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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

There is a ruling on Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food.

There are 56 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-18. Motions Nos. 1 to 56 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 56 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-18, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 7 with the following:

“—the right referred to in paragraph 5(1)(g) cannot be modified by regulation and do”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Mr. Speaker, let me say congratulations to you. I realize I should have told you ahead of time I might say this. Taking a risk of perhaps embarrassing you and of you then asking why I did this to you, I am going to take the risk anyway. I saw that you were awarded the Charlie Brooks Award last week in your hometown of Windsor and I want to congratulate you in the House on behalf of members in your party and all members here.

For those who do not know of Charlie Brooks, he has been gone now for a number of years but was a great trade unionist in the city of Windsor. He clearly set a standard that is extremely high. To be given such a distinguished award is a credit to you, sir, for the hard work you have done on behalf of your constituents, on behalf of Ontarians, and, indeed, on behalf of Canadians across this land. To you I say congratulations and thanks for your hard work.

I will return now to the matter at hand, the amendments on Bill C-18.

Bill C-18 is clearly an agricultural bill that the government has brought forward. New Democrats had great hope for the bill initially. Even though we saw some things in it that we did not like or believed needed to be done differently, we, in a spirit of co-operation, voted for it at second reading to get it to committee because we wanted to talk about it.

To be fair, the chair of the agriculture committee did a great job of making sure there was a balance of witnesses. That is to be commended. Every chair should try to do that. He did an excellent job.

What the committee heard from a preponderance of witnesses—in fact, a majority of them—is that there needed to be amendments to Bill C-18. Many of the amendments were not identical to what New Democrats proposed, but they were certainly very close. The majority fell into one class, for the most part, under what is called in the act “farmers' privilege”.

We know in this place that words are very meaningful, because we write legislation with words. They have a great deal of meaning and carry a great deal of weight because they enact laws, and from the get-go, the idea of a farmer's “privilege” to save his or her own seed struck New Democrats as the wrong terminology. We thought it should be a farmer's “right” to save seed. It should not be a privilege, because one can earn a privilege or lose a privilege. What we see in this act is that through the Governor in Council farmers could indeed lose what the government has now decided to call their privilege. We find that unfortunate.

As we looked through the act, we discussed things with witnesses and gleaned from them opportunities to make amendments. We made a number of them. I have to admit that the minister came to the committee and recognized that under farmers' privilege, farmers were not getting much of a privilege and needed to be given a little more. We clearly said, as many stakeholders across the country said, especially farmers, that although we were giving farmers the privilege to save seeds, they could not clean them, they could not store them, and they certainly could not resell them.

There was some minor tweaking, even though the minister said the government was going to come back with very substantive changes and amendments to the bill.

There was indeed one hugely substantive piece near the end, which had to do with how to pay back what is called the advance payments program. If I remember correctly, I believe the amendment that the government brought forward was six pages long. It was about how to get the advance payments back if a farmer went bankrupt. It was a very technical clarification, and the good folks in the agriculture department explained it all. They said that if people could not quite understand it, they should think of how to repay student debt. It was actually taken from the student debt handbook on how to deal with the debt if it could not actually be paid back. I had these really awful, vivid flashes in my mind of all the students who have horrendous amounts of debt and saw that we would be giving farmers the same options that students have, which is being almost bankrupt.

In any case, that was the major amendment.

It is under what we call UPOV '91, which is really about intellectual property of seeds. A company that does a great deal of research and development of a new variety of a seed, whether it be wheat, canola, or some other seed, can then reap a reward, basically a dividend, from its investment.

Fundamentally, we do not disagree with that. A private corporation goes into the business of producing that variety, it has taken the time and effort to go through the process, has put the money in, and then it decides it will charge whatever it happens to be for that seed. We do not disagree, and UPOV '91 speaks to that.

We are a signatory to UPOV '91. The “91” signifies that it was in 1991 that the agreement came about. This House has been challenged by UPOV '91 on a number of occasions. It started with the previous Conservative government, and it became part of a Liberal government issue. Now it is back to the Conservatives again.

Clearly there is an opportunity here. Many countries have signed on to UPOV '91. A great thing about it, in my view, is that it can be amended to suit the needs of a country and still fall within the framework. Countries do not have to accept carte blanche everything in UPOV '91; they can take pieces of it. Countries can fundamentally accept pieces and move pieces out. They can do that. A number of countries that have accepted UPOV '91 have actually done that. Many countries have stayed with the UPOV of 1978, which in the eyes of investors who develop seeds is actually more onerous for them to make a profit.

The whole idea was that they would lose out on research and development if they did not get UPOV '91. We understand that. The dilemma is in how to balance the interest of those who want to go into the research and development, which is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. This is expensive research, which means that the money invested deserves some kind of a return, unless of course it is done in the public sphere. We have seen with the government that it has actually taken money from the public sphere, public research.

Competitors for the big industries on the block are becoming fewer all the time. In fact, in this legislation one of the recommendations from one of the stakeholders was a question around balance, so that the small seed producers would not be swallowed up or disappear. We proposed an amendment to the legislation, but unfortunately at committee my friends across the way decided they did not like the amendment and it was defeated. In that regard, balance has not been attained.

What we see at this point is that the government has decided it is going to take UPOV '91 carte blanche, making no changes to it of any significance. We would end up simply taking it as is. Farmers across the country and those in the industry are all asking for a way to balance it out. They want a Canadian farmers' solution to UPOV '91.

One of the things we tried to explain, and the agriculture department was in agreement, was around the fact that there are a variety of seeds that right now are compulsory licensed and on the market. Farmers may like it, but the company that has the licence can decide to go to CFIA to withdraw the licence. There is a process. The licence cannot just be withdrawn. There is a process, as the agriculture department and the CFIA talked about, to deregister the licence.

Once the licence is deregistered, it is gone from the marketplace. Normally it happens when farmers no longer want the product. It is deregistered because no one wants it anymore. It is not available, and it is deregistered.

However, if the company that owns the registration develops a new one, under UPOV '91 it can exact a greater amount of money and greater royalty from it because it is new. There is nothing to stop them from asking for the other one to be deregistered. In fact, the department said that is absolutely right; there is nothing to stop them. They can apply, and if the process is followed correctly, it could disappear.

Even more than that, the legislation allows those companies to then appeal to CFIA when they develop a new seed to ask that it not have a compulsory licence. That means it could be taken off the market if it does not make any money for the company, even though farmers might actually like the seed.

Ultimately, with the lack of competition, we will be stuck with markets that are driven by a handful of large companies rather than having a multitude of choices across the country as farmers have today. That would not be helpful for farmers nor for the marketplace in general. If we were stuck in a place because of intellectual property and get rid of those who might compete—the small seed producers and the government, which used to do public research for the public good that farmers could then utilize down the road—it would not be helpful.

It is unfortunate that the government did not hear us on the amendments and chose not to accept them. Hopefully, it has a second chance through you, Mr. Speaker. You read the amendments out earlier. The government has a second opportunity to correct what it did wrong the first time. It can vote for the amendments this time, and not against them.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time understanding why my colleague does not want to support this bill.

As far as the recent changes he proposed in the House are concerned, the vast majority, 60% of them, are technical amendments that have to do with the French translation of this bill. These amendments will be reviewed in due course. Nonetheless, the body of the bill is very important for farmers. The members across the way do not seem to be taking that into consideration.

On behalf of my government, I would like to take a few minutes to explain the benefits of this bill. We believe we are responding to the demands of farmers, who are calling for Bill C-18 to stimulate agricultural and economic growth here in Canada.

That is why it is important to vote in favour of this bill. I still do not understand why the opposition is against it.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can explain to my hon. colleague across the way why we are against it, but I will do my best.

The reality is that it is not what farmers asked for. They simply said, “No, thanks. We'd like to see some amendments.” We did not pull them out of the sky. We took what folks gave to us and got some good help from folks who know how to craft legislation and how to craft amendments. Based upon what farmers told us, we did that, and then presented it back. Even the government's own minister said, “We got it wrong. We are going to have to make amendments.” I think there were five or six amendments, because the Conservatives rushed in with an omnibus bill. Instead of simply working on UPOV '91, they jammed a bunch of other stuff in with it. They simply said, “We have made a few mistakes here. We are going to have to make some changes.” Even on the farmers' privilege aspect, the minister said, “We didn't quite get it right.”

The problem is that the government did not quite listen to exactly what farmers were saying. Farmers said more than what the minister finally came back with as his amendments. That is why we are against it.

If the government is not going to listen to the folks it is writing the legislation for, why on earth would we support it? Why would we support legislation when the government has a deaf ear when it comes to listening to what folks have to say? If it is not going to listen to them, then I guess we have to tell the government again, in this House of Commons, “This is what they said, and you are getting it wrong”, and vote against it. There is no other way to do it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the member for Welland's passion, because I know that he probably spoke with a lot of people in the farm community in arriving at the position that he laid out.

In his remarks he said that the market is driven by a handful of large corporations. He also talked about intellectual property and the rights over that intellectual property

I might say to the member that I do not think he should expect the government to listen any more to amendments in here than it does at committee. This is a government that does its own thing, regardless of whether the amendments make sense or not. However, that is just a side note.

My question is a fairly simple one. What would the bill do, especially with regard to the comments the member made with respect to intellectual property and large companies, to the power relationship between the large corporate multinational sector that operates on a global basis and our smaller family farms—or even if they are not small, as there are some fairly large family farms in the country now?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked an interesting question. The power relationship tips because of the size that they are and the amount of money that goes into research. That is what happens. There are some pieces in the legislation that would allow someone to take intellectual property up to a certain level and use it and work on it. The problem is that when public dollars go out, then one of the competitors is gone. The next piece is when small seed producers leave and just a handful are left.

Where is the royalty? Farmers want to know. They want to know if it is when they buy a bag of seed, at the end, or both. They want to know where it is. The bill does not say anything about that. Some farmers will say that an end-point royalty is okay, because if they buy lousy seed and they have a lousy crop, they will pay a lousy price for it. The problem is that if farmers pay a decent price for a lousy bag of seed and then receive an end-point royalty, they have paid a lot for stuff that was lousy in the first place.

That is the problem. The bill would not allow folks to fight that off. In our view, it would unbalance what we thought could be a balance between those large corporations that come in with intellectual property rights and those that are smaller and do not have them. The amendments would allow them to succeed in the marketplace.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak today on the subject of Bill C-18. My NDP colleague said that farmers and the agri-food industry do not support this bill, but nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to begin by quoting William Van Tassel, first vice-president of the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec. He has made his position clear, and he supports our bill. I would like to quote from his testimony before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The federation supports those changes, which would make the PBRA consistent with the 1991 convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants...which governs breeders' rights and protects the intellectual property resulting from research into the development of new crop varieties. This harmonization is necessary in an environment where research collaboration is increasingly global and no longer restricted by geographical borders.

Our position is also evident in our commitment to Partners in Innovation, which brings together 20 groups and represents most of the agricultural producers in Canada. Moreover, all partners welcome the update to the regulatory environment.

Once more, for my NDP colleague:

Moreover, all partners welcome the update to the regulatory environment.

He goes on to say that:

The federation believes that protecting intellectual property can only encourage investment in research by various stakeholders in the grain industry, which will offset the reduction in public efforts in scientific agricultural research. It is also an incentive for researchers from different countries to make their research findings available to Canada, thereby promoting the diversity of genetic resources and the availability of varieties for Canadian and Quebec grain growers. With a diverse range of genetic resources, the industry can be more responsive to market needs and maintain farm competitiveness.

It is quite clear that Canada's agricultural producers and farmers support these changes to the legislation. That is why it is so disappointing that the opposition parties have proposed amendments—which you quoted earlier, Mr. Speaker—in an attempt to undo and water down this bill until it no longer addresses the concerns of farmers.

Before I go into the details of the bill and how it will modernize various aspects of Canada's regulatory regime, I would like to remind the House what agriculture means to Canada and what Canadian agriculture means to the rest of the world.

If we just look at a map of the world, we see right away just how huge Canada's land mass is. Canadian farmland covers 75 million acres of our vast territory. On average, Canada exports about half of its agricultural products. We are one of the world's top exporters of wheat, grain and coarse grains, as well as pork and beef, of course. Wheat is considered a food staple, and Canada consistently ranks among the world's top three exporters of wheat.

We heard the testimony of Mr. Tassel, a representative from the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec, who speaks very highly of our bill. It is therefore disappointing to hear the opposition members say this morning that farmers do not support this bill.

Protecting plant breeders' rights is a key point in this bill, which also includes many other principles. What we think is most important here is that this bill will boost and capitalize on Canada's competitive advantages around the world.

However, as we know, to succeed in international markets and reach consumers throughout the world, we must work within increasingly modern frameworks, trade agreements, standards and conventions that are in line with the latest trade agreements. That is the purpose of this bill.

The bill before us today will harmonize Canadian legislation through such trade agreements, standards and conventions. Bill C-18 will strengthen and protect our agricultural sector, while increasing its export potential. The bill will also allow us to continue to succeed in international markets, remain at the forefront of food science and help solve problems related to food production.

It is not surprising that the overall demand for world-class food produced by our farmers is increasing. The world's population is expected to reach 9.3 billion by 2050. To respond to this increasing demand, we need productive, competent farmers. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, world food production will need to be 60% higher. That is a major challenge for our farmers and farmers throughout the world. That is why the improvements in safety, efficacy and productivity set out in this bill are so important for farmers.

The agricultural growth act seeks to modernize nine laws. Seven of those laws are used by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to regulate Canada's agricultural sector, and two of them are enforced by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Here are some examples of improvements that the bill makes in the feed and fertilizer industries. Under the existing system, animal feed and fertilizer are registered on a product-by-product basis. Bill C-18 will allow the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to license and register fertilizer and animal feed operators and facilities that import or sell products across provincial and international borders.

Licensing or registration of facilities and operators will make it faster and easier to verify whether agricultural products meet Canadian safety standards.

This approach will not only enhance food safety in Canada but also further align our regulatory practices with those of our trading partners.

We will continue to work with the United States and the European Union on implementing more comprehensive animal feed regulatory systems that include hazard analysis, preventive controls, licensing, and the enforcement of international standards such as best practices in feeding. We will continue to work in close co-operation with all our trade partners.

I did not touch on every benefit in this bill. I hope to have the opportunity to talk about it with my opposition colleagues in other forums. I hope they will come around and support our bill, which farmers have asked for and which meets with the approval of Canada's agricultural community.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has asked why can we not support the bill. If there were individual bills instead of an omnibus bill, we probably would have supported the vast majority of it. During committee stage, quite often there was agreement around certain sections, whether it was the fertilizer piece, or some other pieces. We have problems with one side of it and we do not get to vote on it separately, which I do not think is allowable, so we end up with this.

On farmers' privilege, the government recognized it had it wrong and suggested it needed to come back with substantive changes. However, it came back with a minor tweak. If the government recognized that this was not the correct way to go, that farmers would not be placed in a position of equality with the intellectual property holders, that they would be in a lesser position when came from the sense of saving seed, why does the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture think it is all right for big business to swamp out what ostensibly is a small business? Some farms are large, but most of them are small. Why does the minister not say that we need a sense of balance so that people with small farms who develop their own seeds do not end up being wiped out by large multinationals, which have the power to take them to court and the farmers will not have the power or resources to defend themselves?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that today's farmers are large farmers. They are not small farmers, as my colleague likes to characterize them. Nonetheless, before becoming large farm operators, they were small farm operators. They grew and were able to become major providers thanks to increased productivity. The same is true right now for small farms or people who want to benefit from market opportunities. This bill will allow them to seize market opportunities and hope to become major producers who will one day supply the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill for agriculture across Canada, but there many problems with it. The member from Quebec was not at committee, but I am sure he was briefed. Mr. Van Tassel was very right in saying that the bill was good for Quebec in many ways, especially when he talked about seeds and certified seeds. However, other farmers, small farmers, organic farmers, farmers who have certain niche products from Quebec, were very concerned about the bill. There is not enough in the bill to help small farmers.

What does the member see in the bill that will help small farmers in Quebec and others across the country? I would like the member to state what is in the bill for small start-up farmers. Conservatives made this a large bill, but they could have had a lot more in it to help farmers.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hon. minister of state has roughly one minute remaining.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to give my colleague a detailed answer in one minute. The most important thing is that I can tell him that I come from Beauce, which is a rural region. There are many farmers and agricultural operators in that area. I would like to point out that they are very much in favour of this bill because they think it will guarantee their future and give them a market. In fact, this bill will ensure that Canadian regulations will be in line with world regulations, and that products exported will be recognized as Canadian. With international recognition of Canada, the bill provides guarantees for food safety and future markets and, lastly, it ensures that our products will be welcome in other countries without tariff and non-tariff barriers. That is important to small producers in Beauce. They are very pleased that I am supporting this bill on their behalf. These entrepreneurs will become major agricultural entrepreneurs one day thanks to the improvements made to our laws, which will allow them to grow their businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the bill. It is very important, whatever we do in the House, that we listen to farmers and food groups, those people who produce food for us. We should not only listen to them in the House or at committee; we should get out there and listen to farmers.

Recently, I had the great pleasure of going with the member for Papineau to an international ploughing match. Yes, he did a great job of turning over the soil. More important, that day we held a round table with farmers from across Ontario. They had concerns about what the Conservative government was or was not doing. It is great sometimes to sit down with farmers, whether it is out there or in committee, and listen to them. Sometimes our bureaucratic system puts things forward that it thinks is good for the people who produce our food, but it is not always.

Overall, this is not a bad bill. I have a kind of love-hate relationship with it. There are parts in it that I think farmers need, and there are parts of it that could have been changed. During committee, we put many amendments forward, but they did not get much recognition from the government side. That being said, our party will vote for the bill because we cannot deny the good stuff in it for the farmers who need it.

The bill has quite a bit in it, as I mentioned before.

One of the most contentious parts of this was UPOV '91. There is no doubt it is an international code that is being used out there. Many other countries, in Europe and elsewhere, are using this system and it has worked well for them. However, just because it has worked well for those other countries and just because it was set up years ago does not mean we could have had more of a made in Canada approach to it. We could have put some things in there that would have helped small farmers and ensured them they could store or reproduce their seed.

I do not think any of the smaller growers that came forward had any intention of reselling the seed. It was not their intention, but they did not want someone to come in, like the big government, and take away their seed that they could reuse on their farm. It all came down to that.

I think the government knew it was wrong and it did not have clarification, but it put in an amendment, which I do not think went as far as the Liberal Party or even the NDP. Our language was stronger. However, it was one of the biggest issues that was brought up quite a bit throughout the committee.

When we look at the bill, there is so much in it. I guess it will be a “wait and see” bill. We will wait and see how farmers will deal with it, especially smaller farms, and their grain. There were so many other people coming forward and recommending UPOV '91. Many people who produced seed said that it could give Canada a big advantage. With this new legislation, we could develop more varieties in Canada and we could sell them to the United States. There is a good side of it, but we could have both.

Imagine, some of the varieties we have developed with spring wheat and canola all came from research in Canada. However, the researchers or whoever was producing that product had to be protected. Part of this bill is there for that.

As we go forward, with climate change and various changes in consumer tastes, we will have to be on the leading edge to ensure we have the right varieties and products out there. It is important, but the government should step up to the plate and do more research. We can say that they will be protected and that we will produce more and better varieties for small and large growers alike, but the problem is the government sometimes does not have the money for the research to do that as we move forward.

We had some amendments because we had some problems with the bill. All we can do is to hope that the smaller producer is not going to be penalized and have to go to lawyers to protect themselves when they have that bit of seed in their bins. We have been reassured of that, but I think we still could have had stronger language for when the time comes.

We listened to the different groups who came forward on what is happening in agriculture, which is that farms are getting bigger, and that for those that may not be getting bigger, they are becoming more intense with higher costs. The costs have doubled for fertilizer, seed, or whatever farmers use. At the end of the day, of course, they are dealing with more money.

Many times we see that the couple of hundreds dollars that used to get a farmer through is just not enough any more. If a farmer has a couple of thousands acres, that farmer needs a minimum of half a million dollars to get through. Therefore, one of the big parts of the bill was the advance payments, and here is where the government could have stepped up to the plate.

It was a nice gesture by the government to increase the advance payments to $400,000, but after hearing many witnesses tell us about the size of their farms, what they were dealing with, and the amount of cash they needed to get through, it is not enough. For instance, we had representatives from the Canadian Canola Growers Association come forward. They said in a letter that there should be an amendment to Bill C-18 aimed at streamlining the program and that it is important the government consider an increase in the maximum advance limit. The letter states that:

Farmers have indicated that an increase to the current limit would better reflect their financing requirements and make the program more valuable to their farming operation. We believe doubling the limit...

Indeed, they even went so far as to say “doubling the limit”. Therefore, I think the government missed the mark on this, and it could have done a little more consultation. I also think that the Conservatives had the opportunity at committee to sit down and listen to the farmers and to the numbers.

This is not free money here; we are not talking about giving farmers money. This is an advance payment. It is a loan. When farmers are putting in their canola, soya beans, or whatever, these are expensive crops, as well as all the inputs. By the time they see a return, it could be a year down the road. They could be seeding in May but they may not get a cheque for that crop until the following May. They are dealing with a lot of money, and it was shown very clearly at committee that the $400,000 was not enough.

Sometimes government has to step back and consider. The Conservatives did not do wrong with the $400,000, but just did not hit the right mark. I think they had an opportunity to increase the amount.

As I said, this is not money that is given to farmers. This is an advance payment that the farmers pay back. It is money in and money out. Therefore, I believe that this was another opportunity where the government could have made some amendments to reflect the amount of acreage that farmers have and the size of farms out there today.

We can look at the amounts that were brought forward and the defaults on these advance payments and consider how Canadian farmers are really good at producing food and at managing their finances. The default was at a very low percentage. The defaults could be due to some catastrophe on the farm or to the weather. However, the Canadian taxpayers are not going to be on the hook here because farmers have such a good track record of paying back those advance payments.

Therefore, it would have been a no-brainer for the government to increase that number even more. Down the road, I think the Conservatives will find out that they will have to do this. They are looking at history, but there is the reality of the amount of money that farmers are dealing with in agriculture now.

My colleague from Manitoba and I went to visit some farms and it is unbelievable what they put into the farms and the size of the tractors. We were all through Manitoba.

My last point is on the penalties. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is also really concerned about these penalties. For instance, if someone is packing carrots on a farm and did not have a hair net on, which I know is is not right, the farmer could be fined $5,000. I do not know where the Conservatives came up with these penalties.

As the Canadian Cattlemen said, they need the government to be a coach, not a referee, to help them produce better, safer food. They want government to come in and help them, show them how to do it, but not come in with a hammer and say, “Okay, you didn't have a hair net on or you didn't do this, and you're going to be fined $5,000.”

That is a big problem with the bill. I do not know where the government comes up with these big penalties, but the money should be spent helping farmers and operators produce better quality food instead of just coming in with a hammer. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association has stated that in its presentation.

I am open to any questions from members.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member for Sydney—Victoria. I know that he works very hard on our agriculture committee.

One of the things he spoke about was the advance payments and the maximums that are given. As he is aware, it was a small number of people who actually reached the $400,000 during a time when they were being encouraged to do so but who realized that perhaps selling into some depressed markets would hurt their bottom line, so when making statements about the costs in agriculture, if members first looked at the size of the farm one would have to have in order to reach the $400,000 maximum, I think they would be quite surprised. If we are looking at groups of people, even the smaller farmers might not reach more than the $100,000 that is interest free in this particular program. Moreover, those who are in that type of framework would already have their financing available.

When there are such a small number of farmers who have reached the limits, does the member think we should put it into legislation when we have the opportunity to deal with this as far as regulations are concerned?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is such a great contributor at committee. One of the great things about our committee is that we have farmers on that committee who know what it is all about and know what the expenses or the challenges of growing are. I commend him for his contribution and his question.

Thirty years ago my wife and I borrowed for our vegetable farm. At that time, the maximum that could be borrowed from Nova Scotia Farm Loan Board was $150,000. We cannot buy a tractor for $150,000 now. My point is this: If we are going to do all of this work to put legislation in place we need numbers that would be realistic down the road. If my children were to borrow now for the same farm, it would maybe be $500,000 or $1 million, which would not even touch it if we look at the history and where we are at now. We are not saying that farms will all get bigger, but just that it is inevitable that the costs or inputs and what they would get would increase. That is why I could not figure out why the government would give that more flexibility. We could have certain criteria attached to it, such as how much acreage each farm has, or the like. However, it is just a visionary thing and the government has to see that it is what it is. It will be a more expensive business with more money involved. I think the presenters stated that, and they should have that money available to them.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues is that a number of changes were made that mentioned the CFIA becoming the regulatory body, in the sense that it would oversee it. One of the things we do know is that if we look at the line items in the budget, those that were announced here—not announced to the bankers at that $800 a table event—we can see that there has been a decline overall in the budget if we look at the budget forecasting.

The government has added additional things for the CFIA to do. Is my friend not concerned that if the resources continue to contract and if the CFIA does not have the ability to do what it is specified to do under the legislation, everything will become backed up? Will that not throw a wrench into situations and approvals will not come forward and things will slow down, and the so-called red tape reduction team will have simply gummed the works up, not with red tape but with inaction?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. That issue was not brought up a lot at our committee but is very important when dealing with the violations. Let us say there is a 100-kilometre stretch and there are two RCMP officers on that 100 kilometres who are dealing with safety and various issues. Say they then decide to have only one RCMP officer for 500 kilometres and have big fines, so that if the one officer catches just one person once in a while, they will just be whacked. There would be is no such thing as helping communities.

What I see this legislation doing is cutting our resources so that officials can just drive through and if they see people doing something wrong, they can just whack them. They will not have resources available to help them with their operations, but rather will go in and hit them with big fines, as if that is going to make things better. However, farmers will go out of business as a result, because some of these farms do not have $5,000 to pay as a penalty. Rather, the CFIA should have the resources to come in and help these farmers move forward, or to help these food processors. That is not what is in place. I think it is just a cop-out from all the cuts the government has made to just adding big fines and it figures that will solve the problem.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to explain why I support the agricultural growth act, Bill C-18.

We heard a lot of excellent, positive feedback at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food about this legislation. The further amendments that we already put forward have made it even stronger and more necessary.

The key factor in my decision to endorse the proposed legislation has more to do with the financial realities of many Canadian producers. The legislation proposes to make it easier for farmers to finance their operations and to make the most of existing and emerging opportunities in domestic and foreign markets.

To fully appreciate the potential impact of Bill C-18 on farm finances, one must first understand the dramatic changes that have occurred in recent years.

Today, Canadian farms must operate like big businesses. While many farmers see their career as a calling, because they love to be out on the land and produce food for people around the world, if they hope to succeed they must also be savvy entrepreneurs. They must constantly keep an eye on the bottom line to make sure that today's expenses do not exceed tomorrow's revenues.

This can be quite a challenge because most expenses are incurred long before revenues start to flow. It costs quite a bit of money to plant and to grow and harvest a crop and then get it to market. In most cases, however, farmers do not receive any revenue until they sell that crop and the prices farmers get are not guaranteed, as they usually vary from year to year.

To meet these challenges many producers take out loans that they repay when they sell their crops. This means that along with other expenses such as the cost of seed, feed, fertilizer and fuel, producers must also consider the cost of borrowing money. They must try to get the best terms possible, including the most favourable interest rates.

Given that farmers' ability to feed Canadians is in the national interest, the Government of Canada has long administered programs that help farmers gain access to the capital they need to operate successfully. One of these programs is the advance payment program, or the APP.

The APP enables eligible producers to borrow the cash they need to grow agricultural products at a reasonable interest rate. Once their crops sell, they repay these loans. Each year, more than 23,000 Canadian producers access approximately $2 billion of cash advances under the program to help them finance their operations, and this number continues to grow. The advance payments program is a critical risk management tool to help bridge farmers through high cashflow periods like planting and harvesting until they market their products.

Third-party organizations, usually producer groups, play a central role in the APP. These groups essentially administer the program. They distribute capital and collect loan repayments through agreements involving financial institutions, farmers, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

The Government of Canada guarantees the loans. The guarantee promotes the lowest possible interest rates, which helps keep costs down for everyone. As a result, all Canadians benefit because they gain steady access to Canadian food at reasonable prices. The APP helps crop and livestock producers meet their short-term financial obligations by providing them with cash advances to a pre-set maximum.

Mr. Rick Bergmann, vice-chair of the Canadian Pork Council, said at our SCAA meetings:

Canadian hog producers see value in the advance payments program and view the changes to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act as an improvement. Steps that can reduce the administrative burden and cut costs for participating can make a difference, and we encourage that to continue. The availability of the program assisted many producers with their cashflow during a very difficult period in the industry.

Mr. Bergmann also said that his organization encourages a review of the loan limits. The maximum amount is $400,000. The first $100,000 is interest-free for eligible producers. Those amounts remain. If in future the amounts ever needed to be raised, this could be done by the Governor in Council through the regulations.

The legislation now before us proposes to improve the APP and make it even more effective. Many of the improvements came to light in November 2012, when a review of the program was tabled in this House. Under the terms of the legislation that governs the APP, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, must review the program every five years. The last review covered the five-year period of 2006-2011.

The review found that the APP did help producers access low-cost financing, particularly producers who did not qualify for conventional financing at affordable rates. In fact, about two-thirds of Canadian producers under the age of 35 participated in the program during the period studied. Further, loans obtained through the APP typically had more favourable terms and conditions than those offered through the private sector, which contributed to the program's objectives.

The review also found that the APP helped participating producers negotiate better prices. In fact, 74% of those surveyed as part of the review process agreed that the program helped them market their products. In some cases, this is because the loans enabled farmers to hold off on selling their products until prices improved.

However, the review also identified several specific weaknesses in the APP that Bill C-18 proposes to address. Overall, the proposed improvements would reduce red tape and make the program more flexible and accessible. One of the key improvements proposed in the legislation before us would foster multi-year advance guarantees and repayment agreements with administrators. What this would really mean is a reduced administrative burden for producers, making the application process simpler and less time-consuming.

Another proposed change would provide additional ways for producers to secure the loans, which would give producers much more flexibility. They would be better able to access the capital they needed to take advantage of current market conditions.

Bill C-18 also proposes to adjust the rules related to the repayment of advances, producers in default, default penalties, and stays of default. The proposed legislation would also streamline the process between the APP and the Farm Debt Mediation Act and help farmers reach agreements with their creditors and resolve their financial difficulties.

The changes proposed in Bill C-18 are the result of extensive consultation with producers and industry representatives across Canada. The changes would help our agricultural entrepreneurs harness innovation, add value, and create jobs and growth right across Canada. Canadian producers operate in an increasingly complex and competitive global industry. To continue to grow and succeed, they must have access to the modern tools and methods that many other businesses already have used. Canada must continue to support the strong, stable agricultural sector. The agricultural growth act proposes to help producers manage their business risks proactively. There is no doubt that all Canadians stand to benefit.

Now let me address the amendments proposed by the opposition at report stage. As indicated earlier, our committee did a very thorough job and made well-reasoned amendments to Bill C-18. I am afraid that what the opposition is doing here is trying to undo all that great work and certainly the discussion on UPOV '91. Earlier the minister of state indicated the situation as far as Quebec farmers are concerned and the great support they have given. It is significant to recognize that there is great support for UPOV '91. There is also great support for issues such as the advance payments program.

I am hoping that we will be able to move forward and recognize the situation that is in front of us and that all parliamentarians can support Bill C-18 as it stands.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Red Deer gave a great account of the advance payment program in Bill C-18. To be perfectly blunt, I do not think there is much I could quibble with on that particular aspect. The member did a great job at committee in helping us understand how it works, for those of us who have never taken advanced payments, maybe because we do not own farms. He has done it again here in the House, and I want to thank him for that.

It is important. That is a piece of the omnibus bill. As it stood, with a little tweaking, it was a six-page amendment, but it was a technical piece. I get that piece. In fact, the department needed six pages to actually tell us how to technically amend it, but at least it got it right. We could have voted for that, if it had been separated out. However, the government did not do that.

We go back to the issue of UPOV '91, which is really about intellectual property. One of the things we try to do as the opposition is suggest amendments. The amendment should be about making sure that when going to a court of law, there has been an infringement. In other words, it should not have a chill effect, as it is called in class action lawsuits, where a farmer who inadvertently ends up with material in his field ends up in a lawsuit. We wanted to try to stiffen that so that this would not happen to farmers.

Could my friend from Red Deer comment on why we did not want to strengthen that and left that alone? If someone actually tries to take someone else's property, that is wrong, full stop. That is not the issue. The issue is what happens if there is a chill effect, because we have seen that in other instances.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we heard in committee, as producers came to talk to us, was that the most expensive seed is the one that is picked up first. After that is gone, people start to look at the seed that is a little cheaper. What they are looking for are the best varieties possible.

We have great plant breeders here in Canada who are doing an exceptional job. I think the key component is to try to bring more of that type of industry into Canada. Some of the discussions we heard, certainly when we talked to producers from Quebec, was that this is a great opportunity.

We are also looking at some of the plant breeders who were saying that these are opportunities for them to move their technology into other places as well. The organic producers when they first came said they were a little concerned about the wording. When challenged about how they could take their skills and move them outside of Canada, many looked at it as a positive, as something they would be able to handle, and they were excited about it. That is what we started to see.

As for staying back with UPOV '78, there is actually more protection now with UPOV '91.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it was great to hear the member for Red Deer expanding on the advance payments program, which, I am sure he would know, was a good Liberal program, started when the Hon. Eugene Whelan was minister.

When it was originally started, it was there as a marketing tool to provide farmers with some income so they did not dump their harvest on the market quickly to pay their operating costs for the harvest. The problem now is that it has become, to a great extent, another loan program. It is a good loan program, but it is a loan program. I would just raise that as a concern.

My question really relates more to the bill in total and the plant breeders' rights aspect. I agreed with the member when he said there is opportunity here for Canadian plant breeders. However, there is also a danger. We have seen this in other industries, in intellectual property, in the telecommunications field, etcetera.

Is there not a danger that we would actually lose control over seed supply and that some of those plant breeders would be bought out? Farmers would end up paying the price. Does the member have any idea how we can control that and ensure that there is a proper balance of power with those global seed companies, which will buy out those plant breeders and charge those farmers too much in royalties? How do we effect that?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to address the point on the advanced payments as a marketing tool, I certainly agree. That was definitely something we saw last fall and winter when people were encouraged not to dump their grain when they were unable to move it. Of course, that was why the margins were so large and the difficulties existed. That is important.

There were discussions about how much people were losing because of the fact that the markets were down. People only lose when they are selling into it. If they have contracts and are not selling until that particular point, then certainly there is an advantage.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to speak to Bill C-18.

As with all of the government's other omnibus bills, I have a bittersweet relationship with this bill. There are some parts I like and some parts that really concern me. Our committee worked very hard to study this highly complex bill. A number of stakeholders came to testify as part of our study.

However, sadly, the amendments made do not reflect the majority of the requests made by these witnesses. My position is clear: the amendments made to Bill C-18 in no way reflect the requests of these witnesses. We are right back where we started. This bill raises a number of problems and concerns for both us and our agricultural partners, and I will go into more detail about this in my speech.

First, I will explain the implications of this bill; second, I will talk about the requests made by the witnesses and the work my party has done to try to counter the negative effects of this bill; and then I will conclude by listing the many problems that remain in this bill and that make me very concerned and bitter about the fact that it was passed.

I remind members that this bill would amend nine federal acts: the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the Farm Debt Mediation Act, which is under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

This bill appears to be the most significant change to agriculture and agri-food in our country's history. This bill amends many existing acts, and these amendments affect nearly everyone involved in the agricultural sector as well as their relationships with each other. That is why we must be cautious, to ensure that the bill does not create uncertainty or confusion.

This bill also has the advantage of protecting intellectual property, promoting innovation and potentially supporting foreign investment. These are all aspects that my colleagues in the NDP and I support. However, it was very important to ensure that none of these aspects come at the expense of Canada's agricultural heritage. The NDP has nothing against innovation, as long as it does not violate any rights. This bill forces a number of changes on the agricultural sector, and these changes are worrying a lot of people.

The witnesses we heard from were clear. This bill is good as a whole, but it needs quite a bit of clarification and more than a few amendments. I would like to go over some of them. Stakeholders want farmers' rights to be clarified and protected vis-à-vis plant breeders' rights. They call for the restriction or removal of ministerial powers to unconditionally disallow farmers' rights and privileges through regulatory change. They call for clarification and controls around when breeders can require farmers to pay royalties. In addition, they want explicit protection for seed cleaners.

My NDP colleagues and I were there for all of the testimony. We did our homework and we proposed at least 16 amendments to this bill—common-sense amendments that were all rejected, unfortunately.

Our party proposed amendments in the interest of a balanced approach between protection for plant breeders and for agricultural producers. Our amendments would have ensured that all participants could benefit fully from these ambitious changes.

For example, with respect to farmers' privilege, our amendments included the rights to trade, sell and clean seed, which is what stakeholders asked for. That amendment was rejected.

Many of our amendments suggested that the minister's power to exempt farmers' rights and privileges without any conditions should be subject to an assessment by Parliament.

This change was meant to prevent the agricultural sector from becoming politicized. These amendments were also rejected.

Another one of our amendments would have clarified and set limits on the places where plant breeders can collect royalties in the process. Many stakeholders said they were worried about the fact that the royalties they had to pay could be claimed at any time and do not take into account the quality of their crops. Our amendment was rejected.

Lastly, one of our amendments was meant to protect producers from prosecution when they did not intend to break the law. I think it is just common sense that people should not be prosecuted when a violation is accidental and not the result of negligence. Even though that amendment really made sense, it was rejected.

In other words, all the work the NDP did to try to make this bill an acceptable piece of legislation was dismissed out of hand by our Conservative colleagues. As it stands, Bill C-18 could create many problems.

I said before that we were back at square one and it is true. The many problems raised about Bill C-18 still exist. I will name three.

First, the bill does not take a balanced approach at all and will benefit only a handful of players to the detriment of another group. The NDP believes that a balanced approach is essential when it comes to plant breeders' rights. This bill is not consistent with that view.

Second, farmers' privileges are not adequately protected. In fact, in agricultural sector jargon they are known as privileges, but the stakeholders usually see them as rights. Rights are not taken away so easily. No one should be allowed to have such power, and if such power is needed, then there should be a system of checks and balances.

Third, along the same lines, I think it is unacceptable for the minister to have such broad powers. To justify putting so much power in the minister's hands, the Conservatives are saying that the department needs to be able to adapt the law as quickly as possible if complications should arise. It is not a bad idea, but they seem to be forgetting the adverse effects of this type of practice. The government's decisions on agriculture could quickly become political. The House of Commons should at least have the right to review these exemptions. I am concerned, and I am not the only one.

In closing, I have the distinct impression that we are back at square one. The concerns that I raised today are very similar to the ones I raised in my last speech on Bill C-18. I am disappointed that although a number of stakeholders came and testified in committee, almost none of their recommendations were considered in the amendments put forward by the Conservatives.

What is worse, in his testimony the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that he would clear up the problem with regard to farmers' rights. However, instead of proposing amendments based on the recommendations made by witnesses, he proposed a token amendment that does not go far enough.

The governing party continues to turn a deaf ear. It does not want to collaborate in order to avoid potential excesses. What is more, this bill favours some stakeholders over others.

I am deeply disappointed, but I take comfort in knowing that we warned the Conservatives. It is therefore with pride in the work that we have accomplished that I oppose this omnibus bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from the NDP for her presentation. She does a lot of work on our committee. She provides great input and speaks quite a bit, especially in support of the farmers in Quebec.

The leader of the Quebec farmers, Mr. Van Tassel, was quite in favour of the bill in his presentation. He said one of the successes for Quebec farmers is that they have the proper certified seed, the best seed available, and he said they see great merit in this bill. There was a bit of conflict sometimes between some of the smaller growers and the commercial growers, but at the end of the day they represent a big part of Quebec farmers and they are in favour of the bill.

Would she comment on his remarks? Would she tell the House what part of the bill would suit both the bigger farmers and the smaller farmers through the amendment she has put forward?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all of the work he does on committee. It is a pleasure to work with him.

Yes, there are some groups in Quebec that do support this bill, but there are other groups that do not. When I talk to farmers in my riding about the agricultural growth act, Bill C-18, I find, first of all, that most of them have never heard of it; then, if they have heard about it and have looked into it, they do not see exactly how it would strike an appropriate balance.

In my riding, I have a lot of smaller farmers, but I also have an aging population, so we have to look at farm transfers. As well, we know that more and more people are getting involved in organic farming. We have had people and groups say as witnesses that this bill might not be the best for organic farming. It is kind of a one-size-fits-all approach.

What we asked for and what we looked for with our amendments is support and openness from the government, which we did not see at all. We do like some parts of this bill, but it is a one-size-fits-all approach, and the member summed it up very well in his comments about a made-in-Canada approach when it comes to UPOV '91. We could have made it better, and we did try.

There is another chance. We will have a vote on these amendments, so we will see what happens. I have to stay optimistic that we can make this bill better.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the theme of my colleague from the Liberal Party. It is an important question. This particular MP is from the province of Quebec. Quebec farmers want to be competitive. Quebec farmers want access to plant technology to make them more competitive, both to sell products within Canada and to sell products abroad.

I wonder how the member is going to explain to her farmers and to the farmers of Quebec that she is letting them down and is basically telling them that they do not deserve access to the latest seed technology to help them be more competitive. How will she answer to her farmers?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could answer by saying that I have a petition against Bill C-18 that elaborates more on a lot of the concerns that I brought up in my speech. These are people from my riding. I know as well that a lot of the members here in the House have submitted petitions because the farmers in their ridings, and even Canadians in cities, have had some grave concerns over Bill C-18.

Our amendments were balanced, made a lot of sense, and were not partisan. Everything we were asking for was based on what witnesses said at committee and on consultations that we had, because this bill has been around since December of last year, if I am not wrong.

There is a lot of concern. Yes, there are groups that support the bill, but then there are a lot that do not. We still have grave concerns when it comes to striking a balance with Bill C-18.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-18 at this stage of the legislative process.

In its current form in the House of Commons, the bill has been amended to clarify and strengthen it. I am pleased to inform the House that we were able to engage in very useful discussions at the hearings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The committee heard from more than 50 witnesses who represent many Canadian agricultural sectors. I would like to thank them for sharing their expertise and experience with the committee and for making recommendations.

I would first like to point out one of the most important aspects of this bill: the protection of plant breeders' rights. After hearing from stakeholders, the government proposed amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act in order to encourage investment and innovation in the development of new varieties.

Patty Townsend, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Seed Trade Association said this to the committee:

Of course, if farmers are going to save grain to use as seed on their farms, they need to store it, so we were really happy to hear the minister say that they are going to propose an amendment to clarify that.

What we have done in this amendment is to strike an excellent balance between seed variety developers on the one hand and farmers on the other. This amendment ensures that seed variety breeders will see a return on their investment. Bill C-18 modifies the rights of plant breeders under the act, including their duration, scope, and conditions for protection.

However, in addition, the bill also clarifies that the right to store seed is specifically included in the farmers' privilege. The amendment allows a farmer to reserve harvested grain to use as seed for planting in subsequent seasons.

Mr. Réjean Bouchard, assistant director for policy and dairy production in the Dairy Farmers of Canada, made this point at the agriculture committee when he said:

“...the legislation strikes a good balance between plant breeders' investment in the development of new varieties and the farmers' ability to save, store, and condition seed for their own use.”

Bill C-18, as amended, would also harmonize plant breeders' rights with those of our international partners and competitors, and would make it possible to implement UPOV 91.

Almost all the witnesses who appeared before the committee are interested in the section of the bill that deals with UPOV 1991.

Bill C-18 will encourage increased investment in plant breeding in Canada. It will also encourage foreign breeders to sell their varieties here in Canada.

Over the years, there have been several updates to the UPOV requirements for plant breeders' rights protection. Canada's current legislation meets the requirement of UPOV 1978; however, most UPOV members are already meeting UPOV '91 requirements, including many of our key trading partners, such as Australia, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and the United States, but as it stands right now, Canada is not.

Mr. Dave Solverson, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, spoke at committee on our amendment and on UPOV '91. He said:

The changes to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act are positive. Canadian cattle producers depend on innovation and improvements in feed grain and forages. We believe that the update to UPOV 91 will encourage investment in seed development in Canada. The protections this act confers are not just for companies, but also for institutions like universities and governments that develop new varieties of seeds. Two of our major competitors, the United States and Australia, have adopted UPOV 91, and we hope to keep pace with them.

With Bill C-18, we are taking the necessary steps to align the Plant Breeders' Rights Act with UPOV '91.

I also want to discuss some of the other amendments our government put forward to strengthen Bill C-18. Based on discussions the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had with stakeholders, we have amended the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act to provide additional clarity.

Mr. Jaye Atkins, CEO, Agricultural Credit Corporation, said at committee:

I believe the act certainly allows us better clarification of some of the things that in administering the program today we find very difficult, things like better and clearer definitions around attribution rules, and...trying to ensure that the benefit of the first $100,000 interest-free money is not abused.

One of the many strengths of our Conservative government is that we work closely with agricultural stakeholders. Our stakeholders, like us on this side of the House, fully support Bill C-18 and fully support innovation and progress.

Finally, it is important to recognize that the main objective of committees is to foster meaningful discussion and debate with respect to major bills that affect Canadians. Unfortunately, as the result of a motion introduced by the opposition, there are presently more than 50 amendments on the order paper. This is an attempt to undermine the committee's work and to dismiss the testimony of many witnesses who support this bill.

This indicates to me that the opposition members did not do their job thoroughly at committee. In fact, the number of motions on the order paper is close to twice the number of amendments submitted by opposition members at the committee. How can this be? It would seem to me that the opposition is actually undermining the work of the committee. Much of the content of these motions has already been dealt with at committee, and what was not dealt with should have been.

The NDP, the Liberals, and the Green Party are attempting to delay and obstruct the proper passage of this important agricultural bill, and they do so to the detriment of farmers and our agricultural sector.

I urge the members of the opposition to stop playing politics. Farmers are the ones who suffer. These members heard from a number of witnesses and stakeholders during the committee's meetings. They know that Bill C-18 is very good for farmers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I know that farmers would urge them to do so as well.

Before I finish, let me highlight some of my remarks again in English. The New Democrats are finally stating openly that they are going to vote against the agricultural growth act, and in doing so they are failing farmers. Almost every witness in committee supported Bill C-18 and the positive benefits that this bill would deliver to farmers and the agricultural sector.

I exclude, of course, the National Farmers Union, one of the very few organizations that opposes Bill C-18. I think New Democrats have to explain to farmers how they have let a single agricultural organization like the NFU influence their agricultural policy to this extent.

I asked a question of my former colleague from the NDP, who spoke before me, about how she could possibly explain her opposition to Bill C-18 and the increased access that Bill C-18 would give farmers to current, meaningful, and important seed technology. Quebec farmers want to be competitive too. They look across the border to Ontario and see MPs like myself supporting farmer access to seed technology. They will look at home at their NDP MPs and will wonder why they are being failed by them.

The New Democrats are going to have to answer for that. I know that farmers will not tolerate the political games they are playing at the expense of farmers.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a joy to the listen to the parliamentary secretary. It is like Aesop's Fables most of the time.

If he is asking if New Democrats have failed farmers, we actually listen to farmers. It was the government over there that did not listen to farmers. Nearly all farmers were saying over and over again that there needed to be amendments to this bill. What did the government do? It came back with a couple of tiny lines in the area that farmers wanted changes, under what it has now termed “farmers' privilege”. The government came back with a tiny clarification that did not meet what farmers had been asking for.

If anybody has failed farmers, it is the government. That is who has failed farmers. Ultimately what could happen, and what I think what will probably happen, is that the royalty system is going to change in this country as soon as this becomes law. When seed companies move in, they will decide if they are going to have end-point royalties, graduated ones, cascading ones, or whether they are going to be at the beginning, and farmers are going to be the poorer for it at the end of the day. Oddly enough, a Conservative government that says it believes in and preaches competition is more than likely going to take competition out of the system, and the only ones who will be affected are farmers.

Farmers are affected by competition and a lack thereof, and when there is a lack of competition in the seed business, it is the farmers who will pay. The government will have failed those farmers. Conservatives should hang their heads in shame. That is what they ought to do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from November 17 consideration of Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, as reported with amendments from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to stand up in the House to speak on this agricultural issue, in this case Bill C-18 and the question of plant breeders' rights. It is a great honour for me as well, because I represent a very large agricultural region in the Timiskaming and Timmins—James Bay region.

What we have seen over the last number of years through the boom-bust economy of forestry and mining is a growing strength in northern agriculture. In the southern part of my riding, known as the little clay belt, extending down through Témiscaming, Quebec, and over into northern Ontario, there is now a $91 million a year direct agriculture business with another $111 million in spinoffs for support organizations, dealers, and milk organizations in our area. There are over 1,000 people now directly involved in agriculture just in the Timiskaming region. Therefore, these issues are important to them.

Moreover, a very interesting transformation in northern agriculture has been happening over the last 25 years in areas that had opened up to development back at the turn of the last century. People who had homesteaded had found out that it was very hard and brutal work, and because of the climate it was simply not possible to maintain farming over any period of time. Therefore, in the so-called upper northern clay belt, we did have an incredible number of farmlands cleared, but people just could not make a go of it and much of that land was beginning to go back to dogwood and poplar. However, we are now seeing a new move back into agricultural regions in the upper part of Timiskaming and Timmins—James Bay, Val Gagné, Black River-Matheson up toward Cochrane.

A number of factors have made this possible. Certainly a changing climate has affected the north, although I would say this past year we did have a very erratic year that was very troubling for farmers. From putting tile drainage in northern fields we have seen an increased ability to get a crop off the field more quickly and in a more sustainable way, which makes lands that were less profitable before, or less possible for farming, now able to support farms.

One of the other factors is that we have seen new breeds of plant varieties that work in the north. This is testament to research and development. There is now an ability to grow soybeans and grains, with canola in particular being a big market for producers in our region, as well as corn, something that no one had ever thought possible but in which we are now having large growth.

At the same time there has been a whole change in how people perceive agriculture in the north. Back in the day we had many small local dairies, because we could not transport food very long distances, but there has been a move toward bigger agriculture. There is a belief that big agriculture is the only way to go, but we have seen in the last number of years smaller producers starting to create niche markets, the organic producers, the people producing specialty foods that people want.

In terms of balance and what really cuts to the heart of Bill C-18, as much as we want to have innovative farming and to make sure that we are supporting research and innovation on the new breeds and varieties that make it possible to expand agriculture in a world where we need to be able to build our food supply, we also have to take into account the fact that consumers are making very clear choices and want to be heard in the choices they are making about the food supply, food security, and the food market.

It is not good enough simply to say that big is the only way. We now see in our areas the local farmers' markets. People are wanting to buy local. They want to know where their food is from. They are willing to pay more for meats they know do not have a heavy hormone treatment. They want to know what they put on their plate. This is not the whole food market but represents a growing segment of the population. Last year in Timmins, we saw for the first time a march against Monsanto due to a concern about very large corporate interests and what role they are playing. These citizens are saying they want to be part of the decision-making, they want to have choice when they buy, and they want to know what is in GMOs.

The GMO issue is certainly very complex, and we cannot treat the public as though they should be left out of it. This is a right they have. People are raising their voices about the use of neonicotinoids as pesticides because of the clear damage that is being done to bee populations.

This bill is very important in making sure that balance is maintained, but the problem with Bill C-18 is that it is yet another omnibus bill. A whole manner of regulatory changes in agriculture were put in this bill. Some of them are long-standing and some are very much needed, but in some areas the government just did not get the mix right. The most striking example is the issue of implementing UPOV '91 and balancing the rights of the corporate breeders that are creating the new varieties. The royalties they receive will certainly be protected very well under this regime.

Coming from the artistic community, we see that the government has made no effort to ensure that artists ever get paid for their intellectual property, but very large corporate interests are being paid.

There is no problem with making sure that people are paid for their research and development. This is what drives the economy and drives development, and Canada needs to keep its own in the world. However, there is also the question of balance in terms of the small players who want to have more traditional agriculture. These are not hobby farms anymore; these are people who have a direct right to be heard, and the issue of long-standing traditions and rights that people had for saving and reusing seeds is a big question. We have seen corporate interests attempting to go after these traditional rights in India and in other jurisdictions in the third world.

New Democrats were trying to find a balance and put forward 16 amendments to fine-tune the language. Some of this language is about protecting farmers from needless litigation, an issue that was raised by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. It wanted to make sure that producers were not going to be sued, as we have seen happening in the United States, for claims of patent infringement with respect to the natural accidental spreading of patented plant genetic materials.

Corporations cannot say that if they put genetic materials in seeds, the seeds will not propagate elsewhere. They cannot make that claim. Farmers are worried that if they use patented genetic seeds, they can then be charged with infringement if these seeds accidentally start to move elsewhere. New Democrats clarified the language on this aspect so there would be no unnecessary litigation against farmers. That was a big issue.

One of the other things that was a real concern raised by many people was the issue of protecting farmers' privilege. This bill would take decisions on the protection for farmers' traditional rights out of the legislation and put them into the hands of the minister. New Democrats do not believe that is accountable. Making sure there is some mechanism for oversight is about fairness. The fact is that the minister could simply rewrite the regulations himself and farmers would have to live with them. That is not an accountable system.

These are reasonable amendments. Unfortunately, there is a culture within the government that any attempt to improve a bill is seen as a dire threat, so it turned down the 16 amendments. It is not that the government had to accept all 16, but it could not accept one. My colleagues in the Liberal Party put forward amendments; the government would not accept any.

That is a standard practice the Conservatives have. Even when they are bullheadedly wrong, they believe that accepting amendments is somehow seen as a form of weakness. I would argue that not being able to work with one's colleagues and not being able to accept recommendations brought forward in good faith is a sign of an immature political personality.

We saw that happen with the Copyright Act. The government said there would be lots of opportunity for amendments and then struck down every single amendment. We ended up with a fundamentally flawed bill. It was so flawed that it actually struck down amendments that would have protected the right of blind people to access materials without being threatened as criminals. The government turned that down.

What happens when we do not listen to others? We end up with failed legislation and recalls. This is the problem. This is why New Democrats are raising these issues. These concerns were not respected in committee. Canadians have a right to be heard on the issues of agriculture and food security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member from northern Ontario as he spoke about how much more agriculture there would be in that area and about his interest in agriculture.

He mentioned the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I think he got mixed up with the farmers' union. However, what are his comments when most of the federations of agriculture across the country are in favour of most of the bill?

I realize what he is saying. There were a lot of amendments put forward by the NDP and by Liberals, and we hoped the Conservatives would do some tweaking, but overall, there is so much in the bill that is also good for farmers.

If we never put the bill forward, does he think we would be missing a great opportunity for our agriculture industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I said the Canadian Federation of Agriculture because it was the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that raised the concerns about patent infringements. That is not to say that it is opposed to the overall bill. However, this is about fixing the bill to make sure it will actually serve the purposes we are told it is going to serve.

Bringing forward problems and suggesting solutions through amendments are reasonable things that parliamentarians are asked to do. We brought forward a clarifying amendment so that people would not needlessly be faced with litigation. The government has ignored that concern, and we think that is unfortunate.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for the connection he made between this and the copyright bill.

We see here that the government is somewhat biased in favour of companies, large corporations and agribusinesses, which will be able to collect royalties while artists are unable to do so and do not have a mechanism allowing them to profit from their creations. I would like him to expand on that.

Another question comes to mind. We know that developing new varieties requires research and development, but where will this ultimately be done? Does this bill include a mechanism to ensure that Canada will be able to benefit from research and development in this area?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has asked a couple of very important questions.

In terms of making the comparison, when we saw the copyright bill, the government was focused on its mistaken belief that if we just locked down content, we would protect corporate rights. The issue here was about protecting the revenue streams for artists so that they could continue to innovate and create. Through cutting the mechanical royalties, the Canadian industry lost about $30 million a year.

Cutting the private copying levy would amount to another $35 million that would be taken directly out of the hands of the creators themselves. Actually, Canadian entertainment in Canada and Quebec is one of the greatest exports we have. Our artists are known internationally. Without that seed money to allow them to make a go of it, people are actually having to give up.

The other issue we are seeing now is with streaming. The streaming royalties are so abysmally low that many artists are saying they cannot make a living, even though Canada was and is a leader in this area.

In terms of supporting development, we totally support it. The question is, what support would the government give to research and development to maintain it in Canada, as opposed to just paying Monsanto down in the United States? We would like to see a commitment to researching and developing new varieties right here in Canada.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

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

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not true what my colleague says. In fact, we do have some ongoing research stations. Just down the road from my riding is the station at Lethbridge, and I know the people there do some fantastic research. It is our facility and we are pouring money into that to ensure that products are available to farmers so they can market them globally and Canada can remain the most competitive country. If we can get our products to market, farmers can get their money and spend on more tractors, cars and trucks.

We are making a huge investment, and we need to see this move forward for the benefit of farmers.

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for much of my life—nearly 50 years—I worked in agriculture. When I was a student, I would spend my summers and even the fall working on farms. I then studied agriculture at Université Laval so that I could work in this industry—in various areas, but particularly in ornamental horticulture.

The riding of Shefford, which I represent, is made up of three very distinct regions. In the west, you have the rich plains of the St. Lawrence, where you can find the big farms. There are even private research centres where they are cultivating corn, soy and various grains. This area has the richest soil in the region.

Towards the centre of the eastern region, you will find fruit tree nurseries and a very big nursery for growing trees and shrubs. This bill will have a significant impact on this type of production.

More towards the centre, you will find the city and its industries. However, in the east, you will find traditional agriculture—hay fields and smaller farms, including producers of milk, veal calves, slaughter cattle, sheep, goats and chickens. There is a lot of diversity.

Pork production, which is very important in my area, is located in the eastern region because it is tied to grain production. Large-scale producers farm the land, grow grain and have mills to mix the grain and feed their animals.

I am curious. Will these major agriculture producers, who are used to sellling their seed every year, be able to keep using their own seed as they have been doing for years without being harassed by multinational grain corporations? I wonder. We are talking about producers who have thousands of acres and who are among the top three or four pork producers in Quebec. Will they be able to use their seeds?

I cannot support this bill because it does not explicitly protect farmers and the public and because it puts too much discretionary power in the hands of the minister. Speaking of his discretionary powers, the minister has been involved with the Air Canada file since 2011 because the bosses are hands off and that suits his purposes.

The minister also uses these powers to make decisions on employment insurance. This bill will benefit big corporations. The government will pocket the profits and leave as little income as possible to the unemployed.

The minister's discretionary powers also extend to copyright. I myself am an author, and I have written several books on horticulture. I know that authors do not make any money. That law protects the publishers. Will that be the case with this bill too?

The Conservatives' philosophy is to protect the establishment, not the little guy. Some market gardeners in my riding have been planting the same varieties of garlic for decades, year after year. If you plant garlic from the store, it will not work out because that garlic is not adapted to the region. There is a garlic grower in my region who has been working on adapting one variety for several decades. Will his variety of garlic be stolen from him? Will he be forced to buy it back from someone else? If a multinational orders a hundred garlic bulbs and plants them, then five or ten years later that corporation can say that the garlic is its variety. Will we be able to protect the little guys against this sort of thing?

We have a lot of greenhouse farmers. Some grow organic products and heirloom varieties. Is the greenhouse farmer going to be harassed by the inspector from some company and end up having to pay a fine? The large companies are given rights, but what is being done to protect the little guys from being abused by big business? Do not tell me that such abuse does not exist. In France, the law protects multinationals so much so that companies that sell seed to individuals no longer have the right to do so and people are going after them on the Internet. Kokopelli, a seed producer for third world countries, is constantly in court with major seed companies. Is that what we want? Do we want to cause even more problems for the so-called “little guy”?

I know a seed producer who collected heirloom varieties in the northern regions of the St. Lawrence. He uses the Internet and catalogues to sell seed he produces himself for fine herbs and vegetables. Will these heirloom varieties be protected under this bill? If a company finds an heirloom tomato and it improves that tomato slightly, it can then say that the original tomato, which has been an heirloom variety for a long time, is too similar to its own tomato.

I am familiar with these kinds of things. I have had a website since about 1996. Someone came to me and said that I had copied his pages. I had made a copy of my pages on a diskette, which I sent to myself by registered mail, without opening it. I had proof that I had written those pages five years before him. In the horticultural field, will people be able to prevent these kinds of abuses by others who want to steal varieties? These ancient varieties belong to everyone. These companies want to steal them.

What I find difficult about all this is that big breeders are being protected. How are individuals going to be protected? For instance, if I plant 10 varieties of tomato plants, someone could show up in my yard with big boxes and ask if I purchased the seeds for the various varieties. Individuals also need to be protected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I do not know him very well. He is not on the agriculture committee, but he seems to be very knowledgeable about the growing of many things. I am sure that he represents a lot of farmers in his riding.

This must be very difficult for the NDP, especially the Quebec members, to vote against this tonight because so many of the representatives from Quebec who came forward are in agreement with this bill. The horticulture people came to us and said that there is a great opportunity with this bill for them to have varieties and new products that we could maybe sell around the world. It was of great interest to me when I heard the member talking about the garlic and tomato varieties that he has in his riding.

I do not agree with the whole bill, but would the member not agree that some of this bill would provide great opportunities to some of his horticultural producers to get those varieties, develop them and sell them all over the world?

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the process of creating a new variety, there is a stage called licensing. All kinds of tests are done at that stage. Licensing costs a fortune. Some would say it costs an arm and a leg. Individuals do not always have the means to create a special horticultural variety and licensing their product. They will be bought out by someone else. Much like copyright royalties on a CD, individuals will get only pennies, almost nothing.

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

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

My colleague spoke about something that is arbitrary, the power that the minister is potentially giving himself. I have to say that this approach has become pervasive and is apparent in almost every bill studied by the House and by our various committees. The Conservatives are choosing to use the regulatory process to gain full control and deal with many things in an underhanded manner.

I would like my colleague to speak a little more about the Conservative government's approach, which could be detrimental to the public interest because it could be too easily used in the service of special interests.

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about ministerial discretion.

When it suits him, he talks about it and when it does not suit him, he does not talk about it.

Discretionary authority is being given to the minister without putting in place any legal recourse with the assistance of counsel, and without any possibility of protection. Do my colleagues know what I call that? I call that dictatorship. I call that absolute power.

The current government tends to want to put absolute power in the hands of a few people without providing any recourse.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and pleasure for me to illustrate to this House my party's support for Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

First, I wish to express not only my appreciation but that of the farmers in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, and I believe the large majority of farmers across Canada, to the Minister of Agriculture for his foresight and action in bringing this bill forward and the work that the parliamentary secretary has done to get the bill to committee. I also want to thank the committee, which has worked hard to get the bill to the form it is in today, so that we can move the industry of agriculture forward.

At one time or another, all of us have read the sign “If you ate today, thank a farmer.” In fact, I have a few of those in my office. I have one around the licence plate of one of my vehicles. It is an important sign as a consumer, farmer, dairy farmer and cash cropper. It raises the importance of not only what agriculture is but the importance of food.

As parliamentarians we need to do more than talk. We need to express more than just saying thanks. I need to ensure that farmers, and the industry as a whole, have the support of this effective legislation that is before us.

Before I focus on the main element of the bill, I would like to address the amendments that have been proposed by opposition members. If members can imagine, there are 56 amendments on the order paper, which would meet their objective to gut the bill and take away its effectiveness.

I will not, and my party will not, support those of types of motions. In fact, I urge everyone with a level head on their shoulders not to support the amendments, and move forward and adopt this great bill. Should we start to approve the gutting of the bill, it would turn the clock back in agriculture about 25 years. We are not prepared for that and I do not believe the country is prepared for that.

Bill C-18 proposes broad controls to ensure the safety of Canada's agriculture inputs. It would allow the licence and registration of fertilizer and animal feed operators, and facilities that import and sell products across provincial and international borders. That is in addition to the current system, which registers feed and fertilizer individually, product by product. However, licencing and registering facilities and operators is a more effective and timely method to verify that agriculture products meet, and surpass in many cases, Canada's stringent safety rules and other standards.

The bill is also important because we need to ensure that we align ourselves with our major trading partners and help our feed, seed and fertilizer industries maintain access to those markets, especially with our closest neighbour, the United States.

For the information of members, exports in the agriculture industry range up to 85% of what we grow. That is an incredibly high number. It means that one in eight jobs in this country is related to the agriculture industry. The agricultural growth act proposes to keep these jobs safe and secure, but that can only be done through modernizing our current antiquated legislation and by improving Canadian access to the latest farming technology.

Exports are part of the solution, but what we grow here is the other part. Members may recall that during the last Parliament, Motion No. 460 was debated. It read:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I was glad that the motion was adopted by the House, but I did not get help from the NDP, which I find strange. It is clear that it does not support the idea, but do members know who does support it? Farmers. Who is fulfilling the promise to farmers? Our Conservative government.

During the 2011 federal election, the Conservative Party platform said:

Like other businesspeople, Canadian farmers want access to the latest innovations, to succeed in the global economy. Unfortunately, long and burdensome approval processes imposed by the federal government are preventing Canadian farmers from obtaining the best fertilizers, pesticides, and veterinary drugs available on the market. We will revise current approval processes to allow for international equivalencies in such products. We will eliminate needless duplication, while protecting our national sovereignty and maintaining the highest safety standards.

What did the stakeholders tell us about this at committee? The president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers, for example, said in October 2014:

...allowing the CFIA the opportunity to use data that is sourced externally to Canada, not having to be reproduced, and to use data that is from a country that is considered to be equivalent to the standards in Canada is, I think, a significant improvement in terms of allowing the CFIA the freedom to operate, and reducing that administrative burden of recreating data that would be already acceptable in terms of identifying the safety and the ability to use that product in Canada.

Our bill would do this. Indeed, we have such a strong belief in this idea that clauses 56, 67, 77, and 96 of Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, would implement this idea. The amendments proposed in Bill C-18 would provide the CFIA with stronger tools to fulfill its mandate to protect Canada's plant and animal resource base. The changes would provide additional reassurance that imported agricultural products meet Canadian requirements. Those are strict requirements. Bill C-18 would be part of our government's strong agricultural agenda—and I am not alone in seeing Bill C-18 as a key milestone for Canada's agriculture sector.

The Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Seed Trade Association, and the Canadian Horticultural Council are only a few of the many agricultural organizations anxiously waiting for the proposed legislation.

New, stronger border controls for agricultural products are urgently needed. Bill C-18 would respond to that. It would give inspectors from the CFIA the authority to have important shipments of feeds, fertilizers, or seeds that do not meet legal requirements to be ordered out of Canada. That would be similar to the current treatment of imported plants and animals that do not meet those requirements now.

Canadian farmers would benefit because they would be competing on a level playing field with their international counterparts. That is so important because Canadian consumers would benefit from a strengthened food safety regime.

To be clear, the CFIA already takes action to seize illegal animal feeds, seeds, fertilizers, and related products. Bill C-18, however, would propose to update that as we do this.

In some cases, under the current process, seizure of illegal products is followed by lengthy and costly court proceedings and, at that time, Canada must pay to dispose of those illegal products. Members can see that being able to order the products out of the country becomes a much more efficient and a much more practical procedure.

At the same time, Bill C-18 would give CFIA inspectors the ability to allow the importer to fix the problem at the border, if there are no safety concerns and if the inspector can be certain that the issue would be addressed.

It has been an honour and privilege for me to make this presentation on Bill C-18 on behalf of our government and I look forward to addressing any of the questions or comments that may come forward.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the chair of the agriculture committee, for his comments. I believe I said it the other night but will say it on the record again today that I thought he chaired the committee admirably when it looked at Bill C-18. I thought there was a good balance of witnesses. His ability to chair is one thing. My trying to convince the other side to accept amendments is my own responsibility and I have to admit that I was not quite as successful as I had hoped to be. In baseball parlance, it is called an “ofer”. In other words, 16 up to the plate and 16 outs. That happens in life.

The chair asked committee members to study the bill in a professional manner, and we did. We were presented with some very professional suggestions that we thought were amendments to bring forward. Where I take slight issue with the chair is when he says that these amendments to take UPOV '91 out of this particular bill before us now would leave us eons back in time. That is not quite true. If we go back to UPOV '78, which everyone is regulated under today, it has been fairly successful. I would suggest to the chair respectfully that farmers in this country have done very well, and so they should. They have worked extremely hard. If UPOV '91 is taken out, UPOV '78 would be there.

I think the chair perhaps overstates things. I recognize that members in the House sometimes stretch things a bit, but we would clearly still have a UPOV agreement. It would be UPOV '78.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great thing how this bill came forward. As chair of the committee, I very much want to express my appreciation to the members of all parties for how this was addressed and how we moved forward on the bill. As I mentioned before, the amendments that were presented to us were very much aimed a taking away from the bill's objective and what farmers in Canada were telling us.

In terms of UPOV '78, that is my point. It was 25 years ago. Agriculture is not about 25 years ago. Agriculture is about now and looking forward maybe 25 years, not going back 25 years. All of our trading partners are involved with UPOV '91. Just about all of the industry people who came to the committee said that we needed to move forward for the protection of agriculture and its sustainability.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleague from the NDP that the member is doing a great job as chair of the agriculture committee. Sometimes it is difficult for a government member to be in the chair and to be fair to all.

It was clear during the many presentations, especially by organic and small farmers, that there is a concern. There is a concern that there is not a lot in the bill for them and that some of their rights would be taken away. I am hoping that is not going to be the case.

On that point, I have two questions for the member. Does he recognize that we listened to the small farmers who came forward and does he see merit in the committee in its future business trying to help the smaller growers, who are really a big part of the increase in agriculture in Canada, by our taking seriously their concerns on how we can help them grow, move forward, and be a big part of our production in Canada?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. He has been consistent in his questioning.

How does this help small farmers? Actually, the whole issue around UPOV '91 is about being able to allow seed to come in from other countries to be used and protected in Canada. One thing about Canada is that it is geographically very big and numerically very small. Part of what my Motion No. 460 was about was the need to make sure that we aligned ourselves with countries that have the same standards we do, so that when we bring in those seeds, it will help the small breeders, because we do not always have that breeding in Canada. Whether it is horticulture, small farmers, or organic farmers who have special seeds, they will now have the opportunity to bring seeds in from other countries that have the same high standards we do.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate I will let the hon. member who is up next, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, know that there are only about seven minutes remaining in the time allocated for debate on this particular question. I am sure that the member will be disappointed to hear that, but nonetheless, that is what we have in front of us.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if I asked to have the debate continue, it would probably be denied, so I will not ask.

However, I will pick up on the point the member just made reference to. Canada is a vast land. Our population is around 35 million, but land-wise we produce the best food in the world. If we look at our agricultural production as a whole, it is estimated that around 80% of all the food we produce here in Canada goes to foreign markets. Canada is very much the bread basket of the world, and our potential is so great.

When we look forward to the many Liberal Party policies, one of the ones I often refer to is the area of trade. We recognize the value of trade. For me, being from the Prairies, the bread basket of Canada, at least in good part, when we look at our agricultural communities, it is through trade that we will be able to increase opportunities and generate jobs in the future and provide good quality food and consumable products, not only here in Canada but also around the world.

The Liberal Party's agriculture critic has done a wonderful job in taking the bill from its origins, bringing it to committee, and even bringing forward amendments to the legislation, recognizing that we believe that our farmers, in particular our small farmers, need to have a strong advocate here in the House. The critic has done that. Even the chair of the agriculture committee just put on the record the point of about his consistency in being there for our small farmers. That is something I know he takes to heart.

We had him in Manitoba, where we had a wonderful tour of a chicken processing plant. There were thousands of birds being processed every day and then being distributed all over Canada, far beyond our Manitoba borders. This is a realization of jobs and economic activity and some of the best product in the world.

Our leader has asked us to go out and communicate with Canadians. A big part of that for me personally is to go out and meet other farmers. I have referred in the past to the dairy farm. We know how important supply management is to Canada and our economy in ensuring that we have good quality dairy products and many other products. I had taken the opportunity to tour a dairy farm just to get a better sense of supply management and the positive impact it has in Canada in providing protection for good quality product, protection for our farmers and so forth.

Bill C-18 is all about markets. One of the Conservative speakers mentioned international markets. In order to achieve success in our international markets, we have to make sure that our industry is going in the right direction. We have to have regulations to ensure quality. If a product has a maple leaf associated with it, consumers, no matter where they live in the world, can count on it being of world-class quality. Consumers all around the world will pay even that much more knowing it is coming from Canada.

Nowhere is that more significant than with wheat. I have had the opportunity, in different capacities, to witness its success. Driving on Highway 2, or Highway 1, one can see rows of combines harvesting tonnes of wheat in the fall. Here I could talk a little about the government's inability to get that product to the Pacific to get on to those empty ships, but that is for another day.

However, our farmers have a great sense of pride in the production of food. Many of us take this for granted. We go to a grocery store and we buy the consumer products we need, but it is our farmers who put those products on our tables. I do not think we give them enough recognition or the recognition they deserve. We, in the Liberal Party, believe we should acknowledge the important role of our farmers and stakeholders, those many industry representatives who came before the agriculture committee to make presentations and who wanted to improve the bill.

The Liberal critic brought forward several amendments. Unfortunately, they did not pass because the government was not open amendments. The New Democratic Party also attempted to make changes. However, the government does not recognize that overall this is a good bill, but it could have been better. Had the Conservatives listened to what the different stakeholders, including opposition critics, were saying, we would be debating and ultimately passing a better bill.

With the leadership that has been demonstrated from our critic, we will support Bill C-18 when it comes to a vote. On that note, the government could have done better.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Better?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as one of the members across the way has just heckled, he is right, it could have done better, so it is a lost opportunity.

However, it is good to see we are at least moving forward. Maybe next time, maybe under a different administration, we will even see more progress, more protection for our small farmers and better quality products for our consumers. We want to strive for that because we recognize the importance of the agriculture industry to the Canadian economy.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 to 5 and 7 to 52. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 6.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 2?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of Motion No. 2 will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #277

Agricultural Growth Act

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 3 to 5 and 7 to 52 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #278

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 6 defeated.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #279

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.