Agriculture Committee on May 5th, 2009

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

If I were just to pursue that a bit, I think the problem before with imported honey was that they could blend it with a little bit of Canadian honey, or just enough to call it “Product of Canada”, and yet it was certainly not the same as, for example, the honey you would be producing.

[Lee Townsend]

That's why, in the past, it used to be Canada Number 1 White. That's what all honey was called, because it was based on the colour, not the content. That's why it's now Canada Grade Number 1, 2, or 3 for Canadian honey only, and the blended or imported honey is Grade Number 1, 2, or 3. It's very important to have that distinction.

Not all consumers may realize the difference, but a lot of them do. Due to the bee losses right now, people are more aware of it. I think they notice it a lot more. Now it's a matter of implementing it.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Do you feel that the “Product of Canada” labelling will help your...?

[Lee Townsend]

Most definitely.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay.

Let me ask another question. We're talking about products. I think it might have been

You talked about the sugar used in making jam, Mr. Légaré. I am no expert, although I do make jam at home, but I know that there is a lot of sugar in jam. It is over 15%.

I don't think setting the level at 85%

will help the jam producers very much.

The second question I have is to

Mr. Légaré and Mr. Pellerin. The percentage is actually 98%. If we were to change it to 85%, I would like to know

how many more products would make it to the shelf with “Product of Canada” on them? Can you quantify that for me?

[Jacques Légaré]

I obviously don't have the answer as far as quantity is concerned, but I can tell you that the majority of the product that we have manufactured here in Canada would comply with the 85%. The survey that was done by your government throughout the country, added then to the answers that were given by all of the sectors, would have been that the legislation had to be changed. We totally agree that it was not right before, so we're not in disagreement with the fact that it was looked at. I think it was welcome that we could have new legislation on it.

However, we think that rather than going to the extreme of 98% before the report output was done, the government should have waited a few more months, looked at it, and complied with the greater majority of Canadian manufacturers and producers, and they should have ensured that consumers were better informed than they are today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Easter, for five minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Légaré, this committee actually did hold hearings of two months, or a little longer than that, on this issue. In fairness to Mr. Lemieux, I don't think he was on the committee then. We were about to recommend 85%; in fact, we did write it up.

The Conservatives opposed it because the Prime Minister's Office had laid down orders that it would be all, or virtually all. I maintained that going that high was a mistake, because you do need the sleeve to add in spices, sugars, or whatever it may be, and it was a resolution based on the content of what's in the package.

One point on which I agree with Mr. Lemieux is that the intention was right, but instead of listening to a committee that held hearings, the Prime Minister's Office stepped in. It was a hot public issue. Potentially there was a election coming, and they wanted to make it look as though they were doing something. They actually created a bigger problem than the one they were trying to solve.

That's where we are on that one, just so you're clear.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Go ahead, Mr. Storseth, on a point of order.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Just as Mr. Easter is in the spirit of clarifying the record, I would like to clarify by bringing to the attention of the witnesses and the committee the Liberal media release from May 21. You'll remember that the Prime Minister made the announcement on May 21.

It reads, from Mr. Easter:

Three years after the Liberal Party first began pursuing changes to product of Canada labeling all the Conservatives had to offer was a photo op and a backgrounder, Liberal Agriculture Critic Wayne Easter reacted to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s announcement. “As part of broad consultations with farmers in 2005, the Liberal government was hearing the first calls to fix product of Canada definitions so that consumers would know what they were getting.”

Further on, he says:

“We knew long ago that this measure could improve farm incomes and provide valuable information to consumers. What took the government so long?”

I would also refer you, Mr. Chair, to the blues from May 6, 2008. They show that Mr. Steckle also pushed for nearly all of the recommendations as well. That's just to clarify.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I don't believe that's a point of order.

I'll go back to you, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I have a couple of questions.

I wasn't quite clear, Mr. Townsend. Are you saying there is a cutback in researchers for the bee industry at both the federal and provincial levels, and that's a problem? You can answer that.

I'll just give my list of questions.

Mr. Townsend, you mentioned enforcement of product coming in. We have another subcommittee on food safety, and several of us here are on it. Can you expand on that a little bit? I ask because one of the areas we are looking at is whether product coming into Canada should have to meet the same standards and conditions of production that Canadian products have to meet.

Mr. Pellerin, I want to congratulate you on your election as president of Canada's biggest farm organization. Although I was at one time in the one in competition with your organization, I will admit it is the biggest.

On the AgriFlexibility funding, there's a huge problem in that the money isn't what the government committed it would be, as André said earlier. What's the impact in terms of being able to have the right kinds of companion programs in the provinces when it's not allowable for either ASRA or RBM in Ontario?

[Lee Townsend]

Federally, I don't believe there's been anything in the way of cuts in research, but neither has there been an increase in research money going to our industry. I believe the only federal research facility we have is in Beaverlodge, which is way up in northern Alberta. This is fine, but most of the bees are now in more southern areas. Pollination and honey production is mainly in central Alberta. They are doing good work up there, but we need more people spread across the country. We need more in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and all the provinces.

Provincially, there have been cutbacks, especially in Alberta. It's been something we've been fighting the last couple of years. I commend the Alberta government for supporting our hive health program, which we've just implemented. I hope other provinces jump on board.

The enforcement of standards is a touchy issue in our industry, because we don't have to be CFIA registered. There are a lot of producers in Canada that have to be forced to be CFIA-registered. I can understand and sympathize with them, but I don't agree with that. I don't think I should be getting the same price for my product in a CFIA-registered operation as somebody who's operating out of an old chicken coop that hasn't been cleaned in five years. It also applies to the products coming into Canada. If all of us were mandated to be CFIA-registered and follow the food safety program that we are working on, it would cost the producers some, but it would also limit the amount of honey that could come into Canada and it might increase the quality. If the quality is the same, fine. We'll label it properly and it's not an issue. But I have a real problem when we have to meet standards that aren't required of the stuff coming in.

[Laurent Pellerin]

There's no doubt that on the AgriFlex we want something larger than what has been announced and what is in place now. The proof that something is not working is that the provinces have put in place their own programs. Alberta has put in place its own program, because the basic business risk management program is not working. Saskatchewan announced direct payment to farmers in beef and hogs. This means something is not working in the base program.

For years, CFIA has asked that this AgriFlex part of the program be made available to all parts of Growing Forward, including business risk management, to make sure that where it's needed there's a link with the relevant provincial program. Agriculture is very different in different regions of the country, so we have to adapt, be flexible. AgriFlex was intended to cover that.

I want to come back to labelling. I don't know if it's true that the Liberals were working on this for years, but farmers, through CFIA, have wanted it for a long time. They will lobby hard to make sure that we have better identification of our products in this country. We recognize the move that the government made to define Canadian products better.

We are not sure that the actual number, 98%, is the right number, at least to start. Somebody asked how many products would be covered if we went down to 85%. We don't know the answer, but we might also ask how many products we would cover above 98%. We expect that very few Canadian products will be able to use the “Product of Canada” definition. We have to make sure that we cover at least a certain number of products. There's a big trend in this country and elsewhere in the world to have direct marketing from farm to plate. If you have a good identification system in place, it will help to serve this trend of better product going to consumers at less cost. So we have to look at this very closely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank both witnesses for coming today.

Mr. Townsend, I'd like to start with you. I apologize, if I'm curt at all, but we have short timelines here.

I want to set the record straight a little bit. I'm sure you're not familiar with all the details of the Beaverlodge lab, but I was a member of Parliament in 2006 when I worked with the member of Parliament from Peace River, who is a very strong advocate of the Beaverlodge lab.

As I'm sure you know, in the Paul Martin years, especially the years when Mr. Easter was parliamentary secretary, the cuts that were made to R and D were very painful to our laboratories. When we first came to government, in fact, the MP for Peace River, Mr. Warkentin, brought forward and fought very vociferously for keeping the labs open. They were at the point where the cuts were going to close all the labs down.

So just to be able to keep them open is actually a step forward. Our government is going to continue to invest in R and D, and hopefully we'll be able to, because I agree with you: we need more research and development, especially when it comes to apiaries and some of the work we're trying to do and move forward with in the industry.

I was very intrigued with some of what you talked about involving traceability. Can you briefly give your opinion on voluntary versus mandatory systems? You more or less brought the subject up. It's something our cattlemen got into with the premier, and it worked out really well for our cattlemen at the end of it. Could you quickly comment on that for me?

[Lee Townsend]

I can speak from personal history with it.

This past year we shipped a load of honey out—I believe we are a leader in the food safety area in our industry—and the honey being tested came back saying we had high levels of lead in the honey. We have samples of every lot and we keep track of everything, but we couldn't figure out where this lead was coming from. All we did was go back to our sample jars and send samples off to the same lab; the results came back as containing no lead. At the processor's plant, the samples had been mixed up.

If it hadn't been for the traceability, we would never have known this. What do you do then? You are labelled as having a lead problem or a chemical problem in your product; what do we do? It's condemned, but then we have evidence on our farm that says no, this is exactly what we have, and here's proof that this is what there is. If it's voluntary, you don't have that.

A lot of guys won't do it. I'm sure every industry is the same, but ours is exceptionally bad for it. Three years ago, the Alberta government did a honey sampling initiative. Every producer who wanted to take part—it was voluntary—sent samples to be tested. Any results that were found went back just to you. If there was problem, it went to the provincial apiculturalist's office, and he went to that producer and worked with him to find out what had caused the problem.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I appreciate your comments. So you are in favour of a mandatory system being in place?

[Lee Townsend]

Very much so.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Pellerin, I want to congratulate you on your election as president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

I have just a couple of quick questions on your background, sir.

Are you an economist, a producer, or what's your...?

[Laurent Pellerin]

I'm a hog and beef farmer in Quebec.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Which area of Quebec is it, just out of curiosity?

[Laurent Pellerin]

It's halfway between Quebec and Montreal, just before Trois-Rivières.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Excellent.

I heard you talking a little about the western Canadian farmers getting a better return because of the wheat board. Does the Canadian Federation of Agriculture support single-desk selling in western Canada?