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

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

Mr. Speaker, the member from Manitoba is absolutely right. What he was alluding to, and what he was maybe a little too polite to say in the House, was that since 2011, no opposition amendments, whether Liberal or NDP, have been accepted by the government.

Canadians understand and expect that one of the things we do in this place is try to make legislation better. That is why it gets voted on. That is why it goes to committee for amendments.

We had a number of amendments, as did the Liberals, to improve this bill. The end result, and not just with this bill but with a whole host of other bills, is that there will be challenges in court. There will be changes by regulation, not by legislation. Legislation, of course, would come back to the House, but regulation would be in the hands of the minister.

We are doing Canadians a disservice by not looking seriously at the amendments that the opposition brings forward on these bills.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to correct the record.

When I answered a question from the member for Burnaby—Douglas earlier today in question period, I said that projects would only proceed if they were not safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

I should have said that projects will only proceed if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the contribution of my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River to this debate. This is a debate has been going on for some time now and that we would have liked to see extended, but every time there is a debate on agriculture, there are closure motions. This is the 82nd time allocation motion. Congratulations once again. Sadly, this affects a bill that deals with such an important subject, namely agriculture.

Across Canada, from coast to coast, generation after generation of farmers work hard, carrying on a farming tradition as workers who devote themselves to their country and their land. They carry on their traditions and help feed the Canadian people. Well, this bill is called the agricultural growth act.

How could the government forget so many players—especially in the regions, where we see the diversity, vitality and tenacity of Canadians—in the development of a bill to support a local community, whose specific characteristics make Canada such a great country?

We must admit that this is a great country. It will be an even greater country in 2015 when the NDP takes over the House and we will finally see bills that are more pragmatic and down to earth.

Bill C-18 amends nine laws, which makes this an omnibus bill. All these laws, some more complex than others, deserve our attention, and we should examine some of the details.

This bill will amend the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, including the duration and scope of those rights; the Feeds Act; the Fertilizers Act; the Seeds Act; the Health of Animals Act; and the Plant Protection Act—that is starting to add up to a lot of laws—the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act; the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act; and finally, the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

Farm debt is one of the most serious concerns in the agricultural sector. In some Canadian regions, debt is becoming a problem, as is the transfer of family farms to the next generation so that farms can continue to feed people, because that is what this is about.

Where I come from, there are beef and hog producers. There are other operations that are developing, such as those that raise deer, bison, boar, ostrich and even alpaca. They all need grain to ensure that their animals are healthy, and they need to follow the food safety rules to ensure that their livestock is fit for consumption.

Farmers have a lot of concerns. This bill seems to dismiss those concerns and focuses instead on large-scale business.

The government wants to ensure that Canada meets international trade criteria and, as a result, it is forgetting an entire segment of our agricultural production, which serves the local economy extremely well. Communities across the country have struggled to live and survive from farming through the years, and they are still alive. I cannot believe that my riding of Compton—Stanstead is the only one where traditional farming still exists.

Given our concerns, the NDP proposed 16 amendments that would have protected farmers' rights and made for fair rules for breeders and farmers. Those amendments would have made the regulatory process more democratic. However, once again, the government has introduced a bill that puts more power in the minister's hands. The minister will be able to decide what is and is not okay from his office.

A minister should use his power only as a last resort for resolving problems in his administrative area. However, now, he can intervene any time he wants. That does not make sense. We have been seeing this sort of thing since 2011. All of the senior ministers have given themselves more power. That is not right. The departments have employees who are there to do the work, and they do it very well. The Conservatives have made cuts to a number of departments, which have resulted in cuts to front-line staff. What is more, they had the audacity to eliminate the jobs of people who communicate with and provide services to the public. There will be more decision makers.

Perhaps someone should listen to people, to the farmers in this case, to find out what they really need.

We therefore cannot support this bill since we believe that it does not provide sufficient protection for farmers and gives too much discretionary power to the minister.

Agricultural biodiversity has been eroding for decades, not just in Canada, but also around the world. Biodiversity is disappearing because agricultural production systems are being homogenized—we are seeing more and more specialized crops and livestock—and globalization is leading to standardization. Everyone knows this as the concept of international trade. People want to be able to participate in international trade and meet demand. Everything is made to be as productive and fast as possible, and diversity is ignored. I do not know if my colleagues are aware, but there have been cases in the animal kingdom where everything has become sterile, or non-operational, and nothing is working anymore. This is what will happen, since nature has its own plan. If biodiversity in one sector is decreased—whether we are talking about canola, soya or another crop—sooner or later there will be consequences, and they will be serious.

By its very design, this bill falls well short of promoting food sovereignty, with which we should be extremely concerned. There was a time when 80% to 90% of what Canadians had in their pantries came from Canada. Now it is around 25% or 20%. That percentage is going down. The food comes from foreign holdings; it no longer belongs to the farmers themselves.

Farmers are the cornerstone of our food system and, as I was saying, they contribute significantly to our local economies. The NDP believes that they must continue being the drivers of their respective economies across Canada—not just in one corner of the country, but all across Canada. We want farmers to be able to earn a decent living.

Canadians deserve better, more pragmatic policies, and that is what the NDP will propose in 2015. We are ready.

Pragmatism is the word of the day, and it is nowhere to be found in this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the NDP will be voting against the legislation.

When we look at the legislation, we agree that there is a need for some amendments that would make the bill stronger and more favourable to our farmers. Having said that, even with the current deficiencies and the government's unwillingness to bring in some amendments, we still feel that it is in farmers' best interest to see the legislation go forward.

Is there something specific within the legislation that NDP members believe needs to be deleted for them to support it?

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

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

There is a real need to shorten the patent protection period, unless there is a way to ensure the viability of products for producers, who must be able to save their seeds. They also must be able to reseed and commercialize them. For a small producer, that is always the most difficult part.

In this case, certain varieties will be protected for much too long, and a small producer would be unable to make ends meet. On top of all that, farmers in many regions of the country are not financially stable.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead spoke passionately about a topic he loves, agriculture. This is a very important issue for the people of Compton—Stanstead.

These rural ridings are important because they allow ridings such as mine, in the heart of downtown Quebec City, to appreciate the artisan products of our various local producers, who do an outstanding job. We hope they continue to stand out both here at home, of course, and outside our borders.

To conclude, I would ask him to talk some more about his passion for the producers of Compton—Stanstead and tell us about what worries them the most.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the government was drafting its agricultural growth act, it should have thought about farmers' markets and organic foods. There is growing demand for these, both regionally and globally. Enabling our farmers to do more in these sectors would result in significant productivity gains in terms of international trade. For that to happen, we need good co-operation between Canada and the provinces.

Farmers have repeatedly called for infrastructure and tools to enhance local access to their products. That is true of all regions in Canada, but especially of Compton—Stanstead. Compton is a small municipality of just 2,500 residents, but it has 32 producers of cheese, wine, beef, pork, yogurt and so on.

Producers exchange these truly amazing products amongst themselves, and that synergy is important. Bill C-18 does not mention synergy anywhere. All it deals with is export. I think that is a mistake because it leaves out a significant segment of our local economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the presentation by the member opposite. Obviously, he is passionate about the issue of agriculture and plant genetics.

One of the things the member expressed concern about in response to a question by another member, which does not seem to be accurate, was that it was very important to him and farmers that they can grow and trade their own seed. That in fact is allowed, unless one signs a contract disallowing that with the company providing the seed. However, that is clearly in the bill now. I do not understand exactly what his concern was.

I would like to follow-up on the question by the Liberal member who asked if the member could list one or two things in the act that the member would like to see removed. I would add to that question and ask if he could list one or two things in this legislation that he would in fact support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would rather conclude with what is missing. This bill lacks measures to rally farmers from sea to sea, to ensure that everyone will benefit.

As it stands, only big corporations will benefit. That is a real shame because all Canadians should benefit from the kind of momentum we have going now. As I said, we should use that momentum to ensure that all producers can get their products on store shelves close to home.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to express my enthusiastic support for Bill C-18. I support the bill because it stands to build a stronger farm gate, that is, the total amount of money generated by farmers across this great country.

Bill C-18 would achieve this largely through amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Products Act and the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

Agriculture in Canada is a progressive, world-class business. The men and women who work out in the fields today do much more than drive tractors, plant seed and raise farm animals. They also create jobs and drive economic growth while producing the food we eat every day. This may not always be top-of-mind for most Canadians, but it should be.

Our government appreciates that farmers are essential to our economy and to our overall well-being as Canadians. This is part of the reason that we continue to open new markets and sign new free trade agreements with other countries.

In 2013, the value of Canada’s agriculture and agri-food exports hit a record high, topping $50 billion. The agriculture and agri-food industry, like any other, faces its share of challenges, but it is a great time for Canada’s farming and food-production businesses. Demand is strong and the outlook is positive, with a growing world population hungry for top-quality Canadian products.

Our government is committed to innovating and cutting red tape so that our farmers can spend more time on their core business and less time filling out forms.

Bill C-18 proposes amendments that would give producers the tools they need to grow their businesses so they may continue to drive economic growth and feed the world. The amendments are informed by extensive consultations with producers and industry representatives from across the country. Canada’s producers asked for legislative and regulatory improvements that would support long-term growth, and Bill C-18 proposes to deliver these improvements.

Producers continuously strive to improve their businesses, and they rightly expect government to do the same with the programs we administer, such as the Advance Payments Program, or APP. The APP gives farmers access to the bridge financing they often need to remain solvent while their seed grows into marketable crops, or their newborn animals reach maturity.

Under that program, the government backs the cash advances provided to producers by more than 60 program administrators across Canada. These advances provide farmers with the breathing room they need to get maximum value for their products. It gives them the freedom to sell when the market is right, rather than when their bills are due.

A farmer may access a cash advance of up to $400,000, with a quarter of that, or $100,000, being interest free. Since the government guarantees the advances, farmers benefit from extremely low interest rates. Each year, Canadian producers access around $2 billion worth of cash advances under the program.

While the current APP works well, we consulted with stakeholders to identify potential improvements. These consultations directly informed amendments included in Bill C-18. In essence, the amendments proposed in Bill C-18 would give Canadian farmers a more flexible, predictable tool to manage their cash flows. At the same time, the amendments would cut red tape and improve efficiency.

Bill C-18 proposes changes to two pieces of legislation: the Agricultural Products Marketing Act and the Farm Debt Mediation Act. The changes would simplify delivery and improve access to the advance payments program. They would improve delivery by allowing for multi-year advance guarantee and repayment agreements with administrators and allow for larger advances in certain cases by providing greater flexibility and options for what will be accepted as security through regulations.

The changes would provide flexibility by allowing certain breeding animals to be eligible under the program through regulations. They would adjust the rules related to repayment of advances, producers in default, default penalties and stays of default. They would streamline the process under the Farm Debt Mediation Act, helping farmers reach agreements with their creditors and resolve their financial difficulties—especially in cases involving the repayment of advances under the advance payments program.

The House Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food conducted a thorough review of the proposed legislation. The committee heard from a number of witnesses, including many representatives of industry associations. Strong support for the proposed legislation was voiced. One witness, Mr. Gary Stanford, president of the Grain Growers of Canada, said:

The proposed amendments will create a one-stop shop, simplifying the process by giving farmers the ability to obtain their advance through the administrator, allowing for multi-year advance repayment agreements, flexible under repayment; broadened eligibility requirements; and enhanced security options.

Similarly, Mr. Rick Bergmann, vice-chair of the Canadian Pork Council, said:

Canadian hog producers see value in the Advance Payments Program and view the changes to the Agricultural Marketing Act as an improvement. Steps that can reduce the administrative burden and cutting costs for participating can make a difference, and we encourage that to continue on.

During the consultations that informed Bill C-18, many stakeholders asked for more flexibility so they can grow their businesses.

Bill C-18 delivers on that, with less red tape, more choice for securing advances through regulations, greater flexibility in repaying advances, and single-window delivery.

Our producers want to stay ahead of the curve. Bill C-18 would help them proactively manage business risks and foster a sustainable, adaptable and competitive farm gate.

It is crucial to recognize that this benefits not only farmers and producers, but also every man, woman and child in this country. When agricultural entrepreneurs thrive, they harness innovation, add value, generate jobs and drive growth right across this great country. We all benefit.

Let me further explain why there is a pressing need for the proposed legislation. With the arrival of new agricultural production techniques and new developments in science, the legislative base for agricultural products must keep pace, especially since our international trading partners have already modernized their legislation. We need the agricultural growth act because it would provide the legislative backbone for growth. If Canada’s farmers—along with our agriculture and agri-food sector—are to maintain their competitive edge on the global stage, they need 21st-century tools. Canada must keep pace with the modern world, and to do this we must help our farmers grow their businesses.

To illustrate, allow me to touch on some of the key changes outlined in Bill C-18, beginning with plant breeders’ rights. Bill C-18 proposes to bring the laws that govern plant breeders’ rights in Canada in line with those of our international competitors. This would allow our farmers to access the latest crop varieties and keep pace with their competitors. At the same time, Bill C-18 proposes to explicitly recognize the traditional practice of saving and reusing seed from crops grown on their own land, known as farmers’ privilege.

Let me be clear. With the proposed amendments to the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, Canada’s farmers would still be able to clean, condition and store the seeds of protected varieties for replanting on their own land.

The overall impact of the proposed amendments would be: greater investment in plant breeding in Canada; increased access to high-yield varieties for Canadian farmers; and more choice and value for Canadian consumers.

Another aspect of Bill C-18 is the licensing and registration of feed and fertilizer manufacturers. It proposes new, broader controls on the safety of Canada’s agricultural inputs through licensing or registration of feed and fertilizer manufacturers. The proposed amendments would align Canadian legislation with that of our trading partners. The amendments would also help Canadian feed and fertilizer industries maintain their export markets, especially the United States.

Bill C-18 proposes to authorize the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to license or register fertilizer and animal feed operators and facilities that import or sell products across provincial or international borders. This is in addition to the current system, where feed and fertilizer products are registered product by product.

Once again, the proposed legislation respects the interests of farmers. This amendment would apply to businesses that sell animal feed and fertilizer products across provincial and international borders, not to farmers who make and use these products on their own farms.

Of course, any licensing regime requires regulations to operate effectively. This government is committed to collaborating closely with industry stakeholders to develop these regulations. Bill C-18 also proposes to improve a key aspect of the approval process: the consideration of foreign reviews and analysis.

Another amendment proposed in Bill C-18 is designed to promote innovation and to cut the red tape associated with registering new agricultural products. To achieve this, the proposed change would further clarify and confirm the agency's authority to consider foreign reviews and data evaluation during the approval or registration of agricultural products that are new to the Canadian market. This is in addition to ongoing Canadian reviews and analyses. In other words, these reviews would be informed by even more scientific data, which leads to sound decisions. This facilitates an efficient and effective approval process, so that Canada’s farmers benefit from the latest scientific research from around the world and keep pace with the competition.

Bill C-18 complements private member's Motion No. 460, which this House agreed with in April 2010. Motion No. 460 asked that equivalent foreign scientific research be considered. The approval process for regulated items needs to keep pace with innovation and leading edge science so our producers are not at an economic disadvantage.

What Motion No. 460 did not ask is that an approval in a foreign jurisdiction would immediately allow that product to be automatically used in Canada. The same applies for Bill C-18.

The foreign data can supplement the information used in the assessment of the product, but it must be considered in the Canadian context.

Bill C-18 also proposes to modernize Canada’s border controls for imported agricultural products. The proposed agricultural growth act would give CFIA inspectors the authority to order imported shipments of feeds, fertilizers or seeds out of Canada if they do not meet legal requirements. This is similar to the way that imported plants and animals may be ordered out of the country if they do not comply with regulatory requirements.

Under the current process, after the seizure of illegal products related to animal feeds, seeds or fertilizers, the CFIA either negotiates a solution or court proceedings are initiated. This process works, but at times, Canada must pay to dispose of the illegal products that have been seized. Its not difficult to appreciate that it would be more efficient to simply require the importer to remove the products from Canada. Bill C-18 proposes that CFIA inspectors be authorized to order non-compliant products out of Canada.

However, if the product poses no risk to safety, and the inspector is satisfied that the compliance can be fixed in a reasonable time, they may allow the product to be brought into compliance in Canada. This gives the inspector the needed authority to keep non-compliant products out of Canada, but the flexibility to allow certain issues to be fixed here.

This proposed amendment would provide the CFIA with stronger tools to more efficiently fulfill its mandate to protect Canada’s plant and animal resource base. It would provide additional reassurance to Canadian consumers that imported agricultural products meet Canada’s stringent requirements and would level the competitive playing field for our Canadian farmers.

This is further evidence that this government listens carefully to Canada’s farmers and producers. I wish to point out that the proposed Agricultural Growth Act reflects extensive stakeholder consultations carried out over the past few years. We are committed to additional consultation.

Upon receiving royal assent, some of the changes in this act would come into force almost immediately, while others would be phased in incrementally or following regulatory amendments.

Canada’s agriculture and agri-food industry depends on an effective, innovative and nimble legislative framework, one that reflects 21st-century realities and can readily adapt to a changing industry landscape, while providing a consistent and effective approach.

Ultimately, this is what Bill C-18 is about: helping Canada’s farmers and producers make a larger and more valuable contribution to this country’s prosperity.

This is precisely why I encourage all parliamentarians to give the proposed Agricultural Growth Act their careful attention and move it forward, so we will have the legislative backbone to continue providing Canada’s farmers and food processors with the tools they need to drive new economic growth and compete in the global economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP amendment would have ensured that new crop varieties are just as good as, if not better than, the existing varieties.

Could the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière explain why this amendment was rejected?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Any new variety has to go through a process and comply with the regulations. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency can also look after this, but it is important that the entire process be followed to ensure that the variety is in line with our requirements.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was kind of the member to make this speech. It was particularly interesting because he himself is a farmer.

When I was born, the world population was 3 billion. It is now around 7 billion, and when I die—hopefully not tomorrow morning—it will probably be around 10 billion. Unfortunately, it will not be easy to feed all these people. We have already depleted some stocks. We are seeing desertification. Unfortunately, it seems as though the legislation proposed by the government prioritizes giving the big companies control over the manufacturing and distribution of food, instead of ensuring that farmers can earn an income.

Does the member not think it would be reasonable to split this omnibus bill into a series of bills that could be voted on individually? We could then see that farmers want nothing to do with some aspects of his bill. We should allow these farmers to block some aspects of this omnibus bill that are very harmful.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

In his question, he spoke about the agricultural challenge that the world will face in the coming years, which has also demonstrated that there is a massive market for Canadian producers. Canada has more than 160 million acres. We can feed far more than 35 million people.

Canada will be able to benefit from an extraordinary market in the future, and that bodes well. This means that, in general, there is a good outlook for the future of agriculture in Canada.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles just asked a question about an amendment proposed by the NDP. However, there was a second part to this amendment, namely the idea of protecting access to public and heritage seeds.

I am mentioning this because in Kahnawake there is someone named Steve McCumber who is known as the guardian of the plants. He saves heirloom seeds and traditional varieties of three plants that are very traditional for the Iroquois. They are known as the three sisters: squash, corn and beans. This is very important for aboriginal cultures and for Iroquois culture in particular.

Another example comes from Montreal, a few years ago, when a variety of melon was rediscovered. The species was grown in the 19th century and was very productive. Once the island of Montreal became more urban, production stopped. However, it produced well and perhaps we could reproduce all of those varieties I just mentioned.

However, I am wondering why this amendment was rejected when it could mean preserving heirloom varieties by, for example, protecting public research instead of focusing only on research conducted by large companies.