MPs will be hearing plenty from farmers and environmentalists as the clock ticks down toward a vote on GMO registration rules.
On April 14, they will vote on whether to approve in principle a private member’s bill that would require consideration of potential market impact before a new genetically modified variety is licensed.
The proposal from British Columbia NDP MP Alex Atamanenko has strong environmentalist support but it has divided the farm community.
A vote next week to approve it would send bill C 474 to the agriculture committee for public hearings.
Read Also
Russian wheat exports start to pick up the pace
Russia has had a slow start for its 2025-26 wheat export program, but the pace is starting to pick up and that is a bearish factor for prices.
“The industry is divided on the prudence of introducing non-science criteria into the process,” Alberta Conservative Brian Storseth said April 1.
“There is a lot of debate around genetically modified organisms and people have all kinds of wild and woolly stories,” agreed Liberal Wayne Easter. “There is a lot of pressure from some in the farm community and some in the investment community not to allow this bill to go to committee.”
Grain Growers of Canada strongly opposes that outcome, arguing that parliamentary approval in principle would give the idea undue credibility in the public mind. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture says it supports approving the bill to allow a public discussion, recognizing that approval of GM varieties can result in closed export markets for Canadian farmers.
The House of Commons also is almost evenly divided.
With the Liberals promising to join NDP and Bloc Québécois in sending the bill to committee, supporters should win the day April 14 but Liberals have not shown themselves capable of getting their votes out or on side recently. When debate ended, the speaker said a voice vote indicated the bill would be defeated but not many MPs were present.
The next vote will be a recorded one when each MP present is asked to declare a position.
The Liberals say they have concerns about the effect of the “market impact” assessment being injected into variety registration deliberations but they want to hear the arguments.
The minority Conservatives strongly oppose it, insisting it would undermine Canada’s science-based regulatory system.
“Adding in trade and other issues unrelated to science could set a very dangerous precedent,” said Storseth. “We want to ensure we do not risk bogging things in red tape.”
He warned that research companies could shy away from investing in Canadian crop development if non-scientific judgments are injected. “We want to ensure we can continue to bring new technologies, such as our research into wheat stem rust, to the world. Anything short of that would be a tragedy.”
Easter scoffed at threats from corporations about withdrawing research funding.
He referred to a 1994 committee study on a Monsanto dairy growth hormone product that resulted in a recommendation to withhold approval of the product because of dairy industry fears.
And he read letters from companies including Monsanto, which warned of investor reaction and withdrawal.
“The point is that neither claim can be borne out,” he said. “We made the decision as a committee. We debated the issue. As I understand it, rBST is still not approved for use in Canada (and) Monsanto and other research companies have continued to research heavily.”
Storseth accused the Liberals of having a dishonest position, favouring hearings but then planning to kill the bill in committee.
Atamanenko ended the debate with a plea that MPs send the proposal for hearings to weigh the pros and cons of the idea.
