[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 14, 1996
.0903 
[English]
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have enough members here to start the meeting, so I call the meeting to order.
We have a couple of issues on the agenda this morning. I believe we have the room until 11 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
The Chairman: At no later than 10:30 a.m., as a committee we need to go over the first report of the steering committee. So around 10:30 a.m., plus or minus depending on how the questions and the comments from the witnesses this morning go, we will move to that so we can complete that portion of the agenda before we leave today.
First of all, I would like to welcome Dr. Art Olson and ask him if he would introduce his folks with him this morning. They're going to give us a presentation on the proposed organic food production regulation. Dr. Olson, please.
.0905
Dr. Art Olson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Food Production and Inspection Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
With me today is Dr. Anne Mackenzie. Dr. Mackenzie is the director general of the food inspection directorate. She has the responsibility for our policy on international contact with regard to all food inspection issues that are managed by Agriculture and Agri-Food. That covers meat inspection, all the fruit and vegetable licensing, arbitration and all those issues, and seed, feed, and fertilizers as inputs to agricultural production.
She has a significant amount of international contact because of her involvement with Codex Alimentarius as the chairman of the labelling committee and as Canada's representative in a variety of quadrilateral environments where we work with other countries in terms of harmonization of food standards and ensuring that food risks that might face our environment are dealt with.
With me also is Ann Millar. Ann has had the rather interesting set of responsibilities of dealing with a very diverse group of organizations in helping to expedite the set of draft regulations we'll be talking about this morning. She has been the primary contact with the different certification organizations in Canada; there are 42, each with a variety of linkages, but no one of those organizations represents all of the organic industry in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I have some prepared notes I'd like to go through as background, if that would be useful.
The Chairman: Please.
Dr. Olson: It's our understanding, by the way, that this is of the nature of a briefing, but in the sense of where these draft regulations are. We'd be more than pleased to respond to questions with regard to those regulations as they currently exist in draft and where we see them going and why they're where they're at.
The Chairman: That's right, Dr. Olson. If you could bring us up to date on the situation as far as the department is concerned, then there certainly will be some questions and comments. We have also had somewhat of an indication that there may be other groups that wish to come before the committee and bring comments as witnesses, and we as a committee thought that before we did that it was only proper that we got an update and a briefing on where we are at the present time.
Dr. Olson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, we're talking about a set of regulations here that really deal with nomenclature. They deal with the nomenclature around a production technology called organic. The products that are produced under this production technology are already under the Food and Drug Act in terms of health and safety and false or misleading claims. They're also regulated under the consumer packaging and labelling legislation in the same kind of context, and they're regulated, for instance, in the sense of vegetable products under the Canada Agricultural Products Act.
So there is an existing structure for these products. The nuance here is that we're talking about a specific nomenclature, a production technology, that the industry wishes to have recognized in terms of allowing them access into international markets.
This is a fairly complex process in terms of achieving consensus when you're dealing with a large number of organizations, and we've tried very hard to ensure that the process is driven by the industry itself. As I mentioned earlier, there are some 42 different certification organizations across Canada, and that makes it a particularly complex matter.
I understand that we have provided a fairly extensive text to all the members so they have a far more detailed background, but I'll walk through that process. We also have a fairly detailed chronology that we can walk through if you want us to, in terms of what has been a fairly lengthy process that might be of use to you as well.
Organic food production in Canada and really internationally is based on the premise that production is carried out without the use of or with limited uses of synthetic substances. This combined with the preserved sustainability of the soil, water resources, and the agricultural environment base forms the principles by which this sector of the agricultural community chooses to be recognized.
.0910
Organic food production has been practised for about fifty years in Canada by adherence to the noted principles. I presume that you could actually say that all of the production in Canada was organic prior to the advent of some of the synthetic pest control products and sources of fertility that became available just after the Second World War.
In the context of national agricultural production, the organization and productivity of organic food production has not been a significant portion of the total production by the nature of the kind of business it has been. However, in recent years there has been an increase in the development of this sector of the agricultural industry. This increased development is directly attributed to the increasing consumer concerns about the environment and the need to stimulate activities in the agricultural food industry that would benefit the ecosystem.
As the development of organic standards move forward, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada served as a facilitator for the industry. We served as a focal point for the industry and provided the assistance and necessary input to the Canadian Organic Unity Project, COUP, which is a project to define Canadian organic certification standards and establish working proceedings for an evaluation and accreditation program for organic certification bodies.
We worked on various committees concerning potential federal requirements and processes while we were doing this. While we've had close cooperation, our participation as a department in the committee deliberations has been limited to an advisory role. The final decisions and ownership from resulting proposals that came from COUP remained entirely in the industry domain.
Domestically, use of the term ``organic'' and its derivatives is subject to the prohibitions of the Food and Drugs Act, as I mentioned earlier, and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, respecting misleading and deceptive representations concerning foods.
Guidelines for the use of these terms were published by the former Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in December 1988. This retail mandate now rests with Agriculture and Agri-food Canada as a result of the consolidation of retail inspection in Agriculture and Agri-food Canada a year ago.
In order to avoid misuse of these descriptions that I noted operate under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and the Food and Drugs Act, the industry has been called to self-regulate in the absence of any specific legislated requirements. Individuals using the term ``organic'' must be able to provide evidence that the product is produced in a certified system and has a verifiable audit trail.
The Canadian Organic Advisory Board assumed the role of the primary contact organization for the organic industry in government consultation. Industry and government comments on the proposed organic standards were compiled and sent to the directors of this organization.
A comparison of the proposed Canadian standards with the American Organic Foods Production Act, which I understand was in the press yesterday, Mr. Chairman, is again coming up in the United States. We also looked at the European Community's organic regulations and the proposed Mexican organic standards as part of this process, and provided the same to the members of the Canadian Organic Advisory Board.
The information received was evaluated for the final preparation of organic standards. It was these industry-developed certification standards and accreditation procedures on which the proposed federal regulation is based.
Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, in consultation with the Department of Justice, drafted the proposed regulation using the standards and procedures arrived at by industry. The proposed organic food production regulation has received considerable consultation. This document was reviewed by the Canadian agricultural industry, provincial governments and the United States in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The Chairman: We're having trouble following you.
Dr. Olson: I'm sorry. I'm working from a much shorter set of notes.
The Chairman: My comments right now are on our page 4. I see people groping to find where we are.
Dr. Olson: My apologies. All I did was provide you with a detailed set of notes that you might use at your leisure.
The Chairman: Okay.
Dr. Olson: I decided that the last thing you wanted to listen to was me walking through five or six pages of detailed text. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.
The Chairman: Go ahead.
Dr. Olson: If I can do this in one paragraph, Mr. Chairman, I'd love to, but it's not that simple.
The Chairman: No, it isn't.
.0915
Dr. Olson: Anyway, in the process of looking at all these regulations we concluded that the proposed regulations were well reviewed. However, when we circulated the latest draft version of this document to various groups for final review prior to the official regulatory process of submission to the regulatory system, it was evident that not all sectors of the Canadian organic industry agreed with the need to regulate or the nature of the proposed regulation.
At the request of the Canadian Organic Advisory Board, the regulations proposed are mandatory in nature. They apply only to products that are labelled ``organic'' and that cross provincial boundaries. Trade within a province or territory is in the jurisdiction of the province or the territory.
Currently only British Columbia has regulations pertaining to organic agriculture. Participation in the British Columbia system is voluntary. We are informed the province of Quebec will be introducing a mandatory provincial regulation. The exact nature of this regulation is unknown at this time.
The proposed federal regulations would make the system mandatory for certification bodies with clients trading organic product in international markets. The European Union has adopted a system that requires certification of all product traded as organic. The United States has proposed a similar system in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. I should note also that Australia has in place essentially the same system as is being proposed for Canada, where they regulate on a mandatory basis for interstate movement and international movement.
So there are a number of parallels we can look at. These systems require that imported product be produced under a system that has been recognized as equivalent. What other countries expect of us, we would expect of them.
Mr. Chairman, those are my remarks. My apology for the confusion. I did try to get it as brief as possible.
The Chairman: We appreciate that.
To start the questions and comments today I will go with the government, the official opposition, and the third party. It will be my intention that another day we will start and we will just rotate that around, unless there's some objection to that, and move that around. So Mr. Reed, for ten minutes.
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): Thank you very much. I promise not to take ten minutes, Mr. Chairman.
I have just two questions. One is this mention of interprovincial trade. We're going through a period right now when we're trying to break down trade barriers and provide a common market, if you like, inside Canada. There are still many barriers to interprovincial trade. I wonder if you might care to comment on that and if you somehow find yourself in conflict with the intent of all of the governments of Canada to try to arrive at some kind of meeting ground.
Dr. Olson: Mr. Chairman, I think the question is part of a bigger issue that deals with what is called ``national treatment''. In other words, the treatment we accord to product coming into Canada...we have to accord the same treatment to ourselves. That means in Canada we regulate at the international border and between provinces. The case in point is meat. Unless it's federally inspected, meat cannot move between provincial jurisdictions. We're in much the same situation with this particular area. That applies to almost every commodity, by the way.
Mr. Reed: It seems to me there's going to be a move to create one food inspection body. What will happen at that point?
Dr. Olson: There's a bigger debate around the issue, but I would put it this way. Under the various trade agreements that Canada is signatory to there's a shifting definition of what is national treatment. There are those who would like to take the approach that national treatment is the minimum standard anywhere within a country, anywhere within a jurisdiction. In Canada's case, if one province has a lower set of standards, then other countries can import into that province, and perhaps into the country, at that standards level.
.0920
Over the last four or five years we've been working very aggressively towards a series of national standards. For instance, an extremely cooperative process between the dairy industry and the dairy processing industry has just about consummated a national dairy code.
I recall discussing some years ago the issue of overlap and duplication with provincial jurisdictions and the interprovincial barriers. Dale Tulloch, of the National Dairy Council, reminded me that there are currently eleven different one-litre milk containers in Canada. They're all defined by provincial legislation and every one is defined somewhat differently. We're trying to come to a national code that will deal with those kinds of things.
We're working down the same path in terms of our meat inspection, in terms of a national code for meat inspection, which is much more complex because of the variety of levels of meat inspection that are carried out within the country.
In terms of fruit and vegetables, we're already there basically, because I believe - and you may correct me, Dr. Mackenzie - that essentially every province is currently using federal standards regarding fruit and vegetables.
For the processed product, canned fruit and vegetables, also basically everybody's using the same federal standard.
Mr. Reed: How do you define ``synthetic''?
Dr. Olson: Actually, the debate that I find most complex is defining a product that is chemical or non-chemical. That one gets particularly complex, and there are days when you feel as if it would be useful to go through a basic course in biology and chemistry again.
Your point is a difficult one. ``Synthetic'', to me, means a product that has been produced as a result of somebody sitting down to generate a product. There are any number of non-synthetic products - for instance, pest control products and fertilizers - but the same products in fact may be available through synthetic means. That's true whether they be medicines or pest control products or what have you. It becomes essentially a moot point in terms of definition. It is a complex matter.
Mr. Reed: I think of fertilizers. In terms of the organic milieu, how do you say that certain fertilizers are acceptable as being organic but others aren't? After all, all the manufactured fertilizers are manufactured from natural products.
Dr. Olson: I'd put it in this way: I think there is a strong concern within our society about the impact of the huge number of different chemical products we live with. It's also part of our health system. These products are essential in a variety of different ways.
Among this community are those who have very strong concerns about using products that are produced by chemical means, in the sense of a production facility. However, the same product, when it exists naturally and is separated by physical means, is acceptable to them, because it may not have contaminants or may not have textures or structures that are inappropriate. That is very much part of the debate within the industry.
Generally speaking, the industry has some aversion to synthetic products. Some portions of the industry, for instance, use what are naturally available compounds, pyrethroids, for insect control, but they're produced synthetically. So you get into all these variations.
It is perhaps not a bad example to point out that some of the definitional issues here that the industry itself is facing are very much based on those kinds of concerns and interpretations.
.0925
[Translation]
M. Chrétien (Frontenac): There are constraints and costs related to organic farming.
I clearly remember that in the riding next to mine, there was a large organic farm that marketed its fruits and vegetables and that supplemented its sales by selling pâtés in the region where I live. They were doing so well that the farm could not meet the demand for basic products.
For instance, I remember that they had to go and get a supply of carrots in Montreal, though these carrots were not at all organic. They were packed in bags and sold as organic carrots in many cases for 200% of their value. People were simply being had.
I also remember that one of my friends who's a dairy farmer, and who's always a few years ahead of his time, had attended a meeting that had really struck him and he decided to transform his herd of dairy cows into organic cows. He gave up on the veterinarian; I sam him rubbing his cows' tits with Mazola oil to cure their mastitis.
That chemical fertilizer that you were alluding to earlier, Mr. Reed, was out of the question, which meant that his production costs grew astronomically while his dairy production dropped by 40 to 50%. His cows didn't have mastitis anymore, but they produced almost no milk.
He had to change their feed and since he could not market his organic milk - he wasn't going to create a new transportation system, a new processing plant - he was penalized from beginning to end. After a few years, he had to come back down to earth and go back to traditional agriculture in order to avoid bankruptcy.
Like all of you, I think that regulation is essential, first of all so that producers are not duped and secondly so that farmers and processors can earn a reasonable living.
I would like to get to the issue of costs. At the national level, is it realistic to support these producers and farmers on a large scale?
Obviously, a small farmer who works seven or eight acres of strawberries or raspberries can always say that he will use no chemicals or synthetic products and may manage somehow. However, I must point out that the longevity of those I've known in this area has been very brief.
Finally, there are so called biotechnological products that are difficult to identify. Among other things, I'm thinking of recombinant bovine somatotropin hormone, a natural hormone that every dairy cow has in her brain and that can be added artificially through injection in order to increase milk production. It would seem that in order to detect this hormone in the milk cooling reservoir, it would cost $7,000 to $8,000 per test and it would take several days to detect whether one of the cows in the herd was injected with rBST. It will certainly be difficult to verify this in some places.
There's also biological pest control. It is possible to eliminate fungicides, pesticides, insecticides, etc. by orchestrating biological pest control. Instead of putting rat poison in my barn, I'd put a dozen cats, but my cats created problems with my neighbours. I was solving the mouse problem in a totally organic way, but I had other problems with my neighbours. They were killing off my cats.
In closing, to get back to the reality of life, you undoubtedly know that this will considerably increase prices. I'm also wondering whether organic produce won't be affordable only to a privileged class of people, because there are already people on this planet who are dying of starvation and by the year 2020, the earth population will have increased significantly.
.0930
Therefore, if we had a massive movement toward organic farming in Canada, it should not create any major problem. But in some parts of this planet, if we want to be philanthropic, somebody will have to pay for the luxury that we can afford here.
Ideally, there would only be one billion people on this planet and we would farm all our products with organic methods only. I visited two apple producers, one who grows apples according to the good standards that we have today and the other who uses organic farming methods. The second farmer's apples are twice as small as those of his neighbour, their peel is all chewed up by worms and so on. Everybody would like to be handsome, rich, healthy, tall and strong, and nobody wants to be weak, sick, ugly, etc.
I would like to hear your views on this. I've talked quite a lot, Mr. Olson, but I think you're capable of taking a lot.
[English]
The Chairman: Dr. Olson.
Dr. Olson: Mr. Chairman, I very much identified with the cats there.
The Chairman: On the lighter side, Dr. Olson, we've all heard the term ``overkill''. Maybe Mr. Chrétien should have had only two cats instead of a dozen. Then his neighbours wouldn't have become upset as soon as they ran out of mice.
Dr. Olson: I think there's room for market forces. I'm sure the competition kept those cats in good condition, so there's an opportunity there.
On a broader scale, I think there is a demand for product from this particular production technology. There are variations in that production technology, but there is a market there and that market is growing.
At the same time, what we call the more conventional agriculture is facing environmental pressures in terms of a variety of resistance it is building, for instance, with pests. I guess the classic example is the Colorado potato beetle. It's a pest of potatoes that adapts extremely rapidly to new chemical controls. It evolves very rapidly. It's somewhat the same kind of thing that happens, for instance, with bacteria that affect humans where they're faced with antibiotics. They adapt very quickly.
The solution will be somewhere in between in the long term in terms of global food production. There will be a combination of pest control methodologies that perhaps involve chemical products, but also involve production techniques. The kind of technology we're talking about will involve building resistance to particular diseases into plant materials or animals, for instance. I think evolution will continue to be part of how agriculture develops.
In the sense of this particular community of production technologies, I think the agricultural and commercial kinds of production are moving together in the same direction. They will be very similar. They'll borrow from each other and use the same kinds of capabilities.
One of the examples I could use goes back to your apple example. Close to 30 years ago I was in California and met with the California department of agriculture about some of its first attempts to implement what it called integrated pest management. It was using a much lower level of pesticide on its food crops. It was encouraging the use of natural insect predators in terms of insect control. It was doing production things to provide, for instance, spacing of trees so it didn't get pest movement between trees. It was using a variety of technologies to reduce the requirement for the kinds of pest control solutions that were then available. They are now commonplace right across North America in terms of food production capability. They have become part of how those products are produced.
.0935
The best example of it in Canada is the breeding into wheat of rust resistance. The alternative would have been chemical solutions. Over the years we have bred resistance to a variety of diseases into our wheat crop so we don't have to use alternate pest control methods. The plant itself fights off the problem.
All of those are convergent in the sense that they borrow from each other. In terms of feeding the world, I think we'll find these technologies part of that more global solution. So I'm comfortable in that sense.
In terms of the member's comment regarding the value of this product, it is a production technology or a series of production technologies. It involves, in many cases, a significant amount of labour to do these products. I'm sure the people who produce them expect to get a return that satisfies the commitment or investment they made in that particular product. As I said, it's a growing market. It seems to me that people are prepared to pay. I think that's a good sign in terms of this industry developing.
There is a growing international market, and that's the reason for these regulations. In terms of Canada being able to certify a product as organic to meet international market opportunities, we require some form of regulatory framework, and that's part of the reason for the regulations.
With respect to biotechnology, I mentioned the breeding of resistance to rust into wheat. I'm a biochemist by background. I guess you'd call me a biotechnologist, albeit I'm many years away from a laboratory bench and, in fairness, many years away from the science. But I look at biotechnology as really no different in many ways from the conventional breeding technology our plant breeders and animal breeders have available. It's a way to make change to build in natural resistance or improve productivity. So biotechnology is a tool in that regard.
I think this industry has some concerns about that, but that is also part of what it's looking for in a production technology definition.
I believe I've covered all the points in your question.
The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Olson.
I have just a point of clarification before I go to Mr. Hermanson. I wonder if you have any figures on the size of the organic food production technology industry in Canada and North America at the present time. I know understanding how organic is defined is part of this discussion, but what's the size of it in dollar value or as a percentage of food production?
Dr. Olson: It's my understanding that there are no official statistics on what organic production is, but it's estimated that organic agricultural products represent from about 0.5% to perhaps 1% of Canada's agriculture output. The sector is growing rapidly. You can see the products in conventional retail stores where they didn't exist a number of years ago. There's a huge international market that's growing extremely rapidly.
I should mention, partly in response to the previous member's question, that one of Canada's major advantages from an organic point of view is our winter. It's the most effective pest control system that any country could ever apply to itself, although I must admit there are days when I wish we had an alternate way of dealing with it. Winter is not my favourite time of year in some ways.
The Chairman: We won't get into it here, but if our winter is so successful in controlling insects, why doesn't it work on blackflies and mosquitoes?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Dr. Olson: I'd like to have that debate some time.
The Chairman: There aren't any today. Mr. Hermanson said it worked last night, so maybe we have hope yet.
Dr. Olson: In terms of the dollar value of the industry, the estimate for Canadian organic production in 1995 is about $50 million, which is up from about $20 million in 1991. So that's a pretty significant growth in terms of an industry.
.0940
Of that, Saskatchewan will produce between $7 million and $10 million, mostly in grains; British Columbia between $10 million and $15 million, a high proportion of that fruit and vegetables. Quebec sources estimate organic production to be worth about $12 million, which is up from about $3 million in 1988.
So you can appreciate the interest. There is a market here.
The Chairman: Thank you for that information. I wasn't aware what the size was.
Go ahead, Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank Dr. Olson, Dr. Mackenzie, and Ms Millar for appearing. In light of the fact that this is a growing industry and there are proposed regulatory changes in the industry, I believe it's very important that we have this chance to meet with them and ask them some questions.
I also have some questions about some of the details of the regulations and how they impact on the industry, but first I want to talk about process, because I've had a lot of correspondence, particularly a few months ago, about how the industry was consulted in the whole process. It didn't take me very long to realize there's a lot of controversy in the industry over these proposed regulations and the format the process took.
Not all the stakeholders agree with the process, and not all of them are entirely happy with the way Agriculture Canada has dealt with the process. You probably know that. There seems to be quite a division in the industry between COAB speaking for the industry, on the one hand, and some other organizations, such as OVONA and OCIA International, and the people they represent in the industry. From both sides I did hear concern that information they sent to the department for distribution was not fully distributed, or was not adequately communicated, to all the people in the industry. So I pass it along to you that I heard from both COAB people and people in these other organizations that they felt your department was not adequately passing forward the concerns and responses to the proposed regulatory changes.
I want you to respond to some of the correspondence I received. Maybe we'll break it down into a couple of sections.
First of all, I have a communication here from someone from the province of British Columbia, the deputy minister, Bruce Hackett, to Mr. Raymond Protti, deputy minister, Department of Agriculture and Agri-food. He states that he has detailed seventeen important concerns or questions related to the earlier draft of the regulations and the approach for their implementation in a letter from Ms Daphne Sidaway-Wolf, senior policy analyst, food standards, food industry branch, ministry of agriculture, fisheries, and food. My goodness, what a long title.
Anyway, they were extremely disappointed that virtually all their concerns remained unaddressed in the almost unchanged September 1995 draft regulations. They list a number of their concerns. They start off by saying the mandatory nature of the proposed regulations contravenes the strategic directions of the Canadian food inspection system blueprint approved by the ministers.
I have another letter that says neither the Province of British Columbia nor the Province of Quebec is pleased with the proposed regulations. They see serious problems with what you propose.
I'd like to get a response from you, first of all, on the concern about the passing of information, and perhaps the lack of cooperation of some of these provinces.
Dr. Olson: I'm not aware of any lack of cooperation by any of the provinces.
As I mentioned earlier, there are 42 certification bodies. I should have mentioned that there are about 1,575 certified units under those 42 certification bodies. How many more are uncertified we just don't know. So it's a complex environment to be working in.
In the case of British Columbia - and I can have Dr. Mackenzie follow through, because she was very much involved in direct consultations with the province - one group of this community chose to distribute the draft of the regulations. I believe that was last spring. We chose to put them out last fall. Only one portion of the regulations was distributed last spring, and we felt it was appropriate to let the whole community have access to the regulations.
.0945
So a portion of British Columbia's reaction was based on the assumption that we had a set of regulations that they had been part of the distribution of in the spring of 1995. They saw the draft that was out in September, which is the same set. Their assumption was that there should have been changes.
What we were trying to do was make sure that everybody was aware of what was in the draft regulations.
Dr. Mackenzie might want to take it from that point, because I believe she had meetings with Daphne Sidaway-Wolf after that letter was sent in.
Dr. Anne A. Mackenzie (Director General, Food Inspection Directorate, Food Production and Inspection Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): The situation in British Columbia was unique in that of course British Columbia has a voluntary set of standards. They have their own provincial voluntary regulations. It's important to appreciate that in British Columbia they have 11 certification bodies and, at present, around 244 certified units.
You're absolutely right: British Columbia had expressed some serious concerns. So we did some personal consultation with their assistant deputy minister at the provincial level. We also met with some of the, let's say, leaders in the organic industry in British Columbia. It became rather clear to us that one of their items of contention was that they didn't feel as if they were getting proper representation on the national body. I think their frustration was that they had made efforts and made submissions and at one point had even been a participant at one of the national meetings but they really felt as if their point of view was not being adequately listened to or addressed.
I'm quite happy to report. Certainly the information that we have back is that the last national meeting of COAB, which is the national advisory group.... British Columbia now has permanent representation, Mr. Pennell, to the COAB board. My latest information from the province is that they are feeling much more comfortable with the ability now to have their position brought forward to the national association.
The feedback I have had from the province is that they are much more comfortable now, after we have done a fair amount of personal consultation and detailed explanation. They are certainly much more comfortable now than they were before the letter you mentioned, Mr. Hermanson, that came in from Mr. Hackett to our deputy, Mr. Protti. So I believe that that process of personal consultation has proved very useful and that the situation is now effectively resolved.
Mr. Hermanson: Is the short answer, then, that in the provinces of B.C. and Quebec the provincial governments support the proposed regulatory regime that we are looking at?
Dr. Mackenzie: What we are doing right now as a department is waiting for the resolution that will be presented to us from COAB. They had a meeting in Vancouver approximately a month ago, at which time the status of the regulations was vigorously discussed and they generated a resolution. The effect of that resolution, we believe - and it is possibly a bit preliminary for me to prejudge what final position COAB will bring forward to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada - is that they are going to ask to have mandatory regulations.
The process they are going through right now is running that by the various certification agencies that exist. So now that they have their resolution, they will be discussing this with the certification agencies. We expect - and I can ask Miss Millar - that within the next month their official position should be coming forward to our department.
.0950
Mr. Hermanson: The second letter I have is actually a letter of resignation from - I believe he's a doctor - Dr. David Patriquin, who was a director on COAB. He's from the biology department of Dalhousie University. In his letter of resignation he says:
- Since the annual meeting, I have been quite uncomfortable with the concept of government
regulation of labelling of organic produce, and particularly with the concept of using such
regulations directly or indirectly to regulate the use of the word ``organic''.
- I see the process that is being set up as one that is very cumbersome and expensive and I have to
say I am skeptical about the ability of the industry as it exists to carry it out. I think it will
collapse (possible), or be taken over by government in its entirety (unlikely) or by large
concerns who have the funds to manage it (likely if it doesn't collapse). I have no problem with
the last mentioned doing it, but the system must be voluntary, not a legislated one. It is the
potential combination of big business interests and legislation that bothers me.
I wonder if some of his concerns have been addressed. Have you maintained correspondence with Dr. Patriquin? Is he more comfortable with the regulations as they're unfolding now?
Dr. Olson: Mr. Chairman, I think we're dealing here with a COAB matter. We're looking for direction from the Canadian Organic Advisory Board. Presumably, they're going through a debating process internally within that organization regarding the future of whatever regulatory structure under which they wish to operate.
That's their debate. We're looking forward to the results of that.
Mr. Hermanson: I guess I wondered if you'd respond to the fact that he feels the whole regulatory regime we're looking at would be very cumbersome and expensive and whether or not there have been changes that may have addressed his concern. Or maybe you disagree with his position. That's what I'd really like to get from you.
Dr. Olson: In the initial discussions back in 1989, the industry was looking for self-regulation. They were not looking for a government-operated regulatory framework. I don't think that position has changed. So the costs he must be talking about are the costs of the self-regulation.
There obviously will be costs if you're going to put the necessary certification systems in place. Albeit there are 42 different bodies right now, there will be costs for doing that.
I think how the industry wishes to deal with that is their decision. We have agreed to provide a regulatory framework once they've come to that agreement and are looking forward to seeing what they bring forward, but we don't intend to move beyond a monitoring role in terms of actual regulatory activity.
We will have a role, however, in terms of false and misleading labelling, which we already have right now. A member made a reference earlier to the issue of falsely labelled material that was going into the market, which is one that we would want to discuss in terms of whether or not that was false and misleading. But that's separate from the issue raised by the gentleman about whom you're talking.
There is an issue here, Mr. Chairman. In the process of leading up to the development of a regulation or a position, there's often a huge volume of correspondence. Once a regulation is starting to work its way through the system, we typically advise the people who are responding to that regulation that their comments will form part of the public record.
So when we went out last fall with the letter to all the players, they were advised that we would be providing that material to COAB. Up to that point in time, that was, in essence, personal correspondence to the government. It was certainly accessible through the process of access to information, but it was not part of that regulatory debate.
I think we have a responsibility to protect the privacy of those people, and we are trying to do so. Should they wish to release their correspondence, obviously we're prepared to give it to whomever they want it directed.
That may be part of the problem to which Mr. Hermanson is referring. It's that the earlier correspondence, in fact, was not directed to us as part of a regulatory process in which all the players had been advised that it would be made public.
The Chairman: Okay, thank you. I'm going to move on to another round. There are a number of members who wish to speak. It's shorter, of course. I'm going to start out with Mr. Calder.
Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): Dr. Mackenzie, Ms Millar andDr. Olson, what I'd like to talk about is how ``organic'' in the conventional system is going to coexist with the regulations we're talking about here.
.0955
Last year I had a chance to go to Washington for Vision 2020 and at that time to follow along on what Mr. Chrétien had talked about. Five years ago seafood production maxed out at 100 million tonnes. It has declined by 8% since that time and is still declining. That tells me that by the year 2020, when the population of the world is supposed to be between 7 billion and 8 billion people, all food production is going to have to come from the land mass, and we have a problem of urban encroachment on prime agricultural land.
On the regulations that are sitting here for organic food production, as I see it right now basically organic food production is not as high-capacity as conventional farming is. Maybe you can speculate on that. On weed control, for instance, what I would be wondering about is a conventional farm that's talking about going to organic production. Is there a withdrawal period under these regulations? If chemicals have been used for herbicide or pesticide, is there a withdrawal period? Or if the person is involved in organic farming, can they go back to a chemical method to correct, for instance, a weed problem? If not, I would be worried about there being an environmental issue here, because we're looking at going to no-till tillage or low-till tillage. How would you control weed infestations under that?
The other thing I'd like to look at is the handling and processing system. Are we able to use the systems that are there right now for the conventional product that's coming through? Or do we have to establish new handling and processing systems for this extra organic food production?
These are all things I'm looking at from the regulatory point of view. I'd like to have your comments on them.
Dr. Olson: First, the basic criterion is that it has to meet the existing legislation in terms of the Food and Drugs Act or the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act or the CAP Act so the food is safe in the first place. That's a basic given. If it's sold by grade, then it has to meet the grade standards.
The question we're talking about here is a production technology. Theoretically, with zero-till producers in western Canada, we could have a zero-till regulation that did something the same. It happens if you have a particular kind of production technology.
In terms of the certification process, my understanding is that the time between a person moving from the more conventional kind of production to an organic kind of certification system is 36 months. So there in fact is a pause in between. That's not unreasonable. The same kind of thing is used in terms of cereal production, in terms of a person becoming a seed grower, in terms of moving from conventional cereal production to becoming a seed grower. The same thing is used for a person in terms of seed potatoes. If they have a disease problem, then there's a period of time before they're able to go back into seed production to ensure that whatever caused the previous problem has been brought under control. In other words, there's a pause in between.
In terms of the impact on the food chain, how the product will be handled, this depends to a large extent on how it's eventually going to be sold. For instance, in the valley here there's a very large operation down in Winchester that does seed cleaning of organic soybeans and dry beans. It is a very large facility with a conventional seed cleaning capability, but my understanding is that the operation does only organic product and has some very large markets as a result. I've been to the facility.
There are very large markets for those products because in fact he's able to demonstrate that he's never taken conventionally produced product through that plant, or not within whatever the pause period was after previous production. Actually, I believe it's a new facility. It may never have had conventional production going through it.
To a fair extent it depends on the market itself, but three years seems to be the typical kind of period in between - handling systems, production, and so on.
.1000
[Translation]
Mr. Landry (Lotbinière): I'm pleased to tell you that at Sainte-Élisabeth-de-Warwick in my riding, there is an organic research farm.
My question will be very brief. In order to avoid duplication and overlap, as well as to reduce expenditures, would the federal government agree to withdraw from a province that has stricter standards than its own while agreeing to allow the use of its "Canada organic" seal on produce from that province?
[English]
Dr. Olson: If that product is destined only for use within the province, the province has the right to regulate it. As we discussed earlier on the national treatment issue, if they wish to move it interprovincially, then it has to meet the federal regulations. If it exceeds those federal regulations, great; it becomes an excellent marketing opportunity.
We do have some examples.... In fact, I could point to a product in Quebec where we actually have the province do the certification for us, using federal standards. There are any number of combinations that come into play. But for interprovincial movement the provincial product has to meet at least the federal standard. There can be that kind of combination.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: I would like to know very clearly whether, in that case, produce from Quebec bearing the "Canada organic" seal could be marketed in other canadian provinces.
[English]
Dr. Mackenzie: I believe there is a proposal, in tune with the current proposed regulations, that there would be a Canadian organic mark. It's a trademark. If in fact we have regulations that would enable the use of the Canadian organic mark, and if a producer wished to use the mark of some of the other certification agencies, such as the Organic Crop Improvement Association, which have their own trademark, if you will, this is absolutely possible.
I think some producers will decide to do that. If we end up with a situation where one mark is recognized across Canada and for whatever reason, possibly because of a more stringent requirement, a producer wished to have two marks on the product, that would be a producer's choice.
So the concept of having a provincial system with more severe requirements, or a higher standard, is certainly tenable...while recognizing there would be one common norm across Canada. But anything in addition to that would certainly be at the discretion of the industry or the individual grower.
Dr. Olson: One point Dr. Millar was just pointing out to me is that as the regulations currently are written, they would create one national accreditation body. That accreditation body could accept a provincial accreditation body to do their work for them. It could be accredited as a chain of events. I think there are precedents for that.
But that's all part of the co-op debate. I'm sure, as you can appreciate, they have a very complex negotiation under way.
The Chairman: Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): Good morning.
I come from Manitoba, so I've had discussions with the OPAM group there. One of the earlier things - and it probably preceded the fall conference that was just held in Vancouver - emanating to the chair of OPAM was that there seemed to be a lot of concern about the ministry involvement in the setting of the regulations and references to the department. My question is this. Was there any greater degree of ministerial involvement in these sets of regulations as opposed to other food and drug regulatory aspects?
.1005
Dr. Olson: We were asked to facilitate the creation of a self-regulatory framework. In terms of the actual involvement, it was far less than in a conventional set of regulations. But this is a very complex process because of the number of players.
Mr. McKinnon: It's also in the eye of the beholder.
Dr. Olson: That's right. There are those who want no government in the file. There are those who want a lot of government. In trying to balance those points of view, we try to get off to the side where we're advisers and see whether a consensus will ever be generated.
Mr. McKinnon: I believe you answered my question.
The Chairman: You have another couple of minutes.
Mr. McKinnon: I understand that there are different levels of regulations - provincial versus federal. I'm concerned also about how this plays in the export market, and whether there is a higher or lower degree of standards in the export industry as opposed to domestic standards. If you take the lowest common denominator of all the countries internationally and meet it, where are our guidelines in relation to that benchmark?
Dr. Olson: Let me try to answer one part of it, and then I'll turn to Dr. Mackenzie.
We recently looked at how we could enhance Canada's export opportunities. My organization is responsible for between 1,200 and 1,400 bilateral agreements with other countries. We sell to other countries' specifications. We ensure that Canadians are provided with safe food to the best of our ability. We ensure the monitoring system and the regulatory framework are in place. We can't ensure, in a sense, that they are safe, but we make every effort to ensure that the tools are there.
The set of standards we apply domestically on product is very much part of our trading credibility, in terms of being able to access other markets. We're good and I think the world knows we're good. As a result, we're able to get into markets that perhaps other countries can't. There is reciprocity in that they want to get into our markets so they have to meet our standards. That's the whole process of harmonization that never stops going through negotiation.
There will therefore be circumstances where Canada will have a domestic requirement and an import requirement as a result of a product coming into Canada or used by Canadians that may exceed what a country is prepared to sell to them. I remember some years ago a debate around screenings in Vancouver, where, if I recall correctly, we really didn't have a way to sell screenings because they are in essence a waste product of our grain system. We wanted to sell grain, and screenings were difficult to sell because they didn't meet a standard. We've looked at that, and if there's a market for screenings we'll try to make sure it gets taken care of.
The Chairman: Mr. Pickard.
Mr. Pickard (Essex - Kent): Dr. Olson, Dr. Mackenzie, and Ms Millar, thank you very much for coming and clearing up a lot of problems we have today.
My question relates to the import side rather than the export side in labelling. I'd like to raise a question there, because we're talking about a value-added product when I look at this. Certainly the price does give a value added to what is happening within the industry itself. So labelling something organic certainly brings the premium people are looking for, not only in quality but also in price.
I have an article here. I don't always believe all articles I read are totally true, so I would like it clarified whether this is reasonably accurate or not. The statement I'll focus on is that there are approximately 250 organic producers in British Columbia. That only covers approximately 10% of the market in that area. Therefore, the assumption, in my mind, is that 90% is imported into British Columbia at this point in time, which gives a great domestic opportunity in British Columbia.
.1010
So that does point out how this industry can expand and move forward. But at the same time, I'm concerned about two parts of that. One is how do we give real assurances to the people who are purchasing the product that what is imported covers the same standard that we would adopt for our own producers in Canada? Secondly, how do we label those so that the Canadian consumer has a clear understanding that this is an imported product? Do we deal with that or do we just say that labelling is not as important for identifying origin as it is for product quality?
Dr. Olson: We do try to identify origin, but if it's transformed or processed in Canada it can become Canadian, depending on the level of transformation. Bulk product coming into Canada could be packaged and in the process of being packaged could be transformed. Fruit coming into Canada being processed into jam can become a Canadian product if the transformation level, in terms of the actual product itself, is sufficient.
One of the difficulties we have here is that if we have no regulatory framework for dealing with our own products at interprovincial or international boundaries, it's difficult to apply that lack of standards against another country sending product into the country. So there's a bit of reciprocity in the sense that if you're going to regulate something coming into a country you have to be able to regulate it within your own country.
The issue we're dealing with here really comes down to a labelling issue, the use of the nomenclature that says that a product is organic. What we're trying to do is to establish the standards for a product that is Canadian organic in nature, and then we can use those to apply against product that comes in and is deemed to be equivalent, to make sure that it meets that.
We'll achieve that with other countries, for instance, through bilateral agreements. I think the United States, in terms of its own organic legislation, is trying to do essentially the same thing, so the two countries are working in sync. The European Union and Australia are somewhat ahead of us, and we'd like to be part of the world market that's been created by that, so all of these things come into play in terms of managing the product.
In terms of how a product would be handled coming into the country, customs has access to the kinds of trademarks that are implied here and they would be looking for ones that have, under this kind of system, in fact been acceptable as equivalent by Canada.
Mr. Pickard: So we have background there.
I guess what I'm hearing then is that basically it's very important to have some type of national standard so that we can deal with other countries with regard to product labelling and sale of product within the country. Secondly, I'm hearing that if there is a process in place in Canada, such as repackaging or another added process, it could be labelled under the same certification that Canada would have for any product grown here.
Dr. Olson: Yes.
Mr. Pickard: Thank you very much.
Dr. Olson: I can use a meat product as an example. Meat brought into the country and processed into hamburger becomes a product of Canada, as I recall, because there's significant transformation in terms of the product.
Mr. Pickard: The other part, though, is that there seems to be a slight difference if meat comes into the country and it's just rewrapped.
Dr. Olson: That's different; that's just rewrapping.
Mr. Pickard: I see a difference between that and what was said for organic product coming into the country.
Dr. Olson: Basically the same rules apply. It depends on the level of transformation. There's a set of international agreements in terms of the level of transformation that's required before somebody can claim that an imported product has become Canadian.
Mr. Pickard: So there are international standards?
Dr. Olson: There are at least agreements. We try to make sure that those standards are applied.
Mr. Pickard: Thank you.
The Chairman: There was a 30-minute bell, 5 minutes of which have disappeared, so we have about 20 minutes left here at the maximum. I have Mr. Hermanson, Mrs. Ur, and Mr. Chrétien for brief questions and I have a couple of quick questions at the conclusion of that. I don't want to distract you from what members are saying, but maybe the members of the committee, if they haven't already, could peruse the report of the steering committee so that when we get to that we can move through it quickly.
Mr. Hermanson.
.1015
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be brief, and hopefully the answers will be brief.
On the draft for discussion from September 1995, on page 5, which is 4.(3):
- No person, firm or organization shall use or apply the agriculture product legend ``Canada
Organic'', for any purpose other than to mark containers of a product that have been certified by
an accredited certification body as produced in Canada using organic production methods that
meet the production standards contained in these Regulations.
- There is hereby established an Accrediting Agency which shall be a corporation approved by
the Minister. The Accrediting Agency shall be known as the Canadian Organic Advisory
Board, a body representative of the Canadian organic food industry.
In fact, I have a copy of a letter to Mr. Goodale from OVONA, which is the Organic Verification Organization of North America. They say:
- We believe that this regulation is not ready to proceed to legal drafting and publication. The
industry has not had an opportunity to collectively comment on the regulations, and the
proposed provisions are nowhere near a consensus position.
Dr. Olson: I think the way I would answer that is that much of what you've raised is an issue that I'm sure COAB has to deal with in terms of the rest of the industry. Whether or not that's the final vehicle is something that has to be achieved through consensus in this industry. These regulations aren't going to move forward until there is a consensus in fact.
As for the issue from the point of view of definition, if the Government of Canada is being asked to certify a product as being ``Canada organic'' in international trade, for instance, or to deal with imports coming into Canada that are deemed as equivalent, at some point in time that definition has to be codified in regulation.
Mr. Hermanson: That leads me to my second question. Are we locked into a process in which we're going to see the completion of this in the near future, or will there be time to iron out some of the problems the industry is having in deciding who's speaking for them and how these regulations would best serve their industry? When should we expect this? Is there a completion date? Are we a bit flexible and should we expect this to go on for a while until these folks can get their position clarified?
Dr. Olson: This is a process of debate that's been going on since 1989. The only completion date here is that at some point in time it's got to come to closure, but nobody's put a date on it.
The next event in the process is the response from COAB. We'll see what that is. If they have a consensus, great. We'll try to incorporate the recommendations into regulations and move forward. If they don't have a consensus, it goes back to the industry.
Mr. Hermanson: So we won't be gazetting this in the near future. Is that what you're saying?
Dr. Olson: That depends very much on what we get back from COAB.
Mr. Hermanson: But what if other organizations say they're not happy with COAB's position?
Dr. Olson: I think that all the groups basically have an opportunity to be represented. That was in fact the group that was given the focal point by the industry itself. If people aren't happy with their current representation, they should be talking to COAB.
There's no point in moving forward with a regulation in this area until there is some measure of consensus, but until our regulation moves forward we're unable to deal with imports or certify exports as meeting the standards of other countries. We'd like to bring it to closure, but we're in the hands of the industry. If they're unable to do so, so are we.
The Chairman: A point of clarification. What you're saying is that because of the mixed views among the 42 groups that are out there, on one hand, they may want rules and regulations so they and the consumer know what the product is. On the same hand, they also want rules and regulations to have some control or some safety factor as far as what might come into Canada that would be competition to them being labelled in certain ways.
.1020
Dr. Olson: I think it's all part of the same issue. This is a production technology that they wish to have recognized. If we're going to be able to deal with imports or we're going to be able to take advantage of export markets, then we've got to have enough structure in place to be able to meet other countries' requirements and challenge theirs in terms of what comes into Canada.
The Chairman: Do all 42 agencies in Canada have an opportunity to be represented at COAB?
Dr. Olson: That's my understanding. Plus, I believe all the provinces are involved in terms of that discussion as well.
The Chairman: So all the organizations and all the provinces have an entry into the discussion.
Ms Ann Millar (Director General's Office, Food Inspection Directorate, Food Production and Inspection Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food): As well as the sectors - as in processors, distributors, and wholesalers - the primary producers have very good representation on the board.
Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): This is my first committee meeting. I find it to be an interesting subject, because I was a farmer in my previous life and we were involved in vegetables: cauliflower, asparagus, and broccoli. So I was always in close contact with organic farmers. I saw them come, and I saw them go just as quickly quite often, because we had a consumer who wanted my beautiful white cauliflower to be free of green protein but that is not achievable in our organic methods so far. That might be coming down the road. I find this to be very interesting, and I won't be snide in some of my remarks here this morning.
What reasons were stated for why some organic farmers are against the strong regulatory rules possibly coming up?
I'll throw a few questions at you and we can have the answers at the end.
Is there really a huge demand for an international market? Will the dollar numbers compensate for the organic methods versus conventional farming? Is it going to be cost-effective?
With your 42 certification agencies, we're looking at streamlining inspections and so on. Is the requirement there for that number of agencies to look after organic rules and regulations?
Is there a real pressure? Is there really the demand for organic farming?
While I was farming we had the ``yuppie generation'' thinking this was the best thing since sliced bread, but they also wanted to have beautiful white heads of cauliflower or nice red apples without scabs on them. You educated them to the fact that at the time that wasn't achievable through organic farming. But you had the same people, when they picked up their organic produce, going to the nursery to pick up bags of fertilizer and pesticides to make their beautiful lawns in the city green and like broadloom. I've read somewhere that fertilizers used by urbanites are probably more so than those used by some of our conventional farmers.
I'm not being catty. I just wonder if it is someone's big thing in life to go off in this venue. Is it really going to be that beneficial to us? With a population increase, will it compensate?
Dr. Olson: I've touched on part of the population issue. We're seeing convergent technologies.
On the question about who's in favour and who isn't, I think a good portion of the members are in favour of a more structured industry because of the market opportunities that exist.
If I can go back to Mr. Pickard's point, if 10% of the British Columbia production is coming from British Columbia and the rest is being imported - and, by the way, most of that is processed - then there has to be a market there, or it wouldn't be coming into the province. I think that's a pretty good sign.
.1025
You're going to have every point of view, as you do in every other part of our society, on the need for regulation, particularly when you get into a new area of regulation. We'd like to ensure that debate gets fully held, but at some time we have to decide whether it's worth investing in and maintaining a debate, or whether closure should be brought. I don't think we're there yet, but at some time that will have to happen.
In terms of the 42 certification organizations, that's their decision. That is a COAB decision in terms of interprovincial and international movement. But in terms of the need for the 42 organizations, many of which are aligned into the Organic Crop Improvement Association, for instance, that's their decision. We're just looking for direction at this time so we can meet the demand that was placed before us, in terms of industry asking for this trade name and the opportunity to expand their markets.
Mrs. Ur: Is there any duplication in those 42 certification agencies?
Dr. Olson: I'm sure there is, but those are all private sector certification agencies. At this time we do not regulate organic products beyond the issue of false and misleading advertising. If somebody is knowingly selling a product as organic that has obviously been treated with inappropriate products or grown under a totally different methodology, we would question them whether or not they were doing it right.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Chrétien for a quick question.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I have two brief questions. First of all, with the regard to the certification procedure, the organization has to accept at least seven a year. When I see an arbitrary figure like that, I always wonder. Why seven? Why not eight or six?
Secondly, could a farmer with, say, 100 acres, use 50 acres for organic corn farming and the other 50 acres to grow nice corn, as Mrs. Ur put it?
I live in a region where just about all the maple syrup in Quebec and Canada is harvested. In my riding office, I receive a lot of calls or visits from maple producers who are complaining about unfair competition.
In Canada, it is prohibited to use a certain pill, that's supposedly formaldehyde, which is allowed or tolerated in the United States, where it is used frequently. You know that when the maple producer starts to tap his maple trees in December or early January, if he hasn't used the pill, not much sap will flow from those holes.
Therefore, maple producers are complaining that some of them are using the pill whereas others don't, and what seems to follow is some form of unfair competition. Mr. Olson, if you were to start a farm, would you agree to invest time and money in organic farming?
[English]
The Chairman: We're going to have to hurry, Dr. Olson, because we have to leave here in about two or three minutes for the vote.
Dr. Olson: First question, Ann Millar.
Ms Millar: It's a consensus opinion on seven. We originally felt there should be at least ten bodies to ensure that the certification body would remain viable. That's basically to ensure viability.
With regard to the second question about conventional and organic processes on the same farm, there are requirements for separation of product and treating them differently. These include such things as cleaning your equipment between using one or the other, not growing the same types of product or whatever it happens to be on the same farm. So the certification body would look at that when it does its on-site inspection and make sure you are following your farm management plan, which shows how you will keep everything separate and keep things clean and what products you use when you're doing it.
.1030
Dr. Olson: I have a personal opinion. Mr. Chairman, I have the advantage that I was the assistant deputy minister responsible for the research branch, so I have a pretty good idea of the technology that's coming to the agricultural industry over the next two or three decades.
I'd be right in the centre, because I think there's a really great market there. I think the combination of conventional technology with what this industry has developed and is developing and experiencing would create a very good market opportunity. I see that kind of trend happening, and I think other people see that as well. I'd like to see it encouraged. There's an international market and I'd like to make sure we take advantage of that.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Dr. Olson, Dr. Mackenzie, and Ms Millar, for being before us this morning. I assume that we may hear from other witnesses on this issue as it comes forward, and I know that if necessary and if it is the desire of the committee down the road to have you back before us to answer some questions, you will be available.
Dr. Olson: We'd be very glad to, and we look forward to that input because it's all part of trying to achieve the consensus that's necessary here. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Let's go quickly to the steering committee report. We're not going to have time to discuss it, but I'd like you to look at it.
We've all received or had an opportunity to receive the part III estimates. There is some confusion about what they say and how they say it. The steering committee felt the other day that it would be worth while to bring someone before the committee, not to discuss the numbers and why this is spent here and that type of thing, but to walk us through and tell us how to use them, how to figure them out, etc. So Tuesday morning someone is going to come forward and help us do that. Hopefully we can then discuss the other agenda items at that meeting and go on from there.
Are there any other quick comments? Mr. Chrétien, very quickly or we're going to miss the vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Are we adopting the report today or Tuesday?
[English]
The Chairman: No, it's not adopted today because I don't think we have fair time to discuss it today. I'm just saying Tuesday we will go ahead with one of the items here, which is the fourth point under number 2, a lesson on how to use and read the part III estimates.
Mr. Calder: Mr. Chairman, is there also a chance that we can get the Pest Management Regulatory Agency moved up, for instance?
The Chairman: We'll talk about that on Tuesday.
Mr. Calder: Thank you.
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.