Agriculture Committee on Oct. 18th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Good morning everyone.

Welcome, everybody. We're here to continue our study on GM salmon.

Today we have with us Ms. Ruth Salmon, from the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance.

Welcome, Ms. Salmon.

We also have Mr. Thibault Rehn, from Vigilance OGM.

Welcome, Mr. Rehn.

The way we usually start is by giving each of you up to 10 minutes to introduce yourselves and make your presentations. Then we will follow up with questions.

Who wants to start?

[Ruth Salmon, Executive Director, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance]

I think I'm on first, so that's good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Ms. Salmon, you can go ahead.

Thank you.

[Ruth Salmon]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the committee for inviting the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance to speak with you today.

By production volume and value, our association represents over 95% of the aquaculture industry in Canada. Our members include large and small companies from both finfish and shellfish sectors, marine and freshwater operations, regional aquaculture associations, feed suppliers, and other companies across the aquaculture value chain in Canada. We are farmers operating in all 10 provinces and Yukon. Our industry generates $3.1 billion in economic activity and over $1.2 billion in GDP, and employs more than 15,000 Canadians in rural, coastal, and first nation communities from coast to coast to coast.

With growing demand for fresh seafood in Canada and around the world, we believe our industry can grow in a sustainable manner to more than twice our current size. With the right governance and policy framework in Canada, which we are working hard to achieve, our industry is poised to add an additional 17,000 jobs and over $3 billion in additional economic activity in Canada by 2024.

The government's new economic advisory council, which was created to advise the government on steps to create long-term economic growth in Canada, appears to agree. While the council's final report won't be completed until early 2017, the council's chair, Dominic Barton of McKinsey and Company, has spoken publicly about the need for Canada to become a global champion in the agrifood sector and has highlighted aquaculture as a key sector for growth.

We can deliver on this growth and meet the demands of our customers with a combination of new farm sites and productivity gains, improving on our own current technology. While we do not oppose the approval of genetically modified salmon, our customers in Canada and around the world are not demanding it. We do not need nor do we intend to employ genetically modified salmon technology in Canada.

Consumers are interested in the food they eat and in receiving accurate information about the food they purchase, including where it comes from and how it is farmed. We support that.

We note that voluntary labelling is an option open to companies as long as they comply with the national standard of Canada on voluntary labelling and advertising of foods that are and are not products of genetic engineering.

We also support the Government of Canada's food labelling policy to require labelling in circumstances where food safety issues are identified, and to ensure that food labels are accurate and clear.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Salmon.

Mr. Rehn, you now have the floor.

[Thibault Rehn, Coordinator, Vigilance OGM]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning everyone.

I am going to speak French.

I thank you for your invitation, and for this opportunity to present the concerns of the more than 200,000 people in Canada represented by the Vigilance OGM network.

My name is Thibault Rehn, and I am the coordinator of a small network called Vigilance OGM. The network is based in Quebec. it is made up of citizens, environmental groups, farmers, unions and groups of consumers who are concerned by what we put on our plates on a daily basis, but also by how food is produced and the impact this has on our health and our environment.

Firstly I want to talk about the concerns Vigilance OGM has after 20 years of experience in Canada, since GMOs have been in our fields and in our plates for 20 years now. Secondly, I will talk about regulating GMOs in Canada, which is a matter of concern for us. Finally, I will discuss the mandatory labelling of GMOs, which is in our opinion the most effective way of informing consumers and respecting their fundamental rights. With these three points, we are going to try and see why Canadians still do not trust these technologies which have existed for more than 20 years.

As you know, GMOs have been in our fields for 20 years, and also on our plates. The GMO industry had made several promises in the beginning. I will discuss the three main promises the industry made in this regard.

The first promise was to offer consumers better, cheaper, tastier, fresher and more nutritional products. That was one of the big promises of the industry 20 years ago. The second promise was to decrease the use of pesticides. Finally, the third promise was to feed the world, especially the southern countries, whose population is expanding.

Unfortunately, after 20 years, we can only note that 85% of all of the GMOs marketed in the world are genetically modified to resist so-called total herbicides, or soil sterilants. That is the case for instance of the famous Roundup Ready seeds that resist Roundup. Currently, in the world, less than 1% of marketed crops are there to potentially provide a benefit to consumers.

The industry did not keep its promises. A large majority of the GMOs are there to resist soil sterilants. So much more the first promise, which was broken.

The second promise was to diminish the use of pesticides to produce better seeds for our environment. If we look at Statistics Canada data, we see that since the introduction of GMOs, there has been a 130% increase in the sale of pesticides in Canada—which is enormous—for cultivated areas of more or less the same size.

In Quebec, where I am from, the use of glyphosate-based pesticides, the ones that are generally used for GMO crops, increased by 71% between 2006 and 2012. As opposed to what the industry had promised, the use of pesticides has not decreased. Rather, it has considerably increased in our country, and this concerns us greatly.

Thirdly, we had been told that GMOs would feed the world, especially the southern hemisphere countries. Canada is the fifth world producer of GMOs. There are practically no countries growing GMOs in Africa and Asia, aside from cotton in India. The four main GMO crops are cotton, canola, soya and corn. These GMO crops are mainly used to feed cattle in northern countries, to produce bioethanol for our cars, and are added to processed products. So there are no GMO food crops that are used to help southern countries. This is a third promise which was not kept by the industry.

In the case of cattle fed with GMOs, it is hard to trust the promises of the same companies that have not kept their promises generally.

We are also concerned by what Mr. Paul Mayers, the vice-president of policy and programs at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, said before this committee when he appeared two weeks ago. He stated

that the recall of GMO is “extremely positive”.

When we see the Statistics Canada figures, we have trouble seeing this in a positive light.

Our second concern is Canadian regulation.

As you know, Health Canada is responsible for the regulation of plants with novel traits, especially since 2013, when that department began supervising the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

To develop the Canadian regulations on new GMOs, especially new plants, in the vast majority of cases, Health Canada uses data reported by the industry almost exclusively. This worries us. Health Canada has never carried out any long-term studies on the safety of GMOs. We would like to see that done.

When she appeared before the committee about two weeks ago, Ms. Karen McIntyre, director general of the Food Directorate at Health Canada, stated that the department was very transparent, and that its website showed all of the studies that it had taken into account in its acceptance of genetically modified salmon. After listening to that committee hearing, I went on the Health Canada website. What I saw was that the documents available on the Web mention no studies done on genetically modified salmon. Even an access to information request netted us nothing on this.

As you know, one of the fundamental pillars of science is to allow scientific communities to reproduce studies, to compare and evaluate data, and unfortunately, that is currently impossible in Canada. We don't know on which studies Health Canada bases its decision to accept or reject GMOs, in this case salmon. We don't even have the title of those studies.

In the case of genetically modified salmon, Health Canada tells us that it did not base itself solely on industry data—so, in this case, data from AquaBounty, which is the company that wants to market this product—but on all of the available scientific literature. However, when we take a closer look at this, we discover that the vast majority of the scientific literature on this was produced by AquaBounty. Health Canada can say that the department bases its decisions on the scientific literature, but that is relatively weak as compared to the weight of the industry studies. This concerns us.

We would like the Canadian regulation not only to be based on the safety or lack of safety of these GMOs, but that other factors also be taken into account, such as their economic impact. You will recall that the introduction of flax and alfalfa closed many markets for our farmers. And so we are concerned by the fact that there are no economic impact studies being done on the introduction of new GMOs.

We are also worried about environmental impacts. Twenty years ago, many people had anticipated the appearance of weeds and the increase in the use of glyphosate-based products. No sufficiently rigorous studies have been done, in our opinion, on the environmental consequences of the introduction of GMOs.

As well, there are no studies on social acceptance. No one was consulted about GMOs, neither the population nor the producers. Apple producers in Quebec were not consulted about the GM apple, for instance. GM alfalfa, which is already on the market in Quebec, is of great concern to the Union des producteurs agricoles, which is asking for a moratorium on it.

We are worried. We would like the regulations to be more transparent as to the safety of these products, but also that other factors be taken into account.

As for the mandatory labelling of GMOs, aside from the information that must be provided to consumers, the right to know what one is eating is a fundamental right that has been recognized by the UN. This is not just for human health reasons, but also for ethical, religious and environmental reasons. This has been an issue for 20 years. Before coming here, I circulated surveys that have been done since 1994 in Canada, and which show that a huge majority of Canadians want to see the mandatory labelling of GMOs. This is a democracy. Since such a large majority has been asking for this for such a long time, the government should have adopted this kind of regulation long ago. In fact, 64 countries around the world have already passed such regulations. We would not be the first.

We also note that letting the market self-regulate does not work. In 2004, the Liberal government voted in favour of voluntary labelling, and to my knowledge, in the intervening years, no company has chosen to indicate in its labelling that its product contains GMOs. We can't let the market self-regulate. The government has to act.

As I know that the mandate of your committee is to determine what measures should be put in place to inform the public, our first recommendation is to bring in mandatory GMO labelling, which would not only allow consumers to know what they are eating, but also allow producers to know what certain products contain. As you know, most GMOs are intended for animal consumption. Farmers are entitled to know what they are feeding their animals, just like the consumer is entitled to know what his family and children are eating.

It is urgent to act before GM salmon arrives on the market, potentially in a few years. Consumers may reject this product totally.

We have a second recommendation. We would like to see more transparent regulations. As we explained, this is not the case right now with Health Canada. We would like health to not be the only factor that is taken into account in regulating new GMO products that are coming onto the market, but that you also consider other factors such as the environment, the economy and social acceptance.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Rehn, for your excellent presentation.

Now we will start with questions.

Mr. Anderson, you have six minutes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you to our witnesses for showing up today.

Ms. Salmon, in your statement you talked about the fact that you have the opportunity to double the size of your industry. How do you see that happening, and what is the time frame for your industry to do something like that?

[Ruth Salmon]

We've looked at what's possible with the levels of investment if we make some policy, legislative, and program changes for our industry. We've stated for a long time that the regulatory framework is complex and confusing and deters investment. We've identified a strategy which, if enacted, would encourage investment. By talking to our companies we are ready to invest if the right situation is in place. That's how we've arrived at doubling the industry by 2024.

Those are realistic figures that are ground truth with what industry is willing to invest if they're able to get access to new sites, new amendments, and have a sound regulatory and legislative framework in place.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

You're talking about the regulatory system for your industry in general, and not specifically to the GMO approval process.

[Ruth Salmon]

That's right. The GM discussion doesn't factor into our plans for responsible and sustainable expansion. We believe we can do that responsibly with the technology we use today.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Okay, so you haven't spoken out against the new technology.

I'm just wondering what it would take for your industry to accept it. Is it customer acceptance? What is the main...?

[Ruth Salmon]

That's a good question.

We've long been on the record as saying that we wouldn't accept it until two things were in place. One is that the appropriate regulatory bodies in Canada and the U.S. approve it, which is where we are now. Two, if the market demands it, and that's the key issue because we produce a high-quality product that is in high demand. We can't meet the demand right now for our product, and our buyers and the customers are saying they want more of what we currently produce. They're not interested in a product using genetically modified technology.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Even at this point, in spite of the fact that the product supposedly can come to the market faster—a larger fish in a shorter period of time—your buyers are still saying that.

[Ruth Salmon]

They're not interested, and we're therefore not interested in supplying it.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Often industry funds research in agriculture, or whatever. Has your industry been involved in funding this research, or have you participated in it?

[Ruth Salmon]

No, the members of my association have not.

Again, it goes back to looking at what the barriers are for our industry moving forward, and this isn't one of them.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Okay.

What do you see as the particular challenges for the approval of GM animals? That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about health and safety because despite what we were told this morning, large-scale studies have been done—I think one in a trillion meals—that show no negative impacts from GM products in the food system.

What do you think are the particular challenges of the GM animals?

[Ruth Salmon]

Our industry doesn't see it as something we're grappling with, because we feel very strongly that we can move forward responsibly and sustainably without GM technology. Our industry has been involved in selective breeding programs for a number of years, and those programs are creating a high-quality fish that is in demand in the marketplace. That's our focus, and that's where we want to look moving forward.

We think your conversation is an important conversation to have. We support consumers having access to accurate information about what they're eating and how their products are produced so they can make informed decisions. Ultimately, we will certainly support government's decision on this topic.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

The approval of the AquAdvantage salmon was reported in the media with both the positive and the negative discussion we would expect. How do you think the public should be informed about these new products? Do you think there would be improvement in that, or is it just a case of whoever is doing it needs to get the information out and you'll have a discussion?

[Ruth Salmon]

I think it's an important discussion. I am not sure that we can go much further than that, other than the fact that all our members are committed to helping pass along that accurate information, and certainly we will support the government's decision and go along with that. We think it's an important discussion, and we certainly understand that there are lots of ramifications.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

The approval process is basically taking care of the health and safety issues, and that's not part of our.... I think we agree on that. Do you see this as a knowledge challenge for the proponents of GE animals, specifically that they need to get their information out there to convince the public, or do you think it's more than that?

[Ruth Salmon]

I think we also have a role to play to get out accurate information about our products, so I think it's both.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Ms. Lockhart, you have six minutes.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Ms. Salmon, your industry gives us an interesting kind of case study to look at. Can you tell us a little about the history of aquaculture? When did we start using aquaculture to provide salmon to consumers?