Bill C-18 (Historical)

Agricultural Growth Act

An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food

This enactment amends several Acts in order to implement various measures relating to agriculture.
It amends the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act to amend certain aspects of the plant breeders’ rights granted under that Act, including the duration and scope of those rights and conditions for the protection of those rights. It also provides for exceptions to the application of those rights.
It amends the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize inspectors to order that certain unlawful imports be removed from Canada or destroyed;
(b) authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to take into account information available from a review conducted by the government of a foreign state when he or she considers certain applications;
(c) authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to issue certificates setting out any information that he or she considers necessary to facilitate certain exports; and
(d) require that a registration or a licence be obtained for conducting certain activities in respect of certain feeds, fertilizers or supplements that have been imported for sale or that are to be exported or to be sent or conveyed from one province to another.
It also amends the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act to, among other things, increase the maximum limits of penalties that may be imposed for certain violations.
It amends the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act to modernize the requirements of the advance payments program, improve its accessibility and enhance its administration and delivery.
Finally, it amends the Farm Debt Mediation Act to clarify the farm debt mediation process and to facilitate the participation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the mediation process when that Minister is a guarantor of a farmer’s debt.

Agricultural Growth Act

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, being a long-standing member of the agriculture committee, certainly we have our differences when it comes to UPOV '91. We see predominantly that the world and most Canadian producers want to see UPOV '91 introduced into Canada and really played out on the Prairies.

The member alludes to the fact that members of her party made amendments and they were not supported. The fact is that it is democratic place, it did pass as it was. Although it was extensive, debate was there.

I, for one, supported the bill as it was and wanted to see it go forward. We heard from many stakeholders that wanted to see UPOV '91 and the modern things that really would give plant breeders the protections, while protecting the rights of farmers by using their own seed.

For us, it is good the way it is, and that is why it went forward and passed democratically.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is important agricultural legislation. I want to make a general comment and look forward to his response to it.

Most of the rural areas and most of the farming areas in our country are represented by Conservative members of Parliament. There are, on the other side, though, a few members who certainly represent farmers and who have an interest in the issue.

I want to make that comment and ask for the member's thoughts on the assurance farmers can take, knowing that they are represented by Conservative MPs who have had a careful look at this legislation and have determined it to be something they are willing to operate under.

Many of us are involved in farming operations and still depend on rules that would allow us to continue to farm, particularly after we get out of politics. We want rules that will work. Would the member respond to that?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I happen to be sitting beside another member in the House who is a farmer.

I found this a little interesting, too. In dealing with marketing freedom for farmers in past legislation, farmers from the west actually sat on the panel, making these decisions and supporting some of these motions. The bill we are putting forward today is not just a bill by some politicians. It is a bill for farmers, by farmers and passed by farmers.

Farmers are in good hands with us. We want to ensure that we do what is right for Canadian farmers across the country, and we are doing that in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, although my riding has some urban areas, it also has many rural areas, and there are a large number of farmers in my area, so farmers are not just represented by Conservatives. They are also represented by New Democrats.

I had the good fortune to rise on a number of occasions in the House to present petitions with regard to the right to save seeds. They were signed by members from my riding and many people throughout British Columbia. They were signed by farmers and non-farmers, just to be clear.

In part, the reason the New Democrats do not support the bill is because we proposed some very good amendments that looked at the right to save seed. In particular, one of the amendments had to do with protecting access to public and heritage seeds, as well as the issue of transparency and consultation required when seeds were made inaccessible.

Could the member comment on the fact that there is widespread opposition regarding the changes for farmers around that right to save seeds?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, being a member of agriculture, we have heard many of the arguments stemming from one particular organization when it comes to plant breeders' rights and the use of seed. It stems from one organization that really perpetuates the myth that farmers cannot use their own seed for their own use on their farms. In the agriculture committee we asked over and over again whether it was a myth. Over and over again, it was stated that was a myth propagated by the opposition and this one particular organization. This is on the record many times.

I would challenge the member across the way to check her facts, read the bill and read the positive comments on the fact that rights of farmers are protected in this bill. Check the facts and please state them in the House.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciated the opportunity to listen to the member as he spoke. He is certainly passionate about agriculture.

We did hear many near unanimous comments in support of the bill, except for the one group that the opposition seems to continually put forward here. It always seems interesting as to why the support from that group would be against the position the Quebec farmers had as they presented their positions and their great support. It must be difficult for them to play those two sides together.

Could the member talk about the fact that there has actually been an increase in research dollars into agriculture? Again, this is something contrary to what we have been hearing from the opposition.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is another colleague on the agriculture committee.

Absolutely, we always get this falsity or inaccuracy stated, and it seems to be from the opposition, that innovation and research dollars have gone down. However, they have actually gone up by 10% since we formed government in 2006. The simple fact is that we believe in innovation and research, and protecting breeders' rights is even more of an enhancement of that and more of an encouragement for breeding seed in Canada.

It is clear that we are for farmers on this side. We want to see this bill passed and see more benefits for western Canadians and all Canadian farmers.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with our member for Compton—Stanstead, whose remarks I look forward to.

As members will know, my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River is fact at the beginning of the Prairies. I always find it interesting that when Conservatives stand to talk about the Prairies, they do not talk about northwestern Ontario as the beginning of the Prairies. However, we have a lot of farmers in my riding, we have a lot of farmers in northwestern Ontario. Indeed, we have a lot of farmers in northern Ontario. I think many people seem to forget that farming takes place right across this country, not just in the Prairies.

This is an interesting bill. There are some good things in the bill, but I do have some concerns. They revolve around two areas. The first is what Conservatives are calling “farmers' privilege”, which we prefer to call “farmers' rights”. The difference between “rights” and “privilege ” some may say is not that important, but I think there is an important distinction to be made.

The other area concerns the seven amendments that we put forward that would have clarified a number of grey areas in the bill. The problem with grey areas being in a bill is that things are not then spelled out, which means, almost for certain, that there will be some litigation down the road and that the judges will not have a lot to go on because the bill is a little too grey. I was disappointed that the government was not interested in putting those amendments forward, which will try to outline as I go forward.

There is another issue in that regard. When there are grey areas and a bill gets passed, any changes that need to be made are made by regulation. They are not made by coming back to the House to be done in legislation. What that will do, in essence, is give the minister, whoever the minister will be at the time, very wide discretion as to how he or she proceeds.

Those two things were not really addressed in the bill, although we made every attempt to do so.

We have always believed that it is essential to have a balanced approach when talking about plant breeders and plant breeders' rights, and this bill simply would not get us here.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing after question period.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The member will have seven minutes to complete his speech after we resume debate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River has seven minutes to complete his speech.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to use my remaining time at this point. I will remind you that I am sharing my time with the member for Compton—Stanstead.

Let me say very briefly, from the three minutes before the S. O. 31s, that we do farm in northern Ontario and agriculture is an important part of our economy in northern Ontario. I like to remind all the members whenever I can that the Prairies begin in my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, and farming is a critical part of what we do.

It is my pleasure to speak to the bill. In my remaining time, I would like to speak to two things. One is about plant breeders' rights as they appear in the bill. The other is about one of the good things that appears in the bill, and that is improvements to the advanced payments system.

I would also like to talk about the advanced payments program because it is an important program for farmers who live in my riding.

Bill C-18 would make changes to nine different pieces of legislation, some of which we support and some which pose significant concerns.

First, we are troubled by the sweeping powers that are granted to the minister, which is always a concern, including the power in the regulations to unconditionally exempt farmers' rights and privileges on a case-by-case basis.

I find it interesting that the government refers to plant breeders' rights, but talks about farmers' privileges. We on this side happen to believe that these are farmers' rights, not privileges. For some people, that might be splitting hairs, but there is a big difference between rights and privileges.

The Plant Breeders' Rights Act moves Canada toward the ratification of the 1991 model law of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. This has been coming for some time. From 1991 until now is a long period of time. It expands the rights afforded to plant breeders for the varieties they develop and increases the places along the value chain where plant breeders can collect royalties. That will come up in the advanced payments section when I chat about that.

Bill C-18 includes new exclusive rights for plant breeders such as reproduction, conditioning, sale, export or import, repeated use to produce commercially another plant variety if the repetition is necessary for that purpose, and stocking for the purpose of any of the protected acts.

The term of the grant to the plant breeders rights has been increased in some cases to 25 years, in the case of trees and vines, for example, and includes a new clause which grants, and I alluded to this before, farmers' privileges, allowing farmers to save seed and condition seed for purposes of production and reproduction on their own farm.

As I said, we would have preferred to get rid of one of the grey areas in the bill. In my previous comments, I referred to the fact that farmers' privileges should actually be farmers' rights. It is important to note that this privilege was not extended to the storing of seed or the sale of harvested material from protected seed. The government adopted an amendment to include conditioning, but we believe this is still not explicit enough and leaves this area grey.

Bill C-18 also would grant CFIA the ability to make changes through regulation, to which circumstances and classes of farmers and varieties would be covered under the farmers' privileges. It would protect the right of researchers to use patented materials as the basis for developing a new variety or for another research use.

It would make a number of other changes, but because of my limited time, I will say that we have some major concerns regarding the clauses that deal with farmers' privilege. These should be farmers' rights, not privileges. I cannot emphasize that enough.

The bill does not adequately clarify or protect the fullest of activities that producers have called for, such as exchanging, cleaning and selling. Therefore, it remains a concern.

Let me reiterate that there are some good things in this bill, and I would like to highlight one, particularly for the farmers in my riding, which are the changes to the advance payments program. For those who do not know, the advance payments program is a financial loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances. This program provides producers with a cash advance on the value of their agricultural products during a specific period. This improves the cash flow of producers throughout the year and helps them meet their financial obligations so they can benefit from the best market conditions.

Essentially, the advance payments program has been expanded. Because there are a lot of beef farmers in my riding, there is one section that is particularly important. What this expanded access to the advance payments program does is allow for regulatory changes to cover breeding animals under the program, which, hopefully, can result in more opportunities for farmers to access the program. Animals that are or were used as breeding animals were not previously included under this program, so it is particularly heartening to see this part in the bill.

It also increases flexibility for producers on a number of fronts, including security arrangements, proof of sale and means of repayment. Not all of the people who appeared before committee were pleased with this bill, though a number were. There were mixed results. There are some things the New Democrats certainly support, but some things we do not.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague, I represent a very large farming region in northern Ontario and there are producers who have a real interest in new crop varieties as agriculture moves north. There is also a rise in niche markets and citizens are very interested in finding out where their food comes from. They are taking the politics of food and food security very seriously.

The issue of plant breeders' rights, the corporate rights, that are being protected instead of the tradition for years and years of farmers' rights to save seed, to use seed and share seed is something that is completely undermined in this bill. Where I come from, farmers certainly have a lot to mistrust government about, but they really do not trust the minister to make decisions. This bill would allow the minister to decide what rights farmers would have based on whatever lobbyist he hears from with corporate interests.

How do the farmers in my hon. colleague's region respond to the fact that the government is putting farmers' rights into the hands of the minister to decide what is kept and what will be rejected?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between farmers' rights and farmers' privileges, and we prefer to think of them as farmers' rights.

One of the problems we have with the farmers' privilege part of this bill is it means that plant breeders could potentially generate revenue on a farmer's entire production, not just on the initial seeds that have been sold to the farmer, but throughout the whole production cycle rather than just on the seed produced to grow the crop. This could significantly impact the profit margins of farmers.

Some farmers in my riding say that maybe that is not all bad, that if they want to end load the royalties to the actual result of the crop, maybe that is a good thing if the crop fails. Maybe they would save some money. That is certainly a consideration. I have talked to a couple of farmers about that. If farmers harvest poor crops, they would pay less on the end point.

The worry is that it just will not be one or the other; it may be all along the whole line, not only royalties on the seeds and the harvest, but everything in between. That is a real concern because it is one of those grey areas that I talked about in my speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating just how important our agricultural community in what it does, whether it is feeding the world or providing economic activity in Canada. Agriculture is a powerhouse in driving our economy. It plays a very critical role.

I cannot help but think about whether the government has lost some opportunities here. Fairly significant changes are being put in place.

I note that a number of amendments were brought forward at the committee stage. The government did not take seriously some of those amendments, whether they were Liberal or NDP, and we have fallen short of improving the legislation. Would member like to provide some comment on that?