Agriculture Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[Jerome Konecsni]

The National Research Council is not eligible for the NSERC funding that you refer to. It is research that is directed at universities; only universities are eligible for it. NRC's funding comes directly through the ministry of industry, science and technology; that is where our funding comes from. This particular change will not affect us.

Agriculture is receiving an increasingly higher priority at the National Research Council. So contrary to whatever...and I don't understand or fully appreciate what the decision at NSERC was, so I would prefer not to comment on that. But at the National Research Council, we have been engaged in a number of internal priorities, strategizings, and external consultations, and I can say that agriculture has risen significantly in the priorities of the NRC.

In the fullness of time, as our strategy unfolds, I think you will see that it will become an increased priority in the National Research Council. That is the only organization I can comment on, because I am not familiar with NSERC funding. We don't qualify for NSERC funding, so it will not have any effect on us.

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

I do understand that. We actually heard it from university researchers. They will undoubtedly be affected by that.

Ms. Park, I saw you nodding earlier, do you have a comment to make?

[Penny Park]

I was surprised. I'd like to find out why, because I was surprised by their decision. I can't say anything other than that.

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

One thing is sure about research, and that is that we have still not got back to the investment levels for research on biotechnology that we had in 1994.

Mr. Konecsni, could you tell me the investment situation at your research centre over the years? Do you have recurring funding or does it vary from one year to the next? Have you had the benefit of increases that provide you with research opportunities?

[Jerome Konecsni]

I think the increase in funding for our institute has been constant over the last ten years. We've been building partnerships. One of the things we strongly support and believe in at the National Research Council is domestic prosperity. That is one of the things we look at. What are the benefits to Canada of the research? That will drive anything. We don't exist to generate profits for NRC. We exist to generate value for Canada. So in our programming, benefits to producers are going to be one of the primary objectives.

To that end, we've been forming what we call value-chain consortia around these different crops. A good example is pulse. The pulse industry in Saskatchewan is very productive and very successful. It has grown by 400% in the last five to ten years. They work closely with the University of Saskatchewan. They've plateaued in terms of their technological capacity and they've got a great checkoff plan, so they have resources. So we have received funding from them because they want to start to apply some of our technologies to accelerate and improve and take their breeding programs to new levels using the technology. That is one example of where we receive funding.

We're also working with provincial governments who are willing to support because it fits their priorities. Small companies and producer groups are also investing.

We have consortia that include technology companies, SMEs, food companies, people who are end-users, and provincial governments. We're building a value chain, and I think then what we see from that model is that the research has more direction and has a more applicable use. All the partners that are necessary to make this research relevant and used and end up in the marketplace...that is the model we're advancing. As a result, we've been able to sustain our funding.

If you ask me and any researcher if we would like more money, I think you know what the answer will be. But as I said, I think we're seeing within our own institute, our own organization, a real interest and a real change in priority, in saying they've done some good work and we've funded them in the past. We think we have to find ways to reallocate resources so the priorities and the capabilities they have can benefit all Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Atamanenko for seven minutes.

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

Thank you to all of you for being here.

A very timely topic these days is the global food crisis. Many people are talking about how we feed the world. There are those who advocate and say we need GMOs. In other words, GM technology is necessary to feed the world. On the other hand, you have, I believe, the Union of Concerned Scientists and I think it's a study with the IAASTD—I'm not sure—that's called Failure to Yield. It says that GM technology has not improved yield, that any improvements in yield have been through traditional breeding practices or non-GMO biotechnology.

Then we have the extreme example, which I can't help but remember. In India we have that tragic case of GM cotton that was introduced and brought a lower yield, and over 200,000 farmers committed suicide. It's a world tragedy.

Can we feed the world using non-GM technology? Further, there are those at the other end of the spectrum—I've asked the questions and received answers—saying that we can feed the world organically when we look at small plots in different countries that have sustainable agriculture. So can we do it? Is the fact that we're being told we need GM technology a spin coming from these big companies, or do we have sufficient technology and methods to do it?

Maybe I'll start with you, Ms. Young, and work down.

[Christie Young]

That's a great question. I personally believe we can feed the world without GM technologies. I think that any technology is part of a social-political-economic system, so it doesn't actually even matter...technology is not determining the production or distribution of food necessarily. I think we have enough food in this world right now to feed everyone who exists on the planet, but it isn't moving to those people for a variety of reasons. We have people who are farming who don't own their lands, and they spend most of their time working in cities and moving back and forth, and they could be much more productive in their agricultural output if they didn't have to move to the cities to work.

I think we are going to have a greater population, and I don't really understand the idea that we should have fewer people producing food for that greater population. I think if we have more people, we can have more people producing food, and we can do it on smaller plots with more intensive agriculture. There are a number of places and examples where this is incredibly viable. Biointensive agriculture is being used in North America, as well as around the world. It is small-plot intensive agriculture that focuses on maximum yield for the smallest amount of acreage, while turning over soil fertility. It's an eight-step, very simple system, and it's produced unbelievable results for small landowners or people in more impoverished places, but it also works for farmers in Canada. We have farmers who are growing five acres of market garden vegetables, and they are averaging $25,000 an acre. They're aiming to make about $60,000 in income--and that's net--and they're doing it in Canada in this market today.

So I think we can think about agriculture differently. I believe we can think about field crops differently as well. We can produce them with companion planting. We can approach agriculture in a different system. Our program manager at FarmStart comes from India, and he was a farmer there for 20 years. He said he spent his education learning about the green revolution technologies, and he spent 20 years trying to unlearn them because he realized what they did to his yields, to the diversity in crops that he was actually able to produce, and to his bottom line. I think this experience has been replicated around the world, and people around the world are trying to unlearn the lessons we've learned in the last 50 years. And we need to help them. We need to help farmers farm better. We have a lot of tools, and there is a lot of knowledge out there that we can share with other people.

[Jerome Konecsni]

My initial reaction is I don't think there's one magic bullet. I think science and technology offer us many options, and all of those options should be evaluated, and they should be measured on their safety, on their responsiveness to the market place, on increasing the quality, and on what people really need: healthier, safer food.

So when I look at that...let me give you the example of China and India, two countries we work fairly closely with in our research. China has increased its rapeseed--we call it canola--production by 100% since the late 1970s. It did not use GM technology, but it feels it has reached a limit. It is now looking at a 70% increase in its oil production over the next 20 years, and it still imports. It cannot produce enough to meet all of its own demand. In India it is the same thing. So both countries are looking at GM technology simply because of the speed.

The question is picking the right technology given the time we have to produce that. As I said, some GM technologies will make things quicker and faster. Sometimes you can use non-GM approaches. As I said, I think with improvements in wheat variety, significant gains can be made without GM technology, but GM technology might add another level. So you really have to look at the factor of time, and time is not on our side when you're looking at the kinds of demands and the pressures that are placed on the world's food supply.

It's a complex issue. In India it's not only about how much it produces on an acre; its biggest issue is spoilage after harvest. It has other issues it has to resolve. It's also working on improving its productivity. I think when you see countries like China and India that have taken advantage of all of the traditional breeding tools and technologies and are still looking at GM, you get your answer there.

You can look at our situation with pulse growers and people like that who have been very successful. Pulse has grown its market, but its productivity has not increased. They've been using very successful traditional breeding methods, but they need to take it to another level, so they will bring ag biotech in. They're not pursuing GM just yet, but I think again it depends on the demand and the timeframes in which you have to respond. So I wouldn't throw out one important tool without understanding the implications of that and fully understanding the time you need to take that. GM crops have been in existence for 13 years, and there have been a lot more success stories than failures. I think if you look at the arguments of economic and social benefits that have been derived by India and China, the environmental impact--the amount of reduction in chemicals used in those countries--is phenomenal because of GM technologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Hoback, for seven minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to again thank everybody for coming out here this morning.

You know, the biotech study was something that both Mr. Valeriote and I agreed that we needed to do, just because there are so many misconceptions around biotechnology, what it is and what it consists of. If you review the history of our testimony, you'll see that the first thing a lot of our witnesses want to do is talk about GMOs. They seem to think that's biotechnology. For some reason, they seem to think that biotechnology must be genetically modified organisms.

That's the point I was trying to make to you, Ms. Young. I didn't mean any disrespect. It's just that when we have a study on biotechnology, that's where I expect us to go. I don't expect us to just go to one specific part of biotechnology, but to encompass the whole issue of biotechnology. It's a big enough issue on its own.

I think I'm going to go to you, Ms. Park, because I really like the idea of what you're saying with regard to the Science Media Centre. One of the problems I saw in Europe was that there were so many misconceptions and rumours, and actually blatant lies, published just based on the ability to sell a paper or create a story. Nobody was giving good, proper, balanced science information.

The concern I have with your organization...and it's just a concern; I don't know it well enough to say it's good or bad. How do you get good, proper information that has good, proper peer review that is science-based without one of your advisers having a personal interest in the story? Then, how do you inform that reporter of this information and still guarantee that the reporter writes it in that format?

Have you any comments on that?

[Penny Park]

Yes, I do.

Actually, we have a whole selection process for our experts where we take--we think--the best of peer review, which is that we look for recommendations from our advisory panel. We look for who has been funded by NSERC or SSHRC, where they are working, and the kinds of publications they've been getting. For example, are they published in Science and Nature? Has their point of view been peer-reviewed? That's how we try to keep on the straight and narrow as far as science is concerned.

With regard to ensuring that the journalists themselves follow through at the end, we can't. We can only provide them with good-quality expertise from the start. What they choose to do with it is their right and whatever....

Well, first of all, I'm a journalist from way back, and I know that journalists don't want to be wrong. They want to be right. In many respects, though, they need to understand more about science, that it's not balance to put in the fringe opinion when the consensus of scientific evidence says one thing. It doesn't make sense. As we move forward and as we at the SMCC talk to journalists, it is my hope that they will be learning, too, more about science and about how science is done, and will become more savvy about these issues.

Just to pick up on the point earlier about whether we can feed the world with.... I didn't get a chance to say anything, but I will now: that's a great idea for a briefing. If we are providing briefings with a range of valid scientific opinion, I think we are now providing a focal point for the journalists to start reporting on it, to start learning about these things. It won't be just one briefing. We'll slice up that story in different ways.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay.

I'm going to pull it back to the biotech study now. As I said, I see some cautious optimism, at least on my part. Time will tell, but I think what you're doing is great.

When you look at the biotech sector--just with the information you have on the media, and what they know about the biotech sector--what can it be doing to create the proper image? I'm not saying to improve their image; I'm saying to present a proper image, pros and cons.

[Penny Park]

I think it's transparency--honestly being willing and able to step up and enter the debate.

You know, science isn't all about “This is absolutely right and that is absolutely wrong.” Things change, too, and I think the more the scientists are prepared to engage and to talk about it, then the more the media and the public will learn that this is how science is done, and these are the risks we will or will not accept.

Science is only part of the equation. I think it is engagement. They have to step up and be willing to speak.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I appreciate that.

Ms. Young, I'm going to challenge you a little on some of the comments you made during your presentation. You talked about a report on organic matter. Can you table that report, please? You were talking about a 25% increase in organic matter in a year. Did I hear that right?

[Christie Young]

Yes, it's from the Rodale Institute. They have a website with all of their research.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I farm, and when it comes to organic matter, if we look at the farming practices we had in the seventies when we were going 50-50 or 60-40 with summer fallow acres, the organic matter was falling and falling. It wasn't until we were able to go into no-tillage systems that we started to see the organic matter actually reverse itself.

We also found out that if you start spreading manure you would increase that organic matter quickly. So if you went to areas around Lethbridge or southern Alberta where there were many feed lots, their organic matter was growing rapidly because of the use of manure.

The use of manure for growing wheat and barley is great because it's good organic fertilizer and the crops will never touch the manure. But when you're growing lettuce or strawberries, it can create other issues.

[Christie Young]

If it's not decomposed properly--absolutely.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Exactly, that's my point.

I'd like to see that report. I don't think it's appropriate to say that all organics are doing this, because if they haven't changed their cultivation practices they're actually not increasing organic matter; they're decreasing it.

[Christie Young]

Absolutely. Tillage is a huge factor in preserving organic soil structure. This is one trial that happened over 27 years. They did organic production side by side with conventional agriculture. I would be happy to send it to the committee. I don't know how to do that, but it's also accessible on the Rodale Institute's website. It's a very well-known study.

I don't argue that all organic farmers are necessarily good organic farmers. There are lots of different ways that we can promote organic matter in soil structure.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Do you think there's any role for the private sector in the creation of new genetics, new seeds, and new products?

[Christie Young]

Absolutely. We work with new Canadians who are trying to grow crops they know from home, like okra, bitter melon, and hot peppers.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

But I mean private corporations.

[Christie Young]

I know, and I'll get there.

They are doing it with seeds they've taken from a variety of different places, and they're not consistently producing. They don't know what their yield rates will be in seeding out seedlings. They could benefit from private sector seed companies growing out the seeds that are hardy and viable for our climate in Canada. They would purchase those seeds.

We need to figure out how to scale up some of these crops that are in enormous demand right now in Canada. So that's one role for the private sector.

I think there are technologies that farmers should have control over, and knowledge and techniques that should be transferred. But I don't think there's no place for private sector companies that serve farmers' interests.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay. I was a little concerned that you were saying there should be no role for the private sector.