Good day and thank you.
The Canadian Horticultural Council is a national association that has been committed to promoting the interests of its members since 1922.
We are committed to advancing the growth and economic viability of horticulture by encouraging cooperation and understanding to build national consensus on key issues such as the one we're speaking about here today and bringing those positions to you.
Across Canada, the CHC's members are involved in the production, packing and processing of over 120 horticultural crops comprised of fruit, vegetables and herbs.
Members include provincial and national horticultural commodity organizations who represent over 25,000 producers in Canada, as well as allied and service organizations, provincial governments, and individual producers.
Horticulture is certainly one of the larger production sectors in Canada, with over $5 billion in cash receipts, and critical in many provinces. It's a major source of farm cash receipts in B.C. and P.E.I., and it accounts for more than one-half of crop receipts in provinces outside of the prairies.
There are other stats in the document you have before you, so in the interest of time I'll move on to a few other things, such as why we are here today. We're seeking clarity and truth in labelling and a means to recognize Canada's outstanding products.
We face an inability to know with certainty that we are purchasing and supporting our Canadian-grown products. We rely on a number of regulations administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in order to engage in commerce. The regulations governing the definition of “Product of Canada” date back to the early 1970s, and, clearly, many are in agreement that there's a need to revisit and amend those regulations.
We and others have identified this as a priority for some time. However, it seems that it wasn't until attention was drawn about a year ago to incidents with pet food and some food safety incidents that we really witnessed a heightened and broader awareness of these concerns. These incidents truly served as a call to action. It is, indeed, now time to review criteria linked to “Product of Canada” labelling.
Furthermore, as many will recall, last fall, CBC's Marketplace presented an exposé on “Product of Canada”. While numerous examples were presented and consumers interviewed, perhaps one of the most revealing items was a jar of garlic bearing the name “Canada garlic” and was labelled “Product of Canada”, which upon further investigation was found to contain no Canadian garlic whatsoever.
While it's permitted under current regulations, the result is confusing for the general public, and it is certainly a disservice to Canadian producers. Consumers have a right to distinguish and support Canadian production, but must be in a position to do so. The present definition is obsolete and may be misleading as to the real origin of products identified with the designation.
As you have heard, under the current regulations there are definitions around content and so forth, and the result is a multitude of products containing imported raw material that may be labelled as “Product of Canada”, even though they may be simply processed and, in some instances, only packaged in Canada.
We believe and ask that the criteria for an item to bear the “Product of Canada” designation be amended such that the significant portion of the content of a product is indeed grown in Canada.
Canadian farmers proudly produce our fruit and vegetable crops using environmental farm plans, on-farm food safety programs, and a whole host of other federal, provincial, and municipal regulations. They must be recognized and rewarded for this.
Certainly, we recognize that there are differences when referring to a fresh product, as we've heard, such as an apple, a peach, or potatoes. Whether it be in bulk, bearing a sticker, or packaged, one is generally able to readily determine the origin. It can, however, be more of a challenge when it comes to processed products. Lack of clarity, confusion, and inconsistency are very much the norm.
I have brought a number of examples. I must preface my remarks by saying that we value tremendously our processors and certainly do not want to see disadvantages put upon them.
In the package you have there are three bottles of juice, two orange and one apple. Each is made by the same company, yet there are different labels. One indicates “Product of Canada” as well as “Prepared under licence”; the second, “Product of Canada”, no origin; the third, “Product of Canada” and “Prepared by”. Again, all three are made by the same company.
Some frozen juice indicates “Processed in Canada”. However, there's no reference to “Product of”. On some other juices, some cranberry cocktail, grape cocktail, there's no “Product of” designation whatsoever.
There are two cans of peas. They're from different companies; each one is selling the same product on the same shelf, yet they have completely different labels. One, the Del Monte, has “Product of Canada”, and the other has no designation other than simply “Prepared for”.
Here is some fruit cocktail. “Product of Canada” is how it's identified, yet the ingredients include pineapple. Here is a can of pear halves labelled “Product of U.S.A.”, which is fine; that's good. However, there is no “Prepared for” listed anywhere.
Here are diced tomatoes--“Product of Canada”--yet a can of tomato paste has no designation other than “Prepared under licence”.
Here are some whole white potatoes. They're prepared for a Manitoba company, but there's no packaging done there that we're aware of. Are the potatoes Canadian? Perhaps, but perhaps not.
Finally, here's a Campbell's soup label. There's certainly a name and address, as is required, but there's no “Prepared by”, “Processed by”, “Packaged by”, or “Product of”.
As I indicated, I acknowledge that we need and value and support our Canadian processors and have no desire to see them placed at a competitive disadvantage by changes that may come about. In fact, change must provide benefit to them as well, including opportunities to proudly distinguish premium Canadian products. We believe there are means to accomplish this.
The value our processors add to our sector, our rural economies, and indeed the Canadian economy in general must not be compromised. We value the innovation and diversification they bring to us. Certainly we collaborate with and work closely with the processors whenever possible.
All of this is integral to Canada's food security, both today and, even more importantly, for the future.
We do not want changes to result in reduced returns to processors, as was referred to here just a few minutes ago. Unfortunately, over the past two years we've witnessed the closure of a number of processing facilities.
In Quebec they included Kraft, avec les concombres, à Sainte-Thérèse; CanGro, which was previously Kraft, a bean plant in Chambly; and Smuckers Foods, a cucumber receiving and brining plant in Saint-Bonaventure, in March 2006. Of course, in Ontario just recently it was CanGro, the processing facility for peaches and pears in St. Davids.
Those are the most recent. Sadly, there have been many others, and we fear the company's plant, CanGro, which cans peas, sweet corn, and other vegetables in Ontario, could also close. Hopefully this will not be the case. We don't have any indication, but if we look at history, it is a cause for concern.
In terms of some of the suggestions that have been previously made and the reason you're studying this issue, we also refer to being able to make health claim statements. There's certainly a disadvantage to us here in Canada, and there are many healthy attributes to our products. We should be able to speak to these as well.
Again, in being able to identify Canadian products, no doubt we recall the phenomenal success of the “I am Canadian” beverage campaign a few years ago. Just imagine the possibilities of this type of recognition and the enthusiasm that could be translated to our own Canadian-grown agricultural products.
With that, I'll conclude my comments.