Bill C-474 (Historical)

Seeds Regulations Act

An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm)

This enactment requires the Governor in Council to amend the Seeds Regulations to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

Seeds Regulations

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from the citizens of my riding of Don Valley East who are concerned about the seed regulation and regulations of novel foods and plants with novel traits.

The petitioners believe that these regulations do not include an assessment or consideration of the potential economic harm to farmers of the new GE crop releases. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), to amend the seeds regulations to require that an analysis of the potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Well, I think everyone agrees. As I said, there's global agreement that the sustainability and security of our food supplies around the world, globally, are going to depend on biotechnology. They are, whether you throw in the mitigating effects of climate change and weather-related systems or the higher cost of inputs, it's going to take biotechnology to offset a lot of that and actually let farmers continue to do what they do best here in Canada and around the world.

On Bill C-474, you know, if you think with your heart, you think this is a good idea, that it will protect somebody, but I think farmers are best suited to protect themselves. If you think with your head at all, you end up thinking like JoAnne Buth, the Canola Council of Canada president, who said, and I'll quote it, “You wouldn't have canola in Canada if 474 went through”. It would completely drive that innovation right out of the country. It would go to some other jurisdiction.

That would be unfortunate, because canola, as I said, is king and now has supplanted wheat as the crop of choice in western Canada. Love the Wheat Board or hate the Wheat Board, you still grow more canola than wheat. You simply do. Wheat has become a rotational crop.

Even the president of the Manitoba Flax Growers said, “There's a legitimate concern that markets can be affected by the new technology...but at the same time we are concerned about frivolous claims...that...block technology for the people who want it”. Even the flax guys, who faced the hurt out of this.... Now, we were able to redirect the flax and were able to do different things with it, so that the flax was still moving and the price stayed reasonably good. Having said that, the people who lost the most in that dispute over flax were the processors in Europe and the value-added folks. Further down, they needed it as a feedstock and so on.

There's always that ripple, that trickle-down effect. Certainly there are certain parties who would love to put a wall up around Canada and we would only do so much and we would manage our supply so we.... It's very shortsighted. This country was opened and settled by agriculture and it continues to be an agrarian-based society, as are a lot of other countries. No one is an island, not even Australia, when it comes to foodstuffs. We all have to trade.

I love the idea of eating locally, making sure you're backstopping your local people, but there are a lot of cups of coffee sitting around this table. That's really hard to get in Canada. We just don't grow it, so we have to trade wheat or beef with Colombia to bring in the coffee beans. We do different things like that to augment our food supplies.

When you walk around in a store now and look at the amount and the variety of produce that's available to Canadian consumers, it's astounding. It is. And it happens on a daily basis, with boatloads and truckloads and trainloads, and so on. This has put a tremendous amount of strain on CFIA and public health at both the provincial and the federal level to stay on top of all of that, but they're doing an excellent job.

We continue to know that it's going to take science-based solutions to feed the future. We know it's going to take science-based solutions to keep that farm gate solid. As a government, we'll be there for them.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for coming today.

Last week, I took my yearly journey to Farmfair in Edmonton, and I had the opportunity to make an announcement on your behalf. As I was there announcing the carbon offset protocols, I took in a heifer show and a cow-calf show. I talked to several producers there. They wanted me to pass on two general messages to you, directly from producers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta who were on the ground at that Farmfair.

They wanted to say thank you for the great work you've been doing in opening up markets. They also wanted to stress, to you and our government, the importance of sound science in our agricultural sector, and how scary it is when they hear the opposition parties supporting a bill that would reduce the role of sound science in our agriculture sector.

That being said, Bill C-474 is heading back to the House for third reading. Our government's position has been principled and clear on this from the beginning: we oppose it. But we've been having real problems with Mr. Easter and the Liberal Party. Now, he wants to talk about backroom deals.... I mean, everybody in the industry knows that when they go to his door, he tells them, “Don't worry, we oppose this bill”. But in the House, he supported sending it to committee. In committee, he supported extending the study. In the House once again, he voted for it. That's an awful lot of support for something he's supposedly against.

With Bill C-474 hopefully behind us, the committee is looking at taking an in-depth look at the biotechnology sector here in Canada. This is something that I'm hoping we can all agree to move forward with. I was hoping that you could do two things for us today: talk about the consequences of the support from the Liberal Party on Bill C-474, and also outline some of the initiatives that our government has invested in and anything you'd like to see come out of our study in the biotechnology sector.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Ritz, for appearing.

I have two quick questions.

First, among those people we spoke to in crossing the country, there was concern about farm transfers to the next generation, and that the next generation--younger children--wasn't necessarily prepared to take those farms. Will you and are you considering talking to the Minister of Finance about changing the tax regulations on transfers to non-related people?

Second, with respect to GMOs, we know that GMOs are going to be necessary if we're going to build capacity in poorer countries and if we're going to be able to deal with agriculture in the face of climate change. However, notwithstanding that, we heard in our discussions on Bill C-474 about the threat to biodiversity, particularly in wheat and alfalfa.

What do you plan to do about that with regulations? What are you looking at to protect our alfalfa and wheat farmers from the threat to biodiversity by GMOs?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It's great to be back. I'm here today with a lot of agricultural staff from CFIA and from the agricultural department as well, as you well know. Not unknown to you are John Knubley, deputy minister, and Rita Moritz, program director. From CFIA we have the president, Carole Swan, and Paul Mayers, from the programming side.

Paul just got back in from Belgium late last night, so if he nods off, don't hold it against him.

I have a few opening remarks that I'd be happy to share with you.

We know that agriculture is the backbone of Canada's economy. That's why we put farmers first in all of our policies and programs.

As you know, Mr. Chair, in January of 2006, Canada's farmers gave this government a mandate to give them the tools they need to succeed. Since we've taken office, this government has delivered $12.8 billion to help build a profitable, competitive, innovative, and sustainable agricultural industry.

We continue to strengthen the agricultural industry even further. The estimates you have before you--and I know that's what we'll concentrate on here today--show an additional $290 million, bringing the department's total budget to $3.3 billion. This represents an increase of $696 million, a 27% increase over last year's spending. These new investments deliver on the government's promises to help farmers affected by flooding this year and to support a competitive livestock industry into the future.

Our Growing Forward programs, which are cost-shared and provincially delivered, strengthen food safety, marketing, innovation, environmental services, and farm support. They provide regional flexibility in programming that helps farmers make their money from the marketplace. This allows the consumer, both domestically and internationally, to have access to the top-quality products that our farmers and processors are rightly proud of.

This government is taking concrete steps to open new markets for our exporters, while always protecting our supply-managed sector. Unlike the previous government, this government has focused on actually talking to farmers, finding out what's working and what's not, and making the adjustments.

We've teamed up with Canadian industry associations to make sure we're all rowing in the same direction, hitting the right targets, and fixing what farmers want fixed. Industry and I have hit the road and knocked down doors in more than 20 different markets, some more than once. We're reopening markets, some that have been closed to Canadian producers for almost a decade, and creating new market opportunities that will help farmers boost their bottom line. We've been to India and Turkey to secure our pulse exports and to Colombia to get our beef into South America.

Asia has been a real focus, and in particular, China, Japan, and Hong Kong. Almost a year ago, the Prime Minister announced full pork access for China and full access to Hong Kong for our great Canadian beef. In June, China also agreed to a staged approach for beef access. We will begin those commercial shipments shortly.

Despite continued restrictions from China for canola seed, we were able to negotiate transitional measures for the current crop year, a market that is still worth in excess of $1 billion. Of course challenges still remain, but we won't rest until we have unfettered access, based on sound science, in all these markets.

I'm proud to report that Canada's agricultural exports have risen by 8% in this year alone. This is tremendous news for our front-line farmers. Once consumers around the world taste our high-quality Canadian products, I know they'll continue to choose Canadian when they go to their grocery stores.

We're also working bilaterally through free trade agreements. Step by step, market by market, this government is opening up new markets for our farmers and exporters. We've received a lot of support from the industry for our work on trade; this not only strengthens our efforts, but also proves to me that we're on the right track. I also appreciate that this committee was very supportive of the market access secretariat in the report you did on competitiveness.

Farmers can only benefit from new sales on the world stage if their business is solid here at home. Since we took office, $7.5 billion has been directly invested to farmers through the business risk management programming. Most recently, when prairie farmers were hit with severe flooding, four governments came together and responded with an unprecedented relief package of $450 million that was made available to hard-hit farmers. This was the fastest and largest assistance package in history. The industry, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, and the Keystone Agricultural Producers, was very appreciative of the speed with which these dollars got to the farm gate.

We also gave our hog, cattle, and durum producers more breathing room on their advance payment loans. This was also very much appreciated. Ron Bonnett, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, said, “This Stay of Default provides the critical extra time necessary for many producers to get products to market before having to make their APP repayments”.

These programs have been there when times are tough for Canadian farmers while our economic action plan is helping to build a vibrant farm gate. Through that plan, we are investing in long overdue upgrades to our laboratories and slaughter facilities so our farmers can have the tools and products they need to continue to succeed.

This government also knows that innovation is a key to competitiveness. Innovation allows our farmers to tap new value-added markets, ensuring they remain prosperous while also backstopping our environment.

Our new science and innovation programming under Growing Forward puts a strong emphasis on industry leadership and investment as the way to build a more innovative and competitive agricultural sector. Our investment of $115 million in research clusters and industry-led projects has leveraged an additional $42 million from our industry partners. That's also why we oppose Bill C-474, which would stifle that innovation. As I said, innovation drives prosperity. It's critical that trade remain firmly based on sound scientific principles.

Safe food is also the foundation for growing market access and overall economic success. Of course, we are fully committed to ensuring that Canada's food safety system remains one of the best in the world. We've delivered the resources needed for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to improve food safety and protect the health of Canadians.

Our ongoing actions to improve food safety will ensure that consumers at home and around the world can continue to have confidence in Canadian foodstuffs. We've increased CFIA's inspection staff by 538, or 13%, since March 2006. Furthermore, we've increased the agency's budget by 13% this past year alone.

Mr. Chairman, these investments, regulatory changes, and program improvements have paid dividends already. Among the 17 OECD countries, Canada is ranked number one for its superior recall regulations. Recent public opinion research shows that Canadians trust Canadian-produced food. In fact, more than a third of consumers are more confident in food safety now than they were five years ago. That is a trust we are committed to maintaining by making sure that Canada continues to have a robust food safety system.

We renewed this commitment again last September when our government announced that we would act on all 57 recommendations made by the Weatherill report. We delivered on that promise with an investment of $75 million to backstop Canada's food safety system. This investment is improving CFIA's ability to prevent, detect, and respond to food-borne illness outbreaks.

On the inspection side, CFIA has worked with independent experts to assess the compliance verification system, which is proving to be a strong and effective inspection tool. Furthermore, the government is providing 24-7 service to provide health risk assessments for food safety investigations. This supports a national initiative to improve collection, reporting, and analysis of a wide range of health information.

We are also informing the public through various means so they can get minute-by-minute updates on any food safety risk. We have a new food safety portal, which is a one-stop shop for excellent food safety information. We're also engaging with Canadians through national public information campaigns, Twitter, and Facebook.

More proof of our actions can be found in the government's recently released food safety progress report. That report clearly shows that this government is making significant progress on all 57 recommendations.

Today I'm pleased to announced that the government has taken yet another step to strengthen Canada's food safety system. Our government has appointed seven highly qualified advisers to the minister's advisory board, which fulfills another recommendation of the Weatherill report.

Today's announcement is just one more way in which we're improving an already world-recognized food safety system. This highly qualified and diverse advisory board builds upon our government's increased investments, hiring of more inspectors, and enhanced listeria testing.

The advisory board includes a diverse group of experts who will deliver advice on food safety and other issues related to the CFIA's mandate. This outstanding group of Canadians will be a vital external source that will advise on how to further strengthen our food safety systems. I look forward to receiving the advice of the board and, together, making Canada's food safety system even better.

In closing, I think everyone around this table shares my optimism about the future of this great sector; otherwise, we wouldn't be here. With innovation, Canadian farmers can look forward to a future with stronger trade partnerships, a more sustainable environment, and more profitable farmers, while making sure that families here and around the world continue to have access to our top-quality foodstuffs. Our government knows that when Canadian farmers succeed, they stimulate the economy, create jobs, and increase prosperity for all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce a petition signed by dozens and dozens of citizens of British Columbia who support Bill C-474, a very important piece of legislation introduced by my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior.

This petition draws to the attention of the House that the approval of genetically engineered seeds in Canada, which are not also approved in our export markets, can cause economic harm to Canadian farmers, as we saw with the 2009 contamination of Canadian flax with GE flax disease that resulted in closed European and other export markets.

The petition notes that unexpected and unwanted contamination from GE crops can result in economic hardship for farmers as a result of lost or uncertain markets and low prices.

The petition calls upon the government to amend the seeds regulations to ensure that any potential problems with GE seeds can be dealt with in an appropriate and responsible manner to protect farmers and our agricultural industry, both in this country and in our export markets.

I would urge all members of the House to take note of this petition and act accordingly.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on behalf of constituents in the Okanagan who are tabling a petition with regard to Bill C-474. They have concerns with respect to the seeds regulations and support amending the seeds regulations to require an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food concerning the extension to consider Bill C-474.

Call in the members.

Bill C-300—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on Monday, September 20, 2010, by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the need for a royal recommendation to accompany Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for having drawn this matter to the attention of the House as well as the hon. members for Scarborough—Guildwood and Mississauga South and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation for their comments.

In raising this issue, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that Bill C-300 established a new, quasi-judicial function regarding Canadian companies engaged in mining, oil or gas activities in developing countries to be exercised by the ministers of foreign affairs and international trade. He also contended that the framework required to implement the provisions of the bill was not foreseen by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and that considerable expense would be required to put it in place. In supporting this point, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation noted that during 2009 the World Bank had expended $3.3 million conducting what he described as “parallel investigations” to those he believed would be required by Bill C-300.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons noted that in other cases, the Speaker had found that bills mandating an expansion of the functions of an existing department or agency required a royal recommendation. He referred in that regard to the ruling concerning Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and rate setting) Debates, June 13, 2005, pages 6990-1, as well as to the ruling concerning Bill C-474, National Sustainable Development Act, Debates, February 11, 2008, but I will not cite the pages.

It is in that context that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons maintained that the terms and conditions of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act were therefore being altered by Bill C-300 and that funds would need to be appropriated to carry out the new function imposed by the bill. He concluded that for these reasons, a royal recommendation would be required for Bill C-300.

In his remarks, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood asserted that the bill had been carefully drafted with a view to avoiding any requirement for a royal recommendation. He acknowledged that some reorganization of existing resources would be necessary, but that new resources would not be required.

The Chair takes very seriously the need to respect the requirements for a recommendation of the Crown to accompany any legislation requiring new expenditures. The Chair has therefore examined with care the details of Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, as well as the precedents enumerated by the parliamentary secretary.

The case of Bill C-280, cited by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, involved the creation of a new employment insurance account outside the consolidated revenue fund. Bill C-474, to which he also referred, assigned new functions to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, including the assessing of provincial performance in the meeting of sustainable development goals, which was clearly a significant expansion of the existing mandate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was correct in saying that both Bill C-280 and Bill C-474 required a royal recommendation. In the first instance, the bill created an employment insurance account outside the consolidated revenue fund as well as several other proposals. These included lowering the threshold for becoming a major attachment claimant; setting benefits payable to 55% of the average weekly insurable earnings during the highest paid 12 weeks of the 12 month period preceding the interruption of earnings; reducing the qualifying period before receiving benefits; and removing the distinctions made in the qualifying period on the basis of the regional unemployment rate. From a mere listing of the measures in the bill, one must clearly conclude that the bill had the effect of authorizing increased expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized.

As for Bill C-474, it sought among other things, to modify the mandate of a new independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Specifically, it sought to develop “a national sustainability monitoring system to assess...the state of the Canadian environment, nationally and by province” as well as “...the national and provincial performance in meeting each sustainable development goal...” listed in the bill. There is no doubt that extending the commissioner’s mandate into the provincial arena was clearly a significant expansion of the existing mandate.

Thus, we are in agreement on the issues raised by these two bills, however, it seems to me that the situation presented by Bill C-300, the case now before the House, is not analogous to the circumstances just described.

Bill C-300 does require the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to examine bona fide complaints concerning possible contraventions of the guidelines to be established under clause 5, but the bill is silent with respect to the manner in which such examinations are to be conducted. The respective ministers appear to have entire discretion in this regard. Furthermore, the Chair is of the view that the examination of such complaints is not a departure from or expansion of the current ministerial mandate under the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act to carry out such examinations. Bill C-300 may put forth more stringent requirements, but it does not expand the mandate per se. Hence, a parallel cannot be made to Bill C-474.

In addition, Bill C-300 does not actually call for the establishment of the quasi-judicial process referred to in testimony by departmental officials. Nor does it require that investigations be carried out in other jurisdictions. It may be that a reorganization of resources or even additional funds would be required, however, it appears these would be operational in nature. In short, there is little ground for comparison of Bill C-300 with Bill C-280 and Bill C-474.

Consequently, from a strictly procedural point of view, the Chair cannot find that Bill C-300 requires the expenditure of public funds for a new and distinct purpose. I therefore rule that there is no requirement that the bill be accompanied by a royal recommendation. The House may continue to consider it in accordance with the rules governing private members' business.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

[Richard Phillips]

We appreciate where Mr. Atamanenko is coming from with Bill C-474, but I would have to say that probably every farm group that has appeared before this committee would be staunchly opposed to Bill C-474 and where it's going. I'll just leave it at that.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll just be asking one question and would be happy to share my time with you.

My questions will be for the Grain Growers of Canada and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. After having lived in rural Saskatchewan for 19 years, I truly appreciate your mandate to advance the development of a profitable and sustainable agricultural industry, as well as your belief that government does not owe farmers a living but that farmers deserve a policy environment that will allow them to make a living.

This week we will be voting on extending the time to review Bill C-474. I'd ask that you be really short in your answer. My question is this: what do you think of Bill C-474 and the impact it's going to have on agriculture?

Seeds Regulations

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first one is from over 200 residents of the Okanagan area of my province.

These residents are concerned about genetically modified or engineered seeds. They are saying that the contamination from GE crops can result in economic hardship for farmers as a loss to uncertain markets and lower prices and new costs for testing and cleanup. Of course, they cite the example of flax this year.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation Bill C-474, an act to amend the seed regulations to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by a number of people from the Kitchener-Waterloo area, calling on Parliament to enshrine in legislation Bill C-474, an act respecting the seed regulations.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by many members of my riding and other Canadians who are petitioning Parliament to support Bill C-474, a bill amending the seeds regulations to require that analysis of potential harm to export markets be considered and conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seeds is permitted.

The petitioners ask that this be done forthwith.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present today, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, in relation to an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), referred to the committee on Wednesday, April 14.