Agriculture Committee on June 2nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

In about half an hour or so, we'll ask the rest of our witnesses to come to the table.

Go ahead, Mr. Atamanenko.

[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]

Thanks, Alex.

Just for clarification, you mentioned giant ragweed in Ontario. Did you mean giant hogweed?

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

I'll have to check that out. That is the name I have, but we can check that for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, because there is a weed by the name of giant hogweed. I just wondered. If you could clarify that, that would be—

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

It might be the same one, but we'll clarify that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. Thank you.

Giant hogweed is certainly way different from ragweed, but I think it's pertinent, if we could have that clarified.

Mr. Easter.

[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]

Thanks, Wayne.

To the first one, in looking at the timeline of Triffid and the flax issue, that's when it was first released into the environment, 1996–1998, and it wasn't until 2001 that it was pulled off, under protest, but by that time it was too late, of course. Had the bill been in place before 1996 and had some kind of an economic analysis been done before it was even released into the experimental stage, then it's my belief that we could have prevented that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think it was more other problems within the system that released that onto the market. But be that as it may, the bill proposes to do an analysis of the potential harm to export markets. How do you propose to do that analysis? What are the criteria surrounding that?

The serious issue here, I really believe.... And I faced this in my province with potatoes. We had GM potatoes at one point in time, which did make a difference in terms of the use of chemicals, a substantial difference, but because of public pressure, McCain's pulled them off the market. We can never get into GM potatoes in our area again. But because they made what I say was an emotional decision, not a scientific decision, they damaged our ability to produce and grow and sell that crop forever into the future. When you move away from something concrete that's science-based, which you can calculate and determine, that's a huge, huge step for which we want to think of all the consequences.

So my question is this. How do you do that analysis of potential harm and determine it in some kind of fashion that's just not based on emotion?

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

That's a good question, and we've talked about it--in my discussions with Gina and others. As a committee, we could make recommendations to the government as to who would be responsible and whom we might cooperate with. Right now, I don't think it would be right for me to come up with a scenario of how we would do this.

Take alfalfa and wheat. If we allow either of these crops or seeds into the market, how can we be sure it won't be damaging? We could develop the criteria and provide direction to our government. In regard to this idea of science, I understand what you're saying, Wayne. But it's not up to us to decide which science Luxembourg uses, or Bulgaria, which has just banned GE crops, or Russia, which is thinking of banning all GE crops because of experiments their scientists are doing on animals. We could judge them and say this is false science or it's good science, but whatever decision they make, based on their science and their world, we have to live with it. All we're trying to do is make sure we don't release something harmful or put farmers in a position such as the flax farmers found themselves in.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

But, Alex, the problem is that we need to know in advance what the criteria are going to be. People have been to your office and mine. They've said that even if this bill comes to committee, investment will dry up. Well, that's baloney, and we know it. We've heard that in the rBGH fight.

But in fairness to companies that invest in new technologies, there is a need for certainty in dealing with our regulatory and legislative system. They need to know what rules they're going to have to follow, what criteria they need to meet. In those rules, you have to get away from the emotion. There's strong opinion on each side, but neither side is necessarily backed up by facts.

I can't see going ahead with this bill unless we know what the criteria are going to be. We're going to hear from witnesses on both sides. Maybe we could come up with something. But I think that in order to go anywhere we have to know how the analysis is going to be done, what the criteria are going to be.

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

That's why we have hearings. That's why we're listening to different sides of this debate, different stakeholders. By the time we finish the process, we should be able to build on the information they've given us and develop some criteria. I think this is key.

If I were a company, I would want to be able to make some money if I released a GE crop. It's fair to have rules. It's not fair to ask someone who has developed a new technique or a new crop to release it if there's no market for it. It doesn't make any sense.

I would think the government, the department, could work with industry to develop these criteria, to look at them before they make the investment. That's only fair to them, and it's only fair to farmers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks.

Mr. Bellavance.

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

Thank you, Mr. Atamenko. It is a pleasure to have you testifying before us.

I had exactly the same experience yesterday. I was speaking to a bill in support of retirees who had lost part of their pension fund. I was introducing the bill for the second time. So I was at the witness table too. It is always a bit more nerve-racking than being on this side. So I congratulate you on having introduced this bill and for speaking to it at our meeting.

My main question is technical in nature—I feel that it is exactly as Mr. Easter was saying. When the bill says the analysis of potential harm to the export market, the first question that occurs to me is: what will be the criteria for deciding whether to allow or disallow the sale of new genetically modified seeds?

I completely agree with you in adding another analysis to the one dealing with the effects or lack of effects on human and animal health. That is being studied in other countries as well. I would like to know if you have thought about the criteria needed for that analysis that would lead us to conclude whether we could allow the product to be sold or not.

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

Criteria have already been developed in other countries: Argentina, for example. That does not mean that we have to follow them, but it is still a model that we can study. They export genetically modified crops, such as soy. Argentina has developed criteria that go beyond an analysis of the effects on health and the environment. They have a third criterion. I feel that, when we are developing criteria, it would be prudent for us to contact them to see what they use, how they do it, and whether it works or not.

In terms of the criteria, if each country accepts genetically modified products from such and such a country, and we want to grow them too, there would be no problem. But if two or three countries do not accept them or if it is harmful for producers, we should then use an economic criterion.

But, to answer the question, Argentina has a model, as I said. We could study what they are doing very closely and try to adapt the model they have down there to our needs.

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

As we read the bill as it stands, we see that there was no thought of including those criteria. Was there a particular reason? Is it to leave it open for regulations to come in the future?

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

Yes. I wanted the opportunity to have this debate and thereby to get suggestions from the witnesses and the members of the committee. My goal is for the committee, after seeing and hearing from the witnesses and studying the bill, to try to come up with some criteria that it could recommend to the government as amendments to the bill or to the regulations.

I am not up on those technicalities and I do not know how to do it. But I believe that we have a golden opportunity to develop criteria based on this study we are currently doing.

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

You mentioned Argentina. Have you studied their example? Could you tell us exactly how they go about it? Argentina is one of the biggest producers of GMOs and it is actually applying the criteria before it exports its products.

Has the country been sued under the WTO or some other trade agreement yet, because of this requirement in its legislation?

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

No, I do not believe so. And we did check. We have the results of some research done by the Library of Parliament. The research shows that lawsuits under the WTO are not likely if criteria are used to analyze export markets.

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

I would like to make you aware of questions sent by the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec. They deal with your bill specifically.

The producers are wondering if a requirement imposed by regulation could prevent innovating companies from investing in research and innovation. They think that Canada may be disadvantaged by this bill, compared to the countries with which we compete.

Could you comment on those two questions that the cash crop producers asked?

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

In answer to the first question, I would say that there are threats from the multinationals and the major companies. It is as if they are saying that, if we start to think about discussing this bill, they will withhold their investment. But that is not going to happen. They have made billions of dollars so far.

Anyway, there will be a lot of technological advances that have nothing to do with genetically modified organisms. They are doing a huge amount of work in the area and I have difficulty believing that they would stop their investments. That makes no sense.

Will this be detrimental to Canada? In my opinion, no. Once again, let me use the example of Argentina, one of the world's major exporters of soy. They have no problem. Anyway, we already have a GMO industry in Canada. My bill does not prevent companies from continuing to do what they do, because the market is there. If we use my criteria, or if we consider the goal of the bill, the market is already there for canola, for example. If they develop a new kind of canola, this does not prevent them in the slightest from doing what they are already doing.

I think that those arguments are red herrings designed to stop us coming to grips with the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Alex.

Now Mr. Lemieux, seven minutes.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

We, as the government side, are certainly very concerned about this bill. It's definitely a step away from the sound science approach that Canada has used and advocated for around the world all these years.

As this committee knows, as Canadians know, we base our decisions on sound science. We hold other countries to account for basing their decisions on sound science. When they don't base their decisions on sound science, we take them to task over that.

We've had tremendous success opening foreign markets. We've had many, many witnesses come in front of this committee during our study on competitiveness, as well as the future of farming, to explain the importance of opening foreign markets. There's no question that this bill undermines our ability as a government to open foreign markets to our farmers.

Chair, I also want to highlight that of the four parties, ours is the only party that voted against this bill at second reading. I think this is important.

Another thing we've heard in all the tours we've done, with all the witnesses we've had, is that farmers and the market and the industry like stability. They need stability in order to grow.

I'm surprised that the Liberals voted in favour of this bill. By doing so, I believe they have injected instability into the markets. What I mean by that is that the seed and the farm markets...certainly the letters I've been receiving say it's only to get at the committee, Mr. Chair. But I'm willing to tell you that the canola growers, the soybean growers, and many, many other groups have absolutely no idea what the Liberals are going to do when this comes up for a vote in the House again. Therein lies the stability.

I'd love to ask how many hours they've invested in preparing reports and coming here to be witnesses to talk about their concerns on this.

I'm a bit surprised the Liberals voted in favour of this. It actually goes against what we're trying to do in agriculture, which is to stabilize the market--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, are we having a political discussion here or are we examining a bill that Alex Atamanenko and the Liberal Party and the Bloc, and even the Conservatives, have every right to vote for to send to this committee?