Evidence of meeting #27 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.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
In your opinion, Mr. Tanguay, would it be justified for processors and shopkeepers to claim that imposing a standard would cost more? That is what I am getting at.
Communications Officer, Union des consommateurs
I do not know. On first thought, I do not think it is justified to think so. Normally, producers know where their products come from, and I do not see how asking them to write the truth can cost them more.
Furthermore, traceability requirements are based on many other reasons, including health and safety. Traceability is being implemented. Quebec is a bit ahead, in such areas as livestock. Still, we have not noted major repercussions from these requirements on prices.
Quality and accurate information come with a price, but that should not be justification for doing nothing.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Does anyone else wish to comment? If not, I have some other questions.
Something has become clear from the testimonies we have heard. Even though we have not held a lot of meetings on this subject, we are beginning to hear some very interesting points of view concerning the term “Product of Canada.” We know that a certain percentage should be set to determine what constitutes a Canadian product. We are still discussing it.
We are also told it would be important to have a label with the term “Prepared in Canada.” As a consumer association, do you feel that people will still find a way to get around the rules by always adding the words “Canada” and “Prepared in?” At the same time it is true, for consumers to know what they are buying, a distinction will have to be made. What do you think about this?
Executive Director, Option consommateurs
As I said earlier in response to Mr. Boshcoff, it is very important that information be clear and precise. Consumers must have a clear idea of what the term on the label means, whether it is “Prepared in Canada,” “Product of Canada” or “Grown in Canada.”
Of course, as Nalini said, the safety of products is important to consumers. So it is important for them to see that processing took place in Canada. Still, we agree that it is a little odd, these days, to have the impression that oranges, for example, are grown in Canada.
It is important truly to put the right information on products and to inform people so that they know what “Prepared in Canada” means. We must be able to find out what sort of processing the food item has undergone. Has it simply been canned? Has something else been done to it? Has the safety of the product been ensured? This is important.
Lawyer, Agri-Food Analyst, Option consommateurs
Actually, I would like to see a logo, a maple leaf, and “Product of Canada.” As I mentioned in my presentation, it would be enough to add at the bottom a little two- or three-word phrase that explains what this means and that can be changed. If 75% of the products have been prepared, let us say so: “75% of the products were prepared.”
I am going to draw a parallel with another area. In the case of substances contained in consumer products, we have to negotiate. Indeed, substances know to be carcinogenic are put in products. It is not the consumer product that is carcinogenic, it is the substance it contains. It is the ingredient that is carcinogenic. The consumer is entitled to know that it is the ingredient that is carcinogenic. We negotiate with the industry to find out how to indicate that on the final product. So I would like to have a specific logo with a short terminology that can be changed to reflect what “Product of Canada” really means.
Director, Local Food For Local People
I agree with these comments. I just think exactly what the CIA has said there. The label needs to be clear and the 51% rule needs to be.... The value needs to be placed on that product--the food--and not the label. Just because it was packaged in Canada should not mean it's a product. It should be something clear, a simple sticker that could say “imported”. I agree that it needs to be a simple, short statement.
On your earlier question about paying more, we have been watching that in Rainy River when we have local products available. They're not willing to pay a huge increase, but they're definitely willing to pay a little more to have the local potatoes and to have the local eggs. It just comes to clear information to allow the consumer to know what they're buying and eating.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank everybody who came today. They were excellent presentations. I'll try to make sure you can hear me.
Both Ms. Hillard and Mr. Arnold hit on something that I absolutely agree with: we need to simplify this. We don't need more labelling. We don't need more confusion out there for our consumers. What we need to do is simplify it. We need to take what we have and strengthen it and make it so that “Product of Canada” means what the consumer actually believes it means. I've often said that I don't want to get to the point of having to bring my lawyer to the grocery store with me; it would get a little costly.
With regard to your recommendations, though, to making “Product of Canada” what we want it to be, does anybody around the table have a costing on that? How much money and advertising would it be, once the policies were changed? What would it cost to get it there, or is it already basically there?
Research Director, Consumer Interest Alliance Inc.
Are you referring to the government communication strategy or to companies' advertising?
Research Director, Consumer Interest Alliance Inc.
The action plan has already talked about getting more accurate information out to consumers, so presumably Health Canada is supposed to be already moving in that direction.
There are ways of doing this cooperatively with the private sector. When they brought in new textile labelling in the U.S., which the manufacturers wanted, the Federal Trade Commission down there said, “You have to explain this to consumers. We'll give you a year to explain it, and if you don't, you'll have to go back to the old labels.” Well, that would have enforced a huge cost on them, to change the labels twice. So they were very effective there. They had tags hanging on clothes and calendars that explained it.
You can use persuasion and creative ways to work with the private sector to do a lot of this.
There's a system in the U.K. for labelling food, the little red tractor scheme. It's a privately administered scheme--the Union Jack and a little red tractor on all this product. The criteria are clearly available on the web. The stakeholders oversee the program. The grocery stores pay to get audited or certified, whatever. And then there are other layers that some companies want to go into. I foolishly forgot to bring it with me, but I brought back a potato bag from my last trip. It has the little red tractor and all that, but in addition to that, it goes all the way down to saying, “These are potatoes from Yorkshire, and here's a photo of the farmer, and this is where his farm is.” It's not promoting those over potatoes from some other part of the country, but it's providing that information while promoting the British brand, which people in the U.K. love to buy just because they don't want to buy anything from France.
It's effective and people look for it. In some cases, they'll pay a premium, but in other cases, like at Morrisons, which is the cheapest chain in the U.K., they have a little red tractor on all their stuff. So it's not necessarily a price premium.
The grocery market over here is not very competitive; basically they can charge whatever they want to charge. I agree that consumers are prepared to pay more for some of these things, but they do want to know that if they're paying more, they're getting what they're paying for--and that it's going to the producer, not to the processor.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you.
We've had some groups come before us suggesting new labels or more labels. I'll ask each one of you, do you disagree with adding another label? Do you think we should simplify and strengthen the labels that we have before us currently?
Research Director, Consumer Interest Alliance Inc.
If you want me to jump in again, yes.
Consumers can't read the label now. We just did a research project and found that people can't read the labels. And the U.S. researchers found that the more qualifying statements you put in a claim, people don't understand that this is a more questionable claim; it makes them think it's better because it's saying more.
Conservative
Executive Director, Option consommateurs
I think that we must also take into consideration the fact that close to half of the Canadian population has illiteracy problems. We must not complicate things any more. We must really tighten things up and explain what already exists.
Lawyer, Agri-Food Analyst, Option consommateurs
I think, as Monsieur Tanguay was saying, it's not just reading; it's comprehension of what you're reading. You don't need new labels. I mean, the label “Product of Canada” has already done some work. We just need to strengthen it so that it reflects what it means.
So there's no need to do new stuff. It's just going to get confusing.
Director, Local Food For Local People
I totally agree. It needs to be simplified and clear. The message needs to be defined so that it's clear.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I have a couple more questions.
When we talk about this, oftentimes we're talking about the fraud aspect of it and making sure the general public understands what's being presented out there. We talk about the economics of branding. It can be very successful. Alberta beef is an example. It's some of the best beef in the world; everybody knows that. That's a prime example of branding.
But you also talked about safety. One of the concerns that was brought up today when we were discussing this.... It seems that everybody's saying that the packaging shouldn't be considered in there, and I agree with you. A very high level of content should be Canadian in order for it to be a product of Canada. But I don't necessarily have anything against packaging being from Canada as well. I think that's an important thing to make sure we bring up. That is a safety concern, and it's a safety concern that I think consumers would want to know is there as well. So maybe I'll just throw that out there.
For my final question--I'm sure I'm going to be cut off soon--what percentage of content would you like to see for it to be termed a product of Canada? We've heard 70%. Today I think we heard that 51% content would be fine. We've heard 80%.
I'd like your individual opinions on that as well, please.
Communications Officer, Union des consommateurs
I don't really know.
I do not know. In fact, when we write “Product of Canada,” the percentage should be at least half, probably around 75%. My opinion is as good as anyone else’s on this.
Director, Local Food For Local People
Again, I don't know if I can give you an exact number, but when it says “Product of Canada”, I would hope that the product is “of Canada”. The value needs to be placed on that particular product. If it's olives, and the olives were imported from Spain, but we canned them and processed them in Canada, we need to know it's an import.
You haven't had Rainy River beef yet. If you think Alberta's is great, you have to come and try our beef.
On the second part of your question, I feel in our community things can be rather simple. We just need to send the clear message that we're either eating Canadian or we're not eating Canadian. I don't know how complicated it is. It seems black and white to us here, but of course regulations don't make it quite that simple.
