Evidence of meeting #24 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gmos.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I'm not necessarily against this motion, it's just that timing for February 15, 2017, would interfere with our agricultural policy framework study.
I also believe it's way too early to do that. I know B.C. has had a carbon pricing model for quite a while, but it's going to be different from Ontario and Quebec. I think we need to wait to see what other provinces will adopt before we move forward on this, so I will be voting no on this.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Remember the date is in the middle of February of next year, so we don't have to do this right now.
It's going to have a significant impact on agriculture and our producers. The reason I'm bringing this in is so we can actually put it into our agenda and get it resolved and have our hearings before mid-February. The committee can actually be pretty expeditious in terms of those hearings, and then, on agreement, we would just get it to Parliament and to the minister. That's why we're doing it. This is mid-October, so it gives our committee an opportunity to deal with it prior to the end of February 2017.
October 18th, 2016 / 9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I think it's an important topic in its time, when it's appropriate to do. The consultations with the provinces and territories, as Mr. Drouin said, are ongoing. We have to look at what comes out of the larger discussion, and then look at the impact of it on our committee work.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Okay.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you.
We shall now continue with our witness.
I want to welcome Mr. Mark Butler.
Mr. Butler is the policy director of the Ecology Action Centre.
Good morning, Mr. Butler.
From Memorial University in Newfoundland, we have Mr. Garth Fletcher.
Thank you so much for appearing in front of our committee on this important topic.
I'll give you up to 10 minutes to do your opening remarks, but you don't have to use the whole 10 minutes.
Mr. Butler, do you want to start?
Mark Butler Policy Director, Ecology Action Centre
Certainly. Thank you very much for this opportunity to present and include the aquatic realm in your deliberations. We are in court on this topic this morning.
As you said, I'm the policy director for the Ecology Action Centre. Prior to working at the Ecology Action Centre, I worked for a time in the fishing industry. I also worked at the Huntsman Marine Science Centre teaching biology. I was there at a time when research into how to make salmonites more resistant to super chilling was occurring.
The Ecology Action Centre is an environmental organization founded in 1971. We endeavour to ground our work in science. Most of our staff have science backgrounds. We try to find solutions that integrate the economy and the environment. Prior to the engagement on the issue of GM salmon, we did relatively little work on this issue. We became involved because of the threat to wild Atlantic salmon. As we have become more familiar with this issue, it is the threat to species with wild counterparts that concerns us.
First, we are concerned about the risk to wild salmon should GM salmon escape. We are worried that GM salmon could outcompete wild salmon for resources, such as food, habitat, and mates. Second, and even more important, we are worried that these salmon could breed with wild salmon and change the genetic makeup of wild salmon forever. This would have unknown ecological consequences and economic consequences. I should note that research also shows that GM salmon can interbreed with wild brown trout.
You might be thinking, “but these fish are sterile and on land”. Our greatest concern is with the commercialization. At that point, you are talking hundreds of millions of fish being grown in numerous facilities and potentially close to some of our famous Atlantic salmon rivers in New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. At the commercial scale, the reassurances aren't so reassuring. We know that fish have escaped from land-based facilities before. We also know that triploid induction is not 100% effective. When you are talking about hundreds of millions of fish, 1% or 3% or 5% starts to look like a lot.
We are not looking for problems or windmills to tilt at. Atlantic salmon have enough problems without embedding them. It's an endangered species. Unfortunately, we see a problem that is underappreciated and downplayed by the industry. If these fish escape into Atlantic Canadian salmon rivers, they will put at risk a substantial recreational industry, which is particularly important in rural areas.
We are in court because we are upset by the current handling of this issue. AquaBounty received approval for commercial production in Canada without there being an assessment of commercial grow out. The export of eggs from one research facility is a very different matter from the production of millions of fish at numerous facilities. We are requesting that a strategic environmental assessment be carried out on the risk to aquatic systems from GM organisms.
There also has been no public consultation in Canada around the first GM food animal in the world, and there's been no consultation with stakeholders, be it the aquaculture industry, the commercial fishing industry, the tourism industry, or the recreational fishing industry. I would also point out that there has been no consultation with first nations and indigenous peoples. Atlantic salmon was and is a very important species for first nations in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. Altering the genome of this fish should trigger consultation.
When this fish was approved for human consumption in the U.S., there was a reaction from the Alaskan fishing industry. As a result, until the labelling issue is resolved in the U.S., it is my understanding that approval in the U.S. is on hold.
In Nova Scotia, our fisheries minister has spoken out against GM salmon. He is quoted as saying, “We're more interested in making sure we protect what we have. Until someone can prove to us and to the public that this will be a good idea—and I don't see much support anywhere for this—we're not interested.” Keith Colwell also said he is concerned about what the impact of accidentally introducing genetically engineered fish would have on natural populations from both an ecological and sports fishing standpoint. That was on May 20, 2016, following approval from Heath Canada.
I have spoken about some of the risks. Others have spoken of benefits. For Atlantic Canada, I don't see the broader economic benefits. Yes, the company stands to gain by controlling the broodstock, but I don't see the lift, including jobs, to the broader economy. I also understand that the growth rates of this salmon have not been independently verified.
The Ecology Action Centre does some work around seafood labelling. The trend in the seafood industry is toward traceability and transparency. Consumers want to know more, and they want consistency of information across product. As you know, other jurisdictions label for GM.
Finally, I understand that many of you represent constituents that are growing GM crops, and that places you in a difficult position. I would ask that you give special consideration to our wild Atlantic salmon and the risk to all wild species in your deliberations.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you very much, Mr. Butler.
Now, Mr. Fletcher, for up to 10 minutes.
Dr. Garth Fletcher Memorial University of Newfoundland
I am here to represent myself, I guess. I'll just give you a history of my personal involvement in GM salmon. At the moment I am a professor emeritus and head of the department of ocean sciences at Memorial University.
I am a little nervous, so if I quiver it's because I don't want you to do this.
My colleagues, Choy Hew from the department of biochemistry at MUN and Peter Davies from Queen's University, and I started studying fish antifreeze proteins in the mid-1970s. These unique proteins evolved to protect fish species inhabiting polar or subpolar waters from freezing when water temperatures declined below the colligative freezing points of their body fluids.
During this time, there was a developing interest in Atlantic salmon aquaculture along the coastal regions of the Atlantic provinces. However, salmon do not have antifreeze proteins to protect them from freezing, so culture operations were restricted to waters where the water temperatures rarely declined below zero.
As academic scientists, we were looking for innovative ways to broaden our research program, so we applied to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council's strategic grants program for funds to transfer antifreeze protein genes from a small flatfish, called the winter flounder, to Atlantic salmon.
Our goal was to develop freeze-resistant salmon, thus enabling the salmon aquaculture industry to expand operations throughout the Atlantic coastline and to create much needed employment in coastal rural areas. Between 1982 and 1999, we were fortunate enough to receive funds of approximately $1.66 million from NSERC for our gene transfer experiments.
During this time, we worked out how to transfer the antifreeze genes to Atlantic salmon—most people thought it was impossible—and to have them expressed and passed on from generation to generation by cross breeding. We found low levels of winter flounder antifreeze proteins in the blood of the Atlantic salmon; however, these levels were insufficient to protect the salmon from freezing.
While the salmon we produced were not sufficiently freeze resistant for aquaculture purposes, our experiments were successful in establishing a proof of concept: genes could be transferred from one fish species to another, actually quite easily.
This success prompted us to look into transferring a growth hormone gene isolated from chinook salmon to the genome of Atlantic salmon in order to accelerate growth rates, and again, to improve the economics of salmon aquaculture in the Atlantic provinces. We started experiments in the fall of 1989, and by 1990 we saw obvious signs of success. Atlantic salmon containing the additional growth hormone gene grew considerably faster than the non-transgenics.
In 1991, when we were applying to renew our NSERC grant to continue our growth hormone gene transfer research, we were reviewed by an NSERC site visit committee who encouraged us to look for an industrial partner so that the results of our research could be commercialized.
We were fortunate enough to do so when we met up with a Mr. Elliot Entis, who was starting up a small privately funded U.S. biotech company, then called A/F Protein, based on the use of fish antifreeze proteins to protect cells and tissues from cold and freezing temperatures.
By this time, Choy Hew and I had filed preliminary patent applications through our employers, Memorial University and The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto—often called SickKids—where Choy Hew had taken up a position. Elliot agreed to license the transgenic salmon technology from our employers and Choy and I became founding members of A/F Protein Inc. Our principal aim was to demonstrate to NSERC that the private sector was interested in our research.
In 1994, A/F Protein Inc. founded A/F Protein Canada, a wholly owned subsidiary. Elliot, Choy Hew, and I served as board members. I took on the position of CEO and chief scientist, and served in this capacity until 2005.
Once incorporated, the company received a loan from ACOA and a matching grant from the Province of Newfoundland. This enabled us to set up a small antifreeze protein purification laboratory in St. John’s that was independent of MUN. Our research on the growth hormone transgenic salmon still continued at MUN’s ocean sciences centre.
The year 1994 was also when Choy and I accompanied Elliot Entis on a visit to the FDA in Washington, D.C., to begin discussions regarding the regulatory approval process for the transgenic product.
In 1996, A/F Protein purchased a small land-based salmon hatchery in Bay Fortune, Souris, P.E.I., for the purpose of developing a broodstock of transgenic salmon.
In 2000, A/F Protein Inc. split into two independent companies: A/F Protein and Aqua Bounty Farms, later AquaBounty Technologies, with Aqua Bounty Canada as its subsidiary. I continued to direct and supervise the operations of both Canadian companies.
By 2003, Aqua Bounty Canada had 36 full-time staff, nine of which were Ph.D.s.
In 2005, most research related to the documents required by the FDA was completed, at least from our end. At this point, the parent company made the decision to lay off most of the employees in St John’s, which included me. I then returned to become a full-time functional professor emeritus at MUN. I took on the position of director of the ocean sciences centre in 2009, and in 2012, I was given the position of head, a position which I still hold.
In 2006, AquaBounty Technologies registered with the London Stock Exchange’s alternative investment market as ABTX. At that time, the company raised about $30 million.
In the interests of full disclosure, I must inform you that I remain on Aqua Bounty Canada’s board of directors. I was asked to serve on the board by the parent company because Canadian law requires a Canadian resident to be on the board of foreign-owned companies. I see no reason not to help the company I helped found. For this, I receive $3,000 a year.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you so much, Mr. Fletcher. You said you were nervous. You don't have to be nervous. We're a pretty friendly bunch, and you can relax.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
With that, we shall start the round of questions, and we have six-minute periods for questions.
Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.
My first question is for Mr. Fletcher.
You have spent almost your entire career as an aquaculture scientist. You have shown that it is possible to transfer genes from one fish species to another. It involved modifying the genome to obtain specific characteristics to improve a species.
Today we're talking about genetically modified foods. Genetic modifications happen now naturally, mainly through accidents of nature or by natural selection. You acted more quickly by transferring genes from one species of fish to another.
Did you gain anything in terms of generations or did you straight out reinvent a species of salmon by modifying it using the genome of another species? Are we getting closer to the limit of this? Is it a good idea to pursue this or should we instead leave more to natural selection?
Memorial University of Newfoundland
I have not been in aquaculture for my whole career. I'm a fish physiologist, so I've worked on a lot of other things as well, from physiology to things like that. I only came into this sort of aquaculture thing because we had a particular knowledge about genes and fish. At that time in my career, nobody worked on fish genes. That didn't occur until later. I had the opportunity to work with two colleagues, one being a molecular biologist who was interested in the genes. That's how I got into this whole thing. It was quite amazing really.
I don't think when we transfer the genes that we are creating a new species. I don't think that any systematist would say it's a new species. It's an identical species. It just has a slightly different gene change.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
These genetic changes stem from human intervention, but could they have occurred through an accident of nature?
If these fish had been put in cold water, would natural selection have worked and made this species more resistant? Basically, did you only fast track what nature would have taken 30, 40 or 100 years to do?
Memorial University of Newfoundland
I don't know what would happen in 40 to 100 years. Salmon do live in the cold water, except that they go off Greenland and go into deeper water where it's not so cold. They just have that period of time. It's an artificial situation to be coaxing them in cold water, of course. Coaxing is a farming operation, so it's not wild. The industry is constantly doing genetic selection to improve production.
I'm just speaking personally that I feel all genetic technologies could be used. It's a good idea to use genetic processes to improve the production of animals for food. So any technique that can be invented, and more neurotechniques.... This is an old technique now. More techniques will come into play.
I have colleagues at Memorial University who are genomicists, and they're constantly working on which genes are turned on and off by stress, diseases, and ultimately, they will modify the egg even if it's only done by broodstock selection. You're certainly going to change the genetics of the populations, to some extent, in the culture system.
I'm not an expert on this area. As I said, I go back 30 years, and I had a particular set of tools and there was an interest in trying to improve the production in the Atlantic provinces. We saw this as an idea. I had no idea it would get to this length. I still think it was a good idea.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Given what we know today, if we further developed the potential of these large ocean areas, which total almost three-quarters of our planet, what would it mean in terms of aquaculture and global proteinic contribution?
Memorial University of Newfoundland
The potential is tremendous and it's a great opportunity for those who know how to do it, in my opinion. Some countries are already looking at more offshore production sites. There are other problems, engineering problems that we see in particular, but I think it's a great idea. Perhaps to get away from coastal...it might be good.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Could other species of fish eventually be considered?
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Could species other than salmon eventually be considered from a production standpoint?
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Yes, whatever the market likes to eat....