Agriculture Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'll call the meeting to order. We're one minute early, but as long as nobody has any objections, we'll get started.

For any of the committee members who weren't with us last week, we had a very good trip. We were in six provinces and a number of cities in regard to this biotech study. I think it was a great tour, and we learned quite a bit.

With no further ado, I'd like to welcome and thank our witnesses for being here today. We'll start right into it.

From the Canadian Soybean Council, we have Jim Gowland and Michelle McMullen.

Please keep your presentation to ten minutes or less. Thank you.

[Michelle McMullen, Manager, Canadian Soybean Council]

Thank you.

On behalf of the Canadian Soybean Council, I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to participate in the discussion concerning biotechnology.

My name is Michelle McMullen, and I am currently the manager of the Canadian Soybean Council.

The Canadian Soybean Council represents the interests of 30,000 soybean growers in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. We are pleased to share with you some background information on the Canadian soybean industry, our ability to produce both non-GM and GM soybeans, and the benefits of biotechnology to Canadian soybean growers.

Jim Gowland, our chair, will share his experience in utilizing benefits of biotechnology on his farm while producing high-quality non-GM soybeans that are destined for world markets.

Soybeans have been grown in Canada for over 60 years and are grown mainly in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Recently, due to advancements in plant breeding, soybeans are starting to be grown in the Maritimes and Saskatchewan. In 2010, approximately 3.66 million acres of soybeans were planted across Canada, making it Canada's fifth-largest crop in terms of overall production last year. Soybeans were ranked as Canada's third-largest source of farm cash receipts in 2009, with a total value of approximately $1.34 billion. Currently, 65% of soybeans in Canada are genetically modified. The remaining 35% are non-GM that are destined for export markets.

In Canada, GM varieties were introduced in 1997, and the Canadian soybean industry saw the need to re-examine its production and handling systems. Dialogue was initiated with key stakeholders, including government and our customers in export markets, to explore new quality management practices throughout the value chain.

Over the past 14 years our industry has demonstrated that we are skilled and experienced in developing and implementing protocols that can segregate specialty soybeans from bulk-handled grains. The investment of time and infrastructure was crucial to support the coexistence of GM and non-GM soybeans while addressing the needs of the industry's key market segments.

Science and innovation have played a very important role in the success of our industry. Public and private investments into plant breeding have allowed Canada to capture opportunities using both non-GM and GM technologies. These opportunities help Canadian soybean growers add value to their farm operation.

Maintaining our current export markets and accessing new markets will continue to be a challenge for our industry. 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 markets 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 one possible action is the closure of the border. However, it is critical that Canada's regulatory system remain predictable and science-based. If approval processes in foreign and domestic markets deviate from science-based processes, Canadian soybean growers could face significant delays in new varieties developed through biotechnology becoming available.

Canadian soybean growers are currently using varieties that are at least two years behind those of our competitors, putting us at a competitive disadvantage. Establishing low-level-presence agreements with our key export markets and working towards the harmonization of international approval processes for GM traits needs to be a priority to help ensure the competitiveness of Canadian soybean growers. The Canadian Soybean Council believes that the government's and industry's efforts should focus on negotiating low-level-presence agreements with our customers and harmonizing approval processes for GM traits.

Now Jim will share his comments on the use of biotechnology on his farm.

[Jim Gowland, Chair, Canadian Soybean Council]

Good morning.

My name is Jim Gowland. I've been chairman of the Canadian Soybean Council these past five years. I'm a cash-crop farmer from Bruce County, near Walkerton, Ontario, and I farm 2,300 acres of soybeans, wheat, corn, and white beans in partnership with my wife Judy.

Our farm incorporates the benefits gained through biotechnology while taking advantage of the opportunities to add value to our farm operation by growing non-GM soybeans for world markets. Similar to other Canadian soybean growers, our farm maintains a sustainable crop rotation that maximizes yield, quality, attributes, equipment, and capital utilization, which ultimately results in business profitability.

Our operation incorporates corn varieties developed through biotechnology to address agronomic issues that complement our non-GM soybean production, our edible bean production, and wheat production. We address specific weed control and pest issues with the use of these GM corn varieties to allow us to maximize the profitability in our conventionally grown crops.

With proper management and segregation practices, the added value generated in our operation for 900 acres of non-GM soybeans is approximately $50,000 to $75,000 of increased returns annually. Although difficult to track, this kind of bottom-line farm income could easily translate into an industry aggregate of at least $50 million for Canadian growers annually. In addition, with high demand for Canadian high-quality soybeans by export markets and a strong demand for soybeans for crushing into meal and oil domestically, strong basis levels are also improved, which benefits Canadian soybean growers as well.

Crop improvements in soybeans, as a result of advancements in biotechnology, have given Canadian soybean growers the ability to select varieties that meet the agronomic needs while providing traits with direct consumer benefits, which provides growers with another avenue to add value to their operations.

In the future, the Canadian soybean industry, with its proven ability to segregate, will be able to produce and supply soybeans with traits developed through biotechnology, resulting in direct consumer benefits such as new industrial or food uses.

We need proper identity preserved protocols in place and the support of the Canadian government in developing low-level presence policies. Canadian soybean growers will then be able to take advantage of future opportunities derived from biotechnology while meeting the ever-changing requirements of the global marketplace for specialty non-GM soybeans.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

We'll now move to William Van Tassel, vice-president, Federation of Commercial Producers of Quebec.

I don't know if I have the English version of that right or not, Bill.

[William Van Tassel, Vice-President, Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec]

If you want to make it easier you could say the Quebec cash-crop growers. In French, it's the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec.

I'll do my presentation in French, since I'm a Quebecker.

Good morning. My name is William Van Tassel and I am a farmer from Lac-Saint-Jean. I live in Hébertville and I am a grain producer. I grow wheat, canola, soy and malt barley.

I am here today as the first vice-president of the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec, or FPCCQ (Quebec Federation of Cash Crop Producers). The FPCCQ is very grateful to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for this invitation to participate in its study and voice the concerns of our farmers. Going well beyond discussions at the provincial level, this invitation is a unique opportunity to participate in the national discussion.

The federation represents about 11,000 of the 42,000 farmers in Quebec. This large group of farmers has many diverse challenges to meet. However, a common denominator among all these producers can be found in some of the broad directions and concerns within the sector. Biotechnologies have greatly changed the way Canadian and Quebec farmers respond to and approach those challenges. Genetically modified plants have become inseparable from farm life in Canada and Quebec. To start, we might ask ourselves the following question: Do biotechnologies create needs or help respond to the needs of producers and stakeholders? The answer must take into account our agricultural contexts, since that is what producers have to deal with, as well as the latest major trends. I will now talk about the context in Quebec.

The grains sector in Quebec is essentially based on corn, soy, canola, barley, oat and wheat production. The average area for all crops in recent years has been about one million hectares. The volume of grain harvested and marketed is about five million tons. The farm landscape in Quebec has 3 zones with different production potential. As you can see on the last page of our brief, zone 1 is suited to most crops and predominantly produces soy and corn as well as certain other cereals. Zone 2 and zone 3 are more suited to cereal and have very specific pedoclimatic conditions, requiring adapted cultivars. Graphs 1 to 3, which are also in our document, show a declining or stagnating trend in crop yields. However, yields are on the rise in other provinces and in neighbouring U.S. states. That addresses the question of competitiveness and the conditions allowing producers to be sustainable in the long term.

As for sources of research funding and sectoral output, that declining trend is more alarming in the cereals sector. In fact, in terms of yields, the gap between Quebec and elsewhere is quite substantial. Biotechnology firms do not invest in that sector because they want a return on their research investments. The cereal and grain crops in Quebec, however, do not represent a potential market for those firms. Furthermore, if you look at table 1, which shows the amounts invested by the private sector in agricultural research, you will note that research funding between 1987 and 2012 will have grown by 1,715% for soy, 1,027% for canola, but only by 80% for straw cereals.

The direct impact of the investment by biotechnology firms in profitable crops can be seen in the level of growth for genetically modified crops in Quebec. The area dedicated to GM production has increased from 100,000 hectares in 1999, to 400,000 hectares in 2009. The negative effect of such disproportionate funding could have been elevated if more research had been funded by the public sector. However, we are seeing a declining public investment in research. Today, research funding, in constant dollars, is 40% lower than what it was in 1994. To get back to that same level in 2020, a budget envelope of $28 million per year would have to be provided. As well, the research sector is facing a shortage of human resources and equipment infrastructure. In her 2010 report, the Auditor General of Canada indicated that 40% of the workforce in the research sector is over the age of 50 and 18% of the employees in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Research Branch are currently eligible for retirement.

Moreover, 71% of buildings used for research activities were in average or poor condition rather than good or excellent, and no fewer than 71% of the 28,000 items of equipment had exceeded their service life.

The positive impact of public investment in research has been confirmed in a number of developing countries that, unlike Canada, have deployed an increasing amount of public funds for research. For example, Brazil has increased its production by 365%, in large part because of its funding for agricultural research. China increased its public investments by 10% per year from 2001 to 2007.

Those two examples show that we need to increase global production of foodstuffs by 70% in order to feed a population that will reach 9 billion in 2050. Public investment in research also helps support economic and social development.

Studies have shown that the equivalent of $1,500 invested in agricultural research and development will lift 7 Chinese citizens out of poverty. In Quebec, one job created in the regions is equivalent to 20 to 30 jobs created in large urban centres. Generally speaking, the return on investment for research in agriculture amounts to 40% for the economy as a whole.

The challenges to be met in the grain sector are increasingly complex. Producers have to deal with the consequences of climate change, tightening of quality standards, consumer demands, instability in market prices and so on. Those are dynamic conditions that change over time.

In order for agriculture to keep up with the pace of change, it in turn must be dynamic and diversified. Public research must be strengthen to enable agriculture to meet expectations. Declining public investment in research will reduce the technological choices available to producers and foster a dominant position for biotechnology firms as well as the widespread use of GM plants.

The consequences will be more severe in peripheral regions—zones 2 and 3—which are less competitive and where plants are not cultivated—no corn and very little soy. Producers there are heavily dependent on straw cereals, i.e., wheat, barley and oats. Those crops rely on public research. Moreover, those regions do not represent a potential market for private biotechnology investors.

This means that the competitiveness gap between regions will widen. In addition, speeding up regulatory processes, such as the approval of phytosanitary products, would reduce production costs and enhance producers' competitiveness.

In closing, the FPCCQ is very happy to take part in these discussions with the members of the committee and is grateful for this invitation. The FPCCQ is aware of the interest in the agriculture and agro-food industry and of the industry's importance to the Canadian economy and regional development, and hopes that these discussions will continue, and that the committee will support action taken by the industry.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

[William Van Tassel]

Also, by the way, I talked a lot about Quebec. I've got The Western Producer here from February 3. On page 11, the open forum, you have the dean of agriculture from the University of Alberta saying pretty much the same thing about the need for investment in research.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks very much, Bill.

We now move to Jodi Koberinski—I hope I got that right—from the Organic Council of Ontario.

[Jodi Koberinski, Executive Director, Organic Council of Ontario]

Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the membership of Organic Council of Ontario, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak with you about biotechnology today.

Organic Council of Ontario represents the full value chain of organics in the province of Ontario, and our mandate is to grow the sector. Currently, under the McGuinty government, there is a plan to double the acreage over the next five years.

I have been involved personally in the organic sector for over 15 years, as an advocate, a processor, and a retailer, and I have been involved with certification and the development of the Canada organic standard.

Organics is a response to consumer demand. Eaters want to purchase foods grown in accordance with their sustainability values. These include the absence of genetically modified organisms, chemical fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, and synthetic herbicides. It also includes using crop rotation, implementing soil-building strategies, and increasing biodiversity.

The process of third-party certification, upon which our newly adopted national standard is based, was developed by the industry over a 30-year period. It is the backbone of what we consider to be Canada's original food traceability system.

In Ontario, close to 120,000 acres are certified organic, and this accounts for about 1.5% of agricultural land. It is estimated that current sales figures in Canada are approximately $2.8 billion, and about 80% of that product is imported from outside the country

Overall, we're approaching 3% of the mass market. This is the time when the folks who control markets begin to pay attention. The sector was able to achieve this kind of growth without any financial support, regulatory support, or research dollars of any significance from the public.

It was only last year that the sector received its first bulk investment in organic research, in the form of $6.5 million in science cluster funding, which is a three-year project. Contrast this reality with 15 years of $7 million a year in public funding for biotechnology, and our sector wonders what we would know if we'd invested only 10% of that in organic production over the same time.

Last week, in Guelph, we heard University of Guelph's Michael Emes say, in relation to the conventional model, that what we've done to date is spray and pray, using masses of herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides, about which people understandably have reservations. Mr. Emes went on to point out how biotechnology is a more precise methodology for production.

The organic sector suggests there are other places we could put our money to achieve the same ends. If we look at the 27-year, side-by-side corn and soybean production trials by the Rodale Institute, we've seen 3,500 kilograms per hectare per year of carbon dioxide sequestration in the organic system. We have seen a 15% increase in soil nitrogen under this system, and a 30% increase in organic matter in the soil. We also see a reduction of approximately 33% to 50% in energy use when cover crops are used in the system.

The University of Maryland took a look at this study and did an economic analysis of the side-by-side comparison. It showed that the organic system, over time, netted the same income per hectare, and that's without the organic price premium. When these organic systems have been in place over time, we have a dramatic improvement in our productivity.

Last week Mr. Emes also said that almost all of the global biotech crop derives from four plants, as we know, which in 2008 approximated 115 million global hectares. He went on to say that the European position of zero tolerance seems out of step and it presents trade barriers that could affect Canadian farmers.

But let's take a deeper look at the numbers. In 2008, more than 85% of U.S. corn was GE. That's 30 million hectares of corn in the U.S., which accounts for about a quarter of that overall GE planting that Mr. Emes referred to. When we talk about a worldwide acceptance, we're seeing that half of that is coming from six countries, and half of that half is coming just from the U.S.

You'll see the numbers in your notes.

One of the key principles of organic agriculture is the unanimous prohibition internationally of the use of GMOs in the system, from production through processing. Because labelling laws don't require companies to identify GMOs, global consumers reach to organic products as their way of knowing they're not consuming GMO foods.

As much as I am here to represent the organic sector in Ontario, I'm also here to speak on behalf of the millions of eaters who consume our products here in Canada and globally.

The standing committee is asking what the biotech sector needs to flourish. We would like to see the question stated more broadly: what does our agricultural sector need to flourish, and most importantly, what does our consumer base at home and abroad need in relation to biotechnology?

We must not lose sight of the fact that our conventional agriculture is a 50-year-old to 60-year-old production system. It has its own issues with regard to soil fertility, nutrient availability, and toxicity, which are beyond the scope of this presentation to illuminate.

At the core of the organic production paradigm is building healthy soil ecology. Organic agriculture is a green technology with answers for climate change, carbon sequestration, water and soil conservation, and reduced energy use.

GM proponents over the past 15 years have claimed that biotechnology has answers to our agricultural woes. An oft-cited benefit is that biotechnology will reduce chemical use, when in fact the opposite has proven true.

In 2009, Dr. Charles Benbrook looked at USDA data to find that GM crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicides over the 13 years of commercialization between 1996 and 2008. It's noted that half of that increase came in the last three years, so our curve goes this way--up.

This dramatic increase in the volume of herbicides applied swamps the decrease in insecticide use attributable to certain GM corn and cotton varieties, making the overall chemical footprint of today's GM crops decidedly negative. The report identifies and discusses in detail the primary cause of this increase, which is herbicide-resistant weeds.

In addition to toxic pollution from pesticides, agriculture faces the twin challenges of climate change and burgeoning world populations. The biotech industry's current advertising campaigns promise to solve these problems, just as they once promised to reduce chemical use.

Before we embrace GM crops as a solution to these new challenges, we need a dispassionate data-driven assessment of the biotech sector's track record on earlier pledges.

To date, we have four species engineered for two traits with one purpose. GE technology results in heavier reliance on off-farm inputs, licensed technologies, and intensification of monocultures. Increasingly, seed companies are making their highest-yielding varieties unavailable without the GE traits, so there is actually less choice, and not more choice, for farmers.

Regardless of the current or future intentions of genetic modification, the technology continues to be opposed by Canada's non-GMO and organic markets in North America, Europe, and Japan, and it will continue to pose a problem for organic and non-GM producers.

Metro Inc., a central Canadian grocery retailer with a sizable market share, has posted the following on their website:

The current state of knowledge does not permit us to positively assert that the consumption of genetically modified organisms...is linked to the development of certain cancers. However, the existence of a risk for the environment and human health has not been excluded.

Clearly, our retailers are hearing pressure from consumers within Canada on this issue, so it's a fallacy to assume that the only concern for GM markets is our export markets.

Organic advocates are perplexed by the simplistic thinking that seems to dominate discussion and debate on biotechnology. This science is not even 20 years old. GE foods have never been labelled, so population-based impacts cannot be traced, and the science that proponents so eagerly point to is conducted by the companies that are applying for commercialization and registration. It is not being conducted in the public forum.

Data is beginning to come in that shows health implications for GE foods on mammals and the true impacts of glyphosate overuse. I won't get into the details on that. In the print materials that you'll receive, I have noted some published and peer-reviewed studies to this effect.

We understand that we could debate the science endlessly back and forth, but at the end of the day, parents are concerned about pesticides and GE in their food supply for their children. Children eat three to four times as much food per weight as adults, drink twice as much water, and breathe twice as much air, and then also are exposed in the womb and via breast milk to pesticides and GE foods. Understandably, consumers are worried.

In addition to the direct issue of GE exposure, organic consumers recognize that more GE fields mean more glyphosate use. This market wants to see the precautionary principle applied when potentially offending genetic materials cannot be recalled in the future. Our sector's opposition to GM production and the expansion of GM technologies remains firm. We are convinced that our position is shared by a majority of Canadians, and that as the detrimental effects of the genetic modification of plants become more apparent, the opposition to their continued use will become insurmountable.

Clearly, the current Canadian policy, as expressed through Mr. Gerry Ritz's recent pro-biotech tour, is dramatically out of step with our nation's sustainability goals and the increasingly savvy Canadian consumers who want to eat clean, healthy food. Therefore, I would like to outline what we consider to be the principles and parameters for establishing an agricultural policy that can be embraced by Canadians.

The principles we are putting forward inform a policy that respects the existence of non-GM agriculture. The existence of both GM and non-GM agriculture means that each system must maintain integrity and take responsibility. The current situation, where those whose crops are polluted by GMOs bear the economic burden of pollution, must not continue.

There are six principles upon which we propose this policy be built. I'll just outline them generally. There's a bit more information in your written materials to help you understand our arguments.

Principle one: organic agriculture is an important facet of the Canadian economy and cultural mosaic and must be protected.

Principle two: products of organic agriculture lose their value if they are mixed with GMOs beyond the level acceptable by target markets. GMO contamination is an unacceptable harm that must be mitigated and avoided.

Principle three: costs and measures for ensuring successful and respectful existence of both farming systems should also be borne by biotech users and biotech developers. This includes biotech farmers employing buffer strips and identity preservation. Best management practices should be verified and enforced through inspection for biotech users.

Principle four: biotech companies and farmers growing GMO crops should compensate organic farmers for financial losses due to adventitious presence in GMO plants and seeds.

Principle five: commercialization of GE crops should not be allowed without a full assessment of potential impact to the environment, health, and farmers' socioeconomic well-being, which includes market acceptance and the freedom to save seed.

Principle six: consumers have the right to know if a food contains products of GE, so labelling of food derived from GE crops should be mandatory.

Thank you so much for your attention this morning. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move into questions.

Mr. Easter, seven minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, folks, for some well-thought-out presentations.

Larry mentioned earlier the tour we did last week. One of the difficulties in the whole area of biotechnology is a lot of people out there think biotech is GMO exclusively, and it's anything but. Yes, there's the GMO debate and the non-GMO debate.

I take it from all your presentations, including yours, Jodi, that everyone believes we have to move to require a low-level-presence agreement in terms of markets. Is that correct?

[Jodi Koberinski]

Our sector hasn't reached consensus on adventitious presence versus zero tolerance. It's something we are hotly debating among ourselves right now. Our position is that we don't want to see organic farmers losing their businesses over adventitious presence. I don't believe this sector as a whole is ready to give up on the concept that drift can be contained into the future, potentially not with the four crops we've commercialized now, but certainly as we move forward.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Jim, you've got a good market for non-GM soybeans, yet you support GM crops in other areas. It's the same for us on P.E.I. We've got a tremendous market for non-GM canola in Japan. But they come to the island, they inspect the fields, they see how close any other crops that are GM are to those canola fields. And to be honest with you, if it weren't for labelling in Japan, we wouldn't have that market.

The labelling issue is another issue we have to have a look at seriously. I've been opposed to labelling GMOs, but I really question if that should be our end position. Some say if it's so great and such a seller, then if you put “Certified GMO” in big, black print on the label, everybody will buy it. Why the fear?

Could I get a response from you, either Jim or Michelle, on your experience?

[Jim Gowland]

I think it's a choice for growers and industry to pursue different avenues. Our choice is to grow GM corn, as I mention in my notes. It complements our non-GM soybean production. That is a value-added opportunity. We implement the management practices needed for segregation. We identify that there is value from the demand in other markets, whether they be export or even domestic, for that matter, for those non-GM products.

I think the principle for our business, and I think for most Canadian farm businesses, is to look at profitability, at the end of the day. You work backwards and see what options you have and what you can do with your own management capabilities.

As far as utilization of those types of biotech crops, it's simply for economic benefit. It certainly is to complement other practices on the farm. Basically, we do that first, by being very good environmental stewards. We use conservation types of practices and ensure that we are working with safe products.

I think, as growers, that we certainly recognize that anything we do out there is safe. It's not even something we maybe talk about. We should maybe talk about it a lot more often, because the fact is, we live in that environment on a day-to-day basis. We are knowledgeable, as far as businessmen go. We check out the stuff. We look at science-based decisions on products that are brought forward, and we evaluate them. If they're good, then we go to the business side of it, and if that works for us, we utilize those products.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

One of the big concerns, and we heard it in the debate on Bill C-474, is the huge concern about cross-contamination. Our wheat markets especially would have a problem if GM wheat entered that marketplace. Alfalfa is also an immediate concern. It would certainly affect the organic industry.

I believe, Jodi, you said that the producers of GM crops should be responsible for any damage done. What's the view of the others on cross-contamination? Who should be responsible?

[Jim Gowland]

I think, ultimately, the industry has to be self-monitoring. If you're not responsible, at the end of the day you're going to lose markets. You're going to lose credibility within your consumer population. That's first and foremost in my farm operation. We translate that out into our industry as we promote the fact that the industry itself is responsible. Make sure that the necessary protocols and procedures are in place to make sure that we're not having contamination.

At the end of the day, management is required to value-add. It doesn't matter whether it's in the non-GM production system or the organic production system; it's an intensive management system. If you blow it, you're losing money. So I think it basically comes down to the fact that the industry will self-monitor and manage itself.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

But if you blow it, as you suggest, how do you police that? I know that if somebody came in close to the non-GM canola in my province and started producing canola, there'd end up likely being a huge court case. How do you police that? Who should set those protocols? And who should ultimately be responsible?

[Jim Gowland]

Speaking for the soybean industry, we certainly have the protocols in place. They're laid down in the contractual situations between growers, exporters, and processors. The policing comes down to, and Wayne, you alluded to it, there being court cases when there are screw-ups. I think people recognize that this is the day and age we live in. We're not going to create serious blunders that are going to cost me money and the industry money.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Larry and Jodi wanted in.

[Jodi Koberinski]

I just wanted to add quickly that when we see the organic markets dry up, they don't come back. We had an Ontario producer last year who sells flax to the European market who lost his organic market in 2008 when Triffid happened. The Flax Council didn't reimburse those farmers. Nobody reimbursed those farmers. They lost their businesses.

So we'd like to see a policy in place that the polluter pays.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Monsieur Bellavance, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentations.

As the chair indicated at the outset, we had a very productive week focusing in on biotechnologies. We visited a number of university research centres. I must say that producers themselves are saying the same thing with regard to the importance of research investment.

Mr. Van Tassel, your association was probably among the first to have informed us of the fact that Canada's investment in research is far lower than what it used to be. You also showed us how important it is to ensure the sustainability of the agriculture and agro-food sector, and that we need to raise today's level of investment. These are things we have been hearing.

Furthermore—and this is of particular concern to me—we have been told that the government is currently investing in university research, but has changed its priorities. As a result, the food sector is no longer a priority as it used to be. That really is quite concerning. We will try to remedy the situation by exerting the necessary pressure. I am convinced that you will do likewise.

In your brief, Mr. Van Tassel, you refer to private investment as opposed to public investment. You state that the private sector must continue to invest. However, the industry cannot depend solely on the private sector. You make an interesting comment: “ [...] the long-term objectives vary with the sources that fund the research.”

In fact, as we heard during our trip across Canada last week, private sector firms will often place orders and award contracts to researchers. Whereas their interests are often in the short- to medium-term, we also have to allow researchers to work on things that are not immediately marketable. They need to do basic research, which does not necessarily yield instant results.

I would like to hear you talk about the importance for us, as ordinary citizens, of ensuring that our tax dollars help fund that research.

[William Van Tassel]

I could give you the example of canola, a crop that is currently very important in western Canada and Quebec. Would canola have been marketed if there had been no public research? Probably not. Researchers at Agriculture Canada were able to investigate further and come up with that new crop, which is now so important to producers.

Clearly, I think that the private sector plays a very important role. It is only normal for people in the private sector to expect a return on their investment, which they would not make otherwise. Table 1 shows that canola yields a return on investment because, obviously, producers are required to use their own seeds. They make huge investments. As for grain corn, the level is lower, but that is because there is a high production of that crop in the United States.

Wheat represents a significant problem. Producers can sow their own seeds, which is why the private sector is not interested. Consequently, producers are still cultivating wheat, but wheat crop area is declining, because producers are not earning as much by growing wheat. They need to ensure the long-term sustainability of their operations. Farmers have to know the tools. Either the public sector has to increase investments in order to help develop such crops as wheat, or there needs to be an environment in which companies are willing to participate. There is no other choice.

Root rot and head blight of wheat is a problem in Quebec. The public sector should be addressing that problem. That disease is also present in Manitoba and in other regions as well. It is essential that the public sector foster research, as you have indicated, so that researchers can do long-term work. Root rot and head blight is an example of that. For instance, a researcher who is studying wheat will investigate a host of other issues because his research is being funded by producers and the public sector. He therefore has much more leeway to do far more in-depth work.

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

There is an experimental farm in your region, in Normandin. There is also one in the riding of my colleague France Bonsant. In Charlottetown, officials at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada told us that they had no intention of closing the experimental farms. When I asked a question about retiring researchers—and I think that we already addressed the issue together, Mr. Van Tassel—they said that there was a new generation of researchers.

Now, if we take the example of the experimental farm in Normandin, we might ask ourselves whether researchers will want to continue working in that sector, given that long-term funding might not be adequate for them to do their research. As for the next generation, I wonder if it will want to work here. This is a question I asked myself. It might be more appealing to them to work in other countries where investments in research are much more substantial.

Could you talk to us about the situation where you come from?

[William Van Tassel]

In fact, Normandin is now a substation of Sainte-Foy because of the cuts that were made there. It now has fewer researchers. I will give you an example. In Sainte-Foy, there is a researcher who is greatly admired. He is doing research on germ plasms. That researcher would have left a long time ago were it not for his iron will. There is agriculture, but there are also technicians and assistants. That specific scientist will be losing two assistants this year, because the centre is no longer granting permanent positions. Although there are still a number of researchers, without any funding, what can we do? It is really quite discouraging. We producers try to fund them as best we can, but there is a limit to what we can do.

If a bright young scientist does not know whether he will have a research budget from one year to the next, then he will think twice before settling there. We need public research in order to offer producers other choices, whether organic crops or other. That is why we need public research.