Agriculture Committee on March 24th, 2011

[Richard White, General Manager, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

I certainly appreciate the use of the technology. It allows me to be there. Thank you.

Today I'm representing the Canadian Canola Growers Association in my role as general manager. I am also a longstanding canola grower, with our farm located in southeastern Saskatchewan. I want to thank you for inviting CCGA to speak to this committee about how important science and technology, especially biotechnology, are and will continue to be to our industry.

The CCGA represents canola growers across Canada and is governed by a board of farmer-directors representing the provinces from Ontario west to B.C. The entire canola value chain contributes about $14 billion to Canada's economy annually. For farmers, the crop has become the number one source of field crop cash receipts, reaching $5.6 billion in 2010.

While our acreage is smaller, canola generates more cash receipts than all wheat combined, including durum. With canola year after year being one of the most profitable crop choices for farmers, it's no wonder that this year the crop is expected to break new production records, with estimates around 18.5 million or plus acres, potentially making it the single-largest seeded crop in Canada this spring.

Canola is a story of innovation and rapid adoption of new technology that improved profitability, sustainability, competitiveness, and the overall well-being of the entire value chain, beginning with Canada's farmers. The growth that our sector has enjoyed over the past 25 years is largely attributed to the willingness of the industry to collaboratively develop and commercialize new technology and production systems, including the use of biotechnology.

If committee members are looking for a real-life example of how biotechnology development and adoption works, one of the best examples they will find in Canadian agriculture is canola. Today, many of the canola varieties have been genetically modified to provide herbicide tolerance, and these varieties dominate the market. In 2009, approximately 93% of the canola grown in Canada was genetically modified. In agriculture, that's an astounding rate of adoption for a technology that's less than 15 years old. Why it has been adopted is a direct reflection of how individual farmers make decisions that work for their own businesses.

Canadian farmers were not forced to grow herbicide-tolerant canola varieties. They made that choice en masse, because the technology that had already been fully tested, reviewed, and approved as safe worked. It solved a basic agronomic problem that had hampered canola production, that being weed control.

One point I would like to stress is that while the first generation of canola improvements through biotechnology did not directly target yield improvements, by giving the crop a better fighting chance against weeds and enhancing seedling survival rates, they ultimately had a tremendous impact on improving canola yields. Some of our members report 30% to 40% yield improvements on the most recent herbicide-tolerant canola seed varieties, versus conventional varieties.

Herbicide-tolerant canola's arrival also coincided with the widespread adoption of conservation tillage systems. The two systems together--conservation tillage and herbicide tolerance--were and still are cheaper, simpler, and more ecologically sound than conventional tillage practices.

While the first generation of production innovations from biotechnology have been incredibly beneficial, future efforts will do even more as we battle change in the climate and changing plant diseases, as well as look for means to further enhance our productive output to feed and fuel a growing population globally.

Biotechnology will play a key role in generating beneficial innovation over the next century, and nowhere more than in agriculture. Human population is growing, driving new demand for resources, especially land and water. Developing technologies and production systems that allow farmers to maximize production from or reduce the reliance on these resources is a clear path forward.

By making agricultural production as efficient as possible, we will increase the sustainability of the industry, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, further reduce our pesticide use, address climate change challenges, and make Canadian farmers more competitive.

Today researchers are using the tools of biotechnology in seeking frost tolerance, drought tolerance, nitrogen efficiency, and a host of other traits. Each one represents a significant opportunity for farmers, and as few barriers as possible should be placed in front of their development.

The current Canadian system of science-based regulatory approval is a critical component of the thriving canola industry. It is rigorous and it is based on a predictable process with clear measurements. This fosters an investment-friendly atmosphere that is vital to canola's continued success. This is why we've seen investment in canola. It's a big crop by Canadian standards, but the majority of development dollars globally are flowing into far larger crops: soybeans, corn, rice, and cotton. Canada's reliance on modern science has kept us in the game and has enhanced our competitiveness globally for canola.

Since the adoption of genetically modified canola in 1996, we have continued to expand export markets for seed, oil, and meal. Looking forward, the industry is targeting a goal of 15 million tonnes of sustainable production by 2015. Half of that is expected to be exported as raw seed, and by the time oil and other processed products are added, the export component will climb upwards of 85%. Those targets speak to our confidence in growing our markets for GM canola and its acceptance by our major competitors and customers.

There have been some export barriers thrown up, the EU being the notable example, but we believe the primary motivation to be the protection of their domestic industry. This demonstrates that fair and open market access remains a fundamental challenge, but does not suggest that we should alter our biotechnology policy in response. Rather, it highlights the need to address the underlying issue and eliminate the potential to abuse it as a non-tariff trade barrier. The best path forward here will be to work proactively within established international structures to develop low-level presence policies that ensure the low-level adventitious presence of a trait does not disrupt normal trade.

The canola industry has benefited from strong investments in research by both private and public sectors. Through check-off dollars, farmers continue to invest directly into canola research, while the government’s commitment to the canola cluster is making a very important contribution to challenges facing our industry. In addition, canola is one of the few Canadian crops that benefits from substantial research investments by the private sector.

Last year, this committee released a report entitled “Competitiveness of Canadian Agriculture”, which stated that “Technological innovation is one of the best ways of improving Canadian farmers’ competitiveness through efficiency gains, higher yields and new product development.” We couldn’t agree more. Innovation is essential to ensure canola remains a Canadian success story. The continued investment in leading-edge technologies, including biotechnology and its many scientific tools, is critical to maintaining our competitiveness globally, addressing climate change, and feeding an expanding population. So as a nation and as an industry we must be prepared to fund directed research projects as well as the infrastructure needed for the world-class application of science in Canadian agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to close with the following. Frequently, when making these sorts of presentations to this committee, we find ourselves calling for changes to address a shortfall, but in this case we find ourselves calling for maintaining the status quo, with the addition of a low-level presence policy, of course. It has made Canada a leader and has given us a competitive edge in science, research, and agriculture. It has made our farmers the most efficient and sustainable growers of field crops in the world. If we want to maintain and promote this record, we should support the framework that allowed it to develop.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much, Mr. White.

We now move to questioning.

Mr. Easter, seven minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all three of you for your presentations.

I can't help noticing, Richard, that you've got a big book beside you. My Conservative colleagues across the way tend to carry big books with them, on orders of procedure, so I was just wondering if yours was the same.

[A witness]

No, mine is blank.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I just couldn't help noticing. That's the thought that went through my mind.

Thank you all for your presentations.

All of you talked about the importance of public research. I don't think there's any question that in terms of matching investment research, the private sector is looking at a return of about six years. So there does need to be an increase in public research in the country.

I am concerned, though—and I'm wondering if you may be concerned as well—that in the estimates the federal government cut back 38%, or $152 million, on science, innovation, and adoption. And that concerns me. Now, in the budget they did put a little bit back in. They put $50 million over two years back in, in an innovation fund, so that would leave us short about $127 million from where they were, for next year. Do any of you have concerns about that? Or were you aware that in the estimates the federal government cut back 38% on science, innovation, and adoption?

[Jim Everson]

The important thing, speaking from the Canola Council's point of view, is to look at where everything goes in Growing Forward 2. We're coming to the end of Growing Forward 1 and that whole framework, and there are consultations going on, about where we go from there in terms of Growing Forward 2. That's going to be really critical because research is a component of that, so we're engaged in that discussion with the government about how to do that.

In Growing Forward 1, the government established this agri cluster process, and the Canola Council will apply for that. As a result of that work, we're doing a significant amount of research, in partnership with the Government of Canada, in a very directed way. We think it's a very strong model, and something that should be looked at for Growing Forward 2. It's pooling private sector and public sector money together. It's pulling the expertise from the public sector, the universities, and the private sector technology companies together. It's directing research in a specific way with input from everybody associated with canola research. So we're really excited about that.

Rick mentioned how so much money is being spent by other commodities. In the scope of things around the world, canola is a relatively small commodity. So what we need to do in Canada, in focusing on canola, is exactly that—bring the public sector, the private sector, and universities together, because we need a very clear strategic focus in order to be able to be competitive and remain competitive with other commodities around the world.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Does anybody else have any comments on the extreme cutbacks by the federal government?

[Richard Phillips]

Yes. We did read your release, Mr. Easter. I went over it, and I sat down, and we went through it line by line as to what was cut. Some programs were being phased out, but there were some actual real dollars cut there. One was the agri-opportunities program, where you'd bring in new technologies, maybe processing plants.

The other program that was cut was on the bioproducts, which looked like a clean cut.

Now there is an announcement of $50 million for the agri-innovations program. In the budget lock-up, we asked the finance officials: does this replace it; is this new money; where is it going? Nobody had any answers for us, so we said we will have to hold the government to account to see exactly what they are planning to do with that money, because it wasn't clear to us where it's going.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thanks.

On the Networks of Centres of Excellence, there was the agriculture research in the medium term with NSERC—quality foods and novel bioproducts. The funding has not been renewed in those areas as well.

I know it affects research at the University of Guelph and research at some of the institutions. Is there any direct impact from those cutbacks on the specific industries? Are you impacted in any way, as the grain growers, or the Canola Council, or the canola growers? Are they impacted in any way by those cuts through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada?

[Richard Phillips]

I can't trace the actual dollars, Mr. Easter, but I would say that we were really upset when NSERC announced about two months ago that they were dropping agriculture as a priority. A lot of farm groups raised a lot of noise about that.

I now see in The Western Producer of March 17 they're talking about improving wheat varieties as a focus, though. I think enough of us made some noise, and they appear to be coming back around to do some focus on agriculture again. As to whether actual funding dollars are flowing to universities, I just don't have any knowledge as to what exactly is happening there.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay. Thanks.

Talking to people, I have found that one of the areas that is a concern when we get into new products coming onto the market is that there's really no independent research. It could be biotechnology, and a lot of people really don't understand that biotechnology is not specifically GM, which is only a part of the system. There is company research and peer review of that company research. Has anybody ever given any thought to an independent research body that could protect the commercial patents, or the “commerciality”, for lack of a better word, of a company's investment when it puts a new product, whether it's GM or another product, on the market? It would do independent research and assure the public that it is absolutely independent and not based on company data. That could be set up, I think, either domestically or perhaps better internationally to review it all. Is there any such body out there? There isn't to my knowledge. Is there any desire to go that way? It would be expensive. I think it would give some confidence to the public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Richard.

[Richard White]

I'm sorry, which Richard do you mean?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Go ahead, Mr. White.

I'll let Mr. Phillips in after you.

[Richard White]

I'm sorry. I can't see everything.

In response to Mr. Easter's question, I think he hinted a bit that it would be expensive. We have confidence in the system that's in place now in Canada. Adding another layer to that would add costs, and it would certainly add more time. Again, that adds risk to the commercialization of these beneficial traits in the end. In my view, we have enough integrity in the system with the data that is being generated, the peer reviewing that is going on, and the oversight and the reassessment that are being done by three Canadian government departments to make sure that the science was done right in the end.

I believe we have enough layers in there right now to provide a very strong level of integrity in the system to assure safety and to ensure that science is being used in the approval process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll now move to Mr. Bellavance for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad it was one of the witnesses that mentioned Bill C-474. At the same time, Mr. Phillips, you are congratulating Mr. Atamanenko for bringing the debate forward in the House of Commons. You know we have even been having trouble talking about it here in committee, because the bill was blocked when the time came for the debate to be extended. The Conservative members of the committee do not want to hear about it. I don’t think your organization wants to hear about it either.

All of you must certainly have expertise and information from all over the place. In terms of adding to the bill an analysis of the impact on international trade, as well as the analysis being done on health and the environment, would you be able to give me an example of a country where an analysis like that has been enforced and where it affected at least one agricultural sector or brought an entire agricultural sector to its knees?

In Argentina, they have a bill like that. Argentina is the second or third largest producer of GMOs in the world. I tried to do the research, but our staff is limited; I am not a department. However, I was not able to find any lawsuits at any time from other WTO countries, or other countries, as a result of this measure being imposed when GMOs are exported. And Argentinians continue to be very large producers of GMOs. Could you give me a specific example where that has caused problems somewhere in the world?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Who will it be?

[Jim Everson]

I don't know of any specific circumstances where that kind of procedure is in place. I believe that in Canada, industry has dealt with this issue fairly effectively. Industries such as the soybean industry, which has both GM and non-GM product, have been able to look at markets and determine that there are certain markets that require only non-GM product. They have been able to set up a system to IP that product and keep it separate and segregated so that they can serve that market at the same time as they are growing GM varieties. Canada and industry and regulators have been able to deal with this effectively.

We are concerned, from the point of view of trade externally, about the criteria used for this kind of analysis. As I said in my opening presentation, we're exporting about 90% of the product we grow. We're contributing $14 billion to the Canadian economy with the product we grow. So we need predictable access to those markets. The best way to do that, in our view, is to have it based on principles of health and safety and the protection of the environment. Going beyond that into other criteria allows countries we might be exporting to to put different criteria into their evaluation processes that aren't clear, that aren't predictable, and that make it very difficult for us to access those markets.

That's the answer I'd provide to this.

[Richard White]

If I might add to that, I would look at the European example, I guess, as what not to do. They have historically not had a science-based regulatory process with regard to GM material. Technologically, their farmers have, I believe, fallen way behind. They're quickly trying to catch up. Again, the issue of how the EU was going to regulate GM material was decided quite a few years ago. There was no investment going in there, and they are way far behind now in terms of technology development.

We can see them starting to inch forward, seeing the future these technologies have and that they have to start loosening up and accepting these things. We're starting to see movement, I guess, on low-level presence policy in Europe for feedstuff. They are starting to move in that direction. But I think they've done their farmers and their economy a disservice by having a process that is not based on science but is based on political parameters and market acceptance parameters as well.

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

Mr. White, in response to what you have just said, I am well aware of that. We are not talking about completely banning GMOs with this bill or other measures. Europe has gone down that road, but I wanted to know if you had an example of a country where they do a trade impact analysis prior to exporting GMOs and where a sector was in danger because of that. That is what we kept hearing when it was time to discuss the bill. But we are telling ourselves that it must be possible to find a balance so that we are not banning GMOs and we are also protecting our non-GM crops, which we also have to export around the world.

[Richard White]

Right. When I think about Argentina, for example--I'm not an expert in that area, so I'll add that caveat--if they have changed their method of approvals and have moved more to market acceptance criteria over and above the scientific criteria, they won't see an immediate shutdown. But they may see, over time, a lack of investment going in due to predictability of commercialization of the products going in there.

So it may not be immediate, but over time, longer term, I would see and expect that research and investment dollars would be somewhat spooked away from that kind of environment where you're not relying solely on science. You are opening it up to other subjective criteria, and investors and companies that invest in research may not be there in the longer term.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Atamanenko.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you for being here, gentlemen, and my thanks to Mr. White for being way out there somewhere in the air between here and wherever you are.

What you are saying, Mr. White, is speculation. I'm not sure if there exists, anywhere in the world today, proof that market acceptance criteria have interfered with Argentina's ability, for example, to move ahead.

I'd like to follow up on that theme. We know a number of things as a result of the study of my bill. First of all, biotech isn't GM, and GM is one small part of biotech. We know that the biotech industry, in addition to conventional breeding and other research, has been instrumental in increasing the yield of our crops. Canola is an example.

We talk about a science-based criteria. Any time opposition comes toward what some of us are trying to do here, whether it's the motion on alfalfa or my bill, we hear that this is somehow going against science. We've seen at the same time that there are certain scientists in the world who disagree with the majority. I'm not here to judge the merits of their studies, some of which are showing health risks with Monsanto 810 corn. There is a scientist by the name of Séralini in France, and there are others. That is their science.

My question is mainly for the canola industry. Your industry is successful. It's not under threat. Any introduction of GM canola traits or non-GM traits would certainly not necessitate any kind of negative impact on your markets. That would be my understanding, so I am not quite sure why you folks have come out against an analysis of potential negative market impact.

There is one criterion that we can use. Surely, you must understand that there is a threat to current non-GM crops--alfalfa, for example. We have talked about that and we have a motion in that regard. My bill tried to address the fact that 50% to 80% of our markets do not accept GM wheat. We know there is contamination. We know it could happen in handling.

We have fruit growers in my area who are up in arms about this new so-called non-browning apple, the cross-pollination.

Surely just having another criterion does not go against science. All it does is add insurance for farmers. I don't understand. Is it because the biotech industry is coming out heavy-handed and threatening organizations of farmers? I was told once by a representative of crops that they don't even want this topic discussed here.

Richard, thank you for your comments.

We have had this discussion, both for and against. Why is it that certain organizations are against the idea of using a market impact study as an insurance for farmers so that we don't have our alfalfa farmers and our wheat farmers and our apple farmers experiencing difficulty?

I'll leave that question open.

[Jim Everson]

Rick White may want to say more about this, but in the canola sector we feel we do market access assessments ourselves, as an industry. The seed developers bring the product along, and producers have a strong voice in what technology is introduced and commercialized in Canada. We deal with that issue effectively through the private sector, and we're interested in a process, from a regulatory point of view, that is clear and timely and predictable.

It is important that all major markets around the world do these processes in a synchronous way, in a way that maintains the same timelines. If we were able to do that, we would be able to achieve a lot of what the market access policy is about. By approving products in a timely way, we would be sure of not having GM products that are approved in one place and not in another, which complicates the trade between those two places.

We think we do that already. On the regulatory side of the process, we should continue to focus on health and safety and environmental protection and not add new criteria that would delay the process.