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.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start. The member clearly does not represent farmers across Canada. As I said, he has allowed a single agricultural organization to influence NDP agricultural policy to this extent, and this is very sad.

Farmers want to be competitive. To be competitive in today's world, they must have access to technology. I do not know what the member and his party have against technology, particularly seed technology that would benefit farmers by allowing them to have higher yields and lower losses and to be more competitive in the international market.

The committee heard from close to 50 witnesses. Almost every single witness fully supported the measures we are putting in Bill C-18. The member and his party must start listening to farmers, or it will be at their peril.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always comical to hear the NDP and the Conservatives fighting over what is happening in the House, but the NDP does have some merit with respect to this legislation. Those members came forward with some decent amendments. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said he would look at those amendments, but he did not. The government did not accept any of the good amendments put forward by the opposition.

The Liberal Party is going to vote in favour of this legislation because there is too much good in it for farmers not to have it, but it should have been split off.

There is not a lot in this legislation for small farmers. There are a lot of good things in it for commercial farmers and big farmers, but there is not a lot for small farmers and organic farmers, and their farms are important. The government missed the mark here. We could have had a better bill. We should be pushing the government to come forward with better legislation because it would help the small farmers, the new farmers, the young farmers who are just starting up. There is not enough in the bill for them. The government has done a disservice to the parliamentary system by not putting some of our amendments into the bill. This could have been a better bill.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell me why there is nothing in this legislation for small farmers? Why did the government not do what the minister said he was going to do and put some of our amendments in the bill, which would have made it a better bill, a made in Canada bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to disregarding the amendments, this was a discussion that we had at committee. The member feels that the government must adopt an opposition amendment just because it feels it is their turn to have an opposition amendment adopted, as if one should be passed “just because”. It does not work that way. Every single amendment proposed at committee was studied. There was reasoned debate on every amendment, and then there was a vote. Whether the amendment was put forward by a government member or an opposition member, it was given due process in terms of being fully considered by committee and then voted upon. It is not for the committee to decide to pass an amendment just because he was the individual putting it forward.

When it comes to small farmers versus big farmers, I do not know why the member is distinguishing between the two. We are talking about farmers, big and small. Small farmers would benefit from seed technology, as would organic farmers. The organic sector made this very clear during committee. Sometimes the opposition likes to gravitate to the position that seed technology immediately means GMO. It does not. There is a lot of seed technology that is not related to GMO at all. Organic farmers would benefit from seed technology within the organic sector. They themselves admitted this during committee, and that member was present. I do not understand the nature of his question.

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 Stage

[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 spinoffs 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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, fully deserves the support of the House.

The proposed legislation is both timely and necessary so that Canada's agriculture industry will continue to produce safe and nutritious products and remain competitive in global markets. My support for Bill C-18 rests largely on the latter, on the legislation's potential impacts on the global competitiveness of Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry. This bill is designed to modernize Canada's agricultural legislation and encourage innovation in the sector.

It is fair to say that most Canadians take for granted just how globalized agriculture has become. Two generations ago, few Canadians had ever eaten a mango or an avocado or tasted international cuisines. Today, international foods are all available at neighbourhood supermarkets. Agriculture and agri-food have become a major component of international trade. Billions of dollars' worth of food products are traded around the world, and Canada is a star in the industry. Up to 85% of this country's production of some commodities is exported.

The rise of trade in agri-food products presents several challenges to countries such as Canada, with food safety leading the way. How can we ensure that products from other countries that do not necessarily have the same standards we do for food safety will not jeopardize the health of Canadians? The answer lies in international agreements and conventions, a complex set of negotiated rules based on sound science.

The legislation that is now before us proposes to modernize the regime that governs Canada's trade in this sector.

Let us consider, for instance, the current approach for regulating farm animal feed. The current regime specifies national standards for the composition, safety, and effectiveness of end products. These standards are known as end products controls, but on their own they are not always sufficient to ensure the safety of feeds.

Along with our competitors, such as the United States and the European Union, Canada's trading partners either have already implemented or are in the process of implementing more comprehensive and effective regulatory systems for animal feeds. These systems follow an approach known as hazard analysis and critical control point, or HACCP. Rather than focus on end products, the HACCP approach involves identifying exactly where and when problems are likely to occur in production processes, taking specific actions to prevent these problems, and then carefully monitoring and documenting the results. HACCP-based systems are now standard in most Canadian food production facilities and help ensure that Canada's food supply remains among the safest in the world.

As the international standards pertaining to animal feeds evolve, so too must Canada's, particularly since this country exports so much of its production. Emerging markets such as China and Russia, for instance, have begun to adopt systems-based requirements for imports of animal feed. Under these systems, producers must obtain licences if they want their feeds to enter the country. To obtain a licence, they must register with and be certified by the appropriate government agencies. The United States released new rules for animal feed production and import. These rules require facilities to be licenced.

The agricultural growth act proposes amendments to existing legislation that would promote the safety of agricultural inputs such as animal feed through licensing or registration of feed and fertilizer manufacturers. Bill C-18 would align Canada's relevant legislation with that of our international trading partners. It would also help our feed and fertilizer industries to maintain access to feed export markets such as the United States.

The proposed legislation would enable the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to license or register the fertilizer and animal feed operators and facilities that import or sell products across provincial or international borders, but farmers who produce fertilizer and feed only for their own use on farms or to sell locally would not be subject to the new rules. This nuanced approach is just one of the ways that the proposed legislation effectively balances the interests of producers, farmers, exporters, and consumers

. Another way that Bill C-18 balances these interests is that the legislation would require the development of regulations in consultation with stakeholders. In other words, the specifics of the regulations, such as timing and certification, would be informed through a collaborative exercise with those who would be most affected.

Mr. Clyde Graham, acting president of the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, said at SCAAF:

The federal regulatory system has served the industry well for 50 years. It has ensured a science-based and consistent regulatory environment for fertilizers and supplements, which emphasizes the principles of safety and efficacy for all products....

That being said, the fertilizer and supplement industry supports new provisions in the bill that enable tools such as incorporation by reference, licensing, export certificates, and acceptance of equivalent foreign scientific data.

Bill C-18 would also address the challenges of international trade in agriculture in a way that would meet the needs of Canada's plant breeders.

In 1991, countries around the world ratified a new convention, the International Union of Protection of New Varieties of Plants, known as UPOV '91. UPOV '91 is the current international standard for plant breeders' rights. More than 70 countries, including Canada, rely on UPOV to fulfill their obligations to protect plant varieties under the World Trade Organization. However, Canada is one of only two developed countries of UPOV members whose legislation does not comply with the standard of UPOV '91.

The legislation now before us would amend the Plant Breeders' Rights Act and would bring Canada's legislation up to date. It would also better align our regulatory regime with those of many of our key trading partners, including Australia, the European Union, Japan, South Korea and the United States.

What plant breeders develop is a form of intellectual property. Plant breeding is an intensive process that requires a significant investment of time and effort. It typically takes 10 to 12 years to develop a new variety and bring it to market. Under Canada's current laws, plant breeders' rights are protected for 18 years. Bill C-18 would extend this protection to 25 years for trees, vines and a few other plant categories and to 20 years for all other crops.

The proposed amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act will also benefit Canada's agriculture industry in other important ways. It will, for instance, encourage investment in plant breeding in Canada and give farmers access to more varieties of seeds developed in our country or abroad.

Our government heard from stakeholders about needing to improve the language to make it absolutely clear that storage of seed would be included in farmer's privilege. We now have an amendment to Bill C-18 that addresses this key issue.

With this in mind, I would like to address the 56 amendments that have been proposed by the NDP and the Green Party. These amendments would result in tearing out the heart of the bill, killing this great legislation. As a result, I cannot support these two motions.

I do support Bill C-18, especially now in its revised form. We need this bill as it stands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

Above and beyond the issues he discussed, it is important to remember that we have before us a huge omnibus bill related to agriculture; yet, we are being given very little time to debate it. That is something that is now firmly ingrained in the minds of all Canadians. I saw it again yesterday at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, when some witnesses said that the process we were using to examine parts of the omnibus budget implementation bill was seriously flawed.

I would like to know why my colleague supports limiting debate and, unfortunately, making it impossible to seriously examine amendments in committee. Why is he so averse to all the opposition's proposals?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the agriculture committee. We had an opportunity to hear many witnesses from NDP and Liberal sources, farmers and organizations right across the country. I have in front of me a wad of very positive comments from these individuals.

We need to ensure that we get this legislation in place. The NDP's objective is to stop any legislation before the House. As the minister said earlier, it is really important that the government acts like a business, put forward a plan, ensure we have it developed and then implement the plan. Part of the process is to ensure we get this done.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has made drastic cuts to funding for agricultural research in recent years.

Public research on plants has contributed greatly to Canadian agriculture. Support for this type of research must absolutely be maintained.

Can the member assure us that this bill will not hamper support for public research?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that as part of the agriculture committee, we studied Growing Forward 2. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been put forward for research. We do that not just as the Government of Canada, not just through Agriculture Canada, but also with partnerships from organizations that also put in funding so they can get the research done to get the products they want and compete in the marketplace.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech, and the question I would have for the member is this.

I have also heard from a lot of farmers in Saskatchewan and Alberta. What they are deeply concerned about is the government's lack of commitment to agricultural research. The government, in its wisdom, got rid of the community pastures and shut down all the agricultural research stations.

Could the member speak to the commitment of the Conservatives to developing better seeds and crops? Why on earth would they have moved to shut down the very enterprises that support the medium-income farmers and where a lot of our very valuable research has been conducted over many decades?