THE growing political brouhaha over whether the House of Commons agriculture committee misfired in June by adding a vaguely worded dairy labelling section to a Canadian Food Inspection Agency bill raises questions about the political procedure involved and the future of the legislation.
It also cries out for debunking of a myth of political secrecy that is being pedaled by opponents of the proposal.
First, some background is necessary.
On Nov. 26, 2004, the government introduced CFIA enforcement legislation and it occupied the agriculture committee for months as witnesses and MPs struggled to introduce more CFIA controls into the bill.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
By the time the committee sent it back to the Commons June 22, there indeed were more built-in controls over the CFIA.
There also was a dairy product labelling amendment proposed by Liberal MP Rose-Marie Ur and unanimously approved June 2.
It would prohibit marketing a product with a dairy term on the label if the product did not contain the labelled dairy ingredient.
And more contentiously, it would prohibit marketing any product with a dairy term on the label if the product is “intended to be a substitute for a dairy product.”
Supporters say it means substitute products like margarine cannot use butter in the name. Opponents in the dairy processing, food manufacturing and consumer lobbies say it means any substitute that has any minor dairy product mentioned in its ingredients list would be banned, including many margarines and frozen dessert products.
When Parliament resumes in late September, months before a promised winter election call, the agenda will be crowded. The governing Liberals will be looking for vote-getting initiatives and it is far from clear the CFIA bill will receive the priority needed to get it through the Commons and Senate by December.
Complaints by dairy processors, food manufacturers, consumers and retail sellers that the dairy amendments will remove popular products from store shelves and unfairly protect dairy farmers from competition may make politicians reluctant to pursue the amendments.
At the very least, expect proposals “clarifying” the language of the amendment.
All of which means the process used to insert the amendment at committee was flawed. By the time Ur tabled her dairy farmer-written proposal, the witness phase was over and critics did not have a public chance to warn MPs about the implications.
MPs should have given critics their say once the wording was tabled. It might have averted some of the backlash.
However, that is not to say this was a secret process, as critics allege.
Dairy Farmers’ of Canada appeared publicly Feb. 15, urging labelling amendments. Liberals Wayne Easter and Paul Steckle said it would happen.
It took more than three months. How can industry and consumer lobbyists say they were blindsided? Why didn’t they demand details and the right to comment?
There are claims the amendments were “snuck through.”
Hardly. There is a reason why lobby groups pay people to monitor Parliament Hill developments and provide heads-up warnings about evolving issues.
It is ludicrous for well-heeled industry opponents to accuse dairy farmers and supportive MPs of sneaking something through. They simply were asleep at the switch.
