[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 1, 1996
.0907 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne-): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of the topic of biotechnology, this morning we have with us some people from NRCan and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Welcome to all of you here this morning. If you would be good enough to introduce the members who will be making presentations, Mr. Cheliak, then we will start with you.
Mr. Bill Cheliak (Director, Science Marketing and Business Opportunities, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources): Thank you very much. I have the pleasure this morning of introducing colleagues from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Iola Price and Bill Doubleday, and other colleagues from Natural Resources Canada, Linda Wilson and Pierre Charest.
It's our understanding, if there's no objection from the committee members, that both presentations will proceed and then questions will follow.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): That's fine with us. Please proceed.
Mr. Cheliak: As you probably well know, Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, does not regulate biotechnology. However, we contribute to the development and the application of the federal framework by providing technical expertise in our research areas.
We are primarily a research department, in which two of our sectors are involved in biotechnology. The first is the Canadian Forest Service, which conducts scientific research in tree biotechnology, specifically in the area of tree genetics, and the development of biological control agents for pest management, which is in the pest biotechnology area. We also have capability in our research program for risk assessment involving the evaluation of potential effects of new biopesticides as well as genetically engineered trees.
These CFS biotechnology activities are covered under two of our ten science networks, namely the tree biotechnology and advanced genetics network and the pest management methods network.
.0910
Within the Canadian Centre for Mineral and Engineering Technology, or CANMET, we're involved in developing and applying biotechnology processes to the remediation of mining effluents and contaminated substances related to the mining sector as well as to the petrochemical industry.
Natural Resources Canada biotechnology processes and products are covered by acts and regulations of other federal departments. For instance, the tree biotechnology activities fall under Agriculture and Agri-food Canada's Seeds Act, and the biological control agents, or biopesticides, are regulated under Health Canada's Pest Control Products Act. NRCan contributes directly to the federal regulatory framework by providing technical expertise in the development and application of regulations. NRCan also contributes indirectly to the framework through our involvement with the national biotechnology strategy.
This presentation will focus on our main areas of activity in biotechnology and will also review our involvement with the federal regulatory framework, with particular emphasis on our relationship with the national biotechnology strategy.
In the Canadian Forest Service, which is the first theme we will be focusing on for the next few moments, a key issue is of course the sustainable use of Canada's forests and the maintenance of Canada's share of the world market of wood and wood products. These are of course dependent on our ability to be able to manage our forests as well as to improve the productivity of our forests.
To ensure this, the Canadian Forest Service is researching biotechnology with the aim of improving forest regeneration as well as forest protection methods. The Canadian Forest Service has been a pioneer in this domain. This can be exemplified by our research in the areas of conifer tree tissue culture, specifically in a technique we call ``somatic embryogenesis'', and in the development of alternatives to chemical control agents in the areas of biopesticides, using, for example, Bacillus thuringiensis, or B.t., as it is perhaps more commonly known, as well as insect viruses.
In forest regeneration, the Canadian Forest Service follows two main themes. One is the tissue culture of conifers. The other is the genetic engineering of trees.
In tissue culture, the Canadian Forest Service has contributed to methods related to the development of large-scale propagation of elite trees. You might think of these as improved varieties of corn, for example. Our focus has been on species of spruce, pine, and larch. This tissue culture is now used on a large scale in British Columbia by British Columbia Research Incorporated, in cooperation with a number of the industries as well as the province, to produce pine weevil-resistant Sitka spruce.
In genetic engineering, research is being done on the methodology to transfer genes and to engineer trees with traits such as pest tolerance, accelerated growth, and flower sterility. In both of these cases our main goal is to accelerate the tree-breeding cycle, which is extremely slow because of the long generation times associated with these plants. The flower sterility approach is also taken to eliminate the potential of spreading genes that would be introduced into genetically engineered trees into the wild population. It is important to note that to date no testing of transgenic trees has in fact occurred in Canada, although this is likely to be done in the near future.
In the protection of our existing as well as new forests, effective pest management strategies against major forest insect pests as well as competing vegetation are a key component of the forest regeneration cycle and contribute to the sustainability of Canada's forest management. Biotechnology offers new avenues for management of pests attacking Canada's forests.
Canada has led the world in the development of biorational control methods using naturally occurring pathogens, such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi, to control insect pests and weeds. These are called biopesticides, and as I mentioned earlier, they are an alternative to conventional chemistry. Their advantage lies in the fact that they're much more focused in being able to infect a predetermined pest without other environmental consequences. Pioneering research by the Canadian Forest Service, for example, has been instrumental in the development of Bacillus thuringiensis, or B.t., against the spruce budworm. We've also seen the growth of this biopesticide in the human health and agriculture sectors, such that it's currently the world's largest biocontrol agent.
.0915
Insect viruses have also been the subject of considerable research at the Canadian Forest Service. We've registered viruses, using the conventional registration system, against such insect pests as the redheaded pine sawfly and the Douglas fir tussock moth.
Research has been initiated to genetically modify natural viruses of insects to improve their efficacy as well as specific applications.
Weeds are also a challenge when trying to establish new tree plantations. The Canadian Forest Service is developing biological herbicides to target specific weeds without other environmental effects.
Bioherbicides have been developed from fungal pathogens that attack these weeds naturally and they are in the process of being registered for use in Canada.
Linked to the use of biotechnology products for forest regeneration and protection is their environmental assessment in forestry applications and in forested environments.
For tree tissue culture propagules as well as transgenic trees, the Canadian Forest Service is developing research programs that will assess issues such as gene flow from transgenic trees into wild populations and potential long-term effects of new traits in intensively managed or semi-natural forest ecosystems.
The Canadian Forest Service has also been leading in areas of environmental research and assessment of these biorational methods for pest control for forestry. In particular, we have developed numerous laboratory bioassays for non-target organisms, such as insects and vertebrates, and aquatic invertebrates as well. This type of research contributes to the knowledge and expertise to ensure an efficient, scientifically based federal regulatory framework for the products of biotechnology.
In the second theme here we'll be looking at the technologies in biotechnology that have been developed by the Canadian Centre for Mineral and Engineering Technology, or CANMET.
The biotechnologies in CANMET consist of assisting the Canadian mining industry in the development of bioleaching processes and methods for the treatment of mine effluents and acid mine drainage, as well as assisting in the risk assessment for bioremediation.
From 1986 to 1991, for example, Denison Mines in Elliot Lake produced about $20 million of uranium annually by bioleaching. This accounted for roughly 15% to 20% of Denison's total production, and CANMET played a key role in the development of this technology.
CANMET also assists the Canadian mining industry in optimizing copper bioleaching.
CANMET's research also supports the Canadian mining industry in the development of technologies for the treatment of mine and mill effluents. All of CANMET's research activities are confined to a laboratory scale and the treatment processes are confined to within plant sites. The final effluents of course are monitored and regulated prior to discharge.
CANMET assists the mining industry in the prevention and treatment of acid mine drainage by coordinating research in Canada through the mine environment neutral drainage program and by internal research to develop better and more economical technologies to deal with this problem.
CANMET has a small bioremediation program, and its objective is to conduct research that supports companies in the fossil fuel sector in risk assessment and appropriate technologies for bioremediation of oil contamination.
Currently, CANMET's in-house activities are related to the treatment of mining effluent. These activities are covered under departmental safety codes of practice and are fully compliant with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
In addition, CANMET's field activities are covered under provincial safety and environmental regulations.
Under the proposed new amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, covering the new substance notification requirements in particular, CEPA will cover the CANMET activities involving release of micro-organisms into the environment and will be required to file new substance notification for new activities.
In terms of the interdepartmental regulatory development process, NRCan is really a research agency and supplies expertise to regulatory agencies.
.0920
So in addition to our research in biotechnology, we contribute to the development and application of regulations concerning the use of biotechnology in the natural resources area by providing this accrued technical expertise, much of which is unique in Canada.
Several acts cover NRCan activities, such as the Seeds Act, which would cover transgenic trees; the Pest Control Products Act, which would cover biopesticides; the Plant Protection Act, which would cover the importation of biotechnology products and biopesticides; the Fertilizers Act, for biofertilizers and mycorrhiza; and CEPA for uncontained bioremediation.
Our input and coordination of our biotechnology activities are done through the national biotechnology strategy and through bilateral memoranda of understanding with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada as well as with Health Canada. NRCan, through the Canadian Forest Service and CANMET, participates in the Interdepartmental Committee on Biotechnology and also participates at the ADM level. Under this committee, both NRCan sectors are members of the Biotechnology Coordinating Group, which is the working body of the Interdepartmental Committee on Biotechnology.
In regulatory development, NRCan sectors are members of the Sub-group on Safety and Regulations, which ensures formal coordination of federal government regulatory activities. There are also several ad hoc consultative committees on regulation, development, and evaluation of permits for field testing and release that are convened to draw on NRCan's technical expertise.
In conclusion, I'd like to say the biotechnology research and activities supported by NRCan contribute to the improvement of Canada's economy through increased competitiveness, ensuring the sustainable management of our natural resources. The research programs conducted by NRCan take into account the well-being of Canadians as well as the protection of the environment. NRCan believes the regulatory framework currently in place and the legislative apparatus supporting that, along with the government response and the amendments to the proposed CEPA, are sufficient to regulate the products of biotechnology.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Mr. Cheliak. The next person to speak will be...?
Mr. Cheliak: Dr. Doubleday, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Dr. William G. Doubleday (Director General, Fisheries and Oceans Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Madam Chair.
My presentation will be relatively brief this morning. Marine biotechnology is quite new in Canada and the activities are very limited. At present they are concerned with research.
We consider that the use of transgenic fish in aquaculture is probably five to ten years away, so we have time to prepare a regulatory framework for the use of such fish. This doesn't mean we haven't been involved in traditional biotechnology for a long time. As many of the committee members will be aware, we've had hatcheries in Canada for nearly a hundred years and have been producing Atlantic and Pacific salmon to enhance wild populations. But this is a matter of classical breeding and genetics, not what most people consider to be modern biotechnology. We consider that biotechnology has an attractive long-term potential, both for aquaculture and for some aspects of fishery science, such as distinguishing sub-stocks or stock components for wild fisheries populations.
The mission of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is to manage Canada's oceans so they're safe, clean, productive, and accessible; to ensure sustainable use of fishery resources; and with the recent merger of the coast guard, to facilitate marine trade and commerce. That means at DFO resource conservation and protection of fish habitat are our first priority.
For the last several years we've been applying the precautionary principle, which means that when information is incomplete, as it usually is, we try to err on the side of protecting the fish and protecting the ecosystem the fish are living in. We are following that principle regularly.
.0925
We're also emphasizing a partnering with clients and stakeholders as we bring a wider community into the process of conservation of fish and fish habitat.
With respect to marine biotechnology, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible under the Fisheries Act for conservation of fish resources and their habitat. Modified or transgenic fish that are used as food is a role of Health Canada and includes consumption, safety, and labelling.
This of course also applies to wild fish. When there is contamination of wild fish, we work with Health Canada and they have the lead.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans doesn't consider itself a promoter of modern biotechnology, but we do use and regulate marine organisms. We are working with the aquaculture industry to benefit from the emerging technology while preventing adverse effects on wild fish stocks and on the environment they live in.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is part of the federal biotechnology team. We help develop the regulatory framework for biotechnology. We're a member of the Interdepartmental Committee on Biotechnology, the Biotechnology Coordinating Group, and the Sub-group on Safety and Regulations.
We also subscribe to the principles for a regulatory framework for Canadian biotechnology as announced in January 1993.
Within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the science sector is primarily involved with marine biotechnology. We are encouraging research to improve risk assessment methodologies and to develop techniques that would ensure no genetic interaction between genetically modified fish and wild fish.
We are using our departmental A-base resources, national biotechnology strategy funds, and Canada-Japan S and T funds. Our total expenditure, although quite modest, is about $1.25 million per year on biotechnology-related work.
Within that, major elements are developing technologies to distinguish among wild salmon stocks and between wild and cultured stocks of Pacific salmon to help develop a biotechnology, such as feed technologies, to advance the aquaculture industry and to develop a policy and regulations on the use of transgenic aquatic organisms under the Fisheries Act.
The development of this policy is part-way along. We have a draft, which has been subject to consultation and is being revised at this point. We expect to be in a position to translate the policy into regulations probably in about one to two years, depending on the need.
The DFO draft policy and guidelines deal with guidelines for research and for rearing in laboratory situations and in natural aquatic ecosystems. At this point all that we've seen in Canada is research within enclosed laboratories, and in the case of such research our prime objective is to ensure that the animals don't get out. Containment is the main priority.
The rearing in a natural ecosystem is a different situation. There our thinking is to have additional requirements to minimize or eliminate the risk of interaction with wild fish and with their habitat. Our primary considerations there are the viability of the transgenic fish to reproduce - they should be sterile - and their ability to survive. It's desirable that they not be able to survive for extended periods in the natural ecosystem.
.0930
We have consulted quite widely with our draft policy. We've received comments from over 150 individuals, agencies and organizations. We are maintaining databases on biotechnology research for fish. These are accessible - subject to privacy considerations - and we intend to develop databases on any releases into the environment should they occur.
If you take the broader perspective on fisheries biotechnology, it's still very much in the research stage around the world. As of January 1995, there were 18 applications worldwide for international patents on growth acceleration and for other aquatic organisms. There's a need for strong international agreements on transgenic fish and related constructs.
To summarize, marine biotechnology is quite new in Canada, and quite limited. There are no transgenic fish currently in culture in the marine environment, and there aren't any proposed for production or for release into the wild. If this does happen, then it will probably be five or ten years into the future.
Nevertheless, the department is preparing regulations for marine biotechnology organisms in consultation with the aquaculture industry and interested groups. In formulating those regulations, we're stressing the precautionary principle. If we're going to err, we want to err on the side of protecting the wild fish and wild fish habitat to ensure the safety of living marine resources.
As a final note, we're somewhat concerned about the wide gulf between the current understanding scientifically of the risks of biotechnology and the public perception of it, which seems to be somewhat exaggerated.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Dr. Doubleday.
Who is going to be the next speaker?
Mr. Cheliak: That's all for our formal presentations this morning. We're open to entertaining any questions you may have.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
I have Mr. Adams on my list first.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much for the presentations. We've been listening to presentations on biotechnology for about a year, off and on, and I have to say to you that it still worries me enormously. I sort of understand, I think, what you're doing, but my worry increases, from CANMET in mines, using microbes to extract things from mine waste or whatever it is...and I'll tell you why my worry increases in this direction. I don't think there's any real reason why it should.
Then my worry gets worse in the forests, with the manipulation of the forest environment - new species, thinking about altering insects in the forests. I worry there because in the mine situation I kind of think it's reasonably controlled. There's this place, and these microbes, and they're not going to fly away, perhaps.
Then you get in the forests. You make a couple of changes and the thing spins off. I imagine it going through the forest web. Then when it gets to the oceans it gets worse, because I imagine a change going on - and you mentioned 18 patent applications, perhaps not in Canada, but someplace - and something gets into the ocean that affects everything.
I don't know if you share my worries. I see lines in here that suggest to me that you do:
- Also, flower sterility is an approach taken to eliminate the potential of spreading the genes that
would be introduced into genetically engineered trees.
- That's a cautionary remark.
- It is important to note that no field testing or release of transgenic trees in Canada has yet taken
place. Field testing will likely be done in the near future.
.0935
Then there is this - and we've heard of it before because we all know about spruce budworm - Bacillus thuringiensis. I have to say I changed the name of it. It strikes me as Bacillus transylvaniensus or something like that. That's really what it sounds like. I'm not saying this to be humourous. These are things that worry me and worry people.
There some other quotations. I have one here that is in our briefing notes. It's not from the Fisheries and Oceans presentation.
- Research to produce transgenic aquatic organisms currently can be conducted only in
laboratories registered with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
- You mentioned that it was a number of years away, at least in Canada, from having these things.
You say:
- The laboratories must have appropriate containment procedures and facilities, and adequate
security in place to prevent accidental escape or intentional removal of the transgenic
organisms.
Mr. Cheliak: Yes, perhaps I'll start from the point of view of the mines as well as the forest situation, and pass it to my colleague Bill Doubleday. You're quite correct that within the mining environment it's a very contained system - contained ecosystem, if you like - and essentially what is being worked on here is the addition of, typically, nutrients to processes that are already naturally going on.
In a sense, it's a fertilization process and has been going on for millennia. In fact, the Romans are reported to have used this bioleaching for copper. It's a very contained system and a very controlled situation, and any effluents are regulated either under CEPA or under environmental regulations associated with particular provinces.
Forest trees are much like any other crop plant in that they respond in a similar way to improvements through conventional genetics technology. The primary focus of the work being conducted is toward the development of new varieties of trees by trying to use these biotechnologies to reduce the amount of time it takes for them to reproduce and create a new generation and by actually putting these plants into our reforestation programs in broad support of the concepts and of what we're doing in sustainable development.
When we come to the issues of pest management, I agree that the system developed by our esteemed colleague Linnaeus in Sweden some 300 or 400 hundred years ago, leaves a lot of people - including a lot of scientists - scratching their heads in terms of what these names mean. Bacillus thuringiensis is an awfully odd-sounding name, but the use of the bacillus as a replacement for or an alternative to conventional chemistry has been far outweighed by any negative connotations that may in fact occur with its name.
We find B.t. being used not only in forests but also extensively in agriculture, as well as in human health programs to control such things as river sickness and blindness in North Africa, for instance.
As far as issues surrounding viruses, like every organism, insects get sick and are susceptible to a variety of diseases. Some of the diseases are bacterial, some of them are fungal, and some of them happen to be viral. The interesting thing with the viral diseases for insects is that they are specific to a particular insect, so of the thousand or so of these things that we know of, they are really contained to a single insect.
From the point of view of being able to manage a pest within a natural ecosystem.... And when we say we have a problem with a pest in forests, like the spruce budworm or the gypsy moth or something of that ilk, it's only one type of pest. Our objective is to try to develop products, natural viruses as well as potentially enhanced viruses, that would contribute to managing these pests in a sustainable way.
.0940
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I offer my apologies to the opposition members. I still wait to see hands going up there. Being a new chairperson, I hope my apology is accepted.
I would also ask that questions and answers be kept to a reasonable length so that everybody has an opportunity.
Madame Guay.
[Translation]
Ms Guay (Laurentides): Madam Chair, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not answeredMr. Adams' question. Perhaps we could allow the official to speak before I ask my question.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams: I will just make a short comment. As I think of an ecosystem, the slightest change...if you make one tree more healthy, let's say, it has repercussions on all sorts of other trees.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Can we get the answer to that in the second round? I think Madame Guay has asked for an answer to the first question.
Dr. Doubleday: To respond to the fish side of the question from the point of view of Fisheries and Oceans, we are very cautious about introducing genetically altered fish into the aquatic ecosystem or the marine ecosystem. With respect to laboratory research, we expect to have containment provisions to ensure that the transgenic organisms don't get out. Even if the tank they're kept in breaks for some reason, we expect that they will still be contained within the facility.
The reference to a deliberate release is a precautionary reference that relates to people breaking into a laboratory and either stealing the fish so that they can use them, or else destroying the research project and causing a consequential release. We see this as a remote possibility, but nevertheless a real one.
We are at the point now where we can see some potential situations where transgenic fish could interact negatively with wild fish. We want to better understand what these risks are and, to the extent that it's possible, eliminate them before transgenic fish are cultured outside a laboratory. We feel that sterilization is a very useful tool in this context. If the fish can't breed, then they can't spread. We're also looking at additional safeguards - for example, making the fish dependent on some vitamin or some part of their diet which, if they escape, they wouldn't have access to in the wild and they would die.
So we are concerned about inadvertent introductions of transgenic fish that could interact negatively with wild populations, just as we are about introductions of species not occurring in the Canadian aquatic and marine ecosystem now.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Madame Guay.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: I am somewhat like my colleague, Mr. Adams, in that I have difficulty understanding your two presentations. There are two parts to my question.
First of all, I would like to know your opinion on the definition of biotechnology contained in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Are Fisheries and Oceans and Natural Resources satisfied with this definition?
Secondly, I would like to know what resources your two departments are investing in research. You have said that Natural Resources is primarily a research department with two sectors involved in biotechnology. I would like to know what resources Natural Resources and Fisheries and Oceans have set aside for biotechnology.
.0945
[English]
Mr. Cheliak: NRCan agrees with and is very comfortable with the definition of biotechnology under CEPA.
With regard to the resources invested by NRCan in biotechnology, we have about $7 million and roughly 60 people involved. That would break out within the Canadian Forest Service to be about 53 or 54 people and about $5.5 million, and within CANMET about 7 people and between $1.2 million and $1.5 million.
Dr. Doubleday: We agree with the CEPA definition of biotechnology. As I indicated in my presentation, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is currently spending about $1.25 million a year on biotechnology-related activities.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Madame Guay, did you have another question?
[Translation]
Ms Guay: No, that's fine.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): My first question will be a supplemental to that one. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is up for review and refinement, and I was wondering if either of you has suggested highlights or focuses or additions to the legislation. Are you content with the legislation the way it is, or are you recommending enhancements to it?
Mr. Cheliak: We are fully in agreement with and comfortable with the legislation proposed in the 1993 documentation.
Dr. Doubleday: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has an interest in CEPA from the point of view of fish and fish habitat as well as biotechnology. In the context of biotechnology we agree with the way CEPA amendments are being developed. We have had some discussions with Environment Canada on other aspects related to fish habitat management.
Mr. Forseth: In your presentation you said the Canadian Forest Service conducts scientific research in tree biotechnology, specifically tree genetics. Where I come from, the University of British Columbia has been doing this type of work for over twenty years, especially when we had a great influx of people from Hungary in the 1950s.
Maybe you could outline a bit of the history of forest genetics and bring that up to where we are today. It's not a new thing; it's been around for quite some time. Where are we now compared with twenty years ago?
Mr. Cheliak: You're right that forest genetics research in Canada has been going on since the early part of this century. Currently in Canada about 10% of the trees planted in our reforestation program come from what we would call a conventional tree genetics program. They're essentially all in British Columbia, as well as centred in two industries: the J.D. Irving industry on the east coast, and MacMillan Bloedel on its private-hold lands in western Canada.
The provinces have responsibility for the development of the genetics programs, and depending on the importance of the forest resource, so are the investments in genetics across the country.
.0950
Where biotechnology would have an impact in the first level would be in reducing the amount of time it takes to move genetically improved propagules into a reforestation program. Currently it takes between 25 and 30 years for that to happen. Using some of the tissue culture technologies that have been developed, that can be reduced to as little as three to five years. So this is where the first and most significant impact will occur.
Mr. Forseth: Where is that being done? Is that being done right at UBC?
Mr. Cheliak: Typically that work is not being done in the university systems. It is being done in British Columbia through B.C. Research Incorporated and their forest biotechnology group that Dr. Ben Sutton is heading up.
Mr. Forseth: There's another sentence here, saying that NRC contributes indirectly to the framework through its involvement with the national biotechnology strategy. Perhaps for the record you could enlighten us more about that working group and just what that overall national biotechnology strategy is.
Mr. Cheliak: The national biotechnology strategy is an initiative that was developed by the Government of Canada in about 1982. The Canadian Forest Service under our various guises, most recently through NRCan, has participated in that since day one.
We participate at a number of levels in terms of special committees, on the interdepartmental working committee, which is the working-level group, as well as at the assistant deputy minister level in the Biotechnology Coordinating Group.
In the recent past we have as well assisted the national biotechnology steering committee in specific studies related to tree genetics and the potential impact for somatic embryogenesis in the issues of sustainable development of our forests.
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): I want to direct my question to Dr. Doubleday, as it pertains to the marine aquaculture.
In your statement on the back page of the submission that was given to us, you suggest that there are 18 applications worldwide for international patents for growth acceleration. Is this for growth feedstock products? What is this? Can you elaborate on that?
Dr. Doubleday: I believe these are generally related to growth hormones that are enhanced, increased, or introduced by transfer of genes into a target species. They relate to salmonids like Atlantic or Pacific salmon or rainbow trout, but also some other species, tropical ones like talapia and sea bream, and also carp and catfish.
The idea is to transfer a gene that produces a growth hormone into the target species and then have accelerated growth in the target species.
Mr. Steckle: Recognizing the sensitivity of our aquasystem, we know that there are natural species taken out of the natural environment and placed in areas where they are not wanted. They can become a real problem.
In the Great Lakes, the lamprey eel has been a real problem. By a recent introduction, not intentional but it so happened, zebra mussels are now a problem in the Great Lakes. We know how difficult it is to rid ourselves of these once they are there.
What kind of science is being done in terms of our natural species, in terms of developing the natural species to have a greater ability to ingest the natural feedstocks that are already in the Great Lakes - rather than using containment to find ways of producing fish in that way, developing a species that is out in the wild using natural feedstocks? Perhaps there is a need. I know it's a long way away, but what is being done to enable them to develop a better growth pattern in the wild rather than in confinement under that kind of culture.
.0955
Dr. Doubleday: Madam Chair, the research that has taken place so far in Canada has been related to salmonids: Pacific salmon, Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout. It is with a view to eventually cultivating improved varieties in aquaculture and developing gene probes for research purposes and so on.
The idea of improving the wild fish stocks through genetic manipulation is rather a novel one to us. We don't have any real thoughts about doing so. Quite frankly, our general thinking is to avoid genetic changes as a result of human intervention in wild resources.
Our general mandate and mission is to maintain the wild resources in as pristine a state as we can. This would be a major departure from our thinking and our policies.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you. Mr. Knutson is next.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I have a question that was submitted by the researcher. If you have any questions about the question, I'll have to consult with my colleague.
This summer, U.S. cotton growers experienced a significant failure of a cotton variety with a B.t. gene. Resistance of the variety to a cotton insect, perhaps a boll-weevil, broke down, possibly in part to selection of resistant strains of the insect by the plant and partly because of hot, dry weather.
Our witnesses from the Canadian Forest Service discussed the failure of this cotton variety and what this failure might portent for transgenic tree varieties containing the B.t. gene. In general, the witnesses discussed the potential for the varieties containing the B.t. gene to produce B.t.-resistant pests, thus generally limiting the use of this biopesticide.
Mr. Cheliak: Thank you.
We are aware of the work that had been done in the south with cotton in general and with Monsanto in particular. I myself don't have access to the details. But from reading the literature, it was our understanding that as the researcher has outlined, the breakdown was due to a number of things. One, there was an atypically high number of pests - in this case, the weevil - attacking the cotton. As well, the weather contributed to the fact that the plants weren't working, in a sense, as well as they should have been.
Through our work in environmental impact and assessment, work related to the potential development of resistance of the spruce budworm or something similar would be one of the key factors we would in fact be looking at. This would certainly be one of the key focal points of the research we'd be involved in.
The other thing that contrasts forestry with an agricultural situation is this. Typically in forests, we would never try to address the entire infestation of a pest, for example, even using conventional approaches. Were we to use a transgenic approach, it would in fact be relegated to very small, specialized industrial-oriented tree farms, as they are referred to in British Columbia. It certainly wouldn't be something we would be trying to put into the overall environment.
From that point of view there would be huge refugia -
Mr. Knutson: Refugia?
Mr. Cheliak: - spots where there wouldn't be any engineered trees were that technology or strategy to be used.
Mr. Knutson: I will ask my less sophisticated question next. You mentioned you had a transgenic tree about to be tested in the near future. Did I get this right?
Mr. Cheliak: That's right. There have to date been no tests of any genetically modified trees in Canada, although the potential is there for one to happen in the future.
.1000
Mr. Knutson: Can you describe the environmental regime that this particular experiment or development is operating under as of right now? What groups did you have to go through to get permission for the testing?
Mr. Cheliak: The testing has not in fact occurred; there haven't been any field tests of this. As I say, the technology is in place to do this, but we haven't embarked upon it to date. Perhaps I'll -
Mr. Knutson: Bring me up to date on which operating environmental regulatory regime now affects that test, whether it's in potential, whether you want to do it six months from now or a year from now. What rules are in place now?
Mr. Cheliak: The rules in place now say that any of that testing would have to in fact appear through the Seeds Act, which is administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It would have to go through the same process as any crop plant would for a transgenic test.
Mr. Knutson: Okay.
My last question was on this closing remark from the Canadian Forest Service. Mr. Doubleday, you mentioned that you're concerned about the wide gulf between the current understanding of the risks of biotechnology and the public perception of it. It seems to be a recurring theme that we are hearing from witnesses, that generally people don't understand it. They see it in science fiction movies and are worried about superbugs. It's becoming part of our culture that with the whole issue of antibiotics, we're building superdiseases, so people don't trust the technology and they don't trust the government regulators. As a politician, I understand that public perception. And although I'm not a scientist, I also understand how scientists want to operate just with the reality of facts.
As a member of the environment committee, in looking at the other side of the coin, I'm curious to know if you think there is an area of environmental protection where the public is underconcerned and in which you think it should be more concerned? It's rare that we hear any government officials saying that we have a really serious environmental problem and that they wish the public was more worked up about it.
Dr. Doubleday: Madam Chairman, that's rather a wide-ranging question.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): We only have time for a short answer, Dr. Doubleday.
Dr. Doubleday: It's a difficult one to respond to. I think, perhaps within my own limited experience, people are less sensitive to the effect of climate change on living resources than they should be. There's a perception that if any fish stock decreases in abundance, it's because of the fishery. But distributions can change, species can move north or south, or they can become more or less productive because of climate changes. So that's one area in which I think people underestimate the effect of changes in the natural environment on living resources.
Mr. Knutson: Maybe you could animate the people from National Resources Canada to share that view.
Mr. Cheliak: Thank you. That's a very interesting question.
One of the areas in which we have some considerable concern, from my point of view, and which would be an area of underconcern among the general public, would be the area of unintentional releases. We talked about zebra mussels as one example of an enormous environmental, ecological impact. Purple loosestrife is another example, as is the gypsy moth. Those are probably things that aren't being looked at in as formal a way as biotechnology or a lot of the other technologies that we're working with, but they illustrate where unintentional and unmitigated disasters can in fact occur.
Mr. Knutson: Thank you for that.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
.1005
I'll continue along same line of questioning. I wanted to ask Dr. Doubleday about the virtual disappearance of the North Atlantic cod. A number of influences have been named as the cause for that. How much work is now being done by the department in that area in order to determine just what effect climate change is having on either the disappearance or the re-breeding of the North Atlantic cod? Are you looking at putting more resources into trying to in fact determine what has happened there?
Dr. Doubleday: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
In the last couple of years we have instituted a number of national research projects that benefit from national funding and bring together teams from different laboratories. Two of them are, I think, quite relevant to this issue. Perhaps the most significant is the project on the mortality of cod. We call it ``partitioning the mortality''.
We know there was a rapid and unexpected decline in most of the cod populations in the northwest Atlantic during the period of, say, 1989-93. We know there are several factors that may have contributed to that decrease to a greater or lesser extent. This project hopes to clarify the extent to which these factors contributed. And when I talk of these factors, I mean fishing pressure; abuses associated with the fishery, such as catching small fish, dumping or discarding; the reduced productivity of the stocks associated with the cold conditions - the fact that fish are not growing very well, the possibility that cod entering particularly the winters of 1991 and 1992 in very poor condition may not have survived the winter - and also the possibility that we may have overestimated the number that were there during the late 1980s.
What we're trying to do is determine the contribution of these various factors to the overall decline. We're now in the second year of that project and we're getting a clearer picture, but we still don't have the final answer on that question.
Another one that's quite relevant is the project on the mixing of the cod stocks in the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It's been known for many years that cod migrate out of the northern gulf and the southern gulf in the winter, and then migrate back in in the spring. The question is centred around the extent to which there is mixing in that area at the mouth of the gulf, the extent to which the fisheries in that area display a mixture of stocks, and the extent to which this migration complicates the assessment of the stocks.
So those are two major projects that are both in their second year now, and we also continue to monitor the changes in the marine environment. I'm very pleased that the water temperatures off eastern Newfoundland have risen very substantially this year. They're going to, I believe, be above normal for the first time in many years. Increased temperature is generally associated with improved growth for a lot of marine species, including cod. We think this return to warmer temperatures is beneficial for the recovery of the cod stocks.
The warming so far hasn't propagated around the coast of Newfoundland and into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The ocean currents generally take water down the Labrador coast, around the Grand Banks, along the south coast of Newfoundland, and then into the Gulf of St. Lawrence at depth, and it then comes back out sometime later. So there's a delay in the warming being felt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Do you plan to have a report at the end of your study of or investigations into these matters?
.1010
Dr. Doubleday: Yes, we are publishing research papers as we go along. This winter at the annual conference for fisheries research in Canada there will be a special session related to the cod mortality project, so we'll be presenting results there to the Canadian fisheries research community.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): It's a subject I'd like to come back to, but I'll go over to the other side and Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Good morning, Dr. Doubleday. Let's talk about the cod problem since it is closest to my heart. I see that you do not even have a very big budget for biotechnology, which is a new field for me. You talked about spending $1 million or $1,5 million primarily on salmon species to get them to reproduce a bit faster. How can biotechnology help us improve cod reproduction? Some people say that it's science fiction.
I will ask you a hypothetical question, because I would like to know to what extent biotechnology could help us resolve our cod problems. For instance, is it possible to isolate certain genes in the cod to increase their libido? Does research allow us to go that far? Basically, I would like to know how and to what extent biotechnology can help improve cod reproduction.
Mr. Doubleday: At the moment, the concept of increasing the wild cod's ability to reproduce remains hypothetical and is not the subject of any research. I do remember that, a few years ago, a researcher from Newfoundland came up with the idea of giving cod the ability to produce an anti-freeze protein to improve its aquaculture potential. As you know, cod tends to freeze when it comes into contact with ice during the winter.
But the idea of increasing its reproductive capability is new to me. Normally, cod is very productive. It produces hundreds of thousands of eggs. I think that once normal environmental conditions have been restored and when the fish are back to normal, when they will not be so thin and when they will be able to reproduce normally, stocks should increase quite quickly. For the time being, we are thinking in terms of natural factors. I believe that this idea of improving cod stocks will remain in the realm of science fiction for many years yet to come.
Mr. Bernier: I am a neophyte when it comes to biotechnology, and I am wondering just how far it can take us. Although you have said that you don't have any projects underway at the moment, I am trying to see just how far we can dream of going. Could we turn a cod into a horse? How far has biotechnology allowed us to come to date? What exactly does this science enable us to do? Can we change everything?
Take someone who knows nothing about it whatsoever. Are there limitations in this field? You have told me that you are not involved in this, but I would like to take this opportunity to gain further insight this morning. Is there any limitation as to what we can do? Can we take one species and transform it completely? This may be out of order, but it could be very instructive.
.1015
Mr. Doubleday: Madam Chair, once again, this is a very general question to which I cannot provide a very precise answer.
For the time being, researchers are focusing primarily on increasing the growth rate of Atlantic and Pacific salmon and on reducing aquaculture operating costs I believe that we will in all likelihood be able to increase the growth rate of fish and make the stocks more resistant to disease. However, this idea of transforming fish, either salmon or cod, into another organism is, in my opinion, highly unlikely.
Nevertheless, aquaculture is a highly competitive business and if we succeed in improving operations by 5 or 10%, this will have a significant impact on this sector's viability and profitability.
Mr. Bernier: Thank you.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you. Mr. Forseth, please.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you. You said that as of January 1995 there were eighteen applications worldwide for international patents for growth acceleration in fish and other organisms. You said that Canada and the U.S.A. are developing guidelines, but you urged that strong international agreements are needed. You said that in Canada the biotechnology activities are quite limited but they do exist. Then you mentioned that we need to perhaps develop a species that is vitamin- or substance-dependent to control, or sterile.
Is this just talk or do we have real, concrete examples of those kinds of things? Does a substance-dependent species or a sterile species exist today?
Dr. Doubleday: Sterilization is a technique or approach that has been subject to quite a bit of research. There are techniques that do work which have been demonstrated in a research context. One is shock. When eggs are subject to a shock they become triploid. It's the same genetic composition, but they have three sets of genes instead of the normal two. These triploid females are unable to reproduce. You can also induce sterilization through chemical means. That has been demonstrated.
A strain that would be dependent on some vitamin or some other component of the diet has not been demonstrated to my knowledge at this point. We can see that this would be very desirable for fish that were raised in pens outside of a laboratory setting. I'm not aware of anyone having demonstrated such a strain or variety at this time.
Mr. Forseth: The examples you have given, I assume, are all within a laboratory context, even in an experimental commercial situation out in the wild.
Dr. Doubleday: That's correct.
Mr. Forseth: You say there are no transgenic fish currently proposed for production or release in the wild, but I understand there have been accidents in aquaculture and things aren't all as good as we would hope. Maybe you could describe some of the problem areas with aquaculture, especially salmon.
Dr. Doubleday: There are two major issues that I would mention to the committee. One is the escape of cultured fish. This does happen. Storms sometimes break up sea cages, and sometimes seals make holes in the netting and fish escape. In some areas the number of escapees is comparable to local populations. For example, in the Passamaquoddy Bay area there's a fair number of escaped salmon.
.1020
The other issue is the introduction of disease associated with moving fish and fish eggs from one location to another. With respect to the first one, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been very cautious in allowing the transfer of strains of Atlantic salmon between jurisdictions - bringing them in from outside the country and moving them between provinces. It tries as much as possible to have salmon of local origin raised locally so if they do get out it's not a genetic problem because that strain is already out there.
We tend to be cautious about allowing the introduction of fish, and particularly moving fish from Europe into North America. We have a protocol under the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization whereby we just don't allow Norwegian salmon, for example, to be imported for culture in Canada.
The other aspect of fish disease is that we have fish health protection regulations that have been in place for many years now. They are intended to prevent the introduction of diseases into provinces where they are not already present. We have been successful to date in avoiding the introduction of any new disease through transfer of fish for aquaculture. This has happened in some other parts of the world. You've probably heard stories about Norway, where there has been some introduction and movement of disease organisms associated with aquaculture. So we're very much aware of these two possibilities and have taken steps to minimize the risks to the wild population.
Mr. Forseth: I have just one supplementary to that. Given what you've just described, give us some estimation as to the future of this business of raising salmon. Is there a viable future for this whole business, or should we really be taking a second look - or perhaps an experimental look - and keeping things about where they are without envisioning any major expansion? I just want your view on that.
Dr. Doubleday: Salmon aquaculture has been growing steadily and rapidly for over 15 years. It has now reached the point where it's a major contributor to the coastal economy in some parts of the country. This is with naturally occurring fish rather than genetically modified fish. Aquaculture continues to expand on a worldwide basis. I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think the total world aquaculture production now is getting up near 15 million tonnes of fish and shellfish per year. So aquaculture is increasing rapidly worldwide. It has been growing at quite a rapid rate in Canada for a number of years. This has produced very substantial economic benefits in the coastal areas.
Within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans we would be cautious about the use of transgenic fish - genetically modified fish - in aquaculture. We have some hurdles to pass before we'd be prepared to see that happen. The kind of expansion that has taken place in the aquaculture industry does not seem to be causing undue risks to the wild populations. We consider it has been beneficial for the country to have this growth.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Mr. Forseth.
.1025
Dr. Doubleday, I want to go back to the northern cod stocks again. I know a number of international forums have taken place. In going through some of the reports from these forums, in fact I find the northern cod stock has been mentioned very infrequently and not a lot of time is given to what has happened there and any plans there might be for the revitalization of this stock.
Can you tell me, is that just a perception on my part? Is there in international forums a continuing dialogue over what did in fact happen to the cod stocks, and is there any international movement to do some research on that particular subject, either in terms of science or in terms of protection? We know, for instance, the larger fish are the ones that lay the most eggs and are contributing to the population. Is there any intention to try to curb technology that might catch those fish too quickly?
Dr. Doubleday: Madam Chair, there are some international fora where cod is discussed. In particular, there's a cod and climate working group in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, which Canada participates in and which is involved in comparative studies in cod stocks around the north Atlantic.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Can you name some of these for me?
Dr. Doubleday: That's one. It's a working group on cod and climate.
There was a symposium, again on cod and climate, looking at all the north Atlantic cod stocks. It was held in Iceland in 1993, I believe. That was quite helpful in putting the changes in our cod stocks, northern cod and others, in a broader context. Generally, thirty years ago, in the 1960s, cod was much more productive around the whole north Atlantic, western and eastern, and the centre of production was farther north than it has been in the last five to ten years. Some people may not be aware that during the 1950s and 1960s at Greenland there were catches of 300,000 to 500,000 tonnes of cod per year. The Greenland cod decreased gradually through the 1980s and then very rapidly around 1990, about the same time as our reduction, and there were some sharp declines in other stocks; for example, the big northeast arctic stock shared between Norway and Russia.
So the dynamics of cod and their relation to climate change are quite an active topic. There's what I guess you could call a worldwide network of marine ecological research studies called GLOBEC. One of the areas of emphasis of this is Atlantic cod, and we are initiating a Canadian GLOBEC program beginning this year. It's a joint university and Department of Fisheries and Oceans project. It links to a project on cod in Norway, the dynamics of cod there.
So it is an active topic. Northern cod is part of it, but it's in a broader context.
Our cod stocks, particularly off Labrador, are in the most extreme conditions of cold of any cod. Some people tend not to realize it, but the conditions are actually warmer off west Greenland and at Iceland, and certainly in Norway, than they are in eastern Canada. So we are at one extreme, and it's interesting and useful to make comparisons between the growth, reproduction, and -
.1030
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Dr. Doubleday, if I might, I appreciate what you're telling us with regard to what we know. I guess what I'm asking you is: are there any international efforts right now to deal with what has happened to perhaps ensure that it doesn't happen again, if possible? We know that overfishing has been one factor. Presumably we've learned a lesson from that. But I'm thinking of the other things.
For instance, take climate change. Are we doing anything at this point to try to counteract that?
Dr. Doubleday: Yes, Madam Chairman. I'm sorry if I didn't express myself as clearly as I could have. The GLOBEC program relates climate variation in the ocean to the productivity of cod stocks. It's also involved with some other species.
You also mentioned technology. We in Canada have sponsored work in recent years to improve the selectivity of fishing gear, and we've benefited from work that has taken place in Europe on that topic as well.
For example, there's the introduction of separator grates in trawls to avoid the capture of young cod and redfish in the shrimp fishery. There is some ongoing on improving the selectivity of the gear.
So yes, there's the GLOBEC program. Another program is related to understanding and forecasting ocean circulation. This is the world oceans circulation experiment, which is in the process of giving us better models for the current systems in the North Atlantic. This is relevant to the dynamics of the fish stocks in Labrador and eastern Newfoundland.
We are also participating in the broader world climate research program with a view to improving the incorporation of the ocean in the modelling of the world climate system so that future climate change can be better forecasted.
So there are a number of initiatives. Some of them are very directly related to Atlantic cod and very relevant to northern cod, while others are more indirect.
Mr. Knutson: In closing, the issue of climate change is then a primary issue for fisheries and oceans. Are you doing work, either in partnership with Environment Canada or anyone else, in terms of the environmental causes?
Dr. Doubleday: We are doing work in partnership with Environment Canada particularly related to the ocean-atmosphere interactions.
With respect to the causes of climate change, one of our programs - it's really an international program in which we participate - is called the joint global ocean flux study, which is aimed at measuring the extent to which carbon from the atmosphere is absorbed into the ocean, either dissolved or through biological activity, and understanding how that may affect the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Canadian climate research is coordinated with the leadership of Environment Canada.
Mr. Knutson: As for this study you're doing on carbon into the oceans, what do you think is happening there? What phenomena are you looking for? What do you suspect?
Dr. Doubleday: The results of research over the last 10 or 15 years indicate that the ocean is absorbing a lot more carbon than had previously been thought.
Mr. Knutson: Is that a bad thing?
Dr. Doubleday: That explains what was described as ``the missing sink'' in global change modelling. There are models that look at the production of carbon dioxide from burning coal and oil, cutting down trees, and so on and so forth. There was a gap between the amount that was estimated to be produced and the increase in the atmospheric concentrations.
.1035
Recent research indicates that the ocean is probably where that additional amount is going. Of course, that's relevant to the rate at which the greenhouse gases accumulate and the rate at which they will generate warming.
Mr. Knutson: So are we worried about the limits on the ocean's ability to take carbon in? Is that effect going to decrease in time?
Dr. Doubleday: That's an interesting and complex question. It now seems that in fairly large parts of the ocean, the biological productivity can change a lot over a 10-year or 15-year period. In particular, the north Pacific, which is very large, had a shift in productivity in the late 1970s. This resulted in all Pacific salmon stocks all around the north Pacific going up. This was associated with a higher intensity of the Alaskan low, which spins the water and causes the upwelling of nutrients to the surface.
So it's possible that changes in the weather systems and ocean currents could lead to substantial changes in the phytoplankton productivity of the plants of the ocean and affect their uptake of carbon dioxide. So it could go up or down.
In the case of the north Pacific, it's such a huge area that a systematic change in the productivity would have a big overall effect.
So yes, there can be significant changes. This is close to the leading edge of research. It's quite controversial, so I'd rather not quantify it.
Mr. Knutson: Is it scientifically controversial or politically controversial?
Dr. Doubleday: It's scientifically controversial.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): If there are no further questions, I want to extend my thanks to the panel members.
To the members of the government and opposition members, I just want to remind them that there will be a delegation of German parliamentarians here on Thursday morning whom we will be meeting. We will be meeting with the Canada-Germany Friendship Group. Information on that has gone to your offices.
Also, on Tuesday, October 8, there will be a forum entitled ``Biotechnology: Product, Process, and People''. Information is also going to your offices on this. I just wanted to remind you of that.
Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.