Agriculture Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[Paul Mayers]

Absolutely, though I'm not going to say that every person who works on the file has to have been in the agency for 10 years. These are career public servants. We're not drawing in hired guns just to carry out a review. These folks are carrying out reviews across the span of products that we look at, and not just in terms of GM products.

Certainly, there are some, such as the folks with the molecular biology expertise, who review the molecular biology. That's their expertise. For example, folks in the CFIA with animal nutrition expertise are not just looking at GM products; they're looking at feeds. That's our role. Our role isn't about GM or non-GM. Our role is about providing assurance with respect to feeds, and Karen's team is about providing assurance with respect to food.

That's the expertise we draw on. The same folks who are looking at conventional products are looking at these.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

My last question is about consumer confidence.

What is the department doing to ensure that the scientific research is there, and are we communicating that to the public to ensure consumer confidence?

For instance, if I say something false in the House, you can rest assured that the other side is going to tell me right away that I've claimed something false.

The reason I mention that is, there's a lot of Google, Facebook science out there, and everybody is an expert now. We're left in a world of experts, even though they might not be experts.

How are we communicating that? Is there a team out there ensuring that we communicate the right information to consumers?

[Paul Mayers]

You point to something that is perhaps the most significant challenge for us. As regulators, our role is confidence in the regulatory system and the decisions we take as opposed to promoting the product.

As Karen noted, we share information, both technical and non-technically characterized, on the decisions we've made. We provide information on the technologies, and our approach is more general. However, the reality is, this is an area where I'm not going to say that we're stars.

The information is there, but we don't have a large focus on highly proactive promotion of those aspects of the regulatory system. The availability of that information, I'll freely admit, is somewhat more passive.

Consumer understanding with respect to this technology, going right back to the nineties, when we were first considering GMO plants from a regulatory perspective, has always been an issue that's been raised as a challenge.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Mr. Drouin.

We'll now go into the second round.

We'll start off with Mr. Breton, please, six minutes.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks also to the witnesses who provided us with very clear information on this matter.

I accept that there are genetically modified products. We have a great deal of experience with plant and crop products. To my great surprise, based on what you said, we have been eating them for 15 years or so.

I don't know whether, when your various agencies approved these products 15 years ago, consumers were as hesitant as they are today. Consumers have become wary and mistrustful of genetically modified animals.

If we put ourselves in the shoes of ordinary people, we see this from a different angle and say that it's very capitalistic. We attribute it partly to producers, thinking that they want to produce more in less time, that they will be more productive and that they will be making more money.

In my view, we should find the proper way to communicate the correct information and the benefits to the public. Earlier, I heard what the benefits are and they seem fairly clear.

We've heard a lot about benefits, but can you also tell us about the risks for consumers? I know that studies have been conducted over the past few years and that there are risks related to toxicity, antibiotic resistance and allergens.

I would like to know a little more about those issues, which may have been analyzed by the scientists in your various agencies.

[Paul Mayers]

Okay, I'll start.

Thank you for your question.

There are risk considerations, and that's why the safety assessment process is there. If genetic modification didn't have any potential to introduce risk, then we wouldn't need it. We recognize that if in modifying an organism...because you are changing the heritable traits of the organism, if you introduce a gene associated with toxicity as an example, then you will be introducing risk. That's why we carry out these careful assessments.

In those assessments, we also want to determine whether, in accomplishing the modification you have made because you're affecting the metabolism of the organism, there are any additional effects. These are all carefully considered.

There have been reports from researchers pointing to their views of risks. We look at those reports carefully. I can say with confidence the products of biotechnology, which have been reviewed and approved for the marketplace, have not shown any evidence of adverse effect, even after many years of presence in the marketplace as animal feeds. I'm sure my colleague can speak to it in the context of human foods. The record with respect to biotechnology product approvals—I'm not saying biotechnology in general, but for products that are reviewed and approved using the guidance that is available—is extremely positive.

That doesn't mean it's impossible to create risk. It's not. That's why we do the work we do.

[Karen McIntyre]

I would add that we've been approving GM food since 1993, so these products have been on the market for almost 23 years. As my colleague said, we're not aware of any events or any sort of health consequences that have been linked to GM foods.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Are you talking about plants in particular?

[Karen McIntyre]

Yes, we are just talking about plants.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Very well.

[Karen McIntyre]

We don't look at any other food in this kind of detail. We don't look at anything at a molecular level the way we look at these products. This is a thorough and comprehensive scientific safety assessment that's not just conducted by Health Canada scientists, but it is also conducted by CFIA.

Most of these products are getting similar approvals in other countries around the world. The scientific community is on the same page, and everyone who is looking at these products is using the same criteria, the same guidelines, and the same principles, and those have been established by the international scientific organizations that both of us mentioned in our opening remarks.

This is exactly why we do these types of assessments, to determine whether or not there are any potential risks. In my experience, with all the products we've looked at—I think about 120 plants so far—we haven't seen anything like this.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Breton.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Before I move on to Mr. Gourde, we're going to wrap up the second round. I've asked the clerk to circulate the sheet because we'll go back to the rotation for round one and a new round two. We will likely have time to fulfill that, so that will be coming.

Mr. Gourde, for six minutes, please.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks also to the witnesses for being here.

Some consumers are concerned about genetically modified foods, but also about the producers. Let me give you an example about grain producers. About 20 years ago, it was relatively easy to harvest a crop and sow it again. Today, professional seed producers have a number of advantages, including in terms of the quality of the grains, the starch, and the yield. However, there is also a gene inside that makes it impossible to harvest the crop and sow it again the following year.

In my riding, people had difficulty producing winter wheat, because the seeds came from another province. My neighbours, my friends and my family had the same problem. So the yield was not necessarily very well adapted to the weather conditions in my region.

We found a variety with a relatively average yield, but after seven or eight years of the same variety being sowed, it naturally adapted to the region. So after about 10 years, there was a natural mutation of the grain in our region and the results were very satisfying, which thrilled a number of producers in the region.

That being said, we are on to the third generation of genetically modified seeds where it is possible to keep some of the beneficial traits and eliminate other less desirable ones. However, our producers are concerned about our ability to find the original traits of the plants or grains should there be a global shortage of seeds. After 10, 15, 20 or 30 years, would we be able to find the original seeds from which these plants were modified?

Does Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada contribute to a Canadian or international seed bank, to at least ensure the future of agriculture overall?

[Andrea Johnston]

There is definitely a seeds bank. Internationally, there's work to protect different varieties of seeds. There is a seed bank that the AAFC works closely with, and internationally it's a priority to preserve the genetic heritage of many different seeds.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Do you have an idea of the bank's capacity? Do we send tonnes of seeds or just some samples? If there were a major global drought that would limit the companies in the regions where they produce seeds, we could end up with only 50% of seeds available.

Right now, there are basically no farmers who produce seeds; professional companies and multinationals produce them. If there were a global seed crisis, would we be ready for it?

[Andrea Johnston]

At this point in time, we're not aware of a huge seed shortage. As you mentioned, it is really a commercial decision between the farmer and the seed company. AAFC's role is more to protect the genetic heritage to ensure we have the traits and seed banks from a food security perspective. It's mostly a private sector decision between the farmer and the seed company in terms of the supply of seeds.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

We now have the first generation of genetically modified salmon. There has been a lot of genetic manipulation in animals, but the same problem has been around for 40 or 50 years.

For instance, the genes of dairy cows were modified so that they produce a lot more milk. They produce four times as much as they did 100 years ago. However, in terms of their hardiness and certain traits, some cattle breeds have practically become extinct.

Does Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have a program that makes it possible to conserve some of the genetic traits of cattle, or is it again up to the producers and the industry?

[Andrea Johnston]

I'm not aware of anything in terms of the animal perspective. I'm more aware of AAFC's historical preservation from a seed perspective.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

What can we expect from the next genetically modified generations? I think the trend is changing. Five or 10 years ago, people wanted beautiful vegetables with nice colours, but today, people tend to be more lenient. If carrots are crooked, they are still good to eat. Unfortunately, many food products have been eliminated because they didn't meet an aesthetic standard. However, today, I think Canadians and the world at large are ready to accept small imperfections, because the nutritional value is the same.

Will the next generations choose nutrition over aesthetics or will they still want aesthetically perfect products? As for the rest, we don't know whether they will be compatible with the market.

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you for your question.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Could I get you to come back to that answer in a little bit? We're just over the time.

I will go to Mr. Longfield, the last questioner in round two.

Mr. Longfield, go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you for coming. You provide us such a great service. I'm still pinching myself, as a new MP, about the quality of the presentations and the people we get to interact with. You're the leaders working in the background in Canada to provide the science we need to be leaders in the world.

When I see things like your presentation, Andrea, saying we're in the top five, a light goes on in my head that says we should be number one. We have the best scientists. We have the best universities. We have the land available.

The University of Guelph plays a key role with all of you, and so the help that you give our scientists at the University of Guelph is also hugely appreciated. We want to be number one in the world. We've just received $77 million of CFREF funding to be the leaders in the world for food. Beyond being leaders in the world, we need to be there for the world to provide protein. The world needs more protein as the middle class in developing nations grows.

Andrea, you have some market information. Could you comment on what Agriculture Canada is trying to do to be able to feed the world as well as our country? Where can we help in terms of policy framework, which is the larger study we're doing right now? We're heading into budget time and I know you'll be interacting with the minister, but from your standpoint, where are the barriers to growth that would allow us to be number one in the world?

[Andrea Johnston]

As you would probably agree, I think every farmer and rancher wants to be number one. They want to access as many markets as possible. I think one of the biggest challenges is market access.

Many of you have commented about the excellent work we have done in working closely with our Chinese counterparts and some of the results we have seen. It is about that. It's about ensuring there is a level playing field internationally. Canadians can't eat as much as we produce, and we need to sell it. As you mentioned, there is a high demand for protein, and whether it's meat protein or alternatives, we want to supply that. We work closely with our trade commissioners in different countries to access those markets. We work closely with other governments to ensure that there is a level playing field. To me, it's all about market access.

We know we have the right regulatory regime within Canada. We know we have safe food. We know we have innovative scientists, researchers, and universities, and we have producers who have quite a strong vision, and so it is about getting access to those markets internationally and being competitive and innovative.