Evidence of meeting #25 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We're going to continue and at least finish out the witnesses. Anyone who wants to leave may do so.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I don't need unanimous consent. I'm going to hear the witnesses out. We have lots of time.
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I'm not trying to make anybody miss a vote, André.
I will check, but I believe we can finish here.
Do you have a point of order, Mr. Hoback?
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I have a concern. We haven't had a good chance to cross-examine Mr. Atamanenko. We have bells, but we also have witnesses who have flown or driven here, and I'm concerned that we're rushing things here today.
Mr. Atamanenko, would you be willing in another meeting to come back and let us have a chance to talk to you?
NDP
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
My mistake. I do need unanimous consent to continue to hear the witness.
Do I have it?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Okay.
My apologies, Mr. Gowland. We have to break and go for the vote.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Just a minute.
I raised a point of order. I wanted to suggest that we come back after the vote and carry on. We have been asked to leave as soon as the bell sounds. I don't want us to keep working and to miss something that we do not know about. So I have no choice. I suggest we come back after the vote. I do not want to prevent the witnesses from speaking; quite the opposite.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I fully intend to do that, Mr. Bellavance. I just thought we could have taken advantage of another 10 or 15 minutes and still have been fine. Anyway, I don't have that support, so we have to adjourn. Please hurry back here immediately after.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Yes, the witnesses are here until 5:30, so I'm sure they will be.
The meeting is recessed until after the votes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I'll call the meeting back to order.
I apologize to our guests, but again, it's one of those things.
Mr. Gowland, I'll let you finish.
Chair, Canadian Soybean Council
Thanks, Chairman Larry.
I guess I'll go back a couple of small paragraphs. I disregarded the bells. I've been planting soybeans with a tractor the last two weeks. It has more bells and whistles and alarms that go off. I guess I was just driving on here. So I'll just go back two small paragraphs to get back to where I was heading.
Continued investment in Canada by seed companies will result in the development of new varieties through biotechnology, which not only have production advantages for producers but direct consumer benefits as well. Capitalizing on these potential opportunities that can add value to Canadian soybean growers could be put into jeopardy with the introduction of Bill C-474 and place Canada at a competitive disadvantage.
Maintaining our current markets and accessing new markets will continue to be a challenge. Many countries, including Canada, have a zero-tolerance policy regarding unapproved events that are developed through biotechnology. It is impossible for our industry to guarantee zero contamination of any GM trait.
Approval of new GM traits in our key export market establishes thresholds that our industry can meet. In the case that an unapproved GM trait is identified in a Canadian shipment, there is a zero-tolerance policy, and possible action, of course, is the closure of that border.
It is important that Canada's regulatory system remains predictable and science-based. If approval systems in foreign and domestic markets deviate from science-based processes, Canadian soybean growers could face significant delays in new varieties developed through biotechnology becoming commercially available. Canadian soybean growers are currently using varieties that are sometimes at least two years behind our competitors, and this puts us at a competitive disadvantage.
Establishing low-level presence, LLP, agreements with our key export markets and working towards the harmonization of an international approval process for GM traits needs to be a priority to help ensure the competitiveness of Canadian soybean growers.
The Canadian Soybean Council does not support Bill C-474 and recognizes how advances in biotechnology could possibly impact market access. The introduction of the non-science-based criteria to our regulatory system through Bill C-474 is not the answer to ensuring continued access to our important export markets. The Canadian Soybean Council encourages the committee to carefully consider how the future competitiveness of all Canadian farmers will be impacted by this bill. The Canadian Soybean Council believes that government and industry's efforts should focus on negotiating low-level presence agreements with our customer and harmonizing approval processes for GM traits.
I would like to say, however, Mr. Atamanenko, that I think we do have issues in the industry that we have to solve. I think it has been a great forum for dialogue to bring these concerns forward. However, we still do not support Bill C-474.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We'll now go to Mr. Valeriote.
Just as a reminder, we don't have a lot of time left.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Gowland, I think the most significant thing that's been said today is that this gives us an opportunity to sit around and talk about the issue, and that's what's important. I want to dispel the fear that may have been imbued in you by some about people's positions on this.
You live in an agricultural world. Most Canadians think their food comes from grocery stores, not from farms, as you know. In order for us to overcome some myths associated with GMOs, we have to have a conversation. We have to demystify the whole idea of GMOs. That demystification won't happen if we don't let the Canadian public in on these conversations. We talked about GMOs for about four hours last year, I think, and that was it. A lot of people I talk to think that GMOs are some sort of “Frankenscience”. Of course, we know it isn't.
A lot of people don't realize that we have to build such huge capacity in developing worlds. I was at the FAO United Nations conference last year in Rome. Even members from civil society recognize that GMOs have a place in the building of that capacity in developing countries, especially when we have to increase our food production by 70% over the next 40 years to feed 3 billion more people.
A number of people have also expressed to me something that Alex had referred to in his statement, and that was the concentration of power within a couple of companies. That is another side to this coin for another discussion at another time—you know, the controlling of seeds, which farmers want access to, and those kinds of conversations.
I just want you to know that we believe in science as well, and that is the foundation for our decisions.
Having said that, I want to know more about LLP. If Alex hadn't brought this motion, you wouldn't have been able to be here today to talk about low-level presence, which is what you see as a solution. You've already identified that in certain cases it's zero tolerance. I'm not trying to dismiss Alex's intent here at all, but I'd like to know more about this low-level presence.
Can you tell me more about that, JoAnne?
President, Canola Council of Canada
We've been dealing with low-level presence for a while, but there's a concerted effort globally to take a look at this as an issue. Governments, seed developers, the grain trade, and several international groups are working on this to try to bring regulatory systems together essentially to have the discussion about how we deal with these events that are approved in a country that has a science-based regulatory system and where you end up with low levels of something that's been approved in another country.
There has been a discussion at Codex about moving towards harmonization of approvals so that countries will approve things at the same time. If we get things out of sync, that's where we end up with problems of not having a tolerance set, or a nod and approval in a country to mutually recognize another country's approval.
If you take a look at the regulatory systems around the world, they've approved all the canola events. Think of the time and the dollars that every country takes to go through essentially the same approval system, the same risk assessment, to determine that something is safe, and they have determined it's safe. So it's mutually recognizing another country's approval.
The last thing is when an event gets registered in a country or gets approved in a country, to proactively look at what the issues would be if that occurred at low levels within a commodity and to do an evaluation that would essentially say that a low level of this would not be an issue for us in our country. So we need to be proactively looking at that.
