Agriculture Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

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

So the implication is, are we working just by ourselves, or when we're doing this, when we're assessing this, are we working with the world community and with CFIA's equivalent in Germany, England, Australia, and India?

India and Brazil have banned terminator technology, for example. They must have had some reason to do that. Are you working with other countries? Are we doing this before we go into this case-by-case assessment? I'm getting the feeling that we're not, and I'd like some clarification on this.

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

Okay, if I may, one thing to remind the committee—and it has been stated a few times—is that this technology doesn't actually exist yet, so we haven't received applications for us to look at. It's very much a hypothetical.

Have we been engaging with other countries on this hypothetical technology? No, not as such, but as Canadian regulators, we certainly have been engaging with our counterparts, regulatory agencies across the world—U.S., India, and China—about biotechnology regulation in general, and that would then give us an avenue to discuss GURTs when the time is appropriate.

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

Thank you.

My last question, or hopefully not my last, is for anybody—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

It will be your last one.

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

The last question is like the last supper right now.

You mentioned that this technology is not designed for the south, and that if we had this technology, it would be for our farmers to take advantage of this. Is it not true that we can contaminate the environment and the food chain, that even though the technology's available in North America, it can get to South America or all of Latin America, or hop on a boat and wind up in Europe?

Is there not a danger that if we release this, there can be contamination of those farmers and their food supply that rely on saving seeds, maybe more than people in southern Alberta, for example? That's the question.

[Denise Dewar]

Certainly we export grain all over the world, but I think it's important to point out that the grain we export is approved for both environmental and food safety, so that has to be done before the grain can go anywhere.

I think what you're getting at is concern that somehow the seed sterility technology will get into conventional varieties in the developing world. The reality is that even if it did out-cross to a conventional variety in the developing world—which in and of itself scientifically is not likely from an out-crossing standpoint, because they grow different varieties than we do in North America—plants are programmed to always be able to reproduce. They select for genes that encourage their reproduction, so scientifically it's very unlikely that a gene for not being able to reproduce itself is going to be selected in the generational process. There are a series of scientific barriers that would have to be overcome before this could happen.

Of course we also sign on to several international protocols, and the biosafety protocol is an international agreement that's under development. If and when this technology comes forward, it would have to be applied under those international agreements, so I don't anticipate that this a problem we would foresee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Atamanenko.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your presentation today. You just whetted our appetites. I'm sure we'll be back to this issue come the new year. I'm sure this meeting will continue at that point.

Right now, we will suspend as we clear you witnesses and bring our next group up to the table.

We have a fairly tight schedule today, so ladies and gentlemen of the committee, keep your seats, if you can. We'll move right on as quickly as we can.

We're suspended at this moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

With us this afternoon, we have Adrian Measner, president of the Canadian Wheat Board, and Mr. Ken Ritter, chair of the board of directors.

Welcome gentleman.

Just before we start, I have a little issue that I would like to clarify. This is a statement that was made by the chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage yesterday on the sub judice convention. It could be of interest for us today. We had a steering committee meeting on Tuesday to cover off some of these issues, but I just want to get this on the record ahead of time:

As you are aware, some of the matters which we may be examining over the next couple of meetings are the subject of legal actions. As a result, I would like to take this opportunity, before we begin, to remind members of the sub judice convention, and to outline how I intend to deal with any issues that might come up.

As stated in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 534, “The sub judice convention is first and foremost a voluntary restraint on the part of the House....” Members of Parliament may therefore decide to exercise a certain degree of restraint when considering matters that are before the courts. While members are free to go about their business freely and without interference, they are also reminded to take into consideration the role of the courts. Accordingly, members and the committee may choose not to do or say things that would prejudice any lawsuit.

Witnesses and members may discuss the various policy and program issues that are before us. We are not here to decide or pass our judgment on the merits of any legal action. Witnesses are not here to plead their legal case, nor are members here to try to bolster or undermine one side or the other in any litigation. If I believe that witnesses or we [as members of Parliament] are straying into any lawsuits or legal matters, I will remind the participants to return to the parliamentary arena.

If we all remember our purpose here, while recognizing the proper role of the courts, I am certain that I will not have to make any interventions.

Thank you.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

There are things I want to say.

This committee has had good cooperation in the past. It has worked well together through this fall. One of the successes we've had in particular has been the Canadian Grain Commission report that we released the other day.

There are a number of recommendations in there. There are a dozen of them. They are good ones, we think. It looks like the grain industry has welcomed them. There were a couple in particular that I think we are really proud of. One is the position we took to enhance producer cars and to strengthen them in the future. There is a position, as well, where we felt the grading system needed to be changed and KVD opened up so that farmers have more opportunities. I think a third one that we thought was a good choice was the office of farmer advocacy, with its six regionally based commissioners. We've also had good rapport on things such as the potato file from Quebec and other issues through this fall.

I only mention that because people need to understand that we do work well together. We've worked well on most issues through this fall. We also know that the Wheat Board is, and has been, a contentious issue. We know there are a lot of different opinions on that issue.

I want to talk a little about that. I am leading to a point—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we have witnesses here. I don't know whether Mr. Anderson is trying to delay time so we don't hear our witnesses, but Mr. Chair, they are here and ready to take questions. It was agreed to by a committee previously. The witness list of December 5 is basically similar to this witness list.

I would ask that the chair get to the subject at hand, which is to hear from the Canadian Wheat Board on what Mr. Anderson says is indeed a controversial issue. That information needs to get out there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

I take that point of order, Mr. Easter, but Mr. Anderson does have the floor.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Actually, Mr. Easter raises a good point. That is actually coming to the heart of what I want to talk about, the witnesses who are here today. It is important. We want to have hearings. We want everyone to be heard.

A number of times through the fall, Mr. Easter insisted that we have extra hearings on this issue. We all put forward our witness lists, and we've been able to bring our witnesses in. Each side has submitted its witness lists. Both sides have been heard. I think it is important to hear both of them.

Unfortunately, the frustration is that I don't think we are going to be able to do that today. Mr. Easter said we need to hear everyone and every perspective and that we need openness and free discussion. But I don't think the opposition is actually ready to do that.

This meeting was set up, and it had an agreed-to witness list. We had a full witness list. That meeting on Tuesday was cancelled because of legal questions, I understand. When it was reconstituted, we were told there was a change to the witness list. Someone was excluded by the steering committee, without the participation or permission of any of the other members.

I have been here six years. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this, Mr. Chair. I think it's important we deal with it today.

Jim Chatenay was the witness. He is here today. He has been good enough to stay. He is a veteran of the board of directors, and he has been a strong a voice for farmers. He has come to committee, and he has been here throughout this week.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Table the December 5 witness list, because Mr. Chatenay is not on that list. I have a copy of it. This witness list has not changed.

Mr. Chair, do you have a copy of the December 5 witness list here?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

The witness list we were given indicated that Mr. Chatenay was one of the witnesses who would be here. He was put on the list and we requested that he be here.

On Tuesday, the steering committee did something they have never done in the six years I have been here. They met behind closed doors. We're not privy to what went on there, but when they came out of that meeting they had altered the witness list. They closed the witness list to deny somebody who was scheduled and had been requested to appear here at the committee. This was done, as far as I know, without their talking to any of the regular members of the committee. The proceedings were secret.

I think questions need to be asked and answered about what went on behind closed doors. More importantly, we need to understand why this was done.

I think I can explain. It's important that opposition members understand that western Canadian farmers have wanted choice for decades. This issue has really been brought to a head in recent years. Let me give the opposition members a little bit of the history.

In the early 1990s, a fall frost froze much of the grain in western Canada. We were told by the Canadian Wheat Board at the time that it would be very difficult or impossible to move that grain. So farmers started looking around for their own markets. They decided to take samples across the border to see if they could get their grain into the United States. They found out that the grain was graded differently in the United States. They got a price on the grain and were going to move to take it to the States.

To do that they had to call the Canadian Wheat Board and get permission from them to sell the grain. We gave them the sales information. A few days later we got a call from the companies in the United States and they said, “We're not going to deal with you as individual farmers. We have a sale for this wheat. We have as much of this wheat as we want.”

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

On a point of order, this is ridiculous.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Mr. Anderson is not a witness here. We decided at steering committee what was going to happen. We agreed that we would have two witnesses from the Wheat Board. There are two directors we want to question because they are new and we want to get some facts from them. That was our decision. This is not a presentation by Mr. Anderson.

He will have a chance to ask questions of the witnesses. It is already a quarter after twelve, and I think we should get on with business.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have the floor and I'd like to finish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Anderson, you have the floor.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you. If they didn't interrupt we'd be done quicker here.

We watched our wheat go down to the United States, and we were paid about 65¢ to 80¢ a bushel less than if we had been able to sell it ourselves. The cost to farmers in our area was $12 million--the price farmers had negotiated with the grain companies in the United States, compared to what we received through the Canadian Wheat Board.

When farmers realized that, they began to get very upset. Many of them were determined to move their own grain across the border, and they organized to do that. The government of the time pushed back, and I'm glad to see Mr. Goodale's here today, because he was a big part of that.

When the farmers won in the courts, the government changed the regulations so they were breaking the law. There were raids and intimidation. Five government agencies were involved: the RCMP, the CRA, Justice, Customs, and the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers were intimidated and hassled for a period of time.

A writer out of Regina named Don Baron has written two books, Canada's Great Grain Robbery, and Jailhouse Justice, that talk about this time in western Canadian agriculture.

Dozens of farmers went to jail as well, for times ranging from a few hours to weeks and weeks. We've all heard of farmers in jail being strip-searched. The relevance of this is that Mr. Chatenay was one of those farmers.

Elections were later held. Mr. Chatenay was elected to the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. He was elected on a clear mandate of reform to bring in a dual market structure for western Canadian farmers. He has been re-elected twice.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Anderson's points are all related to Mr. Chatenay. I now have in front of me the December 5 witness list. From the Canadian Wheat Board it lists Ken Ritter, chair, board of directors; and Ward Weisensel, chief operating officer. Mr. Chatenay is not on that list. In the second hour, from 12 to 1 o'clock, it shows from the Canadian Wheat Board, Bruce Johnson.

That's all.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

That was the early list that was submitted.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Anderson said on the record a moment ago that Mr. Chatenay was on the witness list, and that is wrong information.

As Mr. Anderson knows full well, if he wants to get into talking about arrests, the fact of the matter is the laws of the country were broken, court cases were held, and people were charged under the laws of Canada. For a guy who talks law and order to now advocate for people who violate the laws of this country as if they were innocent, that is not proper, in terms of his attack on the Wheat Board.

Mr. Anderson's points are all about Mr. Chatenay, who he claims was on the original witness list.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

I saw it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

He was not. It is right there.