This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
Gerry Ritz Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question.
At the global level, Canada is already involved in the genetic preservation of plant species. That is very important given that we do not know whether certain genetic characteristics will be required in the future. If that is the case, we would be able to find them in this bank.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech.
I have a comment related to a question from my colleague from Hochelaga.
She talked about how important public research is. As we all know, the Conservative government has cut 700 research positions at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada since 2013.
I would like my colleague to comment on what kind of message the government's decision to cut 700 research and innovation positions sends about the importance of public research in Canada and the respect it deserves.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Together with private corporations in the agri-food sector, the Government of Canada is also working in sectors involved in cutting-edge research to develop new foods and new varieties and in food processing. It is a leader in the field. We are pursuing research in partnership with the private sector.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, just to build on that, does this mean that the government prefers applied research to pure research? That seems to be a trend in several fields lately.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, in Canada, we have a history of working closely with the agricultural and food processing sectors. That has been a tradition for about a hundred years, and we will stay on that path because the challenges the agricultural sector faces every year are major issues for our country and the whole world.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the position of the government on this particular piece of legislation and remain puzzled by its obstinacy against the amendments that my colleagues have brought forward.
What puzzles me is that when we are talking about other issues, for example, child care or support for the family, the line from the Conservatives is always, “We do not want big entities to decide the fate of our families”, yet here they want big government to decide whether or not farmers should or should not have the right to keep their own seeds and share them.
I can remember back in the 1970s when I was working on dialogues on the preservation of agricultural land and of the agricultural economy in Alberta, it was the time of a big scare in India. There was a single strain of rice and the harvest was a disaster.
Therefore, I am wondering about this one-sided mindset of protecting the big corporations that want to sell just one seed, instead of encouraging our farmers to keep their heritage seeds and share those. Why is the government not listening to the farmers on the importance of having diversity in crops?
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very interesting.
The market reality is that farmers choose the varieties they are going to plant based on the financial performance they can achieve. Considering the 160 million acres in Canada, farmers like to be able to deliver a product that is in demand somewhere in the world. That is very important, because our country is a very significant net exporter.
We are very proud to be contributing to the stability of global food security.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, can the member explain the changes made to the part related to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act since the first time it was before the House?
Why did we not discuss this in committee, particularly the change in clause 136?
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is a very technical question.
Since I would not want to mislead my colleague, I will have to get back to her on that.
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Québec, Consumer Protection.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.
It is truly an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-18 for the third time. It is an omnibus bill, and I had a chance to examine it at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, where we did a thorough study and heard from many witnesses. It is therefore a real honour for me to talk about Bill C-18 again here today.
This is a rather complex bill. It is an omnibus bill that amends nine existing laws. We agree with several aspects of the bill. It does include some improvements, but as it is written, it could lead to many problems, which were identified at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
I repeat, we cannot support this bill because there are gaps. It does not address all the needs of the agricultural sector. If you aim big, why not do things right? The witnesses mentioned that there were things missing in this bill. It is not enough to align our legislation with UPOV 1991 so that, as though by magic, everything is fixed. We have to consider mistakes made by other countries and have a good understanding of the Canadian reality to ensure that the changes we make are as comprehensive as possible. Unfortunately, as drafted, Bill C-18 does not do that.
In order to ensure that everyone understands what the bill is all about, I will quickly recap what Bill C-18 will do and the risks it entails.
First of all, Bill C-18 will move Canada from UPOV 1978 to UPOV 1991. This has a number of consequences for the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. According to the government, the UPOV 1991 treaty will give breeders additional protection and promote private investment.
The most important changes will expand the scope of plant breeders' rights, provide interim protection for a new variety and extend the term of protected rights.
Essentially, breeders now have the following exclusive rights: the right to reproduce propagating material; the right to condition, sell, export or import material; the right to make repeated use of material to produce commercially another plant variety if the repetition is necessary; and the right to stock propagating material for the purpose of exercising other plant breeders' rights. When we look at this list it is hard to see where there might be a problem. The problem is that the Conservative government has extended the powers of plant breeders so much, in order to promote private investment, that they are at a much greater advantage compared to farmers.
Farmers have even lost the right to clean, trade and resell their seeds. What is more, plant breeders have the power to charge royalties to farmers at any time without any regard for their harvests. What we are being told is not reassuring: the competition among breeders will govern the balance of power and everything will be just fine.
It makes me wonder: why not ensure from the get-go that everything will be just fine by taking the valuable advice of our witnesses, protecting farmers' ancestral rights and limiting breeders' powers to charge royalties?
To sum up this part, Bill C-18 might help us move ahead by harmonizing the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act with UPOV '91 because it protects intellectual property and encourages innovation. The problem is that the way Bill C-18 is drafted, it might also set us back. In fact, it rolls back farmers' rights.
What is more, given the expansion of plant breeders’ rights under Bill C-18, it is likely that farmers will face increased litigation.
However, producers may well be on an extremely uneven financial playing field with plant breeders. There are no provisions in Bill C-18 to ensure that legal fees do not impede farmers’ defence in such cases.
As it happened in Germany, this bill's lack of clarity could lead to a number of legal loopholes that will clog our courts and place an additional burden on our farmers. In other words, Bill C-18 does not provide sufficient protection for farmers against the potential abuse of power by breeders. It is not balanced enough.
I would like to come back to the changes made in order to pass and amend legislation without going through Parliament. Now, laws can be amended through incorporation by reference. That means that any document can be included in the regulations associated with any of these acts through incorporation by reference. In other words, the current government can amend the act without Parliament's consent. This is nothing new. We have seen it in a number of bills introduced by this government.
The government and its senior officials justified this addition by saying that it was needed to ensure the act could be adjusted in response to various contingencies. Although I appreciate the government and its senior officials' commitment to efficiency, the amendments made to a law through incorporation by reference should be voted on or studied by the House or at least the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. That would be a good idea.
What is more, Bill C-18 grants the Governor in Council the ability to make significant changes to the governing of various products, including to safety provisions, without the parliamentary oversight of legislative change. For example, the Governor in Council could establish regulations concerning the manufacturing, sale and shipping of products between provinces without even consulting the provinces or the House of Commons.
These strengthened powers are in addition to the changes made to the minister's authority in various laws. From now on, the minister may, subject to the regulations, suspend, cancel or renew a registration or licence and exempt someone or something from one or more regulations. The minister can do what he wants without any conditions. At the risk of repeating myself, this type of power could politicize the agricultural industry.
If it so chooses, the party in power could favour one company or even an entire sector over another, without the consent of Parliament. We know that it can sometimes be cumbersome to present and approve these changes in the House, but this process is a necessary part of democracy. The agricultural sector must absolutely not become subject or vulnerable to political interests.
In conclusion, I want to say that I support innovation and the protection of intellectual property, but I believe we must ensure that all Canadian farmers and public sector researchers are protected. I want to be sure that Canadians have access to our agricultural heritage and that they can take advantage of it. We need to ensure that new seeds are just as good—if not better—than existing ones, and we need to protect universal access to our common heritage of public seeds.
We also need to ensure that farmers or their representatives have a say about how intellectual property laws are applied and about any regulatory changes that would affect them, by eliminating the minister's authority to regulate amendments and the rights to exemptions.
Although some claim that this bill is necessary for the agricultural sector, I cannot ignore the fact that this bill will create new problems, especially since witnesses told us the same thing and they suggested solutions. That is why we presented 16 amendments. It is very sad to see such a lack of openness on the part of this government.
However, I can say that I am very proud of the work our party has done and of the fact that we are against Bill C-18.
Agricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders
November 24th, 2014 / 4:25 p.m.
Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière Québec
Conservative
Jacques Gourde ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear that the NDP, the official opposition, will be opposing this bill.
Historically, in the House, we have always voted unanimously to help our farmers and the agrifood processing industry. There is always something that can be improved in agriculture, which is constantly evolving. We need to adapt from year to year.
Today, we proposed a bill that will enable our farmers to face the challenges of the 21st century. We should all vote together to help them.
I would like to know why the official opposition does not want to vote in favour of a bill that will help Canadian agriculture.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that great question.
This omnibus bill will amend nine different laws. Nonetheless, we support several aspects of Bill C-18. That is why our party decided to send it for study by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, in the hopes that there would be meaningful debate and a balanced number of witnesses from both sides.
Even the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food himself, when he appeared before the committee, said that there were changes to be made to the bill. We had reason to believe that the government would listen and not turn a deaf ear, as is often the case.
Unfortunately, the government rejected our 16 common-sense amendments that received support from many witnesses. What is more, the majority of witnesses and people from the agriculture and agri-food industry who support this bill had suggestions about how it could be improved.
I do not know why this government is so closed to any proposed suggestions for improving this bill. It is unfortunate.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, whether one is a farmer on the Prairies or in the provinces of Quebec or Ontario, there is a sense that we need to make legislative changes that would enable farmers to, for example, compete in the world market going forward. There is no doubt from the presentations made by farmers and other stakeholders in committee that there is a need to make several changes. The NDP and the Liberals brought forward amendments, and ideas were generated from stakeholders at the committee stage.
My question for the member is related to the overall package before us today. It seems to me that most farmers would be supportive of this bill, albeit feeling concern over many different areas and desiring to see some amendments.
Are there specific amendments that the NDP was proposing at the committee stage that the member would have liked to have seen pass, as a minimum, that would have allowed for her party to support the legislation?
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I doubt I would have time to list all 16 of our amendments in one minute. Most importantly, we wanted to take away the minister's right to secretly and undemocratically revoke farmers' privilege. People are talking about this issue not only in Quebec, but in all the other provinces too.
I also received other petitions supporting our amendments to Bill C-18. It is important to strengthen farmers' privilege and ensure a better balance.
All we were asking for was a proper balance and that it be put in black and white that our farmers can save, clean and trade their own seeds. We also wanted farmers to be consulted, because this bill is one of the most important bills on agriculture. Basically, one of our amendments called on the government to do more consultation with the industry.