Bill C-18 (Historical)

Agricultural Growth Act

An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food

This enactment amends several Acts in order to implement various measures relating to agriculture.
It amends the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act to amend certain aspects of the plant breeders’ rights granted under that Act, including the duration and scope of those rights and conditions for the protection of those rights. It also provides for exceptions to the application of those rights.
It amends the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize inspectors to order that certain unlawful imports be removed from Canada or destroyed;
(b) authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to take into account information available from a review conducted by the government of a foreign state when he or she considers certain applications;
(c) authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to issue certificates setting out any information that he or she considers necessary to facilitate certain exports; and
(d) require that a registration or a licence be obtained for conducting certain activities in respect of certain feeds, fertilizers or supplements that have been imported for sale or that are to be exported or to be sent or conveyed from one province to another.
It also amends the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act to, among other things, increase the maximum limits of penalties that may be imposed for certain violations.
It amends the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act to modernize the requirements of the advance payments program, improve its accessibility and enhance its administration and delivery.
Finally, it amends the Farm Debt Mediation Act to clarify the farm debt mediation process and to facilitate the participation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the mediation process when that Minister is a guarantor of a farmer’s debt.

Agricultural Growth Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

The point is simply this. The Burnaby Citizens Association, NDP affiliated, swept all those seats because its representatives had been putting forward the preservation of agricultural land in the city of Burnaby. On plant breeders rights, they actively worked on the types of issues that we now see, finally, the federal government wake up on.

I have one more point, which is that Maclean's national magazine said that the city of Burnaby, NDP-run for 25 years, was actually the best-managed city in all of Canada. That is because that party pays close attention to the details, including agricultural work.

I will now talk about some of the concerns about Bill C-18, which my colleagues have already raised on the floor of the House of Commons. However, there are a few major concerns regarding the clauses on farmer's privilege.

First, the farmer's privilege does not include the stocking of propagating material for any use. Even if farmers are able to save seed for the purpose of reproduction, whether we are talking about the city of Burnaby or any other part of the country, it appears they may have to pay to store it, which would effectively negate that privilege.

Also, farmer's privilege does not extend to the sale of harvested material. This means that farmers will likely still be required to pay for the sale of the crops grown from farm saved seed.

It also means that plant breeders could potentially generate revenue on a farmer's entire production rather than just on the seed purchased to grow the crop. This could have significant impacts on the profit margin of farmers. I will get back to this before I end, because I am going to say some things that I know my Conservative colleagues are going to react to.

This issue of the profit margins for farmers is a very important component. Unfortunately, I regret to say, the Conservatives have a pretty poor record in that area.

Some farmers say paying a royalty based on what they produce instead of the seed they buy reduces their risk. If they harvest a poor crop, they pay less with an end-point royalty compared to paying up front when they buy seed.

Another concern that has been raised with Bill C-18 is it includes amendments that would allow the CFIA to make changes through regulation, not legislation, to the farmer's privilege. This means the government could significantly hinder these rights at any time without parliamentary oversight.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government has a notoriously bad record in terms of rights, rules, following due process, all those kinds of things. To put in place another situation where the government basically can do whatever the heck it wants to do, and we know the Conservative government loves that drunk with power, without parliamentary oversight has raised real concerns among the agricultural community, including in my area, the Big Bend area of Burnaby, British Columbia. Again, I will mention that it is the most fertile farm land in all of Canada.

Allowing for farm safe seed is an optional exception, and this is under the UPOV '91, meaning that Canada could disallow farm-safe seed and still fulfill its international obligations under the agreement.

While Bill C-18 goes so far as so define what is meant by “document”, it provides no definition of “farmer”. This has important implications for the enforcement of the farmers privilege, especially given that Bill C-18 would allow the government to make significant changes to the farmers privilege provisions through regulatory changes.

This is a concern that farmers have expressed right across the country, including in many of the farming regions that are represented by the strong rural caucus in the NDP. It is a wonderful caucus that represents farmers extremely effectively across the country, particularly in central and Atlantic Canada, as well as British Columbia.

Given the government's recent changes in Bill C-18 that would limit farm loss deductions to people whose primary income would be from farming, this is an area where obviously more clarity is needed.

In order to prevent the privatization of existing varieties, our common heritage of public seeds developed over millennia, we must ensure a variety registration system that ensures new crop varieties are as good or better than existing ones. This is very important. We also must ensure that farmers will continue to have access to existing cereal varieties that were developed by public plant breeders.

There are also a few concerns regarding the potential legal burden for producers. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has called for protections for producers from claims of patent infringement with respect to natural accidental spreading of patented plant genetic material. However, these protections are not included in Bill C-18. This is an oversight and obviously a matter of some concern.

Given the expansion of plant breeders' rights under Bill C-18, it is likely that farmers will face increased and expensive litigation. However, producers may well be on an extremely uneven financial playing field with plant breeders. There are no provisions in Bill C-18 to ensure that legal fees do not impede the defence of farmers in such cases.

There are amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the advance payments program. The advance payments program is a financial loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances. The APP provides producers with a cash advance on the value of the agricultural products during a specified period. This improves the cashflow of producers throughout the year and helps them meet their financial obligations, and benefit from the best market conditions.

This is where I come back to the whole issue of farm profitability. The area of the country where we have the lowest level of farm receipts is the province of Alberta, which has been governed by Conservatives for decades. This is something we have encountered across the country. There is no doubt, not just when we talk about the gutting of the Canadian Wheat Board, but in general, that farmers simply do not fare as well when Conservative governments are in place.

The Conservatives may not like the truth and may not be able to handle the truth, but the truth is the truth. They have the lowest level of farm receipts in the country. I have been to the farms in southern Alberta, where they are really trying to get by because of poor decisions both at the federal level and at the provincial level. We have seen those farm receipts going through the gun.

There is one exception, and that is the supply-managed sector. The supply-managed sector has had no better friend than the New Democratic Party caucus, which has stood up again and again. Every time the government tries to gut supply management, whether it is negotiating trade deals or anywhere else, we stand with the supply-managed farmers and the communities that depend on them. That is the one area of the country where receipts have not gone through the floor. Farmers—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The time for government orders has expired. When this matter returns before the House, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster will have two minutes remaining in his speech and questions and comments.

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

Today we are debating yet another omnibus bill, which is nothing new with these Conservatives. They throw all kinds of different things into the same bill. This one has to do with agriculture.

The bill deals with plant breeders' rights for new varieties or new species. Research labs, including government labs, work on breeding new plants for years, even decades. Marketing comes into play because these labs need to be viable. However, we need to be careful of certain companies that cause problems when they try to profit by limiting access to many varieties of seeds.

I have been gardening since I was eight years old. I grow vegetables, flowers, perennials and shrubs. This is my hobby. I love tomato plants. A few years ago, when I would visit the displays at hardware stores and garden centres, I could pick up 30 or 40 varieties of tomatoes to try out. This year, I was not able to get more than 12 varieties of tomatoes. This means that both individuals and farmers need to be careful when buying seeds. Some companies restrict access to many varieties in order to sell the ones that they want to sell.

For example, you can buy packages of seeds for $2, $3, $4 or $5. I bought a package of new certified seeds for $4.95 and I got 11 plants. However, in another package of traditional varieties, I would get 50, 77 or even 100 plants for $2.95. There could be problems if this were to happen with grains.

In the regions, farmers developed seeds that were adapted to their climate. Traditionally, year after year, they would save their best seeds to sow the following year. The new legislation will force them to register those seeds. Farmers who used to pay next to nothing to reseed will now have to pay for more expensive seeds.

Because agricultural co-operatives belong to all of the farmers, they expect to get the best possible price. Now that multinationals have patented seeds, access to traditional seeds will be limited. We need to ensure that our traditional varieties will still be preserved for use.

At one point, there were problems with certain varieties of cucurbits, or cucumbers. People were researching heirloom varieties to improve genetics because cross-breeding the same varieties led to a loss of genetic quality.

It is important that we preserve those older varieties. Large companies in France—such as Kokopelli, an international company—are posing problems because they do business with developing countries. They trade seeds so that the prices are better. For a few years now, France has been regulating seed sales. Major seed producers are constantly in court, fighting this company because it has overstepped its boundaries.

Organic farmers may also run into trouble if their neighbours use new seed varieties. Corn and most grains are fertilized by the wind. The organic farmer's seeds are contaminated by the GMO seeds. His products decline in quality. Not only do his products decline in quality, but the neighbour then accuses him of mixing seeds, using GMOs and using his neighbour's registered seeds. That is when things start to go downhill.

Will there be a system in place to protect the small farmers from the bigger ones, who may contaminate seeds? It is important to know.

We know that this bill is the next step in ratifying the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. As usual, every government since 1991, whether Conservative or Liberal, has stalled on this, and now here we are in 2014. Other countries have ratified it, but not Canada.

This is a kind of copyright act. Looking at the Copyright Act itself, there is the case involving Robinson versus television producers. He has spent 19 years fighting for his fair share. We can see that it is important to have laws that protect patent-holders. However, we have to ensure that heritage varieties that have been around for a long time are not patented as new varieties because that would prevent ordinary people from using those heritage varieties.

Amateur gardeners and co-operatives exchange seeds, and that system works very well. We have to make sure that people can still do this and that multinationals will not be able to prevent people from using heritage varieties.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the NDP might be moving another motion for adjournment this morning. It is nice to see that it has decided not to do that and would rather continue the debate. I really encourage that.

The government has had the opportunity to bring in different pieces of legislation that are affecting farmers throughout our country. This is a fairly large bill that takes into consideration what could have been separate pieces of legislation. There is always a risk when a government does that. There are many different stakeholders who would like to participate through consultation to provide input when the government wants to change laws. However, because the bill is so large and has a fairly significant impact on many aspects of legislation, it is that much more difficult to give it the due diligence and accountability it needs.

Would the member not agree that there are certain aspects of the legislation that are good? One example is that it authorizes inspectors to order certain unlawful imports removed from Canada or destroyed.

There are some good things in this legislation, but there are also others that are causing concern.

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I would agree that there should have been several bills rather than just one and that this bill should have been studied in detail to determine the implications. We are very concerned about the fact that we will not be able to do a thorough study of this bill.

I agree with my colleague that we should be concerned about the cursory treatment of these issues and the lack of opportunity to study the minor repercussions that could end up being quite significant.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is the NDP caucus's go-to guy for dirt-under-the-fingernails issues. I would like to ask him a question about his comments on tomato varieties.

Can he tell us more about how this is changing and why?

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. When there are more varieties, there is more choice. Seed producers want to promote certain varieties by using displays and other methods.

Limiting the number of varieties automatically leads to the sale of more expensive seeds. There are fewer and fewer varieties being sold with a lot of seed in the packet. Instead of putting 100 seeds in a packet, they put 10 and instead of selling the packet for $2.95, they sell it for $4.95. It is not hard to see that the profit margin goes up. The seed companies' strategy is to limit choice in order to increase their chances of selling more. Someone who has a garden with 50, 100 or 150 plants will have to buy several packets of seed instead of just one packet.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-18, an omnibus bill that will alter a number of aspects of farm life.

Bill C-18 proposes nine amendments to federal laws and will affect almost every aspect of farming. The statutes that will be amended under the Agricultural Growth Act are the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. Currently, all these statutes fall under the CFIA. The bill also amends the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the Farm Debt Mediation Act, which fall under AAFC.

I will now get to the heart of the matter: the issues surrounding plant breeders.

According to the government, this bill will stimulate innovation, which will benefit farmers by increasing the choice of crops and in turn increasing revenues.

However, many stakeholders are worried that the bill will limit farmers' use of seeds. Like me, farmers have concerns about the proposed amendments to the plant breeders' rights legislation that would commit Canada to UPOV '91. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, or UPOV, an intergovernmental organization established in 1961, promotes the interests of plant breeders by allowing them to claim intellectual property rights in countries that sign the agreement. Canada is currently part of UPOV '78, a former version.

Those who support joining UPOV '91 allege that it would result in greater investments by seed breeders in Canada. Those opposed believe that this will cost farmers more money, not just at the time of seed sale but also when crops are sold and beyond.

This is a very delicate subject and we must understand the nuances. We must strike a balance between the interests of seed breeders who want to be compensated for their work and farmers who work hard every day to feed our country. We absolutely must ask ourselves what consequences all the amendments proposed in this omnibus bill will have for both Canadian farmers and food safety.

Has the government done its homework? Is the bill part of a long-term vision for farming in Canada or, once again, is the government blindly making decisions that will benefit the same people?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you are aware of this, but the NDP is the only federal party to propose a Canada-wide food strategy, which was unveiled last week. We have received a lot of support for this. It is not something we put together in one day; we have been working on it for years. We consulted not only Canadians, but also producers across the country. I am truly proud of this document.

I want to focus on the farmers' privilege aspect for a few minutes. It is a key piece of the legislation that needs clarification. The bill states that farmers' privilege is an exception to subsection 5(1). This article states that the holder of the plant breeders' rights has the exclusive right to produce and reproduce, condition, sell, export, import, or stock seed, and authorize any of these actions. Farmers' privilege allows farmers to produce and condition seed only for their own holdings.

This raises many concerns. For example, can a farmer have his seed cleaned by a neighbour as a favour? Or does the farmer need to condition the seed on their own holding? What about saving seed? The bill clearly says farmers can only produce and condition seed. That means that farmers will have to pay a royalty in order to stock their seed. No matter how many assurances the minister provides, I want to be sure that these provisions are clearly stated in the bill and will not be left open for interpretation.

We need to carefully study the bill to fully understand its effects. I look forward to calling experts to the agriculture committee on this issue in order to hear about the effects of the bill. I hope my colleagues from across the way will be open to amendments to improve and clarify the bill to ensure it is advantageous for all of our farmers.

There is another aspect of farmers' privilege that worries me. Farmers' privilege is explained in the negative. It does not look like a right to me. It looks like an exception. The fact that farmers' privilege can be changed through regulation is more worrisome. These limited exceptions to seed companies' total control on seed could change or disappear without having to consult Parliament. That would give the minister a lot of power. I am not sure I trust the minister with that much power and control over farmers' lives and livelihoods. He does not have a very good track record. I do not think I need to remind members of the grain prices, XL Foods, or listeriosis.

When it comes to plant breeders' rights, I believe that a balanced approach is essential. We need to protect Canada's farmers and public researchers.

The minister has said the bill would increase investment to our agriculture sector by creating incentives for companies to come to Canada. My concern here, again, is the farmer. Innovation needs to benefit farmers. We want to ensure that all Canadians can access and benefit from our agricultural legacy. This is why I would like to see more public funding of innovation, which is something that our party has called for.

In order to prevent the privatization of existing varieties of seeds deployed, we must ensure a variety registration system that would ensure new crop varieties are as good as, or better than, existing ones. We also have to ensure that farmers would continue to have access to existing cereal varieties that were developed by public plant breeders.

Turning to another aspect of the bill, I was pleased to see increased flexibility in the advance payments program. The APP provides producers with a cash advance on the value of their agricultural products during a specific period. This would improve producers' cash flow throughout the year and help them meet financial obligations to benefit from the best market conditions. The grain transportation crisis has shown the value of such a program. It is too bad it was not in place at that time to help grain producers.

Allowance for multi-year agreements would allow the administrative burden for those who are applying to the advance payments program in consecutive years, which would make the program more accessible to producers and program delivery more efficient, hopefully. It is unfortunate to see that the maximum amounts have not been increased. The CFA has called for an increase in order to address rising farm costs. Overall, the changes to the APP make the program more accessible and flexible, which is something I applaud.

I would like to end my remarks on the bill by reflecting on the policy direction of the government. The bill's short title is “agricultural growth act”. Whether the bill would actually help grow the agriculture sector is yet to be determined. Once again, can we trust the current minister? It is questionable. I would like to see the government have a comprehensive vision for agriculture in this country. Agriculture is such an important sector. It represents one in eight jobs in Canada. It is vital to our economy.

The minister is bringing in pieces of legislation that seem to be reacting to an issue, rather than leading the way on agriculture issues. That is very sad. It seems we only have the chance to debate agriculture when there is a problem or a crisis. That is something that I do not want to see. I want more positive things. I want to be talking about agriculture more positively in the House, rather than reacting.

The latest grain transportation crisis is a good example. Once again the government waited months before acting, then scrambled together a piece of legislation that could help farmers but would not be a long-term solution. We can all agree on that. The government only acts when it needs to, and it delays the action as much as possible. I wish we could work with the current government on a forward-thinking vision for agriculture in this country that would be dedicated to supporting big farms and small farms and would also give farmers the tools they need to succeed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments with respect to thinking positively about farmers.

Not enough is done to generate debate within the chamber about how farmers from all regions of our country contribute to our well-being. It goes far beyond our borders with the first-class quality product that goes throughout the world.

Often, as the member has made reference to, when we are in the position of having to talk about farm-related issues, it happens in different types of crisis situations or when government is taking action that might not be in the best interests of the farmers.

An example of the issue that this bill attempts to deal with is farm debt. Farm debt is real. It is tangible. It affects literally thousands of farmers. It causes a great deal of anxiety on family farms, particularly on our smaller farms. There is an attempt in this huge bill to deal with that issue by amending the Farm Debt Mediation Act to clarify the process. That is something we want. We want to see more clarity with respect to that processing issue. We want to facilitate the participation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the mediation process when the minister is a guarantor of a farmer's debt.

Does the member see this as a positive change within the legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an omnibus budget bill. We cannot forget that there are some aspects that we do support, but then there are some contentious aspects that worry us.

I am present in the House for petitions and I have seen colleagues from across the way, Conservatives and Liberals, who have tabled many petitions expressing concern for farmers and for Bill C-18. I mentioned in my speech that we often debate agriculture issues because we are reacting to something. This bill should definitely be separated.

We will support this bill. We are looking forward to having great witnesses come to the agriculture committee to have their voices heard and to voice their opinions. We are hopeful to amend this bill to make it better, but I know the government does not like to work together.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the incredible representation she has been doing on behalf of Canadian agriculture producers. At every opportunity she is standing up and defending their rights and opportunities. The member is making a strong, valuable, and truthful presentation here. We have not had the government of the day take action in advance of issues arising. Here we have one of the largest contributors to the Canadian economy being given short shrift as a result of all their issues being thrown into one bill. We know well that these bills are fast-tracked through the House and through committee.

I am wondering if the member could speak to this. Is it possible to take this bill out to our agricultural communities so they have the opportunity to provide their input, not only on the ideas that are in the bill but on additional items that the government could be taking in the way of constructive advance action on behalf of agriculture?

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

Mr. Speaker, since this bill was announced I have done a lot of consulting in my riding, with different stakeholders on the Hill, and in communities. I had the chance to go to Saskatchewan for the grain crisis and meet with farmers to get a more in-depth feeling of what was happening on the ground. We did talk a lot about Bill C-18.

The government is trying to push this forward. We will be breaking for summer shortly. I will continue to consult with my colleagues from Welland and also Edmonton—Strathcona. We could all be very present with our constituents and consult and continue to make sure that we are hearing the voices of the people who want to express their concern or approval of this bill. However, it is important to be present. We cannot forget that UPOV was signed by the Liberals. They brought it in, but then they kind of dropped it. Now the Conservatives have picked it up and they want to ratify it. We just have to make sure it is in the best interests of farmers and the vision for agriculture in the long term.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île

I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, which, as members have mentioned in previous speeches, is an omnibus bill.

This is an issue that is important to me, my riding and my region. Agriculture accounts for 12% of the Lower St. Lawrence region's economy. Agriculture is an important part of the region's economy.

I frequently consult with farmers in my riding, members of the Fédération de l'UPA du Bas-Saint-Laurent. Some aspects of this bill are similar to previous legislative measures that raised concerns, and they are raising the same concerns as before.

As my colleagues mentioned in their speeches, we are going to support this bill at second reading so that it can be thoroughly examined in committee. That is the purpose of second reading. Since this is an omnibus bill, we are in favour of some provisions, but we may be opposed to others if they remain as they are right now. That is true of the seed issue, among others.

The ratification of the 1991 accord on seed intellectual property raised many concerns, which is not a bad thing when it comes to intellectual property protection. The provisions regarding patents and intellectual property rights allow for research and development. They also make it possible to promote investments in this area and provide a certain amount of protection for investments made by companies that want to improve seeds and various farming techniques.

However, we must always ensure that there is a balance between the protection of intellectual property provided by patents and the protection of farmers' historic rights, rights that have existed since farming became a human activity. According to these rights, farmers and producers can freely reuse seeds that they have saved from previous harvests. However, Bill C-18 does not afford such protection. There seems to be an imbalance. Far more importance is being placed on the protection of intellectual property provided by patents than on the historic rights of farmers.

There is one case in particular that I think illustrates this imbalance and the danger it represents for farmers. A Saskatchewan farmer named Percy Schmeiser, who farms canola, had organic plants, meaning that he did not use a product from Monsanto, which produces herbicide-resistant seeds called Roundup Ready. Mr. Schmeiser did not use these seeds. However, Mr. Schmeiser's field was contaminated by canola plants from nearby fields when those seeds spread. He found canola plants from nearby fields in his harvest.

Monsanto took Mr. Schmeiser all the way to the Supreme Court to demand that he pay for using the seeds. Mr. Schmeiser, who did not use these seeds, had not paid Monsanto for them. Monsanto demanded that Mr. Schmeiser pay the company, even though Mr. Schmeiser's field had been accidentally contaminated. Mr. Schmeiser lost in the Supreme Court as a result of the provisions in the current legislation.

These are the concerns shared by farmers who want to retain the power to choose their own seeds, which they have saved from previous harvests. They could have to pay for seeds that accidentally contaminated their field against their will and despite any safeguards they may have put in place. Unfortunately, Bill C-18 does not provide this kind of protection for farmers. We are very concerned about that.

I would like to reiterate that we do not oppose protecting intellectual property, meaning the protection provided by patents. However, we need to strike a balance so that we protect farmers in a sector that is extremely complex and includes many factors that cannot be calculated in advance.

Here, again, we have an omnibus bill that contains a number of different elements. Bill C-18 amends nine different laws. Clearly, we support some of the provisions, but we think that some others are unbalanced or do not serve the common good or, in this case, the common good of farmers.

For example, one aspect that we support is related to the advance payments program. Farmers really appreciate that program. It is a financial loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances. Farming is a very unpredictable sector. Good crops depend on the weather and climate conditions. A poor climate will yield far more disappointing crops. The advance payments program allows farmers to reconcile their anticipated income with their expenditures and anticipated expenditures. It is a welcome program, one that is appreciated.

Another aspect of Bill C-18 that we feel is beneficial is the fact that red tape will be reduced in the future. That is good for the industry. It was one of the major concerns with the current program. In this case, we cannot really oppose a measure that will help farmers.

There is another element that was not part of the program in the past but that will be now, namely raising breeding animals. Of course, grain farmers had access to the program, as did beef producers, but not for breeding animals. Now, farmers who raise breeding animals will have access to the program. We think that is worthwhile progress.

That said, there are various elements that will require the committee's attention. I hope that the committee will make good use of its time to move forward with these favourable provisions, but also to respond to concerns. I am certain that the committee members will hear testimony from agricultural representatives, whether at the Quebec provincial level from the UPA or the Union paysanne, or at the national level from the National Farmers Union or the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

I hope that the government will take into account the common good, not just corporate interests. Right now, agriculture is at a crossroads. There is tremendous pressure from the United States in particular. There is currently a tendency in the United States and some other countries toward vertical integration. In Mr. Schmeiser's case, it was not about large-scale production; it was really about a family farm. There really seems to be a movement afoot to make life much more difficult for small-scale farmers and much easier for large-scale producers. Vertical integration is when big agricultural conglomerates or corporations, such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, buy up family farms that are barely scraping by, thereby reinforcing their market dominance.

We need to strike a balance in Canada. One way to achieve that is through supply management. I know that both our Conservative and Liberal friends have repeatedly expressed their support for the supply management system. The system enables us to protect something really important, our agricultural diversity, by protecting family farms, which are guaranteed stable incomes and predictable expenses. Parts of Bill C-18, even though they do not affect the dairy industry directly, are in line with that thinking, and that is why we have to support it. However, I really hope that the government will pay heed to concerns about other elements of the bill.

We will support this bill at second reading, but I cannot guarantee that we will support it at third reading if those concerns are not addressed.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little taken aback by some of the comments made by the member opposite.

I am one of the farmers here, and I am quite proud of our Conservative government and all of the actions it has taken on behalf of agricultural producers across the country. The member opposite has suggested that we do not have family farm operations anymore and that we are going into corporate farming. This is a complete fallacy. Although farms are getting bigger, there are still family operations. Instead of just one part of the family on the farm, it is usually parents with their kids and families, all farming together and farming larger.

There is no question that farms have become larger, especially in western Canada, where I am from, but there are still family farm operations. They may have been incorporated for better tax breaks and purposes, but they are still family farms.

The New Democrats keep saying that they are opposed to this bill because it would not allow producers the right to use their own seed. I can tell members that Canada is finally coming into line with international norms to allow plant breeders' rights, as every country around the world has already implemented, and that from this bill, farmers would get to keep their own seed for their own purposes.