AGRI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 5, 2003

Á

1115

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.))

Mr. Stewart Wells (President, National Farmers Union)

Á

1120

Mr. Terry Boehm (Vice-President, National Farmers Union)

Á

1125

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur)

Mr. Terry Boehm

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur)

Mr. Terry Boehm

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur)

Mr. Neal Hardy (President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities)

Á

1130

Á

1135

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur)

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit (Director, District I, Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan Inc.)

Á

1140

Á

1145

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur)

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur)

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur)

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Stewart Wells

Á

1150

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Terry Boehm

Á

1155

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Terry Boehm

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Terry Boehm

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Stewart Wells

Ms. Arita McPherson (Director of Agriculture Policy, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities)

Â

1200

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur)

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Â

1205

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Ms. Arita McPherson

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Â

1210

Mr. Terry Boehm

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Stewart Wells

The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.))

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

Mr. Terry Boehm

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Terry Boehm

Â

1215

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Terry Boehm

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Neal Hardy

Â

1220

Mr. Stewart Wells

The Chair

Mr. Terry Boehm

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. Dick Proctor

Â

1225

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Stewart Wells

Â

1230

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Terry Boehm

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Terry Boehm

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Â

1235

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Terry Boehm

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Stewart Wells

Â

1240

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Terry Boehm

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Neal Hardy

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Terry Boehm

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Â

1245

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Terry Boehm

Mr. Stewart Wells

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Terry Boehm

Â

1250

The Chair

Ms. Arita McPherson

The Chair

Mr. Stewart Wells

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Stewart Wells

The Chair

Mr. Stewart Wells

The Chair

Â

1255

Mr. Terry Boehm

The Chair

Mr. Stewart Wells

The Chair

Mr. Neal Hardy

·

1300

The Chair

Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

---

NUMBER 035

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 5, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we meet today for a briefing session on the approval of genetically modified wheat and its effect on Canadian agriculture.

    We have before us as witnesses the National Farmers Union, Stewart Wells, president, and Terry Boehm, vice-president; the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Neal Hardy, president, and Arita McPherson, director of agriculture policy; and the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan Inc., Ivan Ottenbreit.

    Who will be our first presenters? Since Stewart was introduced first, maybe he would like to start. There will be ten-minute submissions, with questions and comments afterwards.

    Mr. Stewart Wells (President, National Farmers Union): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    As you said, with me is Terry Boehm, vice-president of the National Farmers Union, from close to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. We'll split our presentation. I'll do the first part of it, and then Terry will finish up.

    The NFU is the only voluntary, direct membership, national farm organization in Canada. It's also the only farm organization incorporated through an act of Parliament, in 1970. The NFU welcomes this opportunity to present the views of farmers concerning genetically modified wheat to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

    For our purposes of policy and in this brief, the NFU uses the terms “genetic modification,” “genetic engineering”, and “biotechnology” as fully synonymous terms referring exclusively to the direct transfer or modification of genetic material using rDNA techniques. This is consistent with the definition that was used by the Royal Society of Canada document produced in January 2001.

    The NFU was the first farm organization to develop a comprehensive policy on products of genetic modification--and that's available from us or on our website. Our membership determined that not all products of genetic modification are necessarily negative or positive, but that each product must be evaluated on an individual basis. Therefore, for the purposes of this presentation, we'll focus on Roundup Ready wheat, as it's the first wheat variety to be submitted to the federal government for approval.

    I'm going to skip a few of the points here, because I know they've been covered in previous sessions the committee has had. I'll really start with point 3 in the presentation, on page 4.

    One of our concerns is the organic industry and what may or may not happen with that industry. GM canola has made it nearly impossible for organic farmers to grow that crop. Seed-supply contamination, pollen drift, and lack of practical segregation mean that organic farmers cannot be sure their canola will be free of genetically modified product.

    At this time, GM patent holders have not taken responsibility for the care and control of GM seeds outside the laboratory. This issue is currently before the courts in two separate cases in Canada: the Percy Schmeiser case, and a case facilitated by the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate.

    The introduction of more GM crops will leave organic farmers fewer and fewer crops to grow. The issue as it pertains to organics applies to all genetically modified wheat, not just to Roundup Ready wheat.

    In point 4, there are increased economic costs that have been pointed out. Some farmers now grow genetically modified Roundup Ready canola, and many other fields have been unintentionally contaminated by Roundup Ready canola.

    Spray that canola with glyphosate, and most of the weeds die, leaving the canola unscathed. But introduce Roundup Ready wheat into the crop rotations on that farm, and the equation changes. Now there are two crops that cannot be killed by glyphosate; farmers will need to apply more and different chemicals to the land in order to kill unwanted volunteers. Based on current chemical choices and prices, researchers in Manitoba have estimated these increased costs at up to $400 million per year just in western Canada alone.

    These numbers are available. The work on this was done by Rene Van Acker, from the University of Manitoba. I have a copy of that here, but it's readily available from him.

    Point 5 is something we just ran across this spring, actually. There are links between formulations of glyphosate and increased disease. For instance, fusarium is a very serious and costly disease of wheat, and studies have shown that formulations of glyphosate increased the growth of fusarium.

    The growing of Roundup Ready wheat would dramatically increase the amount of glyphosate applied during the growing season, and this may dramatically increase the growth and incidence of fusarium. Very low levels of fusarium--and here I have a typo in the document you have, which should read less than 10%, not less than 1%--are enough to render wheat useless as food or feed, and therefore completely valueless.

    Just on that percentage, elevator companies will accept feed grain up to 5% fusarium and still buy it as feed. You get knocked out of the top grades of wheat and durum if you have a 0.25% or 0.5% respectively, if you're trying to hit the top grades of wheat.

    More work needs to be done in this area, but it's our contention that Roundup Ready wheat should not be approved until we understand the links between formulations of glyphosate and fusarium. Different strains of fusarium attack different crops, but fusarium is also an important disease in potatoes, so it could be that this research should be expanded to cover a variety of different crops, such as potatoes.

    There has been some work done on this at the research station in Swift Current. That's where the documentation and studies have come from. They have had some difficulty in getting more funding to do more work, but just in April of this year they received some more money through the matching investments program to actually continue this research, so it is ongoing.

    On point number six, segregation of genetically modified wheat is not possible. The recent NFU convention heard from Rene van Acker, the Manitoba plant scientist, that seed-stock contamination is inevitable. Wheat pollen drift, outcrossing, gene bridging, mechanical mixing, and contamination due to weather will create exactly the same problems we have with contamination of registered canola seed.

    Segregation is not possible on the farm, so we would be left with various levels of contamination throughout the system.

    With that, I would turn it over to Terry Boehm.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Terry Boehm (Vice-President, National Farmers Union): Hello, and thank you.

    I would like to start off by apologizing. I will stray from the text, and I know it may be difficult for the French speakers in the group. Je suis désolé.

    I will start with point number 7. Environmental damage and damage to third-party crops is certain to occur. Recent news events originating with Agriculture Canada have focused on a new gene technology that involves producing sterile seed. With this product, the genetically modified seed is viable, but any seed produced by outcrossing with non-GM seed is sterile.

    This means that non-adopters will have their seed killed by the genetically modified seed. Farmers wishing to re-use their own seed will be prevented from doing so. In the case of organic farmers, their seed will again be contaminated by the GM crop. The older terminator technology sterilized the GM seed: it sterilized itself. The new technology sterilizes someone else's seed, in effect becoming predator technology.

    This again raises the question, are patent holders responsible for damage caused by their products?

    One aspect that seems not to get discussed is horizontal gene transfer—mechanisms that occur when transgenes move to bacteria through DNA residues left by dead plant matter or living plant matter in the soil. This is exemplified by antibiotic-resistant marker genes from GM plant matter being transferred to bacteria. I would emphasize this does not need to be living material, and it is a mechanism outside of pollination escapes, which seems to be the common focus in contamination and crop issues. It falls outside the seed sterility concepts recently announced by Agriculture Canada.

    The seed sterility methodology also raises another question. For thousands of years, our food supply has been based on seed that grows. Are we choosing the right option if we decide from now on to base our food supply on a seed that will not grow—terminator or predator technology? The natural environment has a way of adapting and incorporating change in unpredictable ways. Should we be providing the natural environment with the option of producing sterile seeds?

    Eventually—point number 8—an individual or group will say, “Why not let the market decide?” This sounds like a simple solution, but it is not.

    First, at the consumer end of the market the buyer does not have any information on which to base a decision. The Government of Canada has not endorsed mandatory labelling for products that contain GMOs; therefore the consumer is in the dark when it is time to make a purchase. Second, at the farmer end of the equation, unfortunately, there will always be some farmers who will grow or use a product if it is not specifically banned.

    Dieldrin is a highly effective insecticide when used to control grasshoppers, and if it was not banned some farmers would still be using it. Due to the harmful side effects to the rest of the environment, dieldrin had to be banned. The same is true for freon, the CFC that's used in air conditioning systems. Freon and dieldrin were used by a society that was ignorant of the harmful side effects on the environment. The market is incapable of making these types of responsible decisions.

    Point number 9: approval of GM wheat further consolidates our food supply into the hands of a handful of transnational seed and pesticide corporations. These corporations, through privatization of research and development, intellectual property rights legislation, and widespread genetic contamination, are fundamentally changing our food supply system. The issues involved are outlined in a paper written by Devlin Kuyek titled “Contamination and Corporate Control of Canada's Seed Supply”. He is currently doing a doctorate on plant breeders' rights.

    By reducing public research and creating a legislative framework that rewards patent holders of living organisms, government has spearheaded the change. One consequence of the transformation is that we have at least two court cases in process between farmers and seed companies, with others sure to follow. In these cases, farmers' money is being used to pay for both sides of the cases, and the outcomes will form the basis of public policy.

    If citizens are formulating public policy through the courts, then why are citizens electing and paying politicians? This may actually tie into the Prime Minister's intended changes to the way political fundraising is done in the country. If his changes proceed as planned, we may in time return to public policies that again provide some balance between public good and the private good.

Á  (1125)  

    To return to the varietal—

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur): You're over your time, so if you could, just wrap it up quickly.

    Mr. Terry Boehm: All right. I have a one-paragraph conclusion I would very much like to read, and I'll wrap up there.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur): Very quickly, please.

    Mr. Terry Boehm: Our final recommendation is that the National Farmers Union recommends in the strongest possible terms that the Government of Canada prevent the introduction of GM wheat into Canadian food and fields, unless the concerns of Canadian farmers, industry, and consumers are adequately addressed. Farmers have taken severe hits in transportation and other places, and we're not prepared to lose another market, our wheat market. We pulled away from genetically modified flax, and that saved that market--

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur): Thank you for your presentation.

    Mr. Hardy.

    Mr. Neal Hardy (President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities): Good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to be here to make a presentation on what we think is an area concerning our producers in Saskatchewan and in Canada in general. On behalf of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today about the approval process for genetically modified wheat.

    My name is Neal Hardy. I'm president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. Also here from SARM today is director Jim Hallick; director of agriculture policy Arita McPherson; and executive director Ken Engel.

    SARM is the umbrella association for all of Saskatchewan's 297 rural municipalities. All the agricultural land in Saskatchewan lies within these RM boundaries. SARM is somewhat unique, in that our association is mandated to deal with both agricultural and municipal issues. That's why we're here today.

    Over the last several years, our members have repeatedly expressed their concern about the potential introduction of GM wheat. While the main concern is the impact GM wheat would have on our markets, SARM members are also concerned about the secrecy under which Roundup Ready wheat—I'll refer to it as RRW—trials are conducted.

    The technology developers and the CFIA do not disclose locations of the confined trials that have been taking place over the last coupe of years. We know in Saskatchewan there have been quite a few going on. We heard this year there were 23, but we don't know where.

    Producers are uneasy about the fact that RRW could be grown in their area without their knowledge. I've attached the resolutions we have regarding GM wheat to our written comments as an appendix, so you can read them later on. I understand—we emailed them to you last week, late—that you couldn't get them translated into French in time. We're sorry we don't have anybody in the office who could translate it. I'm sorry, but you will get a copy of it. You have a copy, and I'm sure the members will get one.

    Today I'll be focusing on the market impact issue and the potential ways to address the problem. Our concern with GM wheat is not with the science that goes into developing it. I want to make that clear: we're not concerned about the science. As I already said, it is the market impact it could have for all our wheat grown in Canada. Eight-two percent of Canada's international markets for Canada western spring wheat have indicated to the Canadian Wheat Board that they don't want or cannot buy GM wheat—in other words, zero tolerance.

    When you consider that wheat is the largest export crop grown in Canada and that the majority of wheat is produced in the prairies, particularly in Saskatchewan, where you have 55 million acres of land, the extent of the potential market impact becomes very clear. Our producers cannot afford to lose these markets.

    If Canada goes ahead with allowing production of GM wheat before we have systems in place to deal with it, it will cost us as farmers a great deal. I don't think I have to say much when we have the mad cow disease—one cow—and what it's done to our ability to sell into the United States. We'd have nothing different if this gets mixed into our grain.

    Until our markets will accept it, and the markets that we sell into—the high-priced markets where we sell high-quality wheat—we just cannot have it on the market. We can't have it mixed with our grains.

    In order to prevent the market damage the hasty introduction of GM wheat would have, the Canadian government must start taking steps now to deal with GM wheat. It is not sufficient to wait until RRW is further along the development process. Monsanto has already applied for food, feed, and environmental safety approvals for RRW. If granted them, Monsanto could proceed with unconfined field trials as early as next year.

    At the unconfined release stage, there would be a great risk of contaminating non-GM wheat with Roundup Ready wheat, through pollen movement, through seed movement, or by planting of contaminated seed. With the trucks, the elevators, we have no way of segregating it right now. Canada can no longer guarantee that the wheat we ship is GM-free. You don't have to go very far there, when you look at the GM canola that's out. Try to find one bushel of canola or one tonne of canola that doesn't have GM canola in it, and I'd be surprised, terribly surprised; it might even be 10% or better already.

    Until we have the technology that can rapidly detect the presence of GM wheat and we have the handling systems that can adequately segregate GM and non-GM wheats, then we need to look at ways to prevent potential harm that Roundup Ready wheat could create.

    Of course, the best way to prevent any contamination of wheat supply and the subsequent effects this would have would be to stop confined field testing of RRW until the extent of genetic outcrossing of wheat and related species is known with better certainty. We ask that this committee give this option some serious thought. However, if this approach is not taken, then we need to look at other ways to deal with Roundup Ready wheat. There will be other grains as we go along the way, too, I'm sure.

    The alternative we propose is to make changes to the current regulatory system so that the market impact is one of the factors considered before you can allow a GM wheat to be grown in unconfined field trials.

    We are asking the committee to support the adoption of a cost-benefit analysis in the approval process for GM wheat. This analysis would not take anything away from the science-based approvals. It would be done separately.

Á  (1130)  

We have endorsed the principles that the Wheat Board and others in the industry have agreed should be followed in a regulatory cost-benefit test:

    Number one, evaluations and decisions regarding potential registrations of GM variety should be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Number two, the cost-benefit assessment should be as objective and quantitative as possible.

    Number three, the costs and benefits evaluated should be those with potential impact throughout the entire wheat value chain, with particular emphasis on our farmers' income.

    Number four, the process should involve consultation with all affected parties. Affected parties will be limited to those with a direct economic risk or benefit from the unconfined release or registration of a GM crop.

    Number five, the market impact test need not alter the current safety approval criteria nor the criteria currently assessed for registration-recommending committees.

    Number six, the extended change to existing regulation to corporate and market impact tests should be as minimal as possible—in other words, keep it as simple and direct as we can.

    The reason we are in favour of a regulatory approach versus a voluntary approach is to ensure that farmers' interests are given adequate consideration in the process. A voluntary approach that relied on a technology developer to withhold developments would not give enough weight to farmers' interests. Developers may not have the incentive to withhold products from the market. It's their development. They spend a lot of money. They want to get it out there. In fact, research done at the University of Saskatchewan shows that technology developers may have incentives to release GM wheat because it was a technology developer that benefited the most from its release, as I said a minute ago.

    Again, I must state that we do not want to take away from the scientific approval process for RRW wheat or any other grains. The regulatory market impact test we support is just another tool distinct from the science-based food, feed, and environmental approval. We want to ensure that all Canadian wheat remains a highly regarded product in the international marketplace.

    The proposed market impact test could actually be complementary to the current science-based system. Right now, end-use characteristics play a large part in determining how far a new wheat variety will go in the development process, because it is the end-use characteristics that are valuable to Canadian wheat customers.

    If our wheat didn't meet established performance standards, it wouldn't be acceptable to customers. Genetic modification such as the Roundup Ready trait may not affect the baking and milling performance of the wheat, but in the end the product must meet the acceptance of our customers, and that is who we sell to.

    In concluding remarks, we want investment in biotechnology to continue. It has the potential to create great benefits for producers and consumers. However, we need to put systems in place to deal with the RRW now, because at this time the market just isn't ready for it. SARM supports the set of conditions developed by an industry committee that would have to be met before GM wheat would be introduced. We ask that this committee also put its support behind this concept. The government and its regulatory officials need to start working on changes to the regulatory system now, so that we do not end up with a situation we can't reverse, and certainly we all understand that.

    I cannot stress enough the urgency of taking action now. By this time next year Montana could be conducting unconfined field trials in Roundup Ready wheat, and we just aren't ready for it.

    Because the systems are not in place at this time or foreseeable in the near future, the premature introduction of a GM wheat could have costly negative consequences. Until we have a driveway test to detect GM wheat, proven segregation systems, established international tolerance levels, and guaranteed markets for our GM wheat, it would be irresponsible to introduce RRW, and Canadian wheat producers and the rest of the industry would end up paying for it.

    There is broad support among farm organizations and in the industry for implementing the regulatory changes based on the principles we discussed today. We are asking that you support these changes and take an active role in getting them implemented.

    Thank you.

Á  (1135)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur): Thank you, Mr. Hardy. You are very time-sensitive.

    We will move on. Ms. McPherson was not presenting. Now we'll move on to our last presenter.

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit (Director, District I, Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan Inc.): My name is Ivan Ottenbreit. I am with the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan.

    Good morning, and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today on this controversial issue of genetically modified wheat and its potential impact on Canadian agriculture.

    The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan is a general farm organization. We're in our third year of a mandate to provide farmers with a democratically elected, grassroots, non-partisan producer organization based on rural municipalities. I'd like to also note that APAS does not solicit funding from agri-business and thus represents opinions strictly from a producer's point of view.

    As Saskatchewan's general farm organization, APAS has a vision for agriculture—one where profitability is restored to Saskatchewan's producers, where younger generations can afford to take over the future of agriculture, and where producers in Saskatchewan are treated fairly, both nationally and globally.

    Saskatchewan farm families operate small businesses that are important contributors to the Saskatchewan and Canadian economies. The agrifood industry in Saskatchewan provides nearly 40% of the jobs in the Saskatchewan economy and contributes 9.5% of Saskatchewan's GDP. Saskatchewan exports approximately $4.5 billion worth of agrifood product annually. In general, the agrifood industry benefits all Canadians by providing safe and affordable food, employment, and a clean, sustainable environment.

    Throughout its history the success of Canadian agriculture has been dependent on the availability of viable exports and domestic markets for its products. As a representative of Saskatchewan farmers, APAS has a significant interest in assuring that both domestic policy and international trade policy provide Canadian producers with an equitable and profitable marketplace.

    As a background to all this information, Neal Hardy, from SARM, has covered a lot of the ground that we were to present, so I might be a little more concise as per my proposal here.

    Wheat is a very significant part of Canada's agriculture production. It is an important crop in the rotation many producers use in their production cycles. Wheat production, handling, and marketing are important to agriculture and to the entire economy of Canada by providing many jobs and making a positive contribution to Canada's balance of trade.

    Canadian farmers grow wheat for sale. Because we have a large capacity to produce wheat and a relatively small population to consume it, it is important that Canada is able to export the wheat that is produced beyond our domestic needs. On an average year, this is approximately 84% of our production. Wheat is important to Canada and Canadians.

    On market impact, according to the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian agency responsible for marketing western Canada's wheat, 82% of our customers have indicated they would not or could not buy genetically modified wheat. Further to that, and even more significant, is that some countries have indicated they would not and could not buy wheat from a country that produces GM wheat. This is not a new opportunity, but a loss of existing marketing opportunities.

    Farmers in Canada have been encouraged to be more responsive to the consumer and design their production for the marketplace demand. We need to be very sensitive to this demand. There is a large capacity in the world to produce wheat, and there is currently a large amount of heavily subsidized wheat available in the marketplace with which Canadian farmers have to compete. Access to profitable markets is very difficult. Canada must not disadvantage Canadian wheat in the global market.

    We should look at our experience with canola. Canada has not had access to the European canola market since we began to produce GM canola. Australia, claiming to be GM-free in canola production, had access to this market. Their production and market share grew thanks in part to Canada losing canola market access in Europe.

    On related issues, Canada is a world leader in biotechnology research. We want that to continue. The science involved is important when testing health and safety issues. The environmental tests are extremely important as well, to ensure that we are not introducing something that will potentially damage our environment and/or our ability to produce food. We support continuing with testing that is currently taking place. We are advocating applying one further test--a test that will determine consumer acceptability.

    It is not reasonable to encourage producers within a country to cater to market demand and then register and release for production a crop that has no consumer acceptance. It is important to remember that producers must market what they produce. It's also important to remember what 82% of Canada's present customers have indicated relative to their willingness to purchase GM wheat. We cannot force our customers to buy something they don't want.

Á  (1140)  

    Once GM wheat is released into the Canadian production system it will be very expensive and difficult, if not impossible, to actively declare any shipment GM-free.

    If a significant number of Canada's customers continue buying wheat from Canada, the perception and value of Canadian wheat will be damaged globally. Canada has long been a respected supplier of premium quality wheat in a very fragile marketplace. We must not damage that reputation. If we do, the cost to producers will be significant. The cost to the Canadian economy will be large.

    Canada presently has some identity-preserved systems that operate on small amounts of product for specific markets. Identity-preserved systems are a good tool to use to supply a specific product to meet a customer's needs. We can't make the assumption that we have the ability to do this on a scale the size of the Canadian wheat crop. Even if we could segregate accurately, some countries would not purchase from Canada simply because we grow GM wheat in our country.

    On process issues, the legislative and regulatory framework for Canadian agriculture, biotechnology development, and approval must be balanced. We must also respect the legitimate interests of both the developers and the farmers who use the technology. Decisions to improve new biotech developments must be sensitive to the marketplace requirements and must enhance the marketing of Canadian agriculture products. The risk of creating unreasonable costs associated with the regulatory activities and the risks of creating legal liabilities for producers or marketers should be considered prior to the approval of new biotech developments. Adequate resources must be provided to ensure an effective, scientifically sound approach to biotech regulatory issues.

    We, the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, are very concerned about unresolved issues. And at the present time we oppose the registration of GM wheat. The environmental impact assessment is an important part of the evaluation of GM wheat. This will be the first grass plant with glyphosate resistance ever introduced. It will be very different from the issues of controlling a broadleaf plant with glyphosate resistance, which can be easily controlled by relatively expensive means that already exist.

    Monsanto has said they will not release their GM wheat until there is a cost-effective, volunteer control product in place prior to introduction. What does this mean from a producer's perspective? The voluntary control has not yet been introduced, and “cost-effective” is a relative term, depending on whose perspective you are evaluating it from.

    Canada has a 17-year patent protection in place for the development of a new chemical. This means there are no competitive forces working in the marketplace to provide any price protection to producers for the cost of controlling GM wheat.

    What are the implications of creating this situation? Monsanto says our work in Roundup Ready wheat does not involve any modification that makes Roundup Ready wheat any more prone to outcrossing than a conventional variety of wheat or any other possible biotech trait that may eventually be introduced into the marketplace.

    The key to allowing all types of cropping systems to co-exist is establishing reasonable thresholds and tolerances, and finding manageable solutions that mean choice for growers and buyers of Canadian wheat.

    There are several important issues raised in this statement. It is obvious that the thresholds have not been established or agreed to at this time. There are no internationally agreed-upon tolerance levels at this point. We don't know if there are manageable solutions for issues pertaining to the environment. These will require global agreement, not just Canadian standards.

    We don't know if there are manageable solutions pertaining to the agronomic issues. In western Canada, especially, there are concerns about the impact this may have on the environment and on agronomic practices. Zero till has become a very common method of cropping in western Canada. This practice is considered to be more environmentally friendly because it reduces soil erosion, improves soil quality, utilizes less fuel, and it sequesters carbon, free of charge, to this date.

    Our ability to continue this practice is contingent upon our ability to control volunteer plants in the years following production of any particular crop. The crop that is being considered for registration is resistant to the product. That is the main method of controlling volunteer plants.

    At this point there is not a cost-effective volunteer control method visible in the market for producers to use to control a glyphosate-resistant wheat plant. While this plant may be no more prone to outcrossing than a conventional variety of wheat, it certainly spreads some different characteristics into other plant populations when it does cross. What are the implications of having a glyphosate resistance inserted into the wild plant population?

Á  (1145)  

    In conclusion, there are unique issues involved in the introduction of GM wheat. These issues are more significant than the issues we are familiar with from the registration of other GM products. This is a glyphosate-resistant grass plant. Canada has not developed a system to segregate and identify wheat varieties that are not visibly distinguishable from each other.

    Of our customers, 82% have indicated they don't want to buy GM wheat. Some customer countries have indicated they will not buy wheat from a country that produces GM wheat. The agreements concerning tolerances for GM material and shipments are agreements that must be developed as global agreements. They are not standards that can be put into place unilaterally by Canada.

    We cannot register GM wheat until there are answers to the many questions about the environment and agronomic practices of introducing this into our production system. We cannot register GM wheat for production in Canada until there is market acceptance of this product globally and Canada has systems in place to be able to maintain the integrity and reputation of Canadian wheat.

    In closing--this is not on the presentation, but these are some notes--we need grain market acceptance. The first GM wheat introduced must have our customers' approval. Perception is the key to gaining approval worldwide. Simply put, regarding the first introduction of GM wheat, we have to get it right. It has to be a positive entry. It cannot repeat past disasters, such as StarLink corn.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur): Your time is up, sir. Were you finished?

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: I just have a small little comment here. Is that okay?

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur): Make it quick.

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: Roundup Ready wheat, as far as APAS is concerned, does not mean rejecting all GE wheat. Future GE traits in wheats--such as fusarium resistance by Syngenta, gall resistance by DuPont, improved milling and baking properties by Monsanto, wheat midge resistance--in the future will provide benefits to farmers, consumers, and the environment.

    The net result is that GE Roundup Ready wheat will be a detriment to Canada's prairie soils and environment because we will have a possibility of losing zero till seeding, and the program will halt its existence and its future growth. Therefore we recommend that all future GE wheats be approved or rejected on their merits.

    Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur): Thank you.

    First round of questioning. Mr. Anderson, seven minutes.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): I'm just going to follow up that last statement. How can we accept other GE wheats--you say you're not against all of them--when the issue is that they are GE?

    The issue we're talking about is segregation. I think some organizations are starting to take the position that they don't like Roundup Ready wheat but they'd sure be open to something else. But if you start going to market impact and environmental assessment and those kinds of things, those issues are there because the wheat's GMO, not because it's Roundup Ready or because it's something else.

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: To begin with, the first step we have to take is to gain market acceptance. When we do that, we will have the consensus of our customers.

    Mr. David Anderson: Do you think there will be market acceptance for fusarium-resistant wheat because it's different from Roundup Ready wheat?

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: No. First of all, we have to get a consensus from our customers about GM wheat. The second step is when there is an application for Roundup Ready wheat, that specifically does not fit in western Canada agriculture operations.

    Mr. David Anderson: Okay, but you can't be telling farmers then you're in favour of some other kinds of GE wheat but you don't like Roundup Ready wheat.

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: Yes, you can. We're saying here that you should base it on its merits.

    Mr. David Anderson: Okay. Merits are--

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: All science is not good. Some is bad.

    Mr. David Anderson: Do you support the challenge to Europe on their biotech ban?

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: We do, yes.

    Mr. David Anderson: Okay. The other organizations?

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: We have to.

    Mr. David Anderson: NFU?

    Mr. Stewart Wells: We have some concerns about the way Canada is approaching that and using the philosophy that by engaging international agreements you can force somebody to eat something they may not necessarily want to eat.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. David Anderson: Forcing them to open their markets. No one has to eat the profits.

    Mr. Stewart Wells: It seems like rather than using common sense and powers of persuasion, you're trying to use a blunt instrument such as an international trade agreement to legally force somebody to do something, and that never seems to have a good outcome.

    Mr. David Anderson: Would your organizations support pursuing a ban on these biotech restrictions—in getting a situation where biotech restrictions are not a reason for banning products if there are no health objections to them and food safety issues aren't a concern? Would you be in favour of pursuing that on an international level?

    Mr. Neal Hardy: As long as they would meet market standards so we could move the product through. Our markets are key to everything.

    Mr. David Anderson: Your market standards are what?

    Mr. Neal Hardy: They're whatever laws would meet market standards or sales standards abroad. No matter what we focus on, if it doesn't meet the market needs out there, we shouldn't be focused on it. Until you see a case-by-case analysis, it's pretty tough to tell.

    Mr. David Anderson: Can I ask you how you decide if the market will accept something if you won't allow it to go on the market to see if the market accepts it?

    Mr. Neal Hardy: There are test runs, I guess.

    The market is bigger than that; we all know that. The market is people. The mad cow disease is a hell of a good example that's going on right now—I shouldn't say that word; I'm sorry. It is a good example of what is going on out there. If the people won't accept it.... That's why they're going through all these tests; it's because you have to have market acceptability.

    Every one is on a case-by-case basis. It has to have market acceptability, whatever that be. Right now, for whatever reason in the peoples' minds—in Europe particularly, and in many other countries—people don't want anything to do with GM. If it has genetically modified elements in it, they don't want it.

    Mr. David Anderson: But that's okay. They don't have to deal with it. It comes on the market; the market doesn't accept it—they say “No, thank you, we don't want it”—then you don't have it on the market. We've seen that with flax. We've seen it with StarLink.

    Mr. Neal Hardy: But the problem is, how do you keep it from mixing? You and I are both farmers. We know how it mixes.

    Mr. David Anderson: Okay, that's a different issue.

    I'll give my colleague an opportunity. He has to leave here and he wanted to ask a couple of questions, but we'll come back to some of this.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Can I share some of the time and maybe use some of the Bloc's time here, seeing as they're not here?

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur): After the three minutes, we'll discuss that.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay, thank you very much. I will use my time here as quickly as possible.

    I want to thank you, first of all. I don't think we've formally thanked you all for coming. I appreciate your presentations, and I think they're well received.

    I'm going to ask you some questions that I get from my neighbours all the time, and I'm hoping you're going to lay the answers before this committee. Many of them express the same concerns you express.

    First of all, how many farmers really feel the same way as you about what you've presented before the committee? Can you give this committee some idea of what percentage of farmers you think you represent? I talk to farmers, and it's hard for me to gauge. Most of them say the same things you have. There are a few other ones who do not. What's the percentage?

    Mr. Neal Hardy: That's impossible. I meet with lots of farmers. Most would take this position, not all—for sure not all. Always some would have a different view; they figure that eventually the markets will accept it. My concern is, the eventuality is when?

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: And did you have something?

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: Yes, I'd like to respond to that.

    With APAS we have 12 directors across Saskatchewan. We have over 120 representatives. We're having a convention next week. I can tell you that at our annual meeting in December there wasn't one dissenting voice that said GM wheat was good. We all understand the impact both on markets and our zero-till practices. Everybody is very concerned.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay, I think that's important to note.

    Yes?

    Mr. Terry Boehm: I'd like to respond by using an example I cited earlier about GM flax. At the time that variety was registered, Triffid flax, the Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission spearheaded an initiative to have that variety deregistered in order to save the flax industry of Canada. Fully 70% of our export market in flax goes to Europe. The Triffid flax variety was in seed growers' hands ready to be marketed, and we pulled back, fought hard to have it deregistered from the CFIA, and destroyed those seed stocks in order to save that industry—which is an important industry, but it pales in comparison with the wheat industry in Canada.

    Fully the vast majority of flax producers were completely in favour of that initiative and are thankful for that initiative to this day. I can say that wheat producers would react exactly the same way, because by and large they are one and the same.

Á  (1155)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur): Excuse me, Garry, for one moment.

    I ask the committee for consensus to see if Mr. Breitkreuz can use the Bloc's time. Do I have consensus?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I want to put some questions before you that farmers are asking me all the time, and I need those answers.

    If there is contamination of our wheat products with the products we're talking about today, could the developers of these products be held liable for the income losses of individual farmers, in your opinion? Do you think there would be some compensation for farmers if something went wrong in this whole process? That's one of the issues you raised, the contamination of wheat supplies. Do you think these developers—Monsanto, etc.—could be held liable?

    Mr. Terry Boehm: Currently, under the property rights legislation, no. The Saskatchewan Organic Directorate is launching a test case for liability for contamination and loss of the ability to grow canola. But so far the Schmeiser case has shown us, although it is now going to the Supreme Court, that indeed the liabilities seem to be to the farmer for having something that's promiscuous and shows up uninvited in his crops. The supplier—the company that has that variety and hasn't controlled that release—doesn't appear to be liable at all.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: In other words, if we don't handle it right, the farmer could be holding the short end of the stick.

    Mr. Terry Boehm: Absolutely.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Does anyone else want to add anything to that?

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: I want to add that in January of 2002 the Saskatchewan Seed Growers Association, as part of crop production week in Saskatoon early in January, sponsored a meeting to explore these types of issues. Agriculture Canada and Monsanto were supposed to be two of the represevtatives; they had agreed to be part of a panel. Very shortly before the event actually took place, both parties withdrew from the panel and refused to participate in this discussion. These questions that you're asking were asked on the floor that day, and the answers seemed to be that it's always between you—the farmer and his lawyer—and the judge. So it's very unclear.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: A lot of farmers don't have deep pockets for these lawyers.

    Yes?

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: I would add to this that other than farmers starting a class-action suit again.... This is in front of the courts to decide all the time, and I don't think that's the way to go.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Here is my next question. There's opposition in the U.S. as well to this. Could the opposition there affect licensing in Canada? Also, in regard to this, could we be open to lawsuits from the U.S. and a closing of the border if we don't handle this right?

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: Absolutely.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: There are two questions there, actually.

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: Closing the border? Personally, what I feel is the U.S. should register GM wheat first. Thirty percent of their market is a hard red spring wheat. They should register it first and do the trial on it; we can sit back and watch. Only 30% of their exports are hard red spring wheat. Turn that around: 82% of our exports are hard red spring wheat, so that would be a dramatic input for us.

    If there's anywhere it should be registered first, it should be in the U.S. Hopefully we can take the Australian approach: stand by and watch and maybe gain some sales.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Are there any differing opinions, or does anyone have anything to add?

    Mr. Stewart Wells: Yesterday I asked a very similar question to Canada's chief trade negotiator, Steve Verheul, specifically about chapter 11 and NAFTA. His response again is that if the United States has enough money and enough lawyers, they can challenge pretty well anything.

    Ms. Arita McPherson (Director of Agriculture Policy, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities): Just following up on a point Ivan made about licensing GM wheat in the States first, I think we would have to be very careful with that, because there isn't a wall across the border. We see unlicensed varieties in Canada coming up from the States all the time.

    There have been some instances in eastern Saskatchewan that I'm sure you're well aware of where we've had some of those unlicensed varieties come into our system. It causes economic damage there. I think we'd have to be very careful with it.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, and that's important.

    Mr. Neal Hardy: I was going to say that. I was also going to add that the closing of the border, if this started here and they closed the border, would really put a tremendous strain on all our producers out there.

    The other part is, I believe the way legislation and regulations are written, you'd probably have to go to court, and who has the big pocket? I'm a farmer with a few dollars. I don't have the dollars to do that—even in a class-action suit.

    I don't think it should be that way. I think that's where the responsibility of the Government of Canada should come in, to make sure that as producers out there we have the kinds of protection we need.

    Monsanto can operate too, but so can we. I'm not saying they shouldn't be out there. I'm saying we both have to have the opportunity and have to be protected at that level.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Another thing they ask is why is this discussion so much different from the one involving canola? You're all aware of what's happened with canola. Those who are very supportive of bringing in the genetically modified wheat say “Why are you making a big deal out of this, when it wasn't a big deal with canola?” Can you explain how it's different?

    Mr. Neal Hardy: For Saskatchewan farmers it's different. We grow up to 22 million acres of wheat each year. In canola we grow two million or three million acres. Just in numbers, that changes a lot.

    The other part is that our major sales have always been wheat to European countries and the other countries; canola has never been among our major sales. This has affected our canola sale totally; it's wiped it out. Those are some of the reasons.

    I don't know if they realized how badly it could spread, either. When they first brought it in, I'm not sure everybody was happy. We all had poor-quality land that was sort of dirty. Everybody used the system to clean up their land.

    Our concern is—I think it was raised by Terry and by Ivan both—once we get it there, what do we do with it? Is it going to become a weed or a rogue in itself? Those are all unanswered questions I don't have an answer to.

    Mr. Stewart Wells: I think some of the other consumer-oriented organizations look at wheat as being used in more products than canola oil. The entire wheat kernel itself is used, which puts it into a different category.

    I also think it's different, because the committee heard from Gordon Harrison, the president of Canadian National Millers Association, whose organization is getting a a tremendous number of calls from its customers in Canada and the U.S. who just don't want it introduced into the system. So there's way more pressure from that end than there was in the canola discussion.

    According to Rene Van Acker, the direct conflict between Roundup Ready canola and Roundup Ready wheat could cost these farmers up to $400 million extra per year. Where are western Canadian farmers going to get an extra $400 million?

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: When Roundup Ready canola was introduced, I would venture to say that farmers were basically ignorant of the technology. You can't reverse it—the genie is out of the bottle. Our experience with canola has left a sour taste in all of our mouths, which is going to happen again with wheat. Now we are looking ahead and saying we don't want a repeat of what happened with canola.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur): Thank you; your time is up.

    Mr. Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you for being here.

    I have to admit we've heard this argument before, so I don't think much has changed since the last time we heard you before this committee. That's commendable; you're very consistent in the position you've taken.

    Stewart, in your preamble you say quite specifically, “Our membership determined that not all products of genetic modification are necessarily negative or positive, but that each product must be evaluated on an individual basis.” That's good, and I know that each and every one of the organizations represented here have said they're not opposed to biotech, not opposed to GM, not opposed to moving forward. But then in your next statements you've put in so many caveats that I don't think any biotech or GM product is ever going to be approved.

    For example, Stewart, you're saying “We're not opposed, but believe there are positive and negative...”, but then you say “We've got horizontal transfer, we've got terminators, we've got sterile seeds, and we've got market acceptance”. When you put all of those caveats together or throw them into a bunch, can you ever see in your mind any genetically modified or engineered organism being accepted by your organization?

  (1205)  

    Mr. Stewart Wells: I think I'd respond by saying we think it would be irresponsible to start putting products out there unless you had covered off all of those questions, and tried to figure out what the results were going to be.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I understand what you're saying. My question to you is do you ever see anything actually covering off all of those questions?

    Mr. Stewart Wells: But if you don't, and you don't try, what's the likelihood that you're always going to end up with a good outcome at the end of the day?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So I take it from your answer that if you go through all of the caveats and criteria, nothing will ever be approved from the GM side, in your mind.

    Mr. Stewart Wells: That's not an accurate statement or a fair characterization at all.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Ivan?

    First of all, I think you said “market acceptability” and “customer acceptance”.

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: “Acceptance”, yes.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, so “market acceptability” and “customer acceptance”. I don't disagree with that; obviously you have to sell to the customers.

    But let me give you an example that was touched on earlier. We just talked about fusarium-resistant wheat with a 10% tolerance and the value of that wheat becoming zero. At some point in time—which may happen sooner than later—a fusarium-resistant strain of wheat may be developed with a genetic technique. We can grow it in our areas of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and we can add product value to the producer; but all of the sudden, the customer is not prepared to accept it, for whatever reason—activism being the main one.

    You're saying that shouldn't happen--that because the customer is not going to accept it, we shouldn't be looking at fusarium-resistant wheat.

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: My comment to that would be that the customer is initially always right. If the colour of the car is no good, the customer is still “right”, even though he's wrong. We can't force our hand on that one.

    But once you have customer acceptance, or they say that they don't have a problem with it....There is a big amount of education that has to take place here. There is no simplistic answer; it's complicated, because so is the field of biotech. It's concise and it can do specific things, but there is no general consensus. You cannot reach a general consensus on GM that easily.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I appreciate that. This isn't a debate or an argument. I understand where you're coming from; I understand the customer is always right, and I understand there's a need to bring the customer along before these products are developed.

    But you said to me, “If that never happens, then fusarium-resistant wheat shouldn't even be put into the marketplace”. It shouldn't be put there, even though it's good for us as producers and good for us as consumers—although we might not know about. So if it's not accepted, then it's just not a go.

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: That's right.

    What can you do?

    Ms. Arita McPherson: In our presentation we talked about the cost-benefit analysis, which is where that comes into play, because market acceptance is part of the cost-benefit analysis. But if that analysis determines that growing fusarium-resistant wheat would be more beneficial to the industry than the markets we'd lose, then it may be considered.

    Mr. Stewart Wells: I just have a very short response.

    You brought up the issue of fusarium-resistant wheat again. I want to refer back to the possible connection between the use of glyphosate and a worsening fusarium problem. Wouldn't it be responsible for us to have figured that out before we licensed a product that was going to mandate the use of a lot more glyphosate?

    I think what I really hear you saying is that if we cover off all of these bases, it would just take too long to get products to market.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't think you'd ever get them to market. I think there's always activism out there that would certainly....

    In the criteria you've laid down, what you see is what you get. There will be no improvements, no biotech, no new crops coming along in the near future if it were up to your criteria. I don't think that would ever change.

    Terry, you talked about the real problems with the organic industry or the destruction of a viable organic industry.

    By the way, do all of you feel that GM or GE is synonymous with Roundup Ready wheat? Are you making the two synonymous, GE and GM with Roundup Ready wheat? Correct?

    A voice: Yes.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: One of you is nodding this way, but another is nodding the other way.

    So when you say GM, are you referring to Roundup Ready? Right now, in today's day and age, is GM the same as Roundup Ready wheat to you? Is that what you are saying?

    Mr. Stewart Wells: As we said in our presentation, it's the first one up for approval, which why it is getting all the attention.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You said that any kind of GM wheat or genetically modified organism is going to destroy a very viable organic market out there.

    What percentage of the wheat grown now is organic?

  (1210)  

    Mr. Terry Boehm: Perhaps Stewart could address that more easily than I could.

    Mr. Stewart Wells: I can't give you an exact number. I am an organic grower, but the percentage is very low. The percentage of farmland in organics in Saskatchewan would be under 5%.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Your brief said “Destruction of a viable organic industry”.

    Mr. Stewart Wells: But the point is.... For instance, on my organic farm, we gave up growing canola in our rotation, which we had grown a couple of times in the eighties and nineties. We gave up growing it because we knew that our neighbours were growing Roundup Ready canola, and we could not afford putting our certification at risk. There are cases where farmers in the United States and Canada—though I'm not sure about Canada—have lost their certification because their crops were contaminated by a neighbour's field.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: You said that 5% of the market is organic?

    Mr. Stewart Wells: No, I said less....

    The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)): We'll move to Mr. Duplain on the government side.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Thank you very much for being here today. We are really very pleased to welcome you here and I believe it is very important that you have come to meet with us in order to share with us the grievances of those in the field. I believe that the government must really work in cooperation with all of you so as to find a solution with regard to genetically modified wheat.

    I would have a few technical questions with regard to some of the things you stated and that I had already heard talk of. My first question will be for Mr. Terry Boehn. You talked earlier about a gene that could be transferred to a bacteria and remain in the soil. Could you explain a little bit more what you mean by that?

[English]

    Mr. Terry Boehm: Yes, I certainly can. There are other mechanisms for gene transfer, particularly transgenes, other than the pollination and seed mechanisms many of us concentrate on. But it's being ignored, or it's not being used as a very fundamental research area at present.

    For instance, in certain GM crops an antibiotic-resistant marker gene is used in the process of the gene insertion and transfer. This material, from any plant matter, root matter, wheat matter, or whatever, remains intact in the soil for some time. There are bacteria that are able to take up this antibiotic-resistant gene, and then themselves become antibiotic resistant.

    It's very complex. You know that I'm not a bioscientist, but at an international symposium on biosafety held in Saskatoon in 2000, a paper was presented by researchers from Europe, who have determined that this indeed takes place. They also need to determine the effects of biological hot spots for this horizontal gene transfer to take place; they suggested that it could be inside the digestive tract of insects, for example.

    But there are more mechanisms than pollination. There are other mechanisms for this gene flow and contamination and ramifications to occur.

    What I'm concerned about is the release into the environment of these plants with transgenes, which would never have occurred from the gene pool under conventional breeding or mutagenesis, because they simply did not exist in those wild populations. We have no idea what the ramifications are in the long term.

    When the first internal combustion engines sputtered to life 150 years ago, who imagined that a century later they would alter the climate of the planet? I think we are playing with something very powerful here too, which Ag Canada announced with great flourish.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: The bacteria can transfer itself to other native plants, but can it also contaminate the new non-genetically modified wheat that we might replant?

[English]

    Mr. Terry Boehm: The information is not conclusive in that respect. The example used was that this mechanism could transfer antibiotic resistance to bacteria through the soil. But this particular paper was inconclusive on whether transfer from bacteria to the next plant can take place.

    But I think what's important is that there are mechanisms we do not understand and that there's a complexity in our soils. The fact that the gene from dead plant material is viable to the transfer of another living organism should raise some interest, if not concern.

  (1215)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Mr. Hardy, you stated earlier that more than 10% of the wheat in Canada is contaminated. Is this scientific data or is this just something you have heard talk of? You stated earlier that 10% of our wheat is contaminated.

[English]

    Mr. Neal Hardy: No, I didn't say 10% of wheat. I said 10% of all the canola we grow. Of the canola we grow, probably up to 10% of it has genetically altered canola within it—in other words, cross-pollination and the rest. There's nothing scientific about that, but it's just what we talked about. But I believe there is very little canola, if any, out there without some genetically modified canola in it.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Yes. Do you have an answer?

[English]

    Mr. Stewart Wells: Yes, thank you.

    There has been research done on the purity of canola seed samples, again at the University of Manitoba--Rene Van Acker and Lyle Friesen. So there is actual hard data on the contamination of registered canola seed stock.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: I would like to ask two more questions. I would request that you answer rather quickly because I am afraid I am going to run out of time.

    If there is a possibility of growing genetically modified wheat and if you are against this, one thing is sure: farmers will grow it. You are saying that everyone is opposed to it. If such is the case, we should not find too many people in Canada willing to grow this wheat. Were this wheat ever to become acceptable, the countries working on this will have to take into account the ability to sell this wheat and the acceptance level. I do not believe that the markets or that consumers are ready for this yet; this is what we are seeing. Furthermore, there will have to be farmers who want to grow this wheat. You seem to be saying that there is not a single farmer who is favour of it.

    How many people will want to grow this wheat commercially, given that you are telling us that everyone is against it?

[English]

    Mr. Terry Boehm: I think all it takes is one--and we have a perfect example with BSE in one cow--and we could very quickly see our borders and grain farmers quarantined. Really, GM wheat is BSE for grain farmers.

    All you have to do is have the variety released--and it only takes a small percentage of farmers to grow this--and you've gone down a path where you're contaminated, and the rest of us, whether we decide consciously not to grow it or not, can't do it.

    The other problem is that wheat cross-pollinates. It crosses. So it doesn't take very long--canola is a good example--and you're contaminated.

    You cannot unequivocally say that all producers would not grow it. There are producers out there who would grow it, and that's the problem. That's why it cannot be registered.

    The Chair: Just a short question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Yes, it will be a very short question.

    You make recommendations. Are you happy with the way in which the government is working at present, with all that has been done with regard to genetically modified wheat? Yes, you make recommendations; the Canadian Wheat Board has it too made recommendations. Are you satisfied with the way in which things are being done in the government?

[English]

    Mr. Neal Hardy: Well, I could answer that. I think they're working on it. I think a committee like this, listening to it and hearing it, could take it directly back, as part of government and part of the opposition. Hearing what we're saying, listening to what we're saying, and putting into place some if not all of our recommendations is a positive step forward.

    Our concern, as we said from the start, has never been the scientific end. I think that's good, and we have to go ahead. We just have to get market acceptability out there, and when we do, we'll move on.

    A lot of people would like to grow it, but if you grow it and can't sell it, or if ten farmers grow it and it contaminates the rest of us, we all lose. We all lose big time. It's a big market out there for us in western Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan, where we grow many millions of acres of wheat.

    So yes, I think they're working on it, and hopefully they'll continue to do as they're doing, because I think it's a positive step forward.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Stewart Wells: Just on that question, our organization has had a longstanding concern about a conflict of interest the Canadian government, namely the Department of Agriculture, is involved in, which is that the department is, at the same time, trying to promote and regulate these products. We have very grave concerns about whether the department can do both of those things at the same time.

    For instance, the original agreement to work on Roundup Ready wheat, develop it, was made between Monsanto and the Government of Canada, and to my knowledge, no one has ever seen that original document, that original agreement. So we don't know what the Canadian government signed on to, what its obligations are vis-à-vis that original agreement. And that's only the beginning of it. The Government of Canada has used lots of taxpayers' dollars in the promotion of biotech in general.

    We see that as a conflict, and we think those things should be done at arm's length. And our concerns are backed up by the Royal Society's report from January 2001. They said much the same thing.

    The Chair: Make it very short, Mr. Boehm.

    Mr. Terry Boehm: We're also concerned about the changes proposed in the process for the variety registration system. We think many of the criteria, including.... There was at one time, just a year ago, I believe, a market acceptance or something to that effect in terms of registering a variety that was quietly removed, and we're gravely concerned about that. We're gravely concerned about the implications of plant breeders' rights and the privatization of research--even though it's government dollars, it's being guided by private interests--and the implications of that.

    The Chair: Okay, we'll move to Mr. Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Let me join with Garry Breitkreuz in welcoming all of you today and thanking you for three excellent presentations.

    I wanted to pick up on the general question that Mr. Duplain asked toward the end of his time about whether you're satisfied with what the government has been doing up until now in this area.

    All of you, being from Saskatchewan and in the agricultural industry, are probably avid readers of the Western Producer. You will know that a couple of months ago they reported that there used to be a definition-of-merit clause when we were looking at new products. This has been quietly abandoned in the last couple of years. I'm assuming from your presentations this morning that all of you would favour reinsertion of that clause or something akin to it.

    I'd like to get your observations and make sure I'm on the right track here. Maybe we could start with Mr. Ottenbreit and work our way across.

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: Yes, we agree with your statement. We definitely have to make sure this happens.... I just lost my train of thought here.

    I just wanted to go back to what was said earlier, though, that if the government is thinking they're on the right track, I hope they consider what's called the precautionary principle, which has been recommended by the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. They say that in this case, to get a positive entry for the first GM wheat, definitely you, as a committee, should apply the precautionary approach.

    Just rephrase your question again.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: There was a definition-of-merit clause. It's basically market impact analysis before a new product comes on the market. It was around for roughly ten years, at least from 1990 until 2001, and then it was taken out of the--

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: That was from the prairie grains recommending committee, right. Yes, we feel strongly that market acceptance has to be back in the process.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks.

    Mr. Hardy.

    Mr. Neal Hardy: That was our whole presentation: we have to have market acceptance.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Let me follow up on that, because you responded to a question from Mr. Breitkreuz, saying there are always some farmers who are in favour of it, but many are opposed now.

    You indicated at the outset that you brought a bunch of resolutions from SARM, but they're not translated so the package is not available. When those resolutions, however, go to a SARM convention, will they be against the introduction of genetically modified wheat? By what degree are they passing, by and large?

  (1225)  

    Mr. Neal Hardy: Well, they're passing unanimously, or close to it. We had one in 2001, which passed unanimously, and in 2002, again. There were 2,000 farmers there, so it wasn't just a couple of farmers. It was passed unanimously, or awfully close to it.

    There isn't much acceptance out there for it. When everybody votes in favour, those not in favour are not going to put their hand up, so there could be a few. But basically, the majority of our delegates, who are all producers, voted no, leave it alone.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Let me just hear from the NFU, and I'll come back to you, Mr. Ottenbreit.

    Stewart.

    Mr. Stewart Wells: On the issue of that clause that was removed from the PRRC guidelines, we have more than a passing interest in that, because in 2001 we became aware this clause was in there. It's beginning to look now like we did the wrong thing with that clause. We took that clause around to a lot of MPs and into the offices of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and discussed it with them. We discussed it with everybody we could think of, and the net result was it was quietly removed several months later.

    I understand from reading the evidence of this committee that CFIA is supposed to table some more documents regarding that. I'm very interested to know where the direction came from to have that clause removed, because someone had the foresight to put it in there some ten years ago.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks.

    Mr. Ottenbreit.

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: I'd just like to add to what Neal said. I was at that convention. I'm an RM counsellor. At both those conventions it was unanimous, but RMs already have gone so far in Saskatchewan as to pass resolutions in their RM that say they are to be GM-free--wheat, Roundup Ready wheat. We have those on record.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Right.

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: There are about eight to ten out of 297. What could happen if things get pushed to the wall is basically perhaps all RMs will state they're going to pass resolutions that they want to be free of Roundup Ready wheat.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Another aspect of this, and each of you in your own way has touched on it a little bit, is that it seems to me there's a bit of a David and Goliath situation going on here. We have the biotech industry, which seemingly has very deep pockets for research, and I think Mr. Wells indicated in his presentation that there was some holdup or uncertainty about whether there was going to be continuing funding to complete the fusarium study with glyphosate so it could be.

    Is that a major concern? Mr. Hardy talked about 23 test sites we'd like to know the whereabouts of and so on. Is this a growing concern?

    Mr. Stewart Wells: Well, I think it is. Thankfully, it's been somewhat alleviated recently because the people working at the research station in Swift Current have received some funding. But previous to this, whoever it was they applied to denied them at least twice. There's a little bit of hope there.

    My thoughts on this are that the researchers shouldn't have to beg for money to do research that is in the public good. This research, in the end, may end up exonerating the companies and their products or it may not, but these researchers should not have to go around begging and leaving sound science and scientific research undone because they can't receive funding for it.

    On the David and Goliath aspect, I was the guest of CFIA and Health Canada at a meeting down here almost exactly a year ago. They were looking at these questions and working on their guidelines. There were some 60 people there, a lot of company representatives, including the representative from Monsanto who was here today. I'm not sure if he's still here. He and I shared a table for the afternoon.

    The question put to them was science-based: Should companies have to file studies and data on what happens in the soil as a result of their new plants and their new products going into the environment? Their answer unanimously was no, they shouldn't have to file that scientific data because it costs too much, that it should be left up to the taxpayers and the universities of the country to do that work; they shouldn't have to do it.

    But if farmers make the argument that it's going to cost us too much to grow the wheat and contaminate our wheat supply, the response is, well, it's not science-based; we can't talk about marketing because it's not science-based. So people are using the science-based mantra to cut off debate. They're using it selectively.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: I'd like to respond to the David and Goliath issue. I feel that Monsanto has infiltrated farmers. They've infiltrated government. They've infiltrated universities. They've made their case well. They're pretty good promoters. If I held stock in Monsanto, I'd be commending them for their effort.

    But just to show you how they are a Goliath, I had an article printed in a paper about a meeting I held in my own home town. The issue came up about GE wheat and I said at the time that we cannot control the volunteers. They have the rights to the Terminator technology and they could introduce it, even though they said they've made a pledge they won't. But who's to say that pledge is any good? Then they will bring in the Terminator gene. If that outcrosses with our conventional wheat supply, Monsanto will have an elite seed and control of the wheat seed industry.

    I received a letter from Monsanto, which said I was making presumptions and claimed they were being pretty neutral on this issue. One thing this person who wrote me this letter said was that Roundup Ready wheat will serve as the platform for the future introduction of these new and improved traits.

    What this means is that we don't need Roundup Ready resistant wheat; we need other traits. The point is, they're short on bucks. They want to bring in a technology use agreement. Then they're going to stack all these other genes on top, so if you want to buy a fusarium-resistant wheat, you're going to have to sign a TUA and take the Roundup Ready thing with it. And we don't want that.

    So who's the David and who's the Goliath?

    The Chair: Ms. Ur.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    And I guess I was negligent. I usually thank people at the end, but I'll thank you now for your presentations earlier.

    Are you aware of any other country presently doing research on GM products?

    Mr. Terry Boehm: Well, I think there's a great deal of research being conducted around the world on GM food products. I know they're doing research in the European context, in Canada, the U.S., and the United Kingdom. But I think your question requires a little more description to answer fully. Which GM products did you have in mind?

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Well, the fact is we're not alone in this research.

    Mr. Terry Boehm: That's true enough.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Wells, did you want to add anything?

    Mr. Stewart Wells: I was just going to say that in the general area of research there were reports this last spring that the United Kingdom is looking at forcing biotech companies to put an extra strand of DNA into their products so they can easily be scanned. You'd only be looking for one piece of DNA. What it would lead to is automatic labelling, because it would be very simple to label products.

    And I believe that just this week in Europe they may have adopted a 0.5% threshold for mandatory labelling, which is very important to us.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: There's no doubt.

    Mr. Hardy, one of your comments was on market acceptability. What's your proposal for the direction in which it should be driven? Where do you think it should go?

    Mr. Neal Hardy: To get into details would take a long time, but market acceptability outside of our country, particularly for our wheat, is done by the Canadian Wheat Board--and inside too, as well as by our millers. I understand the millers have problems with and are concerned about genetically modified wheat as well.

    If we have market acceptability--and I mean to the extent that we can market our wheat into the countries who are now saying zero tolerance--then we've reached that threshold. How we get to there is a long process. We have to do a lot of work to get acceptability of it.

    I mean, whether you sell it into Germany or France or wherever you're selling it to, the people who are buying it first have to accept it, and then their consumers have to accept it. So it gets right down to me and you. If you knew there was genetically modified wheat in your bread--that's what the loaf is made of--would you accept it? I'm not asking that question; I'm saying it's the question you would ask the consumer.

    All the knowledge and information we have at this date says that people are not ready to accept it at that level yet.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I'm sure it's very difficult for consumers to make that decision, because we're basing it on science and technology and whatever. It would be very hard for them to pick a path to decide what criteria they would use to accept or deny the said product. They rely on research from government and the private sector to come up with that information.

    Mr. Neal Hardy: It's the fear of the unknown, to some degree, and BSE is a good example. Did you eat a steak last night? The chances of anything harmful being in it is one in a trillion, but there's that little bit of.... Once it makes the news media, once it's out there....

    I guess that's the fear we have as producers. We have to have it accepted before we start growing it. We're not saying it's not good to grow. We're not saying it doesn't meet all the requirements. We're saying our markets are not ready for it.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You made an interesting statement in your opening remarks as to the secrecy in all of this, that CFIA does not disclose areas of research. With all due respect, with some of the opposition to this research, do you not think that is probably proper protocol? Unfortunately, not everyone shares the same mindset, and there may be individuals out there who could or may--I'm not saying they would--tamper with those test plots or whatever. Let's be realistic here. We live in the real world.

    Mr. Neal Hardy: I understand that, but you have to understand my end as the producer. If you're growing 40 acres of GM wheat next to me and I don't know it, the cross-pollination may well be taking place. I don't know. It's the unknown for me as a producer. I don't really care what you grow, as long as you don't get it into my markets and into my product.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But I guess, with all due respect--and we'll turn to BSE as we see it now--CFIA is second to no other country in what they're doing. I can't really fathom how it would be a detriment within a community for them to offset what you're presently doing to a test plot. I think we have to give them a little bit more credit than that.

    Mr. Neal Hardy: They're doing an excellent job with BSE. That's certainly a good example. I don't want to say they're not. And they're probably doing an excellent job on the rest. I'm saying it's the unknown we are concerned about.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But nothing's guaranteed in life, unfortunately.

    Mr. Neal Hardy: No. I understand that too.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Wells.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Stewart Wells: I think the parallel, though, to the BSE example is if CFIA was out there quarantining herds but not telling anybody--it was a state secret; the press couldn't get the information and no one else could get it. Then there would be some real concern. But they are out there, and it looks like a pretty transparent process. They are saying where the herds are. They are doing the work.

    Any time it becomes a state secret, it creates a lot of energy and excitement. People want to know why it's a state secret. The Minister of Agriculture for Prince Edward Island, for instance, is still very upset. I talked to him just this March in Prince Edward Island. He made a request to the Government of Canada to find out where the test plots were in Prince Edward Island, and they wouldn't tell him. Now, as far as I know, land use is a provincial jurisdiction in this country, and he still thinks he has the right to know; but he was denied that.

    So are they worried that the government in Prince Edward Island is going to go in there with vandals and do something to the test plots?

    Mr. Terry Boehm: I would also like to add that this is a fundamental question about the concept of public good and who government and the CFIA are working for. Is it to protect Monsanto's test plots, or is to protect Canadian consumers, producers, millers, farmers, and those concerned with what's being done in their government's research test farms? They are not Monsanto's; they belong to Canadian citizens.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's hard to judge then, because somewhere in my writing here, Mr. Wells had indicated that the government is in a conflict of interest doing the research and back and forth. Would we be having a different discussion here if Monsanto hadn't done any research on GM? Would it have been more palatable for everyone here presenting?

    Mr. Stewart Wells: I think from our point of view we'd be a lot more comfortable if the Canadian government were doing the arm's-length research the Royal Society called for. The concept of always relying on company data because you just don't have the staff and the resources to do the experiments yourself is what makes these consumers in these other countries say that it might be okay to eat that loaf of bread, but I'm just going to stay away from it as long as I can.

  (1240)  

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but is this concern with GM wheat driven a lot by the organic farming community?

    Mr. Stewart Wells: No, it's just a part of the equation.

    The organic farmers have their entire livelihoods at stake, because to my knowledge there is no organic certifying agency in the world that will accept any genetically modified contamination in the product. To them, it's their entire livelihood. For some of the other producers, it's a matter of this $400 million extra cost, about how to deal with it if it's out there and who is going to handle it. But this is extremely important to them.

    And the rulings that have come down so far in the Percy Schmeiser case say that no matter how that seed wound up on your farm, it belongs to Monsanto, but they don't have any liability to actually come out and correct the problem. This is really creating some problems for farmers out there. And the farmers who have listened to that ruling and understand how serious it is are really upset.

    Mr. Terry Boehm: I am a conventional grain producer in Saskatchewan. We farm a little shy of 4,000 acres. We are completely concerned about and opposed to the introduction of GM wheat, as are my neighbours.

    A small but rather significant example is that we've now been reduced to about 80 grain delivery points on the prairies, as a result of what I would term as some poor legislation in transport. With those delivery points are chemical sales points, generally speaking. In the one I can access, which covers quite an area, farmers have made a conscious decision not to buy Monsanto products. They are not buying them becuase they are so opposed to Monstanto's initiative to introduce GM wheat; they just said they're going to look for some other manufacturer's chemical equivalent.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Neal Hardy: Can I just add another thing, Mr. Chair?

    At our convention last spring there were about 2,000 or 2,200 farmers who voted almost unanimously to put a restriction on and not get involved in GM wheat. So it's much bigger than the organic farmer alone, although I'd say they do have a different livelihood that could be directly affected.

    No, producers out there are not ready yet to accept it because they don't think they can market it.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: If the United States went ahead with it, would we be more accepting?

    Mr. Terry Boehm: I don't think so. I think we'd be happy. We'd have a big market to fill that they lost.

    Mr. Stewart Wells: I met with some parliamentarians from western Australia just last month, and that was their approach to us. They said go ahead and register Roundup Ready wheat, because we can fill your markets and you will never get them back. And then they sat back and smiled.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I guess down the road we'll see who was right and who was wrong.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Proctor, you'd said you didn't want in again. Do you want back in again now?

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Well, yes, I'd be very happy to thank them again on behalf of all the members here for a very edifying session this morning. Thanks to SARM, thanks to APAS, and thanks to the National Farmers Union.

    The Chair: Monsieur Duplain, I think you had wanted back in to ask a short question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Yes, I would have one or two further questions. As I said earlier, I am very happy that these briefs are being presented to us. This allows us to work in cooperation with the people in the field in order for the government to make the right decisions and for the committee to make the right recommendations. I believe it is truly important to work hand in hand.

    You made a few statements that surprised me somewhat. In your introduction, where you speak about labelling, you make a comparison with the fact that the government had not accepted compulsory labelling of GMOs. You must certainly be aware that consumer groups appeared before us and told us that they were not in favour of compulsory labelling for GMOs.

    You make a second statement, and I will quote your exact words, saying that Monsanto or other companies “had infiltrated government“. That strikes me as perhaps going a bit too far. I would like you to give us explanations in this regard because to say that the department has been infiltrated is quite a strong statement.

  (1245)  

[English]

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: I guess I have to respond to that. Perhaps infiltration was a strong word, but at the Canadian Wheat Board level, for instance, present employees of Monsanto used to work for the Wheat Board. These people are constantly speaking to what is going on at the Wheat Board. They have a good rapport.

    Anyhow, it seemed like Monsanto needed all kinds of support for their program. Just the fact that they joined with the joint initiative program tells you that they're in the CFIA office. They're very intelligent; they've helped build research facilities in Saskatchewan at universities, things like that.

    In regard to this, I'd like to get back on this environmental issue regarding zero till. Monsanto was the core corporation that helped zero-till operations in Saskatchewan and western Canada take place. Its product, glyphosate, was the key thing. Now they've lost control of it because their patent is off and I guess their funding is short.

    Now they seem to be doing exactly the opposite: they're destroying something good that they created. And that's what I see, the flip-flop. I don't know, I guess somebody's answering to a board of directors and shareholders there, and they have to look to how much money they can make, regardless of how they do it or who they impact.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: When someone works on such products, develops them, in your opinion, what is their primary motive? Why are people working on genetically modified wheat? What is the main reason? Is it economic assistance?

[English]

    Mr. Terry Boehm: I think certainly this seems to be the case. We have a long history of moving away from publicly developed seed varieties and we moved into plant breeders' rights legislation in 1991.

    We reduced funding to public research institutions that distributed varieties and seeds to farmers to be propagated cheaply. The recognition of the public good here has been lost. Producing good varieties publicly and cheaply and distributing them cheaply benefits consumers and the industry--and the whole economy of Canada--further down the line.

    Instead, there's an idea that somehow if we create a regulatory format that allows the wholesale introduction of a massive number of varieties of questionable merit--reducing the requirements for the registration of those varieties, reducing the timelines and the research.... All of these things have created the possibility for economic exploitation by companies like Monsanto, for example.

    Mr. Stewart Wells: Just on that point, one of the things that Monsanto's income statements or financial statements from their last year-end showed was a $2.5-billion Canadian loss last year on their worldwide operations. On their website they attributed that to lower than expected sales of Roundup.

    From that, I think they have a tremendous financial incentive to push ahead on Roundup Ready wheat just as fast as they can, because they, as a company, need to be out there selling more and more Roundup.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: If we were to segregate the different varieties from the regular wheat we grow, that would require quite some system. I believe that if this wheat is produced, the market will want this segregation to be done, but this will add further costs and we therefore will not necessarily have to prohibit the production of this variety of wheat because it will simply cost too much to produce. On the one hand, it will be cheaper, but on the other, if there has to be segregation, then the enforcement of rules that will have to be very stringent will be such that...

[English]

    Mr. Terry Boehm: I won't argue with that point, but the fundamental question is whether it is possible to create an effective segregation system that will address the tolerance levels of our buyers. I don't think it is. It has been proven with canola. Real life is much messier than a regulatory and segregation framework.

    I'll give you an example. On my farm I have a grain bin where I store seed and grains. It has five compartments in it. The mice carried, from two compartments away, two bushels of canola and placed it on top of my durum wheat that I also farm a little bit organically. Had I not noticed that and had I loaded it into my seeding apparatus and went and seeded it, I would have lost my organic certification. I had contamination. So I had to clean that grain again.

    That's just a tiny example, but we've moved to huge bulk-handling facilities that really make it quite impossible to segregate in any effective way, and the cost will be phenomenal. I think this is something that's cited by hopeful companies, that once we're contaminated, well, then you don't have to worry about segregation because it's impossible anyway.

  (1250)  

    The Chair: Ms. McPherson, do you want in on that?

    Ms. Arita McPherson: As one quick comment, you're very right, in that segregation systems would add to producers' cost, and that's one of the factors that would have to be considered in the cost-benefit analysis when you look at it: what systems would be required to segregate a crop and keep it preserved, and how does that factor into your costs and what does it do on the side?

    The Chair: Mr. Wells, a short comment.

    Mr. Stewart Wells: I call those types of costs--segregation costs and other costs--the hidden costs of genetic modification, because you don't see them afterwards and the companies aren't proposing that they're going to pay these hidden costs. These hidden costs are going to taxpayers or farmers or people who are using the product.

    We have real-life examples of that already, because the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board are spending taxpayers' dollars trying to figure out how to pay for systems that will help avoid these problems. So we're already having the hidden costs heaped on our shoulders, and segregation is one of those.

    The Chair: Mr. Duplain, have you finished?

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Do you wish to ask any questions, Mr. Chairman? If you have questions, I will offer you my time, since you do not often get the opportunity.

[English]

    The Chair: I have a short question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Ask your questions first.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Maloney, do you have something to ask?

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): No.

    The Chair: Well, I've listened with great interest.... And I apologize, I am one of these people who have a lot of schools coming into this area at this time of year, and I had two of them this morning and one was late. Anyhow, that's my reason, not my excuse, for not being here--and I don't apologize for that, because I think children are very important.

    I must say, I've been rather intrigued by some of the comments. I think one of the comments that perhaps most intrigued me was that, at least from my perception of what was said, there is a greater confidence from you people if government were to be doing the science rather than the independent, private corporation doing the science, where they would control breeder rights and that kind of thing. Is that a fair statement or fair assessment of what I heard?

    Mr. Stewart Wells: Yes, I think so.

    The Chair: That places a direct onus on government, then, to see how we can deal with that. I realize that.

    Mr. Stewart Wells: Again, it happened to be Monsanto, but Monsanto was promoting the bovine growth hormone several years ago. The NFU was very involved in that issue, and in the end, the government made the right decision. But during that process there were allegations made by scientists working for Ag Canada that Monsanto had in fact offered them money, a bribe, if they would sign off on that product. These are very serious allegations, and those scientists never backed away from those allegations. So that's the kind of economic pressure that we think comes to bear from some of these corporate entities.

    The Chair: We talked about the precautionary principle, and I think that's one that needs to be very much adhered to. I think it's a very important principle. I'm also of the belief that if we want to make decisions, and given that we are in a climate at the moment where we are talking about BSE, I'm sure we would all agree that the ultimate decision of reopening borders is going to be based on science, not on a political decision. Can we apply that same principle of science in the arguments being made this morning for or against the introduction of genetically modified wheat, whatever that strain or whatever that gene might be?

    Given that in many quarters, in terms of political circles at least, and our perception, and I guess reality in most cases, there are countries keeping out product from other countries, particularly the European Union, simply because of a non-tariff trade issue--they're making it a barrier for countries to infiltrate or to take part in that market access--would it be reasonable to believe that if science could prove beyond a doubt...?

    I have had no one ever tell me, and I'm not here promulgating either position. I'm simply saying that if science could produce the evidence that there are no harmful health effects from the use of these products, whether genetically modified or otherwise--unless, of course, you get into plant and animal protein and this kind of thing, which is a different situation, and we are not talking about that in this case--if that were the case, would this not eliminate a lot of our problems?

    You want to base the one issue on science. Would it be fair to use the argument that we could use it in this case as well?

  (1255)  

    Mr. Terry Boehm: I think science has been pervasive in cutting off debate. If you want to expand the definition of science, we have the social sciences; we have economics, philosophy, ethics, and so on. Those are valid. That's what government's first place was.

    It's interesting to note that science dismantled the relationship between church and state a few centuries ago, and now it has inserted itself in that place of the church. It's requiring faith, it's requiring secrecy, and it's requiring money.

    I think it's completely inappropriate on decisions such as these to consider only science. Human wisdom through centuries and thousands of years has not been built entirely on science. It has been built on moral and ethical considerations. It's built on political decisions--some of them bad, and many of them very good.

    I wonder if we would have democratic institutions or committees if it was purely on science--or this committee, for example. Indeed, the new variety registration system being proposed is saying, look, the information is proprietary of the company; we don't want to do three-year crop trials any more; we want to give you one year's information--which in the environment is completely useless because weather conditions vary drastically from year to year. You need to average that over time. So I would object strenuously to using only science.

    The Chair: Mr. Wells, you indicated that you want in.

    Mr. Stewart Wells: I think all the groups are in agreement here, and some of the groups have used the term and talked about the precautionary principle. We look at that as a way of trying to take enough time. What that does is mandate enough time to try to cover off some of these issues.

    The precautionary principle doesn't stop all bad drugs from getting on the market, but generally speaking, consumers are pretty happy with the drugs that are available in the way they come on stream. That has been one of the key cornerstones of all the consumer backlash, a lot of the organizational backlash, the Royal Society backlash, in that the Government of Canada is not using the precautionary principle to evaluate these products.

    There used to be a lot of talk about substantial equivalence, coming from CFIA and a lot of people. That has sort of died down within the last two years.

    But I would go to the issue of StarLink corn in the United States. That was licensed using all their regulatory framework, licensed only as an animal feed. It became a food safety issue, because animal feed was found in the human food even in Canada. We didn't know it was here, but it got here because of incomplete science.

    So as I was saying, the science is not being done on what's actually happening in the soil to grow the food we eat. Nobody actually knows. We're just sort of living on faith that we are going to plant a seed in there and it's going to grow; we get the right climate and we're going to have a good crop.

    The Chair: Mr. Hardy, do you have a final...?

    Mr. Neal Hardy: I was just going to say that you can prove from the scientific end that it's good and safe. We've never argued whether it's good or bad, because we're not scientists. But the general public who buy it—and the manufacturers in these different food chains—are the people they have to convince it's safe. If the scientific information can be transmitted to those people, they will say, “Yeah, okay, it's good. We'll live with it and buy it, and we producers can sell it.” We've never said that the science wasn't good; we believe it's good.

    The BSE is a poor example, because it is one cow in a whole herd of cows. We're not making other cows like the BSE one, and we're not trying to sell him into the market either. It's a different ball game.

·  (1300)  

    The Chair: Mr. Ottenbreit.

    Mr. Ivan Ottenbreit: The Canadian Biotech Advisory Committee is saying that not all science is good, but that you have to judge it. I think that's very appropriate, and I hope your committee recognizes it. As I reiterated earlier, once the world accepts all of these GM crops, the fact is that we still have to do every crop merit by merit. This is not a simple solution to a complex problem. It's a complex problem, and it's going to have complex answers.

    The Chair: There's no question that we have to do our due diligence. This morning we've obviously stirred the waters and muddied them a little bit, I believe. Hopefully, we have some further clarity on what is a very complex issue, as you just said. There are obviously components here that we have to address. It's a very serious issue.

    I realize we didn't come here to talk about BSE, but I think we would agree that it is a case in which we are not going to move towards opening borders unless science gives the go-ahead. There are places where science becomes the pre-eminent judge and jury. In this case, it doesn't appear—at least from the comments you made—that it will work in every case.

    Thank you very much, each one of you. I apologize for not being here for all of it, but I think we have a pretty clear understanding of where you want us to go, and how you feel about this issue. Thank you again for appearing this morning.

    The meeting is adjourned.