Evidence of meeting #26 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 products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
Yes, very briefly.
I think, clearly, they need to resource that. If they're going to put undue regulations, as they always do, on the meat sector, it's not fair. First of all, if it's a fair thing, that's life, but if the other sectors are not unduly regulated, it's not fair. Why is it only the meat? Dairy is excluded, bakery is excluded. That's not right. That's unfair, for one thing.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
There you go. As Robert mentioned, there are products coming in from the United States in the box that are compliant, but retailers open the box, take out these big muscle cuts, slap them on the shelf, and they're not compliant.
So it's not true that they're all entirely compliant.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Shipley, your time has expired.
This will be the last question, from Mr. Steckle. I'll give you five minutes, and then we need to go on to Mr. Storseth's motion.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Very quickly, in continuation of what Mr. Shipley has raised here and the idea of compliance, if you were to sell cigarettes in a store and you were found to be selling to a minor, there would be some serious consequences. This is a legal product that's being sold, but sold to a minor who may be ten days short of their birthday, and this would be a $5,000 fine on the second offence.
Is there no ability to whistle-blow? Is there no ability on the part of the government to have enough inspectors? What is the problem with all this non-compliance going on in an industry that we know is not compliant in many cases?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council
Whenever my speaking notes get passed around, or if you see them, you'll see the only thing I've bolded in my notes was the whole importance of standards and maintaining compliance. That's number one.
Number two, I think the answer to your question is the second option. There is whistle-blowing. Mr. Laws has talked to you about a specific time when they did it. It's lack of resources.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Resources. So the government hasn't funded it and doesn't have enough people on the ground doing this? Is that one of the things we should take forward from this committee, then?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council
Absolutely.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Okay. I appreciate that, because I think all of us are looking for solid recommendations we can bring forward.
I think I've heard very clearly from you this morning that we need a “Grown in Canada” label, something I very much support personally. Mr. de Valk, Mr. Horel, Mr. Laws, I think all of us would agree that that is something we can live with. That it is a product we can purchase with assurance, knowing that it is Canadian, no doubt. Whether it is 80%, or whatever level you want to put there, it needs to be high.
The other one, of course, is this idea of packaged or processed, whatever we want to call it; I'm not sure. “Product of Canada” I think has become a misnomer. We're not sure what it means. I'm not sure whether we should continue with that label, because it carries too many connotations, too many variances of meaning.
I'm wondering whether we should try to keep it simple. I do like this idea of “Grown in Canada”, because there's so much of what we have here. I think of an animal grown in Canada but fed corn from Michigan; that's a “Grown in Canada” product. I don't see any problem.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council
The only comment I'd make to that is if at the end of the day the decision is that “Product of Canada” should be replaced because it's not clear or whatever, all right, that's fine. Certainly some of my members feel that way, and some of them believe it should be left alone. If it is to be replaced, I think it needs to be replaced with more than simply “Packaged in Canada”. I don't think that's what consumers want to know. They want to know “prepared” or “processed” or something else like that.
That's my comment.
General Manager, Further Poultry Processors Association of Canada
On the“Product of Canada” question, as I mentioned in the presentation, in chapter 7 of the manual of procedures “Product of Canada” is being encouraged as a phrase that we use for all our exports because our importing countries are demanding it. So keep that in mind, that “Product of Canada” still has use, certainly outside our borders. We can't simply discard it.
Maybe we'll want to do something different domestically, which I think is a good thing. I think we can do that. But it still has use internationally.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
I only want to reiterate that we don't use “Product of Canada”. As you saw, we use this label. I'm not sure--what is your response? What does this mean to you?
Conservative
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Basically, I think at the end of the day the recommendations and the report that we do here should signify, as we take it back and report to government, that we need to move in a direction. We'd like to have some very clear definitions that you would be able to live with, agree with.
Mr. de Valk, I think your comment this morning about “Product of Canada” used outside of our borders has some validity. I think we could agree with that--at least I could.
If provinces will want to add their label, “maple syrup from Quebec”, I think that's fair. I think that's wonderful. We need to promote our own areas of production. But at the end of the day, I think we need that, because Canadians today want to know; they want to be able to choose. If they want to buy apples from Chile, that's fine, but they should know it is a Chilean apple. And they should also know that the apple next in the bin is one that's grown in Canada. It doesn't matter where, but it's grown in Canada.
Conservative
General Manager, Fédération québécoise des producteurs de fruits et légumes de transformation
It is very important to realize, right here and now, that we are all Canadians. Whether we are elected members, voters, farmers or processors, we are all Canadian. When the regulations are wrong and allow someone to import products from outside Canada, repackage them or process them very slightly, and then identify them as products of Canada, which means that farmers no longer have anything to grow, then that is a major problem and we have to find a solution.
I would like Committee members to understand that we're talking about food—about what we eat. I am curious as to what we would see if everyone took off their jackets; the one I'm wearing is made in Canada, because I am aware of the need to buy Canadian products. I would be curious to know where each of your jackets was made. Whether or not it's warm doesn't matter.
When I buy food to eat, I am more careful about food than I am about furniture or clothing. In my opinion, the agri-food sector deserves a redefinition of the “Product of Canada” designation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you very much.
Time has expired, and we do need to save some time in the committee to discuss a motion.
I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony today. It will definitely help us in moving forward and putting together a report on “Product of Canada” labelling. You don't need to stay at the table as we move on to our other business. Again, thank you very much.
With that, Mr. Storseth, you have a motion you want to bring forward.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Yes, I've presented a motion to the clerk.
I move that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food request that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities ask the commission responsible for conducting the level of service review to include consideration of freight rates and their impact on Canadian grain shippers and farmers within its mandate.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Well, Mr. Chair, we've seen some reports from the industry and several different agricultural shippers. We've discussed with them the possibility of there being some prohibitive cost to railways, and this is something I think we should include within the level of service review that is already being undertaken by the Minister of Transport, after the passage of Bill C-8.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I do believe it's a good resolution. In fact, we raised this question in the House the other day to the Minister of Transport. The fact of the matter is the Canadian Wheat Board and Canadian Federation of Agriculture did release a very extensive study that showed that the railways had taken, in 2006-2007, $175 million in excess profits. That comes out of the farmers' pockets. So it would only make sense that the service review be expanded to a costing review as well.
I hope it would be a friendly amendment. I would add an amendment, and I would so move that such a motion be reported to the House.