Bill C-474 (Historical)

Seeds Regulations Act

An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm)

This enactment requires the Governor in Council to amend the Seeds Regulations to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

Agriculture

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I received over 12,700 letters of support for my private member's bill, Bill C-474. This bill would protect farmers from economic harm that could arise from GE crops of which our export markets want no part.

B.C. fruit growers in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valley are saying that they are dead against the release of a genetically modified non-browning apple. They are worried about cross-pollination, which could kill the organic apple industry.

Why is the government continuing to take farmers for granted and refusing to protect them against the release of genetically modified crops, like alfalfa, wheat and apples?

Bill C-474

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe if you sought it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, during the debate tomorrow on Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and that, at the conclusion of the debate or when no further member rises to speak, all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill be deemed put and recorded divisions be deemed requested.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm not going to go on about Bill C-474. I'm just going to finish up this round, and then I have a bunch of other questions. If I run out of time, I'll be holding on to them.

Do you feel Bill C-474 is a threat to biotechnology and the agricultural sector in that sense?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

First, thank you very much for being here.

What tremendous testimony we've had this morning on this subject, which is critical, I think, to agriculture and to consumers. Consumers are the end winners in these types of discussions and in the products that result.

As I was mentioning before, biotechnology is not well understood. There are a lot of misconceptions, and that's one of the reasons we're having this study: to lift the veil and have a bit of public debate on this, so that people see that biotechnology is not necessarily GM, and even if it is GM, we don't need to feel threatened by it. We have processes and policies in place.

I think this is a very important tour we're doing as the agriculture committee. I think it's disappointing that the NDP are not here. We have a Bloc member, we have two Liberal members, we have Conservative members, and the NDP pulled out. I say that because we've had just a bit of discussion on Bill C-474, and it's very focused on GM only. Alex Atamanenko, who is the NDP MP, is a strong proponent of his bill. To me he's the one who should be hearing what we're discussing this morning, or at least one of his colleagues should be here to bring the word back to him about some of this great discussion we're having. I think it's unfortunate that they're not here.

Mr. Wartman, you made a comment that sound science should trump politics. Sound science is very important and should take a leading role over politics when we're talking about biotechnology. I'm wondering if you might be able to elaborate on that. Is there a particular issue that comes to mind that leads you to make that statement?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, folks, for coming. If there's one thing that I think Saskatchewan is well recognized for, it is the Innovation Place, the cluster, with the competitors actually cooperating together to move ahead. It is absolutely amazing what we've seen in that area from out here.

Randy asked this question as well, in a sense. One of the problems.... I believe it was Mary who said that biotech is far more than GMOs, but that is an issue that we're just not getting around. We aren't.

As was mentioned around the table several times, Bill C-474 is up for a vote this week. Since I put word out yesterday, I can tell you this morning that we'll be recommending that at least my colleagues vote against the bill. I'm getting a lot of not very friendly mail, but it isn't a bill that does what its regulatory intent was.

At any rate, we have to get around the idea that biotech isn't just GMOs and get to all the other good things it does. Personally, I think there are good GMOs and bad GMOs. I think the science of each has to be looked at on its merits. How do we do that? Am I right in saying that biotech is not just GMOs? How do we do that?

Bert, I think you were suggesting earlier that there was a need for a biological solution to improve quality and nutrition, etc. There are a lot of different areas we can go into. Good research needs to be done in organics, good research needs to be done in natural solutions, good research needs to be done in biotechnology and even in GMOs, but how are we going to get people to understand the positives of it all? It's starting to be a war out there, from what I'm seeing. We're only going to hurt ourselves as a country and hurt our ability to progress, and even hurt, as Brad said earlier, people down on the farm.

How do we overcome it?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Good morning. Thank you very much for your testimonies.

I am sure you are more qualified than I am in biotechnology. I won't be telling you anything new when I say that biotechnology does not only deal with genetically modified organisms, but that it has a much broader scope. Biotechnology is invaluable to humanity, particularly to human health and animal health. For example, in my constituency, Domtar is currently building a pilot plant to produce nanocrystalline cellulose from wood fibre. There will be applications in all areas, and health in particular. It is a way forward for the forestry industry in Quebec and across Canada, at a time when the industry is facing real, though cyclical, challenges. At the moment, we are looking for new possibilities for the forestry sector and I think biotechnology is one way forward.

But, when we talk about genetically modified organisms, guidelines should be in place before any product is marketed. Just now, before Mr. Cross had to leave, Mr. Lemieux asked him a question about Bill C-474, which is currently before the House of Commons. We shouldn't bring up a doomsday scenario right away. We have to say that we are studying the commercial impact of a genetically modified organism before putting it on the market. For example, that's what they did in Argentina, which is one of the leading producers of genetically modified organisms. You said it well. Before taking purely partisan positions or simply playing politics, I tried to find out what the impacts in Argentina were, according to the studies. In addition to looking at the impact on health and the environment, a study was also done on the impact on international trade. So far, there has been no case filed against Argentina by the other countries or by the World Trade Organization. This example provides additional confirmation of what needs to be done before a product is put on the market.

Mr. Kerr mentioned the precautionary principle. I think that allowing no risk is actually very difficult. I also don't think that this is the understanding of the 160 signatory countries to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety that, may I remind you, aims to set control standards based on the precautionary principle. Canada has not ratified the protocol. And to say that all these countries have never marketed genetically modified organisms is false. Some of these countries are producers of genetically modified organisms and also develop biotechnology. So it is possible to do both, and do research on biotechnology. Before putting a product on the market, extensive analyses can be conducted to make sure public health is not at risk. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Ms. Hobbs, you've made some very interesting comments on investments, and I am going to ask you a question about the situation in the United States. You've said that the return on investment is roughly 20% in the U.S. Do you know how things work in the U.S.? Is the government the largest investor in biotechnology or does the private sector invest more?

[Brad Hanmer, President, Hanmer Ag Ventures Inc., As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, committee, for the opportunity to present.

My name is Brad Hanmer. I'm president and CEO of Hanmer Ag Ventures. We operate a 24,000-acre grain, oilseed, and pulse farm two hours southeast of Saskatoon. I'm a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan's agricultural economics department, and since then, one acre at a time, I've been taking a PhD in agricultural business.

I've spent six years on the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association board of directors, three of those years as president, and since then I've sat for three years on Farm Credit Canada's board of directors. For the record, I'd like to state that my comments today do not reflect those of any board member or staff member within Farm Credit Canada. These are my comments exclusively.

I'm going to start off with a fairly bold statement. I'm going to say that since my first crop in 1996, when I graduated from the University of Saskatchewan, of the three biggest technological advancements, number one undoubtedly has been the Internet. That has flattened a lot of the playing field and allowed us, in the middle of rural Saskatchewan, to be able to have that information. That's step number one.

Number two, I would say, has been GPS and its related technologies. That's allowed us to become very efficient in precision agriculture, with site-specific farming, satellite imagery using fertility maps, and those kinds of things. That's been paramount to our profitability.

However, I would say that very biggest one has been genetics in canola. With all due respect to Dr. Vandenberg and his comment, I am going to have a fairly narrow focus and use canola as the example of what that has done for somebody like me.

I suppose I'm still classified as a young farmer; I'm in my late thirties. On our farm prior to the innovation of the herbicide-tolerant canola, as Bert has said, we had mainly been a summerfallow and cereal province. In the mid-eighties my father was innovative, and we added pulse crops in our rotation, but the problem we were finding with pulse crops was that was the only major economic driver we had. Wheat, which we can get into later in my presentation, has been a stalemate in our ability to generate revenue and a stable return. Lentils and peas and chickpeas were fantastic, thanks to the work of Dr. Al Slinkard and Dr. Bert Vandenberg--they were a game changer for us in the province--but in our part of the world, canola is king. They call it the Cinderella crop, and I really think it's been the most important economic driver in my life. Without the canola crop, I wouldn't be here today, and I'm that bold in the statement. It has been the one that has flatlined our ability to have stable economic returns year after year.

Here are some of the things I have to tell you about: 1997 was the first year in Saskatchewan, and in Canada for that matter, that the novel-trait herbicide-tolerant canola was allowed to be commercially grown. Prior to that, canola production was mainly limited to the northern part of the grain belt because of the weed control issues. As well, at that time there wasn't a lot of direct seeding technology, so right around the same time that direct seeding technology was coming down, we were allowed to have another crop, canola, that was an economic powerhouse. It could be grown in big quantities on massive acreage that previously would have had either summerfallow or an unproductive crop. Without that I wouldn't have a business as I have grown it with my parents and brothers today.

Of the direct results we found, number one was reduced chemical cost. We are not dumping out the quantities of chemicals that we had used prior to herbicide-tolerant canola. Second, it reduced our fuel consumption. Our fuel bills are a lot lower because of a one-pass system with seeding. We're using a lot less fuel per acre as a result of this crop. Third, our soil health has improved. As a trained agronomist, I know we have improved our pH, our water-holding capacity, and our cation exchange capacity, in parallel with using pulse crops. We're pulling off yields we never would have imagined, and at the same time we're respectful of the environment and we're promoting better soil health.

When hybridity of canola came in the mid-2000s, it was a second big game changer for us. We're realizing yields on the canola crop that are matching, and in some years surpassing, the yield we get on cereal crops in our part of Saskatchewan.

With the stable returns, we've actually seen a resurgence of young farmers in our business. You cannot make a stable business plan and bring in financing if you don't have some model of stability. There's talk about stability of investment on the biosciences side; well, it works exactly the same way at the grassroots level of agribusiness. You need stability, and that's what biotech has done for many parts of this province. It has allowed that to happen.

Without this buoyancy of innovation, I don't think I would be participating in the commodity boom we have right now to the extent I am. Basically, this canola crop seems to find a way to get through a lot of adversity. Some of the panellists mentioned that. It's a direct result of the novel traits and also of hybridization.

Some innovations that are also going on right now relate to everything from insect events to different disease events and pathogens. They are just going to further increase our profitability on the farm.

Those of you in the corn-growing belt know what the biotech advancements have done for the corn rootworm, which is a cousin to the American corn rootworm; I think it's the same species. There is also the corn borer. Those two things allow a non-invasive species to not be controlled with insecticides, because they target those exact insects in a field. Those same innovations are coming to canola.

As a side note, I had the honour of being at a conference in Costa Rica two weeks ago, where Paul Schickler, the president of DuPont's genetic division, Pioneer Hi-Bred, said that right now western Canada is their number one global priority as a company for R and D into bringing in soybean varieties, corn varieties, and further canola traits. One reason, he said, is that Canada has a very stable regulatory system at present. They can be confident in that. Second, he said that growers are innovative and are quick to adapt to change.

I'm led to believe that the rate of adaptation of genetically engineered canola has actually surpassed the rate for the wheeled tractor and the combine versus the stationary threshing machine. Those innovations took longer for complete adaptation than genetically engineered canola. Those two things, he said, are why they're putting their stake in the ground and making sure that western Canadian agriculture is one of the most important strategic investments for a company the size of DuPont. DuPont, by the way, sold an oil company in 1998--and their stock price halved--to buy a genetic company named Pioneer Hi-Bred. Today their stock price has gained back everything it lost as a result of that strategic investment in the bioeconomy.

In 1997 there was a lot of debate about what we were going to do with canola. People said it was going to destroy markets and that the Europeans wouldn't take it. We have to keep in mind how that transpired in history. There was a lot of rhetoric on the disadvantages of what happened. The fact of the matter is that it was very strategic for the greater good of this industry. One of the panellists summed it up a lot better than I'm going to: in Europe, that market was never ours to be had anyway. It was a protectionist measure, for the most part, to protect the rapeseed industry, so the rhetoric needs to be brought down to the grassroots of investment.

If this conversation on what we call the biotech killer, Bill C-474, had happened back when canola was coming forward, I highly doubt that we would have that innovation in agriculture today, so I want the members to please be very respectful of the lessons we learned in canola and what they meant in terms of the billions of dollars canola has dumped into the rural economy.

I want to mention a couple of things in closing, and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but a lot of the panellists have stated their wish lists.

First, zero tolerance in our international markets is totally unacceptable. That is our first and foremost point. As you know, we're a major exporting country, and my business relies solely on the export business. We absolutely need to make sure that there is no such thing as zero. I think there are a couple of industries, such as the flax industry, that are in a lot of trouble right now over having zero tolerance. It can't be done anymore.

Also, I have a warning flag. We are going to lose our advantage in cereals. Pulse crops and oilseeds in western Canada are very buoyant, and there's a bright future, as Dr. Vandenberg said and as I said, for oilseeds, but the other component of a rotation is absolutely needed, and that's the cereal side. We're losing advantage every year. Economically, it's very unlikely that I would turn a profit growing a cereal grain.

That is something we need to address. We need to attract investment to make sure people understand that Saskatchewan's economy is not driven by wheat any more. It is a necessary evil for us in a rotation, but it's highly unlikely to have a price-times-yield combination that makes me money. That is a challenge I have for this table. We really need to address this.

The last thing is that biotechnology is very exciting for us right now in our business. We absolutely need to have younger people come into this business. My father, who has been a great innovator his whole life, is going to turn 65 this year. It's a hard year for him, because he won't be able to drive any of our implements. It has become so high tech that you no longer need a driver; you need an operator. We're continually bringing in new knowledge on the farm in order to operate. It's getting very sophisticated.

Volatility in the marketplace is also becoming one of our biggest challenges, and not only in the commodities, but in buying our fertilizer. This is big business that swings on a dime. It can be hundreds to millions of dollars within a month. We need to have stable returns, and biotech is one of the keys that will allow us to have stability and that backstop.

We're maintaining yields that we never dreamed of even 10 years ago. In terms of the advancements in canola, buying the latest and greatest innovations in canola has allowed us to keep up with our cost-price squeeze and inflation over time. That's driving big business and innovation to come to our country, so please keep those markets open. That's the first priority. Allow biotech innovation to keep us competitive so that Canada is the number one spot globally. We are not the biggest on the block, as Bert said.

One of the biggest visuals that I remember was in 1997. The first big wave in Brazil opened up, and they were basically farming the Sahara. They went from being a nonentity in the global marketplace to being the world's largest exporter of soybeans. Since then the world has swallowed the continent of South America, so keep that in mind.

Prior to 2004, the profitability of farms was not that sexy. Consumption and production had a 1% growth rate until 2004, when something switched. We've had seven consecutive years in which consumption patterns outstripped our ability to produce. We are now at about a 2% to 2.5% consumption growth in countries where they need it the most.

That's the challenge to us. In Canada we do have the comparative advantage, and we need good legislation to allow this to happen.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I was very impressed with your grasp of funding and research and development, and obviously you've got a lot of experience with the research and development arm and what it can do for agriculture.

There's a debate that's going to be taking place in the House tomorrow on Bill C-474, a private member's bill put forward by Alex Atamanenko about GMOs in particular, not biotechnology. It talks about moving away from sound science in terms of whether GMOs should be acceptable, including having a fiscal way of evaluating the impact of a GMO product before it might be approved.

In Ottawa we heard much testimony about how this bill is sowing uncertainty in the research and development field and that investors are actually pulling back, or at least going on hold, in terms of continuing with financial commitments to research and development.

I'm sure that over these past nine months you've been giving a number of presentations, and I wanted to get your opinion. When you were talking to potential investors and looking for financing, did you find that Bill C-474 had an impact? Was it positive, negative, or neutral? Could you fill is in on that?

[Éric Darier]

Absolutely. Bill C-474 is about an economic study conducted before the authorization of GMOs.

Second, the committee should ask the government to issue a report similar to the one issued in 2001 by the Royal Society of Canada to see where we are 10 years on. This would be an interesting study to conduct, since we are talking about science.

Third, a moratorium should be imposed immediately on GM alfalfa in order to avoid market turmoil and irreversible damage.

Four, we recommend that MPs, regardless of their party, adopt mandatory GMO labelling, which almost 90% of consumers support. That's a fact.

Last, Canada must finally ratify the biosafety protocol in order to catch up to the international community.

I would like to conclude my presentation by distributing two documents. The first is an academic article by Peter Andrée about regulations on GM foods. This article basically confirms that the Royal Society of Canada report has been generally ignored. I will leave one copy for the committee members. I also have a copy of the video “The World According to Monsanto,” which gives an overview of the legislative context within which GMOs are authorized here and abroad. Committee members can watch the video if they like.

Thank you.

[Éric Darier, Quebec representative, Greenpeace, Réseau québécois contre les organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM)]

First, I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to appear.

Before we start, I would like to introduce our delegation from the Réseau québécois contre les OGM. You've already met Mr. Nault, from the AmiEs de la Terre de l'Estrie. I remind you that you should have a written copy of our brief. My presentation today will be slightly different, so that I don't go over our 10 minutes.

The purpose of our network is to bring all GMO opponent groups together into a strong network that works together to address certain issues and, in particular, facilitate the exchange of information and ideas for a GMO-free future.

We represent some 20 organizations working mainly in the fields of the environment, consumer rights, agriculture and health; a full listing is available on our website. We also work very closely with the Canadian Biology Action Network.

Our network is here today to contribute to your study on agricultural technologies. Our oral presentation will focus on at least one element, that is, the 2001 report by the Royal Society of Canada. We hope that your campus visits next week will be very fruitful. We also hope that, as the public, we will have access to the account of these meetings, so that we can see what you are studying and what people have to say.

The reason I want to focus on the Royal Society of Canada report is because today, or very soon, is a historic date, the 10th anniversary of the 2001 Royal Society of Canada report, which is titled “Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada.” You can have a look at the copy I have brought with me. The French version is about 280 pages long. I will provide you with some background. The report was commissioned by the federal government and was drafted by 14 “arms-length” experts who were not members of our network, but rather scientific experts from the whole academic community. The report lists 58 recommendations. As the title suggests, the report really focuses on precaution.

Reading the 58 recommendations is out of the question, but I would like to at least read a few, to add to the comments of my predecessor:

7.1 The Panel recommends that approval of new transgenic organisms for environmental release, and for use as food or feed, should be based on rigorous scientific assessment of their potential for causing harm to the environment or to human health. Such testing should replace the current regulatory reliance on “substantial equivalence” as a decision threshold. 7.2 The Panel recommends that the design and execution of the testing regimes of new transgenic organisms should be conducted in open consultation with the expert scientific community. 7.3 The Panel recommends that analysis of the outcomes of all tests on new transgenic organisms should be monitored by an appropriately configured panel of “arms-length” experts from all sectors, who report their decisions and rationale in a public forum. 8.1 The Panel recommends the precautionary regulatory assumption that, in general, new technologies should not be presumed safe unless there is reliable scientific basis for considering them safe. The Panel rejected the use of “substantial equivalence” as a decision threshold to exempt new GM products from rigorous safety assessments on the basis of superficial similarities because such as regulatory procedure is not a precautionary assignment of the burden of proof. 8.2 The Panel recommends that the primary burden of proof be upon those who would deploy food biotechnology products to carry out the full range of tests necessary to demonstrate reliably that they do not pose unacceptable risks. 8.3 The Panel recommends that, where there are scientifically reasonable theoretical or empirical grounds establishing a prima facie case for the possibility of serious harms to human health, animal health or the environment, the fact that the best available test data are unable to establish with high confidence the existence or level of the risk should not be taken as a reason for withholding regulatory restraint on the product. 8.4 As a precautionary measure, the Panel recommends that the prospect of serious risks to human health, of extensive, irremediable disruptions to the natural ecosystems, or of serious diminution of biodiversity, demand that the best scientific methods be employed to reduce the uncertainties with respect to these risks. Approval of products with these potentially serious risks should await the reduction of scientific uncertainty to minimum levels.

There are 58 recommendations, so I will stop here. I am not going to bombard you with the recommendations made by the Royal Society of Canada, which, I remind you, is the highest scientific authority in Canada. It does have a certain credibility in this field.

Unfortunately, the recommendations set out in the Royal Society of Canada report were mostly ignored by the government. The government simply threw the report away.

In 2004, three years after the report was submitted, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development published a Canadian Food Inspection Agency audit, which confirmed and gave more details on what the Royal Society of Canada report covered three years earlier.

Almost nothing has changed since 2001. What's worse is that GM plants with multiple gene insertions, such as StarLink corn, have been authorized without a specific assessment. GM animals, especially the GM pig, are on a fast track to becoming authorized. GM salmon could be marketed soon.

Canada has still not ratified the United Nations Biosafety Protocol, while 160 countries have done so. Consumers are still waiting for the mandatory GMO labelling that some 40 countries have already adopted.

The approval of GM alfalfa will lead to a crisis, which I hope you are aware of.

So, what can your committee do? We have formulated five basic recommendations.

First, your committee should encourage all MPs to vote in favour of Bill C-474. The bill will not solve all of our problems, but it will at least enable us to protect farmers from the economic impact of a poor biotechnology management policy.

Second—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'm sorry that it's a little late, but I read the briefs and there is a lot of information here. And as Frank says, there are two solitudes. Our concern is how you bridge the gap. From our perspective, who do you believe? I'll put it that simply.

Prince Edward Island salmon was mentioned, Lucy, and I just want to refer you to what the FDA in the U.S. said on that product.

I will submit to you that non-GM canola is something we are extremely worried about in P.E.I. If GM canola got introduced in our area, we would completely lose the Japanese market, and the Japanese market is huge to us in terms of non-GMO canola and a lot of other non-GM and organic crops. The Japanese market is a premium market and important to us. And the reality is that we would lose that market just like that when they do their investigation, if there were a GM crop that could contaminate canola.

But on the Prince Edward Island salmon issue, the FDA has concluded in its analysis in the United States, AquAdvantage Salmon, on September 20.... I'll just quote what they say in this report. They conclude that food from the triploid ABT salmon “is as safe as food from conventional salmon” and that “there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food” from this animal. They do say there should be another study performed on the allergenicity of the diploid fish and submit it for evaluation. They also talk about the adequate containment measures that appear in place in both P.E.I. and in Panama.

That's just to put that on the record that there are two sides to that story too.

Based on the hearings we held on Bill C-474, the two areas I am currently worried about are that things are moving too rapidly without perhaps the right peer review, transparency, or protective measures in place on wheat and on alfalfa.

If alfalfa were to become contaminated, you are right, we would have a real problem in terms of many of our organic markets. It's the base crop for organic production, and there don't seem to be many areas that study not only the food and health safety but the environment, the economic impact, and the impact on biodiversity.

So this is my question to you all. There are pros and cons on the biotech industry—a lot of good and also some risk. How do we get to a system? What system has to be put in place? I agree with what Frank said earlier, that the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee would be extremely important. But how do we get a system in place where there can be reasonable confidence on both sides that the measures necessary are actually being implemented so they can be believed by the average person out there and by some of the decision-makers in the political process as well?

Lorne.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Lucy, Lorne, and Janice, for coming and speaking to us today.

We've listened to these arguments for quite some time now, both in these discussions as well as in discussing Bill C-474. I've come to the conclusion that there are two different solitudes, and based on the information that I've had, these solitudes can co-exist if people have the will to sit down and discuss common ground and those matters that are of deepest concern.

Lucy, you mentioned the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. When I think of that, I think it is really the only kind of forum in which solutions could be found. I don't see Health Canada or CFIA, or any other organization having regard to social, economic, or environmental impact or species extinction issues as you've raised it. I frankly don't know the extent to which the biotech industry considers those things. But if we're looking at sustainability, it goes a lot further than just reducing emissions of GHGs.

I also know that science is so important. We need that science, so that we can feed the world with the growing three billion people over the next 20 or 30 years and deal with climate change.

I want to restrict my question to each of you, and I want your opinion on the merits of reconstituting a Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, so that all industry stakeholders come together, come up with solutions, and make recommendations to the government. Could I hear each of the three of you speak on that matter?

Lucy, you can go first.

[Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, committee members, for inviting me here today on behalf of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network to speak to you about the issue of genetic engineering.

It is important to evaluate what we have learned about genetic engineering from our 15 years of experience with this technology in food and agriculture in Canada.

I work in Ottawa as coordinator for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, or CBAN. CBAN is a coalition of 18 organizations across Canada that have various concerns and experiences with genetic engineering. This includes international development organizations such as Inter Pares and USC Canada. It includes farmer associations such as the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, the Ecological Farmers' Association of Ontario, and Union paysanne. It also includes coalitions of grassroots groups like the Society for a G.E. Free B.C., and the Prince Edward Island Coalition for a GMO-Free Province.

What brings us together is a concern about the impacts of genetic engineering, be they economic, social, or environmental, and the lack of democracy in relation to decision-making over this technology.

The Biotechnology Action Network is three years old. In my role heading the small secretariat here in Ottawa, I conduct research and assist in communications, such as my testimony here today.

I have worked as a researcher and campaigner on these issues around genetic engineering for 15 years. For example, on Tuesday Gord Surgeoner mentioned a council that brought diverse stakeholders together. He was referring to the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. I participated in the work of this committee when I worked for the Sierra Club Canada. That committee no longer exists.

My understanding from attending the first hearing on Tuesday is that the committee study is open to or explicitly asking for recommendations. I seem to be hearing that there is an openness to examine many issues around the biotechnology industry. We hope this is the case, as we think there are very many critical issues, such as those raised by Bill C-474. I'll speak to some of our analysis of what needs to happen in Canada on this issue, what we think, and what we will be faced with in the new year.

I understand that the debate over Bill C-474 has been a part of triggering these hearings, and we think it's highly appropriate that farmer concern about the impacts of biotechnology instigate an investigation into genetic engineering.

To be clear, I'm talking about genetic engineering as defined by the CFIA, which is recumbent DNA technology. This is what we're referring to when we talk about biotechnology. This is what's at issue and where the controversy largely lies.

CBAN argues that there are fundamental problems with genetic engineering and fundamental problems with the Canadian government's approach to this technology, including our regulation.

I'll talk about some of our concerns by looking at three immediate issues we face in Canada: the possible introduction of genetically engineered alfalfa, GE pigs, and GE salmon.

In the short brief that CBAN submitted to the committee we introduced these three case studies, as well as the issue of genetically engineered wheat, which we think illustrate the need to assess the potential export market harm of applications of genetic engineering. They also illuminate other critical issues and possible negative impacts.

To begin with, CBAN would like to state our support for Bill C-474 and the recommendation that social and economic concerns be incorporated into the regulation of genetic engineering.

CBAN would also like to remind the committee that in 2001, as commissioned by the ministers of agriculture, environment, and health, the Royal Society of Canada's expert panel on the future of food biotechnology published 58 recommendations for regulatory reform. CBAN would like to see the government implement all 58 of those recommendations.

I'd like to concentrate my testimony by discussing briefly the three genetically engineered organisms we must immediately deal with. All three pose major economic and environmental threats, and are or will be highly socially disruptive. They will certainly be socially contested--the alfalfa, pigs, and salmon.

This is the immediate future of genetic engineering. Any of these three could be commercially introduced next year, or even this year. Each is approved via a process that neither the public nor independent scientists have access to. Each is subject to intense opposition for distinct reasons. These three GE organisms illuminate three key concerns we would like to raise, among many.

First, contamination is a reality and has numerous negative social, economic, and environmental impacts.

Second, GE research is under way in universities with either industry or public funds, but without a public mandate.

And finally, government decision-making processes are kept secret and locked away from public participation, and these processes rely solely on privately owned science. These highly secretive processes could allow the commercialization of the world's first genetically engineered food animal.

If we look at this first issue, contamination, which of course the committee has discussed in depth, we see that it has numerous social, economic, and environmental impacts, and that the fallacy of coexistence will collapse if GE alfalfa is introduced. By coexistence I mean the ability of organic or other non-GE crops or farming, non-GE farming, to exist side by side with GE crops. Alfalfa will contaminate. This is a certainty, given the characteristics of alfalfa as a perennial crop pollinated by bees. You've already heard this in the testimony from forage groups. Contamination happens, but farmers always knew this would happen. Contamination was predicted and is predictable, and yet there are no policies that we see or regulatory mechanisms in place to address this.

The issue of alfalfa shows how certain applications of genetic engineering can be a clear threat to some or many farmers, and yet these farmers have no way to communicate effectively to government. There is no avenue for farmer consultation on the impacts they foresee.

As the committee heard in June, conventional forage growers are clear that GE alfalfa would ruin their businesses. As the committee heard from the organic industry, GE alfalfa is a clear and immediate threat to the future of the entire food and farming system in North America.

To summarize, we think the issue of GE alfalfa clearly raises the need to incorporate social and economic considerations in decision-making.

Second, we would say that GE research is under way in universities, as I mentioned, either with industry or even public funds, and yet without a public mandate. And here we could look at the example of "Enviropig". Canada is about to become the origin of GE pork, the GE pig trademarked Enviropig.

Canada could be the first to approve the GE pig for human consumption. The University of Guelph submitted a request to Health Canada in April 2009, and we only know this because this is the one piece of information the university has shared with the public. Environment Canada has already approved the pigs for confined reproduction.

Enviropig was developed by Canadian researchers, with public funds, at the University of Guelph. It was developed with public funds, but without, we would argue, a public mandate. Just like the GE Triffid flax, a university is ready to commercialize a product that consumers and, arguably, farmers do not want. So we would ask where the public oversight is in that process.

The project Enviropig was conceived over ten years ago and was pursued with at least two explicit assumptions that we now see are false: first, that this product was an environmental solution and would be seen as an environmental solution; and second, that consumers would accept GE foods by the time the product was ready for market.

Canada needs to, on an urgent basis, evaluate the social acceptance and economic impact of Enviropig. Our current regulatory system does not allow the government to consider these questions. These are, in practical terms, irrelevant in regulation. Health Canada could approve the GE pig for human consumption in Canada tomorrow. The fact that this decision alone is likely to cause chaos in the domestic and international market for Canadian pork and pork products is irrelevant in our current regulation.

This brings us back to the question of export market harm, the problem identified by Bill C-474, the core problem of approving GE crops despite and regardless of their known, anticipated, or possible economic and social impacts. The possible commercialization of Enviropig also brings into sharp focus the fact that there is no mandatory labelling of GE foods in Canada. The reality is that consumers will avoid pork and pork products in order to avoid GE pork.

Finally, we would say that the government decision-making processes are kept secret and locked away from public participation. These processes rely solely on privately generated and privately owned science, and yet these decisions can potentially have very grave impacts.

I did want to mention the case of the genetically engineered salmon, because it does illustrate some very specific problems that cross into other genetically engineered organisms. Canada is about to become the origin of GE salmon eggs for the world.

Documents released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revealed that AquaBounty, a U.S. company, actually plans to produce all of its GE salmon eggs in Prince Edward Island, then ship them to Panama to grow out and process and then ship to the U.S. market.

I and others have called Health Canada to request information about this possible risk assessment, and Environment Canada actually refuses to even tell us if a risk assessment is under way. This is because Environment Canada is now charged with regulating GE animals, including the fish.

In conclusion, the government has invested in the biotechnology industry as an economic driver, as a valuable economic activity. Yet in our view, we see that genetic engineering is actually about to take down Canada's pork producers and organic grain farmers.

It's urgent, in our view, that the government be proactive in resolving these ongoing issues that we see are building into a crisis, a crisis that will cost farmers their crops and organic certification. It will cost hog producers their markets, both domestic and international.

It's a crisis that will take the form of a consumer crisis of confidence in the food system and in our democracy. In the case of GE salmon, it is a crisis that could involve species extinction, a global conservation crisis.

Unfortunately, in our view, these are not exaggerations. These are risk evaluations, and our government currently does not have the tools to ask or address these questions.

We recommend that the government place a moratorium on approval of all new genetically engineered organisms until there has been a wide democratic debate and also a fundamental change in our approach to this technology.

Thank you.

Genetically Modified Organisms

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first one is signed by 100 people from the Boundary region, Grand Forks, Greenwood and Christina Lake in support of my bill, Bill C-474, which basically asks the government to make sure that an analysis is done of the potential economic impact on farmers before introducing any more genetically modified organisms into the environment.

They call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation Bill C-474, an act respecting the seeds regulations, to amend the seed regulations to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

Economic Negotiations with the European Union

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Chair, as you probably know, my colleague's riding and my riding border on each other. We have worked together on issues, namely the passport office, which he was able to get in his community. I thank him for that. I also thank him for initially supporting my Bill C-474. I hope when it comes up for third reading, he will once again come forward and support this important bill.

I would like to ask him the same question I asked another colleague. If he is not familiar with this document prepared by Steven Shrybman and if he would like to have a copy, I am willing to give him one this evening. If he is familiar, I would like to get his comments on it.

He talked about culture, but I will zero in on agriculture. The hon. member represents a number of folks in the agriculture industry. I would like his comments on the effect that our other trade agreements have had on the fruit growers in his area. Before NAFTA, we had in-season tariffs and we were able to protect fruit growers. After NAFTA, there has been this free flow of fruit and vegetables across the border and many apple growers and other soft fruit growers have been hit, because of NAFTA, by the dumping of fruit that is being sold below the cost of production.

We were there together when the agriculture committee visited Kelowna, and he understands this. What are his comments are on that and will this transform itself? Is this something we can expect from the European trade agreement, another free flow of goods so other sectors of the agriculture community will be hit?