Evidence of meeting #26 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gmo.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I'm sorry. It's because I'm out of time, and I wanted to make that final point.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
In the forage industry there is no check-off and there's no overseeing body to represent the entire industry. It's a set of very broken-up industries. The need is still the same. So what you don't recognize is the difference between the very large canola industry, which is very organized, and the highly fractionated forage industry. The needs are the same. There's a major failure here. We've demonstrated the failure.
Conservative
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is actually a good discussion here.
Just on this last point on Monsanto, if you did a comparison between farmer profits since GMOs have come in and Monsanto profits, I can tell you who's coming out the winner. It's Monsanto, big time, and I don't think they give a damn whether we make money or go broke at the bottom of the line.
In any event, I think there are real and legitimate concerns in the alfalfa industry and with perennial crops, but I guess the key is where do we... We've always had science-based criteria. What worries me is that this bill moves us away from that.
Is Bill C-474 the answer? I think we have to deal with this issue somehow, but I really debate whether or not Bill C-474 is the right bill. I agree that the farm community needs to be able to protect itself, not only in terms of export markets, but also in Canadian markets, and to protect itself in terms of the gene pool in the future.
In your experience, Jim, or in the experience of any of you who've looked at this in other countries, is Roundup Ready alfalfa produced anywhere else? I found your point on the contamination in the seed pools in the U.S. worrisome, but is Roundup Ready alfalfa really produced commercially anywhere in the world? I mean, the United States has stopped it.
President, Imperial Seed (1979) Ltd.
It is produced only in the United States at this time. As I said, it did have a short commercial life of approximately 12 to 18 months, and then sales of it were banned. As I'm sure you are aware, it's in front of the Supreme Court right now. The USDA has a judge in California who put a stop to it a number of years ago; they've been stockpiling seed. It is estimated they have stockpiled 50 million to 60 million pounds of seed since the ban came into place. So we're just concerned that it is going to enter into Canada one way or another, as I said, through LLP or otherwise, but right now, technically, sales of it are banned everywhere in the world.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
That is just banned under court order, though, not under legislation of any kind.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
I don't believe it's banned here. It just hasn't got past the regulatory system.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
It's a different story here, but I'm looking at the United States.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
It's banned, basically under court order there, but, Jim, I think it was you who said the seed lots have been contaminated. I just forget the figures. Was it up from 3% to 7%?
President, Imperial Seed (1979) Ltd.
No. For Cal/West, contamination went from 3% in 2008 to 12% in 2009, because these are perennial plants. An alfalfa plant is planted and can survive for three to five to possibly ten years, and if it's a Roundup Ready alfalfa plant, it is there and for its whole life--for three, five or ten years--it will be releasing its pollen to other feral alfalfa or other non-conventional types.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
What's to control that? We don't have the Berlin Wall on the 49th parallel. Who is ultimately responsible if our crops are contaminated and we can't sell?
President, Imperial Seed (1979) Ltd.
We see instances in which Monsanto is not afraid to sue the producer if the producer uses its technology without Monsanto's approval. I would like to think that the regulatory process that approved it, CFIA, or Monsanto itself would be the ones that I could turn around and sue if their gene entered my land and my seed crop where it is unwanted. Or is it just a one-way street so that they can sue whoever they choose to but they don't have to take responsibility for their technology?
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
It's been a one-way street thus far. There is no question about that. Nobody is denying that.
I want to come back to my original question.
Conservative
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Have you looked at any ways other than Bill C-474 to both protect your industry and look at the implications both in the domestic and the export markets or the general food chain of a way to control genetically engineered crops?
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
If I could comment, that's the job of this room: to look for ways of providing protection for the consumer and the producers who are out there. This is the best thing we've seen come along.
I've spoken to some people who are very involved in the canola industry program, and the beauty of this is that it is very encouraging to me to see what they have been able to do. They lack the legislation that Bill C-474 would give us to insist that there be an economic impact analysis. That's still a science.
On the regulations, you know, we have an environmental requirement in our Seeds Act now, and we thought that would solve the problem in terms of Roundup Ready alfalfa specifically, but it didn't, so what we really need is for this bill to move ahead and be passed. Following that, right on the heels of that, as quickly as possible, we need the government to fall in and say that each major commodity group has to come in with its organizations to put in place a committee that would look at the requirements, do the impact analysis, and come up with a recommendation.
In regard to the Canola Council, the canola one is still a recommendation, but I believe it's just a rubber stamp.
When we look at it from the producer point of view, it is an excellent program, but there is no requirement for that program and it is the requirement that Bill C-474 will give us, and we think that is very important, that it will force the issue. Because right now we have nothing. We have nothing. We're left out in the wind.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair.
I thank you gentlemen for coming in this afternoon. You've offered some interesting insight into this debate on Bill C-474.
I'm going to look at this a little differently but probably along the same lines as Mr. Easter.
In the U.S., GM alfalfa, Roundup alfalfa, was grown and it is grown. That's correct, so--
President, Imperial Seed (1979) Ltd.
Correct. Like I said, it's been banned for sale for a number of years, but there are still fields of it in production.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I understand that it's through the EIS right now and it looks like it's probably going to come back on the market.
President, Imperial Seed (1979) Ltd.
Incorrect--right now the Supreme Court is the one where the wait is. It appears that the Supreme Court is going to put it back to the EIS simply because of the comments... When they re-evaluated and opened up the comment period, there were more comments than the EIS was willing to understand or could grasp.
From what we understand, the Supreme Court is going to throw it back to the USDA and the EIS and say, “You guys go through your comment period, get your act together, and then come forth with your recommendation”.
In that time, the organic council has also put together a report basically outlining that if this is to be released there will be no more organic production of alfalfa in the United States.
