Agriculture Committee on April 10th, 2008

[Robin Horel]

Mr. Easter, I heard three comments or questions in there.

The first one was truth in labelling. That's absolutely correct, and I think there are two sides to that, as I tried to say. One side is about being misleading—we have to be careful that we don't mislead, that we don't claim something that isn't in there. The other side is about being confusing—we have to be careful, if we introduce new things, that it's not confusing.

Your second question concerned a label that talked about “packaged in”. I think “prepared” is a much better word. I think it's more important to consumers. I don't think packaging is as important. If it's going to change, I think “prepared” is clearly better than “packaged”.

The third issue was about expense in labelling. Clearly there's expense in labelling, but frankly, as Mr. de Valk mentioned earlier, the bigger expense isn't the upfront cost of a label; it's segregation and all those other issues. So we'd better get this right so we don't have to keep going back and forth and changing and segregating.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Time has expired.

Mrs. Skelton, you have the floor.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

As someone who has always read labels because of allergies in the family, I'm intrigued with this whole debate we're having, but I do worry. I think traceability was brought up, especially in the meat sector and the poultry sector and everything. I would like to hear some more about that, because I think it's really going to affect your sectors a lot more than it will the other industries. Is that correct, and can you go on with that, please?

[Robert de Valk]

You really hit the point that's going to bog this whole discussion down. Nutritional labelling was a very interesting exercise and very costly to the industry, but we're there now and we're doing it. But the allergen situation has also been very interesting and challenging.

We're very good as an industry right now, in Canada, in identifying the major allergens. You're probably wondering why we get so many recalls, and 50% of the recalls are related to allergens. We're finding that's because we're drilling down deeper and deeper, and we're now getting into flavours and into allergens that have 0.001% of something, an ingredient that we didn't realize came from a country that we didn't realize, because our flavour manufacturer forgot to mention it.

Where do you want to start with ingredient tracing? We're getting a heck of lot better at it as an industry in traceability, but we're finding out a lot of surprises still, as well. If the consumer wants to know where every identifiable ingredient to the 0.11% or detectable level comes from, you'll never, never get to that point.

In the codex, volume 2, we've decided we're going to cut the line. We're not going to use zero, we're going to use a trace. If you find a trace amount, we're not going to be worried about it, but if it's more than trace, then we are going to get worried about it.

We have to get pragmatic like this, so the key is going to be the definition. If we're going to have a “Grown in Canada” label, we have to define it, and it's going to be maybe a different definition for meat from that for vegetables, which is quite acceptable. I think that can be done. But I think the key is the definition, and if we keep that definition reasonable, we'll make a lot of progress quickly and keep the costs down.

[James Laws]

I just wanted to add as well that, for instance, on this Piller's pepperoni, they have the lot number, the time, and the best-before date. These guys' traceability is incredible, so they know what's gone into that particular batch. They're just one example of many that have actually quite excellent traceability.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

We're basically way ahead of the United States in that, aren't we, really, in our processing? Do you feel that way, or are we equal or behind?

[James Laws]

I think we're a little bit ahead—a little bit ahead—in terms of animal ID and age verification, but if you go down to the United States and look in their meat case, you'll see a lot more variety in their products. Technically, I wouldn't say we're ahead, but certainly on the animal ID side we are.

[Robin Horel]

On the poultry side, I would say we're equal to or ahead. We're not behind. But I wouldn't say we're miles ahead. The traceability in the poultry business in the United States is quite reasonable.

[Robert de Valk]

It really depends on the company. Major companies with good resources know this is an important issue. They've put resources into it and they're ahead of smaller companies. So it's not really a Canada-U.S. thing, but it has a lot to do with the resources you can throw at this issue.

Major companies, when they stand up at an annual meeting, have to be able to answer consumer questions. So public companies also tend to be ahead of private ones on this issue.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Is my time up?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have one minute.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

I want to follow up on Mr. St. Amand's question on “Product of Canada” and prepared and packaged and imported into Canada.

Mr. de Valk, can you go further? You didn't get a chance to really answer that question.

[Robert de Valk]

I guess it comes from the dealings we've had with “Product of Canada” up to now. The witnesses are right that “Product of Canada” is an old concept we've had on the books for at least 40 years. On what it has really meant over the years and what people understand about it, it's much like the comment I made about “Made in China”. When they read that, most people know it's manufactured in China. But they do not for a moment--if you were to do a survey--say that the ingredients are 100% Chinese. It's the same thing with “Made in the U.S.” and “Made in Canada”. Most Canadians know that “Made in Canada” means it's made in Canada. It doesn't mean the ingredients are Canadian.

My strong advice is, don't toy with that. We have perceptions out there already. You don't want to have a huge campaign changing perceptions. But what we're missing is the label or claim that this is a Canadian product because it has 100% Canadian ingredients, 80% Canadian ingredients, or 40% Canadian ingredients. It's manufactured in Canada and the key ingredients are from Canada--any of those concepts that we want to work with.

I certainly encourage you to look at the organic standard, which I think is an excellent example of how Canadians got together and, through all the various issues, still came to an agreement on a standard. So I think we can do this too.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mrs. Skelton, your time has expired.

Monsieur Asselin. Bienvenue.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I am not a permanent member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I am replacing Mr. Bellavance this morning.

I found this morning's discussions very interesting and I particularly appreciated the excellent brief presented by Mr. McDuff and Mr. Lacoste this morning. Not only do they demonstrate their concerns in this brief, but they even go so far as to make recommendations. I want to commend them on that.

I love the idea—and fully support it, Mr. Chairman—of identifying products that are grown or produced, processed and packaged in Canada by using a specific symbol, such as the maple leaf. As a member of the Bloc Québécois, I have to say I am not particularly keen on seeing a maple leaf on my cans of baked beans, cereal boxes and other items. At one point, the government would have paid a lot of money to companies to get them to use the maple leaf on their cans of baked beans, soft boiled eggs and pork tongue. In the bars, the maple leaf would have been everywhere. Some companies would have made a lot of money that way. You are offering them an absolute gold mine by allowing them to put a maple leaf on all Canadian products sold in grocery stores, at the meat counter and the fruit and vegetable counters.

Federalists have a golden opportunity here—namely, to endorse this idea wholeheartedly and include it in the report. We will support you, not because we love the maple leaf, but because it will be an opportunity for our Quebec and Canadian producers to create jobs, keep their businesses going, give work to people back home and encourage people to buy our own products.

If I have a choice between products made in Quebec, in the riding of my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, or products that come from Thailand, I will choose products that come from her area, without hesitation. Maybe one day, in a less distant future than some may believe, we will see—although we would have to find some room for it on the can—a small fleur de lys.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. McDuff.

[Gilles McDuff]

In response to Mr. Asselin's comments, I want to say that we are Canadian producers. Our processing plants are Canadian, they distribute their products primarily in Canada, and they export their products as well. The reason we want to identify our products using the “Canada Brand” designation is that our products are available right across Canada. Although we are as close to the land as we can be, Foodland Ontario does its own advertising for Ontario products, Aliments du Québec has its own tools for promoting Quebec products, and Buy BC has its own policy for encouraging consumers to buy products made in British Columbia. We say that we are, first and foremost, Canadian producers and processors. There is nothing preventing people from adding a provincial or regional identifier subsequently.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Horel.

[Robin Horel]

Thank you.

I know there wasn't a question there, but I very much enjoyed the remarks.

Just to piggyback on that a little bit, the various provincial made-in-wherever programs, the regional one your neighbour talked about, have all been good, but many of my members trade across Canada, and this becomes another segregation and labelling issue, or whatever.

So I think that is the big benefit of a “Grown in Canada” label, or whatever this shows up to be, because that will save us a lot on all of these segregation types of issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Shipley, you have the floor.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for coming out today.

One of the things that was mentioned, and I believe part of why we're doing this, is that everyone has talked about the level of frustration and the complexity of doing it, and I think we need to be clear that this is why we're having so much discussion with those involved, because if we want to do this, it will not be a government solution; this is going to have to be a solution by the stakeholders, which the government will put forward. I think, as Mr. St. Amand mentioned earlier, the government needs to take a lead, and I think that's why this government is taking the lead.

Mr. de Valk, you mentioned one thing, and I may have heard you incorrectly, but you said that most people do understand the labelling. In my family I don't think they do. They believe they do until you explain it to them, and then they don't. Quite honestly, they now feel misled. So when we go through this process, not only is it going to be a process that has to talk about proper labelling, but it also has to be marketed so that the people of Canada understand what the labelling means.

I also believe, and I may be wrong, that if you were to talk to people here, they would say that our families are now more cognizant of labelling than I was when growing up. So why is that? The world has become smaller; products come in from all over the place. We used to have some confidence, because we grew so much more in Canada and we didn't have nearly the variety we do today.

You talked about it in terms of registration and the frustration we have in terms of our competitiveness with our largest trading partner, the United States, where they wait just seven days. In Canada there's been a frustration for years, you said, to get that type of registration for label changing. It costs you $100, and then every minor change it's another $45—and every time you do that it always rings of bureaucracy to me. So do you have some suggestions of what we can do to help or change that, Mr. de Valk?

[Robert de Valk]

The labelling process in Canada is what we call a registration process, and in many ways $100 is a bit of a cost-recovery type of thing. There have been discussions with the government about getting out of that registration process. But one of the interesting things is that meat labels are 95% compliant with Canadian labelling registration, and as you look at the others—dairy, vegetables, and you keep going down and down and down—vegetable labels also tend to be very compliant, because vegetables require a registered label if they are in processed form. But the moment you get out of the registration world, the compliance levels drop.

Now, one of the interesting things about this is that when it comes to a meat product coming across the border, you cannot get that meat product across the border unless you have registration in Canada. So the registration unit is very good at putting Canadian law into the U.S. by saying you can't export that product into Canada unless you meet Canadian labelling rules. As a result, we're getting very good compliance from U.S. companies in that regard.

Now, what do we do to get rid of that frustration? How do we get level with our competitors? Well, maybe we could shorten up the registration process, so that it doesn't take three weeks. We could simply register our labels, send them in to CFIA, and get a number back, and then you could have random checks on those labels to see if they're compliant. So you don't have to check every label; you simply randomly check them.

By doing random checks—and this is very much the HACCP type of approach that we've used in the past, and is very scientifically supportable—you identify those areas where there are problems pretty quickly. But let's not just do it to the registered labels we cover today. Why don't we have all Canadian labels registered? Why shouldn't a retailer, every morning when they're making all those labels, have those registered, so that if we do have a problem, we can come back and say they wilfully violated the Canadian rules, or no, they didn't, because they knew what the Canadian rules were? I say this because the way we have set up our labelling regulations, it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to know the rules.

All right? So the government should just provide oversight, and that may be the answer.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Horel--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I think Mr. Laws wanted in on this as well.