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

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is it agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is it agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

3:25 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

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

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

We will now have a 30-minute question period.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today in the House because of this government's sorry record. This is the 82nd time that it has imposed a time allocation motion and closure on a government bill before the House.

This sorry record is unprecedented in the history of Canada. We have never seen a government axe debate in the House so quickly before. Only a handful of people get the opportunity to speak to the bills in question.

What is even sadder is that this government has the worst record when it comes to the number of laws rejected by the court. This year alone, half a dozen bills were rejected by the court. This government keeps cutting off debate, while introducing seriously flawed bills. That is why taxpayers are paying such enormous bills, as this government has to redraft its legislation every time it makes these mistakes.

On this particular bill, Bill C-18, this is the 82nd time the government is imposing time allocation and closure. We have a bill where the NDP offered 16 different amendments to fix problems with the bill. Farmers have raised concerns, including the increased cost of seeds and the increased likelihood of litigation against farmers. The Conservatives have refused to amend the bill to fix these problems.

My question is very simple. Is the reason why the Conservatives are putting forward time allocation that they do not want farmers to know about the problems with the bill?

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

3:30 p.m.

Battlefords—Lloydminster Saskatchewan

Conservative

Gerry Ritz ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, that is a ridiculous assertion. This piece of legislation has been running around these halls for some 23 years. It is called UPOV '91 because its basis came from discussions in 1991. There have been decades of discussion around this bill, so for any farm group to say that it has not had time to frame its opinion or bring forward its issues is completely ridiculous.

The bill has had several iterations in the House. The Liberals took a couple of runs at it when they were in government for 13 years, but they did not get it to this point. We intend to see this put into law. It is the right thing to do.

The vast majority of farm groups out there, with the exception of one, recognize the benefits they would gain from this. It would draw more R and D to this country. It would draw more investment in research.

It is amazing. Farmers have grasped that they need the best in order to be innovative and efficient on their farms. They welcome the passage of this bill. We will see that it gets done.

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

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity on dozens of occasions to talk about time allocation. What I would like to suggest to the government is that it look at the degree to which it uses time allocation. Every time they bring a time allocation motion, it is in the neighbourhood of an hour of the House of Commons' time. We are getting to close to 200 hours of talking just about time allocation. Time allocation, in essence, is when the government forces a bill through, disallowing all members who want to contribute to the debate.

This is a record. Never in the history of Canada have we witnessed this. This is not even the first time for this particular minister. Do members remember the Canadian Wheat Board? Even though it was denied the plebiscite, which by law was mandated, there was time allocation. It is disrespectful of our democracy.

My question is not for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food but for the government House leader. Quite simply, why is the Government of Canada so dependent on time allocation in getting its legislative agenda passed through the House? Whatever happened to consensus, co-operation, and working with stakeholders?

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

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my response to my colleague from the NDP earlier, this has been ongoing for 20-some years. There have been discussions on this. The committee had full hearings and more than 50 witnesses, who fully exposed any problems in this bill. We have made a couple of adjustments ourselves and amendments, as the government, to make sure that being able to use the seed is spelled out in a more farmer-friendly way than the legalese that was there.

The Liberals are in such a hurry to discuss this bill that I can see everyone lined up over there behind the member for Winnipeg North.

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

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could explain the quality of debate from the opposition when closure is not imposed. I also wonder if the minister could explain why the Conservative Party holds every rural seat west of Kenora—

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

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

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

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but this is a debate about cutting off the ability of the opposition to ask questions. It is not an opportunity for Conservative backbenchers to lob softballs.

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

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The hon. member is correct. The question before the House is related to time allocation, but obviously, members often refer to the substance of the bill in their question as well.

I would ask the hon. member to quickly put his question so that the minister can respond.

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

November 19th, 2014 / 3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member has any problem with backbenchers asking questions. If he does, his party and the opposition should never ask questions.

With regard to time allocation, can the minister again explain why we need to use it now and get on with things?

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

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question and comment from my colleague from Manitoba. Certainly, there have been years of debate. As I said, there have been over two decades of debate and discussion on this particular issue. It is time to put it in place.

Canada is one of the very few, if not the one major agriculture-based country in the world that has not embraced UPOV '91. There are things in UPOV '91 that would give farmers more rights and more privileges than they enjoy now under UPOV '78. What we are striving to do is bring this up to that level.

Certainly there were some concerns from one farm group. Over 50 witnesses came to the committee and had full access to talk about the issues in it. To us, as a government, that is far more important than listening to the opposition, which raised the same points. We would rather hear it directly from the horse's mouth, those farmers and investors who will welcome this in Canada so that we can move forward with some new and exciting varieties for farmers to grow.

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

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised when the government cuts off the debates. It shocks me because it is shameful. This is the 82nd time this has happened. I have not been able to speak to this debate and I will not get the chance to do so.

Agriculture is extremely important. Protecting our farmers under law to prevent lawsuits is important. We have not managed to add our points of view to the discussion. Indeed, agriculture has been around for a long time and it is the breadbasket of our food supply. It is therefore important to talk about it in the House, as we do with any other topic, and in fact we should discuss it even longer.

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

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. We need to talk about agriculture more in the House. It is one of the base industries in this great country. It is the third-largest contributor to our GDP. Our exports are in the $60-billion range. They have gone up exponentially since we formed government, simply because we have gone out there. The Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a number of other ministers, and I have been on the road. The Prime Minister himself, who is the greatest salesman ever when it comes to agricultural goods, just had a successful trip to China. That is another $1.5 billion of new access to that growing market for our commodities.

That is the nature of agriculture in this country. It is innovative. It is lean, mean, and efficient. It needs this type of cutting-edge legislation to allow farmers to continue to move forward.

It is important that the opposition listen to farmers who want to move ahead, not to those who want to move back to the fifties, when grain was dug out of a bin and stuck in the ground. It should listen to those farmers who are excited about the new varieties out there that give them efficiency, ingenuity, and that edge when it comes to competing with other farmers from the U.S., Australia, Argentina, and Brazil.

We need this legislation. We needed it 20 years ago. We did not get it then, but we will get it today.

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

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, the people back home need to understand that whenever the minister makes a statement, there needs to be some kind of explanation as to what he really means. When he says that this legislation has been debated for 24 years, that is not correct. There has been the issue of UPOV '91, but the bill before us is an omnibus bill. The government sticks all manner of issues in it, including the power it will give the minister to make regulations, taking it away from farmers and putting it in the hands of the minister and the cabal that sits with him. That is an issue that needs to be discussed.

When this government continually shuts down debate, it blows it. How many bills has it passed that have not had proper debate and have been struck down as unconstitutional? The government's recall rate is worse than the Ford Pinto. If the Conservatives did their job and showed up for work and allowed us to do our work, they might not look so ridiculous some of the time.

We bring forward reasonable amendments at committee to defend the interests of farmers and maintain that balance, and the Conservatives strike down every single amendment, as they do on every single bill, on every single occasion, including if we point out in a committee hearing that they have spelled something wrong. They will strike that down too. They would rather be wrong on the most basic things than right on anything.

What we are here to do in Parliament is debate to allow Canadians to hear the issues. People watch, and I sometimes wonder what they are watching. They should be able to sit here and know that members from every part of this country are able to talk about an issue. Yet time after time the Conservatives shut down the debate, and the result is that they keep coming forward with fundamentally flawed legislation.

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

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I completely reject that diatribe, as any clear thinking Canadian would.

Yes, that party brought forward 56 motions on this particular piece of legislation, each one to take a clause out of the bill. Each one of those clauses is pertinent to UPOV '91. All those members are doing under the smokescreen of democracy is pulling out the parts of UPOV '91 that are in this legislation.

We have been 24 years getting it to this point. There has been a lot of discussion. Several bills were tried by the Liberals at different times during their reign here. We are now moving forward. Farmers, now that they have marketing freedom and are moving forward and having access to other markets in the world, will have access to new varieties of seed, not just hard red spring anymore. There will be a lot of utility varieties that are still millable. They will keep the price down yet have a return per acre that is better.

That is what we are seeking to do here. The NDP is seeking to gut the bill. We will not allow that. We will put this legislation forward. We will stand it on its merits out there, and farmers will make use of it or not. This would not affect in any way, shape, or form any types of seeds that are out there already, including heritage seeds and the predominant seeds that are out there now. This is only on new varieties as of when this legislation is passed. That is another thing the NDP gets wrong all the time.

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

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I have to commend the government for stepping up to the plate to try to get some modern legislation on agriculture. However, I think the member for Timmins—James Bay is also correct. The government has just thrown a whole bunch of things in the bill.

When we started the committee process, the minister said that the government was very open to amendments. The reality is that none of the amendments from either the Liberals or the NDP were accepted.

The minister mentioned witnesses. I have to commend the chair of our committee, too, because he did a great job, and we had a lot of witnesses.

I know that everyone is focused on new crops, and having better varieties is something we need to have in this country. However, the canola growers talked about the advance payments. They said that it is not enough for today's modern farming. They want an increase, so we put an amendment forward. I thought the government, in good faith, would have changed that, because the reality is that it is a loan and it would have worked.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association brought forward the issue of penalties. The Conservatives have penalties in the bill that are pretty high for farmers. The association said that they want the government to be like a coach, not a referee, in dealing with food safety and helping farmers and food production move forward.

On those two parts I think the government could have listened to some of the opposition amendments, and we could have had a “made in Canada” bill that would have been good for all, especially the small farmers. I think there should have been more in there for small, organic, and startup farmers, which the government did not do. It could have done a lot more with the bill.

At the end of the day, the Liberals will go with the bill, but I think the government could have done a better job of listening to the opposition and could have added more to the bill.

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

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his constructive criticism.

It did not surprise me at all that the canola growers would want a bigger program to administer, since they are the ones that administer it. At the end of the day, only 2% of farmers, to date, hit the $400,000 cap. They want me to double it to $800,000 to catch whom? It is the big farmers. The member just made the statement that he wants to ensure that there are still small farmers out there. That is what we are doing by maintaining this cap at $400,000. We changed it from $250,000 under the Liberals to $400,000 when I became minister. We also changed the $50,000 interest free to $100,000 interest free, and we added livestock. We significantly changed this program in the last few years.

To increase it to $800,000, as I said, would only affect 2% of farmers, so that really was not a constructive amendment.

I recognize the great work the canola growers do, but I would not be shocked that they came forward and said, “We want more money to play with”. However, they do not need it. As I said, only 2% of farmers hit the cap now.

On his other point on penalties, which the CCA brought forward, it was a bit of a misunderstanding by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, unfortunately, and the member for Sydney—Victoria has picked it up, in that the federal government only comes into play post farm gate. Everything done on the farm, and these were the examples they gave, was on the farm. They were concerned about the onerous penalties. That is all at provincial level. That is not us at all. There is a bit of misinformation out there that the punitive side of on-farm animal husbandry could go up. That would be up to the provinces, not the federal government.

CFIA, our regulatory agency, only comes into play from transportation from the farm gate on through the processing sector and so forth, so there is a bit of misinformation there.

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

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Mr. Speaker, as we have unfortunately become very accustomed to in the House, we have time allocation and this time it happens to be with respect to agriculture. I guess we have to spread it around every ministry to ensure everybody gets an opportunity to come and defend time allocation in this place, so now it is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's opportunity.

Even when the minister came before committee, he said that the bill was not quite the way the government wanted it and required some changes. He is correct about some of the things that go on in this place because of the way the process is when it comes to the amendments. However, we submitted 16 recommendations that we thought would strengthen the bill. In its wisdom, the government side of the committee decided to vote against all of them. That was disappointing to say the least because the minister said that he would send a recommendation and the department would have some changes to it, which actually came about. However, it turned out to be a very small piece.

Clearly, the dilemma with Bill C-18 is that it is an omnibus bill, so there are many moving parts contained within it, some of which we like. The problem is we have to vote for all of it, so we have to vote for the parts we dislike more than the parts we like. That is part of the problem.

Ultimately, the minister said that the new seed act would take care of the new seed varieties, which is true. UPOV '91 will not affect them. However, as I said in committee, one of the amendments we tried to make was with respect to the varieties that were established today. When I asked the department this, it clearly agreed with me and said that if I applied to deregister them, there was a process for the deregistration and if that was not opposed to in any way, I could have them removed. The reality is that if I have a new seed variety under UPOV '91 and two old ones and I want to keep the two old ones, which I do not make as much money from, as a business person, I would probably take the new one. Why could we not have ensured that piece was in legislation?

There were a number of other things that did not get through the committee, which is unfortunate because we are now in this situation. The minister made a promise that he would get it done by August, and the last time I checked it was November. That is no reason for time allocation.

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

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how the member for Welland knew what I said at committee when he was not even there.

At the end of the day, I do have a couple of things I would like to discuss with him. He talked about this bill. We consider it comprehensive. It is five different parts and pieces that dovetail in with agriculture, so it is a very comprehensive bill. It is not large, rather it is several pages long, so I do not see why anybody would have a problem understanding what is in it.

He talked about existing varieties, and he is right to that extent. He said that it was so easy for companies to deregister, which they can do now as it has nothing to do with this bill. If I as a seed grower or a farmer I want to pick up something that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has deregistered, I can do that. It would cost me $200 through the Canadian Grain Commission. It is not an onerous project or process. It has been done before.

There are a couple of issues with some durum wheat. I remember a few years ago there was a variety that was deregistered. When it is no longer registered, it cannot be put into the system under the old Wheat Board. We have made some changes in that regard too. It is much easier to maintain these historic varieties than it ever was before because we do not have the Wheat Board saying that it is prescriptive. The idea that one can deregister and somehow hide that is no longer on. We can pull that variety back up for that registry fee of $200 and continue to produce those seeds.