Debates of June 4th, 2014

Bill C-18—Time Allocation Motion

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the minister saying that this has been discussed since the 1990s. This is something that seems to have been on the table for a long time. He talks about the fact that we are one of only two developed countries that have not yet adopted such regulations. Now it is 2014 and suddenly this is urgent. Suddenly, Parliament has to be choked with a time allocation motion.

I would like the minister to explain to me why, once again, we are in a situation where another bill dealing with another issue has been dragging on for decades. After almost a decade in power, suddenly, in 2014, a year away from an election and a month away from the summer, the Conservative government feels obliged to shut down debate and adopt time allocation motions. This seems inconsistent and illogical. Can the minister enlighten me?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we make no apologies for moving forward on our agenda. Canadians are asking us to do that on a number of fronts. One of them, of course, the third-largest driver of the Canadian economy, is agriculture. The processing sector for that primary production is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada.

They need new tools. They need tools of the 21st century, not of 1978. That is exactly what this piece of legislation does.

There have been a number of tries. I remember that the Liberal government, back in the 1990s, brought this forward. The NDP at the time, under the full moon, said that it could not do that, and it backed away.

During our time with a minority government, we brought it forward and tried to move it. Again, the NDP stood up and said that it was not going to allow it to happen. It is the NDP ideology that has led us to this point.

Having said that, this was tabled in December or so. We have had a tremendous amount of input at the agriculture committee around other hearings on moving agriculture forward. A lot of the people, even the Partners in Innovation, were very much onside, when we talked about innovation, that this is the key to moving forward in the seed sector. We intend to do just that.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is truly a sorry situation. The NDP is not at all afraid to carry the burden of all the work on our shoulders. On the contrary, this is good preparation for when we take power in 2015.

That being said, let us not forget to put what is happening right now into context. The Liberals, with the complicity of the government, defined the rules for the last four weeks of work in the House.

What we are seeing now is a joke. In fact, it makes a mockery of the public interest and all Canadians. I want to know what has the minister so afraid that he is cutting off debate on this rather important bill. The bill makes changes that would have a considerable impact.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid of any debate on this bill, because I have pages and pages of positive comments, from pretty much every farm group right across this great nation, from horticulture, grains, and oilseeds, about how important this is. It is pivotal and is a real paradigm shift in investing in new seeds and new varieties that are demanded by our customers around the world.

This is what is required to bring us into the 21st century and to make use of the other changes we have made in marketing freedom so that farmers out there have the best and the brightest working for them in science and research around the world. We will be able to bring that to Canada. We will also be able to export that from Canada.

We are well known for the quality and consistency of our agricultural products. It is just unfortunate that the NDP and its allies in that one farm splinter group have been baying at the moon for years and have not allowed this to move forward. That is what is comedy. It is shameful.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was here last night when we heard many Conservatives, wanting to shut down debate at that time, saying that they had heard enough. Today we are hearing again from the minister that we have already heard enough.

I am a bit confused about whether the government is getting tired of being the government. My offer to the Conservatives would be that they could step out of the way, and we could take over. We would present things Canadians really want to debate, and I am sure that they would find lots to say about what we are putting forward as initiatives.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great time to be in government. The Canadian economy is the envy of the world. I lead a lot of trade delegations around the world, and I am here to tell members that they look with envy at what we have been able to do.

I was here last night listening to the NDP's filibuster against free trade with Honduras. Just for the heck of it, I went back to its filibuster against trade with Colombia. It was amazing how a lot of those speeches were identical, word for word. All that the members changed was “Honduras” from “Colombia”.

If we are talking about wasting the House's time and filibustering, I am happy to take our agenda out to the Canadian public at any time, whether it is the next campaign or tomorrow.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of this bill is that it is strongly supported by the agricultural sector, except for the splinter group the minister spoke about, and that the agricultural sector wants us to move ahead quickly so that it can gain the competitive advantage this bill would bring it.

I wonder if the minister could comment on the support he has heard from the agricultural sector regarding this bill and why it needs to move forward quickly.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been actively involved in agricultural politics for some 30 years. In that time we have had a lot of discussion about these types of bills and legislative fixes that are required to bring Canada into the 21st century. We have made good strides, and I welcome the intervention from the parliamentary secretary in this regard.

This goes from coast to coast, right from horticulture through to the grains and oilseeds sector. New and better varieties would give us new feed varieties to go into the pork, beef, sheep, and lamb sectors, which are very important. This would let us connect the dots across the spectrum of agriculture, getting the new feed varieties and seed varieties farmers of all stripes have been asking for decades, since UPOV '78.

The biggest difference in UPOV '91 is the ability of farmers to save seed. That is a huge change from UPOV '78, where it does not even exist. That is a tremendous step forward.

There is a lot of misinformation by one or two groups out there that is completely wrong in this respect. That is why all of the mainstream agricultural groups are fully supportive of this and want to see us get it done as soon as possible.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the minister's answers.

First of all, the government has the right to set the agenda in the House. The government introduced this bill some time ago and then chose to wait until the dying days of June to bring it back for debate.

Second, the minister accuses us of holding up bills. Let me tell the minister that part of the reason we put up speakers on bills is that we know for a fact that the government will entertain virtually no amendments either in the House or at committee. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to stand here and make sure that we highlight the concerns that are being raised by our constituents.

I need to tell the minister that I have hundreds of people in my riding who do not belong to some splinter group who are raising some serious concerns about this bill. We have a right to present their concerns in this place. That is our job.

I wonder why the minister is so afraid of hearing the concerns being raised by our constituents.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned about hearing those concerns at all, but I would like them to come from farmers, people who are actually vested in this particular bill. I am not interested in hearing from people from downtown Vancouver or downtown Montreal. I want to actually talk to farmers whom the bill would impact.

Having said that, I am not concerned to make these arguments with anybody at any time, but I do want them based on sound science. I want them based on evidence that is quantified, that actually shows that this is a very important piece to move our agricultural sector forward in this country.

I am not scared to have that debate with anybody.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to let the minister know that my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan is actually from Vancouver Island, from an area that has a very rich agricultural history. When I was raising my children, we certainly visited many of the farms in her riding and got vegetables and all kinds of other produce, and cheese.

Today, the question I have for the minister is, why is the government so scared of debate? First, the Conservatives leave a bill until the last few weeks of Parliament, then they bring it before the House and say we can only have five hours of debate, and then, lo and behold, they do not actually debate the bill with the opposition.

The opposition is left to raise concerns without ever hearing any counter-arguments from the other side.

What does the government have to hide?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would challenge any Canadian, if they wanted to, to check the speeches that the NDP give on any on any particular issue, and they would find a carbon copy over and over again. New Democrats will have one or two issues and they overplay them. That is fine. That is their job. That is their role.

However, when we talk about agriculture across Canada, and agriculture on Vancouver Island, which is very important and I absolutely get that, we are talking about grains and oilseed varieties. I have a quote from Keith Kuhl, president of the Canadian Horticultural Council:

As farms work to match production with the growing global population it becomes increasingly important that they have the tools needed to continue to increase production. New varieties are an important segment of this growth. Ensuring that our plant breeders’ rights are aligned with our global trading partners is imperative.

That is from the horticulture industry. There is a tremendous amount of horticulture on Vancouver Island and a tremendous amount of livestock too, which would also benefit from new, improved varieties of feed that will bring the price down so that meat across the counter stays reasonable, so that Canadians continue to enjoy the cheapest food basket against their disposable income in the world, and the quality is unsurpassed.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is getting a little carried away. He is attacking our credibility.

I do not live in a skyscraper. I live in a rural area, and to get home I drive an hour through dairy farms. That is all in my riding, and these are the people who pay my salary. They sent me here to debate and study bills and to represent their concerns.

There may not be extraordinary orators on the other side, and I am no master myself, but we have the right to stand up for the people we represent, and we have the right to point out a bill's flaws. I think that is simple.

He says that he is letting us speak, but since his buddies are not even showing up to work, I think that is a bit of a stretch.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would be the first to argue that democracy pivots around the ability to speak one's mind, put forward one's ideas and have them debated, but democracy is also underscored by the fact that we can have our say, but not necessarily our way.

At the end, I continue to work with farm groups across this great country. I probably met with a number of farmers from the riding of the member opposite on a number of issues. Certainly, we work together through our provincial counterparts, directly with industry, to make sure we put our best agricultural foot forward.

A lot of this innovation that we are talking about under UPOV '91 actually allows Canadian agriculture to have a lighter environmental footprint, which is extremely important, moving forward: less pesticides, less chemicals, less fertilizers, all very important to the member opposite, I know.

To get on with 21st century farming, we have to actually have 21st century guidelines.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to just acknowledge the minister's consistent support for farmers across Canada. Once again I am reminded of the NDP's complete disconnect from agriculture when I hear its members' questions here today. Once again, they have been influenced by a small group of people who, typically, a couple times a year, take these issues and fearmonger among the farm community in order to fundraise for their organization.

Farmers have told us since we have gotten in that they want change. We have provided that. I was happy to see yesterday that the last suit regarding marketing change has finally been thrown out of court, because we have made good changes for farmers in western Canada.

I would like the minister to talk a bit about what has happened with marketing change. How has that improved the situation in western Canada in particular, and how would he see the changes that we are talking about here today in the bill further improve that situation for grains and oilseeds producers in western Canada?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question because it actually laid the foundation to be able to move forward with UPOV '91. When the old single desk monopoly at the Canadian Wheat Board was in place, there was absolutely no demand or desire to move forward with new varieties. The old single desk was so fixated on high protein number one red that it was starting to lose market share around the world and we were hemorrhaging acres of wheat, durum, and barley, simply because of the constrictive, restrictive nature that it operated within. Once we made that change in 2012, and farmers have never looked back, they started to talk about how they could look forward to this new foundational piece with UPOV '91 to move them into the 21st century with the varieties that are required by our customers.

The Wheat Board always used to hold up Warburton's flour mills in Great Britain. I have had the opportunity to be in the mill and talk to the buyers and the owners there. They were to the point where they were actually going to drop away from Canadian content and move to Australia, Argentina, and other suppliers, some in the U.S. and so forth. We actually recaptured that. I am proud to say that Warburton's is actually buying 50% more now, on an annual basis, than it did in its best year under the old single desk. It is contracting acres directly with farmers in western Canada to get the variety and the types of grains it requires for the new mixes it is doing.

We have done a tremendous amount of work blending pea flour into noodles in the Pacific Rim area to get the protein in those noodles, which is a major part of their diet. A lot of good things are happening and it is simply because our farmers are innovative and they need the backstop. They need the tools that UPOV '91 will give them to continue that important work.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a difficult time when time allocation is raised in this place. It is very frequent, we now know. It is up to 69 times now. This used to be a measure that was taken only very rarely. When we have a debate on time allocation we end up in the substance of the bill. The Minister of Agriculture is a very honourable man and I find it very difficult because I do not know that it was his idea that we have to be rushed through without adequate time. With time allocation, what inevitably happens is members in my position who represent a small party, and I agree that the Green Party with two MPs is a very small party, and others in this place do not have an opportunity. The discussion on the debate will not come around to allow a speaking opportunity.

I have been deluged by concerns from farmers who are concerned about losing plant breeders' rights. We need adequate time for study. I do not think it is this minister's idea that we are denied adequate time for study. Sixty-nine times does not look like ministers of the Crown making independent decisions. It looks like a PMO bulldozer. Therefore, would the hon. minister consider changing course on the bill so that we have adequate time for debate and all MPs can be heard?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the Green Party leader said, but the unfortunate part is, if she looked at all those interventions she got, they would be a form letter from the same type of people who are actually operating under misinformation, or myth-information, done willingly by a small splinter group of agricultural producers.

At the end of the day, this actually backstops our organic industry. It makes sure they have the ability to get the new varieties they need to move forward, to get the yields that they need to make that operation a viable operation. Therefore, whether we spend five hours or fifty hours, the ultimate end is, the vast majority of farmers in this democracy we call Canada are demanding this sooner rather than later. Let us just get it done and deliver what they are asking for.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that I participate in a time allocation debate, but the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food really hit a nerve.

I come from the Montreal area. I live in Laval, a suburb of Montreal with the most beautiful farmland on the St. Lawrence, close to a metropolis. I represent the only riding in Canada where you can find a subway station and cows. I am very proud of that.

I am also very proud to have grown up among farmers and to know many who live in downtown Montreal and own land outside Montreal.

Why did the minister denigrate the farmers who live in Montreal in his speech? He said that he was not interested in hearing from people who live in Montreal. Why is he afraid to hear from farmers who live in Montreal?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member is twisting the words a bit. This also makes me wonder why NDP members were so vociferous in the boundary changes of ridings so that they could differentiate between what was rural and what was urban. If the member is proud of the fact that her cows are standing at the subway stop, then so am I. That makes a stronger MP who actually understands better what is going on across this country.

How can the member say it is so important to listen to farmers who live in Montreal and farm out in the country, which is great because we have a lot of them, and say having cows and subways in a riding is important to her, while at the same time her party is fighting to separate rural and urban? It makes no sense, very similar to all of that party's agriculture policy.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you can see that I am somewhat surprised. The minister, like 68 other members before him, is playing the same game. When debating a time allocation motion, he talks about his bill. It might be nice one day to have a debate on a time allocation motion and not on the bill that the minister wants to highlight.

Furthermore, I hear him disparaging the speeches by those on this side of the House and saying that he has heard them often enough. If he is hearing them so often, it may be because he has forgotten that this side of the House represents 61% of Canadians and, apparently, 61% of Canadians do not always agree with what the government wants to put in place.

Could this minister rise in the House and tell us at least that he is the minister of 100% of Canadians and that he will respect everyone's right to be heard?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman opposite is actually making my point. Democracy is about having one's say, not necessarily having one's way, regardless of what percentage is represented.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of farmers, 99.9% of them, want this now, and we are delivering exactly that for them.

The NDP members get a supply day. That is when those members control the debate. If they want to debate closure, then they should bring it up next Tuesday. We will talk about it all day, right until midnight if that is what they desire.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little insulting to hear comments such as those the hon. minister just made to the effect that we have small lobby groups while they have big lobby groups such as Cargill and Monsanto and we have to listen to his lobby groups.

Well, our little groups represent people who sometimes work night and day to save their land, and their land is important to them. It is important to Quebeckers to eat healthy food. Bill C-18 ignores everything that is happening in agriculture in Quebec and Ontario. However, in terms of debate, we can talk a long time about what these time allocation motions mean to democracy. This is the 69th such motion, which makes no sense.

Could the minister rise and finally say that he will listen to everyone across Canada?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have done just that. We did not wait for Bill C-18 to be put together. A tremendous amount of consultation went into putting Bill C-18 together. We worked with agricultural groups and the provinces across this great land.

I agree with the member that farmers are the salt of the earth and they work hard to save their land. But the one thing the member opposite has missed is if farmers want to save their land, the best way to do that is to make sure they have the most innovative tools at their disposal so they have the ability to make a bottom line profit so they can continue to grow that enterprise. I agree with the member on that.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never dealt with or met with anyone from Monsanto.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

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