Agriculture Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[William Van Tassel]

That's what I'm saying. Where I am now, I'm growing early-season soybeans. Certainly the yields are still not there compared to farther down south, because the season is shorter. But what I'm also saying is that with our traditional crops, such as wheat and barley--I grow malting barley, and some oats--those yields are not increasing. They're decreasing or they're stagnant. We're having as much of a problem with fusarium as they are in Manitoba. That's something that really has to be worked on.

In my province, and probably in Ontario--look at the Temiskaming region--there are two regions in one. In the one sector that's zone number one, you're having yield increases. The soya is going up, and the corn is really going up. And in the other regions, the yields are stagnant. So there are two different agricultures in one province, and you see it everywhere in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

If I could just comment, in order to feed the world, areas that maybe traditionally weren't, whether because of climate.... It is certainly going to go a long way. I mean, Cochrane, Ontario, we all think of as a place where you only cut trees. But there's a large acreage of soybeans there, just to give one example.

Thank you.

We'll now move to Mr. Hoback for five minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to thank all you guys for coming out this afternoon.

This is a very important and timely study, and I think it's reflected in your testimony on all sides. There are some issues here we need to discuss. One thing I think is important, and Malcolm talked about this, is getting the facts sorted in such a way that it's no longer spin but is actual fact. It comes from all sides.

Jodi, you made a comment about how chemical use is going up in organics. Yet I can argue that fact by saying that actually, on a per-acre basis, it's actually going down 30% or 40% based on another study. It depends on whose facts you're using at what time and what point you're trying to get across.

It makes it tough for us as committee members to really figure out how to see this industry grow, because it has to grow. We have to feed the world. This industry is going to be very relevant in making sure that we can do that. Yet we still need to look at the organics. We need to look at some of the other minor markets and see exactly how we can accommodate them.

The concern I have is that when you get a bunch of misinformation, you end up making bad policy. You end up making bad regulations. You end up bringing in bad things that actually cost the industry money. Then the next thing you know, we can't figure out why we're not growing more crops, and you end up in a situation with wheat, perhaps, that's like what you talked about, William. In your own area, the bean acres are going up. Our yields are going up; wheat yields are going down. Because of bad policy, investment is not happening in wheat and barley.

I guess where I would like to go with some of you guys is on the regulatory side of things. When we look at low-level presence, do you see low-level presence as something that's just not even an option for organics? Is that something organics is going to look at?

[Jodi Koberinski]

In fact, right now we have the non-GMO project, which is a joint U.S. and Canada labelling regime. It's not necessarily tied to organics, but it is a verification system that has an audit trail associated with it. It has an adventitious level.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You'd be saying that you would be willing to look at a....

[Jodi Koberinski]

We've seen that one of our major players in Canada, Nature's Path, has gotten behind the non-GMO project and has begun labelling some of their products that are for sale in Canada.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

That's different, though. The reality is that you're going to have to have some tolerance. Are you prepared to go there?

[Jodi Koberinski]

I'm not in a position yet to speak on behalf of the sector on that, because again, as I said, we're still trying to iron some of that out. I think there is a willingness to be certain that our organic producers do not lose markets because of adventitious presence. I think one of the things we have to look at is the level of complexity and the regulation that's needed. There's not just a blanket “okay, there's adventitious presence, and we're okay”. For example, what if we have unapproved traits? What if it's a pharma trait and it's present, and we don't know where that's going to go?

The regulatory conversation is going to be one of the most sophisticated we've had in agriculture to date. Clearly the sector wants to be at the table when these conversations are happening. But we have a very strong consumer base that does not want us to readily step over the idea that if it can't be contained and stay out of my food, then that isn't choice.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay, but again the government isn't there to market. That's the problem I have.

[Jodi Koberinski]

No, but the government is there to regulate. If allowing a product into the market means that you take away choice in another area in the economy that's viable, that becomes an issue.

We could argue back and forth for a long time, and as I said, our sector hasn't resolved this. I just want to make it clear that we haven't given up on the idea yet that GMO pollution is a given. Where it is the case in the four crops we currently have commercialized, then we are looking proactively at regulating ourselves and allowing folks who want to label under the non-GMO project to do that. I don't want to quote the percentage, but I think it's certainly less than 1%.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm sorry, I only get five minutes, Jodi; otherwise I'd let you talk a little bit more, because what you're saying is interesting, for sure.

[Jodi Koberinski]

Absolutely.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

When we look at seed varieties, is there enough variety, is there enough choice in the marketplace right now for a farmer to say he wants to make a choice and doesn't want to deal with them? Are there enough options out there? Jim, Michelle, would you have any comment on that?

[Jim Gowland]

Sure, I'll start off.

I think there was a similar question a little bit earlier. I think that in the soybean industry we definitely have quite a number of varieties: private, public types of varieties. When we say we need the investment in the research side of it for the public varieties, it's more that development of consumer demand, whether it's an export variety or a food variety somewhere else. How do we bring that back? We've had some very successful varieties out of the public sector that gave a lot of profitability to growers.

Yes, we do have a lot of choice. I think there are fewer players, there's no doubt about it, but I think we certainly still have a lot of entrepreneurial companies that still look at development of specific varieties for specific end-use markets and that type of thing. As a soybean grower, I know we've been blessed, so to speak, with quite a number of varieties. You can't be stagnant; you still need to develop more all the time, because the need of the consumer is always changing, and there's always something better. Yield is always first and foremost in front of a producer's mind, and sometimes we look at different quality trade aspects and stuff like that. But certainly it's been pretty good that way.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

One question I've got for you, Jim, is out west we do a rotation. We give a pulse, canola, wheat, barley, something to throw in there, rotations for agronomic reasons. One of the concerns we have out west now is because wheat and barley have been devalued so much, the returns aren't there. So farmers are skipping it in the rotation, they're going to something else. What's concerning us and a lot of researchers is because of this we're starting to see other diseases build up in other crops. Are you also seeing that in the soybean sector in Ontario?

[Jim Gowland]

Certainly I think the more you aim toward a monoculture type of crop system—in our operation it's corn, soybean, wheat, and some edible beans that are thrown in there as well—if you start moving down to a system that has less and less diversity, you're going to run the risk of having some issues. How do you address that? Is it through new biotech types of initiatives that will aid in that?

I think as growers we've always got to make sure we have a rotation that's going to complement each crop as well. Sometimes I think in my operation I can honestly say wheat is not what you call the biggest profit-maker on average through all the years, but we do include that in the rotation because it does give value to the other crops and breaks up disease problems in cycles and that type of stuff.

So yes, it certainly is. If you bring back the diversity of crops you're probably going to have some issues, but you have to try to address that and work at it in your own operation.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

How about you, William?

[William Van Tassel]

I agree with you 100%: rotations. The farm has to have rotations to be able to cut those diseases. If you look at soybeans in Quebec, with the white mould, the acreages went up, and the white mould problems went up also. Aphids came in also. The more the acreage, the closer the rotations, the bigger problems you have. That's why we have to make sure we have different crops we are able to grow to have the capacity to make those rotations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemieux, you have the last five minutes.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Soya, if I could just ask a few questions about that.

I'm an MP from eastern Ontario, and there was a time when soya was not grown there and now it's grown in great quantity. I would say it's one of the staple products of eastern Ontario in terms of crop farming.

What I find interesting about soya is that you have farmers who are growing the GM varieties and you have farmers who are not. What's the relationship between these two different groups of farmers? Is it just a mutual respect where I'm deciding to grow non-GMO soya, I respect the fact this person over here is going to grow GM, or is it more there's grave concern but we're working it out? Could you comment on that, the relationship between perhaps these two groups of farmers who grow soya?

[Jim Gowland]

I don't think they isolate themselves from each other. Sometimes that grower may be growing both, for that matter. So it's not a situation of one grower against another.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes, so they don't feel threatened.

[Jim Gowland]

No, no. It's opportunity sometimes, and as I said earlier, the management system in an IP-type of situation doesn't attract some people.

I look at it, in my operation, and that's where I want to add value to be competitive, but I don't think...in all my years there's certainly no personal opinion against each other for doing that. It's choice and that type of stuff.

We elect in our own operation to do a little bit of custom harvesting for other growers and stuff like that. We don't do GM crops. We just don't want to take the chance of having any contamination within our crop. We just choose the income derived out of that other off-farm operation of custom work. It's not worth the possibility of contamination, and that's respected. People know that.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm not surprised by your answer, but I wanted to hear it more from you than me just reading into it.

I would imagine that the non-GM basically takes certain measures to ensure that there is minimal risk of contamination, particularly as the product moves from the acreage through the handling systems to the customer.

[Jim Gowland]

I don't think anybody's blatantly going to go out and try to contaminate or—