Agriculture committee  Thank you, and thanks very much for this opportunity. I would like to relay to you that there's a lot of interest and debate within the Canadian poultry processing sector about this issue. In fact, I received two e-mails this morning as I was sitting in the chair behind me, one

Agriculture committee  The point I was trying to make is that at the end of the day the food safety of the product is the same, is equivalent. It's not equal, because our systems are not, for example, completely harmonized with the United States system. For example, for poultry they use different inspe

Agriculture committee  Exactly.

Agriculture committee  Thank you. I have a couple of comments. I think my group would be willing to consider “Prepared in Canada”. I think that has some validity, but not “Packaged in Canada”. First of all, we don't want that many labels. I think that's going to be more confusing. The idea that I t

Agriculture committee  Sorry?

Agriculture committee  I'm not sure. And we could cover that off by having it voluntary. If companies felt that it wasn't a big enough concern to them, then they wouldn't need to do it. If they thought it was a big concern, they would. And we would find out; the marketplace would tell us, frankly. In

Agriculture committee  The wording came from Gilles, not from Christine. I think the wording “Prepared in Canada” is understandable and reasonable. And at the end of the day, if that is going to be substituted for what today is “Product of Canada”, maybe that makes sense. Then have another label that s

Agriculture committee  I do agree that the consumers should be able to understand, if it is important to them, where the product was grown. I don't agree—at least in my industry, which is the only expert testimony I can give—that this should carry any sort of connotation about superior quality or safet

Agriculture committee  No, nothing over and above what Mr. de Valk has said.

Agriculture committee  Mr. Easter, I heard three comments or questions in there. The first one was truth in labelling. That's absolutely correct, and I think there are two sides to that, as I tried to say. One side is about being misleading—we have to be careful that we don't mislead, that we don't c

Agriculture committee  On the poultry side, I would say we're equal to or ahead. We're not behind. But I wouldn't say we're miles ahead. The traceability in the poultry business in the United States is quite reasonable.

Agriculture committee  Thank you. I know there wasn't a question there, but I very much enjoyed the remarks. Just to piggyback on that a little bit, the various provincial made-in-wherever programs, the regional one your neighbour talked about, have all been good, but many of my members trade acros

Agriculture committee  Whenever my speaking notes get passed around, or if you see them, you'll see the only thing I've bolded in my notes was the whole importance of standards and maintaining compliance. That's number one. Number two, I think the answer to your question is the second option. There i

Agriculture committee  Absolutely.

Agriculture committee  The only comment I'd make to that is if at the end of the day the decision is that “Product of Canada” should be replaced because it's not clear or whatever, all right, that's fine. Certainly some of my members feel that way, and some of them believe it should be left alone. If i