Agriculture Committee on May 10th, 2007

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

This morning, speaking on good practices in labelling, Mr. Laurent Pellerin said the following:

Given its lax approach to labelling, the federal government has a lot to learn. A product can bear the "Made in Canada" stamp if 51% of the production costs are Canadian or if the last stage of processing took place in Canada. In other words, "Made in Canada" or "Produced in Canada" is no guarantee that all the ingredients used in the product are Canadian! Another example, "Canada A", only provides information as to the quality of the product and how it was processed, it tells us nothing about its provenance.

What do you think the federal government should do?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Could you slow down a little for our interpreters?

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Very well.

Mr. Pellerin went on to say:

The recent regulation of organic produce provided the federal government with the opportunity that they now appreciate the issues at stake; however, nothing changed: imported produce can bear an "Organic Canada" stamp!

I believe that labelling is very important. Farmers in my riding used to plant 2,000 tonnes of cucumbers every year, but then they stopped. The public started to buy cucumbers from India and China because they were cheaper. This year, however, we asked farmers to once again plant 2,000 tonnes of cucumbers, because the public are not buying what is available on the supermarket shelves, perhaps because the produce is no good.

Labelling is part of the policy framework and it is, therefore, very important to have a comprehensive grasp of this policy. What do you think?

[Suzanne Vinet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Merci, monsieur le président.

This is one of the issues that was raised by the representative of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency during testimony before the committee last week. The CFIA is responsible for implementing the labelling regulations. Obviously, certain aspects of the labelling regulations are highly technical.

What criteria must be met for a product to be labelled as being Canadian? Well, where the processing occurs is important, and 51% of the cost related to processing must be assumed by Canadian processors. These regulations relate more to the economic considerations of processing than they do to product origin. Product origin is covered by another regulation, and labelling to that effect is either voluntary or mandatory. That is the context in which we operate.

While the Agriculture Policy Framework was being developed, one of the questions that was raised time and time again was whether Canadian consumers were able to recognize a product as being made in Canada. This is important as consumers are perhaps more likely to buy Canadian products. When it comes to Canadian products, there is the whole issue of branding, and being able to recognize "Made in Canada" products. It is one of the aspects of the policy framework that we are in the process of reviewing in order to facilitate recognition of Canadian products. It is unrelated to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, which entails a different set of regulations.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Dr. Fortin, Canada imports cheese sticks, butter oil, and a range of other products; yet the bottom line is that we are eating non-dairy ice cream and cheese. Such products may be just as healthy as dairy products, but what do you think about all these non-dairy imports?

[Marc Fortin]

How does that relate to food safety and composition? You would have to put that question to Health Canada.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Allow me to speak frankly. When I last raised these issues with somebody from International Trade, who was with the agriculture minister, all I got was a lot of buck passing. Nobody had the guts to take responsibility for this matter. Look me in the eyes. I find it inconceivable that we allow imports from countries such as the U.S. where the use of fungicides and herbicides is permitted, when our farmers are not allowed to use these types of products.

Our products are of a superior quality. In Canada, producers are not allowed to use herbicides, fungicides and so forth, yet the door is wide open to imports from countries where their use is allowed. Yes, our produce is more expensive, but the quality of our produce is 100% times better than that of imported produce. However, our producers cannot sell their products because we import—if you excuse the expression—garbage from elsewhere. You say that this falls under the purview of Health Canada, they tell me it's International Trade, and International Trade says it's Agriculture. Who are we to believe? Soon, we are going to end up doing it ourselves. Somebody is going to have to have the guts to take on the responsibility. I am just telling it how it is.

[Suzanne Vinet]

Merci, monsieur le président.

You asked two questions, one of which was about milk constituents in cheese. A committee is studying the issue, and the minister has announced a review. The process is under way, and we're awaiting the result of the committee's deliberations.

With regard to import standards, I believe that the CFIA also raised this issue when its representatives appeared before the committee last week. Inspections are carried out to ensure that imported products truly meet Canadian standards. If the products do not meet Canadian standards, they cannot be imported.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci.

Mr. Devolin.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for being here today.

I'm sure you know that recently the committee travelled across the country doing hearings. I was on one of those two legs, the eastern leg. What's becoming clear to me as we discuss these issues is there's what I'll call the farm side of the equation, which is the production side of the equation, and issues around efficiency and scale and new products that come on the market--higher yields, all those things. But we're also hearing from the other side of the equation, which I'll call the food side of equation, which is from the consumer level--what people want, what they're demanding. We've heard this many times recently. My riding in central Ontario traditionally was agricultural, traditional agriculture, and today there's still some commodity agriculture there, but the growth area is in a wide variety of things, including organic products and specialty and niche products.

I can just tell you, as a member of Parliament from that rural riding, I deal with at least as many questions to do with food as I do with what I'll call agriculture or farm. That's one of the things I've heard recently.

Interestingly, I was signing correspondence here when I first came in, and just in the last couple of weeks I've been getting a lot of letters from people asking questions about, as they call them, terminator seeds and about genetic use restriction technologies. There's a concern out there and there's the sense that there's progress and that we're developing and becoming more and more sophisticated and science can do more and more. On the other hand, maybe 30 or 40 years ago it was only the fringe that seemed to be concerned about these things, these kinds of issues. Now there are more and more mainstream consumers who are concerned about food, and not only food safety, but also what's going into their food and biodiversity. Terminator seeds is something on the horizon.

First of all, on the question of terminator seeds, in those areas, are you involved in that research? Are you involved with companies that are? Can you give me a sense of where that's at, and what you see as the future for that technology?

[Marc Fortin]

You're right, people are concerned about the quality of the food, the link between food, nutrition, and health. The question of genetic use restriction technology, the GURTs, was significantly debated some years ago. The technology was initially proposed by one company, Monsanto. It was dropped from their technology portfolio.

There is a sense that we need to take societal considerations into account when we invest in science and innovation. It's not just the science that's happening in the lab, but it's also what the market wants at the end of the day. We need to connect the science, the innovation, with market demand, with societal pressures or societal considerations.

In other countries a great deal of work is being done on biotech crops. The Europeans, despite the appearance of a reluctance to embrace GM crops, are patenting plant genes in large amounts.

I think from what's happened in the last ten years, the genetically modified plants are focused more now on industrial plants rather than food plants. I'm interpreting trends here.

The science and innovation strategy that Minister Strahl published emphasizes for the first time that AFC will focus research on the link between food, nutrition, and health. That had never been spelled out like this before. It's one of our seven science priorities.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

On a separate question, in that vein, with making that linkage, do you have any projects under way now? Are you working in that area? Do you have research in that area to make that connection, that type of information that consumers are asking for?

[Marc Fortin]

This is the focus of the work at the INH, the Institute for Nutrisciences and Health, in Charlottetown, where we embark on this partnership with both NRC and the University of Prince Edward Island. Scientists are being recruited and staff is being put in place at the INH, as we speak.

We're also embarking in that direction with the St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg, with the University of Winnipeg faculty of medicine. The focus of the work is again to focus on this link between food, nutrition, and health.

These are initiatives that we did not have in place three years ago. These are new projects that are part of this science and innovation strategy that was announced by the minister last May, just about a year ago. It relates to this new priority, one of the seven priorities, of understanding the link between food, nutrition, and health.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have one minute left.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I'm good.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Thank you for taking the time to be here.

Following up on what Barry was saying, if we look at the GURTs or terminator, could you tell me where we're at right now with this technology and the research involved in it?

[Marc Fortin]

I cannot tell you where companies are with that technology. I can only tell you what was announced publicly by those companies. The last information I have, and it's public information, is that Monsanto was not continuing the terminator seed technology. I do not know what they are doing at the moment.

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

There are no projects undertaken by government research in terminator technology now?

[Marc Fortin]

No.

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

When we look at it, there are a couple of general questions. One is—you've touched upon it—what's the major challenge now facing innovation and research? Who's driving this? We often hear people saying or implying that it's all industry-driven, that the research is happening in cooperation with industry and not so much for the benefit but often to the detriment of the primary producer. Do you see any dangers in the current technology and research undertaken by your officials?

On the whole idea of food security, the idea that maybe we have to shift and look at the safety and security and buying locally, can you situate what's happening, in a few words, in the context of today's demands?

[Marc Fortin]

We see innovation as being a combination of the interactions of research, market demand, market opportunities internationally, the venture capital community, the availability of highly qualified personnel, a regulatory framework, and a policy framework that makes innovation work as a whole. We need to connect the dots between those various components. One could do research for research, but if there's no market opportunity, if there's no regulatory framework, perhaps the return on investment won't be as big as it could be. We're looking at innovation as being the interplay of those various factors: the qualified people, venture capital, the regulatory framework, the research, and so on and so forth.

As to who is driving this, certainly the federal government has a role as a catalyst to look after the public good, so to speak, in the security of the food supply, the safety of the food supply, benefits to farmers, and benefits to rural communities. It is the role of the federal government to look at the picture of the public good. It is not necessarily the role of the federal government to do all the research and all the innovation. So, again, we need to work in partnership with stakeholders to drive this.

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

Do you foresee, in the research being done today, any potential negative impacts or dangers, whether it be to our food security or to the primary producer?

[Marc Fortin]

I do not know of any research that we do at AAFC that would pose a threat to the safety of either the food supply or the environment. Any product that is released in Canada has to meet safety standards, it has to be reviewed, and even if the research was taking place, those products could not be released on the market.

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

Thank you very much.