Agriculture Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Good morning, colleagues.

Larry's stuck in the snowstorm or.... He says he can't make it, but he might be back at a later time.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I don't know what's wrong. Maybe they're not plowing the roads down there. At any rate, he can't make it. He asked me to chair the meeting.

Today we're starting off on our study on biotechnology. We're going to use up most of the meeting for witnesses and questions.

André, maybe during the last 10 minutes we can deal with your motion, if that's fine with you. You have a motion to put forward at the end of the meeting?

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

That's not necessarily the case. We can talk about it, but—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You don't need to deal with it? Okay.

We'll stick with the witnesses and our study today.

We have here Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, the University of Guelph, and the University of Victoria.

Come on up to the table, folks.

We have three presenters from across the country. Welcome, gentlemen. I don't know if this is your first time at committee, but just so you know how the routine goes, we're going to have 10 minutes of presentation from each of you, and then we'll open it up for questions.

Ian, from the University of Victoria, do you want to start off first?

[Dr. Ian J. Mauro, Post-doctoral Fellow, School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria]

Sure.

I just want to thank the committee for inviting me here this morning. It's a pleasure to speak about my work.

I'm currently a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Victoria in environmental studies. The project I'm currently working on is on Inuit knowledge and climate change. In the new year, I'll be the Canada research chair in human dimensions of environmental change at Mount Allison University.

My work couples social and ecological systems, and I'm interested in holistic analysis of issues related to climate change, food security, and--the focus of our meeting--biotechnology.

My Ph.D. research, which took place between 2002 and 2008 at the University of Manitoba, is the largest farmer-focused study on genetically engineered crops that has ever been conducted. It was publicly funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council and Agriculture Canada through their Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council program.

The project involved 2,500 farmers from across the three prairie provinces. We were specifically interested in their local knowledge--their experience with genetically engineered crops in the fields at the farm level. I studied genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant canola in a post-release fashion and genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant wheat, specifically Roundup Ready wheat, in a pre-release fashion.

Once again, this is farm-level data collected through surveys and interviews spanning six years, as my Ph.D research. The research has been peer reviewed and published, and that forms the basis of my expert opinion and the written submission to this committee.

In Canada, the release of genetically engineered crops is an ongoing ecological and regulatory experiment with tangible impacts on human systems, specifically farmers. This living experiment, if you will, provides useful information about the benefits and risks of biotechnology and about how regulation can and should evolve.

Advantages associated with genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops are well known. My work further demonstrates their production benefits, specifically easier and better weed control for farmers choosing to use this technology.

Risks are less well understood, and this is where my research really provides new information. For both genetically engineered canola and genetically engineered wheat, the main risks, ranked in order of importance by farmers themselves, included markets, which were the top risk for farmers. They were concerned about loss of income. They were concerned about problems in the segregation system, that biology would leak into a segregation issue, which would lead to market harm.

The second issue of greatest importance to farmers was corporate control of agriculture. They were concerned about seeds being privatized and the associated lawsuits.

The third risk was agronomic “volunteers”--genetically engineered crops migrating across the landscape--and increased use of herbicides leading to weed-resistant varieties, which we are seeing in Canada today.

Fourth was contamination--gene flow. These crops move around the landscape, and they pose risks for farmers not using the technology. The key finding of my research is that gene escape from genetically engineered crops escalates into other risks, such as the agronomic, corporate, and market impacts that I just spoke about. Indeed, biology and socio-economics are inseparable when dealing with ag-biotechnology.

Importantly, the top two risk categories, as identified by prairie farmers, are market and corporate impacts, which fall outside of Canada's current science-based regulatory system.

The proposed introduction of Roundup Ready wheat showed the flawed nature of evaluating biotechnology using only narrowly defined scientific determinants, and thus put Canada's $4 billion to $6 billion annual wheat market at risk because of the unwillingness of international buyers to purchase genetically engineered wheat from any country growing it.

My research shows that over 83% of prairie farmers do not want to see Roundup Ready wheat introduced despite renewed industry interest in commercializing this very crop.

At the height of the controversy with Roundup Ready wheat, I was invited to numerous Canadian Food Inspection Agency meetings. Although they had knowledge of the socio-economic risks associated with this very crop, regulators were not allowed to consider these in their assessment.

Indeed, parliamentary intervention is required to expand CFIA's mandate to regulate biotechnology more effectively in Canada.

These market issues were identified by the Canadian Wheat Board officials in a 2003 presentation to this committee entitled “Closing the Regulatory Gap”, which proposed adding cost-benefit analysis to GE crop regulation. I highlight the need to include socio-economics in Canadian regulation for you again today.

Importantly, cost-benefit analysis and the farmer-focused risk analysis method that I have pioneered are quantitative scientific approaches that can be incorporated into the existing regulatory framework. Canadian farmers deserve holistic regulation that seeks their input and thus ensures their livelihoods are not being put at risk due to the introduction of GE crops and other types of ag-biotechnology. Arguably Bill C-474, currently being debated in Parliament, offers an opportunity to expand the regulatory framework and ensure market impact is considered. I believe this is an important and much-needed evolution in Canadian regulation.

I've spoken a lot about market harm, given its importance; however, farmers are also concerned about corporate control over biotechnology and how this affects their lives and agriculture as whole. This, as I have identified, is also outside of the current regulatory framework. Most notably, numerous non-GE and organic farmers who participated in my study had their land and crops contaminated by GE varieties. Some were sued by industry, and others attempted to sue the company for damages.

The corporate control over seed, the very basis of our food supply, is controversial and is something that should be given more attention by this committee and Parliament as a whole. Indeed, our food security as a nation is at risk if farmers are no longer able to freely use and exchange their seeds and plants due to contracts and patent laws. This corporate control is especially problematic when enforced over genetically engineered crops that move easily across the landscape, cross-pollinate in other genetically engineered and non-GE crops, and expose farmers to unwanted and unexpected risks. Indeed, it is now impossible to grow non-genetically engineered canola in Canada because of the widespread cross-pollination of GE varieties. This canola crop, developed with public funds, has become largely privately owned by the biotechnology industry.

Given the findings of my Ph.D., I believe genetically engineered crops are substantially different from their conventionally bred equivalents. Loss of markets, patented genes triggering lawsuits, organic farmers losing crops in their crop rotation due to cross-pollination: these are all differences that did not exist before ag-biotechnology. These impacts are real. Recognizing this in regulation is important and is of value to farmers, government, consumers, and industry. Indeed, updated regulations, based on our living experiment and associated experience, will ensure that ag-biotechnology is released appropriately and safely in the future. A safer food system with accountability, responsibility, and awareness of the costs and benefits of introducing new technology is innovative and good for Canada and the world.

It is my expert opinion that scientific and social impacts regarding biotechnology are inseparable and weave around each other metaphorically, like the DNA molecule itself. Canada's regulations must evolve like a genome in a way that holistically recognizes that ag-biotechnology has both ecological and social impacts that must be assessed. As both a social and environmental scientist, I assure you that both strands in this double helix of regulation, if you will, can be evaluated scientifically and with some modification will fit into the existing framework.

I look forward to discussing this with you. I appreciate your time this morning, and I would be pleased to assist you now and in the future. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mauro. Your timing was good, and that was a very well-done presentation.

[Dr. Ian J. Mauro]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We're going to move on to Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, and Mr. Surgeoner.

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner, President, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the committee for having me here to speak to you.

I am the president of Ontario Agri-Food Technologies. This is a consortium of our grower associations, our major farm associations of Ontario, universities, and private sector companies, from big multinationals to a lot of small Canadian, Ontario companies. I would say that my board is...half of which have to come from the farm associations, as they helped create the organization.

I'm going to be talking at a very high level to get some key points out.

First, in my opinion and our opinion, the Canadian regulatory system on biotechnology is not broken. We have arguably the best and most respected regulatory system in the world. There should not, therefore, be wholesale change, but we can, as with anything we do in society, continue to improve.

One thing I would like to emphasize is that the way we regulate biotechnology is not biotechnology, per se. In Canada we regulate the product, not how we got there. In other words, science can create herbicide tolerance through genetic engineering, mutagenesis, out-crossing. There are many ways that you can end up with a product that is novel and different. We actually regulate the product, not the process, which scientifically is the most valid methodology to do so.

In my opinion, the regulations have the ability to protect Canadians and global customers. I agree that we have to look at global customers, and in fact big companies--make sure they have to have a number of companies before they actually allow a product to be sold.

Plants with novel traits have been grown in Canada since 1995, so 15 years. To my knowledge, and again on a scientific basis, there are no validated cases of harm to either humans or the environment. I am, however, aware of lots of benefits--no till, reduced pesticides.

Again, the thing I would also emphasize is that when 80% of the farmers in the prairies use genetically engineered technology, 70% of our soybean producers and about 60% of our corn producers are buying these products. Anybody who knows agriculture knows that farmers are not dumb people, and they look at the value to them. I do agree that we have to figure out systems to protect others. So I emphasize that from multinationals to NGOs, we have the same objective: to create safe products that provide value to producers and, importantly, value to consumers.

Regarding safety, we must recognize that there are no absolute guarantees. I will be flying home tonight, and my risk factor went up because of the weather out there today. It needs to be balanced with allowing innovation to occur, innovation that benefits society and employs Canadians. So in my opinion, terms such as the “weight of scientific evidence” and “does not represent unacceptable risk to human health and the environment” are the lexicon of the regulations that should be used with “there are no absolutes”.

The other thing I have to emphasize is flexibility. Flexibility must be incorporated into the legislation and how it's managed. The probability of risk is very different depending on different products. For example, using this technology in Quebec, Medicago Inc. is developing new types of vaccines in greenhouse situations.

In Guelph, we have PlantForm that is developing new kinds of antibodies, where we grow them in plants. All of these are going to be maintained and produced in a greenhouse situation—containment. How we ensure that these do not get outside those greenhouses is the key, but that's part of the technology.

Similarly, right now in the Okanagan Valley we have Okanagan Specialty Fruits, which has developed a methodology for not having your apples brown--i.e., when you cut an apple and it turns brown, they prevent the browning.

In my opinion, that's not how things spread; it's a food safety issue. So the regulatory has to analyze the product and the risk associated with the use pattern.

Similarly, the next wave of this technology is drought resistance, frost resistance, salt tolerance. There I am concerned about weediness and how things move out, and whether or not these crops become more of a problem.

So we have to look at safety there, and we also have to look at environmental impact. A key message is that one size does not fit all when we analyze these products. You have to look at the use pattern along with the actual product.

We should share data. We are not the only country in the world that is analyzing and regulating these products, and I think we should share data, basic toxicology. There's a lot of standard information that should be shared between countries, and hopefully we don't have to continually reinvent the wheel.

We should have transparency. All toxicology and environmental data used by regulatory authorities to make decisions must be available to interested parties. I understand that there is certain proprietary information that may not be available, but I emphasize that for everybody to feel confident, the data should be available. A decision document describing the basis of the regulatory decision should be provided to any interested party that wants to see it.

The other key thing is to regulate novelty. In other words, the product is different. I guess the question that's not in the legislation is at what point something is no longer novel. If you look at soybeans in Ontario, 70% are, in this case, herbicide tolerant. We've been using them since about 1998 in very large numbers. In fact, the novel soybean is, by far, the most common soybean out there. Do we go 10, 15, 20, 30, or 100 years before we decide that it's no longer novel? That is a key question that I think is important.

Another one that's really interesting and that must be looked at is new uses. We are developing crops that do not have feed uses and do not have food uses, yet that is how we're regulating these technologies of change. There is camelina on the prairies and miscanthus for energy. We're looking at a number of products right now that we will not use for food or feed. They will be for industrial purposes. How do we regulate those crops, given current legislation?

There is another key thing that I think is important for Canadians and for the world. We always look at the risks, and I'm the first to stand up and say that all those risks must be looked at. But I think we should also look at benefits. Canola is a classic example. If I have a product that is trans-fat free--in our province of Ontario, obesity and type 2 diabetes are a $5-billion tax problem for our society in terms of health care costs--can we look at the benefits to Canadians as well as risks? I think that's important, particularly when we get into foods.

The other key thing is consistency. I've worked with industry for a long time. I've been a faculty member for 29 years. If investors are going to put money into these projects, many of them will last 13 or 14 or 15 years, with $10 million, $20 million, or $100 million invested to get a product to market. If our landscape is constantly changing its rules, and I don't know that landscape, it is difficult to get investors interested. I have to emphasize that if we want innovation and we want to continue to be excellent in this area, then consistency of rules, with flexibility for a particular program, is important to me.

We also want to learn from regulatory experience. We now have 15 years of experience with some of these crops. Can we have, for example, as we do in other regulatory areas, what we call minor uses? Some of the best, with the greatest environmental potential, are smaller-acreage crops. We cannot justify the cost because of the regulatory burden associated with them. In other areas, we say that's a minor use. We see what's happened in the large acreages. Can we, then, learn from that? We should incorporate some experience.

In agriculture, we are moving from input traits to what I call the environmental traits--the drought, the salt tolerant, and all that--and to the output traits for the consumers--healthy oils, fruit that doesn't turn brown, and so on.

In my opinion, our regulatory system has served us well. We must continue to ensure flexibility and transparency and to eliminate unnecessary costs if we are to continue to ensure the global competitiveness of our industry and the protection of our citizens.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much for that. The presentation was well within our time.

Now we go last, but not least, to the University of Guelph. We're well aware of the University of Guelph. We have an MP, Mr. Valeriote, who puts it front and centre many times. Our committee also visited your university. We're glad to have a representative here.

Mr. Yada, you have the floor for ten minutes. Go ahead.

[Dr. Rickey Yada, Professor, Department of Food Science, University of Guelph]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, thank you to the committee for the invitation to come before you.

I'll take a little bit of a different tack from my colleagues with regard to biotechnology. I'll talk about biotechnology in the context of food.

Undoubtedly, some of the early adopters of biotechnology were the food scientists and technologists. If you think about cheese and the production of beer and wine, those were early uses of biotechnology. In today's world, biotechnology in the food area relates to such things as nutraceuticals, which are biologically active compounds isolated from horticultural food commodities that have a potential health benefit, and functional foods, which are foods that have elevated levels of these bioactive compounds that, hopefully, will produce a health benefit.

As an example of the kinds of things we're working on in the food area right now, especially in Canada, where I think we're doing some cutting-edge research, we're looking at new ways of delivering salt. This is in light of the salt crisis that Canadians and the global community face in regard to salt and cardiovascular disease. In addition, we're doing some very cutting-edge research on trans fat substitutes. Again, this is an issue that has come before the public and is a global problem, as it relates to cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

With regard to some of the things I've been charged with talking about by the committee, I'll talk about the regulatory framework. I'll say right from the get-go that an efficient and effective system is critical to successful commercialization and consumer confidence and acceptance. We've made great gains in Canada with regard to streamlining our regulatory system, especially with regard to clinical trial approval and product approval. However, there still are delays, and those delays result in lost opportunities and, probably, a lost competitive edge for Canadian companies entering the global market.

So what do we need? I guess we need enabling regulations that involve early and greater engagement of the whole stakeholder community, from the grower up to the consumer. They need to be involved right from the get-go in the projects and research being developed, not only at the university level but also in the industrial environment.

Part of our efficiency in the system now is a committee called the food regulatory advisory committee, a committee of Health Canada, of which I'm pleased to be a member. This is a broad stakeholder committee. Hopefully, through the input of that committee, we'll have an efficient and effective regulatory framework.

With regard to intellectual property, my colleague Gord Surgeoner talked about intellectual property and the return on investment. It's a critical factor to showing a return on investment. Whether it be through a grant program or through collaborative partnerships with university, government, and industry, or just a university-industry partnership, we need to show a return on that investment. As I said, one of the ways is intellectual property.

But there are some challenges with intellectual property. First of all, at the university level--the community I know best--most researchers are not interested in intellectual property; their passion is research. There are some very creative researchers, however, in university communities. The other challenge at a university is the general lack of recognition of the promotion and tenure procedures of intellectual property. So if a researcher does get a patent or a licensing agreement, his or her colleagues have a difficult time evaluating the worth of that patent or licence, as contrasted with a refereed scientific publication.

We also have non-uniform policies at universities with regard to intellectual property. At the University of Guelph, the intellectual property resides with the researcher, but a couple of years ago, the intellectual property resided with the university. There is no standard for intellectual property across Canada at universities, and this is something on which I think we need to work.

The other thing is that Canada has a wonderful small and medium enterprise community, and we need to be able to capture some of the innovative ideas at the SME level and support these ideas at the SME level. One of the ways we can do that is through university-industry-government collaboration. So we need to invest more in that aspect.

We also need to invest in what I would refer to as the “valley of death” gap, that area between a concept and a tangible product or a technology. We have wonderful ideas that occur at the bench, but a lot of them die at the bench because we don't have a mechanism to support that valley of death so that we can show utility of that good idea and bring it forward to an industry for utilization by the greater community.

What are some of the challenges of adopting new products and technologies by farmers and consumers?

I think this is a challenge with any new technology, whether it be biotechnology or an issue that we're dealing with right now, nanotechnology. We need greater transparency, and again I'll go back to the point of early engagement and input of growers and consumers in research from concept to the product and technology.

Again, as my colleague Gord Surgeoner identified, we need to identify the value proposition to the entire agrifood chain. We need to identify the benefits, but also the potential risks. Of course, a large part of this is that we need to develop effective communication and educational strategies in communicating this information.

Funding is the last topic I'll talk about. I think we need to get greater support--long-term, sustainable funding--for the agrifood nutrition and health community. It's interesting that agrifood nutrition and health does not appear on the federal S and T strategy list. We need to get it onto the S and T strategy list.

Part of that support for getting it onto the S and T list, or STIC priorities, is that we need to recognize that food can be one vehicle to promote wellness. As Gord has indicated, this would be a great avenue to reduce health care costs, which are burgeoning globally.

We need to get greater funding of the value chain from growers to consumers. Oftentimes we have segmented funding to various groups. We need to have integrative funding. We need to have greater support of the valley of death scenario, and to small- and medium-sized enterprises.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make this comment. I am a scientific director of a research network called the Advanced Foods and Materials Network, which was part of the networks of centres of excellence program. We addressed some of the issues that I've discussed. Unfortunately, we were not successful in our renewal of the program and the network. Therefore, we need to look for alternative strategies, in light of this decision, to address the issues that I've talked about.

With that, Mr. Chair, I conclude my remarks.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much, Mr. Yada.

I thank everybody who has presented. I think you gave us quite a snapshot of the challenges and opportunities in the biotech industry.

We're going to now open it up to questions, and we're going to start off with the opposition. We're going to have seven-minute rounds.

Mr. Valeriote, you're up first.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today. It's terrific to have people of your calibre speaking before this committee.

I'm going to ask two questions. One is for Mr. Yada, and the other is for Ian and Gord.

Mr. Yada, you mentioned AFMNet losing its funding. Can you tell the committee the value of AFMNet? What exactly does AFMNet offer the government in respect of a better understanding of food research, innovation, and commercialization? We all know that healthier food means healthier people and lower health care costs. I've already had reaction from the private sector about AFMNet losing its funding in areas like the sodium research you introduced. So what does AFMNet offer, and why is it important in the absence of public research?

To the other folks, we've had quite an extensive discussion on Bill C-474 through Alex's bill. We've heard so many concerns--and you've repeated them, Ian--about biodiversity, contamination, the use of seed, and control by the companies.

I believe GMOs are here to stay. We have increasing global warming and we have to deal with that. We have to feed three billion more people over the next 30 or so years, and increase our food production by 70%. But at the same time, I heard Gord acknowledge that they have to forge systems to protect others.

Do you guys ever get together in a forum and sit down...? I'm not asking you to kiss and make up or anything, but is there an opportunity to create an organization in Canada where the two opposing opinions can actually get together and forge solutions to those issues that have been raised? Around this table it's almost impossible to make recommendations. We need those recommendations to come from the experts.

Mr. Yada, can I hear from you first?

[Dr. Rickey Yada]

Thank you, Mr. Valeriote.

AFMNet brings many contributions to this country of Canada. I'll start off with the human capital aspect. Presently we train 179 HQP, or highly qualified personnel. They range from undergraduates to post-doctoral fellows. So we train a number of people, and in different environments too. The whole thesis of AFMNet is to do research in a multidisciplinary way. We often have physicists working with food scientists who are working with social scientists to look at the acceptability and risk-benefit analysis of some of the research we do. So there's a huge amount of investment in our future leaders in the food industry.

We also support researchers, of course. We're supporting approximately 175 researchers from right across Canada. This literally goes from the University of Victoria to Memorial on the east coast. So there's that aspect.

There's also the aspect of helping Canadian companies become competitive in an ever-increasing globally competitive environment. We have members from Maple Leaf Foods, and Ocean Nutrition, which are world renowned in their areas. They need the kind of research we're doing in order to be competitive.

As you've indicated, we're looking at issues that affect the population of Canada and people globally, such as sodium reduction and trans fat, which are contributors to the global epidemics of type 2 diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

We're also helping Canadians become entrepreneurs. We've spun off some of the companies from the research that our researchers and graduate students have done. Again, this is a wonderful thing.

We've also helped the small to medium-size enterprises--not as many as we'd like to, but there are some wonderful ideas that occur at that level, and Canada is largely an SME community at the food industry level.

Thank you.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

Gord.

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

Back in about 2000, exactly what you were talking about was done. There was a lot of controversy on GMOs. We were just learning about the technology, etc., so the Council for Biotechnology Information was created. It reported to Agriculture Canada, and we had the NGOs. I was not a member, but about 20 people were on that committee from diverse backgrounds, which I think is very healthy, and they worked on issues, exactly what you're talking about, and importantly, they got to understand each other. One good thing about Canadians is that we listen to each other and we try to find compromise that works: I have to emphasize, “works”.

That did occur. I'm not sure where that council is now. I haven't heard anything from it in a number of years.

Similarly, we had two solid years with the Consumers' Association of Canada and a whole bunch of NGOs. I was on that committee on the labelling side of the equation discussing if we should label and, if we labelled, what would it look like. That was the food industry, the consumers' associations, and again, what I have to emphasize is that you get to understand each other and your concerns. You try to compromise, if at all possible, but you understand each other, which is half the solution to the problem.

[Dr. Ian J. Mauro]

Thank you for the question.

I think your points are very valid. GMOs are likely here to stay and that is why a good regulatory system is ever more important.

The first thing that will derail biotechnology in Canada is problems associated with unanticipated risks that weren't regulated. Gene flow, escaping, segregation problems, market harm--all of that was caused by a regulatory system that didn't anticipate the risks and was incapable of dealing with them when they were confronted with them. We know Monsanto was holding the trigger around whether or not Roundup Ready wheat was going to be introduced, and the whole regulatory system and industry were sitting around wondering if this was the right approach.

For the most part, industry is looking for solutions that will allow them to have input. It doesn't mean that all crops will be turned away, because there's a market evaluation pillar within the regulatory system. It means that certain crops might not be ready to go to market or may never go to market, but not all of them. If you look at canola, for example, many important benefits were associated with canola that likely wouldn't have triggered the same kind of market problems that wheat did. There is diversity within the biotech crops, and I think the regulatory system can handle that, if it's set up correctly.

With respect to consultation, this is the work that I do: including stakeholders in the regulatory process. We got funding from Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to bring people from the farm level, from the kitchen tables and coffee alleys of western Canada, to engage a process that allowed the numbers to emerge and the views of these people to come up to a level that I can present to you and give you numbers and give you what people are saying. But this takes time--my Ph.D. took six years--and it takes money. Just because we set up organizations to consult doesn't necessarily mean that the real views of people on the ground are being heard, and we really need to cultivate that.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Why aren't you guys working on this committee together, the committee that you spoke of?

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

I just hadn't met him before. We'll exchange cards and try to do that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Your time is up, thank you, Mr. Valeriote. There will be lots of time for another round.

We are moving on to the Bloc.

André Bellavance, you are up next.

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

Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome and thank you for your presentations.

My first question is for Mr. Yada, but I am also addressing everyone else. Mr. Yada, you talked about nanotechnology. I'm not sure how familiar you are with this new technology. I use the word “new”, but given the way our world works... Where I come from, in Quebec, we have a lot of agricultural producers. Some of them are forestry producers and they own private woodlots. The forest industry has had its share of difficulties over the last few years. The economic crisis hit the softwood industry very hard since construction has gone down in the U.S. There is not that much opportunity for trade with the Americans. So we are looking for new ways to use our wood.

In my constituency, we are building a pilot plant. I would like to discuss this with you since you are scientists. This technology is called nanocrystalline cellulose. Are any of you familiar with that?

So they are going to extract this nanocellulose from the wood and it will be used for many different things. It could be used for floor coating, paint, pharmaceutical products, and so on. This is perhaps a worthwhile option, but I am not very familiar with it. But I know that the pilot plant should be up and running by September 2011. I am somewhat familiar with the various possible applications because I have met with people who told me about them, given that the plant is in my constituency. Domtar, the paper company, FPInnovations, another Quebec company and the two levels of government, meaning Quebec and Ottawa, have all invested in this pilot plant.

Could someone give me more information about what this technology could do for our woodlot producers? We often have hopes, whether in terms of biofuels or other sectors. For example, we know that we are able to make this grow or that grow or that we are able to keep things growing. So we hope to have spinoffs, economic of course, which is not always the case. Is there anyone who could share their expertise with us?

[Dr. Rickey Yada]

Thank you, Mr. Bellavance.

I was at meeting last week in Washington with the United States Department of Agriculture on some of their projects. One of the projects they were looking at was nanocrystalline cellulose. We're also doing some research in that area, particularly in Alberta at the National Institute for Nanotechnology, based at the University of Alberta. There are applications being examined in the food area.

Currently there's a derivative of cellulose that's used as a thickener in various food products. It's called methylcellulose, and that thickens up products. They're now examining the use of nanocrystalline cellulose as a substitute or alternative for methylcellulose in various food products. It's still in the very developmental stage.

But I'll go back to my point. We need to have the community involved, the forest community involved as well as the food industry and the consumers, as we develop these projects. So it's completely transparent, or as transparent as we can make it, so that when we bring it to market, then the regulatory hurdles hopefully will be lowered and consumer acceptance will be much greater.

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

In terms of your question, yes, I am aware of it. I happen to serve on a board of directors called the BioAuto Council, and incorporating these types of fibres into any kind of transportation system is a huge asset, because they're lighter and stronger. We're testing products right now. It takes two to three years to get products through all the testing procedures before they will go forward.

There are even more exciting things. I'm working at a university level where we can actually start to do battery storage, electrical storage, using this type of cellulose technology. That's a long ways out.

But yes, it has great hope. If you look at aircraft, the Dreamliner, it's all carbon nanofibres now because of the strength and the lightness. If we can do it from your plant in Quebec, that is the way we should go forward. I would emphasize, too, that the discovery of that is actually a beautiful example of working jointly with the biotechnology centre in Montreal and industry to come up with products.

As Dr. Yada has said, find your customers early and start to work with your customers back and forth so you meet their standards, and then, when it is successful, they're ready to take it from you, rather than discover it, find it, and then go find the customer. You work with your customers, and we are--the auto sector, the aircraft sector; a perfect example is working with Bombardier out of Montreal.

[Dr. Ian J. Mauro]

It's a very relevant question. I think nanotechnology is at the tip of this whole wave of technology. When we start to go small, when we go into the atomic structure of material reality, the benefits are big but the risks are potentially even bigger. If you look at nuclear technology, we cracked the atom and all of a sudden we had the ability to create all types of new energy but also all sorts of new types of destruction.

I think our lesson with biotechnology in agriculture is a good lesson for how regulation needs to be devised around nanotechnology. These types of technologies have an intrinsic leakiness to them; they can move around.

With nanotechnology there's all kinds of new research coming out where some of these atomic structures are crossing cellular membranes in ways that were not anticipated. There are all sorts of things, because of the size of the technology, that create new and unknown risks.

It's something we really need to get a handle on at the regulatory level so that the same mistakes with biotechnology are not made with this new sector, which could bring really important benefits to your community and other communities around the world.