Evidence of meeting #45 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 farmers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
December 16th, 2010 / 10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I'm just trying to sound good at this point in time.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
You can go ahead and answer. Thank you, Mr. Hepworth.
President, CropLife Canada
I have just one quick observation, relative to the Wheat Board. We as an organization don't get involved in that. But the discussion I heard here reminded me of the old adage, maybe out in western Canada, that wheat looks to still be 13% protein and 87% politics.
On top of what I said earlier, wheat is only going to be introduced if the market is ready for it.
On what this technology has brought to the farmer, when the canola growers were before the committee on Bill C-474, Rick White, their executive director.... We can all trot studies out, but it's the farmer who really is the ultimate arbiter. His own comment was that relative to yields, there is a 30% to 40% increase with GMOs. I think he also went on to say, and I think you referenced it, that the hardiness in the face of sometimes harsh environmental conditions is when it really shines.
My final point, with respect to science and agricultural research and the farm community—and it goes back to the many careers I've had—is that the one constant with farmers is that they recognize the value of research, both from a publicly funded standpoint and a privately funded standpoint. They know, ultimately, the great benefits it brings. You can find studies that show that it is a 15-to-1 return or a 20-to-1 return.
I was at a meeting in Saskatoon the other day when the guru on the pulse stuff had numbers about the returns on pulses. Because of these innovations over the years, to grow the same amount of crop today as was grown in 1961, with those yields, we would have had to have maybe 250 million more acres in cultivation than we have today. It really speaks to innovation.
There are nine billion people and counting to feed. That's the challenge.
Conservative
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
I just have one question. It really condenses down to this for me in one large respect.
This is not a situation of the horse and wagon going out of existence because of the introduction of the car.
Look, I favour the biotech industry to the degree that it is going to help us in the future. My concern is species extinction. It really is. What I see is not the car out-competing the horse and wagon. I see the car driving over top and taking out of existence the horse and wagon.
Janice, you referred to the compact. I read the compact. It was sent to me, and I read it.
People don't want compensation if their alfalfa crops are destroyed. They want to know that they can continue to grow their alfalfa crops safely, without the threat of extinction. It really boils down to that.
If we did form this committee, this national Canadian biotech advisory committee, I want to know what you could bring to the table that would say to Lucy and the people she represents that would say “We will protect you from extinction, not compensate you, but protect you from extinction”.
That's unless it's by competition. Competition is another story. I'm talking about extinction of species here.
President, CropLife Canada
One of the observations I would make is that if you want to feed the population of the world and preserve species and biodiversity, then I think we have to seriously consider biotechnology as well as other technologies and farming practices.
If you just freeze technology today, as I just referenced, it is going to take a pile of land to produce the same amount of food to feed that population--a pile of land. So you're going to put species at risk. You're going to put water at risk, because you're going to have to look at irrigation to a bigger degree than you might if you had drought tolerance.
I'm with you on the common ground. If you want to preserve species and you want to preserve biodiversity, then we're going to have to look at getting more crop per drop and more yield per acre. Otherwise, we're going to have to plow down a few more grasslands and forests.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
That's highly problematic.
In terms of the agriculture right now that's supported by genetic engineering, if we look at Brazil, there's a huge amount of genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant soy being grown for animal feed. That is not about feeding the world. It's actually taking space from the rainforest. There is a serious problem of biodiversity that's confronted by some of that agricultural model.
More than that, there are many options open for feeding the world. This biotechnology doesn't have to be one of them. In fact, it causes some of these very serious problems that really would make it much harder for communities to feed themselves.
Conservative
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
It's a quick comment on Brazil.
I've been down there three times, and your comments on rainforests are not a fair comment on Brazil. When I was down there in the early 2000s, they were looking at the GMO beans. At the time it wasn't allowed, but they were growing them anyway. They were pulling them in from other countries.
Don't throw the rainforest story at me, because I don't buy it. If you look at the tonnage that's coming out of Brazil now, it's based on cerrado land, where they've learned how to farm that land, not rainforest land.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
That cerrado land is also biodiverse land. This is the problem too, that as we--
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Is it a problem though; Mr. Hepworth made the point. You have a situation where we're going to have people starving. We're going to look at the world in the future and say we are going to feed them. How are we going to do that? Are we going to do it by ripping it all up and growing every acre where we think we can grow something, or are we going to look at new technologies that will make more efficient use of the land we have right now?
Those decisions have to be made. Mr. Valeriote made a comment about protecting the existing. I worked for a company called Flexicon. It grew based on an air seeder replacing the hoe drill. A lot of people out there are saying maybe we should have protected the hoe drill forever. Had we done that, we would have seen more summer fallow acres. We would have seen more harm done to the environment based on nostalgia.
When I look at crops and other technologies coming in, I look at them in the same light. In the same way, if a farmer still wants to use a hoe drill, he can use a hoe drill—that's up to him. He has those options. But you don't restrict new technologies based on fear.
That's a concern I have with a lot of associations and groups, especially in Europe, because I used to spend a lot of time in Europe. They ignored the science altogether and they raised money for their NGOs based on fear. That was wrong.
Mr. Hepworth, how do we prevent that from happening again? As we look at new technologies, how do we ensure the facts get out in such a way that people can say it's fair, reasonable, and not based on fear?
President, CropLife Canada
Just as a quick answer, number one is about communication. It's an important issue for us. I know we have a responsibility and a bigger job to do. It goes back to government having a role to defend and support and keep current their regulatory system.
I want to pick up on one quick comment on Brazil. I talked about how the world could pass us by if we're not really nimble and look at how we enable—not disable—technology and not sacrifice health, safety, the environment, and all those kinds of things. I hear the commitment the government is making to Embrapa, the government research unit there--wow, you talk about how they might blow by us. Huge dollars are going into Embrapa to come up with innovations and new practices.
We've been nimble. We've got great success stories. But boy, we cannot rest on our laurels, given what's coming at us out there.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
A point of information. Mr. Chair.
I sat here and politely waited for an opportunity to respond to Mr. Easter's comment to Mr. Richards, but I would like to say I know the hundreds of Wheat Board-eligible voters in Regina, Calgary, and Edmonton thank him for standing up for their right to vote even after they've retired from farming.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
This is my last question.
We talk about feeding the world. We talk about new technology that will improve the lot of people. We've seen in Mexico, which was a self-sufficient country with regard to corn, millions of farmers have been forced off the land because of imported corn, some of it genetically modified. Now they are no longer able to feed themselves.
In India we've seen farmers who had been growing cotton, and when GE cotton was introduced, something like 160,000 people committed suicide because the crops failed because of the control of GE cotton.
Many African countries are no longer self-sufficient in rice because of world trade agreements where cheap, subsidized rice is coming in, forcing them off the land. I was at a conference here in Ottawa—and maybe, Lucy, you could give me the details or the name—but I asked a scientist--
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Point of order. Can you table that report where 160,000 people were killed?
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I'll find that information for you.
I asked the person who was speaking at the conference, “Do you think we can feed the world organically?” He said yes. He represented the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Lucy, maybe you can give a quick answer on that.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
The solutions to world hunger have always been before us. It's a political, social, and economic problem. Now we see that the farmers in Africa and Asia we are connected with are fighting the introduction of genetic engineering. They are very concerned that it will create dependency on patented seeds from corporations.
The solution to world hunger lies with farmers around the world and the diversity of the seeds they have. They already have the solution. It's a local solution. It doesn't come from a laboratory or an international biotechnology company.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you very much.
We have come to the end of our meeting. I want to once again thank our witnesses for being here.
I would also like to wish all of you a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I'd like to thank Chloé for the work she's done. As everybody knows, she's expecting a child and leaving us for a while. I hope we didn't cause too much stress.
On behalf of the committee I wish her well and thank her for all the hard work she has done. We welcome David to the table at the next meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Eyking, that was next on my list to speak to, but I appreciate you doing that. That's okay.
We wish Chloé and her new baby the very best.