Evidence of meeting #26 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gmo.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We're going to call our meeting to order.
I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today. We're going to start with the Manitoba Forage Seed Association and Kelvin Einarson.
Thanks very much, Kelvin. Go ahead, please, for 10 minutes.
3:30 p.m.
Kelvin Einarson Director and Secretary Treasurer, Manitoba Forage Seed Association Inc.
Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to thank you for allowing the Manitoba Forage Seed Association to address Bill C-474.
The Manitoba Forage Seed Association is an incorporated, not-for-profit, producer-driven organization representing forage seed growers across Manitoba. The focus of our organization is to facilitate the advancement of the forage seed industry in all aspects. This is achieved by providing its members with production and agronomic support through research, advocacy, and linkages with industry partners.
In September 2008, the Manitoba Forage Seed Association released its most recent position on recombinant DNA technology and subsequent genetically modified alfalfa, including Roundup Ready alfalfa, as follows.
We recognize that the future of biotechnology may well be accepted when benefits to consumers, producers, the environment, and human health are demonstrated.
We also recognize that consumers are not united in the understanding and acceptance of products from genetically modified crops produced via recombinant DNA technology.
We support a regulatory environment based on sound science that openly communicates clear and meaningful information to stakeholders.
We will not support testing that poses a risk of release of a specific transgene into the environment or commercialization of any transgenetic alfalfa variety--including Roundup Ready alfalfa--in Canada until such time as the variety receives Canadian regulatory approvals for food, feed, and environmental safety; the regulatory approval for specific transgenetic alfalfa varieties is obtained in Canada and the following export markets: the U.S., the European Union, China, Japan, Mexico, and South America; an identity preservation system for alfalfa varieties is in place in Canada; and a rapid, cost-effective test for identification of specific transgene is available.
In March of this year, the Manitoba Forage Seed Association also passed the following resolution:
Whereas once Roundup Ready alfalfa is introduced into the environment there will be a transfer of pollen from Roundup Ready alfalfa plants to non-Roundup Ready alfalfa plants by pollinating insects and other means, regardless of the intended use of the crop;
Whereas Canadian alfalfa seed producers are growing significant quantities of conventional alfalfa seed varieties for European and other foreign markets where the presence of Roundup Ready trait is not accepted;
Whereas the commercialization of Roundup Ready alfalfa will jeopardize lucrative foreign market access as a result of cross-contamination between Roundup Ready alfalfa and conventional varieties;
Be it resolved that the Manitoba Forage Seed Association support the Private Member's Bill C-474 as presented by Alex Atamanenko, NDP Agriculture Critic.
MFSA is not opposed to the use of genetically modified crops. It is our position that any genetically modified crop that is currently not being produced in Canada should require the developer to conduct an economic impact study or assessment of potential market harm as part of the initial regulatory process before granting an unconfined release status, thus eliminating the potential for irreparable harm.
It is our position that crops such as genetically modified corn, canola, and soybeans that are currently being grown commercially should remain in place and should not require an analysis of potential harm to export markets.
Currently, there are no genetically modified or herbicide-tolerant forages or forage seed varieties registered or being grown commercially in Canada. Forage and turf seed produced in Canada is exported to markets around the world. We know there is market resistance to GMO seed for many of the countries that represent a significant portion of international trade in the forage seed industry. These markets are not only willing to purchase GMO seed; they are very concerned about any GMO contamination in weed seeds or volunteer crops.
Experience in other crops where GMO technology has been introduced has shown that technology does not stay confined to the field where crop production is occurring. Well documented are the escapes of the technology through seed movement, transmission through pollen movement, and outcrossing to volunteer plants or similar weeds.
Before considering the introduction and release of GMO forage seed, there are a number of questions that we feel need to be asked.
Is there a significant market in Canada or the world for GMO forage seed? What will be the effect on profitable Canadian export markets with the release of GMO forage seed?
Who will realize the greatest gains and profit the most by releasing such varieties? Who will suffer the greatest economic losses with release of GMO varieties?
Lastly, if the forage seed export industry collapses, which in turn will shrink the industry and make it far less viable, who will be accountable for those losses?
We've all heard the comment that countries that currently have a zero tolerance policy to GMO seed need to change the policy and allow certain contamination at low levels, but what gives Canadian agriculture the right to dictate to countries what policies they should agree to?
As an exporting nation, we have to be prepared to produce what our customers not only require but also demand. If this means GMO-free seed, we have the choice to provide it or lose the market.
Coexistence between GMO forage seed varieties and conventional varieties will be impossible, even with sound agronomic practices. Cross-pollination with perennial crops will occur. There are a number of possible routes where this will happen: biological processes, such as long-distance pollen dispersal; seed movement by animals; and human error, such as failure to perform scouting for volunteers, inadvertent mixing of GM and non-GM seed, improper cleaning of equipment and storage facilities, or poor production practices. We have seen these scenarios with annual crop species, but I must stress that with forage seed crops it will be much more difficult to control due to the nature of perennial plants.
Forage seed growers believe that there is not a significant market for GMO forage seed. Canada will lose substantial portions of its forage seed export market, as we will be unable to guarantee GMO-free seed. One only needs to look as far as the Canadian flax industry to see how sensitive markets can be and the economic harm that can result by the releasing of GMO species when your markets do not accept them because of a zero tolerance policy. If GMO forage seed were to be produced commercially in Canada, the family farms and small independent seed companies would bear the greatest economic losses.
To ensure a viable forage seed industry in Canada, it is imperative that we keep Canada free of all genetically modified forage seed until it is accepted into our major export markets. If genetically modified alfalfa seed is introduced into Canada, we'll see a reduction in alfalfa seed acres due to lost export markets.
One aspect that I have not heard commented on is the fact that alfalfa leafcutter bees are used to pollinate blueberries and hybrid canola fields. Unlike honeybees, which will fly for several miles, the leafcutter bee has a short flight zone. Companies that are producing certified hybrid canola seed rely on alfalfa leafcutter bees to pollinate the female plant, as it is easier to avoid cross-contamination with these bees.
Although these bees are used on other crops, alfalfa seed acres are the source of reproduction for leafcutter bees. A reduction in alfalfa seed acres will result in fewer bees available to pollinate crops such as blueberries and hybrid canola.
As we continue to see survival problems with the honeybee colonies, it is imperative that we maintain leafcutter bee populations. A significant drop in alfalfa seed acres would make this impossible.
In conclusion, we have to ask ourselves this: who are the real beneficiaries of GMO forage seed? In the case of Roundup Ready alfalfa seed, there'd be very little benefit, as the majority of forage acres in Canada are a blend of alfalfa and grass species. The Roundup Ready technology is of no value as the Roundup will eradicate any grass species being grown in the forage or hay mix.
There is no doubt that in canola, soybeans, and corn, weed control has become easier with the introduction of GMO and herbicide-tolerant varieties. Having said that, we have not seen any significant increase in net farm income because of it, but at the same time, farmers have seen the price of seed increase three- to fivefold in the last dozen years.
With flax, we have seen the ramifications of GMO technology showing up in markets that have a zero tolerance policy. In addition to lost markets and lower prices, Canadian farmers have had to bear the added costs of testing seed prior to being able to sell their seed. The same will hold true if GMO forage seed is introduced into Canada.
In the case of Roundup Ready alfalfa, Monsanto has repeatedly stated--and I quote Trish Jordan, Monsanto spokesperson--that “Monsanto has worked closely with alfalfa seed and forage industry groups to ensure that the risks of gene escape and market damage are minimized”.
The key word here is “minimized”, not “eliminated”; there is absolutely no possible way to eliminate gene escapes. Only having them minimized means there will be gene escapes resulting in cross-contamination. Once the transgenes have escaped, it is highly likely, if not certain, that they cannot be retracted.
As mentioned previously, given that GMO technology is already widely used in canola, soybeans, and corn, the Manitoba Forage Seed Association would envision that these crops not fall under Bill C-474. This would ensure that research on these crops would continue in Canada.
However, the forage seed industry does see Bill C-474 as being a necessity when it comes to crops that are not currently produced commercially as GMO or herbicide-tolerant crops. Bill C-474 is the first step in offering some protection in the future for Canadian family farms. Market acceptance must be made part of the evaluation process and incorporated into the Seeds Regulation Act.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thanks, Kelvin.
We'll now move to Kurt Shmon from Imperial Seed.
3:35 p.m.
Kurt Shmon President, Imperial Seed (1979) Ltd.
Good afternoon.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for allowing Imperial Seed the opportunity to address Bill C-474, which would require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.
Imperial Seed is a forage and turf seed company whose office is located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. It is an accredited seed processing facility with more than 50 years of processing experience. Our success and growth is a history of quality and integrity.
At Imperial Seed, we contract with forage and seed companies from around the world, strongly focused on Europe and the Americas. The production contracts we obtain from companies are contracted with producers across western Canada. The seed is then harvested and brought into Winnipeg for processing, packaging, and testing, and then shipped to the contracting company.
Most of our species are perennial plants, and the contracts cover three to five years of production. Our main species of production are alfalfa, perennial ryegrass, timothy, bird's-foot trefoil, and clovers.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Could you slow down a little bit? Our interpreters are trying to--
3:40 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:40 p.m.
President, Imperial Seed (1979) Ltd.
If this was in the back of a half-ton out on the Prairies, we'd be doing all right, but...
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
There you go.
They'd appreciate it. We'll give you the time to finish.
3:40 p.m.
President, Imperial Seed (1979) Ltd.
Thank you.
Monsanto and Forage Genetics International have developed Roundup Ready alfalfa. Forage Genetics International has plans to release the GM variety to Canadian producers in the very near future. This event was approved by CFIA in 2005 and approved in the United States prior to that; however, since that time, Roundup Ready alfalfa has been banned for sale in the United States. The effects of Roundup Ready alfalfa in its short commercial life are more evident than the decision documents acknowledge.
I would like to address the fact that Imperial Seed is not opposed to the new technology. What we are opposed to is the release of such products until they have market acceptance. I would also like to state very firmly that Roundup Ready alfalfa does not improve the fitness of the alfalfa plant; it only allows Roundup to be applied to the plant for weed control. I would also like to stress that the continual application of the herbicide Roundup on Roundup Ready alfalfa may add to the growing list of herbicide-tolerant weeds in Canada.
Alfalfa is the third-largest crop in Canada, with 4.5 million hectares in production. Approximately 70% to 75% of the production is in western Canada, and the remaining amount is in Quebec and Ontario.
Approximately 80% of the seed sown for hay is mixed with grass or another legume. Alfalfa is a legume that is often requested by all levels of government to be added into grass mixtures for the purpose of seeding and reseeding new roadside ditches.
There are very few stands of pure alfalfa in Canada. Unlike many areas of the world, Canada has both seed and hay production of alfalfa in the same area, and at times on the same section of land.
It is also a known fact that there is feral alfalfa growing in our national and provincial parks, on roadsides and walkways, and in other public areas in all parts of Canada. Roundup Ready alfalfa will cross-pollinate with the feral alfalfa and, as a result, Canada will have Roundup Ready alfalfa growing in all the locations where the feral alfalfa is growing.
In Canada, most of the alfalfa and alfalfa/grass hay is cut when alfalfa has approximately 10% flower on the field and the weather allows for proper drying. There are also fields of alfalfa hay and alfalfa/grass hay that are cut prior to flowering. However, if the weather is not accommodating, these fields will be left until the weather allows for a proper dry-down of the hay. This delay may allow the alfalfa hay to reach 10% flower as well.
It is also a common production practice in Canada for hay producers to leave strips of hay standing throughout the field on their second cut to help trap snow for a proper insulation cover heading into winter. These strips are usually two feet wide and run the length of the field, leaving approximately 5% to 10% of the field in hay strips. The alfalfa in these strips is often in flower at the time of cutting. If any of the alfalfa plants left in these strips have been pollinated with Roundup Ready pollen, there can be viable seeds that may contain the Roundup gene.
The potential market for Roundup Ready alfalfa is very limited, as 75% to 80% of the seed sold for hay and pasture is mixed with another legume or grass, eliminating the advantage of applying Roundup to the field.
Alfalfa is a perennial crop with several fairly unique attributes.
One, it is a cross-pollinated crop that requires insect pollination. The isolation required to guarantee zero escapes has never been studied on a scientific basis. It is widely recognized that honeybees and some native species have the ability to carry pollen at least five miles. What isolation is required to guarantee control? Ten miles? Twenty miles? What happens in a storm when pollinators are blown dozens of miles away? This is not speculation or conjecture. There are numerous honeybees and native species throughout western Canada.
Two, alfalfa has a hard seed component that is particularly high in western Canada. Some lots from the 2007 crop had a hard seed content in excess of 50%, and this is not unusual. It is known that hard seed can lie dormant in the soil for many years, and possibly for decades. Assuming there were no escapes during the trial years, as is required for varietal registration, who will be responsible for monitoring all the sites during the trials and after they are completed? How do you determine the number of years this has to continue in order to ensure there are no escapes?
Three, there is a feral alfalfa population in western Canada. In some respects, one might say that alfalfa is an indigenous plant and is very common in all types of places, from roadsides to meadows, headlands, and native hayfields. When there are escapes into this population, how is this going to be monitored, identified, and controlled? Not only do subsequent escapes of feral or volunteer crops become “weeds” in other crop kinds, but they are so undesirable that their very presence in some species declines those species. For example, a Roundup Ready alfalfa seed in clover or ryegrass can condemn that lot of seed for export.
In the last five years, Canada has averaged in excess of $20 million worth of forage and turf seed exports into Europe, which has a zero tolerance towards GMO. Canada currently produces many crops that are marketed to GMO zero-tolerance countries. As demonstrated by Europe with the Triffid flax issue, when any amount of seed from a non-approved event is identified, the buyer will cancel contracts and send the seed back to the seller, creating a loss for the company and the producers of this crop.
Currently, the contracts for all legume and grass seed species written between European and Canadian companies have clauses in them which state that if any GMO species are found in the received seed, the seed will be returned to the seller and the contract cancelled. Our industry is faced with the challenge of dealing with GMO canola in our conventional seed, which at times has caused the seed to remain in Canada due to the presence of the GMO seed. We have taken extraordinary steps and precautions to avoid the possibility of canola contamination; however, it still exists.
Alfalfa is like all species. Not only can it be a seed, but it can also be an undesirable in other crop kinds. A study conducted by the CFIA noted that alfalfa was an impurity in 648 samples of different crop kinds. Any one of those samples tested could be seed that was to be sold in Canada or possibly exported to other countries. Only alsike clover was noted as a higher impurity in retrieved samples of pedigree and common seed.
This is a huge issue for many crop kinds, where alfalfa is noted as an impurity due to the fact that if Roundup Ready alfalfa is released for sale, the alfalfa found in such samples may contain the Roundup Ready alfalfa gene.
These issues, together with the fact that Roundup Ready alfalfa will cross-pollinate with the feral and tame alfalfa, puts at risk Canada's entire export market in zero-tolerance zones. We must consider market acceptance prior to the release of this technology.
Canada's science-based approach works very well for the domestic marketers of seed, the Monsantos, the Syngentas, and the Bayer CropSciences, but what does it do for the producer? This approach does not take into consideration what the producers want, nor does it address what the market wants. These are the two most important issues and they are absent from the registration process.
Producers want to grow crops they can market. In the case of Roundup Ready alfalfa, the producers of Canada do not want it, and that is proven today by my fellow colleagues who are here at my side.
One of our large trading partners, the European Union, has also made it very clear: they will not accept any non-approved GMO seeds. The market has spoken.
Our science-based ideas are not adequate. The science-based decision-making process considers only the relative safety of the product compared to the non-transformed species.
There is no assessment of the monetary impact the GMO product will have on the marketplace. Where are the negative impacts belonging to the agronomic performance? They are ignored and covered with the statement, “Let the market decide”. The market has decided. And the answer is no. Allowing only this so-called science-based approach does nothing but create a monopoly.
Since the release of Roundup Ready alfalfa in the United States, the contamination issue has been brought to the attention of many companies and producers of alfalfa. Cal/West, a large U.S. seed company, has lost export market share due to Roundup Ready alfalfa contamination. This company has approached Imperial Seed for possible production contracts for Cal/West into these non-GMO zones.
Analyzing potential market harm and realizing the potential risk may create an economic benefit for our industry in Canada as we wait for market acceptance. Other countries that move forward with this unapproved technology will lose the market, and Canada will gain the production and market share.
In conclusion, the implementation of Bill C-474 should allow for the continued production of the current approved GMO crops produced in Canada. The bill should be applied to: any new technology directed at new crops, any new technology being applied to existing crops, and any old technology being applied to existing crops. This implementation would grandfather in the existing canola, soybean, and corn crops we have.
The large developers of seed threaten Canada by saying that if Bill C-474 passes they will no longer be interested in developing seed for Canada. In my opinion, this is simply a threat that will not be acted upon. Seventeen million acres of canola will be planted in Canada this year and no company is going to walk away from a market that large.
As new technology is developed there is ample time for the market analysis to take place. It takes years to develop new technology. During the submission time, CFIA Plant Biosafety can conduct the extra step of market analysis. It would be prudent for our industry, in order to not jeopardize our members' rights to make a livelihood, to err on the side of caution when introducing new products prior to their approval in the markets of major trading partners.
Coexistence will not exist if Roundup Ready alfalfa is released for sale in Canada. It will destroy the forage and turf seed market into Europe and other markets where there is no tolerance for non-approved events.
In closing, it has been said that Bill C-474 will create another layer of “red tape” for seed companies to go through in order to sell seeds in Canada. I feel this is better than creating “red ink” on the producer's bottom line.
Thank you.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you.
We'll now move to Manitoba Forage Council.
Mr. Jim Lintott, you have 10 minutes, please.
3:50 p.m.
Jim Lintott Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
Good afternoon.
My name is Jim Lintott, and I am the chairman of the Manitoba Forage Council. I wish to thank the government and this committee for the opportunity to speak to you on this important issue on behalf of the many producers and farm families in Manitoba.
The Forage Council is a non-profit organization comprised of over 400 producers, agribusiness, researchers, and extension leaders who are dedicated to the development and promotion of a sustainable hay, forage, and livestock industry. The Manitoba Forage Council board of directors consists of 20 members.
Our presentation repeats the opinions already expressed here today, but it's important that you understand that we all feel the same way and that the information we give is similar.
We represent the interests of farmers who produce dry hay, processed hay, and hay extracts for both domestic and foreign export markets to support production in the beef, dairy, sheep, goat, and horse industries.
The Forage Council supports the implementation of Bill C-474. Shortly after the release of Roundup Ready alfalfa in the United States, the Forage Council developed a position paper protesting that development. In May of 2008, the Forage Council wrote a letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency requesting a moratorium on further testing of Roundup Ready alfalfa until a complete environmental and economic assessment could be completed with all sectors of the forage industry.
We see Bill C-474 as a way to plug a hole in a leaky industry. I personally am a mixed farmer. I grow canola, wheat, and alfalfa, and I raise cattle. Many of the forage producers we represent in Manitoba are like me. We understand both sides of this issue. We do not expect or want this bill to adversely affect those crop sectors that already have a major GMO content--that horse has already left the barn--but we need this committee to understand that growing alfalfa is fundamentally different from growing those annual crops. Forage producers support Bill C-474 because we believe it would have the ability to protect the alfalfa industry from the truly dangerous effects of introducing GMO varieties that are not approved by our customers.
Alfalfa is a perennial crop. Alfalfa producers know that you cannot contain the spread of alfalfa. Seeds and pollen get spread by water, wildlife, and insects to cultivated land, to roadside ditches, to parklands. If the alfalfa is genetically modified, this spread then creates a reservoir for the GMO gene in the feral, or wild, plant population.
Alfalfa seeds can lie dormant in the soil, on both cropland and non-agricultural cropland, only to germinate many years later to create a new source of GMO genes. At that point, there is nothing to stop that GMO gene from moving back into other crop production. In Manitoba 40% of our agricultural land is in forage production. The feral alfalfa is everywhere in our environment. If we use GM alfalfa, we will no longer know where the gene resides--until it is too late to do anything about it.
Who will this affect? The organic producers, livestock producers, forage producers, forage seed producers, the alfalfa fractionation industry, and the alfalfa sprouting industry will all be affected by your decisions. The reach is wide and the effect is huge.
In the organic industry, there is zero tolerance for GMO contamination. A producer of organic crops and vegetables needs to ensure that the plow-down crops, such as alfalfa, which provide the nitrogen to grow the crops, are free of GMOs. The dairy producer of organic cheese has to be able to guarantee that the milk produced from the hay is also free of GMO genes.
Food is a very integrated production cycle. The organic industry, though small, is currently a $28-billion industry worldwide. It's a $2-billion industry in Canada, the bulk of it in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec, the top three producing provinces. Organic forages and pastures are the second-largest in acreage, narrowly tied with grains and oilseeds. However, there is no organic canola production in Canada.
The organic industry is growing at an astonishing 19% per year, so clearly this industry will be devastated by the presence of an uncontrollable GMO gene.
Alfalfa, and its associated mixed hay, is becoming a major export item, both overseas and to the U.S.A. Many countries are beginning to recognize the need to focus their own production on higher-value crops such as vegetables. They are looking to Canada to supply large quantities of alfalfa hay, and in Manitoba we are quite excited by this opportunity. Some of that demand, though, will be for non-GMO hay, and much of it will move out through the Port of Churchill.
Our forage seed industry will be the first and most dramatically affected by any GMO contamination. This industry is very important, sustaining many farm families throughout Manitoba and, in fact, throughout western Canada. The organic and export industries in areas of livestock, alfalfa fractionation, and alfalfa sprouting will all face similar non-GMO restrictions.
The rejection due to the unintended presence of the GMO gene is a concern for all these producers. The challenge in controlling this happening in the forage industry is, in our view, insurmountable. The simple act of growing GMO alfalfa will provide a multitude of avenues for the gene to escape the intended production and become an unwanted presence in all production.
Genetically modified crop production is highly controversial. At least 35 countries have adopted mandatory labelling for any product that has been genetically modified. Many countries will not accept any agricultural products that have been contaminated by GMOs.
It is believed by some that GMO production will become so pervasive that the consumer will not have any choice, but concern about food safety in an industrialized world is growing. This is evidenced by an increase in demand for organic foods, a swelling of public objections to GM foods, and the requirement in many countries for food labelling to show the origin of food and the method of production and processing.
We need to be able to deliver to buyers the product they want. It is not our job to determine if their demands are valid or not. If the buyer accepts our product, the trade will flourish. If the buyer says “no” on the basis of the presence of GMOs, we have to ask ourselves if we have the capacity and the ability to produce and deliver the desired non-GMO products. To keep and expand those markets, we cannot ignore the regulatory decisions made in other countries.
The perception that Canada is a pristine and clean environment for the production of food is slowly being eroded. The introduction of unwanted GMOs is affecting not only the direct sale of crop and seed production, but also the sale of value-added products. I want to point out that although there is no question that the Triffid flax situation has cost Canadian farmers and exporters a lot of money and their reputation, it has cost our customers, who then move that flax into value-added production, a far greater amount of money. Those customers will not easily forget what they have paid for buying Canadian.
Manitoba forage producers are not against scientific research, nor are we opposed to the use of genetically modified crops. We simply believe that because of the controversy and the current market rejection of GMO products, any crop not currently being produced commercially as a genetically modified crop should have a market impact study prior to the release of such a variety.
The concerns you have heard expressed about this bill are primarily around the regulatory system that could flow from that bill. No one wants a regulatory system that would prevent us from moving forward with new and exciting traits that the world wants and would welcome. The solution to this is the establishment of a regulatory body that includes all stakeholders. The canola industry has this type of importer input, but what it lacks is the legal requirement for action that Bill C-474 would provide.
We further believe that the market impact analysis required by this bill will be positive, as GMO developers will focus the work and investments on traits that our customers want and will accept. Through the passing of this bill and the establishment of a regulatory body that is stakeholder-driven, Canada would have the opportunity to enhance its domestic and export leadership in agriculture.
In summary, I would say three things on behalf of the Manitoba Forage Council. The forage producers of Manitoba want Parliament to pass Bill C-474. The forage producers of Manitoba want the implementation of a regulatory system behind Bill C-474that is both stakeholder-driven and flexible. The forage producers of Manitoba want to stop the introduction of Roundup Ready alfalfa.
Thank you again for this opportunity to present to this committee. I look forward to the question-and-answer period.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you very much, Jim.
We'll now move to Mr. Valeriote, for seven minutes.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before the committee.
My questions arise largely from statements I've made in the House on this issue. I want you to understand that in questioning this specific legislation, it shouldn't be interpreted on my part, frankly, as supporting what I consider to be certain monopolistic tendencies of the industry in GMOs, which I'll address if I get a second question in this time period.
But here's the first question. As I understand it, the real issue is the problem of segregating GMO from non-GMO, and keeping it separate, safely, so that you could export without the risk of contamination. In a few words, is that basically the problem?
4:05 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
I think you're focusing on segregating GMO products from non-GMO products--
4:05 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
--and that is not the point we're trying to make. The real critical issue is that we cannot contain the gene in the environment. Once it's in the environment, we have no way of stopping it from coming in during the production cycle. That's the critical issue. You must understand the science behind that.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Yes, I've got it, Jim, and based on that answer, I'm going to ask you this question. This is largely lifted from the points I made in the House. If a new GE seed was deemed to be harmful for Canada's exports and was therefore prohibited under this seeds act, the prohibition would only prevent the GE seed from being cultivated in Canada. But the same GE crop could still be imported to Canada for processing or used in feed, since these uses are regulated under different legislation, different acts, that only consider the health and safety aspects.
So here's my question. If cultivation of a GE seed was to be prohibited in Canada under this seeds act, could Canadians still import commodities for processing or use in feed produced from this same GE seed? Would the same risk of contamination still not occur?
4:05 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
Yes, it changes the issue dramatically. Then you're talking--
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
I'm talking about different legislation and that therefore this stuff can still get into Canada--
4:05 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
But here's the point. At that point, it's contained, essentially, in some kind of vessel and we're not talking about a growing, organic, and dynamic environment. We're talking about product in a bag, essentially, product in a container of some kind, and then we're talking about cross-contamination that can happen in the processing.
That is much more easily dealt with at the processing level, and that becomes a processor's issue. It becomes a whole different set of regulations, a whole different act, in terms of how you deal with that. The end result could be the same, but the containment and the cleanup are totally different.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
But the problem still exists. If we pass this legislation, the problem still exists, just from a different source.
4:05 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
It would be a very minor source. If you look at seed coming in, the seed would only come in for processing. Think of it in terms of a cereal crop. If we had a cereal crop coming in, it could be processed and then exported out as part of a value-added product leaving Canada.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm trying to understand. Once it's used in Canada, is it not similarly vulnerable in that you said it could be dispersed through water, through insects, etc.? Would the same problem not still exist?