Evidence of meeting #31 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

Mark Loney  Manager and Owner, Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd.
Ronald Doering  Partner, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Jeanne Cruikshank  Vice-President, Atlantic Office, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors
Bernard Leblanc  National Labelling Resource, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I'll bring this meeting to order.

We're continuing our study on “Product of Canada” labelling.

I want to welcome to the table today, from Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd., Mark Loney. Thanks a lot for joining us, Mark.

We have, from Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ronald Doering.

From the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, we have Jeanne Cruikshank and Bernard Leblanc. I want to welcome both of you.

I ask that you keep your opening comments within the 10-minute limit so that we have more time for questions and answers with our members as we start our rounds.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Loney.

9:05 a.m.

Mark Loney Manager and Owner, Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd.

We're still waiting for Doug to bring back a sheet.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

If you want to wait, we'll turn it over to Mr. Doering.

You can kick us off.

9:05 a.m.

Ronald Doering Partner, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP

I'm here today in my own personal capacity at the invitation of the clerk, so I'm not representing anyone. I assume that part of the reason I'm here is because my primary practice in law is agriculture and food law. I write widely on issues of food law, and I'm a former president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I was reminded by Jean-Denis this morning, before we started, Mr. Chair, that he was actually here when we were creating the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in 1995-96. He remembered that I had a bad back then. I still do, Jean-Denis.

The only other people who I think were here at that time we were creating it--I was the only government witness--were Mr. Easter and I think Mr. Steckle. I think you were here then. So this is 12 years later, back in this room, on related issues of the Food Inspection Agency.

I'm going to make three points in my introductory remarks. I think they may be different from what my colleagues are saying today or from what you have heard.

In my opinion, this is not a particularly complicated issue. It's widely discussed and described as complicated. I don't think it's that complicated. There are some fairly easy solutions. That's my first point.

My second point is that I'm going to urge you not to recommend solutions that involve regulatory change. I think that would be a mistake. In the course of this, instead of talking about the law of food and drugs or packaging law or packaging and labelling, I'm going to make reference to another law, which doesn't get enough attention up here, in my opinion. And that is the law of unintended consequences. It seems to me that a regulatory change in this area could have significant unintended consequences that would be hurtful to the industry and to Canadian consumers.

My third point is that on the matter of “Grown in Canada”, on this idea of having another expression, as far as I can see, there's absolutely no reason it can't be done right now. Just do it. In fact, it's remarkable that it hasn't been done before now.

I'll just elaborate on those three points.

It's not a complicated issue. While it's been around for a while, with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and others being concerned about trying to help Canadian producers and so on, there are actually, as we've heard from the Food Inspection Agency, very few complaints about this issue. If you review your transcript, you'll see a remarkably few number of examples. There's the famous jar of garlic, and there are others that people will trot out. But in many cases, these are labelling issues not directly related to the “Product of Canada” issue.

If a 51% guideline established by Industry Canada many years ago--not with food in mind--is a problem, then all you have to do is change it. It could be done immediately. It requires no regulatory change. The Food Inspection Agency is studying this issue at the direction of the Prime Minister. My assumption is that if people are persuaded that the number should be higher than 51% but less than 100%, then that could be done immediately. It could be done a week after your report is finished. It's simply a direction, a decision. The Food Inspection Agency makes decisions every day to alter the guide to food labelling. They can do that immediately.

Although it's very important to understand that this could be done quickly, it should remain voluntary, not mandatory. One of the things we should keep in perspective here is that in a typical large supermarket there are tens of thousands of SKUs. In fact, Jeanne, you may know. Would there be 40,000 or 50,000 SKUs in a typical large supermarket?

9:05 a.m.

Jeanne Cruikshank Vice-President, Atlantic Office, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors

Probably 35,000-plus.

9:10 a.m.

Partner, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP

Ronald Doering

I remember I used to use the number 30,000 to 40,000, so yes, 35,000 SKUs. There are 99.9% of those that are labelled properly as far as “Product of Canada” is concerned, so let's keep this in perspective, ladies and gentlemen.

My second point is that we can easily change your recommendation to help the Food Inspection Agency do this. We can easily change the 51% rule to something higher, such as 80% or 90%. That could be done. It can be done quickly, and it's not complicated. But certainly, do not make it 100%; you've had submissions already on why that would be a silly idea.

Why is it important not to change regulations? Happily, this is one of those areas where we can remain fairly nimble, because we're not stuck with an out-of-date regulation. The Food Inspection Agency makes changes to the guide on food labelling all the time. Subsection 5(1) doesn't need to be changed. It's there now, and it makes it a criminal offence to mislead people.

Leave the statute alone. Leave the regulations alone. Recognize that you can easily have a dramatic impact on the issue of “Product of Canada”, if you want to, by tinkering with the guidance, the guide to food labelling, and by keeping it voluntary, not bringing in regulations.

The food regulatory system in Canada is huge. There are about 10 federal statutes, and each of these has in the order of 20 or 30 sets of regulations. The food regulations in Canada sit on my desk and they are this high. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of pages of regulations relating to the food industry. It is not a good idea to get into the position where you have to change those in order to achieve something, because you're going to get further change, and you'll still be stuck with Canada's sclerotic regulatory change system, which takes a couple of years. It has to go to government twice, for RIAS and gazetting, just to have some minor change. It is this sclerotic food regulatory system that undermines innovation and investment for the food industry, and it certainly undermines competitiveness.

My argument to you today, and my second point, is do not engage that black hole of Canadian food regulations; make your contribution by recommending guidance changes. This is based on my own sense, as I mentioned in my introduction, that the single biggest problem, and the law we need to think more about on the Hill, is the law of unintended consequences.

If you start to change one part of the regulation because the food commodities are all different--and there are literally dozens of pages about products relative to meat, as the Meat Council told you.... The unintended consequence of the American COOL provisions is that the origin labelling now has a fundamentally flawed system. It's completely unworkable, and it will hurt both Canadians and Americans. We know what it would do to weanling pigs, for example.

I noted in a brief review of your minutes that a lot of people have confused the quality standards. I urge you to leave that alone. We've talked about amending product regulations and quality standards for about 15 to 20 years, Mr. Easter. We still haven't, and there's a reason. It is so complicated and so detailed that if you get into that, you may not get out.

You want to retain things like “Canada Choice”, even if it's not a “Product of Canada”, in the sense that the fruit isn't. It seems to me that there's a big difference between a can of pears produced, packaged, and canned in China, shipped here in a great big ship, and where a struggling Canadian food processor takes Chinese pears, cuts them up, uses Canadians to put them in a can, and hires Canadians to label and sell them. We should be able to distinguish between those two things.

In the case of the Canadian product, we know there have to be very stringent rules about what it means to be “Canada Choice”. For example, we would have a very hard time enforcing some of that stuff with respect to imported product.

To conclude this second point, it's important to realize that while the solution to this problem is not complicated, you could get into a mess tinkering with the regulatory regime.

Here's an example related to juice. A significant Canadian juice company that has survived and done well used “Product of Canada” for anything that was 80% Canadian ingredients. All of the processing, manufacturing, and packaging is carried out in Canada. This is their own voluntary standard. If they're not using 80% Canadian produce, they call it “Prepared in Canada”. This is a product for which all activities of processing, manufacturing, and packaging are done in Canada.

It seems to me that this would be quite adequate to protect the Canadian consumer. The last thing you would want, though, is to specify the country of origin for these kinds of things. You can't source apple juice just from Canada all year long, and many juices have multiple ingredients.

My third point has to do with the “Grown in Canada” designation. It's remarkable to me that the farmers of Canada are still looking for funding from Agriculture Canada to do this. Why don't they simply do it? A voluntary “Grown in Canada” program funded by producers can be done right now. It doesn't need to go through the regulatory system. As far as I'm concerned, it's remarkable that we haven't built on the good programs that many of the provinces have.

So, Mr. Bezan, it's not a complicated problem, really. The solution is easy: raise the 51% guidelines and encourage the producers, who are anxious to use “Grown in Canada”. You have subsection 5(1) to back it up if somebody tries to be misleading. It's surprising it hasn't been done before now.

Thank you.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you. This is a different perspective, and we appreciate it.

Mr. Loney, are you ready?

9:10 a.m.

Manager and Owner, Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd.

Mark Loney

The sheet is being redone, I think.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Madame Cruikshank.

9:10 a.m.

Vice-President, Atlantic Office, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors

Jeanne Cruikshank

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be providing the opening remarks. Mr. Leblanc is with me this morning. He is our labelling resource, and his expertise may be helpful to us all when it comes to the question time.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm pleased to be here today to provide information to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

My name is Jeanne Cruikshank, and I am vice-president of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors. We represent the small, medium, and large grocery distributors on both the retail and food service sides. Our members annually contribute $72 billion in retail sales and $12 billion on the food service side to the Canadian economy. We service companies that you may know, such as Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys, and Safeway, as well as some of the smaller companies, like Thrifty Foods and Co-op Atlantic. You may also recognize our members’ private label products, such as Compliments, President’s Choice, No Name, Master’s Choice, and Safeway Select.

We have more than 428,000 employees in the industry and operate through 24,000 stores in every community in Canada. Our members account for about 85% of all the grocery products distributed in Canada to all of those 24,000 stores, hospitals, restaurants, institutions, and long-term care facilities. Each one of those products passes through a distribution or a retail network. CCGD’s mission is to advance and promote the economic well-being of its members and their efforts to deliver the best value to customers and the consumer.

Our role is to interface with consumers. CCGD members are the direct interface with consumers. We take very seriously the responsibility of providing information to consumers so they can make informed choices about the products they purchase. From the outset, let me be clear that the issue of “Product of Canada” is not considered a food safety issue by CCGD members. It is about country of origin. We recognize that we are dealing with a highly educated and discerning consumer in the very competitive world of food retailing. To that end, CCGD member products are labelled to comply with the current “Made in Canada” policy from the Competition Bureau. When CCGD members choose to promote products as “Made in Canada” or “Product of Canada”, we choose products that meet the requirements of the bureau.

There is always a better way. The food industry is an ever-changing business, and we recognize that there can always be a better way. We need to look at different scenarios for identifying products that are 100% Canadian, as well as products made in Canada with both Canadian and imported ingredients. Therefore, CCGD proposes considering a two-tier system similar to the CFA “Grown in Canada” proposal. Products that are “100% Product of Canada” would be labelled and/or branded with a unique logo and claim. A second designation would exist for products that are made in Canada with both Canadian and imported ingredients. It would allow enough flexibility to respond to the global economic realities of our industry in cases where ingredients are sourced from different countries.

Particular consideration will also have to be given to products that are processed in Canada with both Canadian and imported ingredients when they do not meet the 51% value-added criteria and therefore cannot display the “Made in Canada” claim. When destined for export, products that do not now qualify for “Product of Canada” are still required by the country importing the goods to declare a country of origin. The current “Made in Canada” guidelines do not address this scenario—yet another reason to review the current “Made in Canada” guidelines to address today’s reality of global marketing.

As for partnering with government, CCGD would be pleased to participate in the development of new claims for identifying products that are 100% Canadian content, as well as new claims to identify products processed in Canada with both Canadian and imported ingredients. These new claims would provide clarity to consumers and industry and must also work for both imported and exported products.

We strongly urge that any new guidelines and/or claims to identify products made in Canada be preceded by consumer surveys, so that it is well understood what message consumers would receive from these new claims. Once new guidelines and claims are established, we recommend that a consumer awareness component be undertaken on the part of government and delivered in partnership with industry. An example of this partnership would be the latest nutrition labelling TV ad campaign. In fact, perhaps part of the discussion currently around “Made in Canada” came about because there was no awareness campaign to explain its purpose, mandate, and criteria.

Opportunities and challenges. A challenge that will need to be addressed is that the claims and conditions that are developed to identify products made or processed in Canada will need to take into account the country of origin policies used by countries exporting food products into Canada. It is essential that there be a level playing field and that both products made in Canada and prepackaged products imported into this country meet the same criteria. To have products imported into Canada declaring, for example, “Product of Country X” when 90% of the product is from country Y would be misleading to Canadian consumers and would create an unlevel playing field. In other words, country of origin claims that are developed for the Canadian market must be compatible with those of our trading partners such that the relabelling of products would not be necessary.

The outcome of the standing committee discussion provides an opportunity to establish a forum to amend and revise regulations and guidelines for “Made in Canada”. This forum, a consultation with all stakeholders, would allow an opportunity for new definitions with clear parameters to be established, defined, and communicated to both consumers and industry.

A key element for the success of this review is the allowance of a considerable transition time for the industry to comply with any new guidelines for “Made in Canada”, thus minimizing the cost of relabelling products.

In conclusion, on behalf of the CCGD members, I would urge the members of the standing committee to establish a forum for full and thorough dialogue with appropriate stakeholders involved, many of whom have presented before you. CCGD members offer our involvement and expertise to what we hope will be a timely and efficient process that meets our mutual objectives.

Thank you.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

Mr. Loney.

9:20 a.m.

Manager and Owner, Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd.

Mark Loney

Bonjour. Good morning.

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to include me in your study. My name is Mark Loney. My daughter Rosalie is here with me.

Our family owns an independent grocery store in northwestern Ontario. For the past 15 years, to complement a retail grocery business, we have been exporting food products, primarily Canadian jam, to the United States. As part of a back haul, we bring food products back into Canada from the U.S. to sell in our store, and this is the product here.

“Product of Canada” is the primary selling point to the jam we sell in the U.S. The perception in the market is that Canadian jam is much superior to American jam. Early in 2007 we got the bad news that the brand we used to sell, Malkin's, was being discontinued due to factory closure. When we heard this news we were taken aback, because this was a large part of our business. After some discussion, we decided to try to retain this business by designing our own jam label. We chose Last Mountain Berry Farms of southeast Saskatchewan, a small family owned business similar in size to ours, to produce the new jam for us. We decided to try to design one label good for both the U.S. and Canadian market. This was important to us as it would save thousands of dollars in segregation costs due to labelling, logistics, warehousing, etc.

We're encouraged in our endeavour by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Their system was designed with small business in mind. They did what they could to move our American label as close as possible to Canadian regulations. We were pleased with how fast and efficiently we were able to have our product for sale in another country. We have been selling there for ten months. We are still not able to sell in Canada.

I think you have a handout now, and I want you to look at it because you'll be surprised at how close the Canadian label and the U.S. label are to each other. This is primarily due to what FDA has done for us, not CFIA. Not only will you see all the French requirements but also both metric and imperial measurements. Regulations on both sides of the border are vague and open to interpretation. USFDA used interpretation to our advantage. As long as the relevant information is there in a readable format and there's truth in the label, they're satisfied.

This is not how the CFIA operates. Food imported into Canada does not go through the registration process. We naively thought this would be the case for jam. To our amazement, it was not. CFIA presumes that foreign product is compliant, and it can be sold the same day it enters our country. Domestic product, like our jam, is presumed non-compliant and is illegal to sell unless it goes through the label registration process.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Chair, just a point of clarification.

Mr. Loney, regarding the pamphlet you handed out, you implied that one was an American label and one was Canadian, and what I have appears to be the same.

9:20 a.m.

Manager and Owner, Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd.

Mark Loney

They're the same, but if you look, there's “20 grams” on the nutritional facts table, and the lines are thicker on the NFT, but the CFIA won't allow me to sell that in Canada. I can't register that label, and it cost me tens of thousands of dollars. As a small business, that's hard to afford. One is actually registered. You might have a hard time telling which one is which, but one is registered in Canada and the other one is compliant for the U.S.

We were warned that the registration process would be long and complicated. For us, this was all too true. We entered the world of the CFIA, where, in our opinion, vague regulations turn into moving targets. I have a handout there as well that explains different interpretations they've had for the same regulation.

CFIA's response time is very slow, as it still relies on mail. Each version of our label had to be resubmitted on paper. We were only advised of its approval or rejection by the return of paperwork, which would specify in vague form what revisions were to be made. Verbal communication was frowned upon and was made worse by a turnaround time of more than 40 days for mail—again, a stark contrast to the FDA's fast and efficient system.

This is the label. One of my attempts was to take a Kraft label and say, “Well, this must be right.” That was the presumption I made. The CFIA took issue with my decision to include U.S. equivalents on our label, insisting that I would have to have two different versions of my own product. Likewise, this led to numerous resubmissions.

This is the Kraft label. I assumed the Kraft label to be correct. We used it as a guideline for our own label. When the paperwork returned after the 40-plus days, we discovered that the capital “T” on “tablespoon” made our label non-compliant. If you look closely at this label, you'll see it has a capital “T”.

The Kraft jam had the same capital “T”. I was infuriated and e-mailed to find out if Kraft had gone through the same registration ordeal that I was going through. I was surprised to learn that this required access to information protocol and would be unavailable to me. Is this Kraft label registered? I'd like to know, because they have mistakes on this.

I then started to look on the grocery store shelves and found massive non-compliance. I've brought some of these products; I have a lot of them here, but I have more. Many are multinational companies—Unilever, Kraft, Cadbury Schweppes—that should know better and have either slipped through the system or did not even bother with it.

Even more non-compliant are imported products that do not go through the registration process and appear to have had no scrutiny, which raises the issue of food safety. One importer in particular shows up as one of the largest importers of confectionery in Industry Canada's Canadian importers' database—I think that's a handout as well. To me, it shows that the system the CFIA has in place now is ineffective and inequitable as compared to domestic products such as ours.

I take some of the blame for not knowing what I was getting into, but I believe this is the plight of small business. We have to know everything. Meanwhile, a large corporation such as Kraft would have a person in the know, and probably a whole department. The system as it is structured now blindsides small business, local producers, and entrepreneurs who do not have access to the resources and expertise of the multinationals like Kraft. I could have brought many genuine local products that are non-compliant. Some businesses, I know, are unaware, and others can't afford the thousands of dollars in compliance costs.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business surveyed its members recently. Its key findings were that, on average, an agribusiness spends 29 days and $19,000 per year to comply with CFIA regulations. Only one in five businesses believes the CFIA provides good overall service. The CFIA could significantly improve its communication with the small business community, especially with me. And complexity and compliance costs are increasing.

In closing, regardless of what decision you reach in regard to “Product of Canada”, the CFIA must take on a more proactive, facilitative, and lenient role in helping small businesses get their products to market. It is illogical, given such complicated regulations—I think you said those are in a pile “this high”, and I think I've read most of it—that the CFIA treats small business the same as a large corporation. The amount of $19,000 in compliance costs is minuscule to a company such as Kraft, but it's an enormous cost to the true producers of “Product of Canada”, local food that is created, distributed, and sold by small-town, rural Canadians. I believe, as illustrated in my story and accomplished by the United States FDA, that the CFIA can do that at less cost and with an increase in food safety.

I have a challenge for you. Our battle over the last year, as you can see by that label, has been to harmonize the American and Canadian labels. It is important to us because it would save our small business tens of thousands of dollars, and all this is over, basically, “20 grams”. Harmonization on a larger scale would save Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars.

We hear in the news almost daily where Canadians pay more than Americans for such things as automobiles and electronics. Sometimes, as in the case of Canadian farmers, they pay twice as much for their brand of fertilizers than in the U.S.

The price differences are extensive in the independent grocery system we are in. Heinz ketchup is close to twice the price in Canada as in the U.S. Like the farmers' fertilizer, it is not the cost but what the market will bear. Having different regulations, even minor differences, allows the American and Canadian markets to be price segregated.

The price differences can be proven. We recently made national headlines because one of our competitors, Wal-Mart, threatened to sue us for unfair competition for importing products like Heinz from the United States. The Competition Bureau explains this difference using economies of scale. This would work, except for where this bottle of Heinz ketchup is made. Does anyone have any idea where this is made? It's sold in the U.S., for half the price, and it's made in Canada: “Product of Canada”.

Label harmonization would end this price segregation, as it would fully open free trade to small businesses such as ourselves. The official opinion of the government on this is that it cannot happen because of significant differences. There are significant differences between some labels. I believe for other labels, such as those you have in front of you, the differences are insignificant, and I'd like you to look really closely to see what the differences are.

It is one of the goals of the CFIA to harmonize labels, but their approach appears to be that all the labels should harmonize or none of them should. This will never happen. The process needs to be gradual. One label would break the barrier. Pressure for further labels would ensue, and regulations would change and harmonize, one at a time.

If you look at the labels, you'll conclude that the USFDA has done its part. I believe, as politicians and being on this committee, you can make a difference.

This is my story and these are my concerns and ideas. I thank you again for involving me in your study, and I hope this opens up a discussion. I have ideas that I feel will make a difference.

Merci.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you very much.

Mr. Boshcoff will kick off a seven-minute round.

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Loney, for making this journey here. As we've been discussing this issue, we've been using you as a case study in terms of some of the difficulty, but I don't think any members of the committee really understood just how bizarre—

9:30 a.m.

Manager and Owner, Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd.

Mark Loney

As a small business, comparing the FDA and the CFIA, it's Bizarro World. It really is.

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

The time delays in your case have been beyond comprehension in terms of capital “T” versus small “t”, and the promptness with the United States.

Perhaps other members of the panel might want to address those types of things, but what could possibly be the reason within the CFIA structure that makes it 10 months? And are we there yet? Has it been officially approved yet?

9:30 a.m.

Manager and Owner, Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd.

Mark Loney

I've had three labels approved. The other three aren't. They're still here somewhere.

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

At the same time, some of the labels that you have that come in from other countries with no nutrition, no bilingual—

9:30 a.m.

Manager and Owner, Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd.

Mark Loney

You can sell this the next day, whereas I have to wait a year for my stuff. This has no nutritional facts table on it, and this was brought in by one of the biggest importers of confectionery in Canada. I don't think I need to say who it is, and I don't think it's their fault; it's just that there's a different system for this than for that. It's not fair.

One of the biggest things with the FDA was that she would have my label on her screen and I'd have my label on my screen in Emo. She'd be in Minneapolis. She would say, “Mark, you need to move your '60 calories' over this way.”

CFIA doesn't work like that. They're still in the 16th century. They require that I mail it to them and wait the 40 days until it comes back. So it's 40 days, every time, to find out if my capital “T” should have been a small “t”. It's not a good way to communicate.

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

How many equivalents to Kraft in terms of large multinationals are there out there with all these spelling mistakes and typos?

9:30 a.m.

Manager and Owner, Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd.

Mark Loney

I think it's rampant. It's not big errors. This is obviously a big “T” instead of a small “t”, but if you go grocery shopping, on that last little bit at the bottom, the rounding is supposed to be 2%. You'll see 3% and 1% on a lot of them. Well, they're wrong, because they rounded their numbers wrong.

How high did you say the pile was, hundreds of pages of regulations? I think I've read most of it. It has controlled my life for the last little while, because I've been trying to get this label approved.

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Was there ever any excuse given to you in terms of some of these delays, that CFIA was understaffed or something like that?

9:30 a.m.

Manager and Owner, Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd.

Mark Loney

No. You send your paper in and you wait the 40 days. If it's a small “t” versus a big “T“, then they send it back.