Agriculture Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to give my very sincere thanks to the witnesses for being here, particularly in your role as retailers. This is important for the industry, and your presence helps.

I'd like to pick up on a line of questioning from Madame Dandurand. To confirm, the former chair of Loblaws did come to this committee and testify that there was a risk that food prices would rise with the adoption of a code. If I heard your testimony, Mr. Henn, you're saying that changes from the code have now ameliorated that, from your perspective. We've heard the former minister say that the code is the magic bullet that will lower food prices.

To confirm, from your perspective, the changes to prices from the code would be minor in either direction or neutral. Is that correct?

[Nick Henn]

As I said earlier, the code will not apply to price discussions and negotiations between suppliers and retailers. The implementation of the code won't change those normal-course negotiations that go on every day between retailers and suppliers.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

That's my understanding as well. Thank you.

Karen Proud, the adjudicator, did testify in front of this committee that, in essence, if push came to shove, her tools would really be to name and shame.

I have a question. I'll start with Mr. Henn and then I'll go to Mr. Rivet.

Do you support the adjudicator having the power to name and shame upon a confirmed conviction of a violation by one of your competitors?

Mr. Henn, you can go first.

[Nick Henn]

This concept of naming and shaming is something that's built into the dispute resolution mechanism being discussed by industry right now, and we've always been supportive of that. That's a good remedy, whether it's a retailer or a supplier who's in breach of the code. That's a good way to provide an incentive for people not to get to that stage and to self-correct through some of the other dispute resolution mechanisms. Ultimately, it's a good final result, if parties can't agree on a better solution than that.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Monsieur Rivet.

[Simon Rivet]

We also support naming and shaming. We're in agreement with it. No one wants to read their name in the paper, so obviously we think it's a good way and an effective way to motivate retailers and suppliers to respect the code.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you for that. I really do appreciate that, and I also appreciate your commitment to stay with the code and to really address it and make it work.

From your perspective—and this came up in earlier questioning—would it be easier for you if the government were to mandate your competitors to also sign on upon the completion of the negotiations, or will this voluntary approach work?

[Simon Rivet]

It's a voluntary code. As I said, we hope, and I'm optimistic, that everyone will join the code. We think that the voluntary nature of the code is a strength and that it will push people to comply with the provisions of the code. As far as we're concerned, we've been supporting a voluntary code ever since the beginning.

This code, contrary to certain legislative codes, is reciprocal. It applies to both suppliers and retailers. That's very important. You have to keep that in mind.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

You went exactly where my next question is. I was going to address it to Mr. Taylor, but I'll also give you a chance.

Mr. Taylor, having participated both in the U.K. development and now here in Canada, what are the lessons learned from the U.K. experience? I was going to follow that up by saying that what's different in the Canadian code is that it also applies to suppliers. Would you have a comment on that?

[Mark Taylor]

In terms of the experience in the U.K., it's been in operation for 10 years now. There is a report issued by the adjudicator every year. You can see the positive trend against all of the key measures. That's been consistent over that period of time. The suppliers' confidence has increased. The number of issues arising has decreased. Both suppliers and retailers talk very positively about the impact this has had on their businesses.

With that in mind, I think I'd be very optimistic that we'll see those similar benefits arise here. I have absolutely no issue with it being a reciprocal code. I think that's very positive. It should be. We should all be held to the same standards. I'd be very surprised if manufacturers had an issue with that.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I'd like to have another chance to ask a question, but time's up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

Next, we go to the Liberals and MP Chatel for five minutes.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses joining us today.

Obviously, we're facing a breakdown in our trade relations with the United States, which poses many economic challenges. One thing we've all understood in this country is that Canadians want more than ever to support their local producers and buy their products.

We were talking about this earlier, Mr. Rivet. Back home, at Metro in Gracefield, Daniel, the produce manager, showcases our young farmers by displaying their products.

Earlier, we talked about the importance of collaboration between producers and grocers. How will the code of conduct help improve these relationships?

[Simon Rivet]

I think the code will help build better relationships. It will probably make negotiations easier. However, I also think that each party has a role to play.

At Metro, we've adopted a buy local policy. The Metro in Gracefield probably benefits from this. As much as possible, we try to support foods that come from Canada or are produced in Canada.

Obviously, pineapples still don't grow in Canada. Basically, we try to give priority to Canadian products, when they're available. We support suppliers in this process so that they can join us and we can sell their products.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Taylor, you talked earlier about some comparisons between the UK and Canadian codes of conduct. I'd like to talk about the provisions on dispute resolution.

Some representatives of producer associations told us that they'd prefer to represent their members directly. According to the Canadian grocery code, associations can assist and represent their members. However, they'd like to do so directly, meaning they'd be the ones filing complaints about systemic issues rather than individual ones.

Could you explain how the UK and Canadian codes compare in this regard?

[Mark Taylor]

There is no comparison, because in the U.K. individual suppliers are not party to the code. It focuses on the largest retailers and the largest suppliers.

In the Canadian context, I think this is logical. The trade associations potentially have a very important role to play in this and in representing their members, as you say, looking to systemic issues and bringing those forward to the adjudicator. In the U.K., the process of adjudication is a very light touch. There is no DRMP, dispute resolution mechanism. In the U.K., 99% of the issues are resolved through informal dialogue, often facilitated by the adjudicator, who would give an opinion and provide straight guidance way before having to be more heavy-handed.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

We heard Ms. Proud and Mr. Rivet say it was possible. When there are systemic complaints, they're presented to the person who will manage the code of conduct. That person can report on and actually deal with these complaints. We aren't required to go through a specific complaint resolution system. We can go directly to the adjudicator, as you said.

[Mark Taylor]

Yes, indeed. In fact, that's the desirable approach. We don't want issues ending up in a dispute resolution management process. We want them to be resolved by sensible people, using common sense, working amongst themselves to improve their trading relationships.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

I have 30 seconds left.

If I understand this very important process correctly, if an association receives several complaints from its producers but doesn't necessarily wish to resort to the dispute resolution mechanism, it can engage in discussions with Ms. Proud, the current adjudicator, to find a solution. Otherwise, Ms. Proud may report these practices in a report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We're going to have to stop there.

We're going to go to Mr. Perron, for two and a half minutes.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rivet, I want to continue our previous conversation.

I heard Mr. Taylor say that it was logical for associations to want to represent their members. When you were answering me at the end of our speaking time, you seemed more ambivalent about this.

Wouldn't you like to be able to deal with a complaint that might be reported, for example, by 25 small producers, by discussing it just once with the association?

I'm having trouble understanding what the problem is.

[Simon Rivet]

Normally, when a supplier files a complaint, we deal with the supplier. We have a privileged relationship with the supplier, one based on confidentiality. So it's hard to see how an association could speak on behalf of 25 suppliers, to use your example. We don't think it's appropriate for suppliers to share information with each other.

As we said earlier, there are systemic issues, there is a channel. Indeed, Ms. Proud, from the office of the grocery sector code of conduct, can hear this type of complaint and include it in her annual report.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Perhaps some small producers are afraid to report code violations because they don't want to be subject to reprisals. I'm not saying you do that, far from it, but aren't you afraid of that? Several of us here have heard this many times.

[Simon Rivet]

There's a principle in the code that retaliation is prohibited. At Metro, we've always operated this way. We're therefore trying to facilitate the complaint resolution mechanism and improve our portals so that producers and suppliers can communicate with us.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Many thanks.

I'm sorry but my time is quite limited.

Mr. Henn, I'll conclude by addressing you very briefly. I've been told that, as part of your business relationships, you're asking producers who have greenhouses and who grow carrots, potatoes and onions, among other things, to guarantee prices and quantities two years in advance, which can be difficult in a context of climate change. I've been told that producers have even been asked to disclose their turnover.

Are you aware of these practices?

I'd like to hear your comments on this.