Agriculture Committee on April 8th, 2008

[Robert Monty]

In my opinion, the problem is that at the moment we put labels on final products. And yet we are talking about consumers and food products. The consumer goods displayed on shelves must be regulated. If the product—and I am not talking about the container—is labelled "Product of Canada", it absolutely must be produced in Canada. That is the main point. According to the current criteria, even if the packaging is four times as expensive as the product itself and if the label "Product of Canada" is placed on it, consumers are not using a product of Canada. We set high quality standards, and they should be met.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci.

Monsieur Bellavance is next.

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

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their presentations this morning. We find ourselves in a pleasant situation, because we are all heading in the same direction, which is not always true of committee work. We may differ on percentages, the terms in French and English, and other such technicalities. Clearly, we are going to have to reach an agreement on these, but there is no doubt that the will to do something exists. I may have been somewhat optimistic before, because I imagine that the processors will have a problem with this. They will maintain that their products are products of Canada and that with the 51% rule, they must be recognized as such. There may be some people who will be against what we are trying to do here, but we are definitely on the right track.

I also wanted to say that even though I do not have a scientific survey such as the one referred to by the CFA, regarding consumers' preference for Canadian products, I can nevertheless comment on this personally before I come to my questions. Last weekend in my riding, there was an event where people could taste local and regional products. In a municipality of 6,000 people, 500 attended this event. Even the beer and the spring water were from our region. The reason I mention it is just to say that we have some very attractive food products.

[Larry Miller]

[Editor's Note: Inaudible].

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

Yes, Larry, I will bring you some of the beer.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

There is an unmistakable interest in these products. People want to eat high-quality products. And when the products are local, people are even more interested.

I would like to hear your comments, Mr. Lemieux. I recently read an editorial written by the president of the UPA about food safety. Unlike some, I do make a connection between food safety and labelling. When we use truthful labelling to say that something is a product of Canada that has been manufactured in accordance with Canadian standards—and I deliberately used the word "Product of Canada" rather than "Grown in Canada"—that is, a genuine product of Canada, and not a product subject to the current standards, we have an assurance that this is a quality product. People feel safe when they know that the product they are going to eat—I'm not talking about the pot or the lid—is really a product that was made here. That is not true of imported products.

I feel that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is being rather lax. I am not singling it out and I am not saying that it is not doing its job. Fortunately, there have been some product recalls, but perhaps there have been too many of them. Perhaps there are too many foods that are getting across the border. Later, we find out that the product has made someone sick, and it is taken off the shelves. In my opinion, there is a weakness on the inspection side, not just at our borders, but in the field in countries where things are produced using pesticides or insecticides that are banned here.

I would like to know whether you make the same link—namely that once consumers know that the label on their food is in genuine compliance with our regulations, they will feel more reassured about the safety of the food they eat.

[Pierre Lemieux]

We came to the same conclusion as you regarding food safety. In fact, this is why we go so far as to require standards of reciprocity in our presentation.

These standards cover everything regarding the quality of products and the use of certain substances such as herbicides, that may be used elsewhere. In Quebec, these products are not even registered or allowed. We let in food that is produced elsewhere using these same products. That is why we have taken an extra step as regards labelling. We go further to protect consumers by calling for reciprocity.

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

I also wanted to talk to you about the way that labelling is done. Do you think that someday there could be regulations that would make it possible for us to have a recognizable “Product of Canada”? The label would state that the product or food is from here. Beside it, there could be another product whose label would state that it can be sold here, but that it comes from somewhere else. It may have been processed here, and it could be mixed with a particular percentage of this or that during the processing, but we would know that it was processed in Canada. Finally, there would be another product that clearly came from somewhere else—peas from China, for example, which would be labelled an imported product.

Do you think we could ever have regulations that would give consumers a clear visual signal about what they are buying?

[Pierre Lemieux]

I think it is not only possible but also doable. I am expecting that the regulations that will be coming forward will make this possible.

When I talk about establishing a link with consumers and having the resources to do that, this is exactly what I am thinking about. There must be a clear label that allows us to identify Canadian products. Subsequently, we will establish links between consumers and producers in all sorts of ways—whether we have a seal or a logo stating “Product of Canada” or some other promotional activities.

Eventually, we will come up with joint strategies for consumers and producers to meet the demand for Canadian products. I hope the new regulations that will be made public as a result of the committee's work and that of the people in charge of drafting these regulations will allow us to meet these objectives.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Bellavance, Mr. Friesen wants to get in on this as well.

[Bob Friesen]

Yes, that's exactly what we envision. Depending on how much the “Product of Canada” definition changes, it may not go to the level that the industry thinks we should be at to have clear information for the consumer. So keep that “Product of Canada” definition as a minimum.

The processing industry is onside with going a step further, but they have grown to rely on “Product of Canada”.

If you want to have a “Processed in Canada” designation, processing does contribute to our Canadian economy, so you could have that as well. But then have this “Grown in Canada” be a very clear label that consumers are familiar with through a positive marketing campaign. It creates a groundswell of support and makes it almost market mandatory, the way on-farm food safety programs have become. So if a consumer walks into a store and they don't see clearly defined Canadian products, they ask the store manager, “Why aren't you clearly defining Canadian products? If I go into another store, they have it.” That way, make it a real groundswell of support for branding Canada in Canada.

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

Mr. Friesen, I have some apprehensions about the definition of the word “product”. If we allow retailers to continue using the expression “Product of Canada” as is done at the moment, and if we add another label that states “Grown in Canada”, I am afraid that consumers will still be confused.

I think we need to change the regulations to ensure that a product of Canada is really a product of Canada. If there is ambiguity, as there is at the moment, we may be trying to please everyone, but I think consumers are still confused. Ultimately, it is important for farmers, for economic reasons, to have people know that the product they are buying comes from them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

And just for your information, Mr. Friesen, Mr. Bellavance's time has expired, so I would appreciate a very brief response.

[Bob Friesen]

If that regulation change would result in a very clear, pure definition of what's grown in Canada, and if it didn't include the container, then it certainly would be worth looking at.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I understand Mr. Lauzon and Mr. Miller are going to be splitting the seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Miller.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. Like Mr. Bellavance, I am pleased to see that we are all on the same page.

It has been a very interesting meeting so far, and I thank you for your presentations.

When we look at a problem, I think it is important that we start with the facts, and I'd like to make a couple of statements. One is that our food supply is increasingly becoming global in nature. At one time, a hundred years ago, of course, it was an all-Canadian food supply. Now we're into a global market, and consumers want a clear indication of what's in the can, in the package, and where it came from.

The other thing I'd like to say is that the new global supply chains have fundamentally changed the way in which food is processed, delivered, etc. Some of you mentioned fish coming from wherever, being partially processed in China, and then coming on over to Canada. I think everybody sort of agrees with those two facts.

The other thing I seem to be hearing from everyone is that if Canadians are given the opportunity, by and large the majority of them will choose to support Canadian agriculture. I see some heads nodding. That would be the general impression. The other thing that seems to be apparent is that this has been an ongoing problem for some years. We have experienced that this is not a recent phenomenon. It has been going on for 10 or 15 years. For whatever reasons, there seems to be some optimism now. Mr. Robertson, Mr. Friesen, and maybe Mr. Laforge all indicated that it's nice to see some movement on this. There again, there is reason for optimism.

We can't go back. We can't figure out why the former government chose not to react when this phenomenon first happened. Obviously, we have reached the point now that we have to do something about it.

One of the things that should encourage all of us, including you people here who are producers, is the Prime Minister's announcement in December of Canada's food and consumer safety action plan. There is $113 million there. It's not all dedicated to this, but a good portion of it is to regulate this problem. So we're moving ahead now.

The other thing that we should take some comfort in is the fact that our minister is listening. Many of you said the minister seems to be listening and you have the ear of the minister. This is the way this minister operates. He goes out and finds out what the problem is, finds out from the—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. St. Amand, on a point of order.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I thought I heard you indicate that this was to be a question and answer session. I suspect that the honourable colleague across the way is eventually getting to his question, but if he's splitting his time with Mr. Miller, he's perilously close to his time being up.

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

I'm watching the time very closely, Mr. St. Amand.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's not a point of order. Members can use their time as they see fit.

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

The truth of the matter is.... I guess what I'm trying to say is that, finally, we're going to correct this problem. We have the money. We have the minister who is willing to listen, and we're going forward, and we're going to address this issue. There's a commitment from the Prime Minister. There's a commitment from the minister.

Now I want to ask you this. In the last ten years, do you feel that because of this inaction it cost your industry money? Anybody who wants to can answer that question.

Keep two minutes, please, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have three minutes left.

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

Okay, Mr. Laforge.

[Jacques Laforge]

This has been a gradual evolution. I would compare it to a farm field where weeds start to pick up in your field and you can't find any herbicide to kill it, and it keeps growing worse and worse. We are at a level now where it has surfaced to a point that the consumer has been made quite aware, with all the programs that have been going on.

If I look at the dairy terms problem, I know that MP Paul Steckle has done a lot of work to help us on dairy terms in the past. This gets very complex when you try to bring the processing world on board. I remember all kinds of campaigns on the Hill here, by processors, to confuse dairy terms. I hope we don't get into this one again, and with all good intention, when you start putting regulation to strengthen something, it comes from all sides. We're trying to do this for the farming community so that what we grow in Canada is actually very clearly identified as coming from Canadian farmers. That is the objective.

It has been a gradual evolution. It has been tackled before, but now it seems to be facing all farming communities.