Agriculture Committee on March 22nd, 2011

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Then if for some reason they really don't want that read into the record, I've had the opportunity to address the committee on why it is important that we talk about this. But anyway, regardless, it was a motion about the Canadian Wheat Board, and I would have to assume that maybe the reason he brought this forward would have been to try to avoid talking about the Canadian Wheat Board, because he wants to force western Canadian farmers to not have the choice of where to market their grain. In order to do that, he had to run roughshod over the committee, over our privileges as members. I know myself, my motion being the one that was run over...he's run against all practices of the committee and shown no respect for committee practice, procedure, and absolutely no respect for the other members of the committee.

So as I thought about it and tried to understand why he would want to bring this forward, those are the two reasons I came up with: one being his political gamesmanship, and the other one trying to run roughshod over the rest of the committee, so we don't have to debate the fact that he's trying to remove the possibility for western farmers to have marketing freedom. Again, it goes back to the broader point. There is a lack of concern or care for what farmers in this country are asking for, what they want to see happen. Instead, it's all about political games and trying to force an unnecessary election, and in the process trying to force some of these things through that he wants to get on the record prior to forcing that.

So I would suggest that we want to look at this in the context of the broader study being proposed by this amendment, and try to put it into the context of looking at the biotechnology industry as a whole, trying to look at it in the context of what are the opportunities, what are the challenges, and what are some of the issues out there, and hear from farmers in doing so, rather than just moving forward based on some political strategy that Mr. Easter and the Liberal Party have. Let's hear from farmers; let's debate it in the broader context of the study. If you bring this forward today, is someone else going to bring forward one other little aspect of this tomorrow, etc.?

What we should do instead is look at biotechnology as a package, as a whole, and look at the issues out there and make our judgments—whether it be on GM alfalfa, whether it be on other aspects of biotechnology—and do it on that basis. Although they claim there's an emergency, I certainly don't see where this emergency is, as has already been outlined. No registrations are being proposed or put forward at this time. If there were, there certainly is a long process behind that, I'm sure, and I just don't see the emergency here.

I would very strongly suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we support this amendment, because I think it's the only way to give some real context to the discussion, to look at this in the broader context and make a judgment based on all the facts, particularly having the information that's provided to us by farmers. Rather than just trying to move forward with the political games of the Liberal Party and their coalition partners, let's look at what farmers have to say and base our decisions on the broader issue at hand, based on what farmers would tell us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Now I have Mr. Easter speaking to the amendment.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly oppose the amendment. There has been a lot of discussion by the previous speakers on the motions on the paper, trying to leave the impression that some of those motions are frivolous.

I can tell you that the motion that came forward last March on hogs and the other one last October on hogs were extremely important at that time. I can tell you with all honesty that had we been able to deal with those motions at that time.... I regret not pushing the issue at that time because we were doing other committee business. But I can name you farmers who are not farming now because we didn't deal with that issue. So they were not frivolous motions. Don't try to give me that line.

This motion, the amendment, comes forward at.... There comes a time in parliamentary life when parliamentarians have to make some decisions. Having heard the witnesses during the Bill C-474 debate--

[An hon. member]

What witnesses?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We heard a lot of witnesses on Bill C-474, although you folks blocked some from coming forward. We heard a number of witnesses on the biotechnology debate.

There's real concern out there in the organic farming community at the moment--in the alfalfa industry, especially in Manitoba--about GM alfalfa. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians, if we're doing our job, to act on that. The amendment is effectively a delay tactic by the Government of Canada in making the necessary decisions to give the alfalfa industry some security in terms of a moratorium as it relates to GM alfalfa.

Randy, in his remarks, is right about the registration process. I faced Monsanto on rBGH a number of years ago. We know they can move forward aggressively to register if they like. There is nothing in place at the moment to assure farmers that proper protocols will be followed to protect those farmers who do not want GM alfalfa...from it coming forward.

Simply put, I speak in opposition to the amendment because I see it as another delay tactic. The original motion, when you put it in context, is not an absolute ban. It lays out the protocols, public research, and various areas that have to be covered before anything can happen on GM alfalfa.

It's essential and urgent to give some assurance to the farming community. Almost everyone is opposed to genetically modified alfalfa.

As a last point, I've talked to Syngenta and Monsanto. In fact, I have been lobbied fairly aggressively by them since the motion came forward. When you say that nobody is interested in their product, they'll concede that point and say that if they put it out there people might be interested, and it would be an affront to the market if they weren't allowed to do so. Well, I think it's an affront to those farmers who are in the organic industry now, to those farmers who have strong alfalfa markets in Europe, if we leave all the power and authority in the hands of Monsanto, which wants to bring forward this GM alfalfa.

So I oppose the amendment on the simple basis that I see it as a delay tactic on the part of the government. I believe we need to make a decision, and we need to make it today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Lemieux is next on the amendment.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

On the amendment, Chair, yes.

First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Hoback for his amendment. I think it's a good amendment because it tries to deal with the issue. Mr. Hoback is acting very much in the role of peacemaker, and he's a good MP that way. He's trying to bridge two sides. I'm quite opposed to the main motion; Mr. Easter is quite in favour of the main motion. However, this is a way of bringing the two sides together, and it's a real attempt to put good spirit and good faith back into the committee, because no one has said—at least I haven't heard it said—that there isn't concern with Roundup Ready alfalfa. No one has said that this shouldn't be addressed. Mr. Hoback certainly isn't saying that in his motion. What he is saying, Chair, is that the motion should be rolled into the report. In fact, it's directing the committee to ensure that it is specifically addressed in its biotechnology study and in the biotechnology report.

So it's taking Mr. Easter's concerns, it's validating them, in a sense, and saying, yes, we need to look at that specifically. That's what this motion is doing. So I think it's actually a good step forward, and it's a step between two opposing sides. I'm surprised that Mr. Easter rejects it outright, because it would accomplish what he wanted to accomplish in terms of the issue being addressed.

I think Mr. Shipley brought up a really good point earlier, in that the opposition said the study's going to take two years. I hope not. I don't think we'd be rendering any service to the farm community or to this committee if we took two years to do the report.

This report has to be long enough, of course, that it encompasses the main players and that the committee hears sufficient testimony from a number of witnesses with different points of view—we don't want to hear witnesses from just one point of view—but it doesn't need to be two years long. I mean, come on. I think the committee can work much better than that, and we have worked much better than that when we've done our other reports. Some reports have been a little bit longer than others, but it simply depends on the breadth of the subject matter, the scope of the subject matter.

Again, back to what Mr. Hoback is proposing here, he's simply proposing that the matter be specifically addressed by the committee in the report. I think that's a very important point, because there are a couple of things. The first point I'll bring up is that the motion without the amendment basically says moratorium. It's moratorium or bust. Everything or nothing. Really? Is there anything else in between? Shouldn't we look at that? Must it be a moratorium or nothing?

We don't normally deal in categoricals that way. I think as a committee we try to find, perhaps, options, alternatives, different ways to solve a problem, but we haven't had a chance to discuss that with witnesses; we haven't had a chance to discuss this at committee. We just have that it's black, white, yes, no; it's one solution or another solution. How about allowing us to flesh this out a bit?

So we need further discussion on this, and I think it would be fair to everybody if the committee actually took a serious look at this matter, not a superficial look, which is what this is doing. This is like a “one solution only” and everything else doesn't measure up. We should be taking a serious look at this matter, and we should be looking at what other options may or may not be possible. We can only do that when we have witnesses and when we have time to discuss it in a non-adversarial atmosphere, which is definitely not the case over these last two days, given the way in which this motion was handled. I think we can get things back on track, and I thank Mr. Hoback for basically taking the steps to help get us back on track as a committee.

The reason I bring up that there might be other alternatives is because Canada has one of the most stringent and rigorous regulatory systems in terms of the introduction of new products. It's based on sound science, but of course it also needs the input of farmers. This is part of the debate that we had on Mr. Atamanenko's bill. As part of our tour on biotechnology, when we were out west, it was explained to us that to bring a new trait into the marketplace can take in the neighbourhood of—it's on average—about 10 years of work, and it's in the neighbourhood of $100 million to $150 million. Those are big numbers. That's a lot of time, effort, and resources. That's a lot of money that gets invested into developing a particular trait.

I don't know many companies that would invest that time and money if there are no buyers. Who would the buyers be? Farmers. Farmers definitely have a fundamental role to play in whether or not a product actually makes it to market, because if farmers won't buy something, what's the point of producing it? What's the point of investing 10 years and $100 million to $150 million to no effect?

This is a key point. It's a debate we had regarding Mr. Atamanenko's bill, and it's tied into the approach to GM. That's why I'm saying there might be other measures than just a flat-out moratorium. We should look at this in detail. We should look at it in a serious manner, not a superficial manner.

The other thing, too, Chair, is that when we produce our final report, I think the committee needs to understand the message it wants to deliver on biotechnology. In other words, we have to look at all the testimony. We have to look at the site visits we did. We have to consider the evidence that was presented and the points of view that were presented to committee. We have to take all of that into consideration. We also have to apply our own experience, our own expertise, our own judgments as elected officials. If some of us have particular backgrounds--I am a parliamentary secretary, and Mr. Easter was a parliamentary secretary for agriculture--we roll that into our report. We have to have an understanding of what messaging we want to send to the agricultural sector, to our farmers, when we issue this report.

I can tell you, for example, that I'd have a concern if on the one hand we said in the report that biotechnology is good, that it helps our farmers, and it will help farmers be more competitive, but on the other hand we said that we are calling for a moratorium. Someone standing back five feet would say, “I'm sorry, you just confused me. Are you for it or against it?”

A moratorium is very drastic action. I'm not saying it can't be taken. It can be taken. I'm saying that when we're talking about the amendment, when we're looking at building it into the report, this gives the committee the opportunity to look at its approach to biotechnology. I think one of the issues farmers may have with committee work, for example, is if diametrically opposed initiatives are contained within the same report. They wouldn't understand whether we were for or against, and whether we were suggesting a moratorium on a whole bunch of other things too. Quite frankly, Chair, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them came back and asked us whether we had considered this or that.

I would put forward to Mr. Easter that if he wants to question witnesses on this matter, he now has the opportunity. I have not heard a lot of questions and answers on a moratorium on GM alfalfa. I've heard some of our witnesses mention it, but I haven't seen the committee pursue this point. I have not seen opposition MPs or government MPs pursue this point and actually ask the question. It's fine for witnesses to say they are not in favour of GM alfalfa and they think there should be a moratorium. Okay, but how about follow-up questions such as: What do they think the impact would be on their sector? What do they think the impact would be on the wider agricultural sector? Have they done any consultation, or is that their personal opinion? Is it their personal opinion, or is it the opinion of their group? Has their group consulted more widely? Have they spoken to the OFA or the CFA? There are other farm groups and organizations that these groups or representatives might be plugged into, perhaps should be plugged into. How wide had they consulted before they made the statement that they think there should be a moratorium on something? I'd like to ask what they think the repercussions of a moratorium would be. I'd like to ask about other possibilities.

Why don't we pool some of the information from the witnesses in terms of what other possibilities there could be? Other possibilities could include some valid ideas that they put on the table. They're on the ground, Chair. They're the farmers. They know where their best interests lie, and I think we'll probably get a number of good ideas. Again, by including Mr. Hoback's amendment as part of the motion, I actually think we can have a fuller understanding of what a particular moratorium on GM alfalfa might do, if that's the end solution that is being proposed, or how that might work as advantage or a disadvantage when it comes to the agricultural sector.

As I said, I'm somewhat surprised that Mr. Easter is so opposed to that. I'm also surprised that he actually hasn't participated in the debate today. If the motion is so important, why hasn't he been speaking in favour of it?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

You can't get a word in edgewise around here. How could you?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, we know he can get a word in edgewise. You know, he could add himself to the speakers list. In fact, other than raising a point of order, no other MP, no other opposition--

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

I asked to be on that list at the beginning of this meeting. I was not put on the list. I've already debated that with you, so don't you dare start talking about who hasn't been on the list and ready to speak, because only Mr. Easter has been.

You guys have taken over the debate. You know that. I'm angry, yes. I'm angry because this has been just an obscene presentation by you today to take over the full meeting so that the debate could not occur. Just because somebody disagrees with you, Mr. Lemieux, does not mean that we are not functioning properly.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Does he have the floor? Who has the floor, Chair? Can I address that for a moment?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, we're going to adjourn, and I want to know that I am first on that list when we return on Thursday.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No. Why should you have that privilege?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Because I've asked to be on this list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Order. Order.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Get on the list on the next meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Valeriote--

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

With that outrage, I think you know what I'm talking about. You forced yourself upon the committee--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux, order.

The meeting is over time now. We adjourn until Thursday.