Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 5 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 2, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:34 a.m. to study the present state and future of agriculture in Canada (consideration of former Senator Whelan's fact finding trip to Codex Alimentarius).
Senator Leonard J. Gustafson (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I am very pleased today to introduce to you a witness who needs no introduction. The time that Senator Whelan spent as Deputy Chair of this committee was, for me, very enjoyable. The man before us spent 12 years as minister of agriculture for Canada. He has implemented probably more good agricultural policy than any other minister of agriculture. He certainly made his mark in agriculture in Canada, in the Senate, and in this Senate committee. We appreciate him.
He is before us today to deal with his attendance at the twenty-third session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a meeting held in Rome on June 28, 1999. We welcome you, Mr. Whelan. We look forward to your presentation on this meeting.
The Honourable Eugene F. Whelan, P.C., O.C.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I had asked to make my report to the committee, but I did not expect the response to be so quick. I apologize for my report not being in great detail. I have no staff. This is my own work.
Mr. Chairman, do the members of your committee have the reports that are available from the Codex Alimentarius meeting in Rome? They are quite thick.
The Chairman: I do not believe we have them.
Mr. Whelan: The library is a good source of information on what took place in Rome and how the commission works.
I heard what you were talking about previously. Old members of Parliament work for $1 a year and expenses. I heard you talk about getting someone to bring in a report on agriculture.
I welcome the opportunity to appear before you. I will first touch on the origin of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. This organization was founded at the eleventh session of the Conference of FAO in 1961 and the sixteenth World Health Assembly in 1963. Both passed resolutions to establish the Codex Alimentarius Commission. They established the statute for the legal basis for the commission's work and formally reflect the context behind and the reasons for establishment, plus the rules of procedure.
Why was it established? It was established of necessity. Its carefully crafted statutes and rules of procedure ensure that it pursues clearly defined objectives in a disciplined, dispassionate and scientific way. Let us look at the rules.
Who can join? Nearly any country in the world can join. It is open to all member nations and associates of the FAO and the World Health Organization. In 1998, the membership was 163 countries, representing 97 per cent of the world's population. If I remember correctly, at the one that we attended in 1999, 182 countries were listed as members.
The commission meets every two years, alternately at FAO headquarters in Rome and WHO headquarters in Geneva, the two most costly cities in the world. In Rome in 1999 there were 608 delegates from 103 member countries, one observer, and representatives from 63 international governmental and non-governmental organizations, including UN organizations. As you can judge, it was a large gathering -- a real mixed bag with a lot of companies and representatives. You could call them lobbyists. I will touch on this later.
Some of the honourable senators might wonder about the Codex Alimentarius's job responsibilities. Basically, they are as follows, and this is taken from the report of the twenty-third session:
a) protecting the health of consumers and ensuring fair practices in food trade;
b) promoting coordination of all food standards, work undertaken by international government and non-governmental organizations;
c) determining priorities and initiating and guiding the preparation of draft standards through and with the aid of appropriate organizations;
d) finalizing the standards elaborated under (c) above and, after acceptance by governments, publishing them in a Codex Alimentarius either as regional or world wide standards, together with the international standards already finalized by other bodies under (b) above, wherever this is practicable;
e) amending published standards, after appropriate survey in the light of developments.
As some honourable senators might remember, when we were discussing the Codex Alimentarius Commission in our Agriculture Committee, I asked who were Canada's representatives. Who represents Canada at these commission sessions? We were told scientists. I suggested that perhaps I could lead the Canadian delegation as a former Parliamentarian. The idea was turned down. We had to have the Minister of Health approve that the members of the Senate committee, Senator Taylor and myself, could attend. When I arrived in Rome at FAO headquarters, I was shocked to see that a good number of the delegates were representing their countries as permanent representatives to the World Health Organization or FAO. They were no more scientists than Senator Taylor or myself. Some had much less experience in the food world than either of us. Please check the records in our committee for what was said when we talked about who could attend and who could not. The deputy minister said it had to be led by a scientist, and Dr. Paterson said later that it did not necessarily have to be so. I have the attendance records for the session in Rome.
One of the first slights I received was the poor seating arrangements, although you may think that is infantile. Senator Taylor and I were seated in the far-left gallery with the non-government officers. Some people in the government refer to them as those people who want to run the world without any responsibility. They were nice people, but I could not believe that, as a former member of Parliament, a minister of agriculture for nearly 12 years, a past president of the World Food Council, we were not introduced. I feel I was treated in a shoddy way.
We witnessed from the gallery the election of the new officers of the commission. The outgoing chairman of the commission was Dr. Pakdee Pothisiri, and the new chairperson is Mr. Thomas Billy, the representative from the United States of America and an employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He was elected without any opposition.
During the recess and other functions, I met many other delegates. I will tell you about the one I remember best. Codex Alimentarius was holding a subcommittee meeting in New Zealand. Mr. Sundararaman Rajasekar was the chief delegate from New Zealand. He did not talk to me about food safety or about residue limits for rBST. His first statement was "When are you going to get rid of supply management in your dairy industry in Canada?" I was shocked, especially when I remembered it that New Zealand teamed up with the Americans to appeal our export system for dairy products under the World Trade Organization. Consider who just happens to be the new president of the World Trade Organization: no other than a former prime minister of New Zealand for three months. My suspicious mind says it is more than a coincidence.
The main reason I went to Rome was to see how the commission worked. I must admit that all the time I was a member of Parliament and minister, I hardly ever heard of Codex Alimentarius. Why, I do not know. If you remember, I pointed out that it was started in 1961 or 1962, and I became a member of Parliament in 1962. I have no memory of being informed by anyone of its function or the importance it seems to have today. After having witnessed how it functions and who from around the world are the functioneers, I have strong reservations about its ability to make proper decisions on safe food and fair trade.
Remember what I said about BST. Let us take a look at what happened. It was dealt with under items 75 to 80 of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program. This is from the report of the twenty-third session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission at FAO Headquarters in Rome in June and July 1999:
Consideration of Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Bovine Somatotropin (BST)
75. The Commission recalled that it had decided at its 22nd Session to suspend the consideration of the adoption of the MRLs for Bovine Somatotropins (BST) pending the re-evaluation of scientific data by JECFA and the Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods and the examination of the application of the "other legitimate factors" in relation to BST by the Committee on General Principles. The Chairperson of the Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods reported that the Fiftieth Meeting of JECFA had re-evaluated BST and confirmed that MRLs for BST were unnecessary when the substance was used in accordance with good veterinary practice. The Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods, however, had been unable to reach a consensus on the adoption of the MRLs and the Chairperson had advanced them to Step 8 in order to submit them to the Commission for consideration. The Chairperson of the Committee on General Principles noted that the application of "other legitimate factors" in the case of BST had been considered twice by the Committee, and also that this Committee had been unable to reach a consensus on the issues at hand.
76. The Delegation of the United States stated that in its opinion, the scientific evaluation should be the only determining factor for the adoption of the MRLs, and that on the basis of these evaluations the MRLs should be adopted. Nevertheless, the Delegation noted the lack of consensus on this issue and proposed that the MRLs be held at Step 8 with a view to resuming their consideration in the future at such a time as it appeared that it might be possible to arrive at a consensus.
77. The Delegation of Germany, speaking in behalf of the Members of the European Union present at the Session, referred to the written comments submitted to the Commission (ALINORM 99/21, Part I, addendum 3) and re-stated that the adoption of the MRLs would not be appropriate. The Delegation supported the proposal to retain the MRLs at Step 8.
78. No other views being presented by Members, the Commission therefore decided to hold the MRLs at Step 8 in accordance with the provisions contained in the introductory paragraphs of the Uniform Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts.
79. The Representative of COMISA expressed the disappointment of that Organization at the Commission's decision, and expressed the hope that a consensus on these matters would emerge at a future session.
80. The Commission noted the views of the Delegation of Indonesia that as long as the question of defining the scope of the expression "other legitimate factors" remained unresolved, these factors could act as disguised restrictions to trade.
My concern about what occurred is that I understood that there was to be no discussion on this issue. That was the deal that had been made. That is what I was told by the Canadian Delegation. As you can see, there was discussion. I felt I was double-crossed by the American representative, because I felt strongly that we should have put on the record what this Senate committee did in Canada and that the Minister of Health for Canada, the Honourable Allan Rock, had banned rBST in Canada for use on dairy cows. At that session, that was not presented.
I was not sitting at the Canadian table because there was not enough room; I was sitting at the Yugoslav table because they had no delegates. I had a notion to put up the Yugoslav sign saying I represent this other country that is at war, but let me tell you what we did in Canada, because it was not presented to that group there. Some of the delegates who had a little bit of information came to me afterwards and wanted to meet with me but I never had the opportunity to meet with some of the delegates for instance from Africa.
I have strong reservations about the new chairperson's independence, especially as I realize he is an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture. They are strong supporters of rBST and strong supporters of GMO. Having seen the open and blatant association and lobbying of some of the companies with the country's representatives, I am doubly suspicious.
I am a firm believer in democracy, but when I see this kind of operation first-hand, I can only say that I feel sorry for the producers, the consumers and the elected people who are supposed to be representing and protecting our people in a democracy. I say that because they, and even the ministers, have no idea what is happening. How widely are the minutes of the proceedings distributed? You as committee members should ask for this to be reported to you and put on CPAC. You must remember that the session dealt with over 30 main issues. I should also inform you that altogether there were 238 inputs, contributions or statements -- a lot of talk. They sat late at night. I feel strongly that many decisions are being made here that affect the livelihood of people that our parliamentarians no nothing about.
I feel this organization is due for a big overhaul, and the sooner the better. These people are in most instances making decisions that affect the livelihood of producers and consumers, with little input from either group, especially our farmers, the most important group of all, who produce the staff of life -- food -- without which we can do nothing. They are making decisions on such things as labelling additives, toxins, packaging, food additives and contaminants, food hygiene, frozen foods, pesticide residues, residues of veterinary drugs in food, fats and oils, fish products, sugar, honey, food import and export inspection, et cetera. I could give you many more items that were discussed, but not once did I hear how these were going to affect farmers.
As I said, GMOs were not mentioned. The Codex Alimentarius Commission needs a real reorganization. A number of delegates were there just to promote products from their country, actually to lobby, not caring about what they do to another country's production entity. New Zealand is a perfect example. By the way, they banned the use of rBST in their country. It is illegal to use it in New Zealand on dairy cattle.
Dr. Anne MacKenzie, Associate Vice-President, Office of the Associate Vice-President of Science Evaluation, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, led the delegation and Dr. George Paterson, Director General, Food Directorate, Health Canada, was second in command. Dr. MacKenzie did an excellent job presenting the government's case. The Dairy Farmers of Canada were there. Also in attendance were Mr. Ron Burke, Associate Director, Canadian Contact Point, Codex Alimentarius Canadian Commission, who attended some of our meetings; Ms Santina Scalzo, Manager, Codex Program Services, Codex Alimentarius Canadian Commission, Health Canada; Mr. Gerry Reasbeck, Director, Consumer Protection and Food Policy Coordination, Canadian Food Inspection Agency; Mr. Peter Pauker, Trade Policy Officer, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade; Senator Taylor and myself. The Province of Alberta had a representative who attended every session and took notes all the time. He was probably one of the most conscientious members of the delegation that I witnessed. His wife's father is a farmer in Alberta who is still farming at age 82. Unfortunately, I do not have that delegate's name.
The thing that amazes me about my own experience and my own functioning as a parliamentarian and as a minister is that I have no memory of ever hearing about the Codex Alimentarius Commission. I can only think that, because we are not in the new World Trade Organization, we are not hearing much about the groups that are doing these things. This took place, and no one paid much attention to it.
People are more concerned about food. There is more information on the Internet, et cetera. I know you, Mr. Chairman, and some other members are getting letters because our names were put in a health magazine. I am averaging 25 letters a day and some faxes, because I have a fax in my house. They are concerned about the safety of their food. This will not go away.
Those big companies did not say a word to me in Rome. At one time, I was the only paid lobbyist to lobby against rBST, because a few scientists felt that it should be lobbied against and that more research should be done.
That is my presentation, Mr. Chairman. I am ready for questions.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Whelan. You say there was no mention made of the work of the Senate committee on rBST. I find that strange. As you know, we received calls from London, England, and from New York. We got calls from senators because of the fact we had scientists who testified here under oath, only under oath, and because of the action that Canada took in regard to rBST. Are you telling us that there was no mention of that at the conference?
Mr. Whelan: Not a word at all. I was told by the Canadian delegation that there would be no discussion at all. The first part of what I read was what was going to take place. The American delegates spoke, and then the delegate from Germany spoke on behalf of the European Union and said that there was no consensus. That is what the chairman said. He said there was no consensus on approving it. I should have been allowed to speak at that time, but I was not sitting nearby. If I had known there was to be discussion, I could have gone over and asked for a point of order. Imagine me going to a meeting and not saying a word! That is just about unimaginable.
The Chairman: You talked about genetically modified food. We have had close to 500 letters now on that issue. That is more letters than we have had on any issue other than rBST and gun control. Consumers are very concerned about this, and they certainly are writing about it.
Senator Grafstein: Welcome, Mr. Whelan. The first time I met former senator Whelan was when he and I appeared together before a regulatory tribunal, I in my legal capacity and Mr. Whelan in his parliamentary capacity. Since that time, I have admired his ability to cut through the red tape and confusion and focus on narrow and important issues. I am delighted that he is taking an active interest in this.
Mr. Whelan should know that another committee of the Senate is actively looking at this question in the sense of looking at the issue of health standards within the department and how one of the departments works its way through the scientific community to come to a particular conclusion about whether a particular product is healthy or not. It is a larger issue than most of us would have thought, and it cuts across a number of things.
I know a little bit about this organization, but I appreciate the senator bringing this to us. My understanding is that Codex's central responsibility is the health of consumers. That lies at the heart of what they do or are supposed to do. How is this binding on Canada? Is this an international standard? Give us a bit more explanation of how the standards established at Codex would vary from those in Canada. What would be the difference when our standards clash with theirs? Just talk about the BST. We banned it. We concluded that it is unhealthy for all the reasons you discussed. A number of other drugs fit into that same category. What happens there? I understand some other countries have banned it. What happens at Codex when some developed countries with good scientific standards do that?
Mr. Whelan: If you look back at the minutes of the committee, some members will remember we asked what authority or power the Codex Alimentarius Commission has. The general impression we got from the answers was that you do not have to pay any attention at all if you do not wish to. The World Health Organization will use Codex Alimentarius and FAO as evidence in making their decisions. They will use it to back up the decisions they make. Codex Alimentarius said this was safe. The World Health Organization said it was safe. I was trying to point out in my presentation that when I saw these people in Rome voting, over a third of them were political appointments to the FAO and the World Health Organization who do not know a thing about science at all, and they were making those decisions. They have 182 countries. How many people can name 80 countries in the world? They people sitting there are not scientists in their own countries.
For instance, in Canada, we do not have the research we need to make independent decisions on behalf of Canadian citizens. We use scientists in universities, and some of them are not independent because they are getting big grants from the companies. There is less public funding. You have a problem in that you must use that evidence.
This committee heard the evidence that was presented on rBST. For 11 years, the main evidence they used for rBST was a 90-day study on 30 rats. The Minister of Health appointed a veterinary committee from the Canadian Veterinary Medicine Association and a committee from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons to do the studies. They differed on it. The veterinarians said it was damaging to cows and was hurting them. The Minister of Health banned it in Canada.
That is one of the things that I thought should have been put on the record at the Rome session. I was misled, and I believe the Canadian people were misled, because we were told there would be no discussion. I was not sitting at the table. I knew when it was coming up and I made a special effort to ensure that I was in the session when it was taking place. I was shocked by the Americans' behaviour. The Americans hardly talked to me at all, as far as that goes.
When I was in the ministry, we had a system with the Americans where we worked together without committees and these things. We had arrangements, for instance, that when the Minister of Agriculture in Canada called the Secretary of Agriculture in the United States, he would call him back in 30 minutes no matter where he was, and we did that in return. We settled all kinds of things just like that. You did not wait a year for a committee to review it. All three secretaries of agriculture that I worked with were the same under those conditions. These people were sitting with Monsanto at the same table. When they lined up at the back of the hall, there they were again. They were watching everything to ensure that what they were proposing was approved.
I do not believe that Codex Alimentarius is a free organization, which Senator Grafstein and I would prefer. The parliamentarians should be more involved because what they are doing is important. Honourable senators should know. The people are asking what is happening. I receive letters in which people are saying that it is their right to know what is done with food. Some people are saying it is not a right, that they are not going to label, and so on.
Senator Grafstein: Mr. Whelan has convinced that me the question is the following: What are we to do? The Americans, if you recall, had similar concerns with respect to the United Nations and they felt that the United Nations was not fulfilling its mandates and that some of the sister organizations of the United Nations were not fulfilling their mandates. We in Canada have always paid our dues and fought for reform within the organization. We have not used the economic hammer to assert our position, but the Americans use a heavy hammer if they want to exert a reform, whether we agree or not.
Assuming this committee or the government agrees with you, what is to be done? In other words, what are the steps to reform the process if the process is, as you say, prejudiced, discriminatory and unfair on a key issue, which is the health of consumers? Precisely what are you asking this committee or the Government of Canada to do?
Mr. Whelan: I have mentioned the fact that the Codex Alimentarius Commission is meeting now in New Zealand on the dairy industry. How many parliamentarians know that that is taking place? How many dairy farmers in Canada know that that is taking place? How many consumers know that that is taking place? I know only because I called the Dairy Farmers of Canada office earlier this week to find out what kind of report their representative, Réjean Bouchard, sent there. I have known Mr. Bouchard for years.
Also, a representative from the dairy producers was there. If you read the proceedings, you will see many things about dairy issues, but they also use the words "dairy products" and "milk" very loosely, including in there many products that have no relation to dairy, such as coconut milk and that type of thing. There is so much going on and parliamentarians cannot properly absorb it all, but there is certainly a need that more of this should be brought out in the open to let people know what is happening.
Senator Oliver: Mr. Whelan, you referred to a portion of the draft and you said that the delegation of the United States stated that in its opinion only the scientific explanation should be the determining factor, and you went on to say that there was not a consensus on that. What position did the Canadian delegation take on that suggestion? Were the research, the work and the report of this Senate Agriculture Committee available to the Canadian delegation at that time?
Mr. Whelan: The main Canadian delegation sat in many of our meetings and was therefore well aware of the position of this committee. However, none of that was there as far as I know. The agreement, even before they went to Rome, was that nothing would be said. It would be set aside.
Senator Oliver: Something was said, and the U.S. said that the scientific evaluation should be the determining factor. What was Canada's position on that?
Mr. Whelan: They did not say a word.
Senator Oliver: They were silent?
Mr. Whelan: They fulfilled the agreement that they had made that there would not be a word said, and the European community knew, from what I understood, that there would not be a word said, that the chairman would bring in that report and it would be adopted.
Senator Oliver: When you and Senator Taylor came back, what did you do about that?
Mr. Whelan: We did not do anything. My term as a senator ended on July 11.
Senator Oliver: You were functus officio, as we say in law?
Mr. Whelan: That is right, I had no real resources. I had two months to clean up my office, with one person's help. If you can imagine, over a period of years I got all kind of letters, and I believe I had a total of 440 boxes to ship to my home. At that time, I was occupied with that matter.
Senator Oliver: My final question is probably the same question that Senator Grafstein just asked you. When you and Senator Taylor came back, you did not do anything. What did Senator Taylor do?
Mr. Whelan: I do not know what Senator Taylor did.
Senator Oliver: What would you have this committee do about this serious situation?
Mr. Whelan: You should bring before this committee Dr. Paterson and Dr. MacKenzie, who is in charge of Food Inspection Services and a very capable person who presented the Canadian position. Dr. MacKenzie is the chairperson of labelling. That is a big issue with many of the countries; some countries do not want anything labelled, some countries want everything labelled, and in Canada they take a voluntary approach -- you can label if you wish but it will not necessarily be done.
Honourable senators, listen to the people from whom we are getting the letters. The health magazine that published our names goes to 271,000 Canadians all across Canada. I am sure most of you are aware that when one person takes the time to write you a handwritten letter, at least 500 people are thinking the same way but will not take the time to write, according to statistics. That was years ago that was a fact.
The last year I acted as minister, we kept track of the letters I received. Those were not form letters. There were 18,672 letters, and I read every one of those letters and I replied. However, I had staff to do that. Even today your ministers and your members do not have the staff because the demand is greater now than it ever was because of the Internet and all the other ways of communication.
Senator Oliver: Do you know if Canada is represented at the current meetings in New Zealand?
Mr. Whelan: I know that the dairy farmers, represented by Réjean Bouchard, are there. I expect someone from Agriculture Canada is there, but I do not know.
Senator Fairbairn: For some of us this is a very puzzling organization in terms of the information that flows, or does not flow, among parliamentarians or among people who are delegated to go and attend these meetings. Indeed, you have been involved in agriculture on the front line, in terms of your own personal position and Parliament, for a very long time, and you say in your statement that until some of these issues arose within this committee, you did not know much about the organization called Codex Alimentarius. Neither did I, but I have certainly been in a much lesser position than you have over the years.
Having had this experience, how do you think the Canadian delegation attending these meetings should be picked? How should parliamentarians be kept informed on the discussions of this organization and, indeed, on the various breakdowns or committees of the organization that are often from various other countries? You say that there is another meeting on dairy issues and no one seems to know about it. How should our delegations be formed? What ongoing role do you believe members of both Houses of Parliament should have? If it is not a direct role, do you not think that they should at least play an observatory role?
Within our own country, there are obviously varying degrees of interest and approval or disapproval of this organization. I mention that only because I attended a seminar last week of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which met here in Ottawa. They had some very interesting discussions that did not dwell specifically on rBST but that touched on the whole area of biotechnology and the way we must approach it and prepare for the very swift changes that will occur.I asked about approval processes, as this is a very difficult issue that expands so rapidly, with various countries having an approval system. There seemed to be quite a bit of support in that room for Codex being an important player in the decision-making process in terms of how we set up our system internationally and on the issue of genetically modified products and biotechnology. I wish to have your views on that because there seems to be a disparity among groups with which we in Canada are very involved. I would certainly be interested in your own views on the value of this organization.
Mr. Whelan: The new chairman of the commission is an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture. They have firm positions on GMOs and rBST. No one who holds such firm views should be chairman of that commission. There should be some way of putting an independent person in the Chair. Or, when they are dealing with such issues, he should vacate the Chair. There is no such provision for that.
If I had attended the meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and asked how many knew what Codex Alimentarius is, there would not be 10 who would know. When I go to farm meetings in different parts of Canada, they do not know what is going on. There has never been another time in our history when bureaucrats are running the country as much as they are doing it now. They are making the decisions. Ministers and MPs do not have the staff to do the necessary research, nor do Senate committees.
The whole thing must be set up in a different fashion. I attended the FAO many times. The United States backed the worst Secretary-General there ever was. For 16 years they backed him. They got him re-elected. They are supposed to have only a six-year term. I was appointed as ambassador to the FAO and was fired three months after I was appointed. They were scared to death. I remember a person from the U.S. Department of Agriculture saying to me in Washington, "The head of FAO is scared to death that you will be coming to Rome."
At that time, Canada laid the facts on the line. We had good officials who were trained in agriculture. They were not from Treasury Board, Finance, or any other department. They understood agriculture and understood international agriculture.
On the dairy issue, there are only two countries that can supply us with dairy products. Four years ago, one could not supply us because they had a drought. I refer to New Zealand. The first thing the head representative of New Zealand said to me was "When are you going to get rid of supply management in your dairy industry?" -- one of the most efficient dairy industries in the world. In New Zealand, they do not have to house their cattle. When there was a drought, there was no grazing for them. As a result, production went down. We would have gone without butter and other dairy products at the time if we were getting them from New Zealand. They could not supply their own market.
Canada organized its system under GATT so that we could have supply management. We did not organize anything illegal. They changed the rules in the middle of the game. What they try to do with some of these rules and regulations is make them beneficial for themselves.
This committee should bring back before it Dr. MacKenzie, Dr. Paterson and the deputy minister and say, "Here is your report." There are pages and pages in that report. If I had brought it all back with me, I would not have been able to carry it on the plane because it was so thick.
When I first went to the FAO, I was the only minister of agriculture of the 132 who attended who had an agriculture background. The rest did not have that background.
You could organize your committee to demand that some of these people come before the committee. Bring Réjean Bouchard, who was there as head of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Ask him how many secret meetings he had with the European representatives of the dairy industry, meetings to which I was not invited either.
If it had not been for me there would be no dairy industry in Canada. Right from the very beginning of my public career many people did not think we needed a dairy or an agriculture industry in Canada because we could get those products cheaper from other parts of the world.
The Chairman: At the moment, prairie farmers are absolutely inundated with all kinds of advertisements to buy genetically modified seed. At the same time, the company to which I deliver my canola in the U.S. has now said, according to the trucker who hauls my grain, that it will not buy any more genetically modified canola. We know what has happened in Europe. They are asking Canada not to ship any genetically modified foods. We know that Japan has raised serious questions about it. We know that the consumer is very important in these talks. This has become a serious trade issue. In fact, the price of canola, which was a Cinderella crop, has dropped from $8.50 to $5.
I will not blame that on GMOs entirely, but the issue has raised questions. For example, last year one of the major companies in the United States asked their farmers not to grow genetically modified corn. Thanks to a mass advertising campaign, our farmers are questioning how to proceed, whether to grow GMOs or not. Some are saying that it will kill our markets, that it is a trade issue as well as a question of health safety. The decision is now left to the consumer.
We know how many letters we have received. I am not trying to hype this issue, because I think there is some danger in that, but, on the other hand, as a government and as a trading country we are going to have to take some very serious looks at these issues. I should like to hear your comments.
Mr. Whelan: Mr. Chairman, you used the term "Cinderella crop" in reference to canola.
The Chairman: I meant that it saved many farms in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta because our wheat price prices had dropped so low.
Mr. Whelan: I agree with you that it was created as a Cinderella crop, and it was because Agriculture Canada did the research. I saw in The Western Producer, February 3, 2000 issue, a quote by Dr. Keith Downey who provided the main research into the development of canola from the rough old rapeseed. We spent millions of dollars on research at that time. Canola has outproduced economically the benefits of wheat. If I remember the figures from two years ago, the canola crop generated more revenue for the western farmer than the wheat crop did.
I think what they are doing has screwed it up a little bit, and articles in The Western Producer and Ontario Farmer show that there is a weed from canola that cannot be killed with three herbicides. The weed stays dormant in the soil and then begins growing again. I believe there was not enough research on GMOs to prove it safe or not safe. That is my main argument about GMOs. We do not have the independent research.
Southwestern Ontario produces more grain than Manitoba, and they are indicating, "No GMO corn or soybeans", because they have developed a big market with Japan for specialty soybeans and that type of thing. Ontario could be GMO-free in two years if they wanted to be, and they could have the royal market for their own GMO-free products.
The Chairman: Was this up for discussion in Rome?
Mr. Whelan: This never came up for discussion in Rome while I was there and it does not appear in the minutes. I was amazed it was not on the agenda. You would have to get a motion put through for unanimous consent to bring in a new article.
I have strong reservations about what they do in this area. All scientists do not agree on what the score is, and they seem to have a habit of stymieing those who disagree with them on GMO.
I disagree with what the government is doing on GMO. They set up a committee, and I received a letter from the new chairman, who is from Winnipeg, thanking me for submitting my name, but I was not selected. It continues and states that there were many qualified people who submitted my name. I had no memory of submitting my name and neither did the secretary who worked for me then, so I called the chairman and he said it was all a mistake and the letter should not have gone to me. I was annoyed in the first instance that I did not have the qualifications to be on the committee. Most of the members of that committee are strong supporters of GMO, yet the committee is supposed to be independent.
We did the research and we developed the canola crop and soybeans that are used all over the world. We became the lentil capital of the world and we supply the Middle East as well as other foreign markets. We spent taxpayers' monies to do that. Monsanto and other companies were not around at that time. Now I read those companies' big two-page ads in The Western Producer and Ontario Farmer that suggest they want to help. They want to help themselves.
Senator Oliver: In response to the Chairman's question about canola, the Cinderella crop, and genetically modified canola, you said that one of the problems is that it produces a weed that comes back and that three herbicides will not kill. Will Roundup not kill those weeds?
Mr. Whelan: Canola is Roundup-resistant. Canola will grow wild and thus it will cross-pollinate with mustard, which is in the same family and cannot be killed either. They are suggesting that neighbours should not grow different varieties, as they will cross-pollinate. Different varieties of canola should be at least 600 metres apart because bees and wind will effect the cross-pollination. They are not taking those issues into consideration when they are breeding certain plants.
They have not tested in respect of allergies. Some are saying, in Sweden, that the pathogens in Roundup are very bad. There is not enough research being done and not enough years of experience in dealing with these crops. Many farmers, I am sure, are aware of these issues, and some of the scientists predicted these things four years ago.
Senator Grafstein: You have convinced me that this item should be put on our next meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group. At least we will get a view from the Americans. I am Chairman of the second committee, which is the Economic Committee, and I will undertake to make sure it is a line item for discussion and to ensure that our staff react to it.
When we are briefed by the minister and the American ambassador, I will raise that as a specific question because you have convinced me that this is a serious issue of health to Canadians. If Parliament is to do nothing else, it certainly should be responsible for the health of Canadians when it deals with these particular matters in policy terms. I will raise the issue and report back to the Chair with the findings. I am hopeful that some members of this committee are part of that parliamentary delegation. I am certain we will have a very active consideration and get at this question. I will raise the question about Mr. Billy and why he is there and what the policy is. Hopefully, that will engender more public debate. I thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Mr. Whelan: We are talking about farmers and what is happening in the agriculture industry. There is not one senator in the United States Senate who does not have some farmers in his constituency. They look after their farmers better because in some states they have much more voting power. There is not a state in the United States of America that does not have farmers. Even Alaska has farmers. They have that presence no matter where they live. The U.S. Congress is not set that way.
Where do they get the big money? Who are the big lobbyists in the United States of America? Monsanto, Midland, and so on. The three secretaries of agriculture with whom I dealt all said that the grain companies were so big they could not do anything with them. They are much bigger now than they were then.
Senator Grafstein: I can only tell you about my experience. We have a Canada-U.S. bilateral committee dealing with North American trade with Europe. The co-chairs of that committee are myself and the senator representing Iowa. I last visited him in Washington and tried to move this agenda along to deal with the CPA. All the Americans agree with us 100 per cent that the CPA in Europe is one of the largest barriers to free trade in the world. I call it the invisible iron curtain between North America and Europe. He shares that concern. Farmers in the United States share the same concern as farmers across the country. When I was in his office I asked him how we could move the agenda forward politically. It seems that both the executive branch in the United States and the cabinet here do not make this a priority item. He agreed. He then did something extraordinary. He picked up the phone and called Ms Barshefsky, the United States trade representative, and told her, "I have a senator here from Canada. What about this? How do we move that along?" That all occurred while I was in his office. Can you tell me what parliamentarian in Canada can pick up the phone and get the senior official for trade on the phone? That indicates the power of the Senate and, hopefully, the power of Parliament. If we took a more proactive stand, we might get solutions to these problems. I applaud your efforts and we will try to do what we can in our limited functions as parliamentarians.
The Chairman: I am very much in agreement with what you have just said. About the only people who do not have free trade now are the farmers. The government has forgotten about us. There is no level playing field. Senator Whelan was not a great supporter of free trade.
Senator Grafstein: He was for a level playing field, though.
Mr. Whelan: When you check the history of Canada, before free trade 80 per cent of our products were traded freely. I do not remember anyone placing duty on trade in agricultural products. We removed many of them on corn, soybeans and fertilizer, which moved back and forth across the border. Many people did not realize that. When we are talking about the GMOs and a level playing field, one of the things that really concerns me is that they say GMOs will feed the world. That is a falsehood. It is a blatant lie. In the developing world today, over 50 per cent of that food goes to waste because of the lack of processing and storage facilities. There is no ability to market. A lot of agricultural products are destroyed because the United States and other countries impose surpluses on our products so that they can subsidize their local industry.
There is a farmer who farms in Kent County who grows sugar beets, soybeans, corn, wheat and another crop. He told me he will farm one more year. He has lost 20,000 acres over the last two years, and his sons do not want to farm. His brother farms 4,200 acres in Mississippi. Three members of the family were able to qualify for aid under three different programs. They received $600,000 U.S. in funding for that. We are talking here about a level playing field, but we cannot afford to compete with the United States. We subsidize everything else we do in Canada, for example the auto industry and education. Some of us are even ahead of the Americans, but when it comes to agriculture we cannot do so. This is bad and it is false.
I see the Minister of Finance with a surplus and paying off the deficit, and so on. I would suggest to him, "Mr. Minister, put a few billion dollars into the most important industry of all: agriculture. That produces our food." Do you remember what we promised those western farmers in the first place? If you come and settle here, we will always transport your grain. We will take care of you. They do not do that anymore.
I talked to my brother in Regina the other day. He said, "I remember when I was working in southern Saskatchewan. A farmer stood in his field and said, I will always vote Liberal because of what they have promised. They have kept their promise." They still had to close down his pasture, though.
Senator Chalifoux: I wish to return to Codex Alimentarius. This was raised when we were listening to all the presentations here on rBST. I had never heard of Codex Alimentarius in my life before, but I was amazed at the power that they seemed to perceive that they have. You are verifying that.
When the delegate from New Zealand challenged you regarding the marketing of our dairy products, what was your response to him?
Mr. Whelan: Some of it is not printable. I was alarmed and I was mad that he would even bring that up at that meeting. We know there are only two or three countries in the world that can take our dairy industry: the United States and possibly Europe. I told him what I went through when the farmers marched on the hill. The European community and the United States threw surplus dairy products on the market and destroyed our market overnight. Our farmers were going broke. They had taken the markets that we had in other parts of the world away from us. We had warehouses full of skim milk powder and condensed milk that we could not do anything with. That is why we put in supply management. We are just getting it to work.
We have a system of two languages and cattle 4,000 miles across the country. We produce within half of 1 per cent of quota production. We do not try to destroy another production entity in another country just because we can produce a surplus. We gear our production for the domestic market and then, if there is some left, we export.
I disapprove of what New Zealand was doing, because they were selling less on the export market than they were selling on the domestic market. That is wrong. They were competing on the export market. At one time, you could do that legally as long as it was producer money. They changed the rules, though and called producer money a subsidy. Before, subsidy money was only from the treasury of the provinces or the states or the federal system.
I was not very nice to that delegate.
Senator Chalifoux: What influence did Canada have, if any, at that meeting? How big are we? Are we a big player or a small player?
Mr. Whelan: On certain things, such as labelling, the chairperson of the labelling committee for Codex Alimentarius Commission is an efficient and capable person. She knows her job. The presentation that the Canadians made on our behalf was very good.
The only thing I was angry about was that that organization did not know what we did in this Senate committee and did not know about the action Canada had taken on rBST. Some people in New York and in Washington were aware of what we had done, but the United States representative did not mention anything about Canada. Perhaps I was negligent in not standing up on a point of order. Perhaps I should have run over to the Canadian table and taken a seat.
The Chairman: I wish to thank you for an interesting morning. It has been very informative and you are welcome back any time. I wanted to get into one area that we did not have time to investigate this morning, which was your perspective on the grain industry in Ontario and how it has serious problems as well. Perhaps we can discuss that next time.
Mr. Whelan: Just one addition. There is a brand of corn flakes on the market that have a picture of an athlete on the box. I am told the athlete gets more than the corn farmer does for the corn flakes in the box. The farmer gets 4 cents for a box of corn flakes that costs $3.65.
Lastly, I wish to say that I truly fear the onslaught of globalization and what it will do.
The committee adjourned.