Seeds Regulations Act

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

This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, which ended in March 2011.

This bill was previously introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session.

Sponsor

Alex Atamanenko  NDP

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Second reading (House), as of Nov. 3, 2009
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

Feb. 9, 2011 Failed That Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), be concurred in at report stage.
Feb. 9, 2011 Failed That Bill C-474 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 1 the following new clause: “3. For the purposes of section 2, “potential harm to export markets” exists if the sale of new genetically engineered seed in Canada would likely result in an economic loss to farmers and exporters as a result of the refusal, by one or more countries that import Canadian agricultural products, to allow the admission of any registered Canadian seed, or crops or products derived from that seed.”
Feb. 9, 2011 Failed That Bill C-474 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 1 the following new clause: “3. In this Act, “new”, in respect of a genetically engineered seed, means a genetically engineered seed that was not registered in Canada before the day on which this Act comes into force.”
Feb. 9, 2011 Failed That Bill C-474 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 1 the following new clause: “3. In this Act, “genetically engineered seed” means a seed that has been altered using recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology.”
Feb. 9, 2011 Failed That Bill C-474 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 1 the following new clause: “3. The analysis referred to in section 2 shall take into account whether or not the variety of genetically engineered seed in question has been approved for use in the countries that import Canadian agricultural products.”
Feb. 9, 2011 Failed That Bill C-474 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 1 the following new clause: “3. The analysis referred to in section 2 shall take into account the economic impact on Canadian farmers and exporters whose established markets for registered seed or for the crops and products derived from that seed would be harmed as a result of the introduction of the new variety of genetically engineered seed.”
Feb. 9, 2011 Failed That Bill C-474 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 1 the following new clause: “3. The analysis referred to in section 2 shall take into account the regulatory systems that govern genetically engineered seed and the crops and products that are derived from that seed in the countries that import Canadian agricultural products.”
Feb. 9, 2011 Failed That Bill C-474 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 1 the following new clause: “3. The results of the analysis referred to in section 2 shall be included as part of every application that is made for the registration of a variety of seed and any notification of the release of the seed in question into the environment.”
Feb. 9, 2011 Failed That Bill C-474, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 1 with the following: “gineered seed is permitted in Canada.”
Feb. 9, 2011 Failed That Bill C-474, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 1 with the following: “by the Government of Canada, published in the Canada Gazette and taken into consideration by the Government of Canada before the sale of any new genetically en-”
Feb. 9, 2011 Failed That Bill C-474, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 1 with the following: “2. The Governor in Council shall, within 90”
April 14, 2010 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

June 2nd, 2010 / 4:10 p.m.
See context

JoAnne Buth President, Canola Council of Canada

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the committee for the invitation to the Canola Council of Canada to be here today.

The Canola Council is a vertically integrated trade association that represents all sectors of the canola industry, including seed developers, growers, processors, and exporters. We all sit at the same table to ensure that the canola value chain remains intact and profitable, so it's fitting that we're here today to address an issue that does and will continue to affect the entire value chain.

I'd like to make three main points this afternoon: the importance of trade to canola, which Rick has already mentioned; what the canola industry is doing to ensure that trade continues; and offer a solution to Bill C-474, dealing with low-level presence.

The first point I'd like to make is that avoiding market access issues that affect our farmers and industry is clearly a top priority for us. Over 85% of Canadian canola is exported, and canola faces both tariff issues and, increasingly, non-tariff trade barriers. We agree with Mr. Atamanenko that the most extreme and destructive market access issue is when a large market closes suddenly. The committee is right to be concerned about the impact of such an event and its impact on farmers throughout the supply chain, from seed developers to exporters. I'm sure you're aware of China's concern with a disease called blackleg and new U.S. regulations on sustainable biofields. The canola industry needs to be ever vigilant, ensuring that our farmers and industry have access to markets around the world.

Allow me to take a moment to pass along our industry's appreciation to the federal government and to all parties in the House for their support on these issues. When China imposed new restrictions in November, Minister Ritz and the new Market Access Secretariat swung into action immediately and secured important temporary arrangements to maintain trade. The Prime Minister took this issue up with his counterpart on his visit to China. The government has been active since then to fully restore the market. This strong support for our sector is critical.

We have also had support from parliamentarians from all parties. With your agreement to pair MPs, Minister Ritz was able to press our case in China again earlier this year. Monsieur Gaudet from the Bloc Québécois was also on the mission and advocated strongly in support of agricultural exports from his region.

So we thank you all for promoting agriculture overseas, and we assure you that we are fully engaged in defending the rights of our farmers to compete on world markets.

The second key consideration for this committee in examining this bill is the remarkable innovation and competitive advantage made possible to all our producers by canola seed developers, particularly through the application of genetic modification. As Rick pointed out, canola farmers have gained yield, improved quality, reduced costs, saved valuable time, and, most important of all, achieved higher margins directly from innovation and seed development. Canola has been Canada's most valuable crop for the last four years. In 2009, canola provided growers with over $5 billion in farm cash receipts. About 90% of canola is genetically modified to be resistant to specific herbicides. Canada's farmers have adopted this innovation eagerly and are looking forward to future innovation.

We agree that we have to do everything possible to avoid market access challenges, but not at the expense of science and innovation that is at the heart of our success. A move away from science-based framework for biotech is an invitation to other countries to deny our science and eliminate our competitive advantage in world markets. It's a huge gamble with our industry, and we strongly oppose it.

We urge the committee to report to the House that this bill proceed no further through the legislative process. In the debates that have taken place on this bill, one of the questions that comes up is, if not Bill C-474, what can be done to protect farmers from the losses associated with market closure? We have a recommendation for you to consider, and this is my third point to the committee.

I would like to outline what the Canola Council and the industry do now to mitigate against market challenges based on our GM advantage.

The Canadian canola industry market access policy is a voluntary industry agreement that ensures new GM seed traits are only introduced to Canadian producers when they've been approved in all of our major export markets. Since its inception in 1995, the policy has always been respected. Seed developers, before they introduce new varieties, consult the industry. The industry policy ensures that no new GM canola traits are grown before international markets have approved them for import. Because Canada's grain handling and transportation system does not segregate by seed variety, it's important that all traits be approved in major markets before they're grown. The major markets that are part of the policy are, clearly, Canada, the United States, Japan, Mexico, China, South Korea, and the European Community.

We also work directly with farmers to ensure they grow only approved varieties and utilize acceptable pesticide treatments that could impact trade. We do this through our export-ready communications program. It provides information to growers in the industry on acceptable pesticides, seed treatments, canola varieties, and approved GM traits for canola that are destined for export markets. The objective is to ensure producers are only growing and delivering canola varieties that are approved for delivery in major markets.

The export-ready program is a central component of the council's communications with farmers. The Canola Council provides this information to growers at farm meetings and in communications throughout the year. Producers can access all required information from the Canola Council website. In the coming months, as part of our efforts to improve all aspects of our market access planning, including dealing with the blackleg issue, we will be communicating more assertively to producers.

Let me now turn attention to an alternative approach to managing the risk of unapproved GM events inadvertently appearing in grain shipments in an importing country—and this is my third point. The solution we recommend is a regulatory framework for managing low-level presence of a GM trait under these circumstances. As an alternative to the immediate closure of a market under a zero-tolerance standard, an LLP approach would provide for the importing country to adopt a risk-management approach to allow a low level of GM while a permanent solution is determined. This avoids the market calamity, which can impact producers and businesses that rely on the trade of this product, while ensuring the health of humans and animals.

The real issue for GM traits in the international arena is the zero-tolerance approach to any level of a GM trait that is not approved in an importing country. We know that once a trait is commercialized, there will be low levels in a commodity. We cannot achieve zero because of the grain industry bulk handling and transportation system. Because regulatory systems applying to GM products take a zero-tolerance approach, the market can suddenly be fully disrupted, despite the fact that the GM trait in question has been proven safe and it's not purposely being introduced into that market but is detected at low levels. This is not a health and safety issue. It is important to remember that all approved events have been tested and authorized by at least one competent regulatory authority or by one country, so they are approved as safe for human and animal consumption.

There is no risk to human health in approved GM products. The problem is not with the GM trait that has passed this rigorous analysis and approval. It is with the inflexible, zero-tolerance regulatory systems. The reality today is that trade stoppages are being caused by regulatory non-compliance issues that don't relate to scientifically supported food, animal, or environmental concerns.

Rather than stick to a rigid zero-tolerance model, which will undoubtedly result in more market havoc as the number of GM products and volume of international trade increases--and we know it will--regulators should move to a risk-based approach that accounts for low-level presence. The solution to dealing with trade issues as a result of GM is the development of global policies and approaches to risk management and low-level presence. This can include harmonization of approvals, mutual recognition of another country's approval, and use of the Codex guidelines, which were developed specifically to resolve these issues.

We need leadership in the global marketplace to show that an LLP policy can work, and Canada needs to be that leader. The development of a new Canadian LLP policy would show that risk-management procedures can be employed by importing governments for unauthorized GM events, thereby removing zero-threshold policies and facilitating our exports. The development of international LLP policies would encourage innovation within our grain industry by removing an industry's fears that LLP of a new event would automatically disrupt trade.

For Canada's canola sector, the choice for the committee is clear. Canada can lead in the development of practical, realistic trade policies, which facilitate continued innovation and profitability for our sector. These need to encourage innovation for the farmer and leave market decisions to the producer and the grain exporter. They need to be grounded in science and vigorously defended in all international forums.

The other road that is contemplated by Bill C-474 is to categorize our innovation and science as a liability, to limit our farmers' access to proven, safe, effective seed technologies because of an ill-defined, non-science-based market assessment, and to take market judgments away from the farmer and the private sector.

Once again we urge the committee to recommend to the House that Bill C-474 proceed no further in the legislative process.

Thank you.

June 2nd, 2010 / 4 p.m.
See context

Rick White General Manager, Canadian Canola Growers Association

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Rick White. I am the general manager of the Canadian Canola Growers Association and a farmer from southeastern Saskatchewan. I want to thank you for inviting CCGA to speak to this committee on a bill of great concern to canola farmers.

CCGA represents over 50,000 canola growers across Canada and is governed by a board of directors, who are farmers representing all provinces from Ontario west to B.C.

Speaking as a grower, canola is essential to the profitability of our farm. Beyond being the most profitable crop, it also allows us to generate predictable cashflows at all times of the year, and that's critically important to any business, but especially for farming, where other crops can be less financially predictable.

I believe that biotechnology has played a very significant role in canola becoming our most valuable crop. When herbicide-tolerant canola was introduced, it represented a major shift in the way we grow canola, making our land and environmental stewardship practices much stronger.

Canola is not a very competitive crop, meaning that when the seedling emerges from the soil, it is not very competitive with weeds that also germinate. Weed control has always been a challenge with canola. In the past we used intensive cultivation, soil-incorporated herbicides, and multiple herbicide applications to control weeds. With the introduction of herbicide tolerance, we now control weeds with only one pass of the sprayer, and this means less chemical is applied to the soil and we spend far less money on fuel and labour.

In addition, and equally important, is the fact that we can seed canola directly into the soil, disturbing less than an inch-wide strip of the soil for each row. We no longer need to till the soil. Reduced-tillage farming has real and significant benefits to the health of our soil and to the environment.

Beyond the benefits of weed control, the GM canola varieties we grow on our farm have proven to produce the strongest plants under what seem to be constantly changing climate conditions on the prairies. For several years we dealt with near-drought conditions; now this year we're dealing with one of the wettest springs ever. These are extreme conditions, and the GM canola varieties we grow produce plants that are much more robust and can withstand the blistering heat or soggy conditions better than the conventional varieties.

The impact of this on the profitability and success of our farm should not be underestimated. By being better able to withstand these types of variable conditions, these varieties reduce our risk and provide more income stability to our farm. I would estimate that, on average, our yields from GM canola are 30% to 40% better than open-pollinated, non-GM varieties. In years of drought or excess moisture, the GM varieties will be the difference between a crop failure and simply a less than average yield.

The canola industry has reached its success because of our ability to out-innovate our competitors by using the best science available. New and innovative traits will be key to maintaining and expanding our domestic and export industries.

I'd like to point out clearly that canola is the crop that pays the bills on our farm.

I'll take off my farmer hat and speak about the CCGA more broadly.

Science and innovation, including biotechnology, have been key innovation tools in achieving the economic and agronomic successes in canola. Recently this committee released a report entitled Competitiveness of Canadian Agriculture, which stated that:

Technological innovation is one of the best ways of improving Canadian farmers’ competitiveness through efficiency gains, higher yields and new product development.

We couldn't agree more. Innovation is essential to ensure that canola remains a western Canadian success story. The cornerstone of Canadian crop innovation is a predictable and science-based regulatory approval system that encourages investment in research and development. That is the system that has allowed us to achieve so many successes in the canola industry and that will allow our industry to remain competitive in the future.

This is why the Canadian Canola Growers Association views Bill C-474 as a significant threat to the future competitiveness of our industry. If the regulatory approach in this bill had existed 30 years ago, the $14 billion in economic activity that the Canadian canola industry generates annually would likely not exist today. If this bill is adopted now, with our competitors adopting new technologies at an increasing rate, our industry, including Canadian farmers, handlers, researchers, and processors, would be competitively hobbled. There's no doubt this bill would have a significant negative impact on the future of the canola industry.

If the regulatory process governing the introduction of new technology were expanded to include non-science criteria, there could be severe consequences for the canola industry.

First, the potential for political and activist intervention in the process would be significant and create additional risk for canola's technology investors. As a result, given that Canada is a major canola production region and that the crop is relatively small when compared to competitors such as soybeans or palm, uncertainty about the Canadian regulatory process could divert research and development dollars away from canola and into other field crops, or to other countries where the regulatory approval system is more predictable.

This would leave Canadian farmers at a major competitive disadvantage, putting in serious jeopardy the introduction of new plant traits, such as improved stress tolerance, higher oil content, and enhanced nutritional properties for consumer health. Other traits include nitrogen-use efficiency, which will reduce the crop's need for fertilizer, and resistance to new and emerging pests, which can help stabilize both the food supply and farm incomes by reducing the frequency and severity of crop disasters. These new traits will not only provide additional market opportunities for Canadian farmers, but will also provide further benefits to our environment, the health of our consumers, and the rural economy.

Secondly, the adoption of Bill C-474 would mean that key customers would no longer be able to cite the Canadian example of science-based regulatory approvals as justification for maintaining similar systems in their own countries. The potential for other countries, particularly those that grow rapeseed, to use non-science-based criteria in order to control imports with non-tariff trade barriers could be justified on the basis that Canada no longer has a solely science-based system.

To preserve and expand export markets and ensure continued research and development in canola, the Canadian Canola Growers Association supports the continuation of the current science-based regulatory system governing the introduction of all varieties, including those derived from GM technology.

Since the adoption of GM canola in 1996, canola has continued to expand its export markets. From 1998 to 2008, Canadian canola exports increased by over 40%, from 3.9 million tonnes to 5.6 million tonnes, and our trade represents 75% of the global trade in canola and rapeseed. Looking forward, the industry has set a goal of 15 million tonnes of sustainable production by 2015; 7.5 million tonnes of that is expected to be exported as seed, and upwards of 85% of the total crop will be exported when canola oil exports are included.

These targets and successes speak to the canola industry's confidence in its ability to grow the market for GM canola and in the acceptance of GM canola by our major customers. They also speak to the success of the Canola Council of Canada's market access policy, a voluntary industry agreement that ensures new GM seed traits are only introduced commercially when they have been approved in key export markets. The fact that this policy has always been respected since its inception in 1995 is a strong reflection that the industry recognizes and respects the importance of being responsible about the introduction of new technologies and does not require regulation to police itself.

That said, ensuring Canadian farmers have access to international markets is a serious issue for the canola industry. However, we believe our efforts would be better spent working with governments around the world through vehicles such as Codex, to develop low-level presence policies and agreements to ensure that the low-level presence of traits that have not yet been approved in the respective importing country does not disrupt trade flows. Rather than work toward a more realistic and forward-thinking solution, such as low-level presence agreements, Bill C-474 would maintain the zero-tolerance thresholds, which are pragmatically impossible to achieve and can cause trade disruptions, especially as the ability to detect even the most minute traces of material increases.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress the importance of science and innovation to the future success of the canola industry. But future innovations and the competitiveness of the Canadian canola industry could be in jeopardy if Bill C-474 is passed through Parliament. While this bill is intended to protect market access, creating an unpredictable investment environment for Canadian crop research and development is an unacceptable consequence of this legislation.

Canola farmers will require all future technological advancements to be made available to them in order to remain competitive. As a nation, we need to facilitate this, not hamper it. As canola farmers, we strongly support maintaining Canada's current science-based regulatory system for approving new canola varieties. We urge you to do the same by recommending to the House that Bill C-474 proceed no further in the legislative process.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I look forward to your questions.

June 2nd, 2010 / 3:30 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Alex, for putting forward the bill. I do believe we need a debate on the whole issue of genetically engineered crops. We also need a debate about the amount of control, the rights companies take when they produce a crop. That increasingly seems to be making farmers powerless, in terms of their own production base.

I will admit I have some serious problems with the bill in the fact that it's under the seeds regulations. I do think the issue has to be dealt with, but I don't think this is the right place for it.

My first question—and I'll roll two questions into one—is why use the seeds regulations to try to control genetically engineered products? Two, you did mention in your remarks about GE Triffid, but as I understand it, had Bill C-474—what this bill proposes to do—been in place, it really wouldn't have changed anything with respect to the GE Triffid issue.

Can you answer those two questions?

June 2nd, 2010 / 3:20 p.m.
See context

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Oh, my goodness. You can start timing me. I did really try to trim this down last night.

This is my assistant, Gina Petrakos, who's giving me all the information and working with me. I'll read this, and hopefully I won't be too fast.

It's an honour, of course, and a privilege to appear before my colleagues to make my case for my private member's bill. It is my hope that as a result of our deliberations on Bill C-474, the committee will be convinced of the importance of having this legislation in place.

As you know, this bill asks for an amendment to the Seeds Regulations requiring that any new genetically modified seed be tested for potential harm to export markets before it is sold.

By now we are all aware of the GE Triffid flax that was found to have contaminated last year's flax export shipments. Flax farmers continue to pay the price, yet we see there is nothing in the way of regulation to prevent a similar scenario from happening in the future. Protecting farmers from market rejection is what Bill C-474 is all about.

As we consider the merits of adding a component to the regulations that will protect the economic interests of Canadian farmers, we are obliged to gain a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the threats to farmers by not having such legislation. We must take great pains to get our facts straight in terms of what seeds are genetically engineered, how that technology is actually being used, whether the claims being made about its benefits can be substantiated, as well as who is benefiting and who is not.

In Canada, farmers are growing GE corn, canola, soy, and white sugar beet for sugar processing. This is the sum total of GE seeds in the market for Canadian farmers. Globally we can add GE cotton and the rarely grown GE papaya and squash, as well as a new GE potato in Europe. This is the picture of what genetic engineering has to offer currently.

Secondly, there are no seeds on the market thus far that have been genetically engineered specifically to increase yield. Any yield advantages have come through traditional breeding. Two traits--insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant--make up virtually all of the GE traits commercialized and grown in the world.

Thirdly, there are no terminator seeds on the market anywhere in the world because there is a global moratorium on this technology. Monsanto now owns this research.

Genetic engineering provides the means by which companies are able to patent seeds. These patents give companies full protection under the law to prevent anyone else from growing, saving, developing, or even researching their patent products. The ability to patent seeds has enabled a handful of multinational seed companies to gain unprecedented control over the seeds. While in the 1970s we had over 7,000 different seed enterprises, both public and private, around the world, we now have just 10 companies in control of 67% of the global seed market.

If we look at who the top three seed companies are, we see they are also the top three pesticide companies. We need to examine closely how these companies are using the enormous power they have gained through patents over seeds.

We are told that industry has already voluntarily delayed or stopped the commercialization of new GE seeds because of market considerations, but this isn't true. Industry has delayed or stopped commercialization because of farmer protest--not because of market concerns per se, but because farmers have refused to accept the predicted market harm.

In the case of flax, the flax industry convinced the University of Saskatchewan to withdraw variety registration for GE flax because of farmer protest. Similarly, Monsanto withdrew its application to the CFIA for approval of GE Roundup Ready wheat because farmers and consumers in Canada and the U.S. protested for years.

We cannot leave the burden on busy farmers to protest--sometimes for years at a time--a product that they know will threaten their export markets. The government's job is to support farmers and to protect them from anything that may jeopardize their industry.

GE alfalfa has now passed unhindered through health and environmental approvals. Monsanto only has to register the varieties and they will be allowed into the market. We are being warned about the severe impact this would have on the organic beef industry, for example, which relies on non-GM alfalfa as a source of feed, as well as other organic farmers who use alfalfa as a form of nitrogen fixation in the soil.

The logic of Bill C-474 is clear. Normally in the business world, prior to opening up a store or developing a product, an analysis of some kind is done to evaluate the feasibility of the project--a market analysis.

How can we demonstrate that we are responsible to producers who are telling us about the economic harm linked to the introduction of alfalfa? They know that contamination is inevitable. Monsanto has started its research into genetically modified wheat again despite the issue of contamination and the effect on our export markets.

We need to be able to survey our export markets and know which markets have approved which GM crops and foods. This information is necessary so we can build good agriculture policy. Our farmers expect us to have this information ready before new GM crops are on the market.

The case of GM flax shows the cost incurred to the industry as a whole and to farmers on an individual basis. These farmers are now paying for testing and cleanup. It also shows that the economic cost of contamination will extend to government, as we strive to support industries facing economic crises. The government has provided, for example, $1.9 million to the flax industry to help companies cover the cost of testing and rebuild relationships with Europe.

Is prevention based on knowledge a reasonable approach?

The Manitoba Forage Council has already passed a resolution saying they will hold Ottawa accountable if GM alfalfa is approved and hurts their industry. In light of these concerns and others, why is there such a big and urgent push to introduce GE crops?

If GE crops are designed to support and benefit farmers, we should make sure this happens by also protecting their export markets. The fact is that the controversy over GE is not going away, and this controversy is determining the acceptance of our export markets. The reality is that there are ongoing serious concerns about GE from farmers, consumers, and scientists, and there are new emerging issues all the time that feed this national and global controversy.

For example, we see the new agronomic problem of herbicide-tolerant weeds. This problem was predicted and is now becoming an economic headache for farmers in the U.S. Weeds resistant to glyphosate are appearing in the southern U.S. This is increasing the amount of glyphosate being used and forcing farmers back to other pesticides.

Just this year, Monsanto confirmed the first glyphosate-resistant weed in Canada--a giant herbicide-resistant ragweed that was found in southwestern Ontario. Also, according to Robert Kremer from the plant sciences division of the University of Missouri and Don Huber of Purdue University, in an article published in the European Journal of Agronomy in October last year, the widespread use of glyphosate can also:

significantly increase the severity of various plant diseases, impair plant defense to pathogens and diseases, and immobilize soil and plant nutrients rendering them unavailable for plant use.

Like it or not, there are people in the world asking questions about genetically modified organisms.

Following animal experiments in Russia, for example, some scientists are calling for a ban on genetically modified food until their biosafety has been tested. Scientists in France have shown that the genetically modified corn called Monsanto 810 is harmful to mammals. The government immediately banned the cultivation and sale of the corn. Curiously, this corn is still grown in Canada. In Europe, five other European Union countries have banned the cultivation of genetically modified corn: Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg.

I want to emphasize that these are decisions made by scientists and their governments have listened.

The decisions that our export markets are making are largely out of our own hands, as I've just shown. We can try to change the reality in our export markets, but we cannot sacrifice the economic well-being of our farmers in the meantime. The fact is that the majority of our international customers will reject all Canadian wheat exports if GE wheat is approved. Our regulations simply don't address this risk. We cannot ignore this reality, and if we do, farmers and the industry will suffer.

Finally, as parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to study this matter very carefully and come to recommendations that do not harm producers. How could we think of putting genetically modified alfalfa on the market if, with that decision, we were going to harm the agricultural industry?

So the intent of my bill is clear: before permitting the sale of any new genetically modified seed, the economic impact must absolutely be known.

Thank you. Merci.

May 31st, 2010 / 3:30 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

We will call the meeting to order. This is the last segment of our study on the future of agriculture, and in particular on how we attract young people.

I want to welcome all of our witnesses.

I will remind you that we are breaking this session at five o'clock to go into the initial discussion on Bill C-474.

I would ask our witnesses to try to keep their comments to ten minutes or less for each group or individual, and we'll go from there.

We're going to start with the Alberta Ag Business Consultants. We have Mr. Art Lange and Mr. Owen Nelson. You have ten minutes, please.

Seeds RegulationsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

April 29th, 2010 / 10:05 a.m.
See context

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by students from Windermere Secondary School in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway.

The petitioners are calling on the government to support Bill C-474. This bill would require that an analysis of the potential harm to the economic interests of farmers be conducted prior to the approval of genetically engineered seeds.

The petition is signed by well over 100 students and was organized by Chanel Ly, Cassandra Ly, Emily Chan and Brendan Chan. These students showed leadership by taking the initiative to educate their classmates about this important issue raised in Bill C-474, and I am proud to present their views in Parliament on their behalf. These students want to protect the environment, ensure the health of Canadians and support community food producers. I join with them in calling for the swift passage of this bill into law.

April 27th, 2010 / 9 a.m.
See context

As an Individual

Margo Staniforth

I'm absolutely supportive of it.

The problem I'm having is that every time we try to make some progress in agriculture we have to fight like hell for it. As with Bill C-474, we have to fight, fight, fight to do something so simple as what I did in my raspberry patch to have a second income on the farm. Before I even decided to plant in I did a market survey to find out what was out there. This is just common business practice. And then you put your Bill C-474 out there and you are opposed, and opposed, and opposed on it. This is common business sense. We're supposed to be running our farms like businesses, and this is a common business move. And where is the mentality in the government to oppose that? It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

We know people are having a very hard time globally with genetically modified products; they're rejecting it. Would it not make sense to do a business analysis before we automatically start growing it?

I know that in the case of canola it's very difficult to find non-genetically-modified canola seeds, because as they keep introducing their variety from Monsanto they're deregulating the stuff that they're not going to get paid on. And the world is saying we don't want genetically modified food; we don't know what the long-term implication of it is. So your bill made total sense. Why was it so adamantly opposed? It's annoying.

April 27th, 2010 / 9 a.m.
See context

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Thank you.

Thanks to all of you for coming here. I know some of you have travelled long distances and made an effort, and I really appreciate that.

I would just like clarification, Margo. I wasn't sure what you meant when you talked about my Bill C-474 and whether you were supportive of it or not in your comments.

April 27th, 2010 / 8:15 a.m.
See context

Margo Staniforth As an Individual

Hi. I'm Margo Staniforth. I'm here as a farm operator-owner and as a farm wife. We have a son who is 27 years old who is looking to come back to the farm.

I have put together a bunch of notes that I will read off to you so that I make my point, and I'll try to keep it brief.

I feel that to isolate this issue is nearly impossible without first having a clear picture of the total business environment that this industry is dealing with. Currently the percentage of farmers who are not encouraging youth to return to the farm is in the area of 70% to 75%. The average rate of return of youth to the farm is about 8%. This means that wherever 100 family farms manage the land and produce the grain or livestock, soon they will be replaced with only eight farms. With the current government concept, farms will just get bigger.

With these figures in mind, this is not only an unproven theory, but pretty much humanly impossible in most counties. This mentality will produce a large percentage of abandoned land. To maintain economic stability and development, land must be used for the purpose it was intended for. It is being reported that in light of the dry spring and the lack of feed, there are people abandoning their farms in northern Alberta right now. They have given up their farms, their livelihood, their investment in their farm operation and have simply walked away.

The average farm debt is seven times every net earned dollar on the farm. Approximately 2.4% of the Canadian population carries the same debt load as the other 97.6%. The reality that farm owners are willing to walk away and stick the bank with the land in bankruptcy should be a concern enough for government to work harder to improve the financial well-being of the farm producer population in Canada. If farmers all simply walked off their land right now in Canada, the big five banks would be finished in less than two weeks, and Canada would be financially ruined.

We have a doubled-ended problem here. Young farmers who want to obtain land to get into agriculture need to be balanced with those who are trying to exit from the industry. Retiring farmers have viewed their investment in their land as their retirement savings plan. However, most landowners I've spoken to tell me that no one in their community can afford to buy them out. It would make sense to offer zero-interest programs to young farmers or expanding farm producers as an incentive to buy out the retirees.

With land becoming more available through an aging farm population, there also need to be programs available to smaller farmers wanting the opportunity of expansion. As an example, if a 500-acre guy were to try to expand to 1,000 or 1,500 acres, it's quite likely that the banks would not back him up for higher input costs or more equipment, because he has had limited income in his financial track record. If a larger, more established farmer of, say, 5,000 acres decided to increase by the same 1,000 or 1,500 acres, chances are greater that the banks would work with him because of his higher income track record and greater asset base.

When the kids come back to the farm, you need increased revenue to support another household until the total financial takeover is complete, and that equates to a need for more land or more cattle or more infrastructure to accommodate that extra income. Farmers don't just grow food; we also grow farmers. Starting out in agriculture is often a multi-year, if not a multi-decade, commitment.

Without a financial program for retiring farm producers to take out their investment in their land, you're basically creating a whole new class of poor. Land rents reflect grain prices. Grain prices are, again, at a low. This leaves little option of moving off the home quarter to town, because it's cost-prohibitive. Combine that with the fact that many farm producers have not contributed maximum amounts to their retirement pension plans and you have a lot of older people who are forced to stay on the farm. Healthwise, this may or may not be working for them. Years of very low income levels on the farm as a result of poor agriculture support in Canada will become a taxpayer nightmare. We currently have a substantial number of baby boomers leaving the workforce, no longer paying taxes, who will not be contributing to the tax base to cover this off.

About 15% of the rural population creates 80% of the wealth in Alberta. This is a combination of energy in oil and gas and of agriculture, but as I have said, you can't eat oil. Creating more opportunities will help attract young farmers back to the land. There needs to be a focus on industry development—the ethanol biofuel technology, possibly. This is another government oxymoron. Legislation has been passed to include 5% of ethanol in gasoline; however, the plants to produce it have been slow in materializing. The end result will benefit U.S. farm producers, with imported ethanol to meet Canadian ethanol requirements. How is this building our economy? How is this benefiting Canadian farmers?

Further, we need legislation demanding that the legislated percentage of ethanol in our fuel is Canadian content only. There has been much discussion on the food versus the fuel equation. Every single time I attend a meeting where this topic comes up, I do a quick survey to find out how many people in attendance did not drive their car, and I have yet to find a bicycle rider at that meeting.

The reality is, people will not give up their vehicles, they cannot stop eating, and we need to balance both. We need the plants to support farm producers with a local crop marketing option. We need community income to rebuild communities. We need this industry to help attract young people to the farm.

We need a processing industry in beef and other proteins as well. The larger processors are squeezing the margin out of beef producers and then going broke themselves. We need to focus on local processing to service the ever-increasing demand for local beef, chicken, and pork. One report that I read on locally raised and locally slaughtered beef indicated a substantial price difference between the local option and the commodity marketing of cattle. Locally sold and processed produced $400 per head, while commodities produced $50 a head that with a shortage of water and feed quickly translated into a bill coming from the auction mart instead of a cheque.

Globally we have achieved the highest quality of food production, yet that does not equate to higher prices for farm producers. We are still losing farm producers at an alarming rate because the focus is not on building the agriculture industry, it is on selling farmers out to big business.

The equation is totally counterproductive to enticing youth to return to the farms since they must start smaller and assume huge responsibility over an existing operation, only to know that the odds and support are already working against them. Small operations are more geared to seasonal ag tourism businesses, which means still they have to hold down full-time jobs at the same time. Larger commodity-based operations are often still requiring at least one full-time income derived off the farm to keep their heads above water. Either way, neither option is possible as a full-time career.

We need to balance more on commodities in the World Trade Organization. The EU and the U.S. both enjoy subsidies that are prohibited to Canadian farm producers and we've never had a level playing field.

At the same time, these entities are demanding that the Canadian Wheat Board be wiped off the face of Canada. Obvious lack of government support in this area is a deal breaker and not a confidence builder. When we see a lack of proof that in Canada the CWB would benefit farmers and then take a look at the results of the deregulation of the Australian Wheat Board, which has resulted in substantial pricing loss to farmers, it creates a mistrust that the government is ever acting in our best interest.

Russia is now looking at starting their own wheat board fashioned after Canada's, to rebuild their lost agriculture industry that occurred largely due to government interference in the production of their food. The result was that they became net food importers. This is counterproductive to what the public is demanding in food sovereignty.

BSE had a huge negative impact on farm producers across Canada. Government has failed to take responsibility for the damages caused to farm producers. Farmers have had to launch a class action lawsuit and recently a petition demanding mediation to get issues resolved.

Bill C-474, fighting for farmer rights to have markets analyzed before big business and government dictate to us what we are allowed to grow and where we are allowed to sell it, and other bills legislated that take away our rights to our own land don't do much to attract youth to this industry.

We have lost our rights to our seeds. There is only corporately controlled research now. The Canadian Grain Commission is being broken down piece by piece. The CWB is under attack. We're currently losing our water rights in Alberta. We've lost our property rights to legislation over a fight with AltaLink. There is a new leaked document out there that says we are about to lose more rights to huge multinationals and that if we don't comply with their intellectual property rights they have the right to retaliate and freeze our bank accounts and prohibit us from doing business on our own land.

The WCB occupational health and safety now wants to control our every move in regard to staffing, to get their piece of our farms.

The margins at the store are getting exponentially larger. The margins on the farms are getting exponentially smaller.

So my question to the committee is, does this sound like a business you would want your kid entering?

Many contributing factors have led to the decline in agriculture in Canada, much of it due to government policy being overall ineffective. The results speak for themselves.

It should be a requirement that all government ministers, either provincial or federal, have a history of success in the portfolio they are assigned. In the private sector, it would not be done any other way. It has taken legislation to get agriculture into this mess, and it will take legislation to get agriculture out of this mess. We will not see youth attracted to the farms until that occurs. The successes in farming are substantial, tangible, and long term, and if they can compete with the successes available in other industries we may see more youth coming back to the farm.

There needs to be a complete switch in government mentality with regard to agriculture. Instead of focusing on ridding Canada of all family farms, there needs to be a focus on building them up. There needs to be a solid recognition of the contribution that agriculture makes to our overall economy, to rebuilding suffering rural communities, to fulfilling the demands for local food by your urban voters, the huge financial contribution to export markets, and the substantial economic ripple effect of food-related industry. Our family farms do feed the world, our family farms do support the Canadian economy, and we need a lot of changes to occur before the kids are going to be willing to come back to our farms.

Seeds RegulationsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

April 19th, 2010 / 3:10 p.m.
See context

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, the third petitioner is from people in Vancouver.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation Bill C-474, An Act respecting 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.

Seeds RegulationsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

April 15th, 2010 / 10:05 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition signed by approximately 150 people from across Canada who are in support of Bill C-474 and GMO seeds.

The House resumed from April 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Seeds RegulationsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

April 13th, 2010 / 10:10 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC

Madam Speaker, on behalf of a number of constituents, I present a petition related to Bill C-474, an act respecting seeds regulations. The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend seeds regulations legislation 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 ActPrivate Members' Business

April 1st, 2010 / 6:20 p.m.
See context

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank all of my colleagues who took part in the debate on Bill C-474. It is my hope that they will work hard to convince members of their respective parties to move this bill forward to committee.

It is vital that we have a thorough and democratic debate on the economic effect on farmers of any further introduction of GE organisms into the environment. At the end of the day, it is up to parliamentarians to do all we can to help our farmers.

Before I move on, I would like to clear up a misconception. It was mentioned a number of times that had this bill been in place, it would not have helped the flax farmers. That is not entirely true because in 1996 Triffid received feed and environmental release approval. In 1998 it received food safety authorization.

Had the bill been in place at that point in time, the economic impact study would have shown that it would have been unwise to continue releasing flax into the environment. It was not until 2001, because of the pressure by farmers, that flax, which already had been released into the environment, was taken out and cancelled. I wanted to clear up that misconception.

The other point that is often mentioned is that somehow this is science-based technology. Let us be clear. The yield increases in crops are due to traditional breeding. For example, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, it is looking at methods now that are capable of increasing more of the crop yield, using a high tech genomic approach or marker-assisted selection. These are non-GE methods and they are the ones that actually increase the yield.

I do not have a great deal of time, so I will concentrate my remarks on the alfalfa industry. Mr. Paul Gregory of Interlake Forage Seeds in Manitoba states that most family-owned seed companies are against the further advancement of GM traits, especially in the forage seed business.

Mr. Kurt Shmon, president of Imperial Seed Ltd. also of Manitoba, writes:

--the users, producers and wholesales/retailers of alfalfa seed and hay are opposed to the introduction of Roundup Ready alfalfa and yet we are at risk of the release of this product.

He also cites the case of a U.S. seed company, Cal/West, which lost its market due to GE contaminated seed. The key word here is “contamination”.

According to the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, it will be impossible to prevent the spread of GE alfalfa beyond the fields it is planted in for the following reasons.

First, alfalfa is pollinated primarily by leafcutter bees, which often drift several miles in search of better bloom, and also by honey bees, which have a range of up to four miles. Actually, a U.S. study has shown a contamination radius of up to 1.7 miles already.

Second, GE alfalfa for hay is often cut after the blooming starts and, therefore, the pollen is easily transferred to non-GM crops. Third, alfalfa seed crops produce a percentage of what is called “hard” seed that can germinate several years after the field has been plowed up.

Once contamination is discovered, countries that currently reject GMO crops, food and feed, will obviously then reject our alfalfa. Also, a large portion of our alfalfa pellet and cube market would be lost. Our organic livestock industry would also be hit hard if GE alfalfa contamination were to be found.

Consider Argentina for example. Before a GMO is approved for marketing, the government must have in hand the technical advice, including whether the market would accept the GMO, in the absence of potential negative impacts on Argentinian exports.

The government officials responsible for allowing this technology onto the market need a mandate to consider what the impact of doing so will have on our export markets. Bill C-474 will provide the mechanism to give them this mandate.

I urge my colleagues to send Bill C-474 to committee so that we can have a thorough and democratic debate.

Farmers are in difficult times. Let us not throw more obstacles in front of them by carelessly allowing the release of GE crops that can lead to economic harm.

Seeds Regulations ActPrivate Members' Business

April 1st, 2010 / 6:10 p.m.
See context

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm). I want to particularly acknowledge the hard work that the member for British Columbia Southern Interior has done on the bill. It is a very important bill.

I know we have heard other discussions in the House. I want to emphasize that this bill is actually narrowly focused. We are not talking about the scientific approval of GE crops. We are not talking about mandatory labelling.

What we are talking about is that the bill requires an amendment to the Seeds Regulations Act to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets can be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

Currently, approvals of genetically engineered crops for human consumption and environmental release are based on safety alone with no consideration given to any potential harm to export markets and the resultant economic harm to farmers. I think that is a very important statement.

I know that in my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan we have a very active food security community. I want to acknowledge the work that the Cowichan Green Community does around the development of a food charter, engaging the community in conversations and practices that not only look toward protecting our farmers and making sure that our local farmers have an adequate living but also ensuring that people have access to quality, affordable nutritious food.

We have many bakeries and in Nanaimo--Cowichan there is a famous wine region. Therefore, we are very conscious of the importance of farmers making an adequate living. That is part of what the bill is addressing. It is protecting farmers' incomes.

In the work that the member for British Columbia Southern Interior has done on the bill, he has identified a number of problems which the bill attempts to address. He said that a GE crop that is not approved in our export markets has little value to farmers. GE contamination is already hurting Canadian farmers and if a contamination incident similar to the current flax contamination crisis were to happen with wheat and alfalfa, the economic consequences to farmers would be devastating.

Currently, Bill C-474 is meant to provide a mechanism missing in the regulations that can protect farmers from economic hardship caused by the commercialization or contamination of their crops by GE seeds in the face of widespread market rejection.

I have had so many letters, e-mails and phone calls from constituents. I just want to read one because I think it captures some of the concerns that people have been talking about. This is an e-mail we received from Heide Brown. She said:

The Bill would support Canadian farmers by requiring that “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted”.

This Bill is really important because, as we know from experience, the introduction of new genetically engineered (GE) crops can cause economic hardship to farmers.

Farmers are at risk when GE crops are commercialized in Canada without also being first approved in our major export markets.

Flax farmers in Canada are now paying the price for this exact problem.

Late last year, Canadian flax exports were discovered contaminated with a GE flax that is not approved in Europe or any of our other export markets.

Flax farmers actually foresaw that GE contamination or even the threat of contamination would close their export markets. That is why they took steps in 2001 to remove GE flax from the market. Despite this measure, flax farmers were not protected.

The GE flax contamination has created market uncertainty and depressed prices. Farmers are also paying for testing and cleanup and may be required to abandon their own farm-saved flax seed and buy certified seed instead.

These costs are an unnecessary and preventable burden.

We cannot allow our export markets to close like this again. It is the government's responsibility to protect Canadian farmers from predictable problems caused by the introduction of new GE crops that have not yet been regulated in our export markets.

--please support Bill C-474 and protect Canada's farmers and our markets.

That is fairly typical of a number of e-mails that I have received in the riding. I think one can tell from that letter that people are well informed about what the issues are that are facing farmers, about the impacts on the economies of farming, about their concerns around GE contamination, and how it impacts on our export markets.

It is important that we listen to the people who have written about this.

Some of the argument is that it is not do able. I want to point to the precedent of Argentina. Argentina is well aware that it is not just growing crops for domestic consumption,so it has a process lined out. The Government of Argentina's National Biosafety Framework, 2004 states:

In addition to the environmental biosafety assessment, a GMO release also requires a favourable food safety assessment...and the assessment of the absence of negative impacts on our exports.

Specifically, when it is looking at market impacts, it states:

A key part of the GMO regulatory process consists of verifying that the commercial approval will not have a negative impact on our foreign trade.

This specific assessment is carried out by the National Bureau of Agrifood Markets...and it includes an analysis of the current status of regulatory systems and public acceptance in the countries that buy our exports.

If Argentina can put in a system that examines the economic impact that could happen on its export market, surely Canada could do the same thing. As others have mentioned, a number of organizations are absolutely in support of this.

The CFA, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in a news release of March 17, stated:

The varying levels of acceptance of GM-crops by key export markets is a reality Canadian farmers face...Ensuring that these markets are not closed to us because of the technology we adapt should be a government priority as they are work to develop more export opportunities for Canadian farmers.

It goes on in the news release to say:

Having a system in which GM-crops are authorized in one country and not in another means that the inadvertent commingling of crops and crop types while they are being transported to export markets will increase the potential for future market closures.

I want to turn, now, to a briefing that went to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. It has a detailed briefing, but I want to touch on a couple of points.

It lays out its initial ask by saying there are two actions required:

Potential harm to markets needs to be considered before any new GE crop is field tested or commercially released in Canada.

The entire regulatory system for GE crops and foods needs to be reviewed and reformed.

The second point is outside the scope of this bill, but I want to touch on the negative economic impacts.

In its statement, it states:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency...approves genetically engineered crops for environmental release without regard to the impacts on markets for Canadian farmers. Canadian regulatory agencies have no mechanisms by which to evaluate the economic risks, and approve or deny the introduction of GE crops based on this consideration.

In my closing minute or so, I will touch on a couple of items that are not in this bill but are very important to people in my riding. Again, I remind people the focus of this bill is on the potential economic damage for our farmers on export markets where we have countries that will not accept GE crops and are concerned about contamination.

However, in addition, CBAN, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, identified a couple of other areas of concern. It indicated that there is inadequate science and lack of transparency.

The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology stated:

The lack of transparency in the current approval process, leading as it does to an inability to evaluate the scientific rigor of the assessment process, seriously compromises the confidence that society can place in the current regulatory framework used to assess potential risks to human, animal and environmental safety posed by GEOs [genetically modified organisms].

It went on to highlight a number of other areas of concern, including incomplete environmental risk assessments and inadequate monitoring and surveillance.

In its conclusion, it stated:

The regulatory system for genetically engineered organisms in Canada is not built to include consideration of the potential negative market harm caused by the introduction of GE crops, and is not adequately constructed to assess the complex environmental and health risks of genetic engineering.

I urge all members of the House to support the member for British Columbia Southern Interior's very excellent bill, Bill C-474, and to protect those markets for our farmers.