GM labelling debate expected during winter session

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Published: January 3, 2002

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

thumb emoji

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.

explore

Stories from our other publications