A senior Canadian food industry leader says the government decision to propose ending Canadian food container size standards has launched a divisive and unnecessary debate in the sector.
The government said in last year’s budget that it planned to end regulated food package sizes in the interests of consumer choice and the elimination of non-tariff trade barriers.
The move has led to predictions that an onslaught of cheaper products from the United States in container sizes that Canadian companies cannot match could kill tens of thousands of food processing jobs.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
It has generated resistance from community leaders and food processing companies, particularly in Ontario.
As a result, the federal government and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have backed away from an aggressive agenda for implementation and are continuing consultations.
Derek Nighbor, senior vice-president of Food and Consumer Products of Canada, told the House of Commons agriculture committee April 30 that it is the most divisive issue he has dealt with in the food products industry.
“This has been in my almost five years with FCPC probably the most challenging issue we’ve had to manage because our membership has been split down the middle,” he said.
Some food companies believe that being able to vary container sizes beyond traditional Canadian re-quirements would give them a chance to grow and compete.
However, others fear that they could not afford the retooling to make different-sized packages quickly enough to withstand the influx of foreign product in non-regulated packages.
Critics also argue multinational companies with plants in both Canada and the United States would simply service the Canadian market from the U.S. plant and close Canadian operations.
“It really has divided the industry, and in my organization, we have two very entrenched camps,” he said.
“It’s why our members said we should stay away from lobbying one way or the other on this issue.”
Nighbor said the industry didn’t have any warning of a rule change.
“Everybody was taken by surprise,” he said. “To my knowledge, nobody was asking for it.”
Nighbor said the government has not produced economic analysis to make the case for the change.
“I know some people see it as a trade barrier and a barrier to investment in the industry,” he said.
“On the other side, many companies say they have invested in playing by the rules as they exist and if the rules change, they will fail.”
He said the debate and consultation process launched by the government is just another job for an already-stretched CFIA.
“This really has been taking a lot of energy, and that’s unfortunate because there are so many other issues that need attention and energy, and I just don’t think most in the industry see this as a priority.”
Agriculture minister Gerry Ritz recently suggested in Parliament that nothing is imminent.
“We continue to work with the industries and affected communities to come up with a positive result that will reinforce Canadian agriculture and Canadian processing,” he said.
New Democratic Party agriculture critic Malcolm Allen said later it is a sign the Conservatives are backing away from an ill-thought-out plan that has produced significant political opposition from many rural Ontario communities now represented by Conservative MPs.
