Finance Committee on Oct. 20th, 2017

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you for that feedback.

[Sulemaan Ahmed]

Thank you, sir.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Moving on to the other presenters, please don't feel excluded if we don't get to everyone. I might even include myself.

Turning to Food and Consumer Products of Canada, you made a comment about the industries being excluded in the consultations with Health Canada. Can you elaborate further on that? A number of stakeholders have commented on the actual costs of these changes. I would like to get some more colour.

[Michi Furuya Chang]

Yes, to your first question about the industry being excluded from very important elements of the healthy eating strategy, the example I can give you is the consultation on the revision of Canada's food guide. Everyone did have the opportunity to provide input via an online survey. It was a very clunky sort of survey that only allowed you to enter text, no visuals or charts. In addition to that, the in-person consultations that Health Canada undertook excluded industry entirely, despite the need and request from farmers, from the entire food industry, for an in-person meeting to have a fulsome dialogue on the policy. We were denied that opportunity and were excluded from those important conversations.

In terms of your question around what I believe is a $1.8-billion figure, that actually comes from the food processing industry round table that was chaired, I believe, by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. I can provide the full report,

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You have 15 seconds.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I just would like to say thank you to the March of Dimes. We have a family member that utilizes the services from the March of Dimes, and I know everything you do. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Right on time, Francesco.

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the people here today for your testimony.

I am going start with the FCPC.

You've mentioned that the government is obviously moving forward and that it has not, in your opinion, offered correct venues to be able to address concerns. With both NAFTA, as well as CETA, on the horizon—obviously, one market opening, one market in question—you've said that there are some challenges to moving ahead without industry collaboration in light of these trade agreements.

I think you said that the European Union has some similar legislation or requirements for FOP, front-of-package, labelling. Could you explain that?

[Michi Furuya Chang]

Codex has looked at a number of front-of-package schemes that are in place in different markets around the world. Of the 37 that they've looked at—that is currently available in some of the Codex documents—97% of them use symbols and programs that, just as an example, use colour. There is only one jurisdiction out of those 37, and it's Chile, that uses a symbol that would meet the vary narrow criteria that Health Canada has set out. We encourage Health Canada to really look at the other labelling systems that are in place that have consumer data and effectiveness data behind them, and to consider something like that as an option here in Canada, because the criteria that Health Canada has outlined would only be aligned with one country, Chile.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

In the last Parliament, I would say many MPs from all sides, but particularly from the Conservative Party, expressed displeasure with COOL in the United States because of how integrated our markets are. Is that an issue, do you think, if we go ahead with a system that is not currently used in the United States? By the sounds of it, only the Chileans use a similar system. Is that going to pose a problem for us when we're marketing to those other countries?

[Michi Furuya Chang]

Absolutely, yes. Both the GMA, which represents the American food industry, and ConMéxico, which represents the food industry in Mexico, have supported our position and submitted similar responses to Health Canada on the front-of-package symbols. Their systems are aligned, and we're looking for some additional alignment.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

It's my understanding that Bill S-228 has already passed the Senate and is at first reading in the House of Commons. That in particular talks about unhealthy foods and is very generic. Do you have concerns about throwing that into the mix? I imagine packaging is a form of advertisement. I'm sure many would say that even where it's placed on a shelf is a form of advertisement.

[Michi Furuya Chang]

Yes. With regard to marketing to kids and Bill S-228, you are correct. It's received first reading. Our position on that, and our concern, is this division of unhealthy versus healthy foods. I can tell you as a dietician and as a nutritionist that we believe in overall healthy eating patterns, and on healthy and unhealthy eating patterns and healthy and unhealthy lifestyles, one food in and of itself should not be deemed or categorized as healthy versus unhealthy. That's the foundation of our position on the marketing to kids bill.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Are you concerned that the bill gives full authority to Health Canada to come up with its own regulations to enact the law?

[Michi Furuya Chang]

Yes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Given your experience on these consultations, do you feel that Parliament would be giving over a lot of power to Health Canada with not enough oversight from parliamentarians?

[Michi Furuya Chang]

I can certainly loop back with more information on that, only because I don't want to speak out of turn, but in principle, yes, that would be our concern. It would set the foundation for punitive policies going forward that are not based on science, but on this concept of unhealthy versus healthy.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Given that you've already estimated $1.8 billion in potential costs for your members just to comply with this new set, are you worried about further compliance costs based on Bill S-228?

[Michi Furuya Chang]

Yes. The $1.8 billion was for labelling changes alone, to enact the new nutrition-labelling regulations, the nutrition facts table and ingredient line. There are some other labelling changes that are going to be required by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The sheer technicality of changing the design of the package and implementing the label change alone would be the $1.8 billion. That does not include the cost of reformulation that would be necessary under the trans fat prohibition that has just been enacted. We have the next 12 months to eliminate all trans fat from foods. There are further sodium reduction targets, both in the retail and the food service sectors. That's also going to drive more reformulation, all of which is costly and has not been included in the $1.8 billion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

For the information of members, the “stop sign” labels, at least, are in the package that was given to you in both official languages.

Mr. Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first intervention isn't a question, but a simple comment.

Mr. Ahmed and Ms. Cajee, I would like to tell you just how absurd I find the situation you have been fighting for months and years. This discrimination, particularly toward children, is scandalous. I think we've just hit the bottom of bureaucratic idiocy. I'm absolutely sorry that you have to come to the Standing Committee on Finance to assert the rights of your children, your friends, and your family members. It makes us all ashamed, and we have to resolve this issue.

That said, thank you for being here.

I will now come back to a more positive and brighter side. Ms. Scott, you presented some numbers. These numbers are absolutely great. They attest to the fact that when women are supported, they become more autonomous and independent. The results are there for health and education.

You mentioned an increase in international aid of 12% a year, but you didn't mention the goal that is often suggested by some groups, including Engineers Without Borders Canada, which is 0.7% of GDP, the international standard. Could you explain why?

[Helen Scott]

May I answer in English? I would have to stammer through en français, and it would not be very successful.

May I say what a pleasure it is to be with all of you. I'm so impressed.

First of all, congratulations to this government on the new feminist international assistance policy. We know that women and children are the foundation to building a healthier world. As I said, and it's worth repeating, in 1990 we were seeing 12 million children die every year. That number is down to under six million. It has been slashed in half, and the progress has accelerated in the last few years. So we absolutely know what is working. We just need to stay the course. It will change the world in our generation. It's such an opportunity.

Canada has been leading on this for a long time, but currently our performance as a donor is at 0.26% of our GDP—that's for this year—and it's among the lowest of the donors that report to the OECD's DAC, development assistance committee. To frame that in a different way, it's among the lowest, if not the lowest—it's right down there—in the G20 countries. I don't feel that this reflects who we are as a nation. We need to get Canada back on track.

The world has set a target of 0.7%. As you mentioned, we're at 0.26%. We are a long way from being able to hold our heads proudly on the international stage. We've recommended a 12% increase as part of a timetable of increases to start to see some movement, because I think if we came here and said let's go from 0.26% to 0.7% today, you wouldn't listen. We're saying we understand that we can't get there tomorrow, but please stay with us on this. There are thousands and thousands of Canadians who are delivering amazing work, and we can show you the progress. We want to continue it.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you for your answer. Personally I would not be afraid of a goal of 0.7%.

Mr. Christianson, I can't help but put a question to someone who comes to tell us that he doesn't want more money. Ha, ha! It's an interesting approach.

You're talking about federal accessibility standards for people with mobility issues, for example. I'll tell you about a very concrete situation. We talk a lot about social infrastructure and public transit on Montreal Island. Chances are good that some stations will be added to the blue line in Montreal East. However, few stations in Montreal's metro system have elevators.

In your opinion, should the addition of wheelchair elevators to new metro stations be part of the federal standards?

[Steven Christianson]

That's going to depend on whether or not the federal government already plays a role in decision-making. Yes, there is a role in infrastructure funding, but it's my understanding that it's municipal-provincial-federal. In Toronto, for example, there is a body that is set up, much like a tripartite process, to look at issues of accessibility on the TTC as they do with the Metro in Montreal.

There's a long way to go, but there is a plan. In Toronto the decision-making authority rests with the Toronto Transit Commission, and they're ultimately accountable to the City of Toronto, which is then accountable to the Province of Ontario.

With regard to the Government of Canada, I would say there's some influence in terms of whether you can encourage that authority to buy x number of accessible Bombardier trains, for example, but I would say it ultimately depends on where that decision-making rests.