Agriculture Committee on April 17th, 2008

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

So then, this study was done by one of your clients, by a member of your organization. It was not released to the public. However, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture did conduct a study—and I trust its figures— which reported the following:

[...] 80% of those surveyed felt a “Canadian Label” concept was a good/very good idea, and the most appealing aspects were its quality attributes and ease of identification.

This tells me that people want to be well informed, that they want to know the truth. That is why I am asking you and the members of your association if it would be possible to have two types of labels and to have products labelled “Product of Canada”.

Some of the testimony referred to the different percentage of ingredients in a product and to the percentage required in order to identify a product as Canadian grown. I do not believe this issue has been settled yet. Nevertheless, we need to change the current rule which stipulates that 51% of the total product must be grown in Canada in order to identify it as a product of Canada, whereas everyone knows that the jar, the liquid and the cover are all taken into consideration in this case. If the processing is done in Canada, then the product is deemed to be a product of Canada, when in fact it is not.

The second type of label could read “Processed in Canada” or “Imported into Canada” and could identify the exact origin of the product, for example, “Product of the United States” or “Product of China”. Products labelled in this manner would be on the shelves and people would be able to distinguish between home-grown products and ones that were merely processed in Canada. There would be no surprises.

Would you and the members of your organization be in favour of this labelling concept?

[Christopher Kyte]

Our members have discussed the Canadian Federation of Agriculture proposal for a “Grown in Canada” program. In fact, we offered to sit on their planning committee and help work that out. We believe the program should be voluntary, because it works really well for some different kinds of products. For example, if you were making french fries and you wanted to position your product that way, it makes some sense. We agree that there should be voluntary programs.

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

I think we hold different views on this subject. We have heard from witnesses that have said the exact opposite. To my way of thinking, when a measure is voluntary, the outcome is obvious. We have several examples of voluntary measures brought in by the government. Such measures are still one way for people to skirt rules and regulations so that ultimately, the consumer is no better informed than before.

What will happen if this measure is voluntary? Will we maintain grade designations such as “Canada Fancy”, “Canada No. 1”, “Canada A” and “Canada Choice”? Are you in favour of doing away completely with these designations that are absolutely meaningless?

[Christopher Kyte]

The Canada grade does mean something. We helped the government rewrite the processed products regulations, which were all the processed fruits and vegetable regulations. Certainly putting in a Canada Grade A rewarded farmers, because you were picking up a better pea or bean, or a better quality. You like the grade standards, because the standard inside says this is what canned corn is or this is what canned peas are, so I think you want the grade standards.

What you're saying here is that companies also may want to use “Product of Canada” or “Grown in Canada” to further illustrate a difference to their particular consumers. I think there's certainly a market. People would want to say, look, this really makes me feel good and I want to buy this; it says “Grown in Canada”--especially if there's a food-borne illness in a foreign product or anything like that.

If you put “Product of...whatever” on a package, does it change sales? I'm not sure. Look at all the canned fruit that comes in from the Philippines and from China; there's a huge consumption of the fruit bowls and the canned fruits, and it says right on there, “Product of China”. We used to make it in Canada, but I think that's going in the wrong direction.

So I don't think you can generate...just by putting a name on a product, but you might want to get into campaigns that say these are products of Canada. They're certainly doing “Buy Local”, “Buy Ontario”, “Buy B.C.”. Those kinds of programs stimulate consumption.

[Mel Fruitman]

I'd like to jump in, please.

This is why I mentioned in my opening remarks the need to consider what the purpose of this marketing is--when we start confusing the two reasons. One is economic, and one is safety and security concerns, and I think they need to be kept separate.

There is no question in our minds that from the safety or security perspective we want to have proper, accurate, non-misleading labelling of the source of the product. That is very definite.

If we're talking about the economic benefit to Canada and to Canadians, that's a different situation and may require a slightly different solution. First, absolutely mandatory economic benefit, such as the “Think Canada” campaign that I alluded to, could perhaps be voluntary, but again, any definition of product marking to be used with such a campaign has to be clear to consumers.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Lauzon.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for coming this morning.

This phenomenon we're facing didn't happen overnight. This is something that has been evolving over a number of years. For whatever reasons, it hasn't been addressed as enthusiastically or as forcefully as it should have been, and so be it. I'm very proud that our government, especially the Prime Minister in December.... The very things you've been telling us this morning have been told to us since we took over government. The Prime Minister, with his consumer and food action plan, tried to address that and has brought out $113 million, as a matter of fact, in this action plan to do the very kinds of things you want done.

So I think we're heading in the right direction, and we've made a commitment--our government, the Prime Minister, even in the throne speech. Our minister has made a commitment to address these very serious issues.

Mr. Kyte, I just want a clarification. In your opening comments you mentioned that in your mind consumers want safe food, that they look at price, they look at content, and maybe they look at origin.

I don't necessarily agree that maybe they look at origin; I think Canadian consumers look at origin just about all the time. Can you explain why you think that maybe the origin of the product is not as important as some of the other things, why you feel that way?

[Christopher Kyte]

Let's put it this way. Number one, I do the grocery shopping in my house, so I'm an enlightened buyer. Number two, I spend a fair amount of time in the grocery store and watch other people purchasing, and that's always interesting. Number three, if you go through the fruit and vegetable section of the store, it's like the United Nations. Every Saturday morning I go to the United Nations. You get product from Guatemala, product from the U.S.A., and product from Mexico. People just pick it up. I don't even see them.... They look at the price.

But there's a growing awareness. People are saying they want to make an important decision here. But if you look at the canned fruit sales, they've just skyrocketed, and those products aren't made in Canada anymore.

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

Just to follow up on that, given an informed consumer, and if the consumer is given the facts and has a product that is relatively similar and is Canadian-made, produced here in Canada, I think probably 100% of the time every Canadian as a consumer would choose a Canadian product. That's my opinion, and we could agree to disagree on it.

Mr. Fruitman, I really like what you said. You said a couple of things that caught my attention. One is that we should increase import checks, that we should possibly increase our enforcement of “Product of Canada” labelling. We agree with that; that's why the Prime Minister has made the commitment that this government will address it. But you also said that when it comes to labelling, labelling should be truthful, which I agree with; you said it should be useful—and I agree with you, so much of the labelling that I read now is, for my needs, not particularly useful—and you said that it should be honest, and I agree with that. You also mentioned in a subsequent answer, I think to Mr. Easter, that clarity had to be involved in the labelling, that it had to be understood.

In my discussions with the minister, I've found he agrees with all that. He thinks we're going that way, and thank you for suggesting that we're on the right path. But he also thinks it should be simpler, and I guess that's what you're saying when you say it should be easily understood. It has to be, so that the average consumer who walks in doesn't have to spend a whole bunch of time understanding what the product is.

I think Mr. Easter talked about different levels of how much content there should be. I think you mentioned, Mr. Fruitman, that if there were one or two ingredients it probably should say 100%, I think, or indicate 75%-25%.

What's your thinking on that?

[Mel Fruitman]

Certainly a product in which you can uniquely identify the items...as I said, mixed vegetables, where you may have peas, carrots, corn, or something in it and you can identify each of those, and there's no blending together of them. For all of those products to be labelled “Product of Canada”, at least 75%, say, or maybe as high as 90% or 100% should be grown in Canada. Once you get into blending ingredients, of course, that equation changes.

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

I guess your message is that it should be a very high percentage.

[Mel Fruitman]

Yes, it should be a very high percentage when we're talking about food and about cases where you can clearly identify what the ingredient is. So if it's a can of peaches, those peaches should absolutely be grown in Canada. If it's peaches and apples, or whatever might be mixed together, then it should be perhaps slightly less than 100%. But certainly if, as I say, it's one ingredient.... This is the whole problem with this apple juice, for example. Clearly, it's apple juice, and it may or may not be made from concentrate, but we don't know where that 27 million litres of apple juice from China is going.

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

What if I suggested that a product should be all Canadian or it doesn't carry the “Product of Canada” label?

[Mel Fruitman]

You're talking about a single-ingredient product? In that case, do you mean the content?

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

Yes.

[Mel Fruitman]

I think that would possibly be appropriate, yes.

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

Thank you. You could maybe give me 1% or 2% of leeway there. But if it were 99% or....

Mr. Kyte, would you agree with the exchange Mr. Fruitman and I just had?

[Christopher Kyte]

Directionally I would, yes, but with just one caveat: you do want to reward companies that are making products that are not entirely of Canadian ingredients.

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

I understand, but we're talking about truth in labelling. You wouldn't object if we were very honest, very clear, easily understood...? Okay.

One of the other things you mentioned, Mr. Fruitman, is that you were very interested in security and safety of our food. Have you had a chance to look at our proposed action plan? Do you feel comfortable that we're heading in the right direction, that at the end of this process we will have safe and secure food?

[Mel Fruitman]

Yes, and I hope so. I think the direction is correct and I hope that's where we wind up.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Atamanenko.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you very much.

My apologies for being late. I had to choose between this dynamic group and a group of 30 students from my riding, whom I snuck into the House of Commons as they were doing all the security checks.

Mr. Fruitman, I'd like to get your take on this. Mr. Easter passed out some samples for our lunch today. I don't know if you've seen them, but there were three samples of pork. Two of the three had U.S. labels and one had no label. Obviously it looks as if our trade agreements, first of all, allow us to have this free flow of meat coming back and forth across the border. As a consumer, what would be your take on this, if you went to the supermarket?

[Mel Fruitman]

If I went to the supermarket, and in fact I do most of the shopping in my house as well, I think I would want to know where it came from. I certainly don't want to be told that it came from someplace it didn't. I did not see the products, but from what you said, it sounded as though two of them were labelled.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

They had U.S. labels, and one didn't have anything.