Agriculture Committee on May 6th, 2008

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When Mr. Bezan asked his first question he pointed out the real issue here. Contrary to what you said at the start, Ms. Cruikshank, it's not about country of origin; it's about identifying Canadian content, Canadian products, whatever. That's what the consumer wants to know.

If there's any one thing I've seen today, we all know there's a consensus among consumers that we need some changes. Certainly it's in the agricultural end of it, where I come from. And I think there's a consensus around this table as a committee that we need some changes in this country. I'm not convinced there's a consensus among the witnesses that change is really wanted.

But one thing I have noticed here today from all of you is that whatever changes are made--and I think they're inevitable--they should be simple, and I agree with that. Mr. Storseth commented about government involvement and that it gets so confusing. What also complicates it is that every few weeks or every month in the House of Commons somebody brings forth a private member's bill on labelling. We're dealing with one right now concerning genetically modified labelling. This complicates things and adds extra costs.

At the end of the day, the consumer really wants to know about Canadian content so he or she can make that choice. I think that's the thing.

When it comes to simplicity, Mr. Doering talked about 80% or 51%. Mr. Bezan and Mr. Easter really touched on this. It's about getting away from the packaging being part of the cost. To me there has to be a minimum of 51% content in there; anything less than that and you're in a minority situation. I think the consumer wants to know that at least a majority, if not all--which is even better--is there.

So in a nutshell, how do we make that simple? Do we stick with “Product of Canada”, the way we have it now, but change the rules of anything that qualifies under it and keep it simple?

Mr. Doering.

[Ronald Doering]

If I were you I'd put it to 80%. That way at least 80% of what's inside would be Canadian, but it would allow for the flexibility necessary to be able to have Canadian companies source from other places and still have it be a product of Canada--not have to abandon it altogether.

The other problem with it is the premise that consumers know so much more. I grew up on a farm, and we knew that veal came from calves, whereas I had a client the other day who didn't know that. Most people are so urbanized now they probably know much less about their food than we used to. Secondly, of course, most people are scientifically illiterate, so you could count on one hand the number of people who can actually understand these labels. So we face a major communication problem.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I don't want to debate whether 80% is the right number or not, but I'm going to be the devil's advocate. If 51% were the magic number instead of 80%, 49% of the product could be Canadian--or even 70%--yet still not qualify. By making the number that high--and I'm not opposed to it in principle--some manufacturers in Canada could lose out on that end of it.

Do you have any comments on that side of it?

[Ronald Doering]

There's a misunderstanding here. Something could have only 1% Canadian content and still be a product of Canada, as long as the cost of putting it to market exceeded 51%. That's why I think it's best to say that a certain percentage has to be Canadian content, and 80% or some other figure should be used, in terms of the cost of production.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

So your 80% includes the cost, including the packaging?

[Ronald Doering]

That is what the 51% is. It's the cost of production.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I totally disagree. I don't think the manufacturing costs or the packaging should have any--

[Ronald Doering]

That's why you want to make it higher. You achieve the objective by making it that much higher.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I thought you wanted 80% content, but you're saying that 80% includes the packaging costs and the processing costs. Am I misunderstanding you on that?

[Ronald Doering]

Any product, entirely Canadian, the ingredients of which are 80% Canadian origin, and for which all processing, manufacturing, and additions were done in Canada should be “Product of Canada”. That is the standard this really good Canadian juice company uses. It seems to me that you could put that in the Industry Canada guideline that the CFIA puts in the “Guide to Food Labelling” and you'd have yourself a standard. You'd get rid of the egregious problems. You'd get rid of the ones about which people say “This is outrageous”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Miller. Your time has expired.

Monsieur Bellavance, Madame Thi Lac, do you have any supplemental questions?

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

Thank you very much.

I would like to come back to several comments that you made, Ms. Cruikshank. Earlier, you talked about the confusion surrounding some of the testimony presented to the committee. Perhaps we are somewhat to blame for that. I spoke about food safety. In the case of labels bearing the “Product of Canada” designation, you maintain that a distinction must be made and that such a designation does not guarantee the safety of food products.

However, as Mr. Bezan pointed out, several bills are currently in the works, specifically bills C-51 and C-52, and these will be examined shortly in committee. I'm not sure which committee will have the honour, agriculture or health, but that's not important.

Let me explain why we associated food safety with product labelling. I confess that I'm guilty of linking the two as well. You have to understand that over the past three years, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has ordered at least 50 food product recalls. The fact is that when the provenance of the products was checked in the case of recalls for health reasons or for salmonella contamination, various types of bacteria were discovered in the products. In some instances, glass or metal was found in the products. The recalls involved black pepper from Pakistan, cantaloupe from Honduras and spinach from the United States. For the consumer, the “Product of Canada” designation provides a measure of safety. Of course, it is not a 100% guarantee that there will not be a problem with the product. For me as a consumer, when I see a product from Canada, whether processed or fresh, I am confident that this is a good product, one that I can buy with confidence.

[Jeanne Cruikshank]

I guess I'm going to turn some of this to Mr. Leblanc to answer in French as well, but I would certainly say that salmonella and pathogens and things like that regrettably don't have passports, so it is not something that Canada is immune to, and it is part of our food retail situation.

Certainly the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors deals with it. We're the first ones contacted by Health Canada on these food recalls. There are many of them for a variety of reasons. And I think Canadian consumers, as we all understand, understand the Canadian system to be one that has some of the safest food in the country....

We also have global appetites, so when we aren't producing the product here in our own country in season, we do source from elsewhere. So the issue I think really is one of the importance of differentiating between quality--which we certainly are very capable of producing in Canada--and safety, the food safety reality. We certainly believe there's an additional insurance in Canada, but we're never complacent about that issue.

Bernie, do you have anything to add?

[Bernard Leblanc]

No, I think you've covered it.

There is no question that consumers will have more confidence in Canadian products when they do their shopping and that they may even think that imported products are of a lesser quality.

You mentioned the number of product recalls. If we look at the number of recalls of imported products versus recalls of Canadian products, there may well be reasons why imported products are often involved. Often, six months later, the same product from the same country is the target of another recall. In my opinion, even though we are not here today to discuss that particular topic, the penalties or consequences for non-compliance with our standards are not harsh enough in the case of imported products that are recalled.

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

Perhaps the bills that we mentioned earlier will address this problem. In any case, we will look at this issue closely and take the appropriate action.

In order to reassure the public about the safety of food products, would you be in favour of reciprocal standards? For example, if products such as pesticides or herbicides are banned here in Canada, then similar products from another country should not find their way onto store shelves. If the Americans use a particular pesticide that is banned here in Canada, then why should products treated with this pesticide be allowed into this country? This is the kind of problem that the Agency encounters on a regular basis, but bringing in strict standards to deal with this issues appears to be a very complicated process. Canada does not close its borders. However, while it's unfortunate if certain products banned here in Canada are used elsewhere, those countries that do use these products will need to comply with our standards if they wish to continue shipping their products to Canada.

Does your agency favour this course of action?

[Bernard Leblanc]

I think so. If the product is not deemed acceptable in Canada, then we must have a level playing field. Consumers are not in a position to tell which products do or do not contain certain substances. Consumers have the right to be confident that a product meets our standards.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. The time has expired.

Mr. Atamanenko, I have time for one brief question.

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

Very quickly, three terms that have been discussed are “Prepared in Canada”, “Product of Canada”, and “Grown in Canada”. It's my understanding, Mr. Doering, that you were saying if we keep “Product of Canada”, all costs and 80% of the ingredients should be Canadian, and that would cover it.

There's also the fact that if we keep things as they are for “Product of Canada” and then had something that said “Grown in Canada”, that would then cover the Canadian content. I'm not sure how practical this is, but, for example, say we're producing apples and all of a sudden we're producing juice with Canadian apples. We keep sticking on “Grown in Canada”. Then we run out of Canadian apples and we use other apples. On those cans we'd put a label on that doesn't say “Grown in Canada”--just switch one label.

Is it practical to do something like that and conduct a big publicity campaign, forget about the surveys and just let people know that if it's grown in Canada it's in big red letters or has two flags or something? Would that solve the problem we're discussing?

Are there any comments?

[Jeanne Cruikshank]

I believe “Grown in Canada” is probably exclusive to fresh fruit and vegetables, and maybe livestock. That's why we proposed “Made in Canada” and “100% Canadian”. There need to be three different criteria to address the categories.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much for participating today. We really appreciate the testimony. It's going to help us in putting together our final report to the House of Commons and to the government. We're getting near the end of this now. On Thursday we have government officials back in here to talk about what we've heard from witnesses. We really appreciate it very much.

I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just want to say that this meeting has been one of the most educational we've had of all of them, and I'd just like to thank the witnesses for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

We have a motion to adjourn by Ms. Skelton.

We're adjourned.