Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on May 6th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I see. They were passed to the interpreters. That was my mistake.

Go ahead, Mr. Wilcott. You have 10 minutes.

[Lynn Wilcott, Acting Program Director, Food Protection Services, BC Centre for Disease Control]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't think it would actually do much good to pass around my speaking notes, because they'd probably be just about impossible for anyone to read.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I misunderstood the clerk.

[Lynn Wilcott]

And I apologize for not having anything prepared for the group to follow along with. It was just confirmed on Monday that I was coming here today. At the time I was at a conference in Kananaskis, Alberta, so I wasn't at my office.

Anyway, I was asked to come here to provide comments and our views, from a provincial viewpoint, regarding our communication and how we work with the CFIA. Neither I nor our department was directly involved with the listeriosis outbreak or the investigation of the plant. We certainly were involved in the recall and in helping ensure the product was removed from the shelves.

I'm with the BCCDC, the BC Centre for Disease Control. It's an agency of the Provincial Health Services Authority. My department specifically is food protection services, and our business is to prevent food-borne illness.

I'll just give a short introduction of what we do, just some of the things we do in our department. We provide inspection services to provincially licensed processing plants, such as dairy, meat, fish, etc. We provide technical support to the regional health authorities, in terms of food safety and policy guideline development for the province. Where we start to work with the CFIA, from an outbreak or a recall viewpoint, is that our department participates in and coordinates outbreak investigations. Often there'll be an outbreak before the food is identified. In fact, that's the more usual route.

The other thing we do is liaise between the CFIA and the regional health authorities, the folks on the ground, the public health inspectors in the field.

So when the province works with the CFIA, there are really two areas we work in. I'll just divide them up into non-recall outbreak-related work and then everything else.

On everything else, operational programs, we actually work really well with the CFIA. This is day-to-day work we do. There's overlap, say, with the dairy program. Plants may be federally registered, but they're also provincially licensed, so there's an overlap there. And we work extremely well with our CFIA colleagues in those operational day-to-day operations. As well, even with the folks in Ottawa, we're involved in federal-provincial-territorial committees. Again, we have a very good working relationship.

Now, turning to food recalls and outbreaks, during routine food recalls—these might be allergens or outbreaks where there are no illnesses involved—again, we have a good working relationship, good communication with our CFIA colleagues. Where things seem to go off the rails is during recalls where there are illnesses involved, or potential for illnesses, or potential adverse publicity, or even prior to a recall, when we as a province are doing an illness or outbreak investigation. This is the point, in those kinds of examples, where the CFIA becomes very reluctant to share information openly and freely.

To illustrate why this is important for us, as a province, doing these investigations, I'll just explain quickly what happens during an illness investigation.

Typically, what happens is that a patient is sick and they go to their doctor or to the emergency; they present themselves. The doctor examines them, diagnoses them, suspects that it might be food-borne illness, and may take a stool or blood sample to confirm the illness.

I want to back up a little bit. Almost all outbreaks are first identified in the field by public health officials; they're not identified by lab tests or results of plant inspections. That's not where they're identified. They're identified in the field by identifying these cases. So the people submit stool samples or blood samples, they're tested, and an organism, species, might be identified. If an organism is found, it'll be genetically fingerprinted.

At the same time, after the organism is confirmed, the patient will be interviewed. We'll do a case history on the patient, get a food history, and find out what they ate, because at this point we have no idea what it might be. It's an investigation that really starts in the dark.

Now that, in itself, is problematic, because you're often interviewing people and you have to find out what they ate two weeks ago, three weeks ago, because there's a time delay in lab tests. In fact, for a lot of organisms—what they ate—the symptoms don't present themselves for several days. With listeria monocytogenes, it can be as long as 70 days between the time the person eats the food and begins to present symptoms.

We do the case history, and then what happens is we start to find clusters. All the results from all of these case histories are gathered provincially and we look at them. We start getting clusters, where maybe you'll see a blip in the number of cases of salmonella and they all have the same genetic fingerprint, so you realize there's potentially a connection.

So you go to their food histories. You look at what commonalities there might be. If you're lucky, you find commonalities. If you don't, you have to re-interview the people. At some point, hopefully, you get similar foods that were consumed by the different people.

If it's a food that was produced in a processing plant or if it's an imported food, this is the point at which we would contact the CFIA. It's the point at which we need additional information in order to be able to confirm or identify what food made them sick, because sometimes you might get more than one hit, and it might be that more than one food is related between people.

You want to get information like distribution patterns. Was that food distributed where your patients lived? Was it distributed with a certain lot number or code number? Was it distributed at the time when the person would have been buying the food?

Other information that's useful is information about the processing plant that it might have come from. Are there any test results from that processing plant? Or were the results from the inspection quite poor? This is just additional information that we need as a province and as outbreak investigators in order to be able to identify and confirm a food.

This is the information that the CFIA is often reluctant to give and to share with us. Not sharing that information makes it very difficult for the province to confirm or identify the contaminated foods.

I'm almost done, but I will say that an outbreak investigation is a lot like putting together a puzzle. You start out with just a very few pieces. As you're going along, additional pieces to that puzzle keep getting added. If you don't get all the pieces of the puzzle, it's very hard to finish the puzzle. That's part of the problem that we sometimes have with the CFIA. They are sometimes reluctant to freely and openly share that information we need at the beginning of an outbreak investigation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to the cattlemen. We have with us Mr. Dan Ferguson from the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and Mr. John Masswohl from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

You have 10 minutes, gentlemen.

[John Masswohl, Director, Governmental and International Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to make just a few brief comments and then turn it over to Dan Ferguson.

I would say that the situation among cattle producers is very similar to what Mr. Fuller outlined. Food safety is something that producers take very seriously. We're keenly aware that consumers insist that the food they purchase is safe--and so they should. At the same time, the things that producers can do are fairly limited.

That said, Canadian cattle producers are committed to ensuring that the beef they produce is safe for all consumers. Keep in mind that this includes their own families, so they have a personal interest in making sure that food is safe.

At the same time, beef production in Canada also operates in a competitive environment, so we have to be aware that beef purchasers in both the domestic and the export market will want to choose beef based on a number of factors. We're going to want to make sure not only that they have confidence that what we produce is safe, but that we produce it at a competitive price so they will choose that Canadian product.

We have developed a number of things. In fact, we've developed an extensive on-farm food safety program. We call it “verified beef production”. Under that program, we provide training to producers so they have all the latest knowledge to produce wholesome and healthy beef.

Dan delivers that program in Ontario so he is going to outline some of the aspects of that verified beef production program.

[Dan Ferguson, Coordinator, Verified Beef Production - Quality Starts Here, Ontario Cattlemen's Association]

Thank you for having me here today.

The program I'm involved in is the verified beef program. It's a national HACCP-based program that has received CFIA technical review on a national basis.

I've been delivering the program to farmers in a workshop format for five years. So my level of expertise is from meeting directly with the farmers at the workshop level.

Nationally, we have the same program delivered right across the country. What is delivered in Ontario is also delivered in Alberta. That's very important for this group to know.

Nationally, we have over 12,000 producers who have been through our workshops, with the majority of those in Alberta, of course. There are financial incentives there to encourage producers to go through the program. There are 4,500 producers in our program in Alberta, with 2,500 here in Ontario, followed by Manitoba and Saskatchewan. As I said, certain provinces have extra financial incentives to encourage uptake of the program. Obviously, beef is not a supply-managed commodity, so to get the producers to come to the workshop you sometimes need a little carrot.

The VBP program participates in and shares program developments with other commodities through the Canadian On-Farm Food Safety Working Group, and it looks at solving common challenges with those other commodities. A recent project compared our program with similar ones in the United States and Australia and pointed to some advantages, such as the standardization of our national program in terms of both producer requirements and conformance assessments.

On the farm, producers continue to point to the immediate benefits they see from taking part in the program, such as improved efficiency of animal health product use. Whether they are large or small operations, reviews of their practices seem to yield a small analysis showing them what they can do better on their farms. That's a bit surprising, because most of the early adopters of our program are considered to be the well-run facilities, which are out there trying to be at the front edge of the program.

We go through five different standard operating procedures when we're delivering the program at these workshops. It's a proactive HACCP-based format that we're using, and it's producer-driven. We're trying to identify potential food safety hazards, such as chemical residues from animal health use, and physical hazards from possible broken needle fragments at processing time.

We cover these five operating procedures in that workshop format, and we go through animal health management, feeding and watering, cattle shipping, pesticide control, manure management, training of staff, and communications.

I think most of the group has heard how that works through some of the other commodities, so I won't draw you into each of those SOPs, because they're specific to on-farm programs. But by using these operating procedures and the record templates we set the farmers up with, we have a higher level of assurance that the food safety measures are being met on farm.

I think that's how I'll conclude.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you for being brief. That was good.

Mr. Robert McLean, from the Keystone Agricultural Procedures of Manitoba.

[Robert McLean, Vice-President, Keystone Agricultural Producers]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good evening to you and to members of the committee and speakers and guests. I'm certainly pleased to be in attendance to present to you on the importance of food safety.

I'm the Keystone Agricultural Producers vice-president. As well, I'm an active member on our livestock and traceability committee.

Keystone Agricultural Producers is a general farm policy organization representing the interests of a wide variety of agricultural producers. In relation to food safety, KAP sees its responsibility as aggregating the concerns common to all agricultural producers as well as specifically supporting and promoting the needs of all commodities, including the smaller sectors, in Manitoba.

Food safety remains a top priority for Canadian agricultural producers. We have a responsibility to deliver healthy and safe products to consumers. As well, our livelihoods depend on our ability to guarantee the safety and quality of our product to domestic and international consumers. Proper programs and systems need to be in place to deal with the realities of food-borne illness, animal disease outbreaks, and other food safety problems in order to maintain the confidence of our consumers.

My presentation today will focus on some of the general issues related to agriculture as a whole, what producers are doing to address these issues, and where the industry needs increased government support.

Producers address food safety through three broad and related systems: on-farm food safety programs, biosecurity programs, and tracking and traceability programs.

On-farm food safety programs are typically industry guarantees of product quality. Commodity groups are responsible for developing and administering these programs, and you've certainly had some of the commodity groups bringing that forward.

An example I want to give you is CQA. That's the Canadian quality assurance program throughout Canada. One of the things that happened with CQA was that when we did the CQA on-farm for pork, we had hoped that once we did this food safety program, there would be a premium, plus market access. We've had the market access, but unfortunately the premium has dried up.

Producers are willing to prove that the food they produce is safe through these programs, but government must know there is an economic cost to producers to do so. Safe food is a public good that government bears some responsibility for. While industry is willing to lead the way, there is a need for cost to be offset by government on behalf of society, possibly through tax credits or incentive-based programs.

Certain groups of consumers have shown that they're willing to pay for food that complies with specific certification, be it organic or locally grown. These foods are differentiated from non-certified foods and command a higher market price. Because there is the expectation that all food sold in Canada is safe, there is no price premium paid to Canadian producers who pay the costs associated with providing safe food, yet they compete with international producers who do not always pay the same costs. David did bring up that point.

One of the questions you have to ask is whether the imported food meets the same food safety, environmental, and labour standards as ours. My answer would be that it does not.

Further, smaller sectors such as sheep and goats, which do not have the financial resources of the much larger commodity groups, require additional help to develop on-farm food safety programs. The smaller livestock producers do not have the required human resources to develop the programs on their own, but they are no less important because of their smaller market share.

Biosecurity programs are again commodity group-led initiatives to protect animals and prevent the spread of disease. As has been highlighted through the H1N1 situation, the Canadian pork industry is a leader in biosecurity measures and disease control protocols, but government help is required in developing biosecurity programs for commodities that currently lack programs. These are commodities that do not commonly operate in controlled environments, as the pork and the supply-managed sectors do. Non-confined animals pose a much more difficult situation for biosecurity. Government must work with these commodities and organizations to ensure that proper biosecurity measures are developed.

Further, non-agricultural government organizations and the general public must be properly informed and trained about biosecurity and disease prevention. Some of us have heard of instances where people have entered a farm site without checking to see what biosecurity protocols are in place and without the consent of the farm owner. In Manitoba, Keystone Agricultural Producers acted quickly, working along with the provincial government to put together a workshop to train those government inspectors and others frequenting farms about the importance of biosecurity and what to expect when they do on-farm inspections.

Finally, tracking and traceability programs are intended to provide government and industry with a responsive capacity to deal with a disease outbreak when it occurs. Product can be traced back to the farm. When the origin is identified through a premise identification system, other products delivered from that source can be followed the other way through the chain and recalled. Further, in the event of a contagious animal disease, the origin can be isolated quickly and the incident dealt with.

The critical work that needs to be done with this system is to develop national standards for all commodities. Programs can be administered in partnership with provincial governments and commodity groups, which will interact with producers at the grassroots level. But national standards are crucial. If provinces have competing programs for market access, it will create a difficult situation for exporters in all provinces. Sellers would be unable to provide clear information about food safety programs to foreign buyers.

The federal government also bears responsibility to ensure there are national guidelines in place. When there is a failure in one province, it is the entire country that suffers from closed borders and lost market opportunities.

In summary, Canadian agricultural producers and government agencies have some of the tools and programs at their disposal to ensure that the food they produce is safe, their animals are healthy, and in the event of a food safety incident, the source can be isolated and dealt with in a timely manner. There are some gaps in these programs that need to be addressed. Some are commodity specific, where one industry lags behind another; some are universal to all commodities.

The federal government has three critical tasks in front of it. One, it has to develop national guidelines for tracking and tracing food safety and biosecurity, with enough flexibility to be adapted to each province without being compromised. Two, it has to ensure there's producer participation in these programs by providing proper incentives for voluntary participation. This will not only encourage active participation in the system, but compared to a regulatory regime, producers will be more likely to comply if their efforts are compensated. And three, a strategy needs to be developed by the federal government on how to move the entire food industry forward on the issue of food safety, with targeted resources to ensure that the Canadian industry remains and grows more competitive internationally.

The provision of safe food is the responsibility of all Canadians--producers, processors, retailers, consumers, and governments alike. We need to work together towards this common goal for the health and safety of Canadians and our foreign consumers, as well as for the economic well-being of our food production system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much, Mr. McLean.

We'll now move into questioning.

Mr. Easter, for seven minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, folks, and thank you all for coming and for your presentations.

I'll turn to you first, Mr. Wilcott. You said that CFIA is basically reluctant to share information openly. I guess I'm of the point of view that in terms of this listeriosis issue, we needed a much stronger inquiry than we're currently getting. Some of us wonder whether, with the potential of an election in the wind, there may have been some political pressure not to share information as well.

Your statements are somewhat along the line of those from the Ontario medical officer of health. I'll quote it to you. In their report, they stated that the process followed by CFIA, specifically with respect to the repeated recalls:

created the impression that the response was not well organized, and contributed to the public's sense of unease and confusion. It also made it more difficult for the public health units to plan and organize their efforts.

I'm wondering from you if that's been your experience with CFIA.

Secondly, the other problem.... I will admit, I was shocked at the president of the CFIA's statement here that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is not responsible for food safety in this country. Now, if they're not, who is? Who should be? That's my question to you.

[Lynn Wilcott]

The listeriosis outbreak last summer was a unique situation, a unique outbreak and recall. Wave after wave of different products were recalled. I can't speak for CFIA in how they were determining what was coming up. As I said before, I wasn't involved in the plant investigation.

From a public health viewpoint, it was confusing, and it was difficult to operate under that system with different products coming out, because in our province we made an agreement with the CFIA that we would be responsible for verifying that the product was removed from certain establishments. Our responsibility was for institutions, hospitals, and long-term care facilities as well as food service restaurants.

The number of facilities involved was in the thousands, and as different products were recalled, our inspectors had to go back to these facilities and verify that. So it was a difficult time. It was a difficult outbreak.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I raised the question, although we certainly would like to determine responsibility here because that's not the role of Ms. Weatherill. She's not going to determine responsibility; she's going to determine where we go from here. But we too are going to have to make some recommendations on moving forward, and a number of recommendations were presented here this morning in several of the briefs.

The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors mentioned that there needs to be a single, credible voice. Can you expand on that? We've had CFIA, we've had the Canadian health authority, and we've had Health Canada here, and at the end of it they admitted it's a shared responsibility. My experience with shared responsibility is that no one is really responsible. The minister is certainly not taking any responsibility. So what's your view?

[Nick Jennery]

Mr. Chair, I would point to the current H1N1 situation, where Dr. David Butler-Jones is consistently out there with a message. People know who he is. They recognize it, they follow the story. If we look at the BSE crisis, I think CFIA did a good job with Dr. Brian Evans. He was out there early. He was providing the context. There was continuity of message.

I understand these things can be complicated and I understand they can come at you fast and furiously. I see an incremental improvement, and it's something we hear from consumers in our stores.

[An hon. member]

Except with listeriosis.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes.

[Nick Jennery]

As to who that expert is, I leave it to the government as to who the most appropriate--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It would even be nice to have a minister who didn't go into hiding.

On the chicken producers, David, your brief says “ensure imported product meets the same high standards as Canadian chicken”, and that's something we're hearing a lot of in all products that end up on grocery store shelves.

Is imported product meeting the same standards as Canadian product, either in terms of its production or the quality control systems environment it's produced under? If not, why not? What has to be done to make it so?

[David Fuller]

I can use one very simple example that will answer a number of your questions.

A number of antibiotics are not certified to be used in Canada, but a product that comes into Canada has the capacity to be able to use those antibiotics. It puts us at less of a competitive edge, and if antibiotics are not approved for use in Canada, then product that is coming into Canada should not be able to have that same kind of treatment.

That's just a simple example. We need to have a simple standard, where if it is not acceptable in Canada, it cannot be acceptable for product that comes into Canada, that feeds Canadians. That has to have the same standard.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Who should pay for it? I find in this country producers are asked to cover a lot of the cost of food safety while in other countries it's covered by the public sector to a great extent.

[David Fuller]

It should be a shared responsibility among all of us. You need to look at different aspects. Even in processing it's different, and the pre-market label approval that we talked about--these are key components that we believe must be maintained in the country, that's for sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bellavance, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

For those who do not understand French, please take a moment to find the right channel so that you will understand my questions.

Mr. Wilcott, my initial questions are for you. Your agency reports directly to the Ministry of Health of British Columbia, does it not?

[Lynn Wilcott]

That's right.

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

You were saying that your day-to-day relations with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency were very good. However, you did say that the Agency did sometimes fail to share sufficient information.

I would like to know why you made that comment, and whether you have a specific example of a situation where the Agency did in fact fail to share sufficient information.