Agriculture Committee on March 24th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'll call our meeting to order. Today we have Mr. Jim Everson here from the Canola Council of Canada; from the Grain Growers of Canada we have Mr. Vandervalk and Mr. Philipps; and joining us by video conference we have Mr. Richard White, from the Canadian Canola Growers Association.

Thanks very much for being here.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes. On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm surprised at the agenda, because we were in a debate on an important motion at the last meeting.

This is really worrisome, in terms of the committee's being able to complete motions that are on the table. We were in discussion, and I realize that the Conservative members were filibustering the motion—that is their right under parliamentary procedure—but to filibuster and then not have the motion on the agenda today so that we can either accept it or reject it goes against what committees are doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Easter, the agenda for this went out on...Monday, was it? It was last week, actually.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, I know the agenda went out. But as happened in the previous meeting to last, we started a debate on a motion, and because of filibustering by Conservative members, the motion was never voted on. The same thing happened at the last meeting. To not now continue, to complete the motion, I think goes against our rights as a committee. There are several motions we should be dealing with.

Mr. Chair, I will say that you were very fair at the last meeting, as hard on us as you were on them, which is great to see. If any member on the committee decides to filibuster, whether from the opposition parties or the government side, then we can never complete a vote on motions.

I'm concerned about it. How are we going to complete the motions when they delay and then they aren't voted on? Could you answer that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, I'll do my best, Mr. Easter.

As agreed upon by the majority of the committee, Tuesday's meeting, the March 22 meeting, was originally set because there was not going to be a budget that day. After the meeting on whichever date it was—the meeting prior to that, when we hadn't finished the debate on your motion—it was indicated by Mr. Eyking that your members wanted to use that meeting instead for that. So we put that on the agenda, and then the agenda went out last week on this present subject.

When the agenda goes out, it's for two reasons, or maybe more. One of them is, of course, to make everybody aware of what is ahead. Secondly, if there is input or if there are changes, sending it allows members to act. Nobody said anything the other day.

We have witnesses in front of us here. There's no hanky-panky about this; they're here. I'm sick of childishness on both sides. If you want to go to motions after you're done with the witnesses today, I think that's what we should be doing. We have them here.

Ms. Bonsant, you had your hand up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too am a bit taken aback to see the witnesses, because last Tuesday, at the end of our meeting when Mr. Valeriote asked to be the first to speak to Mr. Easter’s motion, I was sure we would start with that. That is why I'm surprised. It's not because I don't like the witnesses, but I just think it's strange.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I was only getting French on both these channels.

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

We are supposed to be a bilingual country. But whenever we start talking, you always have a problem with the translation. I think that, at some point, someone is going to have to wake up. Is that clear?

Ever since we have been here, it’s always the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Ms. Bonsant, you're out of order there. We couldn't have it. I wish I could speak French, but I can't.

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

Stop wishing and start learning. I learned English, Mr. Miller. That is not what I am saying. Whenever we start talking—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're way out of line.

I'm going to go to witnesses.

But before that, I have Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Are we going to witnesses, or what are we doing, Chair? Give me some direction.

If we're going to witnesses, then let's go to witnesses. If we're not, then I would like to maintain my order.

But if you're going to witnesses, let's go there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Valeriote wants to speak on it.

You were ahead of him, if you want to speak to this, but my plan is to go to witnesses.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Go ahead, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

For the record, Mr. Chair, at the end of the last meeting you gave me some assurances that this discussion would continue today. I've prepared for our debate on this motion, and I have to express how disappointed I am if you decide to proceed with witnesses instead of completing a very compelling issue that's been the subject of this discussion and the subject of the motion brought by Mr. Easter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Valeriote, I want to make it very clear to you—and you know this to be true—that should we go to the motion, you are second on the list. You know that, and I will honour that.

I in no way insinuated that we were going there. You had the agenda sent to your office last week, the same as everybody else. I suggest that you look at it, and if you have an issue, take it up with your staff, not me.

Mr. Everson, 10 minutes, please.

[Jim Everson, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Canola Council of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you to the committee for having the Canola Council here today.

Biotechnology is a very important part of innovation in Canadian agriculture. We congratulate the committee for taking on this study and encourage you to make recommendations that help advance biotechnology in Canada.

The Canola Council is a vertically integrated association that represents all sectors of the canola industry, including the 43,000 farmers in Canada who grow canola, as well as seed developers, processors, and exporters. We all sit at the same table to ensure that canola value remains intact and profitable.

Canola is a product of Canadian innovation. It was developed early in the seventies by researchers at the University of Manitoba and Agriculture Canada, using traditional breeding practices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Everson, could you slow down a little for the translators? They're having trouble keeping up.

[Jim Everson]

Since then, public and private research has been applied continually to improve canola value. This research includes traditional science and biotechnology, including genetic modification. The combination of these methodologies and a relentless focus on innovation is creating profitability for canola farmers and economic growth for Canada.

Canola provides the most value to Canadian farmers of any crop. In 2010, cash receipts from canola were $5.6 billion. The 2010 crop produced 11.9 million tonnes of canola on 16.1 million acres of land, which is up from the 2006 numbers of 9.1 tonnes on 13 million acres of land. Canola generates $14 billion in economic activity in Canada and creates 216,000 jobs. This success can be attributed in no small part to biotechnology innovation.

The committee has asked for input on regulatory and policy issues that can encourage biotechnology innovation in agriculture.

To start with, we have to ensure that our regulatory system continues to be based on science. Technology companies are investing millions in research and development to bring new innovations to market. To do so, they need to have confidence that the regulatory framework for these products is predictable and is based on sound science. This is also very important in international markets. Canada is an exporting nation. A total of 80% to 90% of our canola production is exported. We rely on science-based regulatory systems around the world for predictable access to those markets. When decisions on market access are based on political calculations, these markets can close. So our first recommendation for your report is that the committee underscore the importance of science-based regulation. Canada should also be a strong voice internationally on this point.

As a major exporter of agriculture products, we have a lot to lose from the imposition of trade barriers. Ensuring that regulatory and policy decisions are based on science has to be a foundation principle of international trade. This is our goal in the current negotiations between Canada and the European Community on a trade and economic agreement. Canada and Europe both have rigorous processes for approving agricultural products based on genetic modification, but they differ in one important respect. In Canada, the product is approved if regulators, after a thorough safety assessment, conclude that it is safe. In Europe, there's basically a two-stage process. The European Food Safety Authority conducts a science-based safety assessment, very similar to Canada's, and issues an opinion. But then the application goes to a political level where it has to be approved by a committee of member states. This second part of the process causes considerable delay, and decision-making is not based on any clear criteria.

We are asking for this process to be predictable, timely, and science-based. To be clear, this does not involve any change in regulatory standards or a reduction in human or safety standards.

When it comes to the approval process for genetically modified materials, the timeliness of regulatory decision-making is important. Seed developers apply for approval in all major markets before commercializing a new GM trait. In most markets, a science-based safety assessment process should take 18 months to two years. If all major markets undertake these assessments and make decisions in this period of time, the number of unapproved events, which can disrupt trade, would be reduced.

GM is not a safety issue. The GM traits being used in canola today have been approved through rigorous regulatory processes by numerous science-based regulatory agencies, and 15 years of biotechnology in Canada have shown it to be safe. So when GM regulation is used to block access to markets, it's simply a non-tariff trade barrier.

We also ask the committee to make a strong recommendation that Canada and other major grain-trading nations develop low-level presence policies with respect to GM materials. Today the number of GM products being grown, and the acreage seeded with them, is growing quickly, and in many parts of the world. We have seen circumstances recently when GM materials approved in one or more countries, but not in the country importing the grain, have disrupted trade, causing significant economic disruption for farmers, grain handlers, and end-users. In these circumstances it is likely that this disruption is unnecessary, since the product has been deemed safe through safety assessment, is not being intentionally imported, and is at very low levels. These events are likely to be more frequent.

The solution dealing with trade issues involving GM products is the development of global policies and approaches to risk management and low-level presence. This can include the synchronization of GM approvals in all markets, mutual recognition where the regulatory authority in one country relies on the science-based review done by another, and development of low-level presence policies.

We urge the committee to recommend that Canada introduce a low-level presence policy to its domestic regulation and that our policy and regulatory officials lead discussions with their international counterparts to implement common standards for low-level presence internationally.

Finally, we urge the committee to make a recommendation in favour of continued federal investment in research. All around us countries are investing in agriculture innovation to improve their competitiveness internationally. Public and private research tends to have different objectives and timelines, but both have an important role to play. Agriculture Canada has played a monumental role in the success of Canadian agriculture through its research program, and will continue to be valuable in the future.

I thank the committee and look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much, Mr. Everson.

We now move to the Grain Growers of Canada, Mr. Vandervalk and Mr. Phillips, for 10 minutes, please.

[Richard Phillips, Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada]

We're going to share our time, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting us to discuss the need for biotechnology research in Canada.

My name is Richard Phillips and I am with the Grain Growers of Canada. My wife and I have a farm in Saskatchewan, where we grow wheat, oats, barley, peas, and canola.

With me today is Stephen Vandervalk, president of the Grain Growers. Stephen will speak first.

[Stephen Vandervalk, President, Grain Growers of Canada]

Good morning. My name is Stephen Vandervalk, and I am president of the Grain Growers of Canada. I farm near Lethbridge, Alberta.

I'd like to discuss how biotech research helps me manage my farm. To explain to you how biotech has changed my farm and its practices, we need to go back to how my father used to farm with the tools he had.

Back in the days of Treflan to control wild oats and canola, you needed to spread the product on and fully till the soil up to four inches deep, twice. Then you were ready to fertilize and seed and would then till a third time and sometimes a fourth time. Finally, there were no products whatsoever to control wild broadleaf weeds. By tilling the ground so often, you exposed the soil, now black powder, to all sorts of environmental factors, including the wind. Watching your land blow away has to be the most sickening feeling in the world.

How things have changed today with the tools that are available to me. How I seed my canola today is very different. First I spray the field to start with a clean slate. I then seed and fertilize in one minimum tillage pass. After the crop is up, I then go in and spray. I have a choice of different product options to control all weeds, both grassy and broadleaf weeds. This also allows me to choose between different modes of action to control weed resistance. Then I am ready to combine.

I've essentially eliminated two or three steps, all of which include tillage and extra equipment. I want to emphasize this: one minimum tillage pass instead of three or four full tillage passes. On my farm, tillage is the enemy. It releases carbon as well as precious moisture to the atmosphere. I burn far less fuel, and my soil organic matter from these practices has increased 25% to 30%. By increasing organic matter, I can store more moisture and carbon, allowing my yields to go up. I therefore can put more organic matter back into the soil. This is a positive cycle that works well for my farm and my land.

Another benefit associated with biotech crops is the ability to change crop rotations from how my father used to manage his crops. He was forced to grow crops that would work for him, mostly based on wheat pressures and moisture situations. I am now able to bring pulses into my rotation. This increases the health of my soils, lets me diversify my marketing, and increases my yields in subsequent years. Where my dad planted crops dictated to him by the environment, I am free to plant whatever crops make the most sense for my farm.

We irrigate some of our land, and with these farming practices we irrigate far less than we used to. In fact, our irrigation district is expanding acres for the first time using the same amount of water. The reason is that in the past five to ten years, they have not used all the water allowed in their allocation.

These new farming methods have been a game changer for my farm, not just for the bottom line but for how sustainable my farm is going into the future.

In conclusion, on my farm I am as efficient as I can be with today's technologies.

All of us here today hear all the time about doubling food production by 2050. With very little new arable land left, the only way to meet this goal is by growing more with less. This means we need to reduce input needs for each unit of output. This can only be accomplished through new technologies. This is why we need to look seriously at biotech cereal crops as well. Cereal crops are getting less and less competitive to grow each year and are becoming crops I have to grow for rotation rather than crops I want to grow.

Richard will speak further on this.

[Richard Phillips]

Thank you, Stephen.

I have three quick points to raise. The first is a misconception about corporate concentration in the seed business and farmers being forced to buy seed from one or two companies. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have here a couple of documents that I will leave with the clerk. The first is from SeCan. SeCan is the largest supplier of certified seed to Canadian farmers. It is a private, not-for-profit, member organization with more than 800 farmers across Canada who are growing, cleaning, and marketing seed. SeCan has more than 430 varieties of field crops, including cereals, oilseeds, pulses, special crops, and forages. Most of the varieties they sell were developed by publicly funded Canadian plant-breeding organizations such as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, provincial ministries of agriculture, and universities. Farmers can purchase these SeCan varieties at most local seed dealers, many of whom are their neighbours. I will also quickly flip through the “Manitoba Seed Guide”, where there are pages and pages of varieties and crops and varieties within the crops for farmers to choose from.

The second point I would like to raise today is about the need to invest in research and innovation. The private sector is a huge investor and has made tremendous advances in three crops: corn, soybeans, and canola. But there is limited private money going into cereal grains, special crops, forages, or pulses. Public research and farmer check-off have historically funded research in these crops; however, investment in public research is lower today than it was in 1994. There have been small increases over the last couple of years, but we have a long way to go. The public sector is important because it often invests in areas where the private sector doesn't, for example, in soil science or on core agronomics and diseases, where there may not be a commercial return, so that if the public sector doesn't do it, no one will. However, we need to encourage private-public partnerships as well, so all the resources available can be brought to the table.

The last point I would like to make is about how safe our crops are. In my hand is an excerpt from a recent book published by the European Commission. It's titled A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001 - 2010). It's hot off the press. The EU reviewed GMO environmental impact studies, GMO food safety, GMO biomaterials and risk assessments, and risk management. I would like to quote:

The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.

This is coming from the European Union.

In addition to this, the European Union is moving forward to accept low levels of new traits in feed, and there have been over one billion hectares of biotech traits planted in the world to date. I heard a stat the other day. One trillion meals served and not even a headache. Here in Canada we have Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency all vigorously checking new technologies and traits. The fact is our food is safe.

At the Grain Growers of Canada, we believe the government does not owe farmers a living, but it does owe us a policy environment where we can make a living. So we recommend you do not spend time boxing with shadows on corporate concentration but invest with us in public research, encourage private-public research partnerships, and support a sound science-based system of approvals that ensures any new products are safe for human, animal, and environmental health.

I would like to recognize the good initiative of the committee in looking at biotechnology and searching for answers. Although we may disagree with Mr. Atamanenko and Bill C-474, we still respect that he brings it forward and encourages the debate so that we can explore the issues more thoroughly. Thank you, Mr. Atamanenko, for that. Some of my board members may not like my saying that, but I respect the fact that people bring forward different opinions at this ag committee so we can look at the issues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much, Mr. Phillips.

We'll now move to Mr. Richard White from the Canadian Canola Growers Association.

Technology is a great thing, Mr. White, so thanks for joining us.