AGRI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 3, 2003

Á

1110

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

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Louis Plamondon

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Don McCabe (Chairman, Environment Committee, Grain Growers of Canada)

Á

1115

Mr. Louis Plamondon

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon

The Chair

Mr. Don McCabe

Á

1120

Mr. Don Kenny (Director and Member of the Executive Committee, Grain Growers of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Don Kenny

Á

1125

The Chair

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

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. Cam Dahl (Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada)

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Cam Dahl

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Don Kenny

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie)

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Á

1135

Mr. Cam Dahl

Mr. Don McCabe

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. Don Kenny

Á

1140

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

Mr. Don McCabe

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Mr. Don McCabe

Mr. Cam Dahl

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Á

1145

Mr. Don McCabe

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Don McCabe

The Chair

Mr. Ken Ritter (Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Wheat Board)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Ritter

Á

1150

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Bill Nicholson (Director, district 9, Canadian Wheat Board)

Mr. David Anderson

Â

1200

Mrs. Patty Rosher (Program Manager, Market Development, Sales and Market Development, Canadian Wheat Board)

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Ken Ritter

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Bill Nicholson

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Â

1205

Mr. Bill Nicholson

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Bill Nicholson

Mrs. Patty Rosher

Â

1210

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Â

1215

Mr. Ken Ritter

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Ken Ritter

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mrs. Patty Rosher

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Bill Nicholson

Â

1220

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Patty Rosher

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Bill Nicholson

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Ken Ritter

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Â

1225

Mr. Bill Nicholson

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Harrison (President, Canadian National Millers Association)

Â

1230

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Â

1240

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Â

1245

Mr. Gordon Harrison

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Â

1250

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Â

1255

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Harrison

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. Gordon Harrison

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Harrison

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

---

NUMBER 024

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 3, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we want to get our meeting under way. Before we get into the presentations this morning, let me deal with the matter of a motion that has come before the committee. It would have been dealt with on Tuesday had we had enough people to make quorum.

    It's the motion put forward by Mr. Gagnon that the report by the inter-departmental group, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Department of Finance, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and the Canada Customs Revenue Agency, set up following the demonstration by farmers in the early fall in Chicoutimi, be tabled with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

    That is the motion. It's on the table. Do we have a mover?

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): I'd like to review the situation quickly. A committee comprised of four ministers was struck and we were advised that the report was ready, that it had been submitted to the minister. I think that if the minister were to submit the report to this committee for our consideration, we could make some useful comments and proposals. I'm not asking that it be publically examined, but even if we were to meet in camera, we could review the demands of producers who have testified before the committee and see whether the report addresses their concerns.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, Mr. Plamondon.

    Are there any other comments on the motion?

    Mr. Duplain.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, the motion is ill-timed in that a committee was struck, ministers requested a report that has yet to be finalized and tabled. They have indicated that when they are ready, they will be tabling the report. I don't see why the committee would ask the persons drafting the report to come and present it to us even before it has been approved by the ministers.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: They have the report. They just haven't made a decision yet. We want to help them do that. The report is in their hands.

    Mr. Claude Duplain: The ministers are the ones who draft the report. If a committee made suggestions, it wasn't in connection with the report.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: The minister stated in the House that he had received the report.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's my understanding that this report was just received approximately one week ago. As there are four departments that have to review it and sign off on it or approve it, I suggest it's very legitimate to allow them a little more time to examine it.

    The Chair: We have the motion on the table. Do I have the question? Will somebody call the question?

    Mr. Maloney?

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: I request a recorded vote.

[English]

    The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.

    (Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

    The Chair: The chair declares the motion defeated.

    I just want to brief you on what we have before us for next Tuesday. You will notice on the agendas that we'll be meeting at 9 o'clock. The minister is coming to meet with us then, so I encourage you to fill the benches on Tuesday morning so we can put our questions to her. Mrs. Copps is coming and we want to make sure everyone is here to address the very serious issue we have in Manitoba.

    Also, at 10 o'clock we will go in camera to deal with a number of matters on consideration of the draft report and future business. At 11 o'clock we will begin the regular meeting as a public meeting.

    So those are the kinds of things coming up on Tuesday. We will be looking at matters pertaining to foreign affairs and the country-of-origin labelling.

    Mr. Hilstrom.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): This is in the Railway committee room, I believe, and it is televised. I only wanted to confirm that.

    The Chair: That's right.

    Okay, we'll move to the meeting at hand this morning.

    I want to welcome our guests. They're not new to this table; some of them are becoming regulars.

    We are always pleased to see you people here. Of course, this morning we're dealing with an issue that I believe is of dire consequence to our agriculture, particularly the issue relating to wheat and the GMO connotation it has and how that has some trade implications. We want to deal with that this morning.

    This morning, from the Grain Growers of Canada, we have Don McCabe, chairman of the environment committee; Don Kenny, director and member of the executive committee; and Cam Dahl, executive director.

    We're dealing with the Grain Growers of Canada, and I believe, Mr. McCabe, you're first for ten minutes.

    Mr. Don McCabe (Chairman, Environment Committee, Grain Growers of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee members, for the opportunity to present on this important issue this morning. I will start off our presentation and turn over the latter portion to Mr. Kenny.

    First of all, the Grain Growers of Canada is a national organization comprised of major grain and oilseed commodity groups across the country. Our member organizations include the Alberta Barley Commission, the Atlantic Grains Council, the British Columbia Grain Producers Association, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Fédération des Producteurs de Cultures Commerciales du Québec, the Manitoba Corn Growers Association, the Ontario Corn Producers' Association, the Ontario Soybean Growers, the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board, the Western Barley Growers Association, and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: Do you have a copy?

[Translation]

    The interpreter doesn't have a copy.

[English]

    The Chair: We don't have it in both languages; therefore it hasn't been given out.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: The interpreter would like a copy.

[English]

    The Chair: We only have it in one language; therefore it's not being circulated.

    They want one back there in the English version. Okay.

    Mr. Don McCabe: I apologize to the translators for that. I've never been accused of being too swift in my lifetime.

    Our representation goes beyond these groups, and the Grain Growers of Canada want to also make the point that we represent farmers who will benefit from future advances and developments in the field of biotechnology. Governments must be careful not to take actions today that restrict farmers' access to those advances.

    We have some organizations who have called for new legislation and/or regulations that would incorporate non-scientific factors, such as market acceptance, under Canada's regulatory approval process for the licensing of new plant varieties that are products of genetic technology. These calls have been prompted by the beginning of the approval process for a GM wheat variety. However, it must be noted that the implications of new measures will extend well beyond this one case and well beyond wheat. This fact cannot be forgotten when this issue is discussed.

    The Grain Growers of Canada is extremely concerned with the direction proposed by those calling for changes to Canada's regulatory system. This request is based on the twin presumptions that there are no markets for plants derived from genetic technology and that the use of genetic technology is detrimental to farm income. The significant use of genetically modified corn, soybeans, and canola by farmers across Canada proves that both of these presumptions are incorrect.

    The approach used currently by the Government of Canada in approving plants and foods with novel traits created by sophisticated genetic technologies is considered to be the best in the world. I wish to note for the committee that this has been endorsed by such groups as the World Health Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    The Canadian regulatory approach recognizes that there are potential health and environmental concerns--which merit thorough evaluation--associated with the introduction of all novel crops and other biological organisms used as food.

    Before any new plant with novel traits is registered, licensed, or used commercially, regulators must determine the potential effect of this product on human and/or animal health and the potential environmental impact of the product.

    Plants in Canada are regulated on the basis of the traits expressed and not on the basis of the method used to introduce the traits. Plants with novel traits may be produced by conventional breeding, mutagenesis, or recombinant DNA techniques.

    The CFIA is the lead agency responsible for regulating plants with novel traits and is responsible for the complete environmental assessment, inspection, and monitoring of registered products so that these products can continue to be used in the Canadian environment.

    Health Canada is responsible for ensuring that all foods, including those derived from biotechnology, are safe for human consumption prior to entering into the Canadian food system. All new plant varieties that fit the definition of “novel” must be reviewed by Health Canada under the guidelines established by the novel food regulations established under the Food and Drugs Act.

    The rigour of this Canadian system ensures that all new food products are tested and determined to be safe for consumption regardless of how they are produced. For example, new wheat varieties produced through mutagenesis to have increased gluten content may be of concern to those who have severe negative reactions to wheat gluten. This new variety meets the definition of a plant with a novel trait and must move through Health Canada's regulatory process, despite the fact that it does not meet the narrow definition of genetic modification that some organizations wish to use, that is, the area where we have recombinant DNA techniques used solely.

    The Grain Growers of Canada is strongly supportive of the current Canadian regulatory processes for the approval of biotech crops. This process must remain science-driven, with decisions based solely on health and environmental risk assessments.

    Canada must defend our approach, not weaken our legislation and regulation by introducing non-scientific factors into our regulatory regime. Adding unnecessary legislation or regulation would weaken our position in international markets, both in the short term and the long term. Canada has correctly challenged countries that attempt to block trade for non-scientific reasons. We must continue to challenge these non-tariff barriers at every opportunity.

Á  (1120)  

Our ability to successfully make these challenges would be significantly reduced if Canada chose to pass its own non-science-based regulations or legislation.

    Some countries are attempting to bring these non-scientific factors into other international forums, such as the World Trade Organization negotiations or the biosafety protocol. Other countries could arbitrarily block Canadian exports of grains and oilseeds if these efforts are successful. Canada has resisted these attempts to move away from science-based sanitary and phytosanitary rules of trade. Again, passing our own non-scientific legislation or regulations would undermine these efforts.

    Not only would introducing additional, non-scientific regulations negatively impact farmers who are growing GM plants today, but additional regulations or legislation would set a precedent that could prevent the further introduction of GM products in Canada. Why would Canada make decisions that would restrict our farmers from taking advantage of future innovations in the life sciences area?

    Countries that have chosen to base their regulatory regime on something other than science are now beginning to see the cost of their error. For example, the European Union has found that non-scientific legislation and regulations drive away investment.

    Canada is a world leader in biotechnology research because our regulatory framework has been soundly grounded in science. We do not want to go down the path chosen by the European Union and drive investment, research, and innovation out of the country. The Grain Growers of Canada simply cannot support an additional regulatory burden that limits farmers' options for the future.

    The Grain Growers of Canada also strongly object to suggestions that a regulatory process should be introduced that will attempt to determine costs and benefits on behalf of farmers. Costs and benefits are best evaluated by individual producers. We believe that new innovation and development in Canadian agriculture will be limited if these business decisions are taken out of the hands of farmers and given to a central bureaucracy.

    Concerns about negative market impacts are real and need to be addressed. These concerns are shared by many organizations, including members of the Grain Growers of Canada--like the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board, for example. However, we strongly believe that these concerns should be dealt with on a voluntary basis by industry and not through government regulations or legislation.

    To illustrate this point, I'll turn it over at this time to my colleague, Don Kenny.

    Mr. Don Kenny (Director and Member of the Executive Committee, Grain Growers of Canada): Thank you.

    The Chair: Your time has expired now. You have whatever time you need to make your points quickly, because we want to make sure all parties are able to ask at least one question in this session.

    Mr. Don Kenny: I appreciate that and I'll try to be brief.

    The Grain Growers have proposed a voluntary advanced stakeholder review committee, ASRC, to fill a perceived need to deal proactively with the marketing issues surrounding the commercial introduction of genetically modified wheat. It is important to recognize the industry support for our ideas.

    Initial talks about the ASRC have been held with CropLife Canada, an organization that represents technology developers. These documents have been very positive. We have also held discussions with Monsanto, who have indicated support for the principle of the committee. We will continue to work cooperatively with the industry to finalize this concept.

    I'll just outline the structure of the committee, if you would allow me to. The committee will be made up of 13 representatives drawn from the following stakeholder groups: one from the technology sector; one from the seed; five producers; two from grain marketing; one from the grain-handling industry; one from the transportation sector; one from processing; and one from the consumer side.

    Due to the shortness of time, I guess I'll end with that and we can go to questions.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Okay. Given that we started a few minutes late, if I could try to limit people to five minutes each and see how that goes, I want to get in all four parties.

    Mr. Anderson for five minutes.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

    I'd like to talk a little bit more about the long term. We have had a short-term discussion going on about wheat and whether we should be putting it in place or not. But long term it's clear there are a lot of potential benefits to this, particularly in terms of disease resistance, higher-yielding varieties, and those kinds of things. Have you done any estimation of the kind of future agronomic benefits that would accrue to farmers if we move ahead with biotech wheat in our country?

    Mr. Don McCabe: I believe there are significant long-term benefits. I'm not going to sit here today and quote numbers, because if I were actually an economist, I'd know enough to get out of farming. The issue is, from the biotech side, that there are significant opportunities, as illustrated from the corn, canola, and soybean crops already, with the vast amount of uptake that's occurred within the percentage of acres that are grown in Canada of those crops now.

    I want to stress that even in the soybean area we have now food-grade soys that are available to go to Asian markets and are kept separate from their genetically modified counterparts. It allows growers to have choice and benefit from the technology on their farms.

    Mr. Cam Dahl (Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada): If I could just add a quote from the European Union's information commissioner, he says:

Practically the entire European biotechnology industry is facing difficulties due to the collapse in investor confidence in knowledge-based industries.

    We don't want that to happen in Canada.

    Mr. David Anderson: And it's just because they've decided they supposedly won't go ahead with this, that it's affected their industry.

    I had a question. There's been some suggestion that there should be five things used: agronomic benefit, cost benefit, agronomics of the products, segregation, and market acceptance. You said clearly that the market acceptance is one you're just not interested in pursuing. But the other four, are you comfortable with them being part of that regulatory system and those things being considered before the approval of the grains goes ahead--the agronomic benefit, the cost benefit, the agronomics of the product, and the segregation system?

    Mr. Cam Dahl: Just to be clear, our proposal is that the industry, on a voluntary basis, would deal with questions like segregation and market acceptance. It would be the industry, on a voluntary basis, that makes those recommendations. None of those factors would be brought into the regulatory process. We're very concerned about bringing any non-scientific factors into our regulatory approval process.

    Mr. David Anderson: Okay. So you want the regulatory process left as is, but then you'll bring the factors into the committee that you've talked about this morning.

    Mr. Don McCabe: That's entirely correct, sir. I would again draw on the examples of corn, canola, and soys. We did not require the regulatory burden that is being proposed right now to bring those crops and opportunities for Canadian farmers forward, so why do we suddenly need it when we're looking at another commodity?

    Mr. David Anderson: Okay.

    I'd like to give Mr. Kenny a couple of more minutes to talk about his committee. You didn't have any time there, but if you have other information you'd like to share with us about the makeup and how that would operate, I'll give you the rest of my time to do that.

    Mr. Don Kenny: The individuals representing the various stakeholders could vary from submission to submission. For example, the representatives from the technology developer would logically be the developer making the decisions.

    Government officials from key regulatory agencies, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canadian Grain Commission, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will be granted observer status. This is to ensure the regulatory agencies and the department are fully prepared to adjust their practices in light of the committee's decisions. Officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade may also be interested in observer status on this committee.

    The ASRC decisions can be determined through a simple majority, where necessary. The ASRC agreement on a marketing plan would be voluntarily adopted by the technology developers. Technology developers who are signatories to the ASRC process would agree not to allow the commercialization of new GM plant varieties for commodities that currently do not have widespread commercial use of genetically modified technologies until the committee has completed its evaluation. Technology developers would also agree to delay introduction of a new GM plant variety until the ASRC has concluded that adequate segregation and testing systems are in place to meet international and national marketing demands.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We'll move to Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First off, I want to thank the witness for coming. As you doubtless know, two thirds of all Canadian wheat exports are purchased by countries that already refuse to buy bioengineered wheat. Therefore, if memory serves me well—and you can correct me if I'm mistaken—two thirds of all Canadian wheat exports are sold to countries that have imposed a ban on, or rather, are wary of GM wheat.

    Recently, I read that the association of millers in Japan, which controls 90% of all wheat production in that country, reported how Japanese consumers had serious doubts about the safety of agricultural products. Have you assessed the loss of potential markets owing to the arrival on the market of GM wheat, or the potential impact of cross-pollination? If producers are permitted to grow GM wheat, there is always the risk of contamination through cross-pollination. Ultimately, it would be impossible to guarantee the safety of wheat on world markets. Given that two thirds of all Canadian wheat exports are sold to countries that harbour reservations about these kinds of crops, have you assessed the loss of potential markets and the impact on Canadian wheat prices? Do you think this could affect the price of Canadian wheat on world markets?

[English]

    Mr. Don McCabe: Thank you for the question, sir.

    I'll start off, first of all, with the issue of pollen transfer. If there was such a concern, I would suspect that breeding stations long before now, before the introduction of recombinant DNA technology, would have had many more problems with the development of wheat varieties. Therefore, pollen transfer under these particular wheat varieties has been done under even greater stringent conditions than have currently been adhered to on wheat that has come before now.

    With regard to the export of wheat from this country, it has gone through many bulk handlings in order to ensure that it is a very blended bulk product before it's done, and that is, it's ensured that it's going to meet consistent standards as it moves out into the world markets.

    No, we do not have market numbers with regard to these direct costs that you adhere to. However, as a farmer, I can tell you that the last thing I'm interested in doing is exporting a kernel of anything in this country. I would much prefer that I have the opportunity to try to make the bread or the cornmeal or the tofu in this country, as opposed to shipping it somewhere else, because the more I can value-add here, the more production capabilities and profit I'm going to bring to this country.

    Therefore, with regard to Japan's concerns on wheat, they do not have similar concerns whatsoever when it comes to soybeans, because Roundup Ready soybeans have been around for a long time now and they are dominating the market even in Ontario for growth. Yet we have been able to improve our segregation and capabilities to ensure that their food quality is met. Therefore, the industry has stepped up in the past to meet these challenges. Again, we're dealing with a different commodity now.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have another short question. As you know, Canadian wheat has a solid reputation on world markets, owing, among other things, to the variety registration system used. There is no denying that this is a good system, one that guarantees consistent quality for buyers.

    Can you tell us if under the parameters of the current system pursuant to which all varieties of GM wheat must be clearly differentiated, bioengineered wheat could potentially not be identified? Are there any proposals on the table aimed at simplifying the registration system to bring it more in line with the system currently in place in the United States?

Á  (1135)  

[English]

    Mr. Cam Dahl: I don't think we're proposing to change the licensing system at this point. The regulatory approval process when it comes to safety, food safety, environmental safety, the very rigorous process that new novel crops have to go through would continue, as would the licensing procedures.

    If a new variety of wheat does not meet the quality standards, it doesn't meet the quality standards.

    Mr. Don McCabe: I would bring the member's attention to the Ontario Cereal Crops Committee's current criteria for introducing a new wheat variety to Ontario farmers. It has to bring better agronomic characteristics and be a proven performer under Ontario conditions.

    We recently had an introduction of a particular variety of wheat that would not meet a particular band of activity. In the west it's always been kernel visual distinguishability. In our case in Ontario it's done by certain traits being defined. This particular wheat was absolutely great for farmers but was not going to be able to make it within the band of criteria necessary. The cereal committee at that time allowed the market to be found by the industry to fulfill the needs of Toledo, Ohio, for cracker wheat for Nabisco.

    The types of flexibility that are shown by that industry-led coalition to do that is exactly what the committee that's being proposed by the Grain Growers of Canada would allow to occur here.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McCabe.

    We'll move to Mr. Binet for five minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Speaking of GMOs, can you tell me which country is the acknowledged leading expert on work in this field? I'd also like to know which country has been the most vocal opponent of GMOs?

[English]

    Mr. Don McCabe: At this point in time I would not refer to a given country but I would refer to a block. The North American block is probably the most knowledgeable in the area of biotech knowledge and the opportunities that exist.

    It also depends on your definition of genetic modification, sir. As far as I'm concerned, we've been doing genetic modification to crops and animals for ten thousand years. If you want to go to recombinant DNA issues, that's where the European Union as a whole has chosen to put up non-tariff barriers with impossible tolerance levels, ones that cannot be met under any type of natural circumstances, in order to ensure that only their farmers can participate in their markets.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet: However, would you say that European Union countries are well-informed about GMOs?

[English]

    Mr. Don McCabe: I would say they're very well informed. One of the first genetically modified products that came out was actually Bt Corn, which allows protection from the European corn borer, and that was developed by Novartis in Switzerland. Subsequently they decided they didn't want it and have therefore been banning...and have non-approved events ever since against even technology developed in their own area. As Mr. Dahl mentioned earlier, within our brief it points out the fact that they realized they had made a mistake and driven industry and opportunity from their area.

    Mr. Don Kenny: But the early varieties of corn that were approved are approved in the European Union. As a corn farmer, I grow some varieties that are fine to go to the European Union, and then the later varieties with the double stacking of the genes are not allowed to go. Don's comment on the trade barrier implications is right on.

Á  (1140)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet: That means that Europeans are more responsive to political and public pressure than they are to scientific studies.

[English]

    Mr. Don McCabe: I would say that is a correct statement, sir, because you have to look at the demographics and the political pressures that have come to bear on Europe. They actually have people there who know what it means to have gone hungry. They also have absolutely no trust in government, and they have no trust necessarily in the media that feed them their information.

    Therefore, it opens up a pretty wild, wild west show, for lack of a better expression, of how their information is actually disseminated. It also, again, allows them to dominate on the world trade scene by the regulations they choose to implement.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet: I'm a member of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association. At one of our meetings, three items were on our agenda for discussion, including GMOs. My sense was that the French were more responsive to media pressure whereas here in Canada, we had people explaining to us how the question of GMOs had been under review for quite some time and the direction in which we were heading was clear. I'm interested in this question since chrysotile asbestos has been mined in my region for the past 125 years and an unscientific ban was slapped on this product. That's why I'm concerned about the fate of GMOs. We've reached the point where the term GMO has a very negative connotation and I want to be as well informed as I possibly can. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: The response?

    Mr. Don McCabe: I would just agree with the honourable member that usually as soon as you allow emotion to step in, all good science goes out the window.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Now we'll move to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis for five minutes.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

    I'm pleased to be here on behalf of Dick Proctor, our agriculture critic, who's out of town at the moment. He wanted to be here because it was his initiative to actually get this matter before the committee.

    I'd like to ask three short questions pertaining to the opinions of customers and consumers. We know that the Canadian Wheat Board has said that 82% of customers don't want GM wheat. We'll hear later from the national millers, who will probably tell us that many of their customers don't want GM wheat either. So my question to you, Mr. McCabe or other representatives of the grain growers, is, do you challenge either of these assertions?

    Mr. Don McCabe: Number one, I would like to see the question that was asked to ascertain the 82% level.

    Second, if nobody wants genetically modified wheat, then I would ask, what is the definition of genetic modification? Most the varieties that are on the market today come from mutagenesis, which requires some steps in the laboratory of treating the seeds with herbicide or radiation prior to their actual growth out in the field. This is as opposed to recombinant DNA, which is a very precise technology that allows you to determine whether or not you've picked up the necessary traits before you have to go to the outside environment and prove what you have or not.

    I suspect that if the public was actually informed on part of what the science of food and the science of agriculture involve, we would not be having some of the difficulties we're having in other arenas of the agricultural forum at this time.

    Mr. Cam Dahl: I would just like to add as well that we have to remember that this is beyond just one particular variety that has prompted this debate. This is bigger than just Roundup Ready wheat. There are many traits such as fusarium resistance that are coming. There are many other traits we don't anticipate yet that are going to benefit both farmers and consumers as well as processors. Those traits are coming, and it's bigger than just wheat.

    When we're looking at new regulations or legislation, it's going to affect more than just wheat farmers, and we have to, I submit, be very careful when we introduce regulations and legislation that will restrict trade and restrict investment.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I appreciate the comments, but I think the expression from customers and consumers is fairly widespread and needs to be taken seriously. Besides the wheat board, we've had some 210 industry associations, municipal governments, and citizens' groups expressing concern about the introduction of GM wheat onto the marketplace.

    In your brief today you seem to be more focused on challenging countries that attempt to block trade rather than giving customers what they're asking for. But I think what we really have to focus on is customers, not countries. So in your opinion, would we not be better off in the case of GM wheat, however broadly you define it, to work with customers rather than fighting them?

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Don McCabe: We work with customers today, Member. With regard to the fact that there are organic growers out there, there are growers who are attempting to produce the food grade opportunities of what is needed, and there's actually Warburton's from England already doing identity-preserved wheat. I also bring back the example mentioned earlier of a wheat that's used strictly for cracker flours. We are meeting the needs of our customers, and we did not require extra regulatory burden in order to meet the needs that are currently there.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Also in your brief, on page 6, you indicate that the grain and oilseed industry can actually deliver identity-preserved products to market. I'm assuming that means you believe you can segregate GM and non-GM products. Yet you'll know that when it comes to the issue of labelling of GM products on store shelves, a matter we've been dealing with on a regular basis in Parliament, we're often told it's not possible to segregate GM and non-GM products. So my question is, isn't there something inconsistent in your approach on this matter?

    Mr. Don McCabe: There's nothing inconsistent with our approach on this matter because at the farm level, yes, we can segregate and we can produce a crop you're going to want. The question is, first of all, do you want to pay for it?

    Second, the issue also becomes one of segregation. I'll use an example I'm much more familiar with: in your average 10,000-item grocery store, 2,500 items of that are going to contain corn. Now, I'm not too sure which one of my corn kernels went in each direction in order to make those products, and therefore a voluntary labelling procedure is the best at this time to ensure that for all products, all consumers are going to receive what they need when they want it.

    The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

    We're basically a wee bit behind, but we're going to make it up as we go through. We have two more presentations this morning, so those who have missed on this round will get in on the next round or a subsequent round.

    We want to thank Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kenny, and Mr. Dahl for presenting this morning. Thank you very much for the presentation. It's a very interesting subject and one that is very timely.

    As we continue the matter under discussion this morning, we want to welcome to the meeting Mr. Ritter, Mr. Nicholson, and Ms. Rosher from the Canadian Wheat Board. We thank you for appearing this morning. We know you have some valuable input.

    Mr. Ritter, you're probably first. We would ask you to try to remain as succinct as you can in your comments so that we have some time for questions. Are you the only presenter?

    Mr. Ken Ritter (Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Wheat Board): Yes, I am, and questions will be answered by my colleagues.

    The Chair: All right. Please keep it to 10 minutes, if you could.

    Thank you, Mr. Ritter, you're on.

    Mr. Ken Ritter: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on the issue of genetically modified wheat and its potential impact on Canadian agriculture.

    My name is Ken Ritter, and I am the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board's 15-member board of directors, and one of 10 elected farmer-directors. With me is Bill Nicholson, who is also an elected farmer-director and chair of our strategic issues committee. We also have Patty Rosher from our market development, who works on the CWB's biotechnology strategy.

    The last time we had the opportunity to speak with the standing committee members on this issue was November 2001, when we focused on some of the issues and concerns surrounding the potential introduction of GM wheat and barley. Today we would like to focus on possible solutions.

    Recently, the CWB organized a very successful farmer and grain industry conference in Saskatoon on herbicide-tolerant crops. While “herbicide tolerance” and “genetically modified” are not synonymous terms, a significant amount of information was shared that is relevant to today's discussion on GM wheat. Conference participants had the opportunity to hear about the current state of wheat research with respect to pollen flow, gene flow, population selection pressure, and volunteer control. This information is important because it relates to the agronomic concerns that farmers have about the potential release of GM wheat, and it relates to the challenges of maintaining purity in non-GM wheat shipments.

    Participants also heard that the current state of market acceptance of GM wheat has not changed. Today, 82% of Canadian farmers' markets for Canadian western red spring wheat still indicate that they would not, or could not, buy GM wheat. For example, one of the CWB's major Italian customers was quoted in a Reuters article early this year as saying,

We will not only avoid buying GM wheat but we will probably be forced to completely avoid importing from those countries or regions where it is known that GM wheat is grown. As president...I do not see any reason to expose the company to the risks implied by accidental contamination with GM wheat.

    This is a powerful statement. It is also very typical of the communication we receive from customers, especially those in Europe. As part of the information package we provided to this committee, we've included a listing of major customer countries and have specified which ones have concerns with GM wheat.

    Three main conclusions came from the discussion at our conference on herbicide-tolerant crops. Number one was that further research is needed to better understand the agronomic implications of releasing a product like Roundup Ready wheat.

    Number two, reasonable tolerance levels for GM wheat and non-GM wheat shipments must be in place, or GM wheat should not be released. The conference heard that even in the production of pedigreed seed, a tolerance of 1% may not be achievable. Tolerances for commercial production would need to be much higher. This is a very serious problem. Many markets have not even established tolerances yet, and the specific levels that have been established or are being discussed may be impossible to achieve.

    Number three, the actions of those farmers who adopt the technology will have a direct agronomic and market impact on those farmers who do not. This is due to the potential for pollen flow and other opportunities that result in the unintended mixing of GM and non-GM wheat.

    Many farmers at the conference also expressed a sense of helplessness about not being able to prevent the introduction of GM wheat because of the regulatory system currently in place in Canada. This is what we would like to focus on today, the appropriate regulatory decision-making process for GM wheat.

    For the past few years, the CWB has been leading a discussion amongst farm industry and customer groups on the issue of GM wheat and how it is regulated in Canada. Earlier this week, we and nine farm groups sent a letter to Minister Vanclief, stating our unified view that there is a regulatory gap in Canada. Together we outlined the principles that we feel must be considered when designing a regulatory change to close that gap. The letter is part of our presentation package, which you have. We have also provided copies of similar letters to Minister Vanclief by a number of other groups.

    The signatories of the letter to Minister Vanclief agree that the current regulatory system rightly ensures the food, feed, and environmental safety of Canadian crops--and we do not question the science underlying this system.

Á  (1150)  

    However, this system does not adequately protect the interests of farmers or our customers from customer rejection of these products that may be based on other non-scientific factors such as the technology or process by which the product has been developed.

    We believe the cost-benefit analysis must be added as a fourth and separate pillar prior to the unconfined release of a GM wheat variety. That means prior to unconfined release there would be, number one, a food safety assessment; number two, a feed safety assessment; number three, an environmental safety assessment; and, number four, a cost-benefit analysis. We recognize that considerable work would be required to convert this concept into a workable regulatory proposal.

    The CWB has made an attempt to outline one potential option, but ultimately we require the close involvement of federal officials who are expert in regulatory development. We are seeking Minister Vanclief's support and the support of this committee to ensure that federal officials will work in a concerted manner with industry representatives to design the details of this process. We have worked with the federal government staff to understand the ramifications of such a regulatory change. We are confident that we can find a solution that will maintain Canada's place as a leader in world trade and innovation.

    Given the amount of uncertainty about agronomic and other factors that govern the spread of wheat in the field and in the handling system, and given the heightened sense of concern among customers, there is considerable risk in the premature release of a GM wheat variety.

    The Canadian Grain Commission currently provides a guarantee to customers that states that “there are no genetically modified varieties of wheat registered for commercial production in western Canada”. This has been sufficient to meet customer requirements. It is a zero-cost, foolproof, non-GM assurance system.

    However, once public notice is given that a GM wheat has been approved for unconfined release in Canada, this level of assurance may not be sufficient. Customers could demand testing or a process-based certification system, neither of which exists at this time. We believe that until these concerns are addressed, GM wheat should remain under unconfined conditions and continue to be monitored by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, similar to the confined field trial conditions now in place.

    In conclusion, there is perhaps no other issue in Canadian agriculture that has garnered the same level of widespread agreement as the importance of the implications of the potential introduction of GM wheat. Wheat is the most important crop in western Canada in terms of the acreage and volume it represents. It is also a significant crop in central Canada. Most farmers, at some point in their crop rotation, grow wheat. This high-quality product makes up the greatest percentage of the volume that many grain companies in Canada handle and process. You will also note that Canada has an enviable reputation as a preferred supplier of safe, clean, high-quality wheat in domestic and export markets.

    As you likely know, Monsanto completed its application for food, feed, and environmental safety approval in December. You may also know that the variety registration committee reviewed data for a second year of a private co-op trial of Roundup Ready wheat, and the varieties were advanced to third-year trials. If everything runs according to the timelines we have seen with other GM crops and conventional wheat varieties, we would be faced with a situation where Roundup Ready wheat is approved for unconfined release and variety registration in the spring of 2004. This highlights the urgency of this issue.

    We have been encouraged by what we see as a commitment on the part of the federal government to deal with the issue of GM wheat. In some cases, specific mention has been made to introducing a regulatory market impact test. Our request to your committee is to encourage government officials to commit seriously to closing this regulatory gap on GM wheat.

    Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ritter.

    We will begin with Mr. Anderson for the first five minutes.

    Mr. David Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    We're dealing with an important issue today, and I guess it's important that we have the facts.

    You used the figure over the last year that some 80% of your customers did not want GM wheat.

    So let me ask you this, this morning. Would you submit your data regarding your customer list and who will and will not purchase GM wheat and their correspondence regarding that to the committee? Could we have a copy of that material over the last couple of years since you've been discussing this issue?

    Mr. Bill Nicholson (Director, district 9, Canadian Wheat Board): Thank you.

    I believe we have provided copies of the customer list, of the average volumes they purchased, and their status of accepting or rejecting GM wheat. It's worth noting that our most high-value markets for high-quality wheat are the ones most likely to indicate rejection, and therefore it puts a huge amount of farmer dollars at stake if in fact they follow through on that.

    Mr. David Anderson: I'm familiar with your communications strategies, but I guess what we're asking for is whether we can have actual copies of the correspondence. You've basically told us who it is, but I'd like to see just how committed they are. I think in some ways this data is being used to make a point, and I'm asking if we can have that communication in a correspondence.

  (1200)  

    Mrs. Patty Rosher (Program Manager, Market Development, Sales and Market Development, Canadian Wheat Board): We can certainly provide the public statements that customers have made, and they have been very vocal. I have in fact the statement from Japanese customers with me, which I can provide to you.

    There are a number of customers for whom a non-GMO wheat line is in the contract itself, so we wouldn't be providing that publically. But I can certainly give you the wording on how that appears in all the tenders and sales contracts we sign.

    There is another category of customers who have not spoken to us directly but who have a government that has put in place an input moratorium, such as Algeria or Sri Lanka, and certainly that information is publicly available.

    We've provided a list of countries and the reason why we would indicate that they are a rejecting country. There's a blend of reasons.

    Mr. David Anderson: Over the last year we've been told specifically that they did not want GMO wheat. Now you're telling us that because of some import restrictions in some countries, this is what you've been going on. One of the reasons I've asked for the communications you've had is this is typical of strategy. Now we're hearing that in fact you do not have all of these customers who are saying to you, we will reject GMO wheat just because you're growing it. There are some other import restrictions or whatever on it. That's different from having communication from them saying we just don't want you growing that. The communication strategy is only part of the problem here in a closed system that we see with the board. The fact is that most of the people, or half the people, who are forced to be in it don't even want to be in it.

    There are some other issues we can go into as well.

    Mr. Ken Ritter: May I answer that question, Mr. Chairman?

    Mr. Chairman, obviously they're not going to tell us what we can grow or not grow in Canada. But they are going to tell us what they're going to buy from us, and that's the whole point of this issue.

    Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Chair, I'd like to go to this cost-benefit analysis. This reminds me of our Kyoto debate. In Canada we were going to do some cost-benefit analysis of Kyoto and what it was going to cost. It turned out that we had no way of doing that. I'm just wondering, how is it possible to do a market acceptance, a cost-benefit analysis, of the entire grain system in Canada to find out whether we would benefit or lose from this.

    Obviously if someone comes forward, as they are going to start doing now with the fusarium-resistant wheat, it's going to be of tremendous benefit to farmers in western Canada. Your own crop predictions that were released this week say that over the next 10 years wheat can't gain market share in this earth. If someone came out with a 30% higher yielding wheat that was GMO, it'd give our farmers that kind of advantage.

    Have you done the cost-benefit analysis that would result from that--the positives, rather than focusing on the negatives, as we've heard just over the last year?

    Mr. Bill Nicholson: We envision the cost-benefit analysis to be applicable to Roundup Ready wheat, the variety that's currently before us, but also for future varieties of wheat as well. I think it's clear that a cost-benefit analysis on Roundup Ready wheat would indicate a net loss for farmers. In fact there is University of Saskatchewan research that indicates that both users of the technology and non-adopters would face negative returns while the technology developer would have positive returns.

    However, applying this cost-benefit analysis to future varieties, for example, a fusarium-resistant variety, could have a very different result. Farmers would see significant advantages to them. It's possible that customers may also see advantages in something like fusarium-resistant because it's certainly been a concern from the customer perspective. That may change the level of market acceptance for GM wheat. That would be a very different discussion that could have different results.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson. We'll now move to Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, I want to congratulate you on your presentation. In my view, you've painted a fairly accurate picture of the current situation.

    You stated that before the government approves Monsanto's request or authorizes the sale or use of wheat in Canada, a number of studies would be conducted. I didn't have a chance to take notes because you were moving right along, but you mentioned safety and environmental assessments.

    Will the planned studies be conducted independently? Many studies have been done, among others, by the biotechnology sector. I have one here—I don't know whether you're familiar with it—which says that the introduction of Roundup Ready wheat will have a direct impact on water and soil quality. Another study found that glyphosate can impede the growth of beneficial soil bacteria, while another reported an increase in a fungal disease in soybean crops treated with glyphosate.

    Therefore, in light of studies reporting that the introduction of RR wheat could pose a risk to water quality—obviously the biotechnology sector is going to argue, as we heard a short while ago, that there is no evidence of any potential adverse impact—will you undertake to carry out some independent studies, as the Royal Society of Canada called for in its study of modified living organisms or GMOs?

  (1205)  

[English]

    Mr. Bill Nicholson: Thank you for the question. As we noted briefly in our presentation, we see the market acceptance test as being in addition to the existing regulatory approval, which includes food-feed safety assessments and an environmental assessment. We're not questioning the adequacy of that existing process. We see this as an additional step to address the issue of market impact. We have confidence in the existing three tests to address the issues of food, feed, and environmental safety.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: You're saying then that no independent studies will be conducted. That's what I'm hearing. You'll likely collate data from a number of existing studies, but the aim will be to demonstrate... The Royal Society of Canada was clear on this point: it's regrettable that no independent studies have been done on GMOs.

    I have another question for you. In light of the fact that genetically modified wheat could , given existing system parameters, fail the tests and not be registered, can you give us any assurances that you will not ease up on your registration process which, as everyone knows, is much more stringent here in Canada than in the United States? Can you guarantee that a stringent registration process will be maintained in the case of bioengineered wheat?

[English]

    Mr. Bill Nicholson: Thank you. I hope I'm clear on the question.

    We have expressed confidence in the existing regulatory approval process. There is the potential that the environmental assessment may find some difficulties with Roundup Ready wheat because it does encompass some of those agronomic and environmental concerns that farmers have expressed.

    As to us taking a position on the adequacy of that existing system, we have not, and we're simply talking about an additional step. I defer to other members here.

    Mrs. Patty Rosher: In response to your question, we have put some thought into what kind of analysis should have taken place in this cost-benefit analysis, and we have evaluated Roundup Ready wheat against those conditions that we developed in conjunction with the industry. And as Bill said, the results have been negative.

    We don't have in place the system that we would need to deal with it. The market acceptance isn't there. And the cost benefit for farmers, when you consider the agronomics, is negative. So we've used that as an initial test.

    I would like to reiterate what Ken said. We're not talking about changing, as Bill said as well, the environmental food-feed, the environmental safety process, or the variety registration process. That variety registration process that results in excellent quality, consistent quality shipments, would remain in place.

  (1210)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bigras.

    We'll move to Mrs. Ur.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    You had stated in your opening remarks that one of your--

    The Chair: Can we have a pause? Apparently they're trying to get the system corrected. If we give them a moment, they can do it.

  (1210)  

---

  (1214)  

    The Chair: We're ready to go back into committee work.

    Mrs. Ur, we're ready to hear your questioning.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

    As I indicated earlier, in your opening statements, Mr. Ritter, you made a statement about your Italian customers indicating they would avoid buying GM wheat but they would probably be forced to completely avoid importing from those countries known to have GM wheat grown. You indicated this is a powerful statement. It is also very typical of communications we receive from customers especially in Europe. Perhaps you would know the answer to this, or perhaps not. Would this be based on politics or is it based on scientific concerns?

  (1215)  

    Mr. Ken Ritter: In answer to your question, this wheat variety would be the first GM wheat variety that would be registered anywhere in the world. We really don't know what the reason for the customer rejection would be, other than that it's real in their discussion with us, whether it is the perception of their consumer public or not.

    I guess realistically looking at our system, which looks very rigorously at the science around registration, we have great confidence in it. To restate the proposition that I began with in my whole presentation, we're a marketing agency. Our mandate is to maximize returns to farmers.

    We usually have high-value, medium-value, and lower-value customers who are capable of paying. We suddenly find our very high-value customers are saying they don't want this. So for whatever reason, we have to accept that they are the customer, they drive where they buy this grain, and they have choices. They can buy it from Australia, who have indicated they want to be GM-free.

    That is our position. There is a regulatory gap here right now that doesn't cover that. There is perhaps $30 to $50 involved in every tonne of grain we export. This is a huge amount of money, given our volume. It places the viability of cereal production in doubt.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do you also believe there could be a lack of accurate scientific-based information being reported to countries to indicate perhaps some of the fallacies that may be floating around?

    Mr. Ken Ritter: Well, there's a variety of things, as we all know, in place at any one time. We have environmentalists; we have the science-based sides countering each other. It's actually the consumer perception, whether they buy it in their grocery stores, that really matters.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's interesting when you say consumer perception, because we do have this dialogue in my riding and we have individuals coming in totally against GMOs. We have really good discussions back and forth. And it's interesting quite often when you bring up the question, do you like grapes with seeds or without? The response is, oh, we always buy seedless. Then we go into further discussion. Well, guess what? What kind of apples do you like? Oh, MacIntosh. Well, guess what?

    I think the education process for consumers too is that we've already been there a little, to say the least.

    Do you believe there is no research ongoing in Europe regarding GMOs? I find that hard to believe.

    Mrs. Patty Rosher: We are aware that there is research on GMOs, and on GM wheat in particular, everywhere. There is a lot of lab work being done, lots of field trials being done, not only in Canada but elsewhere. So it's definitely an exciting technology for plant breeders, regardless of the regulatory system they're working under.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Anderson had asked the question about countries that were accepted to this process or not. I found the page in your presentation, and I noted that likely not to reject this were Bangladesh, Cuba, Turkey, Vietnam, and you had a whole host of other countries. It would be really interesting, not that we have those kinds of dollars here in government, for the committee to visit some of those countries to see if that analysis is exactly accurate.

    Looking at those four countries that I have read from your report are likely not to reject this, is it on the basis that they want to feed their people and this is the best way for them to be able to feed their people?

    Mr. Bill Nicholson: Some of the countries you mentioned purchase on a price-competitive basis from Canada, from the U.S., from the Europeans, whatever supplier can be most price competitive for the product they are seeking. Quality is always of importance, but it may be a secondary consideration in many of those markets.

    So we've built our international reputation and our edge in the market on being able to provide high-quality wheat and a consistent quality of wheat. To be shut out of those markets and forced to compete even more in those lower-valued markets is very costly for us as farmers.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: We're out of time.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me continue to pursue this issue of customer approval and market acceptance. You probably find it a little strange that the Alliance, normally strongly in favour of a market-sensitive approach, seems to be pooh-poohing it and here we have the NDP suggesting it's a worthwhile consideration. I think, as my Bloc colleague has said to me, that the economics of the situation have to be considered.

    You heard earlier today the Grain Growers of Canada's suggestion to throw out a challenge in terms of your survey work, and they questioned your findings that 82% of consumers or customers, farmers, markets, are worried about GM wheat and would like to keep it on hold for now. Do you want to add anything specifically in terms of some of the customers or markets you're hearing from? Do you want to respond to that challenge from the Grain Growers?

    Mrs. Patty Rosher: Yes. We have been very open with why we would put a country in a certain category versus another. We have been open from the beginning. We have been very conscious that we want to feed market response back to farmers directly and back to the technology developer.

    On the list that we have there, as I said, some of those are direct comments. For example, I found it interesting that the previous speaker mentioned Warburtons. Warburtons has gone out to farm meetings and told farmers they do not want to buy this. Others have it as a standing clause in their contracts with us. Others have import restrictions, where even if they wanted to, they couldn't buy it. Or they have a labelling scheme in place, which, again, is scaring them off the technology.

    That may shift as time goes on. And if there was a GM and a non-GM wheat product available, and the GM wheat was cheaper because you didn't have to do the segregation and testing on it, there may be some countries that would purchase GM wheat and say they're not going to now. Conversely, there are some countries we haven't heard from because they don't have to deal with the issue yet.

    If there is a GM wheat available and that market sees that the other markets in their area are providing non-GM products, they may flip over to the rejection side. So the facts are there. They're very available for people to see, but that may shift.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sorry, did you want to add something, Bill?

    Mr. Bill Nicholson: I wonder if I might add a relevant point to your question, namely the difference between regulatory approval and customer approval. Perhaps Japan is a good example where Roundup Ready wheat may receive regulatory approval; Monsanto has indicated they will seek it there. The concern is that it doesn't necessarily equate to customer acceptance. The Japanese market would require labelling that the product contains GM wheat. Every indication we've had from customers is that that is absolutely not on for them. In spite of regulatory approval, they still would not accept the product, so it's clearly an obstacle that would remain.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Among the proponents of GM wheat, there is a hint of the sentiment that the customer is clued out and doesn't really have a good rationale for their concern, and that the consumer is just paranoid. Can you counter those arguments in any way? What would you say in response to that pooh-poohing of your factual or empirical findings, and to the kind of concerned reaction we're hearing across this country and to the real push for the precautionary principle?

    Mr. Ken Ritter: I'll just start and then turn it back to Bill.

    It would be very difficult, Mr. Chairman, to argue that the Japanese customer is clued out. The Japanese are the most literate people in the world, a highly educated and advanced society, who I'm sure are quite capable of determining what they want as consumers.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have one other question in terms of your suggestion that the cost-benefit analysis be a fourth pillar in the system. Interestingly, this is also being questioned by the Alliance.

    Could you tell us what kind of support you are getting from customers and farmers for that position?

  (1225)  

    Mr. Bill Nicholson: Thank you.

    In the package you've received, the letter to the minister requesting this change is also co-signed by nine or ten groups. I believe these include the Ontario Wheat Board. In addition, parallel letters have been put forward by a number of organizations, indicating their support for the concept and recognizing that the concept may have value for other commodities.

    I'd also like to make it clear that the test we envision is an industry-driven type of test, where industry participants or stakeholders would be the ones to initiate the test. It's very possible that a resolution could be arrived at without requiring regulation. But ultimately, we believe that a regulatory possibility is necessary there, because the interests of farmers or other industry stakeholders and those of the technology developer aren't necessarily aligned and are very likely to be different.

    The earlier comment we made regarding the cost-benefit analysis of Roundup Ready wheat indicates that there are benefits to the developer but not to the farmer. Those situations ultimately must have some way of resolving themselves, rather than simply depending on the goodwill of the technology developer--who naturally wants to make money off their development, even though the impact on the rest of the industry may be huge.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nicholson.

    We've drawn to the end of our allotted time period.

    We want to thank you for coming, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Nicholson, and Ms. Rosher. As always, it's been a pleasure to hear from you. We appreciate your side of the issue, which is obviously one that is not going to be exhausted this morning. We're going to have to come back to this again--and probably a number of times.

    So thank you again for coming and appearing this morning.

    We would ask now that the Canadian National Millers Association come to the table, as we proceed to our conclusion.

    Welcome to the committee this morning, Mr. Harrison.

    As you will note from your program this morning, Mr. Harrison is president of the Canadian National Millers Association.

    Mr. Harrison, the floor is yours for 10 minutes.

    For those members who wish to get in on the questioning, I'm sorry, but we are limited in time this morning in our scope, so please, let's try to be succinct.

    Mr. Gordon Harrison (President, Canadian National Millers Association): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the committee for inviting us today to present remarks on this subject.

    My remarks are not translated, for which I apologize, but they speak directly to translated documents that I did table with the clerk today, a position paper on genetically engineered wheat and a number of issues related to varietal licensing and identification, as well as a recent letter to ministers on this particular subject.

    The Canadian National Millers Association represents 17 companies who operate 27 milling facilities across Canada. The majority of these are wheat flour milling facilities. We do have members that process oat and corn.

    Our member firms purchase, on average, about 15% of the wheat grown in western Canada and something in the order of 30% to 40% of the wheat grown in eastern Canada, depending on the size of the crop in a given year. In the current crop year we'll utilize about 30% of the entire western wheat crop, due to its unusually small size.

    About 80% of all the wheat that is milled and processed in Canada into flour and other food ingredients and feed ingredients is grown in western Canada and marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board.

    Approximately 98% of the wheat that is purchased in Canada by millers is purchased in the form of blends. We purchase wheat predominately by class, by protein value, and by grade. Less than 2%, in our estimation, is actually bought by name variety.

    The blending of wheats in our handling and transportation system is actually of advantage to millers. It's an important part of achieving consistency in a particular crop year, and the current varietal licensing system that permits varieties to be included in these classes of wheat that are segregated in Canada actually makes varietal segregation and identity preservation virtually unnecessary for our industry. It's not an exciting thing for us to have people talk about IP and segregation by variety. It's not an advantage.

    So I'm here today to express this association's support for a new and additional step in the licensing process for wheat and other grain crops. As we mentioned to this committee in February of last year, wheat flour is a very widely used food ingredient. It's found in products in every section of the supermarket, things that we think about daily, such as bread and rolls and cakes and pastries, but it is also found in a wide range of other products--crackers, cookies, noodles, soups, and sauces. It's in prepared meats and in confectionery products. It's in a wide range of prepared foods, portable nutritious snacks. It's on every shelf, practically in every aisle of the supermarket.

    Wheat and other cereal-grain-based foods are not only prominent in the supermarket, they're prominent among Health Canada's recommendations for dietary intake.

    The point to note from this is that major changes in the system in Canada have implications that go well beyond the farm gate. So changes in the varietal licensing system have implications throughout the value chain.

    In the submission we tabled with the committee today, which is actually a position paper on this and other issues, we noted that in recent months a number of government agencies, producer organizations, other industry associations, and in fact the Canadian Grain Commission have approached this association to seek our views on proposals for change in the grain sector and the identification, licensing, and handling of grain. Some of these proposals, if implemented, would also fundamentally change Canada's varietal licensing requirements. So I just want to observe that the new market impact test that we support is one that would accompany these other changes that are currently being advocated, and these also make it more important that such a market impact test be implemented.

    Because some new crop varieties have a greater potential to influence production, supply, and performance characteristics of wheat and other cereal grains, we're proposing that all new varieties, whether or not genetically modified, be subject to this market impact test. We foresee this market impact test including not only the agronomic cost and benefits--those that apply at the farm level--but also costs and benefits to the other key components of the value chain. These include, of course, the handling and transportation system, primary processing such as flour milling, and further processing such as baking, pasta, and these other food processing industries I reference.

  (1230)  

    We propose that in this market impact test system not all varieties would automatically be subject to this market impact test, only those that are identified as being warranted as having that. Our concept for this new market impact test is one that would allow any duly constituted organization, such as the CNMA, a producer organization, or another industry association that is representative of a defined stakeholder group could request that a market impact assessment take place.

    We propose that in order to be licensed for unconfined release and production, a new variety must provide a net benefit to the entire value chain. We think it's in the national interest, and certainly in the interest of the entire agrifood sector, that we achieve a net benefit by introduction of crop varieties that have this kind of potential to change the system. This implies that a new variety will not adversely impact the availability or quality of existing licensed varieties that have not only achieved market acceptance but have achieved market demand. Other speakers have noted that these principles are already reflected in the varietal evaluation system. These agronomic and end-use performance characteristics are already used by the recommending committees in the licensing process.

    You might well ask why we're making such a recommendation at this time. I can cite a few key reasons.

    The first is that consumers have made direct written representations to our customers in other food processing industries and to CNMA member companies themselves that they do not wish to consume genetically engineered wheat in the form of flour and other products.

    Secondly, for more than two years, many customers of the flour milling industry--and I'm referring predominantly to food processors--have been requesting written certification of the absence of genetically engineered wheat in the flour and other milled products.

    Thirdly, the Baking Association of Canada, the Canadian industry association that appeared before this committee in February of last year alongside us, passed a formal resolution that demanded, for the foreseeable future, the choice of using genetically modified wheat and flour derived therefrom indefinitely. Their resolution also called for none of the costs of that choice to be passed on to them and to their customers, the Canadian consumer.

    Fourthly, the Western Grain Elevator Association and the Inland Terminal Association of Canada have publicly declared that the western grain handling and transportation system is incapable of successfully segregating genetically engineered wheat from conventionally bred wheat varieties.

    I have documents with me today published by the Western Grain Elevator Association, which I can make available to committee members, that confirm that in their view, as the association representing all of that infrastructure in western Canada, it is not capable of doing what people have asserted, segregating successfully within the system. This may be possible for small crops in Ontario where we have a different system. It certainly isn't going to happen in western Canada, according to the people who own and operate the western system.

    The Canadian Grain Commission has publicly declared that affordable, rapid testing technology to identify wheat varieties that are not in demand for food use is likely many years off in the future. That is why indeed the Grain Commission has proposed varietal identification through an affidavit system.

    The concept of market impact tests that we are proposing, as has been recommended by the CWB and in fact recommended by the Grain Growers of Canada, is not one that would alter the existing scientific evaluation for human health and safety and environmental consideration. We're not proposing that this be changed. We're proposing that an additional consideration be given, where warranted, where requested by a significant player in the value chain, to determine that we're not going to have market harm as a consequence of going to unconfined release and into the marketplace.

    I want to be clear that what we're talking about is not a voluntary system but a regulatory requirement. We wish to see this embedded in regulation. We wish to see it applied to all varieties. We're not talking about genetically engineered. There are other varieties that could come forward from a whole range of breeders and developers that, for reasons other than particular concerns around genetically engineered wheat, could be just as damaging to the value chain and end users.

    I just want to emphasize that our shared challenge in all of this is managing this change. This is a very significant change, and we believe we need a regulatory component to manage that change.

  (1235)  

    Our recommendations and rationale are summarized in the documents I tabled today with the clerk. With that, I thank you for your time.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harrison.

    We begin our questioning with five minutes for Mr. Anderson.

    Mr. David Anderson: Could you clarify a couple of things you said here? You said earlier you only wanted this to apply to varieties that are warranted under this program and that farm organizations and such could apply. At the end you said you wanted there to be a regulatory requirement for all varieties. Which of those two positions do you take?

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: We want, within the regulatory system, a requirement, before a crop variety can go to unconfined release and therefore run the risk of the kinds of issues that have been raised about cross-pollination and loss of control and that kind of thing, and after all of the other scientific concerns have been met, that a market impact assessment be conducted where an intervenor has said “This is of real concern to me; I want that to happen”, whether that intervenor is the milling industry, the baking industry, a producer organization, or in fact a duly constituted consumer organization that's recognized by the Government of Canada.

    I don't believe we want to bog down the system by having absolutely every variety that has no market impact concern subjected to this kind of cost-benefit analysis.

  (1240)  

    Mr. David Anderson: Do you understand how political that will be?

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I don't think it will be any more political than what has been proposed, with all due respect, in terms of a voluntary ad hoc system.

    Mr. David Anderson: Well, people use that regulatory system regularly to try to interfere with the system. I was going to ask you, do you mill wheat developed by mutagenesis? And what percentage do you use?

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I'll be happy to respond to the committee. I do not have knowledge of a variety that is directly associated with mutagenesis, but I'll take that under advisement and respond in writing.

    Mr. David Anderson: All right.

    We've heard a lot today about market acceptance and socio-economic impact and those kinds of things. Over the last few days I've been reading some of this material, and I thought back. It's a good thing we didn't have this 100 years ago or we'd still be riding horses and sitting in buggies, because if we brought automobiles into this situation, they would not meet these criteria that have been suggested.

    I'm going to ask you, how do you think Canada can ever lead again in food products if basically every new product that comes onto the market can be challenged and will not be allowed on the market until the market has accepted it? How can we ever possibly lead again in the food industry if that's the situation you want established?

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: My question back, with all due respect, is how can we ever go back in time? We have so many forces of change in the wheat sector and the milling sector that are not just genetically engineered changes. We're not advocating that research cease. We're not advocating that research into genetically engineered wheat cease. We're not advocating any of those things. All we're advocating is that we not introduce things to the marketplace that are not accepted by Canadian consumers and therefore not accepted by Canadian processors and ingredient users. In no way are we proposing that we change the environment--

    Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Harrison, that's the job of the market. If they're not accepted by Canadian consumers or producers, they won't be produced. That's what the market is.

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I agree.

    Mr. David Anderson: This morning I've heard arguments that say we need to stop the market and completely interfere with it. The market should have the wisdom to make the decision as to whether it wants the product on it or not--

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: Would you like me to respond?

    Mr. David Anderson: --and you're saying we need to completely change that.

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I'd be pleased to respond.

    Mr. David Anderson: Go ahead.

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I'm not proposing that we completely change that. When we bring technology to market in Canada that is approved by Health Canada, it's approved for a lifetime of human consumption. That is the key criterion for approval. We're not questioning that in any way.

    Please let me finish.

    To your point that the market makes the decision, that's correct. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, cost-benefit analysis is applied by every provincial government to each technology--each drug--before it goes to market, and it is reimbursable. This is not a new concept.

    Mr. David Anderson: Drugs are not on the free market. Provinces do that because they control the system.

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I wouldn't agree with that statement; I'm sorry.

    Mr. David Anderson: Another question I want to ask is this. I think one of the real issues here is actually one you pointed out. That is the incapacity of the system, particularly in western Canada, to deal with these products. It's interesting that the problem is not at the farm gate, because farmers can segregate the product. The problem is in the system. We've had the Canadian Wheat Board and the large companies working together over the past 20 years to develop a bulk handling system that now is, in many ways, obsolete, because we're moving toward a lot more identity-preserved shipments; we're moving toward segregation issues.

    Although a large percentage of our product is still going to be moved by bulk in western Canada, we need a different system, and those who control the system cannot see into the future far enough to be able to set that system up. Farmers have the system that can segregate. The rest of the system is not capable of it.

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: To your point, I'm glad you acknowledge that the system is not capable of dealing with this. That is our point. If the system is not capable of dealing with it and not giving to us customers....

    I'm glad we spent the morning talking about customers outside of Canada; 30 million-plus Canadian consumers would be flattered, as would all of our customers who are here in Canada and in North America. This isn't about just the offshore; this is about Canadian consumers and our system. Our system can't deal with it. We apologize that we've not been able to intervene and help the system, but when the system catches up, we'll be happy to live with what the system can do.

    Mr. David Anderson: The farmers are ahead of the system then, because they're the ones who can--

    The Chair: Your time has expired, Mr. Harrison.

    We'll move on to Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I read quickly through the letter that you sent to the Minister of Agriculture on March 31. You summarized the approach taken quite well. Generally speaking, I support this approach and see no major shortcomings. However, I get the impression from the letter that you would like this approach to be subject to regulations, rather than have it be strictly voluntary. The consequences of that would be significant.

    I have had occasion to read some of the document leading up to the final text of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Miami Group lobbied for the protocol to come under the auspices of the WTO, with everything that would imply. My fear is that this approach would result in legal challenges being launched over this approach at the WTO level. Does that give you any cause for concern?

    Ultimately, to ensure international acceptance of your approach, without any legal challenges such as the ones initiated by the US against the European Union which has imposed a moratorium on GMO imports, would you not agree that the solution lies at the international level and involves the rapid implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to stop countries from launching legal challenges at the WTO level?

  (1245)  

[English]

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I thank you for that question. You've raised a really important point.

    One of the reasons we have recommended the regulatory approach that we have is precisely for that reason. We do not believe in the ad hoc voluntary approach advocated by the Grain Growers of Canada this morning, where parties would change and different people would be brought to the table on an ad hoc basis. Similarly, the first concept discussed openly by the Canadian Wheat Board with stakeholders was also somewhat ad hoc in envisaging bringing different people to the table. It would not be sustainable under Canadian law, nor do we believe it would be able to withstand challenge in the WTO. As it exists today, our regulatory system is able to withstand that. Our Health Canada system of approval, or our evaluation of food products via licensing, is consistent and transparent.

    What we're advocating is actually to ensure that what we ask for, and what we add to the system, does not interfere with what's in place, which has met the test of time with WTO and meets our trade undertakings. Therefore, what we're proposing is a model that needs to be defined, a consistent approach managed by a government regulatory agency as opposed to a voluntary ad hoc committee. We honestly believe that if we take the time to define the mechanism of this additional step in the regulatory process--not a change to what we already have--we will have something with a much higher degree of integrity and will be able to deal with just what you're saying.

    The Chair: We'll move to Mr. Binet for five minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    We hear about globalization, about the possibility of global regulations at the WTO level. Considering the behaviour of certain European nations and of Canada. As earlier witnesses said, Europeans do not have a great deal of trust in their governments. Here people have confidence in their political leadership. When the public is told that something is good, their level of confidence tends to be considerably higher than that of their European counterparts.

    Do you believe that an international approach is truly possible given the two completely different philosophies at play?

[English]

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: It's a difficult question to respond to. I'm most concerned about our industry's ability to contend with these changes that are being proposed in Canada within the North American environment. It is a fact that, due to international trade subsidies and other factors, Canada's milling industry is reliant upon the North American market. Perhaps 1% of total production goes offshore, outside of North America, so we're extremely concerned that what we put in place does not undermine the integrity of what we do now for environment, for health and safety. That is adopted by other developing countries. It's a model globally.

    We don't question the fundamental system, but we do not believe it should be left to a decision of a corporation, a university, a Government of Canada, the cereal breeding station, to introduce something to the marketplace and the environment that can't be successfully managed by the system and that cannot be successfully managed in terms of processing it and marketing it to consumers in North America.

    I do believe what we're proposing, and we're asking others to consider--to make this part of a regulatory system as opposed to something that's ad hoc--will serve Canada better than something that is not regulatory. That is our view.

    I have to say that we came to that view, as an association, with reluctance. We understand the implications of adding an additional pillar, as people are calling it, to the system. We understand the point made by previous questions, that we have to be mindful of our investment climate and all of those things, but we arrived at this position having been advised and asked by our customers and associations that represent them. We believe it would be best to put something in place that's transparent and defensible.

  (1250)  

    The Chair: Does someone else on the government side wish to ask a question? We still have some time there. Anyone else?

    Yes, Mr. Hilstrom...oh, I'm sorry, we can't go there. We're going to go to Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis first, and then we'll come back.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Just when you thought there was time.

    The Chair: Yes, well, I'm going to give the first part of that time to Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm sure there'll be some time left.

    The Chair: I apologize.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would just like some clarification on a couple of matters.

    I think, based on your presentation today, your position is consistent with the Wheat Board, in terms of calling for a moratorium on the introduction of GM wheat onto the market at this time--I'll let you clarify as I don't want to put words in your mouth--and that you support their call and the call of others for a cost-benefit analysis as a requirement for licensing. I just want to get that clarification before I go to my next question.

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: We're not proposing a moratorium. We're proposing that we put in place a regulatory mechanism that we've described, not as completely as it deserves. We're not proposing a moratorium. However, I think everyone in this room understands that to change the regulatory system in Canada one normally requires between 6 and 18 months, if you know exactly what you want, starting today.

    We are well aware that the current developers of GE wheat technologies have applied under the existing framework. We're not suggesting in any way that their rights be abrogated under the system. We're proposing that something be put in place to deal with all varieties that may be problematic, whether or not GE.

    As to your second point, yes, in principle, we support the CWB's proposal of a cost-benefit analysis. I think our view, as supported in writing by the Baking Association, is we'd like to see this to be a defensible and a sound regulatory addition, not a replacement.

    Thank you.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Fair enough. An important clarification.

    You've said to us today and in your brief that your customers began requesting written certification of the absence of genetically modified wheat and flours in the year 2000, I think you said. I would guess--and I think you've said this--these are mainly customers in Canada and the United States.

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: That's correct.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So I guess I'm looking for, since we've heard a lot this morning about customers in Europe and Japan, just to get a further clarification about the extent of the response you're getting in North America and the kinds of customers we're talking about in terms of Canada and the United States.

    Mr. Gordon Harrison:

    I can respond by saying that approximately 99% of our market is in North America. Of that market, 90% is for industrial use and about 10% is for retail, bagged family flour that you would buy in a retail grocery store or wherever. For its industrial and food service use, the majority of those kinds of requests are coming from further processors in the baking industry and other industries.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: As a last question, when my colleague, Dick Proctor, raised this issue in the House about a month ago, the Minister of Agriculture indicated some openness to including the idea of market acceptance in this whole equation before proceeding. Have you any suggestions for us as to how we can in fact move Mr. Vanclief from that tentative position to a firm acceptance of the notion?

  (1255)  

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I think it's incumbent upon the proponents of this cost-benefit analysis addition to the system to spend more time, work with government officials and justice lawyers to identify something that is defensible and implementable. It's incumbent upon us and the private sector to do all we can in cooperation with one another to bring something forward that the government can implement with certainty, so that we can shorten debate, shorten the time period around this. We're committed to doing that, working with the Wheat Board and others.

    We've found it necessary perhaps to advocate more strongly a regulatory approach that would be consistent with the kinds of instruments that we already have.

    Thank you.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.

    The Chair: Are you finished, Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis?

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: May I just add one comment very quickly?

    I want to thank Mr. Proctor for advocating that the committee discuss this. I want to thank him for listening to me about many other regulatory issues we should be discussing at this table that are of far greater importance than is this to domestic processing, but we'll wait for another day.

    Thank you for that.

    The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom, for just very short questions.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes. Does the millers' association have members who mill other cereal grains? Would that be corn too?

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: We have, as of the last month, a member who mills corn. That's King Grain in Chatham. That is soon to be known as Bunge milling.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: How many of your customers, including from the baking association here, are asking you to not utilize any GMO corn? How much pressure are you getting there? The second part of that question is, what is so different between the wheat and the corn when it comes to your customer?

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I would invite you to contact Mr. Scott Kinnear.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No, just answer the question. I'm not going to go and do anything. I'm asking you the question.

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I intend to answer the question, if I may.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Well, answer it, then.

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I'd invite you to ask them specifically as a foreign miller what they're encountering. Their advice to me, as this association manager, has been that customers of milled corn products have similar concerns and have been asking for similar certifications on a week-by-week basis.

    I believe the same is true for oat millers in Canada. We have now two member companies that are oat millers. I do not believe their customer concerns and requests are different than they are for wheat, based on what I've been told.

    I'll take it under advisement. I'll provide more advice to the committee, if I can, but to the best of my knowledge, that's the situation.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The last question is, you mentioned that you're listening to farm organizations. Do you believe the Canadian Wheat Board is a farm organization? Do you not know that it is a legislated monopoly from the government, that it is not a farm organization representing farmers?

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I would like to answer. I have a relevant comment, if I may, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Harrison.

    Mr. Gordon Harrison: I am well aware of the Canadian Wheat Board's statutory monopoly status. I can tell you that our opinion has been influenced by all of the farm organizations I have spoken with and sat beside. I have not heard a single farm organization or an independent farmer--and I mean this absolutely--say that they desperately want to have Roundup Ready wheat or other genetically engineered wheat, herbicide-tolerant wheat, because it will do wonderful things for them. I have heard nothing but the opposite from many farm organizations. That is the absolute truth.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Harrison. I guess if the truth is the truth, then we'll accept it as the truth.

    Thank you very much, again, Mr. Harrison, for appearing this morning. We're not concluding our discussions on this matter with this meeting. We'll have another meeting again.

    At this time I'm going to adjourn the meeting.