The issue of labelling products containing genetically modified
material will be front and centre on the political agenda when
Parliament resumes Jan. 28 after the Christmas break.
In mid-December, MPs from agricultural ridings tried to ensure the farm
voice is well heard when the debate resumes.
Members of the Commons agriculture committee decided to hold hearings
next winter on “the potential cost increases that would occur in the
agriculture and agri-food sector … if mandatory labelling of foods
Read Also
Supreme Court gives thumbs-up emoji case the thumbs down
Saskatchewan farmer wanted to appeal the court decision that a thumbs-up emoji served as a signature to a grain delivery contract.
containing the products of genetic technology were imposed by law.”
It was an act of defiance against a government decision to refer the
issue of GM labelling to the health committee, rather than agriculture,
for hearings.
“I think the (agriculture) committee wants to get its oar in the water
because they want to be sure the agenda is not taken and defined
strictly by the health committee and consumer issues,” said rural
Ontario MP Bob Speller, chair of the Liberal task force on agriculture.
Murray Calder, chair of the Liberal rural caucus and a Holstein, Ont.,
chicken producer, said it is important that the debate be informed by
the practical implications of labelling, including a definition of
genetic modification and a realistic content level needed to trigger a
label.
“The public mood, including in my riding, is that they want labelling
and they can’t see the reason why it can’t be mandatory,” he said.
“But let’s make sure all the facts are looked at.”
Most farm lobby groups and most agriculture MPs prefer voluntary
labelling rules, now being considered by the Canadian General Standards
Board with a report expected in the winter.
The agriculture committee motion proposed by Canadian Alliance MP
Howard Hilstrom said the report on agricultural implications would be
sent to the health committee, as well as to the House of Commons.
Meanwhile, Liberal House leader Don Boudria said the government
priorities this winter will be species-at-risk and cruelty-to-animals
legislation.
The species-at-risk bill has been studied by the environment committee
and is back before the Commons with proposed amendments.
However, a Canadian Alliance motion that farmers and landowners be
compensated 100 percent for costs if they are forced to reduce land use
because of the presence of endangered species was defeated in committee
by Liberals. The Liberal bill offers partial compensation only.
The cruelty-to-animals bill under debate also has angered some rural
MPs and farm groups because they argue it will leave farmers open to
legal harassment by animal rights groups.
Justice minister Anne McLellan made some changes and insists the
legislation will target willful acts of animal cruelty, not normal
agricultural animal husbandry practices.
Still, opposition Alliance MPs and even some rural Liberals remain
nervous that the new legislation, which moves animal cruelty out of the
property section of the criminal code and into its own section, could
leave farmers vulnerable and give animals more rights.
Some opposition sources say they think the government would like to
allow the bill to disappear without approval, but Boudria said Dec. 12
it remains a government priority.
