Agriculture Committee on Oct. 5th, 2010

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay.

Let me go back, because there are talks that I have back in my area. I have a dehydrating plant in my riding. It's a very major concern. There were systems put in place in the seventies where we brought in canola. In some areas, we prevented mustard from being grown in areas that grew canola just for that commingling presence, but that was done at more of a provincial or regional level, not through legislation in Ottawa.

It wasn't done in such a way that it prevented the industry from growing, either the mustard industry or the canola industry. It was the growers who got together in that area, in that municipality, and said, “No, we're restricting it here based on this.”

[Paul Gregory]

But we're talking about an annual versus a perennial crop. We're talking about a crop that can exist outside of arable land. I mean, the ditches in Oregon and Idaho are polluted with Roundup Ready, and that's what I'm afraid of. We need a mechanism going forward to protect our alfalfa market.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Again, that's where I come back to the low-level presence, or that unintended consequence. You have to have that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. Thank you.

We're well over, so we'll now move to Ms. Bonsant for five minutes.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Good morning, gentlemen.

I am also new to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I have only been its member for a year.

People are talking about GMOs more and more, and that scares me. I am in favour of the bill. That is why I am sitting on this side of the table. When we talk about GMOs, we're talking about health. We're not talking about cars or tires; we're talking about health. When people start modifying seeds, they play with their DNA and, in the process, with mine.

This bill is also about economic considerations. How is it that, in 26 countries, people refuse GMO products and that you, Mr. Holmes, have almost doubled your profits thanks to organic farming? I am not sure what people have trouble understanding here, but 26 countries are refusing GMOs. That's where the economic impact lies.

Mr. Holmes, could you try to explain to these gentlemen why GMO products must be subject to mandatory labelling. I ask because I want to be able to choose foods that are healthy.

Why is it that you, as an organic farmer, are selling your products more easily than GMO products are being sold?

[Matthew Holmes]

Merci, madame.

I would say yes, a number of countries have non-GMO policies in place, and organic is certainly a very important part of a very diverse marketplace in those countries. Currently, organic is really the only way to adequately ascertain that a product is reasonably produced without GMO. There is no labelling elsewhere here in Canada otherwise.

The low-level presence idea in those other countries, particularly in Europe, is actually in part also connected to labelling law, so there is a certain requirement to label GM presence above a certain threshold. This is something that perhaps as legislators you might want to consider here.

From the organic perspective, we feel that our consumers want to know. We hear from many consumers that they want to know. It's not so much the purity of the product; it's also the way a product has been grown. We're seeing that increasingly with fair trade, with certain carbon footprints, and with local food ecological considerations. All of these are reflective of a bigger movement within consumers, who want to know how food is produced. They want to be connected back to their farms. Having a label do that is one way to do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Phillips wanted to comment on that.

Is that okay, Ms. Bonsant?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Bien sûr.

[Dr. Peter W.B. Phillips]

I have two very simple points. The first one is that I think everyone at the table and everyone who studies this would strongly agree that the health issue should be dealt with before it gets to this stage. This debate is about after it has passed Health Canada's rigorous systems and Environment Canada's reviews. This is the end test, not the front test.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I agree with you. However, you talked about scientific data and studies. Who conducts the studies? Do you provide your own scientific data?

[Dr. Peter W.B. Phillips]

Not personally, no. I'm an economist.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

No, but perhaps Mr. Keller...

[Dr. Peter W.B. Phillips]

You should probably get the regulators in here to talk about their science because they don't actually write it down very well. But there is an extensive body of science they use: some that comes from the proponents, which is very specific; some that comes from the international research community, in terms of norms and standards; and some that comes from opponents of the technology who submit evidence in support or against the technology.

Could I make one other point?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Yes, but I have only five minutes.

[Dr. Peter W.B. Phillips]

One really quickly then.

This debate has been characterized as if there are GM-free countries and GM countries. Every country in the world that has an advanced industrial economy uses the technology. They just use it selectively.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Exactly.

Mr. Keller, I would like an answer to the following question: Who provides the government with the scientific data on your products?

[Dr. Wilfred Keller]

As researchers, we do not provide directly. Upon request we will provide analytical tests. Certainly within the health area, the FDA and, in the case of Canada, Health Canada are responsible for the health and safety of all products, including GMO products. Bill C-474 doesn't deal with that because it's already dealt with very effectively.

I might say that from all the GMO products that have been developed over the last 15 years and the millions and billions of meals that have been fed, there's not a single incidence of a health impact. So health and organic production.... Organic is a lifestyle. It's very important and it's good, but organic in no way implies that the product is healthier than that from other sources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Sorry, Madam Bonsant, your time is up.

Mr. Richards, five minutes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

I appreciate you all being here today, although it is unfortunate, as Mr. Hoback mentioned, that we're doing this in the context of a debate on this bill rather than a debate on broader motions, such as the one that Mr. Hoback and Mr. Valeriote put forward.

There are a lot of real challenges out there right now for farmers and for agriculture, and yet despite that, as I talked to farmers all across my riding this summer, there were two main things they brought up with me. First and foremost, overwhelmingly, was certainly the gun registry, which we all just voted on here a couple of weeks ago. They were obviously concerned and wanted to see us get rid of that. It's unfortunate that we have members on this committee who flip-flopped or didn't really back their farmers on that particular bill.

But second of all—

[A voice]

Some were whipped.

[Blake Edwards]

Yes, some were certainly whipped and some just willingly chose to ignore their farmers, which is....

But the second topic that came up with farmers in my riding—again, despite all the challenges that we do face in the industry right now—was, in the words of many of my farmers, “that crazy Bill C-474”, and it came up quite frequently. Of course, I've got a lot of canola growers in my area. Canola is an industry that certainly has been a success story in our country, and one for which, by all accounts, the success wouldn't have been able to be there had something like this existed at the time. As I mentioned, I do have a lot of canola growers, and that's of course mainly due to the fact that there are a lot of guys who want to get out from under the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. But that's another topic for another day as well.

Obviously, those farmers do recognize a lot of the loss potential that's there, certainly loss in terms of lost economic benefits and lost trade opportunities due to moving away from a science-based approach, lost opportunities for research and development, and on and on, that could occur under this bill if it were to pass.

My question is for Dr. Keller. You talked about the fact that Canada is a force in high-quality crops, and you cited some examples, such as hybrids, disease-resistant wheat, and insulin from GM yeast. Those are some of your examples. These are obviously some of the benefits that we've seen already from research and GMOs. You mentioned some upcoming innovations that we'll likely see--for example, drought tolerance improvements for human nutrition qualities. That obviously intrigues me. I'm excited to hear about the future and these future innovations and benefits that we can see on the horizon. I'd like to give you an opportunity to explain in some more detail some of the innovations that are being done right now in terms of Canadian research in GMs and some of those things that may be on the verge of coming to the market. Could you maybe explain in more detail some of the new possibilities and what their potential benefits might be to consumers, and also potential benefits, of course, to economic activity, particularly in the agriculture industry?

[Dr. Wilfred Keller]

Thank you.

Certainly there are some benefits coming, and this is really a genomics-based transformational system whereby the new field of genetics, as we understand it, is going to provide a range of new possibilities. I did mention a number of traits that are under tests. Certainly improved water use efficiency or drought tolerance traits are expected to be commercialized within the next three years or so, and they could have a very important impact, certainly, on arid land production, which we have much of in Canada.

There's the question of nutrient use efficiency, particularly nitrogen use efficiency. We spend an awful lot of money on nitrogen fertilizer, and it does take an awful lot of energy to produce and it releases a lot of greenhouse gases. So if we can develop crops that can be more efficient in their use, then we will have less pollution to waterways and so forth. There are traits being tested that involve more efficient use of nitrogen by the plant.

There's seed quality and modification of the components of seeds to include essential fatty acids so that the dietary oils that are being consumed are approaching more the nutritional value of the oils you might receive in a fish oil product. Those types of products, through either soybean or canola, are potentially already under development as well.

We see a lot of opportunity around increasing vigour, the capability of a plant to withstand low temperatures and tolerate frost. There's ongoing work on that. In the Canadian climate there's a lot of variability. We see genomic and genetic tools playing a key role in this.

I might add that there's also the convergence of agriculture and health, the ability to define what's in the diet and to direct it to the human condition, in order to take a preventative approach rather than a treatment approach in terms of our health. I think we have to look at a new paradigm of how we're going to move forward as a society, because our health care costs are immense. So designing the crop to fit human nutrition is really just scratching the surface of that. I see really important opportunities.

The same is the case for environmentally friendly industrial products, from oilseeds, for example, that are renewable--for instance, polymers for automobile replacement parts.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Eyking, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for coming here today. It's good to see the balance here of pros and cons for this bill.

Just recently The Economist magazine talked about Brazil's agriculture miracle. There are different reasons that their agriculture has doubled in the last 10 years. One of the main reasons was the research they're doing in new varieties, new crops, and new technologies. They say that in the next 10 years they can double again with that research and these varieties.

The article also talked about Africa's potential future as a food producer in world production. Especially now that Arab countries and Asian countries are investing in land, it's not totally unbelievable that Africa could be a net exporter of food.

I guess what I'm asking you is, looking at the restrictions we're putting on research or new products, are we going to be left out, to quite an extent in the future, of producing food for the world, especially when many of the hungry mouths are going to be in Asia and these places where they're not that hung up on a GMO product? Are we going to be sitting here, greater than thou, while all of a sudden the Brazils of the world and then Africa become the producers of the products we used to grow?

I would just open that up.

[Matthew Holmes]

I think Brazil is an excellent example. Certainly there is lots of innovation and lots of research being done. Brazil has also recently been a powerhouse of organic production.

I think what's perhaps worthy of noting in the Brazil example is that they have dedicated entire tracts of land to non-GMO production to adequately control for transgenic flow and to guarantee the markets they already have established, which they don't want to lose, such as those in Europe and Asia.

In addition to investing and promoting a diverse agricultural system, they've chosen to include within that considerations for non-GMO production and for organic marketing.