Agriculture Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay, thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Now we will go to Mr. Gourde, for six minutes, please.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Some producers say that the approving certain products in Canada takes place two, three or even four years after the same products are approved in the United States. In terms of grains, this means that there are American animals, be they pork or beef, that eat grains treated with phytosanitary products that are registered there, but not here. However, those animals come to Canada since we have an integrated market for both meat and grains.

Are there inconsistencies in terms of approval deadlines? Our producers say they are less competitive than the Americans in terms of some products because they don't necessarily have access to the same phytosanitary products. Is there a way to correct the situation?

[Paul Mayers]

We do have separate feed regulatory systems between the Canada and the U.S. There is a tremendous amount of collaboration, but they are two separate systems. It is possible for an animal feed to be approved in the U.S. that's not approved in Canada. With the issue of the approval of the feed, while the feed isn't eligible to come to Canada, our controls related to beef derived from the feeding of that product would be applied at the level of the beef product. If that feed, for example, were to result in residues in that product that we consider to be unacceptable, then that's the point where we would act. We conduct a comprehensive national chemical residue monitoring program, and it would be through that monitoring of residues in products imported to Canada—for example, a beef-fed additive in the U.S. that we don't permit in Canada—that we would control that issue.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

In trade with countries other than those in North America, could genetically modified products undermine Canada's competitive edge? For instance, could those countries be in favour of a free trade agreement, but establish a list of product residues that they don't want in meat, grains and so on? Could that be a new barrier to international trade?

[Paul Mayers]

We have seen important trade interruptions for Canadian products as a result of low-level presence. Low-level presence is the presence of a genetically modified residue that's approved in the country of origin, but not approved in the country of import. We have seen Canadian flax significantly affected for exports to Europe as a result of residues of an approved GM flax variety that was in production in Canada. It's no longer in production, but it was in production. The technology to detect is so sensitive that it may be as simple as the dust from a previous cargo that could impact Canadian exports.

We've been active, and led by our colleagues in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in working with the international community to elaborate a more predictable framework for managing those situations, so as not to disrupt trade. It's our view that approved varieties should have prompt approval wherever the developers seek to pursue that approval. That's one of the reasons why the grain industry doesn't release new varieties until they have approval in their important markets, so as to avoid the problem you pointed to.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Along the same lines, based on the major international trends, do Canada's new potential clients, Europe and Asia-Pacific, have the same understanding as North America about genetically modified products in general, or are those countries hesitant, which could cause problems for us in the short and medium term?

[Paul Mayers]

It's highly variable. As we've seen in the European Union, we continue to see approvals of GM crops. The pace at which those approvals take place is much slower than in Canada. Even though they apply the same scientific review process, they have another process on the end of that scientific review that requires all of the member states to agree, and that takes some time. Our colleagues in Japan apply the exact same framework that we apply, while in some jurisdictions they're not terribly open to GM products at present. That variability does have some implications for Canadian traders with market accessibility on a universal basis.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Please be very short.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I would like to go back to the imperfect vegetables.

Is it morally acceptable to modify products genetically just so that they have a nice colour or shape, with no consideration for their nutritional value? I am talking about vegetables.

[Paul Mayers]

The regulatory system makes no value judgment as to why someone pursued the genetic modification. We just look at safety. The marketplace will decide if a purely aesthetic modification is a worthwhile venture.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Longfield.

You have six minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our colleagues across the aisle for allowing this fulsome discussion uninterrupted. I was really hoping we'd have time to have a full discussion today, and we're having that.

I want to explore the movement of Canadian intellectual property and the classification of the eggs that are going down to Panama. Just to put some context to it, I'm thinking of Semex in Guelph that ships bull semen. There's a classification of that as a food product versus as another type of product.

We had Ceva in Guelph that does antibiotics for chickens. They were bringing chickens in from the States for use on antibiotic development. It wasn't food product, but it's a chicken coming in, and they see a chicken as a food product. Semex ships semen. It's not a food product, but it's been classified as a food product, which limits their ability at the border sometimes. There are delays at the border.

I have a question about the classification of the eggs and the classification of our intellectual property that is not directly food product. With CFIA reporting into Health Canada and the work that we're doing with international trade, bridges are maybe not quite working there.

Are you aware of any of that or is there some kind of a correction? Are we applying a different standard for these eggs moving across than semen going around the world?

[Paul Mayers]

I'm not aware that there is any significant classification difference, but it does operate under a different regulatory framework. For us to certify products for export to Panama as germ plasm, which the eggs would be, would fall under the aquatic regulatory frame while semen exports, also under the health of animals, falls under the terrestrial animal regulatory frame.

Beyond that, I'm not aware of any other differences.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It's a lingering concern I have, and I'm just putting it down on the record because it was a concern expressed by Semex very recently and also over the last several months as they're developing their products to go around the world. Is the free movement of Canadian-developed intellectual property, whether it's coming through our university system or commercially, and the importance of that as we try to become number one in the world...? These eggs are going to Panama. Are we limited to Panama? If China wanted to develop fish in China, would we be able to ship it to another region of the world? Are we really limited by country?

[Paul Mayers]

We're not limited by country. Our limitations are by import requirement. If the company AquaBounty were to pursue production in another country, we in the CFIA would work with that country to establish the import requirements for that country so we could certify the eggs to them.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay, terrific, thank you.

I can share my time with any colleague who wants a minute and 20 seconds.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield. It was a fulsome discussion and I really appreciate that.

I see a blank at the bottom of the page, and I think that's for the chairman to maybe have two or three questions, if that's open to the committee.

First of all, I want to say thanks for the detailed and the complete breadth of the questions the committee has been putting forward. I want to expand a bit on a couple of them.

In terms of the approval process that is undertaken in any GMO—in this particular case we're talking about animal—the basic principle takes us back to 20-plus years of approval processes. You mentioned earlier that it is a seven-to-10-year window to meet not only the preamble but the registry part. Could you tell us how that compares to the approval of a conventional product? For an example of that we have to go back to seed production, quite honestly. Is it more stringent? Is it about the same length of time? Is it a shorter time?

For everyone at the table here, quite honestly we're trying to figure out how we are going to build the confidence of the consumer out there. That consumer is largely the consumer who puts whatever it is on their plate, but actually it's much broader than that. If you don't have the consumer as a producer onside either, then we have to make sure that their marketing opportunities are filled.

Maybe you can help us with that question.

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you. I can start.

It's important to understand that for traditional varieties—and I'll use plant varieties because we only have the one animal—we don't carry out for a new plant variety all of the safety assessment steps that we take here. This is in addition to and on top of what would normally happen for a new variety to come into the marketplace in Canada.

New plant varieties are considered by recommending committees. Then the final stage CFIA undertakes, which is the variety registration, is acting on the advice of those recommending committees. They take into account the plant variety parameters for that particular variety. If it's canola, then they look at seed shattering and all of those parameters that meet the criteria for the variety. If it meets that, the recommending committee will recommend the registration of that new variety.

The plant breeding steps of that traditional crop also take a number of years to go through the back-crosses that are necessary in traditional plant breeding, and then there's the field trialling in order to generate the data for the recommending committees. That, too, is a lengthy process. GM crop has, on top of that, the safety assessments that we described, which aren't a requirement for the traditional crop.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

In talking to organizations and people, is it your experience that products get labelled GMO when they actually aren't? I know my colleague brought up, for example, the double muscle in pork from China, which I'd not heard of, but I certainly am familiar with double-muscling in the beef industry. People will say it's genetically modified, when in fact it's genetics, in terms of the breeding that has brought that about.

You have such broad consultations. Do you get concerned, or do you hear that aspect where there is a lack of knowledge, I think, between what GMO and what conventional breeding is?

[Paul Mayers]

We don't see that happen. I think, in part, while the perception is from a consumer perspective, the technology continues to be portrayed in the media, often negatively. It's unlikely that someone would seek to claim anything as genetically modified when it's not.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I'm thinking maybe I didn't explain myself very well.

A public perception by the public that something is GMO—

[Paul Mayers]

Yes, yes. We—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I'll give you an example.

Yellow maize is a food product—I was familiar with it in Zambia—that many would say is genetically modified. It is nutrient fortified, but it isn't modified. When we're talking about consumer acceptability, people talk to me about GMO and ask me to explain what a GMO is, or explain what a hybrid or conventional breeding is. In our marketing that becomes the challenge.

One last thing—and I'm almost out of time—is in terms of the labelling. We've had a lot of discussion about labelling. When a product comes in, and I go to the grocery store and see something that is organic and that it has come from Thailand, China, or somewhere, how do we know that it is actually organic and meets the criteria? How do we know how it was grown in those countries to be labelled so it's sitting on our shelves?

[Paul Mayers]

Within the framework of the Canadian organic regime, in order to have the claim of organic, it is has to meet a suite of criteria. Certifying bodies are obligated to conduct audits of the production in order to demonstrate that they align to the requirements of the Canadian organic regime in order for that claim to be made.