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.