Agriculture Committee on Nov. 26th, 2013

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

A good point is that I think a lot of the yields of canola were 60 to 65 bushels an acres, which was unheard of five years ago.

We're going to have that research here, I'm hoping, and not only that, our farmers are going to get to use that research.

[Dennis Prouse]

That's the plan.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

Now we will move to Madame Raynault, please, for five minutes.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for joining us this afternoon.

The perceptions of genetically modified organisms and their use are very different in Canada and in the European Union. What particular language about the low-level presence of GMOs would you like to see in the CETA?

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

I think you're referring to issues around low-level presence.

As I mentioned earlier, there are conversations going on between countries already on that subject. There are 15 like-minded countries, led by Canada under the banner of the global low-level presence initiative, talking about how to deal with low-level presence. We would very much like to have the EU join that conversation. It will be very important to raise awareness about it. There's a lot of confusion around low-level presence and what it means, what it doesn't mean, and so on.

If CETA can help us facilitate that conversation, then I think that would be a very good thing.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

On your website, you state that the government has a major role to play in the approval of new products containing GMOs, specifically through Health Canada and the CFIA. Is the concern that GMOs and pesticides should have no effect on human health very common in Europe, as we see with their reluctance in terms of LLP? Exactly what is the procedure those two agencies follow before giving you the green light to bring a new product to market?

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

I started working for CropLife Canada about two and a half years ago, and I had a career with the government on the regulatory side before then.

I asked my members, what do you think about the Canadian regulatory system, what are the issues, and so on? Without any hesitation, exception, they all said Canada's regulatory system is world class; it's the best in the world, the most science-based, the most predictable, and they're very happy operating in Canada.

What they're talking about are regulatory regimes in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that cover the environmental safety assessment of these new crops and the livestock feed safety assessments. Then at Health Canada, there's the food safety assessment that takes place.

The three streams of regulations, as I understand it, work very closely together, and not one of them will make a final decision until the other two have as well. We have a “no split approval process” in Canada. Until all three are satisfied, a product would not be authorized for cultivation and marketing in Canada. I think we have a very good and robust regulatory system in Canada, to be proud of.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Does it take many months or years to get the green light to bring a new product to market? How much time does it take?

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

According to the members I have spoken to, it takes anywhere from between one year and three years to go through these three regulatory streams and they happen concurrently. This is in the context of probably a 10-year to 13-year process, from the invention, so to speak, of a new characteristic through these new genetic enhancements, right through to getting the final approval.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

You have 30 seconds.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Differences in the approval processes for GMOs in Canada and Europe have led to approvals being given at different times. Is there a similar problem with phytosanitary products?

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

Actually, it's quite astounding that the regulatory process, in terms of the science-based review, is virtually identical in the EU or as similar to Canada as it is in any other part of the world, such as the Australian, U.S., or Brazilian systems, and so on. For example, the European Food Safety Authority has very similar information requirements, goes through very similar risk-assessment requirements, and so on. It's very much the same. The problem is the political decision-making process at the end of it. It is very different in the EU versus Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Great. Thank you very much.

Now we will go to Mr. Payne for five minutes, please.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and my question is through you to the witnesses.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today. I think it's really an exciting time for Canadian agriculture.

Mr. Prouse, you did talk about the $2.4 billion currently being exported to Europe and an additional $1.5 billion. We know that there are some tariffs on a number of agricultural products. I wonder if you could just touch on a couple of them, how those tariffs will be removed, and the size of the tariffs.

Second, what will that mean at the farm gate for the farmer?

[Dennis Prouse]

What's most impressive about CETA is the fact that virtually all tariffs are being removed. In fact, they're being removed at a faster rate and a more aggressive pace than they were in the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. That's particularly noteworthy.

In our sector, there are two ways to look at it. One would be simply looking at grains and oilseeds, and there will be an increase in trade in grains and oilseeds. But what I think is probably more significant is what's below the waterline of the iceberg. My colleague Dr. Yarrow referred to feedstock and what we do to support the agrifood business in Canada. That's the part that you wouldn't necessarily see. We think there are tremendous avenues for growth there once those tariffs are removed. As I say, what's most impressive is how quickly they will be removed. It will provide tremendous opportunities.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Do you have any ideas on what that will mean at the farm gate for the farmer?

[Dennis Prouse]

We've certainly seen farm gate income continue to rise. I believe it has risen for the last three consecutive years. Farm gate income continues to rise. Obviously we have no crystal ball to see what commodity prices will be, but we do know that there is a continued demand for food globally. We know there's a continued demand for quality food and Canadian food. So the long-term trend lines are what matter and those long-term trend lines are incredibly positive.

How do we then take that demand for the product and put some rules under it so that we can facilitate trade? That's what CETA does, in our view.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

So it's an increase in the opportunities there.

What do you see in terms of innovation and research for the ag sector?

[Dennis Prouse]

Innovation is my colleague Dr. Yarrow's territory.

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

I think I can attempt to answer. Something we haven't talked about today is: what do we mean by biotechnology anyway?

If I can backtrack, the products that we've been talking about, the insect-resistant corn, herbicide-tolerant soya beans, and so on, those were all developed in the 1980s, early 1990s, and came to the marketplace sort of in the late 1990s and so on. The additional varieties or new traits that have come along have been sort of similar, or they've been repackaged, combined, and so on to create new varieties. Those types of technologies are getting a little old now. They're like 20 years old. They're almost antiques in a way, relatively speaking.

Again, as I mentioned, we don't have the details, our members don't tell us the specifics, and there's a reading of the tea leaves so to speak around this, but coming down the pipeline there's going to be a whole slew of new genetic enhancement-type techniques coming along that I would predict within five or 10 years' time will translate into additional new products, new innovations in varieties, and so on.

My point in raising this in the context of CETA is that the European Union regulatory system is anticipating these new products as well. The regulators are asking themselves if they are GM or not, how do they fall within the respective legislation in the EU, and similar conversations are happening here in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada, as I understand it.

So the really important thing about this agreement and the element around biotech is that it allows the regulators under this banner of CETA to have a healthy conversation around how our respective regulatory systems are going to handle these products down the road. That doesn't mean to say that the European countries dictate to Canada how we regulate them, nor vice versa, but it provides a venue for a good conversation for scientists in the regulatory regimes to have those discussions. So I'd be—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much. We're out of time.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Oh, that's too bad. I had—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I know.

Mr. Atamanenko, please. You have five minutes.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you.

I'm sure the questions that I'll ask are the same ones that my colleague just across the way was going to ask.