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.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you. Your time has expired.
Mr. Steckle, the floor is yours.
May 6th, 2008 / 10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you very much. I'll have to ask to be excused. We have a lot of students coming to Ottawa these days and they're very important to members of Parliament.
I found your presentations very interesting. We found many of them interesting, but I was particularly enamoured of Mr. Doering's comments. I could almost give an “amen” to everything you had to say. I'm sure there were places where we might have some differences, but much of what you said goes right to the core of what we've come to do—to do something as expeditiously as we can, as quickly as we can, and with as little government red tape as possible.
We know that labelling is important, particularly during these difficult times in agriculture. Perhaps never in history have we experienced, particularly in the red meat industry, such difficult times. We know what Canadians will do. Canadians expressed their appreciation for the safety of our food supply during the BSE crisis. Nothing could come close to giving us the kind of feeling we had when Canadians clamoured for Canadian beef during that time.
I think we need to move quickly. I believe the Canadian brand should be a new branding that denotes the safety of our food supply through CFIA, PMRA, Health Canada, and Agriculture Canada. All of these agencies have given assurances. Canadians have that. It's one thing that Canadians truly believe in. They have assurances: when a product is Canadian and they know it's Canadian, they will buy it. We need that brand, and this is where government needs to become involved. We should sell that idea to Canadians and promote Canada. Let's become salesmen for our country, as provinces and certain regions of our country have done.
I want to know from all of you what you think about that whole idea of a Canadian brand. I'm not even sure that we need to change the 51%. At the end of the day, it's not going to matter a whole lot if we continue with the “Product of Canada” label. When it says “Product of Canada” now, we may need to do some promoting to tell Canadians that it may not necessarily be a product of Canada in its entirety. We know that the one brand is the best we can do. The quickest way we can do it is by taking your advice, staying away from regulations, and moving quickly towards making these changes.
I'm wondering whether we have consensus or whether there's a difference of feeling about this. Jeanne, I know you're in the marketing in a different level, in a different way. Certainly, Mr. Loney, I sympathize with what you've had to go through. We're seeing it with PMRA and in many other areas.
Those are my comments. So take it away. Take whatever time we have and tell us. We need direction quickly, to move forward. We've been here 12 years. Mr. Doering and I go back 12 years, maybe longer. I'm not going to be here 12 years from now, but I'd like to see something happen before I leave this place.
Mr. Loney.
10:35 a.m.
Manager and Owner, Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd.
The more we can wrap the flag around our products, the better. If the processors process it but can only get 60%, they should still be able to put “Product of Canada” on it. That's wrapping the flag around it. Even 51%...leave it as it is now. But at the same time, put “Grown in Canada” so that you know what's inside the can. If someone wants to wrap the flag even more, you could have a Canadian flag on it or “Grown in Canada” to show us that it's even more Canadian. Then publicize that. Get it to Canadians so they know the difference between “Product of Canada” and other labels. I think Ron has it dead on. I don't disagree with anything.
10:40 a.m.
Vice-President, Atlantic Office, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors
I'd absolutely agree. But the critical thing is consumer awareness. We need to make sure that what we think is the right thing is being perceived the same way by consumers in respect of the marketing and branding of the products. Our industry is about supplying to Canadian consumers what they want. We believe they want Canadian product, but we need to make sure they're understanding what this brand means to them. So I think consumer awareness is a critical component.
10:40 a.m.
Partner, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Mr. Steckle, I said there was a two-step easy process. One, I would move the 51% higher to get rid of those egregious cases, like where people brought the famous jar of garlic. So if it had to be over 80%, it would probably be harder—that kind of business.
The fish example was a good one. Fish caught in international waters, filleted in China, and brought to Canada, which assumed all the main production costs, should maybe still be a “Product of Canada”, certainly not a product of any other place.
The second step is to encourage the Canadian producers to do it. As I say, “Just do it” .
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I think your time has actually expired. I'm so sorry.
Before I turn it over to Mr. Miller, I just want to ask a question. If any of the witnesses are familiar with Bill C-51, they will know that in the amendments to the Food and Drug Act, section 5 is looking at truth in labelling, particularly making it more specific to food and talking about origin of food.
Are there any comments on unintended consequences, as you've already talked about, Mr. Doering, and how they might impact upon the industry? I think Madame Cruikshank has some comments on that as well.
Mr. Doering.
10:40 a.m.
Partner, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
I'll just say that I've done a varying cost of analysis of it for more than one client. The next “Food in Canada” article is on this point.
All they've really done to section 5 is clean it up and add “and import”, so now it's going to be much harder to import food. There will be a much higher onus on food importers than there formerly was, because now it's a criminal offence to import food that doesn't comply with the mislabelled, misbranded one. So companies are going to be far more careful. Most companies are. Most companies I act for, for example, actually have people out there determining where the 32 ingredients in a frozen pizza actually come from and getting supplier warranty agreements. This has been working its way through the system on the tracking side. So Bill C-51 is not going to change this significantly, but it could affect importers principally.
10:40 a.m.
Vice-President, Atlantic Office, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors
I defer to Mr. Leblanc.
10:40 a.m.
National Labelling Resource, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors
I agree with Mr. Doering that the changes they're proposing would strengthen the import part, but the regulation the way it's written would still apply to Canadian products and still allow us to look after the products that would be misleading.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We talk about country of origin, but really I think what most witnesses have been saying is that they want to know what is Canadian, not necessarily what all the components are of the various food products and the countries they came from. But they want to identify, one, if it's prepared or made in Canada, and two, if the majority of the content is Canadian or qualifies for this “Grown in Canada” voluntary label.
If we do decide, as a committee, to go down the route to look at a content of 50%-plus, or maybe even 75% or 80% Canadian content, we're essentially saying we've got to make a number of regulatory changes to do that. Or can we do it just through policy directive?
10:40 a.m.
Manager and Owner, Cloverleaf Grocery Ltd.
I have a quick comment.
I was walking around last night, and I was at the Irish store. They have Irish food there, and they're not compliant. So I'm wondering how this law would affect a store like that and small businesses like mine that import ketchup made in Canada but labelled in the States. I relabel it, but am I going to be in a lot of trouble now? Or will the small business selling Irish tea that doesn't have the French or the proper nutritional facts table not be allowed to do that any more?
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
That's one of the questions we're going to have to ask officials on Thursday.
I think Mr. Leblanc wanted to get in. You had a comment?
10:40 a.m.
National Labelling Resource, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors
When you mentioned “Product of Canada” or “Prepared in Canada”, when we spoke of a two-tier system earlier, we were talking about something that's 100% Canadian. I think we all agree that all the ingredients are from Canada. But when we're going to products that are 70%, 80%—whatever would be decided if we're going to change it—if we continue to use “Product of Canada” to describe these products, I think we're going to have to do a lot of consumer education. Are consumers going to continue looking at products that say “Product of Canada”? How are they to know the difference between the two products, “100% Canadian” or “Product of Canada”? Are we looking at “Prepared in Canada”, “Processed in Canada”? I think we have to keep our minds open to what kind of term we're going to use on products to indicate those products that are prepared in Canada with Canadian and imported ingredients.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
One of the suggestions that came out of some surveys that were done by some other organizations is that when people say “Product of Canada”, they expect close to 100% Canadian, not the 51% cost factor that we have today. So there's already a misinterpretation of the rules as they apply today.
10:45 a.m.
National Labelling Resource, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors
As far as the survey is concerned, I've been reading the notes from the committee, and I'm not sure whose survey we're using. I think we mentioned—Ms. Cruikshank mentioned earlier—that we need to know what Canadians' understanding of these claims is and whether a survey is needed before we move forward. If a committee is formed to look at what we're going to do for labelling in Canada, we need to know what consumers understand and what that claim means to them. I don't think we have a true survey yet that represents what Canadians think.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
If we're going to be looking at education of the consumer base, what are your recommendations? Should that be done through point of sale advertising and education, or advertising through the media? What is the best and most effective way to do it?
10:45 a.m.
National Labelling Resource, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors
We should use all forms.
10:45 a.m.
Vice-President, Atlantic Office, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors
We need all of the above, but I think we need to start from a baseline. You're accurate in saying we believe there's a misperception out there. We need to really know what the common impression is and see what we need to move to. Point of sale, Internet, and media--all those forms reach consumers in different ways. We need an overall consumer awareness campaign to give them the information so they can have the best understanding.
