Agriculture Committee on Oct. 5th, 2010

[Dr. Wilfred Keller]

I would comment on the second component, wondering where we stand in relation to what's happening in terms of food security and production around the planet. Brazil is a good example, as they are now producing over 50 million or 60 million acres of transgenic product per year. Indeed, we're going to see increasing competitiveness, a demand for us to be innovative, with new research ideas, particularly in our small companies. We need to look at those quality modifications.

Canada has always been strong on quality, be it in our durum wheat or our canola oil or so forth. We have to build on that. We need intensive research to find those niches to keep our markets secure. There's no question that players like Brazil can produce a lot, as can South Africa, Ukraine, and others, when they come into strong production.

So I think the challenge for us is to use our innovative skills to develop products that fit important emerging markets, be they for high-level nutrition particularly or for environmentally friendly products.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

GMO is part of that.

[Dr. Wilfred Keller]

GMO is part of the tool box, and it's going to fit in a bunch of areas but not all of them. The pulse crop industry was shown as an example where it's not necessarily used right now.

[Paul Gregory]

Thank you.

I agree with Dr. Keller. There's no question that we're looking at better and cleaner technology.

Mr. Richards was saying that farmers are against the bill. As a farmer, I talk to farmers every day. They want a traffic cop on the corner. When a farmer goes to buy soybeans or canola, he signs a legal agreement that's six pages long, and this TUA is frigging scary. Farmers are scared witless of the power that Monsanto and Bayer and Dow have. They want to see a traffic cop on the corner.

It's just like our banking sector. Our banking sector is served well by government regulation. We don't want to be trading derivatives. I look at this new fast-track technology coming in as something similar to derivatives. We want to see a third party that can slow things down a bit and do proper governance. That's what it's about. I haven't heard a single comment that farmers embrace this new technology without some kind of proper governance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Phillips, briefly.

[Dr. Peter W.B. Phillips]

Just a really quick comment: we don't feed the world right now anyway. We produce extremely high-quality food for markets, for the most part, that don't need more food. We succeed because we produce really the best of the lot. We're going for the top 5% or 10%. If we don't go for it, we won't be in business in five or ten years--not because we can't compete against Brazil, but because the fellow in Humboldt can't compete against PAMI's members, who are selling the short-line farm machinery equipment to the Brazilians. At the end of the day, we need to be in that top niche of the food chain. That means, yes, we ultimately are feeding the world, but this is not a concessionary business; this is a highly tuned business. What we need, if we're going to continue in that business, is to be flexible. There's no one-size-fits-all, and that's the fundamental message I'd leave you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Shipley, five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I also thank the witnesses for coming out.

I'm from the southwestern part of Ontario, which actually is likely one of the most diverse areas across the country. My growers have not only grains and oilseeds, sugar beets, greenhouses, but we also have livestock. It covers the gamut. So it is very diverse.

It's interesting that my producers are saying to me, why are you even talking about this as a bill? It's not a good bill. I'll use an example. Even though we don't have sugar beet processing in Canada, we have a lot of sugar beet growers in my area, and without government intervention they decided to make sure that before they were going to go into a GM on sugar beets, they would determine whether there was a market. That has happened. It's been a revolution, quite honestly, in the sugar beet industry in my riding.

I go to Mr. Phillips' about Canadians and high quality. That was an interesting comment about not feeding the world, because we are feeding specific markets in Canada and I think we all know that.

What I don't understand is why we are going to make, and we do make, these companies go through the hoops to get the registration and now say, “Well, on top of that, you'd better tell us, government, whether this is actually going to be a good idea financially.” I never want to discredit our farmers from being able to make business decisions on what is good and what is not good. And this is exactly what it would be, because we look at different traits.

It wasn't long ago that our producers were growing 100-bushel corn; now we're growing 200-bushel corn, and that has happened because.... Likely over 70% of the corn in my area is grown as GMO. Similarly, other than the IP beans...are also GMOs. So in my riding of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex, agriculture is a thriving industry, a very positive industry, and without the opportunity...and putting more regulations in place for the production of what we would see as farmers I think is false.

I always think we're missing a point here. Mr. Keller talked about it: nitrogen-efficient traits, drought resistant, specific.... One of the things we're missing here is that we used to grow a crop for food; now we're growing that crop for energy, we're growing it for industry, we're growing it for food. Actually, we can pull the industry out of it and we can pull the energy out of it. The amazing part is, because of the technology, we can still use it for food. I would not want to start to say that some government people here are going to say they don't think this is right. I think we're going to hold this up until somebody else does some sort of research on it.

I guess my question, then, is going to be this. Is it actually scientific intervention that is going to be lost because we're starting now to bring in non-scientific emotions? One of the countries actually uses this process that Mr. Atamanenko is talking about. Is it going to be beneficial in the long run for agriculture in Canada?

I'll ask if we could have a comment from some of you.

[Dr. Peter W.B. Phillips]

I have a couple of quick comments. At the moment nobody has that test, so this would be novel. Let me perhaps amplify that by saying that we already have two additional hurdles compared to any other market that regulates GM technologies. We have the plants with a novel trait hurdle, which is broader than the GE hurdle, and we have the Seeds Act efficacy test, which no other jurisdiction in the world has. So that would be the third additional requirement for researchers trying to commercialize a product in this country.

[Matthew Holmes]

I guess I would just express a certain amount of caution. The sugar beet example doesn't necessarily provide us with great reassurance that the existing checks and balances are being adequately followed through. The U.S. Supreme Court recently, of course, ruling with two injunctions against the sugar beet GM in the U.S., found that the science-based regulatory approval systems hadn't been followed in themselves.

So I think it's perfectly reasonable to request that this committee establish a certain intent and parameter and the Minister of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture establish exactly the metrics that need to be followed. I think it's pretty reasonable that those could be established to assess this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Keller, did you have your hand up?

[Dr. Wilfred Keller]

I would simply comment in support of what Dr. Phillips has already mentioned, but I do believe there is sufficient evidence around innovation and the investment environment. Going to Mr. Shipley's question, this can impact the scientific endeavours particularly of our new innovative ideas. This is where we would have the concern of using non-scientific principles as components in our regulatory framework. Those can come later, and you've given examples. There are many different examples of how you could build that, and indeed there's more dialogue required to take that on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We have to break now.

I'd like to again thank our witnesses for coming here today with I think some very interesting comments from both sides. Thank you again.

We'll now adjourn the public meeting and go in camera, so I'd ask everybody to vacate as soon as possible, please.

[Pursuant to a motion passed by the committee on October 7, 2010, the following proceedings are now public.]

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have before you the second report of the subcommittee, which met last Thursday. Three points came out of that meeting.

If everybody has a copy of the report, we'll open up the discussion.

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Valeriote and I asked that we look at the biotech side of it and it's not even here. Where is it?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

We still have it. This is only until November, right, Larry?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

This deals with things up to the November break.

I'm not sure that's answering your question, Mr. Hoback, but the bottom line is, it wasn't discussed at the subcommittee.

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Randy, we tried to lay down the priorities between now and November, and we saw these things as the priorities. We didn't discuss the agenda from November to Christmas, the idea being that the other ideas would come up at that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I agree with what came out of the meeting on Thursday, Mr. Chair, but included in that is not only program review. We want departmental officials so we can ask them questions on the announcements regarding the terms for the advance payment program payback. It's critical that the officials that come under program review can answer those questions. That would include Danny Foster, I expect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Chair, I'm just kind of curious. I had the cattlemen through my office here last week and this was never brought up as a priority for them, so why would it be a priority of this committee? They had their day on the Hill. I met with two different groups. That issue never came up.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I've talked about the Ontario Cattlemen's Association. They have great concerns with this. I've talked to a lot of producers on the ground who—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Well, my context is that they were here and they never brought it up.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Randy, if you're interested in protecting the financial interests of producers, you need to hold a hearing on this. The August 6 announcement by the minister, in terms of deferrals, sets a payment schedule that is impossible for farmers to meet after next June, a year from now.