Agriculture Committee on April 4th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Sorry, Mr. McLellan. There might be another opportunity, but unfortunately we're out of time.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Maybe somebody will let him finish his comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Maybe somebody can ask. I have to move on.

Mr. Breton, you have six minutes.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today for this important study on public trust.

I would like to hear you talk about research and innovation. As we know, research and innovation are very important to Canada's economic growth. They are also essential pillars to strengthen public trust in our Canadian agricultural sector. To this end, Canada ranks seventh in the world in terms of public finance investment in research, development and innovation.

Mr. McLinton, I would like to hear from you about the different initiatives in Canada and the different programs, such as the super clusters or the Seizing Canada's Moment: Moving Forward in Science, Technology and Innovation strategy.

How do you find that these research and innovation initiatives improve access to quality products and food security? You mentioned it earlier.

It is about producing quality products, but also at affordable prices, because it is also an important element, especially in your industries.

So, I'll start with you, then move on to Mr. Hazlewood and Ms. Sharratt.

[Jason McLinton]

Thank you for your question.

Absolutely, you hit the nail on the head with regard to competitive pricing in a wide variety of products, making sure that consumers have access year round to innovative products at competitive prices.

In terms of innovation at the production level, I obviously would have less to say about that, but every single one of RCC's members has a private label program, names that you would all recognize. There's a lot of innovation going there, both with regard to the types of products and the formulations, and stuff such as that—and we get some really interesting products that way—and with regard to product packaging, and things such as that.

Our members are very actively involved in that when it comes to their private labels, but also they're very happy to provide the consumers with what they're looking for: these innovative products from Canadian producers.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

I will now hear from Ms. Sharratt and then Mr. Hazlewood.

[Lucy Sharratt]

Thank you.

It goes to the heart of the question around genetic engineering, how to introduce new technologies and how to bring new innovation to the fore. This is an important role for not just public research, but public engagement, determining the priorities for innovation and evaluating the social worth both when a new technology is being introduced or discussed and 20 years after the fact. That is why we did our evaluation of six reports in 2015. Without government tracking, for example, of where GM crops are grown and which ones are grown, how can we evaluate the benefits and the impacts thus far?

There's a lot more that could be done to engage the public, meaning farmers and consumers, in evaluating the innovations that we are using at the moment.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

[Gary Hazlewood]

Of course, research is the future, and whatever you have now, you're going to need something different.

We're a relatively small commodity. Regarding your reference to super research clusters, we don't fit on that horizon at all, but that doesn't mean that there aren't programs available. We have been able to access programs through NSERC, in particular for animal welfare research at the University of Guelph. We have established a genomics chair at Dalhousie University, and we work with a number of researchers who have, in the past, worked with nutrition and these sorts of things.

Of course, our biggest problem is generating enough money to be able to do research in some of these other programs, but we have been very fortunate over the years to have a number of people who have been pretty adept at managing the research programs that are in effect. However, superclusters are not in our vocabulary.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. McLinton, everyone knows that the new Canadian food guide came out a few months ago.

You mentioned food security, which I think is very important. Do you think the new food guide meets the objectives of improving consumer health and food security?

[Jason McLinton]

Our reaction and the reaction of our members to the food guide has generally been a very positive one. As I've mentioned, our members supply consumers with what they're looking for. The tastes of consumers are constantly evolving, and what's represented in the food guide is a representation of where we, as a country, are going with regard to our diet.

The reception has generally been positive. The one comment I have heard, though, concerns the notion of affordability. We talked about making sure that Canadians get access to food year round at competitive prices. What's contained in the food guide didn't necessarily take into account what may be affordable for all Canadians. However, generally our members, and I personally, have been very supportive of the food guide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. McLinton.

Thank you, Mr. Breton.

Mr. MacGregor, you have six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Ms. Sharratt, I'll start with you.

We have concluded a study on mental health, and we heard from a lot of farmers, producers and ranchers about the pressures they feel. They're very legitimate and something that we have to pay attention to, because farmers aren't really separated from their job as most people are. Their job is their livelihood. They often live where they work.

I'm also very cognizant of the fact that some grow GM crops, and some don't. I know with the Organic Trade Association, there's some great research being done at UBC farms, for example, where they are trying to do that research with no inputs.

All of our modern varieties of crops bear little resemblance to their ancient forebears. Through cultivation and domestication, we have produced bananas, apples and wheat. It bears very little resemblance....

As a policy-maker, I'm trying to find a way that people who practise conventional farming and people who practise organic farming can coexist. Through our technology and innovation study, we did trip across Canada and we met some of the people who are involved in the research in gene editing. I came away thinking these are very good people. They are genuinely concerned about trying to solve some of the world's problems. I take to heart also your comments about how there are some gaps in research, and certainly I'm all for more public engagement in this.

Considering what your organization does, the availability of the science, and so on, all the things I've just said, can we arrive at a Canada where the two sides can coexist, where we have genuine respect for what the other is trying to accomplish?

[Lucy Sharratt]

I think there are several ways in which government infrastructure could encourage this. One is by creating a larger role for public research, because at the moment, regardless of what we see ahead or project, the reality of genetic engineering on the ground is dominated by the largest seed and pesticide companies in the world.

This is not a comfortable position for farmers either. There's a great deal of concern about the high level of corporate consolidation, which means that input costs keep rising. Consultation with farmers on the process by which genetically engineered crops and animals are allowed or approved for commercial release would assist in hearing any concerns that might be more of an issue on the ground.

For example, in the case of GM alfalfa, conventional and organic farmers were largely in consensus that there would be a very high risk of contamination if genetically modified alfalfa were commercially released. Yet it was commercially released, and farmers are left to struggle with that reality in the ground.

With each GM crop, without a consultation with farming communities, if there's a big enough issue, what you see instead is farmers advocating and even taking to the streets on particular issues.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

In other words, if we can get the federal government back into the research game, with more public ownership of this research.... I agree with that. I think there certainly is room for the private sector, but we have seen the pendulum swing quite far towards reliance on the private sector, and if this research is going to benefit all Canadians, I certainly would like to see a lot more public engagement, involvement and ownership of this.

Let me turn to the mink breeders. I have a small farming property myself; I raise sheep, I raise chickens. We use animal products every single day. It's funny that when you look at most people's shoes, they're wearing leather shoes, and they have leather belts and leather watch straps, and not many people make the connection that the leather came from a once-live animal.

I know that your industry has gone through many trials and tribulations. I just want to know why furs are singled out and other animal sectors ignored.

Also, could you elaborate on the kinds of changes the industry has gone through in response to consumer pressure over the years to alleviate some of those concerns and how you've responded to public pressure over the years?

[Pierre Labonté, Board Member, Canada Mink Breeders Association]

Given that we produce furs, you might think we can't use the rest of the animal, but every part of the mink is used. The carcass is composted and used for fertilizer, as is the manure. The fat from the animal has multiple uses, including makeup. The fat also helps to keep moisture out of leather made from the hides of other animals so it stays looking good. We use the entire animal. The fur is used to make coats, rugs and coat collars.

People don't realize we use 100% of the animal. That's an important fact. That's why we are coming to you for help. We want people all over the country to know that our products are ethical and that all of our ranches pay attention to the welfare of the animal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Labonté.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you. We have that on the public record now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Now we go to Mr. Peschisolido for six minutes.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming in today to talk about public trust in our agricultural system. Basically public trust, I think, deals with three issues: how our food industry and what we eat deals with our health; environment; and what's becoming more of an issue—and I think we've started to discuss it today and in other meetings—is the whole issue of animal welfare.

Like Mr. Shipley, Ms. Sharratt and perhaps many Canadians are trying to grapple with what exactly GMO is and what gene splitting is. Can you tell us a little bit what a GMO product is?

[Lucy Sharratt]

The CFIA has a definition of genetic engineering. It uses the term “genetic modification” much more widely than the public and is generally understood. Internationally, the term “genetic modification” is used the same way that the CFIA defines genetic engineering. We thus use the terms interchangeably.

This would be the intervention at the molecular level that is not just about transgenics but about moving genetic material around at that molecular level: the direct intervention, which is something that is new to farming—it's something that happens in the laboratory. The entire history, the diversity of our food supply, comes from farmers working with the restrictions of reproductive capacities of organisms. Now we can go beyond that.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Why do you believe that is a direction we ought not to go in? I've been at committee here where I've heard competing Ph.D. scientists testify, some saying GMOs are good and some saying they're bad. I want to rely on science, but I'm getting different visions of what science is as it relates to food safety and a variety of issues. What are your main concerns with GMOs and how government ought to respond to them?

[Lucy Sharratt]

The issue of genetic engineering is a scientific issue as well as a social and economic issue. It's not just about the science itself, which is in dispute. Scientific knowledge is ever evolving. One of our starting points of concern is about how much science examines the individual GMOs that are on the market. We have to talk about this product by product—that's the way the Canadian government regulates. Within the scientific community, however, there are contrasting views or research about whether the process matters, whether there are inherent risks here. That is why gene editing is still an issue for us to discuss. Then there are the issues of who owns the technology, how it is introduced, how it is used and who benefits from it. These are issues that also need to be attended to, and I think you'll find that Canadians—definitely those who want labelling—are very much engaged in that discussion.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

I'd like to follow up a little bit on Mr. MacGregor's line of questioning. In my riding of Steveston—Richmond East, we have both types of farming, if you can define it that way—traditional farming and organic farming. We have folks like Tony Birak and his berry farms, which is traditional farming. We also have new developments with Sweet Digz Farm, where Kimi Hendess and her life partner Kareno Hawbolt are getting into organic vegetables. Steve Easterbrook does organic chicken farming. He's in the egg industry at Rabbit River Farms.

Can we have both types? I don't see why we cannot, yet it seems that the witnesses who arrive here come from one point of view or another. This is for Ms. Sharratt or any of our guests. Can we accommodate both?

[Lucy Sharratt]

Our new report on GM contamination and contamination escapes shows that some GMOs can be controlled and that some are more controllable than others. When it comes to GM alfalfa, for example, farmers were very concerned about the issue of contamination. When it comes to the GM apple, B.C. farmers were clear that the issue was more about market pressure at that moment in time, although contamination was also an issue. I think it's the biology of the plants and animals that makes a difference in answering that question, though there are other considerations as well. The fact of the matter is that organic production prohibits the use of genetic engineering, but in certain cases, like alfalfa, I think there's a deep concern that, for that particular crop, coexistence is not possible.