Agriculture Committee on March 24th, 2011

[Stephen Vandervalk]

I'll try to be quick. I spoke at a conference in Melbourne, Australia, last year. About 300 people were there and probably 200 scientists from all over Europe. The main part was commingling and how to grow biotech crops alongside other crops, and there are tons of studies. I wish I had some of the numbers; I'm just going off the top of my head, so forgive me, but with a 0.9% low-level presence, they were unable to cross-pollinate open- or closed-pollinated crops, even when they are grown together in the same field.

Their analysis--and this was by three or four different people from different countries--was that at the farm gate, and that's all I can speak to, the risk of cross-contamination was essentially zero because you cannot get the crops to contaminate each other. That was a resounding thing I took from that conference. By no means was that conference for genetically modified...that's what the conference was about. Scientists came from all over Europe, and I found it really interesting to see that they could not get to the levels that needed...if there is zero percent commingling, or it's low-level presence, I don't think anybody can expect that, because with our testing we can get to the billionth and trillionth, so at 0.9% it was impossible at the farm gate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We're out of time, Frank, but I'll allow....

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I have a request. Stephen, you made reference to this conference, and I'm wondering if you could offer reports or materials to our committee so that we and our analysts can take a look at them and have a better understanding of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That's a good point. If you could supply that, Mr. Vandervalk....

[Stephen Vandervalk]

We could get something. The conference is every two years, and it's in Vancouver this year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Do Mr. White or Mr. Everson from the canola side have a comment on Mr. Valeriote's question?

[Jim Everson]

We support an environment where there's room for the various different processes, so you have GM, you have GM-free, you have organic, and an environment where all those things are possible.

I would echo what Stephen said in terms of the need to move away in all these categories from an absolute zero tolerance kind of regime, because it's increasingly difficult, with testing procedures as detailed and as specific as they are, to guarantee zero tolerance. Any of these kinds of approaches to production are challenged by that fact, which is why we make recommendations around low-level presence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We now have Mr. Shipley for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I think one of the credibility things today is that we not only have leaders within our commodity organization, but they are also farmers who do their work each year to make sure a crop goes in, make sure it comes off, and make sure they're effective and efficient in terms of their production.

I think one of the best comments was that the people actually turn to the government as a neutral, trusted source. I think that's an incredible statement. I also think we're true to that.

Richard, you held up a SeCan brochure. Would you mind filing that with the clerk, please, so we have that on the evidence?

Secondly, in the submission that was made by the Canola Council, I think, the recommendation—just for some clarification and help with the process here—is that the government adopt a new low-level policy in Canada and support the development of international low policy guidelines.

There's no absolute zero tolerance—we all understand that—but I think we do need clarification on this. I'm not so sure that you want the government to be developing it, so could you lay out a bit of the framework and how you would see that starting to be initiated? How would the government fit in so we end up having a proper guideline and regulatory regime? Could you help us with that?

[Jim Everson]

Thank you for the question.

In the regulation of genetically modified materials worldwide—Canada, the European Community, all countries—there are already regulatory procedures in place, and they tend to be zero-tolerance processes. Canada has a regulatory process for the safety assessment and approval of GM materials when they're applied for by seed developers, and they go through a process. The process has a zero-tolerance approach built into it. When a GM material is detected in a shipment into Canada, the process that kicks into place is one that's related to seeking zero tolerance. The role of government then is to be able to amend that process, to put in place a process that allows low-level presence.

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

Allow me, though, to have you expand on who should be involved in that. I don't think it should just be government that is saying these are the rules and these are the levels of tolerance.

Who should be involved in helping and working with the government to come up with that regulatory regime?

[Jim Everson]

I think that involves consultation with industry and the broad public, and with others who are stakeholders and have an interest in the area. Certainly if a government is going to make that kind of a change, they need to have the confidence of the public in doing so. It needs to be a broad consultation.

I believe industry and the seed developing companies and producers and exporters, who all have various pieces of knowledge about how those regulations interplay in their business, are important participants in the consultation process.

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

Have there been discussions with mostly the organic folks, and quite honestly maybe with some of the conventional growers? I mean, you grew IP. They weren't organic, they were IP beans—soybeans—and in it there might have been some contaminates.

How do you start that process? Where are you in terms of discussions with different organizations so that this isn't going to be a 10-year process?

[Richard Phillips]

As part of the grains innovation round table, which was started several years ago, we actually had a group working on low-level presence. We hired a consultant who went through all of the federal acts and regulations to determine how many acts in Parliament would actually touch something like this. And if you want to change this, there's a substantial amount of work to be done.

Through that, there was the Canola Council of Canada and the cereal grain people and soybean people, and a wide sector of the crop growers in Canada. We all worked together on this low-level presence. We've done a huge amount of work, and we actually have a bit of a draft as to what we would want to see happen.

We also understand the government has started working on that as well. We're going to be sitting down together in about two weeks, I believe, in Winnipeg, at the Canada Grains Council meeting. We're going to be sitting down and comparing notes so the government doesn't get too far ahead of what we want.

That process is moving down a road where there's been good respect on both side as to what we need. But we don't want government to get too far ahead of us, in case they go somewhere else.

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

And that's a valid comment.

[Richard Phillips]

I know that's the first time, but....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Bellavance.

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

Some time ago, during our tour, witnesses talked to us about the regulatory framework. I would like to take advantage of your being here to see what you have to say about it. We were told that a flexible, clear and timely regulatory framework was needed. We heard that that is not the case at the moment. The regulatory framework on biotechnology has been in place since 1993; perhaps it is time to go over it. I don't know, I am asking you. Would it be appropriate to review the framework at this point?

But a number of departments, including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada and Environment Canada, are still dealing with biotechnology and have something to say about it. There are a number of acts—at least half a dozen—that also deal with biotechnology: the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act, the Seeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Feeds Act and the Food and Drugs Act. I might be forgetting some, but I think you are well positioned to tell us how complex things are because of this.

I'm not saying that we should not have regulations and laws, or that we should not comply with them. On the contrary, I completely agree with having them. But could you tell us, on the industry's behalf, whether you feel we should review the government's way of regulating biotechnology and whether we should see what could be done to make the regulatory framework more flexible, clear and timely, as one of our witnesses actually said?

Do you have any examples where you tried to move forward with some kind of biotechnology, but the regulatory framework put a damper on it? Are there aspects you would like to change and improve?

[Jim Everson]

Again, Rick White may want to comment on it, but in answer to that, I would say that by and large we're very pleased with the regulatory process that applies in Canada. It's science-based, it's reliable, and it's timely. I think there will always be people who would like to see a more timely process in some cases, but by and large, it's a system that can be relied on. It's highly competent and science-based, and we have very strong regulatory processes in Canada.

The one departure from that, which we've been referring to in this committee meeting--and you've heard this from us before--is the whole area of low-level presence. It's not so much a review of the overall kind of complicated process, but more an issue of keeping up with the changing landscape around the world and some challenges that are coming up in terms of regulatory compliance for systems based on zero tolerance. But it's not suggesting an entire review of our regulatory process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. White, did you want to add to that?

[Richard White]

Yes. I'll just add a little bit to that and echo Jim's comments one hundred percent. We have the regulatory process right in this country. It's based on science and it needs to stay based on science. We have to maintain what I call the three-legged stool: safety assessments on food, feed, and the environment. Those are critical to maintain. We have them now.

Is it cumbersome? It probably is. It seems at times that it may be overly cautious, but we would rather err on the side of caution and ensure and be seen as having a technology that is safe in all three areas before we release it for commercialization. I believe we have it right. We have the right balance between safety and enticing investment into developing innovation through this process.

Again, I'll echo Jim's comments on LLP. That's the only addition we might see, but it's kind of outside of this process.

It doesn't hurt to review, but again, I would say that those are principles that we built this system on, and this is the system that has delivered canola, a tremendous opportunity for farmers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Phillips, you indicated that you wanted to speak to this.

[Richard Phillips]

Yes, just very briefly.

One area where we've had some concern in the cereal grain side is that we've had some new barleys come along. Low-phytate barley is an example. It gets designated as a plant with a novel trait and has to go through extra processes for approval. We're the only country in the world that actually forces some of our cereal grains to go through that testing.

So maybe canola is working well, but on the cereal side, I think we could look at whether there are roadblocks in the regulatory barriers that are discouraging people from bringing forward new varieties, or if we had new feed grains that perhaps were better for the rations for the cattle.... I know we've talked with the Quebec farmers and the dairy farmers. They're looking for new and better things for the feed. I think there are some hurdles in the way that we should look at.