HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 14, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

Ms. Mary Allen (Interim CEO and Quebec Coordinator, Allergy/Asthma Information Association)

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Chair

Dr. Doug Powell (Individual Presentation)

Á

1120

Á

1125

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

Dr. Doug Powell

Á

1135

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Mary Allen

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Mary Allen

Á

1140

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Mary Allen

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Á

1145

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

The Chair

Mr. Ménard

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. Ménard

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. Ménard

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. Ménard

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. Ménard

Á

1150

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. Ménard

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. Ménard

Dr. Doug Powell

The Chair

Mr. Castonguay

Dr. Doug Powell

Á

1155

Ms. Mary Allen

The Chair

Dr. Doug Powell

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Ms. Mary Allen

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Mary Allen

Â

1200

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Mary Allen

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Mary Allen

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Doug Powell

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Doug Powell

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Doug Powell

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Doug Powell

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Doug Powell

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Doug Powell

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Doug Powell

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Doug Powell

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Doug Powell

Â

1205

The Chair

Ms. Thibeault

Dr. Doug Powell

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Dr. Doug Powell

Ms. Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Â

1210

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

The Chair

Dr. Doug Powell

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Doug Powell

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Mary Allen

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Mary Allen

The Chair

Â

1215

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Castonguay

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Fry

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Ménard

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Mr. Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

Â

1230

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Ménard

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Â

1235

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Â

1240

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Dromisky

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. James Lunney

Â

1245

The Chair

Mr. Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Â

1250

Mr. Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 062

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 14, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to call this meeting to order and to alert the members to the fact that we have two motions, which we'll take at the end of the meeting. In the meantime, we'll hear from our witnesses, Ms. Mary Allen from the Allergy/Asthma Information Association, and Dr. Doug Powell from the Canadian Research Institute for Food Safety.

    Welcome to our meeting. We'll begin by asking Mary Allen to make her presentation.

    Ms. Mary Allen (Interim CEO and Quebec Coordinator, Allergy/Asthma Information Association): Thank you. My first name is Mary. Somehow it got translated. Je viens de Québec. Je suppose que c'est correct.

    I thought I'd start by telling you a little bit about allergy in general and then go on to our concerns. Allergies, as you may know, affect up to about 30 percent of Canadians. That includes allergic rhinitis or hay fever, a lot of asthma and allergic sensitivities to many substances, including foods, drugs, insect stings, latex, and a variety of airborne particles.

    Severity can vary a lot from the nuisance of occasional hay fever to life-threatening allergic reactions. Food allergy tends to be at the severe end of the spectrum for many people. There's some indication in the literature that the incidents may be rising or increasing, especially in children, in the sense that we see a lot more children diagnosed and a lot more awareness about the problem in schools. In fact, I think it is safe to say it's a growing public health issue.

    A true food allergy--what we call a true food allergy--is an IgE-mediated immune system response. So it's not just any intolerance or adverse reaction; it's a specific reaction in which there's an immune system reaction. Food allergies, we think, are in up to 8 percent of children and about 1 percent of adults--maybe a little more than 1 percent. It declines with age, because milk and egg allergies, and some of the common childhood food allergies, tend to be outgrown, although they're not outgrown in everyone. So the percentage tends to go down as you get towards adulthood.

    Some of the more severe allergies to peanut, shellfish, tree nuts are not outgrown and tend to persist into adulthood. They can cause anaphylaxis in any age group. Anaphylaxis is a very severe systemic body-wide reaction that can have many symptoms, but may include difficulty breathing and loss of consciousness, drop in blood pressure, or death. So it's thought that overall in the population, 1 percent to 2 percent of people are at risk of anaphylaxis; it could be the food, or insect sting, or latex, or a drug.

    But it's very difficult, I must say, to predict who's at risk of a very severe reaction and who's at risk of a lesser reaction. It's almost impossible to tell in advance, except that we can go to some extent by the food or the thing to which they're allergic if there's a strong history of that causing a severe reaction.

    The most common food allergens are foods such as milk, eggs, nuts, shellfish, peanut, tree nuts, soy, fish, wheat, sesame seeds. All these foods can cause very severe reactions. However, there are a large number of other foods that have been identified--up to 160, I think, were cited in one report--that can cause severe reactions in some people. So to some extent, it's true that you could say that any protein has the potential to be allergic, to be an allergen for someone. That certainly complicates things.

    It's also important, I think, to understand that trace amounts, very small amounts, can trigger a severe reaction. So you can have a tiny bit of peanut butter contaminating butter or jam or something and killing someone. That has happened. Relatively small amounts of milk or egg too. Just a wee bit in a baked good for someone who's severely allergic can certainly cause a very severe reaction.

    So coupled with the reality that the trace amounts are a problem and the fact that there's no treatment preventively to use, no medication you can take to prevent it, it means that avoidance and education, but principally avoidance, is the main strategy used to prevent reactions. So labelling then, of course, is very important to people who have to find out what to avoid.

    People who are allergic to food have to be careful every meal of every day. Ingredient labelling at point of sale, when they actually buy the product, is the most important thing. Given the complexity of the food supply with ingredients coming from all over the world and the complexity of the labelling laws, which are very good in this country but which are never totally inclusive, it means that for the people who are allergic--and not only them but their families, and increasingly nowadays with more kids staying in school all day or having after-school care, their caregivers, teachers and schools--it's become a much wider issue then it used to be.

    Our association, the Allergy/Asthma Information Association, was founded around 35 years ago mainly because at that time there was no ingredient labelling on food. We were one of the first groups to lobby hard for mandatory ingredient labelling on foods. We continue to work with industry, with government, with other groups, and allergists as well in order to continuously improve the labelling and the level of protection.

Á  (1110)  

    There are other people who have similar interests. One group of them I should mention is the Canadian Celiac Association. Those are people with wheat allergy. It's not actually a true allergy, but a wheat intolerance, which means they have to strictly adhere to gluten-free diets for life. They have identical labelling interests. Other diseases also have an interest in labelling.

    With respect to genetically engineered foods, we know it's possible to transfer proteins from one food to another. The one thing I guess we hope, on the good side of things, is that there could at some point be a process where genetically altered foods could have the allergenic protein removed.

    For instance, if there could be a peanut or some other nut that has the allergenic proteins identified and removed, that would be a very good application of genetic engineering that would benefit the allergic population. However, the very fact that you can transfer proteins from one food to another is worrisome to us from the other point of view, because you could be transferring an allergenic protein from one food to another.

    I don't think myself that industry is out to harm their customers, and I don't think they would deliberately do it, but our concern is that out of lack of knowledge, or some inadvertent kind of mix-up, it could happen. In this area it's a worry, because you worry about whether or not it could be undone.

    When we ask about allergy, people often say, “We're not going to transfer allergens”, or “We'll screen them out in the early stages”, or “If it is an allergen, it's going to come under the food and drug regulations and then it's going to be totally labelled”. Anyone who lives with food allergy knows that it's not totally labelled. It's not easy to avoid everything. It's getting easier to avoid peanut, but with other allergens it's not as easy. I guess the thing that complicates it is we don't know and can't easily identify at this point in time the allergenic proteins in every food.

    I don't come from a scientific background, but I'm told we have identified and recognized allergens for a handful of foods--at least 10 or 12 I've seen listed--where they know specifically what protein in the food is causing the allergy. But there are many other foods for which we have not any idea which protein is the allergic protein in the food.

    That's one complication; it's not as if you can automatically test for them. And there isn't a test at all that would by itself predict the allergenic potential of a protein that hasn't previously been identified as allergenic. So that's something of concern to us.

    Now, it would not be a concern if you're just talking about transferring a gene from one potato variety or one variety of wheat to another, because anyone who is allergic to that food is going to stay completely away from it. But where it would become a problem is if a fish gene were put into a peanut, or a peanut protein put into a soybean, something like that.

    Our position or belief is that proteins shouldn't be transferred across species, or across food families, or even within food families--even within a legume family, for instance--unless it can be pretty well proven that they don't have a potential to be allergenic. I'm not sure that's always possible. The onus for proof, in our view, should be on the food producer.

    We also have some concerns about novel, brand new proteins being created; that they would need to be tracked, because allergenic sensitivity doesn't necessarily develop right away. It can be a short period of exposure, but it can also be a long period of exposure. Most people who develop food allergies develop them as children, but we have 80-year-olds who call and say they have a food allergy for the first time. Some people will eat something for a long period before they actually become sensitive. So that's a concern.

    A few other things are mentioned in the Royal Society's expert report--which we would presume you will be seeing at some point in time--talking about earlier sensitization, maybe a greater incidence, and--certainly for us--more confusion if an altered gene were to be used in many foods at the same time and not labelled. Then allergists and patients wouldn't know exactly what had happened or where it was.

    We tend to be a strong proponent of mandatory labelling because of our history and because we feel, especially with so many of our foods being imported, that it's important. We know it's complex, but we also believe it can be done. We would like it to be specific, very specific--GM soy, GM corn, and so on--so that people know exactly which product has been engineered or altered.

    We did participate in the voluntary standard the Canadian General Standards Board had. It's good as far as it goes, but we certainly know that because there's likely to be a tolerance there, that standard would not be ideally suited to the needs of the allergic population.

Á  (1115)  

    I do want to say, though, that we don't think labelling alone is the only solution or sufficient protection for the allergic population. We believe education is very important and allergies should be a prime consideration in the whole process.

    I have about eight recommendations here. The first one is to legislate against the transfer of known allergens. Second, improve the methodology for assessing the allergenicity of proteins. That's something that could use more funding and more attention. I think it would be important to establish a central registry or resource for information on the allergenicity of proteins so that scientists in the food industry can go to a central place so they don't have to go through all the literature in order to get information when they need it. We think it would be terribly important for scientists in the food industry to have training in allergy to make sure they understand the issues from an allergic point of view.

    We think we should proceed with great caution with respect to gene transfer across food families and across species by developing strict controls, if we proceed at all. We should have mandatory labelling and a follow-up process after foods hit the market. One other thing is to monitor imported foods very closely. Certainly our experience with other foods is that a lot of the problems end up in imported foods. Even though they're supposed to follow our labelling laws, their practices may be quite different.

    I think that's all.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll move to Dr. Doug Powell now.

    Dr. Doug Powell (Individual Presentation): Thank you.

    For those who have read the National Post today and seen that I wrote an article in there saying I was testifying before the Senate, I did not write that. I'm very happy to be here and to testify in front of the Senate--no, I knew it was the House committee. I think it was too long a title and that it got truncated.

    I'm here because an invitation was extended to the Canadian Research Institute for Food Safety, which is based at the University of Guelph and which involves more than fifty senior scientists, universities, government laboratories, and other places. However, I will add that these remarks are largely based on my research; it is not a consensus position of CRIFS, simply because the organization hasn't existed long enough for us to figure out how to come up with a consensus document for the whole range of scientists. So these comments are mine.

    Consumer choice is a fundamental value for Canadians, but so are honesty, health, and cost. When we're developing a policy for the labelling of genetically modified foods, these numerous considerations have to be taken into account to accommodate all these values. Canada already has mandatory labelling for any novel food that differs in nutritional, chemical, or toxicological characteristics from its conventional counterpart or for any food that involves the transfer of genes from known allergens. My position is that other genetically modified organisms should be labelled under a rigorous voluntary system for five reasons.

    Now, labelling in this country, in the United States, and elsewhere is largely based on human health and safety requirements. Health Canada estimates that each year in this country there are one to two million cases of food- and water-borne disease. Recent numbers from the U.S. based on a more active surveillance would suggest that the number in Canada is actually about 7.5 million--one in four--cases each year and from 300 to 400 deaths. The overwhelming majority of these cases are caused by micro-organisms you've probably heard of: salmonella, campylobacter, listeria, E. coli 0157:H7, and so on. Mandatory labels are an important factor for consumer protection, providing food safety, quality, and nutritional information that informs choices and protects against fraud.

    We generally label for human health and safety, or we're supposed to. You may have heard that three weeks ago some unpasteurized apple cider was recalled in this country because through routine monitoring it was found to contain E. coli 0157:H7. In fact, there have been at least 20 outbreaks of 0157, Cryptosporidium, and other bugs in unpasteurized cider. This is a cider jug. You will see that it says on it “Flash pasteurized”. This is a jug from the farm that was actually involved in the recall--we just happened to have it; it's rather old, and that's why it looks sort of grungy--and you will see that there is no labelling information on whether this juice has been pasteurized or not. This is a human health concern.

    The U.S. has had mandatory labelling on all unpasteurized juices since 1998, and there this would say “Warning”. It's not just cider; there are a number of unpasteurized juices in which there have been outbreaks. The other one the U.S. has that we don't have is that they have mandatory safe handling labels on all raw meat, and they've had that since 1994.

    My point is, we're having trouble getting mandatory labelling for known health risks, let alone some of the hypothetical ones. Furthermore, voluntary labelling systems have been developed to accommodate other consumer values such as religious preferences, and halal and kosher systems are voluntary. Similarly, organic foods are for consumers who have perceived environmental preferences, and “organic” is a voluntary system.

Á  (1120)  

    Point two is, what is a genetically modified organism and how do we define it? The terms “genetically modified” and “genetic engineering” are often used interchangeably but have many different meanings. There are a variety of techniques to modify genes and the subsequent proteins they produce. Since the early 1950s, a technique known as mutagenesis breeding has been used. It is estimated that about 75 percent of the oils and grains in the world are derived from mutagenesis breeding. This involves bombarding seeds with high levels of known mutagens. You create numerous genetic changes, most of the seeds die, but you grow a few up and you get ones that you're interested in. Put those into your breeding program, and away you go.

    The Canadian approach in all of this is enshrined in the novel food legislation in the Canadian Food and Drugs Act. In Canada we define not just the process--that is, genetic engineering--but we say it's the end product that matters, regardless of how you got there. To date there have been 49 so-called novel foods approved in Canada, of which about 40 or 41 are the result of genetic engineering. The others are a result of other techniques. This approach is praised by the scientific community around the world, including the U.S. National Research Council, the American Medical Association, the OECD, and the World Health Organization.

    In fact, just this morning the U.S. Society of Toxicologists released a report on genetically engineered foods, assessing their future toxic outlines. I thought their conclusions were rather telling. They make it clear there is no reason to suppose the process of genetically engineered food production leads to hazards of a nature different from those already familiar to toxicologists. The safety of current genetically engineered foods compared to their conventional counterparts can be assessed with reasonable certainty under established and accepted methods of analytical, nutritional, and toxicological research.

    The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, in a report two weeks ago, hammered home the same point: it's the end product that needs to undergo a safety assessment. Canada is the only country in the world that has a mandatory safety assessment for all new and novel foods, regardless of how that food was created. That's something we should be proud of.

    Furthermore, there are many exemptions, if you look a labelling programs established in other countries--for instance, the cheese manufactured with genetically engineered rennet: does that fall under labelling? No, in most cases it doesn't. Neither do many of the trace ingredients or flavourings. Those are some concerns.

    Point three: Claims of “GMO-free” often aren't true. Repeated studies have found that the claims of products proclaiming they are free of genetically engineered or genetically modified ingredients--they tend not to specify--simply are not true. This potential for consumer fraud is why the Canadian Consumers Association and the U.S. Center for Science in the Public Interest have supported voluntary meaningful labels.

    Point four: Surveys can be misleading. We repeatedly hear that 90 percent of Canadians want mandatory labelling. That is largely an artifact of the way the question was asked. In other surveys that have been conducted in the U.S., when consumers were asked, “What, if anything, would you like to see added to food labels?”, 80 percent responded, “Nothing”. There are additional surveys; you can parse that question down a number of ways, and the results are similar.

    Finally, and perhaps this may seem counterintuitive, labelling is not about choice. I didn't know what AV equipment you had, so I made these pictures. I don't actually have the cans; I think it would be illegal to bring them into the country since they haven't gone through a safety assessment here.

    This was the number one-selling tomato paste in the United Kingdom in 1998. It says on it--and I can pass it around--“Produced from genetically modified tomatoes”. However, when a media fury erupted in the fall of 1998, supermarkets, which have low margins to begin with, tried to distinguished themselves and rushed to declare themselves free of GMOs. This formerly number one-selling tomato paste--and it was number one because it was a few pence cheaper than the competitors--is no longer available. It's gone. You can't get it, even though it was number one.

    In every country that has enacted genetic engineering to date, the response of retailers and processors has been to attempt to source from non-genetically engineered foods, thereby forgoing human health and environmental benefits of any specifically engineered crops. For example--the actual cobs of corn have disintegrated by now, but here's a picture of them from the fall. This is a genetically engineered cob on the right and a conventional cob on the left. What has happened to the one on the left is that corn borer has gotten in there. That is a major pest of field corn.

Á  (1125)  

    With genetically engineered field corn it's not about reducing pesticide use, because farmers don't spray for corn borer. It's not cost-effective, so they just suffer reduced yield. You could make an argument...and that's why farmers buy it and why about 40 percent of the field corn grown in Ontario last year was genetically engineered. That number is expected to be higher this year because of a 5 to 10 percent yield increase across the board. You're getting more yield on less land, so you could argue there are fewer inputs.

    The real benefit of this is human health and safety. USDA studies have shown that genetically engineered corn contains 35 times lower levels of naturally occurring toxins. That white stuff you see where the worm has been is called fusarium. It's a fungus, and it produces vomitoxin, which is an animal health issue and a human health issue. We are also reminded of naturally occurring toxins. If you recall, a potato recall was issued last week because some California red potatoes under disease pressure were found to have 50 times the accepted level of naturally occurring glycoalkaloids. The bottom line is, it's a healthier plant and it's a healthier end product.

    Furthermore, field corn is used in about 3,000 different products, so when you talk about mandatory labelling, it's not the whole cob of corn you're doing. Field corn becomes high-fructose corn syrup, which then becomes an ingredient in soft drinks. Field corn also becomes sorbitol, which is an ingredient in toothpaste. At what point do you want to label on a mandatory basis?

    Finally, I want to tell you briefly about my one direct experience with consumer response to labelling. For the last two years I've worked with a fruit and vegetable farmer in Hillsburgh, Ontario. He has 250 acres of fruits and vegetables, a large operation. He supplies a lot of stores and he also has a farm market, so basically we can do “farm to fork”. When we talk about food safety, we always like to talk about a farm to fork system. There are many vulnerabilities and many different bugs, and you have to focus on each one.

    By the way, I developed, implemented, and continue to manage the on-farm food safety program for all greenhouse vegetables produced in Ontario. We are working now to have all Ontario field fruits and vegetables within a year...and I've been named to chair a committee for the Canadian Horticultural Council to cover it nationally because there the food safety problems are in the field, not with the consumers.

    These are the considerations with a genetically engineered crop, and each crop has to be looked at individually. Sweet corn is nutritious. Fruits and vegetables are the cornerstone of a healthy diet. If you're like me--and I have four daughters--it's sometimes difficult to get your kids to eat their vegetables. They will, however, eat sweet corn--lots of it.

    Now we come to some of the internationalization stuff. I can get a good supply of sweet corn about six months a year. It's starting to show up now. For six weeks of the year it's from Ontario. For the other four and a half months it's largely from Florida. Now, Florida is a bit of a swamp, and they have a saying, you don't farm the soil, you farm the sun. They have incredible disease pressures. Pesticides are safe when used appropriately, but consumers are interested in reducing pesticide use, and it's more of an environmental reduction. Farmers certainly are interested because they're the ones with the highest risk. Consumers do not want corn borers in their sweet corn. Field corn: who cares? Sweet corn: no way. Florida is a 10 to 12 spray zone for corn borers, while Ontario is about a 2 to 3 spray zone for corn borers.

    Genetically engineered Bt sweet corn was made available four years ago and approved through the Canadian regulatory process. Field trials demonstrated that it reduced pesticide use by 90 percent. As a food safety scientist and as a parent, I was interested in that. My farmer friend heard the same thing, and he was interested because he talks to his consumers, and they consistently tell him that anything he can do to reduce--not eliminate, but reduce--pesticides, they're interested in.

    He had a very strong integrated pest management program on his farm, but then weather hit. No matter whether something is genetically engineered or whatever, you have to contend with weather. If it's cold and wet, you're going to get a lot of disease pressure and a lot of fungal growth. In surveys many consumers say, we don't want perfect food; we will break off the ends to control the worms; we can handle it. Jeff listened to his consumers and went down that track, but then he got bad weather and high corn borer damage. He figures he lost $20,000 in sweet corn sales that year because those consumers who said they would buy it didn't.

Á  (1130)  

    So he was interested in trying this stuff out, and for the last two years we've grown genetically engineered and conventional sweet corn and potatoes in 10-acre blocks on his farm, segregated it, which isn't easy, and labelled it. This is a picture of the actual market, and you'll see that there's a sign there, these two white boards, and rather than just labelling for whether it's genetically engineered or not, we put all the information on the label: herbicide treatments, chemical additions, fertilizers, and sprays. The genetically engineered sweet corn in both seasons required no pesticides. The conventional required two or three sprays on average.

    We tracked sales. Two years ago the genetically engineered corn outsold the regular corn three to two. Last year it was three to one, and it wasn't an issue. A research paper describing these results has been submitted. I could talk a long time about it, but I won't.

    The point I'm trying to make is getting back to this choice issue. We offered consumers a choice. And labelling a whole food is completely different from labelling that sorbitol is in toothpaste. However, when we tried to get it into grocery stores, because a couple of the larger grocery stores in the area wanted the produce--consumers had been asking for it--they were overruled by corporate headquarters, who would not allow it because they did not want the controversy.

    So mandatory labelling, in most respects, is designed to alarm rather than inform. For those reasons, voluntary, meaningful labelling can best accommodate the Canadian values of choice, honesty, health and cost.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Powell.

    We'll move on to the members of the committee asking the questions, and we'll start with Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much for the presentations both on the allergenic side and on the GMO information side.

    I'm quite impressed with Dr. Powell's presentation. I come from an agricultural background and I know quite a bit about growing the product and using the pesticides. I usually tease about losing one finger because I dipped it in a can of pesticide at one time. That's just not true, but I am saying that I'm very concerned, and I think most agricultural people are very concerned, about the amount of pesticide being used.

    I'm more interested in your view with regard to the safety of genetically modified foods. I believe that genetically modified foods have the potential to be much safer, and that's what you were saying. On your corn illustration, you didn't tell us how they bought it. You just said you'd labelled it both ways. What was the result of that, or did you just set it up as a display?

    Dr. Doug Powell: No, we tracked sales, and in the sales in year one, two years ago, the consumers preferred the genetically engineered corn by a ratio of three to two, five to three. It was about 9,000 cobs to 6,000 or 7,000 cobs. We talked to the people. We asked them why they preferred one or the other, and the most consistent response was, as the farmer had predicted, they were interested in anything that could reduce pesticides. It also tended to have lower levels of corn borer pressure.

    Last year it was actually quite different. We weren't as active in promoting. We just tried to do it low key, but we labelled it and had everything there. The genetically engineered corn outsold the regular by three to one last year, and the main question we got was, where can I get seed for my backyard for the potatoes and the corn? So it became less of an issue.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: We saw a report coming out of Europe just prior to Christmas with regard to, I think, a 15-year study on genetically modified foods, and Europe, as you know, had been fairly shy about the whole area of genetically modified foods. Do you have any comments on their findings? I think they suggested that it's perhaps safer. Was it the same thing they found, that there is less natural fungus and so on, less pesticides?

    Dr. Doug Powell: Yes, it depends on the specific crop. Again, I want to emphasize focusing on end products. It's not just whether genetic engineering is good or bad, it's the individual products and what are the individual risks and benefits.

    I do food safety risk analysis work, and in that arena you try to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks. What the European study found is that in terms of environmental impact they actually can be beneficial. Certainly that's something we observed in the field. We worked with an entomologist this year to try to capture the impact, but just through casual observing you can find.... You may have heard about the furor on monarch butterflies and field corn, and it turns out, of course, there are many risks to monarch butterflies and genetically engineered Bt corn is at the bottom of that list. It's about as small a risk as you can get.

    With sweet corn, when you spray you kill everything, including monarch butterflies. We saw tremendous differences in biodiversity from one plot to the next and we did work with an entomologist to quantify those. So based on those studies, such as the study out of Europe--and there have been literally hundreds of studies; I've left a pile of about 200 references here on both human health effects and environmental effects--you can actually make the statement that these foods are safer on a specific basis. They certainly have undergone more testing. They should. Genetic engineering is a very powerful technology--very powerful. That is why we regulate it and we take this stuff seriously.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think all Canadians are feeling better about that, and about having the information. We've had witness after witness come forward suggesting either mandatory labelling or voluntary labelling and discussing the whole idea of what we are actually telling the consumer and suggesting we have to get all of the information there. I'm really pleased you brought that up as well.

    Getting on to the allergenic side of it, Mary Allen, you suggested you are for mandatory labelling. Is that mandatory labelling of the allergenic proteins, or is it mandatory labelling of all...?

    Ms. Mary Allen: It's the allergenic proteins we would be interested in, but as I said, there may be at least 160 or more different foods that are allergenic to someone, and we have not yet identified them. You can't just say this protein is allergenic; that one isn't. We know some allergenic proteins. The rest have not all been identified. Our issue is that we're very fearful that something that proves to be allergenic or is allergenic to a few people could be transferred. Once it's out, it's very difficult to stop the process. Labelling would help, but it certainly wouldn't be, in our eyes, as effective as not doing it in the first place. Once the transfer happens, I think then we get worried.

    I certainly don't think labelling, for us, is scary. Rather, information to an allergic person is absolutely essential information.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Are you seeing more allergenic concerns with genetically modified than with ordinary--?

    Ms. Mary Allen: Not yet; not in the current generation, no. This is for the future. I think anything that has had a potential to be allergenic has been stopped and has not gotten to market. I don't think anything has come to market yet that has caused a problem. But I guess we're saying we would like people to be cautious.

    On voluntary labelling, I guess my own personal sense is it might work well for Canadian companies that are well intentioned. It is very difficult to control what comes in, or whether things being imported adhere to the same standard, or adhere to it very well; that is my sense. Having dealt with lots of situations where we've had recalls and problems in food, most of the time when they're big Canadian companies the information gets out quickly and the problem is well taken care of, but when it's an imported product, sometimes it's something very obscure. Sometimes you find out later that even though technically they've adhered to the Canadian labelling laws, there was a practice or a procedure in the plant that would not be to the same standard as in Canada.

    I remember there was a death in Montreal a few years ago of a 14-year-old who ate a little wafer bar that is sold in drugstores in big bins, and it was contaminated with peanut. The company that made it--in Poland, I think--was virtually certain it had not used peanut; it had separate production lines for peanut and non-peanut that were well separated. I think, if I'm correct, what happened was that they found the circulatory systems in the factories were combined. The air was flowing across the various parts of the factory, and it was the peanut dust from one part of the factory getting into the air and falling on the segregated line for the non-peanut products.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: But that has nothing to do with genetic modification.

    Ms. Mary Allen: Absolutely nothing, but it has a lot to do with the labelling issue. I guess that's why imports make me a little bit more nervous.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Lunney, you have about three minutes.

    Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Really? Thank you.

    On the allergenicity issue, it was years before we found out that products like peanuts and Brazil nuts were actually causing allergy. The question I might like to put to Dr. Powell is how you know with certainty, when you change the context of a gene and put it into another organism, what outcomes you are going to have.

    Dr. Doug Powell: Using the best available science we have, we attempt to reduce those uncertainties. You look at the products that are available today. There are largely two classes of families. One is the genetically engineered Bt crops. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a common soil bacterium. We have a lot of experience with Bt--the toxin it produces. We have sprayed, in the past, entire cities with Bt to control gypsy moth, for example. The toxin is only toxic to certain families of insects, because it requires to be activated in a very basic digestive system. We mammals have an acidic digestive system. It is regarded as extremely safe and well characterized.

    The other major class is the herbicide--

    Mr. James Lunney: Excuse me--just because of the limited time--can I just ask, is that the same Bt toxin that's used in StarLink corn?

    Dr. Doug Powell: Yes. There are a variety of different Bts; there are actually hundreds of different Bts.

    Mr. James Lunney: That's the Bt that causes people incontinence and therefore is not available for humans?

    Dr. Doug Powell: No, it's not.

    StarLink corn was approved for feed use only, not human use. Both Canadian and American regulators have recognized that this shouldn't be the case; you have to approve for both at the same time.

    In the matter of StarLink they held up the human approval pending further tests because it had gone through a testing procedure and had been observed not to digest as quickly as some of the other Bts. After the StarLink incident the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reviewed, I believe, 43 reported incidents that were thought to be allergenic, and they concluded that in fact none of these were allergenic cases.

    Mr. James Lunney: So you're saying that it's not related to fecal incontinence.

    Dr. Doug Powell: Not that I'm aware of.

    Mr. James Lunney: Okay. We've seen reports to that effect. Then StarLink corn is not supposed to be in our human food chain, yet that's still the case in Canada, I believe.

    Dr. Doug Powell: Yes, it is.

    Mr. James Lunney: But it has found its way into the human food chain. There was a celebrated case just a short time ago. Is that the same corn you're saying finds its way into fructose and into sorbitol--field corn, not sweet corn?

    Dr. Doug Powell: Certainly. But there are varieties of....

    Mr. James Lunney: So technically, products we're drinking could have the Bt toxin associated with that.

    Dr. Doug Powell: The toxin would not survive the processing process.

    Mr. James Lunney: Okay.

    We have a lot of non-specific illness in this country--ileitis, colitis, various forms of diverticulitis, and gastric distress--and there's a lot of uncertainty about what is actually causing it. Can you with confidence say that a toxin or a foreign protein coming in via the food chain, a GM product, is not contributing?

    Dr. Doug Powell: What I can say, based on the best available science, is that those risks have been reduced so we can at the same time capture whatever benefits they offer. There are a number of unknowns in any food, whether it's genetically engineered or conventionally produced. There have in fact been lines of potatoes and celery that have been recalled after being released onto the market because they contained high levels of naturally occurring toxins.

    What we do know in terms of food-borne illness and what is making these two to seven million people sick each year relates to micro-organisms. I was trying to point out that we need to look at all food and to reduce risks, and we have had trouble even where we did know what the causes were.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. James Lunney: I have one final question for Dr. Powell on the testing.

    You said these products have been tested far more than conventional products.

    Dr. Doug Powell: Yes, they have.

    Mr. James Lunney: Could you explain what clinical tests are done?

    Dr. Doug Powell: Certainly. I've brought 200 references, some of which are human health. This is an example. This is the data set that was submitted with the Flavr Savr tomato to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1994. It was the first whole food to go through the process. You do a series of feeding studies with mice in some instances, as was done in this case. Often it's for animal feed. There have been numerous animal feeding studies and so on, beyond the basic nutritional, toxicological, chemical structure tests.

    Mr. James Lunney: Were there any human tests done?

    Dr. Doug Powell: The whole human testing thing is fraught with controversy because, as the society for toxicologists points out, no reliable methods have been developed by which whole foods can be tested. So what we do is test the individual proteins, which is done with Bt and others.

    Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thanks, Dr. Lunney.

    Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. Both of my questions are for Dr. Powell.

    You are obviously aware that this committee, upon making recommendations, must act as a referee between the interests of the consumer and the realities of the commercial import-export operations. You say that in countries where there is mandatory labelling, the majority of informed consumers--I think that this is the expression that you used--do not consume genetically modified products. Have I correctly understood your interpretation of this? That is my first question.

[English]

    Dr. Doug Powell: No, that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is they had not had the choice to consume genetically engineered products. The products are not made available because the companies are extremely reluctant to label. So they source from non-genetically engineered ingredients. They don't have the choice.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Perhaps I misunderstood. Maybe something was lost in the translation of what you said. Yet, you have established a link between the fact that there are genetically modified products on the market, and consumer choice. What is the link that you wanted to make between these two variables?

[English]

    Dr. Doug Powell: I'm not sure. What I was saying is that labelling does not provide choice. It actually takes away choice because companies are reluctant to source genetically engineered ingredients for either real or perceived consumer concerns.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Couldn't the five arguments that you presented in your brief in favour of voluntary labelling also be made for mandatory labelling?

[English]

    Dr. Doug Powell: No, they don't. In fact, they argue strongly for voluntary labelling because there is no human health risk that we know of. We have mandatory labelling on the basis of human health and safety. As I pointed out with my cider example, we have trouble even doing it for known health risks. I think it would be very expensive and cumbersome to create mandatory labelling for products where there is no human health and safety issue.

    Mr. James Lunney: As far as you know, Doctor.

    Dr. Doug Powell: Based on the best evidence available today and the findings of hundreds of scientific reports and committees.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: The main argument why you do not want mandatory, coercive or constraining labelling, as was included in the bill presented by one of my colleagues from the ministerial caucus, was that with voluntary labelling, health is better protected? I cannot see how what would be desirable within a voluntary context could not be desirable within a mandatory context.

[English]

    Dr. Doug Powell: Mandatory labelling would require a huge undertaking and it diverts attention from health risks that we know are out there and that can be reduced with steps. It drains resources. It focuses on the non-health issues, so it actually could negatively impact on human health.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: So what you are saying is that if we recommend mandatory labelling that includes specific information, an entire industry will have to be created and this may divert attention from the true health risks, because such labelling would not contain the true health risks that are involved. Is that it?

Á  (1150)  

[English]

    Dr. Doug Powell: It is to some extent. I'm more concerned about draining resources from the enforcement agencies, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which already has numerous problems to deal with. If you read the news you know there were worries of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States yesterday. They have to be constantly vigilant against any number of diseases. To start up an enforcement agency for something that's not going to contribute to human health and safety would be a drain on resources.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: At the start of your presentation, I was under the impression that your position was close to that of the environmental groups, and the position held by groups in favour of mandatory labelling. Obviously, now, after having heard your entire presentation, I understand that this is not the case. The main reason is that you fear that we will not be able implement the objectives we need to reach with mandatory labelling, due to the bureaucracy.

    I understand that you think, like most Parliamentarians, that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is totally ineffective and bureaucratic.

[English]

    Dr. Doug Powell: I think the Canadian Food Inspection Agency does an excellent job with the resources it has available, although I will declare a conflict because my wife is a veterinarian at CFIA.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Well! That is an admission that shows you have integrity...and that you are in love, no doubt. OK. I have no further questions.

[English]

    Dr. Doug Powell: It's my wife's integrity.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Dr. Castonguay is next, then Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, then Madame Thibeault.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska--Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to all the witnesses, whose presentations I have truly appreciated.

    In light of what you have said, it seems, finally, that genetically modified foods contain fewer risks of allergenicity than those found in nature, if I understand correctly. This leads me to think that perhaps we should educate our population because it seems that it is pretty widespread that when we see “genetically modified product”, we don't want to touch it because it could be a big bad bug.

    Do you see any problems there? Should we spend more energy at this time on informing people about genetically modified organisms, while we are at the stage of discussing labelling, mandatory or not? If people do not have basic information to start, is what we are trying to do similar to shooting ourselves in the foot? I would like to know what you think about this.

[English]

    Dr. Doug Powell: To reiterate what I said earlier, consumer choice is a fundamental value. I would argue that the question is not whether we should label or not, it's how best do we go about providing that information. Is putting something on a label that's already crowded--if you look at that tomato can--going to help? Can that best be accomplished through 1-800 numbers, point-of-sale information, and so on? These things need to be explored as alternatives.

    In terms of public education, we have to remember eating is one of life's great pleasures. I have four kids and shop three or four times a week. I do all the grocery shopping. I watch what people do and talk to them.

    Most us want to go shopping. If you're like me, you have kids screaming in the cart--whatever. You want to go shopping; you don't want to do homework. But there will always be a segment of the population who wants to do homework and wants to know, for whatever reasons. We have to accommodate all those values and find a way to do that without imposing someone else's values on the other segment of the population that may have other concerns, like nutrition, taste, or even convenience, as we're seeing.

    Public education is very difficult. My laboratory is called the Food Safety Network. We have dedicated ourselves, for the last seven or eight years, to providing science-based public information on a host of food-related risks.

    One of the things we do is provide something called the Food Safety Network, which is electronic mail summarizing all of the outbreaks going on in the world at any one time. You would be amazed to know how many are actually going on. There are usually about five or six every day. We send this out daily to 10,000 direct subscribers in 60 countries. It is free, as a public service. We do it because we're a university. It's a research base.

    So we are working hard to not so much educate as compel individuals on a variety of food safety risks, whether it's cross-contamination from raw meat to fresh salad in the kitchen, slaughterhouse practices, or on-farm practices, which is where my attention is these days.

    People love to talk about food. If you can imagine this, my father, who recently retired, called me after Thanksgiving and asked me for my recipe for turkey stock. This is a man who didn't really cook a whole lot. So there we were--two guys exchanging recipes.

    You look at these cooking shows and how popular they are, but they have absolutely horrendous food safety handling. So there are all kinds of opportunities to engage and inform the public, and we make a real effort to do that.

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Mary Allen: I'd like to make the point that if there are 30 million Canadians, according to the census that came out this week, that means at least 300,000 of them have severe food allergies, some of them to more than one food.

    I live with one of those people. He's 22 and is allergic to peanuts, three nuts, eggs, and most of the shellfish. He'll be perfectly fine as long as nobody takes proteins out of those foods and puts them in another food. As soon as that happens, suddenly there's a whole new problem, and grocery shopping would take probably three times as long as it takes now. That would be a problem.

    I'd certainly want it labelled, if it happened. I know that's not an immediate risk today, but it may not be far off before it is. A new protein could pop up for which someone like that could become allergic.

    I think of allergy not as something you're born with, but as a genetic tendency, coupled with exposure. Some people for some reason--and food allergies are very bizarre--have a tendency to become sensitized to things they're exposed to. They are a vulnerable population, and I think they do need protection.

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Castonguay.

    Dr. Doug Powell: There's another answer, if I'm allowed to give it briefly.

    The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you already answered that.

    Dr. Doug Powell: No, I was just going to say that Mary Allen makes the point that the products on the market today are safe and the scientific community is sound about this. There is potential in the future, as different secondary plant metabolites are altered in their genetic engineering, for a much more rigorous assessment of this potential allergenicity. The Royal Society call was for future products. It's what the Toxicological Society called for today, an investment in these techniques. This is why, last week, the OECD had a meeting in Japan of the world's leading toxicologists, allergists, and so on to devise the scientific strategies to better assess those foods of the future.

    The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

    Let me start with Mary Allen. Thank you very much for your presentation.

    You've made a clear statement today about support for mandatory labelling. Has this at all changed the position of the association in terms of participation on the committee dealing with voluntary labelling?

    Ms. Mary Allen: No, I wasn't involved in this until this past week, when I attended the most recent meetings. But no, I think it's a good first step. It's a very valuable learning experience to find out the issues from industry. I think this could be used as a basis for mandatory labelling in the future.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It begs the question, why? But if I ask you that, I'm going to lose my time, so I'll save it.

    You get some money from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I'd like to know if that is the case.

    Ms. Mary Allen: As far as I know, we've never gotten a cent. I know I had an e-mail from the speaker who cancelled today claiming that we did. As far as I know, not a cent. He was looking at our annual report in which we called the Canadian Food Inspection Agency a “partner”. We have called it a partner because of its wonderful, wonderful advocacy on behalf of the allergic population. The food inspectors are some of our best friends, and we feel they're extremely important. The work they do is very valuable to us.

    But as far as I know, we have never gotten a cent from the CFIA.

  (1200)  

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Chairperson, I'd like to ask the association to update us if it finds out anything otherwise, to let us know if it gets any funds from CFIA and for what purposes.

    Ms. Mary Allen: I will. I did not know they funded non-profit groups. We may apply.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a question on something our researchers pointed out. You have Kraft Canada as a sponsor on your website. Given that Kraft Canada doesn't exactly have a great record on adequately testing for GM, do you feel this puts you in a compromised position?

    Ms. Mary Allen: Well, unfortunately, we had government funding from Health Canada for many years, about $60,000 a year over the years I was involved with the association. We have to survive somehow. Membership fees are not enough. So we do take corporate sponsorships and we acknowledge it and put it there.

    We've had funding from Kraft and numerous other big companies. We try to take it from more than one.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.

    My questions to Dr. Powell are as follows. When was CRIFS actually instituted and established?

    Dr. Doug Powell: Officially, 2000, I think--but it's been going on so long, I can't keep it straight.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It was established in the year 2000.

    Dr. Doug Powell: It was late 2000. It grew out of a collaborative effort at Guelph, because it has a number of food scientists and a variety of disciplines as well as Health Canada scientists.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Could you give us a breakdown of the financial backing you get from the federal government, provincial governments, and the industry?

    Dr. Doug Powell: Do you mean for CRIFS or for myself?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: For CRIFS.

    Dr. Doug Powell: The most recent funding was through the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, which requires a matching component. I would say most of it from the industry was in kind and discounts on equipment. Much of this equipment to do with genetic.... A lot of genetic engineering is not about making foods; it's developing techniques. A lot of the work at Guelph is on developing rapid techniques based on using some genetic engineering techniques.

    I would say it's about 20 percent.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay, that's 20 percent from industry. Perhaps later we could get a breakdown--

    Dr. Doug Powell: I would be happy to supply a full breakdown.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: --of how much and from where, including services in kind.

    Since you said you're here personally as well as representing the association, how much money do you receive from industry for your university studies and work, in particular from Monsanto?

    Dr. Doug Powell: My laboratory, the Food Safety Network, has a budget of about $500,000 to $600,000 a year, supporting graduate students, research assistants, projects, undergraduate students, and so on. We work very hard to strive to keep a balance of about one-third private, one-third public, and one-third foundation.

    The total amount of money received in the last year from Monsanto, since you specifically asked, was $5,000.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Was that for your laboratory or you?

    Dr. Doug Powell: It was for my laboratory. None of that money has gone to me.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay. My question was: how much money have you received from Monsanto throughout your university studies, and now in your work at Guelph University?

    Dr. Doug Powell: Personally, I have received none. It goes to the laboratory. As a graduate student, they funded 20 percent of my university research. The other 80 percent was through peer-reviewed government grants.

    Let me say as an academic that we have challenges in finding money to undertake these projects, such as engaging the public on food risk issues. However, my only currency is credibility. That's why I'm extremely transparent. If you go to my website, www.foodsafetynetwork.ca--a little plug--you will find a list of all of our funders. If you look at my history of public comments on any number of food issues, you will find that I am an equal opportunity critic.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: As a final question, is it true or not that over the years you have received approximately $40,000 from Monsanto, in total?

    Dr. Doug Powell: I have received $40,000 since 1993--and remember my annual budget this year is $500,000 to $600,000--for graduate research. When I was doing my PhD, my stipend was about $20,000 a year. They paid 20 percent of it, and then additional travel costs and laboratory expenses. But it doesn't come to me; it pays my salary. It has to be approved through the university. It's all public. Any research results are published in peer-reviewed journals. In this case, they were published in a peer-reviewed book published by McGill-Queen's University Press in 1997, co-authored by Bill Leiss, called Mad Cows and Mothers Milk.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Madame Thibeault is next.

[Translation]

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, sir, and Madam.

    Doctor Powell, you are surely aware that the people who are calling for mandatory labelling are concerned about the long-term effects of these genetically modified foods. Therefore, if we could reassure them, your battle on this topic would be partly won? Is there anything being done on this front? Is it scientifically possible, today, to reassure people by telling them that there are no long-term health risks? You understand that people are especially concerned that the entire process is irreversible.

    Do you have any answers for me?

[English]

    Dr. Doug Powell: I understand and can sympathize with the concerns expressed by a variety of members of the public and different organizations, in their sincere calls for mandatory labelling to protect human health and safety. I don't happen to agree with them. For the reasons outlined in my brief, I think it could actually be to the detriment of human health and safety.

    Long-term testing is problematic. We don't know how to do it for a lot of things. The point is, it's not just genetically engineered foods; it's all foods.

    Irreversibility is no different for foods derived from mutagenesis breeding or even conventional breeding. There are risks out there. The risks need to be assessed on an end-product basis, to the best of our ability. We have scientists meeting continually to further develop our techniques, but at the same time, as a society we need to capture whatever benefits it can bring, whether it's pesticide reduction to sweet corn or potatoes.

    One example is the Bt potato, which Monsanto no longer markets. If you go to Prince Edward Island, it's a bit of an environmental mess. The amount of pesticides that are being used on those potatoes, and the subsequent fish kills that happen in bad weather, can be dramatically reduced through something like the Bt potato.

    Something like the Roundup Ready canola or genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant canola have been massive savers in terms of soil conservation. A study last year by the Canola Council of Canada found that farmers saved 32 million litres of diesel fuel because they were making fewer trips up and down the fields. Think of the impact that has on global warming and other things.

    So they do take it very seriously, but we're trying to find the balance. Agriculture is not natural; it's an artificial system. At the same time, the biggest risk is not eating at all. So we need to balance off these competing desires.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I have one more short question.

[Translation]

    Doctor, from what you are telling me, I get the impression that people who eat only organic foods are perhaps being exposed to certain risks. In your opinion, are organic foods fit for consumption in light of what you are saying?

[English]

    Dr. Doug Powell: They certainly have not undergone the same level of testing for safety. There have been studies that have shown higher levels of naturally occurring toxins in organic foods. They should be held to the same safety standard--all foods, regardless of production--and that's the strength of the Canadian system.

[Translation]

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: These are very interesting comments. Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Chair: Yes.

    We'll have Dr. Lunney as the last questioner.

    Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    On the issue of the initiatives on voluntary labelling, which would presumably be for those who want to label their product GM-free, I understand they're looking at a standard of 5 percent contamination because of pollen drift, and the European standard is 1 percent. Can you explain to us how you can quantify the percentage of contamination that might be found in a non-GMO product?

  (1210)  

    Dr. Doug Powell: Well, this gets back to the question, what's the GMO? Are you referring to genetically engineered products?

    Mr. James Lunney: No, very straight, rDNA.

    Dr. Doug Powell: All right, recombinant DNA.

    First of all, I don't agree with the use of the word “contamination”. It's not a contaminant. These are naturally occurring proteins and genes. Contamination is inflammatory language.

    Pollen drift has existed in a variety of farming systems. Let me put it this way: Different farming systems have co-existed for centuries, and they can continue to co-exist. There have been recent reviews and studies that suggest this. In fact, the New Zealand royal commission argued just this point.

    It's a crop-specific basis. Yes, canola is particularly prone to spreading its pollen, whereas something like corn is much lower.

    Mr. James Lunney: Would you agree that GM canola is about 20 times more aggressive in pollinating than the natural variety?

    Dr. Doug Powell: No, I would not. I have not seen studies to substantiate that.

    Mr. James Lunney: Well, we've seen reports to that effect.

    Dr. Doug Powell: Sir, I can show you reports--

    Mr. James Lunney: But you would agree that it's aggressive?

    Dr. Doug Powell: --on almost anything.

    Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

    Dr. Doug Powell: There are a number of journals. It's whether you look at the consensus of the scientific community rather than one report.

    Mr. James Lunney: You'd agree that pollen drift is certainly a problem, and just with the GM canola, we understand that about 70 percent or 80 percent of our crop in Canada is now GM canola.

    Dr. Doug Powell: Yes, it is.

    Mr. James Lunney: So for the person who wants, for voluntary purposes, to label their product GM-free, how are they going to be able to protect their crop from their neighbour, 70 p. 100 or 80 p. 100 of whom may be using the GM crop?

    Dr. Doug Powell: Canola is somewhat problematic in that respect, but there will be markets for the GM-free, and there are ways to grow it with sufficient barriers and tolerances.

    Any seed production system has tolerances, and it's not just genetic engineering; it's anything that's not supposed to be in the purity of that seed. They have tolerances now. Europe has set a tolerance of 1 percent. Canada is talking about 5 percent. In Australia, I think it's 5 percent in some cases. It depends. But as Mary Allen points out, if you have tolerances, it sort of misses the boat when it comes to any future allergenicity issues.

    Mr. James Lunney: We're talking about honesty in being able to label different systems here so that consumers have choice. If you have this pollen drift creating a problem and you can't certify your product as GM-free, the biotech companies can simply eliminate their competition in a very short time, and you won't be able to label anything GM-free, at least in the canola market.

    Dr. Doug Powell: I would argue that there's no such thing as GM-free in any food. All food has been genetically modified.

    The Chair: Some by nature, not by--

    Dr. Doug Powell: Some by nature. Wheat contains chromosomes from three different species. It was a natural cross.

    Mr. James Lunney: The final point I want to make is that we had Health Canada here saying currently there is no scientific way to ascertain whether the content of a product is 1 percent GM, 3 percent, 5 percent, or any other percentage. Would you agree that this is a bit of a problem for a voluntary labelling system?

    Dr. Doug Powell: I would also say it's a problem for any labelling system.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

    I believe Ms. Wasylycia-Leis wants to ask Ms. Allen to send something to us.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I just want to clarify what I'd asked her previously in terms of funding from CFIA. I would be interested in knowing not just in terms of direct grants, because presumably that doesn't take place, but in fact services in kind, support for conferences, brochures, publications, travel, anything of that sort.

    Ms. Mary Allen: I can tell you there has been nothing since the CFIA was created.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay.

    Dr. Powell, when we get the breakdown in terms of funding for CRIFS, would your breakdown include not only direct grants but also services in kind? Is there any direct or indirect funding from government and industry?

    Ms. Mary Allen: I should say they speak at our conferences as invited guests. It's the only involvement I've had.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll look forward to receiving the information.

    On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you, Ms. Allen and Dr. Powell, for coming to Ottawa and putting yourselves out to share information with us. We often, either members or sometimes the researchers, like to call the witnesses to clarify certain things from the testimony afterwards. We hope you would welcome such a call. Thank you very much.

    This portion of the meeting is now over. The committee has to move on to other business.

    In order that we might be able to actually leave here a little early today, we had notice of a motion 48 hours ago, the first one by Mr. Merrifield. You have it on your agenda sheet that you can read quietly.

    I'll ask Mr. Merrifield to speak to it, please.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, you have the motion in front of you. I think it's fairly self-explanatory.

    We've worked for the last year, nine months specifically, almost 100 pourcent of the time as a committee on this whole area of stem cell research. We're waiting for the legislation to come forward. We're promised that it will come forward. I believe it will.

    The unfortunate part about what has happened with the CIHR is they have set guidelines that have pre-empted the work we have done as a committee. They have actually taken the largest and most controversial area of the proposed legislation away from the hands of this committee and away from the hands of the legislation--although it could be argued that when the legislation comes in, if it differs, it can be pulled back.

    I would suggest to you that the rules for embryonic stem cell research have changed as of a week Monday. It is something that needs to be explained to this committee and explained to Canada.

    I would think Mr. Bernstein should come before our committee and answer some questions as to why he felt it important, at the eleventh hour, to come forward with guidelines from the CIHR. I think it's important to have him here to explain from his perspective. Maybe we missed something as a committee when we had him here earlier explaining as a witness.

    Why did it come at this stage instead of a year or two years ago? Why couldn't it have waited until after we get the legislation in place?

    I think the argument becomes fairly self-explanatory. I think, as a committee, we should be slighted somewhat in what has happened with the CIHR. It's important that we bring him forward.

    The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I believe that there are two aspect to the motion. First, I am very much in favour of Mr. Bernstein appearing before us so that we can discuss guidelines, but if I had to write the guidelines, this is exactly what I would write. I agree with the basis of what was made public. I don't know if it is realistic for Parliament to make this kind of thing public. I have no opinion on that. Despite this, I think that we should listen to Mr. Bernstein, that we should discuss this with him. It is our work as Parliamentarians and it is a sufficiently important concern in the life of Canadians for us to have this type of discussion. But in terms of content, I have no problem with what was made public.

    I bet that much of the data included in these guidelines will be included in the bill. In any case, that is what I am betting on. Therefore, I will support Mr. Merrifield's motion, in the hope that the second motion will be just as well received.

[English]

    The Chair: Dr. Castonguay, and then Mr. Lunney. That's a deal maker.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I believe that this committee has worked for many months to hear many witnesses. I agree somewhat with Mr. Ménard, with a part of what he said when he stated that the proposed guidelines contain more or less the same conclusions that are contained in our report. Now, I see that committee, that group, was working for some time to come up with guidelines, so that research in that field which had no guidelines, would be structured. I was happy to see them submit their guidelines because it allows the research to go ahead. I believe that this is important research.

    Obviously, we will have a bill. The minister has promised us that she would submit it before May 10. However, the reality is that we will perhaps have some difficulties before it becomes law. In the meantime, I think that it is important, once again, to have guidelines, and personally, I don't see the need to call Dr. Bernstein back here at this point, because I presume he will be back to discuss the bill before third reading.

  (1220)  

[English]

    The Chair: I would remind people that we have another motion after this. But Mr. Lunney and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis want to comment briefly on this.

    Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The research community has waited years for regulation in this area of research. We all agree that we need a law and we need it soon; there's been a voluntary moratorium in place. We understand that legislation we have worked hard on preparing is coming. What is the rush in getting these regulations out before our work is returned as legislation?

    I think we should all be outraged on this committee that this has pre-empted our work. I'm extremely concerned, as we've placed a very strong emphasis on adult stem cell research. We also made very specific recommendations on a regulatory body which have been completely ignored, and the scientists have said, “Just leave it to us, we'll do it ourselves”.

    If this legislation is brought in on May 10, are we going to have 30 days to debate it and rush it through before summer break? Where will it be when we break for the summer, and when will we ever have a law?

    Facts are going to be established on the ground. Researchers are going to be doing embryonic research, which we clearly said was not a preference. The regulatory body in place will not be looking at anything we debated sincerely over very long hours at this table.

    I'm concerned that if we allow this to go through we will be making a mockery of all the work we've put into this. I hope my outrage is shared by other members of the committee, as much as it is on this side. Therefore, I think we need that--Dr. Bernstein and the minister accountable for this.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm outraged, but I'm not really outraged at Dr. Bernstein and the CIHR; I'm outraged at the slow pace of reaction to our report by the government. They received the draft legislation, and we put so much time and effort into our report, so there is no excuse for the government not to have brought forward legislation by now. Inevitably, we end up with this kind of situation, where work has to go on and there are changing developments all the time.

    But I will support the motion. I think it's at least worthwhile in getting this discussion out in the open, and maybe we'll get some clarification from the government through that process. In fact, the CIHR reports to the minister, and the minister ultimately would have had to make this decision about the release of these guidelines for research.

    The Chair: I now have two people who want to speak for the second time. Can we not resist this temptation in order to get on with it? We have another motion to deal with after this.

    Dr. Fry, you haven't spoken, I know.

    Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Madam Chair, I just wanted to speak against this motion. I think the motion inherently comes to conclusions that the CIHR imposed guidelines and that they ignored Parliament. I think it is very consistent for scientific bodies to look at setting guidelines for anything. That does not pre-empt Parliament; Parliament will take those into consideration when the minister responds.

    The very nature of this motion is one I can't agree with because it really presupposes and impugns a lot of motive to a group. I think we should go ahead and just do what the minister is saying. She's going to respond, she's bringing the bill forward, she's going to take into consideration everything that everyone has come up with. She will take those into the mill and look at how she makes a decision on her legislation.

    So I want to speak very firmly against this motion.

    The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

    An hon. member: Dr. Alcock.

    The Chair: Oh, Dr. Alcock. It is Dr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you. I'll send you a copy of my dissertation.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: In both languages?

    Mr. Reg Alcock: In both languages, Spanish and French.

    I debated this with Mr. Merrifield the other night on CPAC. I disagree with the hypothesizing about what's really gone on here. I think you carry it too far, you get kind of carried away on it.

    At the same time, though, I'm going to vote for this motion. I'm going to vote for it because it is passing strange to me that we did put down our report, there is a timeframe, the community has waited a while for this, and they could not wait the extra couple of months. I think Mr. Bernstein should come here and explain to us why that is the case. It's as simple as that.

    I don't accept your conspiracy theories, but I am prepared.... I think Dr. Bernstein is a smart guy. He can defend himself, and I'd like to hear from him as to why he's done this.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Mr. Ménard, are you going to insist on this second round?

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, Madam Chair, and I appreciate that you are working on the premise that the members will be able to express themselves at will. We are in a parliamentary committee and that is our job. I don't see why speaking two or three times should pose any problem, especially since it doesn't really concern you.

    That said, I am giving fair warning to the government if it does not allow Dr. Bernstein to appear. The issue is not to know if we agree or not on the guidelines. The issue is that it is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to understand what he has done. That should be done within committee. That is our job.

    People are interested in the issue of stem cells. It concerns an extremely important sociological aspect and an extremely important research aspect. I would find it highly hypocritical of the government to vote against a motion like this one, and I believe that it would risk affecting the proceedings for the next several hours, because I would join a filibuster with the Canadian Alliance. Either we work in committee, or else we don't, and when there are governmental organizations that make orientations public, it is our role as a committee to understand the meaning. We are not saying that we have to devote 15 sessions to this. We want to meet...

[English]

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I'd like to hear your filibuster. It would be worth having.

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): No, we've heard it before.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: No, but it's normal. We have work to do and we will do it. Therefore, Madam Chair, I will support the motion.

[English]

    The Chair: We'll go to Dr. Dromisky, who hasn't had a chance yet.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.): No, I haven't. Thank you very much.

    One of the main purposes I have for sitting on this committee is to learn and to gather as much information as possible. When it comes to Dr. Bernstein, the president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, this organization, his group, has been working on this for way over two years. We know that. We know they have listened to more witnesses than we get. We know they came up with a report with a lot of recommendations in it. It's a whole question of timing, as has been raised.

    I don't think there's a conspiracy theory that we can apply to this whole process, but I would like to get the answers. Why right now? In light of the fact that they have this recommendation before them and it's been in their report for quite some time, why didn't they come forth with it two months ago or three months ago or four months ago? That was a possibility.

    However, in light of the spirit that exists in this committee, which I might add does not exist in a lot of other committees I sit on, the quest here is for knowledge. We have had a positive growing experience that we're all going through on this committee. If I could learn from Dr. Bernstein's attendance before the committee to explain his rationale for the timing factor, I would be satisfied.

    I certainly am going to support the motion because, as I indicated in my very first sentence, I would like to learn from this experience. It's non-partisan; it's not a political move that I'm making.

    The Chair: Mr. Merrifield moved the motion. I don't know whether he wants to do a little sum-up, and then I'll call the question.

    Can you hold it a second?

    I'm sorry. Ms. Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: My problem is with the words “ignored Parliament”. I'd like to hear from Dr. Bernstein directly. I've heard from third parties and fourth parties on how this is not going against anything that we are doing. I don't know that he “ignored” it, because if you get the third-party and fourth-party comments, it wasn't at all ignoring the work that we've done.

    The Chair: Are you going to suggest amending the motion, Ms. Sgro?

    Ms. Judy Sgro: I'm wondering if we could eliminate the word “ignored” and ask Dr. Bernstein to appear before the committee and explain exactly what you have in here. It's the word “ignore” that gives me problems, otherwise I'd like to vote for it.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: So where do you want to put this?

    The Chair: Why don't you stop after “Committee” without--

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Ask him to appear before the committee and explain exactly why they felt it was necessary to go and move ahead. So I'd like to eliminate the word “ignore”.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: He's used the word “implementation”.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Ask him to appear before the committee and he can explain exactly why he introduced the guidelines.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: That sounds friendly.

    The Chair: Okay, Mr. Merrifield, is this a friendly amendment? Does everybody agree to it?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, we can accept that.

    The Chair: Now what does it exactly say, Mr. Clerk?

    The Clerk of the Committee: I think we should clarify it, as said. We're removing the word ”ignored”, but we're going to replace it with what?

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Simply ask Dr. Bernstein to appear before the committee, period.

    The Clerk: We take out “ignored Parliament by” and put in “implemented new guidelines” prior to the introduction. Is that more satisfactory?

    The Chair: It's a lot simpler if you put a period after the word “Committee”. You know why you want him to come. Each of you might have a different reason, a different set of questions, but if he comes you get what you want.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think you should give some rationale why you're asking.

    The Chair: You don't have to as a committee. You have a right to ask him.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: This doesn't really make a lot of difference either way. Where's this going?

    Okay, fine.

    The Chair: Then the clerk will read the motion, and I'll call the question.

    The Clerk: The motion reads:

That Dr. Alan Bernstein, President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, be called to appear before the Committee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Can we apply the same vote for the second motion?

    The Chair: Okay, we have a second motion, ladies and gentlemen. It has been put forward by Mr. Ménard, who I think has been almost catered to in the past, but he wants to get this rule in.

    So, Mr. Ménard, would you like to explain your little motion?

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I will start, Madam Chair, by assuring you of my friendship. I think it is very important to do so.

    I know that all the members of the committee wish to work together. Besides, we see that depending on the importance of the witnesses, the Chair, with all my respect, Madam, has not always had the same attitude. I think that for the proceedings here, it would be better to have clear rules. Also, I have asked our Whip to get the rules of procedure for the other committees. There is no committee that starts by giving the Alliance the floor twice in a row, and I don't think that it is desirable, either.

    The Bloc Québécois was the official opposition for a few years. The goal of each committee is to ensure that everyone has a say so that we can control government or develop policy. With all the respect I owe my colleagues from the Alliance, I don't understand why the Alliance would speak twice in a row.

    The proposal I am making is the procedure in many committees. I allows everyone to speak, and we apply the same rules at all times. I would be more comfortable if we had clear rules of procedure. I repeat, the committee's role is to ensure that everyone, whether from the majority or the opposition, can express themselves with the least amount of partisanship. In the past, unfortunately, the rules did not always allow this. There were therefore people leaving committee in frustration. This is not the goal of committee work. Let us work maturely and together. This is what this proposal inspires.

[English]

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I'm always in favour of that.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Madam Chairperson, I like what our honourable member has presented, but I would like to make a slight amendment: that witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statements and that during the questioning of witnesses they be allocated five minutes for the questioners of parties in the following order--the order is okay--and that thereafter time allocations be determined at the discretion of the chair.

    The reason I'm making this amendment is simply that the seven-minute time allocation is fine. It would be wonderful if it could be fifteen minutes. In this committee, we want to gather as much information as possible in a short period of time from the witnesses who come before us . We've been working in the proper direction, I think, for quite some time If we can get more people on this committee asking more questions in the hour or hour and a half that the witnesses appear, we will get more information to deal with. We've been working very closely in this respect. It's why I'm moving this from seven minutes to five minutes.

    It also has another purpose. When I hear “Dromisky”, this is an indication to me to shut my mouth. There will be no lengthy preambles that will take four and a half minutes before I present my question. It is clear thinking. Get your question on the table as quickly as possible, with no big lengthy preambles, so the witnesses can give all the information they possibly can. I don't want to hear information from members of the committee. I want to get information from the witnesses. It's why they're here. It's why I'm cutting it down to five minutes.

    The latter part will possibly create some difficulty. I think time allocations should be determined at the discretion of the chair. There may not be five minutes available for each person who wants to ask a question. There may only be enough time if the chairman and the clerk quickly do some calculating on their hand calculators and determine there's only three minutes available. You have one quick question. Let's get quick answers. I think it should be left to the discretion of the chair.

    Those are my amendments and my rationale for the amendments in the motion.

  (1235)  

    The Chair: We're now on the amendment. The first amendment is to reduce the seven-minute time allocation to five minutes.

    Are there any speakers to the amendment?

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I appreciate Stan's comment. Seven minutes is a reasonable compromise between the standard in some committees for a straight round of all political parties at 10 minutes each and the kind of approach in this committee that I would call unfair. A seven-minute straight round for every party makes sense.

    As to the period after that, I'm not fussy. The key is an equitable sharing of the time in the first go-around.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay. Would you agree to the latter part?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure.

    The Chair: That's not on the table right now.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Oh, I'm sorry.

    The Chair: You actually have two separate ideas, so I've divided them. The question is seven minutes or five.

    Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: We must be aware that we could need seven minutes if it is a complex subject that needs clarification. Many committees allow a period 10 minutes. If we keep strictly to the schedule--as we all are in this committee--, a period of seven minutes, during the first round, seems OK. I agree that the Chair must exercise a certain amount of discretion during the second round. I agree on that point, but I think that we should stick to at least seven minutes because seven minutes is not much.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: When we originally set up this committee, we wanted to do something productive and a little bit different--to try to work together as much as we possibly can. We've achieved this goal over the last year, in the midst of probably the heaviest material any committee has had to deal with.

    We should be patting ourselves on the back for this. We looked at a very difficult issue in a very non-partisan way. I'd like to keep this atmosphere going as much as we possibly can. In doing so, the questioning has been patterned in a very reasonable way by our chair. I don't think there is a problem.

    Now, because of this we have stayed away from imposing locked-in times. It has been the will of the chair to be as fair as possible with the time allocations, and she's done a very good job of it. If we're going to lock it down and we want to get political, if we want to lose what we've cherished, what has worked well for the last year, then we can certainly go back to some of the examples of other committees and go on their time allocations.

    And this would not be as in the proposed motion; it would be us going for 10 minutes as the official opposition--which is our duty under legislation as the official opposition of the government. This would be 10 minutes for us on the first round, the Bloc following with five minutes, 10 minutes for the Liberals, five back for us, and five for each of the NDP, the Liberals, and the PC.

    Some hon. members: No, no.

    An hon. member: That's the way the fisheries committee operates.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's how other committees are structured.

    An hon. member: That's right.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: If you want to break the politics, it's what we should be doing.

    The Chair: Whether you like the total motion, Rob was really speaking to it in a general way. We still have to deal with Stan's amendment, so let's get a vote on whether you agree with seven minutes or five.

    This is the idea. We're going to vote on an amendment because even if we're going to kill it later, we have to clean up the body before we bury it, just in case it passes.

    An hon. member: Madam Chair, I understand.

    The Chair: You understand.

    Do people understand that because of procedure we have to deal with the amendments? You have to think, what if this motion carries in the end? Do I want five minutes or seven minutes for each party, then reverting to less afterwards?

    I'm going to ask you to vote on this now. I think we're getting off the amendment and back into the general motion.

  (1240)  

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Who supports this amendment? Is it a real amendment?

    The Chair: Yes, Mr. Dromisky.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Why did he withdraw?

    The Chair: Oh, he didn't really move it, that's true...or did you?

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: I moved it, but I would like to have the honour and the privilege of withdrawing the five-minute portion of my amendment and leaving it at seven.

    The Chair: Okay, he has pulled it back after we've talked about it.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Are we voting on the status quo or Mr. Ménard's amendment?

    The Chair: He had a second amendment.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: I had a second amendment.

    The Chair: Which was?

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: And the second amendment reads, after the word “thereafter”: “...thereafter, time allocations be determined at the discretion of the chair”.

    The Chair: That was the second one. Once each party has had its turn, then the chair gets to decide where it goes and for how long. And my purpose in that case would be to get as many people at least up once, as opposed to worrying about parties so much.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: You've done a fine job up until today.

    The Chair: So the second amendment is to essentially leave it to the discretion of the chair.

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: Now you have an amended motion that suggests that each party gets seven minutes in order, and then those people who haven't had a chance yet be included, with some alternating back and forth. What I usually do is look at the clock. I say that there's 20 minutes left; 20 minutes divided by five people is four minutes each, or whatever. Whatever is left.

    So now we have the motion--

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): I want to be sure that I understand how time is allocated. Once the Alliance has spoken, then it's the Bloc Québécois, then the Liberal Party, followed by the New Democratic Party, finally the Coalition, and once more, the Liberal Party. Is that correct?

[English]

    The Chair: So you get two government interventions and four opposition interventions before we move to being looser.

    Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: What that motion does, in essence, is shut down the official opposition in that we are treated as an equal with every one of the other opposition parties, and if you treat us that way, then you're going to get political; and if we have to get political, we're going to destroy the unity of this committee.

    The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: If I may, Mr. Merrifield, if you follow your logic, then we should get the first question and we should get every second question because we outnumber you. I would actually make an argument that this is what we should do, because in committee we're not five parties, we're 15 members, and all members have an equal right to question. So it is out of consideration to the opposition parties in total that they are given, in fact, more time and we give up time.

    I wouldn't let one's umbrage rise too high on this one, because I think there's a strong argument to be made for actually reducing the amount of time you have, not increasing it.

    Mr. James Lunney: But at whose expense, Reg? The point here is there is a role for the official opposition here. All parties are not equally represented in the House, and they aren't at committee either.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Sure.

    Mr. James Lunney: Out of respect for that, there's a tradition here that needs to be respected. It has to reflect, at least in part, the realities in the House.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: That's not true.

    Mr. James Lunney: I would suggest that, if anything, the chair has been very fair in this regard. We haven't clamped down. I want to say that the figures Rob mentioned are exactly what we do in the fisheries committee, which I also sit on. That's exactly how it's done and it works quite well there as well.

    But I do feel for the government members. As Reg said, many times the chair hasn't had an opportunity to ask a question. Even the parliamentary secretary, on some rounds, has hardly had time to ask a question. I think this committee has functioned reasonably well in that regard, but we do have a little bit of influence that we can exert as the opposition--not much, but we do have some say over committee travel. If we want to play politics with this and start fighting over time allotments, it's going to have consequences.

  (1245)  

    The Chair: The other possibility is, if you're not sure about this, if you haven't worked out exactly on paper how much time for how many people, etc., then I would suggest that somebody comes forward with a different motion unless you're absolutely sure you've figured out how it affects you. Madame Wasylycia-Leis and Mr. Ménard have figured out how it affects them, I think pretty clearly, but I'm not sure that down the Liberal row at the end we've actually figured it out. The way I figured it out, to be honest with you, I can't get all the Liberal members in in the average amount of time allotted. There will be people who might want to ask a question and the meeting will be over. So it has implications for everybody.

    Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: First, I would like to remind the Canadian Alliance that the privilege of opposition is to ask the first question. It never was to have more time than the others. You ask the first question. The Bloc Québécois was the official opposition for four years, and in most committees, it had the same amount of time as the others.

[English]

    The Chair: You've had 10 minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: In most committees, we were given the same amount of time as the others.

[English]

    The Chair: No, wrong.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I have the list here of the committees and the exact time that was allocated. The opposition's role is to ask the first question. We cannot start in committee to take into account the number of party members because you would be asking the greatest number of questions. Your privilege is to ask the first question, and then, each member speaks.

    There are not many committees functioning differently and there are none where two Alliance members intervene one after the other. That would make no sense. This corresponds to reality and I think that what is being proposed here is fair to everyone.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Dromisky is next.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: I am shocked and very disturbed by the kind of stuff I'm hearing from across the table, from the Alliance Party. They are really saying, “You play according to my rules or we're going to punish you if you don't. We'll get you, sooner or later.” That is really contrary to the kind of spirit that has been developed and has been growing here since September. I'm shocked and very disturbed by it, and I would ask the chairman of the committee to place the question on the floor right now.

    The Chair: Okay--

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I would like to respond to that. That's not what we are saying at all. We're saying we don't want to destroy that. We've worked and functioned very well. We respect the chair and her wisdom in dealing with the question, and we'd like it to stay that way. That's all we're saying.

    We don't want to become political and have the mess many other committees in this place have. Let's leave it at the will of the chair, the way it has been functioning, and continue in the spirit of good will.

    The Chair: I'm of a mind to call the question.

    Mr. James Lunney: Madam Chair, may I just very briefly say that the two Alliance interventions at the beginning were only because we had a 10-minute intervention to start with, and out of courtesy Rob sometimes shares that with me on the first round. The chair is often willing to let us split that. It's not that we have two spots. We have one 10-minute spot, and the second or third Alliance members wouldn't come around until the second or third round that way.

    The Chair: That's right. That's what has happened.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: They don't get two questions.

    The Chair: The way I've always understood most committees I've been on, the official opposition is the lead questioner and is usually allocated ten minutes. The first Liberal questioner can be allowed ten minutes, even if that's a little later in the meeting, but we've never had anybody want to use it. Sometimes somebody's been first and they've gone as high as seven or seven and a half, but nobody's filled the ten minutes. The opposition usually filled the ten minutes. Beyond that, it was five minutes each.

  (1250)  

    Mr. James Lunney: It's working.

    The Chair: We can stick with that or we can have another proposal at another meeting. I just heard that HRDC, which is sitting behind us and has a pretty good spirit, has a basic rule of five minutes for each member until everybody has been heard from, until at least you've completed a first round. They just go five minutes for each member. They start with the lead Alliance critic, and go one, two, three, four, five, six--just like that. That's another system, if you want to put that in stone.

    I'm worried that sometimes we have highly skilled witnesses, and this motion limits them to 10 minutes, when we may need to hear from them for about 20 minutes. I think of Dr. Patricia Baird when she came alone, for example. She talked for about 35 minutes, as I recall. Then we began to ask her questions.

    So this limits us in a lot of ways.

    Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Any set of rules we make can always be altered, by consent, if there is good reason. So you may deal with the second part of that.

    But I may have misunderstood the current system. Each time we have questions we are allowed a particular amount of time, and the time is being shared within that. Is that the concern here?

    The Chair: It has been 10 minutes and 10 minutes, but as I say, nobody over here has used the full 10 minutes. They have decided to split their time--not always, but Mr. Merrifield has the right to say he's going to split his time with Mr. Lunney, which he usually indicates to me ahead of time.

    The other thing that has happened is that I would normally go right to the Liberals for their lead questioner, but because Mr. Ménard has a fit every day, I always let him go third. So he has had a concession throughout the months. Because he's just such a nice fellow, I've let him go third before we've even had one Liberal up. Yet he's the one complaining. So I find it very strange.

    I'm going to put the question. There's a motion before you that says witnesses are limited to ten minutes, and every party has seven minutes, followed by an alternating five minutes.

    The motion is lost.

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Let's have a recorded vote.

    The Chair: I think you have to ask for it ahead of time. I've already declared the motion lost.

    I don't think he can ask afterwards, can he?

    The Clerk: Yes, he can.

    The Chair: Oh, according to the rules, apparently he can ask for a recorded vote. I didn't know that. But anyway, the clerk will call it out.

    On the opposition side, because it came from the opposition--

    The Clerk: All right.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Are we voting on the amendment?

    The Chair: No, we're voting on the whole motion.

    (Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

    The Chair: Okay, that motion is defeated. If you wish to bring forward some other kind of structure, you can do that in a different motion.

    But before we leave, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has indicated that she has a notice of motion for us.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. This is to give the courtesy to the committee that I have a motion that I will table with the clerk before the end of the day, to be on the agenda for Tuesday. It has to do with adverse drug reactions. I have to make one change. I have a copy here, but I have to change it slightly and get it right to you. But I just want to do that so you know that it's coming, and so that the staffer for the government whip, who worked so hard this morning--

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Please be on the lookout for that motion so you can think about it prior to Tuesday.

    The meeting is adjourned.