HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 7, 2002

Á

1110

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville))

Mr. Michael Presley (Director General, Food Bureau, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food)

Á

1115

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Michael Presley

Mr. Rory McAlpine (Director General, International Trade Policy Directorate, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food)

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Michael Presley

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Michael Presley

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Michael Presley

Á

1125

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Michael Presley

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Michael Presley

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis)

Mr. Michael Presley

Á

1130

Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis)

Mr. Michael Presley

Mr. Rory McAlpine

Á

1135

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mr. Michael Presley

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.)

Mr. Michael Presley

Á

1140

Mr. Dromisky

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Mr. Rory McAlpine

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. George Michaliszyn (Director, Life Sciences Branch, Department of Industry)

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. George Michaliszyn

Mr. Michael Jenkin (Director General, Office of Consumer Affairs, Department of Industry)

Â

1220

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Michael Jenkin

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Michael Jenkin

Ms. Heather Glouchkow (Senior Consumer Policy Analyst, Office of Consumer Affairs, Department of Industry)

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Michael Jenkin

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Michael Jenkin

Â

1230

Mr. Lunney

Ms. Heather Glouchkow

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Heather Glouchkow

Mr. James Lunney

Ms. Heather Glouchkow

Mr. George Michaliszyn

Mr. Lunney

Mr. Michael Jenkin

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. George Michaliszyn

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. George Michaliszyn

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. George Michaliszyn

Mr. Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska--Restigouche)

Â

1235

Mr. George Michaliszyn

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. George Michaliszyn

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Michael Presley

Â

1240

The Chair

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

Mr. Michael Jenkin

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 056

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 7, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to call this meeting to order, and to introduce to you our first set of witnesses, from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. With us today are Michael Presley, director general of the Food Bureau at the Market and Industry Services Branch, and Rory McAlpine, the director general for international trade policy, again from the Market and Industry Services Branch.

    Mr. Presley or Mr. McAlpine, whoever is going to start, please feel free.

    Mr. Michael Presley (Director General, Food Bureau, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Thank you. I'll address the committee. I'm Michael Presley.

    Thank you for inviting us here this morning to speak on behalf of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, regarding what we think the best options are for meeting consumers' information needs with respect to genetically modified foods.

    With me is Rory McAlpine, who is the director general of international trade policy.

[Translation]

    My opening statement will explain the Department's position regarding labelling of genetically modified food. I would then like to talk about some of the specific problems that the committee members have been asked to study, especially the ability of stakeholders in the agro-food industry to segregate and preserve identity; the real costs of observation to the stakeholders; the mechanisms for responding to consumer demands; the effect of different labelling policies on the flow of imports and exports.

[English]

    Earlier this week, officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada addressed some issues concerning the Government of Canada policy on foods derived through biotechnology. The government already requires the mandatory labelling of food derived through biotechnology if there are changes in the food with respect to nutrition or composition, or if it carries a health and safety risk, such as an allergen.

    Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has funded the work of the Canadian General Standards Board and the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors in order to develop a standard for the voluntary labelling of genetically modified foods to help to ensure that when information is provided, it will be meaningful, credible, and enforceable. The CGSB process is indicative of the importance of the agricultural policy framework currently under development by agriculture ministers. The framework recognizes the fact that consumers are becoming much more discerning and demanding in their food choices, and aims to ensure that farmers and the agriculture sector have the tools to better meet those demands. Such tools include systems for crop segregation, tracking, trace-back, identity preservation, and testing of crops and foods.

    The first issue I've been asked to discuss with the committee is the present capacity for segregation and identity preservation within the food system. On the primary producer side, on the farmer side, the trends are already clear. Aside from the impact of GM labelling, modern agriculture is already demanding greater investment in identity preservation and segregation systems. These systems facilitate the segregation of varieties of grain, for example, that are visually indistinguishable from other varieties.

    A discussion paper prepared by the Canadian Grain Commission in 1998 reported the following:

There are presently a number of cases where varieties with specific desirable qualities are being grown and kept separate in the bulk handling system by means other than visual identification.

Visual identification is, of course, the traditional means, but examples of these other cases include separating malting barley on a variety-specific basis, maintaining the purity of pedigreed seed, and segregating specific varieties of wheat within a class. These are high-value-added products that attract a premium price covering the added costs of segregation.

    Last week, we heard testimony from the Canadian Grain Commission to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food that, as more GM varieties become registered and as the need to segregate and to meet customer tolerances increases, there will be a need for verifiable, quantitative GM test methods. It is therefore important to consider the effects of GM labelling as being incremental to an already well-established and well-understood need on the part of the sector to invest in segregation and testing systems.

    Food manufacturers appear to be less familiar with segregation and identity preservation systems, and have historically relied on suppliers to ensure ingredient integrity. One exception to this may be the extreme caution the industry takes to avoid co-mingling of potential allergens—such as peanuts—with other ingredients. It's estimated that between 60% and 70% of the multi-ingredient foods produced for consumer consumption contain genetically-modified ingredients, mostly derived from corn, canola, and soybeans.

    The degree of complexity associated with compliance with a GM and non-GM labelling scheme is significant for food manufacturers when one considers that among thousands of food products, each would have an average of five ingredients. As well, each of the main ingredients averages ten to fifteen stages of production from original purchase of the seed by the farmer to the end food product for retail distribution. We have to consider that the same depth of information would also need to be known regarding imported processed foods, which constitute about 20% of the food items on the shelf today.

    A second issue we were asked to discuss was the cost of compliance for industry. Accurate determination of cost impacts is very difficult to do, given that this is a complex, highly technical issue, and no one is certain how industry will respond to pressure from consumers to provide labelling information. Monitoring the implementation of the CGSB voluntary standard will, over time, give us a lot better understanding of what the impacts will be, but there's no doubt that costs are associated with implementing a labelling program that involves segregation and identity preservation systems to ensure that there's no mixing of genetically modified crops with traditional ones.

    The question of ensuring particular tolerance for the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of approved GM material is a critical factor in assessing the feasibility and cost effectiveness of identity preservation, particularly from a bulk commodity perspective. Determining the adventitious presence of GM material, particularly at a very low level, such as 1%, would require time-consuming and very costly tests in modern, state-of-the-art labs. There seems to be some industry consensus that 5% tolerance may be more feasible. Farmers will have to spend more time ensuring that seeds are pure, that GM and non-GM fields are separated, and that farm machinery, storage facilities, and transportation systems are dedicated or cleaned between use. Paper trails and physical segregation will also have to be maintained at all levels in the value chain, including storage, transportation, primary processing, manufacturing, and retailing.

    The third issue that we were asked to discuss was mechanisms to address consumer demands. In other words, what would be the implications of a voluntary versus a mandatory approach? To date, the bulk of breeding objectives in genetically modified crops has been geared toward agronomic or environmental benefits, such as herbicide-tolerant canola, corn-bore-resistant corn, and potato-beetle-resistant potatoes.

    While significant public benefits are to be gained, such as a cleaner agricultural environment, increasing the ability to feed a growing population, and some improvement of nutritional and quality traits, the benefits to consumers have not been as evident. However, it's estimated that within five to ten years, genetically modified crops will be produced that will have more direct appeal to the consumer, such as plants with superior nutritional value, enhanced levels of nutraceutical properties, lower allergenicity, and improved food quality.

    Currently, gene technology is mentioned on food labelling only in the context of its absence, most commonly in the category of organic foods. However, the department believes that when the above-mentioned innovations—those consumer-attractive attributes—become a reality in the marketplace, attributing those benefits to genetically engineered technology via the label or in advertising will be more acceptable to consumers. If a voluntary labelling standard is in place, such as the current CGSB standard that is being proposed, it will assist consumers in making informed choices about GM or non-GM foods, while allowing the agrifood industry the flexibility it needs to determine its own technological marketing and production objectives.

    Further, we feel industry initiatives to implement the voluntary standard and provide the requisite investment in tracking, trace-back, and identity preservation systems now will help to ensure that they're well positioned to meet domestic and foreign buyer demands in the future. Mandatory labelling, on the other hand, could impose more significant costs for producers, the agrifood sector, and consumers.

    The fourth and final issue we were asked to discuss today was the effect of different labelling policies on import and export flows. Government mandated methods of production labelling would affect Canadian exports of genetically modified agricultural products, as well as other agrifood products such as livestock, dairy, and eggs, whereby importing countries could discriminate against like products from Canada because Canadian production methods are different. The type of labelling would include environmental, social, and ethical considerations.

    The use of method-of-production labelling schemes could have trade implications far beyond the food industry, and could be applied to mining, forestry, fisheries, other agricultural products, and even manufactured goods. This kind of labelling could be used to discriminate against like products on the basis of environmental, social, and ethical considerations. This type of labelling could easily be misused or abused for trade-protectionist purposes.

    Canada has strongly opposed the mandatory labelling requirements of countries like the European Union and China because the requirements are discriminatory and unscientific. While some of Canada's major agrifood trading partners, such as Japan, the European Union, and China are moving toward mandatory labelling of GM foods, close to 70% of our agrifood exports are to countries that, like Canada, do not require GM food labelling except for health and safety reasons.

    However, we need to remember that our largest agrifood export market is the United States and that Canadian agrifood industries and markets are highly integrated with those in the United States. The value of daily agrifood trade between Canada and the United States is $70 million Canadian, so a disjointed approach with the U.S. on voluntary versus mandatory labelling could place our agrifood trade at risk.

    In conclusion, the department thinks the issue should not be viewed narrowly. It's not just about labelling. We need to acknowledge the connection with the larger agenda and the importance of positioning industry to compete in the future. We need to think about this from the perspective, we think, of a country that's heavily dependant on export markets. Therefore, we have to anticipate those countries' markets and legislative requirements, and make investments in systems accordingly. If the world continues to put emphasis on biotechnology labelling, Canada will be ready. If interest in this issue wanes, Canada will have used its preparedness and forward thinking to be ahead on other fronts.

Á  (1115)  

    We believe the CGSB voluntary standard is the right step toward helping consumers get the information they want with respect to genetically modified foods. In regard to the CGSB process, Minister Vanclief has said publicly that Canada is the only country in the world to take such an inclusive approach to the issue of labelling foods derived from biotechnology in order to ensure that information provided to consumers is meaningful, useful, and clear. We also believe this standard will assist our agriculture and agrifood industries to make the right kinds of investments needed to continue to access global markets and to help maintain Canada as a global supplier of choice for international customers looking for high-quality and safe products.

    I'd be pleased to take any questions you may have.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Presley. You certainly did tell us what you thought.

    We'll start with Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): I thank you for coming in. This is very interesting.

    One of the things you said—you rattled it off fairly quickly, but I was trying to catch everything—was that we have $70 million a day with the U.S. in agricultural trade. You're suggesting that if we labelled it, it would put that in some sort of jeopardy because the consumer in the United States would not be prepared to understand the labelling or would reject it. What's the thinking?

    Mr. Michael Presley: I'll ask Rory to answer that from a trade perspective.

     Mr. Rory McAlpine (Director General, International Trade Policy Directorate, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Thank you.

    The volume of trade is indeed very significant, and the issue is that if we had a mandatory labelling requirement, all of that imported U.S. product would be required to conform to it. That would be extremely difficult, and it could well be in violation of our WTO or NAFTA obligations. It would almost certainly be strongly rejected by the United States.

    The issue is not so much one of whether or not we had labelling on Canadian products going south. That may or may not be an issue, because it would be a question of whether that labelling complies with their approach, and they have a voluntary approach right now. It's simply an issue that with the integration of our industries and markets, to have a difference on an issue as critical as this is almost certain to be very complicated in terms of the trade impacts.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: So what you're saying is that whatever they do, we basically have to do it in tandem or it will jeopardize the relationship.

    Tell us about the climate in the United States. There seems to be a tremendous amount of misinformation or lack of information with the consumer here. Are they at the same stage, further behind, or further ahead?

    Mr. Michael Presley: It's probably fair to compare the consumer knowledge and reaction to the technology in the United States with that in Canada. It's comparable. I think we've come to think of the consumer reaction to genetically modified foods in Canada as being more similar to the reaction in Europe. The American consumer's reaction is perhaps not where the Canadian one's is, but the trends are very similar.

    There has been a great deal of public opinion research on consumer reaction to the issue, and it's highly varied in terms of what it tells us, in terms of the extent to which consumers want this labelling and what the reaction would be to the labelling.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: You brought it up, so I'll ask about it. You mentioned Europe. They have been studying genetically modified foods and have been quite phobic about it for quite a while. Do you see a trend? If there's a trend, which way is it going, and why, perhaps?

    Mr. Michael Presley: There are a couple of things, but I'll mention one of the things we've noted.

    Food safety issues in Europe, as you know, have been quite significant in the last several years. A number of issues have provoked a very significant reaction among consumers to distrust the safety of the food products they're buying off the grocery shelves. The reactions in Europe have been quite significant all the way across the front. We haven't had that reaction in Canada. We like to think it's because of the strength of the food safety system the government has in place in Canada, and I think the extent is the same in the United States as well.

    I think the important thing to note would be that the reaction in Europe has been to introduce a mandatory labelling regime. When you go to grocery shelves in Europe today, though, you don't see labels on products, in spite of the fact that mandatory labelling is there. The reasons for that are some of the reasons I've explained around the implementation challenges: tracking, tracing, segregation, and being able to provide consumers in Europe with that information. In some respects, it's therefore hard to gauge what the consumer reaction in Europe has been to the labelling requirements, because those requirements haven't been implemented by food manufacturers in European countries.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Would you suggest that it's perhaps softening and that the consumer is becoming a little more aware in Europe? Or is it hard to judge?

    Mr. Michael Presley: No, I wouldn't want to suggest that the trends are softening. I think that would be incorrect for me to do. But nor can I say accurately that those trends are worsening, because I just don't know. I think it is fair to say that, overall, there has been a trend amongst consumers to have less trust in technology period, and to have less confidence in science overall. That translates into consumer behaviour when it comes to new technology introduced for foods in Canada and in Europe.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, that's international trade. Moving on to the domestic side, you're saying 60% to 70% of our products—soy, corn, and canola—are in our foods now. You've dwelt on the labelling much more than on the health end of it. Yesterday, it was suggested that there isn't any indication of any kind of health risk for any of the products approved in Canada. If that's the case, is it not that we should be looking at expending much more energy and placing more emphasis on informing our public, rather than just labelling and telling them what is or what isn't?

    Mr. Michael Presley: I think my minister has been fairly clear on that. To reflect the minister's view, I would say that—

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: But he's not here. You are. I'd prefer your view.

    Mr. Michael Presley: Again, to repeat the department's approach to this—which reflects the minister's view—this is an issue of informing consumers. Clearly, a large category of consumers wants to know more about the ingredients in their foods and about production processes associated with their foods. For the reasons Rory has explained, while moving to a mandatory system would have implications that I think ministers are concerned about, a voluntary approach seems to be an appropriate response.

    I think the issue here would be whether or not this is an excessive effort on the part of the industry in terms of costs. The approach that a voluntary system brings is an evaluation on the part of every food manufacturer to do the business case for putting a label on. To the extent that consumer response is going to be generous and that this really will in fact affect choice, we think the industry would respond.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't know how much time I have left, but I have one more.

    The Chair: Your time's up.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Oh, okay.

    The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I find it truly unacceptable, Madam Chair, that the Department of Agriculture comes before this committee without a translated text. They have been saying the same thing for four years about GMO. I don't see why they can't come here with a translated text.

    The gentleman was before the Agriculture Committee a short while ago. As my colleague pointed out, he read his text so quickly that the translation doesn't make sense. My hat's off to the interpreters because they were able to translate all the words, but they were spoken so quickly that it was not understandable.

    If the Department was not prepared to table a French text, it should have warned you and the session should have been cancelled out of respect for the francophones who sit at this table. I find it is truly a gesture of contempt towards us.

    That being said, I will move on. You spoke of four points in your text. Since you spoke very quickly, could you repeat those points, slowly please, so that I can find out what you were talking about?

[English]

    Mr. Michael Presley: I certainly apologize for that. We'll certainly provide a full French text of my comments as soon as possible.

    We addressed four issues. The first was a discussion of some of the implications associated with the agrifood sector capacity for segregation and identity preservation. I think the point I tried to make quickly was that the current capacity within the sector is somewhat limited. However, the industry knows that the requirements from the market for more and more investment in tracing and tracking, segregation, and identity preservation systems, is the requirement of modern agriculture, and that these investments will need to be made increasingly. So, yes, while the requirements of a genetically modified food labelling requirement—either voluntary or mandatory—would be significant, these are the kinds of investments the industry needs to make in any event for other reasons.

    The industry does have a long way to go in terms of investing in those things. Much of what the federal and provincial agriculture ministers have emphasized in the agricultural policy framework being moved forward by federal and provincial ministers of agriculture is aimed at addressing just that issue and at working with producers and with the food system to augment those systems.

    The second issue I addressed was the cost of effective compliance for all stakeholders, and it's related to the first point. Because these systems are in the early stages of being developed and refined, the costs could be quite significant. However, those costs are costs of doing business that the industry recognizes and needs to make investments in.

    One of the challenges associated with a voluntary approach versus a mandatory approach is that, with a mandatory approach, you require the costs to be absorbed quickly and comprehensively across the entire industry. With a voluntary approach, firms are able to do it within their own business case, within their own business cycle, so the investments that they know they need to make can be made within their own capital investment schedule.

    Next were mechanisms to address consumer demands. This was a discussion of some of the implications of a voluntary versus a mandatory system. We tried to explain how we thought a voluntary system would be implemented and, particularly, some of the factors that would motivate food manufacturers to voluntarily label, particularly as some of the new commercial applications for biotechnology come on stream with more attractiveness for consumers, i.e., with greater heath benefits, greater nutritional benefits, and the removal of allergens from products.

    To date, most of the fifty-some different crops that have been approved for use in Canada have been approved for agronomic purposes. They generate a lower risk and higher yield, and they tend to have environmental benefits that support such things as conservation tillage and reduced pesticide use, which of course are very important cost components for farm production.

    So that was the third element I discussed.

    The last one was the trade implications. We basically tried to explain some of the concerns that we had from a trade perspective, and I think Rory just elaborated on that in response to the question. There are significant trade concerns around a mandatory system in WTO terms.

Á  (1130)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Last weekend I was watching the general drill in the Salt Lake City stadium. People were asked to open their backpacks and to open any water bottles and taste the water in front of the officer responsible for security at the stadium entrance to be sure it was not poisoned. Everything going in was inspected with great care.

    Do you think that the Americans' phobia, their fear and anxiety of going through a new attack has become permanent and could change their attitude towards the compulsory labelling of everything we will export to the United States?

[English]

    Mr. Michael Presley: I'll ask Rory to elaborate on this, but I think we are seeing legislation being introduced in the United States to this effect, around the issue of food security, but I think the broader issue of food security, both in Canada and the United States, is a concern about the extent to which foods could be tampered with. In other words, the effort to distinguish this issue from the regulatory approval process—where the assessment that I think you've discussed with both Health Canada and the CFIA takes place—is rigorous. This is the issue of the extent to which terrorists or those with untoward objectives could infiltrate the food manufacturing process and introduce into the food system any contaminants or elements that could do significant damage to populations here as well as in the United States. There's an increased emphasis and effort being placed on that with respect to the U.S. efforts.

    In regard to food security and how that could translate into new requirements for Canada, I'll let Rory address that.

    Mr. Rory McAlpine: I would agree that there has been a heightened concern in the United States about issues around biosecurity and bioterrorism, just as there has been in Canada. In fact, the regulatory authorities both in Canada and the U.S. are taking steps to address those issues, and they are discussing the implications of some of those concerns bilaterally.

    Pending legislation in the United States would potentially lead to new regulations around security of the food system and things like country-of-origin labelling, which seems to have a renewed emphasis in the United States. There's a renewed desire to know where all imported food products are coming from, and there are also other measures related to notification, enhanced inspection, and so on. I think you can attribute all of those things to September 11.

Á  (1135)  

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Tremblay, and I apologize. I would suggest that when the Agriculture people come again, they make sure they have....

    You realize that even those of us who would be using the English don't have it, because we can't hand out the English if there is no French. We were all getting only what we could get through our ears. We were not able to check the exact wording as you were....

    Mr. Michael Presley: I apologize for that. We thought we had made the arrangements a couple of days ago for these to be distributed to the committee in advance, but that seems not to have happened for some reason.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I would like an indication from those people who haven't spoken but would like to. I think we're still all right for about four minutes each.

    Just for your information, we have another set of witnesses. We would like to start with them at about 11:50 a.m., because we would like to end this meeting at 11:40 so that we can have twenty minutes for our future-business planning session.

    Dr. Dromisky is next, for four minutes.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much.

    You made references to the community in general having less trust and less confidence in the kind of information that is flowing from the people who are involved in this field, and I have to agree with you. If you look at the websites, and even at your website—I know you work for seven ministries—you find terms such as “foods derived from biotechnology”, “foods with novel traits”, “genetically modified foods”, “transgenic foods”, and so forth. The general population doesn't know what you're talking about here when you have so many different terms. What kinds of foods are you really talking about here? I find it very confusing myself.

    Is there any move whatsoever to try to establish some kind of harmony in the use of terms internationally—not only in Canada, but between Canada, the United States, and Europe, and so forth? You could be talking about some kinds of foods from Europe that are not really what I'm talking about in Canada. This is very confusing even for the more intelligent people in our society who make use of the website, who read articles, and so forth.

    When I read him a paragraph of a document we received here, one member of Parliament said to me on Tuesday, “Stan, what the hell are you talking about?” I have to agree with him. It is a very confusing issue simply because of the terminology the professionals are using. I don't really know how we can really solve this problem, because we can't fight these professionals and the language they're using for the general population and for the food industry in general. I don't know who is going to make these kinds of decisions, but do you understand the point I'm trying to make? Have you talked about this issue? What kind of feedback are you getting on an international as well as a national basis?

    Mr. Michael Presley: That's a very astute observation. It's a fundamental challenge that we face on the file, and it's a fundamental challenge that has been addressed by the Canadian General Standards Board committee in regard to how to label.

    I'm not sure how much of the CGSB process and the standard that was up for a vote a couple of weeks ago have been described to you by other witnesses, but we always think of three fundamental issues and policies as being associated with that vote. One of those three is the definition. What is the definition of “biotechnology”? How should the language appear on the label? What reaction would that language provoke in consumers?

    Much of the concern from the retail industry is that whatever language you use, it would be construed as a warning. Frankly, any time you use language like “genetic engineering”, it provokes a certain response. What's important for us is that it's just a reality that the language used is going to provoke a reaction. What was important was a consistent use of what that language meant for the purposes of a standard.

    I believe you may have had a discussion with Health Canada the other day about a narrow definition and the logic that it should apply to what we refer to as recombinant DNA, which in our terms is a more recent technology employed in biotechnology. In our view, we think it responds to consumers' concerns about technologies that, in their view, don't have a long history of use. Our view was that we needed to come up with a definition that would apply to a technology that has ten or fifteen years' worth of use, rather than many decades of use. The problem with biotechnology is that it can include everything from traditional breeding through to accelerated mutagenesis, and then through to recombinant DNA. The view of the committee—and the reason that departments, including my department, voted for the standard that was proposed a couple of weeks ago—was that it focused on recombinant DNA.

    Recombinant DNA, by the way, is the technology referred to in the labelling schemes used around the world now, both mandatory and voluntary. The United States uses that approach in their voluntary approach, and the mandatory approaches used in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, are all recombinant-DNA-focused definitions.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Dromisky.

    Ms. Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): This is the second time we've had people from different departments here. I'm sure we're eating all kinds of things that are genetically modified, and I'd like to tell you to take it all back and close it down, because it all makes me really uncomfortable.

    I was in the U.S. recently, and I picked up a package of bread or whatever the item was, and it had on it, “Does not contain genetically modified ingredients.” It was about $1.50 more than the item that didn't have a label on it. I bought the one that said it did not contain GM ingredients, and I paid the extra $1.50. I would think the industry that isn't using GM products would be very quick to advertise the fact that its products are not derived from genetically modified foods.

    Once those foods are into the oils, they're into everything, so when I say I want to close it down, sent it all back, and stop the process because it makes me uncomfortable, I'm concerned that it has gone so far that this is impossible anyway. Whether you go into the voluntary or the mandatory, with the dollars you're talking about and as far down the process as it has already become integrated, is it not going to have to be uniform labelling, both for whatever we decide as well as for what the U.S. decides? Is it not going to really have to be decided from both countries, from a World Trade Organization standpoint? As much as I don't want to do that either, isn't that the reality?

    Mr. Rory McAlpine: I would reiterate the point that because of the integration of our industry and the American one, because of the tremendous U.S. investment in Canada in this sector and vice versa, and because of the trade, it would be extremely complicated to move. We already have situations in which much less significant changes in labelling requirements, standards, or what have you in Canada, versus those in the United States, create some significant problems.

    The only other thing I would perhaps mention is that in any approach to achieving assurance around this and achieving agreement internationally, there needs to be a harmonization of approaches in terms of tolerance levels and testing methodologies to determine the presence or not of genetically modified ingredients.

    And it goes back to the question of labelling, too, so that we have a harmonized approach and a common way of describing products, testing products, establishing tolerances for accidental presence, and so on. That's where organizations like the Codex Alimentarius Commission come in; where we're working with our trade partners to come up with a common labelling standard internationally for voluntary application; and where, in other fora, we're pursuing discussions about achieving harmonized approaches to these other issues of tolerances and testing.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Why couldn't you just put a label on everything saying, “May contain genetically modified foods“?

    The Chair: Excuse me, Madame Sgro, but we're having trouble with the bell situation. We were told they were just waiting for the Liberal whip and that they had an agreement to defer the vote. Apparently the Liberal whip has now arrived, but they don't have an agreement. The vote is therefore going forward, and I think we have less than ten minutes at this moment. That means I'm going to have suspend the meeting.

    I'm sorry, Mr. Presley and Mr. McAlpine, but I think I must say you are now released, because we'll have to start with that other group when we come back. Thanks.

    The meeting is now suspended until we return. Please hurry back, because we have another set of witnesses to hear from.

Á  (1145)  

---

  (1211)  

    The Chair: I'd like to call this meeting back to order, please, and introduce to you some representatives from the Department of Industry. We have Mr. George Michaliszyn, from the Life Sciences Branch; Mr. Michael Jenkin, from the Office of Consumer Affairs; Ms. Heather Glouchkow, the senior policy analyst; and Mr. Brian Botting, the senior policy adviser.

    I don't know which one of you wishes to begin, but whoever it is, please start.

    Mr. George Michaliszyn (Director, Life Sciences Branch, Department of Industry): I will start.

  (1215)  

    The Chair: Before you do, we want to thank you for having copies of your presentation in both French and English.

    Mr. George Michaliszyn: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    The objective of today's presentation to the Standing Committee on Health, in terms of the labelling of genetically modified food issue, is to provide an overview of biotechnology and its importance to the Canadian economy, as well as a way of dealing with consumers' needs through the choices they have in the markets.

[English]

    Industry Canada's involvement in the GM food labelling issue stems from its broad industry development and consumer protection mandates. The Life Sciences Branch promotes innovation and acts as a reasoned advocate for a policy and regulatory environment conducive to growth and job creation in the Canadian biotechnology sector. The Office of Consumer Affairs promotes the interests and protection of consumers. We work hand in hand at ensuring that both the economic and the consumer interests are represented.

    What is biotechnology? It's an umbrella term that covers a broad spectrum of tools and techniques ranging from traditional technologies like fermentation, plant and animal breeding, and cell and tissue culture, to more advanced techniques such as genetic engineering, gene transfer, cloning, tissue engineering, etc. I think what we're talking about today is largely the modern biotechnology.

    Biotechnology is really key to innovation. As with information and communications technologies, which generate tremendous growth and employment in renewable opportunities for Canada, biotechnology represents the next wave of transformative and enabling technologies. It is mega-enabling in the sense that it affects many of our traditional sectors, including forestry, aquaculture, agriculture, and medicine. A key feature of biotechnology today is the convergence of these technologies. We're seeing that agriculture can be used to produce chemicals, and it can also be used to produce medicines. It's not just traditional food products, although the subject here today is dealing with food.

    Biotechnology will underlay future innovation and growth opportunities, and is the way by which Canada can become one of the top five countries for R and D by 2010. In a knowledge-based economy, the role of biotechnology is becoming increasingly important. Biotechnology is one of the fastest growing sectors in the world. It's expanding four times faster than the G-7 average for all sectors. It has a higher employment multiplier than other technology sectors. Biotechnology leads in terms of the annual growth in patenting, which is a proxy for the innovation. R and D expenditures by the industry in Canada approach 40% of their total sales. That's a very high level of investment in research and development.

    The biotechnology sector is innovating rapidly. The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee estimates that global markets for biotechnology products will grow from $20 billion in 1995, to $50 billion by 2005. StatsCan estimates over 17,000 products are in the pipeline. It's truly an indicator of the future growth of this sector. We're going to be seeing a tenfold increase in new health-related products expected over the next ten years, and many of those will be in the agricultural and agrifood sectors, because those will have products which improve the characteristics and health benefits of foods.

    Biotechnology promises not only economic, but social benefits. On the health side, we're talking about improved drug therapies and diagnostics, better prevention of diseases, and healthier foods. In agriculture, we know there's the productivity side, with higher crop yields and drought, cold, disease, and pest resistance. We're also now seeing molecular farming, which is really the ability to produce other products in the agriculture sector, such as vaccines in plants. In forestry, we're again improving disease and pest resistance. In the environment, we're talking about bioremediation and cleaner fuels, or biofuels. In energy and mining, we're looking at cleaner production through bioleeching. So a lot of benefits are to be derived, but they are not yet here. It's a new technology. It's still in its infancy, but the potential is tremendous.

    Global competition, however, is fierce and growing. OECD countries recognize the growing strategic importance of biotechnology to economic growth. By way of comparison, Canada spent $2.50 per capita in biotechnology R and D in 1998, compared to $7 in Japan, $14 in the U.K., and $15 in the U.S. Germany has also set its goal to be the number one biotechnology country in Europe. This is after many years when they had a very difficult regime for biotechnology and really lost hundreds of millions of dollars in investment in that country.

    Consumer confidence, however, is an issue for the industry. The industry supports a strong and efficient regulatory regime. I don't want there to be any misconception about that. The industry wants a good regulatory environment. It's essential in building public confidence in biotech products.

    Canada has one of the best regulatory regimes in the world for evaluating biotech products. It has become a model for many other countries, and while biotechnology products have been with us for many years, there is now a growing consumer awareness of their existence in the marketplace, particularly for GM foods. Consumers are, however, getting mixed messages from various sources and are asking for labelling of GM foods.

     Mr. Michael Jenkin (Director General, Office of Consumer Affairs, Department of Industry): If you don't mind, Madam Chair, I'll handle the rest of the presentation, which is really more from the consumer policy perspective on the issue we have before us today.

    I'll underline a couple of points that I think are important here. First, for the marketplace to function effectively, transparency and, therefore, confidence in the information provided in the marketplace is critical. If we don't have that, obviously it engenders distrust and suspicion. To be upfront and clear about communicating what people are buying is a critical issue in making sure the marketplace functions effectively. As George has mentioned, this is clearly in the long-term interests of the industry itself, and the industry clearly recognizes that. It's also an important issue for the management of the marketplace today—and I'll make a few comments about that in a moment—because the marketplace is generally becoming a lot more complex, much more sophisticated place to navigate than it was, say, fifteen or twenty years ago. So this is a key issue for everyone.

    Although not the only one, labelling is obviously an instrument at our disposal for ensuring transparency. While the Department of Health has already outlined to you their approaches for labelling, particularly with respect to the Food and Drugs Act, we already have a large number of mandatory regulatory regimes with respect to providing consumer information and, indeed, consumer warnings on products in order to ensure that they're used safely. They obviously relate primarily to the health and safety issues with products, and I might add as well that we have them under other regulatory and legislative instruments, such as on bilingual labelling. And there are also mandatory requirements with respect to weights and measures and so forth. But up to the present, all of these mandatory mechanisms have focused primarily on what you could call legal fairness, in the sense of your right to know what you're buying in terms of quantity or, most importantly, health and safety reasons.

    I think it's important to underline that what we're seeing today in the more complex marketplace, as I mentioned, is that consumers do have growing concerns about what they're buying in the marketplace that go beyond health and safety issues alone. I think it's fair to say as well, though, that those are receiving a fair amount of attention from consumers these days. People are recognizing that what they're buying, how it's made, what it's composed of, and so forth, beyond sheer health and safety issues, is very important to them. We've seen this in a wide range of issues, such as the food area in terms of the growth of organic products. In Europe and in many other places in the world, too, issues such as whether the wood you buy for your home renovation is from a sustainable forest or not, are important issues for some consumers. It goes on from there.

    This has become a very key issue for many consumers. All the polls we've seen certainly indicate that the majority of consumers believe they should know more about the products they buy, both in terms of what their impact on them is, and in terms of how they're made. Indeed, support for this can be found in a number of international protocols, most notably the UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection, which we saw implemented in 1985.

    The labelling issue can be used for these other forms of production descriptions. Indeed, as I say, they have been used in various countries, in various situations, and on a voluntary basis. But the key issue is that if you do want to label for other than these mandatory health and safety issues, the question is how to go about it. What I've tried to outline for the committee on the next two pages are some of the considerations that have to be taken into account—the plusses and minuses, if you will—of a voluntary and a mandatory approach to the labelling of genetically modified foods. I'd just like to take you through them very briefly for a moment.

    On the voluntary label, there are clearly a number of advantages. Most importantly, most voluntary labels that have any meaning in the marketplace are developed through standards-setting processes. These are very well-organized. There are very rigorous rules for how these standards are developed. Particularly with respect to the voluntary label for genetically modified foods that is currently under development, all the key stakeholders with an interest in the issue are involved: consumers, producers, regulators, and so forth. They reflect a broad constituency of views about what the appropriate thing to do here is. Secondly, how it should be done is a very important issue.

  (1220)  

    Clear definitions are established when you use the standards system, because they are quite rigorous. The system also allows producers, who obviously wish to respond to market demand, to take the label and use it in their marketing. And for those consumers who are very interested in these kinds of issues, it provides an opportunity to identify those products and purchase them. It's also obviously consistent with all our international trade obligations, because you are quite free to voluntarily label, even when using well-established public bodies, such as the Canadian National Standards System, to develop those labels.

    The difficulties or weaknesses of a voluntary system are also fairly clear. The costs fall only on those selling and buying the labelled products, which frequently means they can be higher-priced products—not necessarily always, but they can be. Because it is left to the free choice of producers in the marketplace, there is no guarantee of the level of take-up that you might have. Again, the concern there is that a products may remain niche products, ones that may not be available in all places in the country or in overall categories of food that you may wish to purchase. And voluntary labelling certainly may be seen as inadequate by a significant number of consumers who believe a regulatory approach should be applied.

    On the mandatory label, clearly there also are a number of advantages. By its very nature, it is an unequivocal identification of GM products, because it is required. Marketplace take-up may therefore be more certain, although, as you've heard in the testimony given by our colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, it is not always clear that there is a high level of take-up in the marketplace even when these systems are implemented, as they have experienced in Europe. But the mandatory label does obviously respond directly to the demands of those who wish to have these products labelled.

    I think the difficulties have been largely explained to you already. Mandatory labelling does contravene our international trade agreements and we would be liable to sanctions. Again as has been pointed out by our colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, it does pose problems with our cross-border trade with the U.S. because of differences in approach here. It would impose significant segregation costs on the entire food industry. We don't know what those are, as you've heard in testimony, but certainly they would be passed on to consumers, and that's an issue. Those costs clearly would be borne by everybody, including those individuals who perhaps don't think this is an important issue in their consumption patterns. And the costs obviously create a certain degree of uncertainty with respect to the investment climate.

    So those are largely the pros and cons of the various approaches. We have definitely been participating in the development of the voluntary label through the standards board, in order to provide advice from a consumer policy perspective. That process has been underway, as you well know, for almost two years now. It has been a complex issue, and it has been complex not only because of the essence of the issue at hand, but because of the large numbers of stakeholders involved who are coming at this issue from very different perspectives. Nonetheless, significant progress has been made. A vote was held on the standard at the end of last month, and we hopefully will have the results of that very soon. Certainly, if it is approved, it will provide at least one option in the marketplace for individuals to make the kinds of choices they wish to make.

    For your information, committee members, in our deck, we have included a couple more statistical annexes on the industry in terms of the competitiveness situation, and on the composition of the biotechnology sector.

    That concludes our presentation. We would be very happy to take questions.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Because we were interrupted the last time, I had two names left on the list, so I think it's fair to let Dr. Lunney and Dr. Castonguay begin this time.

    Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance): On the issue of pros and cons, let's go back to the vote that just took place the other day at the Canadian General Standards Board. Are the results of that vote not known?

     Mr. Michael Jenkin: No, they're not out yet.

    Mr. James Lunney: How many stakeholders were involved in that vote? Do you have any idea?

    Mr. Michael Jenkin: I'll turn it over to Ms. Glouchkow, who has actually participated on the committee.

     Ms. Heather Glouchkow (Senior Consumer Policy Analyst, Office of Consumer Affairs, Department of Industry): There were 53.

    Mr. James Lunney: Going back to voluntary versus mandatory, could you clarify for us whether the voluntary refers to people who are voluntarily wanting to label their products as GMO-free, or is it ones who want a label indicating that the product does have GMs? Or is it both?

    Mr. Michael Jenkin: If it's approved and finalized, the standard is intended to serve both purposes. It would allow producers the option of labelling, according to a well-established set of criteria, what is a GM-free food product and what is a genetically modified food product. The standard will allow producers to label for either purpose.

    Mr. James Lunney: I see.

    Suppose we're dealing with the issue of the GM canola—which I think has about 70% or 80% of production right now in Canada—and you have an organic fellow up the road who is growing to certify his product as GMO-free. You have a problem with pollen drift. I understand that there were acceptable criteria for a moderate contamination by GMOs. Is it 5% that you're recommending?

     Mr. Michael Jenkin: Yes, that is one of the proposals on the table.

    Perhaps I'd ask Ms. Glouchkow to respond to that, because she has actually been involved in the details of the committee discussions. I think she may be able to provide you with a specific perspective.

  (1230)  

    Mr. James Lunney: Is it 5%?

    Ms. Heather Glouchkow: It's 5%, yes.

    Mr. James Lunney: Is it correct that the European standard is 1%?

    Ms. Heather Glouchkow: Yes, but as you heard from Agriculture Canada this morning, they're having a hard time implementing that. I'm not a scientist, but my understanding is that you can test for 1% in a laboratory condition, but you can't do that on a mill floor. It's therefore rather meaningless to set it at a level you can't test to, and that's one of the problems. We obviously want to set that level as low as we can, but it has to be at a meaningful level.

    Mr. James Lunney: I think that's one of the things you're talking about when you speak of consumer confidence as being an important factor in this industry. I think this is an item that causes a lot of concern for people. And the fact is that GM canola has been reported to be up to twenty times more aggressive in pollinating than its natural counterparts are. Would that not raise the concern that a person raising the GM product can essentially eliminate their competition in a matter of time?

    Ms. Heather Glouchkow: I think this is probably a question that should have gone to Agriculture Canada.

     Mr. George Michaliszyn: These are regulatory issues that need to be resolved. If pollination or drift is a concern, those things really should be captured within a regulatory context.

    Mr. James Lunney: Right now, trying to fence the pollen in or fence it out is a real problem. It does blow around quite a bit, and I think it's the subject of a considerable lawsuit right now.

    Mr. Michael Jenkin: Yes.

    Mr. James Lunney: I think this is an issue of confidence in a voluntary system, in that the deck is in fact stacked on the side of the GM producer, especially with pollen. Once it's released in nature, you can simply eliminate the competition.

    Of course, we know the GM seed has to be purchased from the company. In theory, that could create quite a problem for those trying to create or maintain a natural or GMO-free product. Would you agree with that?

    Mr. George Michaliszyn: I would say the person producing canola has options to buy non-modified or modified. There is a free choice.

    Mr. James Lunney: Precisely, but my point is that if his crop is being contaminated by drift from down the road, he's going to have trouble certifying it or maintaining his GMO-free status.

     Mr. George Michaliszyn: I know there's an issue before the courts, but I thought it had been resolved. In any case, though, that issue can be dealt with through distance separation. That is an issue that the regulator should define in terms of an appropriate boundary. Studies can be undertaken to measure the drift and to understand how far that drift occurs. Consequently, guidelines can be set to adjust according to need. But, again, I don't think we should be responding here to the regulatory issue. I think that's an issue for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

    Mr. James Lunney: Well, I thought we were here to discuss the concerns—

    Mr. George Michaliszyn: Yes, sorry.

    Mr. James Lunney: —and the pros and cons associated with the different systems.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

    Monsieur Castonguay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska--Restigouche): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our guests.

    Two days ago, last Tuesday, we met with representatives of Health Canada and exchanged ideas. Obviously we realize the enormous potential of the new organisms that are called genetically modified. On the other hand, there are unknowns regarding long term averages and the effect they may have on people's health. We obviously recognized that ensuring a follow-up on the effect of all these foods was mission impossible.

    That's why we are saying that perhaps we have to give people a chance, we have to inform the that certain foods come from genetically modified organisms. Then they can at least make a choice. One of the ways to do this is obviously labelling. There are other ways, such as a 1-800 number or a web site, but at least with labelling people will see it on the shelf and decide whether they want something or make another choice.

    I see all the problems that arise if it is compulsory and if it is not. We were told a little earlier this morning that if it were done on a voluntary basis the industry would be able to do it within their own business cycle. I have some difficulty with that and I would like your comments. I can understand that it creates problems but I still believe that the information should be available to the consumers so that they can make an informed choice.

    When I hear within their own business cycle, I would like to know what that implies and I would like your reactions

  (1235)  

    Mr. George Michaliszyn: I think that what we are trying to say is that if consumers demand products that are not genetically modified, a producer can meet the market needs. If there is a market and it is doing well, obviously producers will respond. Currently, producers are involved in the voluntary standard and they recognize that the other option represents a consumer mode that is not voluntary. I therefore believe that there is some interest in wanting to meet the needs of the market.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: If I understand what you are saying, it's that supply and demand will solve the problem. If the demand for information is high enough, the industry will adapt.

    Mr. George Michaliszyn: They will adopt labelling. We have standards to meet the needs of consumers. They are already applied in the stores. Therefore if there is a demand from consumers for a given product, the market should respond to it under normal circumstances.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Agreed. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Getting into labelling, it seems to me that we have a public that is a little bit phobic about where we're going. I'm trying to wrestle with this in my mind. Has the public already drawn the conclusion that genetically modified foods are potential risks and that people therefore want to know what's in them, or do people just want to know what's in their foods but they haven't really come to a conclusion about whether they're harmful or not harmful?

    I think that's where we are in the debate. I wish there was another name other than “genetically modified foods”, because the connotation is that it's this Frankensteinian food that gets talked about. I think it's very much a matter of misinformation on the part of the public. Just a generation ago, we were all growing our own foods, so we knew what we were eating. Today, we're relying on other people growing a majority of or all of our food, so I think that's where the problem is. It's in educating the consumer.

    Voluntary labelling, or even mandatory labelling if we get into it, is one approach to informing the public, but are we doing other things? Are other mechanisms being used by you to inform the public about exactly what it is that they're eating?

    Mr. Michael Presley: To deal with your first question, which is the issue of where the public is on this issue, a fair bit of polling information has been done. Frankly, the public's attitude toward these issues is very complicated and not clear-cut. To go down the hierarchy of certainty, as it were, in terms of where the public mind is, there's very strong support for the need to know.

    Whether one feels comfortable or not comfortable with the technology, most people believe they should have information about the products they're buying, with respect to whether they are a product of this technology or not. Whether that's just based on a concern with the safety of the technology itself or not is a much more complicated question. On that, you don't tend to get as high a response in the public mind.

    Frankly, I think this reflects the spectrum of views that are out there more broadly, which is to say that people largely make up their own minds up about and generally feel more comfortable with what they are familiar with, like traditionally biologically modified foods, such as those produced through fermentation technology and those kinds of things, for example. It's with the new stuff, frankly, that you do have a significant reservoir of individuals who are concerned, but there are others who are not. But the issue of knowing what you're buying is certainly an area in which most people—largely the majority of individuals—feel they want information materials, information products, and information mechanisms that allow them to make those determinations.

    With respect to what we've done to inform Canadians, there have been a lot of initiatives to inform Canadians about genetically modified foods and the biotech industry in general. Our department has done some of these things to provide some information to the public, and we do have some products coming out in terms of websites and consumer quizzes, in order to allow individuals to log on to find out more about genetically modified foods and the issues of the biotechnology industry in general. We are trying to provide objective information to consumers and other individuals, and other organizations are doing the same, so there is a reservoir of information out there. The questions are whether or not it's enough, and what the right mechanisms are to deliver it.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    We'll now go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, who will be the last questioner, as we have to move on to the third part of the meeting.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Again, I apologize for being late.

    I'm sorry I missed your presentation, but I have one question I have to ask you. Your new minister said a few months ago on public TV that he personally supports the labelling of genetically modified foods. I just wondered if you have received any direction from the new minister on this whole issue, and if that will be taken into account in terms of the ongoing work of the department.

    Mr. Michael Jenkin: I think our minister's view is that he is anxious to hear the views of the committee on this issue. In fact, I think that's why the issue has been referred to the committee. Certainly, the department has been participating in the development of a voluntary label, but the issue of whether there should be a mandatory one or not is really one for further consideration.

    But as I said, I think the minister has indicated very clearly that he's anxious to hear the committee's views on this issue.

    The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to say you thank you to our witnesses.

    They have left paperwork for us, Judy, so while you missed the presentation, it's all very clear.

    I think we should reserve the right to call you back when we know a little bit more about these issues and what conundrums arise in our own heads as we listen to other witnesses, but I thank you for coming this morning. We'll probably get to know you a little better later on.

    A witness: Thank you.

    The Chair: If I may, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to try to have some quiet in the room, as the committee is going in camera. I'm going to ask any observers to please depart fairly quickly and quietly. We would appreciate it.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]