to consider. The first is that the committee itself, as a committee, must make its will known--not just me to you and to Mr. Easter. The second thing is, as the chair is pointing out, the availability of rooms. There are a very limited number of rooms. There are times when a televised room is available; there are times when it's not. It's for the committee to express its will to the chair and for the clerk to work within the facilities and the resources that are available.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify the discussions we did have, and that from the government side we don't have a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

I'm going to take Mr. Bellavance, and then we're going to go on to our witnesses.

Go ahead, Mr. Bellavance.

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

I'll be brief, because we do indeed have witnesses to hear.

On that very point, on the issue of televised meetings, I cannot accept room availability as an excuse for not televising meetings. Many committees are televised, and ours is almost never televised. We have created this subcommittee, and said specifically that we wanted the meetings to be televised. In fact, they were all televised towards the beginning, except for last meeting and today's meeting.

What we are asking the clerk—I believe Mr. Lemieux understands that we are not accusing the government of anything, or at least I am not—is to make every effort required to ensure that meetings are indeed televised.

I believe we even had one meeting that was televised using mobile cameras. We were not in a committee room already equipped for television, unless I am mistaken. So I think it can indeed be done, and it is what we have asked for.

If we are required to move a motion at each meeting requesting that the next meeting be televised, then we will do so. However, that is a real waste of time. I thought we had agreed from the very start that all meetings would be televised.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. Thank you very much.

We're going to move to our witnesses now.

We would ask each organization to please keep your comments to ten minutes or less. I'm going to give you a two-minute warning, just to give you an idea. And I won't cut you off right at the ten minutes, as long as I know you're close to being done. You can add anything in questions.

First of all, we're going to move to Ms. Brenda Watson and Mr. Robert de Valk from the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education.

Ms. Watson.

[Brenda Watson, Executive Director, Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education]

Thank you.

We're here to talk about the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education. We're known as a partnership, and we're a national association of public and private organizations with an interest in educating Canadians about safe food-handling practices. We're committed to educating Canadians about the ease and importance of safe food-handling and preparation activities in order to reduce the risk of microbial food-borne illness. Our message helps build confidence in our food system. In the brief I provided your clerk there is a list of our members at the end.

Our history. We were formed in 1997 with the purpose of developing and implementing a national safe food-handling public awareness program focused on the important role the consumer plays in keeping food safe. This is because both government and industry recognized that consumers have a role to play when it comes to food safety. In a recent campaign we were able to reach over 12 million Canadians with our safe food-handling messages over a one-year period. That was during the 2005-06 fiscal year. Our most recent project has been launched in partnership with our sister organization in the United States called Be Food Safe. This campaign is targeted to the main food preparer in Canadian households and offers a colourful platform of graphical icons and detailed safe food-handling messages.

These materials are tailor-made for all members of the partnership, including government, retail, and health care professionals. The Be Food Safe platform is suitable for information brochures, posters, websites, and food product packaging. The Be Food Safe icons and messages were featured in March of this year on a Government of Canada full-colour insert distributed to 54 newspapers across Canada. Canadian Council of Grocery Distributor members have seasonally supported the partnership by providing FightBAC! and now Be Food Safe messages in their flyers, which go to households all across Canada.

The partnership serves and engages critical consumer education intermediaries in the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors. The partnership provides a forum for all members to share and harmonize their safe food-handling communication strategies and tactics with other members and to receive feedback and expert advice. Where possible, members coordinate the delivery of their individual programs to achieve maximum reach for resources invested.

Canadians are looking for more information on food safety. According to recent Canadian population studies, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada estimate that 11 million to 13 million cases of food-borne illness occur each year, costing Canadian health services, industry, and society as a whole an estimated $12 billion to $15 billion annually.

According to research, consumers think it's very important to follow safe food-handling practices at home. That same research also reveals that despite the fact that the majority of adults feel confident that they understand and follow safe food-handling procedures, a sizeable number do not consistently follow them. For example, only 15% of people consistently use a food thermometer. Using a food thermometer is important. You can't tell if food has been cooked to a safe temperature by how it looks. Over half of people say they defrost meat and poultry at room temperature at least “sometimes”. This practice can allow bacteria to grow on food. Only 50% of consumers reported washing their hands for 20 seconds before and after handling food. Clean hands and surfaces often lead to the reduction of the risk of food-borne illness.

Research conducted by the Government of Canada has confirmed that consumers want more information about food safety, including safe food-handling practices. The consumer is an important part of the food supply chain, and the partnership and its members help raise awareness of the four core steps consumers can take to reduce the risk of contracting a microbial food-borne illness. The four core messages are a proven platform to raise awareness of the important role the consumer plays in Canada's food safety system.

As mentioned above, the partnership's four core messages to the consumer are the following: clean--wash hands and surfaces often; separate--don't cross-contaminate; cook--cook to proper temperatures and use a food thermometer; and chill--refrigerate promptly.

The partnership helps to keep food safety top-of-mind with people when they shop for and prepare food at home. Therefore, it is essential that consumers receive frequent reminders of the importance of safe food handling to reduce the risk of microbial food-borne illness.

We have ongoing public awareness initiatives. The partnership offers consumers access to information on safe food handling at home, in both official languages, through our online website, www.canfightbac.org, the French site, www.abaslesbac.org, and our new websites, www.befoodsafe.ca and www.soyezprudentsaveclesaliments.ca.

Our messages are proactive and ongoing. We're not crisis communicators. Rather, we have a consistent message year-round for consumers; that is, there are four core steps to keeping food safe at home, and if implemented consistently, your risk of contracting a microbial food-borne illness is reduced. These messages empower the consumer and build confidence in the Canadian food system. The message doesn't change with the situation. The messages may be ramped up prior to a seasonal event, such as Christmas, New Year's, Victoria Day, July 1, and Labour Day back-to-school, because long weekends are key periods when consumers may be more likely to be receptive to hearing safe food-handling messaging.

In a crisis situation, the partnership plays a support role, referring media and consumers to the most appropriate organization or association that can provide the scientific and factual information on the issue. On that note, the partnership relies on Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for science-based research.

On our list of improvements are the following:

First, food safety initiatives must include a focus on the consumer.

Second, communication briefings need to include organizations, such as the partnership, to help flow information back to consumers.

Third, communication must be harmonized, integrated, and planned between industry and government.

Fourth, ongoing investment is required to deliver food safety messaging to consumers. Behaviour change campaigns can take 20 to 30 years to gain significant traction in the marketplace, as demonstrated by farm business management initiatives and the anti-smoking campaign, just to give examples.

Fifth, we believe that the partnership model makes effective use of financial resources. Rather than inventing a new model, the Government of Canada should invest in the existing one--the partnership--that has served the Canadian consumer well over the past 12 years.

In 2009, everyone in the Canadian farm-to-fork continuum needs to do his or her part to keep food safe. A great deal has been invested, from farm through to retail. Let's place appropriate investment in the consumer end of the continuum moving forward, because from farm to fork, the consumer is the last, but equally important, link in Canada's food safety system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We now move to the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors. We have Mr. Nick Jennery and Ms. Jackie Crichton.

[Nick Jennery, President, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members of the committee, for allowing us to be before you tonight. I will be succinct. You won't have to call me on that.

By way of introduction, I'm the CEO of the CCGD, and Jackie Crichton is our vice-president of food safety and labelling and a member of the staff.

The folks we represent are both the large and small grocery distributors, both on the retail side as well as on the food service side. In terms of statistics, we have about half a million direct employees, and we supply about 85% of all grocery products to about 12,000 stores across the country.

To state the obvious, food safety is the highest priority for our sector. Specifically, we think food safety is a supply chain responsibility. We think both industry and government should take a continuous learning approach to this, and that this learning be shared among all so that best practices are part of continuous improvement. We will never be so arrogant as to think we've figured out all the solutions.

In short, we also know as retailers and distributors that we are in the consumer trust business and you ignore that at your peril. Consumers expect us to sell safe food all the time, every day. If a problem occurs in the supply chain, the entire industry wears the impact of that. So we take the subject seriously. We take an open and shared approach in discussing the issues and due diligence within the industry.

Tonight, Mr. Chair, I have some summary comments on our approach and four recommendations that we have provided recently to the government.

In terms of our approach--I mentioned it's a first priority--we don't compete on food safety. We share what we know and what we think through a very active industry committee, which Jackie Crichton chairs. As an association, we also share what the committee produces in terms of manuals, templates, best practices, and training programs with the industry. Our approach is continuous learning and, through that, increased due diligence.

However, despite the Canadian food safety system being recognized as one of the safest in the world, and even having the best inspection in place, with industry implementation of HACCP and HACCP-based programs, there is still the potential for food safety outbreaks, and there's no such thing as zero risk. Therefore, a critical tool for food distribution and retail is having an effective and efficient recall system, one that immediately links the industry to CFIA decisions. If you check with store managers or their department heads across the country, everybody knows when you receive a recall, your sole and immediate focus is to remove that product from sale, no questions asked. That action is triggered by a CFIA recall notice, which is a one-to-many electronic system, with information distributed real time.

What has the industry done since the Maple Leaf recall to support what I said? We've played an active role in the consultation process around CFIA's proposed changes to listeria inspection strategies, recommending a rapid test methodology for the test-and-hold policies being considered, and also to look at high-risk products first.

Second, we support Health Canada's move to permit the use of sodium diacetate and sodium acetate as an option for processors who feel they need preservatives in meat, accepting the scientific evidence that it can provide better control of pathogens.

While grocery is an exceedingly competitive sector, when it comes to food safety, we all work together with one goal: sell safe food. As an example, we worked with the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers operating as one retail sector to develop manuals, and we have provided a copy of our HACCP-based retail food safety program to Health Canada. This program is being implemented across all CCGD retail members. We are also supplementing that with food safety one-pagers, with more reference material on issues such as vacuum packaging at retail and labelling.

In the fall of 2008, CCGD, along with Food & Consumer Products of Canada and CFIG, took the lead in bringing together an industry association working group to review and update the Supply Chain Food Product Recall Manual. This is a bible within our industry. The CFIA “Food Emergency Response Manual”, commonly referred to as FERM, is included as a section in this industry document.

A number of suggested enhancements to FERM have been provided to CFIA. These include consistent application of a standardized investigation template for use by both government and industry, and consistent use of recall notice templates that provide retailers and consumers with the required information.

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing that could have been done in distribution or retail to prevent the Maple Leaf listeria situation from happening; however, we have been actively working with the regulators and with the government bodies to share best practices and our lessons learned to help strengthen the Canadian food safety system.

Here are our recommendations, in conclusion. In an effort to draw learnings from last summer's outbreak, CCGD has identified four recommendations, which we believe will help strengthen the food safety framework.

First, government and industry must work from a mutually understood template for gathering information at the time of a recall. This will enhance and speed communication by assisting in gathering consistent, complete, accurate, and timely information, while avoiding differences from region to region, inspector to inspector, and company to company. Such a template should also include a clear list of questions about secondary products that were implied in the recall.

Second, consumers must be provided with complete and accurate information in a timely manner in recall notices and advisories issued by CFIA and in communication to media from government. In a rolling recall, things can get complicated and confusing, and therefore specific information must be provided early on. What I'm really saying is that we need to have consistency, clarity, and accuracy as soon as we can.

Third, to protect consumer confidence, which is paramount for all those in industry, and to protect safety, media must not be provided with information ahead of the industry. To keep consumers safe, retailers need to know as soon as the risk is identified, in order to remove a product from sale. We react from CFIA; we do not react to media. At a minimum, news releases issued by government departments must be accessible to all parties at the same time.

And finally, the fourth point—and we live this every day—there must be a credible third party to provide food-borne illness information to consumers in a contextual and timely manner. Often, consumers are hearing about things they don't understand on which they're given some directives. I think all of us need to work together to help provide context to maintain consumer confidence. In a time of crisis and fear, consumers want to know that there is a single credible voice they can rely on to provide them with accurate, science-based facts. This individual should be responsible for telling Canadians what the pathogen is, where it is found, who is most likely to be impacted, what the symptoms are, and what to do if they are experiencing the symptoms. We recommend that this information be made available in a generic manner, at all times, not just in times of crisis, for each food-borne pathogen.

To conclude, Mr. Chair, thank you again for allowing us to be here. While there is nothing we can see that could have been done at distribution at retail, we appreciate the opportunity to put these thoughts forward in the hope of helping to strengthen the Canadian food safety framework going forward. We are absolutely committed to doing that, day in and day out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

I'll now move to Chicken Farmers of Canada, to Mr. David Fuller and Mr. Mike Dungate.

[David Fuller]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have a copy of our presentation. It is not my intent to go through that entire presentation, but just to hit the highlights, if I could.

Chicken Farmers of Canada is a national organization funded completely through farmer levies. Chicken Farmers of Canada plays a key role in developing, partnering, and managing programs that augment the quality, safety, and competitiveness of Canadian chicken.

Through such on-farm programs as the food safety program “Safe, Safer, Safest!”, the animal care program, and the biosecurity initiatives, CFC works closely with government partners and industry stakeholders to keep the industry innovative and responsive.

Food safety has been and continues to be a critical priority for Chicken Farmers of Canada and the Canadian chicken industry. The foundation of our success story and a successful industry is the consumer confidence we have built and maintained in the safety and quality of Canadian chicken.

By taking a proactive approach to food safety, we contribute to the health of Canadians and reduce health costs associated with negative food safety issues. For this reason, we jealously guard our competitive advantage and actively challenge policies and actions or inactions that jeopardize it.

Without high food safety standards, the credibility of our products in the eyes of the consumers would plummet, and Canada would not have the benefit of a thriving industry that it enjoys today.

Chicken farmers across Canada have taken their responsibility for food safety at the farm level very seriously, by implementing an on-farm food safety program, by funding research directed at food safety, and by being actively involved in industry-government initiatives and committees addressing food safety.

Food safety, however, is not something that can be controlled solely on the farm. It is a joint effort among all parties in the supply chain, from farmers, processors, transporters, retailers, governments to consumers. The government plays a large role in providing confidence to Canadians that their food supply is one of the safest in the world. Government involvement in the process of ensuring consumers an equally safe supply of domestic and imported food cannot be taken for granted and cannot be compromised.

The federal government needs to complete the federal-provincial-territorial on-farm food safety recognition program. It needs to conduct an avian influenza incident post-mortem to address outstanding issues and improve current protocols. It needs to harmonize meat processing codes in Canada into a single federal standard. It needs to ensure that imported product meets the same high standards as Canadian chicken. It needs to maintain CFIA's pre-marketing label registration process. It needs to promote the strength and integrity of Canada's food safety system to the media and to the Canadian public. It needs to maintain the government presence at the federally inspected poultry processing plants. It also needs to increase investment in poultry research that delivers on society's priorities and educates consumers on their roles and responsibilities in food safety.

In 2001, federal, provincial, and territorial ministers agreed to a framework for the recognition of HACCP-based on-farm food safety assurance programs. These programs would be audited and their credibility assured through an FPT recognition process.

Chicken Farmers of Canada was a strong proponent of the FPT recognition process and has led the charge in developing and implementing CFC's on-farm food safety assurance program, “Safe, Safer, Safest!” CFC was the first to receive technical recognition for its producer manual in 2002 and the second to receive technical recognition for its management manual in 2006.

To date, more than 93% of chicken farms in Canada have been audited, and more than 83% are certified.

The third and final step of the recognition process, prior to receiving full recognition from the FPT, is a third-party audit of the chicken food safety system. CFC is preparing for this third step. Our organization is deeply concerned, however, that the government finalization of the criteria for the FPT recognition process has been stalled. Without FPT recognition, a decade of work will be put in jeopardy. This recommendation must become a higher priority for the government so that Chicken Farmers of Canada can achieve full implementation of its leading program.

Under animal health, the benefit of CFC's “Safe, Safer, Safest!” program is not just restricted to food safety. CFC has used its program as a platform to deliver enhanced animal health and animal care on Canadian chicken farms.

Since 2004, CFC has worked in partnership with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to develop protocols where there were none and to enhance those that already existed. This included government and industry disease preparedness, prevention, response, and recovery, such as enhanced biosecurity provisions, a pre-cull program, and an AI low pathogenic surveillance program.

Recent experiences with AI have demonstrated just how far Canada has come. But we can still do better. It is important for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to conduct a post-mortem of the 2009 incident with industry in B.C. We need to assess the effectiveness of our new protocols. We also need to address issues such as fair compensation for farmers that have remained unresolved since 2004.

Under animal care, much like the food safety program, CFC has developed, through consultations with industry stakeholders and experts in the field, an animal care program that has been supported for implementation by both the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. This program is being distributed to farmers and will be combined with the food safety audit in the coming year.

Food safety is a partnership. It is not enough for chicken farmers and the Canadian chicken industry to do their part. Food safety is a shared responsibility, provides a shared benefit, and therefore the cost must be shared. A key responsibility of government is to provide a consistent and comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure consumer confidence.

In Canada there are at least eleven different standards for processing chicken: one at the federal level and ten at the provincial level. As there is only one consumer, there is no reason that meat and meat products sitting side by side at the meat counter should meet different standards.

There have to be efforts to harmonize the meat code. In the past there have been efforts to harmonize the meat code with no success. Because past efforts have failed to establish one standard, it is critical that all parties, federally and provincially, commit to a new process of developing a single, acceptable federal meat processing standard in Canada.

One concern with a process that has different standards is that there are products that come into this country from outside of Canada. Those standards need to meet the same Canadian standards the Canadian chicken farmer has to meet, and today that is not happening.

Under labelling requirements, for both domestic and imported product, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has in place a pre-marketing label registration process. However, this valuable program is being terminated in favour of one that would only investigate problems as they arise. This is a move from prevention to reaction, something that goes against the food safety principle of HACCP. Switching to a reactional mode is not a progressive step. Canadian consumers assume that the Canadian government has done everything possible to ensure products on the shelf are safe.

I'd like to finish off with research. The CFC believes it is important to conduct research on food safety issues so that the chicken industry can pursue science-based programs and policies. In this regard, CFC is a founding member of the Canadian Poultry Research Council. The council is only six years old and it has been able to leverage $1.2 million from industry into $5.1 million of research funding.

Currently, research money under the Growing Forward program can only be allocated to projects that fall within the innovation and competitiveness outcome. Funding needs to be made available for such areas as food safety, which fall within the “contributing to society's priorities” outcome. Research funding under the Growing Forward program should not fund innovation to the exclusion of other very worthwhile research projects.

My final comment, Mr. Chairman, is that while CFC spends a significant amount of time and resources on food safety at the farm level, CFC is also involved in consumer education programs. CFC is a founding member of the Canadian Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education, a national association committed to educating Canadians about the ease and importance of food safety in the home.

The Canadian government should focus more attention on safe food handling. There are significant side benefits to appropriate food safety measures, and government should consider education programs on an ongoing basis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Lynn Wilcott from the BC Centre for Disease Control. I understand you have a document that was just passed around to everybody.

[The Clerk of the Subcommittee, Mr. Andrew Chaplin]

They were just his speaking notes. We needed them for the translators.