Evidence of meeting #25 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was product.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
I think I was buying Canadian oranges when I was there.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Good. I'm glad. I didn't see that.
I'd like to ask each of you, would you prefer guidelines based on 51% of Canadian content instead of the current 51% of total cost, if it goes that way? What percentage would you like to see?
10:35 a.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
We would like it to be content, absolutely. And we could certainly support a higher percentage of content. That would be our preference.
10:40 a.m.
First Vice-President, Union des producteurs agricoles
We are in favour of identifying all major Canadian products. I think that we must absolutely promote Canadian products first in order to revitalize the agricultural sector and our domestic production. I think that is key.
10:40 a.m.
Second Vice-President, Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec
You have to understand that by revitalizing the content and not the package, we are sending a clear signal to consumers, who will realize that they can trust the content they are buying.
We have to be clear for consumers. We have to stop raising doubts in their minds, as is the case at present. That is why they are constantly asking questions.
It is said that farm producers are facing a crisis. Have you thought of the jobs that will be created through the labeling of content and the farm revenues that it will generate in our country? That is also something we have to consider.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Dairy Farmers of Canada
Just make sure we have a distinction. We need to have a very high content, but not too high; 100% is a bit scary. I'll use chocolate milk. We're promoting 100% Canadian milk, but the fact that you use cocoa beans or flavouring to make it chocolate, or bananas in yogourt, doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be qualified as a product of Canada. We need to be higher than 51%. It has to be more than cost; it has to be content. I'm just saying leave some room so the flavouring will not necessarily limit the consumers to other products in the processed category.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
That's a good point.
Time has expired. We're going to go on.
Please go ahead, Madame Thi Lac.
10:40 a.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Good morning to you all. Thank you for coming this morning to share with us your experience.
I represent the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. It is an agricultural riding: 25% of everything that is produced there is processed. Consequently, 25% of direct and indirect jobs are linked to that activity.
I would like to share some interesting statistics with you. There are eight supermarkets in my riding. As well, there are three specialty public markets exclusively devoted to selling local products. Those markets are growing; they are very popular and profitable. Not a single merchant in those markets is going bankrupt. The markets are very popular because people know that the products are home grown and healthy. In my riding, there is also a very interesting program called “Achats à la ferme”, which allows consumers to buy directly off the farm. For instance, you can buy a cow.
How do you explain that many producers of local, home made products are making a very good living and, paradoxically, that local producers who do not have the support of such a network are on the verge of bankruptcy? It is no doubt a question of labeling.
We hear that the designation “Grown in Canada” would be an adequate label for domestic products. In Quebec, people are familiar with the term “Produit du terroir”; it has proven its worth. Consumers are happy to pay a little more for those products. The markets are very popular and appreciated. The people who sale their products there are doing terrific business.
I would like to hear your comments on that. Thank you.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
10:45 a.m.
First Vice-President, Union des producteurs agricoles
You raised a major problem. With regard to labeling, if there is one thing that will probably be changed, it is that one.
I talk about producers and consumers coming together. Over the past few years, producers have collaborated with processors to try and reach the markets, the chain stores. However, we have come to realize that the chains have reach monstrous proportions. They are impenetrable. They form such a concentration of capital and purchasing power, all in order to buy at the lowest possible price. In that context, they are simply expanding their profit margin.
What I would have liked is, by way of adequate and mandatory regulations, to establish baselines and then come up with trademarks, labels, such as “Grown in Canada”, in order to distinguish our image and products from other farm goods. I hope that consumer associations will support us in the future so that we can have such strategies. To do so, we need laws or regulations.
Governments are there to regulate. Parties can develop strategies according to existing laws or regulations. That being said, the regulations are outdated, dating back 50 to 60 years, and are longer suited to present day trade rules in a globalized market. We really need to have new regulations that will help us develop strategies to bring producers and consumers together and, eventually, have a “Grown in Canada” label to promote our products. If we create mandatory regulations to protect the health of our citizens, then other foreign products respecting those health standards will enter Canada.
Given that, how can we promote Canadian producers? It is with a “Grown in Canada” label or trademark that we will develop and establish ties with consumer associations in order to promote our products. For the same quality, we will be telling people to buy from us first. In my view, that is the strategy of the future that we need, and it is up to you, as the government, to find the way to revitalize the agricultural sector.
10:45 a.m.
President, Dairy Farmers of Canada
In addition to what Pierre said, I think that the specific markets that should be targeted are the ones which involve a direct relation between the consumer and the producer. In English, this is called market power. On this kind of market, as soon as the producer and the consumer meet face to face, the producer obtains a premium and the consumer is very glad to pay.
This does not happen so easily in regions with a greater production and a smaller population. You have to move further away. This is a very useful tool for farmers on the local markets.
April 8th, 2008 / 10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank everybody for coming today.
As usual on this issue, it was very interesting, with a lot of agreement and understanding on where we're going with some of these things.
I was doing a little bit of reading and research on the act and the regulations regarding basic labelling requirements. It was interesting to read in all the documents that all the information on food labels must be true and not misleading or deceptive. This should be the standard that we, as Canadian consumers, expect and should get out of our labelling process. But it is clearly not what we've been hearing here over the last few meetings, and it's clearly not what we're getting.
I want to get to more of your recommendations, to some of the things you'd like to see done.
Mr. Friesen, I've read a few articles in which you state that it's a big concern to our farmers, because it's tough to compete against production that does not have the same high standards as we have here in Canada. Once again, I agree with your comments on that.
Do you know the exact date when these regulations were changed? Roughly when were these regulations last changed? It's something we've been asking around here.
10:45 a.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Do you mean the definition of...?
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
You agree, though, with the statements that have been made in the past that this is costing our producers money.
I support Alberta beef. Before I order steak in any restaurant I go into, I want to know if it's Alberta beef, which intuitively means it would also have to be Canadian beef. Now, it disturbs me that I can go to a restaurant or to my local grocery store and pick up something that says “Canada-approved”, or whatever it may say. I presume it would be a Canadian product, only to find out that it comes from China or wherever else, where I may not perceive that there are the same safety standards as our producers have. Nonetheless, I'm not being given the opportunity to support my local producers. So short of taking my lawyer with me to the grocery store, I think we need to have a little bit of common sense added in here.
I'd like to hear from you, Mr. Friesen, in answer to Mr. Lauzon's question. Do you have any idea of the amount of money this has cost Canadian producers? I'd like Ms. Binnie to also answer that for the pork producers.
10:50 a.m.
President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
I certainly agree with you one hundred percent. We haven't done a cost analysis of what this has cost us. We believe that it certainly is a hit on the credibility of our regulatory system. Interestingly enough, we know that consumers have a lot of confidence in a rigorous regulatory system, as shown by what happened to the consumption of beef after our first BSE case. Yet I believe that this is a real hit on the credibility of our regulation.
Perhaps this is a somewhat subjective comment, but we believe that it has cost us opportunities. That's why we think we can have a positive marketing campaign and say “Buy Canadian”, because we know the support is already there. Once it's clearly identified, we believe the sale of domestic products is going to increase. That is not even to speak of the fact that many Canadians, apparently--I know this is easy to say on the phone--are also willing to pay a premium for clearly defined Canadian products.
Yes, in that light, I would say it has cost us. But once we get further into the pilot projects and actually get this off the ground, that would be an even better indicator of what it has actually cost us.
10:50 a.m.
Nutrition Analyst, Canadian Pork Council
We agree. We haven't actually done an analysis to see what impact not having labelling of Canadian pork in retail has had.
Certainly the situation is very multifactorial, so I wouldn't want to speculate. But we are going out with this “Buy Canadian” campaign, so perhaps we'll see some results then.
10:50 a.m.
Coordinator, Ontario Region, National Farmers Union
I'm not sure how you would even do a study to come up with an exact number, because you're looking at what people haven't bought. It's pretty hard.
It is fair to say that this is what my 13-year-old daughter would call a “no-brainer”, that if people think they're buying something from Canada and are actually buying something from somewhere else, a Canadian farmer has lost out. Consumers have gone out there to deliberately purchase that product because it has the word “Canada” on it. That tells them a lot of things—or they think it tells them a lot of things, which is the whole point of this. They think it means good quality, that it's local farmers, meaning Canadian farmers, and that by purchasing that product they're getting a bonus to themselves.
As to how to figure out a dollar figure, I don't know; you'd have to be a lot smarter than I am. But it is clear that if somebody is buying something they think is this product, when it's actually produced by somebody else, Canadians are losing market share, and they have continued to do that over the last number of years.