Evidence of meeting #17 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was renewable.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Perhaps I should respond to Mr. Easter's first question, on existing statutory or regulatory restrictions.
Certainly there are no restrictions on imports under CEPA, which would only have the authority to restrict for the purpose of protecting the environment or health. To my knowledge there are no such restrictions at the moment under agriculture statutes either.
Liberal
Conservative
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
André, I was curious as to whether the amendments satisfied your criteria for consultations...
In other words, if I were able to change that to say “in consultation with the provinces” would it solve the jurisdiction issues in regard to your concern?
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
No, because this is an area over which the provinces and Quebec have jurisdiction. Even if provision were made for consulting them, ultimately, it would still be a case of “Ottawa knows best”. Ottawa would consult with the provinces, but still impose whatever measures it wanted. We have seen this happen far too often. We will always stand ready to wage this battle. Most likely you have seen our recent ads. The federal government has intervened directly too many times before, so that even if consultations were to take place, it would not work.
February 26th, 2008 / 11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to respond briefly to Mr. Easter's comments about the corn company. Of course nobody's more opposed to the dumping of corn in here, if that was the case, than I am.
I think a point that needs to be given—and I think Mr. Steckle will agree with me and back this up—is that Ontario is a net exporter of corn, and whether that corn comes into an ethanol plant or it comes in and goes directly to our feedlots.... If the corn is coming in from the U.S., if it is going to the ethanol plants, basically what that means, in simple terms, is that more of the corn that's being bought out of local elevators is going into feedlots and other uses--starch mills, that kind of thing. I just thought that needed to be brought up.
On the bill itself, I respect Mr. Atamanenko's philosophical view and his party's on this, to a degree, but the bottom line is that where this amendment is going is not appropriate in this bill. It may be a debate on another day, on another issue, but I think it's irrelevant here. If you want to go on and then carry it, without genetically modified, which seems to be the term they want to use, today we'd have 60-, 70-bushels-an-acre corn, but frankly, we wouldn't even take the time to turn the cattle in Ontario any more. Those are the advancements that have come.
We want our farmers to compete around the world, and no one's ever become sick on something that's been modified that I'm aware of—and I think Mr. Steckle pointed that out yesterday. So I think we need to save that debate, Mr. Chairman, for another day. It's just not appropriate here. It's a well-written amendment, but not what we need to see in this bill.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Paragraph (d), the one that prohibits the importation of grains or oils for the use in biofuel production, I wonder if that would be trade-distorting. I don't think we want to go there. I see you nodding your head. I'm assuming I'm correct in assuming that.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Thank you.
Indeed we have concerns about both paragraphs (a) and (d) with respect to the potential violation of Canada's international trade obligations. Under those obligations, which exist under the WTO GATT agreement and under NAFTA, Canada is free to impose restrictions on imports, but only for specified purposes, and one of those narrow purposes would be for the purpose of a scientifically justifiable health or environmental concern.
By comparison, these two provisions—and I'm reading the words “shall make regulations”—would oblige the Governor in Council to prohibit all genetically modified grains, oilseeds, or trees produced after 2008 and would oblige the Governor in Council to prohibit all importation, whether there's an environmental or health concern or not. This is in stark contrast to the way in which Canada currently regulates seeds, and indeed all genetically modified products, which have to go through a market pre-assessment administered by CFIA under the Seeds Act, on a case-by-case, feed-by-feed, seed-by-seed, substance-by-substance basis to determine whether there is a specific environmental health risk that warrants, for example, the imposition of a trade restriction.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Just to get that straight, then, in proposed paragraph 2.(1)(a), probably 85% of canola grown in Canada is GMO, so all our genetically modified canola would be banned for use in...?
NDP
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
So we would tie the hands of our plant breeders and our farmers. I just wanted to get that clear.
Are there any other comments? Seeing none, I call the question.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The amendment is defeated.
As I said earlier, Bloc motion BQ-3 was tied to Bloc motion BQ-1. The vote on motion BQ-1 applies to motion BQ-3, so it was defeated.
That takes us right down to amendment NDP-2.
Alex, I'd ask you to move NDP-2 onto the floor. That is on pages 9 and 10.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
What this motion is basically saying is we need to put something in place to have a comprehensive review of where we're going. I'm proposing that “within six months of when this comes into force and every two years thereafter, a comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada shall be undertaken...”. You can read the rest of it.
This is an environmental bill. It touches, obviously, the economy, which touches farmers. It would be prudent on our part to at least have this in, as in any worthwhile project or program, to have a review. That is why it would be very wise on our part. That's the reason I would like to encourage my colleagues to put this in. You voted against my other motion, but the way the bill stands, regardless of what was there or what could have been there, I think it should have provision that we can review the policy. That is key.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I have Mr. St. Amand, then Mr. Miller, then Mr. Easter, then Mr. Lauzon.
We will start off with Lloyd.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Atamanenko's earlier motion made sense but was fraught with some practical difficulties of the encroachment into provincial jurisdiction, etc. This motion on pages 9 and 10 seems to me quite sensible, Mr. Chair. I'd like to hear the officials' comments about it.
The only concern I would have, and maybe this is the way the phrasing has to be, is that it's unclear as to whether the Senate or the House of Commons would initiate the study. It reads as if, by some collaborative process, the Senate and the House of Commons would decide between them who would take the lead in the review. Maybe that's always the case. I would think that more precise wording would be required to say that the House will take the lead, or the Senate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'll let Alex clarify it first, before we turn it over to Mr. Moffet.
