AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 7, 1998

• 0912

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order before we get under way.

The Chairman: Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: A few weeks ago we were debating Bill C-26. A motion was moved by the Reform Party on clause 7, and it was a recorded vote. This will not change the recorded vote—I appreciate it was a 6 to 3 vote—but I inadvertently voted against the motion and I intended to vote in favour of it. Since I'll be speaking in that way when this bill comes to the House, I just wanted to put that on the record.

The Chairman: We noticed that at the time.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Oh, okay. Thanks.

The Chairman: The order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), is a study of biotechnology from the perspective of product users. Currently farmers are adopting the technology for specific applications in Canada, and we'd like to know what their experience is with agricultural biotechnology products, how the food industry is responding to ingredients derived from biotechnology, and how the retail sector is responding to biotechnology products.

Today we have with us, from AGCare, Jim Fischer, chairman; from the Canola Council of Canada, Tony Zatylny, vice-president, crop protection; from the Soybean Growers' Marketing Board, Tom Lasseline; from Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada, Laurie Curry, vice-president, public policy and scientific affairs; and from the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, from Halifax, Jeanne Cruikshank.

Welcome, everyone. We'll start with Mr. Fischer. We'll take a presentation from you all and then we'll go to questions. We have an hour and forty-five minutes total. How long your presentations are will determine how many questions we'll be able to ask you.

Would you start, then, Mr. Fischer?

Mr. Jim Fischer (Chairman, AGCare (Toronto)): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You have a brief in front of you, or you should at least, in English and French. I'll go right into a little bit about what AGCare is about and part of the reason we're here, and thankful to have been asked to be here.

First of all, products of biotechnology are seen by farmers as a new set of farm management tools, not a panacea. Farmers must have timely access to these new technologies in order to remain competitive and to produce food in the most environmentally sustainable way possible. In other words, minimum impact on the environment would be first and foremost.

• 0915

Canada's biotechnology regulatory framework must be based on sound science and must ensure public safety and appropriate uses of the technology. It must be based on fact, not rhetoric—based on actual science.

Consumer awareness of biotechnology developments and access to information about the federal government system for product approval certainly is paramount.

As to what we're about, I've presented to some of you before, so I'm sure some of you know what AGCare is, but there's a sheet at the very back that describes our membership. We speak on behalf of 45,000 growers of field and horticultural crops dealing mainly with agricultural pesticide-related issues, biotechnology-related issues, and other environmental issues, such as nutrient management, water quality, and the list seems to be growing.

That's really what we're about. We're a communication vehicle between farmers and consumers and between us farmers and other farmers, for that matter.

As chairman of the group, I'm here today to strongly suggest to you that farmers want and need access to products of biotechnology as farm management tools so we can remain competitive and produce high-quality food and other agricultural products in the most environmentally sustainable way possible.

With regard to the regulatory framework, as with any new technology or any management technique, for that matter, farmers see the key to biotechnology as maximizing benefits while minimizing risks. The federal government's role in enabling access to products of biotechnology is clear: providing a sound, science-based regulatory framework that ensures products are safe for consumers, users, and the environment in general.

The federal biotechnology regulatory system must also be responsive to the business needs of industries, including our own. It must be structured to encourage rather than impede investment in biotechnology development in Canada. We would caution you, therefore, not to let the federal process for registration of products of biotechnology go down the same cumbersome, resource-consuming path as the one taken with the PMRA.

Particularly in the fruit and vegetable sector, the effect of our unwieldy pesticide registration system on so-called minor use pest control products puts Canadian farmers at a distinct competitive disadvantage to farmers exporting these same products to this country. This is especially ironic at a time when we Canadians are consuming increasing amounts of these fruits and vegetables for our own good health.

We support the current approach of regulating products of biotechnology under the respective legislation already pertinent to the regulation of various aspects of the agriculture and food industry, such as the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Fertilizers Act, etc.

With regard to the evolution of ag biotech, Canadian agriculture is now experiencing the early stages of what we believe to be four main areas of opportunity in agrifood biotechnology developments.

Currently single-trait products of biotechnology, such as those offering pest or herbicide resistance, are available. Such are our Roundup Ready soybeans, where one gene in perhaps 700,000 or one gene in 750,000 has been altered to achieve a certain purpose.

Secondly, genetically engineered healthier foods are being developed, such as nutritionally modified oils from plants, or potatoes with higher starch content, reduced water, and less fat absorption when we fry these potatoes. Specialty crops will be grown to produce pharmaceuticals and vaccines, such as a human protein in a seed, and we're there.

Growing crops for industrial uses is predicted to become one of the most significant applications, if not the most significant application, of biotechnology to agriculture. Putting it in simple terms, it's things such as paper being derived from straw or cornstalks—along that line.

Who stands to benefit? The potential for both farmer and consumer benefits through biotechnology is very clear, such as modified oil soybeans. Currently both Dupont and Pioneer in the U.S. are offering some of their farmers a premium of 65¢ a bushel to grow 25,000 acres of a lower-fat soybean. The intent of that is to produce a soybean that has a significantly lower fat content of the saturated portion, which means it doesn't have to be hydrogenated, which means it can remain stable without going through that extra process—and we know hydrogenation has a tendency to increase blood cholesterol levels. That's just an example.

• 0920

Another example is cold-tolerant grapevines that are being developed in Ontario's Niagara Peninsula. This has the potential to boost Canada's rising star on the world stage of fine wine production, offering both domestic and export benefits.

I suppose a third one—it isn't in there, but it hits home for me—would be the likelihood of us seeing transgenic alfalfa very shortly that can withstand winter kill. We've seen this in the Ottawa Valley here. I've seen this on my own farm this past spring, where I had to spend approximately $2,200 reseeding an alfalfa field because of winter kill. That's in the process.

I know the University of Guelph and other North American agricultural institutions are in the process of developing an alfalfa with an antifreeze gene in it. Now we're not dreaming in technicolor here, but in some way, this will allow that crop to stay in for three or four years instead of two, which is what happened in the last few years due to our climate and other factors, I suspect.

In cases where biotechnology may offer the only solution, there are certain crop diseases in Canada, such as fusarium, ear moulds, and head blight in corn and wheat, and white mould on soybeans and canola, for which only very limited resistance, if any, has been attained using conventional plant breeding and selection methods. These diseases can cause significant damage each year to Canadian crops, and crop scientists predict that biotechnology may provide the answer to these types of problems. There's a good chance, but it's not definite.

Next is resistance management. Farmers see products of biotechnology not as a panacea but as an additional set of farm management tools to be used as the need arises and only if the benefits are very clear to us. In the area of resistance management, farmers will have to employ the best management techniques in using products of biotechnology, just as they do now with chemical and biological pest control methods. If we don't do it right, we'll lose it.

Indeed, herbicide and/or pest resistance will likely occur—I would suggest it will occur—with biotech products as they have with previous control strategies. The reality is that resistance is normal, so it should be acknowledged. The name of the game is to stay ahead of the game, minimize the risk with regard to resistance, and find ways to manage around these challenges.

With regard to agronomics, discussions surrounding who will profit from the introduction of this technology rarely gives wheat farmers credit for being the astute managers we must be to remain in business. As the tools of biotechnology become available, individual farmers will evaluate them as a tool on a product-by-product basis for potential benefits, including improved profitability. With a variety of production tools from which to choose, farmers will only use products of biotechnology where these add value to the farmer's production and/or marketing options.

On labelling, much public discussion around agrifood biotechnology products has centred on the public's right to know what is in the food they consume, and so they should. Considering the cost and logistics of segregating crops at the farm level and then the resulting food ingredients that move through the food chain, eventually reaching consumers in a variety of forms, the negative labelling of GMO-free foods—GMO means genetically modified organisms—seems to be the only reasonable and sensible way to give consumers who want these products the choices they demand. Allowing for “Does Not Contain GMO” label statements similar to that of the organic sector right now would serve the niche market of consumers who do not wish to consume products of agrifood biotechnology and are prepared to pay the higher price that may be required to produce and market GMO-free products.

Regarding the importance of communication, the federal government must ensure that Canadians have easy, transparent access to information about how products of biotechnology are approved and how the use of them is regulated. Risk communication theory clearly shows that where an information gap exists, misinformation and/or disinformation readily steps in to fill the gap.

In summary, biotechnology will not be the silver bullet to address all of agriculture's concerns, but food and agricultural producers view this technology as one with significant positive potential. It's a technology that represents change. Our life is all about change. We move one step forward, we carefully monitor where we are, and we move on to the next step.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the time.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fischer.

We go now to Mr. Zatylny.

Mr. Tony Zatylny (Vice-President, Crop Protection, Canola Council of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to present to this committee and give our perspective on how biotechnology is changing canola production.

Biotechnology is a big part of the change that is taking place in canola production in Canada. The three areas of change I would like to discuss with you today include the movement toward direct seeding and reduced tillage, the benefits of an early seeding date, and herbicide selection and some of the options and profitability that go with that.

• 0925

Research in these areas of canola production is being conducted at canola production centres that are field-scale applied research farms operated by the Canola Council of Canada agronomists. More information on these can be obtained from the council in Winnipeg or on our web site. That's a little advertising on our work.

Recommendations for canola production have evolved in response to the management tools available to growers. Canola is a small-seed crop, with an optimum seeding depth of three-quarters of an inch to one inch. For many years, the seeding equipment that was capable of this precision seeding was the double-disk drill. The disk drill requires a seedbed that's firm and trash-free.

For many years, canola was grown on summer fallow or on fields where tillage or burning was used to clear the trash from the surface. To control weeds, growers relied on soil-incorporated herbicides that required at least two tillage operations. Growers recognize these practices led to soil degradation, erosion, and increased costs; however, there were few options that can be practically employed to avoid these practices.

As the airseeder evolved, growers were able to achieve the precise seeding depth of three-quarters to one inch required for canola. However, growers still relied on soil-incorporated herbicides for weed control. The few foliar-applied herbicides available had a narrow range of weeds they controlled and were generally much more expensive than the broad-spectrum, soil-incorporated herbicides like Treflan.

Our first canola varieties derived from biotechnology were those with traits for herbicide tolerance. These varieties fit very well into the movement toward reduced tillage. The herbicides used on herbicide-tolerant canola are very efficacious and cover a broad spectrum. This year, 50% to 60% of canola acreage will be seeded to herbicide-tolerant canola. The major reason for this rapid adoption of herbicide-tolerant canola is the ability to reduce tillage approaches, rather than the multiple-tillage systems required in the past.

In 1997, the council sponsored a survey that indicated that 35% of the herbicide-tolerant canola were seeded with direct-seeding methods. As a comparison, 19% of conventional canola was in direct seeding. A similar survey in 1996 showed that only 15% of all respondents used direct seeding in canola. With dry conditions on the prairies in 1998, even more growers will be moving toward direct seeding as a way of conserving soil moisture.

A second benefit that growers are realizing from canola varieties derived from biotechnology is an early spring seeding date. The standard recommendations since the early 1970s is that canola should be seeded into a warm, firm, moist seedbed when all danger of frost is passed. This recommendation has little to do with the requirements of the canola plant itself. Research at Agriculture Canada at Beaverlodge, Alberta, and at the University of Manitoba has demonstrated that canola can withstand temperatures of -9° C in the cotyledon stage.

The reason for the standard seeding recommendation is weed control. Control of winter annual weeds like stinkweed and shepherd's purse can only be accomplished by waiting for the weeds to begin growing and then controlling them with tillage or a pre-seeding herbicide application. The soil also needs to be warm to fully activate soil-incorporated herbicides. Therefore, the standard seeding recommendation often pushes the seeding date for canola into the last half of May.

Research at canola production centres in 1996 and 1997 shows a clear trend toward increasing the yield and profitability for earlier seeding. Herbicide-tolerant canola production systems are well suited to earlier seeding approaches because of the broad-spectrum weed control, including winter annuals. In the council's research, the early seeding date is the first day that it's possible to get into the field and seed. “Normal” is defined as the time when most canola growers were seeding their crop, and “late” was near the end of the planting window.

There's a clear advantage for early seeding. More importantly, there's also a contribution margin advantage for canola growers. A contribution margin is defined as the amount of revenue remaining per acre after variable costs have been serviced. Variable costs in this case include seed, fertilizer, fuel, etc., but not the fixed costs like equipment depreciation or land or labour costs.

• 0930

The movement to earlier seeding is not exclusive to herbicide-tolerant canola, but the nature of the chemicals used with these varieties will certainly favour their use. If earlier seeding was adopted widely this would result, even using conservative estimates, in an increase in average yields of 1.5 bushels per acre. This could mean more than $150 million at the farm gate annually. This increase in income could be realized with no additional cost to the grower.

The Canola Council of Canada is comparing herbicide-tolerant varieties, including Roundup Ready, Liberty Link and Smart systems, at canola production centres. The objective is to establish the criteria for choosing between variety and herbicide options. The greatest return will occur by choosing the most appropriate combination of variety and herbicide for each field.

In this example from Carman, Manitoba, in 1997, there was little difference in yield between the systems. However, the greatest financial return was from the two herbicide-tolerant systems. Three different herbicides were needed to control weeds in the conventional system compared to a single application of herbicide in each of the herbicide-tolerant systems. This is only one example of a large number of similar trials conducted in 1997, and work is ongoing in 1998.

At this time, it does not appear that any one canola production system has a clear advantage. Each grower will need to make decisions on the suitability of the variety, amount, and kind of weeds present and the considerations for herbicide rotation. If growers can consistently choose the best system, there will be opportunities for the industry to capture tens of millions of dollars. Once again, these benefits are not exclusive to varieties produced by biotechnology, but the options created will benefit growers tremendously.

In summary, growers are quickly adopting the varieties produced by biotechnology and are adapting their farm operations to take advantage of the technology. The shifts that are emerging include a rapid conversion to reduced tillage systems, earlier seeding, and choosing the most appropriate varieties and herbicide options. The benefits to growers are increased yields and increased profits.

We have not discussed the benefits to Canada and consumers. If the tools produced by biotechnology can be helpful in reducing soil erosion and degradation along with reducing the pesticide load on the environment, the benefits extend well beyond the farm gate. Further developments in biotechnology will continue to be accepted by growers if they contribute to sustainable, profitable agriculture in Canada.

Finally, the growers also recognize that there are two important players in this business: consumers and growers. Biotechnology will have to benefit both to become entrenched in our agricultural systems.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Zatylny.

We are going to Tom Lasseline of the Soybean Growers' Marketing Board.

Mr. Tom Lasseline (Chairman, Board of Directors, Soybean Growers' Marketing Board): Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

I do not have a written brief, but in general Soybean Growers' prospects are reflected in Jim Fischer's AGCare report. Soybean Growers' was very involved in the formation, organization, and development of AGCare.

I'll just tell you a little bit about myself. I farm down in southwestern Ontario in Lambton County, which is in Rose-Marie Ur's riding.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Is that why she finally made a meeting?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Tom Lasseline: I have a cash crop farm and beef operation. I grow soybeans, wheat, corn, and some hay, and I raise beef cattle. I have two children, both of whom are deeply involved in agriculture. My daughter and son are both graduates from Ridgetown College of Agriculture. My daughter works for the University of Guelph at the Bridgetown campus, and my son farms along with me.

Some of the traits that will be helpful in biotechnology will be herbicide resistance. Roundup Ready soybeans are going to be used. They are relatively new to the soybean producers. This will be the first year that any amount of acreage will be grown. It'll be used, not in all situations, but in fields where weeds have been a problem. It should increase yields.

Also, Bt corn is being introduced. This should be environmentally friendly and reduce the use of insecticides.

As for disease resistance, resistance to white mould is being developed here at AAFC in Ottawa. This will be of great benefit to soybean producers. Also, we can see crop values increased by biotech as well as increased yields.

• 0935

For the consumer, crops introduced with biotech will have nutritional improvements, such as Dupont's soybeans, which are low in saturated fat. Foods will have enhanced flavour, longer shelf life, and no allergenic proteins. Crops that can be produced will be healthier and should have ingredients that are healthier through biotech.

Also, crops can produce industrial agents, for example, detergents or plastics, instead of using non-renewable sources such as petroleum.

Biotech is a tool used to solve production problems and increase crop value. It's a tool that will help Canadian farmers and producers remain competitive in the global market. Canadian growers need access to all technologies that their competitors have, such as those in the U.S. Growers are therefore hopeful that Canadian agriculture regulations on novel foods, including the products of biotech, will continue to be science-based.

Regarding food, feed, and environmental safety, crop producers in Ontario are now using the first products of biotech. Examples are Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans.

Farmers themselves, not companies, will ultimately decide which biotech crops are to be grown. It will be based on cost, value, economics, and ease of use. The first biotech crops had agronomic improvement traits, but later biotech crops will have consumer-valued traits: improved nutrition, better flavour, longer shelf life, non-allergenic products, etc.

Growers recognize that, like every new technology, biotech brings both benefits and risks. The potential benefits for Canadian agriculture are huge. It's critical that the Canadian government and Canadian industry are actively involved in crop biotech research and that growers have timely access to new products.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lasseline.

We'll go to Laurie Curry, please.

Ms. Laurie Curry (Vice-President, Public Policy and Scientific Affairs, Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada): The Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada, FCPMC, has a membership that includes more than 180 companies, located coast to coast, involved in the manufacturing and marketing of food, beverages, and consumer products sold through retail, grocery, drug, convenience, mass merchandise and food service distribution channels.

This sector represents approximately $11 billion in total sales, or 13% of the manufacturing gross domestic product. The food and consumer products industry employs over 250,000 Canadians and is committed to growth both domestically and in our export markets.

FCPMC appreciates the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to share our members' perspective as users of ingredients derived from biotechnology. We understand that the standing committee will be making recommendations to the government as it determines its next steps for the establishment of the renewed Canadian biotechnology strategy.

One major component to the strategy is determining how best to respond to the public's confidence in biotechnology and the need for information.

I want to share with you today what food manufacturers are doing to better respond to their consumers about products of biotechnology.

Food biotechnology, or novel foods, is important to food manufacturers as it will increase food choices and provide benefits such as improved nutrition to consumers. Biotechnology will provide access to new ingredients, nutrients, flavours and additives for the food industry. The use of biotechnology may lead to the use of fewer agricultural chemicals, as we heard today, which will mean a safer environment and a healthier food supply.

Biotechnology has long been a part of food manufacturing through the use of cultured bacteria or yeast in baking, brewing, and cheese production. Canada's research and commercialization of oilseeds, such as canola, have produced oils with nutritional benefits and extended shelf lives that are being used today in the food industry. Modern biotechnology is contributing new food processing techniques that allow researchers to make foods with medicinal properties, known either as functional foods or nutraceuticals.

• 0940

The food industry will use food biotechnology as long as it is safe, nutritionally sound, and adds to the overall quality and product choice available to consumers. However, as the industry that manufactures branded products for consumers, we know the full benefits of biotechnology will only be realized in Canada if there is broad consumer acceptance. Without consumer acceptance, there will be no advancements in this technology. The question then becomes, what are consumer perceptions about novel foods?

Last year FCPMC, in association with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, undertook some research into novel foods. We produced this, called Communicating to Canadians about Novel Foods. It's a communications tool for the broad industry, beyond the manufacturing sector, as well as for other key stakeholders, whether it be health professionals, government, or so on, on how to better communicate about this technology.

Although much information already exists, with both quantitative and qualitative studies, we wanted to explore the topic in more depth by looking into the core beliefs held by consumers with respect to food. Furthermore, we wanted to translate these core beliefs into a strategy for communicating to consumers about novel foods.

Research shows that consumers look to manufacturers, as well as to my colleague Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank, who is with the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors—the retailers—to disseminate information to them.

We decided to conduct an archetype study. This technique identifies what people mean rather than what they say. Dr. Clotaire Rappaille, an internationally known expert in this field, conducted the study. From the foundation of this research, FCPMC and OMAFRA have prepared training materials—that's this guide here—that are used to guide the food industry in more effective consumer communications on novel foods.

Today I want to share some of the findings and implications with you of the research we have conducted.

Just so you know, we had a number of objectives going into the study. First, we wanted to understand at a deep and insightful level how public perceptions are formed with respect to food. We also sought to identify the forces that shape the public's attitudes toward novel foods. Furthermore, we wanted to gain insight into the issues most important to Canadians about the food they eat. Finally, we wanted to determine how best to communicate to consumers regarding important issues so that information about novel foods would be relevant and meaningful to them.

Our findings indicated that consumers are aware of the word “biotechnology” but are not specifically aware of people, places, products, or processes that are associated with it. Right now, opinions on food biotechnology are mostly neutral. We believe there can be a general acceptance of biotechnology in Canada as long as we do not fail to address the central issues consumers have. They are: trust and credibility of the sources of biotechnology; risk associated with genetic engineering of food; and information available and how it is provided.

Here's what consumers told us about these three central issues of trust, risk, and information.

Many of us appearing before this committee today are scientists. As scientists we want to believe that if only people knew the facts about biotechnology, they would see it as a good thing. However, the study clearly indicated that we needed to distinguish between knowledge and attitude. Knowledge, as we're all aware, is something that keeps changing every day. New data emerges every day, and each discovery may alter our perceptions. The issue then becomes, what is the real issue?

There is a lot of information available about food, but what seems to be good today may end up bad tomorrow. Who do I trust to help me navigate through the changes of knowledge? That's what consumers asked us.

It's not enough for the industry to publish information on biotechnology. Consumers need to know that as an industry we are trustworthy. Ultimately, biotechnology will be judged not on the data but on who is speaking for it.

Consumers told us what they wanted to know about us as an industry: Are we ethical? Are we honest about the facts or are we just trying to hide something? Do we care about the rest of them or just about making money? Do we have respect about the laws of nature? Do we understand the risks or are we just kidding ourselves that there aren't any? Ultimately, they want to know, “Can I trust you?”

• 0945

So trust is one of the central issues facing the biotechnology industry today. Another issue is risk. Some in the industry may believe that it is not wise to talk about the risks inherent in genetic engineering of food, as the general public may not be in a position to fully understand. However, we feel that there is a risk to giving no-risk messages to the public.

Consumers are aware that the knowledge changes frequently and so are reluctant to accept the results of scientific studies as completely trustworthy. They are not gospel truth; it's what we know at this point in time. Fortunately, consumers tend to be realistic. They can accept that unforeseen things happen and that not everything new is good.

We should not try to convince consumers that there is no risk in biotechnology. There is always risk, and our job is to make sure the risk is minimized. We need to communicate what we're doing to minimize that risk.

Knowing what we know about trust and risk, the question then becomes: what information do we make available to the public? We acknowledge that people have a right to know about the food they eat. However, our research has found that there are many things consumers choose not to know, as well. If information is readily available, and if the source is credible, then many consumers do not feel the need to read the information themselves.

We acknowledge that consumers have a right to know, and we advocate providing full disclosure about novel foods. The disclosure may come in the form of pamphlets, brochures, web sites or 1-800 numbers.

The questioning of labelling is an important one for the industry. We currently support government's labelling policy that calls for labels to identify potential health and safety considerations, such as allergenicity.

We also believe that current label practices provide other areas to capture key information. We heard today about potentially having lower saturated fats or trans fatty acids with respect to...or less hydrogenation for soybeans. In this particular case we could take that into consideration with current labelling practices, and that could be captured in the current nutrition label panel. At the end of the day, what is important is information that's easily accessible for consumers.

Much work has already been undertaken by a wide variety of organizations to respond to consumers' growing interest in information on biotechnology. Combined with the knowledge and results of the FCPMC and OMAFRA research, there are a wide variety communication tools in place today. In its review of the Canadian biotechnology strategy, FCPMC recommends that the government evaluate what has been done to date and determine where there are gaps to be filled, rather than starting from the beginning again.

In closing, there is a role for biotechnology in meeting the wants and needs of consumers, and to enhance the contribution of food to overall health and well-being. The growth of this technology depends on consumer acceptance. It is important for us as an industry and for all players to better understand what consumers mean versus what they say about novel foods.

There are three central issues that need to be addressed. They are trust, i.e., there's nothing to hide; risk, i.e. there will always be risk, but consumers want to know what's being done to minimize it; and information, in that it's readily accessible. The research we have done provides us with the communication tools to communicate credibly to consumers and the public about all aspects of biotechnology.

Again, thank you for this opportunity.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Can you provide the results to the committee?

Ms. Laurie Curry: Absolutely, yes. A copy of my brief has been submitted to the clerk, as well.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Jeanne Cruikshank.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank (Vice-President, Atlantic Region, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors): Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to present the views of the retail food sector on this very important subject of biotechnology.

The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, CCGD, is a national non-profit association committed to advancing and promoting the interests of the grocery distribution industry across Canada. Members are primarily large and small grocery and supermarket operations, as well as companies that provide a wide range of support services to our members and to the industry.

CCGD's membership represents approximately 80% of the total grocery distribution in Canada, and is the second largest in the retail sector, with annual sales of approximately $57 billion. The industry is comprised of approximately 27,000 retail stores employing more than 430,000 persons.

• 0950

Providing a variety of safe food choices for our Canadian consumers is of primary importance. Surveys of consumer shopping conducted as recently as the Trends in Canada 1997 report would indicate there is increasingly a reliance on retailers and manufacturers to provide safe food products. The numbers have shifted over the past five years, but the individual continues to be the foremost party responsible. Reliance on the federal government has reduced, while the dependence upon the retailer has increased. This is a responsibility that in retail we accept with great sincerity, and it is why, given opportunities such as this, we continue to impress upon the government the extreme importance of holding the high standards they have for providing safe food products to Canadian consumers.

As retailers who meet the consumer on average twice a week at retail, we are also familiar with our aging demographics, which would indicate that the definition of “safe” has also changed during the recent timeframe. The 1997 Trends in Canada survey indicates that the greatest complete confidence in food safety is in the age category of 65 and over, while a moderate 20% to 25% confidence is in the category of 25 to 64, and that's where the bulk of our consumers are.

We are also very familiar with the fact that we are dealing with a very discerning customer, and in many cases a very well-educated consumer, about the products they are willing to purchase. The consumer's definition of food safety in many cases pertains to the threats to that safety. Those threats, according to Trends in Canada, include chemicals, bacteria, pesticide residue, freshness and quality as it relates to storage, handling and control of product.

In Atlantic Canada we have witnessed a very positive response to a product of biotechnology, the Nature Mark potato. When it was offered to the Atlantic consumer as a product grown a better way, which allowed the customer to weigh the options of buying a product that was grown using a reduced amount of pesticide, it was welcomed. And we're just a basic potato-growing country, so for those consumers it gave them another choice.

The majority of Canadian consumers, however, are not familiar with primary agriculture practices, and the benefits to that part of the food chain have been explained by other presenters this morning.

Products that offer the customer value, whether it be real as in nutrition, or perceived as interpreted by the consumer, are those products that are going to be the most readily accepted, as long as an information base exists in which the consumer can make an informed decision.

The discussion of information tends to quite quickly lead to the issue of labelling. While labelling is one of the tools of information mediums, I think there is an onus and a responsibility for government, and in particular Health Canada, to more vocally and consistently offer the rationale for approving the safety of these products.

• 0955

Industry Canada consultations, which are presently under way, are also addressing this issue. And there are many parties responsible, but I think with the challenges, with the downsizing of federal food inspection systems and the realities of the economics that have begun to test consumer faith, I think we have a very strong regulatory system and the novel guidelines allow for the approval of safe products.

As I have done in the past on behalf of the grocery retail distribution industry, I would ask that the regulatory bodies, and Health Canada in particular, immediately commence an active role to discuss the very positive and very thorough process that products are subjected to in this country before receiving their recognition as being products safe for consumers.

Presently the regulatory system is explained in response to criticisms or concerns about a safe food supply. I think we would all be better served as consumers and Canadians if a proactive approach was put in place to allow customers to understand that a strong base that has served the test of time is the same system addressing biotechnology products. CCGD members are the direct interface with customers at the retail level. We look forward to working with our government on this challenge and we will be very pleased to do our part to continue to sell to our customers products that the government has deemed to be safe.

We do ask that the safety message be clearly communicated by the responsible bodies such that at retail we can complement it. We cannot at retail be the body that is accepting responsibility or commenting on the regulatory process. It is not within our expertise to be evaluating products and determining their safety on behalf of our consumers.

Previous dialogues and today's opportunity are a beginning, but there is still a great deal of homework to be done and a great many associations and sectors in the food chain that are willing to help make it happen.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you all very much.

We have approximately an hour for questions, and we'll go to Mr. Kerpan.

Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to welcome you to the committee this morning.

I'm very interested in the subject, because in real life I am a farmer from Saskatchewan, so I certainly recognize the need and the benefits for a producer in the area of the new technology and the biotechnology that has come forward. And I listened with great interest to Mr. Zatylny's presentation on canola. I was out seeding some canola last weekend, so I hear a lot of what you're saying and I certainly agree with it and support it.

My question, though, would be probably one that each and every one of you may want to have a shot at but that is probably directed more at Ms. Curry.

When I look at the industry and how that affects consumers—and indeed we all are consumers—I wonder how you would go about alleviating the concerns that we hear from consumers about the new biotechnology, about some of the new products, some of the new plants and produce that really are the harvest of that biotechnology. And I go back to the last Parliament, when we had a pretty serious discussion on BST and dairy cattle. I know in my own office I had a lot of people contact me who were very much opposed to anything remotely to do with new biotechnology.

You mentioned in your address that you think consumer opinions are probably neutral. I'm not sure I would totally agree with that, and I base that, as I said, on the calls and the letters I get in my office. I'd ask the group how are you planning to get broader consumer acceptance on new products?

Ms. Laurie Curry: I'd be happy to comment on that.

It was interesting, when we did the archetype research, we went across Canada. In fact, we did the study also in Quebec, Canada. As I said, it gets to the heart of what people mean versus what they say. We've heard Trends in Canada 1997 from the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors. A lot of our organizations do this type of trend research, which is quantitative in nature. You go out there and ask a series of questions, and people feed back the answers.

• 1000

What you get back, typically, is what people say versus what they mean. There are issues at the levels of the head and the heart. I think sometimes what you're referring to is that with biotechnology and with new things that are out there, people sometimes react at an emotional level.

So we went out and talked to people all across Canada to find out how people react to this at the heart level with respect to food. What we found is that it's very different. For everything we thought as the industry that consumers wanted to hear back from us with respect to, you know, what are all the ingredients in a product and what are all the nutritional-type things in a product, when you get down to that deeper level, that in fact is not what they want to hear. That was the interesting dynamic force.

It gets down to what I said, the issue around trust, and who you can trust. They said to us that you can put all the information you want on a label, but at the end of the day, if they don't trust you, they're not going to read it anyhow. That's what was the eye-opener for us with respect to the research.

I have to tell you, English Canada was very different from Quebec, and it's because of how they deal with the food in their bodies. For example, in English Canada, their bodies are considered to be an inconvenience, and food is sustenance. You just kind of eat; that type of thing. It's a fact of life, as is biotechnology. But when you go into Quebec, the body is sensuality, and food is for pleasure.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Laurie Curry: I know everyone's laughing, but it was interesting. That's what consumers said to us. They don't view these processes as being any different.

Jeanne mentioned the potatoes in Halifax. When you pick up a potato, it's the same potato, and they just want to know how they can use it, how they can cook it. If they have information about it, how do they get it?

Now, these products happened to be marketed as genetically modified, and consumers did respond very well to that.

I think there might be a pocket of people out there, as was mentioned earlier by Jim Fischer with respect to organic, who might want that choice, but I don't think it's the large percentage of the population, not based on the research we did.

Mr. Allan Kerpan: On the issue of trust—and I agree with you; I think that's the key word here—who do you see as a group or a body that consumers will place their trust in? I thought about this for a couple of minutes, and quite frankly, if you're looking at governments of any level to try to provide that trust factor in consumers, I don't believe that's going to happen, because we all know Canadians generally do not necessary trust their governments.

Ms. Laurie Curry: In terms of who they trusted, it was interesting; they said things back to us in terms of Canadian scientists, but not American scientists. They trust Canadian scientists. They trust Canadian health professionals—doctors, dietitians, those types of people. They trust the information they read in newspapers and magazines, etc. However, they recognize that information is changing all the time, and that what may be new may not be good. So there are those elements.

There were differences. In Quebec, for example, they trusted chefs, or the people who prepare the food. Quebec Canada was very different from English Canada in the research, but they did tend to go for health professionals, etc. At the end of the day, they wanted to make sure, again, that whoever was speaking on behalf of it had nothing to hide.

So I think if we use the tools that are now available to us, there is a role for all of us to be able to communicate more effectively, regardless of whether it's government or health professional groups or the industry, etc.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We will now go to a member of Parliament from Quebec to see what she has to add.

[Translation]

Mrs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Good morning, Madam.

• 1005

You talked about labelling. In Quebec we really are epicurean, and I realized that teenagers unfailingly read labels. If they see on a milk carton that the expiry date is May 13, they will not drink one drop of that milk after that date even if the milk is still very good. Anyway, I see them as a distinct group who really reads labels. They are label maniacs. I had five teenagers at home; I therefore got a good sample.

But I think that there is something very complex to labelling. You talked about the information you have to give. But how can we have a proactive approach in labelling? Mr. Fischer says that if the label on a food product reads "does not contain GMO", it is not proactive. This solves only part of the problem, but it is not at all proactive. Following your research, what would you do to have labels that say something, that are proactive and that do not frighten people?

[English]

Ms. Laurie Curry: I listened to Jim's comments about whether you create a niche in GMO-free types of products.

The most recent example we have—and this is not GMO-related—is that folic acid has recently become a mandatory enrichment in flour across this country. One of the reasons it's now mandatory is that the United States went that way. If the United States went that way in folic acid enrichment, because of how our food supply goes across the border with respect to sourcing, if we didn't have folic acid in flour at the exact same level as that in the United States, it would mean two flour supplies would have to be sourced within Canada. That's economically impossible to do.

So at the end of the day, knowing that was done for a benefit in terms of trying to reduce neural tube defects in newborn infants, Canada harmonized with the United States and has mandatory folic acid at the exact same level.

If you take that as an example and then you go to, say, canola or soybean or corn.... It's virtually in every product out there. I can imagine that in the next three years, there's not going to be a product that is not touched in some way, shape, or form by genetic modification. Does that mean every label out there will have “Contains GMO”? Will there truly be an opportunity to have GMO-free products? I'm not sure there will be.

That's why you have to get off the track of labelling and move on to the important issues, which are public information and education—get out there and communicate to people right now what this means. There's nothing to fear, there's nothing to worry about, and people just need a general.... Sometimes you have to start....

There's a wonderful organization, the Key Foundation, that is educating at the schools, so as young children are going through school these days, they're learning more about how food is produced.

It's a very difficult question. We've been in discussions with the government—Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Health Canada—for over five years now. That's why at the end of the day the label has to capture absolutely, no doubt, any health and safety considerations. If there are allergenicity issues, then they must be identified. If a peanut is introduced to a new product, that must be on the ingredient listing.

If, for example, you've removed essential trans fatty acids from an oil, and say those oils are fed to premature infants, somebody has to know about that. In that type of situation, the label would capture that now. Current labelling policy in Canada would capture that.

The other thing is if a product is so new and so different—say it's not a yogurt any more, for example—call it something else. That's the marketing side of things. Then educate and communicate about that new type of product, if it's so different from the traditional product.

[Translation]

Mrs. Hélène Alarie: In the end, you are satisfied with the regulation we have concerning labelling. An improvement might be much more advisable concerning information. A good strategy would perhaps start with the young people, giving them information and educating them.

Sir, you talked about the approval process of biotechnology products. You said that we should not "let the federal process for registration of products of biotechnology go down the same cumbersome, resource-consuming path as the one taken with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency", which would lead us nowhere anyway.

• 1010

What would you suggest?

[English]

Mr. Jim Fischer: Well, first of all, we've had experiences with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency that have been not the best, shall we say, in terms of approving products. We're trying to grow a food and use a product on it, and that product is being used in the U.S. and is coming across here, and we can't. It may take several years before we can. We're concerned that same situation may arise with some products of biotechnology.

We would prefer that it stay as it is, that the regulatory aspect go under the various acts I mentioned previously, which you have in front of you. That's really the crux of it.

[Translation]

Mrs. Hélène Alarie: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much, each of you, for being here for our series on biotech. It's very interesting. Quite a few of us have visited sites across the country where it's happening, such as in Saskatoon, and we will in other parts of this country.

On the labelling, I just want to check something with you for clarification. When we had the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food here, I believe he informed us that when rBST becomes available, you will be able to label a product “rBST free”. They are able to do that in the United States today. Of course we don't have that product, so I'm not looking to make a judgment on that for sure, but we do have to talk about rBST.

I'd like to take the far-out example—and you may say it's not related—of the MAI topic that's been on the front burners, for all the right reasons, across this country, with many people involved. With the Internet, consumers took over that subject, driven by one group, but maybe for all the right reasons. I'm not here to debate that.

That type of group might, I expect, take over rBST if it comes along, and that could affect all of biotech, because of the fact that rBST is milk—that pure, wholesome food. I've asked other groups and friends in the industry. I expect many people wish they would have come up with some other product, such as the Flavr Savr tomato. I guess Monsanto would not want to come last, for the sake of money, with the rBST. We can't ignore that. That could affect....

I don't want to see it affect the biotech, because you have so much to offer. It's going to be part of consumer acceptance. Where we are and the opportunities and what can happen with biotech will be a great benefit for all Canadians in most cases.

I'd like to get some comments on that. We have to talk about rBST—if you wish.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: I'd be very happy to.

The questions on labelling are obviously consuming a great deal of the discussion here, but at the core of the issue, as Laurie Curry has pointed out, is the trust element. To a great extent, as retailers, that's why we think it's very important to be involved in this process.

Consumers come to their grocers and trust that the products they provide to them are safe. That was one of the key elements when the Nature Mark potato was introduced. It was introduced through the Sobey's chain of stores in Atlantic Canada. Consumers expect—and their expectations have always been confirmed—that the products they buy there are safe. So the great deal of onus at retail is put on educating our staff about this issue.

The other element is that what the U.S. has done with regard to rBST and the Canadian situation are not the same. It's my understanding, in looking at the U.S. situation, that the labelling in the U.S. of “rBST free” was more a marketing issue.

This also comes back to this very important issue of trust and integrity. The advertising requirements, the marketing restraints, within Canada allow Canadian consumers to expect and believe that what is on the label is meaningful, and for it to be corrected if it's not true, that what is on the label can be meaningful. That's where putting this onus on labelling, I think, is a disservice, because it can't be interpreted in an appropriate context.

• 1015

I certainly fully agree with you as well that any time you go near the product of milk, you create a great many new issues, and also bring forward the health issue and the impact on the animal. That's where the background to this—in the context that we don't presently have, but which I think is a significant opportunity—is the context within which our food chain operates, and the efficiencies and the pressures under which the farm community on this may be better able to cope.

We don't deny technology, if it be computerization or other technology, to assist systems. When it comes to food, though, people don't tend to think of the food chain and the process as an industrial system, but to some degree it is.

I think also that the primary element is making sure that Canadian consumers can continue to have the confidence that there is a system that is going to address that safety. I would concur with Laurie on this one—that at retail, the novel guidelines that address issues of allergens and significant difference do that for Canadian consumers.

I think there needs to be a broader opportunity, for those who would like to know, to be able find out information through web pages, through pamphlets, through pieces that can be provided. We certainly don't minimize the challenge at retail when Johnny, who's the Friday night minimum-wage guy working in produce, gets these questions. He's neither in a position to answer, nor should be answering, but in the retail environment he's expected to tell his customers something. He needs to be able to point them in another direction—to the customer service desk or the 1-800 number.

On this whole issue, I think, too, that at retail we would much prefer that there be a comfort level with other products before we move to milk. But I think it's a reality that is part of that system, and if it has withstood the rigours and scrutiny of the regulatory system, then the regulatory bodies need to assure Canadian consumers that it has done so, the product is safe, and that it has that assurance. That's the primary question for consumers.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Ms. Curry?

Ms. Laurie Curry: I think with respect to BST, we have very strong opinions. I think it's a classic example of a communications nightmare. It is exactly the example of where strong or good communications were not put out in front of the issue.

I'm not pointing a finger at anybody here, but I just take a look at how industry and the government responded. The only stuff that was appearing, whether on the web site or in the newspapers or in the letters to the editors, were from the consumer activist groups. I think that's why we very clearly have to ask, how do we...? With respect to BST, we should use it as a lesson, a very tough, hard lesson. It has not been approved yet, but the foundation should start today in terms of getting strong and solid communications out there right now.

Where's Health Canada on the nightly news? I see the commissioner to the FDA on the nightly news. I do not see Health Canada on the nightly news talking in a positive way about the stringent regulatory system.

There needs to be proactive communications out there with respect to, “Here is the pre-market safety assessment. These are what products of biotechnology go through in terms of an approval process”.

We're not asking any government department to come out and promote this product or not, but it has to be able to say it's gone through this type of regulatory system. There has to be strong and solid communications out there with respect to all products of biotechnology. This is a classic example of where a product was potentially to come out in advance of communications, and consumer concerns and so on took over. I think there's a lot we can learn from that, and we can move on in a very positive way.

The Chairman: Mr. Fischer.

Mr. Jim Fischer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There hasn't been a standing committee I've been present at where recombinant bovine somatotropin hasn't come up.

I am a dairy producer myself. My comments, I guess, are almost ditto for Laurie's. rBST was first. It came out early. It was far ahead of the rest.

Mr. Larry McCormick:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

• 1020

Mr. Jim Fischer: Yes, that's true. Many mistakes were made in the communication. The lack of trust was not there or quickly diminished. The farming community, which I would suggest is being relied on for a good trustworthy synopsis or report, has been split, partly because our system in Canada is different from that of our neighbour to the south.

So there are many reasons as to why we've had the problems, and I think it is a lesson to be learned. I think it'll eventually fix itself and in fact in 10 years we won't even be having this discussion.

The Chairman: So you don't see anything wrong with rBST, any of you? It was just an information breakdown.

Mr. Jim Fischer: I would use it on about 10% of our herd if it was available, yes.

The Chairman: Even though Laurie Curry says there is definite risk in biotechnology products?

Mr. Jim Fischer: There is a definite risk in every technology, Mr. Chair. That's a fact. The thing is to maximize the benefit and minimize the risk.

The Chairman: What risk would there be in biotechnology-changed products? We can understand easily what could be wrong with pesticides and residues and poisons, but if you substitute a gene or take a gene out, how does this affect a person's health?

Ms. Laurie Curry: Allergenicity is an example of where there might be risk, and that has to be communicated. A new product is coming out and it now contains, for example, a peanut protein, which could be allergenistic for less than 2% of the population. That's a risk, and people need to know. And that's where the label has to kick in and communicate that there is now peanut in this product that traditionally has not had a peanut protein in it before.

There are also tremendous benefits to biotechnology. For example, there might in some future time be a peanut where the protein can be removed, and we have the concern with respect to allergenicity for the percentage of the population who cannot consume products that contain a peanut protein.

So my comment was around how to minimize risk. And that's why it's so important. When these products go through the pre-market notification and the novel food pre-market safety assessment, that is when the complete and thorough assessment can be done. As individuals we cannot comment—I don't feel I can comment with respect to rBST. That is going through the process now.

I feel very comfortable with the process it's going through, and if at the end of the day that product comes out and it's deemed to be safe by Health Canada, then it is a safe product. And then, from our standpoint as an industry, that's where our communications will be very important to consumers. If there are risks, then they need to be communicated, and people need to know what's being done to minimize those.

The Chairman: The Europeans are saying genetically altered canola is not welcome on their continent. How do you convince the Europeans that there is absolutely nothing wrong with genetically altered canola?

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: Mr. Chairman, too, before we leave the issue of rBST, I think it would be a disservice and an incorrect assumption if you were to leave today thinking we have no problem with it. At retail, as it presently sits and as it has presently been communicated, we would have problems.

The message we are trying to deliver, and that Laurie has reinforced, and others as well, is that there is some learning to take place here to communicate from the regulatory bodies that this product has undergone great scrutiny so that when it appears and should it appear on the retail shelves, a number of assessments have taken place on it so that they are assured of safety to the consumer.

So at retail on this issue, particularly given the issues around milk and in fact the supply management issues that relate to it province by province across this country that add to some of the complexity, retailers would still have a great many questions, because the communication from those opposed to it presently much outweighs that from those who are talking about the process.

Until retailers are assured that some of the unknowns are addressed, they're not going to be in a comfortable position to retail the product. So with some of those unknowns—and your question particularly was with regard to the risk—I'm not sure people can identify what the risk is. They just, as consumers, feel there are some things that have not been answered.

Mr. Tony Zatylny: I would like to get back to the question of Europe and canola. We have to look at a broader issue here, and that is global trade. As tariffs are going to be reduced in the next round of world trade talks, countries are going to find other ways to control trade and those are going to be health and environment issues. Today in Europe the science community has no problem approving GMO canola. There is no political will to sign the approvals. And why would they not do that? I think it keeps Canadian canola out of their marketplace. Until the Europeans feel they can have a competitive advantage they're not going to approve it.

• 1025

In crops where they need to import, corn and soybeans, they're much more willing to expedite the rules. They don't need our canola. They in fact are probably going to be a competitor of ours in the near future, and as they get this technology, then it'll be a level playing field again.

The Chairman: They're buying time.

Mr. Tony Zatylny: They're buying time.

The Chairman: We have a question of privilege from Mr. McCormick, and then I'll go to Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a short comment on the rBST. I know Ms. Curry has already clarified, but when you mentioned previously where the government is on rBST—and as we know, Health Canada is doing a most intensive study on it—of course, politics become involved in this country. And it was from my riding in eastern Ontario where we brought it to the national floor of the Liberal Party of Canada at one of the resolutions two years ago.

That was a lot of thought and a lot of, I believe, quite neutral people—a lot of study on that. We had hundreds of people involved and the support of thousands of people, and it's a real issue, and yet I want to know how to move beyond it.

The Chairman: I think we could debate rBST for a long time, but we'd better go to Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Larry McCormick: We could. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: We better go to Mr. Proctor. Thank you.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'll stay on rBST for just a minute. Mr. Fischer, you said a minute ago that if it was available you would use bovine growth hormone on about 10% of your dairy herd, yet I've heard that—even though it hasn't been approved in Canada for use—there's lot of bovine growth hormone readily available. Are you aware of that, or are any farmers in your area using it?

Mr. Jim Fischer: I've heard no such thing. I said if it was available I would use it, and on the assumption that if it was available it's gone through Canada's stringent health system, its regulatory system, to deem it safe. I would use it, but, no, I haven't heard of what you're suggesting.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You should have been a politician.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Somebody who is very well placed and very much an advocate of it said that when the University of Guelph went out to find dairy herds to do control testing on it, they couldn't find a herd in the Guelph area that hadn't experienced or experimented with bovine growth hormone.

Mr. Jim Fischer: Again, I'm not aware of that at all. Sincerely, I'm not.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

Ms. Curry, in regard to your comments about English-Canadian attitudes of trusting health professionals and Canadian scientists, it seems to me that we're seeing the industry wanting to take over more and more of this area and, I think, push Health Canada folks and Canadian scientists more into the background. Do you share that concern or do you think that—

Ms. Laurie Curry: On a point of clarification, what do you mean by “take over”?

Mr. Dick Proctor: That they would do more of the regulatory stuff or would be more than happy to take over more of regulatory area.

Ms. Laurie Curry: That the industry would be?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, that the industry would be. Is that your—

Ms. Laurie Curry: Pre-market safety assessments?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes.

Ms. Laurie Curry: I think maybe we should distinguish, from an industry standpoint.... With respect to going through for health and safety declaration in terms of approval systems, that's something where from an industry standpoint they would want to continue to have that go through Health Canada or an accredited type of body that would be able to have the expertise to review and evaluate such products.

Mr. Dick Proctor: An independent accredited body.

Ms. Laurie Curry: So it would not be an industry self-regulatory procedure to approve their own products with respect to novel foods, you know.

Mr. Dick Proctor: To the canola growers and the soybean group, I was reading recently that in Texas they pay $2 extra for a bushel of seed that's been genetically altered and then an additional $32 an acre for the technology cost of that. Is that similar in this country? Can you explain how that all works?

• 1030

Mr. Tom Lasseline: I can update you on soybeans, yes. It being a new product, they do charge a little extra for the seed plus the technology fee, and that would be $8.75 a unit, not a bushel. A unit would be 50 pounds in today's market.

As I said in my presentation, it's not going to be for all producers. It's just going to be a small percentage to start, because of the economics of it.

Mr. Dick Proctor: It's also believed in the industry that these genetically modified crops are capital-intensive—they're going to need a lot more money over the next five to 10 years in order to stay competitive with the Americans, the Europeans, and others. So would you see these technology fees going up as time goes on? Do you have any sense of that?

Mr. Tom Lasseline: As a grower, no, I don't see technology fees going up. They have to be legitimate, or else, as a grower, I will not use it. The bottom line is dollars and cents. We want a safe product. Soybeans are exported widely, and we have to be competitive.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes.

Mr. Zatylny?

Mr. Tony Zatylny: In canola, for Roundup Ready varieties, there's a $15-an-acre technology use agreement. In the Liberty Link system, the company's capturing the value through the price of the herbicide.

Nobody likes to pay more than they have to, but on the other hand, when 50% to 60% of the acres are going to be herbicide-tolerant, the farmers have pencilled it out and see value in the product. That's one of the concerns growers always have: how the value of what they do gets split.

I would say in the past the biggest part of the profit has gone to the technology developers. As more technology comes on the market and it becomes more competitive, hopefully more of that value will go to the consumer and to the producer.

Mr. Dick Proctor: So is it what the market will bear in terms of the additional cost, or does the marketer say, “You don't have to use as many herbicides, so therefore you're saving money there, so we'll charge you more”? Or is there some relevance in the fees they're charging?

Mr. Tony Zatylny: I believe it's a value-risk assessment that everybody goes through. Maybe it's what the market will bear, but certainly if the producer sees value in it, he will purchase it. If he can make money with the technology, he will buy it.

The Chairman: Mr. Fischer.

Mr. Jim Fischer: Mr. Proctor, the market works in interesting ways. Because of the Roundup Ready technology, some competing companies have had to reduce their crop input prices to compete with that technology. There's competition there, and that's good news for other crops and for some of the same crops.

But along your line, as I said earlier in my presentation, we will use it as a tool and there has to be a benefit. The Bt corn, for instance, down in Tom's area, where they have—what?—maybe two generations or two and a half generations of the corn borer.... The point is that in my area in Bruce County, I don't need that technology for that particular crop yet, and maybe I won't, so I won't use it. But Tom may have to use it, because he's a little bit further south, there are a few more heat units, it's prevalent, and it is a concern or may be a concern.

Again, it's a tool that each of us will evaluate depending on our commodity or crop or whatever we do. There has to be a benefit or we won't use it.

If there's a technology use agreement, yes, there's an inherent cost, and there should be. If I were a researcher doing it, I don't care what company it is, I'd expect there'd be a cost or it wouldn't happen. And I'm thankful it is happening. Again, if the benefit is there, I'll use it. If the cost is too high, I won't, because we have choices.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, I don't disagree with the point you're making. All I'm trying to do is establish whether there's any realism in the price that is being sought by the—

Mr. Jim Fischer: I think the realism will come out through the market.

Mr. Tony Zatylny: You don't need to pay $200 for a pair of running shoes, but a lot of people do.

The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I must set the record straight. Tom, I want you to go back to the constituency and say that Rose-Marie is here all the time and she's a very valuable member of this committee, okay?

How's that?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.):

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

• 1035

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I wasn't telling the truth, I have to admit it. Rose-Marie's always here.

I have to ask another question. We talked about the sensuality when you did your studies in Quebec. Did you not run into that in Manitoba, by any chance?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Laurie Curry: No, we didn't.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You didn't? Well, obviously you must have been talking to the wrong people, because I know Manitoba and Quebec share that.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have a question first of all to Mr. Fischer.

You mentioned in one of your questions the PMRA. We've dealt with the PMRA. We've dealt with the problems of harmonization and the stumbling blocks of trying to get the pest management regulation harmonized with some of what's happening in the States and in Canada. You touched on that briefly with respect to biotech.

We heard two days ago that Canada is the world leader in biotech at this point in time, as well we should be, and I'm very excited about that. It's the wave of the future, obviously.

Do you have any examples or any issues with respect to interchangeability or harmonization of biotech with the United States? Is that going to happen? Should it happen? If it is going to happen, how should we as government look forward to that kind of harmonization in biotech?

Mr. Jim Fischer: Well, it's the same thing as with crop inputs and pesticides. Internationally speaking, let's hope for harmonization. I'm not just referring to Canada and the U.S.

The concern we have within AGCare, and farmers in general, is that if....

And yes, we are the leader in some aspects—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So far.

Mr. Jim Fischer: —but many countries are doing many things with different areas of study.

Suppose there is a biotech product that can be used to produce a specific food or to grow that crop more easily or more environmentally soundly somewhere else, and we have to wait until two or three years later, when the regulatory aspect is 85% the same.... I'm just throwing that figure out, because in pesticides they are, but let's use that as an assumption. I don't think it's too far off when I say that. Yet those foods are coming in, or supposedly would likely come in, especially if they're grown at a time of the year when we can't. That's a concern we have.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Is Agriculture and Agri-Food dealing with those concerns currently, in your opinion? Are they dealing with those issues?

Mr. Jim Fischer: They're certainly very well aware of the issues and they're listening to what we're saying.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's not the question.

Mr. Jim Fischer: I don't know to what extent OMAFRA is dealing with that issue, to be quite honest with you.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, and I appreciate your concerns.

The Chairman: Tony, do you want to respond to that?

Mr. Tony Zatylny: In response to the question of what government should do in harmonization and trade, in canola we have the exact opposite problem. We are the North American leaders, we have all the technology and all the products, and the growers immediately south of the prairie provinces want to have access to this technology as well. They're saying it's not a level playing field.

This is a big country, and we need to balance out the whole thing. Government has to be very careful not to take a position in eastern Canada that is detrimental to western Canada and vice versa.

What should government do? It needs to be very careful in how it proceeds.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's a very good point, by the way. Had we kept the canola technology initially, we wouldn't have any competition in that particular industry. That is a good point. Whether that's right or wrong I'm not prepared to say.

Ms. Curry, you mentioned the three pillars, if you will: trust, risk, and information. I hate to tell you this, but the industry perhaps doesn't have a hell of a lot of trust. On the consumer side of it particularly, CEOs are basically on the same level as politicians when it comes to trust—most politicians.

Does the industry have its own code of ethics? Does it have some sort of code of conduct that they can put out there to the consumer to say, “Trust us, as the industry”?

Trust is the most important thing, in my mind. Obviously it's secondary to information, because you have to get the information out. How is the industry dealing with that trust factor with respect to the industry itself?

Ms. Laurie Curry: When we look at products of biotechnology, from our standpoint, we don't treat them any differently with respect to the whole element of trust from the way we treat any other product out there, quite frankly.

For most of what is governed in the industry with respect to what's visible to the consumers around labelling, etc., we worked with the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and some other organizations....

• 1040

I thought maybe Jeanne had it with her. There's something that's called The Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising. It's a publication that is put out by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and in a section in there, as an industry collectively, we went forward with our general principles around communicating to Canadians. And so those same general principles, which talk about not misleading the consumers, factual information, etc., all of those key elements are the same elements that drive all of our aspects with respect to labelling or communicating to the public.

On the other front, you should know that we work very closely with other professionals such as health professionals and dietitians, who are probably ranked higher on the credibility list than politicians and CEOs of companies. I'm not quite sure, but politicians and CEOs are probably near the bottom. So we work very closely with other health professional organizations through other consumer group organizations, and what we do is we make sure that we provide to them the most up-to-date information about the biotechnology. They in turn provide many communications forward to consumers.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have a question, again, on this particular topic. And I think it was you who mentioned the consumer activist groups. Let's be very blunt and honest about it—Larry touched on this—that in fact there are very few people who can put a position forward for whatever reason, whether it be legitimate or illegitimate. How do you backstop that? How does your industry try to put out the proper information, if you will, or perhaps try to defuse the misinformation? That, quite frankly, scares the hell out of me. Very few people can take a very good biotech product and destroy it simply because that's their job, which is to destroy. How are you going to backstop that?

Ms. Laurie Curry: From our standpoint, it becomes a question of accountability, and as the industry we have a lot of accountability and responsibility. Again, we're the branded products and they know who to call if they're not satisfied. So with respect to communications, we do very proactive communications. We respond very actively in terms of response letters to letters to the editor. We've done this research; now this research is going to be used by our food industry people. We have shared that broadly.

We had a session back in September with 150 different stakeholders and provided this research to them. So we weren't selfish, we didn't keep it to ourselves. We said, here is a communications tool, let's use it. We prefer to go from the standpoint of knowing that the consumer activists represent in fact a very small percentage of the Canadian population, according to this research. We prefer to go out there and to help shape a very positive communications, honest and trustworthy communications, about that.

So these are some of our efforts that are going on.

The Chairman: We're running out of time. Mr. Bryden and Mrs. Ur.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Actually, I'm following up directly on my colleague's questions, except that I find your response inadequate in the context of the reality of these advocacy groups, because biotechnology is a big soft target for international advocacy groups that make money by spurious information distributed on products like yours, which they use to raise public anger, which they use in turn for fund-raising. Moreover, they're easily manipulated by international competitors who use these very industries to attack the new products that you're trying to bring out. So in that context, surely soft, cosy information distribution is not the way to fight groups that will hang you out to dry.

Ms. Laurie Curry: That's the key reason we did the research. My name is actually published on some of these web sites and I get direct e-mails from consumer activists from around the world addressed to Laurie Curry to respond to. I'm not sure if anyone else does, but I do, and I get lots of them in a day. We wondered, how do you go out there in a very proactive type of way, and in order to do that we felt we had to have the tools to do it. We needed to know where Canadians were at. That's why we undertook this research. This research was a $300,000 initiative to find out where our consumers, Canadian consumers, are truly at today.

So this provides a starting point. And you're quite right, most of our stuff in the past has been reactive and we plan very much to be more proactive. This research will help us to do that, but we're only one piece of the puzzle and we feel that others—and that's why we shared the research so widely—have a very defined role that they should be communicating about with respect to technology, whether it's government with respect to what is the stringent regulatory system that we have in Canada and being proactive about it....

• 1045

The Chairman: Does the Canola Council want to take a crack at that?

Mr. Tony Zatylny: At the Canola Council we have a package of information ready to address any questions on biotechnology. We get very few calls in a day.

Look at places around the world. Take the European example. Do European consumers have a right to trust their governments to protect them? They look at mad cow disease and other things. So over there, governments have lost the trust and confidence of their constituents.

Here in Canada consumers are satisfied, as individuals, that we are protected by the system. In other places in the world they don't believe that. I don't know how you tell people in Europe to trust politicians, because they have no track record as being credible.

Mr. John Bryden: So there is a role for government. Can I suggest that maybe the role for government that we should be looking at is government getting tough with the distribution of false information about products by beefing up things like the Competition Act? Is that a route to go? I noted that Mr. Kerpan said nobody trusts the government and that the government doesn't have a role. But surely if you're going to survive—I really don't think it's going to be very easy given the European example—don't you need government to get proactive as well in terms of bringing down hard legislation?

Mr. Tony Zatylny: Perhaps I could answer that question. If you check the Internet and look for canola, you'll find that canola is the cause of blindness, chronic diarrhea, mad cow disease and a number of others.

None of these things is based in science, and all we have is our science to defend ourselves. When you use science to defend against emotion, it rarely works. If there's a way to filter the message in terms of what references you're using for making these allegations and if the government can do that, great.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: I'm happy to leave with you these numbers, for what they're worth, as far as reliance and who consumers trust. Yes, it's true that reliance on the federal government has fallen since 1993 from 16% to 14%. Trust in retailers, in fact, has increased.

I think those who are vocal about their opposition at the retail level.... I get the letters and phone calls. Retailers operate in very tight margins, so if you have an unhappy customer in your store, they're probably going to someone else's store. So the total picture is very important in responding to those. That's why our reliance is with FCPMC and others who have credibility in particular aspects.

In retail, we have a very good relationship with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to respond to their role in it. Regrettably, I would say that the flow of information is perhaps not as well placed and as high with Health Canada. I think that each role is important to communicate. That's how we get the total story out. I think that to take the control measures of saying what's wrong with someone's opinion, whether or not in fact it's science-based, is getting into that issue that there's an emotional issue and a scientific issue.

I think that rather than having the Bureau of Competition Policy saying what's wrong with someone's expression of opinion, there's a big piece being missed here, such that there's a very good story that the Canadian regulatory system could tell that they have thus far not communicated very well. That's the balance out there. We see the diversity across the country. On the west coast, certainly those opposed to the product are much more vocal. They're in the store asking tougher questions. With the Consumers' Association of Canada kit and other things, so far we have been able to answer those questions.

The Chairman: I'd like to go to Mrs. Ur, please.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: As we know, we've done great in export markets. There's supposed to be a super increase in the next few years.

Maybe Tom or anyone else can answer this. Do you really feel that biotech is there for the producer equally as for the consumer? Who's really benefiting at the end level of this?

I can see that there's a real concern as to the cost of seed with the biotech world out there. Are we going to be downsizing our small farms and only having big farms? In the long and short of it, is biotech important to the producer or the consumer? Who is actually going to benefit in the end by this?

Mr. Tom Lasseline: I think in the end both the producer and the consumer will benefit. In soybeans, Roundup Ready is just step one.

• 1050

We're very fortunate in the soybean industry that we have developed our export market on an identity preserved.... So actually, I think for example that Ontario or Canadian soybean growers will be able to weather this. I think the consumer, at the present time, maybe wants the choice, so I hope we can provide him with that choice. As we come up with new biotechnology traits that will be of benefit to the consumer, it'll be better accepted, I guess.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Will it actually increase profits for the farmers, or is this an additional expense with the cost of the seed?

Mr. Tom Lasseline: Oh, I doubt it. I think it'll have to increase profits or else we will not use them.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Exactly.

The Chairman: Mr. Fischer, do you want to comment?

Mr. Jim Fischer: I think, Rose-Marie, history has suggested that with every technology, the early adopters benefit the most initially, maybe more than the rest, but then over time those who want to be involved benefit as well, but perhaps not as much. I'm talking of the farming population.

As for what proportion relative to who gains the greater benefit, the farmer or the consumer—I'm a consumer, in that context—I don't know, other than saying that I do believe very strongly that both will benefit to a degree that's appropriate.

I don't see a concern with that. Small farms are getting bigger, but again, if there is a benefit that I definitely see there environmentally, economically, or whatever, I will use it. We know that if that benefit results in a lower-priced food product, you will benefit as well.

The Chairman: Are you going to have another crack at that?

Mr. Tom Lasseline: Yes. I think we have to look at biotech in the medical field. It has been very widely accepted. Insulin is biotech.

I think it's going to take some time in the food industry, but I think—

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's excellent you brought that up, Tom, because a simple statement such as that would probably not be equated by the general public to biotech. I think that's the kind of information we should be selling: something that's been there for ages that has never really been addressed as a biotech product.

That's a saleable item. So you can get your foot in the door with some of these consumers who have such a negative viewpoint on biotech.

They get the rare cases that happen from biotech that have gone wrong somewhere. That's what you see in the paper. It's not the positive aspect that comes forth. You're always responding to a case, not being proactive. As Ms. Curry says, there are response letters, but that's not a positive tool. You need to be proactive, not only using the response letters.

You mentioned that you have the $300,000 book in front of you. How far has that trickled down to the consumer aspect? I think the best thing here—I say this time and time again—is get to our young people because they're more receptive to this kind of information.

I don't know whether you set up booths at fairs and things like that, where you can show what has happened. For instance, you don't turn green when you have corn that's been altered, or you don't light up at night. You could get the real information out to the people who are attending some of these functions on a large basis.

The Chairman: Can we go briefly? We have three questioners left and six minutes.

Ms. Laurie Curry: I agree with your comments. We have to be more proactive, and this is the starting point. This information only went out a month ago. We did it with broad partnerships so that more and more information could get out there in a more proactive way.

The Chairman: Mr. Kerpan, then Ms. Alarie.

Mr. Allan Kerpan: I want to pick up a little bit on where Rose-Marie left off. I think we can spin this thing around to a positive light. In fact, this committee sits in order to look after the best welfare and interests of the industry of agriculture.

I'm actually not a regular member of this committee, I'm on the justice committee, but I sit here today and I think about the parallels I see between that area and what we're talking about today, especially in the area of DNA identification and things like that.

Let's look at the positive side of this, as a producer. I was talking to somebody on the plane just last night about this.

Let's talk about canola, because that's what we were talking about. We're now able to seed canola in the southernmost parts of Saskatchewan and even in the northern United States, which was unheard of five or ten years ago. It was virtually unheard of. That's all due to technology, new varieties, and all the things we talk about today.

• 1055

I'm involved in a registered cattle herd, and we use DNA identification for that. Those are the positive aspects of this subject we're dealing with. It has huge long-term benefits.

I just want to ask a really rough, broad question to Mr. Zatylny.

How far do you see us going in plant breeding in the near future, especially with respect to canola or anything else you'd like to comment on?

Mr. Tony Zatylny: I believe last year there were 800 field trials of biotechnology plants in Canada. We are the leaders. We have the scientists. It goes as far as we can educate our consumers, starting with children, to look at agriculture as a field to work in. We need skilled scientists, we need extension people, we need regulatory people. It's a whole issue of selling agriculture, which will allow the technology to develop to the point where, when you eat your food, you become healthier, you prolong your life, and you're less reliant on the health system, because the food you eat is in fact providing you with everything you need to remain healthy.

We're going all the way.

The Chairman: It sounds pretty positive.

[Translation]

Mrs. Alarie.

Mrs. Hélène Alarie: Governments control everything that is related to export and import. Besides that, is the industry dormant? Does the industry sometimes warn the government that such and such a product is on the market? How does this happen in reality? There are so many products from other countries that are available.

[English]

Ms. Laurie Curry: Did you say hogs? I can't necessarily respond directly with respect to hogs.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: When importing products from countries, how are we sure they're following the same criteria as Canadian products?

Ms. Laurie Curry: There's a definition of novel foods that touches on whether a product is substantially different from its traditional counterpart, and it's defined in terms of what they mean by “substantially different”. Canada then must put forward those products for the pre-market notification.

It's my understanding that some other countries, for example the United States, have their systems as well. With respect to imported product, it becomes sometimes less clear for us with those types of systems. I know the government right now is looking at regulated GMPs, and one of the aspects of regulated GMPs is they would also then require imported products to provide that information before entering the country.

I can't comment on how that works right now. I'm sorry.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): I just want to add a word or two to the discussion around trust. That's an important question. We all have a place in the broad system, from regulator to grower, from investor to politician, and everybody in between, including retailers.

In the last number of years governments at all levels have tried and succeeded many times, failed sometimes, to give what I would call greater space to the marketplace, or to those who work in the marketplace, be it less regulation, greater harmonization, or whatever. In the political world, or in government, we've realized that we should be able to do things to make the marketplace work more effectively.

What I find interesting is that while we have been doing that fairly well, with some stumbles, yes, public institutions, including public representatives, have come under growing attack. It's now fashionable, and has been for the last number of years, to attack Parliament, politicians, and bureaucrats. Now, if you want to besmirch or sully someone, just use the word “bureaucrat”. It's something you wouldn't want to touch.

It's shameful—-it's absolutely shameful—the kinds of attacks that are being carried out on public institutions. Bureaucrats, civil servants, are not perfect, but I would think most of them are very honest, responsible people and they're trying to do a great job. So in this whole area of trust, we have to be careful that we recognize that we all have a job to do.

• 1100

When it comes to rBST or whatever, life is not easy in all respects. There are risks. Yet I know politicians are very afraid, because of the attacks on public institutions and because of an industry that is now based on victimology or victimization. If you make one mistake, even with the greatest of intentions and greatest of motivations, you are inviting just an enormous.... The world will just come down on your head. So it's little wonder that bureaucrats and politicians are somewhat timid. I don't like to see that, but we're living in this era of a lack of trust.

I don't know what you people can do. I recognize that there's a place for canola growers and I think you guys have done wonderfully. There's a place for consumers and retailers, you name it. But we can go overboard in the attack on public institutions that has taken place for the last number of years.

I don't know whether anyone wants to respond, but that's my feeling.

The Chairman: Ms. Curry.

Ms. Laurie Curry: Hear, hear. I agree with everything you're saying.

There actually is a wonderful opportunity in biotechnology right now, and that's the renewed Canadian biotechnology strategy. Part of me wonders.... A lot of money has been going out with cross-country tours, and I participated in the Vancouver session. With the money and the focus of that, it seemed to me we were going back to whether biotechnology should be allowed. I thought, gee, it's already here.

Nevertheless, there's a wonderful opportunity in front of us today to shape that renewed strategy and focus on communication. What government has is a wonderful neutral opportunity to bring everybody together. We should be sitting down and saying, okay, we have some work to do on communications. What are the seed growers going to be doing and who is the biotech industry communicating to? Who's their key target audience?

I would have preferred to see a national communications biotechnology strategy or communications strategy. That's where the efforts should be placed.

The Chairman: Mr. Fischer and then Mr. Zatylny.

Mr. Jim Fischer: John, one of the best ways to gain trust—and it would take a really long time—is that when a decision has to be made, it's based on the science and not on rhetoric and not on politics per se. This is a long-term thing down the road. It's only one parameter I'm emphasizing to you, but you asked.

We saw what happened in Europe with the mad cow disease. That was political. The politicians didn't listen to the scientists and they got in trouble. If anything was learned, we learned by it. We learned in this country by it, but we knew that ahead of time.

That is the best way to try to instil trust in your position.

The Chairman: Mr. Zatylny.

Mr. Tony Zatylny: I agree with Ms. Curry that it has to be all stakeholders. Maybe in Canada we need some national attention on our food production. Maybe that should be a core competency for this country, and I think it can be.

Government doesn't always have to lead. They sometimes can support. We have to decide, as an industry, who is best to lead, who is best to support, who is best to provide money, who is best to do the work, and who is best to do the communication.

A voice: That's right.

Mr. Tony Zatylny: Quite often we get polarized because of the constituencies we represent. It's very hard to have a good national strategy session without putting individual company hats or sector hats on. Government has a role to facilitate those kinds of discussions.

The Chairman: Good.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm just a backbench MP. I float from committee to committee, and you learn things when you go from committee to committee.

I want to leave you with one thought on the question of advocacy groups spreading spurious information and affecting your ability to sell your products. In the industry committee, I'm trying to move an amendment to the Competition Act that would make it so that when advocacy groups or non-profit groups that are bent on fund-raising use misleading advertising to do it, they will be subject to the sanctions of the Competition Act.

• 1105

I go back to Mr. Harvard's comment. The politicians, no matter what anyone says, are trying to work for you. We work in sometimes mysterious ways perhaps, but we are there for you.

The Chairman: I thought it was government that discovered canola.

Anyway, thank you all very much for your input this morning. It's been very interesting and will be a big help to us. Thank you again.

The meeting is adjourned.