Agriculture Committee on Oct. 18th, 2016

[Ruth Salmon]

Right.

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

We should have two meals....

[Ruth Salmon]

We should have two meals a week and Canada is having about two meals a month.

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

We're somewhere around two a month or something.

[Ruth Salmon]

Yes.

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

How do we meet that demand conventionally without not bringing in the total aspect of what the industry can provide? How do you think the industry can come together as a unit to help promote that?

[Ruth Salmon]

You raise some really important questions in terms of how we increase the domestic consumption of fish and seafood. That's a much broader discussion than the one we're having around genetically modified technology.

On that perspective I think there's a great deal we need to do collectively, not just as an industry but also as a government, and retailers as well, to help support that increased consumption of fish and seafood.

My point was that the issue is not that we don't have the potential to expand the existing industry in a responsible and sustainable way that has socioeconomic benefits to rural and coastal communities. We already have that and we have a path forward for increasing the size of that industry responsibly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Salmon.

[Ruth Salmon]

That's a different question from how we actually increase consumption.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

As my colleagues said, we have held a few meetings now to study the topic of GM animals, particularly salmon, for the purposes of human consumption.

My question is for Mr. Rehn.

Two or three weeks ago, we had beef producers appear before us. They explained that, although their animals have been eating GMO grains for almost 20 years now, there are no traces of GMOs in the meat. So it would be logical to deduce that, even if humans eat genetically modified salmon, there would probably be no traces of GMOs in their bodies.

That brings us to the debate on the issue of labelling. Should the government interfere in non-scientific issues like labelling, or should it impose mandatory labelling the way other countries do?

You mentioned diabetes earlier. You know that in Canada, labelling must be bilingual, in French and English. Labels on products are already small. Should Canada require producers or processors to label their products, are we not sacrificing space that could be used for health information? For example, someone with diabetes must look at the different data in order to eat properly.

How do you respond to that? How have other countries managed this?

[Thibault Rehn]

This matter has been addressed in the various presentations, including mine.

I went to a supermarket and looked at the cereal boxes to determine what space was left for the information, including nutritional information, ingredient lists and logos. I realized that the space reserved on the overall packaging for nutritional information is very minimal, proportionally speaking. In fact, there is still plenty of room on the packaging. We would like a label similar to that of organic products, with a logo on the main side of the container. Consumers, who have to make a fairly quick choice in the supermarket, could know right away if a product contained GMOs. There could also be a list by ingredient to see which ones are genetically modified to some degree. People would see that it's often canola, soybeans and corn, even cotton, but it is rare for it to be in our food. There is still a lot of room on the labels. I went to the supermarket to check. There is no reason to sacrifice one for the other.

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

But if it isn't for health reasons, why should the government intervene?

Today we're talking about GMOs. In 10 years, consumers might have other concerns. So why should it be the government's role to intervene and not up to the consumers to ask producers to label these products correctly? Producers organize the marketing based on what consumers want. This is seen especially with regard to organic products. Labels currently indicate that they do not contain GMOs. We are already seeing a trend within the industry. I simply have difficulty in understanding why the government should intervene if it isn't for health reasons.

[Thibault Rehn]

You know already that the government intervenes when it isn't strictly a health reason. There already are labels that are not solely health-based. They can be based on what we call “organic” features. They may have to do with health, ethics and the environment. There are labels based on religious considerations, including labels to indicate if something is “halal” or “kosher”. Currently, the government doesn't regulate just health.

As for your question about the industry, we have seen, as I said in my presentation, that if we let the market self-regulate, it won't work. Voluntary labelling has been around since 2004 and, as far as I know, no company has knowingly indicated on its product that it contains GMOs. Ultimately, it is a basic right that must be respected by the Canadian government.

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

On this issue, when the government plays a role in non-mandatory labelling—and we have heard about this with Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency—it looks at the veracity of these comments, whether it is true that these products contain no GMOs.

Reference is often made to a third party. This is how the government intervenes, but it lets the companies market their products or do their own marketing. It only checks the veracity of the comments on the labelling to determine whether it is true or not, but its opinion is still based on a third party. So the government does not make labelling mandatory, but it regulates in a way to determine whether the product would lead consumers astray.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

You have 50 minutes.

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

You're telling me that I really have 50 minutes left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I'm sorry. I meant to say 50 seconds.

[Thibault Rehn]

So you have time to ask me some questions.

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

I heard your testimony, Ms. Salmon, that you heard clearly from consumers that they don't want GMO products right now. What if, in five years, consumers say that they've heard a lot about GMOs, and the marketing of that science is clearer? Would your position change, or would you still believe that you can fulfill the market with the current technology?

I'm assuming that within your alliance, if one producer were to adapt that new technology—we've heard from the company that's proposing it that they can actually produce more quickly from farming to market—there would be a competitive advantage for that particular company. If it were somebody from within your alliance, would that be a problem for you, or would you adapt a new vision or a new strategy?

[Ruth Salmon]

I think you've narrowed it down to exactly what our focus is. It's the market demand. We want to be producing a high-quality product that's in high demand. We currently are doing that. It would be very difficult to say how the consumer preference would change in 10 or 15 years, but we want to stay in touch with what the marketplace actually demands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

This wraps up the first part of our session on GMOs. I want to thank Ms. Salmon and Monsieur Rehn for their wonderful participation. This will certainly help us in elaborating our report.

We shall break for a few minutes just to change witnesses. We will be back right after that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We shall get going with the second part of our committee meeting this morning.

Mr. Shipley.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't want to interrupt the witnesses' presentations. I have a motion that we had talked about a couple of meetings or so ago. It has to do with the initiative that the government has brought forward in terms of a carbon tax, which will be far-reaching across the country, and the impact of what that may mean to different industries and to individuals.

I have tabled a motion and I'd like to read it back into the record:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food conduct a pre-budget study on the effects that the recently-announced, Liberal Government carbon tax would have on the agriculture sector and producers; that this study be comprised of no less than four meetings to be held at the Committee’s earliest convenience; that departmental officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada be in attendance for at least one meeting; that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture no later than February 15, 2017.

It just allows this committee to hear about the impact, whatever that may be, on our industry and from the producers themselves across the country. When we're talking, if this committee should travel, we know this is going to be on the plate. Of course, obviously they don't all have to come in. We have video technology now that allows individuals and producers to go to a station to present.

With that, Mr. Chair, I present the motion and I'd ask that we have a vote on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Monsieur Drouin.