Agriculture Committee on April 29th, 2008

[John Masswohl]

You're right. It's very easy, and I'd agree with everything Don mentioned. Once you start to get into more complex products, it becomes very difficult. You gave yogourt as an example. I was thinking of a meat lasagna, where you've got meat, maybe you've got two or more kinds of cheese, you've got pasta, and you've got some vegetables and some spices. Where do all these things come from? It's hard to imagine being able to put a “Grown in Canada” label on that, or even a “Product of Canada”, because of all the tracking and record keeping and proving that would have to go into saying that everything in there is Canadian. Maybe there is room for “Processed in Canada”. If they assembled all these ingredients together, should it get something?

But ultimately this complex environment comes back to why we prefer a voluntary approach. If you've got that lasagna, why force them to put a label on it? If you force that, maybe you're forcing information that's not truthful, or maybe you force the production of that lasagna to some other country.

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

Exactly.

Go ahead, Ms. Mina.

[Lisa Mina]

I think the other thing is that both government and industry have a joint responsibility to communicate clearly the definition and what the labels mean. I'm not sure that's really happened in the past, that they clearly communicated what each one represented in order to eliminate or minimize the confusion around them.

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

Yes, I think what I'm hearing here, and it's something I heard from many witnesses, is that we need to simplify the process, not make it more confusing. You do that by working with the labels we already have and by strengthening the brand of those labels.

I agree with what Mr. Masswohl was talking about earlier. One of the most successful brandings I've seen was for Alberta beef, and it was a totally voluntary, totally industry-led initiative. That's something that's been very successful. I agree it's important that we keep this voluntary rather than mandatory.

I guess one other question I'd like to ask deals with your comments on education, and even enhancing what we currently have. You've talked about the processes in Canada a couple of times.

Do you have any numbers for the cost of this for either industry or government?

[John Masswohl]

I don't have any numbers here with me today. I think there would be such variability among the products and where they were being produced, it would be very difficult to come up with general statements as to the cost of doing those sorts of things. We could give anecdotes or examples.

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

Ms. Mina, do you have any idea of the costs of increasing the educational component of this for the general public?

[Lisa Mina]

It depends on the scope of the education. If you're looking at some type of advertising initiative, that would be quite costly. If you're looking to do it through further influencers and other stakeholders, or a combination of both.... It depends on the scale of the communications.

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

You agree with this—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Mr. Storseth.

I have one question about the CCA and BIC presentations.

You talked about minimal processing and manufacturing beef that's imported and whether or not it's called Canadian or is just out there as non-labelled product. What do you mean by minimal?

Say a side of beef comes in from the United States and it's processed here into hamburger or cut into steaks for the retail industry. Would that be Canadian or would it be a non-labelled product?

[John Masswohl]

There's a list, and I'm sorry I don't have it with me. There's a regulation under the meat labelling act that lists the processes that constitute minimal processing, and some of them are slicing, cutting, and those sorts of things.

Basically, if you were to bring in a whole rib-eye steak and cut it into individual steaks, it would satisfy the minimal processing requirements, and those individual steaks would not have to be labelled with the country of origin. It doesn't mean they're Canadian; it just means they don't have to be labelled, as opposed to your bringing in the individual steaks and selling them at retail, when they would have to be labelled with the country of origin.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You're satisfied with the current regulations as they apply to the minimal requirements.

[John Masswohl]

Right.

We have difficulty where people start to misuse and misrepresent that. If somebody takes imports that are either Australian or American muscle cut and cuts them into steaks, we have a problem if they then label those steaks as Canadian, because that is not lawful.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. That's what I wanted to know.

We're going to cut the discussion off there.

I want to thank the witnesses for all your testimony. It's going to help us determine how we move forward with recommendations to Parliament, and essentially to the Government of Canada, on “Product of Canada” labelling and other issues related to labelling and truth in labelling.

We're going to move to motions. The first motion we're going to kick off with is Mr. Atamanenko's.

Alex, could you read that motion, if that's your wish?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

The motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food write a letter to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Honourable Gerry Ritz, recommending the government abandon its plan to remove Kernel Visual Distinguishability (KVD) as a variety registration screening criteria for all classes of Western Canadian wheat as of August 1, 2008, and only proceed with its removal when a variety identification system that has gained the confidence of those whose interests are protected by the current KVD system has been put in its place.

I can speak to it a little bit.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Yes, speak to the motion, please.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Yes. While I'm speaking, I would like to acknowledge the fact--Guy gave me an update yesterday--that apparently there is a movement to bring in another system.

The way the motion reads doesn't preclude something else coming in at any time. I see this as a precautionary measure. If there isn't a system in place that all parties are satisfied with by August 1, then this motion allows us to wait until something is in place. Conversely, if something is in place that everybody was happy with before, this motion doesn't preclude that. It's not giving a definite date. It is the precautionary principle, and I believe we have to move very, very carefully here.

For that reason, I'm hoping the motion will get unanimous consent here at committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Go ahead, Guy.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect to Mr. Atamanenko, for all intents and purposes, I feel this motion is pretty much redundant in that the Canadian Wheat Board does have a plan in place. They are in the process of communicating that to the farmers as we speak.

I should also say that we're just reacting to what the farmers wanted. Alex and I had a brief discussion about it, and I think the motion probably is, as I said, for all intents and purposes, really not necessary. We think things are well in hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess my problem with the motion, Alex, and I know your intent is good, is that it is one thing to protect agriculture as a whole, but our main goal here, and I think it has always been your party's, is to protect the grassroots producer. That's why this is being changed.

This doesn't benefit the grassroots producer. As you word it there, it says “confidence of those whose interests are protected”. Well, it is sure not the producers. So I think this goes in the wrong direction altogether. Improvements made by getting rid of this KVD system are to help out the producer, not otherwise. So I can't support the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Go ahead, Mr. Easter

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I would disagree with both Guy and Larry, because KVD does benefit the producer. One of the reasons Canada is seen as the best quality supplier in the world is because of our grading system. Having said that, I think certainly whether it is the hog industry or the livestock industry, if there were another method of assuring the quality of the grain we are exporting out of the country, such as using black box technology or something else, then doing away with the KVD would certainly be a benefit to growing new and perhaps more productive crops with other characteristics.

But what is at risk here is our quality control system. The minister jumped the gun. He is coming in with a proposal without the assurances on the other side that our quality control system won't be jeopardized.

I know Guy said the Canadian Wheat Board has a plan in place. That's not what I've been told. So unless we can have a witness here from the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission who is going to tell us that there won't be a problem on August 1 and that our quality system won't be jeopardized by this move, I have no choice but to support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll have André.

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

It seems to me that when we discussed the matter, committee members were clearly in favour of removing kernel visual distinguishability, but that they were also clearly in favour of replacing it with a system to identify classes of grains. The parliamentary secretary, Mr. Lauzon, tells us that he is totally opposed to this motion because everything is being put in place and organized. That intrigues me.

Explain to me how the government plans to implement an identification system to replace KVD. You have not provided enough detail.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

There is a fire alarm. My duty is to suspend the meeting.

Please go to the closest emergency exit.

As soon as it's off, we'll return. We'll have to work things out with.... The natural resources committee follows ours.

We're suspended.