House of Commons Hansard #144 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was varieties.

Topics

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture

Mr. Speaker, in my time in the House, I have noted that the New Democrats in particular will do anything to delay voting or the passage of legislation. It is in their best interest because they never have to vote on something in that case.

That is particularly true with this bill. I bring this up in terms of their Quebec MPs who represent Quebec farmers who want this bill to pass. The New Democrats have already indicated quite clearly that they will not vote in favour of this bill, so their position is already known.

I want to ask the minister about these delay and obstruct-type tactics being used by the NDP. Could he explain to the House and to farmers why it is important for the legislation to move forward in a reasonable time period?

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, Canada is not an island when it comes to investments by companies developing new seed varieties. We are competing with a number of other venues around the world, so it is very important that we get this passed.

When we started talking about this, and the member for Welland made that point that, we were trying to get this through by August 1. We had some transportation logistics that took the House time, and I thank them for their help on that. However, at the end of the day, we have to get this passed. We have already seen some significant investments from several groups coming to Saskatchewan apparently and developing some of these research farms. We are seeing investments coming through our universities with other people partnering around the world, which is not a bad thing.

The parliamentary secretary also made reference to farmers in Quebec wanting to see this happen. It is not just farmers in Quebec; it is also dairy farmers across Canada who want to see this happen. They are very supportive of this because they know they need the best new corn and alfalfa varieties to keep the animals under their care well fed. Our dairy animals have the best genetics in the world. That is what they require of this, those new varieties, so they want to see this done very quickly too.

I cannot understand why the NDP continues to vote against supply management.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is very bizarre for the minister to talk about supply management. We presented a motion to protect supply management and the government supported it. I think our efforts are made at the right place.

We will wait to vote for about an hour. Almost a dozen MPs could have talked about agriculture and our farmers during that time. The minister has talked for the past 30 minutes on how he is proud of our farmers and our agricultural sector. We are all proud of this, but why is he preventing members to talk about our amazing agricultural sector and why is he preventing members who represent Canadian farmers to talk about this in the House? I would like to know.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, as I said, in this legislation, and in some of the other parts that are in it as well, is comprehensive legislation. There have been discussions for over two decades, so it is well known what everyone's opposition and thoughts are in this regard, so I will not say that we need to have more debate.

The problem is the motions that the NDP members put forward, which they want to debate for the rest of time, would gut the bill. They would pull UPOV '91 right out of the bill. That is all it does. We will not tolerate that. We are moving forward.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Lise St-Denis Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, there are many small farmers in my riding. I talked to them about this bill and they all told me it does not really take them into consideration.

Can the minister explain to me once more why small farmers are not being taken into consideration in this bill?

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, there is no small or large farmer affected any differently throughout the bill. It is all about economies of scale. Even small farmers need good seeds. It does not matter whether they are planting a garden or planting 10,000 acres, they need good seed and need the best seed that is available out there so they can compete with the farmer down the road, or the farmer in the United States, or the farmer in Australia. That is what this is all about. Even small farmers will benefit from this because they will be have access to that best seed.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

November 19th, 2014 / 3:50 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have a habit of always arguing that time is of the essence. The members of the official opposition are certainly not responsible for the government's negligence. After all, the Conservatives have been in power for almost nine years.

I remember reading this summer the memoirs of the former Quebec agriculture minister, Jean Garon, who implemented a huge number of measures over nine years. He always held extensive consultations that went well beyond interest groups.

I would like to know what the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is afraid of and what is preventing him from thoroughly debating a bill that is basically an omnibus bill. This bill demands much more attention than can be given under a time allocation motion. It seems that they are just blindly forging ahead.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to discuss agriculture with anyone. It is well known in the House that I have been the most lobbied minister for a number of years in a row, simply because we discuss this with every farmer and farm group caring to have a discussion with us.

Therefore, we are accessible, available and we continue to have those meetings, and we will on any legislation that affects farmers.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise with reluctance to join this debate on the time allocation motion because it really is sad. As a new member in this place, I have only had a short time to observe the practices of the House and at committee, but I have seen already a pattern of bringing in time allocation motions.

It reminds me of another government where I had the privilege of spending some time, and that was at Queen's Park. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was there at that time. It reminds of the time that government brought in the use of time allocation motions hundreds of times.

It reflects ultimately on a fundamental disrespect for this place and for places of parliament with respect to allowing for a fulsome debate.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Foreign Affairs why they feel they do not want to allow fulsome debate to take place. As the Minister of Agriculture has already noted, this matter has been around for 23 years. Why not simply allow sufficient time for all those members who want to speak on the bill to speak to it?

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, he just made the point at the end. After 23 years, the points have all been made. No one has changed his or her mind.

The NFU came in many different iterations to committee and said exactly the same thing it had been saying for 23 years. Grain growers of Canada, canola growers, dairy farmers, and all the other relevant groups came forward and said exactly what they had said, that they needed to be competitive, they needed the best, they needed to move forward on this and get it done. That is exactly what we are doing.

We are starting to run government like business. We make a decision, push forward and get it done. We implement it and move forward. That is what this is all about, ensuring that farmers have access to the best varieties and the best programming we can possibly deliver as a government.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Before I put the question, I want to remind members that during a 30-minute debate on a time allocation motion, we do not follow the normal rotation. The majority of the questions are given to the opposition parties, usually only a couple of them to government members, and the rotation between opposition parties is proportional to the members who want to participate in the debate, rather than simply from one caucus to the other. I think there was genuine confusion in terms of how it works. I appreciate the co-operation of all hon. members.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation MotionAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #276

Agricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

I declare the motion adopted.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Aboriginal Affairs; and the member for Ahuntsic, Public Safety.

The House resumed from November 17 consideration of Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, as reported with amendments from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report StageAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to stand up in the House to speak on this agricultural issue, in this case Bill C-18 and the question of plant breeders' rights. It is a great honour for me as well because I represent a very large agricultural region in the Timiskaming and Timmins—James Bay region.

What we have seen over the last number of years through the boom-bust economy of forestry and mining is a growing strength in northern agriculture. In the southern part of my riding, known as the little clay belt, extending down through Témiscaming, Quebec and over into northern Ontario, there is now a $91 million a year direct agriculture business with another $111 million in spin-offs for support organizations, dealers, and milk organizations in our area. There are over 1,000 people now directly involved in agriculture just in the Timiskaming region. Therefore, these issues are important to them.

Moreover, a very interesting transformation in northern agriculture has been happening over the last 25 years in areas that had opened up to development back at the turn of the last century. People who had homesteaded had found out that it was very hard and brutal work, and because of the climate it was simply not possible to maintain farming over any period of time. Therefore, in the so-called upper northern clay belt, we did have an incredible number of farmlands cleared, but people just could not make a go of it and much of that land was beginning to go back to dogwood and poplar. However, we are now seeing a new move back into agricultural regions in the upper part of Timiskaming and Timmins—James Bay, Val Gagné, Black River-Matheson up toward Cochrane.

A number of factors have made this possible. Certainly a changing climate has affected the north, although I would say this past year we did have a very erratic year that was very troubling for farmers. From putting tile drainage in northern fields we have seen an increased ability to get a crop off the field more quickly and in a more sustainable way, which makes lands that were less profitable before, or less possible for farming, now able to support farms.

One of the other factors is that we have seen new breeds of plant varieties that work in the north. This is testament to research and development. There is now an ability to grow soybeans and grains, with canola in particular being a big market for producers in our region, as well as corn, something that no one had ever thought possible but in which we are now having large growth.

At the same time there has been a whole change in how people perceive agriculture in the north. Back in the day we had many small local dairies, because we could not transport food very long distances, but there has been a move toward bigger agriculture. There is a belief that big agriculture is the only way to go, but we have seen in the last number of years smaller producers starting to create niche markets, the organic producers, the people producing specialty foods that people want.

In terms of balance and what really cuts to the heart of Bill C-18, as much as we want to have innovative farming and to make sure that we are supporting research and innovation on the new breeds and varieties that make it possible to expand agriculture in a world where we need to be able to build our food supply, we also have to take into account the fact that consumers are making very clear choices and want to be heard in the choices they are making about the food supply, food security, and the food market.

It is not good enough simply to say that big is the only way. We now see in our areas the local farmers' markets. People are wanting to buy local. They want to know where their food is from. They are willing to pay more for meats they know do not have a heavy hormone treatment. They want to know what they put on their plate. This is not the whole food market but represents a growing segment of the population. Last year in Timmins, we saw for the first time a march against Monsanto due to a concern about very large corporate interests and what role they are playing. These citizens are saying they want to be part of the decision-making, they want to have choice when they buy, and they want to know what is in GMOs.

The GMO issue is certainly very complex, and we cannot treat the public as though they should be left out of it. This is a right they have. People are raising their voices about the use of neonicotinoids as pesticides because of the clear damage that is being done to bee populations.

This bill is very important in making sure that balance is maintained, but the problem with Bill C-18 is that it is yet another omnibus bill. A whole manner of regulatory changes in agriculture were put in this bill. Some of them are long-standing and some are very much needed, but in some areas the government just did not get the mix right. The most striking example is the issue of implementing UPOV '91 and balancing the rights of the corporate breeders that are creating the new varieties. The royalties they receive will certainly be protected very well under this regime.

Coming from the artistic community, we see that the government has made no effort to ensure that artists ever get paid for their intellectual property, but very large corporate interests are being paid.

There is no problem with making sure that people are paid for their research and development. This is what drives the economy and drives development, and Canada needs to keep its own in the world. However, there is also the question of balance in terms of the small players who want to have more traditional agriculture. These are not hobby farms anymore; these are people who have a direct right to be heard, and the issue of long-standing traditions and rights that people had for saving and reusing seeds is a big question. We have seen corporate interests attempting to go after these traditional rights in India and in other jurisdictions in the third world.

New Democrats were trying to find a balance and put forward 16 amendments to fine-tune the language. Some of this language is about protecting farmers from needless litigation, an issue that was raised by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. It wanted to make sure that producers were not going to be sued, as we have seen happening in the United States, for claims of patent infringement with respect to the natural accidental spreading of patented plant genetic materials.

Corporations cannot say that if they put genetic materials in seeds, the seeds will not propagate elsewhere. They cannot make that claim. Farmers are worried that if they use patented genetic seeds, they can then be charged with infringement if these seeds accidentally start to move elsewhere. New Democrats clarified the language on this aspect so there would be no unnecessary litigation against farmers. That was a big issue.

One of the other things that was a real concern raised by many people was the issue of protecting farmers' privilege. This bill would take decisions on the protection for farmers' traditional rights out of the legislation and put them into the hands of the minister. New Democrats do not believe that is accountable. Making sure there is some mechanism for oversight is about fairness. The fact is that the minister could simply rewrite the regulations himself and farmers would have to live with them. That is not an accountable system.

These are reasonable amendments. Unfortunately, there is a culture within the government that any attempt to improve a bill is seen as a dire threat, so it turned down the 16 amendments. It is not that the government had to accept all 16, but it could not accept one. My colleagues in the Liberal Party put forward amendments; the government would not accept any.

That is a standard practice the Conservatives have. Even when they are bullheadedly wrong, they believe that accepting amendments is somehow seen as a form of weakness. I would argue that not being able to work with one's colleagues and not being able to accept recommendations brought forward in good faith is a sign of an immature political personality.

We saw that happen with the Copyright Act. The government said there would be lots of opportunity for amendments and then struck down every single amendment. We ended up with a fundamentally flawed bill. It was so flawed that it actually struck down amendments that would have protected the right of blind people to access materials without being threatened as criminals. The government turned that down.

What happens when we do not listen to others? We end up with failed legislation and recalls. This is the problem. This is why New Democrats are raising these issues. These concerns were not respected in committee. Canadians have a right to be heard on the issues of agriculture and food security.

Report StageAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member from northern Ontario as he spoke about how much more agriculture there would be in that area and about his interest in agriculture.

He mentioned the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I think he got mixed up with the farmers' union. However, what are his comments when most of the federations of agriculture across the country are in favour of most of the bill?

I realize what he is saying. There were a lot of amendments put forward by the NDP and by Liberals, and we hoped the Conservatives would do some tweaking, but overall, there is so much in the bill that is also good for farmers.

If we never put the bill forward, does he think we would be missing a great opportunity for our agriculture industry?

Report StageAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I said the Canadian Federation of Agriculture because it was the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that raised the concerns about patent infringements. That is not to say that it is opposed to the overall bill. However, this is about fixing the bill to make sure it will actually serve the purposes we are told it is going to serve.

Bringing forward problems and suggesting solutions through amendments are reasonable things that parliamentarians are asked to do. We brought forward a clarifying amendment so that people would not needlessly be faced with litigation. The government has ignored that concern, and we think that is unfortunate.

Report StageAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for the connection he made between this and the copyright bill.

We see here that the government is somewhat biased in favour of companies, large corporations and agribusinesses, which will be able to collect royalties while artists are unable to do so and do not have a mechanism allowing them to profit from their creations. I would like him to expand on that.

Another question comes to mind. We know that developing new varieties requires research and development, but where will this ultimately be done? Does this bill include a mechanism to ensure that Canada will be able to benefit from research and development in this area?

Report StageAgricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has asked a couple of very important questions.

In terms of making the comparison, when we saw the copyright bill, the government was focused on its mistaken belief that if we just locked down content, we would protect corporate rights. The issue here was about protecting the revenue streams for artists so that they could continue to innovate and create. Through cutting the mechanical royalties, the Canadian industry lost about $30 million a year.

Cutting the private copying levy would amount to another $35 million that would be taken directly out of the hands of the creators themselves. Actually, Canadian entertainment in Canada and Quebec is one of the greatest exports we have. Our artists are known internationally. Without that seed money to allow them to make a go of it, people are actually having to give up.

The other issue we are seeing now is with streaming. The streaming royalties are so abysmally low that many artists are saying they cannot make a living, even though Canada was and is a leader in this area.

In terms of supporting development, we totally support it. The question is, what support would the government give to research and development to maintain it in Canada, as opposed to just paying Monsanto down in the United States? We would like to see a commitment to researching and developing new varieties right here in Canada.