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.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thanks to all of you for being here.

And Ted, it's good to see you again. I'm going to direct my first question to you.

You mentioned in your presentation the fact that GE alfalfa is awaiting commercialization. I've been trying to follow this file fairly closely, and I haven't found anyone who feels there is a real need to have herbicide-tolerant alfalfa in Canada, whether they're conventional farmers or organic farmers. In spite of many promises, we know there are basically two traits of GE crops: one is herbicide tolerance, and one is insect resistance. We've seen some problems like super weeds coming; and there are studies linking health questions to the use of glyphosate, etc.

We had quite a discussion on this in the last Parliament, even after my bill on alfalfa was defeated. I'm not sure if it was by Frank or Wayne, but we had a motion to have a moratorium on GE alfalfa and for reasons I'm not going to elaborate, that didn't go through. We tried to get it into Parliament.

But this is specific. It's not as encompassing as my Bill C-474 would have been. Should we all get together and support a moratorium on GE alfalfa until we really do a thorough analysis of the economic effects? Specifically, should we be recommending that our government do this? If that's the case, who should be involved in doing this analysis? Should there be cooperation between the farming sector and government, for example?

Also, the second part of the question, for the record, what exactly are the specific concerns you have as a farmer with regard to GE alfalfa? I'll stop there.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad it was one of the witnesses that mentioned Bill C-474. At the same time, Mr. Phillips, you are congratulating Mr. Atamanenko for bringing the debate forward in the House of Commons. You know we have even been having trouble talking about it here in committee, because the bill was blocked when the time came for the debate to be extended. The Conservative members of the committee do not want to hear about it. I don’t think your organization wants to hear about it either.

All of you must certainly have expertise and information from all over the place. In terms of adding to the bill an analysis of the impact on international trade, as well as the analysis being done on health and the environment, would you be able to give me an example of a country where an analysis like that has been enforced and where it affected at least one agricultural sector or brought an entire agricultural sector to its knees?

In Argentina, they have a bill like that. Argentina is the second or third largest producer of GMOs in the world. I tried to do the research, but our staff is limited; I am not a department. However, I was not able to find any lawsuits at any time from other WTO countries, or other countries, as a result of this measure being imposed when GMOs are exported. And Argentinians continue to be very large producers of GMOs. Could you give me a specific example where that has caused problems somewhere in the world?

[Richard Phillips]

Thank you, Stephen.

I have three quick points to raise. The first is a misconception about corporate concentration in the seed business and farmers being forced to buy seed from one or two companies. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have here a couple of documents that I will leave with the clerk. The first is from SeCan. SeCan is the largest supplier of certified seed to Canadian farmers. It is a private, not-for-profit, member organization with more than 800 farmers across Canada who are growing, cleaning, and marketing seed. SeCan has more than 430 varieties of field crops, including cereals, oilseeds, pulses, special crops, and forages. Most of the varieties they sell were developed by publicly funded Canadian plant-breeding organizations such as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, provincial ministries of agriculture, and universities. Farmers can purchase these SeCan varieties at most local seed dealers, many of whom are their neighbours. I will also quickly flip through the “Manitoba Seed Guide”, where there are pages and pages of varieties and crops and varieties within the crops for farmers to choose from.

The second point I would like to raise today is about the need to invest in research and innovation. The private sector is a huge investor and has made tremendous advances in three crops: corn, soybeans, and canola. But there is limited private money going into cereal grains, special crops, forages, or pulses. Public research and farmer check-off have historically funded research in these crops; however, investment in public research is lower today than it was in 1994. There have been small increases over the last couple of years, but we have a long way to go. The public sector is important because it often invests in areas where the private sector doesn't, for example, in soil science or on core agronomics and diseases, where there may not be a commercial return, so that if the public sector doesn't do it, no one will. However, we need to encourage private-public partnerships as well, so all the resources available can be brought to the table.

The last point I would like to make is about how safe our crops are. In my hand is an excerpt from a recent book published by the European Commission. It's titled A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001 - 2010). It's hot off the press. The EU reviewed GMO environmental impact studies, GMO food safety, GMO biomaterials and risk assessments, and risk management. I would like to quote:

The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.

This is coming from the European Union.

In addition to this, the European Union is moving forward to accept low levels of new traits in feed, and there have been over one billion hectares of biotech traits planted in the world to date. I heard a stat the other day. One trillion meals served and not even a headache. Here in Canada we have Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency all vigorously checking new technologies and traits. The fact is our food is safe.

At the Grain Growers of Canada, we believe the government does not owe farmers a living, but it does owe us a policy environment where we can make a living. So we recommend you do not spend time boxing with shadows on corporate concentration but invest with us in public research, encourage private-public research partnerships, and support a sound science-based system of approvals that ensures any new products are safe for human, animal, and environmental health.

I would like to recognize the good initiative of the committee in looking at biotechnology and searching for answers. Although we may disagree with Mr. Atamanenko and Bill C-474, we still respect that he brings it forward and encourages the debate so that we can explore the issues more thoroughly. Thank you, Mr. Atamanenko, for that. Some of my board members may not like my saying that, but I respect the fact that people bring forward different opinions at this ag committee so we can look at the issues.

Thank you.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

Having read through the motion, I would say it is a motion that is definitely worthy of consideration and debate. We are in the middle of the biotech study as Mr. Hoback mentioned. We've heard the concerns that farmers and farm groups have about Roundup Ready alfalfa, and I think we need to seriously consider the testimony we've heard. We need to finalize this into a report. We're just not there yet. We haven't heard everybody. We haven't had all the witnesses. We're not at the end of the report. We're in the middle of the report.

So there is nothing wrong with this motion. The issue is just the way in which it was tabled, Chair. If it was so important, I don't understand why there was no consultation. We've worked so hard as a committee to have a good, positive relationship amongst members. There has been no consultation on this at all, and it has basically been strong-armed to the top of the list.

I don't understand that. I think about motivation, and the only thing I can think of, Chair, is that.... Mr. Easter sent very confusing signals during Bill C-474. He supported Alex Atamanenko's bill every step of the way. He voted for it every step of the way except the last step. When it came time to actually pass the bill and move it to the Senate, he voted against it.

He used to be president of the NFU, Chair, and I think some of these groups are very unhappy with him. He's trying to make up the ground now by giving his 10-minute speech on how outraged he is about alfalfa.

As I said, this motion is worthy of more study and more debate. There's nothing wrong with this motion, but the way in which it was presented was completely wrong, and I think it was coming from that advantage, Chair.

I'll just give you an example of some things that need to be considered. There is a move, particularly in Europe, from zero tolerance to low-level presence. What caused undue hardship for our farmers was this zero-tolerance policy of Europe whereby if there was a single grain in there that was GM, the whole shipment was rejected. Of course that is unreasonable. We've agreed on committee that this is an unreasonable approach. It's not manageable, and it's not affordable either for us as the providers of grains and alfalfa or for the purchasers either, because of course they're rejecting crops all over, and the price is going up because the supply is going down. In a sense they are limiting their own markets.

So what are some things that need to be considered before outright bans are considered? There are things like low-level presence. What sort of emphasis should the government be placing on promoting low-level presence, which of course allows for some level of presence to be considered acceptable provided there's no risk or threat to health and safety?

That's the kind of thing we're looking at in committee. What are some of the other factors? It's easy to say...an outright ban, but what are some of the other factors that could actually help the industry and help our farmers? This is one of them. We're starting to see movement.

As you are probably aware--and as, I think, the committee is aware--only one to two weeks ago Europe decided that when it comes to feed they will accept low-level presence. This is a dramatic game-changer. This is a huge shift, and yet it's not considered in this motion.

So I am divided on this, because on the one hand this motion is worthy of consideration, and it's worthy of discussion, and it's worthy of debate. On the other hand, the manner in which this motion was brought in front of committee, the manner in which it was bullied onto the list and bullied to the top, I completely disagree with.

I also disagree with the fact that we are in the middle of a study, and full consideration needs to be given to biotechnology, which as we know and have said many times is not just GM. The GM is just a small subset, a small microcosm, of biotechnology at large, and we are studying biotechnology.

So I think it's important that we continue with our study and that we consider something like what's in this motion as part of the study. It should be a recommendation in the study that can actually be part of what our witnesses said. Right now this kind of stands on its own. There are no reference points on this motion, and we don't know what testimony contributed to it or took away from it.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm still a little disappointed in how we came to this, but that's fine. We're here now. We need to deal with the motion as is.

The concern I have isn't necessarily with the motion itself.

Wayne, I think your heart's in the right place here. When I go to my farmers in my area—we have a lot of alfalfa production—they're concerned about Roundup Ready alfalfa. There's no question about it. They don't know what the drift tolerance is or the pollination areas are. They've heard stories out of the U.S., and they've heard stories out of Canada. There is a lot of information that needs to be looked at and talked about here, for sure. There's no question about that.

I get a little concerned, though, when we start using U.S. data, because you can't use data out of Arizona and then take it into northern Saskatchewan.The logistics are summer versus winter. We have this thing called “winter”. We have our leafcutter bees that go into hibernation, where in alfalfa they could be going year round. The pollination areas can be totally different. I just use that as one example.

But I don't want to defend it; as I said, my farmers are saying very clearly that they have some serious concerns. That's where I was hoping in our biotech report that we could actually start to flesh out what those concerns were and then flesh out what the industry was saying with regard to how they're handling it. I wanted it with Canadian data, not American or European data, because the environmental situation around that data is totally different.

You can't take a data pack out of Arizona and take it into northern Saskatchewan. It just does not work. We need to see that in northern Saskatchewan, if that's the way we want to go.

Now, my understanding is that in 2005 the Liberal government went through the regulatory process on this product and actually approved it. It actually has regulatory approval here in Canada. But I also understand that there is no variety in the registration process at this point in time that is coming forward for this year. This is something that is happening in the U.S.

Now that it's happening the U.S., I have some concerns about the pollution coming up here if they're not able to keep the integrity of their system. Do we do as they did with the honeybees, where they banned all the queen bees coming out of the U.S.? Do we ban all the alfalfa coming out of the U.S. to keep our integrity? Is that where we're going? I really don't know. I don't know what the answer is. But that was point of the study. That's my concern. We're coming out, before we finish the study, with recommendations that may or may not be right. I really don't know.

I'd like to hear all sides of the story before I say yes or no. I just feel I don't have the information in front of me to say yes or no. How do we move forward on this? This is the problem I have, because there are concerns. There is no doubt about that. I think everyone around this committee would say that our farmers are very concerned about the usefulness of alfalfa, especially Roundup alfalfa.

We also understand how important alfalfa is in the fertilization process for the organic sector. They can substitute to peas or lentils in certain parts of the country of Canada to get their nitrogen requirements, if that's an option. But again, I'd like to see the data set here in Canada.

We did have a data set done under the regulatory side of things, to say that it's safe for human consumption. As a government, when you take a step back, when we're talking about human consumption, they're saying there's no issue here, but there is a marketing issue. There is a marketing issue in terms of whether the Europeans will accept it and some of those things.

Those concerns are definitely valid concerns, but what is the role of the Canadian government here? Is it the role to start restricting where and who and what we can sell and where we can sell and what we can't sell? Or is it just to ensure that what we do sell, what you put on your table what you eat, is actually safe to consume, is actually safe for the cow to eat? That's where it starts to get really dicey, because we start going into a grey zone now. Where does it start and where does it stop? You could say, in this situation, on alfalfa, this might be a good example of where you may want to go into that grey zone and say, no, we don't want it.

But then what about canola? If we would have used that example in this scenario, we would not have some of the GMO varieties of canola. We would not have yields pushing 50 or 60 bushels an acre right now in western Canada. We would not have the infrastructure of crushing plants, the employment and the value-added sector in Saskatchewan and Alberta. All that was because we used safe science as the approval mechanism to ensure that the food that we got, the oil that came from the canola seed, was actually safe to eat.

That's why you need to have the science approach, and that's why I'm not willing to bend on the science approach at this point in time unless there's a reason to do it. Is there a way whereby we can accommodate the farmers who don't want to do it? Is there a way to ensure that the guys in organics won't have cross-pollination? I'm not sure. We need to figure that one out.

That is definitely an issue that needs to be discussed, but I don't want to put something like this motion in front of somebody right now without hearing all the sides. That's the concern I have. It's really awkward to have this motion now just because of that: we don't have all the facts in front of us.

I know you'd agree with me, Mr. Atamanenko. You want to hear all the sides before you make a decision.

In some ways, this motion would be better as a recommendation in the biotech study itself. Then we would at least be able to back it up with witness testimony from both sides, and then we could probably address it better.

As I said, though, it's sitting here in front of us, and we need to deal with it. We need to figure out what Mr. Easter is talking about.

He mentions in the motion “Canada's ability to ensure the genetic integrity, production and preservation of a diversity of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), non-GMO and organic alfalfa production”. Well, those issues aren't just in alfalfa. If we were to look at a GMO wheat or a GMO barley somewhere down the road, those issues would also have to be re-addressed in this situation.

Again, you take the balancing of what we need for food requirements throughout the world. We know that organics aren't going to feed the world. I don't care what anybody says. That's pretty well agreed upon among the experts around the world. So if we're going to have people starving just because we want to go to organics, is that the right way to go? Is that a responsible measurement for farmers?

We also know that the organics have a right to make a living. We understand that. They have the right to market their products to be able to put a label on something they believe is right, even if that label has some conditions around it, has some.... I'm looking for the proper word. I don't want to offend anybody. “Regulatory” isn't the right word; what I'm trying to say is “standards”.

When we look at the organic sector and when we're pulling organic vegetables out of the U.S. and Mexico, the standards they're using for their organics sector are very questionable compared to the standards we use here in Canada. Canada has a much different standard system. But the reality is that when we put the label “organic” on there, the consumer doesn't necessarily know which standards are being followed for that product. They know that for wheat it's one set of standards, and they know for lettuce it's another. But if it's coming out of a third country and we have no clue what their standards are, we cannot ensure what they're claiming is true.

So again, it creates an issue in the organic sector of getting them into a situation where they have a set of standards that can accommodate the need for other farmers to use GMO products. What we're talking about is low-level presence so it still meets the organic standard the consumer wants, with the understanding that the farmer next door is producing safe food also and isn't restricting his options.

There are so many issues in this debate. To try to round it up into one motion is very awkward. And I think it's unfortunate, because we have a good study going and we're actually bringing forward a lot of good witnesses.

Even Mr. Atamanenko would agree with me; it's given him an opportunity to bring forward the concerns he had when he brought through Bill C-474. Even though I could not support his motion or his bill--I think he understands why I couldn't support it--I think he appreciates the fact that he can still vet the problems and concerns that he is hearing.

We need to see that report finished before we can start making motions and recommendations. I feel we're only halfway through it.

Mr. Chair, I'm looking at this and I'm just thinking it's premature, at this point, to take any “yes” or “no” on this thing. I really don't know.

I will reiterate, though, that the farmers in my riding are concerned about Roundup alfalfa. It is an issue, and we need to deal with it. We need to have some imagination to do it in such a way that we do not chase away that investment in the GMO and the biotech sectors. As we have heard, GMO is just one small tool in the biotech sector. A lot of the companies are saying it's too expensive a tool to use, so they're using other methods that are non-GMO to bring forward new products.

The pulse sector is a good example of that. If we look at the new varieties coming out of the pulse sector and what they're addressing--the need for fertilizer, the need for water--there is a good example that I think we can look at to see advancements in varieties that are non-GMO that work for everybody.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'll wrap up my concerns. I'll turn it back to you.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I read the motion, I would say to Randy that we will be supporting his Wheat Board motion because we believe they should come before the committee.

The reason that we had to move this up is that with some of the other motions we considered urgent, and still regard as urgent, we find that the government members will--as we've seen here previously--talk it out so that we don't get them forward.

At any rate, the motion that I move is as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food recommend that the government place a moratorium on any approval of Roundup Ready Alfalfa until the government completes public research:

(a) into Canada's ability to ensure the genetic integrity, production and preservation of a diversity of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), non-GMO and organic alfalfa production;

(b) the ability of Canada's handling and transportation system to ensure segregation of forage seeds and detection of genetic commingling in alfalfa seeds and hay;

(c) the development of industry-led, third party audit and verification systems;

(d) that these findings be reported back to the Committee; and

(e) that this motion be reported to the House.

The urgency of this motion in part comes about as a result of the Bill C-474 discussions, including Mr. Atamanenko's motion, and in part as a result of the discussions that we're currently undertaking on biotechnology, for which a number of us have travelled across the country.

Given the U.S. decision on genetically modified alfalfa and allowing it to be commercialized, following that decision, Secretary Vilsack has come out and laid down some pretty tough conditions after the fact. I believe they got the cart before the horse.

So there is a need for this, no question. There's a need for the federal government to ensure that genetically modified organisms such as GE alfalfa do what it is claimed and not what should not be permitted, namely, to cross-contaminate. There is a lot at risk there. We've heard this from many witnesses. The foundation of the organic industry in livestock production is alfalfa. That could be undermined by cross-contamination. So we're worried about that. That's why we need some of the safeguards.

At this time in Canada, the provisions to prevent cross-contamination from occurring have not been demonstrated to be in place. I'll not go through the things that have been happening in the U.S. to prove that. To save time, I'll just make the point that the federal government should ensure that the relevant questions and concerns are addressed prior to approval—not afterwards, as was done in the United States.

This is a moratorium, not a ban. I want to underline that. It is not a ban. The reason for it is to give the Government of Canada the opportunity to ensure that there are no negative consequences from the commercialization of GE alfalfa. Clearly the United States administration is of the opinion that there are reasons to be concerned—thus the call for studies and the development of mitigating provisions.

The course of this action in Canada would be the reverse of what it is in the United States. We believe the studies and the development of mitigating provisions must be in place prior to the approval being granted.

This motion implements a moratorium on the basis of the necessity to address the science involved. It's motivated by a need for scientific information that has yet to be presented. There are a lot of economic concerns and we realize those. Should GE alfalfa contaminate alfalfa, we could lose European markets, undermining the organic industry. And the list goes on.

So there are lots of economic considerations. But what I'm basically saying in the thrust of the motion is let's do the sound science. These studies would be at, and should be at, the government's expense, not the industry's.

The last point I'd like to make that shows the seriousness, I think, of the issue is that according to testimony presented to a committee in the United States, data from GE alfalfa trials in the United States show that 11 of 15 plots were contaminated, despite a 900-metre buffer being obeyed. And some of those plots were 2.5 kilometres away. So some of the buffers we're talking about that would supposedly allow safety have been proven not to in the United States.

In a submission to the USDA last year, the National Organic Coalition cited studies from the USDA itself, which found that “...honey bees can cross-pollinate at distances over 6 miles. Alkali bees cross-pollinate at 4-5 miles. All of those distances are much further than those included in Monsanto's 'best practices.'” That's what was determined in U.S. hearings.

I think that for us as a committee, and for the Government of Canada, it's important that we err on the side of caution and ensure that the federal government addresses these matters prior to, not subsequent to, any approval.

I would go back to 1994. In April of that year, this committee recommended unanimously that the federal government of the day, which was a Liberal government, impose a moratorium on the approval of Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone, bovine somatotropin--or rBST, as it was more commonly known. Health Canada had been posed to grant approval of this product, and it was only after the intervention of this committee that the federal government granted a moratorium on the approval, with the expectation that the concerns raised with respect to that biotech product would be responded to by Monsanto. To date, rBGH has not been approved for use in this country.

I believe this committee did its job in 1994 with one particular genetically modified product. I believe it was the right decision then. And I believe if we were to support this motion today and ensure that these criteria were met, it would be the right decision for this committee to make. It would be the right decision for the Government of Canada to err on the side of caution.

We've heard lots of concerns from the organic industry, and I think we should respect those concerns. Therefore, I ask you to support this motion.

Thank you.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I mean, this is absolutely ridiculous. As I said on Bill C-474 in the beginning, we wanted to see it go to debate. I made it very clear in the beginning that we didn't support the bill, but said let's have the debate and discussion. And in fact it's out of that debate and discussion that this motion comes forward. We have seen the seriousness of the issue.

I'm getting a little tired of the attack here, but let's get down to business.

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

Yes, Bill C-474; I'm sorry.

We have ample opportunity now to look at the content of this motion as part of our study and as part of our report.

But the other opportunity that we had, Chair, was when we were studying Mr. Atamanenko's bill, Bill C-474. That was a look at GM products, GM agricultural crops. We had debate on it, and Mr. Easter sent out extremely confusing signals. He supported Mr. Atamanenko's bill every step of the way. He did it in the House, he did it in committee, he did it on motions, on debate. When it came time to vote, he voted in favour of Mr. Atamanenko's bill at every single step except the last step. At the last step, he sent a confusing signal to the agricultural community, because he had been going along with Bill C-474, sowing confusion and dissent, and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I presume you meant Bill C-474.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I want to thank all of you for taking time out of your day to come to speak to us today.

Peter, I want to thank you for your comments about the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. My question will be about that.

One of the reasons Mr. Hoback and I brought this motion to have this discussion was that Bill C-474 brought us an opportunity and a realization that issues were unaddressed and that we have to address them.

My question to you, and frankly to Mr. Zettel, is this: will reconstitution of that committee bring the parties together in an equitable, fair way--because there are a lot of stakeholders who should be around that table--that will honour the principles Mr. Zettel has enunciated on behalf of the organic industry so that there can truly be coexistence of organic and non-organic standards?

I am wondering if you talk about low-level presence as one of the possibilities, or not, of compromise. Can you talk about growing distances between GMO and non-GMO crops as one of the possible solutions, or is that unrealistic?

Could I hear from both of you on that issue?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you all for being here today. I think there's a good degree of balance on the panel today, and that's certainly appreciated.

In that vein, I would say that certainly there's no question in my mind that there are opportunities for those who grow GMOs, non-GMOs, and those who grow organics. I think there are markets out there and there are opportunities, and I think there's a place for everyone here at the table. That's why it's great to see the balance we have here today.

Here in Canada and elsewhere there's an increased demand among some consumers for more local products, to see more local food. There is also a place for the new technologies, the biotechnology aspect of it with GMs, and ways we can reduce input costs for farmers through the technology that's available and ways we can create greater yields, etc.

I think there's a place for both. That's democracy at its finest. It's a choice for the producers to decide how they want to manage their operation, and the freedom to be able to choose what they want to put in and what they want to get out of it. That's really what we're hearing today.

It's all about freedom of choice. That's the same reason I believe there's a need to have dual marketing for wheat and barley in western Canada with the Wheat Board. There needs to be that choice. Farmers should have that opportunity to choose how they market their product and should also have the opportunity to decide what goes into their field.

It comes back again to things like Bill C-474 as well. The best I've ever heard it put was by Richard Phillips, who is at the back of the room here today, who said that Bill C-474 was not much more than an attempt to end all new technologies, in fact all GM technologies in Canada.

That was a very unfortunate piece of legislation, one that did seek to end the choice. So today I'm glad to hear a lot of talk about the idea of the farmers having the option to choose what they want to put into their fields and what they want to take out.

I think I was hearing from Ms. McMullen and Mr. Gowland and Mr. Van Tassel as well that you believe there needs to be choice and that there is a market for both types of growing. Is that correct? Is that what I've heard? Just a quick yes or no on that one.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you for coming up. I have four or five questions that I will include in this statement.

One of the things about Bill C-474 that made me think this investigation was necessary was that it didn't deal with the issues of corporatization and monopoly. It didn't deal with the right to maintain and own your seed.

Frankly, what I thought about during that discussion and this one was that if at some point Europe okays a low-level presence of 0.5% or 1%, what would happen to the organic industry? Then the analysis that's being done will take that into consideration and will say “Okay, this could be released to a certain degree because they're accepting a low-level presence now”. I'm concerned, because I believe that the organic and the GMO need to co-exist. I don't know how we'll do that.

What would happen if there were an acceptance of low-level presence? I would ask that of Jodi.

The second question would also be for Jodi. You talked about the organics people having a conversation about low-level presence, and it seems that you're conflicted within your own industry. I'd like to know why there is a conflict within your own industry. Are some saying they can accept the low-level presence? Are others saying they won't accept it because they need to be 100% GMO-free at all times?

My third question is with respect to the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. I'm hearing wonderful suggestions. Jodi, I heard the suggestions that you made at the end of your presentation, most of which I agree with. I've heard suggestions from others.

Last week Manish N. Raizada, who presented in Guelph, came up and gave me and the clerk a number of regulations. In the first prescription, it says that a company that applies for a licence to sell GMO must also agree to sell the exact same crop without any GMO transgenes in order to give real choice to farmers and consumers. Then it addresses different levels of acceptance, depending on risk.

My third question is, when are you guys going to come together? What does it take? Will it take Minister Ritz to put you in a room and tell you to start talking and having these discussions? Will it take a member of Parliament or two to try to gather you together to have these conversations so that you can self-regulate? You talked about self-regulations, Jim, but I don't see it happening.

Can you address those three issues? Jodi, please go first.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

One of the big concerns, and we heard it in the debate on Bill C-474, is the huge concern about cross-contamination. Our wheat markets especially would have a problem if GM wheat entered that marketplace. Alfalfa is also an immediate concern. It would certainly affect the organic industry.

I believe, Jodi, you said that the producers of GM crops should be responsible for any damage done. What's the view of the others on cross-contamination? Who should be responsible?

Seeds Regulation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-474 under private members' business.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

The House resumed from February 8 consideration of Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's not a problem.

Thank you, folks, for coming.

I want to start where Mr. McGuire left off, and that was talking about the improvements that are there with biotechnology. What is clearly obvious to us is the tremendous...and maybe it comes from the Frankenstein foods that Michael mentioned earlier. But there is such a misunderstanding that biotechnology is exclusively GMOs and it's not. I guess it's one component in the tool chest.

The other area that relates to that, and what I'm really coming at, is how do we get a better understanding out there in the general community, not only on GM but on biotechnology? We're getting over Bill C-474. Bev, you're wrong. We didn't support Bill C-474; we supported the discussion, and we'll be voting against it today.

Frank, you said the potential bias to biotechnology--I think you meant companies--has to be overcome, or that perception that there's a potential bias there. How do we do that? I hear some horror stories on corn strains in Mexico as a result of GM corn moving into Mexico. It's the reality. There's a lot of power by Monsanto, Syngenta, and others...farmers always having to go back to get their seed stock. There's certainly economic profitability in doing that, I will admit.

But how do we get to a transparent system that's not overly cumbersome for companies that want to make the investments but is understood by the public that it is based on science, that it is based on safe food and the protection of the environment?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to clarify to my good colleague, I think we really need to understand that Bill C-474 did not bring this issue to the top. Bill C-474, as you know, is being debated. It is a bad bill because it is incomplete. I know we're the only ones who didn't support it, but it did not bring this to the....

And I really appreciate everybody taking the time to be here. I've been in agriculture all my life, and in biotechnology since 1996, which 15 years later leads me to this question. The biotechnology we see now—it was talked about in a study—is emerging. I just want to understand a little bit about it. Is this seen as emerging technology, or is it a technology that I see is about to burst—and maybe I'm wrong—wide open?

I'd like your comment. Where is it for agriculture and the consumer? What is this doing for both of those? I agree it's one of these tools, but I think things are happening so much in agriculture. As I said, I think those in agriculture right now, in the industry, are in one of the most fantastic and resourceful times the industry is ever going to experience.

Mr. Raizada, your comments, and Mr. Penner also, and then Mr. Ingratta.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

First, gentlemen, I want to thank all of you for taking time out of your busy schedules to accept the invitation to come and speak before us. We all appreciate that GMO is a tool that's going to be used, one tool of many, to fight growing hunger, feeding three billion more people in the next 40 years--and increasing food production by about 70%, I'm told, will ultimately be the need.

We've heard so much, and there are, as I have described, two solitudes out there. I don't know if these two solitudes can ever reconcile their differences, but without getting into all the incidents today, because it's impossible--Manish, you discussed a number of regulations you thought would be important tricks that can be used to reduce gene flow and look at molecular interactions to avoid toxicity. Rene, you talked about possibly developing not barriers but buffer zones. I gather that's based on what I've read from the Canadian Seed Growers' Association—identity-preserved isolation distances.

Frank, you were in politics. It seems to me you had...not politics as such, but you were a deputy minister, rather. Thank you--I'm sure you're pleased I corrected that. It seems to me—and Derek and Mike—you're in the business. Michael, you understand it historically. It confounds me that it took Bill C-474 to bring this conversation to a crescendo, because Bill C-474, by most of our responses, isn't the answer. It certainly has raised issues that need to be discussed. I'm talking about, for instance, the right of organic growers to be able to grow their crop without threat of contamination. It's not an easy solution, but it's a simple proposition. I'm wondering why, if any of you, or all of you, have the compulsion—because we're not going to be able to do it—to come together, revitalize the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, bring everyone together, and start having the discussion so we can find these solutions.

Don't rely on us. It's better that the solution comes from the industry. Can you guys address that? Rene, you talked about buffer zones. Is it realistic to introduce that, manage regulations? Frank, you had some ideas. Can we discuss that?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to have an opportunity to speak tonight on Bill C-474 introduced by my colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, who has taken a great interest in and is extremely knowledgeable on all issues associated with agriculture.

The bill is one that has attracted interest not just in the farming community but also throughout the country. In my riding of St. John's East, which is on one end of the country, I have received many letters of support for Bill C-474 because people understand the implications of the use of genetically modified organisms and how it affects other aspects of agriculture, Canadian interests and trade.

The member for Western Arctic talked about his interests, concerns and knowledge base derived not only from people he has met along the way but also from his own son-in-law who is knowledgeable about the issue and has the same concerns.

I know, Madam Speaker, in your part of the country, all of British Columbia and Victoria itself, there is a great deal of interest in this issue. I know many people have contacted you about the need for this legislation and their concerns about genetically modified organisms and what they do to people. Many of the people who are affected by this are, in fact, farmers.

I will provide one example. I will quote from the Similkameen Okanagan Organic Growers Association, which states its concern about the approval of organic organisms. It stated:

--it would be a disaster for us. I'd be out of business, because the first guy who buys that apple and propagates it--its flowers will pollinate with other fruit tree flowers that are non-GMO'd and everything will become genetically modified. And that will be the end of organics.

That is from an apple grower with the Similkameen Okanagan Organic Growers Association expressing the fear that has been described across this country of these GMO products essentially contaminating other crops. It is not just the crops of organic farmers, although they obviously have a very particular concern because their certification, market and the value of their products is totally dependent upon having a piece of paper that certifies, through a process that is rigorously applied, that their produce is totally free from contamination from non-organic sources and, of course, GMO products are considered very much a part of that. That is one organization that is very concerned, and for very good reasons.

There is another organization that represents a significant number of farmers in western Canada, a significant part of our agriculture industry and GDP. That is the Canadian Wheat Board. When Mr. Bill Toews, a director of the Canadian Wheat Board, testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in October of the past year, he had a remarkable warning for the standing committee about its concerns as to what would happen to GMO products let loose in the marketplace without proper analysis and study of their acceptability that would interfere with not only the market for the particular products being introduced but other Canadian products of great importance to our economy and farmers. He stated:

There remains strong and widespread opposition to genetically modified wheat or barley in about half of our markets. This includes, but isn't limited to, the governments of, and customers in, the European Union, Japan, Thailand, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and a number of African nations. Japan and the European Union alone account for roughly 15 per cent of our wheat and barley exports. Both markets pay a premium for high quality. The U.S. and Canada might accept GM wheat sooner than some other groups, although the North American brewing industry has concerns about GM barley.

The markets that are most likely to demand non-GM shipments also have zero tolerance for unapproved GM content. So, they choose not to purchase GM products, and they're prepared to turn back a multi-million-dollar shipment because it contains a low-level presence of GM kernels or even dust.

That is how crucial this is. The countries that do not accept GM modified products are also very leery of having any contamination whatsoever. We have already lost a market for flax.

This is not a fantasy world. We are not inventing concerns here. We are not raising bogeymen to scare people. These are legitimate, fundamental problems that have been identified by people such as the organic growers and the Canadian Wheat Board itself. What more should members need to know? If the Canadian Wheat Board, which is responsible for marketing Canada's wheat for export, is raising these concerns, then members should be listening.

We are talking here about exports and about Canada's ability to export its produce. This bill calls for a proper analysis of the consequences of introducing and approving new GM products. It is very simple and very straightforward. This should be of concern to all Canadians, whether they are living on the east coast, the west coast or, as my colleague and friend from the Western Arctic has said, in the north. We are all concerned about Canada's reputation and Canada's ability to market its products.

Where are the members of the Conservative Party who claim to be representative of rural Canada, of Canadian values, of the little guy, of the farmer trying to make a living and of the freedom from interference with one's activities but who can be contaminated by organic products on the farm next door? How come they are not here agreeing with us that there should be a proper analysis, an amendment to the Seeds Act to ensure that the livelihood of Canadian farmers and the protection of Canadian markets is given full sway? Why are they not here? Why are they not supporting this effort to ensure that Canadian agriculture is safe from the contamination of genetically modified products and that we will be able to continue to export our own products, organic products, Canadian wheat, into markets around the world that we are currently participating in?

There is something wrong and the something that is wrong is probably a big company called Monsanto that has a lot of influence in governments around the world, the American government for example, and I think the Conservative government too. The Conservatives are listening to Monsanto and are not listening to the concerns of farmers whose livelihoods are at risk and who need to be wary and concerned at all stages that their own operation can be interfered with, potentially destroyed and put out of business as a result of some of these products, and the very market itself for the majority of our Canadian wheat and barley products that are sold through the Canadian Wheat Board.

If the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned, I am concerned. If the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned, all Canadians should be concerned. We should all be concerned when the Wheat Board is expressing the need for a proper full and total analysis of the consequences of introducing and licensing new genetically modified organisms.

That is all this bill is about. This is not a total attack on any genetically modified food or organism. That is not what this bill is about. This bill is about not introducing new products without a full and proper analysis.

I see that my time is about to come to an end. I do not know if there are any other speakers tonight, but if there are not, then I hope that the vote on this bill will turn out to be one that is in full support of this bill. We look forward to the support of all members of the House for this measure.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I want to express my thanks to all my colleagues who spoke before me to the bill, because this is the only opportunity we have had for a meaningful discussion on such an important topic in the House of Commons and I am very pleased to be part of it.

I sit next to the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. His passion for the issues that surround agriculture infects me as well. It is like a GMO. It just comes over me from him because he has done his homework. In his years as agriculture critic, he has talked to Canadians over and over again on issues ranging from food security, human health issues surrounding food, to protection for farmers. His focus as a member of the agriculture committee and his time in Parliament have been most valuable to the House.

Everyone in the House has to recognize that, whether they vote for or against the bill. We have to recognize the nature of the work that my colleague has done on this to bring it to the attention of the House and many of his colleagues in our caucus who, understanding the issue a year or two ago, may not have been aware of where it is today. His work to persuade members who have bought the corporate line on GMO products is valuable. It may take a little longer, but I am sure it will eventually get through to people.

What is up with the other parties? Why have manipulations taken place over the bill brought forward by my colleague? Why do we have the situation we have today where the bill did not have the full use of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in terms of witnesses, in terms of getting evidence before it? Why did we end up in the situation where only through the use of an obscure bit of parliamentary procedure were we allowed to have the debate we are having tonight.

It is clear that the Liberal Party is conflicted on this. We have good support from the Bloc on this issue and everyone in the NDP is thankful for the support that party has given us, but the Liberal Party has equivocated on this throughout. We appreciate the support the Liberals gave at second reading. I quote the Liberal agriculture critic on December 1:

There is a serious concern that I think Parliament or Agriculture Canada or someone, certainly, has to address; that is, as the member for British Columbia Southern Interior indicated earlier, that there is potential risk in the alfalfa industry by the introduction of GMO, genetically engineered seeds. It would be the same in terms of the wheat industry, over a slightly longer term.

He understands it. Why will we end up in a situation tomorrow where this vote is so uncertain? Why is that happening? Agriculture is so important to this country. It is so important to all of us.

The other person in my life who has given me a great deal of guidance on this is my son-in-law. He is a man who has lived all his life in the Northwest Territories but who has seen the importance of this issue and at every opportunity has brought it to my attention. I want to thank him for that. It has been valuable to me and I understand why he is doing it. He is doing it for his children. He is concerned about their health and welfare going forward, as I am as a grandparent.

We have seen GMO products in our environment for the last 15 years. We do not know the impacts they will have on the health of Canadians going forward. We do not understand it. That is not something that is there yet.

In fact, there is a body of knowledge that says there are issues and that whenever scientists work on these issues they find themselves under attack from large corporations. This was certainly the case when a group of scientists, led by Monsieur Séralini in France, found through analysis there were definite unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of genetic modification. It could not be excluded from what was going on with the introduction of these products. There is a body of scientific knowledge, even though GMO has not been around that long, which says there is a problem here.

In my personal experience over the last year, there have been a couple of events that I thought were significant. In January of this year we had the opportunity to hold bilateral talks with Japanese MPs. In those talks one of the subjects was agriculture. I had the opportunity to ask the Japanese MPs their position on GMO and it was quite clear that they did not want any part of it. They are people who are conscious of their country's position and it was quite clear that this position is not going to change very easily. They are not going to move quickly to introduce GMO into their country. They do not want it. The Japanese are a highly developed, sophisticated, technological society with great and pressing food needs. Their rejection of these products says that their understanding of the issue is such that they can recognize where this is going.

The second interaction I had was with a Canadian Wheat Board lawyer at a parliamentary function. She informed me that her job was to go around the world and try to establish protocols with a variety of countries that were not allowing Canadian products to enter because of the potential contamination from GMO. She had to work with the countries to design specific protocols that would ensure there would be no contamination in the system. This was a very large and difficult task.

Right at the beginning of this industry, with only a certain number of these products in our agriculture, we are experiencing these kinds of problems. Why would we not want to look at this and address it very seriously?

When we enter Canada and go through Canada customs, the agents want to know if we have been on a farm. They want to know if we have seeds. They want to know everything about our relationship to the country we have just come from and what it means to Canada. Other countries are doing the same thing, only they are doing it about GMO. We need to understand that. We need to express that in our agricultural development.

I spent years involved in environmental assessment. To say that we are not taking the concerns of the public forward on these new products that actually influence huge sections of our land and our agricultural production is simply wrong. There is tremendous support for the bill across the country. Tomorrow, we need a positive vote on Bill C-474. I ask people listening tonight to call their MP and plead with him or her to support the bill. The bill is not going to hurt Canada; it is going to help Canada be a better country.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of Bill C-474 and I am proud of our party, the New Democratic Party of Canada, and my colleagues who sponsored the bill.

This is the first time in our 15-year history with GE crops that we have had such a long and thorough debate and discussion in this House of Commons. It is about time that we had such a discussion.

Saskatchewan organic grain farmer, Arnold Taylor said:

This is a great chance for farmers to be heard. Organic, non-GE and conventional farmers will all now have a fair opportunity to voice their urgent concerns.

The matter is urgent because we know there are potential health risks from GE crops, including the development of antibiotic resistance, allergic reactions, nutritional changes and the creation of toxins. GE crops also threaten plant diversity which is essential for food security.

It is a very timely discussion because the introduction of Monsanto's GE herbicide-tolerant, Roundup Ready, alfalfa would have serious negative impacts on many different types of farmers and farming systems, both conventional and organic.

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

Without Bill C-474, there is no mechanism to even ask the question about what the economic costs of introducing GE alfalfa would be.

Because alfalfa is a perennial crop pollinated by bees, GE contamination is inevitable. Alfalfa is used as pasture and high-protein feed for animals like dairy cows, beef cattle, lambs and pigs, and is also used to build up nutrients in the soil, making it particularly important for organic farming.

If introduced, GE alfalfa would ruin export markets for alfalfa products and threaten the future of organic food and farming in North America.

Genetic engineering allows scientists to create plants, animals and micro-organisms by manipulating genes in a way that does not occur naturally. These genetically modified organisms can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms, thereby contaminating non-GE environments and future generations in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way. Their release is genetic pollution and is a major threat because GMOs cannot be recalled once released into the environment.

We must stop being in denial of reality. This bill is extremely important and I hope that when it comes to a vote tomorrow that there will be a sufficient number of members of Parliament supporting it.

We know that the New Democratic Party supports it because we presented the bill. We know that the Conservative Party is solidly against this bill. The Conservatives are pro-GE and are actively opposing this bill. The Liberals tend to not want to support it because they are bowing down to the great lobbying of the biotech industry. It would be a shame if this bill is not passed.

Some people may ask what the problem is and what genetically modified organisms and GM foods are. They can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material, the DNA, has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology is often called modern biotechnology or gene technology and is sometimes called recombinant DNA technology or genetic engineering. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species. Such methods are used to create GM plants, which are then used to grow GM crops.

What are the main issues of concern for human health? One of them is about gene transfer. Gene transfer from GM goods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistant genes used in creating GMOs were to be transferred. The use of technology without antibiotic resistant genes has been encouraged, and that is very important.

The other issue of concern is outcrossing. The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild, as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type, which was only approved for feed use, appeared in maize products for human consumption in the U.S.

There are great concerns for the environment, such as the potentially negative effect on beneficial insects or a faster induction of resistant insects; the potential generation of new plant pathogens; the potential detrimental consequences for plant biodiversity and wildlife; a decreased use of the important practice of crop rotation in certain local situations; and the movement of herbicide resistant genes to other plants.

There is a lot more we need to do. It is not just about this bill. In fact, Canada is one of the world's largest producers of GE crops but the system for regulating food biotechnology is extremely weak. We need to do more. We need to support comprehensive testing. GE crops must undergo rigorous testing to determine their impact on human health and the environment. We need to have some interims measure. We want the GE crops and seeds segregated from conventional and organic seeds. We want better labelling of GE foods so consumers can make informed decisions. Canada and the United States are the only industrialized countries that do not have mandatory labelling regulations in place. Because of commercial interests, the public is being denied the right to know about GE ingredients in the food change and, therefore, losing the right to avoid them.

Biodiversity must be protected and respected as the global heritage of humankind and one of our world's fundamental keys to survival.

There are many concerns about the GMOs because there are many other kinds of research that need to be done. Biodiversity is an element, a philosophy that is critical for the survival of this planet, and the increasing use of chemicals in farming is also a very worrisome trend.

I am proud that the New Democratic Party of Canada is taking leadership to stop these harmful genetically modified crops. Having this bill pass would be a great step toward questioning the economic cost of GE foods and crops. I certainly hope other members of Parliament will find it in themselves to study the issue and listen to the voices of their constituents because, certainly in my area, there have been hundreds of letters written in support of Bill C-474. I hope it will pass in this House of Commons tomorrow.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise with some pleasure to speak to Bill C-474, a private member's bill which has been presented to the House by my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior. It addresses what is a very fundamental problem that not only Canada is confronting, but food production and food-producing countries around the globe are confronting it as well.

Before I go into more detail, I want to acknowledge, as a number of my other colleagues have, the work that has been done by our colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior, in particular the campaign he has waged right across the country to deal with the issue of food safety and with the issues around protecting our producers and our farmers. He has done it in a way that gives great credence to what an individual member of Parliament can do to advance a cause and, in effect, how well a person can perform as a parliamentarian on an individual basis. As much as we constantly hear, mostly from columnists and pundits, about the demeaning of parliamentarians, the role he has played in this over the last number of years since being elected to the House is really quite phenomenal.

In addition, he has done it in a way that appeals to me because of the fundamentally democratic way he has done it. He has gone across the country and talked to people who are active in this area. I am not talking about the experts, although he has talked to them as well. However, he has talked to the front-line workers, the producers of our food, on a one-to-one basis and in collectives as well. Most important, he has listened to them and he has learned from them. He has brought back the information gained from that learning to the House in the form of the bill before us. He has done it in a number of other areas as well.

It is very fundamental to the production of food in our country that the contents of the bill become the law of this land. I am not over dramatizing that reality. We are faced with the classic confrontation of very powerful multinational corporations whose singular goal is to develop seeds that they will be able to monopolize. We do not know for how long, but over the next 10 to 50 years, if they continue down this path of success they have had up to this point, these 4 or 5 major multinational corporations will control the vast majority of the food production on this planet.

As I was preparing some notes on this evening's speech, I could not help but think about some of the experiences I had growing up on a farm in Essex county. We get these assurances from the multinationals that there is nothing to worry about for genetically engineered seeds. The European Union and Europe generally and a number of other countries around the globe have taken a different position. However, Canada and the United States in particular have allowed those multinationals to move ahead and put these genetically engineered products into the environment.

We always get those assurances from the manufacturers of these products and from the government agencies that, oftentimes blindly, give their authority to allow them to experiment on the human body with these products. It reminded me of when I was growing up on that farm. I was fairly young when they used to still allow the spraying of crops. Most of it was DDT at that time.

We hear from these multinational corporations, and in fact we heard it from some Conservative members earlier in this debate, that we do not really have to worry about it because it will be contained.

I remember standing on my family's farm when spraying was being done two farms down, as much as half a mile away, and the spray from the plane as it was crossing that acreage sprayed on to my family's farm and on to me.

Another incident makes me think of the assurances that we get that these types of products are fine. I remember working at a landscaping company when I was in university. This company also had an orchard and part of my duties included spraying the fruit trees. One of the products being used at that time was malathion. About five or six years after I finished that job, malathion was banned because it turned out to be a cancer-causing agent. There were no signs of that when it was first approved and not obviously adequately tested.

We are faced with the same type of thing with GE seeds. It has been made very clear in the work that has been done in Europe that there is no way of knowing about the safety of these products until they have been used for as much as a generation or two. The human species becomes the guinea pig with respect to what the health consequences will be. It does not take into account at all the risk that we are at as we use these types of products and they become the monopoly product. We do not have sufficient seed product that is not genetically engineered. If anything ever happened to the genetically engineered product, we would have no way of replacing it on this planet, and that is a great fear.

It was for those types of reasons that Europe said that it would not allow those seeds into its jurisdiction. At the same time, it also said that it would not allow products that come from genetically engineered seeds into its jurisdiction. We saw in 2009 that flax in this country became contaminated by GE seeds from other farmers. We were then blocked from moving our flax, which is a major export, into the European market. A great deal of it was quarantined but some of it was actually taken off the shelves and taken out of the market completely.

That was a significant loss that is not being paid by the producers of that GE flax and those seeds, but by the producers in the rest of the market here in Canada. They are paying for their product to be tested on an ongoing basis with the hope that they can show that it has been cleaned of GE seeds, which would allow them back into the European market. Producers are also paying for the cleanup, which means taking the seeds out of the environment on their farms. They are bearing the cost of this, not the Monsanto's of the world, not the multinationals of the world who produced that seed originally.

In 2010, I was at a meeting of the National Farmers Union in Stratford, Ontario where over 100 farmers and producers were in attendance. A number of them were aware of the legislation being proposed by my colleague and they were adamant about the need to get the bill through the House so that the experience we had with flax would never repeat itself in the future. I do not think I am overemphasizing this, but there was a palpable fear in their voices when they were talking about this. They knew what had happened to our flax farmers in the west and the big fear now is the alfalfa crop because there are companies that are trying to get that GE seed into the market.

I would urge all parliamentarians to support this legislation and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast to get behind it as well.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join a long list of NDP speakers who have spoken to Bill C-474. Anyone watching CPAC will know that this is a special rule. The House allowed for a six hour debate on the bill.

People watching, and anybody perusing Hansard tomorrow, will know that there has been a solid lineup of NDP speakers since the beginning. We have only seen two speakers from the government and two Liberal speakers the entire six hour debate. In fact, we will not even use up the full six hours so there will be a certain amount of time available in which other members from the government or from the opposition could certainly speak to this very important bill.

I want to compliment the member for British Columbia Southern Interior for his dedication and hard work on this bill. He has worked extremely hard travelling the country promoting the bill. In that effect he has a tremendous amount of very positive publicity coming from the census introduction to the bill.

For example, on May 1, 2010, Laura Rance, who is a long time writer for the Winnipeg Free Press in Manitoba, wrote an article and the headline was “Debate rages over effect of GM-seed bill”. She starts out by saying, “Bill C-474 is stirring up one heck of a hullaballoo for being a mere 42 words long”.

Then she goes to compliment the member for British Columbia Southern Interior saying he “ignited a storm of controversy after it received second reading by the House of Commons and was referred to the agriculture committee last month”.

The reason there is a storm is because of lobbyists, on behalf of Monsanto and the three other companies that produce the seeds, the herbicides and other products for agriculture, who have a great deal at stake. They have done their best to try to stamp out the bill before it can proceed any further past second reading.

One can only look at the voting record in the House. The three opposition parties got together, supported the bill on principle and sent it to committee. It was through that committee process that the industry leaned on the Liberal Party and, in effect, forced it to back down. In fact, there was very poor treatment of this bill and the member at the committee. It is not unusual for the Conservatives to invite witnesses to testify to a bill. However, the very morning the committee was to hear testimony on the subject they were turned away.

As I had indicated, this bill is only 42 words long. It 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.

That just makes common sense.

There are five major producers of this type of seed in the world. One of them is Argentina. Argentina in fact follows best practices and does exactly what the member for British Columbia Southern Interior proposes in his bill. Before a company goes to the expense of developing a genetically modified seed, which is certainly an expensive and time consuming proposition, it wants to know that it will be able to export its product. If that seed will pose a problem to its export markets, then why in the world would it spend millions of dollars to develop it?

For example, Argentina is the world's third largest GE crop growing area after the United States and Brazil, India being number four and Canada in fact number five.

All countries assess the potential for negative harm on exports. In addition to the environmental biosafety assessment, a GM release also requires a favourable food safety assessment. There are some procedures in place. Argentina alone requires further assessment of any possible negative impact on exports. That is vital.

The industry is way too powerful in our country. It has had an unusual effect on the politicians. The Liberals really should have stood up to the industry. Why they would have backed down is beyond me. Perhaps we will have some answers from members of the Liberal Party over the next couple of days.

Neither of the speakers from the Liberal Party tonight indicated why they changed their position. The only reason I heard from the member for Yukon was that they did not get an opportunity to go to committee to propose their amendment. We do not know what the total breadth of the efforts on the part of the lobbyist was in this case.

I want to look at some of the facts and try to put this whole GM debate into some type of perspective.

Over 90% of arable land around the world is GM-free. Only four countries grow 85% of total GM crops and 167 out of 192 countries grow no GMO crops at all. This industry has only been around for a limited period of time. I am not certain of the time period here, but it has been 10 or 15 years.

We are only talking about four or five major countries, with four countries growing 85% of the total. The biggest part of the world does not involve itself in GMO at all. In fact, 99.5% of farmers around the world do not grow any GMO crops.

As I had indicated, it has been over 10 years on the market and only 4 crops are grown in any significant quantity: soy, maize, cotton and canola. Those are the four crops that we are dealing with under GMO so far. These four crops represent 99%. In fact, virtually 100% of the world acreage planted with commercial GM crops has one or both of just two traits, herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. It is curious because the companies that produce it are also the ones that produce the products like Roundup and so on.

In terms of the four countries that grow 85% of the GMOs worldwide, the U.S. has about 50%, Argentina 17%, Brazil 13% and Canada 6% of the market. It is a very large industry, but it is by no means worldwide. It needs to have some checks and balances put in place. They should have been put in place long before now. If we let it continue to grow at the rate it has grown, give it another 20 or 30 years, it will expand much further than this limited number of countries. We are essentially turning over a lot of sovereignty to these private companies.

There are four companies. Monsanto sells more than 90% of all the GM seeds worldwide. Dupont, Syngenta, and Bayer round out the final four. The governments should have paid some attention to this earlier on. As other members of our caucus have pointed out, we do not know the final effect of these crops on the population at the end of the day.

There are numerous examples of drugs like thalidomide over the years, and other types of drugs on which millions of dollars were spent by drug companies. The drugs were tested in the proper ways and then a couple of years later they had to be withdrawn from the market. How do we know that will not happen here?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate this evening.

I want to begin with a tribute to my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior who is also the NDP's agriculture and agri-food critic.

My colleague has done yeoman's service in this area of responsibility for our party and this parliament. I know of no other critic who has taken their role so seriously. He has gone the distance to find out what Canadians think about this issue and has also heard from farmers, people in rural areas, and in the cities about issues related to agriculture and food.

He engaged Canadians in his Food For Thought tour, a tour across Canada from coast to coast to talk to Canadians about issues of food production and food security. He developed a report after his meetings in over 28 communities, called “Food For Thought: Towards a Canadian Food Strategy”. People in these 28 communities were engaged in this issue in a very important way. They were interested in the topic and made recommendations that he used to draw up his final report.

In my home community of Burnaby—Douglas, the member for Vancouver East and I held a joint session with the member for B.C. Southern Interior, where we discussed issues of food security. It was one of the best attended public meetings I have held in my time here as a member of Parliament. People were very interested and engaged in the issue and very appreciative of the work the member did.

The report that came out of that is also very important to the folks in my community. While the recommendations do not deal specifically with the topic of Bill C-474, they certainly set the stage for a piece of legislation like that, which deals with genetically engineered seeds.

I want to quickly go over the recommendations that came out of the Food for Thought tour.

Under the heading, “Ensure all Canadians have access to healthy food”, the recommendations included enacting legislation that would require that food be properly labelled with information on its origin, nutritional value and whether it is genetically modified; requiring imported foods to meet the same environmental and health standards that apply to food produced in Canada and provide resources to enforce those standards; and working with provinces and territories to include food production and food preparation in school curricula.

A group of recommendations under the rubric, “Help Canadian farmers produce adequate amounts of secure and healthy food”, included offering incentives on designing tax policies to promote local food production, processing capacity and distribution networks, including things like farmers markets and agricultural co-operatives; developing and implementing an alternative and appropriate food safety regulatory regime for small farm-gate operations; analyzing the impact of our trade agreements with other countries on our farmers; requiring federal government institutions to use local sources for their food supplies and encouraging other levels of government to do the same.

A third and final rubric was to “Establish a sustainable agricultural sector for future generations”, including by providing greater skill training, mentorship programs and other incentives to encourage young farmers to take up farming and to support current farmers; and facilitating the availability of arable land for people committed to farming; and finally, enacting a heritage breed act to preserve our heritage seeds and breeds as well as our biodiversity.

I think that final recommendation does touch on what we are talking about this evening in terms of the use of genetically engineered seeds across Canada and the promotion of heritage seeds, which keep us in the ballpark of what many Canadians hope is possible with our food production.

Specifically, the bill we are debating tonight is Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm). This bill calls for an amendment to 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.

Right now in Canada genetically engineered seeds are approved for commercial release here without any assessment of the impacts on our export markets. The only criterion currently considered is the safety of those products.

What the bill would do, very simply, is to call for a change to the regulations attached to the act that would require than an analysis also be done of the effect of the use of these genetically engineered seeds on Canada's export market.

It is a pretty straightforward bill. There is not much to it. It is very direct and very, very simple and straightforward. There is already a mechanism for analyzing what the impact of genetically engineered seed will be in Canada, and this just adds another piece to that analytical policy, and a very important one.

Why is it so important? We have seen, we have had a great example of, the problems that can be associated with the use of genetically engineered seed, a cautionary tale, if you will, from the rough experience of Canadian farmers related to the use of an illegal genetically engineered flax seed called the Triffid, which contaminated Canadian flax exports. That was back last year when a lot of this was happening. The GE Triffid flax was not approved for human consumption or environmental release outside of Canada and the U.S.

Last September, companies in European countries began removing products from their shelves and distribution lines, and Canadian shipments of flax to Europe were quarantined. Europe represents a significant part of the Canadian flax market. About 60% of Canadian flax exports went to Europe, and by the end of last year 35 countries that had recorded contaminated flax from Canada closed their markets to Canadian flax exports.

That is a huge problem. A significant market for Canadian farmers has been closed because of the fact these genetically engineered flax seeds somehow got into the product. This has caused chaos for that particular product.

The reality is that it is farmers who are bearing the brunt of the cost of that problem. In addition to the cost of market uncertainty with the collapse of the flax market related to this and lower prices, farmers are paying for the testing and cleanup of their farms. Farmers are now also being asked to forego using their farm-saved seed and to take on the extra cost of growing certified flax seed in 2010 for export to Europe.

Even though this was not a problem created by Canadian farmers, it has certainly fallen back on their shoulders to deal with the problem, now that it exists. Yet if we had done our due diligence, if a provision like the one that is in Bill C-474 had been in place, the kind of the analysis that would look at what the effect of a problem related to genetically engineered seed would be on Canadian producers or Canadian farmers, it would have been identified and hopefully would have led to the avoidance of this particular problem.

One of the other side issues related to the bill is the short shrift that it was given in the agriculture committee. Unfortunately, there were games going on, it is fair to say, at that committee when it came to dealing appropriately with this piece of legislation. Out of the blue there was a move to get it off the agenda of the committee. In fact, one morning a committee meeting was cancelled, even though witnesses had been flown in by the committee across Canada to testify on this particular bill. The Canadian Wheat Board, the National Farmers Union and the scientist Rene Van Acker were scheduled to appear at a meeting that was abruptly cancelled just minutes before it was due to start.

The committee had paid to bring these people to Ottawa to testify before the committee. It is certainly not a great use of committee resources and the resources of Parliament when that kind of abrupt action is taken to prevent witnesses from speaking on this very important issue. Certainly the Canadian Wheat Board and the National Farmers Union have a clear interest and clear experience with this kind of issue and should have been able to present their case on the bill to the committee.

What happened as a result of that? There were some folks at the committee from the parties that prevented this committee meeting from going ahead who felt guilty about it. What did they do? They announced another study. That is always a great fallback position, not to deal with the specific problem before us but instead suggest a larger study. In fact, members of the committee are engaging in that study now, when they could have been dealing with a very specific measure that would have assisted the situation and made a clear recommendation on how to deal with the question of genetically engineered seed. Now instead we are doing this broader study, which seems to be pushed somewhat toward the side of the industry and not to the needs of producers, as this bill is designed.

I am glad the member brought this forward. I hope that members will support it. It is a very important piece of legislation for Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, it is sort of something like we see in the House of Commons most of the time.

However, B.C. Conservatives know they cannot touch the Agricultural Land Reserve in any meaningful way because the people of British Columbia have come to treasure our agricultural land.

In the 21st century local food movement, with concerns now over climate change, with 100-mile diets on everybody's mind, all of this is possible and only possibly thanks to the protection of our agricultural land.

I would argue that Bill C-474, if we fast-forward to today, is another example of that kind of visionary thinking and progressive work that is done, once again, by the New Democrats. This is protecting farmers of the future.

In my community of Vancouver Kingsway people recognize the importance of local food production. Locally produced food reduces carbon emissions from transportation. It is healthier. Fewer preservatives are needed to keep it fresh. There is a thriving local food movement not only in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway, but all over the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and in many communities in British Columbia and across the country.

We have the Trout Lake Farmers Market, which opens every May. I was at a booth at the farmers' market over at Hillcrest Community Centre in the middle of January. People come together with local organic farmers and exchange their produce.

I want to tell the House a bit about what my constituents are saying on this subject. I received a letter the other day from Faune Johnson, who lives in my riding. I want to quote what she said to me. She stated:

I am writing to ask you to vote on February 9th in support of Private Members Bill C-474 in order to protect Canada's family farms, and to participate in the 5-hour debate currently scheduled for February 8th.

As you might imagine, because of my commitment to the community garden in my neighbourhood, I am very concerned about healthy food and supporting Canadian farmers. I am also very concerned about genetically modified food and seeds, most of which are not sustainable or natural.

Bill C-474 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 important because the introduction of new genetically engineered (GE) crops, such as GE alfalfa, can cause economic hardship to farmers. It is imperative that our government assess the possible export market impact of introducing new GE seeds. Bill C-474 would simply require the federal government to conduct such an economic analysis.

Farmers are at risk when GE crops are commercialized in Canada without also being approved in our major export markets. For example, flax farmers in Canada paid the price for unwanted GE contamination that damaged their export markets late in 2009. Now alfalfa growers are asking the government to protect their businesses from the urgent threat of GE alfalfa contamination.

It's 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. Bill C-474 would help our government meet this responsibility.

The House of Commons Agriculture Committee has already heard a strong message of support for Bill C-474 from Canada's alfalfa growers.

...please vote for Bill C-474 to make sure that alfalfa growers and other farmers do not face the same market harm caused by GE contamination that continues to hurt our flax farmers. Please speak up for my concerns on February 8th....

I have another letter, from Barbara Seifred, who said:

I implore you to support Bill C-474 on genetic engineering on February 9. This Bill will provide safety to Canadians and food producers....

Canadians are increasingly concerned about the results of manipulation of links in our food chain, from altered seeds, excessive chemical application, soil depletion, et al.

The organic sector is expanding rapidly due to demand and it would be using wisdom and foresight to ensure its viability and profitability, by setting safety precedents now.

There have been no health benefits from GE seeds and foods. In fact they require ever increasing dangerous carcinogenic chemicals in their production. Nor have there been drought-tolerant, or frost-hardy crops developed.

Experience has shown that no containment is possible to protect crops from contamination from neighbouring genetically engineered (GE) plantations.

I also want to say that students in Windermere high school have studied this issue in science class and have sent me name after name, dozens and dozens of them. These are young people who are concerned about their future. They want to make sure they have access to natural, organic, healthy, untainted food and they understand more than anybody how important it is that we preserve our agricultural land in a healthy way for generations to come.

From people who are running community gardens to people who understand science, to the young generation that has a stake and interest in this and wants us in the House of Commons to make sure we protect the environment and leave it in at least as good shape as we inherited it, we have a duty to support Bill C-474.

All this bill is doing is asking the Canadian government to do a simple thing, and that is to study the impact of GE products in our foreign export markets before we venture down a path that may cause destruction. That is no more than asking us to follow the precautionary principle. It is wise, prudent, good for business, good for farmers and good for our food supply.

I urge every member of the House to do the overwhelmingly right thing and support my colleague's bill. Let us proceed intelligently in the future to make sure we have organic, healthy food production for decades, centuries and millennia to come.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am deeply honoured to stand and speak in favour of Bill C-474, outstanding legislation by my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior and the NDP agriculture critic. He has spent many hours and worked very hard to put this sensible, much needed and internationally required legislation before the House of Commons.

The bill, as we have heard, and for anybody who is watching, deals with the use of genetically-engineered seeds. The bill, if passed, will require government to consider the harm to the export value of a crop before permitting the sale of any new genetically-engineered seed.

The bill is needed to protect the economic livelihood of farmers. It is needed to ensure that we have an environmentally sustainable and wise use of our crops in the country. It is important to protect our export markets upon which so many families and farmers rely in the country. I am proud to support this important initiative.

Before I get to the crux of the bill, I want to address some of the broader issues that the bill raises.

My colleague and I are both from British Columbia, where there is a proud farming tradition. Some of the world's best produce is grown on some of the world's best farmland. Family farms have been hit hard, in some cases, but thousands of British Columbians take pride in the work they do every day to feed our nation.

In British Columbia, the value of quality farmland is recognized. In fact, it is built into provincial legislation through the Agricultural Land Reserve.

In 1973 the New Democratic government, led by Premier Dave Barrett, brought in a visionary perspective, a visionary conception of the need to protect the value of our foodlands. Far before the time when the environment was on anybody's mind, New Democrats in British Columbia understood the necessity of growing produce and food locally and in a sustainable manner. New Democrats understood the need to ensure that next to urban centres we would keep rural areas of land so we would have access to clean, organic and locally produced food.

The Agricultural Land Reserve protects valuable agricultural land from development. Farming is encouraged and non-agricultural uses are carefully controlled.

The ALR has proved to be incredibly forward-thinking. In fact, it has proved to be such an excellent idea that not even decades of Conservative rule in the province has dared to ever touch that concept. We call the B.C. Conservatives “British Columbia Liberals”, because they are interchangeable. They are absolutely one and the same thing in the province of British Columbia.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to talk about Bill C-474, a private member's bill that my colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, tabled to protect Canada's seed export business by carefully studying the impacts of introducing genetically modified seeds.

As a biologist myself, I can certainly appreciate the myriad ways science and innovation have enriched our lives, including through agriculture. In many ways, scientific advances have allowed us to become healthier and have brought the costs of many goods and services down. Because of scientific research and development and subsequent applied technologies, today we enjoy a higher standard of living both at home and abroad.

It was in this tradition that agribusiness giants promised us they could do things like eradicate global hunger through the use of genetically modified foods, but here we are 15 years later, and the promise remains unfulfilled.

Genetically modified food remains a far from perfect science. Rather than solving the hunger problems abroad or here at home, we are still not sure we can trust this new technology. At this stage, new genetic food solutions often raise more questions than they answer. This is why our European trading partners have adopted a zero tolerance policy on unapproved GM crops and products.

However, Bill C-474 does not attempt to enter that lively debate for or against GMOs. That is a topic for debate on another day, and I will look forward to taking part in it. Rather, Bill C-474 is a purely economic bill that responds to the fact that some of our trading partners around the world have deep reservations about the use of genetically modified organisms. Indeed, many of our largest customers are even prepared to block imports from Canada because of their concerns.

All this bill is calling for is an economic analysis of the impact on our trade relationships around the world before we approve our GMOs.

This is prudent and plain common sense. We already see how genetically modified contamination of flax has caused us huge problems in our trade partnerships with the European Union.

We have already heard in this chamber that in September 2009, our European customers found that a genetically engineered strain of flax seed called the CDC Triffid had contaminated Canadian flax exports. Contamination reached 35 other countries. European countries began removing Canadian products from their shelves and went so far as to quarantine all shipments of flax from Canada.

Sixty per cent of our flax exports go to Europe. The price of flax has plummeted, and the market and Canadian farmers are still feeling the effects of this drop. On top of the damage to Canada's reputation for quality grains, our farmers are now forced to pay extra costs for testing and cleanup efforts. This whole mess leaves Canadian farmers suffering enormous consequences.

GM flax was withdrawn from the market and GM wheat efforts were temporarily shelved. Critics of this bill say that constitutes proof that we do not need regulations and that the industry will self-regulate.

I want to quote something from Terry Boehm, president of the National Farmers Union, representing thousands of farmers across Canada.

He said, “It took huge efforts on behalf of activists, farmers, and the general public to stop these harmful initiatives. With Triffid flax, it took lobbying inside the Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission by myself to convince the board that Triffid flax would be economic suicide for the flax industry. It then took the commission to convince the Flax Council of Canada of this fact”.

Mr. Boehm goes on to say, “GM wheat was not a responsible withdrawal by industry, in this case Monsanto, in light of market harm. It was more a response to massive organization by citizens protesting the introduction of GM materials in their daily bread. It took farmers concerned about how you control another RR crop in other crops. It would turn wheat into a weed difficult to control. This opposition occurred in both the U.S. and Canada. Monsanto temporarily withdrew in light of the bad publicity and their understanding that they could jeopardize their broader GM projects by pushing ahead with GM wheat. It took a survey that confirmed 85% of our customers would source wheat elsewhere if we allowed GM wheat to be produced to convince people of the economic damages this would produce. Again, there is nothing in our system to prevent these crops from being registered today. RR alfalfa is another example we will be grappling with in the near future”.

“Bill C-474 would add an element of protection and would remove the need for massive mobilizations that consume people's energies, which could be better spent elsewhere”.

We are now hearing that Monsanto is relaunching its research into genetically engineered wheat products.

Our international partners, who buy 82% of our wheat crops, say they will stop buying all of our wheat, both genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered, if we allow for the introduction of genetically engineered wheat.

Imagine the implications for Canada. The example of genetically engineered flax shows that there are market realities that we must face up to with regard to genetically engineered seeds. If a similar contamination were to strike Canadian wheat or alfalfa, the consequences would be beyond catastrophic.

I would like to quote Mr. Boehm again, who reminds us that this is all about ensuring markets are there for our farmers, right from the beginning of the Seeds Act, which Bill C-474 would update.

He said, “If one looks at the history of the Manitoba Grain Act and the later Canada Grain Act from which the Seeds Act flows, it is completely clear that the intent of the Seeds Act was farmer protection. It was to prevent farmers from being sold grain varieties that did not perform as advertised and to make sure that seed met certain standards to ensure that a farmer received the results and quality he was paying for in his seed purchases. The intent was farmer protection, and locating a market harm analysis criterion in the act would be consistent with the intent and spirit of the act: farmer protection. It is clear that the calamity that befalls a farmer from poor crops resulting from bad varieties is no different from the calamities of lost markets and collapsing prices”.

We know that politicians in our partner countries are facing strong pressure from their constituents to apply strict rules on GMOs. These foreign political leaders will have no incentive to make exceptions for our farmers. Their job is to represent the interests of their electors. Foreign leaders will not defend our farmers, so it falls to us as members of the House of Commons to do so.

Critics of this bill may accuse it of being anti-science or unscientific. As a scientist, I can assure the House that I am anything but anti-scientific.

I was disappointed to hear that Mr. Boehm was not able to testify at committee because of changes to the committee schedule, but allow me to quote him once again, briefly, as he addresses this.

He says, “It puzzles me why a call for a market harm analysis would be characterized as unscientific or detrimental to the regulatory system as a whole. Indeed, it would seem perfectly logical to have a measure in place to present severe economic harm befalling both farmers and the Canadian economy as a whole, as GM flax has created and as GM wheat would create. Our regulatory system has no provisions to prevent such calamities, and things like Triffid flax would pass through it unimpeded today, in spite of the real-life example of the consequences we have experienced with Triffid flax”.

We must ensure this does not happen again. I urge members of all other parties to support this important legislation put forward by my colleague.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a true honour to stand in the House and speak to the bill put forward by my colleague and our party.

First, I thank my colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, for the tireless work he has done in putting Bill C-474 forward and for truly being a spokesperson for farmers, for people living in rural and farming communities, for producers and also for consumers across our country.

People, and I would argue that all Canadians, have a vested interest in seeing that Bill C-474 be supported by the House of Commons, given that all of us have a vested interest in seeing that the food we eat and the economic system that supports our country are protected, that farmers are protected and that what they produce is of the highest quality. Bill C-474 aims to do that.

In a more specific way, Bill C-474 asks for something that is not just fundamental, but is really a basic concept, a concept that I think many of us could not only wrap our heads around, but could also see it is critical and must be implemented.

Bill C-474 would “require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted”. It simply asks for that.

This means the government would ensure that with this growing trend of genetically engineered foods entering our production systems, it would look at them before they came into our country and before they were approved. We would see how they might impact our export markets by the quality of the product our farmers produce. It is an important question in the organic market, a growing market in Canada in which we are proud. It looks at the fact that the livelihoods of farmers and the future of farming communities really depend on having a government that says that it needs to look at the possible adverse effects of allowing these genetically engineered products from coming into our country.

Colleagues of mine have raised the example of GM flax, a product that has entered our country and wreaked great havoc, to the point that flax producers have had their product contaminated. When it reaches the export market, major consumers such as the European Union have rejected that product, based on the fact that they have not approved GM flax. They do not want a product that previously Canada was well known for, high quality flax. The end result is farmers are being left out in the cold, having devoted their farmland to produce a product that key consumers no longer accept.

We want to put a stop to this trend toward shutting the door on exports of key Canadian products that may be contaminated by genetically engineered products coming into our country. At the most fundamental level, we want to look ahead at protecting the livelihoods of farmers.

As the member of Parliament for Churchill, this is absolutely critical to the livelihoods of many of the people I represent. I have the honour of representing people living in the Carrot River Valley, which is one of the northernmost agricultural areas in Canada, known for centuries of fertile farmland. Farmers in the Carrot River Valley grow everything from canola to wheat, generally cereals. However, they also produce alfalfa, which is one of the key products we are talking about today, given there is an increased trend and a very dangerous trend emanating more recently from the U.S. to allow genetically-engineered alfalfa. The Canadian government ought to implement Bill C-474 and examine the impact of the entry of genetically-engineered alfalfa to our home producers.

On this point, I find it ironic that I sit in the House of Commons across from many members of the governing party who represent agricultural communities and farmers. They find great enjoyment going across Canada and talking about that representation. In fact, if they truly represented their constituents, they would support Bill C-474. They would ask for increased vigilance on behalf of the government to look out for the well-being of farming communities.

Instead, the Conservative Party, assisted by the Liberal Party, in many steps along the way in this debate has ceased to silence the work of the NDP by saying that this is not the way forward. We need legislation to examine the adverse impacts of what is now a global trend. This is how we protect farmers and farming families. We know that farming families have been a key part in the building of our country. Over the last few decades, due to government policy and failure to look out for the needs that farming families have expressed, it has become increasingly difficult.

We have seen a movement toward the corporatized farm and away from the family farm. This is the time for this legislation to support the work of those who have stuck with a critical industry not just for the economy, but an industry that holds up communities across our country.

The next point would be a factor of age. I am one of the youngest members of Parliament in the House and I see this debate as being critical in terms of our future. Many people in my generation are increasingly concerned about global linkages and their impact on the Canadian quality of life and the quality of life around the globe.

Many people in my generation have been raised to take an interest in the products they purchase, whether it is healthy, ethical, fair trade or not. What really concerns me about this debate is the way the Conservatives and Liberals have failed to support Bill C-474. They are truly giving up on the role of the Canadian government to look out for the next generation and the health and safety of consumers.

Consumers are saying that they want good products and that they are interested in locally-grown and organic products. They are interested in supporting their communities and these kinds of linkages within our own country. Bill C-474 suggests that we examine the possible adverse effects or impacts in general of genetically-engineered products that come into our country. It would allow us to consider all of these options and how genetically-engineered products would wreak havoc in the quality of the food that Canadians consume.

The governing party, assisted by the official opposition, is standing up for the big industries, the Monsantos of the world, corporations that have nothing to do with our country and certainly do not prioritize the interests of the average Canadian. Instead they prioritize their pocketbooks. My question as a member of Parliament in the House is this. What is government for? Does it not exist to look out for its citizens and to build a better future for coming generations?

By muzzling the debate, silencing the opposition and by allowing large companies to monopolize the debate around genetically engineered foods shows that we are giving up on our responsibility to Canadians. It also shows we are giving up on the real demands of the next generation when it comes to consuming products of the best quality.

People in my home province have been extremely vocal in terms of their support for Bill C-474. I would like to note some of the statements that have been made.

Jim Lintott, chairman of the Manitoba Forage Council, testified before the agricultural committee. Referring to Bill C-474, he said, “It's the job of this room to look for ways of providing protection for the consumer and the producers who are out there. This is the best thing we've seen come along”. Mr. Lintott went on to make a number of other statements regarding the importance of the bill. I know many of my colleagues have already mentioned them.

I hope all members of Parliament look out for Canadians and support this important bill.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who gave a very spirited debate, and to be another New Democrat to rise in the House tonight to speak in support of Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm).

I represent an urban riding, Vancouver East, which has about 120,000 people. We have no farms and no crops in our community but we do have a growing number of community gardens. People are realizing that we need to grow vegetables and things that we can eat and live off in an urban environment. These gardens are blossoming all over East Vancouver and are being run by volunteers.

We also have a local farmers market, the Trout Lake Farmers Market, which is open from spring to fall. People can go to the Trout Lake Farmers Market and actually see people lined up for two things that drive them to the farmers market. One is for the local produce that is grown locally in our community, in the lower mainland, in the Fraser Valley, a very fertile and agriculturally rich community. People want to support their local farmers and local producers. The other thing that brings people to our local farmers market is the fact that 90% of the food is grown organically. Most of the people who sell at the market are organics. People want that.

This is quite an incredible issue. Yes, I am an urban MP and I represent urban issues but people in my community in East Vancouver are incredibly concerned about this whole issue of genetically engineered seeds and products, sometimes called GM products and seeds. People are very worried about it. It is one of those issues that is kind of just below the radar. It does not hit the front pages of the major newspapers. It is not necessarily a story on the nightly national newscasts and so on and so forth.

However, it is one of those issues that kind of percolates under the surface because people are so concerned about the quality, the source and the availability and whether we are supporting our local producers. People are very concerned about that.

In a way, this bill, which is a very simple and straightforward bill, a one-line bill, is a bill that is just the tip of the iceberg of this whole issue of what is happening in our country and globally as we see these mega-multinational corporations take control of agriculture, of local farmers and of local communities and push these GE products and techniques into the agricultural marketplace and force them on consumers.

I feel like there is a revolt taking place by consumers. People are saying that no one will dictate what it is they eat nor will they narrow the choices of what is available in the marketplace.

This bill, which would require an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any genetically engineered seed is permitted, is a very important element in this bigger debate about what is taking place with GE foods.

As we know, and from the experience that we have had, Canadian farmers had a crisis when it was found that illegal GE flax seed was selling in about 35 countries and there was contamination that took place. The countries that had their own strict regulations began removing these products from their shelves and quarantining all the shipments, and in this case it was flax from Canada. Let us note that 60% of our flax exports go to Europe. What happened was that there was a devastating economic impact to our Canadian farmers and producers.

The price of flax plummeted and the market, even today, is still very uncertain. Farmers are still paying for testing and cleanup. It was a catastrophe because e did not do due diligence in ensuring and analyzing the potential harm in terms of what could happen to that export market. We did not do that before these products were actually exported. I feel that this bill is just absolute common sense.

I was flabbergasted to hear the Liberal agricultural critic say that he would be recommending that his members vote against this bill. I do not understand why there would not be support for this very reasonable assertion that we need to have an analysis of potential harm.

We know the Conservatives are opposed to it, which is no surprise because they are already in the pocket of the big multinationals. I am very proud of the fact that it is the New Democrats who understand this issue, who are standing up, who are bringing it forward and who are forcing a debate in the House of Commons.

Our agricultural critic, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, had to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure his bill would receive the legitimate open debate in Parliament that it required. He had a heck of a time in committee. All kinds of tricks and antics were pulled to shut down this bill. Fortunately, however, we were able to get it to the House for debate. I am very proud to be part of a caucus that has an agricultural critic who has done such strong courageous work on this issue.

I hope people will reflect a little more carefully on this bill and realize that there is incredible support. The member has received something like 12,000 letters in support of this bill. As I said, this is something that is just below the radar. People know about it and they are worried about it. They do not understand why all members would not support this bill.

I will quote Lucy Sharratt who is with the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network and who I believe was at the press conference today with our member from British Columbia Southern Interior. In an article she wrote, which is quite illuminating, she says:

Alfalfa growers do not need nor want GM alfalfa and have been trying to stop it for at least five years. The introduction of Monsanto’s GE herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) alfalfa would have serious negative impacts on many different types of farmers and farming systems, both conventional and organic. Without Bill C-474, there is no mechanism to even ask the question of what the economic cost of introducing GE alfalfa will be

This is a very core question. If we cannot do the analysis about the potential harm economically as well as environmentally before a product is introduced, then what are we doing in terms of upholding the public interest?

We already know that GE contamination is hurting Canadian farmers. If a contamination incident similar to the one that I mentioned around flax contamination that took place in Europe in 2009 were to happen with wheat or alfalfa, then the economic consequences to farmers would be devastating. The example of the GE flax contamination crisis makes it clear that we cannot keep living in denial of the market reality that exists internationally toward GE.

This bill is meant to give the government a mandate to provide a mechanism that is currently missing in the regulations. It is a mechanism that can actually protect our farmers from economic hardship caused by the commercialization or contamination of their crops by GE seeds in the face of widespread market rejection.

That seems pretty clear and straightforward to me. It is very necessary. I strongly advocate that we look at this bill and move from these ideological positions of opposing something just because the big multinationals say that they do not want it. We should look out for the interests of the farmers in our communities. We should look out for the interests and concerns that our constituents have about food security and GE products and what it is that is taking place so rapidly. I do not think anyone can keep up with the changes that are taking place. We barely have the resources to push back to say that this is not in the public interest.

The bill before us today is an element of what we need to deal with but it is a very important element because it gives us the opportunity to ensure that a protection mechanism be put in place and that an analysis would be done and that it will be mandated if this bill passes.

It feels great to be in the House today to speak to the bill as an urban MP, to support my constituents and their concerns and to support Canadian farmers. I hope it will be approved.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to rise on behalf of my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior, who has been a true and tireless advocate on behalf of all farmers in this country, from coast to coast to coast.

For those people out there in television land who are just tuning in, knowing full well that I would be speaking right now, we would like to basically say what Bill C-474 is asking for. It is an amendment to the seeds regulations, and this is very important, as my colleague has made very clear, to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

How could anyone be against that?

I notice by the absence of my colleagues from the Conservatives, Liberals and the Bloc in the debate here tonight that it is up to the NDP to raise this issue on behalf of farmers in this country.

I want to personally thank my hon. colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior for the great work he has done in bringing farmers, the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Wheat Board and other organizations that are rightfully scared, if not frightened, about the future of farming in this country and what it means.

We have to have to ask ourselves, when the Minister of International Trade quite publicly said at a meeting the other day that we have to do away with all protectionist measures when it comes to trade issues with Canada and EU, what is he really saying?

He is saying that farmers are going to be left to the will of the international systems. I fear that means that systems such as supply management, which have done our farmers a very great service over the many years, will be negotiated away in the Canada-EU talks.

At the same time, we do not know, although we suspect, that the government is probably trying to persuade, coerce, convince, cajole, however one wants to say it, the EU market to open up products to GE foods.

We know, because my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior has stated it on many occasions, that many countries in Europe absolutely refuse access of genetically engineered foods to their markets because they do not believe in the science of it and have very serious concerns about it. At the end of the day, what is wrong with growing organic foods the way that nature and God had intended it to be? If God had intended us to fiddle around with our food systems, he would have done so, but he did not. We should not be fooling around with the food that has nourished us for centuries as a society. In fact, companies like Monsanto should not be playing God with our food.

Speaking of Monsanto, it seems to have its tentacles very close to governments like the United States government. I fear it is in this country as well. It is time to put a stop to that. It is time we had a government, hopefully an NDP government next time, that would once and for all stand up for farmers. We hear a lot of rhetoric on the other side about how we support farmers. We have to ask ourselves why our dairy farmers, why our pork producers, why our egg producers, why our beef producers, are constantly in Ottawa, lobbying members of Parliament to talk about things like supply management and other issues. Why are they constantly here, month after month, year after year, when they have been told they will have the Conservatives' support. If that is the case, the lobbyists would not have to be here, but they have very serious concerns.

I want to go over a few facts about genetically modified organisms. These are some of the facts the ISAAA puts into its normal press releases:

92.5% of arable land around the world is GMO free;

Only four countries grow almost 90% of the total GM crops;

176 out of the 192 countries grow no GMOs at all;

99.5% of farmers around the world do not grow GM crops at all;

In over 10 years on the market, only four GM crops are grown in significant quantity--soya, maize, cotton and oil-seed rape (canola). These four crops represent 99% of GMOs sold;

Virtually 100% of world acreage planted with commercial GM crops have one or both of just two traits: herbicide-tolerance and insect resistance.

Having said that, let us debate alfalfa, something which my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior has raised on many occasions. Alfalfa seed is a crop that is pollinated by bees, particularly leafcutter bees, but also honey bees and several species of wild bees and wasps. Leafcutter bees are normally placed in nests and shelters in an alfalfa field at a rate of 20,000 bees per acre. A significant percentage of these leafcutter bees do not return to their shelter. They drift several miles away in search of better blooms or are blown away in strong winds and storms.

Honey bees have a very wide flying range of up to four miles. The isolation distance, to prevent transfer of the genes by insect pollination from GM alfalfa to non-genetically modified alfalfa, would need to be several miles. However, there is no mechanism for separating GMO and non-GMO growing areas, and alfalfa seed is usually produced in a concentrated area so crop contamination and cross-pollination would be inevitable.

GM alfalfa for hay production will often be cut after blooming starts, giving an opportunity for bees and other pollinating insects to transfer pollen from GM crops to alfalfa seed crops. That means that farmers who wish to have organically grown alfalfa or non-GM alfalfa will have to fear that the neighbour down the road or the field down the road will contaminate their crops. Why is that a problem?

Seaspray Cooperative was shipping organic soybeans to Europe and the Japanese market for a number of years in the late 1990s. The soybeans were shipped through Thompson Feeds of southern Ontario. Thompson was shipping organic and conventional from the same warehouse and the product got contaminated. The soybeans ended up in the feed market for a lot less price and extra transport costs. Thompson did not come clean with Seaspray Cooperative about the reason until a year later. This ended the growing of organic soybeans for this market. That stopped Seaspray from doing that.

That is what happens to a company that sends an organic product to a particular market. It is contaminated as it is no longer able to do that. Talk about the economic loss and the economic opportunities that have been lost to the workers and to the farmers that Seaspray Cooperative was working with. This is something we need to stop.

All my colleague is asking for is a fair, honest and open debate and none of the games that have been played at committee. For example, the bill was reported back to the House without amendment for third reading. On the morning following the vote, scheduled witnesses, notably the Canadian Wheat Board, the National Farmers Union and scientist Rene Van Acker were turned away at the committee door when the 8:45 meeting was abruptly cancelled. Those were the types of games that were being played.

This is not the type of games we should play with the health of Canadians and people around the world. My colleague has asked for a very reasonable bill to be put forward. We believe that the bill should be unanimously adopted. This is what my colleague has worked so hard for. It only stands to reason that we do not yet know the full and lifelong impact that genetically engineered products will have.

I want to very quickly talk about what we called Frankenfish, which was a fish in Prince Edward Island many years ago when I was the fisheries critic. It was a genetically engineered fish. The oceans do a great job giving birth and raising fish on their own through the natural system. The last thing we should be doing is fooling around with fish and genetically engineering them.

It is the same thing with GMOs. We need to be very careful. I believe that Bill C-474 is reasonable legislation to go forward in this debate. I personally want to thank my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior for the tremendous work he has done, not just on behalf of our party but on behalf of all farmers right across the country.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this debate tonight following many of my colleagues who have already spoken in the House.

I am pleased to see the great number of members of Parliament who have come forward to speak in defence of my colleague, the member of Parliament for British Columbia Southern Interior. He has been an incredible advocate for the future of healthy agriculture, healthy production and healthy food in Canada. He has produced an incredible food strategy for Canada in consultation with growers and those who enjoy Canadian produce across the country.

I stand in strong support of Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm). As many have said, the bill's intent is very simple. It proposes that the seed regulations be amended to require advance completion and consideration of an analysis of the potential harm posed to export markets by any new genetically engineered seed. I find it incrdible that not all MPs support this pragmatic, precautionary and important measure in the interests of Canadian agricultural producers, exporters and the Canadian economy.

Time after time government members state that their number one priority is to build greater markets for Canada, to build a strong economy into the future. Surely agriculture, which has been the backbone of Canada's economy, should be included in that basket.

The Minister of Agriculture raised concerns in the House earlier about all of the intrusions on agricultural production in Canada. He said that agricultural farmland, for example, is being paved over for parking lots. What he failed to mention is the government and some other governments' failure in Canada to prevent the intrusions on agriculture production by pipelines, the expansion of oil sands upgraders, massive power lines for the export of power, and the expansion of coal mines for coal-fired power. We have already seen the impact of climate change on our farm producers as documented in a report produced by NRCan. The report clearly indicated that significant problems have already been identified.

The last thing that we need to do is to put a barrier in the way of our agricultural producers to grow and market their produce and build our economy.

I am told that more than 12,000 Canadians wrote in support of the bill, and I am not the least bit surprised.

In my career as an environmental lawyer I had the opportunity to represent and work with many farm communities. It was a great pleasure to work with those stalwart souls. I am proud to have a lifetime membership in the Preservation of Agricultural Land Association, which was granted to me in the 1980s.

I have worked long and hard alongside my neighbours in Alberta. They work hard to produce grains for our use and for export. It is high time that the government stood up for those people it professes to support.

The very essence of Bill C-474 is to protect our Canadian producers against the incursion of major corporations that want to introduce some kind of biotechnology.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food heard clear and strong testimony from a broad sector of society in support of the bill. The committee heard from agricultural producers, agricultural marketing and trade organizations, scientists and experts from Canadian faculties of agriculture and institutes and legal experts.

What did we hear from these agriculture producers? The National Farmers Union, an association of agricultural producers across the country in existence for many years, spoke up continuously in support of our farmers.

As far back as December 2009, the National Farmers Union president Mr. Terry Boehm, who had testified at committee in support of Bill C-474, continued to express concerns about the economic impacts on the agricultural market economy, absent careful advance assessment of the potentially detrimental impacts of genetically modified varieties contaminating crops.

In so doing, he raised examples where crop contamination had harmed previously solid export markets.

A statement by Mr. Boehm, the president of the National Farmers Union, read as follows:

The devastating and sudden closure of the European market for Canadian flax exports, due to contamination by genetically modified flax variety proves the current regulatory system needs to be strengthened.

Canadian farmers have borne the financial brunt of the market collapse. While the flax market disruption is bad, the potential for even worse calamities exists. With the possibility of GM wheat on the horizon, the likelihood of GM contamination in that crop could spell unprecedented disaster for the large Canadian export wheat market.

It is critical that the system be reformed to prevent further market disasters. It is imperative that new and existing GM crops be looked at through the lens of potential market harm. Recent changes to the variety registration system could accelerate these market disasters for Canadian farmers. We have seen what GM contamination of flax has done, and surely no one should doubt what would happen to wheat if we allow GM varieties to be registered.

The current regulatory system would not stop any new GM varieties from “killing our markets”.

The National Farmers Union shared with the committee the impacts on flax producers of their crops becoming contaminated by GM crops and of nations beginning to ban the import of Canadian flax. My colleagues in the House have outlined well over 30 countries that were impacted by the turning back of Canadian exports.

Farmers are clearly frustrated at the failed government intervention to prevent similar future problems despite the duty of this government to apply the precautionary principle.

These concerns were reiterated by Nettie Wiebe, past National Farmers Union president and partner in Maida Vale family farm near Delisle, Saskatchewan.

Published statements by Professor Wiebe in The Western Producer read as follows:

This question is raised by the recent debates over Bill C-474, a proposed amendment to the Seeds Regulations Act to “require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.” The key argument mounted against taking market acceptance into account when registering new varieties is that it goes beyond the single science-based criteria now used. The appeal of sticking with science-based is obvious. It seems to offer a simple, reliable, unbiased, universal set of rules to follow. This should prevent any political, economic or social considerations from intruding and making things complicated.

But whose science are these rules based on? Most of the research on genetically modified crops is financed and controlled by the corporations that own the technology. Those corporations have withdrawn from participating in independent canola plot testing. This prevents public comparisons between seeds and denies farmers science-based information that has not been filtered through company screens.

The committee also heard from the Manitoba Forage Seed Association. According to Kelvin Einarson, director and secretary treasurer of the association, Bill C-474 is the first step in offering some protection in the future for Canadian family farms. Market acceptance must be made part of the evaluation process and be incorporated into the seeds regulations.

These concerns were also echoed by Jim Lintott as chair of the Manitoba Forage Council.

What about testimony by marketing and trade associations?

The committee heard from the Canadian Organic Trade Association, which spoke strongly in support of these measures to protect their trade. In addition, the Canadian Wheat Board expressed similar concerns about the implications GMOs may pose for cereal grain exports.

Similar concerns were expressed by Kurt Shmon, president of Imperial Seed Ltd. As he said, with the lack of protection in the current regulatory system:

One of our large trading partners, the European Union, has also made it very clear: they will not accept any non-approved GMO seeds. The market has spoken.

The government has said that it is reaching out to the European Union to expand trade. At the same time, it is harming the potential trade by our producers. I call upon the government to respect the precautionary principle, the energy prices and high input costs that farmers are facing, and support them in doing away with yet another hurdle to their production.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand to speak to Bill C-474, an act respecting the seeds regulations, which was tabled by my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior.

I am glad to be speaking to the bill tonight. I have a number of constituents who are very interested in this debate and the larger issue of genetically engineered crops. It is an issue that is emotionally charged and informed by a great many other debates in which we find ourselves currently engaged.

When we think of genetically engineered seeds, we cannot merely look at this through a single lens. It is an issue that touches a great many aspects of our lives. There are implications for agriculture, both big producers and smaller traditional farms, and especially our organic farms, for the environment, the economy, our health and, as we see in the legislation itself, international trade. This is a list that is meant to be more of an example and is by no means exhaustive.

Bill C-474 is good legislation that sets out to amend the seeds regulation to require that analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted. That is to say, we should ensure there is a market for a product before we ask our producers to start growing it. This is a position that makes a great deal of sense from a purely economic point of view.

I imagine it makes sense to many Canadian flax producers who will see the good that will come from the bill. They learned the hard way that not all of our trading partners are as uncritical of genetically engineered food as the Conservative government is. These producers were caught in the middle of a trade dispute when an illegally modified flax seed contaminated our exports and shut down 35 foreign markets for their produce in 2009. The after effects were costly as producers saw the price drop and are now subject to an onerous testing process. It is costing the federal government as it is spending $1.9 million to help with testing and to repair the trading relationship with Europe.

Where it does not make sense is in the boardrooms of companies like Monsanto. They would like to control more and more of our production. They want to make seeds that dovetail with their pesticides and herbicides and sell the complete package to the farmers. It is a model that works well in a vacuum, but does not take into account the wishes of consumers and, more important, the wishes of other countries, many of whom are less than keen to see genetically engineered crops that take the place of the tried and true varieties.

For the producers, the risks are far greater than they are for the big agri-corps. One bad year can take a long time to recover from. That reality is also part of the problem in that it makes products like Roundup so attractive. The company can then come in with seeds that will work best with their pesticides. The end result is a good harvest that cuts into future harvests a little each time. This happens because these herbicides are indiscriminate. They kill beneficial organisms as well as the weeds they seek to eliminate from a field. After time, the soil is less fertile and the dependency on chemicals becomes greater.

Organic farmers know this. They operate on older principles that those dictated by corporation that seek efficiency over short periods at the expense of the long-term soil health.

I have seen the terrible effects of indiscriminate herbicides in my own constituency in the North Shore Forest, which is being repeatedly sprayed with glysophate in order to have no competition for the softwood growing there. When you go into these stands, it is eerie. It reminds me of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in that there is no obvious life in these forests except the trees. We do not hear birds and bees in there, and in our heart of hearts, we know that it is wrong and that we cannot be doing ourselves any favours with this type of production.

We would also be remiss to get into a debate about GE crops without questioning residual effects that go beyond markets and crop yields. These are the effects of specialty seeds and factory farming. Monoculture does not protect the overall environment, like the story I just related about the North Shore Forest in Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

According to Dr. Reese Halter's book The Incomparable Honeybee, it is the effects of agricultural chemicals and pesticides combined with a reduction in the variety of food sources available that are at the heart of the problem we have with bees worldwide. He claims that our bees are feeling stresses from so many fronts at once that they are in danger of becoming extinct. Some varieties around the globe already have.

One does not have to be a farmer to understand that bees are a keystone species in our environment. They are directly responsible for every third bite on one's plate and indirectly for even more. The fact that we hear very little about the way our native bees and honeybees are disappearing speaks volumes about our misguided priorities. It would be a shame if they were to go quietly while we argued about the economy or whether we should support pro sport franchises. That would be a travesty.

Another travesty persists. It is 2011 and, sadly, people still go hungry in this world. All of our efforts to date have not been able to address this. Some go hungry as a result of political decisions, but this is not the case for all. As the world's population increases, the challenge to feed them becomes greater and some of the work done in terms genetic engineering is meant to address that. I have constituents who would tell us today that this is misplaced and hopeful thinking that views problems and solutions in a vacuum and that we do ourselves long-term harm by pursuing these kinds of remedies.

They would tell us that the solution lies in the varieties we already have, that the food we have grown for thousands of years is obviously good enough to feed ourselves and that we should not pursue genetic modifications that serve the corporate model of farming. Instead, we should return to the model of the responsive and responsible family farm. We should stop building houses on prime farmland and grow more of our food closer to where it will be consumed, that we should pay attention to the way we treat our planet and our population as priorities and then determine the needs of our corporations afterward.

When we have these kinds of debates and raise real concerns, we are told to have faith in the market and the players within it. We are told that technology will advance to help us out. It reminds me of the climate change debate. It is a blind faith in market forces to be able to respond to the crisis they have created in the first place that strikes me as more than hopeful.

We have learned with flax seed that not everyone in the world shares this uncritical view of technological fixes. We have seen how genes can be introduced that can change existing strains of the same species. We have seen how GE crops, such as BT cotton in India, can stop producing the desired results and we are left with a sense that technology probably cannot do a better job than the way the earth has evolved to do in the first place.

We teach our children early in their education that we are part of complex food webs, but when we have these debates, we look at so much in isolation that it seems most adults have forgotten those early important lessons.

This bill aims to put the brakes on some of the corporate-driven agricultural policy we have adopted in the last few decades. It asks us to do our homework ahead of time instead of after the fact. I can see no reason to be opposed to it and believe it is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we should be doing.

I would like to bring forward a bit of information about the testimony in committee from Mr. Ian Munro.

He said the following before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food:

Importantly, cost-benefit analysis and the farmer-focused risk analysis method that I have pioneered are quantitative scientific approaches that can be incorporated into the existing regulatory framework. Canadian farmers deserve holistic regulation that seeks their input and thus ensures their livelihoods are not being put at risk due to the introduction of GE crops and other types of ag-biotechnology. Arguably Bill C-474, currently being debated in Parliament, offers an opportunity to expand the regulatory framework and ensure market impact is considered. I believe this is an important and much-needed evolution in Canadian regulation.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm). I would like to commend my colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, for bringing this legislation forward.

The bill calls for an amendment to the Seed Regulations Act to:

require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

This bill would give consideration to any potential harm to export markets and resultant economic harm to farmers. Currently, approval of genetically engineered crops for human consumption and environmental release based on safety alone does not take into account the adverse effects on our market and/or farmers.

Food security is a growing concern, especially in a world of changing climate. In order to maintain a viable and sustainable food system in our country, we need to support small and organic farmers. We need to keep our local, small-scale and family farmers in business.

The government must nurture this important industry and do all it can to protect it. It needs to guard the economic interests of farmers to allow them to continue to grow and flourish, rather than be unable to compete in the global market. Our laws must work for all men and women who work everyday to put food on our tables.

I want to talk briefly about local farmers' markets, a growing movement in my home province of British Columbia and, indeed, across the country. My riding is home to the Royal City Farmers Market. Its mission states,

Connecting with our heritage of having a vibrant city market, the Royal City Farmers Market Association brings locally grown and produced food to the community, thereby contributing to environmentally sustainable food production, local economic development, healthy eating, and food security.

I have had the opportunity of visiting the Royal City Farmers Market on several occasions, and I am not alone. As people are looking for healthy and sustainable products, the Royal City Farmers Market is always busy. We can find organic apples from the Okanagan Valley, winter vegetables from the Fraser Valley, certified organic produce from Delta and dairy products from local farms.

I also have the Coquitlam Farmers Market in my constituency. Its mission is to support local British Columbia food producers and to raise awareness of the benefits of a localized food system. The impact of the Coquitlam Farmers Market in my community cannot be understated. It operates a market at the Dogwood Pavilion and winter and pocket markets in Port Moody. The Coquitlam Farmers Market attracts people from across my community who are looking for local and, often, organic food. The farmers market also creates a sense of community. It provides an opportunity to say hello to neighbours, to meet and support local producers, and there is sometimes live entertainment, creating a festive atmosphere. My constituents want to know where their food comes from. They want to know that it was grown in a sustainable way, and they want to support local farmers and producers.

I speak today of the local farmers' markets in my riding because they represent a larger trend, a movement toward sustainable food that we see locally and abroad in our export markets. Genetically engineered seeds and products do not fit with this trend and are not sustainable. Foreign markets do not want their seeds contaminated with genetically engineered seeds.

Paul Gregory, a professional agrologist and president of Interlake Forage Seed Ltd., states that:

Speaking of customers, specifically my European friends, who buy over half of Canada's trefoil and 20% of our $142 million forage seed exports, they are stubborn on the GM issue.

Basically, there is a zero tolerance policy in Europe for GE seeds. One of the major reasons the global market does not want genetically modified seeds and products is contamination. For over 15 years, Canadian farmers have been facing the issue of seed contamination.

For over 15 years, Canadian farmers have been facing the issue of seed contamination. Lucy Sharratt, coordinator for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, writes:

Contamination from GE crop plants or other GE organisms can occur through a number of different means, including insect or wind pollination, seed mixing and human error. Commonly, the contamination is not examined before GE crops are approved, partly because the social and economic impacts of contamination are not taken into consideration when government creates regulations. Bill C-474...would recognize the possible economic cost of contamination by requiring that the government assess export market harm before a new GE seed is permitted.

A specific example of the effects of contamination occurred in Saskatchewan. For six years, Saskatchewan organic grain farmers tried to start a class action suit against Monsanto and Bayer corporations for loss of organic canola. Unfortunately their class action law suit was never allowed to go to court. Organic canola can now only be grown in a few geographically isolated areas in Canada, Prince Edward Island being one of them.

It is time to have a debate in the country about genetically modified seeds and other products. Canadians are outraged about the prospect of genetically modified salmon or “frankenfish” as they are now being called. Canadians are even more upset at the prospect of having any role in the proposed processing and development of genetically modified salmon eggs in Prince Edward Island. Yet Environment Canada will not disclose any information about a possible risk assessment to allow genetically modified salmon to be grown in P.E.I.

Whether it is genetically modified salmon or genetically engineered seeds and crops, the government must get on side with the Canadian people.

Unfortunately, too often, as seen in the United States and in Canada, the government sides with the multinational corporation. When we speak of genetically modified seeks, most people think of Monsanto.

Monsanto is a large U.S.-based multinational agriculture biotechnology firm. Many of their genetically modified organisms are resistant to Monsanto's agricultural chemicals, such as Roundup. Monsanto is know for using the court system to protect its patented GMOs. This has been problematic for many farmers whose crops have been contaminated by GM seeds.

Percy Schmeiser, a Saskatchewan farmer, well-known for his legal battle with Monsanto, states:

Now at 70, I am involved with this fight with Monsanto. I stood up to them because...a farmer should never give up the right to use his own seed. I felt very strongly about it because my grandparents came here from Europe in late 1890s and early 1900s to open this land, to be free, and to grow what they wanted to grow. Now we are going back to a feudal system that they left because they were not free—basically we are becoming serfs of the land.

Feudalism has been a recurring theme while researching the topic of GE seeds. In Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite's book, Information Feudalism, they state:

When Monsanto contractually imposes obligations on farmers using the lever of its control over intellectual property in seeds, Monsanto does act like the feudal lord who allows serfs to till his land so long as they honour the obligations that are his due.

Marc Loiselle, from the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, said:

If farmers don't take a stand on limits to patenting and how biotechnology is used to alter seeds such as wheat, we risk: the loss of market access, loss of income, loss of choice; as well as loss of control over what we produce, how we produce it, what value it has, and who will buy it.

This would also be an unacceptable situation for consumers who are ultimately the market for the food that we produce.

Countless farmers have shared their concern about genetically engineered seeds. They put local independent farms and farmers at risk and can have a devastating impact on organic certification. People in my community support local sustainable farming because it invests food dollars back into the community. It produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions on food transportation and storage and ultimately helps with the production of a healthier diet. GM seeds endanger local farming. It is time for the government to step in and protect farmers.

My colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, has travelled extensively around the country. I commend him for his actions and I support Bill C-474.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-474.

I would like to start off by paying tribute to the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. He has brought forward this bill and, with his diligence and determination, has pushed Parliament to consider a bill that the Conservatives, quite frankly, wanted to destroy as soon as the lobbyists from big biotech told them to destroy it.

There was no due consideration given to it on the Conservative side. I think the important thing for those Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are watching this debate tonight, or who are following the debate on their laptops and through written blogs, is to know that that the member for B.C. Southern Interior, through his persistence, is forcing the Parliament of Canada to make a decision on what is so fundamentally important for the future of our family farms right across the country.

The bill itself is remarkably simple. All it calls for is that there be a requirement for an analysis of potential harm to export markets before the sale of any genetically engineered seed is permitted. It is very simple.

As we know, this has been an issue that is garnering increasing concerns right across the country from consumers and farmers. I will get back to that in a moment.

The whole issue of the purity of our seeds is of fundamental importance in Canada. Farmers are guaranteeing the heritage of Canadian seeds.

I received in the mail a few days ago a package of seeds from Dan McMurray, a Kootenay farmer who lost his wife tragically last year, but who has undertaken, as have so many Canadian farmers, to maintain heritage seeds and the biodiversity of the Canadian seed bank. He does that by letting people know right across the country what seeds are available. In his case, it is tomato seeds, and he makes sure that Canadians have access to those seeds. Dan McMurray and so many Canadian farmers like him deserve to be praised and supported.

The reality is that the bill calls for something that should be in place already, but what we have seen from big biotech is an hysterical, inappropriate and irresponsible reaction to what is just common sense.

What is amazing to me and what should be a source of shame to every single Conservative member of Parliament is that the moment those lobbyists came through with this hysterical over-reaction to what is a simple common sense piece of legislation, the Conservatives all ducked and said: “That's fine, we'll do whatever you want. You're big biotech and we'll do whatever you want. It does not matter the impact on family farms and consumers”. Every single Conservative member of Parliament just ducked and said, “We will do what you want”. That begs the question: What are the Conservatives doing here in this House?

They were elected by their constituents, consumers and family farmers, who believe very strongly that we have to take a responsible approach to genetically engineered seed. Yet not a single Conservative MP has responded to the needs of their constituents that were so very clearly expressed. All they have done is to respond to the needs of big biotech lobbyists, and that is shameful. It is completely inappropriate and shameful.

Of course, New Democrats, because we stand for consumers and family farmers, are supporting this bill. I understand that the Bloc members of Parliament are supporting it as well. The Conservatives are running with this hysterical over-reaction from big corporate players rather than taking their responsibilities seriously. I think a lot of Canadians in the next election, whenever that comes, will be saying to Conservative MPs that they felt they were irresponsible on this file. However, that will be for another day.

The real question is: Are the Liberals going to stand up for their constituents? Are they going to stand up for family farmers? They have an opportunity here not to go with the lobbyists after two and a half years of voting with the Conservatives, but to separate themselves from the big biotech lobbyists and vote for consumers and farmers.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, every single poll of Canadian consumers, and it is the same in the United States and very similar in Europe, has indicated very clearly that when it comes to genetically engineered seed and products, consumers feel that government should take a responsible approach. Zero tolerance in the European Union has been the result of that.

In Canada and the United States, every single poll has indicated that Canadians want the same kind of standards. They want mandatory labelling. They want to make sure that when we are talking about genetically modified foods, they know what is in the food they eat. Again, big biotech, in an extremely irresponsible way, has been trying for years to fight what consumers have been asking for. It is unfortunate.

Here in the House of Commons, as members of Parliament, we should be making decisions based on what our constituents feel very strongly about, and not listening to a few highly paid lobbyists. That is why in this corner of the House we are supporting this bill. It is responsible and it does make sense. Consumers feel very strongly about labelling and feel very strongly that we should take a prudent approach on things like genetically engineered seeds.

I want to read a couple of comments that have been made by others in the House on the issue. We know that because the government has not been prudent when it comes to genetically engineered seed, it has had an impact on our export markets, most notably on flax exports. The contamination from GE flax has led to a collapse of our flax exports in places like Europe. This is not theoretical but very real.

This is what I have heard from some farmers. For example, Kelvin Einarson from the Manitoba Forage Seed Association stated, when the agriculture committee held truncated hearings on this, that:

Bill C-474 is the first step in offering some protection in the future for Canadian family farms. Market acceptance must be made part of the evaluation process and incorporated into the Seeds Regulation Act.

It was very simple and straightforward.

Lucy Sharratt, the coordinator for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, said in relation to how the Liberals may vote on this issue that:

The question now is, will the Liberal Party be part of the solution? The Liberals might vote down Bill C-474, but they have not brought forward any other concrete proposal. Who in our government—Parliament or Agriculture Canada or someone—will take the necessary leadership to actually stop harmful GE crops?

That is a very clear question on which Canadians listening tonight will be hearing about in the coming days through the blogosphere. Canadians need to understand that what we have is a clear watershed moment around GE seeds. Very clearly, the government has not been responsible. Very clearly, that has impacted our export markets; there is no doubt about that. In fact, I could speak for an hour on just how dysfunctional the government has been when it comes to export markets generally, but I will save members that speech.

We have this watershed moment and it is Canadians themselves who will need to weigh in on this. They will need to contact the Liberal members of Parliament who want to listen to lobbyists rather than consumers and family farmers. Because some Conservatives understand very clearly what they are doing is wrong and irresponsible, Canadians will need to let those Conservative MPs know they have lost their vote because they are refusing to stand up for a responsible and prudent approach to GE seeds.

We have lost our flax markets. We will lose other markets, and other farmers will suffer and consumers will not get what they have been demanding for years, unless we pass this bill. The Canadians who are listening tonight need to contact their MPs and say yes to Bill C-474.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-474. I know others have talked about it but I want to read into the record exactly what we are talking about here.

The bill asks that we “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”.

What we are asking for is an analysis. That seems like a perfectly reasonable and responsible way to approach any introduction of new technology.

I want acknowledge the very good work that the member for British Columbia Southern Interior has done on this bill. He has advocated tirelessly for the farmers throughout our country. He has been so concerned about it that he has really and truly fought the good fight in order to keep this bill alive before the House, despite the overwhelming obstacles and despite every effort to prevent us from having an adequate debate and from hearing witnesses who could talk about the pros and cons of moving forward with this legislation.

I will start with an email that we received from Doug Storey of the Poplar Glen Organic Farm in Grandview, Manitoba. Mr. Storey writes:

I am an organic farmer in Manitoba and I'm very worried that Genetically Engineered crops will contaminate organic fields and put my farm out of business. As you know, GE contaminates the surrounding crops. This hits the organic farm extra hard and can devalue our crop and destroy our export market. Now GE alfalfa is being pushed into Canada. Alfalfa pollen spreads easily and will contaminate the neighbourhood and ruin our organic status.

He goes on to thank the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, by saying:

Thank you so much for creating Bill C-474. New seeds like GE alfalfa must be analysed for their Market impact before they are unleashed into the fields. Market analysis will show if my fears are sound. The Big seed companies must know that GE seeds will fail market analysis because they sure are lobbying hard against Bill C-474. Farmers need Bill C-474 to pass.

Those are the words of an organic farmer and I think those are the people we need to be listening to.

I want to turn for a moment to Gabriel Island which is a beautiful island in my riding. There are many people who are very active around food security on Gabriel Island and throughout my riding. Of course, like other members, I have received numerous letters asking me to support Bill C-474.

I have a blog called the Gabriola Organization for Agricultural Liberty that was posted on February 1, 2011. It is entitled, ”The trouble with Monsanto and GMO”. I will read a bit of the article because it talks about why we should be looking at Bill C-474 in terms of doing an analysis and what that potential harm could be.

The writer quotes David Suzuki who says:

Because we aren't certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.

Suzuki goes on to say:

I'm a geneticist. What bothers me is we have governments that are supposed to be looking out for our health, for the safety of our environment, and they're acting like cheerleaders for this technology, which...is in its infancy and we have no idea what that technology is going to do.

The person who wrote this article goes on to talk about unintended consequences and about putting the genie back in the bottle. He says:

How do you clean up a potential GMO mess? You don't.

The difference with GMO food is that once the genie is out of the bottle, it would be difficult or impossible to stuff it back. If we stop using DDT and CFCs, nature may be able to undo most of the damage - even nuclear waste decays over time. But GM plants are living organisms. Once these new life forms have become established in our surroundings, they can replicate, change, and spread; there may be no turning back. Many ecologists are concerned about what this means to the balance of life on Earth that has evolved over millions of years through the natural reproduction of species.

He goes on to say:

A review of the science conducted under the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development in 2008 concluded that “there are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health” and that this and other observations “create concern about the adequacy of testing methodologies for commercial GM plants.

We have learned from painful experience that anyone entering an experiment should give informed consent. That means at the very least food should be labelled if it contains GMOs so we each can make that choice.

I think the person who is writing this blog ably outlines some reasons that we should at least conduct the analysis before any sale of new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

I want to go on to cite a particular case, not of alfalfa, but a case in which concerns have been raised. The Ram's Horn from January 2011 writes about how Bt corn, genetically modified corn, breeds new pests. It cites some studies. The article states:

There are several studies explaining how the spread of the western bean cutworm is fostered by growing genetically engineered corn. Apparently it is a case of so-called pest replacement.

It goes on to state:

Pest replacement opens up new ecological niches in which other competitors (pests) can thrive.

Then it states:

Interaction between the western bean cutworm and the corn earworm was confirmed in 2010, showing the spread of the western bean cutworm is in fact fostered by the cultivation of Bt corn.

Then it states:

Damages caused by the western bean cutworm can even exceed those caused by the European corn borer in conventional plants.

Once again it speaks to the fact that we need that appropriate analysis before we introduce new genetically engineered crops into our food chain. Examples like this, demonstrating that a GE crop has had an unintended consequence--because surely nobody could want this other pest to suddenly start thriving--just reinforce the notion that we must do that analysis to protect our farmers and to protect our export markets.

In the same article in The Ram's Horn, the editor has a note that says,

As we put this issue together, we realized that much of the content deals with the wanderings of, and resultant contamination by, GE seeds and crops, which is heightening the contradiction between GE agriculture and non-GE and Organic agriculture. While some, including the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, seek an impossible “balance” between GE and non-GE, it is farmers around the world, both subsistence and commercial, that are paying the price. There simply is no place for GE crops, and no excuse for trying to avoid this conclusion.

One of the things we know is that farmers need to be protected. Last week I was in the House talking about freight prices, but what farmers on Vancouver Island and throughout Canada are concerned about is continuing to be able to make a living producing good, quality food. We have to look at the whole process that impacts on their ability to make a living, whether it is the freight cost to deliver supplies to the farmers, as is the case on Vancouver Island, or the fact that they have access to seeds that result in produce that their consumers are willing to eat. That is a very important aspect of the survivability of our farmers and the economic contribution they make to our economy.

I want to close by talking about the Cowichan food charter. Food security is a big issue in my riding, and many different parts of the riding have food charters in place. Although the Cowichan food charter does not mention genetically engineered food specifically, it says,

Our food system will be economically viable and ecologically sustainable; our community will grow, harvest, process, preserve, and distribute food to all of its members while minimizing waste. A thriving local food culture that celebrates eating locally and eating together will support us in living healthier, happier, and richer lives--connected to the land, to growers, and to each other.

On food security, the charter has a number of points. I do not have time to read them all, but one of them is that “Farmers' roles as environmental stewards will be protected and financially supported”. Another is that “Ongoing research will ensure long-term food security in the face of a changing climate”.

Farmers are often the stewards of our environment, and I know many farmers want that kind of research and analysis to ensure that the crops they are planting are not actually decimating their future ability to survive on their farms, so I urge all members in this House to support Bill C-474.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I certainly will abide by that, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand this evening to offer my perspective on Bill C-474 which was tabled by the member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

Members will know that Bill C-474 calls for an amendment to the Seed Regulations Act to “require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted”. Members will also know that this amendment was introduced because currently safety alone is the basis for the approval of genetically engineered crops for human consumption and environmental release. At this time there is no consideration given to any potential harm to Canada's export markets and the resultant economic harm to Canadian farmers.

I represent the urban riding of Hamilton East--Stoney Creek and I have been receiving emails and calls from farmers across the country who are concerned and want a fulsome debate on Bill C-474.

In the fall of 2009, our European customers, as well as Canadian farmers, found that an illegal genetically engineered flax seed called CDC Triffid had contaminated Canadian flax exports. The result was that 35 countries were contaminated. I should point out that these European countries have a zero tolerance policy for unapproved GE crops and products. So we can understand how this incident would destabilize Canadian exports.

Almost immediately, European countries began removing our products from their shelves and quarantined all shipments of flax from Canada. With 60% of our flax exports going to Europe, the almost immediate impact was a plummeting in the price of flax. To this day, the market is still uncertain and Canadian farmers are now being forced by this situation to pay for testing and cleanup.

Earlier we heard the member for Winnipeg Centre express his concern with the fact that there seemed to be an effort to shut down debate on Bill C-474. I share his concern.

Recently, Monsanto has re-launched its genetically engineered wheat research. Our international customers that buy 82% of Canada's wheat crops say that they will stop buying wheat from us, GE and non-GE alike, if we allow the introduction of GE wheat. Why in the world would any member of the House not want to debate something that has such serious ramifications? I am astounded by it. Monsanto is also poised to introduce genetically engineered alfalfa into the U.S. and Canada.

We have had speakers tonight from the government side and we have had speakers from the NDP side but where are the rest of the members of this House? Why are they not debating this?

I want to be clear. Monsanto has been awarded the necessary health and environmental approvals and now there is only variety registration left to do before genetically engineered alfalfa can be legally sold in Canada. There is a broad consensus in the farming community growing alfalfa that the introduction of genetically modified alfalfa would be highly destructive for growers of conventional and organic alfalfa.

One thing we will not hear from the purveyors of genetically modified products is an acknowledgement of the market reality that exists internationally toward genetically modified crops.

The recent loss of our flax markets due to that contamination clearly demonstrates that GM technology is not accepted by our major export markets and so not only does it not have any economic value whatsoever but presents an unacceptable high risk to our farmers and growers across Canada. It is little wonder that they are contacting members of Parliament and asking why we are not debating this issue and why we are not speaking up. They are shocked because we have members on all sides of this House who purport to stand up for farmers but where are they tonight?

We know that the likelihood of negotiations leading to lower tolerance levels in other countries is far from guaranteed.

Simply put, Canadian farmers cannot rely on such an unlikely future change in policy as it leaves them no protection whatsoever. Would it not be more prudent for our government to take concrete measures to protect our export markets?

Industry warns that introducing politics into genetically modified foods approvals in Canada would be terrible. That is when the representatives elected by the people stand in this place and do our best to protect our interests when the government clearly is not prepared to do so.

What are the economic realities for farmers if GM alfalfa or GM wheat are introduced, for example? There is the very significant possibility of a market closure and for farmers that is an unacceptable risk. Do we introduce new GM crops at any cost, even if that cost is the loss of our own markets?

Canadians had to stand by and watch as the softwood lumber agreement led to the shutdown of much of Canada's softwood lumber industry. Much of our production of softwood lumber is completely gone. Why would we want to see the same thing happening to Canada's farmers?

The reality is that GM contamination happens and that is hurting Canadian farmers. Flax farmers knew that the threat of the GM contamination was a very real danger to their European markets and, unfortunately, now we know they were correct.

There is nothing in our current regulations to prevent the commercialization of GM seeds that we now know would lead to economic disaster for Canadian farmers. The biotech industry may wish to avoid this economic reality but the Canadian people's government should not have that luxury.

Bill C-474 is meant to ensure that the government provides an analysis of the level of market acceptance before permitting the introduction of new GM seeds. That would be a very prudent step in the face of what has happened in the European market. I believe it is necessary to ensure that farmers are protected from unwanted GM contamination that could actually destroy their businesses.

Today, it seems that the Conservative government believes that the biotech industry should be the only industry with any real say over marketing decisions on GM seeds. One might ask how our government came to confer this enormous privilege on big biotech. Devlin Kuyek, a researcher from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, who has written extensively on the seed system in Canada, recently provided the standing committee with his views on this particular matter. He noted that billions of taxpayer dollars had been spent over the last 30 years to support biotech companies and that, at the same time, public plant breeding programs had been slashed or privatized.

The NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior found it very disturbing that we had not had a full and democratic debate at committee because it was shut down.

It is completely unacceptable that witnesses from any country brought to Ottawa at taxpayer expense to provide testimony were turned away from the committee's door when they had arrived to make their presentations. What kind of slap in the face is that and what reputation will Canada have if it proceeds with the support of Monsanto and big biotech, resulting in the loss of the Canadian family farm.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House this evening to participate in the debate on Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), which was brought forward by my NDP colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

I will be the first to admit that as a member of Parliament from Hamilton, which is nationally known as Steeltown, I am more familiar with the manufacturing sector than I am with the agricultural sector. It was not that long ago that over half of my riding was in fact prime agricultural land, with successful family farms like the Youngs, the Bethunes, the Ryckmans, the Burkholders and the Marshalls, to name but a few. Sadly, as Joni Mitchell would scold us, we paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

That is simply to say that many of the people in my riding of Hamilton Mountain may be urbanites, but they feel a deep, personal connection to agriculture and bring those values to bear in thinking about Canada's future.

Similarly, we have a thriving environmental movement in Hamilton that led the “eat local” campaign in our community, and has done much to raise awareness of organic foods and, more generally, healthy eating.

Also, a great many Hamiltonians are keenly interested in food and product safety, as well as proper labelling. I do not think there is single piece of legislation outside of the Conservative government's reviled decision to impose the HST on Ontarians that generated more petitions, letters or phone calls than Bill C-51, which sought to amend the Food and Drugs Act in the last Parliament. That bill purported to modernize our food and drug provisions bringing us into the 21st century and bringing our rules and our regulations in line with modern day science. It did not take too long for Canadians to figure out that this was a ruse. It was an attempt to make Canadians believe the government would be on their side when in fact it was loosening its regulatory control.

What Canadians wanted was legislation that operated on the basis of the do no harm principle, the precautionary principle, which means that we do not allow products on the market unless there is evidence that they are safe beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, this is not the risk management model that we saw with the Liberals before and with the Conservatives today.

There is a marked difference between the do no harm principle and the risk management model. Do no harm means that we put people and safety first. The risk management model means that we can only go so far in ensuring the safety of Canadians so we will allow the products on the market, cross our fingers and then see what happens. It will be up to individual Canadians to determine whether it is worth taking the risk. It will be up to the corporations that produce the products to regulate themselves and decide if they are in line with the standards on paper.

The risk management model is not a proactive regulatory model that puts the needs and concerns of Canadians first. It is a model that puts the needs of big pharma, large corporations and global capital forces ahead of ordinary citizens. It is a model that makes guinea pigs out of Canadians.

We have had our share of offering up people as guinea pigs for large corporations. I do not need to remind people who may be watching us on TV right now about the incidents in our past, especially when women were treated as guinea pigs. Thalidomide and breast implants are just two of the examples that come to mind right away.

What does that have to do with the bill that we are debating today? It is relevant for two reasons.

First, it is because many of the people who were concerned about Bill C-51, and in particular about its impact on natural health products, are also deeply concerned about the issues related to the genetic engineering of our food supply. They have strong views on Frankenfoods and they understand the importance of ensuring that a robust framework is put in place when it comes to genetically modified organisms or GMOs.

Frankly, at the moment Canada's framework is inadequate. Canada is currently the fifth largest producer of genetically modified crops in the world, after the United States, Brazil, Argentina and India.

Canada could learn a lot from Argentina. It has legislation which ensures that the release of GMOs first requires an assessment of the safety of food and livestock feed, of the bio-security of the environment and an assessment confirming that its exports will not be negatively impacted. In Argentina, therefore, the analysis of the impact on exports in the GMO approval process is an integral part of the analysis that determines whether the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted. In Canada, that is not currently the case and Canadian farmers are suffering the consequences.

It is this deficiency that Bill C-474 seeks to redress.

However, as I said earlier, there is also a second reason why this issue is being followed so closely by many of the same people who were engaged in the debate around Bill C-51, and that is because Bill C-474 also pits a tenacious advocate who represents hundreds of thousands of Canadians against an entire industry. It is David versus Goliath. In this case, David is the member for British Columbia Southern Interior who is battling the Goliath of the Monsantos of this world. There is absolutely no doubt that the hope of the biotech industry is that over time the market is flooded with genetically-modified organisms and that at that point there will be nothing anyone could do about it except quietly surrender. In fact, that is exactly what Don Westfall, the vice-president of Promar International and a biotech consultant, was quoted as saying in the Toronto Star in January 2001.

However, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior is not about to surrender and neither are his colleagues in the NDP. We understand what a disastrous impact the absence of an analysis of potential harm would have on Canadian farmers and therefore on Canadians as a whole.

We have long been convinced that big biotech companies, such as Monsanto, have been running a scam with regard to their genetically-engineered crops. Despite 15 years of failed promises to feed the world's hungry and, more recent, to save humankind from climate change, the Canadian and U.S. governments inexplicably continue to write all the rules completely in big biotech's favour. As was recently revealed in WikiLeaks cables, U.S. ambassadors were even going so far as to advise Washington to start military-style trade wars against any European country that dare stood in opposition to GE crops.

Despite lengthy court challenges which, for a time, kept the decision at bay, the USDA has just authorized the nationwide and unrestricted commercial release of Monsanto's genetically-engineered seed. After acknowledging that GE alfalfa poses many risks to organic and conventional farmers, USDA secretary Tom Vilsack, whose ties to Monsanto are well known, has just imposed the impossible burden of keeping alfalfa seed free from GE contamination entirely on farmers. The Center for Food Safety in the U.S. has already announced that it will again challenge this decision in another round of expensive court action.

One way or another, and regardless of the imminent threat this poses to all farmers, especially to our lucrative domestic and export organic markets, it is only a matter of time before U.S. Roundup Ready Alfalfa will be found contaminating our fields in Canada.

The silence from the Canadian government has been deafening. Monsanto could decide to go ahead and register its GE varieties in Canada, as it has already been awarded the necessary health and environmental approvals by the current government.

It was in order to prevent that very scenario that my colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, moved forward with Bill C-474. His bill would require that the government conduct an analysis of potential harm to our export markets prior to approving new genetically-engineered seeds.

The Conservative Party has sided completely with Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry since the debate first began. Although the Liberals initially supported our bill, they have since succumbed to pressure from the biotech lobbyists and now say they, too, will vote against it at the final reading. I know, another flip-flop from the Liberals is hardly even worth noticing any more.

However, just as it is in the States, the one-sided mantra from both of these parties is now to preach coexistence with non-GE farmers and to keep Canada's regulations science-based and entirely free of any political or market considerations.

What did witnesses actually say when they testified about Bill C-474 in front of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food?

Let me just quote Kurt Shmon, president of Imperial Seed. He said:

Canada's science-based approach works very well for the domestic marketers of seed, the Monsantos, the Syngentas, and the Bayer CropSciences, but what does it do for the producer? This approach does not take into consideration what the producers want, nor does it address what the market wants. These are the two most important issues and they are absent from the registration process.

That powerful theme was then reiterated by several other presenters to the committee, yet both the Conservative government and the Liberals are wilfully ignoring it.

We cannot just ignore what is happening to farmers in our country. Farmers feed cities, and that is more than just a catchy slogan. It underscores an important reality that is crucial to our economic future.

Yes, we need to acknowledge advances in science. However, we must also acknowledge the economic reality of farmers.

In short, we must pass Bill C-474. Let us do it now.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the previous speaker's comments indicate he has been eating genetically modified food for far too long.

I rise today to join my colleagues in this historic debate in the House of Commons. It is historic because for the first time we are debating the issue of genetically engineered crops, known simply as GE seeds, and their impact on producers and consumers.

I wish to stress at the outset what other colleagues have pointed out, that on the issue of GE crops, Bill C-474 is purely about the economic side of this debate.

Its brilliance is that it is a simple bill that clearly and eloquently provides the federal government with a mandate to provide a mechanism currently missing in the regulations that can protect farmers from the economic hardship caused by the commercialization or contamination of their crops by GE seeds in the face of widespread market rejection.

We are not hypothesizing here. We have a real example cited earlier whereby the European Union, our largest market for flax, banned our imports because an illegal GE flaxseed called CDC Triffid had contaminated Canadian flax exports.

The EU buys 60% of our flax. To my Conservative colleagues who like to proclaim their love of all things market-related and corporate-related I ask: What happened to flax prices? Those prices plummeted and our farmers lost out.

Jim Lintott, chairman of the Manitoba Forage Council, summed this situation up beautifully when he said:

The perception that Canada is a pristine and clean environment for the production of food is slowly being eroded. The introduction of unwanted GMOs is affecting not only the direct sale of crop and seed production, but also the sale of value-added products.

I want to point out that although there is no question that the Triffid flax situation has cost Canadian farmers and exporters a lot of money and their reputation, it has cost our customers, who then move that flax into value-added production, a far greater amount of money. Those customers will not easily forget what they have paid for buying Canadian.

According to Barry Hall, president of the Flax Council of Canada, that incident cost Canadian farmers and flax processors on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean tens of millions of dollars. Mr. Hall went on to say: “Canada's reputation as a supplier of quality flax has really been trashed...We've really been hammered over this”.

When the tables are turned, companies like Monsanto cannot wait to slap farmers with lawsuits.

Kurt Shmon, president of Imperial Seed, notes:

We see instances in which Monsanto is not afraid to sue the producer if the producer uses its technology without Monsanto's approval.

I would like to think that the regulatory process that approved it, CFIA, or Monsanto itself would be the ones that I could turn around and sue if their gene entered my land and my seed crop where it is unwanted. Or is it just a one-way street so that they can sue whoever they choose to but they don't have to take responsibility for their technology?

Here we are with a simple piece of legislation that calls for factoring in the potential harm to export markets before any approval of GE crops is given. That is all.

What is so ideological or political for that matter when the economic impact of new GE crops is being considered?

Our agriculture critic, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, sought out the lowest common denominator with his bill in order to build consensus across party lines.

Here is what Matthew Holmes, executive director of Canada Organic Trade Association, had to say about the bill:

Bill C-474 does not establish some unrealistic threshold, nor does it give economic considerations of veto over all other considerations. It simply provides policy-makers with one more tool with which to understand the implications of their decisions, and our sector feels this is a reasonable one.

Yet we have a typical ideological response from Conservative members in the House. They are blindly taking their cues from companies like Monsanto without the fortitude of questioning these companies' motives.

What is also reprehensible is the Conservative MPs behaviour at committee. They shut down committee just as witnesses, invited by the committee, arrived on the scene. What an insult to the witnesses and to the democratic process.

Addressing the economic implications of genetically modified crop is absolutely critical. Thousands of Canadians have written the government expressing their support for Bill C-474. Farmers are worried about whether their largest markets will continue to purchase Canadian seed.

The uniqueness of Nickel Belt is that it is a collection of small, but unique communities, each with their character and beauty. Many in communities such as Verner, Lavigne, St. Charles, Noëlville, Blezard Valley are home to farmers. While they were not affected by the ban on Canadian flax, I have learned so much about the many challenges facing farmers across Canada.

They have faced rising costs in areas such as energy and transportation, effects of climate change, local predators such as bears and other wildlife that destroy crops and infrastructure costs such as fences and tile drainage. Some cannot retire because their children lack the financial means to purchase the farms or cannot get loans from the banks to buy new equipment to enhance productivity.

Farmers in northern Ontario have to ship their products to Toronto before they are returned to the shelves of local grocery stores in Nickel Belt, Sudbury and other northern communities.

These challenges are not unique to farmers in my riding of Nickel Belt. Farmers across the country face huge hurdles, so why would Parliament not want to make one simple amendment to the Seed Regulations Act that would ensure the potential market harm would be considered before permission would be granted for production of genetically modified seed? After all, Bill C-474 is purely about economics. A GE crop that is not approved in our export markets has little value to farmers.

I want to close with a quote by Jim Lintott, chairman of the Manitoba Forage Council. It really packs a punch. Mr. Lintott says, “The bill is perfect the way it stands. It's a perfect requirement. Why would you produce anything with no market for it?”

Why indeed, unless one does not care about destroying the reputation of our farmers, unless one only cares about one's corporate buddies.

Here in the NDP we care about our farmers. We also care about Canada's reputation abroad. We know the Conservatives do not care about our reputation, but I do not understand my Liberal colleagues. They say that they are different from the Conservatives, yet they are joining with them in opposing this bill.

Our western farmers will remember tomorrow's vote. They will remember how each western MP voted on Bill C-474 and we will be sure to remind them as well.

I am proud of the work of my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior. I thank him for all his work on behalf of farmers. This debate is a historic one. It is also just the beginning.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was only trying to point out that I wished the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food could hear the entire debate tonight. Rather than just the wild-eyed rhetoric of that ideological zealot, he could hear a necessary and important debate about the very future of agriculture not only in Canada but in third world developing countries, the European Union and right around the world.

I do not believe anybody should be able to copyright life or living organisms. It is an affront to the natural order to copyright life. The whole notion of suicide genes in terminator seeds is an affront to the natural order, and I believe a lot of people agree with me.

Let me bring the debate back down to earth. It is my personal ideological belief that the minister criticized me for holding, but let me remind people what we are debating tonight. The bill put forward by my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior is eminent common sense, grounded and realistic in the health of our agricultural industry.

Bill C-474 calls for an amendment to the Seeds Regulations Act to “require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted”. What could be more common sense?

This is not wild ideology on the part of the NDP. I have strongly held views on genetically engineered products, but the bill is not about that. The bill is about protecting producers and our export markets and, ultimately, the 1.4 billion farmers around the world in developing nations, who depend on farm safe seed, from science about which we are not sure. It is using the precautionary principle for our export markets. That is common sense, that is reasonable debate and it is entirely appropriate before the House of Commons. It is a victory for democracy that we in the NDP managed to get an extra five hour debate on this subject tonight. Again, I compliment my colleague for it.

Who is driving this reckless, irresponsible drive toward GM and genetically-engineered crops? Believe me, the science is not in. The scientific community is being intimidated. Let me give an example.

The New York Times reported that 23 U.S. scientists recently signed a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency declaring that no truly independent research on GMOs could be conducted on many critical questions, partly because they were not allowed to even grow samples due to the fact that holders of the patents would not allow independent scientists to grow samples to test the impact.

Stunningly, The New York Times went on to report that the 23 scientists withheld their names because they feared being cut off from research by the companies. They are being intimidated, muzzled and silenced so even independent scientists who we should be trusting cannot really enter into this debate and conclude if one particular genetic modification is going to be harmful or not.

Who is driving things internationally? Let me point out an article from the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, which finds evidence that the United States embassy in Paris wants to penalize the European Union for France having the temerity to ban the Monsanto GM corn variety.

The U.S. ambassador in Paris is the business partner of George W. Bush. They used to own the Texas Rangers baseball team, by some happy coincidence. Recently leaked memos talk about intimidation and punitive sanctions being brought down on France for having the temerity, as I said, as a sovereign nation to choose to not have Monsanto's GM corn.

It is going to be slapped with all kinds of sanctions for interfering with the right of the U.S. company to tamper with the genetic makeup of the corn in that country. France has a right to determine if it will accept GM products or genetically-engineered foods, just as Canada has a right. We should not be bullied or browbeaten by American corporate interests for us to change the way we do the agriculture in this country.

The same report in the Guardian newspaper indicates that the Americans are going after the Vatican because many Catholic bishops in developing and third world countries are completely opposed to genetically engineered, genetically modified food because it completely wipes out the local agricultural economy.

It is like Wal-Mart moving into town and all the little businesses fold up. That is what happens when Monsanto blows into a third world country or a developing nation. The Catholic bishops and cardinals in those countries are speaking out against it.

Therefore, the United States goes to work on the Holy See. One by one it is trying to knock off the Council of Catholic Bishops, especially one cardinal, Cardinal Renato Martino, the head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the man who most represents the Pope at the United Nations. He had been passive about genetically modified food because he did not want to annoy the United States. He was trying to get it to see reason on Iraq. Cardinal Martino has changed his tune. He is now speaking out against genetically engineered and genetically modified foods and he has turned. Now the United States has turned on him in every way possible, trying to undermine and discredit this man who had the courage to stand up to Monsanto.

People in Canada have stood up to Monsanto and we have seen what happens when they have had the temerity to do so. I am thinking of Percy Schmeiser from the province of Saskatchewan, who blew the alarm on this many years ago.

I am ashamed that our country attends United Nations international conventions on biological diversity specifically to sabotage the international ban on terminator genes. We are one of three countries in the world that do not oppose suicide genes and terminator seeds. We are one of three countries in the world that does not believe farmers have the right to hold back some of their seed from the previous year so they can plant next year and do not become serfs to the agricultural corporate community.

It is the holders of the patents on genes that would have the temerity, the atrocity, the nerve to patent life. These people are now driving small farmers into bankruptcy because they can no longer hold back 20% of their seed to plant for next year's crop. Their seed will not sprout. It has a suicide gene implanted in it.

It is a sick notion and we should condemn it instead of going to these international forums and defending the right of Monsanto to tamper with life in this way to God know's what long-term detriment. We will never know because the scientists who could do independent research have been muzzled as well.

We go blindly forward, led by Monsanto, which tells us to trust it, that everything will be okay, as it browbeats Canadians, the Vatican, small countries, any European Union nation with the temerity to ask if this is a good idea or not.

At least we are having that debate in the House of Commons tonight. It is not a good idea. We should move cautiously before we lose our ability to export our genetically engineered foodstuffs. Other places like the European Union do not want GM foods. If we care about those markets, we should be cautious and we should follow the direction of Bill C-474 put forward by my courageous colleague the member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into the debate on Bill C-474.

I begin by thanking and recognizing the contribution my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior is making to not only this debate, but to democracy generally in the House of Commons. This is an historic victory for democracy.

Instead of listening to the wild-eyed rhetoric from some ideological zealot like our Minister of Agriculture, we can have an honest and fair debate on a subject of pressing interest, not only to the well-being of 1.4 billion farmers who rely on farm-safe seed, but on the matter of exports of our Canadian agricultural products around the world and our ability to be a world leader in agriculture. It is a shame the Minister of Agriculture would not stay to listen to this entire debate. It is a matter of utmost importance to the prairie region that I represent. It is a debate that is current—

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with attention to the last two speakers and the last one really created a scientific soup. He had everything in there from transgenics, et cetera. There is not a lot of understanding on exactly what genetic modification of seed stocks in this country is all about. I think part of the problem of why Canadians are confused is when they hear people who should know but do not.

Today we are really discussing the ability for these decisions to be made on sound science or, in the case of this particular private member's bill, an ideological stance that is basically non-GM, non-trade. Let us all go backward 50 or 60 years and take agriculture out of the loop.

The first speech given by the member from Sydney—Victoria talked about the growing demand for foodstuffs around the world and the growing demand that Canada double its food production, not to go backward. As we lose arable land around the world under asphalt and a number of other factors, it will be incumbent on countries like Canada that actually has the potential to double its output. We can do it but it will take biotechnology to make that happen.

We base everything on sound science as we move forward. Those sound scientific principles are actually global in nature. There are governing bodies. There is one called Codex which sets out the rules and regulations on plants and does start to make a lot of the scientific framework that Canada bases our situations on a case by case basis. Then we get into the other sector of animals with the OIE, which has regulations based on them.

I am a little concerned when I see that soup bowl mixed together and ladled out as though somehow we need to go backward to do better. I think that is absolutely wrong. I think that is politics at its worst and ideological situations at their worst.

The agriculture committee, as the members have said, did a tremendous amount of study on this but there was not a lot of support for Bill C-474, including the flax industry in Canada. The situation it faced in Europe was the genesis of this particular private member's bill, but even the flax industry is saying that this would not get the job done. What we need are changes in low level presence. That would have taken that particular situation right off the map.

That is the argument that I have been taking to the European Union. I have been working with my colleagues in the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, other grain-producing countries such as Australia and so on and talking about getting away from zero tolerance.

Canada is in that zero tolerance range too but we do it on a case by case basis. We analyze using sound science as to whether there are any kinds of health situations or standards that could be breached, and we have made those changes on the fly.

The European Union says that zero is zero. With the testing efficacies that we have now, it means that scientists can find one seed in 40,000 seeds and say that it is not fit for European consumption. However, they are starting to get their heart and mind around the fact that it does not work for them any more either. They are looking at food security and sustainability. They are looking at the need to import more and to grow more themselves and they are starting to accept biotechnology as the right way forward.

A lot has been said about Brazil moving up to that third spot. Actually, the story in the Globe and Mail today was not very factual. Canada is still number four in the world when it comes to the export of foods. We are seventh when we talk about processed foods, but that is another argument for another day. We are not allowed to process in western Canada on our grains because of a little thing called the Canadian Wheat Board. Again, that is another argument for another day that needs to happen in order to move forward and double the production that the rest of the world is asking for.

It is a shame that the member from British Columbia Southern Interior could not have been at the discussions held in Saskatchewan today. A good friend of mine, Mark Wartman, who was the agriculture minister in Saskatchewan under the NDP government at that time and who is now working at the University of Saskatchewan, said, “I would make the appeal that what needs to be used in this area in particular is the very best of our science”.

I could not agree more. It is a shame that the member from B.C. could not have been there to hear that. I know that he and Mark have had discussions over the years because Mark and I have had those same discussions. He also said today, “We've seen, I think, some real pitfalls by just having a public forum where you've got population bases that really have little to no understanding of agriculture and agriculture biotechnology”.

That is the politics of this situation and that is what we heard in that last speech, which is not really on the mark at all when it comes to GMOs.

The situation that would be created by Bill C-474 would be another layer of red tape. The government is against red tape. The business community, including farmers, really takes that to heart and is happy about it. That red tape, which would be instilled under Bill C-474, would mean no innovative new varieties would ever have a chance of being populated in Canada.

The agricultural sector in Canada is very sophisticated. We have global position satellites that control our tractors and combines now. We are spraying to within an inch on each pass. We are using less chemical, less fertilizer and a lighter environmental footprint because of GM in crops like canola. Canola is now king in western Canada. It is no longer wheat. We grow more canola and make more money back for farmers on canola because they have the right to market it, the timing of the marketing and so on. We also have a lot of value added happening on canola, which adds to that exported value. We have seen that happen.

Canadian productivity has jumped some 300% since the 1950s and a lot of that can be pointed to the sound scientific base on which we put things. When my grandfather was farming, he produced enough food to feed 10 people. Today's farmers feed over 120 on that same land mass. What they do is exceptional.

Agriculture is the third-largest contributor to the GDP, one in eight jobs. Forty billion dollars worth of our exports come out of agriculture. A good chunk of that are soybeans, canola and corn that are GM products. The world has asked for better quality products and higher nutritional values. Sound science allows us to do that.

The point has been made about the expansions to the population and how we need to step up and feed that. However, when short-sighted ideas like Bill C-474 come forward, we know we never have a chance.

I want to quote a Manitoba flax producer who was before the committee during the initial hearings on Bill C-474. He said:

Manitoba flax growers are...concerned that this legislation, in its present form, could be used to offer frivolous challenges that could stall or block the introduction of new technology that is desirable.

It may not even be a farm group that raises those roadblocks. It could be somebody who does not understand the benefits of this. Our system in Canada has served our farmers and consumers well. It will serve the rest of the world extremely well, as we know.

The canola industry would not have happened without GM varieties that are out there now. We can argue about input costs. We can argue about pesticides and chemicals. The whole purpose of a lot of this GM product is to lighten that cost, to lower the demand. It is better for the environment. It is better for the economy of farmers to have those varieties available to them.

We stand fully and squarely against Bill C-474. We have always stood there, unlike my counterparts the Liberals who have waffled back and forth. Hopefully they are with us tomorrow night when this comes to a vote and we will finally put an end to this type of non-scientific nonsense that we are treated to here.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on private member's Bill C-474 put forward by the member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

The New Democratic member has done a great deal of work in this area. I have heard the term “science” bandied around by both sides of the House, from the Liberals and the Conservatives, and at committee on numerous occasions. We have talked about science. I heard it from CFIA when we had the listeriosis crisis. We talked about the science, how it had to be science based and accurate and how science is always wholesome.

I would remind my friends that science changes from time to time. Science said that the Earth was flat until someone decided that maybe it was not flat and that it might be round or spherical.

We can look at science as a wholesome subject when we are talking about transgenics and GMOs. It reminds me of my science teacher from many a year ago when I first started high school who talked about gene pools and how inside a gene pool what we really wanted to have was a great deal of material so that we could actually use it to enhance and develop better pieces from that gene pool.

What we have with GMOs are specific genes doing specific things that enable a specific company to make money. It may, in some cases, actually add to the gene pool in the sense of enabling a particular crop to be better. One need not look any further than clingstone peaches in Niagara which used to be canned in St. Davids. The canning factory left, so they do not do that anymore. That genetic material for clingstone peaches may indeed be lost in this country because we do not can them. We now get them from China, but that is a different debate.

The clingstone peach was developed because it was an easier canning peach than a regular peach that we would consume off the fresh market. How did we do that? Some might call it gene splicing but we actually did it by grafting and doing all of the other things. We see that with vinifera grapes across the peninsula. It is a similar idea.

We did not develop the clingstone peach so that we could spread one type of round-up or one type of herbicide or one type of other pesticide. We developed that gene pool to enhance the product, not so that we could simply use one type of pesticide.

It reminds me that if we are going to do science, why do we not do it in that wholesome approach that benefits two groups of individuals or people around this world? Those of us who are non-farmers are consumers because most of us eat every day. I know we might skip a meal now and again, and I would imagine in the wider public it might be said that politicians never skip a meal. The bottom line is that we do eat every day and some of us do not produce.

Then we have what my good friend from Cape Breton, a farmer who understands the needs of farmers, says, which is that we also need to help them ensure that the materials they will get, the seeds and other inputs that they need, will enhance their ability, as he quite ably pointed out, to feed the world. He is absolutely right when he says that there is a need to feed the world.

However, to actually limit that science is a fundamental issue. We are actually allowing corporate entities to decide that there will only be this amount of science to deal with rather than the whole body of science. There are many around who actually talk about that.

I will quote from a few places where they actually talk about the fact that we are losing some of the science because of the pressures that are exerted by some of these multinational corporations that are absolutely huge. If we want to talk about some of these corporations, we should talk to farmers about the price of fertilizer. Let us assume that fertilizer companies decide to change how they do that genetically, which is not beyond the realm of possibility. Farmers already believe that input is way overpriced.

What happens if they decide, because they have a somewhat semi-monopoly on that now, to change that again and change the make-up and composition of that because, as we see things evolving even further, the genetics can change?

It is interesting to read an article written by Don Lotter entitled, “The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science”. It talks about the history and rise of plant transgenics. Convincingly, he argues that it is the political and economic power, not scientific rigour, that has driven the technology's ascent, talking about basically GMOs. He shows that the hyper-liberal U.S. regulatory regime around GMOs stems not from an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence but rather from close, often revolving door ties between the industry and the U.S. administration actually going all the way back to Reagan. He says that we should take the assumption that transgenic foods have been proven to have no ill effects on human health. Far from being studied, it turns out that the question has been basically ignored.

Therefore, the regulators have basically said that it does not look like it is that bad because using us as the guinea pig or the canary in the mine takes a long time because it takes us generations to actually go through that process.

In science, normally we use lab animals. That is how science gets done. In some cases, it is rats. In some cases, it is mice. It used to be primates at one point in time but we tend to do that less. We do that simply because we can have multi-generations to look at. Science is actually done in a lab.

If we look at a study that was done with lab animals in Austria, it shows that we can find mutations in the ability of those lab animals to reproduce effectively based on GMO consumption. That is a scientist doing work in a lab.

Some will say that it was not on humans. I would remind everyone in this House that when we develop vaccines, new medicines and other new technologies we actually put them through rigorous lab testing but we do not use humans in those testings. Sometimes we do when we go to clinical trials but it is pretty tough to conduct a clinical trial over multi-generations with GMO foodstuffs with humans. It would take us approximately 140-odd years probably, which is a long time to be consuming product that may or may not be safe.

However, assuming it was safe, what have we lost in the meantime? Have we lost all of that other genetic material? There are seeds that are being captured because we are losing that ability to do those things, whether they be what are now called “heirloom tomatoes”. Heirloom tomatoes are called that simply because they were once grown but then someone decided we should have what is now called “beefsteak tomatoes”. They are those big red ones. In certain markets we can find orange striped tomatoes and green ones. We would find a multitude of things but with that genetic material under the GMO way of doing things they would all be lost because the GMO group would say that we should only have this one and should only grow that one. However, if we only have that one, we then lose all the other pieces and all the attributes of that genetic material.

Imagine us as GMO clones. I would not use me as representative. I would choose to use someone taller than me for sure, because I have always wanted to be tall. I would be happy to take my colleague from Cape Breton and say that all of the male gender should look like that member. That would be somewhat akin to ensuring that we grew the same alfalfa through GMO, or the same wheat through GMO, or all of the other things through GMO.

What we are hearing from the seed companies in this country is that that is not a direction they necessarily want to go in.

In the U.S., we have seen the regulations change on alfalfa where it has now allowed it to happen.

Those of us who are either on the agriculture committee or who happen to live in the country or who just know a bit about science know how the bees cross-pollinate. They fly from flower to flower and they do a wonderful job. The problem is that the bees do not recognize the 49th parallel so they move back and forth and sometimes beekeepers move them back and forth but at the end of the day we get cross-pollination.

What we are going to do to organic farmers in this country is drive them out of business for no other reason than we allowed something to happen that may not actually be in our best interests. We are not certain that is what farmers truly want.

Farmers want good science but we do not get good science necessarily. We get one-dimensional science. What we need is pure applied science that comes from non-regulatory bodies where they do not have a patent waiting at the end of the day so that they can make a buck. We need good science that farmers can use every day to ensure that we feed not only ourselves but the rest of the world.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as a farmer and a member of the agriculture committee, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-474. Even though I am not in favour of the bill, I believe it is very important that the member for British Columbia Southern Interior has brought the bill forward at this time so we can discuss the future of growing crops in Canada.

There is a prediction that in the year 2050 we will need to feed ten billion people on this planet. Also, Canadian citizens want to have safe and healthy food. Thus food will be a very important issue in this upcoming decade.

We often read in the Economist and newspapers after having gone through the economic crisis, we will be going into a food crisis. We will see food being discussed more and more, with food becoming a problem and how we produce food becoming a concern.

Just this morning, a headline on the front page of the Globe and Mail states, “A warning to Canada: start growing”. It describes how a decade ago Canada was the third largest exporter of food in the world. We are now ranked seventh. Our exports have dropped 10% in the last year, but our imports are also rising. Up to 2% more imports are coming into this country. Thus we are not really eating more local food either and our exports are dropping.

What is happening? The article talks quite a lot about innovation and even knowledge. It mentions that agriculture and agrifood generate two million jobs, a dollar value of $154 billion in food and beverage consumer sales, accounting for 8.2% of our GDP in this country. Those are big numbers, as far as the value of food production is concerned and how important it is to Canadians.

We must have a balance going forward in what we should be producing and how we should be producing it and so that consumers are confident our food is safe and healthy.

These conclusions in the Globe and Mail this morning were laid out by the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, a non-partisan group that assesses the food industry, where it has been and where it should be going. It says that Canada should develop a new agriculture policy framework and that we have the potential in Canada to double our agrifood exports to $75 billion.

What does that mean to double our agrifood exports? How many countries on this planet can produce twice as much food within that short time? Brazil is increasing quite a bit. That is why we are ranking lower than Brazil, as it has increased its production considerably with technology and new varieties. It says here that we could be playing one of the biggest roles in the future in feeding the planet and that we could produce 75% of our own food by 2025.

I would say as a farmer that because of our winter climate, it will be pretty challenging to produce 75% of our own food by 2025. However, with greenhouses and technology we can come close to that, together with consumers thinking locally and buying local products, and with our supply management and how that protects our local food production. We have to work on more models like that.

It is also stated that the regulatory system should be overhauled to promote sustainability and foster innovation and collaboration among Canadian producers. We must have the right “climate” here and the right set-up and the right mechanisms to make that happen. We have the land; it is just a matter of having the right climate as far as investment and people stepping up to the plate are concerned.

The bill would really add uncertainty to the current regulatory science-based process for the approval of GMOs. The bill has also failed to provide the details of how this process would be established, what criteria would be applied and who specifically would provide the assessment.

There is no process in place for what the NDP wants to do with this bill. There is no responsible body. Is it the federal government that is going to do this? Is it a private body? Is it a public body? There was no process attached to this.

Bill C-474 is not an anti-GMO bill, but that is how it is evolving here, into whether or not one is for or against GMOs. That is not what it is all about; it deals how we should be producing more crops in this country in a safe manner.

When the bill was reintroduced, Liberals gave their support to studying the bill at the agriculture committee. That would have been the place to start, because there was already a controversy about it. We figured that the agriculture committee would be the best place to go through the bill to see if it should be amended. The intentions were good with the bill, but it had holes in it. It just was not the right thing for the time. At that time, the agriculture steering committee decided to discuss the bill and hear from all sides, the scientists, farmers and consumers.

There were lots of outstanding concerns about GMOs. People have called them “Frankenstein food“ and things like that. However, the reality is that we have a good system in our country, where we allow food products and crops from a science-based approach.

We started with the process at the agriculture committee and heard testimony from stakeholders on both sides of the issue to determine if this bill had a mechanism to address some of the concerns related to the potential negative impacts on agricultural imports. As a result of the hearings, it became evident that the bill had failed to provide that mechanism.

Canadian consumers and farmers want to know more about this issue, but the Conservatives cut short the debate and questioning on this bill; they did not want to hear any more of it. There were some really good presentations in committee, which we could have brought forward to the House so that members would have a good understanding of where food production is going. However, the Conservatives simply rejected the concerns and really did not want to really discuss them.

Many times that is the way it works in the House. The Conservatives believe in a certain thing and do not want it discussed or to be sent to committee. Moreover, the NDP comes up with ideas and sometimes it is just not the right way to go in light of the practicality of our economics and business. On the Liberal side, I think we have a balanced approach. I was hoping that the committee would deal with a lot more, but it did not.

I have stated that potential food production in this country is just phenomenal. Canada is not the only country faced with this dilemma. When we look at the situation around the world, we know that the Europeans are more resistant to GMOs and have more regulations, and the Americans are more lax on regulations for GMOs.

I have to give credit to the Americans. They are looking at this in Congress and at a framework to protect farmers. We should also protect farmers who are not going to grow GMO foods. There is still going to be a market for people who do not want to eat GMO food, even though science says it could be healthy, but we have to protect farmers.

Therefore, there needs to be a proper framework in place. Argentina has the proper framework in place and we should be looking at that model. Maybe that is one of the reasons it is passing us in exports.

Everything should be science based when we are moving forward, but we also need to look at the market and at protecting farmers. The potential for GMO foods is phenomenal in the next 10 years. When we look at the hunger in Africa and many parts of Asia, GMO foods could help them there with micronutrients and drought resistance. Even when there is a lot of flooding, some plants could be more adaptable.

Canada needs to be at the forefront in developing new crops and technologies that will help feed the world. We have the capacity and we have the land. However, we need to have the right regulatory framework in place as we move forward so farmers are protected, so consumers feel safe with the products they are eating and so we can expand on our exports.

The House resumed from December 1 consideration of Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Agriculture

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

Mr. Speaker, I received over 12,700 letters of support for my private member's bill, Bill C-474. This bill would protect farmers from economic harm that could arise from GE crops of which our export markets want no part.

B.C. fruit growers in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valley are saying that they are dead against the release of a genetically modified non-browning apple. They are worried about cross-pollination, which could kill the organic apple industry.

Why is the government continuing to take farmers for granted and refusing to protect them against the release of genetically modified crops, like alfalfa, wheat and apples?

Bill C-474

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe if you sought it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, during the debate tomorrow on Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and that, at the conclusion of the debate or when no further member rises to speak, all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill be deemed put and recorded divisions be deemed requested.

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

I'm not going to go on about Bill C-474. I'm just going to finish up this round, and then I have a bunch of other questions. If I run out of time, I'll be holding on to them.

Do you feel Bill C-474 is a threat to biotechnology and the agricultural sector in that sense?

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

Thank you, Chair.

First, thank you very much for being here.

What tremendous testimony we've had this morning on this subject, which is critical, I think, to agriculture and to consumers. Consumers are the end winners in these types of discussions and in the products that result.

As I was mentioning before, biotechnology is not well understood. There are a lot of misconceptions, and that's one of the reasons we're having this study: to lift the veil and have a bit of public debate on this, so that people see that biotechnology is not necessarily GM, and even if it is GM, we don't need to feel threatened by it. We have processes and policies in place.

I think this is a very important tour we're doing as the agriculture committee. I think it's disappointing that the NDP are not here. We have a Bloc member, we have two Liberal members, we have Conservative members, and the NDP pulled out. I say that because we've had just a bit of discussion on Bill C-474, and it's very focused on GM only. Alex Atamanenko, who is the NDP MP, is a strong proponent of his bill. To me he's the one who should be hearing what we're discussing this morning, or at least one of his colleagues should be here to bring the word back to him about some of this great discussion we're having. I think it's unfortunate that they're not here.

Mr. Wartman, you made a comment that sound science should trump politics. Sound science is very important and should take a leading role over politics when we're talking about biotechnology. I'm wondering if you might be able to elaborate on that. Is there a particular issue that comes to mind that leads you to make that statement?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, folks, for coming. If there's one thing that I think Saskatchewan is well recognized for, it is the Innovation Place, the cluster, with the competitors actually cooperating together to move ahead. It is absolutely amazing what we've seen in that area from out here.

Randy asked this question as well, in a sense. One of the problems.... I believe it was Mary who said that biotech is far more than GMOs, but that is an issue that we're just not getting around. We aren't.

As was mentioned around the table several times, Bill C-474 is up for a vote this week. Since I put word out yesterday, I can tell you this morning that we'll be recommending that at least my colleagues vote against the bill. I'm getting a lot of not very friendly mail, but it isn't a bill that does what its regulatory intent was.

At any rate, we have to get around the idea that biotech isn't just GMOs and get to all the other good things it does. Personally, I think there are good GMOs and bad GMOs. I think the science of each has to be looked at on its merits. How do we do that? Am I right in saying that biotech is not just GMOs? How do we do that?

Bert, I think you were suggesting earlier that there was a need for a biological solution to improve quality and nutrition, etc. There are a lot of different areas we can go into. Good research needs to be done in organics, good research needs to be done in natural solutions, good research needs to be done in biotechnology and even in GMOs, but how are we going to get people to understand the positives of it all? It's starting to be a war out there, from what I'm seeing. We're only going to hurt ourselves as a country and hurt our ability to progress, and even hurt, as Brad said earlier, people down on the farm.

How do we overcome it?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Good morning. Thank you very much for your testimonies.

I am sure you are more qualified than I am in biotechnology. I won't be telling you anything new when I say that biotechnology does not only deal with genetically modified organisms, but that it has a much broader scope. Biotechnology is invaluable to humanity, particularly to human health and animal health. For example, in my constituency, Domtar is currently building a pilot plant to produce nanocrystalline cellulose from wood fibre. There will be applications in all areas, and health in particular. It is a way forward for the forestry industry in Quebec and across Canada, at a time when the industry is facing real, though cyclical, challenges. At the moment, we are looking for new possibilities for the forestry sector and I think biotechnology is one way forward.

But, when we talk about genetically modified organisms, guidelines should be in place before any product is marketed. Just now, before Mr. Cross had to leave, Mr. Lemieux asked him a question about Bill C-474, which is currently before the House of Commons. We shouldn't bring up a doomsday scenario right away. We have to say that we are studying the commercial impact of a genetically modified organism before putting it on the market. For example, that's what they did in Argentina, which is one of the leading producers of genetically modified organisms. You said it well. Before taking purely partisan positions or simply playing politics, I tried to find out what the impacts in Argentina were, according to the studies. In addition to looking at the impact on health and the environment, a study was also done on the impact on international trade. So far, there has been no case filed against Argentina by the other countries or by the World Trade Organization. This example provides additional confirmation of what needs to be done before a product is put on the market.

Mr. Kerr mentioned the precautionary principle. I think that allowing no risk is actually very difficult. I also don't think that this is the understanding of the 160 signatory countries to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety that, may I remind you, aims to set control standards based on the precautionary principle. Canada has not ratified the protocol. And to say that all these countries have never marketed genetically modified organisms is false. Some of these countries are producers of genetically modified organisms and also develop biotechnology. So it is possible to do both, and do research on biotechnology. Before putting a product on the market, extensive analyses can be conducted to make sure public health is not at risk. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Ms. Hobbs, you've made some very interesting comments on investments, and I am going to ask you a question about the situation in the United States. You've said that the return on investment is roughly 20% in the U.S. Do you know how things work in the U.S.? Is the government the largest investor in biotechnology or does the private sector invest more?

[Brad Hanmer, President, Hanmer Ag Ventures Inc., As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, committee, for the opportunity to present.

My name is Brad Hanmer. I'm president and CEO of Hanmer Ag Ventures. We operate a 24,000-acre grain, oilseed, and pulse farm two hours southeast of Saskatoon. I'm a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan's agricultural economics department, and since then, one acre at a time, I've been taking a PhD in agricultural business.

I've spent six years on the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association board of directors, three of those years as president, and since then I've sat for three years on Farm Credit Canada's board of directors. For the record, I'd like to state that my comments today do not reflect those of any board member or staff member within Farm Credit Canada. These are my comments exclusively.

I'm going to start off with a fairly bold statement. I'm going to say that since my first crop in 1996, when I graduated from the University of Saskatchewan, of the three biggest technological advancements, number one undoubtedly has been the Internet. That has flattened a lot of the playing field and allowed us, in the middle of rural Saskatchewan, to be able to have that information. That's step number one.

Number two, I would say, has been GPS and its related technologies. That's allowed us to become very efficient in precision agriculture, with site-specific farming, satellite imagery using fertility maps, and those kinds of things. That's been paramount to our profitability.

However, I would say that very biggest one has been genetics in canola. With all due respect to Dr. Vandenberg and his comment, I am going to have a fairly narrow focus and use canola as the example of what that has done for somebody like me.

I suppose I'm still classified as a young farmer; I'm in my late thirties. On our farm prior to the innovation of the herbicide-tolerant canola, as Bert has said, we had mainly been a summerfallow and cereal province. In the mid-eighties my father was innovative, and we added pulse crops in our rotation, but the problem we were finding with pulse crops was that was the only major economic driver we had. Wheat, which we can get into later in my presentation, has been a stalemate in our ability to generate revenue and a stable return. Lentils and peas and chickpeas were fantastic, thanks to the work of Dr. Al Slinkard and Dr. Bert Vandenberg--they were a game changer for us in the province--but in our part of the world, canola is king. They call it the Cinderella crop, and I really think it's been the most important economic driver in my life. Without the canola crop, I wouldn't be here today, and I'm that bold in the statement. It has been the one that has flatlined our ability to have stable economic returns year after year.

Here are some of the things I have to tell you about: 1997 was the first year in Saskatchewan, and in Canada for that matter, that the novel-trait herbicide-tolerant canola was allowed to be commercially grown. Prior to that, canola production was mainly limited to the northern part of the grain belt because of the weed control issues. As well, at that time there wasn't a lot of direct seeding technology, so right around the same time that direct seeding technology was coming down, we were allowed to have another crop, canola, that was an economic powerhouse. It could be grown in big quantities on massive acreage that previously would have had either summerfallow or an unproductive crop. Without that I wouldn't have a business as I have grown it with my parents and brothers today.

Of the direct results we found, number one was reduced chemical cost. We are not dumping out the quantities of chemicals that we had used prior to herbicide-tolerant canola. Second, it reduced our fuel consumption. Our fuel bills are a lot lower because of a one-pass system with seeding. We're using a lot less fuel per acre as a result of this crop. Third, our soil health has improved. As a trained agronomist, I know we have improved our pH, our water-holding capacity, and our cation exchange capacity, in parallel with using pulse crops. We're pulling off yields we never would have imagined, and at the same time we're respectful of the environment and we're promoting better soil health.

When hybridity of canola came in the mid-2000s, it was a second big game changer for us. We're realizing yields on the canola crop that are matching, and in some years surpassing, the yield we get on cereal crops in our part of Saskatchewan.

With the stable returns, we've actually seen a resurgence of young farmers in our business. You cannot make a stable business plan and bring in financing if you don't have some model of stability. There's talk about stability of investment on the biosciences side; well, it works exactly the same way at the grassroots level of agribusiness. You need stability, and that's what biotech has done for many parts of this province. It has allowed that to happen.

Without this buoyancy of innovation, I don't think I would be participating in the commodity boom we have right now to the extent I am. Basically, this canola crop seems to find a way to get through a lot of adversity. Some of the panellists mentioned that. It's a direct result of the novel traits and also of hybridization.

Some innovations that are also going on right now relate to everything from insect events to different disease events and pathogens. They are just going to further increase our profitability on the farm.

Those of you in the corn-growing belt know what the biotech advancements have done for the corn rootworm, which is a cousin to the American corn rootworm; I think it's the same species. There is also the corn borer. Those two things allow a non-invasive species to not be controlled with insecticides, because they target those exact insects in a field. Those same innovations are coming to canola.

As a side note, I had the honour of being at a conference in Costa Rica two weeks ago, where Paul Schickler, the president of DuPont's genetic division, Pioneer Hi-Bred, said that right now western Canada is their number one global priority as a company for R and D into bringing in soybean varieties, corn varieties, and further canola traits. One reason, he said, is that Canada has a very stable regulatory system at present. They can be confident in that. Second, he said that growers are innovative and are quick to adapt to change.

I'm led to believe that the rate of adaptation of genetically engineered canola has actually surpassed the rate for the wheeled tractor and the combine versus the stationary threshing machine. Those innovations took longer for complete adaptation than genetically engineered canola. Those two things, he said, are why they're putting their stake in the ground and making sure that western Canadian agriculture is one of the most important strategic investments for a company the size of DuPont. DuPont, by the way, sold an oil company in 1998--and their stock price halved--to buy a genetic company named Pioneer Hi-Bred. Today their stock price has gained back everything it lost as a result of that strategic investment in the bioeconomy.

In 1997 there was a lot of debate about what we were going to do with canola. People said it was going to destroy markets and that the Europeans wouldn't take it. We have to keep in mind how that transpired in history. There was a lot of rhetoric on the disadvantages of what happened. The fact of the matter is that it was very strategic for the greater good of this industry. One of the panellists summed it up a lot better than I'm going to: in Europe, that market was never ours to be had anyway. It was a protectionist measure, for the most part, to protect the rapeseed industry, so the rhetoric needs to be brought down to the grassroots of investment.

If this conversation on what we call the biotech killer, Bill C-474, had happened back when canola was coming forward, I highly doubt that we would have that innovation in agriculture today, so I want the members to please be very respectful of the lessons we learned in canola and what they meant in terms of the billions of dollars canola has dumped into the rural economy.

I want to mention a couple of things in closing, and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but a lot of the panellists have stated their wish lists.

First, zero tolerance in our international markets is totally unacceptable. That is our first and foremost point. As you know, we're a major exporting country, and my business relies solely on the export business. We absolutely need to make sure that there is no such thing as zero. I think there are a couple of industries, such as the flax industry, that are in a lot of trouble right now over having zero tolerance. It can't be done anymore.

Also, I have a warning flag. We are going to lose our advantage in cereals. Pulse crops and oilseeds in western Canada are very buoyant, and there's a bright future, as Dr. Vandenberg said and as I said, for oilseeds, but the other component of a rotation is absolutely needed, and that's the cereal side. We're losing advantage every year. Economically, it's very unlikely that I would turn a profit growing a cereal grain.

That is something we need to address. We need to attract investment to make sure people understand that Saskatchewan's economy is not driven by wheat any more. It is a necessary evil for us in a rotation, but it's highly unlikely to have a price-times-yield combination that makes me money. That is a challenge I have for this table. We really need to address this.

The last thing is that biotechnology is very exciting for us right now in our business. We absolutely need to have younger people come into this business. My father, who has been a great innovator his whole life, is going to turn 65 this year. It's a hard year for him, because he won't be able to drive any of our implements. It has become so high tech that you no longer need a driver; you need an operator. We're continually bringing in new knowledge on the farm in order to operate. It's getting very sophisticated.

Volatility in the marketplace is also becoming one of our biggest challenges, and not only in the commodities, but in buying our fertilizer. This is big business that swings on a dime. It can be hundreds to millions of dollars within a month. We need to have stable returns, and biotech is one of the keys that will allow us to have stability and that backstop.

We're maintaining yields that we never dreamed of even 10 years ago. In terms of the advancements in canola, buying the latest and greatest innovations in canola has allowed us to keep up with our cost-price squeeze and inflation over time. That's driving big business and innovation to come to our country, so please keep those markets open. That's the first priority. Allow biotech innovation to keep us competitive so that Canada is the number one spot globally. We are not the biggest on the block, as Bert said.

One of the biggest visuals that I remember was in 1997. The first big wave in Brazil opened up, and they were basically farming the Sahara. They went from being a nonentity in the global marketplace to being the world's largest exporter of soybeans. Since then the world has swallowed the continent of South America, so keep that in mind.

Prior to 2004, the profitability of farms was not that sexy. Consumption and production had a 1% growth rate until 2004, when something switched. We've had seven consecutive years in which consumption patterns outstripped our ability to produce. We are now at about a 2% to 2.5% consumption growth in countries where they need it the most.

That's the challenge to us. In Canada we do have the comparative advantage, and we need good legislation to allow this to happen.

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

I was very impressed with your grasp of funding and research and development, and obviously you've got a lot of experience with the research and development arm and what it can do for agriculture.

There's a debate that's going to be taking place in the House tomorrow on Bill C-474, a private member's bill put forward by Alex Atamanenko about GMOs in particular, not biotechnology. It talks about moving away from sound science in terms of whether GMOs should be acceptable, including having a fiscal way of evaluating the impact of a GMO product before it might be approved.

In Ottawa we heard much testimony about how this bill is sowing uncertainty in the research and development field and that investors are actually pulling back, or at least going on hold, in terms of continuing with financial commitments to research and development.

I'm sure that over these past nine months you've been giving a number of presentations, and I wanted to get your opinion. When you were talking to potential investors and looking for financing, did you find that Bill C-474 had an impact? Was it positive, negative, or neutral? Could you fill is in on that?

[Éric Darier]

Absolutely. Bill C-474 is about an economic study conducted before the authorization of GMOs.

Second, the committee should ask the government to issue a report similar to the one issued in 2001 by the Royal Society of Canada to see where we are 10 years on. This would be an interesting study to conduct, since we are talking about science.

Third, a moratorium should be imposed immediately on GM alfalfa in order to avoid market turmoil and irreversible damage.

Four, we recommend that MPs, regardless of their party, adopt mandatory GMO labelling, which almost 90% of consumers support. That's a fact.

Last, Canada must finally ratify the biosafety protocol in order to catch up to the international community.

I would like to conclude my presentation by distributing two documents. The first is an academic article by Peter Andrée about regulations on GM foods. This article basically confirms that the Royal Society of Canada report has been generally ignored. I will leave one copy for the committee members. I also have a copy of the video “The World According to Monsanto,” which gives an overview of the legislative context within which GMOs are authorized here and abroad. Committee members can watch the video if they like.

Thank you.

[Éric Darier, Quebec representative, Greenpeace, Réseau québécois contre les organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM)]

First, I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to appear.

Before we start, I would like to introduce our delegation from the Réseau québécois contre les OGM. You've already met Mr. Nault, from the AmiEs de la Terre de l'Estrie. I remind you that you should have a written copy of our brief. My presentation today will be slightly different, so that I don't go over our 10 minutes.

The purpose of our network is to bring all GMO opponent groups together into a strong network that works together to address certain issues and, in particular, facilitate the exchange of information and ideas for a GMO-free future.

We represent some 20 organizations working mainly in the fields of the environment, consumer rights, agriculture and health; a full listing is available on our website. We also work very closely with the Canadian Biology Action Network.

Our network is here today to contribute to your study on agricultural technologies. Our oral presentation will focus on at least one element, that is, the 2001 report by the Royal Society of Canada. We hope that your campus visits next week will be very fruitful. We also hope that, as the public, we will have access to the account of these meetings, so that we can see what you are studying and what people have to say.

The reason I want to focus on the Royal Society of Canada report is because today, or very soon, is a historic date, the 10th anniversary of the 2001 Royal Society of Canada report, which is titled “Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada.” You can have a look at the copy I have brought with me. The French version is about 280 pages long. I will provide you with some background. The report was commissioned by the federal government and was drafted by 14 “arms-length” experts who were not members of our network, but rather scientific experts from the whole academic community. The report lists 58 recommendations. As the title suggests, the report really focuses on precaution.

Reading the 58 recommendations is out of the question, but I would like to at least read a few, to add to the comments of my predecessor:

7.1 The Panel recommends that approval of new transgenic organisms for environmental release, and for use as food or feed, should be based on rigorous scientific assessment of their potential for causing harm to the environment or to human health. Such testing should replace the current regulatory reliance on “substantial equivalence” as a decision threshold. 7.2 The Panel recommends that the design and execution of the testing regimes of new transgenic organisms should be conducted in open consultation with the expert scientific community. 7.3 The Panel recommends that analysis of the outcomes of all tests on new transgenic organisms should be monitored by an appropriately configured panel of “arms-length” experts from all sectors, who report their decisions and rationale in a public forum. 8.1 The Panel recommends the precautionary regulatory assumption that, in general, new technologies should not be presumed safe unless there is reliable scientific basis for considering them safe. The Panel rejected the use of “substantial equivalence” as a decision threshold to exempt new GM products from rigorous safety assessments on the basis of superficial similarities because such as regulatory procedure is not a precautionary assignment of the burden of proof. 8.2 The Panel recommends that the primary burden of proof be upon those who would deploy food biotechnology products to carry out the full range of tests necessary to demonstrate reliably that they do not pose unacceptable risks. 8.3 The Panel recommends that, where there are scientifically reasonable theoretical or empirical grounds establishing a prima facie case for the possibility of serious harms to human health, animal health or the environment, the fact that the best available test data are unable to establish with high confidence the existence or level of the risk should not be taken as a reason for withholding regulatory restraint on the product. 8.4 As a precautionary measure, the Panel recommends that the prospect of serious risks to human health, of extensive, irremediable disruptions to the natural ecosystems, or of serious diminution of biodiversity, demand that the best scientific methods be employed to reduce the uncertainties with respect to these risks. Approval of products with these potentially serious risks should await the reduction of scientific uncertainty to minimum levels.

There are 58 recommendations, so I will stop here. I am not going to bombard you with the recommendations made by the Royal Society of Canada, which, I remind you, is the highest scientific authority in Canada. It does have a certain credibility in this field.

Unfortunately, the recommendations set out in the Royal Society of Canada report were mostly ignored by the government. The government simply threw the report away.

In 2004, three years after the report was submitted, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development published a Canadian Food Inspection Agency audit, which confirmed and gave more details on what the Royal Society of Canada report covered three years earlier.

Almost nothing has changed since 2001. What's worse is that GM plants with multiple gene insertions, such as StarLink corn, have been authorized without a specific assessment. GM animals, especially the GM pig, are on a fast track to becoming authorized. GM salmon could be marketed soon.

Canada has still not ratified the United Nations Biosafety Protocol, while 160 countries have done so. Consumers are still waiting for the mandatory GMO labelling that some 40 countries have already adopted.

The approval of GM alfalfa will lead to a crisis, which I hope you are aware of.

So, what can your committee do? We have formulated five basic recommendations.

First, your committee should encourage all MPs to vote in favour of Bill C-474. The bill will not solve all of our problems, but it will at least enable us to protect farmers from the economic impact of a poor biotechnology management policy.

Second—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'm sorry that it's a little late, but I read the briefs and there is a lot of information here. And as Frank says, there are two solitudes. Our concern is how you bridge the gap. From our perspective, who do you believe? I'll put it that simply.

Prince Edward Island salmon was mentioned, Lucy, and I just want to refer you to what the FDA in the U.S. said on that product.

I will submit to you that non-GM canola is something we are extremely worried about in P.E.I. If GM canola got introduced in our area, we would completely lose the Japanese market, and the Japanese market is huge to us in terms of non-GMO canola and a lot of other non-GM and organic crops. The Japanese market is a premium market and important to us. And the reality is that we would lose that market just like that when they do their investigation, if there were a GM crop that could contaminate canola.

But on the Prince Edward Island salmon issue, the FDA has concluded in its analysis in the United States, AquAdvantage Salmon, on September 20.... I'll just quote what they say in this report. They conclude that food from the triploid ABT salmon “is as safe as food from conventional salmon” and that “there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food” from this animal. They do say there should be another study performed on the allergenicity of the diploid fish and submit it for evaluation. They also talk about the adequate containment measures that appear in place in both P.E.I. and in Panama.

That's just to put that on the record that there are two sides to that story too.

Based on the hearings we held on Bill C-474, the two areas I am currently worried about are that things are moving too rapidly without perhaps the right peer review, transparency, or protective measures in place on wheat and on alfalfa.

If alfalfa were to become contaminated, you are right, we would have a real problem in terms of many of our organic markets. It's the base crop for organic production, and there don't seem to be many areas that study not only the food and health safety but the environment, the economic impact, and the impact on biodiversity.

So this is my question to you all. There are pros and cons on the biotech industry—a lot of good and also some risk. How do we get to a system? What system has to be put in place? I agree with what Frank said earlier, that the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee would be extremely important. But how do we get a system in place where there can be reasonable confidence on both sides that the measures necessary are actually being implemented so they can be believed by the average person out there and by some of the decision-makers in the political process as well?

Lorne.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Lucy, Lorne, and Janice, for coming and speaking to us today.

We've listened to these arguments for quite some time now, both in these discussions as well as in discussing Bill C-474. I've come to the conclusion that there are two different solitudes, and based on the information that I've had, these solitudes can co-exist if people have the will to sit down and discuss common ground and those matters that are of deepest concern.

Lucy, you mentioned the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. When I think of that, I think it is really the only kind of forum in which solutions could be found. I don't see Health Canada or CFIA, or any other organization having regard to social, economic, or environmental impact or species extinction issues as you've raised it. I frankly don't know the extent to which the biotech industry considers those things. But if we're looking at sustainability, it goes a lot further than just reducing emissions of GHGs.

I also know that science is so important. We need that science, so that we can feed the world with the growing three billion people over the next 20 or 30 years and deal with climate change.

I want to restrict my question to each of you, and I want your opinion on the merits of reconstituting a Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, so that all industry stakeholders come together, come up with solutions, and make recommendations to the government. Could I hear each of the three of you speak on that matter?

Lucy, you can go first.

[Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, committee members, for inviting me here today on behalf of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network to speak to you about the issue of genetic engineering.

It is important to evaluate what we have learned about genetic engineering from our 15 years of experience with this technology in food and agriculture in Canada.

I work in Ottawa as coordinator for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, or CBAN. CBAN is a coalition of 18 organizations across Canada that have various concerns and experiences with genetic engineering. This includes international development organizations such as Inter Pares and USC Canada. It includes farmer associations such as the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, the Ecological Farmers' Association of Ontario, and Union paysanne. It also includes coalitions of grassroots groups like the Society for a G.E. Free B.C., and the Prince Edward Island Coalition for a GMO-Free Province.

What brings us together is a concern about the impacts of genetic engineering, be they economic, social, or environmental, and the lack of democracy in relation to decision-making over this technology.

The Biotechnology Action Network is three years old. In my role heading the small secretariat here in Ottawa, I conduct research and assist in communications, such as my testimony here today.

I have worked as a researcher and campaigner on these issues around genetic engineering for 15 years. For example, on Tuesday Gord Surgeoner mentioned a council that brought diverse stakeholders together. He was referring to the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. I participated in the work of this committee when I worked for the Sierra Club Canada. That committee no longer exists.

My understanding from attending the first hearing on Tuesday is that the committee study is open to or explicitly asking for recommendations. I seem to be hearing that there is an openness to examine many issues around the biotechnology industry. We hope this is the case, as we think there are very many critical issues, such as those raised by Bill C-474. I'll speak to some of our analysis of what needs to happen in Canada on this issue, what we think, and what we will be faced with in the new year.

I understand that the debate over Bill C-474 has been a part of triggering these hearings, and we think it's highly appropriate that farmer concern about the impacts of biotechnology instigate an investigation into genetic engineering.

To be clear, I'm talking about genetic engineering as defined by the CFIA, which is recumbent DNA technology. This is what we're referring to when we talk about biotechnology. This is what's at issue and where the controversy largely lies.

CBAN argues that there are fundamental problems with genetic engineering and fundamental problems with the Canadian government's approach to this technology, including our regulation.

I'll talk about some of our concerns by looking at three immediate issues we face in Canada: the possible introduction of genetically engineered alfalfa, GE pigs, and GE salmon.

In the short brief that CBAN submitted to the committee we introduced these three case studies, as well as the issue of genetically engineered wheat, which we think illustrate the need to assess the potential export market harm of applications of genetic engineering. They also illuminate other critical issues and possible negative impacts.

To begin with, CBAN would like to state our support for Bill C-474 and the recommendation that social and economic concerns be incorporated into the regulation of genetic engineering.

CBAN would also like to remind the committee that in 2001, as commissioned by the ministers of agriculture, environment, and health, the Royal Society of Canada's expert panel on the future of food biotechnology published 58 recommendations for regulatory reform. CBAN would like to see the government implement all 58 of those recommendations.

I'd like to concentrate my testimony by discussing briefly the three genetically engineered organisms we must immediately deal with. All three pose major economic and environmental threats, and are or will be highly socially disruptive. They will certainly be socially contested--the alfalfa, pigs, and salmon.

This is the immediate future of genetic engineering. Any of these three could be commercially introduced next year, or even this year. Each is approved via a process that neither the public nor independent scientists have access to. Each is subject to intense opposition for distinct reasons. These three GE organisms illuminate three key concerns we would like to raise, among many.

First, contamination is a reality and has numerous negative social, economic, and environmental impacts.

Second, GE research is under way in universities with either industry or public funds, but without a public mandate.

And finally, government decision-making processes are kept secret and locked away from public participation, and these processes rely solely on privately owned science. These highly secretive processes could allow the commercialization of the world's first genetically engineered food animal.

If we look at this first issue, contamination, which of course the committee has discussed in depth, we see that it has numerous social, economic, and environmental impacts, and that the fallacy of coexistence will collapse if GE alfalfa is introduced. By coexistence I mean the ability of organic or other non-GE crops or farming, non-GE farming, to exist side by side with GE crops. Alfalfa will contaminate. This is a certainty, given the characteristics of alfalfa as a perennial crop pollinated by bees. You've already heard this in the testimony from forage groups. Contamination happens, but farmers always knew this would happen. Contamination was predicted and is predictable, and yet there are no policies that we see or regulatory mechanisms in place to address this.

The issue of alfalfa shows how certain applications of genetic engineering can be a clear threat to some or many farmers, and yet these farmers have no way to communicate effectively to government. There is no avenue for farmer consultation on the impacts they foresee.

As the committee heard in June, conventional forage growers are clear that GE alfalfa would ruin their businesses. As the committee heard from the organic industry, GE alfalfa is a clear and immediate threat to the future of the entire food and farming system in North America.

To summarize, we think the issue of GE alfalfa clearly raises the need to incorporate social and economic considerations in decision-making.

Second, we would say that GE research is under way in universities, as I mentioned, either with industry or even public funds, and yet without a public mandate. And here we could look at the example of "Enviropig". Canada is about to become the origin of GE pork, the GE pig trademarked Enviropig.

Canada could be the first to approve the GE pig for human consumption. The University of Guelph submitted a request to Health Canada in April 2009, and we only know this because this is the one piece of information the university has shared with the public. Environment Canada has already approved the pigs for confined reproduction.

Enviropig was developed by Canadian researchers, with public funds, at the University of Guelph. It was developed with public funds, but without, we would argue, a public mandate. Just like the GE Triffid flax, a university is ready to commercialize a product that consumers and, arguably, farmers do not want. So we would ask where the public oversight is in that process.

The project Enviropig was conceived over ten years ago and was pursued with at least two explicit assumptions that we now see are false: first, that this product was an environmental solution and would be seen as an environmental solution; and second, that consumers would accept GE foods by the time the product was ready for market.

Canada needs to, on an urgent basis, evaluate the social acceptance and economic impact of Enviropig. Our current regulatory system does not allow the government to consider these questions. These are, in practical terms, irrelevant in regulation. Health Canada could approve the GE pig for human consumption in Canada tomorrow. The fact that this decision alone is likely to cause chaos in the domestic and international market for Canadian pork and pork products is irrelevant in our current regulation.

This brings us back to the question of export market harm, the problem identified by Bill C-474, the core problem of approving GE crops despite and regardless of their known, anticipated, or possible economic and social impacts. The possible commercialization of Enviropig also brings into sharp focus the fact that there is no mandatory labelling of GE foods in Canada. The reality is that consumers will avoid pork and pork products in order to avoid GE pork.

Finally, we would say that the government decision-making processes are kept secret and locked away from public participation. These processes rely solely on privately generated and privately owned science, and yet these decisions can potentially have very grave impacts.

I did want to mention the case of the genetically engineered salmon, because it does illustrate some very specific problems that cross into other genetically engineered organisms. Canada is about to become the origin of GE salmon eggs for the world.

Documents released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revealed that AquaBounty, a U.S. company, actually plans to produce all of its GE salmon eggs in Prince Edward Island, then ship them to Panama to grow out and process and then ship to the U.S. market.

I and others have called Health Canada to request information about this possible risk assessment, and Environment Canada actually refuses to even tell us if a risk assessment is under way. This is because Environment Canada is now charged with regulating GE animals, including the fish.

In conclusion, the government has invested in the biotechnology industry as an economic driver, as a valuable economic activity. Yet in our view, we see that genetic engineering is actually about to take down Canada's pork producers and organic grain farmers.

It's urgent, in our view, that the government be proactive in resolving these ongoing issues that we see are building into a crisis, a crisis that will cost farmers their crops and organic certification. It will cost hog producers their markets, both domestic and international.

It's a crisis that will take the form of a consumer crisis of confidence in the food system and in our democracy. In the case of GE salmon, it is a crisis that could involve species extinction, a global conservation crisis.

Unfortunately, in our view, these are not exaggerations. These are risk evaluations, and our government currently does not have the tools to ask or address these questions.

We recommend that the government place a moratorium on approval of all new genetically engineered organisms until there has been a wide democratic debate and also a fundamental change in our approach to this technology.

Thank you.

Genetically Modified Organisms

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first one is signed by 100 people from the Boundary region, Grand Forks, Greenwood and Christina Lake in support of my bill, Bill C-474, which basically asks the government to make sure that an analysis is done of the potential economic impact on farmers before introducing any more genetically modified organisms into the environment.

They call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation Bill C-474, an act respecting the seeds regulations, 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.

Economic Negotiations with the European Union

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

Mr. Chair, as you probably know, my colleague's riding and my riding border on each other. We have worked together on issues, namely the passport office, which he was able to get in his community. I thank him for that. I also thank him for initially supporting my Bill C-474. I hope when it comes up for third reading, he will once again come forward and support this important bill.

I would like to ask him the same question I asked another colleague. If he is not familiar with this document prepared by Steven Shrybman and if he would like to have a copy, I am willing to give him one this evening. If he is familiar, I would like to get his comments on it.

He talked about culture, but I will zero in on agriculture. The hon. member represents a number of folks in the agriculture industry. I would like his comments on the effect that our other trade agreements have had on the fruit growers in his area. Before NAFTA, we had in-season tariffs and we were able to protect fruit growers. After NAFTA, there has been this free flow of fruit and vegetables across the border and many apple growers and other soft fruit growers have been hit, because of NAFTA, by the dumping of fruit that is being sold below the cost of production.

We were there together when the agriculture committee visited Kelowna, and he understands this. What are his comments are on that and will this transform itself? Is this something we can expect from the European trade agreement, another free flow of goods so other sectors of the agriculture community will be hit?

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

I have just a final question.

My bill, Bill C-474, sounds like a very simple bill. It looks at what effect the potential economic impact will have on farmers if we introduce more GE crops.

As I understand it, the main argument against it is that it's not science-based, that it's going to stifle innovation.

We had the potential release of GE wheat, I guess in the nineties, and the reason that it wasn't released was because there was an outcry by farmers. One of the reasons was that they figured their markets would have been stopped.

That didn't stop us from continuing science and innovation. We're still moving. We have cutting-edge technology in this country even though this look at the market there stopped GE wheat.

My question is that if the markets were to say that we should not be introducing GE alfalfa now, or GE wheat, how would that stop science innovation in our country? It would seem to me that it would still continue going along, in spite of the fact that we may have protected farmers in these two areas.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today. It's terrific to have people of your calibre speaking before this committee.

I'm going to ask two questions. One is for Mr. Yada, and the other is for Ian and Gord.

Mr. Yada, you mentioned AFMNet losing its funding. Can you tell the committee the value of AFMNet? What exactly does AFMNet offer the government in respect of a better understanding of food research, innovation, and commercialization? We all know that healthier food means healthier people and lower health care costs. I've already had reaction from the private sector about AFMNet losing its funding in areas like the sodium research you introduced. So what does AFMNet offer, and why is it important in the absence of public research?

To the other folks, we've had quite an extensive discussion on Bill C-474 through Alex's bill. We've heard so many concerns--and you've repeated them, Ian--about biodiversity, contamination, the use of seed, and control by the companies.

I believe GMOs are here to stay. We have increasing global warming and we have to deal with that. We have to feed three billion more people over the next 30 or so years, and increase our food production by 70%. But at the same time, I heard Gord acknowledge that they have to forge systems to protect others.

Do you guys ever get together in a forum and sit down...? I'm not asking you to kiss and make up or anything, but is there an opportunity to create an organization in Canada where the two opposing opinions can actually get together and forge solutions to those issues that have been raised? Around this table it's almost impossible to make recommendations. We need those recommendations to come from the experts.

Mr. Yada, can I hear from you first?

[Dr. Ian J. Mauro, Post-doctoral Fellow, School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria]

Sure.

I just want to thank the committee for inviting me here this morning. It's a pleasure to speak about my work.

I'm currently a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Victoria in environmental studies. The project I'm currently working on is on Inuit knowledge and climate change. In the new year, I'll be the Canada research chair in human dimensions of environmental change at Mount Allison University.

My work couples social and ecological systems, and I'm interested in holistic analysis of issues related to climate change, food security, and--the focus of our meeting--biotechnology.

My Ph.D. research, which took place between 2002 and 2008 at the University of Manitoba, is the largest farmer-focused study on genetically engineered crops that has ever been conducted. It was publicly funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council and Agriculture Canada through their Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council program.

The project involved 2,500 farmers from across the three prairie provinces. We were specifically interested in their local knowledge--their experience with genetically engineered crops in the fields at the farm level. I studied genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant canola in a post-release fashion and genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant wheat, specifically Roundup Ready wheat, in a pre-release fashion.

Once again, this is farm-level data collected through surveys and interviews spanning six years, as my Ph.D research. The research has been peer reviewed and published, and that forms the basis of my expert opinion and the written submission to this committee.

In Canada, the release of genetically engineered crops is an ongoing ecological and regulatory experiment with tangible impacts on human systems, specifically farmers. This living experiment, if you will, provides useful information about the benefits and risks of biotechnology and about how regulation can and should evolve.

Advantages associated with genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops are well known. My work further demonstrates their production benefits, specifically easier and better weed control for farmers choosing to use this technology.

Risks are less well understood, and this is where my research really provides new information. For both genetically engineered canola and genetically engineered wheat, the main risks, ranked in order of importance by farmers themselves, included markets, which were the top risk for farmers. They were concerned about loss of income. They were concerned about problems in the segregation system, that biology would leak into a segregation issue, which would lead to market harm.

The second issue of greatest importance to farmers was corporate control of agriculture. They were concerned about seeds being privatized and the associated lawsuits.

The third risk was agronomic “volunteers”--genetically engineered crops migrating across the landscape--and increased use of herbicides leading to weed-resistant varieties, which we are seeing in Canada today.

Fourth was contamination--gene flow. These crops move around the landscape, and they pose risks for farmers not using the technology. The key finding of my research is that gene escape from genetically engineered crops escalates into other risks, such as the agronomic, corporate, and market impacts that I just spoke about. Indeed, biology and socio-economics are inseparable when dealing with ag-biotechnology.

Importantly, the top two risk categories, as identified by prairie farmers, are market and corporate impacts, which fall outside of Canada's current science-based regulatory system.

The proposed introduction of Roundup Ready wheat showed the flawed nature of evaluating biotechnology using only narrowly defined scientific determinants, and thus put Canada's $4 billion to $6 billion annual wheat market at risk because of the unwillingness of international buyers to purchase genetically engineered wheat from any country growing it.

My research shows that over 83% of prairie farmers do not want to see Roundup Ready wheat introduced despite renewed industry interest in commercializing this very crop.

At the height of the controversy with Roundup Ready wheat, I was invited to numerous Canadian Food Inspection Agency meetings. Although they had knowledge of the socio-economic risks associated with this very crop, regulators were not allowed to consider these in their assessment.

Indeed, parliamentary intervention is required to expand CFIA's mandate to regulate biotechnology more effectively in Canada.

These market issues were identified by the Canadian Wheat Board officials in a 2003 presentation to this committee entitled “Closing the Regulatory Gap”, which proposed adding cost-benefit analysis to GE crop regulation. I highlight the need to include socio-economics in Canadian regulation for you again today.

Importantly, cost-benefit analysis and the farmer-focused risk analysis method that I have pioneered are quantitative scientific approaches that can be incorporated into the existing regulatory framework. Canadian farmers deserve holistic regulation that seeks their input and thus ensures their livelihoods are not being put at risk due to the introduction of GE crops and other types of ag-biotechnology. Arguably Bill C-474, currently being debated in Parliament, offers an opportunity to expand the regulatory framework and ensure market impact is considered. I believe this is an important and much-needed evolution in Canadian regulation.

I've spoken a lot about market harm, given its importance; however, farmers are also concerned about corporate control over biotechnology and how this affects their lives and agriculture as whole. This, as I have identified, is also outside of the current regulatory framework. Most notably, numerous non-GE and organic farmers who participated in my study had their land and crops contaminated by GE varieties. Some were sued by industry, and others attempted to sue the company for damages.

The corporate control over seed, the very basis of our food supply, is controversial and is something that should be given more attention by this committee and Parliament as a whole. Indeed, our food security as a nation is at risk if farmers are no longer able to freely use and exchange their seeds and plants due to contracts and patent laws. This corporate control is especially problematic when enforced over genetically engineered crops that move easily across the landscape, cross-pollinate in other genetically engineered and non-GE crops, and expose farmers to unwanted and unexpected risks. Indeed, it is now impossible to grow non-genetically engineered canola in Canada because of the widespread cross-pollination of GE varieties. This canola crop, developed with public funds, has become largely privately owned by the biotechnology industry.

Given the findings of my Ph.D., I believe genetically engineered crops are substantially different from their conventionally bred equivalents. Loss of markets, patented genes triggering lawsuits, organic farmers losing crops in their crop rotation due to cross-pollination: these are all differences that did not exist before ag-biotechnology. These impacts are real. Recognizing this in regulation is important and is of value to farmers, government, consumers, and industry. Indeed, updated regulations, based on our living experiment and associated experience, will ensure that ag-biotechnology is released appropriately and safely in the future. A safer food system with accountability, responsibility, and awareness of the costs and benefits of introducing new technology is innovative and good for Canada and the world.

It is my expert opinion that scientific and social impacts regarding biotechnology are inseparable and weave around each other metaphorically, like the DNA molecule itself. Canada's regulations must evolve like a genome in a way that holistically recognizes that ag-biotechnology has both ecological and social impacts that must be assessed. As both a social and environmental scientist, I assure you that both strands in this double helix of regulation, if you will, can be evaluated scientifically and with some modification will fit into the existing framework.

I look forward to discussing this with you. I appreciate your time this morning, and I would be pleased to assist you now and in the future. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Seeds Regulations

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

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition with a little more than 1,100 signatures from constituents and Canadians with regard to Bill C-474, the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior's motion, which has to do with a bill amending seed regulation, requiring that analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

Motions in Amendment

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly glad to talk about Bill C-474. We need to put it in some context, and that is the context of success for farmers.

Obviously we cannot talk about farmers being successful in western Canada without talking about the freedom to sell their own products, the freedom to market their own products and the freedom to run their own businesses. Bill C-474 interferes with that almost as much as the Canadian Wheat Board interferes with that.

Mr. Speaker, you know how dead against Bill C-474 I am, so I am sure you have an idea of how important I think it is that our western Canadian farmers get freedom to market their own products, to go around the world to sell those products, to take those top-notch Canadian products across this globe so that people can understand far more than they do now how successful and how tremendous the farming sector in Canada can actually be. We would ask the other parties to join with us of course in providing that freedom for our farmers.

I will come directly back to Bill C-474 and to Motion No. 6, which is another one of the amendments that the mover himself has had to make in order to make this bill remotely palatable to even the people who want to support it.

In this motion, they want to add another new clause, which says:

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.

There is a whole host of problems with this. We are reminded of canola. As the parliamentary secretary mentioned so well earlier, when canola was developed in western Canada, it gradually took off. People did not know what the impact of canola was going to be when it was introduced.

The NDP is saying, through this bill and through this amendment, that we have to stop these things. We cannot let them come on to the marketplace. We cannot see what potential they might have. We need to look at the negative side of the equation but not at the positive side.

Canola has developed from a very small beginning, with rapeseed. Then they improved the seed varieties and brought in canola, and I believe it is accurate to say that a $14 billion a year industry has developed from canola. The NDP would stand against that. If its bill were in place, if it had its way, the canola industry in western Canada would be wiped out.

I can tell members that if it did that, there would be virtually nothing left of the grains and oilseeds sector in western Canada because canola is a critical crop for many producers, especially those who do not want to be forced to market their product through a central marketer. Those folks, who have chosen to grow canola, grow it because not only can we grow good canola and we can grow lots of canola but we also have the freedom to market it as we choose.

There is a whole host of reasons why we should not be supporting this bill. I am thankful and western Canadian farmers and farmers across this country are thankful that the Liberals have come to their senses and have said that they will be supporting us in our opposition to this bill, because it is critical for the future of Canadian agriculture that we make sure this bill is defeated.

It is too bad that the NDP itself does not see this, that the member himself would not voluntarily withdraw this bill, because it would be much better for Canadians generally. It would probably be better, even in the House here, for those of us who know agriculture to be able to say that we have joined together, all of us have joined together here and we are going to do something that is good for farmers, rather than having one group or a couple of the parties here making the decision, once again, that they are going to oppose Canadian agriculture and not give it the chance to be the best it can be.

I could certainly talk a little more about the methodology that is involved in this bill. It is just flawed from beginning to end. The member who brought it forward wants to talk about the negative economic impact that the changes might have. He does not address the fact that there might be positive impacts from new technology, and it is once again a backwards way of looking at agriculture. It shows a disconnect from the future of agriculture.

We go out on the farm these days and there are new varieties. There is new technology. For example, people now have GPS in their tractors, they have it in their sprayers and they have it in their combines. They know down to the inch what it is they are doing, what they are putting onto their farmland, and it is certainly the same with so many other areas of technology.

This bill goes against all of that. We need to oppose it and we are thankful that the other parties across the way have decided to join with us on that. We ask the NDP to do that as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I believe the hon. member from Malpeque would not be implying that anyone is misleading anyone. However, I think he is raising a point of relevance. I will remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that we are on the report stage motion on Bill C-474.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has an obligation to speak to Bill C-474. We know he is trying to mislead on the Canadian Wheat Board, but Bill C-474 is the topic tonight.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), introduced by my hon. colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior, the NDP agriculture critic and a tireless advocate for farmers and consumers.

Bill C-474 is an amazingly straightforward bill. In just 52 words it asks simply that the government consider the export market impact of any new genetically modified seeds to be introduced to the market before allowing their cultivation. This is the same request that farmers have been making for years. I would urge the House to consider carefully what they have to say and what is at stake with this bill.

As the government knows, in September 2009, inspectors in the European Union discovered that an illegal genetically modified seed strain, CDC triffid, had contaminated Canadian flax exports. European countries promptly began recalling and quarantining Canadian flax. Prices plummeted and Canada lost 60% of its export market overnight. This ban hit our farmers hard, and they are still paying for the testing and cleanup after this international scandal.

More and more countries moved to adopt laws that limit the use of genetically modified foods. The export market for Canadian crops will continue to shrink unless we change the way that we do agriculture. For example, the countries that make up 82% of our export market for wheat have already said that if Canada begins cultivating genetically modified wheat products, the result will be a disastrous total boycott of all Canadian wheat, whether it is genetically modified or not.

Farmers obviously do not want to grow a crop that no one will buy. This is why it is critical that any assessment of new genetically modified seeds in Canada be considered in light of the impact they will have on our export market. Canadian farmers are clear that this is something they want. Given the potential consequences of another international contamination scandal, I really have to ask why the government is so adamantly opposed to the bill.

When talking about genetically modified foods and seeds, it is also important to talk about the alternatives, things like small scale and organic farming. Far too often we forget about these other options. Perhaps that is because among our largest crops, genetic contamination is so widespread that it is not even possible to grow organically, as in the case of the canola crop in Manitoba.

Transnational conglomerates such as Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta and Bayer have been incredibly vocal in promoting themselves and their GMOs as the answer to problems such as world hunger and unpredictable crop yields due to environmental changes, all the while ensuring that their corporate bottom lines are priority number one.

Here are some important facts to consider: Eighty-seven per cent of the world's countries are GMO free. Over 90% of the arable land on this earth is GMO free. Over 99.5% of the world's farmers do not grow GMO products. In the United States, despite 20 years of research and 14 years of commercialization, GMO products have not significantly increased crop yields.

Let us be honest, GMO crops will not be the solution to things like world hunger, and the reckless use of genetic modification has the potential to do far more harm than good, both abroad and here in Canada.

Countries around the world are increasingly becoming aware of this, and that is why the market is actually turning against GMOs. The transnational corporations are aware of this turn, and that is why they vehemently oppose this market assessment of their product.

With the Conservative Party on side with these agricultural mega companies, I have to ask, whose interests is our government looking out for, those of the farmers or the conglomerates?

I would like to highlight some encouraging thoughts. While changing climates, drought and disease continue to plague farmers and their crops, exacerbating a global hunger pandemic that afflicts more than one billion people on earth, there are signs that important progress is being made without the need for genetic modification and unconscionable agribusiness practices.

One of the most important steps to improving crop yields was achieved as long ago as 1961. It was in that year that Norman Borlaug perfected dwarf wheat, a cultivar of wheat that did not topple over under the weight of its stocks, spoiling its yield. The results were staggering. By 1963 the wheat harvest was six times larger than it had been 20 years earlier. Literally millions of lives were saved. For his work he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1970. Even today his cultivars continue to be the staple food of millions of people worldwide, and all of this was accomplished without GMOs.

There are more success stories.

In Japan scientists have developed a drought resistant rice crop. In South Africa and the Philippines there are drought resistant maizes. The United States just developed an allergen-free peanut. In Kenya iron fortified corn has slashed the rates of childhood anemia.

All of these cultivars are making a real difference in the lives of millions of people worldwide, and all of them were done using traditional botanical graftings and selection processes, not genetic modification.

These very same botanical processes have been used for centuries. They were used to turn an ancestral inedible weed into what today we call cabbage, kale, collard greens, broccoli, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts.

Genetic modification has been proven to be wildly ineffective in delivering on its own promises. As more and more countries enact laws to ban their import, the economic risks for countries continuing to produce GMOs will continue to rise. Bill C-474 proposes simply that before new genetically modified seeds are introduced in Canada, the government must consider those risks.

Canadian farmers deserve protection from GMO contamination and from the catastrophic effects it could have on our export markets. We should not be bowing to the wishes of the transnational conglomerates that know that the market is turning away from their repressive products and practices.

Today I call on the House to vote in favour of Bill C-474 and enshrine in law measures that would ensure that farmers and consumers, not Monsanto, are at the heart of our food and seed strategy.

In closing, an issue like this is so important for farmers, for consumers and for Canada that it deserves more debate. Therefore, I move:

That, when the order for the consideration of Bill C-474 is next called, the time provided for the consideration of any remaining stages of the Bill be extended, pursuant to Standing Order 98(3), by a period not exceeding five consecutive hours.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the deputy critic for agriculture and agri-food, I have the pleasure of rising today to discuss Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm). This issue is of particular importance to me because there are many farms in my riding.

The purpose of the NDP member's bill is to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted. In other words, it requires that the sale of new GE seeds in Canada be assessed from an economic perspective.

There is currently nothing stopping a new variety of seed from being sold and grown in Canada if it is registered and passes the environmental impact assessment required under the Seeds Regulations. The new seed variety must also be assessed by Health Canada under the Food and Drug Regulations if it is destined for human consumption or by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency under the novel feeds regulations if it is destined for the production of animal feed.

First of all, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-474. We believe that it is important to consider all aspects of approving a new product, especially its foreign trade implications, before adding it to the range of products already offered to producers.

At present, the trade implications of new products on the market are completely ignored in GE seed evaluations. The effects of the marketing of these seeds could be devastating for the economy. Many countries are very prudent when it comes to genetically engineered crops, and some even ban them completely. In 2010, we can no longer ignore this reality. In fact, more than 26 countries have import restrictions on genetically modified products.

In recent years, a number of factors have increased foreign countries' wariness with regard to genetically engineered seeds from Canada. The speedy approval of some of these seeds is one reason. In fact, Canadian GMOs are not systematically tested. The government relies on the companies that produce GMOs and simply reads their studies without any further assessment. It relies on the concept of substantial equivalence. If a genetically modified food is similar to a conventional food, it is not subjected to scientific testing. This is not reassuring for those countries that are proceeding with caution when it comes to GMOs.

The current trend of not evaluating economic risks could have a number of adverse effects on the Canadian market. The recent history of marketing GMOs has proven this numerous times. Take, for example, the litigation between the McCain company and Europe. In the late 2000s, producers from New Brunswick, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island sold potatoes to McCain, but the potatoes had been genetically modified to be pest resistant. In 1999, when McCain decided to stop purchasing genetically engineered potatoes, the producers were the ones punished; they were the ones who had to make adjustments and bear all the related costs. Farmers who cannot market their crops will face serious financial difficulties and even bankruptcy. Unfortunately, that is the reality for producers who are refused access to certain European or Asian markets.

I would like to quote something said by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell during the November 18 meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri Food. He was addressing the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and said, “...the more markets our farmers have to sell into, the better it is for our farmers.” Basically, the member is opposed to Bill C-474 and wants farmers to have access to a greater share of the market. Given that more countries are now tending to demand safe, GMO-free products, this bill would certainly expand markets for our producers. I would invite the member and his party to be consistent and support Bill C-474.

Furthermore, adding an economic assessment step to the regulatory approval process for new seeds is nothing new, per se. The industry has already voluntarily slowed or stopped the commercialization of new GM plant varieties because of market-related concerns. For instance, the GM flax known as Triffid, which has been approved for human consumption, was to have been introduced in 1998. However, in the winter of 1997, the European Union banned GM canola imports. The Canadian flax industry therefore decided not to go ahead with the marketing of the Triffid variety as planned, for fear that flax imports would be affected. In 2009, the European Union found traces of GM products in one shipment, despite all the precautions taken. It therefore decided to ban all flax imports from Canada.

Farmers are still paying the price for this unfortunate incident, given that, since 2009, all seed samples must be subjected to costly tests to ensure they are harmless. It is worth noting that, until then, 68% of Canada's flax production had been exported to Europe.

Thus, a huge portion of our production had to find other markets or was simply disposed of.

It is possible that the flax industry would have been better protected if there had been a market impact assessment before the Triffid variety was approved. Several hundred flax producers could have exported their products to the European market without any problem.

In 1995, the industry tried to compensate for the wariness of importing countries by developing voluntary guidelines. For example, the Canola Council of Canada developed a market access policy agreement that stipulates that no new varieties of canola will be sold to producers before being approved in all of the primary export markets. This policy has been respected by all stakeholders since it was developed. Thus, we can assume that if Bill C-474 were passed, it would be well received by the industry.

The type of economic assessment proposed in the bill is nothing new and it is currently being used elsewhere in the world.

Argentina has been studying the repercussions of its transgenic seeds on markets since 2004. Before a GMO is approved for marketing, the government must have expert opinions available on the impact of large-scale production on the agri-food ecosystem, the safety of livestock feed, and the absence of undesirable effects of its marketing on exports. This assessment includes an analysis of the current state of regulatory systems and the degree of acceptance by the public. Furthermore, the situation of commercial competitors, potential markets, the proportion of the crops in their trade with each country and the proportion of their imports in their total purchases are also taken into consideration. These new regulations have not stopped Argentina from remaining one of the largest producers of GMOs.

The Conservatives say that adopting Bill C-474 would result in scientific analyses being abandoned in favour of socio-economic considerations. That is false; they are not mutually exclusive. Scientific and economic assessments are complementary. There is nothing in this bill that leads us to believe that scientific assessments would be set aside.

On October 5, Mr. Matthew Holmes, Executive Director of the Canada Organic Trade Association appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and had this to say:

Bill C-474 does not establish some unrealistic threshold, nor does it give economic considerations of veto over all other considerations. It simply provides policy-makers with one more tool with which to understand the implications of their decisions, and our sector feels this is a reasonable one.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the parliamentary secretary's remarks, I will have to change my introduction somewhat.

First, I congratulate the member for British Columbia Southern Interior for putting the bill forward. After listening to the parliamentary secretary's remarks, like so much of what the it does, the government likes to bury its head in the sand and not recognize that there are some problems. It wants to limit debate.

The government tried to encourage Liberals, rather than have a serious debate on the issue, both pros and cons, to defeat it before it even got started. It is like what is done in the Senate. It shuts it down before there is a debate. That is the mantra of the government. It does not want to talk about the reality out there and there are some serious problems with alfalfa and wheat, as the member for British Columbia Southern Interior said in his remarks.

Bill C-474 warranted a full review of the agriculture committee, but as a result of that review, it has failed the essential test of earning a greater degree of support. However, that hearing needed to be held. It is interesting. While the parliamentary secretary criticized the hearings, half or more of his quotes were based on what was said at the hearings. Parliament and debate is all about that, having discussions and bringing witnesses forward. Sadly, the government members on the committee jeopardized that debate by filibustering and not allowing the full discussion on the bill that the committee should have had.

Let me go to the bill itself. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board is yelling over there, but that is not unusual.

The intent of the legislation is “to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted”. That is the major thrust of the bill.

The issue for the official opposition, in examining this legislation, was twofold. First, the bill did not challenge the integrity of Canada's current approval process for genetically-engineered or modified materials. Second, the bill did not provide an articulate and recognizable and objective process by which to conduct the analysis called for in the legislation. That is key.

The issue of GMOs and genetic engineering is one which has been controversial and is one which deserves serious debate. I mentioned a moment ago that the mantra of the government is to shut down debate before it even happens. A fact may come out with which it does not really want to deal.

As indicated earlier, Bill C-474 begins not from the position of opposition to GMOs or genetically-engineered seed or products, but from a position of accepting the reality of their use in the marketplace and ensuring they are safe and do not impact on markets negatively. As will be noted, in the content of the bill there is no reference to the mechanism by which the analysis of potential harm to export markets will be achieved.

During the course of the hearings by the committee, one of the major concerns was the means by which this analysis would be conducted in a fair and impartial way, precisely who would conduct the analysis and what kind of input stakeholders would have in determining the parameters of that analysis.

Ten amendments have put forward by the member. Really all the amendment in Motion No. 2 does is identify the Government of Canada as being responsible for doing that analysis, but the definition of how that analysis is to take place is not there.

That is the key component of this legislation. How would we do the analysis? What would be the role of the government, other than being responsible? What would be the role of stakeholders? What would be the role of our international competitors in the international marketplace? None of those questions are dealt with in this particular piece of legislation.

Another amendment, Motion No. 4, would make the economic analysis part of the current application process. However, no evidence was presented at committee to justify this addition.

What would be the implications, and this is a serious question, of that kind of analysis on the science-based system that we have in place?

So, those are key points that have not been answered by the discussions we had at committee, by the original proposal from the proponent of this bill or by the amendments we have before us today. I think that is a very serious shortcoming.

If I could sum up on that particular point, the parameters of the analysis on economic harm have not been identified. I think that could undermine our key science-based system we have at the moment and could have major implications on the advent of new products into the marketplace, on farmers' economic potential and certainly on our biotech research industry. There are just too many unanswered questions that, regardless of hearings having been held, have really not been answered at those hearings.

The legislation would apply to genetically engineered products developed and grown in Canada, but it would in no respect apply to the importation of similar products for processing or use in Canada. This is an oversight, I believe, that is not addressed by the amendments, which again undermines the basic integrity of the legislation.

Also, the introduction of an economic harm analysis prior to the sale, not the approval, of any genetically engineered seed would appear to layer a new and far more subjective approval process over the current accepted science-based approval process.

That is complicated wording just to basically say that there is not enough definition around what the member is trying to do with this bill, in terms of defining economic harm.

Just to sum up, yes, the amendment would make the government responsible. It does not define how it would be done or the parameters of that analysis. So I think there are major implications potentially on our science-based industry here, on the science-based approval process at the moment. Therefore, we cannot support the bill.

There is one last point I want to make, though, on the hearing process. We did hear from a number of witnesses. We were supposed to hear from several others. There is a serious concern that I think Parliament or Agriculture Canada or someone, certainly, has to address; that is, as the member for British Columbia Southern Interior indicated earlier, that there is potential risk in the alfalfa industry by the introduction of GMO, genetically engineered seeds. It would be the same in terms of the wheat industry, over a slightly longer term.

We have to recognize that those issues have to be dealt with. That is one of the benefits of having had those hearings. We recognize there are problems. The minister should recognize there are problems and the government should recognize there are problems, and they should move to address them.

The bottom line is, based on the foregoing, that because of the risk as a result of this particular bill, Bill C-474, we cannot support this bill as currently drafted.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am please to rise again to speak to Bill C-474. I want to make it clear to the House of Commons and to Canadians that our Conservative government has been the only party that has been against the bill from when it was first introduced.

Bill C-474 is quite simply a bad bill, a bill that works against the best interests of the agricultural sector and we see that today with 10 amendments trying to change the bill, 10 of them all at once.

It seeks to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

The details of how this analysis will actually be conducted are, of course, lacking, even in these 10 amendments.

If Bill C-474 passes into law, it would force Canada to abandon its long-standing position that these types of decisions need to be based on sound science.

It could also potentially devastate research and development within the agricultural sector, whereby R and D firms choose to invest their capital in countries where technology can flourish, not be threatened by a bill such as this one.

From the very beginning we asked ourselves, does the bill put farmers first? Clearly Bill C-474 does not meet this important criterion and this is why we will not support these amendments at the report stage.

Unfortunately, my opposition colleagues across the way have not asked themselves this very same question. The Liberal Party under the direction of its agriculture critic, the member for Malpeque, has supported Bill C-474 throughout this whole process. Even though he claims that the Liberals are in fact against the bill, the Liberals voted for the bill at second reading. They voted for extending its study at committee. They voted for extending its study in the House of Commons. It would seem to me that this is a lot of support from a party that says it is against the bill.

The members opposite, and in particular the Liberal members, do not understand the needs of farmers. If they truly understood farmers, the member for Malpeque and the Liberals would have helped our Conservative government defeat the bill.

By supporting Bill C-474 through all its stages, they have created uncertainty and instability in the agricultural community. I have had countless farm groups approach me and say that they are not sure if it is safe to invest in the agricultural sector here in Canada with the potential of the bill becoming law.

These amendments that the hon. member has put forward are harmful. Not only are they more punitive to farmers in research and development than his original bill, but they will continue to sow uncertainty within the industry.

A recent letter from a farmer, received by one of our caucus members from Alberta, stated, “As a farmer here on the prairies I depend on technology innovations to keep my farm afloat in these trying economic times and weather uncertain times. Machinery and chemical technologies have allowed me to save more soil and moisture, improve my crop quality and use safer and smaller amounts of chemicals that are more effective than ever before on the crops I grow”.

This farmer goes on to say that genetically engineered canola varieties have made a huge difference to his bottom line, outyielding the old short-season varieties even in bad weather conditions. He has serious concerns about Bill C-474. Canada has always used sound science to assess whether new ingredients, seeds and traits are safe for Canadian farmers to grow and consumers to eat. That policy makes us a leader in the world and is the only realistic way to assess risk with clear, sound scientific methods.

Most industry stakeholders, like this farmer, have concerns about support for this bill. They support an approval process strictly based on scientific principles. They are asking us to leave trade to the trade experts and safety to the scientists.

The majority of industry stakeholders, like this producer, also have concerns about supporting this bill.

The Manitoba Flax Growers Association issued a news release saying that it could not support it citing, “a lack of clarity about who would assess and decide on the issue of market harm”.

The press release stated:

Manitoba flax growers are...concerned that this legislation, in its present form, could be used to offer frivolous challenges that could stall or block the introduction of new technology that is desirable.

Flax farmers and all farmers in Canada depend on innovation to compete. That is why our government is investing in agricultural innovation like research clusters for pulse crops, flax and canola. That is why farmers across Canada have embraced research and development.

New biotechnologies, including those derived through genetic engineering, help farmers control potential devastating disease and pests, improve the safety and nutrition of food and reduce usage of costly inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides and diesel fuel.

One only has to look at the remarkable growth of canola over the past 30 years to see the benefits that Canadian agricultural innovation has brought to our farmers. The 1970s saw the development of canola, a high-quality oil seed, which replaced the lower-quality grape seed varieties.

Over the past four decades canola has become a symbol of Canadian quality worldwide. Today the canola crop generates close to $4 billion in export sales for our farmers and economic activity estimated at between $14 billion and $15 billion annually.

If Bill C-474 had been law at the time, I can guarantee that things would not have worked out as well for our farmers.

The Canadian Canola Growers Association has no doubts on that front. As its general manager, Rick White, told the agriculture committee in June:

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....future innovations and the competitiveness of the Canadian canola industry could be in jeopardy if Bill C-474 is passed through Parliament.

In the past, the industry was a leader in risk assessment and market opportunities for genetically modified products. This system was good for farmers. Decisions were made crop by crop, and farmers and processors determined the best way to proceed based on market conditions.

Let us talk about another success story, soybeans.

Today, three-quarters of all global acreage sown to soybeans are GE varieties. Like the canola industry, the soybean industry has also responded to market signals by developing an advanced identity-preserve system to handle non-GE food-grade soybeans. As well, the soybean sector has developed and invested in an ongoing segregation system to maintain market access and premiums for non-GE food-grade soybean exports to Japan, while also producing GE soybeans for domestic use.

These success stories and many others like them clearly demonstrate that the added red tape that the bill would impose is unnecessary and would be harmful. It also has the potential to stifle innovation.

As Mr. Jim Gowland, chair of the Canadian Soybean Council, told the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in June:

Capitalizing on these potential opportunities that can add value to Canadian soybean growers could be put into jeopardy with the introduction of Bill C-474 and place Canada at a competitive disadvantage.

Including a market impact assessment in the regulatory process would create unpredictability for the developers of new products, who invest millions of dollars into the development of each new seed variety before it even gets planted. The last thing our farmers need in today's competitive marketplace is to see industry innovators bypass Canada when they seek new markets for their innovations and take their investment dollars to our competitors.

Our government has been a long-standing proponent of giving farmers the freedom to make their own business decisions. The Minister of Agriculture has worked hard with industry to open new opportunities for our food producers and processors by ensuring that trade is based in fair rules and sound science.

Whether it is the beef ban in Korea or country of origin labeling in the United States, we stand up for our producers whenever and wherever their interests are in jeopardy. If Bill C-474 were in force, we would be holding our trading partners to a standard that we would not prepared to meet ourselves.

Canadian farmers need access to overseas markets to prosper. Our agricultural and food exports last year exceeded $38 billion. That is why our government takes an aggressive approach to opening up international markets for our farmers based on sound science. Indeed agriculture ministers from across Canada have agreed that a science-based regulatory system will not only foster innovation and drive the agricultural economy, it will create new markets and increase profitability for producers.

Farmers are best positioned to make decisions on what is best for their business. Our government understands that to be competitive, our farmers need timely access to the cutting edge technology in products. We must continue to put farmers first.

Bill C-474 will harm our agricultural sector, not help it. That is what farmers tell us. That is what farm groups tell us. That is why I call upon the member for Malpeque and the rest of the Liberal Party to put farmers first and help us defeat Bill C-474.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

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”

Motion No. 2

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-”

Motion No. 3

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.”

Motion No. 4

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.”

Motion No. 5

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.”

Motion No.6

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.”

Motion No. 7

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.”

Motion No. 8

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.”

Motion No. 9

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.”

Motion No. 10

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.”

Mr. Speaker, we are here to participate in debate at third reading of my Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm). The purpose of this bill is to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

This is not complicated. It makes sense to me to conduct a risk analysis before embarking on something that is potentially risky.

The government clearly believes that the biotech industry should be the only ones with any say over marketing decisions on GM seeds. Perhaps we should consider for a moment how we came to confer this enormous privilege on big biotech.

Devlin Kuyek, from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, a researcher who has written extensively on the seed system in Canada, recently told the standing committee:

To understand where we are with GMOs in Canada, you have to look at it as a deliberate policy shift that has taken what we call a public seed system with broad-based support from farmers, scientists, and the general public to what we have today, which is essentially a corporate seed system where the research agenda is in the hands of a very small number of corporations, most of them pesticide corporations outside of Canada.

He notes that billions in taxpayers' dollars have been spent over the last 30 years to support biotech companies, while public plant breeding programs have been slashed and privatized.

In September 2009, Canadian farmers and their European customers, who have a zero tolerance policy for unapproved GE crops and products, found that an illegal genetically engineered flax seed called CDC Triffid had contaminated Canadian flax exports. Contamination reached 35 countries.

GE contamination is already hurting Canadian farmers and if a contamination incident similar to the current flax contamination crisis were to happen with wheat or alfalfa, the economic consequences to farmers would be devastating.

What is very disturbing is that we have not had a full and democratic debate at committee, because it was shut down by the Conservative government.

The Conservative government reneged on an agreement that would have given the committee more time to examine the advantages of Bill C-474. As a result, farmers no longer have a say and must resort to public protests in order to stop these big biotech companies that are threatening their export markets. It is completely unacceptable that expert witnesses from around the country, brought to Ottawa at taxpayers’ expense to provide testimony, were turned away at the committee's door when they arrived to make their presentations.

Let us hear what some of these presenters would have discussed with the committee members if they had been given the chance.

Bill Toews, from the Canadian Wheat Board, says that in order for the commercialization of a GM variety to benefit western Canadian wheat and barley producers, there would first have to be widespread market acceptance. He states, “This includes both what governments will approve and what customers will buy, which is not necessarily the same thing. There remains strong and widespread opposition to GM wheat or barley in about half of our markets. This includes, but isn't limited to, the governments of, and customers in, the European Union, Japan, Thailand, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and a number of African nations. Unfortunately, the markets that are most likely to demand non-GM shipments also have zero tolerance for unapproved GM content”.

Mr. Toews goes on to say that segregating GM wheat or barley throughout the bulk handling and transportation system would be impossible. In addition, he points out that there is currently no detection system available to quickly and accurately detect if a GM variety is present in a truck, rail car or vessel and to quantify that presence.

Dr. Rene Van Acker, professor at the University of Guelph, has done extensive research on the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and trait movement from crop to crop. He has been involved in international collaborations, presentations and consulting work with governments and organizations in Denmark, Australia, Switzerland and the U.S.

According to Dr. Van Acker, “when novel traits are grown commercially outside for any length of time the movement of those traits beyond their intended destinations is virtually inevitable. Once a given trait has escaped into the environment, retraction is difficult if not impossible”.

Dr. Van Acker cautions that trait movement is extremely complicated. It occurs within a complex of crop subpopulations, including the crop and volunteer and feral subpopulations. Trait movement can occur via equipment and via human handling during planting, harvesting, seed cleaning, seed handling and seed storage.

He points to the failure of trait containment in the U.S. StarLink case, where GE corn, approved for animal feed but not human consumption, was found in a number of processed foods in 2000.

Recently, GM LibertyLink rice events escaped contained field trials and were eventually found in many elements of the U.S. commercial rice supply chain, including in certified seed, mills and final consumer products in key U.S. rice export markets. The economic impact to U.S. farmers was over $1 billion.

I would urge my colleagues to visit the online GM contamination registry, which tracks contamination events around the world. The register has documented over 20 unauthorized contamination events in 2010. We must not forget that once the genie is out of the bottle, it is farmers who pay.

Larry and Susan Black, who were also denied their time before the committee, have been farming in southwestern Manitoba since 1978. Their farm is Manitoba's first certified organic dairy farm. According to Mr. Black, “Organic farms have no way to avoid contamination if GM alfalfa is introduced. Alfalfa feeds our soil and our livestock and is an integral part of organic farming. Approving the release of GE alfalfa would threaten our very existence as organic producers. Organic farmers have invested and developed our industry. Government should not allow agri-business to destroy what we have achieved”.

Mr. Black goes on to say that not a single commodity group on the Manitoba Forage Council last year was in favour of the introduction of GM alfalfa.

Stewart Wells, the recently retired president of the National Farmers Union, wrote to the committee about the fact that farmers this year were having trouble selling newly harvested flax because the testing now required to ensure it is GE-free could not be done in a timely fashion, again resulting in further extra costs for Canadian farmers.

He wants to know why it is that because of failures in the regulatory system he should now be forced to pay $205 per test on flax that he has had in storage for several years.

Two varieties of GE alfalfa have already been approved by Health Canada and Environment Canada, and all Monsanto has to do now is register them before they can be marketed and turned loose into the environment.

I have to wonder how rigorous Canada's environment evaluation could actually have been, given a U.S. court ruling and a class action suit that came down recently. The judge ruled that plaintiffs' concerns that Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate natural and organic alfalfa are valid, stating that the USDA's opposing arguments were “not convincing” and do not demonstrate the “hard look” required by federal environmental laws. The ruling went on to note that “...For those farmers who choose to grow non-genetically engineered alfalfa, the possibility that their crops will be infected with the engineered gene is tantamount to the elimination of all alfalfa; they cannot grow their chosen crop”.

Arnold Taylor, president of the Canadian Organic Growers, writes in the final thoughts of his submission, “I have spent most of the past 10 years fighting in the courts to protect my organic farm and the organic sector from GE crops. Arguably, I should not have had to do this, as my government should have introduced adequate regulations that ensured organic farmers were not adversely affected by the introduction of GE crops”.

He says, “We have lost the ability to grow organic canola because of the introduction of GE varieties. We almost lost our ability to grow organic wheat, because of the potential introduction of GE varieties, and now industry is trying to introduce GE alfalfa”.

He continues, “Arguably, the threat to organic alfalfa is the most significant yet, because it is a soil builder that fixes nitrogen and other essential nutrients, and if it were to be contaminated with GE traits, this might destroy our way of farming entirely. Arguably, GE alfalfa is not needed in agriculture, as it really offers no benefits for conventional or organic farmers--”

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 10 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-474.

Motions Nos. 1 to 10 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. The Chair does not ordinarily provide reasons for selection of report stage motions; however, having been made aware of the circumstances surrounding the committee's study of this bill, I would like to convey to the House the reasons involved in considering these motions.

The note accompanying Standing Order 76(5) reads, in part, “The Speaker will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee.”

The Chair takes note that the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior sits on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which was mandated to study Bill C-474. Although I believe that the majority of the amendments in his name could have been proposed during the committee consideration of the bill, they were not.

The bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on April 14, 2010. The committee considered the bill on five different occasions either to hear witnesses or to discuss a work plan. Indeed, the committee was still hearing witnesses when its request for a 30 day extension was denied and the bill was deemed reported back to the House without amendment.

It is to this turn of events that the member for British Columbia Southern Interior referred in a letter to the Chair highlighting that the committee was thus unable to commence clause-by-clause consideration.

The member has therefore submitted at report stage the amendments he had intended to move in committee.

The Chair has carefully reviewed the sequence of events and the submission made by the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior and in its view it is reasonable to afford him an opportunity to propose these amendments.

Accordingly, I have selected them for debate at report stage. I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 10 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm just amazed. Wow: this is the guy who brought in Bill C-474 and said we needed to do all of this study and listen to all these witnesses and now he says we don't need to do that.

All I'm doing is giving him a venue to actually allow some of those people to come forward and explain what the issues are. Not only that, I'm also trying to do it in a balanced way so that everybody can explain what the issues are and so we as a committee can actually move forward into the 21st century on this sector. This sector is huge for agriculture. This sector is probably going to deliver more returns per acre than anything we've ever grown in the past.

So to say we don't need to study this just shows you that you're not in touch with what's going on in western Canada or in the rest of Canada in agriculture. That's absolutely crazy.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are demanding farm-fresh, organic and local food. Farmers want to know that the food they grow will have a market, yet large corporate interests are always ready with a legion of lobbyists to kill any bill that might threaten their profits and control.

My Bill C-474 will ensure that alfalfa and wheat farmers do not lose their markets. Will the minister continue to cave in to threats and intimidation from the powerful biotech industry, or will he support Canadian farmers?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I have something to say and it is not a point of order.

I am very pleased that the meeting this morning is public. Agricultural producers are going to see what offhand treatment the government party is giving them right now. We have extremely important matters we need to discuss and once again we are going to lose a working session, when there are not many left between now and the Christmas break. We have lost a working session to childishness.

The motion on the floor was only a formality, a request for an extension to consider a bill. We can very well decide to consider the bill at three meetings so we can hear a few witnesses, and that is what we're going to do.

I remind my Conservative friends that they themselves wanted to hear certain witnesses on Bill C-474. What is so dangerous about having discussions on a priority bill? We have no choice but to consider it and whether someone supports it or not is of no importance. Today is not when that is going to be decided. These political games and these attacks on Wayne Easter, or on anyone, get us nowhere, because it is his constituents, including the rural ones, who will decide his fate in the election, after he changed his position on the Canadian Firearms Registry. The election is when that will be decided. Talking about it here at every committee meeting, every day, will not help the farming community.

Some beef and pork producers, or producers from all sectors, expect us, their elected representatives, to operate in as non-partisan a way as possible. I know it isn't easy because we all have election platforms and priorities to abide by. This committee used to function well and we were able to work together. In fact I have told many people that. Unfortunately, things have been going badly for a short time now.

I will now come back to what you said earlier, Mr. Chair, that we never manage to finish what we start. I recalled the many reports we have written. This committee has even produced unanimous reports. I have been a member for five years. We even managed to create a subcommittee on listeriosis. We made a report on that subject. Work does get done here, and I am sure that all my colleagues will agree with me that the agricultural producers are grateful that we are working for them, whether we are for or against certain measures, that is not important. The important thing is to try to achieve progress on issues.

Today, we have again had evidence of the disdain with which the Conservatives sitting on this committee look on the concerns of agricultural producers. They have engaged in systematic obstruction for an entire meeting because there was a request for an extension. I have never seen this in any committee, wasting time like this on this kind of motion, which is a mere formality. I still can't get over it. I am glad the meeting was public, because people are going to know this and they will be able to judge how the Conservatives are treating them.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to get off the topic of debate for one second because I was trying to be polite and not raise a point of order in the middle of Mr. Bellavance's speech, but I would like the record to clearly show, or somebody to put on the record, that while Mr. Eyking did clearly breach, in my opinion, Mr. Hoback's parliamentary privilege by taking the floor away from him--without just ruling him out of order, but clearly taking the floor away from...Mr. Richards. Thank you for the correction, Mr. Bellavance. When the challenge of the chair occurred, our chair had the dignity to not sit in and vote, as he could have done, to overrule the opposition on this.

So our side isn't playing partisan politics on it. I want to congratulate the chair for trying to keep some kind of balance with this.

That being said, Mr. Chair, I would like to get onto the topic that we're talking about here, which is Bill C-474. While I believe that Mr. Atamanenko has put this bill forward with the best of intentions, as I've read in several articles and talked about to several of my producers and stakeholders, this is a bad bill. This may have good intentions throughout it, but the bill itself is a bad bill. I don't want to get into all of the different aspects of the bill, but I believe many of my colleagues have brought forward many of its negative aspects.

One that really concerns me is moving away from the science-based approach to a market-based approach. I would like to spend a couple of minutes talking about the crux of this and why it's important to take care of it right now. First of all, while this is continuing to go on, the industry is in turmoil. There is uncertainty as to whether this bill is going to be passed or not. I've had many industry representatives come to me about that.

Mr. Easter shakes his head at me, but the fact of the matter is that Mr. Easter.... And no more backroom games here. Let's get it all out on the table. Mr. Easter has come to us in the past and said he's going to vote against this bill. Mr. Easter has come to us and said let's just bring it to committee for a little bit and get some hearings on it and then we'll vote against it there. Well, Mr. Easter, you can't simply gut the bill in committee and not have it heard from again. Mr. Atamanenko will simply bring it forward in the House and there will be a vote anyway.

You ask why we don't simply move forward on this quickly. Well, because Mr. Easter has not only flip-flopped on the long-gun registry--and I'm not going to get into that at length, but he has flip-flopped on issues when it comes to the agriculture committee, on issues when he's dealing with colleagues on this side, so there's really no trust left from our side with the Liberal ag critic. We really don't know...and we all know that his party uses the whip more effectively than our party, which has more free votes than any party in the House of Commons. That's a fact, Mr. Chairman.

The crux of the matter is that I really believe if Mr. Easter wants--and I want this on the record--to move forward for farmers, if he wants to do the best thing for farmers.... If all he wants to do is spend his last dying years as a member of Parliament on scandals and doorknob press conferences, then he should resign today as the Liberal ag critic and let somebody sit over there who can make deals that we can actually trust and move forward on for farmers. So I think Mr. Easter should do the honourable thing and resign so that we can move forward--

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since we started this morning, there has been either a misunderstanding or bad faith on the Conservatives' part, because what we are talking about is not whether we are in favour of or opposed to Bill C-474. Since we started this morning, the parliamentary secretary has been making big speeches to say he is opposed to Bill C-474. We know that. What we are discussing is the possibility of having a 30-day extension for this bill. I repeat, that should be a mere formality. I have never seen a discussion drag on about this in any other committee and I want to make things clear. Randy is right, and even though it was in camera, it doesn't bother me to repeat it: I did not want us to spend the entire time we have between now and Christmas on one subject, whether it be Bill C-474 or something else, because ideas were already firmly entrenched and we had to give priority to the list of witnesses we should hear on this and be sure that an appropriate number of meetings will be devoted to the bill. What we are discussing here is whether we want to be sure we can do that. As a committee, it will simply facilitate our work when we set the agenda we are supposed to have set at 8:45 this morning. Then we will be able to say that we have all the latitude we need to consider the priority matters, one of which is Bill C-474.

I will remind you that I was even opposed to 10 meetings being devoted to this bill and I will continue to oppose that. We had reached a compromise, that we might need three or four meetings to hear all the witnesses and finish it, but we are going to have until December 10 to do that, not until October 22, if we don't agree to Alex's motion. So it is just to facilitate our work so we can set an agenda and devote a particular number of meetings to Bill C-474, a particular number of meetings to reviewing the programs, and another particular number of meetings, obviously, so we can complete the report on young and beginning farmers.

So I don't see what the Conservatives are aiming for when they make big speeches to tell us how awful the bill is. This is not where that will be decided; it will be decided in the House. That is where the fate of the bill will be settled, by voting for or against it. Here, we just want to know whether we should have the latitude, as a committee, to be able to put it in the right place on the agenda between now and December 10. That doesn't mean we will be talking about it until December 10; there is a big difference.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I don't know how we are going to manage to work because of the attitude the parliamentary secretary has just exhibited on a mere formality, a mere request to extend consideration of a bill. It makes me laugh when the parliamentary secretary talks to us about the priorities that have been established. In fact, the steering committee, and the Conservative member is on that committee, put Bill C-474 precisely on that list. We have to complete our consideration of it because we have no choice. It is part of our work as legislators, and the House is where we will have a final vote on the bill, as is the case for any other bill.

The Conservatives themselves told us, when we came back to continue the session, how important it was that we consider this bill, and that we had to hear a number of witnesses. At one point we were up to 30 or 40 witnesses. That request came from the Conservatives. Obviously, I realized right away that this was so we would waste time in committee and not consider the other priorities. In any event, it is no longer a priority for the government, maybe, but that is not what's important here. We are talking about a mere formality.

Personally, I have been on Parliament Hill since 2001, as a parliamentary assistant or a member of Parliament. I don't recall—there are more seasoned parliamentarians than myself around this table and I would like someone to give us examples—a single occasion when a committee prevented a 30-day extension of consideration in committee. It is a mere formality, it is done virtually automatically. This is not where the fate of Bill C-474 will be decided, it is in the House of Commons. That is what democracy is, even if it is not what the Conservatives wanted, and when things don't go their way, they want to muzzle everybody.

In this case, we don't want to discuss just Bill C-474 until December 10; we just want Mr. Atamanenko to have the necessary latitude to be able to finish the consideration of his bill in committee. I myself have sponsored a bill that is at the report stage, this very day in the House. I know how important it is. We don't do it for the fun of it and to make the headlines. I didn't make the headlines with my bill. We do it because we have worked with people we want to help and we think this kind of legislation will help them out. That is what we are trying to do. It isn't very complicated.

So I find it hard to understand why the parliamentary secretary is telling us today, for purely partisan reasons, that he opposes extending consideration of this bill, with a long-winded speech about how we should oppose the bill. He is entitled to oppose it, there's no problem on this side there. But come on! Allow the extension as is done everywhere. Give us the chance, as is always done at the stage that comes next, to have an agenda. So such and such dates will be devoted to Mr. Atamanenko's bill, when he himself wanted to consider it for six meetings at the outset. After that, he agreed that we could maybe consider it at three or four additional meetings. We will make a list of the witnesses we want to make it a priority to hear. We won't keep going to December 10 on this, but I don't understand why we have discussed this for half an hour and why big speeches are being made about this today.

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

I'd like to read my motion. The motion basically asks for an extension of 30 days so we can continue the healthy, democratic debate on my Bill C-474. I think we agree that we've had some really good balanced points of view, and I'd like us to set aside some time for witnesses. I would like to have this extension given the fact that after I introduced the bill...we've agreed to spend some time on the report and other issues. I just feel that because of that and the summer break, we're running into time limits.

Anyway, here's the motion:

That the Committee request an extension of thirty sitting days to consider Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), beyond the sixty days from the date of the Bills' referral to Committee, as provided in Standing Order 97.1(1); and that the continued study, clause by clause consideration and reporting of the Bill be completed by the end of the extension period.

I just might add that if we accept this motion, we have a proposal from the steering committee that could fit this into a timeline that I think would be acceptable to everybody.

Seeds Regulations

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

Mr. Speaker, the second and third petitions deal with Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), and the petitioners call upon Parliament to enshrine it in legislation.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I will tell my other colleagues and committee members what I told the steering committee.

The reason I have been insisting for so long that a program review be done is that I think it is the committee's job to do one regularly.

At the end of the last session, all kinds of things happened in committee—and I have nothing against them—but the result was that we did not have a lot of time to talk about the program review. We had two half-sessions on it. So we never finished what we set out to do. That is why I am bringing it up again; I think it is important for producers.

People are talking to me about it in Quebec. People are telling me that, with AgriStability and AgriFlexibility, we have to find out what effect the programs have had and what can be done to improve them. If I am told that any programs are perfect just as they are on the ground, I will be the first to say so, no problem. That does not bother me at all; I have done it before.

I have already publicly thanked a minister for responding to one of my requests. It did not make me lose an election and no one was bothered by it. So I am prepared to do it. But when things are not going so well, we have to be prepared to say so too and try to improve things. That is where the program review comes in.

Of course, we know that Bill C-474is a priority. We have to go through it clause by clause at some stage. We are required to do that as a committee.

We went on a tour to look at the future of agriculture. We started studying a report in June, but we did not finish it. That is why we have come up with an agenda that is pretty precise; it will not take up all our time until Christmas, but it will let us make a little headway on some things that we have already started.

Those three topics are the ones we have already started. We have to finish them.

[Blake Edwards]

Yes, some were certainly whipped and some just willingly chose to ignore their farmers, which is....

But the second topic that came up with farmers in my riding—again, despite all the challenges that we do face in the industry right now—was, in the words of many of my farmers, “that crazy Bill C-474”, and it came up quite frequently. Of course, I've got a lot of canola growers in my area. Canola is an industry that certainly has been a success story in our country, and one for which, by all accounts, the success wouldn't have been able to be there had something like this existed at the time. As I mentioned, I do have a lot of canola growers, and that's of course mainly due to the fact that there are a lot of guys who want to get out from under the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. But that's another topic for another day as well.

Obviously, those farmers do recognize a lot of the loss potential that's there, certainly loss in terms of lost economic benefits and lost trade opportunities due to moving away from a science-based approach, lost opportunities for research and development, and on and on, that could occur under this bill if it were to pass.

My question is for Dr. Keller. You talked about the fact that Canada is a force in high-quality crops, and you cited some examples, such as hybrids, disease-resistant wheat, and insulin from GM yeast. Those are some of your examples. These are obviously some of the benefits that we've seen already from research and GMOs. You mentioned some upcoming innovations that we'll likely see--for example, drought tolerance improvements for human nutrition qualities. That obviously intrigues me. I'm excited to hear about the future and these future innovations and benefits that we can see on the horizon. I'd like to give you an opportunity to explain in some more detail some of the innovations that are being done right now in terms of Canadian research in GMs and some of those things that may be on the verge of coming to the market. Could you maybe explain in more detail some of the new possibilities and what their potential benefits might be to consumers, and also potential benefits, of course, to economic activity, particularly in the agriculture industry?

[Dr. Wilfred Keller]

As researchers, we do not provide directly. Upon request we will provide analytical tests. Certainly within the health area, the FDA and, in the case of Canada, Health Canada are responsible for the health and safety of all products, including GMO products. Bill C-474 doesn't deal with that because it's already dealt with very effectively.

I might say that from all the GMO products that have been developed over the last 15 years and the millions and billions of meals that have been fed, there's not a single incidence of a health impact. So health and organic production.... Organic is a lifestyle. It's very important and it's good, but organic in no way implies that the product is healthier than that from other sources.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your testimonies.

Mr. Keller, in your brief you say that Bill C-474 is based more on emotion than on science. The GMO industry has echoed that criticism several times. I am having a hard time understanding what you're talking about. I think that your claim is somewhat condescending and even insulting to those who introduced the bill, especially since Canada is not the only country where this is done. We all know that, and Argentina was given as one example. I'd like to know what emotions have to do with an analysis of the implications of changes in the markets. I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning, especially since you do not explain yourself, you just say that emotions are involved. It's as if, all of a sudden, someone announced in the midst of an emotional outburst that they would conduct an analysis of the implications of changes in the markets before selling genetically modified organisms. I feel that this accusation is a bit gratuitous.

I would still like to talk about the issues you raise, which are perhaps a little more concrete than mere emotions. You say that the bill could impede the research and commercialization processes. You might be right when it comes to commercialization. I would like to remind you that, six years ago, Argentina formulated such a policy as part of its regulatory framework on GMO exportation.

Can you provide some concrete examples showing that this was detrimental to product commercialization in Argentina? For instance, did the World Trade Organization come under attack or issue any rulings that caused problems for Argentina? That is my first question.

[Matthew Holmes, Executive Director, Canada Organic Trade Association]

Mr. Chair, mesdames et monsieurs, thank you very much to the members of this committee for having us here today.

I am the executive director of the Canada Organic Trade Association, and I've held this position since early 2007.

The Canada Organic Trade Association is a membership-based, not-for-profit incorporation that aims to promote and protect the growth of organic trade for the benefit of the environment, farmers, the public, and the economy. Our members range in size from small organic farms in rural Canada to some of the world's largest multinational movers of organic commodities, ingredients, and products.

I serve as the regulatory chair of Agriculture Canada's Organic Value Chain Roundtable; the processing chair of Canada's national organic standards technical committee at the Canadian General Standards Board; and an adviser to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on our new regulations.

COTA has advocated for international trade recognition between various organic standards and our own, such as the historic organic equivalency agreement with the United States. We also hope to soon have a similar agreement with Europe. And we have recently taken part in a Canadian consultation on low-level-presence policy.

Recently COTA developed and launched a long-term international strategy for Canada's organic sector with the support of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's AgriMarketing program. This strategy looks specifically at the opportunities and threats facing Canada's organic sector and identifies priority markets we should be targeting for growth.

As of June 30, 2009, organic products imported or traded at the national level must meet the requirements of Canada's organic products regulations and be certified by an accredited certifier recognized by the CFIA. Additionally, all organic claims in the marketplace are subject to full enforcement by CFIA inspectors.

Organic farming takes an approach to agriculture that focuses on sustainability, low environmental impact, and some of the latest in agronomic science, such as complex crop rotations, integrated pest management, and low-till techniques.

We were pleased to hear the government's recent announcement of over $6.5 million for the Organic Science Cluster's research to continue exactly this sort of innovation and research into organic methods in agronomy.

The organic sector also takes a precautionary approach on behalf of our consumers with respect to those aspects of agriculture we feel are not fully understood or could compromise the well-being of our human populations or our environment. For example, our standards prohibit the use of sewage sludge; fossil fuel-based fertilizers; artificial colours, additives, and flavours in processed food; cloned animals for meat; and persistent toxic and synthetic chemicals as pesticides. We also prohibit all materials and products produced from genetic engineering.

Obviously our legal requirements to follow these standards and regulations put the organic sector in the position of bearing a disproportionate risk when confronted with what we call GE contamination, or adventitious presence, in our products.

In addition to the added cost of inspection, traceability, and certification that our farmers take on for themselves, our organic farmers and processors also face the private costs of genetic testing and the potential loss of their organic designation, as well as rejected shipments, increased liability, and significant barriers to market access.

Following the recent Triffid flax contamination, some of my members were asked not only to pay for the testing of their shipments and of their product all the way downstream but also to accept responsibility and full liability for any market recall of any final product in foreign markets. No farmer, whether organic or not, can do business in that sort of environment.

For these reasons, we support as a first step the adoption of Bill C-474 as a means of ensuring that these sorts of economic impacts are reasonably considered before the introduction of new GE seeds, which could potentially harm our established markets.

Canadian sales of organic food doubled from $1 billion in 2006 to $2 billion in 2008. We continued to grow through the recession. Our global markets, which are estimated at $52 billion in sales a year, demand the organic products that Canada can bring them. And organic production and sales continue to grow around the world, often at more than 20% annually. There is tremendous opportunity here to reconnect rural and urban Canada and to empower and enrich Canadian farmers, with your support.

Innovation is most celebrated when it provides a solution to a problem. To put this another way, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

We have a certain obligation to ensure that our buyers are sold what they want to buy. It seems reasonable that we would consider where we do business in agriculture and with whom before we introduce a product that could potentially compromise that existing business.

By their very nature, genetically engineered seeds replicate themselves within the populations of non-genetically altered crops. They can infiltrate other populations. They can pass undetected, as we have seen, and compromise entire sectors.

The matter of alfalfa has been raised with this committee a number of times. It is not only exported from Canada as an organic feed and seed source, but it is also integral to the organic livestock and dairy sector--the value chain to which very much of our entire sector is connected. It is also an essential rotation crop for organic farmers because it puts the right nutrients back into the soil. So to compromise alfalfa, for example, does not only compromise one limited forage over here, it actually compromises our entire model of production.

As any government that has had to navigate a country through a global recession will appreciate, in our opinion economics is a science with just as much to offer public policy as chemistry, biology, or agronomy. Bill C-474 does not establish some unrealistic threshold, nor does it give economic considerations of veto over all other considerations. It simply provides policy-makers with one more tool with which to understand the implications of their decisions, and our sector feels this is a reasonable one.

In conclusion, Canada's organic sector bears a disproportionate risk when confronted with adventitious presence of GE in our products. We face this as both a loss of our organic designation for our products and a loss of our established markets. We know that many of the markets we do business with, such as the EU and Asia, do not want GE products. They are not open to them, and we need to respect this or they will supply new suppliers.

We are a young and quickly growing sector with strong ties to our consumer base and to vigorous international markets with tremendous investment opportunities. We need some safeguards in place to allow us to adequately respond to market opportunities without incurring prohibitive costs or closed borders.

The organic sector, in essence, is looking for reassurance that our business will not be taken from us. It's a new business and we're still trying to grow it. We either need to know that our production model and existing business are being considered as factors in the regulatory approval of plants with novel traits or we need a policy that describes the onus and liability of the owners of biotechnology, whose innovations are not solutions but instead have become a problem and liability for the organic sector.

I'm happy to speak with you on either of these two options, but I suspect that Bill C-474 is the easiest and most graceful of the two for you to consider, and I urge you to do so.

Thank you.

[Paul Gregory, President, Interlake Forage Seeds Ltd]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As a brief preamble, while flying on WestJet yesterday, I picked up The Globe and Mail, and here is a quote from it by the father of India's green revolution, Dr. Swaminathan:

Genetic modification is a very powerful tool. But like any powerful tool, when using it, you have to take into account the environmental impact, the food safety aspects and so on. There must be a strong regulatory mechanism. If you don’t have it, people won’t have confidence in GM technology.

As Wilf just mentioned, technology is becoming cheap and available, and we must have more than just science taking a look at it.

I am a first generation farmer who, after a stint at U of M pursuing an undergrad degree in entomology and monogastric nutrition, has turned our farm into an export company, a seed processor, and a pollination broker. Along with my brother, Lee, we employ 15 staff.

As a professional agrologist and seedsman, I have enjoyed working alongside our provincial agriculture minister on both the appointed FRDC seed board. I have toured the province extensively, both as a seed buyer and retailer and an executive member of Keystone Agricultural Producers. Currently I am serving on the executive of the Northern Seed Trade Association, an international seed trade group; the Manitoba Organic Alliance; and also as a board member of the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board. I am in weekly conversations with our trade customers, both in the EU and U.S.A., for both conventional and certified organic seed species.

Canada is a nation of oligopolies. We have a relatively small farm economy that can easily be manipulated by the railways, the grain merchants, and the agricultural input suppliers.

I submit that political oversight is needed to help farmers be competitive in the world economy. American bankers have, until recently, sneered at our so-called socialist banking systems. American oilmen have scoffed at our excessive offshore drilling safety rules. Now the life science corporations are complaining that political oversight will be restrictive toward their bid to gain market share in Canada's seed trade.

I believe in good science and modern plant breeding. I also believe in good democracy and, maybe naively, that our members of Parliament represent a public good for the majority of their constituents.

You are told that life science companies will not supply Canada with the latest genetics and that the additional hurdle Bill C-474 imposes on the registry approval process will not be in the best interests of Canadian farmers. You are told that it may cost $100 million and 10 years of work to develop a new GM crop, but as Wilf just alluded to, you're not told that Dow AgroSciences has a new DNA sequencing technology available today that cuts costs in half for breeding new traits. We are on the cusp of a revolution in plant breeding that will dramatically speed up the time it takes to insert new genes into crop species.

The argument that this new political uncertainty will drive up expenses and limit R and D dollars is groundless because, going forward, plant breeding will be far cheaper and easier than it has been in recent history. You are told by the CSTA that seedsmen are in favour of Roundup Ready alfalfa in this bill. Have you had time to ask the forage crops committee at the CSTA what their opinion is?

I was at the Winnipeg airport over two years ago when 25 members of the CSTA from across Canada met with Forage Genetics and Monsanto. The chair took a straw poll, and all but three companies present were opposed to or had reservations about introducing Roundup Ready alfalfa into Canada. But after some effective lobbying by Monsanto and others, there was a change of heart.

As a seed company CEO responsible for the livelihood of your fellow employees, would you risk ticking off in a public forum the biggest supplier of genetics? Would CSTA risk the support dollars of their largest corporate donors?

Our small company pays $3,000 per year for membership fees to the CSTA on approximately $2.5 million to $3 million in seed sales. Monsanto would pay 10 or 20 times that much for its CSTA dues. So would the CSTA executive risk their careers to go against the flow? I'm not talking about influence peddling or anything illegal, but when you have a large customer, you do what it takes to get the job done.

Speaking of customers, specifically my European friends, who buy over half of Canada's trefoil and 20% of our $142 million forage seed exports, they are stubborn on the GM issue.

As we all know, the Europeans have promised more open trade policies towards GM-traded foodstuffs. I would love to see a reasonable, low-level presence threshold for unapproved trades, but it may come as a surprise to you that over in Europe, farmers do have political clout. They're enjoying a beautiful GATT-green, WTO-green, non-tariff trade barrier by not allowing GM crops into their system. Why would they want to open up their market to world competition? Why would they want to dismantle it? I have many close European friends, and they think it will be a long time before GM traits will be allowed across the continent. Don't bet the farm on low-level adventitious presence thresholds coming any time soon.

Currently, I'm restructuring my seed company with legal firewalls that will limit our exposure to a lawsuit from Europe when they discover Roundup Ready alfalfa genes in any given seed lot. Cal/West and other American seed companies have already discovered Roundup Ready alfalfa genes in their breeding programs, and it'll be in Canada sooner than we think.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I really dislike public speaking, and I have heard from Manitoba friends who have testified here that committee members can turn your words around and grandstand and make you look a fool, but I have the respect of my customers, growers, and employees, and you will not take that away from me.

Thank you.

[Dr. Wilfred Keller]

Today I'm pleased to represent Genome Prairie. We are a regional centre of Genome Canada. We cover the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

We are very interested in facilitating and coordinating new initiatives related to biosciences, particularly in the emerging area of genomics. We see this as very important for Canada's society and for our economic well-being going forward.

Over the last decade we've administered some $180 million of investment in developing research, much of it in the area of crop agriculture. We partner with universities, with government laboratories at both the federal and the provincial levels, and with small and emerging Canadian companies. We think the partnership issue is a very important part of the innovation agenda for Canada and that biosciences are going to be critical to our economic well-being in the future.

I would like to make a few general comments about the whole issue of bioscience and crops. Of course, since the beginning of human civilization 10,000 years ago or so, we have been interested in improving and selecting and modifying crops for our purposes. The field of genetics first really started in the 20th century, particularly after the First World War. Canada came to the fore as a major developer, producer, and exporter of high-quality crops. There is a long list, but certainly wheat, canola, oats, flax, and mustard all come to mind. We're a major producer of high-quality products.

During the period following the First and Second World Wars, there was a lot of work on genetic improvement. Hybrid crop varieties came into being, such as new varieties of disease-resistant, rust-resistant wheat, which is an important Canadian story.

With the discovery of the DNA molecule as the basis of genetics, we moved into the era of molecular biology in the 1960s and 1970s. Ultimately, this spawned whole new industries, commonly referred to as the biotechnology industry, with many small companies growing out of universities in both Canada and the United States. Many types of technologies that had an economic impact were generated, including the production of pharmaceuticals, such as insulin. Almost all insulin is produced in genetically engineered yeast. Food additives, such as for cheese manufacturing, for example, are genetically modified. Certainly our friends in Europe have adopted them and use all these products.

Along with that came the tools for improving crops, commonly referred to as biotech crops, which are based on understanding a single gene and introducing it into a crop to bestow on the crop a perceived benefit, be it disease resistance, tolerance to herbicides, or hybrid production systems. This technology has been rapidly adopted by Canadian farmers, and at an international level, to the extent that in 2009, more than 275 million acres of genetically modified crops were grown in more than 20 countries. I believe that 25 countries are producing 100,000 acres or more of these crops. Trade in genetically modified crops is here to stay.

Over the last decade we've seen a new wave of genetics-based research, referred to as genomics, which is based on handling and understanding the whole genome. Technological aspects of sequencing the genome include using informatics and computer power to analyze it. The sequencing of the human genome, which cost $10 billion two years ago, can now be done for $10,000 and will be done for $1,000 and perhaps, ultimately, $100. It will have a tremendous impact on what's going to happen in medical research. We already have evidence of new diagnostics and therapeutics, which are reported in the paper and the news fairly often. It has a tremendous impact on Canadian industries, the health industry, and the health research communities in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver.

In the case of crops, we can expect similar, major, and I would say transformational changes, because now we are dealing with the whole genome and have the ability to look at complex traits, be they drought tolerance or changing the components of seed for better human nutrition. We will see new industries and many new companies coming to the fore. This is an important era for Canada in terms of trying to capture value from these technologies and for building an innovation agenda that really emphasizes the growth of our small, new companies based on our creative, young Canadian researchers. From my experience working with these companies, they will exist in many sectors across food, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and so forth, covering our major clusters, not only in Saskatoon, where I come from, but in Guelph, for example, and in Montreal, which has its biopharmaceutical industry.

My feeling, as a researcher, is that this is not a time to introduce non-quantitative, non-scientific issues into our regulatory framework, which sets the environment for investment. Consequently, our organization will make the following three recommendations in a concluding form.

One, continuing on what I've been mentioning, we need to build on that vision of having an innovative society that's based on new company growth. That involves partnership between public and small, private companies, and it's ultimately critical that the environment for investment in these new enterprises is stable and secure. We believe that it's ultimately best done through a science-based regulatory framework. We do not believe it's appropriate to introduce non-science-type issues into our regulatory framework. It will dampen the potential for investment for those small, new companies. Investors want to understand, and they need to see a good stable environment. We think we need to pursue that vision, and we do not recommend that Bill C-474 be supported.

Two, building on the fact that there is going to be an appropriate environment, we need to move forward to develop high-quality crops and high-quality products to continue to build our leadership. We are now the world's leader in exporting canola, durum wheat for pasta, oats, flax, mustard, and lentils. Some of these are genetically modified; others are not. The important point is that we use research to position ourselves to be a leader in exporting the best products and the best technologies available, and it's going to depend on clear research and a strong research environment. We need to support our producers. Canada needs to play its role in sustaining food production on a global basis, with some 10 billion people expected to be on this planet. We need to diversify our capability in agriculture to build that enterprise.

Three, we would recommend that Canada, rather than looking at the regulatory framework in terms of adding new elements, streamline our regulatory framework to make sure we are competitive. We think there's room. I do believe that. And we do recommend that Canada's emphasis should be on becoming a leader in dealing with the issue of adventitious presence, the issue of contamination in seed lots, be it some seeds that are found on a boat that are from a non-registered, non-approved variety.... We have to move away from zero tolerance to some type of accepted limit. We accept limits for all kinds of non-external products in our seeds. They can be small rocks, they can be dead insects, or they can be weed seeds or seeds from other crops. We have to do the same for genetically modified products. A zero tolerance ruling is not feasible, is not realistic, going forward.

I think this is an opportunity for Canada to be a leader, to develop guidelines that are globally acceptable, so that our trade will continue, because the technology is going to develop in many directions and we want to be in the best position possible to capture value from that going forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I call the meeting to order. This is our first full meeting of the fall session, and we'll continue with our study of Bill C-474.

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses in advance for being here today. We'll move right to our first one: Mr. Keller.

If all of you could keep your comments to ten minutes or less, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I will say one thing about this side at least, and that is that we have an open mind.

Bev, it isn't just two or three farmers on the advance payments program. It is the whole industry.

Now, Blake, I hate to remind you, but in Ontario alone, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association tells me, there could be as much as 50% of the industry in default on that loan effective next June. In Prince Edward Island, it will be 80% in default, and the cases that are trying to get their financing now out to the future in terms of the livestock industry can't get financing because of the ministry's announcement on August 6. I thought it was a good announcement--it was about deferring payments--but when you get into the details, I would say that the Department of Finance is running the Department of Agriculture.

The whole theory behind the emergency advances was that you would go to repayments when conditions were such that advances could be repaid. Well, those conditions are not there yet. I think there is urgency, because the people who are trying to do their refinancing.... I'm dealing with at least two, and if I have two, there are likely thousands. They can't refinance through Farm Credit Corporation because of the problem of repayments that will hit next June. I think that's an urgent and pressing issue that affects especially the industry east of the Manitoba border. It's a little different in the west; the Alberta government made payouts and so on that other farmers haven't been eligible for.

I do see that as an urgent matter. I agree we have to deal with the legislation. We have to deal with Bill C-474, but I think on that one we need to limit the number of meetings. Let's ask the steering committee to prioritize the witness list, to boil it down somewhat, and to ask the remainder to send in written submissions. I think that would be the easiest way to deal with it, and we'll try to take as few meetings as possible on it. That's where we are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition from a couple hundred people from my riding and other ridings in support of Bill C-474.

[Jim Lintott]

I think the health issues unfortunately are something that are a little bit like tobacco; it takes a long time before we wake up and find out whether or not we're right or wrong. I have no idea what that answer's going to be.

What I do know is that between now and the time that science is able to give us some kind of definitive answer on that, I have to remain profitable. People have to feel good and safe about the food they're eating, so in the meantime I hope that we haven't made any colossal mistakes in the way we brought forward the science.

We're hoping as farmers that the science that is truly behind working with the DNA of any living organism can be understood and manipulated to our positive benefit, both for health and for economics. In the short term, we have really only been successful economically. But when you go to farm meetings, you hear a lot of reports about new exciting research that is focused on the health that the product will bring to the consumer, the person who is actually going to eat this food, and that's the part we're really excited about. That's the part that to us is where we want to be in 20, 50, or 100 years.

We see the requirement for market analysis as a part of all of that. I think that right around the corner there are all kinds of science that people are going to say is the best thing and they want it badly. Yes, it's being provided to us through technology that is used to generate today's GMO products, which is the combining of herbicide tolerance and the seeds, but that's strictly an economic approach.

There is a huge potential in our scientific community to bring us positive benefits. Farmers are waiting for those, and the market will say... Just as the Canola council does now, we'll be able to go to the world with, say, a wheat that is so far out in front of what they've ever produced, a wheat that is healthy for everybody who is going to consume a loaf of bread, that they'll say yes, it is GMO produced, but they'll accept that specific product on these wonderful market advantages.

That's the advantage we want. That's why we're in support of Bill C-474 and the producer- and stakeholder-controlled regulations that would be behind it. Those two things have to go hand in hand.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank you gentlemen for coming in this afternoon. You've offered some interesting insight into this debate on Bill C-474.

I'm going to look at this a little differently but probably along the same lines as Mr. Easter.

In the U.S., GM alfalfa, Roundup alfalfa, was grown and it is grown. That's correct, so--

[Jim Lintott]

If I could comment, that's the job of this room: to look for ways of providing protection for the consumer and the producers who are out there. This is the best thing we've seen come along.

I've spoken to some people who are very involved in the canola industry program, and the beauty of this is that it is very encouraging to me to see what they have been able to do. They lack the legislation that Bill C-474 would give us to insist that there be an economic impact analysis. That's still a science.

On the regulations, you know, we have an environmental requirement in our Seeds Act now, and we thought that would solve the problem in terms of Roundup Ready alfalfa specifically, but it didn't, so what we really need is for this bill to move ahead and be passed. Following that, right on the heels of that, as quickly as possible, we need the government to fall in and say that each major commodity group has to come in with its organizations to put in place a committee that would look at the requirements, do the impact analysis, and come up with a recommendation.

In regard to the Canola Council, the canola one is still a recommendation, but I believe it's just a rubber stamp.

When we look at it from the producer point of view, it is an excellent program, but there is no requirement for that program and it is the requirement that Bill C-474 will give us, and we think that is very important, that it will force the issue. Because right now we have nothing. We have nothing. We're left out in the wind.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Have you looked at any ways other than Bill C-474 to both protect your industry and look at the implications both in the domestic and the export markets or the general food chain of a way to control genetically engineered crops?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is actually a good discussion here.

Just on this last point on Monsanto, if you did a comparison between farmer profits since GMOs have come in and Monsanto profits, I can tell you who's coming out the winner. It's Monsanto, big time, and I don't think they give a damn whether we make money or go broke at the bottom of the line.

In any event, I think there are real and legitimate concerns in the alfalfa industry and with perennial crops, but I guess the key is where do we... We've always had science-based criteria. What worries me is that this bill moves us away from that.

Is Bill C-474 the answer? I think we have to deal with this issue somehow, but I really debate whether or not Bill C-474 is the right bill. I agree that the farm community needs to be able to protect itself, not only in terms of export markets, but also in Canadian markets, and to protect itself in terms of the gene pool in the future.

In your experience, Jim, or in the experience of any of you who've looked at this in other countries, is Roundup Ready alfalfa produced anywhere else? I found your point on the contamination in the seed pools in the U.S. worrisome, but is Roundup Ready alfalfa really produced commercially anywhere in the world? I mean, the United States has stopped it.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you all for your testimony.

Mr. Einarson, I am speaking to you. In your remarks, you said you saw Bill C-474 as a first step.

If the bill is passed, if we go ahead with this analysis of potential harm to exports, what do you think the next steps should be? What would you envision happening next?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you all for your testimony.

Mr. Einarson, you called Bill C-474 a first step. What do you see happening once the bill is passed? This bill requires an analysis of potential harm to exports. What do you envision after that?

You did not understand my question. I will ask it differently.

[Jim Lintott, Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council]

Good afternoon.

My name is Jim Lintott, and I am the chairman of the Manitoba Forage Council. I wish to thank the government and this committee for the opportunity to speak to you on this important issue on behalf of the many producers and farm families in Manitoba.

The Forage Council is a non-profit organization comprised of over 400 producers, agribusiness, researchers, and extension leaders who are dedicated to the development and promotion of a sustainable hay, forage, and livestock industry. The Manitoba Forage Council board of directors consists of 20 members.

Our presentation repeats the opinions already expressed here today, but it's important that you understand that we all feel the same way and that the information we give is similar.

We represent the interests of farmers who produce dry hay, processed hay, and hay extracts for both domestic and foreign export markets to support production in the beef, dairy, sheep, goat, and horse industries.

The Forage Council supports the implementation of Bill C-474. Shortly after the release of Roundup Ready alfalfa in the United States, the Forage Council developed a position paper protesting that development. In May of 2008, the Forage Council wrote a letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency requesting a moratorium on further testing of Roundup Ready alfalfa until a complete environmental and economic assessment could be completed with all sectors of the forage industry.

We see Bill C-474 as a way to plug a hole in a leaky industry. I personally am a mixed farmer. I grow canola, wheat, and alfalfa, and I raise cattle. Many of the forage producers we represent in Manitoba are like me. We understand both sides of this issue. We do not expect or want this bill to adversely affect those crop sectors that already have a major GMO content--that horse has already left the barn--but we need this committee to understand that growing alfalfa is fundamentally different from growing those annual crops. Forage producers support Bill C-474 because we believe it would have the ability to protect the alfalfa industry from the truly dangerous effects of introducing GMO varieties that are not approved by our customers.

Alfalfa is a perennial crop. Alfalfa producers know that you cannot contain the spread of alfalfa. Seeds and pollen get spread by water, wildlife, and insects to cultivated land, to roadside ditches, to parklands. If the alfalfa is genetically modified, this spread then creates a reservoir for the GMO gene in the feral, or wild, plant population.

Alfalfa seeds can lie dormant in the soil, on both cropland and non-agricultural cropland, only to germinate many years later to create a new source of GMO genes. At that point, there is nothing to stop that GMO gene from moving back into other crop production. In Manitoba 40% of our agricultural land is in forage production. The feral alfalfa is everywhere in our environment. If we use GM alfalfa, we will no longer know where the gene resides--until it is too late to do anything about it.

Who will this affect? The organic producers, livestock producers, forage producers, forage seed producers, the alfalfa fractionation industry, and the alfalfa sprouting industry will all be affected by your decisions. The reach is wide and the effect is huge.

In the organic industry, there is zero tolerance for GMO contamination. A producer of organic crops and vegetables needs to ensure that the plow-down crops, such as alfalfa, which provide the nitrogen to grow the crops, are free of GMOs. The dairy producer of organic cheese has to be able to guarantee that the milk produced from the hay is also free of GMO genes.

Food is a very integrated production cycle. The organic industry, though small, is currently a $28-billion industry worldwide. It's a $2-billion industry in Canada, the bulk of it in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec, the top three producing provinces. Organic forages and pastures are the second-largest in acreage, narrowly tied with grains and oilseeds. However, there is no organic canola production in Canada.

The organic industry is growing at an astonishing 19% per year, so clearly this industry will be devastated by the presence of an uncontrollable GMO gene.

Alfalfa, and its associated mixed hay, is becoming a major export item, both overseas and to the U.S.A. Many countries are beginning to recognize the need to focus their own production on higher-value crops such as vegetables. They are looking to Canada to supply large quantities of alfalfa hay, and in Manitoba we are quite excited by this opportunity. Some of that demand, though, will be for non-GMO hay, and much of it will move out through the Port of Churchill.

Our forage seed industry will be the first and most dramatically affected by any GMO contamination. This industry is very important, sustaining many farm families throughout Manitoba and, in fact, throughout western Canada. The organic and export industries in areas of livestock, alfalfa fractionation, and alfalfa sprouting will all face similar non-GMO restrictions.

The rejection due to the unintended presence of the GMO gene is a concern for all these producers. The challenge in controlling this happening in the forage industry is, in our view, insurmountable. The simple act of growing GMO alfalfa will provide a multitude of avenues for the gene to escape the intended production and become an unwanted presence in all production.

Genetically modified crop production is highly controversial. At least 35 countries have adopted mandatory labelling for any product that has been genetically modified. Many countries will not accept any agricultural products that have been contaminated by GMOs.

It is believed by some that GMO production will become so pervasive that the consumer will not have any choice, but concern about food safety in an industrialized world is growing. This is evidenced by an increase in demand for organic foods, a swelling of public objections to GM foods, and the requirement in many countries for food labelling to show the origin of food and the method of production and processing.

We need to be able to deliver to buyers the product they want. It is not our job to determine if their demands are valid or not. If the buyer accepts our product, the trade will flourish. If the buyer says “no” on the basis of the presence of GMOs, we have to ask ourselves if we have the capacity and the ability to produce and deliver the desired non-GMO products. To keep and expand those markets, we cannot ignore the regulatory decisions made in other countries.

The perception that Canada is a pristine and clean environment for the production of food is slowly being eroded. The introduction of unwanted GMOs is affecting not only the direct sale of crop and seed production, but also the sale of value-added products. I want to point out that although there is no question that the Triffid flax situation has cost Canadian farmers and exporters a lot of money and their reputation, it has cost our customers, who then move that flax into value-added production, a far greater amount of money. Those customers will not easily forget what they have paid for buying Canadian.

Manitoba forage producers are not against scientific research, nor are we opposed to the use of genetically modified crops. We simply believe that because of the controversy and the current market rejection of GMO products, any crop not currently being produced commercially as a genetically modified crop should have a market impact study prior to the release of such a variety.

The concerns you have heard expressed about this bill are primarily around the regulatory system that could flow from that bill. No one wants a regulatory system that would prevent us from moving forward with new and exciting traits that the world wants and would welcome. The solution to this is the establishment of a regulatory body that includes all stakeholders. The canola industry has this type of importer input, but what it lacks is the legal requirement for action that Bill C-474 would provide.

We further believe that the market impact analysis required by this bill will be positive, as GMO developers will focus the work and investments on traits that our customers want and will accept. Through the passing of this bill and the establishment of a regulatory body that is stakeholder-driven, Canada would have the opportunity to enhance its domestic and export leadership in agriculture.

In summary, I would say three things on behalf of the Manitoba Forage Council. The forage producers of Manitoba want Parliament to pass Bill C-474. The forage producers of Manitoba want the implementation of a regulatory system behind Bill C-474that is both stakeholder-driven and flexible. The forage producers of Manitoba want to stop the introduction of Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Thank you again for this opportunity to present to this committee. I look forward to the question-and-answer period.

[Kurt Shmon]

Thank you.

Monsanto and Forage Genetics International have developed Roundup Ready alfalfa. Forage Genetics International has plans to release the GM variety to Canadian producers in the very near future. This event was approved by CFIA in 2005 and approved in the United States prior to that; however, since that time, Roundup Ready alfalfa has been banned for sale in the United States. The effects of Roundup Ready alfalfa in its short commercial life are more evident than the decision documents acknowledge.

I would like to address the fact that Imperial Seed is not opposed to the new technology. What we are opposed to is the release of such products until they have market acceptance. I would also like to state very firmly that Roundup Ready alfalfa does not improve the fitness of the alfalfa plant; it only allows Roundup to be applied to the plant for weed control. I would also like to stress that the continual application of the herbicide Roundup on Roundup Ready alfalfa may add to the growing list of herbicide-tolerant weeds in Canada.

Alfalfa is the third-largest crop in Canada, with 4.5 million hectares in production. Approximately 70% to 75% of the production is in western Canada, and the remaining amount is in Quebec and Ontario.

Approximately 80% of the seed sown for hay is mixed with grass or another legume. Alfalfa is a legume that is often requested by all levels of government to be added into grass mixtures for the purpose of seeding and reseeding new roadside ditches.

There are very few stands of pure alfalfa in Canada. Unlike many areas of the world, Canada has both seed and hay production of alfalfa in the same area, and at times on the same section of land.

It is also a known fact that there is feral alfalfa growing in our national and provincial parks, on roadsides and walkways, and in other public areas in all parts of Canada. Roundup Ready alfalfa will cross-pollinate with the feral alfalfa and, as a result, Canada will have Roundup Ready alfalfa growing in all the locations where the feral alfalfa is growing.

In Canada, most of the alfalfa and alfalfa/grass hay is cut when alfalfa has approximately 10% flower on the field and the weather allows for proper drying. There are also fields of alfalfa hay and alfalfa/grass hay that are cut prior to flowering. However, if the weather is not accommodating, these fields will be left until the weather allows for a proper dry-down of the hay. This delay may allow the alfalfa hay to reach 10% flower as well.

It is also a common production practice in Canada for hay producers to leave strips of hay standing throughout the field on their second cut to help trap snow for a proper insulation cover heading into winter. These strips are usually two feet wide and run the length of the field, leaving approximately 5% to 10% of the field in hay strips. The alfalfa in these strips is often in flower at the time of cutting. If any of the alfalfa plants left in these strips have been pollinated with Roundup Ready pollen, there can be viable seeds that may contain the Roundup gene.

The potential market for Roundup Ready alfalfa is very limited, as 75% to 80% of the seed sold for hay and pasture is mixed with another legume or grass, eliminating the advantage of applying Roundup to the field.

Alfalfa is a perennial crop with several fairly unique attributes.

One, it is a cross-pollinated crop that requires insect pollination. The isolation required to guarantee zero escapes has never been studied on a scientific basis. It is widely recognized that honeybees and some native species have the ability to carry pollen at least five miles. What isolation is required to guarantee control? Ten miles? Twenty miles? What happens in a storm when pollinators are blown dozens of miles away? This is not speculation or conjecture. There are numerous honeybees and native species throughout western Canada.

Two, alfalfa has a hard seed component that is particularly high in western Canada. Some lots from the 2007 crop had a hard seed content in excess of 50%, and this is not unusual. It is known that hard seed can lie dormant in the soil for many years, and possibly for decades. Assuming there were no escapes during the trial years, as is required for varietal registration, who will be responsible for monitoring all the sites during the trials and after they are completed? How do you determine the number of years this has to continue in order to ensure there are no escapes?

Three, there is a feral alfalfa population in western Canada. In some respects, one might say that alfalfa is an indigenous plant and is very common in all types of places, from roadsides to meadows, headlands, and native hayfields. When there are escapes into this population, how is this going to be monitored, identified, and controlled? Not only do subsequent escapes of feral or volunteer crops become “weeds” in other crop kinds, but they are so undesirable that their very presence in some species declines those species. For example, a Roundup Ready alfalfa seed in clover or ryegrass can condemn that lot of seed for export.

In the last five years, Canada has averaged in excess of $20 million worth of forage and turf seed exports into Europe, which has a zero tolerance towards GMO. Canada currently produces many crops that are marketed to GMO zero-tolerance countries. As demonstrated by Europe with the Triffid flax issue, when any amount of seed from a non-approved event is identified, the buyer will cancel contracts and send the seed back to the seller, creating a loss for the company and the producers of this crop.

Currently, the contracts for all legume and grass seed species written between European and Canadian companies have clauses in them which state that if any GMO species are found in the received seed, the seed will be returned to the seller and the contract cancelled. Our industry is faced with the challenge of dealing with GMO canola in our conventional seed, which at times has caused the seed to remain in Canada due to the presence of the GMO seed. We have taken extraordinary steps and precautions to avoid the possibility of canola contamination; however, it still exists.

Alfalfa is like all species. Not only can it be a seed, but it can also be an undesirable in other crop kinds. A study conducted by the CFIA noted that alfalfa was an impurity in 648 samples of different crop kinds. Any one of those samples tested could be seed that was to be sold in Canada or possibly exported to other countries. Only alsike clover was noted as a higher impurity in retrieved samples of pedigree and common seed.

This is a huge issue for many crop kinds, where alfalfa is noted as an impurity due to the fact that if Roundup Ready alfalfa is released for sale, the alfalfa found in such samples may contain the Roundup Ready alfalfa gene.

These issues, together with the fact that Roundup Ready alfalfa will cross-pollinate with the feral and tame alfalfa, puts at risk Canada's entire export market in zero-tolerance zones. We must consider market acceptance prior to the release of this technology.

Canada's science-based approach works very well for the domestic marketers of seed, the Monsantos, the Syngentas, and the Bayer CropSciences, but what does it do for the producer? This approach does not take into consideration what the producers want, nor does it address what the market wants. These are the two most important issues and they are absent from the registration process.

Producers want to grow crops they can market. In the case of Roundup Ready alfalfa, the producers of Canada do not want it, and that is proven today by my fellow colleagues who are here at my side.

One of our large trading partners, the European Union, has also made it very clear: they will not accept any non-approved GMO seeds. The market has spoken.

Our science-based ideas are not adequate. The science-based decision-making process considers only the relative safety of the product compared to the non-transformed species.

There is no assessment of the monetary impact the GMO product will have on the marketplace. Where are the negative impacts belonging to the agronomic performance? They are ignored and covered with the statement, “Let the market decide”. The market has decided. And the answer is no. Allowing only this so-called science-based approach does nothing but create a monopoly.

Since the release of Roundup Ready alfalfa in the United States, the contamination issue has been brought to the attention of many companies and producers of alfalfa. Cal/West, a large U.S. seed company, has lost export market share due to Roundup Ready alfalfa contamination. This company has approached Imperial Seed for possible production contracts for Cal/West into these non-GMO zones.

Analyzing potential market harm and realizing the potential risk may create an economic benefit for our industry in Canada as we wait for market acceptance. Other countries that move forward with this unapproved technology will lose the market, and Canada will gain the production and market share.

In conclusion, the implementation of Bill C-474 should allow for the continued production of the current approved GMO crops produced in Canada. The bill should be applied to: any new technology directed at new crops, any new technology being applied to existing crops, and any old technology being applied to existing crops. This implementation would grandfather in the existing canola, soybean, and corn crops we have.

The large developers of seed threaten Canada by saying that if Bill C-474 passes they will no longer be interested in developing seed for Canada. In my opinion, this is simply a threat that will not be acted upon. Seventeen million acres of canola will be planted in Canada this year and no company is going to walk away from a market that large.

As new technology is developed there is ample time for the market analysis to take place. It takes years to develop new technology. During the submission time, CFIA Plant Biosafety can conduct the extra step of market analysis. It would be prudent for our industry, in order to not jeopardize our members' rights to make a livelihood, to err on the side of caution when introducing new products prior to their approval in the markets of major trading partners.

Coexistence will not exist if Roundup Ready alfalfa is released for sale in Canada. It will destroy the forage and turf seed market into Europe and other markets where there is no tolerance for non-approved events.

In closing, it has been said that Bill C-474 will create another layer of “red tape” for seed companies to go through in order to sell seeds in Canada. I feel this is better than creating “red ink” on the producer's bottom line.

Thank you.

[Kurt Shmon, President, Imperial Seed (1979) Ltd.]

Good afternoon.

I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for allowing Imperial Seed the opportunity to address Bill C-474, which would require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

Imperial Seed is a forage and turf seed company whose office is located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. It is an accredited seed processing facility with more than 50 years of processing experience. Our success and growth is a history of quality and integrity.

At Imperial Seed, we contract with forage and seed companies from around the world, strongly focused on Europe and the Americas. The production contracts we obtain from companies are contracted with producers across western Canada. The seed is then harvested and brought into Winnipeg for processing, packaging, and testing, and then shipped to the contracting company.

Most of our species are perennial plants, and the contracts cover three to five years of production. Our main species of production are alfalfa, perennial ryegrass, timothy, bird's-foot trefoil, and clovers.

[Kelvin Einarson, Director and Secretary Treasurer, Manitoba Forage Seed Association Inc.]

Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to thank you for allowing the Manitoba Forage Seed Association to address Bill C-474.

The Manitoba Forage Seed Association is an incorporated, not-for-profit, producer-driven organization representing forage seed growers across Manitoba. The focus of our organization is to facilitate the advancement of the forage seed industry in all aspects. This is achieved by providing its members with production and agronomic support through research, advocacy, and linkages with industry partners.

In September 2008, the Manitoba Forage Seed Association released its most recent position on recombinant DNA technology and subsequent genetically modified alfalfa, including Roundup Ready alfalfa, as follows.

We recognize that the future of biotechnology may well be accepted when benefits to consumers, producers, the environment, and human health are demonstrated.

We also recognize that consumers are not united in the understanding and acceptance of products from genetically modified crops produced via recombinant DNA technology.

We support a regulatory environment based on sound science that openly communicates clear and meaningful information to stakeholders.

We will not support testing that poses a risk of release of a specific transgene into the environment or commercialization of any transgenetic alfalfa variety--including Roundup Ready alfalfa--in Canada until such time as the variety receives Canadian regulatory approvals for food, feed, and environmental safety; the regulatory approval for specific transgenetic alfalfa varieties is obtained in Canada and the following export markets: the U.S., the European Union, China, Japan, Mexico, and South America; an identity preservation system for alfalfa varieties is in place in Canada; and a rapid, cost-effective test for identification of specific transgene is available.

In March of this year, the Manitoba Forage Seed Association also passed the following resolution:

Whereas once Roundup Ready alfalfa is introduced into the environment there will be a transfer of pollen from Roundup Ready alfalfa plants to non-Roundup Ready alfalfa plants by pollinating insects and other means, regardless of the intended use of the crop;

Whereas Canadian alfalfa seed producers are growing significant quantities of conventional alfalfa seed varieties for European and other foreign markets where the presence of Roundup Ready trait is not accepted;

Whereas the commercialization of Roundup Ready alfalfa will jeopardize lucrative foreign market access as a result of cross-contamination between Roundup Ready alfalfa and conventional varieties;

Be it resolved that the Manitoba Forage Seed Association support the Private Member's Bill C-474 as presented by Alex Atamanenko, NDP Agriculture Critic.

MFSA is not opposed to the use of genetically modified crops. It is our position that any genetically modified crop that is currently not being produced in Canada should require the developer to conduct an economic impact study or assessment of potential market harm as part of the initial regulatory process before granting an unconfined release status, thus eliminating the potential for irreparable harm.

It is our position that crops such as genetically modified corn, canola, and soybeans that are currently being grown commercially should remain in place and should not require an analysis of potential harm to export markets.

Currently, there are no genetically modified or herbicide-tolerant forages or forage seed varieties registered or being grown commercially in Canada. Forage and turf seed produced in Canada is exported to markets around the world. We know there is market resistance to GMO seed for many of the countries that represent a significant portion of international trade in the forage seed industry. These markets are not only willing to purchase GMO seed; they are very concerned about any GMO contamination in weed seeds or volunteer crops.

Experience in other crops where GMO technology has been introduced has shown that technology does not stay confined to the field where crop production is occurring. Well documented are the escapes of the technology through seed movement, transmission through pollen movement, and outcrossing to volunteer plants or similar weeds.

Before considering the introduction and release of GMO forage seed, there are a number of questions that we feel need to be asked.

Is there a significant market in Canada or the world for GMO forage seed? What will be the effect on profitable Canadian export markets with the release of GMO forage seed?

Who will realize the greatest gains and profit the most by releasing such varieties? Who will suffer the greatest economic losses with release of GMO varieties?

Lastly, if the forage seed export industry collapses, which in turn will shrink the industry and make it far less viable, who will be accountable for those losses?

We've all heard the comment that countries that currently have a zero tolerance policy to GMO seed need to change the policy and allow certain contamination at low levels, but what gives Canadian agriculture the right to dictate to countries what policies they should agree to?

As an exporting nation, we have to be prepared to produce what our customers not only require but also demand. If this means GMO-free seed, we have the choice to provide it or lose the market.

Coexistence between GMO forage seed varieties and conventional varieties will be impossible, even with sound agronomic practices. Cross-pollination with perennial crops will occur. There are a number of possible routes where this will happen: biological processes, such as long-distance pollen dispersal; seed movement by animals; and human error, such as failure to perform scouting for volunteers, inadvertent mixing of GM and non-GM seed, improper cleaning of equipment and storage facilities, or poor production practices. We have seen these scenarios with annual crop species, but I must stress that with forage seed crops it will be much more difficult to control due to the nature of perennial plants.

Forage seed growers believe that there is not a significant market for GMO forage seed. Canada will lose substantial portions of its forage seed export market, as we will be unable to guarantee GMO-free seed. One only needs to look as far as the Canadian flax industry to see how sensitive markets can be and the economic harm that can result by the releasing of GMO species when your markets do not accept them because of a zero tolerance policy. If GMO forage seed were to be produced commercially in Canada, the family farms and small independent seed companies would bear the greatest economic losses.

To ensure a viable forage seed industry in Canada, it is imperative that we keep Canada free of all genetically modified forage seed until it is accepted into our major export markets. If genetically modified alfalfa seed is introduced into Canada, we'll see a reduction in alfalfa seed acres due to lost export markets.

One aspect that I have not heard commented on is the fact that alfalfa leafcutter bees are used to pollinate blueberries and hybrid canola fields. Unlike honeybees, which will fly for several miles, the leafcutter bee has a short flight zone. Companies that are producing certified hybrid canola seed rely on alfalfa leafcutter bees to pollinate the female plant, as it is easier to avoid cross-contamination with these bees.

Although these bees are used on other crops, alfalfa seed acres are the source of reproduction for leafcutter bees. A reduction in alfalfa seed acres will result in fewer bees available to pollinate crops such as blueberries and hybrid canola.

As we continue to see survival problems with the honeybee colonies, it is imperative that we maintain leafcutter bee populations. A significant drop in alfalfa seed acres would make this impossible.

In conclusion, we have to ask ourselves this: who are the real beneficiaries of GMO forage seed? In the case of Roundup Ready alfalfa seed, there'd be very little benefit, as the majority of forage acres in Canada are a blend of alfalfa and grass species. The Roundup Ready technology is of no value as the Roundup will eradicate any grass species being grown in the forage or hay mix.

There is no doubt that in canola, soybeans, and corn, weed control has become easier with the introduction of GMO and herbicide-tolerant varieties. Having said that, we have not seen any significant increase in net farm income because of it, but at the same time, farmers have seen the price of seed increase three- to fivefold in the last dozen years.

With flax, we have seen the ramifications of GMO technology showing up in markets that have a zero tolerance policy. In addition to lost markets and lower prices, Canadian farmers have had to bear the added costs of testing seed prior to being able to sell their seed. The same will hold true if GMO forage seed is introduced into Canada.

In the case of Roundup Ready alfalfa, Monsanto has repeatedly stated--and I quote Trish Jordan, Monsanto spokesperson--that “Monsanto has worked closely with alfalfa seed and forage industry groups to ensure that the risks of gene escape and market damage are minimized”.

The key word here is “minimized”, not “eliminated”; there is absolutely no possible way to eliminate gene escapes. Only having them minimized means there will be gene escapes resulting in cross-contamination. Once the transgenes have escaped, it is highly likely, if not certain, that they cannot be retracted.

As mentioned previously, given that GMO technology is already widely used in canola, soybeans, and corn, the Manitoba Forage Seed Association would envision that these crops not fall under Bill C-474. This would ensure that research on these crops would continue in Canada.

However, the forage seed industry does see Bill C-474 as being a necessity when it comes to crops that are not currently produced commercially as GMO or herbicide-tolerant crops. Bill C-474 is the first step in offering some protection in the future for Canadian family farms. Market acceptance must be made part of the evaluation process and incorporated into the Seeds Regulation Act.

[Jim Gowland]

Thanks, Chairman Larry.

I guess I'll go back a couple of small paragraphs. I disregarded the bells. I've been planting soybeans with a tractor the last two weeks. It has more bells and whistles and alarms that go off. I guess I was just driving on here. So I'll just go back two small paragraphs to get back to where I was heading.

Continued investment in Canada by seed companies will result in the development of new varieties through biotechnology, which not only have production advantages for producers but direct consumer benefits as well. Capitalizing on these potential opportunities that can add value to Canadian soybean growers could be put into jeopardy with the introduction of Bill C-474 and place Canada at a competitive disadvantage.

Maintaining our current markets and accessing new markets will continue to be a challenge. Many countries, including Canada, have a zero-tolerance policy regarding unapproved events that are developed through biotechnology. It is impossible for our industry to guarantee zero contamination of any GM trait.

Approval of new GM traits in our key export market establishes thresholds that our industry can meet. In the case that an unapproved GM trait is identified in a Canadian shipment, there is a zero-tolerance policy, and possible action, of course, is the closure of that border.

It is important that Canada's regulatory system remains predictable and science-based. If approval systems in foreign and domestic markets deviate from science-based processes, Canadian soybean growers could face significant delays in new varieties developed through biotechnology becoming commercially available. Canadian soybean growers are currently using varieties that are sometimes at least two years behind our competitors, and this puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

Establishing low-level presence, LLP, agreements with our key export markets and working towards the harmonization of an international approval process for GM traits needs to be a priority to help ensure the competitiveness of Canadian soybean growers.

The Canadian Soybean Council does not support Bill C-474 and recognizes how advances in biotechnology could possibly impact market access. The introduction of the non-science-based criteria to our regulatory system through Bill C-474 is not the answer to ensuring continued access to our important export markets. The Canadian Soybean Council encourages the committee to carefully consider how the future competitiveness of all Canadian farmers will be impacted by this bill. The Canadian Soybean Council believes that government and industry's efforts should focus on negotiating low-level presence agreements with our customer and harmonizing approval processes for GM traits.

I would like to say, however, Mr. Atamanenko, that I think we do have issues in the industry that we have to solve. I think it has been a great forum for dialogue to bring these concerns forward. However, we still do not support Bill C-474.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Jim Gowland, Chair, Canadian Soybean Council]

On behalf of the Canadian Soybean Council, I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to participate in the discussion concerning Bill C-474.

My name is Jim Gowland, and I have been the chairman of the Canadian Soybean Council since its inception five years ago. I would also like to introduce Michelle McMullen, who is the manager of the Canadian Soybean Council. She also started with the Soybean Council five years ago.

The Canadian Soybean Council represents the interests of 30,000 soybean growers in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. I am a cash crop farmer from Bruce County, near Walkerton, Ontario, and I farm approximately 2,300 acres of soybeans, wheat, corn, and white beans, in partnership with my wife Judy.

Our farm incorporates the benefits gained through biotechnology, while taking advantage of the opportunities to add value to our farm operation by growing non-GM soybeans for world markets. All of our production has been non-GM soybeans for many, many years.

Soybeans have been grown in Canada for over 60 years. They are mainly grown in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, but recently, owing to advancements in plant breeding, soybeans have started to be grown in the Maritimes and in Saskatchewan.

In 2009, approximately 3.5 million acres of soybeans were planted across Canada, making soybeans Canada's sixth-largest crop in overall production. Soybeans were ranked as Canada's fourth-largest source of farm cash receipts in 2008, with a total value of approximately $1.13 billion. Currently, 65% of soybeans in Canada are genetically modified. The remaining 35% are non-genetically modified but are destined mainly for export markets.

GM soybean varieties were introduced back in 1997, and the Canadian soybean industry saw the need to re-examine its production and handling systems. Dialogue was initiated with key stakeholders—including government, our customers, and export markets—to explore quality management practices throughout the value chain. Over the past 13 years our industry has demonstrated that we are skilled and experienced in developing and implementing protocols that can segregate specialty soybeans from bulk-handled grains. The investment of time and infrastructure was crucial to support the coexistence of GM and non-GM soybeans in addressing the needs of the industry's key market segments.

Science and innovation have played an important role in the success of our industry. Public and private investments in plant breeding have allowed Canada to capture opportunities using both non-GM and GM technologies. These opportunities help Canada's soybean growers to add value to their farm operation in both domestic and international markets.

Continued investment in biotechnology by seed companies will result in the development of new varieties that will bring production advantages to producers and benefits to consumers. These opportunities, which could add value to Canadian soybeans, could be put in jeopardy by the introduction of Bill C-474 and place Canada at a competitive disadvantage.

Maintaining our current markets and accessing new markets will continue to be a challenge. Many countries, including Canada, have a zero-tolerance policy regarding unapproved events that are developed through biotechnology. It is impossible for our industry to guarantee zero contamination of GM traits. Approval of new GM traits in our key export markets establishes thresholds that our industry can meet. If an unapproved GM trait is identified in a Canadian shipment, though, there is a zero-tolerance policy that could result in closure of the border.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 Act

[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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today to this important legislation, Bill C-474, an amendment to the seeds regulations.

I will begin by saying what a relief it is to hear the member for Vancouver Kingsway talk about how important the livelihood of Canadian farmers is. I know that in his care for Canadian farmers, he will also take the time to listen to them and stand up to get things like the Colombia free trade agreement passed, as the Canadian Pork Council and other industry leaders have come to us at our ag committee begging for us to expedite it.

I would also like to mention one other thing concerning the member for Malpeque who was speaking earlier. While he often has good ideas, sometimes he comes to them before or after he decides to vote. I am reminiscing back to the product of Canada labelling. He was for it before he was against it. With the budget, he was for it before he was against it. As the Attorney General of Canada, he was for cutting the budget for prison farms and now he is against it. With respect to the long gun registry, he was for it and now he is against it.

It really is difficult to pin down the Liberal Party and some of those members on exactly what their positions are. I cannot help but to be a little saddened by the position they are taking on this. It is a fundamentally dishonest position when they say that they want to sit and talk about this and they want to pass it through to committee knowing all along that they will vote against this bill and try to kill it in committee.

That being said, I would like to commend member for British Columbia Southern Interior. He has been an excellent member of the agriculture standing committee. Although I may not agree with all of his positions, he certainly comes to those positions through well thought-out time and effort. I know it is generally his intent to put good public policy forward.

That is why I raise these questions of concern with respect to the member for Malpeque. We should have honest debate on this, as I am about to participate in. It should not be political gamesmanship when it comes to Canadian farmers.

Bill C-474 would require the Governor in Council to amend 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.

Canada is a true leader in agriculture science and innovation. It is important to look at this bill and look at the idea of putting an economic impact on our trade. What we are basically proposing here is to allow other countries to affect our variety regulation and they will do this based on their own internal trade, therefore affecting our own farmers and imposing a tariff on ourselves. That is basically what I see happening.

For generations, our farmers have practised selective breeding to improve the qualities and characteristics of their crops. In labs across the country, our researchers are working hard to develop new plant varieties and technologies that will continue to support a vibrant agriculture sector. New plant varieties offer a number of clear benefits, including more effective pest control, higher yields and reduced impacts on the environment.

Canada is proud to share our new technologies with the world. Canada's success in agriculture has long depended on the sector's ability to adapt to a changing marketplace by using new technologies to help lower production costs and to enhance the range of products available to meet new consumer demands.

I would like to spend a few moments highlighting one example of how Canadian innovation is helping farmers around the world, including farmers in poorer countries.

The Government of Canada has invested $13 million to combat wheat stem rust known as Ug99, a fungus which poses a threat to wheat production. Canada is a leader in this kind of research. Our scientists are doing important work to develop new varieties of wheat resistant to this fungus. A greater understanding of the biology of this fungus will make a major contribution to international efforts to combat Ug99 worldwide.

The late Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Peace Prize winner plant scientist commended us on making this important investment in wheat rust research. He called it an important action to protect the wheat crop in North America and worldwide, and a major step forward in our efforts to stem the global threat of wheat rust. Recent predictions are that we will have to double global food production to feed the global population by 2050.

We must continue efforts to accelerate scientific research in order to feed the population of the planet. We must increase agriculture yields in a major way to meet the challenge of the future. Farmers are at the core of our efforts to meet this challenge.

We recognize that this bill raises important policy issues on how to manage the market impacts of genetically engineered products. We need to be very cautious of any move to introduce a subjective, non-scientific element to our oversight in the introduction of new technologies. I am referring to socio-economic considerations like consumers' attitudes in other countries to genetically engineered food. These matters are not science-based and can change overnight. The industry is divided on the prudence of introducing non-science criteria into the process.

I will quote a letter from Doug Robertson, a canola producer from my home province of Alberta, regarding this bill. Mr. Robertson writes that GM canola has helped him improve his yields and helped the environment despite the coldest and driest spring in recent memory. He states:

Canada has always used sound science to assess whether new ingredients, seeds and traits are safe for Canadian farmers to grow and consumers to eat. That policy makes us a leader in the world and is the only realistic way to assess risk, with clear, sound, scientific methods.

I want to emphasize that, “with clear, sound, scientific methods”.

Canada's food supply is safe already thanks to our sound science system we have in place. Over two decades of studies have proven that. We don't need non-science corrupting our approval system.

I know from round tables that I have done across my province and my riding that this is the overwhelming opinion of the producers in our area that rely on canola, wheats and barley.

In other parts of the world, we are also seeing changing attitudes vis-à-vis GE foods, particularly in a number of European markets. Canada has been a strong proponent of science-based trade, whether it is BSE hormones in cattle or genetically engineered foods. We understand that trade must be rooted in science. Our regulatory system works to ensure that the products we sell to the world are safe and of the highest quality.

It is an efficient system that has put Canada on the map for food safety and quality. Adding in trade and other issues unrelated to science could set a very dangerous precedent. We want to ensure we do not risk bogging things down in red tape. We want to ensure we can continue to bring new technologies, such as our research into wheat stem rust, to the world. Anything short of that would be a tragedy.

I am proud of the action Canada is taking to help its farmers. Canada is blessed with the best farmers in the world and some of the best land in the world. We are a fortunate nation and we are committed to sharing our resources with those around the world who desperately need it. We are committed to finding new and more efficient ways to grow crops. We understand the need to keep a strict and unwavering watch on the food we produce and sell to the world. We just want to ensure we can get new technologies to those who need them with as little delay as possible.

The future of Canadian agriculture depends on innovation and trade, and those important elements are cornerstones of growing forward, our new policy framework for agriculture. With growing forward, we are putting more investment in innovation, from idea to invention to consumer. We are building new opportunities that support innovation and competitiveness. In fact, we have invested $158 million in the new growing Canadian agri-innovations program.

We want to help the sector to succeed, and a big part of that success depends upon being able to accelerate the development of new products, practices and processes for new and value-added markets.

Growing forward builds on our international trade success through industry-led marketing strategies, a Canada branding strategy, market intelligence and services for exporters and actions to maintain and improve market access.

Growing forward takes action on the environment by supporting on-farm, sustainable agriculture practices.

Finally, growing forward builds on Canada's food safety systems with new traceability and bio-security programs so that Canada continues to deliver the safest, highest quality foods to Canadians and our global customers.

Science-based trade works and it brings real results for our farmers, the sector and our industry, and it is science-based trade that we must maintain in order to keep the stability that our industry so desperately needs in these very tough times.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm).

I thank my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior, the NDP agriculture critic, for his work. It is fair to say that his intelligence in developing policies is exceeded only by his fairness with which he goes about his work in the House. I am also pleased to say that I seconded the bill.

The bill deals with the use of genetically engineered seeds. It would require the government to consider the harm to the export value of a crop before permitting the sale of any new genetically engineered seed. The policy basis of the bill is quite clear. It is needed to protect the economic livelihood of farmers and the soundness of Canada's agricultural policy.

The bill is good for agriculture, good for farmers and good for Canada. It represents the kind of progressive policy that is needed to move Canada forward in the 21st century.

Before I get to the crux of the bill, I want to address some of the broader issues that the bill raises.

My colleague and I are both from British Columbia, where we have a very proud farming tradition. Some of the world's best produce and products are grown on some of the world's best farmland. Family farms in British Columbia have been hard hit, like many farms across the country, but thousands of British Columbians take pride in the work they do every day to feed our nation and to feed many people of the world.

In British Columbia the value of quality farmland and sound agricultural practices has long been recognized. In fact, it is built into provincial legislation, which I am proud to say my party, the New Democrats, pioneered.

I want to take one example called the Agricultural Land Reserve. The New Democrat government of Premier Dave Barrett brought in a piece of legislation in 1973 called the Agricultural Land Reserve that essentially protects valuable agricultural land from development. It encourages farming and it controls non-agricultural uses of farmland. In other words, it takes land out of the potential for industrial and commercial development and it preserves it forever as agricultural land, some of the best land, as I have said, in the world. The ALR crew could be incredibly forward thinking. It is an example of the kind of vision of an NDP government.

Let us fast-forward to today. This was 1972, over 35 years ago. Today, we face the 21st century local food movement where we have concerns over climate change. We are talking about 100-mile diets and the importance of locally grown food and sustainable practices around the production of that food.

I want to point out that back in 1972, New Democrats in the country were already anticipating the vital importance that some agricultural practices and good food production have to our country.

The bill before us today shows the same kind of vision. The bill exemplifies the same kind of sound policy that we in the House want to support. The bill protects farmers of the future.

In my community of Vancouver Kingsway, people recognize the importance of local food production. They know that locally produced food reduces carbon emissions from transportation. It is healthier. Fewer preservatives are needed to keep it fresh. We have thriving local food movements all over Vancouver and in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway. The Trout Lake Farmers Market, which started up not that long ago, will be opening for the season in May. The Riley Park farmers market has now moved to Main Street Station. It was organized by a wonderful community activist named Mel Lehan. It also brings together farmers and local produce providers from around the greater Vancouver area right to the tables of Canadian families living in my municipality.

We recognize that a healthy agricultural policy is based on healthy components. We need healthy soil. We need healthy plants. We need healthy fertilizer practices and we need healthy, sustainable farm practices.

Many community gardens exist in my riding. We have the Cedar Cottage Community Garden that is driven by one of my constituents, Faune Johnson. We have the Cedar Cottage Greenway, one of the earliest gardens of the Greenstreets program, a city of Vancouver program that gives residents the opportunity to become volunteer street gardeners in our neighbourhoods.

I was invited by Beth Brooks to a community potluck to celebrate the success of this garden last summer and it was wonderful to see people brought together to help celebrate what could happen when a community gets in touch with our food production and our gardening roots.

At Windermere Secondary School in my riding, Vagner Castillho is a teacher who has a leadership class. As part of his sustainability initiative, students started a food garden and greenhouses. Individual families all over Vancouver take advantage of the Vancouver climate to grow their own food in backyard gardens.

I want to briefly address another quick farming issue because it is current before the House right now and it also speaks to the need for long-term vision from the government.

I am the vice-chair of the public safety committee and right now the committee is studying the government's decision to close six farms operating at correctional institutions across this country. On Tuesday, our committee heard nine witnesses as part of that study, people from the National Farmers Union, ex-convicts and a dean of law from Queen's University. We heard from sisters from a nuns order. We heard from rural municipal officials, the president of the National Union of Solicitor General employees, agri-business instructors at various institutions and from corrections officials themselves. Grouped together they illustrated the diversity of support for prison farms.

These nine individuals and many other supporters came to oppose the inexplicable decision of the government to close down prison farms, a win-win-win situation for Canadians that provides valuable rehabilitation for prisoners as well as marketable skills to aid these prisoners in reintegration. It saves government money by growing our own food and it is of value to local communities as an economic driver for agribusiness, providing healthy food for food banks and slaughtering services for local farmers.

I have spoken in broad terms about the importance of agriculture and local food. I want to now draw my colleagues' attention to the specific provisions of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to direct the government to amend the seeds regulations to require an analysis of the potential harm to export markets before approving the sale of any new genetically engineered seed.

Currently, GE seeds are approved for sale with no consideration for their impact on export. This is not a theoretical discussion. Already GE seeds have had a harmful impact on Canadian farmers. Last September, illegal GE flaxseed called the triffid was found to have contaminated our flax exports. The triffid flax was not approved for human consumption or environmental release outside of North America. In response, European countries pulled Canadian products from their shelves and Canadian flax shipments were quarantined. Some 60% of our Canadian flax exports currently go to Europe and Canadian flax farmers were harmed and harmed severely by this.

GE alfalfa has already been approved for release in Canada. Monsanto has relaunched research into GE wheat. This bill seeks to prevent an economic disaster for Canadian farmers and these other crops as well. The agronomic and environmental impact of GE seeds and GE crops is controversial. There is no scientific consensus at present and further research is most certainly needed.

The economic impact of GE seeds, however, is not in question and this is what Bill C-474 seeks to address. Other countries have taken clear positions about their domestic consumption of GE products. Many of these countries are major consumers of Canadian agricultural products. Canadian agricultural policy cannot exist in a vacuum. We cannot live in denial of the international market reality toward GE crops because Canadian farmers rely on these export markets for their livelihood. The government has a duty, we submit on this side of the House, to protect the livelihood of these farmers, and the government has a duty, we New Democrats say, to consider the impact of these livelihoods before approving the sale of GE seeds.

It is my understanding that the government spent $1.9 million to deal with the contamination of the GE flaxseed. Passing this bill would help farmers and save taxpayers money from having to pay for the cleanup of any future contamination.

The bill has the support of numerous farming organizations and environmental groups. It has the support of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which represents over 200,000 farmers and farm families. It is endorsed by the National Farmers Union and the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

I am pleased to support this bill and I urge my colleagues to vote to send it to committee for further study. I thank the hon. member for his work in this regard.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-474, a bill that would regulate seeds, and in particular, genetically engineered seeds.

This is an important bill we have before us. I think it is an important part of a policy on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, that Canada should adopt. I will explain that and go into more detail later.

We must pass this bill. We are in favour of this bill because we must take into account the market losses that could be directly associated with some decisions made by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We must consider the economic impact that the approval of genetically engineered products and substances could have.

We need to do more. Canada must agree to ratify the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. The purpose of this protocol is to govern and regulate genetically modified products. This protocol would also give substance to a declaration signed in Rio and to a fundamental approach, the precautionary principle, which is mentioned directly in the Cartagena protocol.

The Food and Drugs Act must be amended because genetically modified foods are not the same as conventional foods. Risk assessments should not and must not be the same for both categories. We have to go even further than that. We have to make sure that Canada has a policy and regulations for labelling products that contain GMOs so that people who go to grocery stores know what is in these foods. People have the right to choose. Canada's legislation has to recognize that right.

We have to pass this bill because there have been precedents. We have seen what happens. The case with China and Canada is an excellent example. A few years ago, in 2001 to be exact, China decided to ban imports of certain products made from genetically modified crops, such as canola, soy and rapeseed. These products were banned from China because they were genetically modified.

What was the effect of that ban on economic activity in the United States, where 70% of the soy crop is genetically modified? It was an absolute disaster for many producers.

That is why we have to be aware of the effect that approving genetically modified seed can have on our producers' economic security. The same applies to Europe. Asia and Europe are two markets that tend to ban imports of products containing GMOs. A Canadian Food Inspection Agency decision to approve a genetically modified product can have significant economic consequences for our producers.

Another example is genetically modified wheat. When Monsanto sought approval from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to market genetically modified Roundup Ready wheat, the Canadian Wheat Board immediately conducted an economic impact study.

The wheat board told the government to be careful, because if it approves genetically modified wheat, we could lose some of our market share. This bill would make the Canadian Wheat Board's measures mandatory, in order to protect our producers.

This bill needs to pass, but in my opinion, we need to go even further. We need to amend the Food and Drugs Act. At present, under that legislation, a genetically modified food, or a food item produced using genetically modified ingredients, is considered to be exactly the same product as a conventional food item. This is unacceptable. So we need to amend the Food and Drugs Act, to stipulate that a genetically modified product cannot be considered a conventional product, even though the two products may be very similar.

Nor is it true that once the Canadian Food Inspection Agency authorizes and approves a product, and there is a request from a developer to authorize another, that the study and risk assessment of a number of other products are automatically taken into account.

We have to change the Food and Drugs Act and make the distinction between a transgenic or genetically modified food product and a conventional food. What is more, we have to ratify the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. It has to be done. We cannot be the fifth largest global producer of GMOs and refuse to ratify an international protocol that simply establishes a framework for genetic modifications, the transportation of products and the creation of registries. It is our environmental and social responsibility.

What is Canada doing? It is applying the same logic as it does with the Kyoto protocol. Since Canada is a major polluter, it refuses to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Since Canada is the fifth largest global producer of GMOs, it refuses to ratify the Cartagena protocol on biosafety.

We must ensure that responsible environmental standards are set for this type of product. We have to do so because that is what citizens are asking us to do. They are calling for information when they buy products in the grocery store or elsewhere. More than 90% of Quebeckers want mandatory labelling for GMOs once and for all, but the government has been dragging its heels for years. Whether it is a Liberal government or a Conservative government, the policy is the same. The government refuses to accept its responsibilities and we cannot accept that.

We are going to vote in favour of this bill because in our opinion it is one of the important pieces of a broader policy on genetically modified organisms, a policy that should include mandatory labelling and provide for a review of the Food and Drugs Act, which should also reflect this bill. When we have all four of the items I just mentioned, then we will finally have a policy that is respectful of the consumer.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-474. The intent of Bill C-474, an act to amend seeds regulations, is to “require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted”. The intent of this bill is to require that the federal government amend the seeds regulations in order to require that that analysis be undertaken.

I will admit that I have mixed opinions on this bill, but I will say off the top of this debate that I am willing to allow the bill to go to committee. What in part prompted this legislation was the discovery, beginning in Europe in July 2009, that Canadian flax exports were contaminated with the genetically modified flax, Triffid. The presence of the GM flax was found first in Germany in cereal and bakery products.

Let us be clear. The GM flax in question had not been approved for use in Canada since 2001 and this bill would not necessarily have prevented the Triffid issue from happening. As the Flax Council of Canada confirmed to its members in October 2009, “No varieties of GM flaxseed have received regulatory approvals in the EU”.

The consequences on our flax exporters has been severe. According to a Globe and Mail story on October 27, 2009, the lucrative $320 million annual market for flax was threatened with prices declining from $11 a bushel to $2 a bushel. That is very serious.

It should be noted, though, that GM Triffid flax was developed in 1998 at the University of Saskatchewan. The Triffid seed is tolerant to soil residues and certain herbicides. In what I would call a smart and futuristic-thinking move, in 2001 Canadian flax producers, through the Flax Council of Canada, moved to have the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, remove the variety registration for GM flax in order to protect their export markets. The EU accounts for approximately 70% of Canada's flax exports.

I make that point because the flax industry did everything it could to prevent genetically modified flax from affecting the European market. Yet it still did. Triffid got into the marketplace. This bill would not have prevented that from happening.

Let me turn to the issues that I believe need to be discussed in committee. There is a lot of debate around genetically modified and genetically engineered organisms and people have all kinds of wild and woolly stories. There is a lot of pressure from some in the farm community and some in the investment community not to allow this bill to go to committee.

We have to have the debate. We need to lay it on the table. I believe in a science-based system. I really do not know how the mover of the bill intends to measure market harm, but I am certainly willing to send it to committee to find out how the mover of the bill intends to do that. I am certainly willing to have a discussion with witnesses on both sides of the issue in a transparent way and deal with this proposal in a very constructive way.

The bill does not question the legitimacy of GMOs as an agricultural tool. The debate based upon the provisions of the bill need not become one which focuses on support for or opposition to the use of GM organisms.

Bill C-474 is seeking to propose the establishment of a means by which, prior to export of Canadian products, there can be developed a process by which “potential harm” of exporting GM products into markets which have not accepted their presence can be determined.

In a background note prepared for the agriculture committee on November 26, 2009, it was indicated that soya growers and exporters have taken an innovative approach by introducing a segregation system that allows them to supply their customers with different crops of soya with specific characteristics. However, this segregation system is not available to all varieties.

The economic harm test is established by the fact of a ban on certain GM content and the discovery of it in any shipment. However, the bill does not define how that economic harm would be determined. We will listen closely to witnesses to see if they can possibly put forward the method of defining that economic harm.

The wider issue remains the acceptability of GM organisms in the food system.

This is not the first time we have been faced with that kind of a decision. In 1994 Monsanto was pressing to have its product, Posilac, approved in Canada. Posilac, better known as rBST, is a synthetic growth hormone that increases milk production in dairy cattle. The Standing Committee on Agriculture, in its report of April 14, 1994, recommended a moratorium on the approval of rBST during which time there would be a review in greater detail of the impact of rBST on the costs and benefits for the Canadian dairy industry.

I bring this up because we are seeing the same kind of concern raised by researchers and some of the big companies right now. The response at that time from the industry to the work of the committee was to question why the committee would even do that work. I received a letter from the president of Ag-West Biotech Inc., a very successful biotech company in Saskatoon, in April 1994. He said:

I am writing to you with respect to agriculture biotechnology and my concerns regarding the recent actions of the Standing Committee on agriculture. The method they used to deal with BST has given me some real concerns for the future of the biotechnology industry in Canada.

He went on in the letter to say:

Their recommendations [meaning the committee] could have serious negative impacts on the future of Canadian agriculture. I trust that their recommendations won't proceed further, as they presently stand.

Another company that was very concerned was Monsanto, which wrote a letter on May 3, 1994. Monsanto said:

Since 1985 Monsanto has followed the current process for BST approval through Health Canada. We support a transparent and science based regulatory system. As developers, we believe this is essential to reassure the public on issues such as food safety...

Monsanto goes on to argue that, should the committee even study the issue, there would be loss of investment in Canada.

The point is that neither claim can be borne out. We made the decision as a committee. We debated the issue. As I understand it, rBST is still not approved for use in Canada. Monsanto and other research companies have continued to invest heavily.

Sending this bill to committee should not impact on investment in Canada. We should study the issue at committee and lay the facts on the table. I hear a government member laughing. I know the government hates to discuss issues. It likes to operate in secrecy. This issue should go to committee. It should be debated there. Proper witnesses should be brought in and then decisions made on the future.

The House resumed from March 17 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 Regulations

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from approximately 100 constituents. They support Bill C-474, which is about the approval of genetically engineered seeds in Canada, which are not also approved in our export market, so this is a concern. They are also concerned about unexpected and unwanted contamination from genetically engineered crops. They are concerned with government seed regulations, and regulations of novel foods and plants with novel traits, which do not include assessment or consideration of potential impacts or harm from the release of these seeds.

Seeds Regulations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-474 on St. Patrick's Day today. I know that I only have a few minutes, but I can finish it another day.

As others have argued here tonight, we need to proceed with caution on Bill C-474. Canada's farmers, as we know, depend upon trade for their livelihoods. Canadians depend upon that same trade for jobs and prosperity. Canada's agrifood and seafood exports are more than $42 billion and contribute over $13 billion to Canada's trade surplus. In total, Canada's agriculture and food industry drives over 8% of our GDP, and one in eight of our jobs.

Our government is committed to the continued success of Canadian agriculture. We put farmers first in every decision we make on agriculture. It has to be that way. Our formula is simple and it works. We listen to farmers. We work with farmers and we deliver the bankable, practical results farmers need. Farmers need markets and that is why the minister, on behalf of this government, has been taking an aggressive approach, opening up international markets for our farmers.

Canada believes successful trade must be based on sound science and fair rules, and those are the key words in this bill. It has to be based on sound science, so we need to be very cautious of any move to introduce a subjective, non-scientific element to the discussion. I am referring to socio-economic considerations such as consumers' attitudes in other countries to genetically engineered foods. These matters are very important, but they are best resolved by the industry and the marketplace, not governments. We have seen, for instance, how the marketplace has responded to changing attitudes, vis-à-vis GE foods in a number of European markets. Our message as a trading nation must be consistent.

I will close in just saying that there is a lot more to be said on this, but we must base this on science. Genetically modified seeds have been around for 50 years and they are very important to agriculture.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-474, sponsored by my colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. I really have a lot of respect for his tenacity in dealing with this issue. It takes a lot of work, as members know if they have ever developed a private member's bill. I know the member has done a lot of work on this file. He has consulted far and wide on this bill.

Contrary to the shrill comments that we have received from the government member across the floor, the fact of the matter is that it is very likely that we will be able to pass this bill, given that the Bloc member who just spoke made a very excellent speech regarding his approach to the bill, and the fact that he will be supporting its progress to committee. In fact, the Liberal critic before him, who spoke to the bill, was a little more negative toward the bill, but he, too, indicated that the Liberal Party would be supporting to get the bill to committee.

Once again the government is sort of on the short end of the stick here because we have three parties with the majority of the votes that can send this to committee. I hope that is in fact what happens.

The member has indicated in his introductory speech that he is open to amendments and further consideration at committee. That is the way we should be approaching subjects in this Parliament.

The bill calls for an amendment to the Seeds Regulations Act which would require an analysis of potential harm to export markets to be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted. That seems to me to be almost a no-brainer.

Why would people invest in their plant, equipment and farm, and embark on a career to produce a product that potentially would not have a market? I would think they would want to investigate that before they took a chance on perhaps losing everything.

The member, as well as the member for the Bloc, pointed out that Argentina is a success story in this regard in that it takes this into consideration before it makes these approvals.

We see this over and over again with the government. It does not necessarily look at what works before it reacts. We see it with the crime bills. There is ample evidence that mandatory minimums have not worked in the United States for the last 25 years, so what does it do, it keeps trying to do the same thing.

We know that corporate income tax cuts have not actually had the desired effect of increasing investment in plants and equipment. What does the government do, it keeps reducing the corporate income tax.

Once again, the member from the Bloc pointed out that Argentina has the proper approach. It is not too late. It is never too late to learn new ideas. Perhaps when we do get this bill to committee, the members of the government will open their minds a bit and perhaps take a second look at this, and perhaps look at what in fact is going on in Argentina.

Perhaps there will be some meeting of the minds. After all, that is what a minority Parliament, in fact even a majority Parliament, should be able to accomplish. Particularly in a minority Parliament, there is something to be said for the process of listening to the other person's arguments before drawing conclusions.

I am aware that the majority of the European Union remains opposed to this. We are quite aware of the European Union being concerned. That is a risk that we have to deal with all of the time in agriculture. The issue is, why would we take a chance alienating a major part of the market?

I know that in the last several years, even though I represent an urban constituency, I was put on the agriculture committee of the Midwestern Legislative Conference. Members from the government side from Saskatchewan will know what the Midwestern Legislative Conference is all about. In fact, Saskatchewan was a member longer than us. We joined five or six years ago and we meet every year in conference.

Sitting on that agriculture committee for the last five years before I got elected to the federal House, I must admit that I got quite a crash course on agriculture issues. I learned that the discussion and process around the U.S. farm bill is a process that we would never want to replicate in this country. It is hardly a great example of how legislation should be put together. I think the member from Saskatchewan probably knows that when the U.S. farm bill is brought together over a five-year process, it is all glued and taped together with interest groups and other interests.

I do not have enough time to get into all of the different issues that have been put into the farm bill. The last farm bill, which I believe ran out just recently, had some provisions for big tax breaks for people who were not really even farmers. They were basically investors and they were getting all of these subsidies from Washington.

That is what we are dealing with here, in a way, because we are a smaller country. We have to deal with the Americans on the other side of the border. As a result, we do a lot of things in a policy sense that do not necessarily reflect where a lot of our people are at or that make sense globally. We tend to bow our heads to agribusiness and corporate farms, which we in the NDP have always been reluctant to do.

Look at the people who support this bill. The member indicated that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union have indicated support for this bill. I know that members will probably say that that is not a surprise because the National Farmers Union does tend to support many of the things that NDP members support. The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network and the organic food and farm community are also in support.

If all of these organizations are in support of this bill, who is against it? As usual, we do not have to look too far to find out that the agribusiness people, the big money people, and the corporate farm people are pulling the strings behind the scenes. Members know that. The Conservatives know what is really going on behind the scenes here, but they are basically tied. I guess it is easier for them to take their marching orders from agribusiness and think that everything is going to be okay.

The world has developed that way, but there is a strong resistance against that approach. We are seeing that in the markets. We are seeing that in Europe. We are seeing people in European markets resisting and I predict it is going to happen in other markets as well. We are going to find more and more people. Maybe they want to go back to the past. Maybe we all want to think back favourably on the old family farm that many of us visited and many of us grew up on.

People say that we cannot go back there, that it is the past, and that we have to keep moving forward. They say that the trend is moving toward these huge multi-million dollar businesses, agribusinesses, use of pesticides and so on, and that we are basically polluting ourselves. That is not necessarily going to be the final answer here. We have to look at other alternatives. I think the member is giving us a good direction to move in.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this debate on Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), introduced by the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior from the NDP. I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food—a number of members of the committee have been there for more than five years now—with the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior. He is very conscientious and has introduced a bill on which he has worked very hard.

I am surprised at the reaction of the Liberal members a few moments ago who, despite their reservations about this bill, decided to refer it to committee. I think that is what is needed in order to look at this bill from all angles. We are referring this bill to committee in order to hear witnesses and perhaps even remove certain irritants from it to make it suit the agricultural community, in Quebec in my case, and in Canada for other members of the committee.

However, the Conservatives are closed-minded. They immediately rejected the bill and did not want to hear any arguments in committee. I deplore that way of doing things.

That is why the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill and wants to study it in committee.

We think it is important to consider all aspects of approving a new product, including its commercial consequences on foreign markets, before introducing it in the range of products already offered to producers in Canada and Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the bill is pertinent and constitutes the first step in regulating transgenic seeds, or GMOs.

We believe that the federal government must adhere to the precautionary principle so as not to deny our producers access to good markets.

Our agricultural producers already lack support from the federal government. We have to ensure they do not come up against more obstacles.

This bill requires the Governor in Council to amend the Seeds Regulations in order to require an analysis of potential harm for export markets to be done before allowing the sale of any new transgenic seeds.

In other words, the purpose of the bill is to require the government to assess the sale and use of new transgenic seeds for Canada from an economic perspective as well.

At present, the analyses required prior to the certification and sale of a new seed only address the safety of seeds with respect to health and the environment. This bill will add another component. It will allow another consideration to be taken into account: the impact of the entry of a new seed into Canada on international agricultural trade, particularly trade with the European Union, which, as we know, refuses imports of genetically modified foods.

It is important to consider export markets. Given Canada's dominant global position in the production of GMOs—we heard this from all parties who commented on the bill—it is very important to consider the development and evolution of the international GMO market. Canada is currently the fifth largest producer of genetically modified crops in the world, after the United States, Brazil, Argentina and India. We must maintain a market in order to sell these crops.

I just mentioned Argentina, which is one of the largest producers of genetically modified crops. I do not know whether the member for British Columbia Southern Interior looked at what is happening in Argentina. It has legislation that, oddly enough, closely resembles what the member is proposing. The release of GMOs requires an assessment of the biosecurity of the environment as well as a favourable assessment of the safety of the foods in their raw state and an assessment confirming that our exports will not be negatively impacted. I say “our exports” because I am quoting the Argentinian legislation. They established a national biosecurity framework in 2004.

The assessment is conducted by the Argentinian national bureau of agri-food markets. It involves an analysis of the current regulatory systems and the degree of acceptance by the public in countries that purchase their exports. The situation of commercial competitors, potential markets, the proportion of the crops in their trade with each country and the proportion of their imports in their total purchases are also taken into consideration in this Argentinian legislation which, as I mentioned, dates from 2004.

Before a GMO is approved for marketing, the Chilean secretariat for agriculture, livestock, fisheries and food must have the following technical advice: the impact of the mass culture on a commercial scale of the transgenic product in question on the agri-food ecosystem, as well as the safety of the food or livestock feed. It also requires an assessment of whether the market would accept the GMO.

Including analysis of the impact on exports in the GMO approval process is not extraneous, considering the important role of agri-food exports within Argentina's economy. It helps avoid unpleasant surprises.

We heard earlier about what happened in Ontario recently regarding flax, which was criticized. The committee must take a closer look at exactly what happened and consider whether this bill could help with that kind of problem. In any case, this is how it has been done in Argentina for six years now, and this has not stopped that country from being one of the largest GMO producers.

Here is an example of what can happen when GMOs pose a problem. China recently closed its market to Canadian pork because of the H1N1 flu virus, even though we know that people do not get the flu from eating pork. Fortunately, things are beginning to turn around, but we face this kind of problem every time a country decides to close its market. We do not have a key to open those doors; only the country in question does.

GM crop producers face these problems. In 2001, Chinese importers announced that they were refusing all canola, rapeseed and soy from North America. Of course Canada is part of North America. It was an economic disaster for American soy producers, because 70% of their crops are genetically modified, and China is the largest market for American soy. Countries that do not produce GMOs, including European exporters, took advantage of the situation.

The Europeans have been refusing to import GMOs for some time now, and they have convinced food processors to do the same. That is the case with McCain, a well-known company that, in December 1999, announced that as of spring 2000, it would refuse to purchase genetically modified potatoes. Producers in New Brunswick, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island who supplied McCain at the time and who farmed Colorado potato beetle resistant potatoes had to adjust. When that announcement was made, it was estimated that about 5% of the potatoes farmed in Quebec were genetically modified potatoes.

There is also the issue of genetically modified flax. Would my colleague's bill fix this situation? I am not sure, but we must not turn a blind eye to the problems facing our agricultural economy.

Since the start of September 2009, at least eight warnings have been issued in Europe regarding the presence of a variety of genetically modified flax in the food chain. European legislation has prohibited the use of these types of genes since 2004. Triffid, this species of flax, has been approved for consumption in Canada and the United States.

The European traceability system quickly determined the origin of the product and Canadian authorities were contacted to block entry of that product. The situation could be catastrophic since 68% of Canadian flax production was, until now, bound for Europe.

Some have expressed to us their support for Bill C-474, namely the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which recognizes how important it is to improve market assessments among current and potential trade partners. Laurent Pellerin said:

Avoiding the closure of these markets because of the technology we use should be a priority for the government when it is trying to increase export opportunities for Canadian producers.

As the agriculture and agri-food critic for the Bloc Québécois, I cannot see myself denying Bill C-474 the chance to be studied in committee.

This would allow us to get to know the ins and outs of this bill and make an informed decision on what to do next when the bill is passed or amended. It could be interesting to discuss this in committee.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations . The intent of the bill is to amend the seeds regulations in order to “require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted”.

The wording in the bill is very simple. In reality however, its content and potential ramifications are tremendously complex. If enacted as it is currently worded, the bill risks wide-ranging, unintended and undesirable consequences. The member who tabled the bill stated that it is required in order to prevent potential damage to Canadian export markets by genetically modified organisms. He stated in the House and elsewhere that he developed the bill largely as a reaction to an incident that occurred last year concerning Canada's flax exports to the European Union and to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

Specifically, the member referred to a case in Europe that arose in July 2009 when it was discovered that Canadian flax exports were unintentionally comingled with the GM flax known as triffid. The presence of triffid flax was found first in Germany in cereal and bakery products, and its subsequent tracing to Canadian shipments resulted in severe consequences for our flax producers. The EU, the market accounting for approximately 70% of Canada's flax exports, has a zero tolerance policy toward non-approved GM products and closed its borders to Canadian flax in September and October 2009.

The first question arises directly from the incident this bill is attempting to address and that is, if the bill had been the law at the time and a study of the potential harm to export markets by triffid flax seed had been conducted, as is suggested by this bill, for future GM seeds in Canada, would the knowledge gained from that study have prohibited triffid's exportation to the European Union and hence prevented the resulting market disruptions for flax producers in Canada?

The triffid flax that was found recently in Canadian flax shipments to the European Union was never approved for sale in Canada though developed a decade before the incident, and as such, any export market harm study as recommended in the bill, regardless of outcome, would not have prevented the comingling of triffid GM flax with non-GM flax seed.

This is a critical flaw in the bill that must be considered by the House, that it would not have prevented the very incident it wishes to address. Perhaps the real question is how to properly keep non-approved GMOs from entering the food system in the first place.

The bill does not question the legitimacy of GMOs as an agricultural tool. I am aware that for some, GMO use is an all or nothing issue, but let us be clear that the debate on this bill is neither about support for nor opposition to the use or manufacture of GM agricultural products. Those issues are not addressed in the bill. It must be noted that the bill, as it is currently worded, may actually present serious barriers to this burgeoning Canadian industry and potentially risks our competitive advantage in this cutting edge field of research and development.

Canada is the fifth largest producer of GM crops in the world. Canola, for example, from which is derived commonly used canola oil, is one major Canadian success story. Ninety per cent of the crop is genetically modified with a majority of our production going to export markets. Soybeans are another example. Seventy per cent of soybeans are genetically modified with the rest grown conventionally.

Further, there is compelling evidence that the smart, safe, secure application of GM food science will play an important role in the international community's continuing attempt to address the crisis of world hunger and malnutrition.

The United Nations predicts the world population will peak at 9.1 billion by 2050. That means the world will require a 70% increase in food production to meet the rise in demand. We must be ready and able to employ every resource at our disposal to assist in meeting this challenge, including building agricultural capacity in developing countries. That effort will likely hinge on how willing the developed world is to enhance and apply cutting edge food and agricultural technology, including in part, GMOs.

The next question that arises when considering the bill is what the potential consequences are for Canada's existing regulatory framework and agricultural industry, whether intended or unintended, should it become law.

It must be noted that the bill, as currently worded, actually holds the potential for a drastic departure from our current regulatory regime. The Canadian regulatory system that protects our health, safety and environment is one of the best, most comprehensive and respected systems in the world.

It is important to point out that its regulations are based on sound science, not the more subjective and fluid economic factors the bill proposes. In fact, the vast majority of developed or exporting countries' regulatory regimes do not include an economic analysis of genetically modified organisms' effect on local and international trade.

Canada's reputation and success as a trading nation has always depended on the consistent application of science-based decision making, and our substantial international credibility is due to the fact we have always relied on a science-based approach to health, safety and environmental issues.

During the BSE crisis, for example, Canada aggressively and successfully lobbied countries to make decisions on opening international borders for Canadian beef based on science, not unfounded fears. We did not stop beef production or sale because certain countries rejected our meat.

In addition, the wording of the bill does not define the scope or meaning of the words “market” or “harm”. One potential scenario is that a majority of importing countries may accept a GMO product, and a small minority may reject it. Hence, an entire world market could potentially be lost to our producers because of the theoretical risk of a GMO product being exported to the non-accepting market.

We look forward to having this issue clarified through debate in the House and, possibly, pending the outcome of that debate, a potential examination of it at committee.

Further, the prohibition measures the bill would put in place in the Seeds Act would only prevent a genetically engineered seed from being cultivated in Canada by our own agricultural industry. That very same genetically engineered crop could still be imported into Canada for processing or be used in feed, since these uses are regulated under different acts that only consider the health and safety aspects.

Australian states have implemented bans on planting genetically engineered crops, but are still allowing these crops to be imported for use in food or feed. It is possible, therefore, that should the House choose to adopt Bill C-474, we would only be restricting the competitiveness of Canadian farmers by the bill, and our markets would remain open to foreign GM seed imports.

Before I conclude, it must be said there is a clear consensus that strengthening our export markets is absolutely critical to the health of the Canadian agricultural industry. From seed developers to growers, to processors and shippers and, indeed, to all the hon. members of the House, everyone agrees that preserving our export markets is essential to the overall success of Canadian agriculture.

Nevertheless, the huge success of our export markets today is due in part to two relevant facts: that our agricultural production is generally accepted across the globe as safe and high quality; and that self-imposed barriers to industry have traditionally been avoided in Canada, unless absolutely necessary for the health, safety or true protection of market access.

It may be true there is not a one-size-fits-all approach, which is what the bill seems to advocate. The obligation upon any government, of course, is to err on the side of caution and to base these decisions upon a most rigorous scientific scrutiny.

The issue the member attempts to address with Bill C-474 is vitally important and deserving of attention and discussion. Our reading of the bill as currently worded is that though it is well intended, it has the potential to create far more difficulties than the problems it attempts to resolve.

We will support sending the bill to committee so there is the opportunity to more fully scrutinize the issues and make a well-informed decision on whether or not the bill should go any further and report back to the House with recommendations.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-474 raises a complex and important issue that affects farmers and the agricultural sector.

Let me start by saying that the Government of Canada considers issues of safety to be the highest priority for all agricultural production. Canada's regulatory system requires that new agricultural products undergo science-based safety assessments before they can be cultivated by a grower, used in livestock feed, or made available to consumers. Safety comes first with all foods, including those derived through biotechnology.

Canada's science-based approval process would not permit any genetically engineered seed to pose a threat to health or the environment to be grown in Canada. Canada has one of the most stringent and rigorous regulatory systems in the world.

This system applies to genetically modified crops and foods, all of which must undergo a rigorous scientific approval process administered by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Canada's regulatory system for agricultural biotech products ensures that all of the possible precautions are taken.

The safety of new products is carefully and cautiously assessed before these products can be cultivated by a grower, be used in livestock feed, or be made available to the consumer.

The subject matter of this bill certainly raises questions concerning how best to manage the market impacts of genetically engineered products. However, our government, along with the vast majority of farmers and industry leaders, supports a safety approval process based solely on sound science. For example, in an article in The Western Producer, dated January 21, 2010, Rick White, general manager of the Canadian Canola Growers Association, said he feared that this bill would make Canada's regularly approval system for genetically modified crops look more like Europe's. He said:

We strongly encourage Canada to stick to our guns on science based regulatory processes. Keep the politics out of it.

Mr. White added that growers could lose the agronomic and economic benefits GM crops have delivered to the canola industries if Canada moves from a science-based system to one based on an assessment of potential economic harm. He said that crop developers would be wary of spending money and time on developing new crops.

To remind hon. members, Bill C-474 states:

The Governor in Council shall, within 60 days after this Act comes into force, 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.

Contrary to what is stated in the bill, Parliament cannot instruct the governor-in-council to make a regulation.

Furthermore, a regulation to include the analysis of potential market harm cannot be made unless section 4.1 of the Seeds Act is revised to authorize the establishment of such a regulation.

In addition to the technical flaws of the bill, I believe the member for British Columbia Southern Interior has ignored a number of matters if Canada were to go to a market based system. For instance, there are implications for Canada's international trade position. We have to be wary that we do not undermine Canada's credibility internationally as we seek to keep markets open for our Canadian agricultural products.

Sound science is the foundation of Canada's position regarding trade disputes. Sound science must be the starting point of any discussion. Science-based arguments have been very effective for Canada in past cases that we have brought before the World Trade Organization, including cases won against the European Union.

In fact, science is the foundation of our argument in our current dispute with Korea at the WTO. Korea has been banning Canadian beef imports for six years because of mad cow disease.

We are putting pressure on our trading partners in order to gain full access to their markets in accordance with OIE standards.

We are making the same argument to other countries that have banned our beef or beef products.

If all of a sudden we start to apply different criteria from those that we are asking other countries to apply, we will most definitely weaken our case.

Science-based standards and policies put Canada on par with international trading partners.

It is highly probable that introducing socio-economic considerations into the discussion could give comfort to those who would block Canadian products with no valid scientific justification.

We also need to examine what kind of issues a market impact analysis would explore. For instance, the potential advantages to farmers of the new technology, such as yield increases and input cost reductions, would need to be weighed against potential market acceptance issues and their impact on sales. None of these can be predicted with certainty.

Bill C-474 would also add to the regulatory burden, discouraging innovation in the sector as well as crucial research and development investments.

If we introduce non-safety, non-science subjective elements into our system, we risk losing R and D investments to our competitors.

Furthermore, we would risk losing competitiveness to the United States, where decisions on GM plants are based on a scientific assessment of its risk to the environment.

From the beginning, this government has listened to and responded to farmers' needs. That is why we believe that industry is best positioned to understand and respond to market risks and opportunities of genetically engineered products.

In the past, industry has taken the lead on assessing market risks and opportunities of GM products. Decisions have been made on a crop by crop basis, with producers and processors charting the best path forward, depending on market conditions. Let me give the House a few examples of this.

The Canadian canola industry dealt with the potential market impacts caused by exporting GM canola to key export markets by choosing to segregate GM canola. The segregation process was developed by the industry and involved all members of the value chain, product developers, seed suppliers, grain handlers, processors and end-users.

The Canola Council of Canada and grower organizations had a strong relationship with customers in Japan and the European Union, which increased their confidence in the segregation system. When Japan approved the GM varieties in 1997, the segregation system was discontinued.

Today, the canola industry has adopted a voluntary policy not to commercialize new GM varieties unless they are also accepted in major export markets.

Following the lead of the canola industry, the soy industry responded to market signals and put into place an advanced identity-preservation system for non-genetically modified food-quality soy.

Canada's potato industry was able to expertly manage the commercial implications of consumer disinterest in genetically modified potatoes.

The control of the supply chain allowed the industry to quickly and easily remove genetically modified potatoes from the market.

Members of this House need to realize that this bill would compromise Canada's export markets, place a chill on innovation and put our producers at a competitive disadvantage.

If Bill C-474 passes, it will threaten the flexibility and market access that benefit our farmers.

We on the government side have given serious consideration to this bill. Bill C-474 is not in the best interests of our farmers. I repeat that Canada has one of the most stringent and vigorous regulatory systems in the world and it is based on sound science. This bill would undermine all that we have accomplished.

We do not support this bill.

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

moved that Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to stand here today before my colleagues to talk about Bill C-474. It is not every day one has a chance in the House of Commons to bring a piece of legislation forward for debate and a vote.

My bill proposes to amend the seeds regulations to require that analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

It is well known that our farmers are having a difficult time as it is, without more obstacles being thrown at them. The scenario goes something like this: if GE alfalfa or wheat is introduced into the environment, at some point in time, sooner or later, it will contaminate non-GM varieties. Once this happens, our international customers who are buying non-GM alfalfa and wheat will refuse to do so. This will hurt farmers. That is why we need to have a mechanism in place to assess potential harm to our export markets before this happens.

As everyone knows, our farmers were hit hard when they learned that an illegal genetically modified flax seed had contaminated Canadian flax exports. Europeans then started pulling certain products and varieties of products off their shelves, and entire shipments of Canadian flax destined for Europe were quarantined.

At the end of 2009, 35 countries indicated that they had received contaminated flax from Canada, causing our export markets to be shut down. Now, prices have dropped, uncertainty has seized the markets, and farmers must absorb the costs of tests and cleanup measures.

As we saw in the Western Producer on March 4 of this year, a testing protocol for flax established by Canada and the European Union is proving too onerous for Canadian exporters and shipping companies. Flax destined for Europe must now be tested for GE evidence at three stages: delivery to country elevators, loading onto rail cars and at the transfer of the contents onto ocean-bound vessels. Due to logistical pressures, tight shipping schedules and test result delays, this protocol is unworkable.

Already, the federal government has committed up to $1.9 million to help the flax industry with testing and to build back good trading relations with Europe. This is a small indication of the costs of unexpected GE contamination that can affect trade. This $1.9 million did not compensate farmers for the added testing costs or loss of market.

What does contamination really mean? Contamination so far has meant economic trouble for farmers and government. In its submissions to the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, as well as the National Farmers Union of Canada, expressed their strong opposition to the APHIS decision to grant non-regulated status to two GE alfalfa lines produced by Monsanto and Forage Genetics International.

This decision has no built-in protection for farmers to guard against contamination. We must also remember that contamination does not respect international borders. Basically, if APHIS deregulates the production of GE alfalfa in the U.S., the likelihood of contamination is a virtual certainty.

What are the consequences? The ability of farmers to produce organic or conventionally grown alfalfa will steadily deteriorate. Markets for organic alfalfa will be lost, as will those for any organic production where alfalfa is used either as a natural fertilizer or feed stock. It is one of the most widely planted crops by area in Canada since it is used for a variety of functions in farm systems.

Alfalfa is the most important forage crop in Canada used in the beef and dairy industry. The Canadian alfalfa processing industry, also known as the dehydration industry, ranks in the world's top five largest exporters of alfalfa pellets and alfalfa cubes. Alfalfa is deeply integrated into the entire organic food and farming system in Canada.

The Manitoba Forage Council has already passed a resolution saying that it will hold Ottawa directly responsible for any economic loss experienced as a result of trade injury incurred due to the loss of export markets of alfalfa seed and other legume and grass seed crops related to the introduction of Roundup Ready alfalfa in Canada. To date, Canada has four GE crops: corn, soy, canola and white sugar beet. Bill C-474 should not affect them since any further introduction of GE varieties would probably not close down their markets.

We need to have a very close, objective look at what the market reality is for Canadian farmers. The reality in the world today is an unending controversy over GE that is impacting our export markets. For example, every year new questions are raised about the robustness of the agronomic benefits of GE crops. Every year there are new contamination incidents with unapproved GE events. For example, Liberty Link rice resulted in economic damage of over $1 billion, a cost that was borne by American exporters.

Every year there are multiple new reports from credible sources that project contradictory ideas and findings to those put out by proponents of biotechnology. Every year we are seeing more associations of scientists and medical professionals, farm organizations and NGOs, who work with farmers on other food issues, rising up to protest against GE.

All of these feed the global controversy that affects our export markets. Monsanto has just reported, from evidence from one state in India, that Bt cotton is no longer working and is failing to resist the pests it was designed for. Just this February, we witnessed opposition that was so strong and loud from the people of India that their government was forced to halt the approval of Monsanto's GE eggplant.

We also see popular and widely watched films, such as The World According to Monsanto in which documented evidence is presented that paints us a not very reassuring picture about the behaviour of a corporation to which a great deal of power over the ownership and production of seeds has been granted by many governments, including our own.

Here are just a few other indications that the controversy is far from over. Currently, six EU member states, Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg, have imposed bans on growing GM corn even though it has been approved by the European Commission.

On March 8, the Swiss parliament extended its national moratorium on the cultivation of GM plants by three years to 2013. Enacted in 2005, the moratorium was established after a national referendum.

Last year, GM cultivation in the European Union actually decreased by 11%.

Last year, Scotland's environment minister, Roseanna Cunningham, strongly reaffirmed the Scottish government's anti-GM stance, saying:

We are ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with other nations who are opposed to GM and fight for what our people want.

Flax farmers have long understood the market reality very clearly. They knew that contamination of Canadian flax with a GE flax would close their European market which represents 60% to 70% of our flax exports.

In 2001, the GE flax that has now been found in Canadian flax exports was de-registered because of their efforts. The GE flax seed was made illegal to sell in Canada to prevent this exact scenario of market chaos.

We must now follow the example of flax farmers who have had the foresight to know the economic risks that GE flax posed to their export markets. The flax farmers took concrete steps within their power to prevent this but we let them down.

In the Toronto Star, January 9, 2001, Don Westfall, bio-tech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International, was quoted as saying:

The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with genetically modified organisms] that there's nothing you can do about it. [You just sort of surrender.]

What if the European Union does not surrender any time soon? Are our wheat farmers to surrender their export markets instead, or our alfalfa processors? After all this time there is no sign of surrender and no amount of wishful thinking on the part of the industry will change that fact. The market may be flooded but resistance in our export markets is relentless and growing.

In spite of the rising tide of concern over GE crops, there are those who feel that the answer lies in introducing more and more GE crops in the world. Although there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary, they still see this as the only way to double the world's food production.

What we must do today is ensure that, because of today's reality, alfalfa and wheat farmers never ever suffer from severe economic hardship through a rejection of our exports as a result of unwanted GE contamination.

The Government of Argentina understands this and has already set the precedent. Argentina has historically been unwilling to authorize GM crops prior to European approval. The likely impact of the GM crop on exports is actually a consideration in its approvals process.

In addition to the environmental and food safety assessment, the Government of Argentina includes an assessment of the absence of negative impacts on their exports. It describes:

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.

Argentina is the third largest GM crop growing area after the U.S. and Brazil, with India as fourth and Canada as fifth. GM soy, corn and cotton are grown in Argentina which translates into 21.3 million hectares of GM crop area. So Argentina has not suffered from this policy but has thrived. Argentina is not a marginal player when it comes to GM globally, but is the third biggest grower of GM crops.

Surely Canada can implement something similar to protect our trade in agricultural commodities?

Our regulations are not harmonized with those of any of our trading partners, aside from the United States. They likely will not be in the near future, given the enormous pressure that voters have put on politicians in other countries to maintain a zero-tolerance approach to genetically modified contamination, and to implement strict policies regarding genetically modified crops.

The purpose of Bill C-474 is to add a mechanism to the regulations that would protect farmers from the economic uncertainty caused by the marketing of genetically modified seeds or the contamination of their crops by these seeds, given the market's widespread opposition to these seeds.

We need to get Bill C-474 before committee where we can start looking at the details that will enable us to offer some degree of protection for farmers.

I would just like to emphasize, as I mentioned in my press conference yesterday, that it is about the pocketbook. People say that it is political or that it is emotional. It is very possible that the decisions in Europe are political and are emotional but that is its business. If its decision is to shut down markets, we need to be able to react by protecting our farmers. Our decision needs to be based not only on science but also on the economic reality to farmers.

I am counting on the support of my colleagues in the House to make this happen.

Bill C-471--Pay Equity Task Force Recommendation Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-471, the pay equity task force recommendations act, on the grounds that it requires a royal recommendation.

Normally, royal recommendation interventions are made before the first hour of debate, which occurred on this bill last night. However, after a request from the Liberal Party, who had an event of some importance last night, we delayed that so that we would not unduly delay the members opposite from attending their most important event.

Let me make my intervention now. Bill C-471 proposes to do two things. First, it imposes on the government a duty to implement the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force report that sets deadlines by which this must be done. It is noted in clause 2 of the bill that this includes establishing “all statutory oversight agencies”.

The second component of Bill C-471 is to immediately repeal the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, which was passed by Parliament nine months ago in March 2009. I have objections to both of these components and will address them in turn.

Turning to the first component, subclause 2(1) of the bill imposes an imperative duty on the government to “implement the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force set out in its final report”. I have considerable concerns with this provision. While a sponsoring member may attempt to argue that Bill C-471 is similar to the Kyoto protocol implementation act or the Kelowna accord implementation act, which you ruled in order in the last Parliament, there is significant distinction.

In your ruling on September 27, 2006, regarding Bill C-288, you stated:

In a ruling earlier this week on a similar matter, namely, C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, the Chair made a distinction between a bill asking the House to approve certain objectives and a bill asking the House to approve the measures to achieve certain objectives. So too in the case before us, the adoption of a bill calling on the government to implement the Kyoto protocol might place an obligation on the government to take measures necessary to meet the goals set out in the protocol but the Chair cannot speculate on what those measures may be.

In the case of Bill C-471, the measures are set out in detail in the 113 recommendations of the task force report, which is referenced in this bill. The recommendation is that “Parliament enact new stand alone proactive pay equity legislation”. The other 112 recommendations describe the measures that should be included in that legislation.

As a result, this bill raises grave concerns. It places an impossible duty on the Crown of implementing the recommendations, which can only be done by passage of legislation. It seeks to bind this or a subsequent Parliament to pass this new legislation, which I submit would unconstitutionally undermine the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty. It would fundamentally alter the relationship between the Crown and Parliament, and that is the heart of the financial initiative.

In your February 24, 2005, ruling, you aptly quoted:

Suffice it to say that those relations are neatly summed up in the phrase, “the government proposes, and parliament disposes”.

Bill C-471 clearly turns that relationship on its head by both proposing and disposing the measures in purposes for which public moneys should be spent. This is made even more apparent by subclause 2(2) of the bill. This provision sets the deadline by which the government must implement the task force recommendations. In particular, it states:

The Government of Canada shall ensure that all statutory oversight agencies are put in place no later than January 1, 2011.

This provision of the bill also distinguishes it from Bill C-288 and Bill C-292, considered in the last Parliament. Neither of those bills dictated the establishment of new institutions, much less as part of its expressed terms. Based on the task force report, the duty in subclause 2(2) entails the new creation of two new statutory agencies as well as a new system of adjudicators. Assuming Bill C-471 is constitutional and the government is bound by its terms, it has no choice but to establish these new bodies.

It is trite to say that such a measure would require the expenditure of new funds to a new purpose. For example, the Speaker's ruling of September 19, 2006, concluded that the creation of advisory committee requires a royal recommendation, since this clearly would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner not currently authorized. For this reason, Bill C-471 requires a royal recommendation to be in order.

The second component of Bill C-471 also clearly demonstrates that a royal recommendation is required. As mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, Bill C-471 at clause 3 repeals, in its entirety, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. This repeal would take immediate effect if this bill were to be given royal assent.

The nature of this provision is completely different from anything that was in Bill C-288 and Bill C-292 from the last Parliament.

To fully understand why it has an impact on the financial initiative of the Crown, it is first necessary to understand the purpose of the PSECA. The purpose of this act, put simply, was to remove jurisdiction over public sector pay equity complaints from the Canadian Human Rights Act and to create a new statutory scheme for dealing with public sector pay equity issues proactively.

By the same token, the PSECA removed jurisdiction for dealing with public sector pay equity complaints from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Complaints that arise out of the PSECA process are instead dealt with by the Public Service Labour Relations Board. The grounds for those complaints are defined in the PSECA.

This is underscored in the PSECA's consequential amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which states:

The Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with complaints made against an employer within the meaning of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act [related to the pay equity provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act].

The effect then of clause 3 of Bill C-471 is to reverse all of that. This has two distinct impacts. First, it gives jurisdiction over public sector employers to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal, whose jurisdiction was expressly removed in the PSECA. Second, it subjects public service employers, that is, the Crown as employer, to liability for new statutory grounds of complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Both of these impacts infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown.

In the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc state a fundamental principle of the royal recommendation at pages 833 to 834:

An appropriation accompanied by a royal recommendation, though it can be reduced, can neither be increased nor redirected without a new recommendation...A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown's financial initiative.

Mr. Speaker, this principle is reflected in your ruling of February 11, 2008, in which you held that Bill C-474 required a royal recommendation because it proposed to substantially alter the mandate of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The same principle applies to the bill before you today.

The object of the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act was to fundamentally change the structure, process and jurisdiction for dealing with public sector pay equity issues from what existed before the passage of the act. A royal recommendation accompanied the budget implementation bill, which included the PSECA.

Accordingly, repealing the PSECA and giving the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal jurisdiction over public sector pay equity complaints is essentially a fundamentally new and altered purpose for those organizations. No royal recommendation accompanies that change in Bill C-471.

The royal recommendation that accompanied the PSECA cannot be redirected to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal, and past appropriations for the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal cannot be used for a purpose and jurisdiction that Parliament expressly removed from the PSECA. On that ground alone, Bill C-471 infringes upon the Crown's financial initiative.

In addition, the bill infringes upon the financial initiative on the basis that it exposes the Crown to a distinct liability that would be paid by public moneys. As stated in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, on page 714:

Any proposal whereby the Crown would incur a liability or a contingent liability payable out of money to be voted by Parliament [requires the Queen's recommendation].

In this vein, a June 12, 1973, Speaker's ruling held that a royal recommendation was required for Bill S-5, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.

The Speaker noted:

It may be said that the proposal in Bill S-5 does not in itself propose a direct expenditure. It does, however, propose substantial additional liabilities on public moneys.

Similarly, a May 5, 2009, ruling from the Speaker of the other place ruled Bill S-219 out of order because it would change the Crown's liability under the Canada Student Loans Act. As held in that ruling:

The passage of Bill S-219 would expand the range of conditions under which the government would have to make good its guarantee of loans under the Canada Student Loans Act. This would change the existing scheme, since payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund might increase due to the change in possible obligations. As such, the bill should have a Royal Recommendation, and would have to originate in the other place.

This is also consistent with a ruling on February 12, 1988 regarding Bill S-4, an Act to Amend the Canada Shipping Act. In that case, Mr. Speaker, you found that increases to the limits of civil liability of shipowners did not require a royal recommendation because the payment was covered by the authorization in section 30 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

My correction, Mr. Speaker, if you were not here in 1988. You have been for so long, I think of you as being here forever. That is a compliment, and please take it as such.

That act essentially provides that the Crown could be civilly liable in court for breaches of what is known in the common law tradition as tort or property law. Crown liability for breaches of its law of civil salvage is also expressly provided under section 5. Section 30 provides judgments issued by a court against the Crown are authorized to be paid.

The case of Bill C-471 is clearly distinguishable from Bill S-4 in that it creates a new and distinct statutory liability for the Crown under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Crown Liability and Proceedings Act does not authorize payments for new statutory liabilities of the Crown. In fact, section 33 states:

Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act affects any rule of evidence or any presumption relating to the extent to which the Crown is bound by an Act of Parliament.

Bill C-471 would create a new and distinct statutory charge of the Crown's liability. The more adversarial quasi-judicial setting of the human rights regime is fundamentally different from the proactive and integrated approach of the PSECA.

Under the PSECA, pay equity obligations are integrated in the bargaining process subject to complaint on certain grounds of the Public Service Labour Relations Board. In contrast, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, liability is initiated by individual complaints adjudicated before an administrative tribunal and potentially results in awards for damages. The authority for awarding those damages is the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, through the previous complaints based process under the Canadian Human Rights Act, the government has paid out of public moneys multi-billion dollar judgments. The Crown's obligations are significantly different under the PSECA and a royal recommendation is required to change that.

Before concluding, and I know the wish is for me to conclude quickly, I would like to address a point that may arise during the study of this bill. As we know, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act has been passed by Parliament, but it has not been not been proclaimed into force. Like many other statutes, Parliament delegates to the Governor-in-Council the authority to determine the day on which the act comes into force.

This transitional period, as one of the terms under which Parliament has passed the law, allows the executive time to prepare for the effective implementation of provisions. For purposes of assessing the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-471, it does not matter whether or not the legislation has been proclaimed into force, it suffices that the law has been passed by both Houses of Parliament and that it has received royal assent.

What is and should be most critical and salient is Parliament's decision to make law. In the 21st edition of Erskine May, in formulating the test for whether a charge is new and distinct, it is stated at page 712:

The question may arise whether a proposal for expenditure or for increased expenditure is not already covered by some general authorization. The test for determining this question in the case of a substantive proposal, ie. a provision is in a bill, as introduced, is a comparison with existing law.

In this case, the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act was passed by Parliament on March 12, 2009. It forms part of the Statutes of Canada, it reflects the will of Parliament and it will be implemented under the terms passed by Parliament because that is what the law directs.

As Erskine May puts it, it forms part of the existing law, this is the law against which the provisions of Bill C-471 must be compared. To look at it another way, there would be no purpose for clause 3 of Bill C-471 but to change the law. It follows that in this instance it also changes the purposes and conditions for which the House has authorized expenditures. For that reason it requires a royal recommendation.

While Bill C-471 is a short bill, it has significant consequences and there are multiple reasons for which it requires a royal recommendation to be in order. I should also add that the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the sponsor of Bill C-471, has said that he believes Bill C-471 would result in some additional unspecified costs for the government. In other words, the leader of the official opposition, who is the sponsor of this bill, agrees that his own bill requires a royal recommendation.

Seeds Regulations Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm).

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce this bill 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.

Markets have been closed due to contamination in flax of GM organisms. We need to have a thorough analysis of this. The bill would permit that.

Before we approve any GM alfalfa that could devastate, for example, our organic industry as we know that alfalfa is used in the fertilizer and farmers rely on that, we need a thorough analysis to investigate potential economic harm.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)