Agriculture Committee on March 22nd, 2011

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

A point of order, Mr. Chair, on the discussion of the amendment.

Whether I think Mr. Easter is saying something very seriously or not, I don't believe this does change the intent of the motion. If you read the motion, the intent is to place a moratorium on any approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa. There's nothing in the motion that talks about expediency. There's nothing in the motion that says it needs to happen expeditiously. All the motion is saying is that the committee recommends that government place a moratorium.

Mr. Hoback's amendment, as I read it—and I may not have caught all of it—is simply saying that the committee should do its due diligence first, complete the study, and then make that same motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Just for some clarification, Mr. Hoback, on the last part of this, did you read “and that motion be reported to the House”?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I would strike that too, because that would be pending the report at that point in time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I think, from my first glance at this--and I'm going to reread it--that it doesn't change the whole thing. What it does is include it in the study. To go right away from this thing would be a total change in it. I'd like to read it one more time, just to be clear.

I'm still of the same thinking, that this would allow this motion, but in the realm of the report. The only thing is--and this is only a suggestion, because it's not my amendment--that it somehow could be pointed out a little more clearly that it be reported back through the committee. That would maybe clarify it a little more.

As it is, it doesn't make the motion go away or whatever, Mr. Easter; it just includes it in the report. Whether you support that or not, I think it's allowable.

Mr. Bellavance, go ahead.

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

As I understood it, Randy's amendment would remove any mention of a moratorium. In my view, that changes the purpose of the motion entirely. I am, by no means, convinced that the amendment is admissible.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

You aren't the translator, Blake. You aren't the one doing the translating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Order, please.

Your point is taken, André, but in the realm of the report, I think it could still come out of that report from this committee whether to recommend the moratorium or not. I think at this stage, with the intent to have it in the report, it's not a key issue. It doesn't exclude the committee's decision to still ask for or recommend that or not.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

To my committee members, if we'd seen a variety coming into the registration process right now, then I would agree with Mr. Easter that it's an emergency, and then we'd need to really look at this. But there is not a variety coming into the registration process at this point in time in Canada. The reality is that once they start the registration process, it takes two years to get through it. So where is the emergency nature of this motion? If that's the case, why can't we deal with this as part of the biotech study?

That is my logic in this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your point is taken.

We're now debating the motion as amended.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We're debating the amendment. The motion hasn't been amended yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You are correct.

Mr. Hoback, you still have the floor if you want to speak to it.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I guess my logic here is that this is a way we can move forward and still salvage the report with credibility. This allows us to move forward on this topic. I think we can give comfort to the folks in the organic sector that we are not going to ignore this issue, that we're actually going to address it in the study, which I think we've been doing already. As I said before, there is no seed variety in the registration process at this time. It does give us the time to do a proper and thorough study of the process for the approval of a new variety. It also allows us to hear all the sides of the story, which I think is very important.

It's always dangerous when we start playing politics with stuff like this because of the unintended consequences that can come from it. This is one way to diffuse the issue, move it forward, and actually do a good report. If we don't do this, what we're actually going to do is tell our witnesses who come forward on the report from now forward that we already have our minds made up on how we're going to move on this report. If I were a witness, I would ask why I would bother coming to testify to the committee in that situation.

This is one way to maintain the integrity of the report. It doesn't undermine it; it allows the committee to move forward on a report in a positive manner, and it still addresses the concerns that Mr. Easter has validly brought forward and that the organic sector in alfalfa has brought forward. We're not leaving anything to chance. We're not taking anything out. We're just doing it in a proper process and order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll go to Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the amendment on the first motion, we started this study.... I know the comment has been made that we've been two years getting to this study. I guess it would be two years getting through the study, if that's how you guys want it to happen. We started this study in February. This is now March. We've been doing it about a month. We've wasted, now, another whole day, when we could have had witnesses in.

If you're really concerned about moving ahead, then this amendment will get the support of those of us on this side, and should have the support of you on that side, as we address the issue of Roundup Ready alfalfa, as has been mentioned.

I keep going back to the issue of the 16 motions that are on the floor, Mr. Chairman. All of a sudden, this is now a trumped-up emergency, when we know there isn't any emergency on the forefront with respect to any Roundup Ready alfalfa being registered and brought into use in Canada. There isn't. There will be the full process during which industry, agriculture, and research will all have the opportunity, when that time comes, to have their input.

Clearly, what this resolution has done, the first one.... If you want to stall it, that will be up to you guys, in terms of Friday, I guess. But if we proceed and move, and the government stays in place, we'll actually wrap up this study, likely, in another month. There's no reason not to. We can actually wrap this up and have a recommendation. That's why this amendment is so important, because now we're not separating away.

I'm sorry. I cannot be convinced anymore that next week there will not be another emergency that comes up. When you look at this list, I can tell you that the ones Mr. Easter has brought forward, and some others.... There's always an emergency. The sky is going to fall if we don't deal with this.

Now on this amendment, we are saying okay. We cannot agree with that first one, because there is no emergency. But hold our feet to the fire as a committee. Let's bring in the witnesses who will help us get real input on what this motion is about, and let's make it part of our committee recommendations. Then all of us will have input into it.

How does that move ahead? Actually, Mr. Easter, and to the opposition across the room, we can actually make this happen within a month or a month and a half. It will bring it forward instead of putting some undue time limit on a moratorium, for which we don't have any of the background or any of the research that has been done on it.

Like Mr. Hoback, I have a number of organic farmers who have raised a number of issues and concerns, as have I. But I'm not going to shortchange a process of registration that is in place just for political gain. I'm sorry. I'm usually not partisan, but that is how I see this one.

We did this in Ontario. Frank is from Ontario. Our provincial government did this. They shortchanged scientific evidence and took a political move to take cosmetic pesticides away. We cannot use them. But if you have a golf course you can use them; you just have to pay more money to get the licence.

Once you start taking the political aspect and taking away the science, Mr. Hoback and certainly our parliamentary secretary have said, we have based....

Talk to your farmers. Talk to your beef producers. Talk to your pork producers. Why have they been able to open markets in these countries that had been closed, and not just open them up but open up new ones? It is because we continually say that our research is based on science. Our development registration is based on science.

Once you start moving away from that, what you're going to start to do is take away the benefits that agriculture and farmers have by having all these pesticides, chemicals, fertilizers, feeds, and additives taken away. Who's going to invest? Now you're going to shunt aside science and research, and some political body is going to make a political decision and say--for whatever the reason is--that they don't think science is any good. So I support the amendment to the motion, because what it does is put back onto this committee the responsibility we have taken on during the biotech study.

We haven't even talked about the livestock industry yet. I have producers that I'd like to bring in to talk about the benefits of biotechnology in the livestock industry, but we can't seem to get away from this whole GMO thing, which is actually a very small part of what we're studying in terms of biotechnology.

So I support this, Mr. Chair, and at the end of it, I think it's all in how you read it: “that these findings be reported back to the Committee” and then “be reported to the House”. It would be reported to the House as part of the committee report once the committee has dealt with it. That's fair. As long as that was clearly understood and put in, I could live with that. There isn't any reason why we as a committee don't take on our responsibilities and bring in the people we want...start to branch out in terms of what biotechnology is all about, and then bring in the people we would need to address the issues and find out so that we understand the GMO process.

I think that's clearly part of what has happened here. As mentioned, it was brought forward in 2005. We're now in 2011. I don't think many people have really and truly understood the process. What brought attention to this? It was the United States. Because they got it, I would assume.... You should never make those assumptions, but in talking to people who have phoned me, they've said that it's coming to Canada, that it will be here within a few months. That's because we don't understand the process--what our science, our research and technology, and our process here in Canada are all about.

Mr. Chairman, I'll defer those comments right now to those...and only with the comment that I certainly support this. It takes back the responsibility. As long as we understand in the amended motion that it comes to committee and it goes to the House as part of that committee report, then certainly I would support that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a privilege to actually have the opportunity to address this. I know that when this was brought forward, I had a motion that was ahead of it, and I was not even given the opportunity to address the committee as to why my motion should be debated prior to this one, which was brought up far after mine was.

I'm in support of this amendment, and it's simply because it makes absolute sense to debate this in the context of the broader issue, which is biotechnology, and looking at it as part of the study we're undertaking and presently doing.

A number of farmers and other witnesses have come before this committee as part of that study. I see some of the individuals here even today who were part of that study who spoke to our committee and were here to testify as witnesses to that study. I would say that it would be a huge insult to those individuals, those in the room and those otherwise who have been here as part of this study that we've been undertaking, to go forward with something, a motion like this one, outside of the context of the study and basically disregarding the testimony we've heard, disregarding the concerns we've heard and the points that have been raised by the witnesses and through the committee process as part of the broader issue.

Frankly, that does seem to be a pattern that Mr. Easter and the Liberal Party do seem to have, that they just want to do whatever they feel is the right thing to do that day for their political interests, and only for their political interests, and to heck with what we've heard and to heck with what witnesses want and what farmers want in this country. Let's just move forward with our political agenda and disregard all the testimony we've heard, disregard everything we've heard. I think it's completely disrespectful and completely irresponsible to move forward in that manner. That's why I believe this amendment is the proper way to proceed. We can look at this particular issue in the context of the broader study we are doing.

To go to the motion that Mr. Easter is making in terms of why this amendment is the way to go, rather than to look at it on a one-off kind of basis, as is being proposed in the original motion, I have to then look, to make a judgment on that, to the intent behind the motion and try to understand what that intent could be. I come to the conclusion that there could only be one of two reasons why this motion would have been brought forward. First of all, the one reason could simply be what I'm saying, that it's completely politically motivated. Obviously, there's no secret out there that the Liberal Party and their other coalition partners want to force an unnecessary election on Canadians at this time, despite the fact that it's very obvious that the best thing for the country would be to move forward, to continue to see the growth that we're seeing in the economy, to continue to move our way smoothly out of the recession.

Certainly our government will bring forward a budget later today that will be the next step in doing just that. Certainly that would be the right thing to do going forward. I would say that when we talk particularly about this committee, when we're talking about agriculture and the best interests of farmers, and there’s the study that we've undertaken looking at a very promising industry, looking at some of the challenges that might be there and some of the opportunities that might be there in that industry, being biotechnology, certainly the right thing to do in that instance, for the economy, farmers, and consumers, would be to go forward with that study. That's why this amendment is being proposed, I believe, and that's why I would support it.

But the Liberal Party, Mr. Easter in particular, doesn't want to do that. They don't want to do what's in the best interest of Canadians, what's in the best interest of farmers. What they want to do is pursue a political agenda, just like they want to force an unnecessary election. They want to try to get this motion through prior to the unnecessary election.

What I would say to them is, rather than do that, why don't we do things in the proper course, in the proper manner, which is to take a look at this issue in a broader context, move forward with our study, and forget about their opportunistic, unnecessary election that they want to force? We can move on with this study and get this wrapped up in a reasonably short manner. We can do it in a way that takes into account all the broad spectrum of issues within biotechnology, what some of those challenges are that could be there, what some of the opportunities are.

Then we can take into account what the witnesses have to say, hear from farmers, from Canadians, from consumers, and from those involved in the industry, and take all of that into context and into our understanding before making a decision about one particular small aspect of the broader context of biotechnology.

I would say that one of the reasons they might want to move forward would be just the political games they are playing right now by trying to force an election, trying to move something forward prior to forcing the election that they're trying to foist on Canadians.

As I travel my riding and elsewhere in the country, I have not really heard one person say now is the time for an election and wants to see that. Certainly to try to pretend somehow that this is an emergency.... The only reason why it's an emergency is because they want to force that election. As has been pointed out by a number of my colleagues here today already, there certainly has been no indication that there are any registrations coming forward. Certainly the Liberal Party would probably like to try to rewrite history a little bit. Mr. Easter would probably like to try to rewrite history a little bit. Certainly it was their government that brought forward trials on this. There has been no intention expressed to expand on that. There have been no registrations brought forward.

I don't really see where the emergency is at this point in time, other than, of course, the fact that they want to try to force this unnecessary election. For them, it's a political emergency, and that's the only emergency there is in this thing.

As I sat here thinking about it, is there any other reason why they might want to try to bring this forward on this kind of a basis right now, outside of the study we're doing on the broader topic that this fits into? The only other conclusion I could draw is that possibly—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, a point of order. He's not debating the amendment to the motion. He's debating the original motion.

Would you ask him to keep his comments to the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

My attention was taken away briefly there, but I will ask you to stick to the debate on the amendment.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Of course, Mr. Chair. I indicated at the beginning of my comments what I was doing. I was trying to look at the pros and cons of going forward with this amendment compared to the original motion. I believe that to provide comparative context I have to provide both sides of that argument and try to understand the other side of the argument. That's what I'm trying to do, Mr. Chairman.

Although I appreciate Mr. Valeriote, I would suggest that maybe he put his BlackBerry down and pay attention to the full context of my speech, and then he would understand what I'm speaking of. Probably he's reading something from his leader telling him try to force an unnecessary election on Canadians right now.

I have a motion before this committee that was ahead of this one.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chairman, would you ask him to stick to the amendment, please? Now he's talking about his own motion.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I am in the context, Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It's not in context, Mr. Richards, at all.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I'm trying to understand what the reasons would be for moving forward with this, to compare what would happen if there was to be an amendment made.

I'm trying to understand—and I indicated at the beginning of my remarks that I'm trying to understand—what the reasons would be for Mr. Easter's wanting to move forward on this basis rather than pursuing this under the study that is being proposed by the amendment.

As I said, one reason would be that it seems to be motivated only by political reasons. The other reason could be that they see the motion I have before the committee, and I would like to quickly tell you what that motion is because I think it is important for the committee to understand what the opportunity cost is of going forward with this.

I had a motion before the committee that was in relation to the Canadian Wheat Board. It was that the committee congratulate the Canadian Chamber of Commerce for the endorsement of a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board, which it made at its annual meeting—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

This has nothing to do with this amendment. If people want to see the motions, they are available on the list.