Evidence of meeting #56 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 easter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair.
We should be welcoming witnesses and thanking witnesses here today instead of dealing with this. This is unfortunate. It's frustrating, as a rookie member of this committee, to see some of the things that go on here.
Noon
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I guess not.
I want to mention some facts that I think need to come out on this motion.
The first fact is that Roundup Ready alfalfa went through the regulatory process in 2005 in Canada. It was deemed safe. It did go to that level, there's no question about that. I know Mr. Easter is aware of that because he was the parliamentary secretary at the time. The Liberal government was in charge at the time and they actually were respecting the science-based reason for bringing it forward. I'm not saying they did anything wrong or right, but it was at that level. There were a lot of people at that time who said they didn't want it, and we saw Monsanto back away because of that.
We also have what we call a registration process here in Canada. At this time there is no Roundup Ready alfalfa in the queue in the registration process in Canada that I'm aware of. Monsanto isn't bringing anything forward. No other seed company is bringing anything forward. As far as there being an immediate threat to farmers here in Canada, there really isn't one. It doesn't mean in two years from now there might be one. It doesn't mean that things can change. There's no question that is a possibility.
What is realistic is that any type of seed that comes into the Canadian market in alfalfa will have to go through the registration process. That registration process is fairly regimented. It also involves all the committee players within the community. If you look at how they go through the varietal approval process, they not only would have to prove to their peers in the industry that this is something good for the industry, but they also would have to go through trials. They'd have to create their data pack for that registration committee. There's no threat in Canada tomorrow or this spring of this seed hitting the market. There's probably no threat this seed will hit the market in 2012 or 2013.
That is where I get a little confused about the emergency nature of this motion, other than the possibility of an election coming. That's disappointing because stuff like this is what makes people angry, when you start playing politics with serious issues. That's exactly what everybody here is doing today.
It's really interesting. We entered this study on biotechnology in good faith. I know Mr. Valeriote entered it in good faith, and we've worked very well together on it. We've heard witnesses. I know, Alex, you've appreciated the fact that we've been able to hear some of your witnesses. Even though your bill didn't pass, we were able to allow some of that information to come forward under that study. I think that's been very important. We've identified that there's a problem with the approval process sometimes when the markets are involved. The organics have pointed that out to us. In this case, the alfalfa growers obviously have pointed that out to us too. The reality, though, is that we need to hear from all sides of the industry in the study, and that study is not complete yet.
That's why I get a little dismayed when I see, for political reasons, a motion like this one come forward prematurely without all the facts on the table. It's the same as going to trial and only letting one witness testify and turning all the rest away just so you can get the verdict you want. It's not fair. It's not appropriate. We as committee members really are not in a position to say whether this is a good motion or a bad motion. How do we take something like this based on limited information and move it through?
Mr. Atamanenko, I know you've done a lot of studies on it and you have your personal beliefs, and I respect that. I think for a lot of us other committee members, we want to keep an open mind. We want to look at the whole process. We want to talk to all the players in the industry. There's no question that we want to do what's best for the industry and for Canadian farmers, but would this motion actually do that? Would this motion actually create the effect that you want to create, or is it a whole pile of other issues?
Is it going to affect our beef industry, for example? We used the science base to open up markets. That's what we've done in Asia. It's what we've done around the world. We've argued science, that our beef is safe, and that has opened up markets. Our minister has worked tirelessly around the globe opening up markets for our beef producers, and we're getting the rewards for that work. We're getting some really nice prices on cattle, record prices in some cases. In fact, Chair, I think you were telling me that some red heifers are starting to go for around $1,800 apiece. Two years ago they couldn't get $200 for them. Those are things that are working.
But if a motion like this were to come forward and all of a sudden a country like China said, “Well, you don't use science as the base for your decisions, so why should we, and we're not going to allow you to have access”, what would that do to our cattle guys?
It's the same scenario in the canola industry. We've looked at that in perspective, too. We've used science to open up markets for GMO canola. We've used science to argue that this stuff is safe. And science has proved that it's safe.
People have different perceptions on science, and we respect that. The organic industry has its own perception, and we respect that. But as government we have to take a step back and ask whether this is safe or not. That's our decision that we have to make. Is it our role to be marketing organics? Is it our role to be marketing other niche products, or is it for the market to decide for itself? And what do you do when you're trying to market an organic product when you see a GMO product growing right next door to it?
Those are the things that this study was supposed to try to address. What we've done by bringing this motion forward prematurely is to actually sandbag the study. We've tainted the waters. We've polluted it in such a way that we've already made up our own recommendations before we've heard all the witnesses.
This is very unfortunate. When we get to the recommendations in the study, it makes me wonder whether there will there be honest and fair recommendations, or will there be bias based on information of the past and not on the witnesses we've heard?
Right now we are making decisions based on half the witnesses. And as I said, that has a domino effect on the whole agriculture sector. We may think we're only dealing with Roundup alfalfa. A lot of people would say they don't want it. There are farmers in my area who say they don't want it. I agree. I can see why they don't want it and I understand why they don't want it. But we have to look at the big picture too. If we send this message out in this way, at this point in time, first of all, any witness coming forward in the future would say, “Well, why bother? You've already made your decision. Your mind is made up.” You've eroded that option. You have other industries that are going to be impacted, indirectly or directly. It's going to cause serious harm to them.
Again, I question the logic of doing that. As we move forward as a committee, we've reviewed the product registration process and we've reviewed the regulatory process. We went out to see the process in Saskatoon. I know Mr. Atamanenko didn't come to Saskatoon, which is unfortunate. He would have seen what was involved in going through the regulatory process. Then he maybe would have had a better understanding when the scientists and researchers were talking about what they have to go through in the registration process. You have the regulatory process and the registration process, and he maybe would have understood why it was important to have been in Saskatoon, at the University of Saskatchewan, to listen to the witnesses, to talk to the researchers, and to actually listen to both sides of the story before making a conclusion. But of course he decided that Saskatchewan wasn't important and he didn't attend.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Chair, I think we should follow the rules of the House and not get into this ”somebody was there, somebody wasn't there”. I think it's a bit of an attack on a person to say they were at this meeting or they weren't at that meeting. For various reasons, we can't be at all the meetings when we're on tour, so I think we should keep it out of there.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I'll concede that, Mr. Eyking.
Mr. Atamanenko, I did not mean to offend you. I just was stating a fact. He was not there.
I guess as we move forward as a committee...is this the way we want to move forward? Is this really the thing we should be doing? We've already heard Mr. Lemieux talk about the order of precedence, the process we used to follow when we actually were dealing with motions.
I'm actually sitting here wondering.... My motion is sitting there now. What is the use of my bringing forward a motion? As a member of the government, what's the use? If you're not going to let me bring it forward, if you're not going to hear it, if you're not going to let me vote on it, if you're not going to let me speak on it, and if you're just going to ram through what you want to bring through on your own, then why should I bother? Where's the fairness in that? It turns this into a kangaroo court, and that's unfortunate because we didn't need to do that.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Again, Mr. Easter has been around a long time and he's a little jaded, but reality is reality.
As a member of the government now, the way we've set up this committee and the way we're acting in this committee, I can't bring a motion forward and actually, honestly, think you'll consider it, that you'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Why would I say that? Why would I even think that I can work with you, because it's politicized before it even hits the table? It could be the absolute right thing for farmers and I know you'd vote against it, and that's unfortunate. That's really sad.
So how do we move forward, because we're in a log jam here? How are we going to do what's right for farmers? How are we going to address this issue? How are we going to actually salvage the report that we spent so many hours and money on reporting?
I guess we can look at an amendment.
Mr. Easter, you would have to agree to this, probably, but I would recommend that we do an amendment to his motion. If you're willing to listen to it, I'll read it to you, Mr. Easter.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Under the existing motion:
That the Committee recommend that the government place a moratorium on any approval of Roundup Ready Alfalfa until the Government completes the public research into: (a) Canada's ability to ensure the genetic integrity, production and preservation of a diversity of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), non-GMO and organic alfalfa production, (b) the ability of Canada's handling and transportation system to ensure segregation of forage seeds and detection of genetic co-mingling in alfalfa seeds and hay, (c) the development of industry-led, third party audit and verification systems; and that these—
12:10 p.m.
An hon. member
Why don't you slow down for the translator?
12:10 p.m.
An hon. member
Yes. You need to slow down a bit.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I'm sorry. Do you want me to repeat it, or are you okay, André?
12:10 p.m.
An hon. member
He's okay. He's exhausted.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I just want to make sure. Again, on the motion, these are the things the report was supposed to do.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
But these were the things the report was supposed to do. That's the frustrating part. I guess that's what I'm going to say, that—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I am proposing an amendment, Chair.
In that amendment, I would suggest that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommend that, and this is where the amendment will start, “as part of the study on biotechnology, the Committee study and include recommendations regarding”, and then we stroke out “the government place a moratorium”.
Basically, what I'm trying to do is ask you guys to let us finish the report before this comes forward, so that we can actually bring forward witnesses on both sides of the story, so that we don't taint the report that we're actually in the process of writing.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
No, I don't think it's an amendment. I think it changes the intent of the motion. The intent of the motion is for quick action right now, not a study that might not be done until this time next year.
So it changes the intent of the motion, Mr. Chair. The motion is on an urgent and pressing matter.
