Agriculture Committee on Feb. 7th, 2011

[Brad Hanmer]

Let's use the U.S. system and soy beans. A lot of the plastics that are derived are soy-based. The same soy goes into soy milk, and the oil goes into biodiesel and all sorts of things. I would say that unless there are proper tolerances for non-food uses that would not have the trait that would be proven safe for human consumption, first we would have to have a tolerance in place. Second, we would need infrastructure that would allow for segregation, and third, there would have to be enough of a market for the innovator of that technology to come forward.

I think, absolutely, Randy, that we are leaving a lot off the table for producers as a result of putting food, feed, fuel, fibre, and health all in one basket. People who are smarter than I am can address that, but I'd say absolutely.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Are there any other comments on that?

[Prof. Bert Vandenberg]

I think that's the way. We need to be logical.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Yes.

[Dr. Jill Hobbs]

Could I add to the point made earlier? Canada is a small market and it takes a long time to get registry approval, so some companies will move south of the border. I think that's a big issue. We're a much smaller population, and it's a smaller market to get our product commercialized in. If the regulatory burdens are too high here, then that investment is going to move to the U.S., and that's what we're seeing.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

My goal is to identify hurdles and opportunities in the biotech sector as a whole. How can we remove some of these hurdles? If there is one hurdle you would tell this agriculture committee to get rid of, what would it be?

[Dr. Mary Buhr]

This is not my area of expertise, and I would bow to any of my other colleagues who could better answer, but what I continually hear is that although we are relatively supportive of the early stages of taking a new product and developing it, when that corporation or start-up is trying to move into full-time, long-term production, that is the valley of death where we continually lose those companies. This is the biggest gap that I've heard of. We support the start-up companies, but how do we help them to get through to that next step?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Go ahead, Ms. Hobbs.

[Dr. Jill Hobbs]

I would say addressing the zero tolerance issue so that you can have differentiated supply chains and segregation that don't increase costs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Kerr, do you have any comment?

[Prof. William A. Kerr]

That it is the major thing. We need to be careful, but we also have to realize that zero is just impossible. We have to find a reasonable commercial way of doing this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Potter, would you comment?

[Dr. Andrew Potter]

We need communication and education. People aren't anti-GMO. I've yet to see a diabetic who wouldn't take recombinant insulin or a stroke patient who wouldn't take recombinant tPA. They know it's good for them.

Let's do a better job of educating and communicating the benefits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That's a good point.

Mr. Vandenberg, do you have anything further to add?

[Prof. Bert Vandenberg]

I like his comment. It comes down to identifying the message the public needs to hear about biology. It can be good or it can be bad. Dinosaurs were scary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Go ahead, Mr. Wartman.

[Mark Wartman]

I think the biggest problem is in the regulatory area, where so many of the companies are held up. That timeframe is huge. It's different from the U.S. timeframe, and the area of development funding is weak as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Hanmer, would you comment?

[Brad Hanmer]

In addition to the tolerance thing, which is by far the most critical thing, maybe we need a government strategy not to be deemed as being self-fulfilling by the private sector. Genetically engineered crops do not equal environmental disaster. I think that's the message. People talk about the Frankenfoods. We lost this battle a long time ago. It's time we stood up and were proud of what genetically engineered crops can do for the planet and for our country. Do not be ashamed of our support as a country and as a government for genetically engineered crops. It's time to steer the electorate a little; unfortunately, they are is uneducated on this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Potter, I believe you said in your presentation that in Canada we produce a smaller share, percentage-wise, than we did in the 1970s, although we have better genetics today and we're producing more overall. Could you tell us why we've fallen behind percentage-wise?

[Dr. Andrew Potter]

I don't think that was from me. That's out of my--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Was that not you?

It was Mr. Vandenberg. I'm sorry.

[Prof. Bert Vandenberg]

I think I said it.

You can attribute that to technology changes all over the world. People are trying to maximize--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

But why have we fallen behind in Canada? That's the part I'm trying to put my finger on.

[Prof. Bert Vandenberg]

If you go from 3% to 2.5%, you're still in the ball park, but it's still very low. We're not influential. The technology is going to be focused on the large and large-producing countries, meaning the U.S., China, and India. These are now huge influences in where technology goes.