Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to the committee for affording me the opportunity to participate in the deliberations on this significant issue.
Since I am listed on your agenda as an individual, not representing an organization, I believe a quick background will provide some insight as to why I've been called as a witness.
I have recently retired, after eight years as Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for the Province of Ontario, and I was actively involved in the development of agricultural policy and regulation, both provincially and nationally. Prior to 17 years in administration with the ministry, I was involved in numerous scientific and technical committees. For example, I chaired the Canada Committee on Crop Production and the Canadian Expert Committee on Horticulture. Lest I get branded as a technology sycophant, I also participated in the first federal-provincial committee on the development of standards to foster the development of the organic food industry. Interestingly, it convened at Meech Lake in the early nineties.
Additionally, I'm the vice-chair of the board of directors of the George Morris Centre, which is broadly recognized as Canada's leading agrifood think tank. After more than 20 years of quality analysis, the centre has earned a strong reputation in agrifood strategy, policy development, regulatory commentary, and for constant support for economic viability and competitiveness of the Canada agrifood systems.
With regard to today's issue of regulation of genetic modification, the centre clearly supports safe technology, which would improve the competitiveness and profitability of Canada's farmers and food industry. In their most recent newsletter, Schmidt and Stiefelmeyer pointed out the negative impact of antiquated and unnecessarily restrictive regulation. The centre has accumulated significant data and expertise on this topic, and I'm convinced that should this committee require an in-depth analysis of regulatory options, the centre could provide excellent technical and strategic advice.
So I have both a policy and a technical background, but I will admit that the technical background is certainly not as current as some of the other colleagues in the panel this morning.
Today I'd like to provide you with my own explanation of the issue, discuss some of the options, and, with your indulgence, provide broad comments on a recommended course of action. Unless I'm very wrong, the issue in front of us today is not whether Canada should support the use of genetic modification technology or drastically restrict its use. Quite clearly, the advantages of genetic modification have been repeatedly demonstrated. Biotechnology was identified in the Harvard Business Review at the turn of this century as having the potential to impact both the economy and innovation even more than the digital revolution of the eighties. The examples range from gene insertion to achieve cold tolerance to stem cells used to dramatically improve healing of skin burns. So I believe our focus today is not to discuss whether genetic modification is good or bad; my comments will focus on the appropriate regulation of the industry.
In my view, regulation is the basis of the development of a strong industry. In order for the technologies to continue to advance, a set of well understood and consistent rules is required. Regulations need to be based on fact, on science, on safety and security of the environment and the people of Canada. They cannot be whimsically based on some litigant's moralistic view or a longing for a return to a bygone era. Regulations need to be transparent. Those developing the technologies need to know the rules, but they must be transparent enough so that those who need assurance that the rules are being followed have an appropriate opportunity to participate in the process. For too long, opponents have argued potential bias in the research innovation community. Transparent regulations can minimize this lament.
For many of the new biotechnological developments, the resulting products are international in scope and potential utilization. Although I would not support the wholesale adaptation of another jurisdiction's rules, surely the science behind the testing for safety, efficiency, and repeatability can be shared by regulatory agencies around the world.
On the issue of other jurisdictions, I'm sure this committee is aware that in the United States the House Committee on Agriculture is currently examining the exact issue that's in front of us today. Appearing before that committee only 20 days ago, Secretary Vilsack extolled the potential of biotechnology but concluded, and I quote:
...conflicts have produced ongoing litigation and resulted in uncertainty for producers and technology innovators. We are at a crucial juncture in American agriculture where the issues causing the litigation and uncertainty must be addressed, so that the potential contributions of all sectors of agriculture can be fully realized.
In the U.S. there are currently two options: either to grant or deny non-regulated status, and over 750 products have been granted the non-regulated status. They are currently considering the option of granting unregulated status with geographic restrictions and isolation distances to accommodate the individuals who demand certainty around genetic drift.
It's also germane to note--and it's certainly not as recent as articles in today's newspapers--that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, with a membership of more than 20 Nobel laureates, has requested a relaxation of excessive unscientific regulations currently in place in some jurisdictions for improving genetically modified crops. Even the European Union is considering the easing of import restrictions on genetically modified crops as part of rewriting the overriding common agricultural policy.
It is my opinion that new regulatory challenges will arise in the near future. Today there are many samples of genetically modified crops with altered input traits, such as insect resistance, and a growing number with environmental traits. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to review a horticultural research program in Chile where they featured 9,000 genetically modified peach seedlings capable of growing in highly saline soils and created as a result of their natural resource extraction--an example of environmental traits.
However, the significant future impact will be from output traits--or, if you will, consumer apps--in which altered crops will have human health benefits, such as reduced trans fats or vitamin enhancements. The only logical regulatory system to govern these new traits is one that is based on scientific evidence of safety to the consumers and to the environment.
The real challenge of regulations is that invariably one size does not fit all. With the dramatically different innovations that currently exist and that are on the horizon, it is important that relatively mundane changes do not endure the detailed scrutiny logically required for a modification that has real potential for a dramatic impact.
The regulations also need to be clear on whether we are regulating a process or a product. Regulations are not put into place to ensure an improvement to the innovator's bottom line, but there should also be opportunity to consider the potential positive impacts of an innovation. If the innovation truly has the opportunity to reduce hunger or increase production in inhospitable environments, that should form part of the scientific and policy considerations in utilizing that technology.
In summary, regulation for genetic modification should not be differentiated from the characteristics of good regulations, whether it's the Highway Traffic Act or for monitoring financial institutions or looking at the pharmaceutical industry. The regulations must be current, based on best available science, and not driven by vested interests. They must ensure safety of citizens and the environment, be flexible enough to accommodate diverse technologies, and be transparent to all and efficient in application. For the most part, Canada has that type of regulatory system. The rules for utilization of genetically modified technology must meet those standards.
Thank you.