----- Original Message -----
From: Sandra Finley
To: sabest1@sasktel.net
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 3:37 PM
Subject: GDR - COMPLIANCE - Canadians are learning .. CONTINUED - CFIA de

Sent to PCO - Privy Council Office

Dear Daniel, Samir, and Ben,

This email follows:
(1)  REGARDING SELF-CENTREDNESS   (submitted to you Nov 25)
(2)  COMPLIANCE  background    (submitted Nov 28)
(3)  REGARDING THE STATE OF COMPLIANCE, Canadians are learning
non-compliance (Submitted Nov 29).


The previous email set out the growing problems with COMPLIANCE.  "You
achieve compliance without force IF people embrace the laws and regulations.
The draft GDR states "Regulations are a form of law - they have binding
legal effect ...".  As the gun registry and 2006 census reveal, this
statement is vacuous if a large number of people choose non-compliance."

Perhaps I was saving the example of the CFIA for individual attention
because this one entity embodies everything that is wrong with governance
(regulation), and hence compliance in Canada.  The CFIA was talked about a
few times at the Saskatoon public meeting on the GDR.  I suspect that you -
Daniel, Shamir and Ben - don't know enough about the CFIA to appreciate its
role here.

You have only to be the tiniest bit curious about inconsistencies, and then
seek to understand, in order to appreciate the role of the CFIA in the
creation of non-compliance.  This goes back a few years:  how can it be
that, in spite of monolithic opposition to "roundup resistant" wheat, the
Government pushes forward with it?  How can it be, when roundup resistant
wheat doesn't make ANY sense, - for Canadian consumers, for farmers, for
Canadian markets, for the environment - that the Government pushes forward
with it and funds its development?  How can it be that the Government of
Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan, through Government fronts such as
Biotec Canada and Agwest Biotec are interveners in the Supreme Court, on the
side of Monsanto?  A bit fishy??  ...  The Patent Act was designed to be
applied to mechanical devices.  It was not designed for application to life
forms.  How can it be that when the Supreme Court of Canada has told the
Government, both in the Harvard Mouse case and then again in the Monsanto
vs. Percy Schneider case, that the Patent Act needs to be updated, that the
Government doesn't change the Patent Act, but it puts forward changes to the
"Plant Breeders' RIGHTS Act"  (note: not Plant Breeders' RESPONSIBILITIES

When you piece together the answers to the questions, you see the CFIA for
what it is.

Most of the people in my network, and the people to whom they pass along
information, are familiar with the story of the CFIA.  Just as we learn
about the PMRA when we fight to shield children from exposure to pesticides,
we learned about the CFIA when we fought long, hard and relentlessly against
the introduction of herbicide-tolerant wheat.  The fight is back on now.
(This time the application is from the chemical company BASF, not from
Monsanto.) Have you any idea of how much anger re-surfaces?  Only this time
it's more.

This is not the recipe for a "compliant public".

François Guimont is the President of the CFIA, 613 225-2342.  My letter to
him is appended.
It tells you about non-compliance.  It is this that the GDR must openly
address, somehow.

The Government's "pilot project" to be "transparent" in the re-introduction
of herbicide tolerant wheat does NOT address the root of the problem at all.
"Currently, the CFIA and Health Canada post decision documents on the
Internet after a product has been approved. They have not previously posted
information about products that are under review, as will be the case in
this pilot project."

The problem is that the Government does not know that its responsibility is
to citizens, not to corporate interests.  It does not know that its job is
to protect the commons.

To the email, "REGARDING THE STATE OF COMPLIANCE, Canadians are learning
non-compliance", Nov 29,
I would add  that the CFIA plays a large role in the under-mining of
Canadian democracy and the rule of law.

Regarding remedy:  can the GDR (Government Directive on Regulating) help to
find solutions?  ...  more in another email.

If you do not know the story of the CFIA, it is well enough told in the
movie THE FUTURE OF FOOD, an American movie with Canadian content.  What is
described about the U.S. situation is true of the Canadian.  For more
information about the film:

"Already playing to packed houses in the U.S., this award-winning
documentary offers an in-depth investigation into the alarming changes
happening in the corporate-controlled food system. With beautiful and
haunting images, it reveals the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled,
patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled grocery
store shelves for the past decade. Released in the States in September, THE
FUTURE OF FOOD opened in Calgary on Nov. 18th, Vancouver on December 1 with
a special benefit screening in Saskatoon on December 2.""THE FUTURE OF FOOD
has inspired food and farming communities all over the world," says
Producer-Director Garcia. "We are very pleased that audiences across Canada
will have the opportunity to see the film and educate themselves about what
is happening to agriculture today.")

Best wishes,
Sandra Finley

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Accepting Comments on Submission for
Approval and Release of Herbicide Tolerant Wheat

November 8, 2005

Biotechnology Notices of Submission Project - Wheat (ALS1b) which has been
bred for herbicide tolerance

DEADLINE  Jan 7, 2006.


Sandra Finley
Saskatoon, SK

TO:  François Guimont, President of the CFIA

By the thousands, Canadians have told you that we do not want our food
supply developed by the criterion that it be resistant to chemicals.  Our
food supply is to be developed according to the criterion:
-   is the seed more nutritious than other varieties (of wheat, in this
example)?  Does it make a positive contribution to the nutritional value of
our food supply?

We fought for months and months to put a stop to
herbicide-resistant wheat developed jointly by Monsanto and the Government
of Canada.  Now here it is back again, only this time from BASF.

You have 4 issues to address:
- GOVERNANCE (In whose interest are these undertakings?)
- HEALTH (Our food supply. Health is dependent upon food supply. What is the
criteria for seed selection?)
- ENVIRONMENT (Introduced species do not have enemies. They proliferate and
become weeds.  Common sense, science and experience ALL reinforce the fact
that crops engineered to be resistant to chemicals bring about an increase
in the use of chemicals.  Farmers now apply a round of glyphosate to kill
the plants they don't want, and then turn around and apply 2-4D to kill the
plants that are resistant to the glyphosate.  I know.  I am from
Saskatchewan.  We have 10 years of experience with RR canola which is now a
weed growing in shelter-belts, gardens and in other unwanted places.
Roundup won't kill it.  You, the CFIA, has no credibility here.)
- OWNERSHIP OF LIFE FORMS.  The Patent Act was never meant to apply to life
forms.  It was intended to cover mechanical devices.  In at least 4
different places in the Schmeiser decision the Supreme Court of Canada told
the Government that the legislation had to be changed.  Has that been done?
The earlier "Harvard Mouse" decision also pointed out to the Government that
the Patent Act required an update.  Has it been done?  Have YOU, François
Guimont, done anything to insist that the Patent Act be changed?  Whose
interests do you serve?

Transnational corporate interests more and more determine the food that is
grown. They do not develop seed using the selection criteria of nutritional
value.  And they attempt to appropriate that which belongs to the commons.
You, the CFIA, are party to the attempted appropriation.

The Government almost shut down a whole industry (cattle) when it was
suspected that just ONE INDIVIDUAL's food production might be injurious to
the public good (health).  What do you do when it is suspected that crops
developed with the criterion that they be resistant to chemicals, crops that
serve a corporate interest, might not be in the public interest?

The health of the population, and therefore medicare costs, are dependent
upon the nutritional value of our food supply.

According to a Globe and Mail report, the nutrition found in fruits,
vegetables, and other food crops has declined significantly since the
1950's.  That is YOUR responsibility.

The licensing process for new varieties of wheat, barley, oats, etc. uses
criteria such as disease resistance, yield, and now, resistance to chemical

CRITERIA NOT USED: nutritional value, taste, impact on environment,
contribution to the common good.

Plant Breeders do not have Rights.  They have RESPONSIBILITIES.

The purpose of the Government and its Legislation is to defend THE COMMONS.
Seeds are an essential part of the commons; they form the basis of our food
supply. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of ANYONE who is tampering with the food
supply to use the following selection criteria.

Before any seed is released into the environment or licensed for use:

- NUTRITIONAL VALUE (in the case of seed that becomes food): is the
nutritional value of the seed superior to that of hallmark original
varieties? If the seed (food) does not make a improved positive contribution
to the value of the food, therefore to the health of the citizens, it will
not be licensed for use. It is well documented that the nutritional value of
food has significantly declined over the last 50 years. That does not bode
well for public health. There is a connection between our food supply and
escalating disease rates (health).

- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: will it perform like an "introduced or invader
species" such as wild oats, purple loosestrife or zebra mussels? If so, it
will not be licensed. Anyone who releases such organisms into the
environment must pay the "external costs" of eradication.  Do you know how
many millions and millions of dollars are spent, year after year, to try and
control wild oats (an introduced species?  Do YOU pay for it?)

- TASTE: Food that contributes to the healthfulness of the citizens must be
appetizing, or it will be shunned in spite of its nutritive value. SO: What
is the taste performance of the proposed seed: it must at least be as tasty
as hallmark original varieties.

Visionaries implemented a seed development process in Canada which used
public money for the common good (e.g. Agriculture Canada Research Stations
and scientists). They understood that allowing inferior seed from producers
to enter the food production system undermines the value of the crop for
citizens collectively.

They understood that:
~ the goals of the individual or corporation (minimize costs, maximize
revenues) can be at odds with the interests of the community,
~ use of inferior seed by some individuals promotes use of inferior seed by
everyone because those with higher costs will be driven out of production if
they don't adopt the same lowest-cost production. (The common good (health)
and the environment are the losers.)
~ the role of Government is to serve and protect the public interest.
Historically, Agriculture Canada did that well, up until the 1980's when
Government POLICY changed.

TODAY, the Government is WRONG in its understanding of its role. A necessary
criterion for deciding whether a new seed will be introduced is: whose
interests will be served by the introduction? Seeds are part of the commons.
If it cannot be demonstrated that the society at large will benefit from the
seed, then it must not be licensed. (The very name of the Act - PLANT
BREEDERS' RIGHTS - states a bad situation, a serious misunderstanding.)

Canada has a long history of exemplary seed development based on community
interest. The evidence is that we HAVE floundered by succombing to private,
commercial, interest-based seed selection criteria.

From John Kenneth Galbraith's "The Economics of Innocent Fraud - Truth for
our Time", published in 2004 : "... As the corporate interest moves to power
in what was the public sector, it serves, predictably, the corporate
interest. That is its purpose. ...One obvious result has been well-justified
doubt as to the quality of much present regulatory effort. There is no
question but that corporate influence extends to the regulators. . Needed is
independent, honest, professionally competent regulation ... This last must
be recognized and countered. There is no alternative to effective
supervision. ."

Tax-payers provide salaries for Government employees to perform work that is
in the public interest. ANY Government employee whose work is in
collaboration with an industry, ESPECIALLY if the employee's official work
is related to the regulation of that industry, MUST resign their Government

I am very angry that I and others must expend so much time and energy to try
and force you to do your job.

Yours truly,
Sandra Finley
(contact information)
Email from:
Sandra Finley
Saskatoon, SK