Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and
Forestry
Issue 3 - Evidence
Ottawa, Thursday, May 9, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day, at 10:00 a.m., to consider its order of reference to study the present state and future of agriculture in Canada, consideration of issues related to the production of raw milk cheese..
Senator Dan Hays (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Senators, I call our meeting to order.
We have as a witness today, from the Dairy Farmers of Canada, Mr. Claude Rivard, to pursue our inquiry into matters raised by our colleague Senator Riel.
Welcome, Mr. Rivard. Please proceed with your presentation.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Rivard, President, Dairy Farmers of Canada: I myself am a dairy farmer from the Matapedia Valley region of Quebec, east of Rimouski. My colleague, Mr. Réjean Bouchard, is an employee of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. I simply have a brief presentation and I think we will be in a much better position to exchange views afterwards. I will then answer your questions or your concerns.
I am pleased to have been provided the opportunity to appear before the committee today to discuss Health Canada's proposed amendment to the Food and Drug Regulations in regard to cheese made from raw milk. At the outset, I'd like to state that raw milk cheese production in Canada is a very small, but no less important segment of the dairy industry. In Quebec alone, the production of cheese made from raw milk represents less than half of one percent of the province's total cheese production. Approximately 98-99 per cent of cheese produced in Canada is made from pasteurized milk. Raw milk cheese production ranges from 50,000 to 65,000 kg per year compared to overall cheese production in Canada which is 305,000,000 kg annually.
The Canadian production of raw milk cheese was almost non-existent five years ago. It is a developing niche market and the production is mainly concentrated in the province of Quebec. Raw milk cheese producers are also found in the provinces of BC, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Total consumption of raw milk cheese is relatively small accounting for 0.2 per cent of total cheese consumption in Canada. Historically, Dairy Farmers of Canada has been supportive of proposed regulatory amendments prohibiting the sale of raw or unpasteurized milk. DFC had a long-standing policy regarding the sale of raw milk to consumers and in 1990, extended its support to regulations pertaining to control of raw milk destined for cheese production.
That support was based on evidence demonstrating that a health risk existed from the contamination of products by pathogenic bacteria like Salmonella, Brucella and Campylobacter. That must be a major bacterium. Today, as in the early 90s, and despite what the media is reporting, the regulation of raw milk cheese production in Canada is an issue of human health and safety. Dairy Farmers of Canada has maintained that it cannot oppose a measure which is aimed at protecting the health of consumers and which ensures the safety of dairy products. However, in mid-April, following extensive media coverage in the province of Quebec which clouded the intent of the proposed regulation, DFC made various requests to the Minister of Health.
First, DFC urged the Minister to table the scientific information supporting Health Canada's proposed regulation. Finally, DFC asked that the Minister extend the 75-day consultation period to permit the establishment of a national public forum where health experts and dairy technologists could shed light on the risks associated with raw milk cheese consumption. In response to DFC's requests, the Minister of Health has established an expert advisory committee that will review comments received from the industry made during the consultation period and a question and answer type fact sheet was also developed to mitigate negative media coverage.
Further to this, Dairy Farmers of Canada will also be consulting with its members, its partners in the processing sector and raw milk cheese producer/processors from across Canada next Monday, May 13th to try and develop an industry consensus on the proposed regulation and prepare a recommendation to the Department of Health on a possible third element to add to the current regulation to ensure that consumer health and safety is not compromised. I thank you and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
Senator Rossiter: Thank you for your presentation. What gave rise to this issue? There is an allegation that the big cheese corporations may have lobbied for these amendments. Is there any truth to those allegations?
[Translation]
Mr. Rivard: In the public debate, I believe that if I had to give credit with respect to public opinion, in terms of preparing public opinion, I would probably give it to the people who were in imports. It must be seen that everyone in Canada has perceived that it was the poor little producers versus the big processing industry versus government or even versus producers in general.
With respect to the issue, I'm going to put it in the Quebec context for you. I'm going to give an example in Quebec because it is the main province where this type of product is made. There are 17 processors that make this kind of product. Ten of the 17 in fact do what is called a preheating of heat-treated milk. You should know that there is cheese that is made from pasteurized milk, from heat-treated milk and from raw milk. So 10 of the 17 processors that simply do a preheating nevertheless have significant volume, that is 6.7 million litres, which is used in this niche.
With respect to the Canadian and Quebec regulatory framework, the Régie des marchés agricoles has issued licences to these processors for many years. In Quebec, there are seven that strictly produce the kind of cheese of concern to us this morning, cheese made from raw milk, and these people use 60,000 litres of milk for Quebec. And to give you the size of the industry, in Quebec, a little more than 2.57 billion litres are processed year over year and an average farm in Quebec produces approximately 280,000 litres. Together, these seven producers process 60,000 litres, as I mentioned.
So this is why I gave the public relations award to the importers because these people did a very good public relations job. Imagine, not even the equivalent of a single Quebec farm's production of non-pasteurized milk, and they were able to support public opinion for a few weeks in Quebec and in a few other regions of Canada as well. It's not really a small producer-large producer issue. I'm going to try to demystify it for you. When the Department of Health and Welfare amended its regulations in 1991, we agreed. The Department said: All the milk in Canada must be pasteurized, except milk for cheese manufacturing which may be unpasteurized, but as long as you have a 60-day storage period, and, at that time, with the information we had at the time, that seemed to suggest that all the bacteria were destroyed during that storage period.
So it's little like what I mentioned to you a moment ago. Later on, there were studies by researchers who proved it to the Department of Health and Welfare. It has now been proven that, during the 60-day incubation period, the bacteria that could pose a problem for human health were not all destroyed. The filing of a notice of motion by the Department of Health and Welfare to amend the regulations and to prohibit it comes from that. As a result of the major protest in Canada and other regions of Canada, certain businesses were closed and this was associated with a small business versus big business issue.
What we as an organization think in light of the debate and certain messages that were sent and -- With your permission, I'm going to distribute a press clipping which referred extensively to us. Perhaps Réjean can circulate it.
[English]
Senator Rossiter: Is it not a fact that there are very few cases of illness? Our information is that even less deaths resulting from eating raw-milk cheese have ever been reported. Has it been determined whether the cause is the cheese or negligence, or are they just not that ill?
[Translation]
Mr. Rivard: Please note that I am not a specialist; I am a farmer. I operate with my friends from Health and Welfare and it is they who, in my view, are the specialists who must set us the best course and of course we must accept their opinions with respect to public safety. However, we must also assess the reasonable level of risk and I think that this is somewhat the question you are raising: reasonable risk. There has been no epidemic in Canada and that is for certain. There has been in France and in Switzerland; I believe that you have seen the figures as I have.
Is this the right process? Shouldn't we consider other approaches, somewhat as is done for imports? Shouldn't certain analyses be required for the products, on each manufacturing batch, as is the case when there are imports? These are questions that we are going to put to the Department of Health and Welfare, to the various authorities. That's one factor. There are new processes, but we don't know whether it can kill them. In some regions of the country, you have seen milk appear that is not necessarily pasteurized now. All the bacteria have been eliminated. This technique is called ultrafiltration and, from what we've been told, 99.8 percent of the bacteria are eliminated by these processes. So could these be alternatives?
Senator Bacon: Hello, Mr. Rivard. I'm looking at the press clipping you have circulated. It states at one point that the commercialization of raw milk is permitted to the extent that the cheese is stored at two degrees for at least 60 days. But it adds that many cheeses may not be consumed after that date and there could be -- I think a fairly tough charge is being made here -- people, importers or retailers, who have the date falsified. Have you as an organization looked into this? Are these allegations true or is what is being said entirely false?
Mr. Rivard: Look, you see people who make statements; Mr. Hanchay, who is the head of food inspection, recognizes it implicitly. And, on the other hand, you have senior people at Agriculture Canada who recognize it. We don't have inspection services; that is the role of the Canadian government. In fact, what is happening is that the Department of Health and Welfare enacts regulations and Agriculture Canada enforces them. A question can be decoded. I was very much in favour of the regulations before seeing the public debate. With the information we had been given at the time, you'll understand that, based on that, I could have given you more of the same, statements by people in Ottawa. This led to us getting involved when I mentioned the reasonable risk to you a moment ago. It's at that level.
And perhaps for the first point that you mentioned, with few exceptions, the bacteria cannot survive in soft cheeses for more than 60 days. This explains why, in my view, the current work is not necessarily being well done. I am not a specialist, may I remind you, because some of these types of cheeses are imported and, if they do not survive in Canada, they are nevertheless not making a bad product in France. So with respect to imports, there is probably something to consider in this area.
Senator Bacon: But when you buy cheese, the date it was made and the date until which it can be eaten are indicated. You see the dates. If you exceed those dates by too much, you know very well that you may be taking a risk. How far are you prepared to go to accept changes to the packaging of raw milk cheeses?
Mr. Rivard: There is another similar approach, labelling. I mentioned it a moment ago. And that's where we are involved. The Dairy Farmers of Canada have invested $28 million solely in promotion, marketing and nutritional health research. So we are promoting our products in Canada.
Senator Bacon: But you aren't vulnerable to the criticism that is being made. In fact, have things been done?
Mr. Rivard: Yes, but, on the other hand, this can cause some discredit, and I'll explain. If, for example, we said: To correct this, so consumers are aware of the risk they run if they buy this kind of product, then we could say of this product -- somewhat as you have on cigarette packages, though perhaps not in such an extreme manner -- that it may affect or could contain bacteria such as Salmonella. That's an example of labelling.
But you and I are consumers as well and you have a display of dairy products. You have two or three types of cheeses that have a slightly larger label that discloses these factors. I think that's true. However, will consumers in general draw the distinction or, after reading the label, will they come to the assessment that a large part of the cheese may be at risk? These are the questions we have. If we have to turn to labelling, we're not saying that we shouldn't look at this avenue, at least in order to avoid liability. If there is a poisoning in Canada, and I don't at all hope there will be, with this kind of product, who will be liable? Health and Welfare? Agriculture Canada? The processor that made it? The farmer who will have produced it? Who will be named in the action?
So we are liable as much as all the citizens of Canada. This involves us and this is how we must see it. Labelling is one way, an analysis of the product, but not solely through what is called a "check point". Perhaps more should be required. As we will see next week in Ottawa, some processors are not opposed to somewhat stricter inspections. Where you are going to hear an outcry, and I may be mistaken, is from importers. They are going to be less interested in having more regular inspections.
I don't know whether you have examined the figures that Health and Welfare or Agriculture Canada published some time ago concerning border entries, the percentage of cheeses that were either returned to the country of origin or simply destroyed. That's where I say to myself: If we don't have something valid, this poses a risk to the health of Canadian citizens. When you think that, in 1994, 25 percent, 25.8 percent of imported products did not meet standards. And in 1995-1996, of course, the period was not over. We're talking about a little more than 20 percent. So if we had not had this mechanism, all the media attention, the media "spots" told us was there was no problem. I'm forced to realize that there is a problem.
We are lucky in Canada. We have the strictest standards for the production and storage of milk on the farm in North America. We have disciplined ourselves as producers with our regulations. But some of these bacteria can develop different processes. If it is poorly stored, even if your product does not originally contain any, some types of bacteria could result in food poisoning.
So I call this a reasonable risk and, not being a specialist ...
Senator Bacon: But you were consulted by Health Canada before they made their assault on raw milk cheeses?
Mr. Rivard: Yes, we indeed supported the regulations because they aim for total safety, because the risk is not existent. You saw the reactions of certain processors, but also of certain consumers. Out of ignorance or interest, these people said: We want to have this kind of cheese. I don't know whether you saw the program, I believe it was Enjeux. Tasting specialists such as Gaston L'Heureux and other specialists did not pass the test. During the period when this was a hot topic, in the last three weeks, everyone became specialists. Everyone wanted raw milk cheese. It merely represented .2 percent of our consumption in Canada. We don't want to kill this industry.
Senator Bacon: We are all specialists. Thank you, Mr. Rivard.
[English]
Senator Taylor: Thank you very much for taking the time to appear here. I started my career many years ago working in a dairy, before they had milking machines. That is probably one of the reasons I decided to go into politics -- and milk the public instead.
We are told that the production of raw milk in Canada is 305 kilos annually. How much is imported? Is that amount greater than this amount?
[Translation]
Mr. Rivard: Imports represent 20,000 tonnes, to give you an order of magnitude. And perhaps, if you allow me to ask you this question, many people, either in the political debate or in public opinion, have associated that with saying: Well, Canada wants to protect itself against imports. It's not that at all. As the GATT rules are written -- this is an example -- of those 20,000 tonnes, if there is a small percentage which, let's say if the regulations applied and the Europeans could no longer export this type of product, then they could export pasteurized cheese. In economic terms, we have committed to opening part of the market. So Canada must respect its commitments and we agree. You see a good example there. Our journalists, with all due respect, unfortunately did not conduct a thorough analysis of the issue.
[English]
Senator Taylor: I am surprised that the number is so low. Perhaps my math is wrong; if you convert 20,000 tonnes to kilos to comes out to 20 million kilos -- or is it 200 million kilos? Whichever it is, it is not that much.
We have seen cigarette companies, particularly in the U.S., being sued as a result of the danger involved with their product. Now that Health Canada has announced that there is a danger involved with this product, has your association looked into the possibility of processors being sued if someone becomes ill?
[Translation]
Mr. Rivard: It all depends if there's an example, in my view, and I'm not a legal expert; with all due respect, I am only a producer. If the producers and processors have met wholesomeness standards in Canada, the standards currently in place -- for example, if there were an epidemic -- I can't tell you what level would be concerned.
In the United States, for example, they are much more restrictive than we are. For example, they simply prohibit imports of the soft cheeses I mentioned to you a moment ago. So you see there's a fairly sharp clarification at that point, with respect to unpasteurized milk, of course. However, with respect to the other, as long as you haven't gone that far, it's all speculation. Yes, this is the case for cigarettes, but, from the moment someone complies with all the rules that the various departments, be it Health and Welfare or Agriculture Canada, have put in place, the milk has been produced, processed and stored. In this scenario, who is sued -- Ultimately, there could be certain types of bacteria; you have seen this, particularly in buffets; there are food poisonings. Storage is very important, for cheese and other foods. At that point, even if your product meets standards, it would be fairly difficult to define liability, to say in what place, depending on the type of bacteria, the poisoning occurred. It may be easy in some cases, more difficult in others.
[English]
Senator Rossiter: Is it only this particular type of cheese from Canada that is not allowed into the U.S? Is European cheese allowed in?
[Translation]
Mr. Rivard: Currently, the same 60-day rule applies for imported cheese. I would tell you that we in Canada are not different from elsewhere; New Zealand, Australia, many countries, the United States are even stricter than we are.
Senator Prud'homme: The question is as follows: Does only cheese made in Canada not enter the United States or do no soft cheeses at all enter the United States?
Mr. Rivard: I mentioned that the Americans prohibit those cheeses. To draw a distinction over the importing of soft cheeses, I'll give you the example of France. Does that answer your question? As long as it meets these standards, cheddar will be accepted in the United States, just as European cheddar will be accepted in the United States, but soft cheese cannot be kept as long. So as a result of the 60-day limit, they are, to a certain degree, taken out of the market.
[English]
Senator Rossiter: I was referring only to these particular varieties of cheese.
Senator Taylor: Would Roquefort and Parmesan cheese come under the ban if the proposed regulations took effect?
[Translation]
Mr. Rivard: I'm not sure about Roquefort, but I can tell you that grated Parmesan -- You have someone -- I say that with all due respect to the people -- when the Liberal Party met some time ago in Quebec, I believe people laughed, with all due respect to them, because it is a cheese that is cooked. So by its nature, you destroy all the bacteria and it is heated to a high temperature. So you see that, even there, there was a job of informing our elected members that was not well done. It is impossible for this type of cheese to be prohibited, even under the new rule; it can even ultimately be exported. Réjean tells me jokingly that we can export it because we already make it here in Canada. But I think this is an example of ignorance of the issue and we have taken an issue that is nevertheless important, but we have adulterated it as a result of the interventions and that is very unfortunate.
Senator Riel: Mr. Rivard, that is why we wanted to have you come, to invite you, to hear you, because we wanted to understand what was going on. We understand that the newspapers, the media, are making major efforts to present the stark truth to us, but sometimes it is fairly confused. To understand properly, I told you in our conversation a moment ago that I had received a telephone call from Mr. Jacques Simard, who told me that he belonged to a communications company for raw milk cheese producers. You know these people; do they belong to your association?
Mr. Rivard: I would say that -- I'm going to do it in two parts. This gentleman -- I have known his name for two weeks -- came to us. He was hired by people, which is dangerous and we are going to have a frank talk with each other --
Senator Riel: That's why you are here.
Mr. Rivard: There is the whole outcry over raw milk manufactured in Canada. I have no problem and I think we in Canada are going to find a way to ensure that this industry lives on. If there are consumers who want it, and that's what I think, together we can find -- We are intelligent people; we are going to be able to preserve this industry, while preserving the safety of our consumers' food; the objective is the same.
But what is more dangerous or what troubles me more is this: we are hitched to a convoy. There are a number of wagons. This is the imported cheese wagon, and you know that there are a few dollars to be made when you import these types of products. First, they are products made using subsidies in Europe -- I don't know whether you know the industry -- subsidies of 35 to 46 per cent, whereas we have virtually no more in Canada. Thus, producers assume full liability in Canada.
So what has happened is that our importers, who have import permits, import quotas, have probably seen a decline in this manna as a result of this order. So they have hitched their wagon to jobs in Canada. Thus, you have seen an issue built up over not very much milk, but I think we are going to find a way to keep this processing in Canada under strict rules, but they have major financial means behind this. There's money behind this; there's profitability. Look, when you see these imported cheeses, some of which cost perhaps $10 to $15 a kilo and are resold to consumers for $30 or $42 a kilo, someone back there is making millions, even if volumes are not significant. This is where I have difficulty: it's not necessarily the producers; I have not seen who is paying this gentleman, but it is probably our importers. This gentlemen has even been invited next week, next Monday.
The other factor that I want to tell you about regarding producers is that my annual meeting was two weeks ago. We have about 12,000 dairy farmers in Quebec. It was the annual meeting of the Producteurs laitiers du Québec and the motion we passed together states that we should make all the necessary representations to the Canadian government so that the bill respecting regulation 836 amending the Food and Drug Regulations be amended to permit the manufacture of cheeses made from pasteurized milk, heat treated milk and raw milk, with rules, of course, that I hope we will determine together here in Canada.
So imports are one thing in my mind, but production in Canada is another. So that somewhat what I wanted to do. The gentleman you mentioned -- I don't know him -- is probably paid by someone else than producers.
Last item that I want to mention to you concerning the farmers. These same farmers were present at our annual meeting and many of them endorsed this position. Yesterday, the Quebec government conducted a similar consultation. You know that the National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution similar to the one I just read you. It was passed unanimously, therefore by all the parties in Quebec --
Senator Riel: Do you have a copy?
Mr. Rivard: I don't have a copy of the motion, but we can send it to you, the one that was passed in the National Assembly.
Senator Riel: I would like you to send it to the clerk.
Mr. Rivard: So it is in this spirit that we say, as I mentioned to you, we believe we can, in an intelligent manner, find a way to control the reasonable risk.
Senator Riel: So I see in the document we have here that there are the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Is that you?
Mr. Rivard: Their spokesman.
Senator Riel: And the National Dairy Council. Is that you as well?
Mr. Rivard: No. The National Dairy Council is the organization that represents dairy processors across Canada, dairy cooperatives in Quebec and British Columbia and private industrial concerns such as Saputo, Ault Food, Beatrice and the others. Our dairy system operates in this way. There are accredited organizations to defend interests. For example, in Quebec, we manage the quotas, quality promotion, the Fédération des producteurs de lait, but at the Canadian level, somewhat in the way Canada is constituted, we have a federation of producers across the regions of Canada and we are concerned with promotion, marketing and policy development. This is the work that the National Office does, examining regulations, making representations, ensuring that the interests of dairy farmers are well defended. And the same is true of the National Council, the other organization that you mentioned.
Senator Riel: Is the Fédération québécoise des producteurs de lait the same kind of organization as yours or is it allied to yours?
Mr. Rivard: I wear two hats. I have been president of the Producteurs laitiers du Québec for eight years now and have been president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada since last year.
Senator Riel: What region are you from?
Mr. Rivard: From the Matapédia Valley, from Causapscal, to be precise.
Senator Riel: Bona's home.
Mr. Rivard: Yes, Bona Arsenault.
Senator Prud'homme: You are going to succeed despite the obstacles.
Senator Riel: Now, look, the small producers were invited to your meeting last week. You don't distinguish: they are on your lists as belonging to the Dairy Farmers of Canada. They aren't invited as cheese producers?
Mr. Rivard: Here, on two levels, in Quebec, we have an organization which is allowed and which is called a producers' joint plan. To produce a hectoliter of milk in Quebec, all farmers must hold a production quota. The same is true in the other provinces, but in Quebec it is managed by the Fédération des producteurs de lait and we also negotiate quality conditions and supply conditions with the processors, the price, of course, and we do promotion. So, in Quebec, these farmers are grouped together and, more specifically, you will understand that, if this raises many questions in the public's mind, it does in Quebec as well.
So we have a unanimous position at the Canadian level that dates back to 1990. We said yes to pasteurization for all milk on the basis of the information we had at that time. I'm going to explain why we had to adjust that position and why we are re-evaluating our position. In 1990, if my memory is correct, there was virtually no industry. There was one that was very small. At that time, when the new regulations were introduced, it was in production. The Régie des marchés agricoles in Quebec issues processing permits, and that must be the same in the other provinces. Since that time, as I mentioned to you a moment ago, it has issued 17, including 10 for heat-treated milk, which is permitted by the act. That did not prevent this type of manufacturing. There were seven for unpasteurized milk, to make unpasteurized cheese from raw milk, as it is called.
These people developed expertise and certain market niches, even though they are not large. Ultimately, in my mind, they can take the place of certain imported products. Some time ago, I appeared before Mr. Ouellet, the Minister of External Affairs, when he was Minister. He asked me a question that I thought was interesting. He said, "Mr. Rivard, do cheese imports create jobs?" We discussed the matter of cheese imports. I told him at the time: 10 years ago, I would have said no, but now, based on my experience, I am telling you yes. What indicators are there of that? I told him: Well, look, when we in Canada were not used to eating blue cheeses, Camembert and so on, these imported products created a need, tastes; they developed consumers' tastes. When there was a sizable critical mass, Quebec and Canadian processors took over and this therefore creates jobs in Canada. That is how it has evolved and I think it is real.
Senator Bacon: Globalization.
Mr. Rivard: That is correct. So these cheeses -- You see from the price that is paid for specialty cheeses that there are consumers who are prepared to pay those prices. So we have to find a way, instead of banishing them, to determine the reasonable risk in an intelligent manner and to ensure that they are made from Québécois and Canadian dairy products.
This is how I perceive it, and I'm convinced that, if we are of good will, if we do not lose media control once again, if we have a rational debate, without any extremes, we can find something that both sides can agree will be safe for our consumers and our processors, those already in place will continue to do business and will eventually be able to replace the imports.
Senator Riel: I saw in the newspaper yesterday or the day before that the Société de l'agriculture du Québec, the provincial Crown corporation that invested in raw milk cheese production, had invested a few hundreds of thousands of dollars, $300,000, I believe. So they have to be aware of the procedure. Are they going to continue manufacturing from raw milk? Or what is the situation regarding them? That's the company that is helped, that is called, whose name you mentioned to me --
Mr. Rivard: SOQIA. For your information, I have been sitting on the board of directors of SOQIA for two years now. So I have received the same question from SOQIA shareholders: What are we doing? We looked at the financing of this longstanding cheese dairy. Since last year, we have looked at the possibility of financing, of becoming a partner.
For your information, SOQIA finances small and medium-size agrifood businesses by means of venture capital; it's a bit like Hydro-Québec, but in the agrifood sector.
Senator Bacon: SOQIP.
Mr. Rivard: That is correct, or SOQUIP in energy. When the shareholders or members of the board of directors looked at that, we asked ourselves the question. I said, "This is a bill, but, until it is in effect, it can be amended."
Once again, I think we can find a way to do things, to keep this expertise here because there are certain promising market niches in Europe. As I just mentioned, we agreed to invest and this cheese dairy was opened in Drummondville last week.
What is important -- I'm going to give you two attitudes. I'm going to take another product from a few years ago and I'm going to take the Quebec example of organic milk. This is milk produced from foods -- The animals are fed -- An example: the farmers commit themselves to certification, not to use chemical fertilizers, insecticides or herbicides. There are some consumers who are prepared to pay a premium for this, particularly in natural food stores.
So, in Quebec a few years ago, instead of saying no to this way of doing things and allowing a black market to develop, our organization, the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, said: "We are going to find a mechanism through our network for meeting and supplying a consumer need." So there are trucks that go collect this milk separately. There are additional costs that are paid by these types of consumers. But instead of saying no, we didn't close the door; we found a way to accommodate these consumer needs.
We're doing the same thing with kosher milk for the Jews; it's collected separately and processed separately in accordance with Jewish rules. So instead of being imported from elsewhere, these products are now being manufactured here. Consequently, our reasoning on raw milk has been the same. Starting in 1991, as soon as this was permitted with storage, we have made sure through the network that we supply these markets. So this is why it is important to find a way and, once again, the argument, the text I provided you, led me to question a great deal about whether Health and Welfare did a good job analyzing the risk, but it was unable to communicate it, in my view, with all due respect to those people. Look, when all the parties in the Quebec National Assembly -- there is a Ministry of Health all the same -- vote, you can say that it is a political issue -- you know what I mean -- but when the National Assembly, including Mr. Johnson, votes unanimously, you can say it is a matter of Quebec's specificity. If we want to keep this, we have to find a way to do it. And I think we can do it in Canada.
Senator Riel: So the resolution is to recommend that a solution be found.
Mr. Rivard: Yes.
Senator Riel: Same thing for your resolution.
Mr. Rivard: It's to the same effect, an option, but we're saying not to close these businesses. So the Government of Quebec conducted a consultation yesterday. I was not present, but we stated the same position I have just put before you as Quebec's position and, next week, the representatives of the various provinces in our association ... because what we are trying to do is to settle, to assume our responsibilities with the ministries responsible.
So what we're going to try to do next week ... There are people from Agriculture Canada and Health and Welfare who are going to intervene. We went after outside expertise, researchers who are going to try to enlighten us as to the degree of risk. There are going to be processors, producers from various provinces who are going to intervene, and we hope, with the Canadian processors and the various stakeholders, to be able to find the right solution.
Senator Riel: That's good. So if I understand you, you are saying that this is a problem of communication on Health Canada's part?
Mr. Rivard: Look, if it is true that there is a risk, and we were unable to make the National Assembly, with all due respect, understand it unanimously, even the people of the Liberal Party, and I'm not being critical, when we talk about Parmesan cheese, it was elementary. So, in my view, there is a job that was not well done.
For example, if we had only gone out into public, without naming names, if we had said, as in the table that I mentioned to you a moment ago, the types of cheese and the imports that were either destroyed or returned to the countries of origin because they contained that. If we had let them enter Canada, look, we're saying that: We haven't had any since 1960; we would have had an epidemic as a result; we would have had problems, and we would not have had any debate in the media, but perhaps we would have had deaths. And all that has to be prevented. We cannot have crises such as the one that occurred in England with mad cow disease. That is a good example. You destroy a sector of the dairy industry; that's 112,000 jobs in Canada.
Senator Riel: When you were consulted by Health Canada, at that time, had they submitted expert reports on the dangers or had the expert committee that we are now consulting not been consulted at that time?
Mr. Rivard: Certain opinions were provided by Health and Welfare, but they ... An example: imports. We didn't get it until after public opinion had flared up. That's why I say that there was media work that was not well done. And under the cover of confidentiality, but without naming names in Canada, when there is a risk, especially a big one, and the bill is presented in this manner, we should at least have informed consumers that percentage X of the products were contaminated. I would have found that a good idea. For example, we could perhaps, probably, have detected how many women in Canada had aborted with Listeria. That's another example that leaves after effects. I know of children who are disabled or who should have been operated on because certain problems are linked to that disease. Pregnant women consumed some of these products. So that didn't come out. In any case, I'm not looking for a guilty party.
Now that the harm has been done, how do we correct the situation? How do we find the best solution to this problem?
Senator Riel: Thank you.
Senator Prud'homme: I give you the floor, Senator Landry.
Senator Landry: I almost forgot what I wanted to say. You say you are a dairy farmer yourself?
Mr. Rivard: Yes.
Senator Landry: Do you pasteurize?
Mr. Rivard: All my milk goes to a plant called Natrel in Amqui, which is a bottler, and all my milk is pasteurized. All the milk -- Look, as we mentioned, point two per cent of the milk is unpasteurized for this type of product. I don't know whether you quite understood me at the start. An average farm in Quebec produces 280,000 litres. This type of milk, which is required for this type of industry -- My seven businesses -- This is not a farm, it's 60,000 litres. Hats off to the media circus; bravo, it was very good. We were told that we sold two types of cheese. So we didn't buy any air time, but that didn't meet the objective we were hoping for.
Senator Rivard: Who names the importers wishing to work in Canada?
Mr. Rivard: It's generally the same ones who are here; the 60-day rule is there. And they of course, as I mentioned a moment ago, see a promising industry closed, if this bill were ever introduced or passed as is, without amendments. But it is my opinion, if you want my comments, that, even if we can find certain standards to ensure we maintain this production in Canada, I think that, with what you have in the paper, people who falsify -- and this is validated by the Health and Welfare and Agriculture Canada people -- people who falsify dates and records, I believe that, if this issue has generated so much interest, the departments at both levels will have to invest the necessary energy in order to protect the public health. If we have the rules and we are simply told that we are not currently enforcing them, we have a problem.
Senator Landry: I believe we need an inspection system because it is not absolutely necessary that the product be pasteurized, because, if it is fairly clean, there shouldn't be any bacteria. If there is an inspection system, there will be no bacteria. Perhaps they will at times find a processor who is clean enough for there to be no bacteria. I see this as being very similar to the fishing industry, and it is very similar. For entering the United States, there is zero tolerance for Listeria. We packaged $50 million worth last year for the United States and we don't pasteurize. That amounts to the same thing: if you're clean enough, there won't be any.
Mr. Rivard: You're right; there must not be any in the product at the outset. Except that the only way to detect it in milk is, tomorrow morning, it's not just a question of cleanliness, I can assure you. Salmonella, for example, is in the blood. So the cow will transmit it.
Senator Landry: One of the worst Listeria carriers are sheep. That's very dangerous around the farm.
Mr. Rivard: I'll give you an example: our standards in Canada are the best in North America. I'm convinced of it. We have the highest standards, the highest standards. For example, I'm not allowed to have pigs, chickens or sheep in my cow barn. It's dairy cows and all our operations are fairly strict on this point. A moment ago, you mentioned inspection; the inspection system is good, but, based on my analysis, Agriculture Canada or the people who are responsible for conducting these inspections are lacking resources. And since that is the case, I believe it is important that we see to it.
Senator Landry: When the Listeria problem started in the United States, there was a big dinner. There was lettuce that had carried Listeria and many people were sick.
Senator Prud'homme: What's good about the Senate, as you can see, is the calm of our committees, where there's less demagogy than in the House of Commons. It's calmer. We can take our time. You would suggest, then -- I'm going to ask you three questions. Let's take our time to calm down this hysteria on both sides. It's not necessary that the regulations be published immediately and come into effect before we continue our consultations further. Is this the thrust of your remarks?
Mr. Rivard: Indeed, the first point you just made is exactly what we asked of the Minister of Health.
Senator Prud'homme: Second, you cited all sorts of good statistics and, in my view, that's very important as a basic document. Would you please leave it with the committee or give us the original and we will be able to consult it for the statistics on imports and rejects? Third, at the time of this major raw milk exhibition, because we can in fact call it that, which was organized in Parliament, and you no doubt heard about it, did you have representatives? If so, what did you know and, if not, to the best of your knowledge, were there many imported raw milk cheeses at the exhibition or were they mainly raw milk cheeses manufactured in Canada?
Mr. Rivard: I didn't have the opportunity to attend it. It took place on the day of my annual meeting, so you will understand that I was busy with something else. We had no representatives. However, what we saw on the television, and I can say this without any reservation, there were imports in my view because there was, among other things, a soft cheese. What I find unfortunate, and I'm not criticizing the minister -- he's a big boy -- if there was a soft cheese, it couldn't technically pass the 60-day period. It was, to a certain degree, virtually a mockery that it was brought here to Ottawa and that this was done before the cameras on this section.
To take the step that was taken, and I am not engaging in politics when I tell you this, to show that we can safely consume products made from raw milk that meet current Canadian standards, I think this has been working for many years and there have been no poisonings in Canada. However, we must ensure, for example, that all standards are met. For the other documents that you mentioned, we will be able to provide them to you.
Senator Prud'homme: Are there any Canadian exports of raw milk cheese?
Mr. Rivard: I don't think so. In any case, we will check it, but, in my view, and we will be able to give you the details, but, in my view, it's a very nominal amount, if there is any. But I wouldn't think so.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: That is an interesting question, given the move from quotas to tarrification and the possibility to export. I will pursue that another time.
Unfortunately, Health Canada could not be with us today, although they can be next week. Is it agreed that, in the absence of the Chairman, we call a meeting of this committee next week to hear from Health Canada on this issue?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Many thanks to our witnesses. You have been very helpful to us.
The committee adjourned.