Agriculture Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations.

It's important to continue this debate in a respectful manner. I know the two opinions are completely different. I find the debate and discussion today important and very interesting.

My questions relate to my colleague Mr. Breton's questions regarding the mandatory labelling of genetically modified food. During the 42nd Parliament, my colleague from the Sherbrooke constituency tabled another bill to label all genetically modified food destined for human consumption. Since around the year 2000, labelling has been mandatory in the European Union.

To be fair, I'll direct my questions to both witnesses. Do you know how the agri-food industry reacted to this measure? How did consumers react? Was it good news? Can you also tell us whether the mandatory labelling of GMOs generated costs for the companies that produce the food?

[Dennis Prouse]

I think it's important to understand the differences between health and safety and marketing. I believe Mr. Mayers from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was here recently, and he talked about what the process is for CFIA in regulating foods, which is safeguarding the health and safety of Canadians. We know that GM crops do not pose a health and safety risk to Canadians. There is now global consensus on the safety of the crops.

Now it's a marketing question. Does Health Canada or CFIA have a role in marketing? It's an interesting question, one that is going to touch on any number of areas, because you will now have changed the entire rationale for CFIA on food labelling.

I would add one other element. Our neighbours to the south have been through this issue. They've wrestled with it for quite some time. Very recently they passed a bill, and the solution they came up with was smart tags. Now they have to go through a regulatory process for the next two years in determining how that's going to go.

The smart tags also speak to traceability. I would suggest to you that given the integration of the two marketplaces, that may be where this is heading.

Our bottom line is that we do not wish to see a health and safety risk implied to Canadians where in fact none exists. That doesn't provide more information to Canadians. I would argue that it provides less.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you.

Lucy, go ahead.

[Lucy Sharratt]

Recent work in the United States has actually provided us with some really good studies on the possibility of increased costs, which would be pennies a year per household, a really minimal increased cost. We've looked at why Canadians want GM foods labelled. In 2015, we commissioned a poll by Ipsos Reid: 87% of Canadians who did want labelling just wanted to know what food they were eating, and 30% had ethical concerns. People want to see labelling for different reasons. Food costs in the European Union aren't any higher than they are in Canada because of labelling.

I think the rationale for CFIA to label is exactly the same rationale or diversity of concerns over why we label “Made in Canada” or why we label irradiated foods. There is a precedent here for labelling for non-health and safety reasons, and Canadians have clearly been asking for this for 20 years.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I think what often gets brought up is a lack of transparency and consumer confiance. I think a lot of Canadians are maybe still want genetically modified labelling. I think you said the latest report was 88%, maybe because there's this lack of confidence.

What role does the federal government have in making sure that Canadians have confidence in products here in Canada, whether it's GM or anything else? How can it be improved in terms of making sure there's better transparency when we talk about approving certain foods in our system in Canada? What needs to be done to make sure that Canadians have the right information?

[Lucy Sharratt]

Thank you. I think this is a really important question, because we have heard a lot about this question of consumer confidence and the role of Canadian regulators in bolstering consumer confidence.

It's been 20 years that over 80% of Canadians have wanted labelling. It does then appear that it's not just a matter of the Canadian government communicating about the regulatory system to Canadians. In fact, there needs to be concrete change to the regulatory system to improve it so that it is in fact more stringent and more transparent. In that transparency, in that increased and improved regulation, then I think we would see improved confidence. I would say that would not remove, also, the demand for mandatory labelling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Sharratt.

Now it's Mr. Longfield for six minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to both witnesses. It's great to have diverse opinions at the table and to be respectful in the way we're discussing this issue. The approach we're trying to take is to get as much diversity into our conversation as we can, so I appreciate getting this chance.

By 2050 we're looking at increasing our output of food by 50%, on a smaller land base all the time. How do you see your organizations contributing to our drastic need for growing more food and raising more food in a diminishing land space?

Perhaps you could go first, Ms. Sharratt.

[Lucy Sharratt]

We continually work with farmer associations that are talking about these issues. One of the first things we need to understand is that across the world, small-scale farmers provide most of the food that's produced and eaten. We produce enough food now to feed 10 billion people, which is what we need in 2050. We waste one-third of the food that's produced in the world.

In addition to the question of agricultural productivity, I think there are other questions that will help us come to this answer of how to feed the world. This is part of the bigger picture that we're also looking at, as well as what type of environmental impact comes from different production practices.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

[Dennis Prouse]

I think our role is to try to encourage governments to have the regulatory environment needed so that innovation can thrive. We believe that when innovation thrives, Canadian farmers win and Canadian farmers can produce more. We've certainly seen that track over the last 20 years. We think we will continue to see that, provided there's a climate for innovation.

More globally, as you referenced, the world population is going to be nine billion by 2050. That's the United Nations' median projection. Instead of talking about shipping excess food from the first world to developing countries, we think we need to talk about how we help farmers in emerging countries grow indigenous crops there in a more productive way. I think innovation has a huge role to play in that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Right. Thank you.

There's also the role of universities in determining your policies, your regulations, and your dialogue. We're looking at social licence, environmental impact, and economic impact, which you've mentioned in your presentation. Where do universities play a role in what you're bringing forward to us, Ms. Sharratt?

[Lucy Sharratt]

Universities provide some independent research that's necessary to look at all of these questions. We would like to see more engagement from universities on agronomic and economic questions. We think there is a need for reinvestment in public plant-breeding in Canada.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

More directly, are you working with universities? Are they part of the 17 organizations that you're working with?

[Lucy Sharratt]

Not directly, no. There are various partnerships and community-based alliances and discussions that happen.

[Dennis Prouse]

We see universities as a tremendous hub for agriculture innovation. Certainly your riding features one of the most dynamic agricultural research hubs in the country. The University of Saskatchewan features another one, and Laval is another. When it comes to innovation, we believe that a rising tide lifts all boats, so to speak, with private sector innovation on campuses and public innovation.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

We are trying to take the science-based approach in all of our decisions as a government, and the role of universities is critical.

At the last meeting, we had CFIA, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the Department of Health all testifying that there was no difference between GMO salmon and non-GMO salmon in nutrition and food safety. They talked about limiting the risk by controlling the reproductive capacity of the fish.

I think there is a risk analysis that's going on, but there is a gap that the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network is seeing. What's that gap that we're missing?

[Lucy Sharratt]

Thank you for that question.

In the case of fish, there's an ongoing court case that's asking that question, and it's saying Environment Canada needed to assess what the impact of escaped fish would be on the environment and not just look at the containment facility itself and decide that it was enough. There's that question, but when it comes to genetically modified plants, for example, we can ask what kind of long-term risk assessment is being done. How do we look at the use of herbicide-tolerant plants, for example, and how do we see the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds and the management response to that? Where is the government evaluation of that trajectory?

I think we could also apply that to GM animals. If we allow GM fish to be produced, then what will happen if they escape?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

We have 20 seconds left.

[Dennis Prouse]

You touched on something very important. What Health Canada does is regulate for outcomes, and they don't regulate the process. Given how complex the process is becoming, and will continue to become, we think the CFIA is on the right track to protect the health and safety of Canadians. You regulate outcomes. That's the most predictable and transparent way in which to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

For the second round, we will start with Monsieur Drouin.

You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

My first question is to Ms. Sharratt.

I'm getting the sense that your organization is against GMO products. Is that correct?

[Lucy Sharratt]

We wouldn't describe that as the conclusion of our work, no.

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

Okay, but just from your statement, you're obviously concerned about GM products. Is that correct?

[Lucy Sharratt]

Yes, we're very concerned in a number of different ways.