Agriculture Committee on Dec. 16th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I would ask members to take their chairs, please. I will call the meeting to order.

This is, as someone pointed out, certainly the last meeting of 2010 and probably the very last committee meeting in this building, let alone this room, for probably five or six years.

I guess we are probably the only committee that is having a meeting this morning, so I think we should give ourselves credit for being here and doing government business.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here. You have been on notice that this meeting may or may not happen, so we appreciate you playing ball with us and it is good to have you.

First of all, we're going to move to CropLife Canada. We have Lorne Hepworth and Janice Tranberg.

[Lorne Hepworth, President, CropLife Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I guess it's a historic meeting.

I am joined, as you referenced, Mr. Chair, by Janice Tranberg, who is our vice-president for western Canada out of Saskatoon, our innovation office at the University of Saskatchewan, and who also leads our plant biotechnology file.

As the president of CropLife Canada, the trade association representing developers, manufacturers, and distributors of plant science technologies, including plant biotechnology, I'm always happy to speak about our industry's place in Canada's future.

Both large- and small-scale developers of agriculture biotechnology as well as distributors of these products all play an important role in the Canadian agricultural sector. As governments seek to maintain or attract investments from these companies, it is important to understand what drives their decisions.

Ours is a highly scientific industry that contributes significantly to international research. Each new biotech trait takes about ten years and costs between $100 million and $150 million to bring to market.

With annual global research expenditures of over $5 billion, our industry accounts for one-third of the world's total agricultural research and development investment. This represents about 11% of total sales, and puts our industry in the same league as the pharmaceutical industry in terms of overall reinvestment in R and D, which I think speaks directly to our commitment to innovation.

As you explore the future of agricultural biotechnology in Canada, let me be unequivocally clear about what our industry will be looking at when it contemplates the very same thing. Our industry will be asking whether Canada has upheld its commitment to science-based regulations. Without a solid, science-based regulatory system, our industry will not be able to invest in this country to the same degree it has in the past, particularly when there are options to invest in countries where the criteria for success are clear and predictable. Where these plant biotechnologies are supported, there are benefits on three very important fronts: benefits to farmers, benefits to the environment, and benefits to consumers.

As you can imagine, biotech would have fallen flat if they did not deliver economic benefits to our customers, the Canadian farmer.

Various studies tell us that the net global economic benefit from plant biotech crops at the farmgate level was $10.1 billion U.S., to use 2007 as an example. The direct and indirect economic value of GM canola is $300 million Canadian a year. Biotech applications decreased the environmental impact—and costs—from herbicide and insecticide use by 17.2%, when looked at through the period 1996 to 2007.

It's no surprise then that Canadian farmers are voting with their seeders in favour of biotechnology. In fact, Canadian farmers choose genetically modified options for approximately 90% of the canola they plant, 85% of the corn, and 65% of the soybeans. Globally, this makes Canadian farmers the fifth highest adopters in the world of the technology in terms of acres planted.

Much of today's research is focused on developing ways to enhance, protect, or adapt to the changing environment. In the coming years, we expect to see new traits that offer tolerance, that can withstand drought and other stresses like cold and saline soils, new disease resistance, better nitrogen utilization, and a range of healthier foods.

The prospect of drought-tolerant crops is particularly exciting given the high demand agriculture places on water supplies, because the United Nations estimates that by 2030, one in five countries will experience water shortages. We need drought-resistant varieties before that time if we are going to weather the food security challenges that such a significant water shortage would cause.

One in six people in the world is already undernourished. What happens if one in five countries ceases to have the water required to grow food?

Drought-tolerant crops can initiate natural drought defence mechanisms earlier in the moisture deprivation stage, and as such, they stand to have a significant impact on Canadian farmers as well as farmers in developing parts of the world.

Corn and canola, with improved nitrogen utilization, are also on their way. Reducing the amounts of inputs required saves farmers both time and money. It's something they clearly appreciate.

By improving the ability of crops to use nitrogen, we reduce the amount of money farmers pay for fertilizer, the amount of fuel they burn applying it, and at the same time it increases their profitability. From our perspective—and I would dare say it's a perspective many farmers and consumers share—these innovations are worth pursuing.

The question then becomes what is Canada's vision for the future of agriculture, for ensuring Canadian farmers are competitive into the future? Are investments in innovation and agricultural biotechnology things this country wants to see happen and happen here? If so, what needs to be done to attract investment and ultimately the commercialization of these new technologies here in Canada?

As I said earlier, first and foremost it's science-based regulations. A predictable, evidence-based regulatory framework built on science is essential. As an industry, we accept that the technology is and should be highly regulated to ensure public safety and environmental protection. But we believe this should be done on the basis of sound science, not public opinion polls, not personal anecdotes but solid, evidence-based, peer-reviewed science.

Secondly, Canada needs to take a leadership role on global modernization of regulations. Foremost, this means Canada must develop and adopt a low-level presence policy for genetically modified crops and then advocate for other countries to do the same. The fact of the matter is that detection technology has become so incredibly sophisticated that one flax seed, for example, in a sea of ten thousand is detectable. As you've heard from other members coming before this committee on this study and others, zero tolerance is simply not practical, and trace levels of safe and approved GM crops should not be impeding the movement of commodities around the world.

Other regulatory and policy areas of importance that I do not have time to elaborate on this morning include a clear policy statement on plant-made industrial products, the Canada-EU trade agreement, asynchronous approvals, product discontinuation protocols, and regulatory efficiency timelines.

Also related to regulations and Canada's ability to attract innovation will be the appropriate funding, training, and human resource allocation to regulating agencies and departments as well as the country's continued alignment with like-minded industrial nations. Plant biotechnology innovations are gaining momentum, and the number of submissions will be escalating. Canada must be ready and prepare for an explosion of activity on this front.

Let me explain. Whereas in the past ten years there have been 33 biotech approvals sought worldwide, we anticipate there will be 125 approvals sought in the next five years alone. And close to half of these will come from Asia.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, this is the new competition. It's the Chinas of the world that are spending 1% of their GDP on research, and a big chunk of that is dedicated to agriculture biotechnology. If you think there's an issue today around low-level presence policy and the nimbleness to make sure our farmers have the tools, wait until some of this competition starts to come online.

Improved efficiency and performance of the regulatory system, both within and between regulating departments and agencies, is essential for coping with some of that, so that one department's lag does not create a drag on government's overall performance.

Canada can, in part, help decrease the pressure it comes under by increasing synchronization of approvals, using common approaches to risk assessment, and doing joint reviews to avoid trade issues related to asynchronous approvals for plants with novel traits and low-level presence. Also, it can recognize regulatory decisions of other countries, particularly in North America, while Canada conducts its own risk assessments. And it can pursue regulatory bilateral and multilateral agreements to increase predictability and efficiency.

Our industry is excited about the future of agriculture innovations. For decades our innovations have been helping to feed people here and around the world by providing farmers with tools that help them grow more food on less land. We attract some of the brightest minds in research and business. And one thing we all share is pride in the solutions we generate for challenges that exist today and challenges we expect will develop in the future.

Our provincial and federal governments need to talk about the regulatory approach in a way that will reinforce public confidence. Alignment across the country and a willingness to defend the rightfulness of science-based polices will be absolutely essential to attraction of investment and further innovations.

We believe biotechnology can play a pivotal and transformational role in that future for Canada and for the competitiveness of Canadian farmers. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we hope you will come to that same conclusion as you explore this topic further. We ask you to join with us in helping to grow Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We will now move to Lucy Sharratt, coordinator for Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

[Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, committee members, for inviting me here today on behalf of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network to speak to you about the issue of genetic engineering.

It is important to evaluate what we have learned about genetic engineering from our 15 years of experience with this technology in food and agriculture in Canada.

I work in Ottawa as coordinator for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, or CBAN. CBAN is a coalition of 18 organizations across Canada that have various concerns and experiences with genetic engineering. This includes international development organizations such as Inter Pares and USC Canada. It includes farmer associations such as the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, the Ecological Farmers' Association of Ontario, and Union paysanne. It also includes coalitions of grassroots groups like the Society for a G.E. Free B.C., and the Prince Edward Island Coalition for a GMO-Free Province.

What brings us together is a concern about the impacts of genetic engineering, be they economic, social, or environmental, and the lack of democracy in relation to decision-making over this technology.

The Biotechnology Action Network is three years old. In my role heading the small secretariat here in Ottawa, I conduct research and assist in communications, such as my testimony here today.

I have worked as a researcher and campaigner on these issues around genetic engineering for 15 years. For example, on Tuesday Gord Surgeoner mentioned a council that brought diverse stakeholders together. He was referring to the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. I participated in the work of this committee when I worked for the Sierra Club Canada. That committee no longer exists.

My understanding from attending the first hearing on Tuesday is that the committee study is open to or explicitly asking for recommendations. I seem to be hearing that there is an openness to examine many issues around the biotechnology industry. We hope this is the case, as we think there are very many critical issues, such as those raised by Bill C-474. I'll speak to some of our analysis of what needs to happen in Canada on this issue, what we think, and what we will be faced with in the new year.

I understand that the debate over Bill C-474 has been a part of triggering these hearings, and we think it's highly appropriate that farmer concern about the impacts of biotechnology instigate an investigation into genetic engineering.

To be clear, I'm talking about genetic engineering as defined by the CFIA, which is recumbent DNA technology. This is what we're referring to when we talk about biotechnology. This is what's at issue and where the controversy largely lies.

CBAN argues that there are fundamental problems with genetic engineering and fundamental problems with the Canadian government's approach to this technology, including our regulation.

I'll talk about some of our concerns by looking at three immediate issues we face in Canada: the possible introduction of genetically engineered alfalfa, GE pigs, and GE salmon.

In the short brief that CBAN submitted to the committee we introduced these three case studies, as well as the issue of genetically engineered wheat, which we think illustrate the need to assess the potential export market harm of applications of genetic engineering. They also illuminate other critical issues and possible negative impacts.

To begin with, CBAN would like to state our support for Bill C-474 and the recommendation that social and economic concerns be incorporated into the regulation of genetic engineering.

CBAN would also like to remind the committee that in 2001, as commissioned by the ministers of agriculture, environment, and health, the Royal Society of Canada's expert panel on the future of food biotechnology published 58 recommendations for regulatory reform. CBAN would like to see the government implement all 58 of those recommendations.

I'd like to concentrate my testimony by discussing briefly the three genetically engineered organisms we must immediately deal with. All three pose major economic and environmental threats, and are or will be highly socially disruptive. They will certainly be socially contested--the alfalfa, pigs, and salmon.

This is the immediate future of genetic engineering. Any of these three could be commercially introduced next year, or even this year. Each is approved via a process that neither the public nor independent scientists have access to. Each is subject to intense opposition for distinct reasons. These three GE organisms illuminate three key concerns we would like to raise, among many.

First, contamination is a reality and has numerous negative social, economic, and environmental impacts.

Second, GE research is under way in universities with either industry or public funds, but without a public mandate.

And finally, government decision-making processes are kept secret and locked away from public participation, and these processes rely solely on privately owned science. These highly secretive processes could allow the commercialization of the world's first genetically engineered food animal.

If we look at this first issue, contamination, which of course the committee has discussed in depth, we see that it has numerous social, economic, and environmental impacts, and that the fallacy of coexistence will collapse if GE alfalfa is introduced. By coexistence I mean the ability of organic or other non-GE crops or farming, non-GE farming, to exist side by side with GE crops. Alfalfa will contaminate. This is a certainty, given the characteristics of alfalfa as a perennial crop pollinated by bees. You've already heard this in the testimony from forage groups. Contamination happens, but farmers always knew this would happen. Contamination was predicted and is predictable, and yet there are no policies that we see or regulatory mechanisms in place to address this.

The issue of alfalfa shows how certain applications of genetic engineering can be a clear threat to some or many farmers, and yet these farmers have no way to communicate effectively to government. There is no avenue for farmer consultation on the impacts they foresee.

As the committee heard in June, conventional forage growers are clear that GE alfalfa would ruin their businesses. As the committee heard from the organic industry, GE alfalfa is a clear and immediate threat to the future of the entire food and farming system in North America.

To summarize, we think the issue of GE alfalfa clearly raises the need to incorporate social and economic considerations in decision-making.

Second, we would say that GE research is under way in universities, as I mentioned, either with industry or even public funds, and yet without a public mandate. And here we could look at the example of "Enviropig". Canada is about to become the origin of GE pork, the GE pig trademarked Enviropig.

Canada could be the first to approve the GE pig for human consumption. The University of Guelph submitted a request to Health Canada in April 2009, and we only know this because this is the one piece of information the university has shared with the public. Environment Canada has already approved the pigs for confined reproduction.

Enviropig was developed by Canadian researchers, with public funds, at the University of Guelph. It was developed with public funds, but without, we would argue, a public mandate. Just like the GE Triffid flax, a university is ready to commercialize a product that consumers and, arguably, farmers do not want. So we would ask where the public oversight is in that process.

The project Enviropig was conceived over ten years ago and was pursued with at least two explicit assumptions that we now see are false: first, that this product was an environmental solution and would be seen as an environmental solution; and second, that consumers would accept GE foods by the time the product was ready for market.

Canada needs to, on an urgent basis, evaluate the social acceptance and economic impact of Enviropig. Our current regulatory system does not allow the government to consider these questions. These are, in practical terms, irrelevant in regulation. Health Canada could approve the GE pig for human consumption in Canada tomorrow. The fact that this decision alone is likely to cause chaos in the domestic and international market for Canadian pork and pork products is irrelevant in our current regulation.

This brings us back to the question of export market harm, the problem identified by Bill C-474, the core problem of approving GE crops despite and regardless of their known, anticipated, or possible economic and social impacts. The possible commercialization of Enviropig also brings into sharp focus the fact that there is no mandatory labelling of GE foods in Canada. The reality is that consumers will avoid pork and pork products in order to avoid GE pork.

Finally, we would say that the government decision-making processes are kept secret and locked away from public participation. These processes rely solely on privately generated and privately owned science, and yet these decisions can potentially have very grave impacts.

I did want to mention the case of the genetically engineered salmon, because it does illustrate some very specific problems that cross into other genetically engineered organisms. Canada is about to become the origin of GE salmon eggs for the world.

Documents released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revealed that AquaBounty, a U.S. company, actually plans to produce all of its GE salmon eggs in Prince Edward Island, then ship them to Panama to grow out and process and then ship to the U.S. market.

I and others have called Health Canada to request information about this possible risk assessment, and Environment Canada actually refuses to even tell us if a risk assessment is under way. This is because Environment Canada is now charged with regulating GE animals, including the fish.

In conclusion, the government has invested in the biotechnology industry as an economic driver, as a valuable economic activity. Yet in our view, we see that genetic engineering is actually about to take down Canada's pork producers and organic grain farmers.

It's urgent, in our view, that the government be proactive in resolving these ongoing issues that we see are building into a crisis, a crisis that will cost farmers their crops and organic certification. It will cost hog producers their markets, both domestic and international.

It's a crisis that will take the form of a consumer crisis of confidence in the food system and in our democracy. In the case of GE salmon, it is a crisis that could involve species extinction, a global conservation crisis.

Unfortunately, in our view, these are not exaggerations. These are risk evaluations, and our government currently does not have the tools to ask or address these questions.

We recommend that the government place a moratorium on approval of all new genetically engineered organisms until there has been a wide democratic debate and also a fundamental change in our approach to this technology.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to questioning. Mr. Valeriote, for seven minutes.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Lucy, Lorne, and Janice, for coming and speaking to us today.

We've listened to these arguments for quite some time now, both in these discussions as well as in discussing Bill C-474. I've come to the conclusion that there are two different solitudes, and based on the information that I've had, these solitudes can co-exist if people have the will to sit down and discuss common ground and those matters that are of deepest concern.

Lucy, you mentioned the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. When I think of that, I think it is really the only kind of forum in which solutions could be found. I don't see Health Canada or CFIA, or any other organization having regard to social, economic, or environmental impact or species extinction issues as you've raised it. I frankly don't know the extent to which the biotech industry considers those things. But if we're looking at sustainability, it goes a lot further than just reducing emissions of GHGs.

I also know that science is so important. We need that science, so that we can feed the world with the growing three billion people over the next 20 or 30 years and deal with climate change.

I want to restrict my question to each of you, and I want your opinion on the merits of reconstituting a Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, so that all industry stakeholders come together, come up with solutions, and make recommendations to the government. Could I hear each of the three of you speak on that matter?

Lucy, you can go first.

[Lucy Sharratt]

It's a very interesting and exciting idea to bring forward at this time, because we have 15 years of experience with genetically engineered crops.

The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee was established by the Canadian biotechnology strategy, which also will soon have an anniversary. It was initially created in 1983.

Certainly dialogue can be had and can be extraordinarily productive. As you said, there are so many complex issues, and individual regulatory agencies can't necessarily deal with them. It makes sense to have a broader debate, a broader exchange, and to hear from communities of people. One of the issues is how to constitute a committee so that it is a good environment for such dialogue.

That was one of the critiques of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. It was roundly critiqued as being biased toward industry, as it happens, and the constitution of the committee was also contested. There were a lot of issues that made it difficult for the committee to function properly or function as it could have in its full potential. That was also reflected in the government investment in the committee into the future, and why it has sort of trickled down to nothing in 2004.

Now, when we're faced with these complex issues, there is no forum to bring parties together inside government. It was an arm's length committee.

[Lorne Hepworth]

Maybe I'm a little older than some, because my knowledge of the consultative mechanisms for biotech actually precede the days of CBAC. I was one of the members, in the early nineties, before anything was commercialized in Canada, of what was then called the National Biotechnology Advisory Committee. It then essentially morphed into the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. I think that was put in place at that time by the minister because they saw these technologies coming. They recognized that there could be flashpoints with their introduction and that they needed to involve the public in consultations on this subject.

Certainly I remember the members of that committee, very much expert members--deans of medicine, universities, and those kinds of knowledgeable folks--recommending to the government back then that we'd better be very proactive in our consultations with stakeholders. And in fact that was put in place.

I also recall that back in those days it was hard to get anybody out to the meetings. When some of the stakeholders were called in, at the end of the day a group of them said to heck with it. It wasn't the industry. Others that maybe weren't so favourable to technology walked out of those stakeholder processes. They said that they would have nothing to do with them and that they thought they were biased and so on.

It then morphed into CBAC, which has dissolved.

There have been other consultative mechanisms over the years to tackle some of the thorny issues. One I would refer you to that I know we sat on for two or three years, because it was pretty painful, was the standard on labelling, under the Canadian General Standards Board, which we have today: the national standard of Canada voluntary labelling and advertising of foods that are and are not products of genetic engineering. It was quite a mouthful. The voluntary standard had to be informative, understandable, not false, not misleading, and verifiable.

So there have been consultations. It has always intrigued me that the public didn't engage to the degree that one might have thought they would until some many years later. If there's need for another consultative mechanism that can actually be meaningful and that can work, that certainly would be something I think we would consider. I mean, we've been involved in the past. When others walked away, we stayed at the table.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Go ahead, Janice.

[Janice Tranberg, Vice-President, Western Canada, CropLife Canada]

I also wanted to comment that surveys have been done. I can point to one in particular that was done by Biotecanada in 2008. It was a broad survey that showed that eight out of ten Canadians actually saw benefits in agricultural biotechnology.

As has been brought up several times, we have 15 years of experience. We've been dealing with these crops for 15 years. The industry has actually worked very well together to bring forward solutions any time there have been issues that have come forward.

One solution in particular I'd like to talk about right now is the Grains Innovation Roundtable. This is a very broad-based stakeholder group that brings together government, grower groups, provinces, and industry, all the way from the grain handlers through to food processors. We've been talking about a number of issues. Certainly low-level presence has been one of the key issues we've been discussing.

When I travel around the world and talk to people, one of the comments I get is that Canada actually has an extremely good history of bringing together the stakeholders to have these discussions. That's one of the comments I get on a regular basis.

So I think there is great value in these kinds of forums.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

I will now move to Mr. Bellavance, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning and thank you for being here.

A lot is being said about commercialization, about the huge sums of money at stake, but we must realize that hunger and malnutrition are affecting some 1 billion people in the world today. Of course, for some, biotechnology and its innovations can be part of a food safety plan. However, something that is being increasingly discussed by people around the world today—and rightfully so, in my view, for having attended a number of conferences on the issue—is the need to better promote food sovereignty, which is not in contradiction with food security. Needless to say, many of the companies that engage in commercializing biotechnologies do not have as their primary concern peoples' food security, but rather they want to make people dependent on those biotechnologies. That is a real danger. I agree that biotechnology is not all bad, but neither is it a cure-all that will help people... Besides, if that were the case, I think that malnutrition and suffering caused by hunger in the world would no longer exist.

Mr. Hepworth, I would like to come back to a document produced by your industry association, CropLife, in which you raise problems with regard to the European Union. Does the European Union currently not have a 0.9% tolerance level concerning genetically modified organisms? Does that not permit you to trade with the European Union?

[Lorne Hepworth]

Thank you for your observation and question.

On the issue that you rightly raise about the tragedy in the world of a billion people suffering from undernourishment and hunger, I think most people, when they look at that and how the world is going to help deal with that question, which has been a long and ongoing one--the millennium development goals spoke to trying to reduce that by half by 2015, I think it was--we're not doing as well there as probably we would like. But I think it's fair to say that a lot of the world's countries and governments and their regulators recognize that we're probably going to need all the tools that we can have, responsibly used, to help address that problem and water and all the rest of it.

I think you see that happening across the world now with the rapid uptake in a lot of the developing economies. We now have something in the order of 25 countries where GMO crops are growing about 330 million acres on the ground, including 90% of those crops now in developing economies.

On Europe, I should say right at the outset before I go to this part of the question, and on technology dependence--I should pick that up as well.... It's all about choice. It's about choice for the consumer and choice for the farmer. A lot of people think that because I work for the plant science industry I'm somehow against organic. I'm not. If farmers choose to grow organic and if consumers choose to buy organic, that is their right, and that should be their choice, as long as it's all done on a factual basis in terms of what the benefits and the risks are.

As to whether somehow these technologies that we're developing are making farmers technology dependent, I would suggest that this is a gross underestimation of the intelligence of the average farmer. They are very shrewd people and they wouldn't be choosing these technologies, like they are in Canada, if they didn't bring benefits economically.

Farmers are really good stewards of the land. That's their whole being, if you like, because if they don't look after the land and the environment, the land and the air, they won't be there subsequently. To suggest that this is somehow tech...that farmers aren't smart enough to see around that I think is a gross underestimation of them.

In terms of Europe and tolerance levels, once again--

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

Who said that, Mr. Hepworth? Are you implying that I said that farmers are not smart enough to be able to make choices? I never said such a thing.

[Lorne Hepworth]

I was picking up on your observation that our companies, I think you inferred, were making them technologically dependent. What I'm saying is that this would underestimate the intelligence of the average farmer, because they're very savvy and they choose these technologies for all of the right reasons.

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

I never said that farm producers were not smart enough to make the right choices, but it must be noted that, in many countries where companies like Monsanto and other biotechnology firms are doing business, people are indeed becoming dependent. Producers do not even have the right to use their own seeds to grow their crops. So they do not always have a choice.

I will now turn to Ms. Sharratt.

You know that our committee has discussed Bill C-474, which is sponsored by MP Alex Atamanenko. There is the case of Argentina, where they have a licensing process for the commercialization of genetically modified seeds. Argentina assesses the potential negative impact new modified seeds might have on the export market. We have heard many comments about possible lawsuits by other countries, but I have done some research and was not able to find any country, whether before the WTO or other organizations, that have taken action against Argentina because it had added that assessment to its licensing protocol for the export of genetically modified seed. They conduct a market study or risk assessment before approving a product for export. They even have an agreement with the European Union.

Without being totally against all of these biotechnologies, do you feel that these technologies should be better regulated in order to provide us with greater assurance, which is the objective of the Cartagena protocol that Canada is refusing to sign, and to alleviate peoples' concerns on these issues?

[Lucy Sharratt]

I think it's possible that there are a number of models around the world, Argentina being one, where countries are also looking at what the issues are for them with genetically engineered crops. Argentina and Brazil are huge producers of GM soy, and Argentina chose to look at the economic impacts, or certainly the export market, as one of their considerations. It hasn't hampered their trade. Even Brazil is trying to make sure non-GE soybean seeds are now available for farmers, because they also recognize that's a problem.

So I think there's room for the Canadian government to perhaps dialogue with other governments, even to look at what's needed, because this issue of zero tolerance exists because some crops are not approved for safety. So that's a hard issue for the government to overcome, because that is about approval. If you haven't approved a crop for safety, you can't tolerate.... We might say it's safe, the Canadian government might have ruled that a crop is safe, but if another country hasn't said the same, they can't override that decision that they haven't yet been able to make. So I think there are some serious issues there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Hepworth, as a farmer, I appreciate your comments about farmers having the ability to make choices on their own.

Mr. Atamanenko, seven minutes.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thanks to all of you for being here.

My first question is for Lorne and Janice with regard to when the whole idea of my bill came up. I remember it was at a reception, and I'm not sure if it was you I was talking to, Janice, or someone else, but I was told you, being CropLife, did not want my bill debated democratically. I've retained that; I'm not sure of the exact quote, but I know someone at a reception told me that. I'd like to know why.

[Lorne Hepworth]

You're right, our recommendation was to not have the bill go forward. Our view was and our recommendation was that the whole issue of biotechnology should be looked at. So congratulations to the committee for doing this now and looking at it in a much broader context, as opposed to the very narrow context of the bill. So that is yes, we were against the bill going forward, but in favour of this broader kind of discussion.

Why were we not in favour of that bill going forward? The reality is, it sends a very negative signal to investors in new technology that will help farmers be competitive in Canada, to make further and bigger investments here in Canada. That was the basis for our—

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I'm going to interrupt you, because we don't have a lot of time.

We've seen and are seeing that the biotech industry in Canada is alive and well. I don't think it's suffering in any way. Genetic engineering is a small part of it, we've learned. Biotech doesn't necessarily mean genetic engineering. There are all sorts of innovations that have happened, and the industry is moving forward.

But we also have the reality. The reality is that there are certain markets out there that are now accessible, for example alfalfa and wheat, but which could become inaccessible to farmers if they were shut down because of contamination.

So I have a hard time understanding why there was such a push and lobbying effort on behalf of your industry to basically shut down debate on my bill when we were studying it.

Further, Lucy, you mentioned there have been approvals with no public input. In the literature that I've studied, I've read that a lot of what we call “science-based” is science that's based on research done by industry, and independent scientists or scientists working for governments often have a hard time accessing that research. So when something's approved by Environment Canada or Health Canada, it's often based on research done by the industry without any independent research being done, and it's then approved for release into the environment.

So I would like to get a comment on that. Maybe we could start with Lucy and move down the row.

[Lucy Sharratt]

Thank you.

I do think it's very important for us to remember that this is actually more than just an issue of transparency, but an issue where the science that government is evaluating is not accessible to the public, and not even accessible to independent scientists, and, more fundamentally, that this science is not peer-reviewed science.

Peer review is part of the definition of how we create science, and this was something the Royal Society of Canada had critiqued in their report of 2001. They had a number of recommendations. Certainly one was that the entire science behind GM crop approvals be made open to peer review, that it be peer-reviewed, and that it be open to independent access.

There are different models that could be chosen to give access to those data. Certainly right now the data are classified as confidential business information. So this is a very big problem.

Regarding the design of the testing regimes itself, we don't know what those methodologies are. But the scientific community, in consultation with the government, could take a look at what testing methodologies we might want to see.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I know there's some concern among people in the world about GE and health. We have a number of studies popping up: we have the one by Professor Séralini in France; we have Russia with the GE potato; and the U.S. and the U.K., where scientists have isolated negative impacts for health, whether it's reproduction or the liver or allergies.

Would it not be in the best interests of the industry and farmers to really look at independent studies, peer-reviewed, on that whole health aspect, because maybe there's a lot of misinformation out there? Should that not be happening, and should it not be the role of government, once and for all, to look at all of these studies independently and ask, is this detrimental to health or not?

Janice.

[Janice Tranberg]

I'd love to comment on that, because actually just this very week a study came out that had been commissioned by the European Commission. It took a look at over 500 independent research groups that have been involved, and these were not just public, but broader than that. This research has been going on for over 25 years and includes the broad spectrum. Again, they've come to the same conclusion, that the products currently out there are as safe as all the other products currently on our table.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

So should we in Canada be taking a study like Professor Séralini's one in France and some of these other studies and looking at them and analyzing them on behalf of Canadian citizens and saying either these are false or there's false data, or they need further work? Should this be the role of government?