Evidence of meeting #16 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was biodiesel.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
I'm going to put my questions primarily to Ms. Sharratt.
I believe I heard you use the term “extremely dangerous” when you were referring to some of the genetics and some of the modifications that we find. You mentioned poplar. Now, I probably have planted more trees than everyone combined around this table, and I happen to know a little bit about that poplar you're talking about, or at least something similar to it.
Given that we're talking about fuel--we're not talking about ingesting this as a human food source--where can you come up with the term “extremely dangerous” when you refer to some of these things? You talk about genetically modified feedstocks. Where in the world is there an example, or can you give us an example, of someone who has been harmed? Are the emissions coming from genetically modified crops disposed of differently? There's very little you can find in agriculture today, whether it's oats, barley, wheat, or even watermelons--whatever it is--that isn't genetically modified. Your peaches, your raisins, your seedless grapes are all genetically modified.
Where are we coming up with this? We hear all these extreme statements being made, but no one in my 15 years here has ever supported the argument that a single person in the world has gotten sick from anything that has been genetically modified, unless of course there's an animal or a plant gene transferred from one to the other.
I understand we have to be careful, but how can you use terms like that? I think those are fear-mongering terms.
6:10 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
Thank you.
Yes, I do see that there's a major problem in tracking health effects, because there's no mandatory labelling or post-market surveillance of foods. But even outside of that, we see already, as I mentioned, some contamination events. Crops that were not approved for human consumption, through cross-pollination and even just human error and mixing, have made their way into the food system. We've seen this in the United States a number of times.
In the particular case of genetically engineered trees, we are looking at what we have called extreme dangers. Those are trees that are engineered to be low in lignin; as a result, they do not have defences against disease and insects, and if we see the transfer of genes into native Canadian forests, we see a huge disruption to an ecosystem that we need in climate change. In that particular case, we'd be talking about the environmental impacts of genetic contamination from genetically engineered trees. They are being field-tested in the United States with these low-lignin characteristics.
In addition, there are other social impacts across the world with that type of technology.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
If we could breed a pine tree that would be resistant to the pine beetle, would you agree it would be a good move?
6:10 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
I would, except the tree would then have to exist in plantation form.
What we want to see is the protection of our forests from climate change, which is certainly where the pine beetle is finding its home. In that respect, when we refer to dangerous climate change, the pine beetle and how to deal with it are the types of impacts we would be looking at. Certainly we wouldn't think that genetically engineering trees and trying to integrate those trees into our native old-growth forests would at all be feasible.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Even with cross-pollination, no one becomes sick because a plant has cross-pollinated and that product has been eaten by humans. Has anyone ever become sick or died from it?
We're buying prescribed medications over the counter that are killing people by the thousands every year, and yet we're concerned about something as minute as this. I think we're mixing things up here in a way I find difficult to understand.
6:15 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
To conclude, in response, we have at least two very distinct concerns in relation to genetically engineered crops. One is the adequacy of the regulation to determine the health impacts and then the problem of contamination of the environment, which is ending up with these unsuitable crops and seeds.
Canadian farmers are growing only four crops that are genetically engineered: corn, canola, soy, and now sugar beet. We don't see genetically engineered food in our system yet, except through processed food, and of course that's quite a lot. There are very new cases in which, if we were to start eating produce that's not processed, we might see that these questions of health effects need to be re-examined.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
I could go on and argue. Seedless grapes are a good example. All of us in this room have eaten seedless grapes. We keep buying them, they keep selling them, they keep growing them. No one has become sick from them that I know of, and I like them better than the others.
6:15 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
Those are not a product of genetic modification.
6:15 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
We define genetic engineering as the exchange of genes from one organism to another.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank our witnesses for the important information they have provided to us. It is too bad that we have so little time to discuss this issue.
I would like to address my comments to Mr. Bender. There are a couple of things, Mr. Bender, that I am really glad to hear from you.
You describe this as an excellent opportunity for farmers. As you know, this is the agriculture committee, this is about farmers. We're about putting farmers first in this government, and maybe you can tell us how you see this helping. You say it's another opportunity for farmers, especially for grains and oilseeds, which have really been going through a rough patch. How do you see this turning their fortunes around?
6:15 p.m.
Director, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
A few reasons. And going back to a little bit of background on the KVD issue, this committee has put an end to that, so that lends itself to--
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
We haven't quite yet, but it's certainly--
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Some of us would really love to, and your information is most helpful to that cause.
6:15 p.m.
Director, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
That opens a door to new varieties that are more specific to different things like ethanol, so it creates more options for us to sell our crops on the Prairies. We are somewhat limited, and there are restrictions on what we can do with our grain at this point, but this opens up another avenue for some larger opportunities.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Another very interesting comment was made about the lower quality of the grain. If you were lucky enough to market it, I'm sure you were losing money on some of this lower-quality grain you were having difficulty marketing. Do you think this opportunity will give you a market for that lower-quality grain?
6:15 p.m.
Director, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
Yes, certainly.
It will, I think, bring up the bottom of the market a little bit. For example, in 2002 we had canola that was graded sample because of high green content, whereas the biodiesel industry still was able to use it to create biodiesel. So there's a value to that product that the food market could not recognize.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
The other thing in your comments I was very interested in...and unfortunately I'm steering my comments to you because you're on the ground and you're living the hardships and the challenges. But one of the things you mentioned about the livestock industry was that there was some concern. We talked with some livestock people, and most of them are happy to see another market for the grains and maybe a better price, but from the livestock perspective, as you said with the distillers and everything, there can be a win-win situation. I'd like to hear that enunciated a little more clearly than I did.
6:20 p.m.
Director, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
I'm not really qualified to comment on that in any detail, but I do see some benefit there because DDG is a byproduct of ethanol, and the ethanol is what they're going after from the grains. This is essentially a waste product, but it has some excellent feed qualities to it, so that can fill a void that is being left by the feed grains that are taken out of the market. It's the same thing with canola. Canola meal is also a livestock feed that is a byproduct of the oil that makes biodiesel.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Thank you very much.
In closing, I would like to say that I support your work with students, Mr. Couture. Surely this is working out very well.
I congratulate you on your fine work.
6:20 p.m.
Director, Centre de formation en entreprise et récupération de Victoriaville
Thank you.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
