Evidence of meeting #28 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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Christopher Kyte  President, Food Processors of Canada
Mel Fruitman  Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada

9:50 a.m.

Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada

Mel Fruitman

It had U.S. labels, which suggests that it came from the States. Regarding the one that I didn't know where it came from, I'd probably be inclined, at least in that case, to go for one of the ones that I knew where they came from, rather than the one that I didn't. If none of them had any source designation on them at all, as a consumer I'd be very confused if I was concerned about the country of origin.

Sometimes these things are not necessarily top of mind. As Mr. Kyte suggested, price usually is the first consideration. Country of origin or “product of” or any of those terms are more likely to come to mind, depending on what external factors are at play at the present time--whether there have been media reports of certain incidents, different types of things, external forces that cause the consumer to think in those terms.

I too notice, as I go through the supermarket, that I'm standing there reading labels, while many people who are under much more time pressure than I am come by and just grab it off the shelf, sometimes looking at the lowest price.

If we have labelling, then I want it to be accurate. If we don't know, then we are probably better off not having anything and then leaving it up to the consumer to decide: do I want to buy that product that I don't know anything about, or find one that I do know something about?

9:50 a.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

My next question--I'll ask your input also, Mr. Kyte, please--concerns labelling, voluntary or compulsory. There's been some discussion on this by witnesses appearing before our committee. We've seen, for example, that since 2004 we've had voluntary labelling for GM foods, and really there's no labelling. It hasn't come into effect. I'm wondering what your opinion is. If we agree to change the system and we have criteria, should it be mandatory or should it be voluntary?

Also, should there be different criteria depending on the product? If we look at transformed meat and a mixture of different meats and fruit and vegetables, then should we be looking at different types of criteria?

9:50 a.m.

Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada

Mel Fruitman

That, unfortunately, becomes a very complex situation. Basically, I'd say food products should be marked, but there may be circumstances in which it is not practical to do so. As I said, with respect to food products, I think it should be mandatory when we are dealing with consumers' concerns about the possible safety of the product and an inherent understanding or belief that Canadian products are safe, certainly at a higher level than perhaps some imported products. Perception may not be reality, but that is a consumer perception. So the foodstuffs should be mandatory.

If we're looking at promotions that relate to the economic value to Canada of producing something that has a higher Canadian value-added, then those could perhaps be voluntary.

In effect, we are saying that there may be different rules for different types of products. When you get into different foodstuffs--meats versus vegetables or something--generally speaking I'd say mandatory, but that would probably require a bit more investigation.

9:55 a.m.

President, Food Processors of Canada

Christopher Kyte

Thank you.

We believe in truth in advertising. We do like the food and consumer protection act that's being discussed and brought forward. We think there's a lot in there that we can work with to improve the system. I think it's long overdue. There are opportunities to put in proper controls.

In terms of voluntary versus mandatory labelling, there are some things that are mandatory, such as anything under the CAP Act. And I think that other things we want to put on the label should be voluntary, but they should also be honest. So if you say “Product of Canada” and you know what the “Product of Canada” rules are, then you've got to live by those rules. If you can import a product and not say where it's coming from, that's a bit of a problem, and I would suggest that's one area you'd want to be mandatory.

9:55 a.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Right now the “Product of Canada” is 51% of the production. Should this be changed, and how would you see the change happening?

9:55 a.m.

President, Food Processors of Canada

Christopher Kyte

I would hope there's consideration...because there are only two of us here, right? We can't have all the ifs, ands, or buts. But I think if the government had a full consultation with consumers across the country and with industry, then you could figure out exactly what the percentage should be. Is it 100% or is it 100% less pesticides and other economic activities that are imported?

9:55 a.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

But bottom line, should it be based on the content as opposed to the economic value of that particular product?

9:55 a.m.

President, Food Processors of Canada

Christopher Kyte

I think that's pretty well standard throughout the world. It's on the basis of total value.

9:55 a.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Total value?

9:55 a.m.

President, Food Processors of Canada

9:55 a.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Fruitman.

9:55 a.m.

Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada

Mel Fruitman

Again, that gets back to the point I've made several times now on the intent of that marking. What is it intended to convey? This suggests that perhaps we do need two different types of markings, depending on, first, whether it's intended to convey an element of safety or security, and second, if it's dealing with the economic value to Canada.

To your other question, “Product of Canada” needs to be changed from the way it is being applied now.

9:55 a.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Thank you.

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

We're going to move into our five-minute rounds now.

Mr. Steckle, you have the floor.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To our witnesses this morning, I'm very interested in your comments, many of which I very much support.

The reason we are together, of course, is to come to some understanding of terms of labelling and the practice of enforcement. I think it's becoming very clear to all of us here that the enforcement body we have, the CFIA--and perhaps others--is not doing its job, for whatever reason. Perhaps it's the fact that they don't have large numbers of people. I question that, because we know they have a high number of people working in their departments. I think some of those people could perhaps best use their energies and efforts in areas other than enforcement.

I'm also very much concerned about the fact that there seems to be no mechanism to hold the importers accountable. I think that's something we need to look at very seriously in terms of going forward, that we close that gap, because certainly there should be no product from the United States or anywhere else in the world coming into Canada that doesn't clearly indicate it's an imported product.

We have a multiplicity of logos and labels and notions of what labels mean. We do not quite have an understanding of what they mean.

I think, going forward, we need to put a clear understanding on “Product of Canada” and indicate whether it refers to the product that's in the can or in the containment of that product. It should be on the content, not on the value, because water hasn't got a lot of value, but you could put value to it artificially. I think we need to very clearly denote that it's the content. Personally, I believe it should be no less than 75%.

I believe there should also be a clear label that denotes a product being Canadian. “Canadian Grown” would be my preferred label, because you could label it with “Canadian Grown” and a maple leaf, perhaps. Those who grow products here--and “grown” is better than “Made in Canada” for food items, because we don't make food items. We manufacture, remanufacture, process, but we don't make--we grow all of the things basically that we consume.

How would you feel about a label that denotes a Canadian product being solely Canadian, maybe 98% or whatever? There is always a margin, but that item comes from Canada. That apple is grown in Canada. That piece of pork, that tenderloin, is a Canadian-grown pork product, and people know that when they buy it. They don't have to ask any other questions. They don't need to look at any other labels, because that says it all.

If we had a clear label, we could promote that as a country, as a nation. The provinces could, of course, put their own logos on, promoting their products, which I think is fair, but Canadians need to understand, and I think that's pretty simple.

When we go to the other products, then we need this “Product of Canada”, and it needs to be clearly understood that 75% of that product is a product that came from Canada.

Then you might have another submarginal indicator that says “import blended”, because there may be beans in the product and there might be 15 different things. It's pretty hard to know. It might have 10 different countries represented in that can. I don't know whether we'd use a broad term like “import blended” or something like that, but let's keep it simple. Let's give people a clear understanding when they go in--that's Canadian, and this may not be Canadian.

How do you feel about that?

10 a.m.

Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada

Mel Fruitman

I think that certainly is the information we want to have.

On the types of things you were talking about, I'm not sure whether you were suggesting there be a “grown in” and a “product of” as two separate labels.

10 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON

I'm sorry, if it was “Grown in Canada” or “Canadian Grown”, that would be exclusively knowing that it has met all the requirements--it has been grown here, not fed here; it hasn't been moved to the United States and brought back in again. It is Canadian grown. Apples are an example of that.

10 a.m.

Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada

Mel Fruitman

Okay. I would just suggest that it could work if it's going to replace “product of”. However, remember the consumer makes a distinction, which might be slightly confusing, between “grown” and “raised”. Although technically there is no distinction, they may mean different things to consumers.

The other concept of “blended imported product” or something like that is logical, but I suggest we be very careful about overloading ourselves with different terms. That's where we run a risk of negating the good that we do from having the positive terms, if we introduce so many terms that it gets confusing to consumers.

Again, the direction is a good one. I think it needs to be very carefully thought out as to what final labelling should be.

10 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON

I do believe Canadians are becoming more and more aware of it, particularly if they are made aware of it through advertising. Provinces do it, and people are becoming sensitive to whether they are buying Canadian or not buying Canadian.

With regard to “Product of Canada”, I'd be quite happy to see “Product of Canada” gone and something else clearly done. It has such a variance of meanings that I don't think Canadians understand what it means.

10 a.m.

Vice-President, Consumers' Association of Canada

Mel Fruitman

Remember that if you introduce a new term, you have to make it very clear to people through some kind of campaign what has gone, what is new, and what the new means.

10 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON

I think Canada has to do that. If we truly believe it as the Government of Canada, then we have a responsibility to make sure Canadians understand and that we promote our products. Other countries do it; we need to do it too. We need to stand to the front of agriculture in this country, and we haven't done it.

10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Your time has expired.

Mr. Storseth is next.

10 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming forward today.

I'm going to keep making this point until Mr. Wilson finally quotes me on it.

I do not make as much money as some of the members on the other side. I cannot afford to bring my lawyer to the grocery store with me every day to make sure I'm buying a grown-in-Canada or made-in-Canada product, if that's exactly what I want. As a consumer, I have a right to have that choice.

I listened to Mr. Steckle. I appreciate what he is saying about simplifying things, but then he got into submarginal and blends and adding “Canadian Grown”, which he said is made in Canada or raised in Canada.

We don't need more choices. When our consumers and our constituents go to the grocery store, they already have a dizzying array of choices laid out for them. Most of them are not legal experts who can understand the 51% aspect. This topic has been one of the most frustrating I have had, sitting here as a member of Parliament and listening to the technicalities of what is and is not a product of Canada.

I believe we need to make it simpler--absolutely--but we don't need to be introducing new labels.

Mr. Kyte, you mentioned that you like the idea of “Grown in Canada”, which would be a new label, and we would have to have a new marketing campaign to try to establish it. Can you explain to me the differences between “Product of Canada”, “Made in Canada”, “Grown in Canada”, and “Raised in Canada”? Can you explain to me the differences in those four terms?

10:05 a.m.

President, Food Processors of Canada

Christopher Kyte

If I were a consumer in the grocery store, walking down the aisle, I wouldn't want to. I mean, I can give you a technical rundown, but I don't think you want that right now. I get your point.

My approach here was that if a province or producers or pea growers or somebody wanted to do a grown-in-Canada type of program, why shouldn't they be able to do something that's voluntary and good for their business? If a french fry guy wants to work with his growers and develop a grown-in-Canada label, why couldn't he? It's on a voluntary basis.

You're quite right: let's clarify the “Product of Canada” aspect. I think that's worthwhile. You're right, we don't need to make things a lot more complicated.

The other thing we've got to realize is the way companies process products. I've got a member who is a huge buyer of apples. He buys all the apples he can from Ontario. Then he also buys all the apples he can in Quebec. He also has to go to upstate New York to finish off his purchases for the year. He does that on a seasonal basis. You won't want him carrying a bunch of different labels, or at least two labels--“Product of U.S.A.” and “Product of Canada”. You want to reward him for his investment.

The other thing is that one of my people makes strawberry jam. He buys all the strawberries he can in Ontario, and then, when he runs out, he needs to bring those strawberries in from some other country.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Then, Mr. Kyte, from what I'm hearing, you would agree that industry or somebody wants to go forward with the new “Grown in Canada” or something like that, and they want to invest in it because they feel it is going to give them an advantage economically, just as “Alberta beef” was an industry-driven voluntary labelling process that was one of the most successful branding aspects in the agricultural sector that I'm aware of. That was a voluntary initiative. I agree with you when you say that's what it should be.

Do you agree with that, Mr. Kyte?