No, that's fine.
Evidence of meeting #33 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was standards.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #33 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was standards.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
No, that's fine.
4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Saskatchewan, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
That's all I have to say for now. Thanks.
4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, P & H Milling Group
Generally I agree with your comments. The milling industry's view on biotechnology is that when our customers are ready to accept it, we are. Generally, we—meaning P & H Milling Group—get probably an average of a request every month at each of our locations for a declaration that we are not using bioengineered wheat, even though it doesn't even exist in Canada. But our customers are insisting on those declarations. So as long as the consumer is resistant to it, it's going to be a challenge.
But personally, I think consumer reluctance is based on two things. One is a bit of an ignorance of the science. We all worry about Frankentomatoes or whatever. But I think the other thing is that consumers never see what they perceive to be a benefit coming from biotechnology. If the health benefit could be communicated, then I think that attitude would change, and it would change very quickly. And I do think that holds a lot of promise to eradicating or minimizing diseases like fusarium.
I will just add that even if we were to change that view today, you're probably 8 to 10 years—would you agree?—away from seeing a bioengineered wheat that would be effective.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Certainly. And I agree with you that we have to tackle the fearmongering that goes on in regard to these issues. It's important to have people like you come out and say that they see a potential future in this field. It may be eight to 10 years away, but if we don't get started now, it's going to be 10 to 20 years away.
I would like to talk to you about....
Do I have a couple of minutes, Mr. Chair?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
You just have a few seconds to wind up, if you could, Mr. Storseth.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
To Mr. Harrison or Mr. Jamieson, I was surprised to hear some of the comments you made about CFIA and the somewhat ad hoc basis on which enforcement seems to be coming on. This sometimes can be a bit of a pattern that is somewhat unfortunate. I would like to hear more comments from you on that.
I have more questions, but the chair seems to cut me off at five minutes all the time.
4:50 p.m.
President, Canadian National Millers Association, P & H Milling Group
May I respond?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
President, Canadian National Millers Association, P & H Milling Group
I'll do it very quickly.
CFIA and Health Canada don't like it when I use the term “ad hoc”, but our take has been that it's been uncertain. They have been making interim decisions. They will tell you that they are obligated to be doing compliance and enforcement under the Food and Drugs Act. Our view is that they aren't as obligated as they think they are. I think they have more discretion than is being exercised. Our issue is the lack of transparency about it all.
Everybody needs clarity. You can't hear from a regional office of CFIA that they are applying the proposed EU limit for this, for DON, and for others. You have to know exactly what you're doing. As Derek mentioned, CFIA's role is more of an audit function. CFIA is not in every food processing facility doing oversight.
It has been uncertain. We use the word ad hoc, but they're not happy with that. I understand that. I try to use it less and less, but we sure need a lot more clarity.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Our time has expired.
There was a request at the start, if you remember, to save a few minutes to discuss some business. Our next witnesses are scheduled for five o'clock. I would suggest that we release our witnesses, go right on to committee business, and be ready to go as close to five o'clock as we can. So we'll do that.
I'd like very much to thank our witnesses, all of you who are here in person and those who are here by video. It was great to have all of you here from Charlottetown.
Thanks very much. I'm sure that everybody found it very educational.
We'll move to committee business.
We have an order of sequence, which is the order in which they came in. I'm open to how you want to proceed.
I believe that the first motion on the schedule to be dealt with is Mr. Shipley's. I think the next one is....
My apologies. It is Mr. Atamanenko's, which deals with AgriFlex, then Mr. Shipley's, then Mr. Bellavance's, I believe.
No, it's Mr. Easter, then Mr. Bellavance, then Mr. Atamanenko.
How do you want to proceed?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Well, I want to see the direction. If there's unanimous consent, we can stray from the order in which we received them. If not.... That's up to you.
Mr. Atamanenko.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
My other motion on AgriFlex is first, I understand. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I guess I would have the flexibility of changing. I would like to have my second motion discussed rather than the other one, if possible.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We'd have to deal with it in the order in which it came in, Alex, unless there's agreement to swap them.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Because it's my motion, can't I just swap it myself? Do we have to have agreement on that?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Actually, after it comes to the committee and we table it, it's not even a motion any more, Alex.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I think we discussed that. You suggested that you were looking for unanimous....
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
My suggestion was that if we could get unanimous consent, we discuss this because of the urgency of the negotiations going on right now at WTO. That was my request. I'll just leave it at that. Obviously, it has to be unanimous.
October 20th, 2009 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
On a point of order, I would ask whether we could have the clerk distribute the motion. I think we all have bits and pieces of the different motions that have been tabled.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
