A funny thing happened to the Commons agriculture committee last week. Politics, at least in the partisan, political party sense of the word, took a holiday. MPs debating the contentious issue of whether or not to allow the bovine growth hormone BST brought what appeared to be their honest instincts to the debate, unsullied by partisan positions that had to be promoted. There were no official party positions to defend.
The result was a fascinating glimpse of the mix of influences that infect political decision-making, influences that often are submerged on Parliament Hill for the greater good of political solidarity.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
There was Ontario Liberal Murray Calder, arguing in favor of caution in approving use of the hormone because he was not 100 percent certain of its possible side-effects on humans. His sister died of cancer at age 28 “and that’s my bias. Any hint of cancer and I say no.”
There was Vegreville, Alta. Reform MP Leon Benoit arguing that his bias was for scientific fact rather than emotional argument. His judgments are driven by evidence and logic, not emotion, he told MPs.
Benoit saw emotion but few facts in opposition to BST and he urged MPs to trust scientists and their evidence.
Beside him, Reformer Jake Hoeppner was skeptical, even though he told the committee that without science and a drug product, he would have died years ago from an allergic reaction. Still, scientists can be wrong, can’t they, asked the farmer from Snowflake, Man..
In fact, that day many of the MPs on the committee were reading a newspaper story detailing how scientists sometimes fudge or falsify findings to obtain the results they want, or that will sell.
A few seats down sat Jean-Paul Marchand, a Bloc QuŽbecois MP and former philosophy professor whose academic specialty was the ethics of science.
He offered an impassioned criticism of the proposal, based on his view of the power of science and its place in society.
Marchand said he is pro-science and pro-biotechnology but anti-BST because it is a product that is not needed, surrounded by questions about its side-effects and its economic impact.
Science has no ethical right to force unnecessary products on society, he said, as some other MPs nodded agreement. Had Monsanto spent the millions of dollars it claims in BST development costs on a product that would help society, he would applaud it.
Liberal John O’Reilly from Ontario said he had entered the debate without bias, read a stack of BST papers several centimetres thick, and concluded it is safe and should be approved.
BQ MP Jean Landry said if BST is approved, his reaction would be to quit drinking milk and to find a calcium substitute. At the end of the day, the skeptics outnumbered BST believers two or three to one and in most cases, voters reading the Hansard report would be able to know the reasons behind their MPs’ positions. As the committee begins to deal with government proposals, party divisions will more often than not drive the debate. Still, a glimpse of what parliamentary debate might be like without parties was refreshing.
