Agriculture Committee on Nov. 4th, 2014

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

It is a bit confusing to me as well. I'm just wondering if we could actually get the departmental officials to help clarify this for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Glustien.

[Nicolas McCandie Glustien]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I look at this amendment in two parts. The beginning is about providing information. We feel that the commissioner is already charged with that responsibility in the legislation and a number of other places. If you look at proposed subsection 67(2)—it's subclause 45(1) of the bill, back on page 24—the commissioner is already charged with putting all useful information for regulated parties on the Internet. That type of information is already being provided. The commissioner and the CFIA are very committed to ensuring transparency around all information for regulated parties and farmers.

As for second part, the seeking of comments and the consultation aspect, it doesn't appear in the bill but is part of the PBR Act. It's section 73. It wasn't amended, so you wouldn't have seen it in the bill. But it sets up the plant breeders' rights committee, which is struck, essentially, to look at matters of interest around the regulated parties in this case. It's a committee that pulls in from all sectors and all stakeholders.

In that, we feel these things are already done and enshrined in the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you.

Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 39 agreed to)

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to clause 40. Here again, we could put together clauses 40 to 49 and seek to apply the vote to all of them.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

(Clauses 40 to 49 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 50)

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to amendment NDP-8.

Madame Brosseau, please.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

This one is that clause 50 be amended by adding after line 39 on page 26 the following:

(4.1) Section 75 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

( 1.1) Despite subsection (1 ), the Governor in Council may not make regulations that would restrict the use of harvested material by a farmer under subsection 5.3(2) by

(a) excluding a particular plant variety from the application of that subsection;

(b) establishing limits on a farmer's use of harvested material, such as saving, treating, exchanging, conditioning and storing such material; or

(c) establishing limits on the proportion of harvested material that may be kept by a farmer on an annual basis.

Once again it's coming back and making sure that we reinforce the fact that this is a right and not just a privilege, and the fact that it cannot be taken away by regulation. It comes from the stuff we've heard from stakeholders and from witnesses here at committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

Is there debate?

Mr. Lemieux, please.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I think the what I'll say here will go back to earlier comments I made regarding regulations and the farmers' privilege. Once again, the agricultural sector is not homogeneous across Canada; there are particular sectors that have particular needs. They may in fact want regulations to be developed for their particular sector. I don't think we should shut that down, which is really what this is doing. It's really saying that the Governor in Council may not make regulations. It's basically shutting down the regulatory process again. I don't think that's constructive, and I don't think it necessarily well serves our agricultural sector.

Of course, the regulatory process that we follow involves extensive consultation. There's a lot of research that goes into regulations. Why are they being put forward? What are the positive and negative consequences that could come about? What do the industry stakeholders think about this? There's a full process for regulations. I don't think it is, as I say, constructive to simply shut down the regulatory process when it comes to this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Sure, thank you.

Mr. Eyking, please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Well, Mr. Chair, I see a lot of similarities in this amendment to the one I put forward, so I'm kind of questioning the parliamentary secretary on his comments on shutting down the regulatory process. I don't know what part of this is shutting down something. I don't know where he gets this shutting-down business.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Do you want me to answer that?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Yes.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

If you look at it, it reads:

Despite subsection (1), the Governor in Council may not make regulations

If this were to pass, the Governor in Council cannot make regulations.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Read the whole thing.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

It continues:

that would restrict the use of harvested material by a farmer under subsection 5.3(2)....

So it is not possible. It is shutting down the regulatory process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you for that debate.

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

The parliamentary secretary is 80% correct. The other 20% is that in 5.3(2), it's explicit as to what exactly he's talking about. He's talking about harvested material by a farmer, such as excluding a particular plant variety from what is safeguarded by farmers' privilege, unreasonable limits on a farmer's use of harvested material, and a limited proportion for harvesting.

It is specific. It isn't so regulations can never be written again, unless of course you come back to Parliament. That's not what it says. It is talking about a particular piece and specifically about what is deemed in the bill to be farmers' privilege, albeit I think it should be farmers' right. It's talking about the specifics of that piece, not that regulations generally for all time under this particular act can never be done. That's not what it's trying to attempt to do.

Again, it falls back, and you'll see a theme, Mr. Chair, that my friend Mr. Eyking has done, and we've done as well, and the government did to a certain degree, albeit we felt it needed to move a bit further. In the preceding amendments where we were talking about the section on farmers' privilege and trying to enhance it...because if there were a theme that all witnesses talked in mentioning the farmers' privilege part of this legislation, it was that it needed to be clarified. They needed it to be enhanced and strengthened to the point where people truly understood what it is.

That's what these things are trying to do, no less, no more, and not to infringe upon the government's right to make regulations except in specific areas when it comes to what farmers have pointed out from the very beginning of this legislation and what the government by its own amendment to its legislation recognized, which is that there was not strong enough language under the farmers' privilege section. Otherwise they never would have amended it. They brought forward an amendment, and the minister agreed that it needed some clarification. What we're trying to do, the only thing we're trying to do, is enhance that piece so that farmers truly understand that their privilege is truly protected, because that is their biggest fear.

There are many pieces in this legislation and, quite correctly, Mr. Chair, when you have lumped many clauses together, we've agreed with you because we didn't have any amendments because we agreed with the clauses. We agree with the vast majority of this legislation. It's in specific areas where we are pointing out some failings and some weaknesses. Maybe “failings“ is too strong a word—perhaps some weaknesses is better. That's what we're trying to point out in this legislation. These are weaknesses that we think can be enhanced. Nearly every witness who addressed this area said the same thing over and over again. Unfortunately the government, when it said it was going to bring something forward, was a little “lacking”, if I can use that word, in strengthening it.

They did amend it, I give them that. I can't suggest that they didn't, and for the record, just to make sure, because I know we've been voting quite quickly and we don't always see the hands, Mr. Chair, we actually voted with the government on their amendment. We voted in favour of it, albeit in the words of an old friend of mine, it just doesn't go far enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Hoback, please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I appreciate my colleagues across the aisle. I understand what they're trying to do. They're just trying to ensure that farmers are firmly planted on farmers' privilege, but the reality is that they are kind of doing the opposite. Farmers have told this committee that they wanted to be part of the consultation process as these regulations are developed and changed. The reason for that is that the farming community changes every so often. Things come up, such as new varieties, different weather conditions, and new machinery. There are all sorts of reasons why you want to look at regulations periodically and say that one is no longer needed or that something else is needed.

When you try to put something fixed into legislation, it takes away the farmers' ability to have that flexibility to modify those regulations. What I would suggest to my colleagues across the road is not to handcuff farmers, but allow farmers to participate in a process as regulations come forward where they actually are consulted and involved in the process when they develop new regulations.

If you talk to Mr. Banack with the CFA—I'll just use him—he said in testimony here in committee that they want to be part of that process. For us to take away their ability to be part of that process and make it fixed in legislation, I think, would be a huge mistake. I don't think we should go down this road. I think we should let the regulatory group do what it's supposed to do, and that's to create proper regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you for the debate.

We'll vote. Shall amendment NDP-8 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 50 agreed to)

On clauses 51 through 56, I would ask that we apply the vote to clauses 51 through 56.

(Clauses 51 to 56 inclusive agreed to)

We will now go to amendment NDP-9 to clause 57.

Madame Brosseau, please.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

This one is on page 33, that clause 57 be amended by replacing line 24 on page 33 with the following:

time to time, with the consent of Parliament.

The purpose of this amendment is to talk about limiting incorporation by reference. It's become more and more of a trend with government bills, as we've seen of late, so this amendment intends to limit incorporation by reference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

Is there debate?

Mr. Eyking, please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

All legislation that comes before Parliament should be reviewed to a certain extent. It's just like what we're talking about with the rail act that is collapsing. Everything needs to be reviewed.

On where we are at with this, I just want a little more detail on how you would do that. Would this go before the committee every once in a while? We're still on UPOV. If this is an international standard, and we're going to accept it, how do we go...? I'm just trying to get clarification from the NDP on reviewing it at Parliament. Is there a timing with this so that every once in a while it's brought back?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be. I'd just like more detail, that's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you. That's a good question.