Agriculture Committee on May 8th, 2008

[Richard Taylor]

If they would like our advice--

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

I don't think it should be a question of that, sir. It should be that you're there to do your job, not if they want you there.

[Richard Taylor]

Well, I appreciate that support for the Competition Bureau.

Secondly, on the grocery stores, in fact we have some very significant changes taking place in the grocery market that we've tracked very closely. Some of the food producers are now starting to complain to us because companies like Wal-Mart, which have added every single additional square foot of grocery space in Canada in the last year, and chain drugstores like Lawtons, Shoppers, and Jean Coutu are into the food business. In fact, from where we were five years ago, where Loblaws, or basically three grocery chains, dominated the market, we're having a real increase in competition.

We think that is very healthy, but they have to play by the rules. If they get too big and if they start abusing that dominance, then they're going to have to....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller, your time has expired, unfortunately. I know you could have gone on for ten minutes, but I'm not going to let you, unfortunately.

Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Over the past ten months a new entrepreneur has been trying to get a label approved. He had the label approved in the United States within a month and he used as a model some of the major brands existing in Canada. When he essentially used their grammar, their French, his own ideas of course, and his own design, the turnaround time was about 40 days per issue. Nothing could be done electronically, nothing could be done over the telephone, everything had to be done by snail mail and at enormous cost.

Now that we've had read into the record that the Kraft labels and some of these other major brands are using poor French and incorrect English and are not to standard, the same way this small new entrepreneur's labels are, will the CFIA pull those Kraft jams off the shelves until the labels are grammatically correct?

Second, what is the problem with getting a harmonized label that can be used both in the United States and in Canada? We had the label presented to us here in committee, and among the members it was a very difficult process to find out what the differences would be, and yet a harmonized label is not acceptable to the CFIA.

I don't know if the third question has to do with the problems in turnaround time he's experiencing, but one of the witnesses who came here mentioned he was quite concerned about the decrease in financial resources for the CFIA in the estimates for 2008-09. Will that decrease in financial resources be a problem for enforcement?

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you very much.

I will start with the second part of the question, on the issue of harmonization.

We strive for harmonization wherever that's possible, given the significant integration in the North American market. We work very closely with our colleagues to the south. However, we do recognize that there are differences in certain cases.

In this case, an important difference that we have to take into account is in relation to the mandatory nutrition facts tables. The United States has a set of rules related to their nutritional facts tables, and in Canada our colleagues at Health Canada have established a standard related to the nutrition facts table that does include differences. Now, the nutrition facts table in Canada came into force after the one in the U.S., so they had the opportunity to take into account some more recent science, etc. But they are different.

So from a Canadian Food Inspection Agency perspective, our responsibility as it relates to the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations is to enforce those. We do not have the flexibility, therefore, to accept a nutrition facts table that is different from that required by the regulations here in Canada.

I can certainly appreciate the interest that a particular processor might have in having a single label in both jurisdictions, but those differences do limit our ability to accept that as an outcome. Now, is it possible to change regulations? We would have to raise that issue with our colleagues at Health Canada as it relates to those types of requirements. As you are aware, regulations can be amended, so that interest in harmonization could be brought to the attention of our colleagues at Health Canada.

In terms of the first part of the question, I think you can see why I started with the second part, because it highlights some of the challenge that we often face in terms of label review. In terms of the back and forth, as my colleague mentioned, that often happens in that process, and it adds tremendous time in the process, we recognize, between the limitations we have in terms of our decision-making and what a particular applicant wants in terms of their outcome.

As it relates to moving forward, harmonization is indeed a very relevant and appropriate goal. As I mentioned, we would certainly be prepared to raise this issue with our colleagues at Health Canada, but at this point it limits our flexibility.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I can't figure why it took so long, and it's still not done.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Quickly. Time is almost up.

[Paul Mayers]

As I mentioned, the back and forth between what an applicant requests and the boundaries within which we can work do impact that timeframe.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time has expired.

Mr. Lauzon.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To clarify Mr. Boshcoff's opening comments about the reduction in funding, I think what he's talking about is the report on the plans and priorities, which of course is preliminary funding. He probably knows, or should know, that since it was released additional resources have been allocated to the CFIA, which includes $113 million for the food and consumer safety action plan, which I'd like to ask you a question about later, but also the extension of the BSE funding, which includes over $18 million, and then $4 million for an ad campaign for food and consumer product, and the security and prosperity partnership of $835,000.

We did all that, and along with that we reduced the GST by two points. It was interesting to hear.... I'm tempted to ask you folks what you think of Mr. Easter's suggestion that he would raise the GST up the two points and increase the bureaucracy. However, I won't put you on the spot and I won't ask you that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for that vote of confidence.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Now that you have nearly broke the country.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Mayers, you mentioned that in December Prime Minister Harper announced Canada's food and consumer safety action plan, but you didn't say that it was $113 million. I'd like for you to explain what effect this has on your business.

In addition, can you clearly explain the difference between mandatory and voluntary labelling?

[Paul Mayers]

Let me cover the second one quickly. The guidelines within which we operate allow for the use of the claim “Product of Canada”. The use of the claim is voluntary, so the manufacturer makes the decision to use the claim. Once they choose to use it, however, the requirements are mandatory, so it is mandatory that they follow the prescribed guidelines.

With respect to the food and consumer safety action plan, we now have the opportunity to augment our capacity to control products imported into Canada. With imports, we don't have the benefit, as we do with domestic production, of being able to follow the product from farm to plate. It augments our capacity to address imported products, while improving our oversight of domestic production. Here I'm referring to products that don't benefit from the significant oversight that we are already able to apply. In meat inspection, for example, significant CFIA resources are already being employed.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

If you can monitor the imports much closer, it would seem that this would help to level the playing field for our local Canadian producers. It would make sure they are not bringing inferior product in to compete against them. Would that be a correct assumption?

[Paul Mayers]

All products sold in Canada are subject to the same set of rules, and they all have to meet Canadian standards. However, with the investment available through the action plan, we can augment our oversight of imports. This means that Canadian producers can be confident that imports competing against them are being subjected to a level of scrutiny high enough to ensure that they meet Canadian standards.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

This government did that—and lowered the GST by two points at the same time. I think that's remarkable.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

I'll let that go, Mr. Chair. I'll simply point out that we're now so close to a deficit that we're able to send only $2 million to Burma, which has suffered the loss of 100,000 people. The next federal election will cost about $350 million. Is this not to Canada's shame?

In any event, Mr. Mayers, you've said in your presentation that the agency believes it possible to reconcile the viewpoints you have very succinctly encapsulated. And you're currently exploring options to do so.

I'm not asking you to tip your hand to the committee members, but I hope it is possible to reconcile these viewpoints with the competing pressures and options. Along what lines is the agency thinking of reconciling the viewpoints?

[Paul Mayers]

We want to formulate a policy that respects the demand of consumers for more clarity and understanding, while equally respecting the legitimate interests of the processors.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

I understand the background, but can you help us with the phrasing itself that you're thinking about?

[Paul Mayers]

We're not at a point where I can even guess yet at what the perfect outcome will be. Certainly the work of this committee will be an important part of advice in that regard.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

If I may, does it not seem a bit out of sync that currently, as I understand the regulations, labelling must be accurate, not deceitful, but it need not be compulsory? Is there not something wrong with that picture?