Agriculture Committee on April 15th, 2008

[Jennifer Hillard]

We're going to be a little bit different on this one.

We just see so many problems with monitoring the enforcement of the rules that we already have, but we could live with the voluntary standard, provided it were referenced in the legislation. That works for the building codes, and that's the direction that organic is going in. There are some advantages to that in terms of the way the stakeholders are involved in developing the base standard on which you operate, but I would agree that you have to reference it in the legislation so that you have the power to enforce it, if you have to.

That's our position on that one.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Successive governments have always promoted the North-American livestock market. In other words, an animal may be born in Canada, be finished in the United States and processed in Mexico, without any barriers.

How do we reconcile the need of the North-American market with the need for a “Product of Canada” or “Made in Canada” indication that is clear for consumers?

[Michel Arnold]

I am not sure I understand the question. Can you repeat it?

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

If an animal is born in Canada, finished in the United States and processed in Mexico, how would the phrase “Product of Canada” or “Made in Canada” be applied? What would be the best label in such a case?

[Nalini Vaddapalli]

I am not necessarily an expert in this area. If the standards of the United States and Mexico are equivalent to those in Canada, given that the raw material came from Canada, I would not have a problem with “Product of Canada” being used. However, we have to make sure that the standards are equivalent and indicate this. The fact that the animal was finished or that some other stage occurred outside Canada is a question of transparency. Perhaps I am a bit out of my depth; I do not have the expertise concerning the example you gave.

[Charles Tanguay]

We could have some fun coming up with a label.

[Kim Jo Bliss]

I'm not 100% sure if I clearly understand your question. Again, I'm sorry. You and I are having a hard time.

I think it needs to be indicated. You're using the example of beef. If it's grown or caught in another country, I think it should be clearly marked, because if the product is finished in the States or Mexico or another country, their finishing rations and techniques may not be of the same standard that we're using for our beef and finishing in Canada.

Again, I don't want to make the labelling any more complicated. I just think the labels need to state where the product was grown and caught or finished.

[Charles Tanguay]

We could indulge in a bit of irony here because we do not have a proper understanding. In economic terms, maybe that is justified, but in environmental terms, it is absolutely crazy that an animal could be born here in Canada, finished in the U.S., etc. We could invent a label that says “Dubious Origin” or “Uncertain Origin.”

Basically, we have to tell the truth, once again. Only an animal that was born, raised and slaughtered in Canada should be able to be identified as being a Canadian product. Consumers no longer want this type of product, which seems to be made purposely to mislead them, to be able to go on bearing misleading information.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The time has expired, but the question is that if you have, say, a sausage product and you say the pork is a product of Canada, but it also has beef trim from Uruguay and spices from Italy, how long do you make this list of country of origin—if that's the label you want for consumers? That's the difficulty you have to think about. Pretty easily, some of the comingled products used in making a good deli meat, for example, could have 20 different countries of origin listed down the label.

Anyway, we're going to Mr. Lauzon.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think it's incumbent on me to stand up for my colleague, Mr. Miller, whom I think my colleagues are taking advantage of in his absence. So I must say that Ontario beef, as a matter of fact, is a superior beef.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

And Mr. Miller will be back soon to tell you that!

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

I wish to raise a point of order. We are the only ones who have not pushed our products. I can invite you to a barbecue where we will serve Quebec beef. Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I had to say it.

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I had to say it.

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

Mr. Arnold, in your presentation, it is written:

With regard to labelling, this means simplicity, reliability and transparency. Information given to the consumer must be credible and verifiable.

I am happy to tell you that the Minister is in full agreement on that. He adds that it has to be honest – which is something else.

It's almost like a love-in here. Everybody seems to be on the same page, that something should be done about labelling. I think it was Ms. Hillard who mentioned that there should be accurate information on the sources of food, and I think we're all in agreement on that. If something comes from Canada, it should be labelled that it came from Canada. If it came from Argentina, that should be indicated as well. So we're all in agreement there. You can stop me if anybody disagrees with anything I'm saying here.

The other thing I think we all agree on, including all the members of the committee, is that it should be simple. You can have the most wonderful labelling in the world, but if the consumer can't read it--as you mentioned, Mrs. Vaddapalli--what use is it?

You mentioned, Mrs. Vaddapalli, that Canadian organics have at least 95% organic ingredients, so I guess that should be the floor. I think if we're going to have truth in labelling and good accurate labelling, if something comes from Canada, it should say at least 95%, if we use that as a guideline. Does anybody disagree with that so far?

[Nalini Vaddapalli]

I'd like to say that if it's a single ingredient, then it poses no challenge. But as with the example that was given with beef...I would love to sit with stakeholders from all the different beef producers to better understand what would be the challenge of determining a percentage. We have to be realistic too.

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

Although if it's a single ingredient, as Ms. Hillard said, it should 100%.

[Nalini Vaddapalli]

Absolutely! Yes.

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

So I guess what we're saying here is that it should be simple and simple. That's what the message is, because if we have this wonderful labelling--where did Mr. Tweed go? I forgot to mention that I was going to share some time with him.

This labelling has to be honest. It has to be simple, because it's no good to the consumer if the consumer doesn't know what it means.

If we came up, as per your recommendations, and said it was a minimum of 95%, it was honest and it was forthright, is that what you would like to see for your consumers?

[Jennifer Hillard]

It gets very complicated when you get into multi-ingredient food. That's where we all have to talk to each other. We have to do some research. We have to talk with other stakeholders.

The single ingredient stuff is fairly simple, but that's where people are becoming aware of how misleading it is. The fish example that both the CBC and CTV covered in the same week, I think, really threw people. Then the Canada grade honey; I can't believe how many educated agricultural people I communicate with on the prairies didn't know that Canada grade honey wasn't Canadian honey.

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

I volunteer at a Habitat for Humanity Restore, and I don't know if you people are familiar with that. Anyway, there's a colleague of mine, another volunteer, who spent 35 years with Zellers. He's a merchandiser, so he knows how to sell the products at the Restore, and he says you have to give people the opportunity to buy. I think if we give Canadians the opportunity to buy and to know exactly what they're buying, they will make an informed choice, and I think we all agree....

Mr. Tanguay, you said that, if we had the chance to buy Canadian, we would pay a bit more for a Canadian product.

I think we have some good information from you here. The producers we had I think were basically in agreement. Maybe some of the processors might have some different opinions, but by and large, I think what we're here for is to protect our farmers, our agricultural people, and we're here to protect our consumers.

I really want to thank you for the information you brought forth. I think it's right on. And for your information, they're exactly the same words the minister is saying.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time has expired.

Mr. Steckle.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Very quickly, I just want to bring this heavier comment. We want to keep it simple, and I think there's only one way to do that. We may have to devise a new logo, and it may be “Canadian grown”, with a maple leaf in the centre. When it says “Canadian grown”, that leaves no doubt in anyone's mind that this is truly a Canadian product. If that is absent, then it may be anything but. I think if we give that kind of message, we're going to find that the public is going to buy into that.

I just quickly devised my little artwork here: “Canadian grown”, with a maple leaf in the centre. It's very simple.

People know in Canada what our safety standards are. They know that CFA, Health, and Agriculture, all these organizations, have given us the safest standards in the world. Canadians need to know what they're buying, and this goes for organics. What you do in terms of labelling it from the province, a provincial label on the side, that's fine. That doesn't change anything because it's still Canadian.

I think we need to...and I'm just wondering, would you agree with that as a beginning? This 95%, 70%, that's going to be argued till the sun goes down a hundred years from now. Let's forget about that for the moment. “Product of Canada” can remain, and it will involve all those other ingredients and variances we currently have without changing anything. But put one more label on there and take some of the others away. “Canada Grade A1” doesn't mean one thing, but “Grown in Canada” or “Canadian grown”--I like that. “Canadian grown”--you grow peaches; you don't make peaches.

Could I have your comments quickly?

[Jennifer Hillard]

I completely agree with that as a starting point. It doesn't get around the meat issue, because meat does move all over the place, and it doesn't get rid of the multi ingredients.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

“Canadian grown” would be “Grown in Canada”. It would have to meet all those things we talked about.

[Jennifer Hillard]

So it would be “Grown in Canada” and “Raised in Canada”; it wouldn't get shipped off somewhere for feeding? It would be finished in Canada.