International Trade committee  They would produce small amounts, but they are certainly an import-dependent country when it comes to vegetable oil. They cannot produce enough to feed themselves, so they depend on imports from countries like Canada and Australia, I guess, to meet their demands for vegetable oil, and from the U.S. for soybeans as well.

International Trade committee  I think it goes back in history to other trade deals. The American Soybean Association was very effective in getting a better deal under previous arrangements, and canola is a more recent product than soybean oil is. We face discriminatory tariffs in canola consistently around the world, not uniquely in Japan.

International Trade committee  Yes, I can hear you loud and clear. Can you hear me?

International Trade committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to the members of this committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to speak about the Canada-Japan economic partnership agreement. Japan is a vitally important market for canola, and we fully support Canada’s efforts to strengthen our economic ties.

Agriculture committee  Well, it depends, Mr. Hoback. I guess if you look at the example of China, they were in for three to four million tonnes one year, and all of a sudden, they closed up their border due to a blackleg issue, which in our view was a non-tariff trade barrier. Again, that was not based on science.

Agriculture committee  Well, it would certainly undermine our credibility, I believe, because you would be asking a country to do something you're not doing yourself. Your argument would be pretty hollow at that point. If we stick to science-based, that's our best way to hold other countries accountable to a science-based system as well.

Agriculture committee  One example coming down the technology pipeline quickly would be nitrogen-use efficiency. Canola, as you know, uses a lot of nitrogen, and genetic change to make more efficient use of that nitrogen will help cut the nitrogen bill for farmers. That one should be coming close. Longer-term than that, we are hearing estimates that not only corn and soybean yields will double by 2013, but there's a commitment in the industry to double canola yields by the year 2013, and we're not going to do that without biotechnology.

Agriculture committee  No comment. That's a wheat issue.

Agriculture committee  Mr. Phillips basically took the words right out of my mouth. Looking ahead 50 years, as long as we allow biotechnology to lead the way and innovation to flourish in this country, I think we're going to see similar crops with new traits. They won't be just agronomic ones; they will benefit consumers' health--heart issues, cancer reduction traits, who knows.

Agriculture committee  I don't have a specific number, sorry. All I can say is more is always better, and whatever we do have at our disposal through public research, make sure it is targeted in the right area where the industry is going so it can get commercialized and into the farmers' hands more quickly.

Agriculture committee  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.

Agriculture committee  I'm not aware of an actual diversity assessment, but diversity is not assessed on traditional breeding either. GM is no different, except there's a particular trait in there that was genetically modified. All the other genes in the plant are naturally progressing or recessing, whatever the case may be.

Agriculture committee  If I could add to that, Stephen is exactly right. Just a little more information on that: a study released by the University of Saskatchewan in 2010 reported that growers found a total economic benefit of $26 per acre with $15 per acre in carry-over benefits due to savings in weed control costs the year after growing canola—Stephen mentioned that with his pulses—as well as an $11 per acre direct benefit to their farm as well.

Agriculture committee  Maybe I'll just follow up very quickly. We strongly believe that it is the role of the government to regulate regarding food, feed, and environmental safety. That's being done right now. It is up to the industry, because of the investment and the dollars they have invested—not only farmers, but the developers as well.

Agriculture committee  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.