Agriculture Committee on Dec. 1st, 2009

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This week The Economist magazine had a large article dealing with the challenges of feeding the people of the planet in the next 50 years. They cited the different reasons we're going to have pressure on our food supply. The population will be hitting 10 billion. They talked about the Asians eating more meat, which is going to translate to more grains being used. They talked about biofuels. And the other major one is climate change, where you're going to have less agricultural land and you're going to have more pests and diseases.

They mentioned how in the sixties and the seventies we had the green revolution in Asia and how it took these countries from being starving countries to becoming economic powerhouses. But then they went on to say that GMOs might be the answer in this century to how we can feed the planet and how we can deal with the shortages, especially in Africa.

There was a bit of a debate about whether we should introduce GMOs in Africa or Central America. The question could be to anybody here, or maybe everybody could give me a little bit of an answer. What do you think? How are the GMOs going to play, or how could they play, a role in dealing with the challenge we're going to have in feeding the planet in the next 50 years?

[Dr. Rickey Yada]

I think the challenges we face are population growth, water shortage, and energy crises. GMOs could be part of that solution. And Dr. Ellis, being a plant scientist, could probably comment on this. There is a tremendous amount of work being done on salt-tolerant plants, drought-tolerant plants, as we face some of these climate issues. As I said, it's part of the solution to the problem.

[Dr. Brian Ellis]

I think they will probably be useful and might even be quite important in some areas. Are they useful and important in the North American industrial agriculture? I would argue no, they're simply a way of making the producer's life easier and of probably making more money off the crop. That doesn't feed the planet, necessarily.

So yes, I think the technology is actually going to see its real value in specific agricultural challenges, not in the current models.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

You have no comment?

[Michel Arnold]

I have no comment. Absolutely not.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I'll go back to Dr. Ellis. How would you see that dealing especially with the African challenge? How do you see this translating there? Should we be working with the Africans--because they have different climes, different plants--on it?

[Dr. Brian Ellis]

There's a lot of interest in some quarters of the world in working with the Africans on the crops that are important to Africa. I know, for instance, there's a big project on cassava and trying to get better yields and better disease and pest resistance. That addresses a very real need. It's the staple crop of some countries in Africa, and there's no way you're going to substitute something for it, realistically.

So yes, there are situations like that, and the risk tolerance will be higher in situations like that. This kind of decision will be taken over and over again in different contexts.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Should the UN be involved in monitoring how this is dealt with in underdeveloped countries? Should there be a watchdog so that some of these chemical companies will not take it over and, the next thing you know, they're faced with the same challenges as we have here, such as farmers not being able to use their own seed? Should there be a different world order on how that's dealt with?

[Dr. Brian Ellis]

I don't know what the best regulator would be. The example of golden rice was a classic one. You've probably heard about that at various levels. It was developed with the idea of making a nutritionally enhanced rice. When they actually tried to roll it out in rice breeding programs, it was tied up in so many patents owned by so many different companies that it was impossible to release it. It took years of negotiation, and the companies finally had to agree, by and large under public pressure, to allow those varieties to be bred into rice stocks. Farmers could use it cost-free, as long as they weren't making something like more than $10,000 a year. It had to be kept out of commercial production, but it could go to small-hold farmers.

That was a creative solution. As for whether it's a model for future decisions of that sort, I don't know, but it's a different environment altogether when you come to small-hold farmers in other countries.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Eyking.

The bells are ringing, gentlemen. That's our notice to go for a vote.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think we have time for a vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here today. I appreciate your being patient with us.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a small budget item to deal with—the money allotted for this GMO study. We would be very quick, if I had your agreement to do it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, let it be left to next meeting. We can vote on André's motion first, or we can vote on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

First of all, Mr. Bellavance can bring his motion back on the floor anytime he wants. He hasn't done that at this point, but I have this here.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, this is no longer Mr. Bellavance's motion, first of all. It's the committee's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Exactly.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Second of all, the bells are ringing. As per the rules, unless you have unanimous consent—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

It doesn't look as though I have consensus to go ahead with it.

We are adjourned until Thursday.