Evidence of meeting #71 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was llp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
—versus a GM food, there's a qualitative difference in terms of the question of—
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
But it's based on threshold, would you not agree? Even on elements, elements within our environment, it's based on threshold. It's not based on—
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
We know that industrial products have an x level of contamination insects in their processing. We accept various contaminations in our food system right now. We have qualitatively different questions that are raised by the application of new technologies like genetic modification that have a sophisticated, sound science-based process.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you all for coming and enduring our questions.
I've always said that I don't have a problem with the issue of GMO and its consumption; I've been very clear on that. I know what it's doing, given climate change and our need to feed the world, and yields, and all of those other things we're all aware of around this table.
Having said that, I also agree that the organic sector has carried an unnecessary or disproportionate share of the burden in response to GM. In Denmark, they went out of their way to have regulations and compensation and other things with respect to cross-contamination or the right of coexistence.
I feel we need to honour the right of coexistence. In Canada, we defaulted into, “Well, you know, if you want to keep it organic, it's up to you to go through all those necessary hoops”.
Yesterday, Matthew Holmes from the Canada Organic Trade Association spoke to us. He implied that a low-level presence of maybe 0.1% might be acceptable, with conditions attached. I think it's important for us to get your response to those conditions; otherwise, we won't be able to have a fulsome report to present to the minister. He said that if an LLP of 0.1% were to be introduced into Canada, as a minimum the organic sector would require and call for the following—and I want each of you to respond to these—first, full and routine public testing of imports for GMOs; second, publication and communication of the incidence, the crop, the importer, and the country of origin of the crop, and whether that had come within the action or threshold limits; third, regular and specific reporting of that information to the organic sector so that the sector—its producers, handlers, and manufacturers—might pursue best management practices and targeted testing in an effort to protect its products from further contamination; and fourth, he recommended that we looked to the lead of the United States and Secretary Vilsack in striking the AC21 committee to investigate the means with which to manage risk and compensate farmers whose crops and products are contaminated by unintentional GM events.
You're welcome to ask me if you've missed any of those points.
And I have another question, if you're able to answer it. Is the “toothpaste out of the tube” with all crops? In other words, is it too late to go back with some crops and say we can still have a zero tolerance level, or is the cat out of the bag already?
Let's start with Lucy and work our way to Franck, and then to Gordon.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
Thank you.
From the organic sector's point of view, I think the conditions that were proposed would be necessary. They've been needed for a while. This whole issue begs for the implementation of these conditions.
Posting incidents of LLP also needs to be established for the Canadian consumer as well as for the organic sector. For all actors, there needs to be this tracing and reporting, absolutely. Currently, we don't see that in the proposal.
Liberal
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
We grow four genetically modified crops here in Canada. For canola, we could say that the GM trait is going persist into the future. But we have a very important chance to maintain the integrity of the organic sector and evaluate the economic consequences of some GM crops, such as alfalfa, which we can anticipate we cannot take back once Roundup Ready alfalfa is released. We have the chance to assess that now and to address it by making sure it's not released into the environment.
Director, Grain Growers of Canada
I want to mention that we're totally for the co-existence of the two systems. Organic has its place in the market. It answers a typical growing niche market of consumers who want that. It's there and that's great. We're ready. We've got a lot to learn from each market.
I also want to respond to the fact that there's an undue burden on the organic community, because that's reciprocal. Between neighbours, there are always some little fights back and forth. Being next to an organic farmer, I have more pressure from weeds. That's just the way it is. I deal with it. There is some cross-contamination going back and forth. On the conventional farming side, we're not always pointing a finger one way or another because it's not a healthy debate. We're trying to work together on that.
As for the four questions, I guess it's a little early for me to answer as we don't have a policy statement as Grain Growers of Canada to talk about that. With quick thinking, I guess full testing—I can't see why there would be a problem with that. The thing is, as long as it complies with our regulatory system and safety levels we've put together, I can't see why it would be a problem. But again, I think it needs to be studied more.
I want to reiterate that we are there to co-exist and it works out.
Member, Canada Grains Council, and President, Canadian National Millers' Association
Thank you.
Not necessarily in order of importance, I would say that the principle that each import shipment being sampled and analyzed is one that we want to be careful of. If we want to have predictable and orderly trade in agricultural commodities and further processed foods, we're going to have to accept the certifications of other food safety regimes and jurisdictions.
Re-inspection of exports from Canada by competent jurisdictions, including those in the United States, introduces a terrible level of uncertainty. We've seen that in the meat sector in the past two years. Re-inspection as a matter of course is probably not a great idea. If we wish to demand of importers that they get an import permit or a phytosanitary certificate. re-inspection is probably a bad idea. We probably don't have the resources to do that when you apply it to all commodities.
Should there be public disclosure about incidents? I think that's a very healthy thing to do. I think we need public disclosure from CFIA about their ongoing target surveys of foods regardless of what they're worried about—allergens, microtoxins, contaminants. Public funds are being spent to gather information that is valuable to the public and all stakeholders, and I certainly agree with that.
I can't comment on AC21.
Is the toothpaste out of the tube, as we said in our Canada Grains Council submission on the LLP policy? We can expect genetic traits that are no longer in active commercial production, but were in the past, to persist in the environment and in the seed supply and so forth, through volunteers and long-term persistence in the genetic material. So yes, the toothpaste is out of the tube for the major field crops that are grown and that have a large number of genetically modified approved varieties.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to all of you for being here.
I have questions for all three witnesses, if there is time.
I'll start with you, Ms. Sharratt. You're here today on behalf of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, or CBAN. I've noted that CBAN is listed as a project of Tides Canada. Is that correct?
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I'm sure that most people are quite aware of Tides Canada and their history, but I think it's important to point out that according to media reports out there, Tides Canada has taken about $62 million from U.S. sources over the last decade.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Let me finish my question before you provide your response.
I've also noted that if one were to donate to CBAN, you would make your cheque payable to Tides Canada initiatives, CBAN, and you would mail it not to CBAN's Ottawa office but to Tides Canada initiatives in Vancouver.
Is that correct?
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
You could mail it to either.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
But would the cheque be made out to Tides Canada initiatives, CBAN?
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
It would be processed through Tides Canada, as we are a project of Tides Canada. We don't receive funding from Tides; we are a project of Tides.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
You're a project of Tides Canada. Correct.
With that in mind, certainly you must have some very strict guidelines and policy safeguards in place to ensure that your tax receipt eligible expenses going to Tides Canada initiatives are used appropriately.
Could you tell me a bit about what those policies and safeguards are that you have in place?
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
Tides Canada conforms to the Canada Revenue Agency requirements. We submit advocacy reports. All of that documentation is on record.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I wondered, because I know some of your member groups, like the National Farmers Union and the Council of Canadians, have campaigned against free trade talks with Europe, for example. I wonder sometimes about whether that's a proper use of charitable donations.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
That's entirely different from the work that we do.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Because we only have a certain amount of time, let me move on.
There was a column in the February 25 edition of the National Post entitled “Bjørn Lomborg on the unintended consequence of the anti-GMO movement: dead children”.
Are you aware of that column?
