'Product of Canada' - another wrong-headed government policy'

Monday, April 2, 2012

By arbitrarily ruling that food products must have 98 per cent Canadian content to merit the national label, the government virtually assured that none can

by BARRY WILSON


The list of stupid or wrong-headed government food policies is long and legendary but few top the decision several years ago by Ottawa to require 98 per cent Canadian content before a food product can be labelled "product of Canada."

It means almost no products are on Canadian grocery shelves advertised as "product of Canada." It means Canadian food processors and exporters often slap a "product of Canada" label on a product heading into the United States because it gives it a valuable brand, even if that product cannot be sold that way in Canada.

Are you still with me?

Extensive hearings several years ago exposed the possibility of calling largely foreign imported product a "product of Canada" because a majority of the cost of getting it to market was incurred in Canada. So the House of Commons agriculture committee, with a Conservative plurality and opposition concurrence, recommended an 85 per cent content requirement for "product of Canada" labelling.

Consumers and food manufacturers agreed, arguing for better control over what can be called Canadian.

Out of the blue, the government – read: prime minister's office (PMO) – announced a 98 per cent content requirement. It came out of nowhere with no significant lobby arguing for such a high standard and no public or political consultation.

Canadians want to know that when they eat something called Canadian that it really is Canadian, said agriculture minister Gerry Ritz, likely reading PMO lines.

The problem is, it has turned out to be an impractical policy meeting none of the goals behind the original "product of Canada" initiative. If the purpose was to give Canadian consumers a choice of Canadian product on the shelves, it has failed. If the purpose was to give processors a leg up in a marketplace where consumers want to buy Canadian, it has failed. If the purpose was to … Oh, never mind.

On every level, the "product of Canada" government policy has failed. Few Canadian products on the market do not have some imported ingredient – sugar, spice, vinegar. A 98 per cent purity level is an almost impossible bar to meet.

Listen to Galen Weston, executive chairman of Loblaw Cos. Ltd. when he spoke in February to a national food conference in Toronto. Loblaws carries Canadian applesauce, he said. "But because of the sugar in it, we can't call it 'product of Canada.' That's kind of nuts, isn't it?" Well, yes it is.

In late February on Parliament Hill, during an appearance before the House of Commons agriculture committee, Ted Johnston of the Alberta Food Processors Association made the same point.

"The 98 per cent guideline has resulted in removal of 'product of Canada' from Canadian manufactured food products for all practical purposes," he told MPs. "We are in the process now of seeing more and more American products show up, so the Canadian product is not identified." And that "product of USA" may be as little as 51 per cent American. But at least it isn't from Asia (or not).

Not a single Conservative MP on the agriculture committee responded. Perhaps they dared not. The Centre has spoken.

The result is a labelling policy meant to help Canadian producers and consumers that is doing the opposite. BF

Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.