AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 11, 1999

• 0905

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia)): Members, we will begin our meeting. I'm glad to see so many here on time this morning. I suspect it has something to do with the subject at hand and the witnesses we have lined up for today's presentation.

I wouldn't say our subject today is offbeat, but it's not our normal fare to be dealing with this kind of biotechnology and the cloning of goats and related matters. But that's what we're going to be talking about today. I'm sure that after the presentations by our witnesses, members will have plenty of questions.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Are you the real John Harvard, or are you a clone?

The Chairman: I don't think anybody would want a copy.

By the way, members, Mr. Hilstrom's motion will be dealt with at about 10.30. So we'll try to do this in about 90 minutes or less.

Today we have Jeffrey D. Turner, the president and chief executive officer of Nexia Biotechnology Inc.; Paul Arnison, general manager of FAAR Biotechnology Group; and from Pro Gene Sys, Dr. Bill Cheliak, the managing director.

Mr. Arnison will be starting first. After his presentation we'll have rounds of questioning. Did you want to go first, Mr. Turner?

Mr. Jeffrey D. Turner (President and Chief Executive Officer, Nexia Biotechnologies Inc.): No, that's fine. I understood that was going to happen. Please go ahead.

The Chairman: You're all in on this together, so we'll start with you, Mr. Arnison. Good morning. Sit down and make yourself comfortable.

Mr. Paul Arnison (General Manager, FAAR Biotechnology Group): I have some slides to show.

The Chairman: Oh, okay. I thought you wanted to stand up and talk. Have I got your goat already? I'm not going to try to ram this through.

Mr. Paul Arnison: The projector doesn't seem to be functional, so I'll just go ahead without it.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to come before this committee to speak to you about molecular farming today. I asked to go first because I have a few general comments to make about molecular farming, and my colleagues who are here today are more directly involved in specific aspects of molecular farming.

I am also involved, on behalf of the Canadian government, as one of the core representatives in a conference the government is sponsoring on molecular farming, which I will briefly speak to you about today.

We at FAAR Biotechnology Group, just to give you some orientation, are consultants to the agricultural biotechnology industry in Canada. We give advice to government bodies, private companies, universities and individuals on matters such as freedom to operate, technology evaluation, start-up companies, regulatory issues, and a whole range of different facets of agricultural biotechnology.

• 0910

What do we mean by molecular farming? I define molecular farming as the use of plants, animals, insects and cell cultures for the commercial-scale production of proteins, peptides and industrial feed stocks.

The concept of molecular farming in agriculture is not new. We have, by traditional agriculture, been farming molecules for decades. For example, sugar from sugar cane is almost a pure substance. In many ways our breeding of crops over the years has been a direct attempt to change the molecular composition of plants to provide commercial products. However, with the recent developments in what we call recombinant DNA, the ability to move genes from one species of plant to another, or perhaps even from an animal to a plant, allows us to direct the expression of proteins we want in other systems.

So molecular farming is the ability to take a gene that is coding for a product that could be of commercial value—and that product could be an enzyme, a vaccine or a substance that is used as part of an industrial process—and synthesize that product in a different system. That system may be much more convenient and much more commercially viable, in terms of costs.

So if you can take a gene from one plant and express it in another and produce something, why would you want to go to the trouble of devising these systems? There is a host of reasons why this is of interest to industry, commerce and us as individuals.

First of all, there is the cost. Many of these new production systems will greatly reduce the cost of production of things that are now incredibly expensive. There are some enzymes, for example, that are used in health care that are extracted from tissue that costs literally hundreds of thousands of dollars a gram to produce. The people who are dependent on these enzymes are a tremendous burden on our health care system because, obviously, an individual cannot afford these essentially orphan drugs.

With the ability to take those genes, put them into, for example, a plant and produce that substance, we can reduce the cost of producing these therapeutic proteins from thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars a gram to probably $10 to $20 or $25 a gram. So these things can be produced in large quantities and can be made available to people at an acceptable cost.

The other big interest in using plants and other systems to produce proteins of interest is the safety issue. Plants do not get AIDS and carry human viruses. They're not tainted in any way by human diseases. It is therefore very safe to produce a product for health care in a plant that cannot be contaminated accidentally by a human disease.

Plants and other systems are incredibly flexible. Practically anything you can find the gene for can now be produced in another system.

The other good thing is this represents a renewable resource. Plants can be grown in a field, inside a greenhouse, or even inside a little chamber. They are a renewable resource. They can be continuously produced from seeds and we can grow more and more of them.

The capital expenditures that are required to start a business, or something that is directed to this kind of molecular farming, are actually quite low. This means there is enormous opportunity for people to develop these systems, not just the giant multinational corporations. There is now a whole industry of small companies that are developing products based on these relatively non-capital-intensive systems.

Because this is all new technology, it is possible to gain patents and protect your ideas and methods. This is causing the growth of an industry, because the individuals involved can develop things and gain protection for them.

Just as an overview of why I asked to go first, I'm talking a bit about plants, but of course any animal that can be transformed can be used as well. Jeff Turner will mention that his company is expressing genes of interest in milk. But other animal systems, such as urine or even eggs can be used.

Insects can also serve as hosts, especially caterpillar larvae and various different types of plants and fungi. Again, we are talking about production maybe in seeds alone, in tubers, in leaves, in the whole plant.

• 0915

I've mentioned some of the advantages of plants—they're cost effective. One of the things about plants compared to other systems is that the scale of production can be huge. Once you have a canola plant or something that can be grown on a large scale, producing your gene in seeds of interest, you can then grow a very large amount of this particular substance.

It turns out that plants can make complex proteins that come from other systems. One of the disadvantages of trying to produce products for human health care in bacteria by traditional fermentation is that bacteria may not be able to do some of the sophisticated biochemical changes that are required to make a functional protein. There's a much greater chance that plants, fungi and animals can make and manufacture the substance you want exactly in the functional form you need.

Just in passing, I want to mention—although they are not here today—we have one plant molecular farming company that is fairly far advanced. It is SemBioSys Genetics Inc. from Calgary, founded by Maurice Maloney. They currently have genetically engineered plants producing products under tests, with the ambition that the large-scale production in canola, flax and safflower will be ongoing within the next few years.

One of the exciting things about producing a product of commercial value in an oilseed through their technology is that the product you want is associated with the oil bodies in the seed. So in order to recover the product, all you have to do is crush the seeds and float the oil away from everything else. The oil will contain the product you want.

This is one of the technologies that reduces the cost, because whenever you have to purify something from a complex mixture, it causes enormous cost. By using a simple plant system to express something in association with the oil, you can recover that product at a fraction of the cost of traditional systems.

Perhaps the most exciting thing about these technologies for the average person like ourselves is the fact that these systems can be used for disease therapy. In fact, in our conference that is sponsored by the government, our theme is the marriage of agriculture and health care.

Because we are able to make edible vaccines in plants, the concept that you can express something in a fruit that will protect you from a disease has enormous implications for both our health care and for third world health care. For example, there are vaccines that are under development in fruit that will protect you from dental caries—tooth decay. Just consider the enormous impact of feeding children one banana a month that contains a vaccine against tooth decay, not just for Canadians, but for everyone in the world. It will be an enormous cost saving to our medical system.

It's not just for people. Vaccines will be produced in plants that can help animals. So instead of feeding just alfalfa to animals, we'll be able to feed a type of alfalfa that can cure an intestinal disease in an animal.

There are all kinds of targets under development, from cancer to diabetes to intestinal disorders, and not just vaccines can be produced. Antibodies and any number of therapeutic proteins can be produced.

In closing, I would like to mention that Agriculture Canada in London, Ontario, is the host of the first major international conference on molecular farming, which will be held this summer, in August and September. We have assembled a group of more than 75 speakers, including these gentlemen beside me, who represent the world class in molecular farming. This will be a first for Canada and a first for the Canadian government. We welcome you to send representatives to view this conference. I've left program guides and I have more of them. I left a CD and a tape you can view with the secretary describing this conference. We welcome you to join in.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Arnison.

Now we'll go to Mr. Turner.

• 0920

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: Good morning.

I have five slides that will describe the efforts in Montreal of Nexia Biotechnologies. As the title of my talk describes—and again, we have French and English versions of my talk, which you have in front of you—there are two aspects: there are novel recombinant products, and the products I'll be talking about today are used in the health care industries and the high-performance fibre industries, and the means of producing those molecules, which are transgenic livestock animals.

The company's mission is really very straightforward. Nexia manufactures recombinant proteins in the milk of transgenic dairy livestock animals. As Paul indicates, there are a variety of ways of making recombinant proteins, and the one we have chosen is using dairy livestock animals. The reasons for this are the fact that the capability to produce recombinant proteins is almost limitless. The cost, as Paul indicated—and I'll give specific examples—we can manufacture pharmaceutical molecules at 5% the cost of current methods, 5%. So if we are serious about reducing the price of pharmaceuticals and the burden of those on health care, this type of technology is, indeed, the way to go.

Nexia produces two types of products. The first is called biosteel, biosteel M series and B series. This material, biosteel, is Nexia's trademark for molecular recombinant spider's silk. If any of you have seen spiders that come off the ceiling—I don't see any in this room today—when a spider comes off the ceiling and repels downward, it makes a fibre that is the strongest material known to man. It is about four times stronger than Du Pont's lead molecule, which is called kevlar, and it's twenty times stronger than milled steel. As a result, there's a tremendous amount of demand for this material.

Spiders, however, cannot be cultivated. They're carniverous and they're territorial. As a result, we have done without this material for some time. Nexia has been able to go forward and actually produce this material in the lab, and the cloning experiments that I'll be talking about in my next slide will describe that.

The biosteel material is used in two ways. One is in wound closure devices. These are things such as high-performance sutures, bandages that will essentially be able to achieve remarkable things in the clinic. The second aspect is biosteel B series for industrial applications—for aerospace, for example—very strong, lightweight materials that are important for things such as fabricating space stations and the like. The primary military application for this is ballistic protection. This material, again, has enormous strength, in excess of 300,000 pounds per square inch. To put that into something you can understand, a cable the size of my thumb would be able to stop a jumbo jet in flight. So this material is truly strong.

What this will allow us to do, hopefully, is to provide, in collaboration with a variety of military organizations in North America, soft body armour for a variety of military and law enforcement personnel. To put that in real context, a vest that would be like the one I'm wearing today would be able to stop a full-metal-jacket bullet going 3,000 feet per second. So this is a truly remarkable molecule, and it's currently unavailable.

The last molecule we're dealing with is called NEX41. It's a generic pharmaceutical. Its market is currently around $400 million a year, and we hope to bring this to the marketplace to replace the current drug, which sells for about ten times more than that.

• 0925

It was indeed the biosteel work and our drive to satisfy the unmet medical needs of biosteel, and also on the industrial applications of biosteel, that we endeavoured to create a transgenic animal. Specifically, Nexia is using genetically engineered animals to produce these types of molecules. In the past we have used a method called micro-injection, or pro-nuclear micro-injection. Last summer we used this relatively ineffective technique to produce Canada's first genetically modified livestock animal, a small goat called Willow. Willow, I can report, is doing well and will hopefully produce other animals this year.

However, this methodology is inefficient. We were searching for a means of increasing the ability to do this in a predictable way and in an efficient way. The means for doing that is a methodology called nuclear transfer. To put it in context, micro-injection will result in about 5% of the animals born being genetically engineered. The other 95% are normal animals.

Using nuclear transfer, virtually 100% of the animals we're working with would be genetically engineered. That's very significant, because it will reduce the time to market for these types of products. That's very important if you're making medical devices or products to be used in the industrial area.

So the production of our three cloned goats was of tremendous interest to Canada and around the world. It represented a tremendous breakthrough in technology in the world. This was the first reported example of a nuclear transfer or cloned goats.

In order to do this type of work we have to have a framework. This slide is a partial excerpt from our framework, describing the types of things that Nexia does and our responsibility to the patients and general public.

You can read them as well as I can. Basically, the first one talks about facilities. I would welcome any and all of you to come and visit Canada's premier transgenic livestock facility, based outside of Montreal. This is truly a remarkable facility and is the best facility of its kind on the planet. We should take great national pride in this.

The second thing is we have a tremendous system of regulation in Canada regarding animal welfare and health. It's called the Canadian Council on Animal Care. Nexia is voluntarily a member of this organization and is in full compliance.

We talk about the products we would produce. The products we're manufacturing do not cause any problems to the animal. If such a problem were to occur, we would stop such a project.

The last two points are particularly important. Nexia is not involved in human cloning experiments, and Nexia goes to extraordinary lengths to safeguard its technology and know-how to preclude this technology from being used by people or organizations involved in such experiments.

In short, then, there are two things I would like to bring forth to this committee. The first is that our recent success with our three goats was in fact a huge technical triumph for Canadian biotechnology. It will allow us to be more effective in the marketplace and bring products more effectively to the marketplace.

The net effect of this is that Nexia will have a sustained competitiveness in a global marketplace, and we feel it's very, very important to develop this type of technology, which is based on agriculture but moves through into products that are needed in medicine and in the high-performance biomaterial market.

There's an opportunity for us to move forward, and we at Nexia are doing everything we can to ensure that these triumphs continue for Canada.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Turner.

I understand that there will be a short presentation now from Mr. Cheliak, and then we'll go to questions.

Good morning, Mr. Cheliak.

Dr. Bill Cheliak (Managing Director, Pro Gene Sys): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank everyone for taking the time to allow me to have the opportunity today to talk to you about some very exciting developments in this area of biotechnology.

The company I'm with is typical of the group Paul was mentioning in terms of being a small and, somewhat atypical for the biotechnology industry, very profitable, publicly traded company. We trade on the Vancouver Stock Exchange and soon will be on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

We're specialized in health care products for the aquaculture and veterinary industry. We have basically a global presence but a very small company. Our basic handle is that we make innovative products from DNA. These include DNA vaccines, which we'll touch on very briefly today, and therapeutics through the use of molecular farming techniques using insects.

• 0930

The first area I will address is an industry standard actually using insects as a means of producing high-value products. By high-value products, we're basically talking about vaccine or therapeutics that we use in the aquaculture industry. And the second area is the DNA vaccines, which I'm not sure the committee has had a chance to hear about, but I'll introduce it and table it for your consideration. This is certainly one of the most important breakthroughs that's happened in biotechnology, in my opinion, since its inception some twenty some years ago, but most importantly in the last four or five years. There's no question that this will have some rather dramatic impacts in the agriculture and agri-food sector.

I'm sure the committee has had a chance to learn about the impact this technology is having on everything from police and detective work through to health care products, and how it's impacting the food supply. If you haven't had a chance to take a look at the Time magazine of January 11, 1999, I would encourage you to do that. It provides a very broad range of where this technology is at. And perhaps more importantly, it provides some philosophical and technology evaluation.

Certain philosophers and evaluators of technology suggest that biotechnology is going to have as great an impact on society as electricity has had. When we think about electricity, particularly for those of us in the Ottawa area last January, we understand how critically important it's become as part of our society.

As Paul Arnison said, our ability to work with DNA has grown rather dramatically in the last decade. And for the types of products we're involved in producing, perhaps more important is the advance in our ability to understand how genetic programs are being orchestrated in various species. This has been really accelerated by these huge international programs for genome sequencing of quite a number of different organisms, including man. In turn, being able to find interesting genes and interesting genetic programs has created a demand for ways to actually be able to exploit these, whether it's for research, therapeutic, or commercial use. And this has given rise to this notion of molecular farming. We've heard today Dr. Turner talk about its use in goats, and Paul has mentioned the use in plants and these insect systems.

The molecular farming concept is actually a very good analogy. Just like our understanding of farming in a more traditional sense, molecular farming harvests products for very specific uses. Rather than apples or wheat or chicken, we're harvesting proteins and vaccines for use in health care or other applications.

In many cases, these production systems take place in already domesticated agricultural species. We've heard about some of the issues of plants and goats today. However, most people wouldn't automatically think about insects as a means of being able to produce these high-value products, and particularly these caterpillars. For those of us who've had a chance to live in western Canada for a while, seeing these force-10 caterpillar scourges from time to time with entire buildings covered with them, it's hard to think of these as bio-production systems. But they really do work exceptionally well.

Following on Jeff's presentation, perhaps the first question you might ask is how on earth would you ever milk an insect? And the answer is that you don't. We exploited another system that offers itself with insects. Insects, like all organisms, get sick, and one of the things that makes them sick are viruses. In fact it's one of the things that controls a lot of insect populations, in particular, these caterpillar-type insects.

So what we've been able to do over the last 10 to 15 years or so is actually take use of this virus that infects these insects. I'd like to describe a little bit about how this virus goes about making its living. It's called a bacula virus. If you haven't tried these things before, these are called M&Ms. They have this slogan, “melts in your mouth, not in your hand”. I'm going to pass them around. If you want to sample them as I'm telling you how these bacula viruses work, it provides a good analogy.

• 0935

These bacula viruses have a quite huge protective coat on the outside of them. This provides the ability to withstand environmental damage, whether it's rain, sunshine, this, that, or the other thing. When an insect comes upon one of these things and eats it, it starts to melt in its gut. Once it melts, the virus is liberated and the virus goes in and does its thing in the insect. It's too early in the day to describe in detail all the neat things that happen, but the point is that in about 24 hours or so the virus turns on and makes this huge coat protein again. In fact, at the end of the cycle about 30% of the mass of the insect is in fact this coat protein. It's one of the strongest, most efficient production systems that's known to man.

We've been able to learn that the virus doesn't really need this coat protein, especially if we want to use it in a more domestic sense. We've been able to take these systems where we can actually take a gene of interest and introduce it into these domesticated lines or varieties and actually produce the material directly, either in insects or alternatively we can do it in cell cultures. There are quite a number of industries around, some in Canada, some in the U.S., more particularly in the U.S., that use this as an exclusive way to be able to produce extremely high-value products and vaccines—for instance, anti-microbial peptides. Perhaps of most interest is that one of the leading targets in terms of the AIDS vaccine work is using these insect production systems exactly the way I've described it.

The important thing to note here is that unlike some of the other systems we've heard about today, and the plants in particular, this doesn't actually change the insect or the cell itself in a permanent way. It really is a very transient thing. We're just using the insect or the cell to produce this product.

As an aside, in a natural sense, these viruses are used in pest control programs, in more organic and natural pest control programs. There are actually registered products in Canada, the U.S., and around the world that use these in pest control.

Another example of how we can use this concept of molecular farming presents itself in DNA vaccines. For many decades of study, really centuries of study, we've come to learn that there are really only one or two genes in a disease organism, whether it's a virus or bacteria, that actually cause our immune system to react. From the gene sequencing programs that have been under way, which we talked about a bit earlier, we've actually come to be able to identify many of these genes that cause our immune system to respond.

Several years ago it was demonstrated that you can actually take a gene from a pathogenic organism, for instance polio, and put it into a special carrier, which we call a plasmid, and introduce it into a host. In the case of the example it was a mouse, but it is being used much more broadly—I'll talk about that in a second—and actually have this mouse express the gene very briefly for a week or two and stimulate its immune system. This was actually observed in 1993, for the first time. It caused a rather significant revolution. This has been called the third revolution in vaccine technology.

Once immunologists and health care professionals began to understand the impact of this, in parallel with these programs of sequencing and learning how genetic programs work, we've been able to tailor vaccines to have the host, whether it's ourself or a fish or a cow, or your dog or your cat, actually manufacture the vaccine itself, rather than having to do it in another system, whether that's an insect or cell culture system, or in a plant.

It also turns out that because the immune system of the host is doing this, it actually does a much better job than if you were presented with the conventional killed polio vaccine or diphtheria or tetanus or whatever.

• 0940

I don't know how many of you have been in the position where you go to your physician because you've got a cut of some kind or another, and she asks whether you've had your DPT booster in the last year. You say you don't know. So the problem with conventional vaccines is that they wear out. These new types of vaccines, because of the way they work the immune system, appear to be able to provide a lifelong duration of immunity, so we'll actually have to be vaccinated only once.

As I say, this is an example of where the host is actually able to extend to the concept of molecular farming, to be able to actually modify and stimulate our immune system.

In summary, I'd like to say that our ability to work with DNA is creating opportunities for an entirely new generation of what I call knowledge-based biological industries, or bio-industries. Jeff's company is a good example of that.

An increase in our understanding of how genetic programs are orchestrated within organisms, combined with novel systems that can express genes of interest, is giving rise to this concept of molecular farming, which is a very powerful concept. Industries such as our own really are at the forefront of making products from the explosion in our understanding, and in being able to actually take this into clinical trials and hopefully have some of these products actually licensed and registered for commercial use soon. They're by far much safer than conventional technologies.

As we've seen today, there are several systems that do not rely upon making permanent genetic changes in the host. Rather, they use the host as a means of achieving a particular goal, whether it's the production of a protein or stimulation of an immune system.

Industries such as Paul's, Jeff's, and mine actually allow Canada to be able to create value from the enormous investments that are being made globally in being able to understand genetics, genetic technologies, and the whole area of biotechnology.

I would also like to point out that in my opinion, such initiatives will allow Canada to participate in, and in some cases lead, the technical development, the commercialization, and the ethical and related societal debates surrounding the use of these technologies.

I thank you.

The Chairman: As I was listening to you, Mr. Cheliak, I was thinking about Canadians who have in the past gone to a lake for a weekend and whose weekend was marred by mosquitoes, flies, and so on. After an experience of that kind, those people who had suffered the attacks would want to eradicate those insects. So are you suggesting that we shouldn't be eradicating them, that they may have potential in your line of work?

Dr. Bill Cheliak: Well, certainly in our line of work every organism is a very valuable organism.

An hon. member: Let's hope we can export a few.

The Chairman: Yes, to Ontario.

Anyway, they have potential. Maybe we can start making money out of mosquitoes and flies.

Dr. Bill Cheliak: Apart from the trinkets and lawn ornaments we see from time to time.

The Chairman: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Hilstrom, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The chemical companies are already making money out of mosquitoes and flies—out on my ranch, anyway.

The scientific writers would certainly pick up a lot of information from you fellows in regard to science fiction shows on TV. This seems to equate almost to the space race, in which countries are competing to be the first and to get the biggest benefit out of the technology.

I don't know of too many molecular biologists or whoever in Parliament—the technical aspects are left up to your guys—but as politicians, we deal with some other issues. One is in regard to the cost to farmers from these developments. These vaccines you talk about.... Now, if they can be vaccinated once and don't have to be vaccinated again, that would translate into savings for the farmer, and savings on say meat damage and this sort of thing.

Dr. Bill Cheliak: Particularly in the aquaculture industry, as you might well imagine, the ability to go and round up a group of fish is rather difficult. The aquaculture industry, for instance, demands a duration that lasts for the entire life of the fish. There's really no way to go in and boost it.

• 0945

In terms of the livestock industry, you're absolutely right, the amount of repeat boostering and this sort of thing in terms of injection of the animal could be reduced rather significantly. This could be delivered orally, through a plant, or it could be delivered as a DNA vaccine to create a lifelong duration of immunity.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Is there anything to be afraid of from eating a tomato with a fish gene in it?

Mr. Paul Arnison: In my opinion, no. If you are able to eat a fish, then you can eat a tomato with a fish gene in it.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, thank you very much.

One of the big things that comes up with us—and we're politicians, so we consider and debate it—is the ethics of a lot of this scientific investigation. Who sets the ethics in your various consulting companies or your technology company?

Dr. Bill Cheliak: In terms of the ethics of what we deal with, we're circumscribed by the Canadian Council on Animal Care. As Jeffrey mentioned, we deal very extensively with the regulatory agencies, whether it's the Health Protection Branch in Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the USDA, the FDA, or the European Community. Those are the boards and groups we report to.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Are there sufficient checks and balances in regard to the research that's going on now, other than maybe in rogue states that don't follow any international rules? Are there sufficient checks and balances in a country like Canada?

Dr. Bill Cheliak: In developed countries such as Canada there is no question the ethics are of the highest degree. However, and I throw this out as a personal opinion, this technology is not like having a nuclear bomb. You do not need huge infrastructures for this technology; it can often be done in a kitchen sink. So there is always the concern that rogue states, as you suggested, may in fact be misusing this technology.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The last question I have here is that we get politicians and others speaking.... We certainly had a week of CBC and David Suzuki scaring the hell out of Canadians; they certainly scared most Manitobans that I know of. This morning on TV we had a member of Parliament discussing the scare that canola may no longer be a safe product to eat. And it's not based on any scientific evidence; they're just scaremongering.

My question to you is what do you do in regard to communications with the general public to ensure they fully understand this? It seems there isn't enough being done to counter the scaremongerers out there. I would ask, do you not think there should be a scientific team set up from the industry who would, every time one of these Frankenstein-type articles comes out in the paper, immediately counter it with the hard scientific facts? Would you think a team like that would be good?

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: There is such an organization in the world, called the Biotechnology Industry Organization. It represents about 2,500 companies from around the world—many of our companies are members of it—and deals with every concern about biotechnology. And even though this is a large organization, it is dwarfed by the need. Certainly we need to convey the importance and the safety of this technology, but that's something the industry alone cannot do.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Our standard of living is just going to go straight up as this technology is devised and added on to, and I see nothing but positive in it. There will be little negatives from time to time, but as long as they're countered, that's fine with me.

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: Indeed, using an agricultural perspective that many of you will understand—reproductive technologies—when artificial insemination was brought in for dairy cattle, there was a huge debate that raged for many years. Today virtually every dairy cow in Canada is inseminated using artificial insemination.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Alarie.

[Translation]

Mrs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Your presentations were very interesting. When I was a kid, my father, who was a bacteriologist, told me about a possible microbiological warfare. It made me shudder because I thought impossible that such tiny organisms could destroy the world.

• 0950

Listening to you this morning, I don't shudder for the same reason. If I shudder, it's because I have a cold. But I must admit that this technological revolution does have very disturbing sides to it.

My question is in the same vein as my colleague's. I would like to go back to the issue of the code of conduct. It would maybe even include labelling regulations for products to warn consumers. The code of conduct adopted by Nexia seems very fine. You mentioned that you were a voluntary member of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, which means that you do not have to follow its guidelines, but that you are doing it of your own free will. I have some concerns because I think there should not only be a code of conduct at the Canadian level, but also at the international level.

As members of Parliament, are we putting enough pressure for that or should we do more to get there?

[English]

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: My view is that organizations like the Canadian Council on Animal Care are showing some tremendous leadership.

As I said, currently in Canada it's not mandatory that industries using animals are involved with this organization. Perhaps in the future all animals that are used in this way could fall under the jurisdiction of the CCAC. That would be an important initiative.

[Translation]

Mrs. Hélène Alarie: During the winter, we went to Japan. We were accompanied by Mr. Borotsik and the minister. People who import a lot of canola oil from Canada were worried about the transgenic modifications that products undergo. They even went as far as asking if they shouldn't be decreasing those imports.

The Europeans also have a lot of reluctance concerning genetically modified products and all kinds of biotechnology techniques. How could we allay those fears? In fact, their reactions are perhaps due to a lack of information. Those countries represent very important markets and their citizens are well- informed people.

I do not understand why, if those products have so many advantages, we have such a problem of having them accepted by some countries.

[English]

Mr. Paul Arnison: The first thing I would say in response unfortunately tends to get lost when many of these emotional and political issues have been brought to the forefront in the last week. Canada has an extremely fine, government-based regulatory system. There is no question that the products that have been allowed into commerce in this country are absolutely safe and they have been tested.

So any information that you hear in the press or otherwise is simply untrue. Canada is a model country for its world-class regulatory system for adjudicating the safety of products.

As you suggest, where we have to work is in the communication to people that these products have been tested. It is science-based testing; it is not based on irrational fears. We have to promote this. Unfortunately, as any emerging industry, biotechnology is vulnerable to misinformation and to scaremongering tactics from people who wish to detract from this industry for a variety of different reasons.

People have told me that it was the same when radios were first introduced; people were afraid of them. When various different technologies are introduced, when the general public is unaware of their benefits and how these products have been developed and the government has been assuring them of their safety, it's somehow very difficult to overcome a comment from someone that is not based on any fact at all, that undermines public confidence. So we have to continue our effort through these organizations, through the government to educate and to promote the safety and the science base of our product development.

[Translation]

Mrs. Hélène Alarie: Where does Canada stand in the area of pest management with the means available in this country? Compare to other countries, are we lagging behind or are we in an advantageous position?

• 0955

[English]

Mr. Paul Arnison: The question was how is Canada in anti-pest programs? Canada, the United States, and other what you might call advanced countries have access to equivalent technology. For example, in plants that have been modified genetically to resist pests these products are available in North America and Europe, so Canada is at the forefront.

Also, there is a lesson to be learned if we can overcome some of these minor setbacks in the biotechnology industry. There is an enormous opportunity that Canada cannot lose by succumbing to these detractors. We are at the forefront of biotechnology, along with other major industrialized countries, and we need to continue our efforts to remain there. There is a fantastic opportunity for Canada to become a leader, especially in technologies such as molecular farming.

I'll give you an example of some numbers. If we could develop a pest control product like we have in the marketplace now that would reduce the amount of insect damage and the amount of chemicals we have to put on plants, we're looking at a product that has a value of $7 billion to $10 billion.

However, if you consider the technologies that these gentlemen are developing in terms of the health care products, we have the potential for a $100 billion marketplace for products that we could develop in Canada. If we don't take care of this opportunity and invest and develop this technology as rapidly as possible, we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage in the world of the future.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Coderre, you can have seven minutes.

I'd like to have Mr. Calder take the chair just for a minute.

Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will share my time with my clone to the left, Paul Bonwick.

I must congratulate you, Mr. Turner. We know that you are a researcher and....

[English]

An hon. member: On a point of order about the horse....

Mr. Denis Coderre: It has nothing to do with the Canadian horse.

[Translation]

As I was saying, you are a distinguished scientist and you used to teach at McGill University in Montreal. Since you decided to stay in Montreal, maybe you are evidence that we do not have a ceaseless brain drain. I would like to know why you decided to settle in Montreal and if your company got any funding from the federal government or from other levels of government.

[English]

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: There are a couple of answers involved there. In my opinion, Montreal is the place in Canada to do biotechnology research. The focus of the federal government.... Certainly the Quebec government has realized that this technology is moving forward, that this product opportunity is moving forward. There's an enormous focus on that, coming in real terms with things like investment tax credits. This is what has allowed Montreal to gain pre-eminence in Canada and around the world.

In fact the structure that we have to perform R and D in Montreal and indeed in other parts of Quebec, but specifically in Montreal, is the envy of the world. I know that because we've travelled extensively through Asia, Europe, and all of North America, and that's super.

With regard to the brain drain, it's a significant dilemma that we need to deal with. The markets around the world are large, and they want our talented Canadian people. That's something that's actively happening.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Thank you. Like everybody around this table, you have two challenges ahead of you, Mr. Turner: one is controlling in some way technology because I have a feeling that technology is going faster than science; and the other is getting the public trust and hence dealing with the whole notion of ethics.

I would like to ask you a personal question, Mr. Turner. How far are you ready to go in developing biotechnologies? Did you set yourself a limit? Have you identified a point where you will stop?

[English]

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: Quite clearly, we have a very strong focus from a corporate point of view. As you indicated to me personally, because I was the founder of the company, the company share is my focus.

We have a commitment to two major groups that our products are serving. One area is in the large number of unmet medical needs associated with biomaterials. We intend to try to satisfy that need to reduce suffering and prolong life. The other is in the high-technology area, with materials to be able to advance our engineering. There are a variety of opportunities there.

• 1000

Nexia is involved in dairy animal transgenics, and that is the sole area we're working in. So that defines our platform for technology.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: When you tinker with genes to cause a new mutation, it is of course possible to have far more resistant crops that will enable producers to make sure they are better protected. However, those creations or mutations might also give rise to new diseases. I said a minute ago that technology was going faster than science. If we do not have all the necessary control measures, including a code of conduct or ethics, we run the risk of bringing about new diseases. We heard all sorts of horror stories concerning the microbiology centres, particularly that of Atlanta where viral mutations are said to have caused AIDS and all kinds of other things. Am I wrong?

I agree to the creation of things that will give us a better protection against new diseases and an increased strength, but we should not oversee the issue of allergies for somebody might suffer from an allergy to such and such product. In other words, could we create peanuts that somebody allergic to peanuts could eat?

So that everybody is fully protected, should the federal government nominate an ethics commissioner that will make sure in the end that....

[English]

the sky is the limit, in a way?

[Translation]

Should we give such responsibility to somebody outside of government so that we are all protected?

My friend Bonwick will ask a question next.

[English]

Mr. Paul Arnison: In addressing your first comment, in my opinion the technology does not outstrip the science. The technology that you see today is a reflection of the science that has been going on for the past 20 years. So, scientifically, we know many more things and we're much more advanced than the applications made that bring things to the marketplace.

So what you're seeing today is actually the result of many years of work in molecular genetics that is now coming to the forefront in actual commercial products. There's probably a time lag of at least 10 years before a discovery translates into a technology that brings something to commerce.

Many of the things you also mentioned about the possibility of disease, the possibility of allergies and all these sorts of things are nothing new. They're not new and they're not related specifically to biotechnology. If you eat a food of any kind, you could be allergic to it. As you mentioned, many people are allergic to peanuts, and this has nothing to do with peanut breeding or anything else. It's your individual genetic constitution that makes you allergic to that particular food.

Many of those who have been scaring people about the biotechnology make-up.... It seems that there are no safeguards. There is never any testing of any of these products. I assure you that the regulatory agencies and government bodies are watching very carefully any genetically engineered plant or product that comes forward and testing these things to determine them to be safe. So there is no question about it.

As you know, individuals have different reactions to foods that we generally consider safe. Potatoes are potentially dangerous for you if you allow them to accumulate alkaloids.

So there is no reason you should consider a biotechnology product different from any other food product. It's treated the same way; its safety is evaluated the same way.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I'll just remind the witnesses that we have time limits, so keep your eyes on me.

Mr. Coderre has already used up his seven minutes. He has offered some time to Mr. Bonwick, who says he has to go to his riding with the Prime Minister. Is the committee willing to give Mr. Bonwick three minutes?

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is certainly not based on emotion, but rather perhaps a lack of understanding.

• 1005

As you're genetically enhancing, or I think you used the word “harvesting” genes, in effect, to create hybrids, better products, does science fully recognize or is it fully able to recognize the potential to create in parallel hybrid viruses, hybrid diseases?

We're experiencing diseases today, viruses today, that we simply had no appreciation of 50 years ago. As we evolve on the one side, are we paralleling it with virus and disease on the other, and do we understand the implications of that?

Dr. Bill Cheliak: One of the things that is typical of the biotechnology industry, whether it's from the food safety aspect or whether it's from the health care aspect, is that the scrutiny that's given to these products is certainly much larger or much more intense than has been done for traditional foods or traditional products. To my understanding, there has never really been an evaluation of milk per se, yet there's a significant portion of the population that is lactose intolerant, for whom that causes rather significant discomfort.

In the health care products, if we were to have to evaluate conventional vaccine technology as it was rolled out in the early part of this century relative to the standards we're using today for DNA vaccines, for instance, there's no way it would ever have come forward.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: That's not my question, though. My question wasn't for you to give me analyses on other sectors, on what has happened in the past. My question is as you're modifying, as you're genetically enhancing hybrids, is science fully able to appreciate or to understand the impacts of hybrid viruses and diseases that would parallel that? Or is that a legitimate concern?

Dr. Bill Cheliak: It's a legitimate concern; there's no question. Yes, we are able to recognize that and have controls in place to evaluate that from a safety point of view.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Proctor, you have five minutes.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good morning.

Despite all the exciting things that you folks are telling us, there seems to be a growing disconnect between you and consumers about this. We see lots of evidence around. What is the industry doing to overcome this consumer resistance to genetically modified products?

Mr. Paul Arnison: I would say that the recent concern that has been expressed in Europe and other places, and now in Canada, has advanced perhaps a little bit faster than the industries have been prepared to bring forward the appropriate material. But the answer to your question is that we need to educate, and there are efforts by, as Jeff said, various different biotechnology organizations, by academic groups, and by people who are reporting responsibly within newspapers. The National Post, for example, has been putting out different opinions.

Part of the problem we have had has been somewhat irresponsible reporting of various things to sensationalize these problems for various reasons to alarm people. The industry does try to bring the facts forward, and there are various fora for doing this.

One of the ways we hope to do that, and one of the reasons, is this conference the government or we are sponsoring. The molecular farming conference is an excellent vehicle to bring these technologies out into the open, where people can go from both sides, those with concerns and those sides who want to promote the industry, and actually meet the leaders in this field and, as you do today, ask these questions and have the information brought forward and reported fairly.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Then that conference in London is jointly sponsored by the government and the industry?

Mr. Paul Arnison: No, the host for the conference is Agriculture Canada, London. There is industrial sponsorship in the form of various gifts, as most companies do give to different conferences small amounts of money to help the program, but the conference is hosted by the government.

Mr. Dick Proctor: On this theme, though, it seems to me that in Europe, for example, where they've had perhaps more discussion than we've had on this continent about genetically modified organisms, the resistance is growing, not diminishing, even with factual information from scientists, from folks who are involved in this.

• 1010

Dr. Bill Cheliak: We've spent quite a bit of time in Europe recently, and I think you're hearing the results of a very vocal minority versus where the majority of the population is at. In particular, in the U.K. it is an extremely vociferous and one-sided debate. I think that's very poor for any nation.

I would encourage this committee to consider actually engaging an ethical debate, a real focused and ethical debate with agreed-upon experts in the field, whether it's an ethicist, a societalist, or a scientist, to in fact debate these points and these questions. Having it extremely one-sided, one way or another, whether it's extremely pro-industry or extremely anti-technology, is not healthy for anyone. So, in my opinion, that would be probably one of the best things, to engage a real debate that would advance this issue and bring forward the concerns that not only consumers have, but the concerns that ethicists have and the concerns that scientists have.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I have just one final question, Mr. Harvard.

All three of you I think have made reference to the fact that there will be tremendous cost savings with molecular farming. How can consumers be assured, or to what extent will they be assured, that any of those savings would be actually passed on to the consumers?

I mean, Mr. Turner has already indicated that, as the founder of Nexia, he's concerned about his bottom line. Do you, Mr. Turner, have lots of competitors in your field who will ensure that the price is competitive or are you a one...?

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: In this particular area, in the pharmaceutical area, as you know, there are a variety of regulations in Canada that control the price of these types of medications. We are a development company. We produce the bulk active. We will not market. There is no assurance that this technology or the benefits of this will go to the public. That's part of our joint job, our job and your job together, to ensure that the benefits of this technology go to all Canadians and people suffering around the world.

With regard to high-performance bio-materials, it's the same type of thing. We'll be selling these materials to groups around the world, and that will derive benefit certainly for our company and for all the people who work with us and all the various jurisdictions we pay tax to.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an awful lot to try to digest at one time. Maybe digest is the wrong term to use.

First of all, the issue was the vocal minority that Dick had touched on. The reality of life is that there is a vocal minority out there that can in fact impact an industry quite dramatically. I guess a silly example would be the seal industry in Newfoundland, where a very vocal minority did in fact cause an ecosystem to have some very serious problems develop in it.

The reality is that there is that vocal minority out here with respect to biotechnology and GMOs and all of the wonderful stuff that we're hearing all three of you gentlemen talk about. And by the way, for the most part, the people around this table really do support what's going on in Canada in the biotech industry, but the reality is there are people out there who are preaching a lot of misinformation, substantial amounts of misinformation, and it seems to me there isn't anyone out there who is doing a backstop to that.

We talk about this biotech industry organization. I've never heard of them. Quite frankly, I can hear from a number of other organizations that will give me the misinformation. What is it that industry can do? And as a matter of fact, Mr. Turner, you said industry cannot do it alone. What's the answer? We can't afford to lose what we now have in Canada as a very major step forward in science economy. What is it that government can do right now to assist in that, Mr. Turner?

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: Very briefly, an illiterate technical society is a barrier to dealing with all of these issues. We're looking for information. People can make well-balanced decisions if they have been exposed to all sides and they have been properly trained in the educational system.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Could you expand on that? An illiterate society...not illiterate, I'm sorry, but you're right.

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: No, I meant—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You're right. There are too many people out there who don't understand what you're talking about, and probably most of them around this table right now. What is it...?

• 1015

I'm looking at them across the table. I'm trying to get serious about this. We have to get an educational process in place so that the public recognizes that this is not the Frankenstein of the future; this is in fact the radios of the past, it is the vaccines of the past. How do we do that? Are you saying through the educational system?

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: You had two questions. The first one, I believe, is that a literate society in technical issues is essential for moving forward into the next millennium. The second answer is it's already happening. I have three children, and my son in his grade two class knows about DNA; he knows all about these types of things. In fact it is very important that the newer generation knows about things like biotechnology, information technology, etc., and they are being trained. They need to continue spending money in that area so that the future decision-makers, the people who will sit around this table 20 years from now, are indeed much better trained than all of us.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Unfortunately, Mr. Turner, we have a society out there that doesn't have that advantage, and they are the ones who are going to hear the misinformation at this point in time. I don't think we can afford to wait a generation before that generation comes up with the information. In the meantime, we can't stick our heads in the sand. We know we're under attack on a number of fronts, canola being a very prime example as to what just happened recently with some misinformation that hit the table.

How can government assist? You said industry can't do it alone. Is there anything we can do? Should there be a clearing house of information? You talk about this panel, this discussion among scientists on all sides. Is that sufficient? Is that enough to resonate with the public right now? Or is the fear-mongering that Mr. Hilstrom talked about the only thing that's going to come out?

Dr. Bill Cheliak: It's certainly easier to do the fear-mongering and to party up to people's fear of the unknown. However, without an open debate with all sides having an equal opportunity to be able to discuss, and scientists.... You know, I'm a scientist, and probably 80% of the people in here didn't understand what I was talking about today. That's a real problem.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Probably the only ones that did were the three at this end, I can assure you of that.

Dr. Bill Cheliak: It's like Queen Isabella—“I didn't understand it, and I don't even understand the people who do understand it.” But there's got to be a way to create a much more open debate. We are obviously getting an extremely one-sided discussion going on here, which is no good for anyone. And whether it's happening in Canada or more broadly in North America or particularly in the U.K., it is, no question, a problem. There is a role for governments as a means of fostering discussion, open discussion among all of the interested parties, and it's not to say that one party is better off than the other in terms of this debate, but it needs to be fostered and it needs to be happening.

I would have loved to have been able to take the opportunity that Dr. Suzuki had over the past week to have eight hours of programming specifically devoted to things of biotechnology.

The Chairman: I would like to remind the committee, and perhaps in particular Mr. Borotsik, that this very committee made a recommendation exactly a year ago on the issue of distribution of information and better informing the public. The committee made this recommendation—this is for the benefit of the witnesses:

The Committee recommends that there be an independent clearing house for information about new products of agricultural biotechnology.

Just last week we got the response from the government, because the recommendation went to the government, and the response from the government in part was:

The Government supports the concept of improving and better coordinating sources of reliable information. The structure and feasibility of an independent clearinghouse will be studied in the context of overall communications efforts to be undertaken as part of the renewed Canadian Biotechnology Strategy.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just as a point of order, I was very familiar with that. As a matter of fact, I had it here. What I wanted to hear was for that to come from the industry's own words, and I didn't hear that, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately.

Dr. Bill Cheliak: Mr. Chair, the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, under Mr. Manley's portfolio, is just soliciting members at this point in time, and may very well be a natural place for such a discussion or such a task to be directed.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Calder, five minutes.

Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The education aspect is actually what I want to talk about. The demographics we're facing right now.... In my other life, as with Howard's other life, we're both farmers, and the perception of the general public right now is that I'm some kindly old individual who's dressed in bib coveralls with a straw hat, chewing on a piece of hay.

• 1020

A voice: Where's your hat?

Mr. Murray Calder: I left it at home 45 years ago.

The other aspect of it is that a little over 2% of the population is actively involved in agriculture, and of that little over 2%, a little over half of 1% does 75% of the production. So in essence, then, from an education factor that means that we have a little over 99% of the population that is really not involved in what we're talking about here today.

Now, here is some of the stuff that I've read through. You're talking about cloning, identical DNA. Paul, I imagine the average person out on the street wouldn't know what the heck that was on your tie, other than the fact it was a very fancy design. We're talking about genetic make-ups, spider genes, product genes, transgenic animals, genetically modified organisms, and the general public is looking at this as genetic pollution and Frankenfood. That's what they're looking at. So basically what we're talking about here is Star Wars down on the farm.

From that, what type of educational structure do you see in place—because this is what we're talking about, recommendation from the government—to take and educate over 99% of the population out there that desperately wants this, given the fact that by the year 2050 we've got 10 billion people on the face of the earth and we have to increase our production by two and a half times? We have to do that in the next 50-plus years.

How do we educate the public here at home? Then how do we go ahead once we've done that? Because we're going to have to do this on two fronts, and educate the international population, because we're also running into trade disputes with the EU and the United States through the WTO.

So this is a huge, huge problem we're talking about. How does the industry, how do you as the industry—because it affects you—how do we solve that problem?

Mr. Paul Arnison: I would say the first thing that is obvious from the recent things that have happened by this recent attack on biotechnology.... It's clear that the conventional media, television and radio, are probably the vehicles most of our Canadian public get most of their information from, and to a lesser degree probably reading newspapers. What we need is a system that is fair, where there is equal opportunity and equal access. As we said, we would love to have eight hours on the CBC to organize industry and academic people to actually be able to come forward and educate people about biotechnology and to have a forum that represents a balanced viewpoint.

One of the problems we have as industry people is that the general public is suspicious sometimes of certain people. Industry itself is often viewed with suspicion. What we need are farmers, people who are on the land, people who know the benefits of these products. We need support from those sorts of organizations, organizations that may be prepared also to come to programs for education.

We need to get the academic community in Canada more involved. Get them out of their universities and on to the radio. The only ones we seem to hear from in the academic community are the detractors. We don't hear very much from most of the people who are doing the basic research that is the underpinnings of biotechnology.

Mr. Murray Calder: But the problem we're facing here right now is the over-99% doesn't quite trust the half of 1% that's actively involved. So I guess the other component you're going to have to bring into this educational structure is a consumers' association, because they are the 99%. How do you incorporate them in?

Mr. Paul Arnison: They also have to be invited to participate, and they need to be educated so that they are not just responding to these fears as well, because they're vulnerable to it.

Mr. Murray Calder: BST is a beautiful example. I went through that in the first session of government. Actually, if you take a look at Monsanto, for instance, they were looking at the profit line instead of what the reaction from the consumer was going to be. Not only is the consumer resistant to that, but that was going to have great ramifications for the dairy industry too at the same time, because the dairy farmers wouldn't be able to sell their product because the consumer didn't think it was safe.

Therein lies the problem, the education. How do you get the consumers involved in this scenario?

• 1025

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: I think you bring up a very good point, and that point is that if the consumers don't buy it, it will stop. I think that's very important. In my opinion, the reason BST is not fully welcomed in Canada is because the consumer is not benefiting.

Earlier, you mentioned that the general populace does not know and is afraid. Do people generally realize that every McIntosh apple that has ever been consumed in Canadian history came from one tree that has been cloned for years and years and years? Because of the cloning technology, people are not concerned about that, and they all eat apples. Simply educating people is a very difficult thing to do, and I think your concept of the consumer groups is very important because of the technology attributes. That's what we have to deal with.

The Chairman: We're out of time.

Mr. Arnison, you mentioned detractors, that you always see your detractors on television and not your supporters. I thought that happened only to politicians. I know when I watch television, it's always the other guys.

Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to help you fellows out a little bit, the whole industry, because later on today they'll write a letter to the CBC and encourage them to put a program on. If you don't get the full eight hours, maybe you'll get four or five, whatever we can get. I'll try to help you put on some pressure with our minister for culture and heritage to try to make that happen. I believe it's that important.

When we talked about rBST, it was scientifically proven that there's no problem with that, and certainly we had University of Guelph professors advise us of that at our last committee meeting. But the dairy industry and issues surrounding trade are what seem to be involved here.

The dairy industry indicates to us that the imports of fluid milk from the United States are maximized by Canadian consumers taking it across the border. If Canadian consumers are so concerned about rBST, why would they be bringing milk across from the U.S. border, filling this quota? This is the kind of political talk we get in Canada, and it's over trade more than actual science. That's what we certainly have to counter.

In regard to the politics of things, certainly, we as politicians have to take care of that. We saw a massive attack against the MAI, not necessarily based on reason, and certainly not debated properly. The BST issue has been mentioned.

So my question now is going back again to the technical side. In the discussions over the past week or so, there was a discussion on patents—what you can patent and what you can't. The discussion went that if you create something new, or a recombination of what's already there, you can patent it. Then they were discussing patenting the identification of a human gene. Should a company be allowed to patent a human gene that's already in existence when it's just a matter of identifying it through the technology? Can you discuss patents a little bit?

Mr. Paul Arnison: Certainly. This is one of the things we advise people on. To answer your broad question, any composition of matter or any invention that meets the criteria of a patent as an invention should be patented, and there is no reason that human genes or any other genes or whatever should be excluded. There is no reason.

In Canada we do not allow, at the present time, the patenting of life forms themselves, other than micro-organisms, whereas the other industrialized countries will allow you to get a patent on a genetically modified plant, for example, or even a genetically modified animal. This debate is ongoing within the Canadian patent system.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: As an industry, have you had a chance to make your views known on world trade issues to the government as they're setting their negotiating position in the upcoming trade talks? Have you had any involvement with that, Mr. Arnison?

Mr. Paul Arnison: I have not had any direct involvement, but people I know have had—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: So the industry is getting their two cents in there, or hundred million cents, whatever.

Mr. Paul Arnison: Yes, they do.

• 1030

Returning to the patents again, there are what we call freedom-to-operate issues. There are inventions that people make on which they are allowed to get patents. As you know, patents provide the inventor certain protection, and they basically stimulate commerce and industry, because they allow one organization a period of time to promote and develop their product. So patents are very fundamental and very important to technology-based industries, and we have to have them.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Is Canada's scientific community in a competitive position and as advanced as any other around the world? What would be the greatest hindrance to our scientific community at the present time of maintaining that position in the scientific world?

Mr. Paul Arnison: I think the greatest hindrance is to not allow these technologies to be protected in our own country and to not allow Canadian people to be competitive.

The Chairman: I was going to finish this up with a question on patents, but maybe I can ask it now before we go to Ms. Ur.

The pharmaceutical companies, Mr. Arnison, are afforded 20-year patent protection. Is biotechnology given the same 20-year protection?

Mr. Paul Arnison: No. The amount of time you have depends to a degree on when the invention was put forward, but it's 17 years.

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: In practical reality, though, these products become obsolete over time. So 17 years in a biotechnology area is a lifetime.

The Chairman: But at the same time, Mr. Turner, with that kind of protection, can we get the kinds of low costs that perhaps you or others were suggesting? When you think of a 20-year patent protection for pharmaceuticals and the prices that they apply, we're hardly getting bargains when it comes to most pharmaceuticals. How would that apply to new biotechnology products?

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: The same. Whether a particular product like insulin is being made in the conventional way or by biotechnology, it's the same drug and should be treated in the same fashion.

The Chairman: Ms. Ur.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt here? You said 10.30 was the time we were going to do this motion.

The Chairman: I was going to try to squeeze in about another seven minutes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: As long as we have time.

The Chairman: Yes.

It's not Ms. Ur. It's Mr. McGuire. We have four people. We should wrap this up at 10.40. We have McGuire, Ur, Murray, and McCormick. So be my guest, do what you want.

Mr. McGuire, and then Mrs. Ur.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): I have a very small question.

In today's Calgary Herald it says that cloned animals are far more likely to suffer extreme and fatal abnormalities than those with two parents. They were quoting a scientist from Oregon. Is that a true statement?

Mr. Paul Arnison: You said a cloned animal is more likely to suffer—

Mr. Joe McGuire: They're more likely to suffer extreme and fatal abnormalities. They base that on the imprinting process.

Mr. Paul Arnison: No. It's simply untrue.

Mr. Joe McGuire: It's simply untrue. Can you elaborate on that?

Mr. Paul Arnison: A cloned animal is an identical replica of another animal, and therefore it is identical genetically. If that other animal happens to be a hybrid of two parents, then all of the clones are hybrids of those same two parents. They are just genetically identical, that's all. So it is just a process of making more animals that are the same. Those animals will be no different from the original animal. If the original animal had some sort of problem, then the clones will have the problem. But if the original animal was perfectly fine, there is no reason the cloning process should make any difference to those animals.

Mr. Joe McGuire: On genetically modified plants and the pollen from those plants, is it possible to contaminate other plants through cross-pollination?

Mr. Paul Arnison: Yes. It is possible to transfer genes from compatible species or a similar species, but one thing that probably the general public is not aware of is that industry and other people and scientists who are involved in this sort of research know about these issues. And there are many technologies under development now at the molecular level that will basically eliminate these problems during the next few years. These plants that will be in the field will be contained genetically and they will no longer have the ability to cross-pollinate other plants.

Mr. Joe McGuire: But right now they can.

Mr. Paul Arnison: Right now they can, but there is no particular danger from their doing so.

The Chairman: Ms. Ur.

• 1035

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was reading some of the information that was handed out prior to the meeting, and a person in Health Canada said we have about 100 researchers, technicians, and evaluators studying about 10 applications for new foods each year. They don't see that number going up, while the government has 3,500 people employed in pharmaceutical testing and approvals. Obviously it's not a high priority. Why is there such a discrepancy in the numbers? Is it because it's new, evolving biotechnology?

Mr. Paul Arnison: It's because it's relatively new and evolving. I'm sure the government will put the people and staff required in place, as the products come forward.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Unlike other countries, Canada doesn't have a specific policy on cloning. Is that because it's new to Canada?

Mr. Paul Arnison: I doubt it's because it's new to Canada. If we don't have a cloning policy, it's because one has not been put forward.

Dr. Bill Cheliak: What other jurisdictions have cloning policies?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I don't know, I was just reading the information that was handed out. It just said “Unlike other countries with specific policies on cloning, Canada doesn't have any”. In another one it said “There's not already a Canadian law against cloning humans? No. The best they could do was a voluntary moratorium on the practice.” So that's rather fluff compared to other countries, I would think.

Dr. Bill Cheliak: So this is an issue related specifically to the cloning of humans, per se. I would guess that the legislation simply hasn't been drafted along that line.

I'm not aware of any other countries that have specific legislated cloning laws, if you want to call them that, apart from just voluntary moratoriums.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: In another article I was reading it says:

Despite what you might have heard, necessity is not the mother of invention. Possibility is the mother of invention. Technology develops along the unpredictable lines of what can be done, not what should be done. Thus, we have Canadian scientists cloning goats. No doubt it's a breakthrough, but into what no one knows.

Then in another article it says that no matter what we're doing with biotechnology, “...genetic engineering will not contribute in any major way to the two major challenges of future food production: how to reduce its huge and growing environmental impact and how to achieve a distribution system which would allow all people on earth to feed themselves.” We have 800 million people now hungry, despite a global overproduction of food. That's why we are here in the agriculture committee

So the long and the short of it is why are we doing this?

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: I can offer a very brief answer. A spider doesn't have to drill for oil off the eastern coast of Canada to make its web, so by using biotechnology we should be able to reduce the footprint tremendously on a variety of products.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I think it's one thing.... Some of the presenters compared this to radios and microwaves, versus food. Those are apples and oranges. You might be able to sell spider silk, but it's a little different selling something you're going to consume yourself. I think it was just a rather flippant statement to compare those two. You get people's backs up when you make those kinds of comparisons.

Mr. Jeffrey Turner: No, my comparison was based on the fact that you were mentioning a variety of environmental issues associated with manufacturing—agricultural practices. I was stating that we are indeed trying to move to something that is environmentally sustainable.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But you would use the approach of say the spider silk, where it's not a consumed product, to gain the confidence of the consumer and then move into other aspects. I said before that when we have biotech meetings you go into the non-food products and instil in consumers the fact that it is happening and it is beneficial.

Mr. Paul Arnison: You're probably correct that at the present time political factors probably outweigh other factors in determining who gets the food that is needed in this world. We certainly currently have the potential to provide more food than gets to the people who need it. But the products of biotechnology are going to be improved products that will allow Canada to be more competitive in the marketplace in the future, and will eventually help. So the comment that these will not have an impact on food is simply not true.

• 1040

The Chairman: Thank you.

My apologies to the rest of the members. We simply have to move on. We have this motion to deal with and we just don't have the time to deal with it.

I want to thank Mr. Arnison, Mr. Turner and Mr. Cheliak for coming. I think you've spun an interesting story today. I'm sure we're going to hear a lot more in the future. Thank you for coming.

This meeting room will be occupied by another committee at 11 o'clock, so we don't have a lot of time. We don't have to deal with two of the motions. For your information, we'll deal with Madam Alarie's motions—that's a notice of motion—on Thursday. Thank you, Madam Alarie.

Now we'll deal with Mr. Hilstrom's motion. We'll give him an opportunity to explain why he brought this forward and then we'll deal with it.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before the last Parliament, the agriculture minister and the Canadian Wheat Board minister were one and the same. As a result, we always had a chance to question him on the various issues. Now we have a situation where they're split and we haven't had the opportunity to have the Minister of Natural Resources and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board here.

Certainly the Minister of Natural Resources and the Wheat Board is a very key player in the income issue in Canada with all farmers. The AIDA program is not functioning as well as expected, and that will be coming up also, once again dealing with income, farmers and the Canadian Wheat Board.

The New Generation Co-ops is the other issue that comes up. We see the Canadian Wheat Board and the companies that are trying to start up these New Generation Co-ops not necessarily agreeing on what is happening. As a committee, we need to understand what is behind this, because there will be more and more of these all the time.

An ethanol company is certainly coming from Ontario, and wants to go into wheat out in the prairies to do an ethanol plant.

So there are these reasons, and the fact that agriculture in western Canada has been struggling for many years now over the trust farmers have in the Canadian Wheat Board. Some are blind trusts, and with those people there's no problem. There are others who are more from Missouri; they want a chance to see some independent discussion with the minister. They want to ask him questions that would help raise this trust level among the farmers when they see the answers.

• 1045

Mr. Chairman, those are my reasons as to why we should have the Minister of Natural Resources and the Wheat Board here. It's vital to farmers' interests and it's important that we hear from him at this crucial time before the House sits and the income discussions continue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Let me just say a couple of things as your chairman, and then we'll go to the members.

First of all, Mr. Hilstrom mentioned a number of issues relating to the Minister of Natural Resources, issues beyond the issues mentioned in his motion.

Mr. Hilstrom, if the natural resources committee wants to call in Mr. Goodale to talk about the issues, that's certainly their prerogative as a committee.

Insofar as your motion is concerned, I took it upon myself last week to talk to the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board is more than happy to come and explain their side of the story.

We should remind ourselves that Prairie Pasta has already asked the Wheat Board for this exemption. A number of talks have gone on between the two parties; nothing has been resolved. So I can understand why Prairie Pasta is not happy, at least so far, with the decision of the Wheat Board.

We should also remind ourselves that the Wheat Board is a body that belongs to the farmers. The farmers now run the Wheat Board. And the farmers are going to have to make this decision on whether or not they would like to relax the rules to allow the exemption desired by Prairie Pasta.

Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly this proposal deserves our consideration. I differ from the chair in the fact of asking the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to appear. I don't think we do ask him to appear at this time, Mr. Chair, because this is between the Wheat Board and the Prairie Pasta Producers, as you say.

I have nothing against the minister. I think the minister should appear here in the future, but I don't think it's part of this. So my suggestion would be to have the minister at a future date. Yes, he can appear at the natural resources committee. I think we can have him here in the future, appearing as the minister with the special responsibility for the Wheat Board.

If this is between the Canadian Wheat Board and the pasta producers, we have to keep it that way. I think I could support it if we would have only those people here. We can't have every group that wants to appear. We see that with what's being put in front of us today. I'm not against individual companies and individual groups listed here by other members. Where do we go? How many hours can we sit and how many people can we bring under the umbrella?

The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. This committee deals with the future of agriculture. Quite frankly, we heard the Minister of Agriculture last time say that value-added processing is a very major part of the future of agriculture. And I'll apologize now for the use of the term “western Canadians” or “western Canada”. Quite frankly, that is what we're dealing with right now. The Canadian Wheat Board is a western Canadian wheat board; it is not a national institution, as such. It deals with western Canadian agriculture, which is fairly important to the economy of this country.

• 1050

I will support Howard's motion, albeit I believe it's very limited. I don't think we should simply be dealing with the Prairie Pasta issue. We should be going with Mr. Goodale and a larger issue here on where in fact value-added processing fits within the philosophy and policies not only of this government but also of the Canadian Wheat Board.

This is a huge factor for Canadian agriculture. Not to invite the minister who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is a travesty of this particular committee. We should hear him on that aspect of it.

Mr. Chairman, in the worst-case scenario I'll support this motion in the way it's written. We do have an example now of value-added processing that is not being encouraged by this policy. If this continues to happen, others that have the potential in western Canada will not happen.

Mr. Chairman, I believe very strongly that Mr. Goodale should appear before this committee. If he does so himself individually, I believe we can then take the philosophical and policy discussion a little further. As a follow-up, we should go with the Prairie Pasta and the Canadian Wheat Board that you suggested, Mr. Chairman. Not to do this would be a travesty.

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, we should ask ourselves whether those issues come under the purview of the Committee on agriculture. Do we want it to play a role that resembles that of a marriage counsellor? Should we bring everybody to the same table to try and find a common ground when two parties do not agree?

I would like to remind my colleague Borotsik that we are very interested in everything that has to do with added value, and in value added products. As you know, once you start, it never ends. And I am not against because it is an issue that affects more western Canada. There are also issues that affect more the eastern part of the country. And the motion moved by Mrs. Alarie, which we will be considering Thursday, proves it. We should wonder whether this motion does not deal with a particular perspective. We could change the operating rules of our committee and say that it will no longer be necessary to move a motion to avoid that each a time a particular problem of a geographical or geopolitical nature is raised by the president of a company in such and such region, we try to score politically speaking. We could agree that it is now the responsibility of the Committee on agriculture to welcome such witnesses. We would then have to multiply the number of meetings of our Committee and increase a lot of other things to be able to consider all those issues.

There seems to be a problem between the Canadian Wheat Board and the pasta plants in the Prairies. I'm not against the representatives coming as witnesses because each time we had problems in Quebec, Quebec accepted to hear witnesses.

I only wanted to submit those difficulties to your attention. I would propose an amendment to the motion that would delete the name of the minister of Natural Resources and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and replace it by representatives from the Canadian Wheat Board.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there a seconder for the amendment?

Mr. Murray Calder: I second the amendment.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I would suggest that this amendment shouldn't be accepted, because it does remove the key intent of the motion.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, the motion specifies that the minister is the one who is required here. The Minister of Natural Resources has special responsibilities for the Canadian Wheat Board. So a motion deleting him from the motion can't possibly be correct.

The Chairman: I don't pretend to be a procedural expert. The clerk tells me that it's acceptable.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'd like you to ask the clerk again on that.

The Chairman: The clerk says that the subject is not changed, only one representative is, so the amendment is in order.

Does anybody want to speak to the amendment?

• 1055

Can I ask Mr. Hilstrom, the mover of the original motion, for one word of clarification? I assume that when you refer to “prairie pasta” you would be referring to David Schnell, who is the president of Prairie Pasta; that is the gentleman you'd want.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I think for any representatives they'd want to come, it would be up to us to discuss with the company and the clerk who would come.

The Chairman: I would think that Mr. Schnell probably would be a pretty good spokesman for the organization. Okay?

Mr. Borotsik, you wanted to say something, and then Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's on the amendment. And again I wasn't happy with the motion as it was, where it dealt just specifically with Prairie Pasta. I believe it's very important that at some point in time, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Goodale, who is the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, appear before this committee so that he can in fact give us some understanding as to where he sees this type of value-added processing going in the future. That's where I would have liked to have seen this motion go in the first place. We have now watered it down to the point where we're now going to have Canadian Wheat Board and Prairie Pasta; that's fair ball, I can live with that. But I would like to see Mr. Goodale appear before this committee at some point in time in the not-too-distant future to give us, the agriculture committee, some understanding as to where his responsibilities are leaving this country and leaving agriculture.

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Borotsik has hit it right on the head. I don't think we want to limit ourselves to Prairie Pasta.

My question to you, Mr. Hilstrom, is are the Prairie Pasta Producers a western-Canadian-based group of farmers, business people, or are they American-based?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: There are two things that have to be clarified here.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I'd like to know what I'm supporting here before I—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The only reason that Prairie Pasta Producers are mentioned is because they are a representative of a new phenomenon in the west, which is New Generation Co-ops, a closed co-op where it's only sold to themselves and a value-added product is put out the other end. So that is the reason they should be here.

The discussion of the—

Mr. Paul Steckle: But they're Canadian, is that right? These people are Canadian—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The Prairie Pasta Producers are a combination of farmers from throughout the United States and Canada who deal in durum. Durum is a wheat that can only be really grown—

Mr. Paul Steckle: I understand that, but—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's who is forming this up.

Mr. Paul Steckle: —is it value-adding for Canada's benefit or for the Americans' benefit? That's my—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The establishment of the plant was intended to be possibly in Canada, but if the company is uneconomical to do the value-adding in Canada, they will put the plant into the U.S. if that is the economical place to produce the value-added product. And that is the issue we're discussing here. It's not Prairie Pasta itself, which is just a company that's trying to do something; it's the concept of New Generation Co-ops, of one particular group of durum producers in an international thing. And that's what we're dealing with.

Mr. Paul Steckle: The other part of the question was what implications does that have to the Wheat Board? Why would there be resistance on the part of the Wheat Board to want to meet?

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle, they have talked about the issue.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It's not the question of why the Wheat Board would not want to meet; it's a question of why Minister Goodale would not be wanting to come here.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Look, this is a very simple issue right here. You're talking about mechanics. We've just got a brand-new, new and improved, Canadian Wheat Board with ten elected farmers on it. And you, Howard, said that you want the farmers to take and run the Canadian Wheat Board. This motion right here means to say that any time there is a problem with the Canadian Wheat Board you're going to circumvent them and you're going to bring in the minister. Give them a chance.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The truth of the matter, Mr. Calder, is that the Canadian Wheat Board is not run by farmers; it is a combination of government-run and farmer-run.

Mr. Murray Calder: No. You're trying to set a very dangerous precedent here—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No.

Mr. Murray Calder: —and I don't agree with it. That's why the amended motion, as far as I'm concerned.... If there's a problem with the pasta people, with the Canadian Wheat Board and vice-versa, get the two of them here at the table and we'll discuss it in front of the committee.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, the farmers elected on the Canadian Wheat Board can only operate within the confines of the legislation that gives them their authorities and responsibilities. The minister is over and above and outside of that.

The Chairman: We're running out of time. Mr. Proctor.

• 1100

Mr. Dick Proctor: It seems to me from the discussion, Mr. Chairman, that there would be some degree of consensus if we could hear, as the previous speaker indicated, from Prairie Pasta and officials from the Canadian Wheat Board on that specific issue. But the broader question Mr. Borotsik raised is about the need for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to come before the committee to talk about that. So I would move that we—

An hon. member: I'm going to move that.

Mr. Dick Proctor: You can't; you've already spoken to it.

The Chairman: You didn't finish your thought, Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I would be suggesting two sessions: one, Prairie Pasta and the Canadian Wheat Board, and another one where it's a broader issue where you have the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to talk to us about the value-added realities.

The Chairman: Members, it's 11 o'clock; we're out of time pretty well. I'm going to give Mr. McGuire the final word. But I should remind you, and I think this is instructive, that if you have motions of this kind you should bring them to steering committee so we can talk about it at steering committee. We allowed twenty minutes, which I thought would be ample, and here we are twenty minutes later and we haven't even voted on an amendment yet.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I share Mr. Coderre's concerns. While the committee is the master of its agenda, I do share Mr. Coderre's concerns about the route we're going down. Today it's the pasta plant and the minister, and next week it will be a processor from Quebec. The next week it could be an individual company from Manitoba or an individual company from Ontario. I ask the question generally: Is the committee going to be getting into these particular cases? Is that the role of the committee or is it not?

My view of the committee is not to do individual problems all across the country. We would be sitting ten days a week if we had to get into that sort of thing.

The Chairman: I think Mr. McGuire makes a good point, because I don't know whether the amendment is going to succeed. But if it does, I would hope that people out there don't take it as some kind of precedent that every time there is a dispute between the Wheat Board or some other agency and someone else, they can call Ottawa and carry out their arguments in a public forum.

We have an amendment that basically says that we invite a representative of the Wheat Board and a representative of Prairie Pasta to discuss the issue that exists between Prairie Pasta and the Wheat Board, instead of the minister.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

The Chairman: We will vote on the main motion, as amended.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I will give notice of motion right now that a motion will be tabled on Thursday, in both official languages, inviting the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to appear before this committee. I will have that motion tabled today in both officials languages. Thank you.

The Chairman: Hold on. Is that acceptable? Does the 48-hour clock start now?

A voice: Yes.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.