Agriculture Committee on May 8th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll have time to get around.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We'll have another round?

I really only had one question. I wanted to go back to the bio-economy. Denise was talking about the discovery, innovation, plant science changes that are going to take place. If what you've suggested is going to happen, does happen, we're going to have a revolution in agriculture, obviously, from $40 billion to $500 billion within the next 10 years or fewer.

I want to ask—all of you, I guess—what the important things are that need to happen for this to happen in this country. What would you pick out? We hear often that you can't have too much government interference and that we need to have some assistance.

Then particularly, what's the role of business risk management, as you see it, in the development of this over the next 10 years?

I'd be interested in the CFA's position on it as well. What do we need to do to fully access the revolution that's going to take place in the next 10 years?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Go ahead, Ms. Dewar.

[Denise Dewar]

I think the biggest thing we can do off the bat is renew and revitalize our regulatory system. It plays an important role in ensuring that we have safe products, both for food and for the environment. But it also needs to be reinvented so we can ensure.... These innovations are global, and they will go to the markets that are going to accept them and where there is large market opportunity.

The reality is that the Canadian marketplace, in comparison to the United States or to Europe, is not big. So we have to create a reason for those innovations to come to Canadian crops. Why would a global company want to invest in a Canadian crop? Because there is a clear, predictable, timely regulatory system that they know they can get their product through. They can get it approved for safety and get it into commercial production.

For instance, if we look at novel traits and GM crops, Canada was a global leader in adopting that technology. I would say that now we have fallen behind. When you look at the second wave or the second generation of traits, which are the ones that are going to drive more profit to the farmer but also to the bio-economy, we've been waiting for an agriculture policy on plant molecular farming and on having traits for industrial and pharmaceutical use since 2001. So we've been sitting without a policy and without a regulatory framework for five or six years now. That says that Canada is not open for business. That's the signal it sends to the world.

The only thing worse than a bad regulatory system is no regulatory system, and that's where we are today. So that innovation is going south of the border. And we end up in a situation similar to what we have in pesticides, where farmers have access to all kinds of new and wonderful products south of the border, but we don't have them here. We're going down the same road with bio-economy products.

The reality is, as Richard said, that we are set up on Canadian farms to have that innovation. We have the ability to segregate on farms. From a farm management standpoint, we're way ahead globally. So we need to get our regulatory system tuned up and ready to take these products on.

Health claims would be another example. For a decade we've been trying to get a health claims policy in place whereby the Canadian food industry can make those kinds of claims and get that extra advantage for their products. So for a decade we've been waiting for that to come through.

Those are just a couple of examples.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll go to Mr. Friesen.

[Bob Friesen]

Thank you.

If we're going into something that other countries have already been in, and where they are probably ahead of us in the game, I think we have to make sure we develop competitive policy. The biofuel industry is a classic example. What can we develop here that's going to make us competitive with the U.S. biofuel industry?

Beyond that, I think we have to also identify opportunities and then create the innovation centres we talked about so we can introduce farmers to the leading-edge technology and demonstrate to them how it can work for them.

Mr. Betker said something earlier that's very important. If we encourage farmers to invest, let's make sure we encourage them to invest in something that we feel has a profitable future for them. And give them some assistance in investment. It was Michael McCain who once said that we can't expect innovation from farmers who are on their knees.

So we may have to also make sure that we invest. And I've said this many times before: it would be really nice if we could focus as much on future investment and opportunities as we've had to focus on filling the income hole. Because I think that's very important. We need to invest in future opportunities for farmers.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have a question. Do you think that's going to be primarily in the production of bulk products or in an ability to niche market?

I think I'll go right back to Richard as well and have him answer that. Do you see a direction?

[Bob Friesen]

Well, we encourage, in our strategic growth pillar, that there should be a lot of focus on value added. There needs to be top-down investment as well. We need to make sure that we create value-added opportunities. Niche markets, certainly, are an opportunity as well.

We also need strong alliances between farmers and downstream industries, recognizing that both the primary production level and the downstream industry have to make a profit. There is a strong connection between the two, and farmers, again, for example, in the biofuel industry, can accrue some of the profits from the manufacturing level.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You can give a very quick response, Mr. Betker. Mr. Anderson's time has expired.

[Terry Betker]

You asked what we needed to do in some areas. I think there's a high degree of education and information required--information to the farmers both pro and con, good and bad, advantages and disadvantages.

I think there's a risk right now of farmers looking and grasping onto something that's going to give them a glimmer of hope. And in some situations I think that's going to be contrary to making good, sound business decisions.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

[Inaudible--Editor]...are smarter than the government, though.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Anderson, your time has expired.

Mr. Gaudet, you have five minutes.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have a question for Ms. Denise Dewar. In your leaflet—which, by the way, is very well done—on page 17 of the French version, the following is written:

The federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of Agriculture met in June 2006, in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, for their annual conference to discuss the future of agriculture and agrifood in Canada. We support their views on enhanced programs to support the economic foundation of the sector and ways to build further confidence in Canadian agriculture and agrifood products at home and abroad.

I would like to know if any changes have been forthcoming. Has a new vision for agriculture emerged since June 2006?

[Denise Dewar]

We've been encouraged by what we've heard from the minister with respect to the vision around the bio-economy and biofuels and the next generation of agriculture. So I would say that we are encouraged. We want to continue to bring the parade forward and bring the excitement forward.

I think changing the name of the department is an excellent way to send the signal that we are about more than just food and feed. We're looking for some more changes, particularly around the regulatory system and so on. We have been very encouraged by what we've heard.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Friesen.

[Bob Friesen]

There is one thing we think we need for the success of the bio-economy as well as for any of the other pillars we have in our Canadian farm bill--and Mr. Easter alluded to it earlier. How can we, with our joint jurisdiction in Canada, develop a farm bill that's going to work if, say, there are 17 different people responsible for environment?

We need your help to make sure that we can get all the different departments to work together, whether they're federal departments that are somewhat in charge of part of the agricultural jurisdiction or provincial departments. Help us to get them to work together so that we can prevent one department from competing against another department, so that we can develop these policies together.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Richard.

[Richard Phillips]

I have maybe just one more thought on what we are seeing from the government. I think we've seen a lot of focus, as was mentioned, on the biofuels. We see a lot of consultation going on in business risk management. I think our sense, as the grains and oilseeds sector, is that there's a lot of work being done to say what we need for the base supports.

As we move through that, I think we'll then be looking to the government for more leadership on some of the other issues, like where we are going with our science and innovation, where we're going with our trade issues. Transportation is a big issue in western Canada, and for us too. There are other issues for us to move on to.

In fairness, I think you can only do so many things well at once. So I think if we can solve the business risk management, set it up properly, then farmers are ready to move ahead.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

I have just returned from a tour through western Canada. All of the farmers with whom we met expressed the hope that the Canadian government would come up with a vision for agriculture and would stop concentrating only on natural disasters, be it floods, BSE, the avian flu, etc. They want a comprehensive vision.

I have a question for Mr. Friesen. Two weeks ago, in my riding, I ran into my nephew, who had not planted any cucumbers in five years. They were being imported from either India, Asia or China. Last winter, he attended a meeting and since that time, his company has required its employees to plant 2,000 tons of cucumbers. The company said that consumers were not buying the Indian or Asian cucumbers that were for sale in the large supermarkets.

Earlier, you said that there are varying degrees of food safety, much as there are varying degrees of water quality. Some water can be good enough for animals to drink, but unsafe for human consumption. You mentioned fungicides, herbicides and insecticides used by other countries, be it the United States or Asia. Sometimes, they don't use any of these products, whereas in other cases, the products that they use are banned in Canada. I'm not sure who is to blame for that.

Should we blame Customs, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or the Department of Health? I think it is a mistake to allow all of these products into the country without taking a close look at them. That is not my own opinion, it is something that I have been told. There must be a good reason why my nephew is planting between 50 and 60 arpents of cucumbers this year. If there is no money to be made, then the company would not be asking its employees to plant 2,000 tons of cucumbers. That is a lot of cucumbers for a region.

I would like to know what you think about this, because, in my opinion, there are varying degrees of food safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

A short response, please, because Mr. Gaudet's time has expired.

[Bob Friesen]

I think that's very good news, the story you told us about your nephew, because that's exactly what we're hoping for, that retail loyalty.

The other thing I want to mention is that the success of the on-farm food safety programs and environmental programs is contingent on industry leadership. Farmers, I believe, have gone down the road of on-farm food safety programs because they haven't felt that it was something departments were imposing on them or that governments were imposing on them. It's been initiated by industry leadership, and we believe, for its continued success, it should stay that way.

To very quickly close, this has to do with retail loyalty. I spoke with a representative of a very large retail company awhile ago who said they would never again buy a product from a farmer who didn't have an on-farm food safety program in Canada and yet, in the same breath, said they import 80% of what they sell. That's what we need to change.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the witnesses, thank you for coming.

Mr. Easter made some reference to the U.S. farm bill and the government's position of where we're going. I think, just for clarity, these discussions around the APF have become difficult because the past government, of which he was a member, took us into CAIS, which is the opposite direction we're trying to go in right now. I want to give some assurances that we want to make changes to that. So my first question is to Mr. Friesen.

In terms of your “A Canadian Farm Bill: A new vision for Canadian agriculture”--and I appreciate having that--can you tell me, is that supported by all the farm organizations and the farm groups and the commodity groups? I'll tell you why. Because I think it's important that we have fortified messages.

[Bob Friesen]

It's certainly supported by all our membership. You probably know it's the ten general provincial farm organizations as well as national commodity organizations, and we've worked with some other organizations on it as well to ask for ideas and get them to submit ideas. I'll get Justin to list the other organizations.

[Justin To]

We've also worked with CropLife Canada, the Food Processors of Canada, and the agriculture industry of Canada, and we've spoken of course with Grain Growers of Canada and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Certainly, all our members are fully on side with it, and there are many supporters from outside industry as well.