Evidence of meeting #44 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was biotechnology.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Post-doctoral Fellow, School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria
I think one of the important things is that the science of genetic engineering, when regulation was created worldwide, is very different from what it is today. We have learned a huge amount about genetic signalling, epigenesis, all kinds of factors that genomes have that do not fit with our current regulatory model.
Right now the genomes of organisms do all kinds of things that aren't linear, the way the regulations are set up.
President, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies
It was indicated that we'd never had genomes move between species. We have them move between closely related species all the time. Triticale is a classic example of that. We took wheat and rye and we created a crop called triticale. A mule is an example of that. Strawberries are an example; we've taken a variety of species from the west and a species from the east to get bigger strawberries that taste better.
So we have been, I would emphasize, very much been doing that. If you look at wheat, the best we can tell is that's a genome of three species of grasses that all came together naturally to create the starting point of wheat.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
I think we've just heard why that must have been an interesting meeting when all of you got together.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Canada is not only an export nation, a huge export nation, but we also import very much. One of the things we're concerned about is the regulatory processes we go through.
I had a motion, which was accepted by Parliament, so that we can actually parallel some of the registration and the registration of products, whether it's pesticide or fertilizer uses. The other part of that is that we need to be competitive. We import now foods that are going to be GM...mutated into Canada.
If we don't stay on the edge of actually keeping competitive in terms of our regulatory regime, then obviously not only does agriculture lose but industry loses, and I might say that consumers will lose also.
What I'm asking, then, because we don't necessarily have the same regime...and yet my Motion No. 460 is actually working with that. I want to thank the CFIA, the PMRA, and the veterinary drug directorate for coming along and being very a much supportive initiative for this.
What can we do, then, in terms of regulatory changes, in terms of biotechnology, that will help us stay competitive, stay in it for all industries? That includes agriculture, because this is our industry. What do we need to do to stay on the cutting edge so that we will remain competitive, recognizing the challenges that are ahead of us in biotechnology?
Liberal
President, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies
It's a very complex question, I would emphasize.
Working with other nations is absolutely critical. Communications is absolutely critical as well.
But I have to emphasize this: to stay on the cutting edge, investors and people who are going to go into this area need to know the rules, and to know that the rules they start the process with aren't going to be changing every year.
If they're constantly changing, then I'm sorry, they will go to another jurisdiction.
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I have just a final question.
My bill, Bill C-474, sounds like a very simple bill. It looks at what effect the potential economic impact will have on farmers if we introduce more GE crops.
As I understand it, the main argument against it is that it's not science-based, that it's going to stifle innovation.
We had the potential release of GE wheat, I guess in the nineties, and the reason that it wasn't released was because there was an outcry by farmers. One of the reasons was that they figured their markets would have been stopped.
That didn't stop us from continuing science and innovation. We're still moving. We have cutting-edge technology in this country even though this look at the market there stopped GE wheat.
My question is that if the markets were to say that we should not be introducing GE alfalfa now, or GE wheat, how would that stop science innovation in our country? It would seem to me that it would still continue going along, in spite of the fact that we may have protected farmers in these two areas.
Post-doctoral Fellow, School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria
Well, this is my area of expertise. Basically you have conventional risk assessment, which is science-based. It's quantitative, probabilistic models of gene escape, nutritional toxicology. There is a narrowly defined way in which biotechnology is currently regulated in Canada.
I've been working on creating methods that are quantitative, that are scientific. I'm funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. It's a science, the way you can engage people, include stakeholders, put numbers to it. Those numbers can be traded internationally—you can share that information. It can be used to create generalized models of understanding and information for regulatory bodies all around the world. It is a science. These methodologies would fit within the current framework if it were broadened to include them.
Let's look at cost-benefit analysis. The Canadian Wheat Board, in the regulatory gap document that they submitted to this committee in 2003, outlined, with their industry partners, how to include an economic analysis in the current regulatory framework in a way that would allow for market harm to be assessed.
These are quantitative methods; they're science-based. They can be done in a way that isn't political, that isn't emotional, that allows for a good assessment of the technology.
With respect to innovation and competitiveness, I think in Canada, if we can say that we are taking responsible action to ensure that our farmers are safe.... Look at the way in which Canada's farm economy is going right now. People are hurting. Farmers cannot afford to have their bottom lines torn out from under them by the introduction of Triffid flax into some sort of scientific regulatory system in the EU that all of a sudden shuts down their markets. We can't afford that. The industry can't afford it. Consumers can't afford it; they want to know what they're eating.
I think your bill is an important step. I think it's an important first step. We need to be looking holistically at these things. The work that I do is risk analysis. It includes science as well as cultural, social, and legal issues in an overall assessment. This is increasingly being called for by governments all around the world as a way to look at this technology.
If we think that biotech has only scientific risks, that is a political statement and action in and of itself. It's value-laden to say biotechnology causes only scientific risk. You're excluding people; you're excluding their lives; you're excluding many other factors from the introduction of this technology. That is not just inappropriate—it's irresponsible. I think Canada can step forward through this action, this study, and say, “You know what? We're innovative. We're doing important things for this country.”
That is a competitive edge in and of itself. It shows that this country is doing important things to make its biotech sector viable and competitive.
President, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies
Using your example of wheat, if we had a technology, whether it's by genetic engineering or mutation, that would eliminate nitrogen costs in the production of wheat, we would significantly reduce the input costs of producers. If people wanted to invest, I'm pretty sure they would pick it up. Not only is it good for the farmer's input costs, it's also good for the environment. When you look at how we make nitrogen from fossil fuels, this would pick it out as micro-organisms like soybeans do. But I would not invest in Canada, because I don't know what the rules are, and I have to wait for France to make the decision. That's my concern.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
What a day. It's been a good one.
We've had a great start to our study. We may have another meeting on Thursday, and we'll definitely have lots of meetings in February.
Thank you for coming, and thank you for the educational answers and your insight into the biotech industry.
Before I hit the hammer here, guys, I don't know how it's going to roll here on Thursday. I don't know if we're going to be on deck or not. If we're not, then have a happy holiday, everybody.
The meeting is adjourned.