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

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise and represent the great people of Timmins—James Bay. It is a region that continues to grow in agricultural potential. It is part of the key backbone of our economy. People think of the north for its incredible mining strength. In Timmins—James Bay, with the massive gold mines, copper mines, and now diamond mines, we have a lot to be proud of in terms of mineral exploitation and the forestry industry, which opened up our region over 100 years ago. However, agriculture, particularly in the Timiskaming region, has been a mainstay.

What I have seen over the last 20 years is growth, as farms are moving further north. They are moving north into areas where there was once thriving farming; however, they could never quite make it because of the plant varieties of the day and the cold weather. The change in climate has changed some of the aspects of farming. There are new technologies, where they put tile drainage in now. In plots of land, the ability to get a crop off before the frost has increased dramatically, and there are the kinds of plant yields that we are seeing.

In the New Democratic Party, we have a real interest in making sure that farmers have the tools they need to make agriculture succeed in the 21st century.

However, there is another element in our region that I notice, and it is an issue around the world in terms of the changing relationship with farming. People in urban areas want to know where their food has come from. People want to have food security. People are concerned about GMOs. People want to have it on the labelling. People are very concerned about the use of neonicotinoids, the disappearance of the bee population, and the devastating effects that will have on our environment. They are very concerned about the corporate lobby that has the ear of the Conservative government, which is stonewalling action on these issues. Canadians feel that they have a right to participate in these issues. When they look at the issue of plant breeders' rights, Canadians say these are issues that matter to them.

It is not just that agriculture is getting bigger. We have heard for years that agriculture is getting bigger and becoming an economy of scale. We are now also seeing the emergence of niche markets. It is not just in the north, but it is right across Canada. The niche markets are responding to the issues and the very interest we see from the public toward food security, local foods, regional foods, and alternative foods.

The issue of striking the balance between ensuring the larger agricultural interest and that we have diversity is very important. Unfortunately, this bill has failed the fundamental test, which is getting the balance right. There are many elements in this bill that are laudable, but this is an omnibus bill, like many of the Conservative bills, so the Conservatives have shoved all manner of things into it.

One of the issues that we heard about again and again from the people that we spoke to was on the issue of what the government calls “farmers' privilege”. We call it “farmers' rights”. It is the ancient right to save seeds, to reuse seeds, and to try different seed varieties, versus the plant breeders' rights.

For the folks back home who do not know much about the industry, plant breeders' rights really mean corporate rights. We are looking at the protection of the corporate rights for intellectual property for the new seed varieties, some of which are GMOs, versus the traditional rights that farmers had to clean, maintain, and trade seeds.

This is not to say that we have an opposition to the kind of research and development that is being done by some very large corporate interests. If they can improve agriculture, this is great, and they are doing it for a bottom line. We get that. However, we noticed that within this bill, the government would continually put the power in the hands of the so-called “rights of the corporate interests” versus the privileges that farmers are supposed to have.

We have attempted to work with the government on fixing the language around that so we could clarify it, because one of the big issues that farmers face is litigation. When they are going up against Monsanto, it litigates. It goes after farmers. It is very territorial about its corporate interests. In amendments, we could have clarified what the farmers have in terms of their rights in saving and reusing seeds.

We noticed that the government has exempted all manner of what it calls “the farmers' privilege” from the legislation, which will now be decided in the minister's office. This means that the minister would give himself the unilateral power to erase the rights that farmers have always had.

This is not a balanced approach, particularly in an age when we see very large corporate lobbyists who have the ear of the minister and of the government. They can just make a phone call. They can go out to Hy's Steakhouse. They can sit around and have a conversation. The average farmer does not have that. He is going to have to trust the goodwill of the minister. Where I come from, our farmers are practical people. Asking them to trust the goodwill of a minister on rights they have always had is not going to fly. Therefore, there are problems with this bill.

Again, this is not to say that we would have opposed this bill in total. We want to fix the bill. That is what legislation is supposed to be. That is what Parliament traditionally has done. When I came here over a decade ago, we sat on committees and heard various amendments brought forward by Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats, who wanted to improve legislation. We do not have to ideologically agree on everything, but we should come out at the end of the day with the best possible legislation.

However, the current government has a policy. Since 2011, with every single amendment that the opposition has brought, the Conservatives have voted it down. The result has been many flawed bills. These are bills that have to be returned from the Senate because they are flawed, that have been rejected time and again because they would not pass a constitutional challenge. Our justice minister has had more recalls of his legislation than the Ford Pinto. It is getting embarrassing.

The new Democrats brought 16 reasonable amendments. Our colleagues in the Liberal brought amendments. Every single one of them was struck down.

One can be elected and be dim-witted; there is nothing in the laws of Canada that says someone cannot be dim-witted and be elected. People can just run for the Conservative Party. They can be defiantly dim-witted, as the current government is when it comes to responding to any questions about its mistakes. However, we see that the members of the government are aggressively and boastfully dim-witted when they stand up time and again in the House and brag that they do not listen to anybody who can improve their legislation. In fact, they will attack us for doing our job. They seem to want to shut down debate time and again. The fact that we bring forward amendments on any manner of bills and they have not thought them through is an outrage. Again, we are trying to help our dim-witted colleagues. This is our job.

I feel like Job sometimes, with the weight that is carried on us to try to help bring our dim-witted colleagues into the light of the 21st century. However, the Conservatives are defiant about this. They will not listen. They will accuse us of all manner of things under the sun, but our job on legislation like this is to respond to the farming communities. It is to respond to the consumers who want food security in Canada, who want a balance between the development of agriculture and the corporate involvement in agriculture in the growing niche markets, the issues of food security, and the fact that people want to have some knowledge of where their food comes from and what is in their food. These are reasonable things, which people from any party could agree on normally. However, under the current government, the Conservatives do not want to listen to anybody other than themselves, or perhaps their lobbyist friends.

In terms of the seed issue, when farmers are buying their seed from a corporate interest, there is a price that is set. Corporations can have a captive market if farmers cannot get alternatives. They are very expensive, and what they are promised in return is the yields. That is important. However, if farmers want to have their own varieties, they cannot trade them; they would be litigated against. They need some defence in terms of establishing the balance, and this is what we were trying to do with our amendments. We were trying to clarify the rules so that farmers are not facing litigation, so the minister does not get to decide what rights the farmers should be able to enjoy. The Conservatives call them privileges, but we call them rights.

I am sorry, but I do not trust the minister to make that decision on behalf of the farmers in my region. This is what Parliament should be doing. It should be in the act and it should be clear. We brought forward 16 fairly straightforward amendments. The Conservatives did not have to accept them all; they could have accepted some. However, as is their policy, they did not accept any. They then cannot understand why people do not support them.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of farmers in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. This past weekend I had someone approach me during one of the craft shows to tell me how important it is for us to keep raising the issue about the bee situation, so I want to thank my colleague for raising that during this debate. The debate that he put forward was a balanced approach with respect to what we are seeing, the fact that there are omnibus bills being tabled. We are willing to work with the government, but it is not willing to work with us. I am not on the agriculture committee. However, if I remember correctly, there were 16 amendments that the NDP tabled. We did not just pull these out of our hat; we actually talked to people. We have a lot of farmers in our area. I know that my colleague has hundreds of farmers in his area. Some of them are young farmers who are really trying to make a go at this.

Could my colleague perhaps expand on the importance of having a government that is willing to listen, not only to the lobbyists, but also to the other farmers who are impacted by this in the long run because they are not big farmers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that when my hon. colleague goes back to Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, which is a very rural region with a lot of agricultural families, people talk about the crisis with respect to neonicotinoids. I hear this in my region. The government will make the fact that the bees are dying off because of the pesticides sound like some kind of extremist talk. The corporate lobbyists have the Conservatives all locked up in their little box.

However, people do care, just like people care about the issue of catastrophic climate change. Any time that we ask a question about climate change in this House, the Conservative backbench all howl with laughter, as if they think they can escape it with the Rapture or something. However, when I go home, people are concerned about this. They see the changing weather patterns. In our agricultural region, people have noticed dramatic changes, even in the last 30 years.

Farming is based on the ability to count on the cycle. There have been some years when we have had enormous success in terms of extra warm summers, but we are seeing more frost coming at odd times. We are seeing an early spring, where it gets very warm and people start to plant and then the snow comes back. These are issues that people are concerned about, and they are looking for leadership. Again, what they see is a government that is boastfully, aggressively, and defiantly dim-witted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

I gave my first speech in the House of Commons in 2011, and it was about the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board. I am sure everyone remembers that because it was a very divisive issue in the House. Farmers' rights, such as the right to associate and to form co-operatives to sell their products, which gave them a degree of power, were being taken away.

Crops have changed a lot. Now farmers are planting a lot of canola instead of wheat.

I would like the member to tell me a little about just how much power is being taken away from farmers and handed to one person, one minister. The minister has the power to exempt, to choose, to exclude. The minister can take farmers' privileges away. In a way, it is one person against farmers, and it is all case by case.

The whole democratic aspect of this is very important to me because this Parliament is supposed to be democratic.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question on the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers fought to have the power to get their product to market, and the first year after, the farmers could not get their product to market. Welcome to the free market, where one can make more money by shipping oil than shipping grain. Then the government stood up and blamed the train companies and everyone else. The farmers lost a complete bumper crop of grain because of the government's plan to leave farmers on their own. The Wheat Board got grain to market for over 60 years. The first year under the Conservatives, it completely fell apart. That is the beauty of the supposed free market for farmers in this country under the current government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a little embarrassing to get up after what the previous member was saying. It certainly is beneath me to get involved in that argument, so I will not. I will let him answer to his constituents and to the media and others who might be interested about that kind of behaviour in the House.

I am proud to stand here today in support of Bill C-18, the proposed agricultural growth act. Bill C-18 is about growth. It is about growth of plants and growth of an industry. Canada's farmers certainly know all about the benefits of growth. The double entendre was intended. They recognize that entrepreneurs who successfully harness innovation add value to the economy, create jobs, and stimulate growth right across the country.

We need to keep up the momentum. We need to look toward the future. The agricultural growth act proposes to modernize some of the legislation that governs the industry in our country and to encourage innovation. That is exactly what it does.

The agricultural growth act aims to support the long-term success of Canadian farmers and producers. The current law tends to discourage development, so this change clearly is needed. Farmers know that, and farm groups who represent farmers right across the country know that, and they have given us this message loud and clear.

The amendments proposed to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act would support growth by encouraging investment in plant breeding in Canada and giving farmers greater access to foreign seed varieties. Plant breeders' rights are a form of intellectual property and like any intellectual property, without adequate legal protection, plant breeders' rights have virtually no value. Adequate legal protection enables rights holders to obtain value for their intellectual property. For plant breeders, this means they have control over the sale of the reproductive material, like seeds, cuttings, and other items like that from the new plant varieties they develop.

Plant breeding is an intensive process that requires significant time and investment. It often takes 10 to 12 years for plant breeders to develop a new variety. That is a huge investment in time and money. As it stands today, Canadian law protects plant breeders' rights for 18 years. The agricultural growth act proposes to extend protection to 25 years for trees, vines and any other specified categories and to 20 years for all other crops, unless the breeder chooses to give their rights up earlier. In some cases, that happens. For most cereal crops and field crops, that would be a two-year extension to the current protection.

The agricultural growth act would also allow plant breeders to sell a variety in Canada for up to one year before applying for breeders' rights protection. This would give them time to test the market, to advertise, or even increase the amount of stock they have on hand before filing for legal protection. I have heard from some people in the industry that this is important. At the same time, the agricultural growth act would provide plant breeders with automatic provisional protection for a new plant variety from the date of filing, which would allow them to exercise their rights while applications are pending.

In other words, the bill would give these agriculture innovators the tools they need to protect their investment and would support continued innovation in Canadian agriculture.

The importance of innovation in Canadian agriculture was the focus of an exhaustive report published earlier this year by the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. The committee heard from some 170 witnesses over a period of 14 months. In its report, the committee took a bird's eye view of Canada's agriculture and agrifood industry. The report identifies challenges and obstacles and makes no fewer than 19 recommendations, many of them relating to innovation, and that is no accident.

For instance, recommendation number 7 directly calls for improvements in patent protection. That is what this act does. However, I will come back to the committee report in a moment. First, I want to explain another form of intellectual property protection, plant breeders' rights, which is a specific type of legal protection for new plant varieties.

Trade depends upon trust. We know that. Buyers and sellers will do business only when they can trust the quality and the value of the goods and services to be traded. To build trust and foster trade, countries have long negotiated conventions and free trade agreements. Legal protection for intellectual property rights is often a feature of these conventions. The idea is relatively simple. The parties agree to establish a minimum level of legal protection for property rights. They agree to enforce their own laws on rights protection and to recognize equivalent laws in the countries they want to trade with.

The international convention on plant breeders' rights is known as UPOV, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Over 70 countries, including Canada, are members of UPOV. Membership in UPOV allows a country to fulfill its obligations for protecting plant varieties under the World Trade Organization.

Over the years, there have been several updates to the UPOV requirements for plant breeders' rights protection. The current standard is known as UPOV '91. It is important to note, however, that Canada's current legislation does not meet this standard. By that I mean the legislation that is in place right now, because the legislation we are talking about here today has not been passed yet. It meets requirements of the previous version, UPOV 1978. It needs to be updated.

When the standing committee of that other place conducted its study of agriculture, it heard from many witnesses who called on Canada upon to update its legislation so that it would meet the current UPOV '91 standards.

One such witness was Ms. Patty Townsend, chief executive officer of the Canadian Seed Trade Association. She had this to say about this country's failure to meet current UPOV standards:

The consequence [of the non-ratification of UPOV Convention 1991] is twofold. Canadian plant breeders do not have adequate tools to protect their own intellectual property, their own inventions, and they cannot regenerate the funds that are required for reinvestment, but just as important and sometimes even more important is that we cannot attract international genetics or new varieties internationally because companies will not bring their varieties to Canada because we cannot protect them in the same way they are protected in other countries.

That is a quote from Patty Townsend, who has been an effective voice for agriculture on the Hill for a long time.

If we consult the standing committee's report, we will see that recommendation number 8 calls upon Canada to comply with UPOV '91.

The issue of UPOV was also a major focus of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food during its review of Bill C-18. The committee heard from many witnesses critical of Canada's tardiness in ratifying the latest UPOV convention.

One of these witnesses was Chris Andrews, who spoke on behalf of the Canadian Ornamental Horticulture Alliance. Here is some of what he had to say on the topic:

...you may remember when plant breeders' rights were first introduced to Canada in 1991 under the UPOV 78 convention. Unfortunately, after 65 years of efforts, it came too late for the extraordinary Explorer roses, which were developed over the years by Agriculture and Agri-food Canada and were lost to a world that loved them, as we had no protection in those days.

He went on to say:

We had to buy our own plants back. My suggestion is, let’s not let that happen again to our new and innovative Canadian-bred varieties.

As Mr. Andrews points out, Canada already knows what can happen when plant breeders' rights are not adequately protected. Explorer Roses are, indeed, a made-in-Canada success story, much like canola, which has really revolutionized and saved field crop farming in western Canada. There is no doubt about that. I know that. It saved my family's family farm. It certainly helped me with my family farm, and it is what is keeping farming farms going today. Canola is a Canadian success story.

However, the lack of legal protection meant that other countries could simply produce and sell them royalty-free. Mr. Andrews was talking about the Explorer roses.

It would have been great for the Agriculture Canada breeding program had these changes been in place back then, because farmers would have felt the benefit of having that protection and would have received revenue, which would have allowed them to continue to produce new and important varieties.

Canada's failure to meet the new UPOV standard affects more than the individual research teams and companies trying to develop the new varieties of plants. It also has a negative impact on Canada's innovation capacity and our economy.

Another stakeholder expressed this idea succinctly during her appearance before the House committee. Deborah Hart of the Potato Growers of Alberta had this to say:

...If UPOV 91 is ratified, it will allow our industry to compete with other international potato producing areas. It will encourage international breeders to introduce new varieties to Canada and allow our Canadian breeders, both public and private, the opportunity to use new genetic properties in their own breeding programs.

I have page after page of good quotes from people in the industry who have worked on this issue for a great deal of time. The final quote helps to further illustrate the benefits of meeting our UPOV standard. Here is another excerpt from the testimony of Chris Andrews of the Canadian Ornamental Horticulture Alliance:

...This sort of stuff also creates more investment by our growers and our breeders, which in turn creates more innovative plant material and helps us do research that will breed out disease in certain plants. I think that's very important because of all the openness with respect to trade around the world: we're a global economy now. There are more diseases, pests, and insects as well that come into the country, which we have to fight with respect to our new varieties.

Maybe this is why members of the New Democratic Party do not support this legislation. This legislation would truly allow trade to work more effectively and, as we all know, they simply do not support trade.

We listened to all of these witnesses at committee and after much productive discussion with other parties brought forward a further amendment regarding plant breeders' rights, making this legislation clearly and strongly confirm in explicit language that a farmer can store seed for planting in future years on his or her own farm. I hope members of the New Democratic Party heard that. It clearly states that; this legislation guarantees it. The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of meeting the new UPOV standard, and the proposed legislation now before us would take the necessary steps to meet this goal while at the same time protecting a farmer's right to grow and keep his own seed if he or she wants.

The agricultural growth act proposes to bring protection of plant breeders' rights in Canada in line with those of our international partners and competitors. As a result, Canada's plant breeding industry would benefit from a more stable and modern intellectual property network.

These proposed changes would encourage increased investment in plant breeding in Canada. They would also encourage foreign breeders to protect and sell their varieties here.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the country's largest farm organization, has said:

...Canadian farmers will benefit greatly from increased innovation and an increase in new crop varieties as a result of these changes.

As well, a group of leading Canadian farm and agriculture organizations joined forces to support Bill C-18. By the way, any of us who deal with farmers quite a bit know that one thing that is very difficult to do is to get farm groups to work together to move something along, and yet that is what they have done with this. They see the importance to our industries of what is in this legislation.

Partners in Innovation includes the Canadian Horticultural Council, Grain Growers of Canada, and a number of commodity groups, including for potatoes, barley, and pulses. This group says that strengthening plant breeders' rights in Canada “...is critical for the future of our farmers and our agricultural industry’s ability to compete in the global market.”

At the same time, we will continue to consult with the industry before any changes are implemented, including regulatory changes. Our government continues to be committed to consultation to determine the best way to move forward.

I think that is important, and, quite frankly, it is one of the many things the two opposition parties have been calling for. It is reasonable and certainly something our government will continue to do. That said, I trust I can count on both sides of the House to move this necessary legislation forward.

The agricultural growth act proposes to modernize Canadian regulations on a foundation of science and technology, innovation, and international standards. I encourage my hon. colleagues opposite to join me in supporting Bill C-18.

As a farmer, for a number of years I have been following changes that I was hoping would happen a long time back. We all know that no matter what industry we are in—whether it is agriculture, any sector of our manufacturing industries, oil and gas production, mining, or whatever it is—what is going to allow Canada to remain competitive or become competitive is innovation. It is the new ideas spawned by Canadian industries that will keep us ahead of the pack. Quite frankly, in a lot of areas, Canadian industry is simply not competitive right now. We need exactly what this act would do for agriculture to help keep our industry competitive and ahead of the pack.

Farmers are doing their part. We all know the changes they have made so quickly. I would argue that farmers have become some of the most sophisticated managers in this country. The way they manage their businesses is remarkable. They way they adapt innovation is remarkable. The innovation they spawn in terms of new equipment and that kind of thing, often just in a shop somewhere on a farm in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or elsewhere, is amazing. Farmers are doing their part.

Farmers have increased production on their farms remarkably. It was probably only 20 years ago that an average yield of canola was 25 or 26 bushels to the acre. Now, very commonly, canola yields are 40, 50, 60, or even 70 bushels to the acre. Certainly innovation and new varieties being developed in Canada in the case of canola have made a huge difference in this country for farmers. I know that I have seen the benefits of these developments, but there is much more to be done. The act before us would allow those developments to continue, and in commodities other than canola as well.

This act would truly help farmers keep ahead of the curve. It would help farmers with the innovation it would spawn to truly remain world leaders and continue the growth in production and marketing.

Canadian farmers have demonstrated clearly that they can compete with anybody in the world. In fact, in many cases even individual farmers and in other cases groups of farmers are trading with countries around the world. Our commodities are sought after because, quite frankly, they are better than most others in the world.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I was in Kagawong this weekend at a craft show and had a couple of farmers approach me on some of the agricultural issues that are of great concern to them.

We have tabled petition after petition on GMO in this House. Certainly when it comes seeds, it is an issue that is very near and dear to many hearts. We had hoped that this bill would actually have a balanced approach, because that is what is essential when it comes to plant breeders.

The member talked about the right of farmers to be able to save their seeds. Our concern is that these should be farmers' rights, not privileges, but this is what the government has done. It has actually put it into the bill as privileges.

During his speech, the member quoted some people. I can quote Dominique Bernier of AmiEs de la Terre de Québec:

....this bill considerably weakens farmers' ancestral rights by forcing them to pay compensation to agro-industrial giants on the entirety of their harvest. However, the marketing of new crop varieties by the big breeders rests on a world heritage, the patient selection, over thousands of years, of crops by succeeding generations of farmers.

There are several other statements that support the NDP position on the amendments that we had put forward.

One thing in particular I would like my colleague to explain is the changes to the section that refers to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act. We saw this in the House. In particular, we would like to know why there were there further changes made regarding clause 136, because these changes were not discussed at committee. The witnesses did not have an opportunity to give feedback. Why would the government make changes in areas it had not even heard feedback on?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to pooh-pooh the member's comments on what some farmers are telling her because, quite frankly, I too heard comments from some farmers in my area expressing concern about what was in this bill. Of course, once their commodity groups examined what was being put forward, they changed their minds.

I think we have to be open. I would encourage the members opposite to be open to looking at what is actually in the bill as opposed to what some people say is in this piece of legislation when it is not reality.

When making changes like this, it is really important that the changes be based on science, not just on rumours that are going around. As I said, I heard from some farmers. In fact, I tabled a couple of petitions in the House that probably had 100 or 150 names. Most were not farmers, but some were. They expressed concerns, and because they were constituents who had given me a petition to table, I tabled the petition.

The reality is that the more the commodity groups and the individual farmers actually looked at what we have done, the more they supported it. When the bill is implemented and the regulations are being put in place, I encourage all the members opposite, and the farmers they have talked to, to have input into the regulations. That is always an important part of legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to UPOV '91. UPOV '91 has generated some considerable concern over the impact it might have on third world countries.

My question is for the member. In his last response, he seemed to be sensitive to some of those concerns, and I am wondering if the member might want to expand on what he believes are some of the concerns in regard to UPOV '91.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that on examining what is in this legislation and on looking at UPOV '91, I see that the reality is that these changes will help farmers.

The premise of the member's question is not entirely accurate. I do believe that once examined, this legislation and its regulations will be seen to be good for farmers. I can assure the member of that.

I am sorry, but I forget the second question, so I will leave my answer at that.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Agriculture is the reason we live in society. If nobody grows food, we will have serious problems and will cease to exist as a species.

I am from an urban riding, so I am less familiar with certain aspects of agriculture. However, I am very familiar with public administration. Part of the bill is about work to be done at the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Given the government's habit of cutting the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food's resources, and given that this bill gives the department more work, will my colleague opposite ask the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the President of the Treasury Board to give the department more resources so that it can achieve the objectives set out in the bill before us?

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

Mr. Speaker, this demonstrates the difference between Conservatives and members of the New Democratic Party.

We do not think it is just the number of public servants that determines how much work can get done. We think that is determined by the system they are operating in, a system that actually gives rewards for good work. We think that type of system allows more work to be done by the same number of people, and we have proved it, by the way, in many of the changes we have made in the public service, so I do not agree with the premise of the member's question or comment. I do think that with a better system in place, we can get an awful lot done with the same number of people.

However, the earlier question from the Liberal member opposite that I forgot to answer was to do with farmers in third world countries. I think this aspect is very important, because the reality is that the type of innovation spawned with this new UPOV '91 enactment is exactly what will allow Canada to continue to feed the world.

We have seen the amazing benefits of genetically modified food in feeding 200 million people in the world every year who would otherwise starve. I would suggest that the changes that this legislation would bring about would allow that number to increase from 200 million people being fed instead of starving.

It is a really good-news story and I simply do not see the potential negative impact that the member has referred to.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has done an impressive job in laying out the need to have the bill passed.

I have been listening to some of our colleagues from the NDP, who have basically been saying that the farmers do not have the privilege of using the seed once they purchase it.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on how farmers would be able to save and reuse that seed.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, because in my understanding, the reality is that until now, there has been no guarantee that farmers can save and reuse their seed. For the first time we will have the guarantee in legislation that farmers can do exactly that. I see a really good-news story when it comes to that issue.

I encourage the opposition members to talk about the good news in that story and about the reality, instead of just what someone might have indicated could be the case. That is what the case actually is.

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

What I see in Bill C-18 is that the minister is being given a great deal of discretion. This means that regardless of the laws that govern agriculture in Canada, if a friend of the minister manages to bend his ear, the minister will circumvent the law. If we have paid all our dues and done everything right but someone influences the minister, anyone of us can be told that we cannot even harvest our crops—even if we have bought the seeds and planted them.

The minister has been given far too much power. We live in a democratic system and we have a legal system complete with courts. Normally, it is up to the courts, not just one minister, to determine whether a right is given or taken away from someone.

Something else is bothering me. We are talking about breeders' rights, but it should be farmers' rights. Since time immemorial, everyone has had the right to collect a seed, plant it and harvest the fruits. Now we are being told that it is not a right, but a privilege. We are now living in a society where rights are being taken away from everyone and we are told that they are privileges. I agree that a driver's licence is a privilege, but many other things are natural rights: to grow things or to be able to walk and talk, for example. In the legal texts, we should change the word “privilege” to “right”. As for the minister, he should be granted “privileges” and not “rights”. That is how the bill should read.

There is one more thing that is of great concern to me. Last week, I spoke for 10 minutes about malicious prosecution. This bill will likely result in this type of problem. I will give an example. In my region, there is an organic farmer who uses only organic seeds. He raises his animals organically. Nevertheless, his neighbour grows GMOs. Everyone knows that grain is wind-pollinated. Vegetables are pollinated by insects. We cannot control the wind or insects. There are no borders between fields. Just by chance, it was noticed that there were genetically-modified vegetables among those harvested and replanted. That was a disaster for the organic farmer. Not only did the company that owned the GMO in question not want to reimburse the organic farmer, even though it is the one that contaminated his fields with its GMOs, but it is going to require the organic farmer to pay royalties.

That is what we call abusive litigation. I believe that under the law, those who want to farm in their own way must also be able to harvest, reuse and stock according to their type of crop. There are small corners of the country where grain is grown and the same grain always comes back. These are regional varieties.

Then along comes some company that wants to trample on these regional farmers and impose its own varieties. It sows the new variety in a field among 10 other fields where heirloom varieties grow. There is contamination. It has happened before and it will happen again. The company that did the contamination sues everyone and wants royalties from all the land around it, claiming that the farmer spread pollen all around. A lot of this abusive litigation goes on. I talked about Kokopelli before. It is the target of abusive litigation by French breeders. In France, UPOV '91 was adopted a long time ago, and major multinationals are taking advantage of that.

There is another thing that concerns me about this bill, and that is cascading royalties. When I buy a car, I pay the fees, the taxes and so forth and then I use it. Let us say that after 50,000 kilometres, the company comes along and tells me that if I want to keep using the car, I will have to pay for it all over again. My vehicle works just fine. They are surprised and they charge royalties. The same thing happens at 75,000 kilometres and 100,000 kilometres. That too is an example of cascading royalties. A farmer buys a top-quality product and grows it conscientiously on his land. He puts time, money and everything necessary into it, regardless the method he uses, and he gets a good yield. Then, because he has a better yield than the third farmer who planted the same product, he is charged an additional royalty. As it turns out, because of weather problems elsewhere that summer, his product is worth more money. He is charged another royalty. I call that cascading abusive royalties. Then, if people fight to get his product because it is so great, he will be charged more royalties. Those are cascading abusive royalties.

Can Bill C-18 protect him from that or can the minister, with all the privileges he is being granted, protect the farmer? What I see in this bill, as with almost all of the Conservative government's bills, is that it protects big corporations and leaves small businesses to fend for themselves.

It is also important to protect access to heirloom, heritage and public varieties. It is important that we continue to have access to seeds that have proven their worth for hundreds of years.