Agriculture Committee on Dec. 16th, 2010

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

That is scary, isn't it?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Now we're going back to the Conservatives.

Mr. Hoback, you have five minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I really appreciate the work you do, Chair. You do an awesome job. I just want everybody to know that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Right on. Now that's a Christmas present.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I hope that's not part of my time.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

The clock was ticking. Don't push it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

First of all, I want to thank all of you for coming out this close to Christmas.

This is a study that I think is so crucial and so important right now, because as we go forward we have to make sure that we as government and government officials actually understand what we need to put forward for proper regulations to ensure that we maintain protection of the consumer, the Canadian public as a whole, yet still allow an industry that's growing to continue to grow and thrive here in Canada. Otherwise, if it doesn't do it here, it will do it somewhere else.

So I guess that's where my questions will go. I'm not going to get into this debate about whether it is safe or not, or whatever. That horse left the barn 20 years ago. Basically, we have enough proof in my mind that it is safe. Yes, there might be some concerns as we move into animals and livestock, but in the same breath, if we look at the history of the science in the grain sector, there's been a fairly proven track record, in my mind.

I'll start off with you, Janice. When you look at the regulations—and I know you talk with a lot of the researchers at the U of S, which is doing an awesome job in this field with Innovation Place—what is the biggest hurdle you see they're facing, as far as bringing a new product to market is concerned, yet still making sure the product has gone through a proper process to ensure it's safe for the consumer?

[Janice Tranberg]

In talking to many researchers, public and private, I think the biggest challenge is really twofold: you have to look at Canadian regulations, and you also have to look at international regulations.

Canada actually has been doing a very good job, but I think there are efficiencies that could be achieved within the Canadian regulatory system. Currently we're working to delineate some of those efficiencies that could be brought together. It's about looking at the reviews and making sure that the departments who are looking at the reviews don't have overlaps, so that if one department is looking at one area, then the results and information from that area are shared across all of the departments.

So there are just basic efficiencies that could be worked on within the government, especially as we know, as Lorne has stated, there are going to be more products coming forward into the Canadian regulatory system. So now is the time to bring in those efficiencies.

Then as we look on the international side, the discussion today has very much been on low-level presence, and we really see that as key. These are products that have received 100% safety approval in at least one or more countries around the world—and that's important to remember. So we can eat them, they're safe at 100%. So when we're talking of a low-level presence, we're talking of one seed in 10,000. There have to be policies where we can manage those levels and not impede international trade.

So I think those are two key areas the government could work on to bring efficiencies.

[Lorne Hepworth]

Can I add to that?

In discussions I have with our member companies or their heads of research, they identify their risks into two buckets. One is the regulatory and science risk. If we're going to spend $150 million, are we going to get something that's safe and works? They're prepared to accept that risk if they can work with a science-based system to determine safety. If they're on the right track to develop the right product for consumers and farmers, and all the rest of it, they'll live and die by that.

The other risk they identify is political risk. Can we count on science-based regulatory systems around the world, or will they be impacted by politics, polling, anecdotes, and all the rest of that? That takes them to communicating with the public about the science and the complexity of the science. It is very complex subject matter. I'm a science guy, and I find this stuff pretty overwhelming. So clearly, industry has to do a better job there in communicating risks and benefits. We hear lots about risk, but less about benefits.

Secondly, as I alluded to in my remarks, the role for governments is not to be a shield for any of these products, or promote them. But when under attack they should stand up and defend their regulatory system. We have a good system. It is protecting the public's health. It is protecting the environment.

So often hear this view and that view. The average person says “Gee, I don't know”. Who are the third-party arbitrators in Canada, and reliable and highly recognized ones around the world? They are the CFIAs of the world, the Environment Canadas of the world, and the Health Canadas of the world. They need to stand up and defend the technology. If confidence breaks down in the system, the regulatory system breaks down and you have trouble bringing products forward.

Communication is a key issue at the end of the day. I'll leave it at that.

[Lucy Sharratt]

In that view, there needs to be room for an actual evaluation, moving forward, of the regulatory system; otherwise it's static. Defending a regulatory system without moving it and evolving it would not seem to be feasible.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You say it has to keep adjusting to the new technology—the new environment it's in.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Your time is up.

[Lorne Hepworth]

I have a good example of that is flax.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We'll go to the Liberals and Mr. Easter for five minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'm sorry that it's a little late, but I read the briefs and there is a lot of information here. And as Frank says, there are two solitudes. Our concern is how you bridge the gap. From our perspective, who do you believe? I'll put it that simply.

Prince Edward Island salmon was mentioned, Lucy, and I just want to refer you to what the FDA in the U.S. said on that product.

I will submit to you that non-GM canola is something we are extremely worried about in P.E.I. If GM canola got introduced in our area, we would completely lose the Japanese market, and the Japanese market is huge to us in terms of non-GMO canola and a lot of other non-GM and organic crops. The Japanese market is a premium market and important to us. And the reality is that we would lose that market just like that when they do their investigation, if there were a GM crop that could contaminate canola.

But on the Prince Edward Island salmon issue, the FDA has concluded in its analysis in the United States, AquAdvantage Salmon, on September 20.... I'll just quote what they say in this report. They conclude that food from the triploid ABT salmon “is as safe as food from conventional salmon” and that “there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food” from this animal. They do say there should be another study performed on the allergenicity of the diploid fish and submit it for evaluation. They also talk about the adequate containment measures that appear in place in both P.E.I. and in Panama.

That's just to put that on the record that there are two sides to that story too.

Based on the hearings we held on Bill C-474, the two areas I am currently worried about are that things are moving too rapidly without perhaps the right peer review, transparency, or protective measures in place on wheat and on alfalfa.

If alfalfa were to become contaminated, you are right, we would have a real problem in terms of many of our organic markets. It's the base crop for organic production, and there don't seem to be many areas that study not only the food and health safety but the environment, the economic impact, and the impact on biodiversity.

So this is my question to you all. There are pros and cons on the biotech industry—a lot of good and also some risk. How do we get to a system? What system has to be put in place? I agree with what Frank said earlier, that the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee would be extremely important. But how do we get a system in place where there can be reasonable confidence on both sides that the measures necessary are actually being implemented so they can be believed by the average person out there and by some of the decision-makers in the political process as well?

Lorne.

[Lorne Hepworth]

You raised three points: Japan, alfalfa, and a system in place.

Relative to Japan—and thanks to my colleague here, who anticipated that kind of question—the facts as we understand them are that in 2005-2006 Canada provided 71% of the world supply in the form of GM canola and Australia only provided 19%, despite being non-GM. Japan is the biggest importer of canola, and in 2006 Japan bought 42% of the world supply of canola, 1,941—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Lorne, I'll just interrupt you for a second. And your figures are right, I know that.

The difficulty on canola, though, is that there is a huge difference between the oil and the meal, and it depends what products we're shipping in there. And that's one of the difficulties. I recognize what you're saying, and those figures are accurate. But there is a huge difference to a lot of those who have this animosity towards GMs. Oil can go in, but meal or seed can't.

[Lorne Hepworth]

I guess at the end of the day, once again they've been mixing conventional and the GM, and Canada's been predominant there. But I hear what you're saying.

On the alfalfa, obviously it's an issue that's been raised in front of the committee, and it's one I have had some personal interest in. In a previous life, we used to harvest about 25,000 acres of alfalfa annually that we contracted with a number of farmers to grow because we operated a very large dehydration plant.

As a farmer of lots of alfalfa acres, we would have loved to have a nice, effective weed control—this is up in Ontario here, northwest of here—especially for dandelions. We were aiming primarily for the U.S. horse market, and you don't want those weeds in there, so we would have loved to have had a good weed control.

The facts, as we understand them, on Roundup Ready alfalfa are that it's found to be safe and has full food, feed, and environmental release approval in Canada; however, it cannot be sold in Canada. The variety is not registered, and the commercializing company—and they're not a member of our organization, so I can't speak for them—has indicated that it will not seek variety registration in Canada until, first, it is requested by farmers, which I think has been the standard procedure in the industry; second, there is a clear and acceptable co-existence policy developed and in place; and third, that it's fully deregulated in the U.S.

In terms of stewardship and management of the crop, the U.S. forage sector developed stewardship programs, which they feel, with proper agronomic practices, will manage gene flow in alfalfa. As we've been stating all along, a policy to manage trace or low-level presence of products for approval in one or more countries will mitigate issues with international trade. We can't stress enough the importance of that kind of policy.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Can Lucy make a comment here, Chair?

[Lucy Sharratt]

Thank you.

Certainly it's not standard practice for the industry to request farmer consultation. This is how we see one of the core issues here: farmers are not consulted before a GE crop is brought to commercialization.

As was said, in 2005 alfalfa was approved for safety, and for five years the Manitoba Forage Seed Association and other groups have been asking for some type of intervention to stop GE alfalfa. This is why it took several years of farmer protest to stop Roundup Ready wheat. This is a burden on farmers to have to be engaged like this crop by crop, if the crop looks like it's going to be a market issue.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We're going to go back now to the government side.

Mr. Richards, you're up for five minutes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here today.

I think we've got a fairly wide divergence of opinion here. We've got both sides of the argument, and that's kind of an interesting way of setting up a panel. It's nice to see both sides of the argument, I guess, for lack of a better way of putting it.

I'm going to ask you both, and I'll start first with CropLife and whoever would like to take the question, to sort of respond to something from the other side of the argument and I would just challenge you a little bit to think about how you would counter the other side's point of view.

I'll start with CropLife. On Tuesday, we had—I forget the university he was with—a Mr. Mauro, who had done fairly extensive studies with Roundup Ready wheat. He discussed that in quite a bit of detail. I think it's mentioned again today by Ms. Sharratt, and it's certainly in her brief as well. There is some discussion about it.

I would ask you to respond and offer your comments on the comments that have been made in terms of Roundup Ready wheat and some of the concerns around it. How would you respond to those kinds of comments, and what would your comments on them be?

[Lorne Hepworth]

First of all, going back in time a few years, as Lucy referenced, market acceptance wasn't there, so the Roundup Ready wheat was shelved in Canada. Having said that, we had as a guest speaker at our conference a couple of weeks ago here in Ottawa a representative of the world's largest private wheat-breeding company. He described wheat, I thought, very accurately. He described it as a technologically orphaned crop, and that's not just in Canada but in the U.S. as well. The wheat growers there are very concerned about the lack of research and development, the lack of technological innovation in wheat.

The second thing I would relate to your question is that wheat is very much on the radar screen of our member companies. There are three dimensions. It's a staple crop in the world. It's an important crop in the world: a couple of billion people rely on it for food. Farmers here probably need it as a rotation crop, albeit as one that has been very uneconomic. It's on their radar screen from the standpoint of better protection for the seed itself, from needing new products to deal with weeds and diseases and so on that arise in wheat. And then lastly there is the role it could play with regard to genomics, epigenomics, biotechnology, clever plant breeding, and all those kinds of things.

To that end, as we've examined this, I have gone down to Mexico City to look at CIMMYT, which is the Norman Borlaug research centre on corn and wheat, to see the evolution of wheat and corn over several thousands of years, and to discuss their desire to develop wheat and corn to help feed the nine billion people in the world.

I have a final comment here on this. We need to get our act together in Canada--and I think this point was made by the speaker we had--because the world is going to pass us by here, and Canadian farmers will lose on this. Recently we've seen other countries in the world, some of the ones I've talked about, going gangbusters on this technology with all the tools, biotechnological or otherwise. Australia is now into field trials on this. It may be ten or eleven years before they get anywhere, but we're close to having the world go by us on it. If you look at some of the research on wheat, it goes back in Canada. We were the breadbasket of the world. Can we not reclaim that glory in the interest of consumers and farmers? Western Canada was seen as the breadbasket of the world.

So the simple answer is it's technologically orphaned. There's a great opportunity there and an important opportunity in terms of feeding the world and developing drought tolerance and some of those important attributes.