Agriculture Committee on June 2nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're out of time.

Mr. Bellavance, go ahead for five minutes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Good afternoon.

Mr. White, since you are ready now, my first question is for you.

Before we start, I would like to say how relieved I am that my colleague Alex's bill does not propose a ban on genetically modified organisms. The bill seems to have caused quite an upheaval in the industry. Earlier, to my great consternation and amazement, the minister's parliamentary secretary told us that passing a bill like this could almost cause another economic crisis. It was quite surprising to hear comments like that. But we are used to it, aren't we? The same thing happened to me yesterday when I appeared to speak to one of my own bills.

What we are talking about here is including regulations that require an analysis of potential harm for export markets. I wonder how that requirement for an analysis could cause such major problems for GMO producers.

Mr. White, the document you presented to us was very interesting. You talked about the advantages of GMOs, but you did not talk about the downside. Maybe that is not your role, but perhaps we could talk about it. Yes, GMOs have their advantages. But they also have a lot of disadvantages, especially with regard to exports.

Let us think back to 2001 when China would not accept canola, rapeseed and soy from anywhere in North America. The Americans suffered the most disastrous repercussions, since 70% of their soy is genetically modified. China is the Americans' major market for soy. So you understand why the problem was serious.

I wonder if we could not turn the situation around. It could be an advantage to have some proof up our sleeve. At very least, before jumping in to produce and market products internationally, we could do the analysis that would let us see if it is possible to get involved in this market or that market with no problem, safely, and without the threat of having doors slammed in our faces.

[Rick White]

I don't think I disagree that we have to be careful before we commercialize these genetically modified products, and that's what we do through the Canola Council of Canada. As an industry, in the canola industry there is an assessment made. The important distinguishing factor is that it's market based, and that decision is made by industry, not by the government. This bill is proposing that the government make that assessment and ultimate decision on whether or not these technologies should be commercialized.

There's no doubt that in the canola experience, farmers have wholeheartedly adopted GM canola. On the last page of our written submission, you can see the transformation away from conventional canola to herbicide-tolerant canola, and that was a voluntary move by farmers who had the choice to grow either conventional or genetically modified. It is very clear that there were significant benefits to growers of adopting that technology. They did it willingly, and they did it very quickly, because they had to maintain their competitiveness in the world market.

So was every market onside when we went to genetically modified canola? No. But there was a calculated risk taken in terms of assessing the ability of the Canadian canola industry to expand. There were some risks involved, but the industry came together and made the decision of whether that risk was appropriate or not. The risk at that time was whether or not Europe would accept it. That was a key market at that time. Canola went forward even without the European market in place, and it has grown and thrived and survived over time. It's become a success story like no other in Canada regarding a “made in Canada” crop, because the decision was made by the right people, at the right time, with the right information.

This bill, I think, puts the decision-making into the hands--with no disrespect--of the wrong people.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

When you say…

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

André, I'm sorry, your time is up. You had about 10 seconds, but....

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Did you say 10 seconds? I can say things in 10 seconds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm going to hold you to 10 seconds. Go.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

So it will be a conclusion.

You are telling us that the industry should be choosing whether to put its product on the market or not. But we have to remember that it is countries that close their borders to those products. So each country should be responsible for deciding what it will put on the market.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, thank you. See how generous I was?

Mr. Atamanenko for five minutes, please.

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

It's nice to be on this side of the fence now.

In regard to canola, I understand it's a success story, and I congratulate you on that.

Over the years, since we've introduced the genetically modified crops, we should understand that the yield increases are not because of the GE technology; it's because of traditional breeding. There have been no yield increases basically in the world, with maybe the exception—2% or 3%—of corn in the United States, that are based on GE technology.

Keeping that in mind, and the fact that there are countries now that are questioning this technology, whether we like it or not, that may not have been questioning it at that time, would it not seem risky, and maybe even inappropriate, to put GE alfalfa or wheat on the market not knowing fully whether it would be acceptable by other countries, given the fact that a number of them have banned the crop and GE technology and given the fact that it would not be profitable for the industry?

So is not the conjuncture, the time, maybe, of it different given all this scientific debate taking place? Maybe it would be prudent to have this in place, which, frankly speaking, should not affect your industry because you already have your markets developed. If regulations were in place, it should not have any effect on your industry and the ability of your industry, or for that matter the soy industry, to continue.

I just wanted to ask you that question--anybody.

[Rick White]

I can start on that.

Just in response to your comment regarding yield increases due to biotech, what biotech has done for canola is allow the plant to grow stronger so that it can reach its natural yield capacities better than it ever has before. We are seeing yields like no other. And it's all a package. It's not that there's a yield-increasing gene; it's because the plant is much healthier. It's much more able to withstand the extremes of the environment through hybridization of the seed, and that's a biotech consideration as well.

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

Sorry to interrupt, but what would be a good yield for canola?

[Rick White]

A good yield for canola could run around 40 to 45 bushels an acre, but we've seen yields as high as 50, 55, and moving up to 60. When you look at the national average over time, with the introduction of biotech canola, the national production per acre has gone up substantially.

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

I would like to get your comment on this transcript of our meeting before Christmas. We had a non-GM canola grower saying:

On the varieties of non-GM canola that I'm growing, this past year I had 45 bushels per acre in Saskatchewan, which is a very good yield, and generally speaking, the varieties that I have been growing have been equivalent or even slightly better than the best hybrids out there.

So it's possible to have higher yields without having GM technology. Is that correct?

[Rick White]

Yes, under ideal conditions. With ideal conditions, I could pick a data point with GM canola that would probably push 60 bushels an acre right beside that same farmer's field.

[A voice]

We could have an experiment on that.

[Jim Gowland]

Along the lines of the agronomics, I would say ditto to what Rick is talking about on the soybean side of things, so I'm not going to get into that.

For growers, I think we look for choice to be competitive. That's what it's all about in this business of agriculture, being competitive with your neighbour, and your international neighbour too. I think choice is something we look for. Certainly biotechnology has offered us that choice in many different crops, and in a lot of complementary respects as well.

The big thing I think we've been able to do, and I think it's where we need to go, is how we manage it a bit better. I think in the soybean industry we've had a good track record over the last 15 to 20 years, and maybe even longer than that. We were actually segregating product before GM was even introduced.

I think the managing ability has also paid us huge dividends in the soybean industry. We've been able to capitalize on markets that will pay a premium for segregated product. As long as we have those low-level presence thresholds in place in these countries, as the soybean industry, we can work within those thresholds and we can deliver that product. That gives a huge advantage for our growers and our industry.

The rough mathematics--and I know Michelle always talks about the rough math.... We haven't had a real study on it, but given the premiums and the number of bushels of soybeans on the export side of things, it's not inconceivable that we're probably running between $75 million and $100 million in this country of extra income because we manage the system. The fact that we've been able to take a situation that's been good for all growers, manage it a little further, and capitalize on more returns to keep those growers profitable I think is quite critical.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're out of time, Alex.

Mr. Hoback, you have the last five minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

And I thank the witnesses for bearing with us when we went out to vote.

This is a very serious issue, and it's very serious to our industry. So I don't want to politicize it.

I'm not going to attack the Liberals and their stance. I'm not going to attack Alex. Alex has some beliefs, and I understand that. But I think we have to get some facts across that are relevant to this legislation and what kinds of risk it presents to the industry. It presents huge risks. Even us discussing this presents a risk to investment in this industry.

I'm going to start with you, Ms. Buth. You talked about the blackleg situation going into China and how that created a problem. I understand there are some varieties that would be allowed into China because of their blackleg resistance. Is that true?

[JoAnne Buth]

Most of the crop that the farmers grow right now is blackleg resistant, so it would not be based specifically on variety.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Not specifically. But if we were to get around the blackleg issue in China, GMOs would have a part to play in that, would they not?

[JoAnne Buth]

It could. Right now blackleg is traditional breeding.

But the companies are looking at a variety of disease-resistant traits, essentially GM. It would provide benefits to the growers, and it would also provide opportunities in terms of increased yield and benefits in terms of the export market.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Atamanenko made a comment about how farmers didn't want this technology and how they felt they needed to stop it, not only in canola, but in Triffid flax and the alfalfa.

But in the example of canola, which is a good example to look at, when we started off with GMO canola, which was roughly what...1997, I believe?

[JoAnne Buth]

The first year was 1996.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It was 1996, and we had a good variety of both GM and non-GM varieties.

Where are we at today when you compare the choice of farmers in what varieties they're choosing to grow?