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

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

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to be here today to speak to this legislation, because it would deliver new tools and better services to help Canadian farmers grow their businesses.

Like the business of farming, the agricultural growth act is about putting in place those new tools and better services for Canadian producers. This legislation would support the growth of our farm businesses, the growth of our economy and, of course, the growth of our opportunities on the world stage.

Bill C-18 is also about being proactive about the future of Canadian agriculture and bringing existing legislation into the 21st century. Just as farmers adjust their business practices to suit changing weather or market conditions, governments must have new approaches for a new generation of agriculture.

The agricultural sector knows the importance of adapting to constantly shifting conditions. Farmers are not farming the way they did 10 or even 5 years ago. Bill C-18 would help our government continue to give farmers access to the tools they need to grow their operations and our overall economy.

It is important to note that the agricultural growth act, or Bill C-18, reflects years of extensive stakeholder consultations, some as long as 22 years. I would like to thank all of the stakeholders and stakeholder associations who took part in those consultations over that time and invested themselves in working with our government to identify the opportunities for improvements contained within this piece of legislation.

With the agricultural growth act we would be modernizing Canadian legislation on a foundation of science, technology, innovation, and international standards. The proposed legislation would bolster the competitiveness of Canada's agricultural sector while ensuring a consistent regulatory approach across all commodities.

Bill C-18 would bring existing legislation in line with new science as well as international standards used by our trading partners and, most importantly, the needs of Canada's farmers and the agricultural sector overall.

This legislation would strengthen the safety of agricultural products, the first link in the food chain, while reducing the regulatory burden for industry and promoting trade in agricultural products.

I am pleased to report that 2012 saw Canada's agricultural sector achieve record results and 2013 proved to be another banner year, with record production up some 27%. That said, we need to continue this growth curve.

The timing for the improvements proposed in the bill could not be better. World demand is increasing for the world-class food that our farmers grow. The global population is expected to reach 9.3 billion by 2050. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and others have forecast that global food production must increase by some 60% to meet that future demand. Canada's farmers are more than up to the challenge of feeding a growing and hungry world.

Farmers depend on exports for up to 85% of their sales on an annual basis. Farmers want to earn their money from the marketplace, and they can beat the competition hands down as long as we are playing on a level playing field. Our government continues to work with industry to level that playing field, open new markets for our farmers, and sign new free trade agreements.

Together, we delivered real results for our farmers by growing our jobs and our economy. We have reopened our beef market in Korea, which was closed for nine years. We implemented free trade agreements with nine countries in less than six years. Last fall, our government reached an agreement in principle with the European Union on a free trade agreement that will add 28 new countries to that list, giving our farmers access to more than 500 million of the world's most affluent customers.

To help farmers meet this growing global demand our government delivered marketing freedom to western wheat and barley farmers, a freedom that many fought for decades to achieve. Farmers embraced that new reality by seeding two million more acres of wheat last year. Our agrifood sector is now the leading manufacturing employer in the country. Our exports have helped put Canada on the map as a major trading nation.

Our government is committed to supporting Canada's farmers and our world-class agricultural industry to ensure that they remain competitive in world markets and positioned to serve the needs of Canadians and a growing world population.

Through the five-year growing forward 2 agreement signed last April, our government is making strategic investments with the provinces and territories in innovation, market access, and competitiveness.

The agricultural growth act that I am speaking about today would modernize and streamline nine different statutes, seven under the purview of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, and two administered by Agriculture Canada. Some of the acts we would be amending date back to the 1950s. While the opposition does not realize it, a lot has changed since then and this legislation would go a long way in modernizing the tools and services available to Canada's world-class producers.

The agricultural growth act addresses many important areas, from seed to feed, to fertilizer to animal health, to plant production to plant grading, and to farm financing.

The agricultural growth act is designed to update and streamline government requirements while also helping industry meet requirements by reducing red tape and administrative costs while improving overall program delivery.

Let me explain how we could achieve this. What we would do with this proposed legislation is to build a more effective, innovative, and nimble legislative framework that supports farmers from the first planting of seed in Canadian soil to sales at home or abroad. For example, Bill C-18 would bring plant breeders' rights in line with those of our international competitors, which would level the playing field for Canadian farmers. UPOV '91 would be implemented and ratified.

The proposed changes would encourage increased investment in plant breeding in Canada, and encourage foreign breeders to protect and sell their varieties here. As a result, Canada's farmers would benefit from improved access to innovative new varieties that have been bred to enhance crop yields, improve resistance to disease and drought, and meet specific market demands.

At the same time, the act explicitly recognizes the traditional practice of saving, conditioning, and replanting seed that is personally saved from crops grown on a producer's own land. This is known as “farmer's privilege”. It would be entrenched in this legislation, unlike UPOV '78, which we are now under.

For those who continue to say otherwise, let me be clear: read the bill. These proposed changes reflect consultation. The CFIA held national public consultations with plant breeders, farmers, horticulturalists, seed dealers and, of course, the general public. I would note that the majority of our farm community is supportive of these reforms.

A group of leading Canadian farmer and agricultural organizations has joined forces to support the agricultural growth act. Partners in Innovation includes the Canadian Horticultural Council, Grain Growers of Canada, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, and the western Canadian barley growers and a number of other commodity groups. This bill is also supported by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Seed Trade Association, and the Canadian Canola Growers Association.

The group says that the strength of plant breeders' rights in Canada is “...critical for the future of our farmers and our agricultural industry's ability to compete in the global market.”

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture also supports this bill. CFA President, Ron Bonnett said with respect to the act:

The proposed changes reflect a number of recommendations made by industry over the years and showcase the government has been listening. We're pleased the government has taken action and followed-up in a concrete way with legislative changes and formal consultations on these proposed amendments.

Of course, we will continue to consult with our agricultural industry here in the country before any changes are implemented, including regulatory changes. Our government remains committed to these consultations to determine the best way to move forward.

Another key change in the agricultural growth act concerns fertilizer and animal feed. The act would introduce the authority to require licensing and registration for operators of fertilizer and animal feed facilities involved in the trade of products across provincial or international borders. This will be in addition to the current system, where feed and fertilizer products are registered on a product by product basis. Licensing or registration of facilities and operators would provide an even more effective approach to ensuring that products meet safety standards, while providing greater flexibility and efficiency for the industries involved.

The work done by CFIA on the feed link for PED underscores the need for these timely changes. The act proposes enhanced legislative authority and stronger enforcement tools for CFIA inspectors, which would further promote compliance with federal requirements and safety standards. This would dovetail with recent CFIA initiatives to modernize its legislative base, as was done with the passage of the Safe Food for Canadians Act in 2012.

It would also support the work under way to modernize the agency's inspection and regulatory frameworks. This new legislation would allow the CFIA to order non-compliant imported agricultural products out of the country to ensure that all agricultural products meet the appropriate Canadian requirements, no matter where they come from. Right now, at times, Canada must pay to dispose of illegal feeds, fertilizers, and seed products that are seized. Under the agricultural growth act, CFIA inspectors would be able to order imported shipments of feeds, fertilizers and seeds out of Canada if they do not meet our legal requirements. We already do this with imported plants and animals.

The act would also give CFIA inspectors the ability to allow the importer to fix the problem in Canada if it is not a matter of safety, and if they can be sure that the issue would be addressed in a timely manner. The proposed amendment in the bill would provide the CFIA with stronger tools to more efficiently fulfill its mandate to protect Canada's plant and animal resource base. Monetary penalties for infractions would also be increased to make them a more effective compliance tool for inspectors, as was done in the Safe Food for Canadians Act.

The changes proposed in the agricultural growth act reflect the ongoing needs of Canada's agricultural sector. They would align with CFIA's modernized regulatory and inspection initiatives, and they would help ensure consistency across all agricultural commodities.

If Canada's agricultural sector is to compete and succeed in the modern world and to maintain its competitive edge on that global stage, it needs 21st century tools to do so. That is why we listened to farmers and are focusing their financial tools so they can capture new opportunities in the global marketplace.

We consulted with farmers across Canada on how we can improve the advance payments program, which is enabled under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act. Through this legislation, we are delivering on the direction that farmers presented to us.

The agricultural growth act would improve the advance payments program by making it more flexible and user friendly for Canadian producers. Making the advance payments program more flexible and predictable would assist farmers in managing their cash flows, building their businesses and driving our economy. Producers are constantly fine-tuning their operations and businesses, and they rightly expect government to do the same with the tools and services we offer to them. Responding to producers' recommendations, the legislative changes will help us streamline delivery of cash advances under the advance payments program.

The goal is to enhance program flexibility to ensure that programs remain relevant and responsive to the changing nature and needs of our agricultural industry.

The agricultural growth act also allows farmers to obtain five-year agreements with advance payment program administrators. This would reduce the burden of filling out paperwork each year.

It is a great time to be in agriculture. Many producers would tell us that they are seeing stronger returns, increased market access and opportunities for investment, and a brighter future ahead.

We will continue to work hard on behalf of farmers, because our government knows that in many cases yesterday's answers cannot meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. The time is right to put greater focus on innovation, market access, and improving government programs and services to meet the changing needs of our agricultural industry.

The agricultural growth act is consistent with our government's priorities: growing the economy and creating jobs for Canadians. One in eight Canadian jobs is agriculture related, and I see no reason why we cannot increase this number as the sector continues to prosper and grow. Agricultural growth, whether through innovation or efficiency, provides consumers with more choices for Canadian grown products, and this is good for our overall economy.

Wielding the latest science, tools and practices, Canada's agricultural sector has the potential to grow and prosper in a manner that secures the future of our agricultural industry and benefits all Canadians. There is no better way to support our farm families than to give them the new tools and better services they require to help them grow their businesses.

I ask all parliamentarians to give the agricultural growth act, Bill C-18, their careful attention and to move it forward in a timely manner so that Canada's agricultural entrepreneurs can harness innovation, add value, and generate jobs and growth right across this great country.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred that the minister's bill not be an omnibus bill, but that is the general nature from the other side, so we are quite used to having a number of things put all together.

The minister talked about it being a great time to be in agriculture. I would agree with him, except for the farmers on the Prairies looking for a train to get their grain to market. Perhaps the minister should revise his speech a little and talk about why we need a stick to hit those two railroaders to make sure that we get that great product those great farmers grow for us in that part of the world to port so that the farmers can get paid. If they do not get paid, the part in the bill dealing with advance payments will really be necessary because they will be taking out loans to pay last year's loans, and at this rate, they will be taking out loans next year to pay off this year's loan.

Specifically to UPOV '29 and farmers' privilege, one of the questions that has come up is that under the present legislation as proposed, farmers' privilege would only last a year. Lots of farmers are saying that under UPOV '78, it lasted longer than a year. If I am correct, I heard the minister say that it actually makes no difference this way, farmers' privilege versus UPOV '78. Can he clarify that a farmer can save it for a year or is it longer than a year under Bill C-18?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions and comments there, which of course are allowed. I am not sure I would classify this as a omnibus bill. He condemns those and wants us to add several more things to it, so I am not exactly sure what kind of information I am getting here.

He also called it UPOV '29. It is UPOV '91. UPOV '78 does not in any way, shape, or form allow farmers' privilege. There is no vehicle in UPOV '78 to allow farmers to maintain and use that seed and propagate it on their own farm.

UPOV '91 does have that clearly written in there. It lasts more than a year. If farmers save seed, keep it in their bins, have it cleaned and stored and then decide not to put it in that year, but carry it over to the year after that, of course it maintains that status with the farmer. They only pay an end-use royalty in that case when they sell the seed that gained from that farm-saved seed.

Yes, it is very clearly described. One farm group out there cannot seem to read the writing. I can tell them that it is on page 7 of the bill. It is very succinct in what it says about farmers being able to hold that and use it on their own facility in perpetuity, should it last that long. There was wheat stored in the pyramids; I suppose we could actually do that under the bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice that the minister wandered off Bill C-18 quite a bit and tried to put a spin on some of the decisions that the government previously made, one being the killing of the Canadian Wheat Board without any long-term planning on all the other things the Wheat Board did besides single-desk selling.

As a result, in western Canada we now have a crisis because there was no planning on the part of the government. We have a crisis in transportation because the railways and grain companies are taking all the profit and farmers are left paying demurrage while some 50 ships sit in Vancouver and Prince Rupert. Prices are discounted up to 40% compared to the U.S.

The minister also failed to mention the fact that he cut AgriStability and AgriInvest, and those safety nets are not there now for the farm community.

My question relates to the same question asked earlier, which is on farmers' privilege.

There is a worry out there among some farm groups: is farmers' privilege protected by way of legislation or can it be discarded by regulation later on?

I hear what the minister said and I welcome what he said related to farmers' privilege on page 7 of the bill, but how long is it confirmed to be in existence?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I completely reject the idea that somehow the old Canadian Wheat Board would have had a positive effect on this year's crop. We have 50% more crop in western Canada than we ever had before, simply because farmers stopped hemorrhaging wheat and barley acres and putting in other crops, and they reseeded some two million acres of wheat.

Farmers still have the CWB there to market through, should they decide to. It has offered several pools and has been successful in doing that. It is in the process of buying export capacity at Thunder Bay. It has that checked off its list and is now moving forward on bricks and mortar in western Canada to allow them some catchment, some gatherment area, and we look forward to seeing the results of that.

That said, on the farmers' saved seed, it is right here on page 7 of the bill and it can be enhanced by regulation as we move forward. Farmers' saved seed is actually in the proposed legislation itself, but it can be enhanced by regulation.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a number of new provisions in the bill would require additional resources in order to be implemented. However, we have seen the record of the Conservative government with its cuts to the CFIA, and those cuts have devastated food safety for Canadians.

Can the member assure Canadians that additional resources will be available to implement some of these provisions so that they will have implementation and full effect?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have to begin by saying that there have been no cuts to CFIA that reflect on food safety. This government has actually added over 700 front-line food inspectors, which the member's party has decided to vote against, and that is unfortunate.

In fact, in budget 2014 there is a provision to hire another 200 inspector-level positions at CFIA to move forward on other commodities such as imports, produce, and so forth. I am sure that the member's party will stand up and support that as they always do—not.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about the problems of shipping grain because farmers on Vancouver Island were three days away from having no grain to feed their livestock. However, I want to focus Bill C-18.

I note that the minister said we should be reassured as to the ability to save seed for some farmers, which is found page 7, and that he might want to make it clearer in future regulations. I wonder if the minister is open to making it clearer through amendments to this proposed act as it goes forward.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is the nature of committee work. If members come forward with substantive amendments, they will be discussed. Witnesses will be called, and the bill will be stronger in the end should they want to build the capacity into the bill to serve farmers in a better way. Should they decide to remove chunks and try to break the bill apart, then, of course, we would not allow that.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the minister's response to my previous question. He mentioned that the new budget contains 200 positions for CFIA. Could the member let this House and Canadians know how many you cut before you actually had to reinvest to get more members in?

In fact he is going to try to spin this, but the Conservatives cut hundreds more in the CFIA than the 200 that will now be reinstated.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Before I go to the minister of agriculture, I will just remind all hon. members to direct their comments and questions to the Chair rather than to their colleagues.

The hon. minister of agriculture.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and respond to the member. The answer is simple: none.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his thorough and in-depth presentation. One of the measures we may want to get a clearer handle on is the licensing of feed and fertilizer establishments. I wonder if he could expand on that, on what it means moving from product to product, and on the establishment of facilities and their operators.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it clarifies the role of the CFIA in making sure that we feed our animals, which is the first step in having a good, quality product on store shelves and on our kitchen tables. It ensures that the feed going into those animals is of top quality and that it meets all Canadian safety standards. It makes sure that any product brought in from other countries is acceptable, and we will now have a way to trace that product back.

With the PED situation we are facing with pork right now, there was some concern that the blood plasma that was coming in may be carrying the genetic marker of the PED virus. We have been able to test successfully that it has not transferred through in a way that affects the pigs negatively once it is pelletized. That is a great step. That is the type of work that will be ongoing after we pass this piece of legislation. Those are very positive things.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his clarification on farmers' privileges being beyond the year, and of course there is an end royalty, as he has pointed out. Therefore, it is not much different than if it was at the end of the year because they are going to pay royalties anyhow. It would seem that one is going to end up paying folks regardless.

Clearly the UPOV '91, as it suggests, is actually a treaty that was negotiated in 1991. When we refer to “78”, that was 1978.

It is a long time ago since UPOV '91 was actually looked at in the sense of a treaty. Of course, as we look from place to place, there are differences in what has been done. There are some exemptions built into it in certain countries that are not present in others, so it is not holistic across the board in the sense that what was decided in 1991 is what is done in Australia, Germany, France, the U.K., the United States or a number of other places that actually enacted it.

Clearly, at some point in the early 2000s when our friends down at the end, the Liberals, were in power, they attempted then to get it enacted. Farmers at that time were pleased with it, but they had a lot of questions concerning it. What happened was the government backed away, and here we are in 2014 still looking at UPOV '91 and whether it should go forward.

Based on the minister's comments and the bill itself, and the minister's earlier comments outside of this place, the government's intent is to get this enacted by August of this year based on the belief that there is some science and innovation that will happen if this comes into force. That, of course, then means there will be a charge somewhere, because people do not do this work unless they get paid for it.

I am not suggesting folks should do it for free in the private sector. That is not what they do. They are in the business of making profits for their shareholders or the owners of their companies if they are privately owned. That is not a bad thing; that is how business survives. People who work for privately owned companies want them to survive because if the companies are not making any money, they cannot pay their employees. That is the nature of business.

Ultimately, that means customers pay for that, because it is not done for free. People do not do it out of the goodness of their hearts or for public good. They do it because they see that there is potentially a market and think that they can perhaps win over that market and charge whatever the price may be. The price could be up, sideways, or lower. It depends. It could be a number of things.

Who is the market? It will not be me, that is for sure. I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I do not farm. It does not matter if I live in the country. The piece that I own takes care of itself. I do not plant anything of any significance, so I will not be paying that. It could be down at the end, because I am the retail customer at the far end, and maybe that is where the price will slide itself along.

It is clear that farmers will pay for this innovation, and in some cases farmers may say that these innovations are worth paying for. In fact, many farmers are in checkoff programs to get into innovation and new technologies to do different things, and happily so, because they want to continue to enhance their ability to grow better-quality crops. They want to grow more crops while using less land, crops that are more drought resistant or drought tolerant or crops that use less water and less inputs, because inputs are a cost to farmers. They are keenly aware of all of those things and interested in doing them. In fact, I would suggest that all farmers are involved in some form of organomics in the sense of asking how they can do it better, whether it be looking at crop rotation, looking at what they do or at the market, or trying to do things in a better way in working with their land and inputs.

Therefore, there are questions about UPOV '91. It has been around for a while, but it has been on the back burner for a long period of time. The minister is correct in saying that UPOV '78 does not speak about farmers' privilege or farmers' saving seed. It is totally silent. It does not say a word. Therefore, farmers go ahead and do it; they save seed. They just save it, because it is silent. It does not say they cannot and it does not lay out a prescription as to how they can. Since it says nothing, it is assumed that they can.

That is what farmers have been doing for millennia, quite frankly. Long before the seed companies came along, farmers were their own seed company, and many are to this day, in a way. It varies. They buy some and they save some; they do a number of different things. There are hybrids, of course, that they have to pay for every year, and other varieties of things that they do have to pay for. There is no question about that. Farmers say it is a legitimate thing that they have to do, but they do not see the problem when they save it. They see this as an adjunct piece and ask why they cannot continue to do that.

The minister was fairly clear, and I will look at the record when it is presented. However, I believe what he said was that they can save it for more than a year but they are going to pay an end-use royalty on it, so they are going to pay anyway. Whether they save it or not, they are going to pay. They could basically not save it and pay, or they could go to the trouble of saving it. That means they are going to condition it, or get it conditioned, get it ready to use in their fields, and then when they harvest it they are going to pay something at the end.

This is the dilemma. I had a quick look at page 7, clause 5, and it does not say anything as to what it would be. What would that end-use royalty actually be? Would it be greater than if a farmer simply bought the seed and did not save it in the first place? Is that going to be the regulation that we wait for and then we find out after? Or, is that going to be a negotiated piece between the companies and the farmers? Would that be individual farmers? Would it be farmers' associations? It could be the grain growers group or some other group, the oats or barley groups. Would it be them? Would it be individuals? Would they pit farmer against farmer? Would the end-use royalties be higher here and lower there, depending on the deal they could cut? That is an open question, at least based on what I can see on page 7. The minister pointed us to this, and I want to thank the minister for pointing us to that clarification, but I do not see that laid out in front of us.

Clearly there are many open question on UPOV '91 for a lot of farmers, and legitimately so, as to why we are rushing headlong at this. Some would say it has been there for a long time, but it has been silent for a long time, and a lot of folks need to get back up to speed. I know the minister will say that we will have opportunities through committee. I would hope that we would have that opportunity through the committee, in the sense that we would take the time to do a couple of things. One would be to investigate what has happened. I welcome the minister's offer that as long as we do not tear it apart and pull things out of it, the minister would be happy to take helpful suggestions.

I will apologize to you in advance for being a little skeptical, Mr. Speaker, because I know that you were not the one who is the skeptic, but I am. That is based on my previous experiences in the agriculture committee, where I had proposed some changes to a food safety bill. I did not strip anything out of the bill; I was actually adding things that I thought would be helpful. Of course, we did not get any changes.

As much as I think that there were 14 or 15 potential amendments from the opposition benches that could have enhanced the bill, we did not actually get any. Therefore, you will have to excuse me, Mr. Speaker, for being a bit skeptical about the statement from the minister when it comes to his arms being open to good ideas and our feeling free to send them his way, so that the Conservatives would take them under advisement and make the bill better. I do not have any experience around that in this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to you because I know it is not something you would do. You would be more than welcoming to ensure that legislation is as good as we can possibly make it coming out of this place. That is what we should be about as legislators.

I have talked to a number of individuals in the farm community, and without question, some of them are saying the bill is a good thing. They think it is a good thing, and they are saying to me that they think there is nothing wrong with it. I know the members on the other side quite often want to point at one group or another. However, quite frankly, I am talking to individual farmers who are non-affiliated; they are not saying they are with this group or that group. Some folks would be surprised to find individual farmers are from groups that the other side call as witnesses all the time. They are saying that we should think about this for a while because they are not sure how it is going to weave itself together.

We are told we get a privilege, but what privilege is it? Is it really a privilege, or is it that people can store it but they are going to pay for it? If that were the case, then that person would end up storing it and the person who initially sold it would collect the money at the end of the day. Some would say that is not a bad deal, and some would say it is not a particularly good one. That is problematic, and it needs to be looked at very carefully.

There are a number of issues with the bill. A number of things are changed in the bill, including the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, and advance payments. There are a number of pieces, but one that is always contentious is the sense that the government is not making changes through the legislative process but through a regulatory process. Once that is handed over, it is gone.

There are good pieces in the legislation. It talks about the health and safety of handling fertilizers to make sure it is done well. Those are good things. We approve of those things. We think they are good.

However, the government then goes on to say that from now on the changes will be made through a regulatory process. It will not have to bring the legislation back because this legislation takes all of the responsibility and hands it to the minister, whoever that happens to be. It may not be this particular minister; it may be somebody else down the road. Those are difficult issues.

There are some things that can be done through regulations. The changes that have a minimal impact and need to be done quickly can be done this way. In these particular cases, these are large pieces. We are talking about turning over a large responsibility and a large amount of authority to the minister.

On this side, we have noticed that quite often the government brings in omnibus bills. I am not sure if the minister would agree that it is omnibus bill, but we actually looked at Bill C-18.

I would remind the House that there is more legislation being done on agriculture now than in recent memory. My colleague the member for Malpeque may be able to help me with this, but it seems that we have done more changes to agriculture legislation in this Parliament than probably in the last 10 Parliaments combined, which has had significant impacts on farmers right across the board.

To turn future changes that should be done through a legislative process over to a regulatory process is not reassuring for me as the critic, to be honest, in the sense that things might not happen later on. The minister said that we can change things through regulation, including the effects on farmers' privilege. That can be changed through regulation based on what happens here.

What happens then? The minister said that we could enhance it. The problem with a two-headed coin is that when it is flipped there is another side. It might be another head or it could be tail. What it means is that the advancement that might have been done could be taken away on the other side. There is no sense that it should or would happen, but the problem is that the potential is there for it to happen. If the potential is in the wrong hands, it will affect those who will have things taken away from them.

Clearly there are a number of things we would probably say are good pieces of legislation that could be tweaked a little or we could let them go. As an omnibus bill, it needs to be studied extremely carefully. We need to study it carefully and be open to helping to make it better legislation.

We could debate the merits of the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board on a philosophical basis, and whether it was right or wrong. One of the things we cannot underscore enough is that when the Wheat Board went, the logistics piece went with it. We can see what happened with the rail system and the backlog on the Prairies. The premier of Saskatchewan and the agriculture minister in Alberta are speaking out, and, last week at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the president of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture asked the government to stop talking about regulation and to regulate the railroads to make sure the crops can be moved off the Prairies.

That is an opportunity for the government to act under the regulations. It does not have to be brought here. That would be an appropriate use of regulations. The big stick of regulations could be brought out to make things happen. Then we would actually get product off of the Prairies.

Conservative estimates are that between $2 billion to $4 billion is stranded out there to farmers, which affects part of this legislation when it talks about advance payments programs. It is talking about how we are going to do this and streamline it if they want multiple years, in other words, back to back payments. Well, this year farmers are going to be back to back because many of them took the advance loans last year.

The minister is already on the record as saying, “We know there's a problem. We know you haven't sold your crop and you have no money because there's no Wheat Board to send it to”. Basically, farmers are waiting for an elevator to clear its grain so they can get into an elevator, if they are not where they can get to a producer car. What happens is that they are not empty and they cannot get in, so they do not get paid. The government's response is to get another loan.

Farmers are getting a loan to pay a loan and then starting the year with a loan without selling any grain. Some of the estimates we are talking about is that the carry-out could be two years. In other words, grain that was grown last year may not hit market until two years from now.

If that is the case, the price it was worth last year will not be the price it is worth in the future; it will be worth less. Its optimum quality will diminish over time, and farmers will end up with less money for it than they would have received last year. Clearly that would impact their ability to pay back the loan because it is of less value. The loan was based on the value in their bins.

That is today, of course. If they do not sell the remainder of it for two years, and they sell it for feed versus what used to be premium quality wheat with great protein, they are now stuck selling it for a heck of a lot less. In fact, today, the prices are running at between 12% to 15% less than they were last fall. Of course, if the grain does not move, they would not fill the contract anyways.

Clearly this legislation is talking about advance payments and those loan programs. However, this seems as if it has become a cover for a lot of things that happened last year in Growing Forward 2—and my friend from Malpeque referenced it in his questions—and what we call the suite of programs. This is business risk management programming, where the government takes out hundreds of billions of dollars worth of money. The government will say, “Hang on, the supplemental estimates will come. Just wait”.

The problem is that farmers cannot wait. There are difficulties in business risk management programming; there is no question about that. The issue is whether we fix the program or gut the program. In my view, they gutted the program.

I have talked to farmers who are asking about the sense of being in the program. The programs are not doing what they are supposed to and they feel they would not qualify for some of them anyway. They have moved the base down to such a level that they would not qualify for the programs. They do not get any money. They really want that program, but the problem is that they have to take this program with this program because that is the way they are bundled together. They end up on the short end of the stick, and therefore why would they bother doing that?

Clearly there are some sticking points in this legislation. UPOV '91, for many farmers, is a major issue that they want to see resolved. Many of them do not wish to give up their inherent right to save seed, which they have done, as I said earlier, for millennia.

Most folks in the city would assume that is how farmers do it. I recognize that is not how it really happens. There are seeds that farmers buy from companies on a regular basis, canola being one of them. There are other farmers who would prefer to buy seed every year rather than save it. That is a choice they make. The difficulty is that a lot of farmers see that they could perhaps lose their choice.

There are ways for innovation to happen. One of the things we know needs to happen, obviously, is that they need to get paid. They are not going to do the work without being paid. I think that is appropriate.

There are royalty schemes that say “If you want to participate as a broader group, perhaps that's how you'll do it”. There are check-offs in canola. There are check-offs in other programs, for other commodity groups and other livestock groups, that do different things as the money goes in there.

However, one of the things that is missing in all of this is the public dollars and research. The Canadian government, not the Conservative government, but the government and this country, under a lot of different administrations, was world-renowned for the type of work it did in innovation and public research in the agriculture sector. That is the piece that is missing here. We would like to see public dollars go back to the public good and to farmers. That is the way to make it profitable.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I think there was a lot of meat on the bones in what the member for Welland had to say. All we heard from the minister was the bones, so the member explained a number of areas of concern in the bill and how huge the bill really is.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is coming forward with this bill, which is an omnibus bill. We are world traders, but how do we stack up as a country in terms of protecting the interests of our farmers in Canada versus the United States? We know the United States has just put in place a U.S. farm bill for more than $1 trillion over 10 years for its farmers. It is back-stopping its farm community with actual dollars. Its bill has country of origin labelling and has made it permanent, which has already cost Canadian farmers over $5 billion and it still exists and the Canadian government claims it is fighting that issue.

Does the bill do anything to make our farmers more competitive with the rest of the world, or are they just seeing this free market theory and leaving our producers out there in the dust?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the government has retracted from its ability to support farmers over time. If we look at the business risk management program in the previous budget, before going forward 2, about $400 million came out of the program and sort of disappeared into that great big bottomless pit of “let us balance the budget”.

Clearly, when it comes to support for farmers, we see that some members of the broader business community here talk about milk prices, for instance. They say if only we did not have supply management we would have cheaper milk, and we should look at the Americans.

Those of us who live in border communities see newspaper flyers advertising cheap milk, but if we truly understand the farm bill, we know the subsidy for a gallon of U.S. milk is about $5 U.S. Clearly it is supporting its farmers. I am not so sure the Canadian government is, and we really should be standing up for farmers. That is why we need public research dollars from the government to enhance farmers' ability to be profitable, enhance their innovation, and make sure they are the best they could possibly be, because that is exactly what they want to be.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing from concerned farmers who are looking at the royalty rates, that they will be set only by the plant breeders' right holder. I wonder if the member is hearing any concerns from his constituents about what these royalty rates could be and what the impact would be for farmers. We know that Canadian farmers have a very difficult time breaking even. Anything that increases their costs is a worry.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the royalty rates are a question not of legislation but of negotiating power. Clearly, the minister says in the House that we are going to pay a royalty regardless; so farmers can save the seed, but they are going to pay an end royalty. What is the end royalty?

In other words, if I am a breeder and want farmers to buy new seed every time and do not want them to save any, how would I manage that? I am not Machiavellian.

Well, I am a politician; maybe I am Machiavellian in a way.

I would make it more expensive on the back end. I would make the end use royalty larger than the front end, if it were bought from me. Actually I want farmers to buy the seeds from me at the beginning. I do not want farmers to save it and get an end royalty. It is too much administrative work to figure out how much crop they took in and how much it was and figure out what I should charge for that. If I charge more at the end, I will always get them coming through the front door; that way, they have to buy that seed from me all of the time.

The royalty piece is going to be set by the breeders, and if farmers do not have equal bargaining power, then it will be the breeders who get the price they want and farmers will be left basically having to pay for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member, who is the official opposition critic for agriculture and agri-food.

How is it that there is nothing in this agriculture and agri-food reform about crisis management?

There was a crisis at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Cuts were made and there was a certain laissez-faire attitude towards health and safety. However, nothing in this legislation offers real protection for consumers.

I would like my colleague to talk some more about the provisions that could have been included in the bill, but that have been left out.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the health and safety front, to use fertilizer as an example because it is in the bill, turning it over to the regulatory process when it comes to additional health and safety measures means it is at the whim of whomever the is minister at the end of the day, as to whether we should go that far or not. One minister might think that is good enough, while another one might think we should go further for protection, rather than it coming back here to decide that.

When it comes to consumers, the adage is that consumers come first, and farmers believe that. They certainly grow healthy products and want to make the best quality they can. They want to make sure people do not get ill. However, at the end of the day, in response to whether there are more or fewer inspectors, if we take 900 people out and add 200 people in, it is minus 700. That is fewer, not more.

I know sometimes some folks might think that less is more, but that is a philosophical argument. If we have half a chocolate cake, it is half a chocolate cake. We may want to have more, or the whole chocolate cake, but the bottom line is that when we cut it in half and someone takes a half, there is only a half left. In this particular case with food safety, if we take some out and do not add the same numbers back in, we have fewer. The system does not function as well as it did before, and consumers may indeed be less safe than they were before, because there are fewer resources there.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Seed Trade Association has had a positive response to the bill right from the start. It said it actually has a letter from the European Seed Association stating very clearly that European seed companies would not send their varieties to Canada until we are compliant with UPOV '91. I say this because we often look to Europe for small grains and horticultural crops. I believe those are actually going to be the largest beneficiaries within the seed growers. Therefore, I wonder if he has some thoughts about what not allowing and holding back our producers might mean because we would not have access to them through UPOV '91?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with my hon. colleague across the way. That is why I said earlier that I did not actually oppose it. I said we need to work on this piece.

He is correct. I talked to Canadian seed growers as well. I met them in my office about a month ago and talked to them about those very issues. There is no question that seed producers in the EU who are covered by UPOV '91 are looking at us and saying they will not sell to us because perhaps they could not get the royalties they are entitled to based on the work they have put into it and how they are covered under UPOV '91.

There are some things we need to look at as to how we do not get things based on our not having signed a particular treaty or law, and how does one bargain those through? There may be opportunities that we may be losing, and we need to work on that whole piece so that it actually works for farmers as well as the seed traders and those who produce the seeds.

At the end of the day, this is an integrated industry and if we do not actually take a holistic viewpoint as to how this would actually benefit them all, then there will be losers. Our biggest fear is that, at this stage of the game, it looks as if the farmer will be the biggest loser. Many of the farmers talking to me feel that way. We actually have to make sure that is not the case, that they are all on a level playing field, so when they bargain whatever it is they end up doing around royalties and fees, they not end up being the losers in the whole scheme of things.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, which was introduced on December 9.

To begin, I will explain basically all of the areas it touches, so that people understand how big this bill is.

It would amend nine separate pieces of agriculture-related legislation, affecting plant breeders' rights, as well as affecting seed, fertilizer, animal health, plant protection, monetary penalties, agriculture marketing programs, and farm debt mediation. It appears that the bill attempts to streamline regulatory processes affecting farmers and the agricultural industry more broadly. I will speak specifically to some of those areas.

I would point out that, when I look at where Canada is going in terms of support for its farmers versus where our major competitors are at—the European community and the United States—I see that we as a country are not in any way supporting our farm community to the extent other countries are supporting theirs.

A moment ago I mentioned the United States farm bill. It incorporates country of origin labelling, which has been a disaster for our producers in Canada. The Government of Canada claims it will retaliate. However, as the Speaker well knows, because he is a farmer himself, the damage has been done with country of origin labelling. It has cost our beef industry around $5 billion in losses and is still hurting it. We see that it has targeted price programs in which basically some American farmers just go to the mailbox and pick up money. Our producers are supposed to compete against that happening just south of the border.

I do not need to go into any great detail in terms of the common agriculture policy in the European industry. I know why the governments of the European community have done this.They have said that their people had gone hungry during World War II and will never go hungry again. Therefore, they will ensure that the farm community is supported and paid for what it produces. That is what our farmers are up against in terms of competing against these other countries. Our government is just not there with the kind of support for our producers that there should be.

I look at this bill and I see a heck of a lot more in terms of protecting corporate rights than farmers' rights. That is the basic thrust of the bill. It is more protective of the rights of corporations, global corporations mainly, than it is of the rights of Canadian farmers.

Bill C-18 would amend, among other things, the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. It would amend certain aspects of the plant breeders' rights granted under the act, including the duration and scope of those rights and conditions for the protection of those rights. It also would provide for exceptions to the application of those rights.

It would amend the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, and the Plant Protection Act. Rather than my going through it, the summary of the bill outlines quite a number of areas where amendments would be made, for certain reasons, to all of those various acts.

It would also amend the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act to, among other things, increase the maximum limit of penalties that may be imposed for certain violations.

Bill C-18 would amend the Agriculture Marketing Programs Act. The minister claims the bill would modernize the requirements of the advance payments program in an effort to improve its accessibility and enhance its administration and delivery.

I want to make a point on that. The minister is talking of using the advance payments act to assist farmers in western Canada who no longer can deliver their grain. The reason we have a disaster in western Canada at the moment is really due to the actions of the minister. He is talking about using the advance payments to assist in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, because you have shipped grain too, you very well know that the advance payments act was not originally intended to be a loan program, and to a certain extent that is what it has become. The first $100,000 is interest-free and an individual can get up to $400,000. This legislation may increase those numbers.

Originally, the whole purpose of the advance payments act was to assist producers when harvesting their crops in the fall so they would not dump product on the market to pay for their combine or their harvesting costs or labour and so on. The whole purpose was to give farmers advance payments so they could feed the market, over time, rather than dumping product on the market and lowering its price as a result of oversupply. It was a wonderful program in the beginning and served its purpose well. It was a marketing tool by which to hold prices up.

Under the present Conservative government, and under the previous government, to be honest, the advance payments program to a certain extent lost its most important purpose of being a marketing tool, and is now being used for the spring and fall advance as a loan program to tide producers over. All sight of its original intent has been lost.

Bill C-18 would amend 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 the minister is a guarantor of a farmer's debt.

There is no question that the farm mediation process has to be improved. The intent was to bring creditors together to try to find a solution through mediation. A farmer would have some assistance through the government itself in personnel, and money as well in terms of putting together a business plan for that operation. Some of that has slid by the wayside and that mediation process does need to be cleaned up.

As the House can see from the many amendments, Bill C-18 is predominantly an omnibus bill that is causing some concerns among farmers. The committee must carefully investigate this. I am not on the committee, but my colleague from Sydney—Victoria is a member. That committee must carefully investigate each of the acts that would be affected so as to ensure that there is proper consultation. It is important to give people a look at exactly what changes would be made so that some analysis of the impact of those changes could be undertaken.

The more broadly-based the proposed changes are, and in this legislation they cross a number of areas dealing with regulatory issues and industry standards, the more difficult is our basic understanding.

We have seen that the Conservative government has a tendency to push through legislation, limiting debate in the process, and farmers may be faced with dramatic changes that they were not even fully aware were in the act in the beginning.

I am going to speak for a moment about the changes that the government made to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The minister did, so I probably should as well, because I certainly do not agree with the minister's interpretation of the results of his killing the Canadian Wheat Board.

It was one thing for the government, if it so decided, to not allow the producers to have a vote on the Canadian Wheat Board. It was another, if it so decided, to do away with single-desk selling.

Instead of taking a four-year planning period in which it would have looked at all of the other things including the logistics the Canadian Wheat Board was in charge of and the authority it had, as a result we now have an absolute crisis in western Canada. As many as 50 ships are lined up in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, and producers are paying as much as $15,000 to $20,000 per day per ship. That money comes out of the producers' pockets in demurrage payments. Prices have been discounted in western Canada by as much as 40%, compared to U.S. prices.

Without question, the minister himself has to accept responsibility for the disaster that is in western Canada at the moment.

I should mention, in terms of the changes to the Canadian Wheat Board that have allowed this transportation and delivery of grain crisis to exist and that have perpetuated it, producers in mainland B.C. cannot get grain rail-shipped into their operations either. They cannot get it into their mills or into their feed, whether it is for poultry or for cattle. That livestock has to be fed daily. As a result, those producers are forced to turn to trucking. Whether or not they are in supply management, their costs are higher. Now, they are non-competitive and some of them are losing money.

It all comes back to the way that the government made its decision regarding the Canadian Wheat Board, instead of looking at all of the aspects of it and rather than single-desk selling. In changing legislation, we have to be careful that we do not cause other unforeseen difficulties, which is what happened in this particular case.

One of the big areas of the bill about which there is a lot of concern is the amendment to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act that would align plant breeders' rights with the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, which is really UPOV ’91. The minister talked about that. This move would update Canada's legislation from the UPOV ’78 framework. These amendments would include farmers' privilege, which allows farmers to use seeds from the crops they grow.

There is a lot of debate, as the minister said and responded to in his questions and as the member for Welland talked about. There is a lot of debate on what “farmers' privilege” really means. There are some concerned organizations out there. One of them, certainly, is the National Farmers Union.

The minister, in response to questions, said that it is outlined on page 7 that the farmers' privilege is really going to protect farmers. Keep in mind how the minister answered. He said that the farmers' privilege can “…be enhanced as we move forward….” If it can be enhanced as we move forward, in other words, by a change in regulations, then it can also be that some of that farmers' privilege can be taken away from that privilege we believe may be there and may exist in the legislation.

We know for a fact that this particular government has always, in its decisions, come down on the side not of the producer but of the corporate sector, and that is what worries me.

I want to quote what the NFU said in terms of the their concern. It stated:

The farmers' privilege provision in C-18 does not include stocking seed. Bill C-18 does not protect farmers from being accused of infringing on PBR-holders’ rights for any of these traditional practices: storing seed harvested in the fall for planting in the spring; storing unsold grain in bins in the farmyard—since the grain could potentially be used to grow more wheat; cleaning three years’ supply of seed to protect against crop failure, disease or frost.

It went on to state:

Worse, Section 50(4) of Bill C-18 enables the Governor in Council (ie Cabinet) to make regulations to put even more limits on the farmers’ privilege provisions. These regulations can exclude classes of farmers; exclude plant varieties; exclude uses of harvested material; restrict farmers’ use [of] harvested material; put conditions on farmers’ use [of] harvested material; stipulate what is to be considered “conditioning” of seed.

It further stated:

We do not know the text of Canada’s future [plant breeders' rights] regulations, but we can expect them to follow the official UPOV ’91 Guidance Document....

There are legitimate concerns. In the answer from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food when he was questioned about farmers' privilege, he said that they can be enhanced as we move forward. That, in fact, increases my concern as it relates to this particular bill.

As I said in the beginning, I am very concerned that this bill, compared to the way the U.S. and the EU are moving, puts our primary producers at a disadvantage because we are giving more authority to the corporate sector and taking it away from primary producers.

The bill also proposes that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will have the authority to consider foreign reviews, data, and analysis during the approval or registration of new agriculture products in Canada, which can allow for a more effective approvals process. The act includes a new licensing and registration regime for animal feed and fertilizer operators and establishments, increasing monetary penalties for violations, stronger controls for agriculture products at the border, and requirements for more stringent record keeping to enhance safety. Most of those are good points, and I am sure the bill has a mixture of good points and some not so good, if I could put it that way.

Let me close by summing up. Bill C-18 is an omnibus bill. The record of the government with the farm community is not a good one: the killing of the Canadian Wheat Board, which has resulted in the absolute disaster in western Canada in terms of transportation and pricing; the cutting by 50% of AgriStability, which farmers will be in dire need of if they cannot ship their grain; the cutting of AgriInvest by the government; and finally, we should be going to public plant breeding instead of private plant breeding.

There, researchers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with years of experience, are moving to other countries and taking that knowledge with them to compete against Canadians.

The bill needs to be examined closely.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this is an important bill for the agricultural sector. It has many positive initiatives within it that will benefit our farmers in many different respects, including their competitiveness.

When I listened to my colleague and a few other speeches in the House on this matter today, it is clear that there are always ideas about changes and other things that could be added, but the member himself has admitted that there are many good things in the bill. It will go before committee. There will be a thorough review of what is in it and the proposals by the opposition on what could be added.

Could the member indicate to the House whether he and his party will be supporting this legislation?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it could have been a slip of the tongue and I could have said “many”, but I believe I said there are some good points and some bad points.

We are not outlining our position in this initial debate. We are differing from the government. Through our agriculture critic, we are consulting broadly with organizations right across the country. We do not just consult with some and ignore others; we try to consult broadly with them to get their point of view and are still doing research.

As I said in my remarks, this is a huge bill. It covers a lot of different pieces of legislation. Given eight lost years with this particular government, we know that we cannot just take its word for anything, but have to examine the bill closely. That is what we are in the process of doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member spoke about how important agriculture is for various countries. That caught my attention. He said that those countries have plans with respect to agriculture, agri-food, processing and related transportation issues.

I would like my colleague to comment on how important it is to keep agriculture alive and to invest new money in the sector, as many family farms across the country are collapsing.

The government is just looking to help the large companies in this industry, but family farms, which built this country, are the ones that should be benefiting.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and I certainly agree on how important agriculture and its spinoff industries, from farmers through the processing industry to the transportation industry, are to the Canadian economy. Agriculture is a huge contributor to jobs and the economy in this country and a huge contributor to GDP.

I have always maintained, and I am a former farm leader, that agriculture is a producer of wealth. In the agricultural community, farmers take something and grow it and produce it and create wealth. Part of the problem for primary producers is that it is often awfully hard for them to retain that wealth in their own operations, but they do a lot of good work and add to the economy of the country as a whole.

It is one of the reasons why we have to recognize that in the global community we cannot be the odd person out. If the United States and Europe are supporting their agricultural industry more than we are, by not doing something similar in our own country, we are not creating a level playing field for our producers.

All things have to tie together. We need the infrastructure, transportation, and shipping to get our products to market in an efficient and competitive way. The government could do much more than it is doing currently in that particular area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Malpeque for leading things off for the Liberals here today. I had some travel issues getting here. The member did a wonderful job. As a former farmer he is very knowledgeable about the industry.

I met with some farmers on the weekend in the member's riding of Cape Breton—Canso, in Mabou. These farmers were very concerned about the cutbacks to AgriStability.

Could the member for Malpeque expand a little more on some of the comments he made in his opening statement about how all of these programs are being cut and how this will affect people down on the farms?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, what we have consistently seen from the government is a reduction over time in a number of ways of its support for the agriculture community. The government talks a good line.

I mentioned the disaster that the government created by killing the Canadian Wheat Board. I know the minister says that we still have the Canadian Wheat Board and that the farmers can still go to it. They can but the government took all the authority and power of the Canadian Wheat Board away. That is why there is really no one to represent producers and challenge the grain companies and railways on the movement of farmers' product.

I hear members applauding on the other side, but I do not know how they can do that when they know about the disaster in western Canada right now because the logistics previously coordinated by the Canadian Wheat Board are no longer there. That is why there is a disaster with the movement of grain in western Canada.

The government cut AgriStability by 50%. So that safety net is no longer there to the same extent it was under the previous government.

The government cut AgriInvest as well. Farmers not able, in the good times, to invest as much money. The contribution from the government under AgriInvest is not there to the extent it was under the previous government.

Last, in terms of research and development on public plant breeding, the government has cut back so far that researchers with years of knowledge are leaving the country. They are going to Australia and the United States. They were educated, trained, and gained experienced in Canada, and now they are working for countries that compete against us, all because of the government.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about Bill C-18.

It is a complicated bill. The plant breeders' rights section, as the member said, appears to tip more toward the corporate interests than the farmers'. This carved out privilege to hang onto seed for farmers, to their own plant varieties, is undermined in a couple of ways, or at least is potentially undermined. I certainly hope we can toughen this bill at committee to prevent the application of it in such a way that it prevents farmers from saving seed.

One of the pieces I picked up on in the definition section is the change in the definition of plant variety to encompass “essentially derived” varieties. In other words, there is a broader definition of a plant variety under Bill C-18 than currently in use, and that would appear to me to give greater rights to the large corporations than to the individual farmer.

I wonder if my colleague has any similar concerns.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right.

There are very serious concerns, especially as the bill relates to plant breeders' rights. As I said, the minister's answer on farmers' privilege did not instill a lot of confidence in me. He said that farmers' privilege can be enhanced as we move forward. If that is the case, it can also be lessened.

There are some organizations and groups out there that are very concerned. I think it is significant, when we are looking at definition, that it is entitled in the bill as “farmers' privilege”. Why is it not called “farmers' right”?

Farmers have the privilege to save seed they have grown maybe for a little while, maybe under certain conditions. Farmers are the producers of food. Over time we have seen global corporations taking more and more control of the very essence of growing a crop, the seed itself.

I am not saying they have not done a good job in many respects. They have increased production. They have increased protection against disease and all those things. However, is there a balance? Is there too much power in the corporate sector and not enough in the farm sector?

I think we have to look at the difference between farmers' privilege and farmers' right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Agriculture for introducing this important bill.

Indeed, this bill on agricultural growth is one of the most important pieces of legislation that our government has introduced in this House. That is why I am pleased to rise today speak to this House.

Our government continues to ensure that Canadian farmers and food manufacturers have the tools they need to spark economic activity and to compete in world markets.

The bill on agricultural growth will modernize and simplify nine pieces of legislation, including seven that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for implementing in order to regulate Canada's agricultural sector, and two administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

The legislation in question consists of 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.

Together, these acts and regulations are critical to the strength of our farm gate, the growth of our economy, and the safety of our agricultural products. We can see from the wide spectrum of acts the bill covers that many agricultural stakeholders have been consulted and do support this proposed legislation. These stakeholders represent farmers; seed, feed, and fertilizer companies; retailers; and end-point users. I will give a small sampling in no particular order.

The groups include, Pulse Canada, Canadian Horticultural Council, CropLife Canada, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Green Growers of Canada, Alberta Barley Commission, Canadian Seed Trade Association, Canadian Private Potato Breeders Network, Barley Council of Canada, Grain Farmers of Ontario, Prairie Oat Growers Association, Western Canadian Wheat Growers, Canterra Seeds, and the list goes on. This list is not exhaustive, but it is illustrative of the support the proposed legislation enjoys within the farming community.

Why take my word for it when we can see what the Liberal opposition critic for agriculture told The Western Producer a mere 10 weeks ago: “...the bill looks very good and there is a lot I can support...”.

I only hope the member keeps his word and supports the bill.

Some of the acts that we are proposing to amend date back to the 1950s. They have served us well, but a lot has changed since those days. As new agricultural production techniques and new developments in science arrive, the legislative tools for agricultural products must keep pace, especially since other international trading partners have innovated and have modernized their approaches.

We need to keep pace with the modern world and help our farmers grow their businesses, and we need to do it now. That is why the agricultural growth act touches on a whole range of areas, from feeds to seeds, to animal health, to plant protection, to farm finance.

The agricultural growth act proposes amendments that would reduce the regulatory burden for industry; promote trade in agricultural products; and strengthen the safety of agricultural products, the first link in the food chain.

I wish to explain how this proposed legislation would go a long way in modernizing the tools and services available to Canadian farmers. What we are proposing to do with this act is to build a more effective, innovative, and nimble legislative framework, one that reflects 21st century realities. Here is an example.

The agricultural growth act would bring plant breeders' rights in line with those of our international competitors. This would ensure that farmers have the latest crop varieties they need to keep pace with their competition. The proposed changes would encourage investment in plant breeding in Canada, thereby increasing the choices Canadian farmers have in accessing high-yielding crop varieties. High productivity in the agricultural sector benefits farmers and grows Canada's economy.

Canada's farmers would still be able to save, clean, treat, and replant a variety of seed on their own land. This is referred to as “farmers' privilege” and is explicitly stated in proposed section 5.3 of the bill.

I wish to point out that the agricultural growth act already reflects extensive stakeholder consultations carried out over the past few years, and that commitment continues.

Any possible regulatory amendments, including farmers' privilege, would of course follow our regulatory processes, would be based on international best practices, and would include extensive consultations with Canadian stakeholders on a crop-by-crop basis.

Here is another example. The agricultural growth act proposes new broader controls on the safety of Canada's agricultural inputs through the licensing and registration of feed and fertilizer manufacturers. To explain further, this act would provide the ability of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to license or register fertilizer and animal feed operators and facilities that import or sell products across provincial or international boundaries. This would be in addition to the current system, in which feed and fertilizer products are registered product by product.

Licensing and registering facilities and operators would provide a more effective and timely approach to verifying that agriculture products meet Canada's stringent standards. This approach would allow for better tracking and oversight of production processes and the products being produced, a more efficient system for identifying issues early, and a faster response if and when a product recall is required. This would apply to businesses that sell their animal feed and fertilizer products across provincial and international borders and not to farmers who make these products for use on their own farms. This would also align Canadian legislation with international trading partners and would help our feed and fertilizer industries maintain their export markets, especially in the United States.

I have one more example, and it is an important one.

The agricultural growth act will enable us to implement stricter border controls for agricultural products.

I can assure the House that we already take measures to address non-compliance. We can seize illegal products related to feed, livestock, seed and fertilizer. Under the current process, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency attempts to negotiate solutions to problems or initiates court proceedings. The process works, but I will explain why we need to update it.

Illegal products that are seized may include goods that are dangerous or do not comply with packaging and labelling requirements. Right now, Canada sometimes has to pay to dispose of those illegal products. Under the agricultural growth act, CFIA inspectors can order imported feed, livestock, fertilizer and seed out of Canada if they do not meet legal requirements. We already do this for imported plants and animals. This procedure will be similar to how we can order the removal of imported plants and animals if they do not meet legal requirements.

The act also gives CFIA inspectors the power to allow importers to fix the problem in Canada if there is no safety issue and if they can be sure the problem has been corrected. The proposed amendments would provide the CFIA with tools to more effectively fulfill its mandate to protect Canada's plant and animal resources.

Once passed, these changes will help reassure Canadian farmers that imported agricultural products meet our requirements and that they can compete on a level playing field.

What we are doing is bringing the legislation into line with new science and technology, innovation, and international practices in the agricultural sector. We are making Canadian businesses more competitive and ensuring a consistent regulatory approach, and we are harmonizing our legislation with our trading partners.

Just before I sit down, I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions and comments, I would like to remind all hon. members that if it is their intention to split their time, they ought to announce it at the beginning of their speeches rather than at the end. If this member had gone on for about another 10 seconds, he would have been over the 10-minute limit, which would have precluded his colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex from the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am sure that was not his intention.

We will go to questions and comments. The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.

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

Mr. Speaker, as farmers are finding out about the bill, they have a lot of questions about it. The member mentioned that some groups are for it. Yes, there are various things in it that might help farmers, but there are many questions. At committee we hope to find the answers.

One of the main concerns I hear is about the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. The bill says that it is a “privilege” for a farmer to store his or her seed for the following year. It should not be a privilege. It should be a right to keep those seeds and to continue to plant the following spring.

I am surprised that the Conservatives would come up with the word “privilege” instead of “right”. They have talked about gun rights and so on, but now they are taking away the right of farmers to keep their seed.

Where are the Conservatives going with the privilege to keep seed? I would hope we would be able to change it to a right instead of a privilege.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is caught up in a word when he is not actually reading the text of the bill. I pointed out that proposed section 5.3 very clearly delineates what farmers can and cannot do in terms of saving their seed.

For example, it says:

The rights referred to in paragraphs 5(1)(a) and (b) do not apply to harvested material of the plant variety that is grown by a farmer on the farmer’s holdings and used by the farmer on those holdings for the sole purpose of propagation of the plant variety.

This is very clear. I would ask members of the opposition to actually read the bill and understand what it is saying. There is a lot of support for moving to UPOV '91. We are the last western democracy to take on UPOV '91. Why is the member against it? Why is he concerned about giving our farmers the competitive advantage that UPOV '91 will give them?

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

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-18, Canadian farmers would have the availability of foreign seeds from other countries. UPOV '91, the plant breeders' rights, allows them to come in and be protected. Will it bring in investment not only for public seeds but also for private seeds?

There will be a royalty. There will be some costs that will be shared. I wonder if the member has some thoughts on whether farmers should actually be paying for any of those benefits they will be receiving should they decide to use those varieties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the excellent input he provided on the bill.

I read out loud that farmers can save seed. That is in the legislation. However, there will be consultation with industry itself, and regulatory changes to follow, and that is what the minister spoke of.

On the one hand, if all of this were solidified right now with very little consultation, the opposition would say that we did not consult. Instead, we are encasing the farmers' right to save seed within the legislation. The response to the member's question is going to be contained within extensive consultation with industry, and regulatory changes that will follow, through the normal vetting process.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to support Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act. It is important and timely, and Canada needs it. Canada needs it so agriculture entrepreneurs can harness innovation, add value, and generate jobs and growth across our great country.

The agricultural growth act would modernize and streamline nine different statutes, seven that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency uses to regulate Canada's agriculture sector and two administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Let me explain why we need passage of this proposed legislation now. As new agricultural production techniques and new developments in science thrive, the legislative base for agricultural products must keep pace, especially since other international partners have modernized their legislation. We need the agricultural growth act because it would provide the legislative backbone for growth.

If Canada's farmers, along with the agriculture and food sector, are to maintain their competitive edge on the global stage, they need 21st century technology. We need to keep pace with the modern world, and we need to help our farmers grow their businesses. I am going to touch on some key changes outlined in the agricultural growth act to show what I mean.

First, let me touch on plant breeders' rights. The act would bring plant breeders' rights in line with international competitors. This would ensure that farmers would have the latest crop varieties they need to keep pace with competition. At the same time, the act is explicit. It recognizes the traditional practice of saving and reusing seed from crops grown on their own land, which is known as “farmers' privilege”.

Let me be clear. With the proposed amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, Canada's farmers would continue to be able to save, clean, treat, and replant seeds of protected varieties on their own land. The proposed changes would encourage investment in plant breeding in Canada, which would increase the choices Canadian farmers have in accessing high-yielding crop varieties.

The Grain Farmers of Ontario said the following about this very issue in a news release on December, 2013:

The new act will give both public and private sector plant breeders the ability and confidence to continue to develop new seed varieties needed to improve yields and keep Canada competitive on the world market. The act will also encourage new product development and research.

Now let me touch on the licensing and registration of feed and fertilizer manufacturers. The agricultural growth act proposes new broader controls on the safety of Canada's agricultural inputs through the licensing or registration of feed and fertilizer manufacturers. The proposed amendment would align Canadian legislation with international trading partners and would help our feed and fertilizer industries maintain their export markets, particularly in the United States.

The act would give the Canadian Food Inspection Agency the ability to license and register fertilizer and animal feed operators and facilities that import or sell products across provincial or international borders. This would be in addition to the current system, in which feed and fertilizer products are registered product by product. Again, we are keeping farmers top of mind. This amendment would apply to businesses that sell animal feed and fertilizer products across provincial and international borders, not to farmers who make these products for use on their very own farms.

Any licensing regime would require regulations before it could operate, so it would be developed in detailed consultations with stakeholders. As Graham Cooper, executive director of the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada told the Western Producer about the bill on December 13, 2013, “What it does is requires commercial feed mills to have preventive control plans, hazard identification and control plans in place”.

This is something the industry wants and is a tool the government needs.

Let me touch on a measure that would allow for the consideration of foreign reviews and analyses in the approval process. For me, this is a personal acknowledgment, as for a long time farmers have been negatively affected by the current regime in registration.

Many in this House will remember my private member's Motion No. 460 in 2010, which called upon the government to allow the CFIA, the PMRA, and the Veterinary Drug Directorate of Health Canada to consider foreign science when approving new products. The Minister of Agriculture listened, and this clause in the bill is the result.

This is an amendment designed to promote innovation and cut red tape when it comes to the registration of new agriculture products. The proposed change would clarifiy and confirm the CFIA's authority to consider foreign reviews, data, and analyses during the evaluation for approval or registration of new agriculture products to the Canadian market. This information would be considered in addition to the ongoing Canadian reviews and analyses. This in turn allows for an efficient and effective approval process so that Canada's farmers can benefit from the latest scientific research from around the world and keep pace with our competition. This is a great example of how members of Parliament can bring forward ideas on behalf of their constituents and their producers and get them enshrined into law.

I now want to touch on new border controls for the imported agricultural products.

The agriculture growth act will give the Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors the authority to order imported shipments of feed, fertilizers, and seed out of Canada if they do not meet legal requirements. This is similar to the way that imported plants and animals may be ordered to be removed if they do not meet legal requirements.

Under the current process, the CFIA negotiates a solution or there are likely to be court proceedings after the seizure of an illegal product related to animal feeds, seeds, and fertilizers. Basically this process works, but at times Canada must then also pay to dispose of the illegal products that are seized. Now we can see how being able to order the products out of Canada, out of our country, would be more effective and efficient. At the same time, the act would give CFIA inspectors the ability to allow importers to fix the problem in Canada, but only if it is not a matter of safety and if they can be sure that the issue will be addressed.

The proposed amendments would provide the CFIA with stronger tools to more effectively fulfill its mandate to protect Canada's plant and animal resource base. This change will provide additional reassurance to Canadian farmers that imported agriculture products meet our requirements and that they are competing on a more level playing field.

I wish to point out that the agriculture growth act reflects extensive stakeholder consultations carried out over the past number of years, and we are committed to additional consultation. Upon the act's receiving royal assent—and it is my great desire to see that day—some of the changes in this bill would come into force almost immediately, while others would be phased in or would require regulatory amendments. However, members can be assured that before any changes are implemented, our government is committed to full consultation to determine how to best move forward.

That is what the agriculture growth act is about. That is why I am asking all parliamentarians to give the agriculture growth act their careful attention and to move it forward so that we will have the legislative backbone to continue providing Canada's farmers and food processors with the tools they need to drive new economic growth and compete in the global economy.

In December of last year, David Hansen, vice-chair of Cereals Canada, said, “The changes being introduced through the tabling of this...bill in Parliament will truly enable Canada’s agriculture industry to grow.” I agree with him totally.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the remarks by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex were interesting, as I would expect coming from a government member supporting this legislation.

I want to ask a question on the changes the bill would make to the feed and fertilizer components. I have enjoyed sitting on the agriculture committee with the member, but I want to ask if there would be any protection for producers with proposed changes to the fertilizer act. The member and I have both sat on that committee, so we know that potash companies and fertilizer companies have joined together around the world in the past and have basically managed supply, or actually shortened supply, to increase the price of fertilizer to the farm community. I am wondering if there is any protection in the bill for producers, not just fertilizer companies. Is there any cost protection in the bill that would protect farmers from excessive pricing by potash and fertilizer companies as they get together around the world and shorten supply, to the disadvantage of producers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member across the way, who is sitting with the vice-chair of agriculture. I will be looking forward to his speech a bit later.

The legislative changes in terms of the licensing of feed and fertilizer establishments and their operators are about having a safety valve in place in terms of both feed and fertilizer. If products are going to cross the border, we need to know that not just the products themselves but also the establishments and the operators are licensed to make sure that what is put into either feed or fertilizer is safe and that our producers are able to use it.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

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

As some of my colleagues have said, this bill certainly has some positive aspects. However, this is just another omnibus bill from this government, as always. It has some problematic aspects, and it will be extremely important to go over them in committee.

As opposition members, we are in a position where we have to choose all or nothing. This is a serious problem. I wonder if my colleague shares these concerns. Changes are necessary, but it does not work to propose all the changes at the same time.

Did my colleague also notice that there are problems because this is yet another omnibus bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for an interesting question.

The previous government pursued this legislation but never went anywhere with it because it lacked the stamina and did not have the interests of Canadian farmers at heart. Now we have a government that has consulted with individuals for many years, and those individuals will appear before our committee. The committee will bring in witnesses, and we will hear from witnesses across the country.

When I took part in the announcement that went out across Canada in December of this year, industry people, commodity organizations, and representatives from farm organizations thanked us for the consultation process. They were very excited about a bill like this making its way through the system.

I look forward to the day when the bill receives royal assent and we are able to start implementing this legislation.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

Today, I rise to speak to an issue that is close to my heart and very important to the people of the magnificent riding of Montcalm.

Montcalm includes the nine municipalities of the Montcalm RCM, and nearly 80% of the land is farmed. That is the riding I represent, and I have lived there for many years. I will not say how many years so as not to give away my age.

I love Montcalm. Many people there, including many of my friends, make their living from agriculture. That is why I think it is essential to go over this bill carefully before imposing new changes that will undoubtedly have many repercussions on my constituents.

Once again, the Conservatives have presented us with an omnibus bill including many changes that should be debated more thoroughly and reviewed carefully. With the agriculture sector being so very complex, it is hard to do this quickly.

The bill proposes amendments to nine different acts. We are supporting it today because we believe that the bill at least deserves to be properly examined by a parliamentary committee. Serious questions need to be asked, and we believe that some provisions need to be carefully reviewed.

Like all of my NDP colleagues, I believe that priority should be given to a balanced approach. We are going to protect farmers and Canada's public sector researchers. We must take everyone's best interests into account. The agri-food sector should not have to pay the price for the Conservative government's ideology-based policies.

The NDP is trying to be as responsible as possible. In fact, one of our objectives is to ensure that Canadians have access to and can benefit from our agricultural heritage. We also need to understand how all of these changes will affect producers.

At first glance, the safety measures proposed with regard to seeds, plants and animals should result in additional resources for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Unfortunately, the bill does not seem to address this essential public safety issue.

What is more, the current government has earned a negative reputation with its many cuts to the Canadian monitoring agencies that are supposed to protect the safety of Canadian consumers. The Conservatives made devastating cuts to the food inspection system. We must ensure that such mistakes and the serious consequences they have do not happen again.

Bill C-18 does not have the unanimous support of the stakeholders affected by it. The 1991 Act , which the government signed but still has not ratified, is controversial. Some groups, including the National Farmers Union, do not want the 1991 Act to be ratified and have already spoken out against Bill C-18.

Meanwhile, other organizations, including Keystone Agricultural Producers, the Prairie Oat Growers Association, the Grain Growers of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, have expressed their support for the bill. They believe that the government has found a good balance between producers' ability to make their research profitable and—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The time provided for government business has now expired. The hon. member for Montcalm will have six minutes to finish her speech after question period.

The House resumed 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, after a long wait, I am rising to speak. I was prepared to speak at 3:15 p.m. It is now 5:30 p.m. I apologize for my nervousness and confusion. I have been thinking about this constantly, and I still have many questions about Bill C-18.

Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food is yet another one of these omnibus bills. The Conservatives have practically admitted that it is intended to dazzle us while straying from the real objectives that should have been the focus of an overhaul of the agriculture and agri-food sector.

Of course, our legislation needs to be modernized and updated, but we also need to look at the resources we have and consider the environment and the economy. I will talk about the environment and climate change a bit later.

This bill is proposing changes to nine different laws, seven of which fall under the responsibility of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The other two are under the purview of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. We are talking about nine different laws in a sector that is absolutely vital to our economy. It was once the pride of our economy from coast to coast. It is a critical part of the mix of prosperous activities that feed millions of people, not just in Canada, but also around the world.

This is a complex sector that generates hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefits. It is the lifeblood of regions across Canada. Even the most knowledgeable are confounded by this bill. All the issues addressed in Bill C-18, from plant breeders' rights to the consolidation of border security mechanisms, as well as increased access to the advance payments program—the famous APP—certainly deserve debate and a very thorough analysis. We shall see what twists and turns the bill will take. It does deserve special attention.

With respect to plant breeders' rights, the NDP believes that a more orderly and balanced approach is required. We all want to protect our Canadian farmers and public researchers. This sector of activity generates what is known in economic jargon as value-added, as well as hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Although we understand the vital role of intellectual property rights in encouraging innovation—and Canada has always been a leader in innovation—we want to ensure that Canadians have access to their extremely important agricultural heritage and that they can benefit from it. Various stakeholders across the country will be affected by the proposed changes in Bill C-18. For that reason it is important to consider its repercussions and to follow the normal process for studying this bill.

We must not let our farmers and researchers become ensnared in a bureaucratic maze that is already too cumbersome for them.

What is the purpose of the bill? It would amend the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act in order to change various aspects of the plant breeders' rights granted under the act, including the duration and scope of those rights and conditions for the protection of those rights.

In many countries, such as the United States, and even in Europe, the term of the grant of rights may be up to 25 or 30 years. This bill proposes to make it 18 to 20 years. We shall see what impact that will have.

Let us move on to the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act.

The bill would amend the Feeds Act to authorize inspectors to order that certain unlawful imports be removed from Canada or destroyed, authorize the Department 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, and 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.

Farmers just want to prosper and develop in a healthy environment.

I talked about climate change. In some regions of Canada and elsewhere in the world, but particularly in Canada, these changes are making livestock and crop production more and more difficult. We might have to start importing livestock and wheat and canola, which we have had in Canada for decades. I have not even mentioned floods or drought.

I also talked about the economic environment. At the beginning of the tough winter that Quebec went through, when the temperature started to drop, the price of propane, which is essential to the pork industry and for quick backup heating, went from 39¢ a litre to 72¢ a litre. Up to a certain point, propane was inexpensive. Overnight, heating costs doubled on hog farms throughout Quebec and Ontario. The pork industry is already very fragile. Producers need a prosperous, healthy and economical environment. They need new money.

There is talk of advance payment programs. That is nice. It is certainly useful, but the pork producers in my riding are deep in debt. Their parents and grandparents earned their living raising pigs on ancestral lands. Their families have been there for 100 or 150 years. Now, they no longer have this healthy environment in which to prosper and adequately support their family. They are so deep in debt that they can pay only the interest. They cannot pay down the principal. What are they going to do? They need new money. Bill C-18 makes no mention of new money.

The government says it wants to facilitate free trade. That is nice, but pork producers still need to be able to successfully bring their pigs to market. The same goes for cattle farmers.

For farmers, the cornerstone of the food system is earning a decent living by producing quality food. Above all though, they have to own the means of production.

Seeds are now infertile and sterile. Genetically modified organisms are a serious problem. For large-scale production, that might be a solution. In Quebec, particularly in the Eastern Townships, hundreds of farmers are now farming organically. That segment has seen the strongest growth and has the greatest export potential. However, the government is not doing anything to help them or make their lives easier. There is plenty of demand but not enough supply.

In conclusion, I would say that the bill is not good enough and needs our attention. It is a step in the right direction, but there are serious problems, such as the Monsantos of this world. We absolutely have to take the time to protect our food supply. It used to be 100% Canadian. Today, our farmers own only about 15% of it. That is unacceptable. We have to save our agriculture.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with my hon. colleague's speech. He has done good work and did a great job explaining the situation our farmers are dealing with.

This is also about the difficulties that family farms are facing. I have met quite a few farm families lately, including some that are part of the new expansion at Ferme des Poiriers, which I visited last week while we were in our ridings. They told me about how hard it is for family farms to survive, which is a serious problem.

This is an omnibus bill that makes a lot of changes, some of them good and others pretty troubling in some ways. I can talk about that in my speech.

My hon. colleague has worked very hard on the survival of family farms and their importance to Canada, Quebec and our ridings. Can he tell us about why family farms are so important and why it is important to keep supporting them?

Unfortunately, as I said, this omnibus bill covers nine different laws. Why is the Conservative government not interested in supporting family farms across Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond, who does remarkable work for his riding and our party.

Family farms are the backbone of so many regions, which is why they are so important. Our ancestors left us fertile land all over Quebec and Canada that they began working over 100 years ago. Generations have worked this land. Now, young people are saying that family farms are not an ideal environment for their personal and professional development.

What is more, family farms mean the organic market, traditional agriculture and the diversity and survival of our regions. In my riding, there are areas where 60% of the economic spinoffs come from agriculture and family farms. Those farmers are proud of that.

For example, in the Coaticook region, over half of the economic spinoffs come from the agricultural sector. The family farms there survive because they banded together. These people still believe in their land and assets, and they want to protect them.

We need to have a little more debate on all the ins and outs of Bill C-18, and above all, we need to inject new funds into our family farms to help them survive.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for his extremely personal and interesting speech. I know that this issue is very dear to his heart and that there are many farmers in his riding.

He spoke a little about the environment in his speech. I come from a Montreal suburb on the island of Laval, and 80% of the area that I represent is agricultural. We have some of the most beautiful arable land in the St. Lawrence area. We have farms such as the Vaillancourt, Turcot and Ouimet farms. All of these people really want to keep their land, to keep this greenbelt around Montreal intact and to make sure that Quebec has rich and fertile farmland.

What kind of standards and regulations does my colleague think we should implement in order to ensure that our agriculture is more sustainable and healthy and that the industry is fairer and greener?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who also does a fantastic job.

There are environmental measures, such as removing phosphorus from fertilizers. This extremely important measure has been a big help to Quebec and other areas of Canada.

We also need to adapt to climate change, particularly by buying local and modernizing transportation and equipment. This also requires dedicated people, such as my colleagues from Alfred-Pellan and Drummond, who are prepared to do anything to save agriculture in Quebec and Canada.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the great member of Parliament for Brandon—Souris.

I am pleased to speak today in support of the agricultural growth act. This legislation would modernize and streamline nine different statutes, seven that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency uses to regulate Canada's agricultural sector, and two that are administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. I will list the nine statutes quickly: 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 Program Act, and the Farm Debt Mediation Act. Together, these acts and regulations are critical to the strength of our farming economy and the growth and safety of our agricultural products.

Some of the acts we are proposing to amend date back to 1950. I do not think you were even born at that time, Mr. Speaker, though the member for Brandon—Souris definitely was. The acts have served us well, but it is time for change.

As new agricultural production techniques and new developments in science arrive, the legislative tools for agricultural products must keep pace. This is especially true since some of our international trading partners have already innovated and modernized their approaches.

The agricultural growth act proposes amendments that would reduce the regulatory burden for industry, promote trade in agricultural products, and strengthen the safety of agricultural products, which are the first link in the food chain.

With this act, we would be building a more effective, innovative, and nimble legislative framework that reflects what is needed in the 21st century. We are bringing these laws up to speed with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practice in the agricultural industry on an international basis. We need to keep pace with the modern world, and we need to help our farmers grow their businesses.

On December 10 of last year, in a news release praising our government's efforts to bring in this legislation, Doug Robertson, president of the Western Barley Growers Association, summarized the bill as follows:

This Bill is good news for farmers. It encompasses many changes that farmers have been asking for, and will help modernize our grains and regulatory system. It will help create an environment that fosters innovation which our farmers need.

By doing this, we will enhance the competitiveness of Canadian business and ensure consistent regulatory approaches while aligning our legislation with that of our international trading partners. Updated, streamlined, and harmonized legislation will benefit Canadian farmers and industry while supporting the government's modernization initiatives.

The agricultural sector depends on a nimble legislative framework that is able to adapt to a changing industry landscape while providing a constant and effective approach. If Canadian farmers, along with the agriculture and food sector, are to keep their competitive edge on the global stage, they need 21st century tools to do so. We want to help these entrepreneurs harness innovation, add value, and create jobs and growth right across Canada. The agricultural growth act would do just that.

To illustrate, I would like to focus on the Feeds Act and the Fertilizers Act.

The agricultural growth act would propose new and broader controls on the safety of Canada's agricultural inputs through the licensing and registration of feeds and fertilizing manufacturers.

The proposed amendments would provide the CFIA with the ability to license or to register fertilizer and animal feed operators and facilities that import or sell products across provincial or international boundaries. This would be in addition to the current system, where feed and fertilizer products are registered product by product.

Licensing or registering facilities and operators would provide a more effective and timely approach to verify that agricultural products meet Canada's stringent safety standards. For this approach to work, we need to allow for better tracking and oversight of production processes and products being produced, a more efficient system to identify any issues that may come up, and a faster response if and when a product recall is required.

Licensing or registering feed and fertilizer facilities and operators would require regulations. Prior to any new requirements, the government would work closely with stakeholders to design an effective licensing or registration regime.

This amendment would not apply to farmers who make these products for use on their own farms. It would only apply to businesses that sell their animal feed and fertilizer products across provincial and international boundaries.

This amendment would also align Canadian legislation with international trading partners and help our feed and fertilizer industries maintain their export markets, especially in the United States.

The agricultural growth act was written to provide for new and stronger border controls for agricultural products.

CFIA inspectors will be able to order imported shipments of feeds, fertilizers and seeds out of Canada if they do not meet legal requirements. This is similar to the way in which imported plants and animals may be ordered removed from Canada if they do not meet legal requirements. The CFIA already takes action now, and does seize illegal products related to animal feed, seeds, and fertilizers. However, the act would propose updates on the way that we do it.

Under the current process, CFIA negotiates a solution, or there may be a court proceeding after the seizure of illegal products relating to animal feed, seeds, or fertilizers. This process works, but at times Canada must pay to dispose of illegal products that are seized.

The Speaker has given me the one-minute signal, which means that I have less than one minute to end my remarks. Though I could go on about how wonderful this act would be, the Speaker is shaking his head, suggesting that I do not.

Although what I have to say is very profound, I will leave the Canadian population with bated breath.

However, I will say that the legislation would be an improvement. It would bring Canada into the 21st century.

Just think, some of these bills have not been changed since 1950. That was before rock and roll.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I must say to the hon. member that 1950 does not seem that far away.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member a chance to elaborate a bit on what he was about to end on with a flourish before the Speaker so abruptly cut him off.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is very generous of the member, but I think it has lost its flow. I can say that plant breeding will be improved, safety rules will be improved, and CFIA will have the opportunity to increase its powers.

It is important that CFIA has the ability to prevent or remove product that is not legal in Canada, like we do with plants and animals. I am glad that change will be made. In fact, I am surprised that it was not done in the 1950s.

We are creating amendments to nine acts, and it will help farmers, entrepreneurs, producers, and Canadians, and it will help to grow the economy, so it is all good.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions to ask my hon. colleague, but I will stick to one. A number of changes will take place in the Plant Breeders' Rights Act itself, and there are proposed changes that I will ask him to speak to.

The Plant Breeders' Rights Act is administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and plant breeders' rights offices as well, and provides legal protection to plant breeders for new plant varieties.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could expand a bit on some of the proposed changes in the Plant Breeders' Rights Act and how they would strengthen the act.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Brandon—Souris comes from a very agriculturally based riding and has been a farmer since the 1950s.

The proposed changes would strengthen the rights of breeders and improve accessibility to protect in a number of ways. It would extend plant breeder rights to include reproduction, import, export, conditioning, stocking for commercial purposes of propagating, in addition to the current system that already allows for the sale of propagating material and production that is intended for sale. It would allow breeders to sell a variety of plants in Canada, up to one year before applying for PBR protection, in order to test the market, advertise, or to increase stock.

One last one is that it will extend the protection period from the current 18 years to 25 years, for trees, vines, and other specified categories, and 20 years for all other crops, unless the breeder terminates them earlier.

I think that is a pretty good deal, and I thank the member for the question.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the agricultural growth act because this proposed legislation is good for Canada and for all Canadians.

Its aim is to provide Canada's farmers and food processors with the tools they need to drive new economic growth and to compete in the global economy. The bill also strengthens the safety of agricultural products, which is the first link in the food chain. That is good news for consumers.

Some of the acts that we propose to amend, as has been indicated by my hon. colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, date back to the 1950s. They have served us well to be sure, but we are in the year 2014 now.

We need the agricultural growth act because, as has been pointed out, the act before us will modernize and streamline nine different statutes, seven of those in the area of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is used to regulate Canada's agriculture sector, and two that are administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Together, these acts and their regulations are critical to the strength of our farmgate, the growth of our economy, and the safety of agricultural products. As new agricultural production techniques and new developments in science arise, the legislative tools for agriculture products must keep pace, especially since other international trading partners have innovated and modernized their approaches.

Throughout my farming career, it was modernization and research that helped move our industry forward to the point where it is today, as a world leader.

What we are doing with this act is building a more effective, innovative, and nimble legislative framework, one that reflects 21st century realities. It is vital that we get behind this proposed legislation now, as it will dovetail with recent initiatives undertaken by the CFIA.

Through its transformation agenda, the agency is both modernizing its inspection regime and supporting the modernization of its regulatory framework. This agenda has been supported by the Safe Food for Canadians Act, passed by our government in 2012.

Those initiatives are highly complementary to the proposed legislation before us. Obtaining royal assent on this act will assist the CFIA in meeting its overall goals for modernization, both in the activities that it carries out and the regulations that govern those activities.

One way that the proposed legislation will achieve this is that the agricultural growth act proposes new broader controls on the safety of Canada's agriculture products through licensing and registration of feed and fertilizer manufacturers. The act provides the ability for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to licence and register fertilizer, and animal feed operators and facilities that import or sell products across provincial and international borders. This is in addition to the current system, where feed and fertilizer products are registered by product as well.

Licensing or registering facilities and operators provides a more effective and timely approach to verify that agriculture products meet Canada's stringent safety and other standards. The approach allows for better tracking and oversight of production processes and products being produced, a more efficient system to identify issues early, and a faster response if and when a product recall is required.

Any licensing regime would require regulations before it would operate. These would be developed in thorough consultations with stakeholders, which gives Canadians an advantage in these areas. This amendment will not apply to farmers who make these products for use on their own farms. It will only apply to businesses that sell their animal feed and fertilizer products across provincial and international borders, as has been mentioned.

This act will also give the CFIA another tool to do its job even better, and it will align Canadian legislation with international trading partners. This will help our feed and fertilizer industries maintain their export markets, especially the United States. The feed and fertilizer industries themselves agree with us.

Clyde Graham, vice-president of the Canadian Fertilizer Institute told the Western Producer, on December 13th of last year, and I quote:

...the changes allow the CFIA to validate the quality of fertilizer.

If l'm an exporter of fertilizer, I can ask the agency to say it meets the regulatory requirements in Canada and therefore it's a good product.

There is another way the proposed legislation will help serve Canadians better. The agricultural growth act proposes to increase the maximum penalty amounts that the CFIA can issue under the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.

Members may have heard of these administrative monetary penalties, AMPs, which are an enforcement measure used by the CFIA to encourage compliance with Canada's Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act and their associated regulations among others. An AMP can be either a notice of violation with a warning or a notice of violation with a penalty. Members can think of it as kind of a ticket that can be issued by CFIA inspectors.

By increasing the maximum amounts of the AMPs, these monetary penalties continue to be an effective tool to strongly encourage compliance. The legislation proposes to increase the maximum amount of AMPs for businesses, from $2,000 to $5,000 for minor violations; for serious violations, from $10,000 to $15,000; and for very serious violations, from $15,000 up to $25,000. Upping the AMPs would give the CFIA an important tool, a tool with more teeth to do its job even better.

The agricultural growth act is yet another way to help protect Canadians. The act is written to provide for new, stronger border controls for agricultural products. Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors would be able to order imported shipments of feeds, fertilizers and seeds out of Canada if they did not meet legal requirements, similar to the way in which imported plants and animals may be ordered to be removed if they do not meet the legal requirements today.

The CFIA already takes action now and does seize illegal products related to animal feeds, seeds and fertilizers. The act proposes to update the way we do it.

Let me explain further.

Under the current process, the CFIA negotiates a solution where there may be court proceedings after the seizure of illegal products related to animal feeds, seeds or fertilizer. This process works, but right now, at times, Canada must pay to dispose of illegal products that are seized. Members can see how being able to order the products out of the country would be more efficient.

At the same time, the act would also give CFIA inspectors the ability to allow the importer to fix the problem in Canada if it is not a matter of safety and if they can be sure that the issue will be addressed. The proposed amendment will provide the agency with even stronger tools to fulfill its mandate to protect Canada's plant-animal resource base. This change will provide additional reassurance that imported agricultural products meet Canadian strict requirements.

For Canada's farmers, this means they can compete on a level playing field. For consumers, this is the first line of protection along our food safety chain.

Updated, streamlined and harmonized legislation would benefit Canadian farmers and industry, while supporting the Government of Canada's modernization initiatives and boosting consumer confidence.

I ask all parliamentarians to give this act their careful attention and move it forward.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are broadly supportive of many of the measures in the bill. We have some concerns because the proposed legislation is complicated as it attempts to balance the interests of producers and folks who develop seeds.

I welcome my friend to the House. I do not think we have had an exchange before.

The question I have is around who would have the power to change the provisions in future if the bill were enacted. One of the arguments and concerns we have is that the legislation, as it is now written, would offer an inordinate amount of discretion and power to senior level bureaucrats and the minister himself alone to change that balance between producers and those who produce seeds.

Would my friend across the way be amenable or open to the conversation at least of ensuring that if we are to make fundamental changes, Parliament is engaged in that conversation in the future as opposed to being done through regulations and some of the powers that are offered up in the bill?

This is a question about accountability. These changes can be broad and can affect our entire food system. It seems to me that would bear scrutiny. However, as the bill is designed right now, we worry and question the power balance as being too much given over to senior members of the government and to the minister in whatever government, this government or future governments.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his welcome to Parliament.

As he has indicated, under the agricultural growth act there are a number of acts impacted. As I said earlier, there are seven under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and two more under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

In my comments earlier I remarked that when some of the changes that might be coming forward are dealt with, if there were future regulatory changes they would be dealt with publicly in a forum for groups, organizations, and individual farmers themselves, as well as some of the fertilizer and chemical dealers, and on the food inspection side this would be some of the processors and packers. They would be able to have input into any of those regulatory changes that would take place as a result of the changes in this bill.

The goal, which I believe the member would applaud, is that Canada maintain the safest food distribution mechanism and the safest processing of anywhere in the world. In spite of the fact that there are problems once in a while, we have certainly seen that these are some of the safest measures in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome the member here.

There is no doubt that we need a new act, one modernized for agriculture and the department. However, as this member has already stated here, there is a lot of Big Brother stuff in here as far as plant breeders' rights where it is a privilege now to have these seeds. Then there are a lot of penalties that would be put in place on the people who are processing food.

My question has to do with the advance payment of $400,000 to farms. As the member knows, the farms are big now and it sometimes takes $1 million to put a crop in again before harvest. A lot of farms are saying these advance payments of $400,000 are not enough and they recommend $800,000. We are hoping that when this goes to committee that amendments will be made.

Is the member saying that his party will look at some of the amendments and make changes to the amendments according to what the farm community wants at the agriculture committee?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the advanced payments number of $400,000 was there back in the years when I was farming as well. It has been there for a good long time. With the interest rates where they are today, the advanced payments act only a complement to the other kinds of financing that are out there today and available to the farm community.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior. I would just advise the member that we will end this debate today at 6:30 p.m., so he will have about 17 or 18 minutes as opposed to his full 20 minutes.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-18, the agriculture omnibus bill. Let me say at the outset that I am extremely disappointed that we have yet another omnibus bill. The democratic process would have been much better served had this bill been split, especially the section dealing with plant breeders' rights.

This omnibus bill would amend nine different laws. The NDP believes we must take a balanced approach to plant breeders' rights. We must protect Canadian public researchers and farmers.

Although we understand the role of intellectual property rights, to encourage innovation, we want to ensure that Canadians have access to and can benefit from our agricultural heritage. The safety measures proposed with regard to seeds, plants and animals should result in additional resources for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

It is very likely that Bill C-18 will go to committee. It is therefore important for all farmers to carefully examine its contents. Hopefully, there will be ample opportunity for them to make their voices heard.

The most contentious provisions of Bill C-18 are without a doubt those regarding the Plant Breeders' Rights Act and the implementation of UPOV '91, the international convention on plant protection. Canada is a signatory to UPOV '91 but it has not yet ratified the convention and has not yet implemented its provisions.

When I was first elected in 2006 and became agriculture critic, I began to hear about UPOV '91 from many concerned with food sovereignty, especially farmers in the National Farmers Union. In fact, it is my understanding that after a groundswell of farmer-led opposition to UPOV '91 in 2005, the Liberal government of the day let it die quietly as it became clear that farmers would be drastically restricted in their ability to save, reuse, exchange, and sell seed.

According to the NFU, before reintroducing UPOV '91 through Bill C-18, the minister had been actually actively spreading the myth and managing to convince many farmer organizations and commodity groups that saving seed is enshrined in this bill. It is obvious that UPOV '91 gives plant breeders significantly more rights and tools for royalty collection while the farmers' seed-saving right is reduced merely to privilege.

A closer look at the text of Bill C-18 reveals that, indeed, it talks about a farmer's ability to save seed. When storing that saved seed, however, the farmer needs the permission of the holder of the plant breeders' rights, which may or may not be given. Of course, the breeder has the right to charge royalties as well. Bill C-18 also empowers government to remove, restrict, or limit the farmer's seed-saving privilege by passing regulations, a process that can happen quickly and without public debate. UPOV '91 has made provisions for royalty collection after a crop has been harvested, when seed is cleaned in seed-cleaning plants, or when a crop is moved off the farm for sale at elevators and other points of transactio, in the year the crop was harvested or in any year after that.

Under Bill C-18, plant breeders' rights will not apply to private, non-commercial growers, experimental use of seed, and seed used for the purpose of breeding other plant varieties, which is also the case under our current legislation. However, plant breeders' rights do apply to newly bred varieties that are essentially derived from plant breeders' right-protected varieties, allowing plant breeders to exercise control over the results of future plant breeding.

Adopting UPOV '91 would immediately reduce the freedom and independence of Canadian farmers by making it much more difficult to save and reuse seed, forcing them to pay more for seed. It would also impinge on the autonomy of independent seed cleaners, transfer millions of dollars every year from farmers to plant breeders' rights holders, and consolidate the power and control of the world's largest agribusiness corporations over seed and, thus, over the Canadian farming and food system.

As well, if Canada adopts UPOV '91, farmers will not be allowed to save, store, or clean seed for replanting without the express permission of the PBR holder. If granted, such permission is dependent on the government adopting, on a crop-by-crop basis, an exemption called the farmer's privilege, which may be time limited and would likely entail payment of royalties to the PBR holder.

Companies would have a cascading right, allowing them to demand payment of end-point royalties on the whole crop, including each cut of hay on foraged crops, instead of just on newly purchased seed or when the company has been unable to collect adequate royalties on seed alone. Companies would be entitled to royalties for at least 20 years on each variety for which they hold PBRs, up from the current 18 years under Canada's UPOV '78 regime.

Seed cleaners would require permission from PBR holders to clean seed, which, if granted, may be subject to conditions such as payment of fees to the PBR holder. Mills and processors that buy crops would require assurance that the farmer-seller has paid PBR royalties to avoid the risk of litigation by the PBR holder.

Farmer's privilege to save a small amount of seed from designated crops may be granted by governments through legislation, but this privilege could be rendered useless, because seed companies would be able to restrict seed cleaning and storage.

What are the long-term implications for Canadian agriculture if UPOV '91 is adopted? According to the analysis by the National Farmers Union, some of the likely changes include:

...higher per-acre cost of production due to higher seed prices;

lower margins because end-use royalties will reduce potential gross income at sale;

fewer and larger farms because reduced profitability will drive larger scales of production;

loss of independent seed cleaning businesses as farmers are forced to buy seed directly from PBR holders or their licensees instead of cleaning a portion of their harvested crops for use as seed;

increased litigation within the value chain as PBR holders seek to maximize royalty revenues; ...

Having said all of this, the obvious question is what is the alternative if we do not adopt UPOV '91? Pending the adoption of a truly farmer-friendly seed law, we could maintain Canada's current UPOV '78 plant breeders' rights regime, which balances the interests of the public, the farmers, and the plant breeders.

We could restore funding to public plant breeding. Canada's public plant breeders are internationally respected and have contributed greatly to Canadian agriculture. For example, nearly all of our wheat varieties have been developed by AAFC in collaboration with several Canadian universities. None of these varieties would have been part of Canadian agriculture without the government's long-term support for public breeding.

We could take plant breeding to variety level. The federal government has stopped funding public plant breeding beyond the development of germplasm, which must then be sold to private breeders to develop varieties for commercialization. The new varieties so developed are privately owned and subject to plant breeders’ rights.

Farmers, whose check-off dollars support this research, would pay yet again through the increased royalties that would be granted under UPOV ’91. This system of private interests benefiting twice, first by using public research funding and then by collecting royalties on seed and production, is unjust and against the public interest.

We could also protect farmers from expensive court litigation regarding plant variety and patent disputes.

Finally, I would like to say that we, as parliamentarians, need to look very carefully before rejecting a system that has worked well for farmers. I would once again like to thank the National Farmers Union for their efforts in analyzing what is at stake here with Bill C-18. It is my hope that all farmers and farming organizations will give this research careful consideration prior to making a final decision on this bill.

Five years ago I toured Canada to see what Canadians had to say about a national food policy. These consultations gave civil society groups, agricultural organizations and ordinary citizens the opportunity to express their concerns about vulnerabilities within the existing food production system.

I visited more than 28 communities on this tour. All across the country, participants almost unanimously agreed that Canada should protect its food security and food sovereignty.

They feel that Canada should develop a comprehensive food policy so that every Canadian can have access to healthy food, so that local producers can maintain their agricultural operations and so that we can protect the agriculture sector for future generations.

Participants also proposed that the federal government support local producers by enforcing mandatory local procurement for state institutions and that it encourage other governments to do the same.

What this implies is that Canadians, especially farmers, need to have more control over their food supply. This ability to control a country's food supply is the fundamental principle of food sovereignty. Since we are a trading nation, our goal has to be to somehow find what I call a delicate balance between trade and food sovereignty. As was pointed out to me during my food for thought tour, and as many Canadians are saying today, the balance is quickly tipping away from our ability to have control over our food supply. Bill C-18 is just another step in this direction. If we concentrate the power in the hands of multinational corporations, we as a nation become vulnerable and lose the ability to feed ourselves.

I have taken a lot of criticism from the other side when I have questioned the benefits of our so-called free trade agreements. I have often said that many of our fruit and vegetable producers have been put out of business because of the free trade agreement with the United States and NAFTA. Prior to these agreements, we had in-season tariffs that protected our farmers. Now they have to compete with a free flow of produce into Canada that is often dumped at below the cost of production.

In its report, “The Farm Crisis and the Cattle Sector: Toward a New Analysis and New Solutions”, the National Farmers Union has made a correlation between the drop in cattle prices at the time of the report and the implementation of the Canada–U.S. free trade agreement in 1989. Since then we have seen our exports drop due to BSE and trade initiatives. Now we are being hit by U.S. country-of-origin labelling, or COOL.

Many people who took part in my cross-Canada consultations questioned the wisdom of including agriculture in free trade agreements. Let us look at our supply managed sector. It is a system that works, receives no government subsidies, and provides Canadians with excellent milk, eggs, and poultry products. It works because we do not allow the free flow of these goods into our country. Now with the proposed Canada–Europe trade agreement, or CETA, this farmer-run system is under threat. Canada will allow an additional 17,000 tons of artisan cheese from Europe, which will hit our cheese producers hard, especially those in Quebec. Now there is talk, of course, of government subsidies to help these farmers. The whole thing does not make any sense at all. Our cheese producers will now be competing with farmers from the E.U. who are being propped up by government tax dollars. There is pressure to further erode our efficient supply managed system as we prepare to sign on to the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, a further loss of control.

Many of us stood in this House as we tried to convince the Conservatives not to dismantle the farmer-operated Canadian Wheat Board. With a stroke of a pen, and no vote from farmers, the CWB lost its single-desk capacity to sell wheat and barley. There is some justification to say that the current backlog and crisis in the rail industry could be an indirect result of the change in roles of the CWB, which used to coordinate rail shipments of grains under the single-desk system. What we saw over the winter was a lack of coordination and railway companies not responding to the needs of farmers.

This gradual loss of food sovereignty extends to the whole area of genetic modification. For example, if the GMO Arctic apple is planted in B.C., it will contaminate non-GMO varieties, and farmers will lose their markets. If GMO alfalfa is released into the environment in Ontario, it will also contaminate and cripple, especially the organic industry.

In British Columbia we are fortunate to have the agricultural land reserve, introduced by the provincial NDP government in 1973. No succeeding provincial government has tampered with this protection of our arable land, which is less than 5% of our total land surface, until now that is.

The current B.C. Liberal government is leading a core review which could result in land being taken out of the ALR for development purposes. The current B.C. agriculture minister, Norm Letnick, to his credit, has opened the consultation and I thank him for this. I know that the provincial NDP agriculture critic, Nicholas Simons, as well as MLAs Katrine Conroy and Michelle Mungall in my riding also have been very vocal in their support of the ALR.

We only have to look at the recent drought in California to see the effect this has on us. If this is a trend in the future due to climate change, it is imperative that we put more land into production rather than taking it out.

One of the largest broccoli producers in Ontario once told me that he only made money when there was a drought in Florida. It appears there will be more droughts, which means we need to put more land into production. I was told that the city of Toronto only had enough food supply for three days.

What role could the federal government be playing to ensure that our food supply is based on conservancy? I leave my hon. colleagues in suspense because I will tell them the answer the next time I have a chance.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member will have 3 minutes and 30 seconds when debate on this bill resumes.

The House resumed from May 26 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to speak to Bill C-18, though the government did not have the courtesy to actually tell us which bill it was bringing forward. New Democrats always plan in advance, so each one of us has all the bills with us and ready to go for the speech itself—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, could you please get some order in the House?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. It has been a long day. There are 20 more minutes to go.

The hon. opposition House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the government is a little sore. It has lost two rulings today, and I think it feels just a little badly.

Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, could you please let me know the time allocation I have for this particular speech?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member has 20 minutes, with about 19 remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, on December 9, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tabled Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

Bill C-18 is another Conservative omnibus bill, making changes to nine different pieces of legislation, some of which we support, and others that pose significant concerns. Unlike the government's everything but the kitchen sink omnibus budget bills—and we have certainly seen omnibus budgets with everything thrown in together—in Bill C-18, perhaps following the good advice that the NDP has provided, changes actually all relate to agriculture. For once, we actually have a omnibus bill where all the provisions are related.

This is important, because we have seen, particularly with the budget bills, an absurd number of different pieces of legislation put together. We have seen absolutely absurd combinations, with environmental laws, natural resources laws, and taxation laws like the FATCA provisions that were in Bill C-31 all thrown together into one particular bill.

In the case of Bill C-18, we have an omnibus bill that puts in place amendments all related to agriculture, in some cases making similar edits to different bills.

First, there are amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. The key changes move Canada towards ratification of the 1991 model law of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, UPOV '91.

Second, it expands the rights afforded to plant breeders for the varieties they develop and increases the places along the value chain where plant breeders can collect royalties.

Bill C-18 also includes the following new exclusive rights for plant breeders: reproduction, conditioning, sales, export or import, repeated use to produce commercially another plant variety if the repetition is necessary for that purpose, and stocking for the purpose of any of the other protected acts.

The term of the grant of plant breeders' rights has also been increased from previous legislation, from 18 years to 20 years. It is 25 years in the case of a tree, a vine, or any other category listed by the regulation. It also includes a new clause that grants farmers' privilege, allowing farmers to save seed and condition seed for purposes of production and reproduction on their own farms. It is important to note that this privilege is not extended to the storing of seed or to the sale of harvested material from protected seed.

Bill C-18 also grants the CFIA the ability to make changes through regulation to which circumstances and classes of farmers and varieties would not be covered under the farmers' privilege. This protects the rights of researchers to use patented materials as the basis for developing a new variety or for another research use. It also enhances public accessibility to the registry of plant varieties. This of course is a major change from the previous act.

It also maintains the ability of the CFIA to grant compulsory licences to ensure that in certain situations, plant varieties are available at reasonable prices, widely distributed, and of good quality.

Bill C-18 also includes an amendment that allows plant breeders to request that their plant breeders' rights be exempt from a compulsory licence. It also grants the government the ability to make changes governing exemptions from compulsory licensing through regulations, without legislative change.

There are some benefits in Bill C-18.

First, it would ensure that variety developers would be able to see a return on investment for their plant breeding research efforts, providing incentives for an important sector of Canadian agribusiness. It would also grant farmer's privilege to allow farmers to save the conditioned seed for use on their own farms. It would promote access for Canadian farmers to the results of private breeding research from Canada and other countries through more effective intellectual property rights. As members know, this is a concern people have raised.

It would protect researchers from infringement of plant breeders' rights. It would enhance public accessibility and transparency when it comes to plant breeding, and it would maintain the existing compulsory licence system, providing some assurance that varieties can be made available at reasonable prices, widely distributed, and kept at a high quality. This is a very important aspect of the bill that I know members will find interesting.

I know my colleagues in the NDP are very focused on this agriculture bill, because, as we know, we have a whole variety of NDP MPs representing some of the heartland of Canadian agriculture across the country.

I would like to say at this point that we have diversity like we have never had before in the House of Commons, and from both rural and urban areas. It is just fantastic to see the NDP caucus, 100 strong, which is going to grow to perhaps double that after the next election. We are certainly looking forward to that.

One might ask why the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is speaking on a agriculture bill. Perhaps the government House leader is asking that question too. The reality, and I know members will find this interesting, is that the most fertile land in all of Canada is in Burnaby. That particular area is known as the Big Bend area of Burnaby. It is part of the Fraser delta. The Fraser River comes down, after going through the Coast Mountains, and provides for incredibly fertile ground.

I should say, because I think it is important to note, that not only is it the most fertile ground, but because of the previous actions of the B.C. NDP government back in 1972, which established the agricultural land reserve, the first government in the country to do that, the agricultural land in Burnaby has been preserved. That is extremely important. It is an urban area, but right there is the agricultural heartland of the Lower Mainland.

What is even more important to note is that the city of Burnaby, for the last 25 years, has been run by an NDP government, under the Burnaby Citizens Association. In fact, in the last municipal election, with a strong agricultural component, the mayor, the entire city council, eight of eight city councillors, and seven of seven on the school board, meaning every single municipally elected official, were members of the NDP and members of the Burnaby Citizens Association. That is the longest-standing—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Usually I would love to hear in this place talk of beautiful British Columbia, but perhaps the member could please bring this to a point of relevance. Perhaps he could say how Bill C-18 would actually benefit our home province. I think that would be a good turn of events.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

We can go back to the hon. member once again. Relevance is relevant in this place, and I am sure he can connect what he is saying to the matter that is before the House.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there is an issue with interpretation, but that is not what I said. I did mention that there were family farms. The 12% of the Lower St. Lawrence economy that depends on agriculture is made up exclusively of family farms. I know full well that there are family farms in this country; there are some in my riding. There are family farms everywhere and we must protect them and be sure to help them be productive so that they can survive. I did not say that there are no family farms, on the contrary.

However, I did say that we have to be vigilant and ensure that these farms can continue to be productive and competitive.

Moreover, I did not say that we were opposed to this bill, on the contrary. We have said many times that we would vote in favour of it at second reading and that we wanted the committee to do its job and take into consideration the concerns that will be brought forward, because there will be some.

Seed is one of the main concerns that were raised. For example, I mentioned a case that had to do with contamination. Farmers could end up being responsible for crops that they did not seed, but that were contaminated in their own fields. This is not something we can ignore. On the contrary, we must address this and I hope the committee will do its job.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which was very well documented, as usual. I would like him to know that the Quebec chapter of the Friends of the Earth is concerned about Bill C-18. I would like the hon. member to tell me whether they have cause for concern:

This bill considerably diminishes farmers' ancestral rights by requiring them to pay agribusiness giants royalties on their entire crop.

Are they right to be concerned?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi. There is indeed cause for concern. That is why the committee must be especially careful when examining this bill.

It is important to understand that a farmer's right to reuse his own seeds is not only an ancestral right but a truly historic one, dating back to when farming became a human activity. There are changes happening in the industry, and some of them are positive. I do not think that we need to abandon all of the progress made by the industry in improving our crop productivity and yield. We must not abandon everything and say that it is all bad. However, we need to make sure that farmers who want to can continue farming and we need to preserve the ancestral rights that they have been exercising since the beginning of human history.

I know that there are a lot of concerns about this. I do not want to be like the Conservatives and dismiss these concerns out of hand. They must be taken into account. Contamination is an important issue. Why should someone have to pay for accidental contamination of fields, for example? If people are using patented varieties of seeds, then those who paid to develop those seeds must be compensated. If that is not the case, these farmers need to be protected. Personal choice must take precedence. I hope that the committee will have a chance to hear from witnesses on this.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say hello to everyone who is watching. I hope they enjoyed their cereal this morning because we know that cereal is a product of agriculture. Everything we eat is a product of agriculture. There are stories of people and farms behind everything we eat, stories of farmers who were taken to court by big companies and lost money. Family farms have had to shut down because they could no longer fight against the big companies.

It is good that we are modernizing and keeping up to date with new regulations. That is not a bad thing, but in so doing, we have to come up with a plan to protect those who may be pushed aside as a result and who do not have the expertise, money or ability to be part of such a market. It is important to recognize that.

My colleague gave an excellent speech about the type of situation that can occur. The farm he mentioned is not the first farm that has been taken to court by a big company for unknowingly having patented plants on its land, and it will not be the last.

We know how agriculture works. The wind scatters seeds elsewhere. There are no borders. It is important to comply with the new regulations, but there must be a plan for the smaller farmers. There must be a plan to protect those who do not have the capacity to keep up with the big multinationals.

It is important to mention that no one is opposing intellectual property. However, in agriculture, intellectual property does not necessarily have borders, as my colleague demonstrated. If I own a field and the seeds from the adjacent property come over to my field, I cannot do anything about it. I cannot put a net over my field so that other seeds do not land on it. The situation is more complex than what the Conservatives are trying to tell us. They are telling us that everything is fine, that everything is going well and that the regulations will work. It is more complicated than that.

One of the first things that the Conservatives did when they came to power was eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board. What was the role of the Canadian Wheat Board? It protected small farmers from bigger farmers.

I went to Europe where I met farmers who dreamed about having that kind of board to protect them from multinationals. We know how it works: the bigger farms swallow up the smaller ones, and the Conservatives have decided to disregard this type of relationship by giving more power to agricultural multinationals. What will we end up with? Agriculture that will no longer have local products or local farms.

If the Conservatives do not adopt a Canada-wide agriculture strategy or a national strategy to protect local producers, what will we end up with? Agriculture that does not respect the Canadian tradition of protecting its farmers.

The second thing they did was jeopardize supply management by putting it on the table during trade agreement negotiations. Small farms that are protected by supply management will not be able to keep up with the market and will once again be swallowed up by bigger players.

The ideas in Bill C-18 are valid and legitimate, and it is important to stay up to date and bring in new regulations for the agricultural sector, but we must not forget that people and farmers might suffer as a result. That is all I am trying to say to the government. We need to have a plan.

For example, the National Farmers Union opposes this bill because, it says, it will deprive the smallest farmers of their independence, increase costs for farmers and increase their exposure to lawsuits.

Is that really what the government wants to do? Do they really want to create that kind of instability for our farmers? The Conservatives have already done away with the Canadian Wheat Board, and now they want to get rid of supply management. Is that really how they want to treat our farmers? Do they really want to put them in a position that threatens their security and robs them of their independence?

That would give multinationals an unfair advantage, more power and more control. Is that really what our farmers deserve? No. I can name many people who agree with me. For example, the president of Keystone Agricultural Producers, which represents Manitoba farmers, said:

We're hearing this has been very successful in other countries in attracting investment in our industry, so that should be positive in the long-term for producers.

We'll be looking to our members for guidance on how they want to see this played out, but I'm glad to hear the Minister talk about farm-saved seed being a priority. That's what I hear from members as well.

Keystone Agricultural Producers believes that intellectual property is extremely important, but that we must also protect our farmers. Therefore, seeds stocked by farms are a priority. I hope that the witnesses who appear in committee will be heard and that the Conservatives will vote for our amendments, if we propose any, or that they will change the legislation.

Based on the Conservatives' record, they very rarely vote for opposition amendments. Yesterday alone, the NDP proposed some thirty amendments to improve Bill C-13, and the Conservatives voted against each and every one.

The Conservatives must stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. They tell farmers from their provinces that they take their interests to heart, but then they introduce legislation that, unfortunately, will eliminate their independence and create economic uncertainty.

This could open the door to legal action against them by big multinationals who have plenty of lawyers and plenty of money. Unfortunately, smaller farms will be swallowed up by the bigger farms. That is the Conservative ideology.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for government business has expired. We will now proceed with statements by members.

The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

The House resumed from June 13 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise in this House, representing the people of Timmins—James Bay. I am very interested in speaking to Bill C-18, an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food.

There are many elements in the bill, some to do with plant breeders' rights and some to do with payments for farmers. There are a number of elements I think need to be looked at. It is good for us to have a discussion in the House of Commons about agricultural policy. How do we support our producers, and how do we reassure consumers in the 21st century of the quality of foods that are being created in Canada?

I will start off by talking about my region of Timmins—James Bay. It is known for being mining country. Some of the greatest gold mines in the history of North America are founded in my region. That is why my family came to Timmins. They were immigrant gold miners. We had diamond mines in James Bay. The deepest base metal mine in the world is in Timmins backyard at Kidd Mine. It continues 50 years into production still, below 10,000 feet, which is an extraordinary feat of engineering. It shows that we have seen enormous changes in mining in the region.

We were always told that mining was a sunset industry. In the nineties, the common wisdom was that we cannot compete with lax regulations and we cannot compete with the third world. However, in Canada we have the highest trained professional workforce in the world. Canadians miners are at the forefront of all manner of mining exploration and development, certainly in terms of financial input. The other element is the regulatory regime that we have in Canada to ensure environmental standards and safety has created an environment where it is worth investing in Canada.

There are a number of issues to be dealt with in terms of mining, but the days when men were killed in the mines of Cobalt and Timmins, dying on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, have changed dramatically. It still has not changed enough, but we are seeing the use of technology and innovation that have allowed us not just to continue to hold our own, but to become, once again, the world leader in terms of development. We are balancing the incredible resource wealth that we have with the need to always be innovative and find new ways to get deeper at the ore.

We have some similar issues in terms of agriculture. Agriculture in Timiskaming--Cochrane region is fundamentally different, because we have not had the boom-bust cycle that we have seen in mining. That is a very good thing in terms of building a long-term economy.

The northern end of the Timmins—James Bay region is known as the great clay belt. There is enormous potential for farmland in the great clay belt. The problem is, when it was opened up in the early part of the 20th century, many families attempted to make a living there and found it was just too cold, the seasons were too short, and the crop yields were not sufficient to allow these farms to succeed in the way they should have succeeded. As a result, many of the farmlands in the upper part of the Timmins—James Bay region began to atrophy and go back to dogwood and poplars. One by one the farmers started to leave. We maintained somewhat of a beef economy, but the overall balance in agriculture did not exist.

That was not so much the case in the southern part of my region, the little clay belt, which is Timiskaming. Témiscaming region in Quebec and Ontario shares an enormously wealthy farm belt that has given incredible balance in terms of the economic development in our region.

For many years the basis of this economy was dairy. The supply management system on the Quebec and Ontario sides has certainly anchor communities like Earlton, Englehart, and New Liskeard area. With a dairy economy, we know year to year what we will get. We have seen ups and downs in the beef industry. I was first elected in 2004 during that really difficult period that our beef industry was undergoing. It was a shock to the system of individual beef farmers when they could not get their cattle to market, could not get it to the United States because of the BSE crisis. It certainly created major problems for the development of the region.

In terms of cash crops, Timiskaming has always had a mixed-grain economy, but over the last 15 years we have seen a transformation in the regional food economy because we are getting better yields, such as with soybeans. We are seeing corn production in areas where corn was never seen before. This has started to create a potential for development in the north that people had previously written off.

The acreages down in southern Ontario are becoming more expensive and more difficult to farm, especially as rural butts up against suburban. There is pressure on the rural with land prices in the south being so extraordinary. It is very difficult to maintain the traditional notion of the family farm when there are opportunities to sell that land and move north, which is what we have been seeing.

However, it is now not just in the Timiskaming region, but once again, because of better crop yields, we are starting to see agriculture moving back into the areas up around Val Gagné, Black River-Matheson, up toward Cochrane and over through Timmins, which had been atrophying for years. We are now seeing a large potential new growth of mixed crops, barley, grain, soybeans, canola, and corn. This is an important anchor for development in our region.

In terms of what is happening agriculturally, we have had two important transformations. In the upper Black River-Matheson area, a number of Amish and Old Order Mennonite communities are starting to establish themselves. We are seeing barns being built where there were no barns before. We are seeing tile drainage on land that did not have tile drainage. Once tile drainage is put onto a northern farm, the crop yields are going to increase exponentially.

The other really important element is that we have seen in so many of our rural regions the loss of the value added, such as the local operations that did the canning and such.

For years, we had the Thornloe Cheese plant, run by Parmalat. People used to stop off the highway. I remember that it was around 2005 or 2006 when I got a call from the Parmalat owners who said that they were pulling out. They were done with our little community. I thought, fair enough, they had to make a business decision. I called John Vanthof, who is now a provincial member of Parliament, but he was the head of the Board of Dairy Farmers then. I asked John if we could win this fight, and he said that, yes, we could win. We called the Parmalat owners back and said that they could leave, but we wanted the dairy cheese quota to stay here. Of course, they laughed and thought it was an absurd concept. However, we said that we wanted the dairy quota to stay. If it could be run by a local conglomerate, then we wanted to buy into that cheese quota so that we could run the plant. After much negotiation, Thornloe was reopened as a local regional cheese producer.

What happened out of that is indicative of a need to balance between very large corporate interests and the need for local interests. Thornloe began to innovate and create all manner of new and local cheeses, and get a new market share. The products are now being sold in halal and kosher markets in Toronto. This has been a real success story for us. I think these are the things that we need to learn when we look at agriculture.

There are a number of elements in Bill C-18 that speak to the issue of patent rights as we create new crop yields and the need for regulatory changes to cover breeding animals under the advanced payments program. These are things, if we ensure that they are done right, that will provide security for innovation, new research, and for the producers who are buying seeds and animals, and wanting to try the new yields that are coming forward.

There are number of concerns out there that are important to raise in Parliament. This is about consumer confidence. Some of them have to do with the notion of plant breeders' rights. There is a sense out there in the general public that they do not trust what is happening in terms of GMOs. They do not trust what is happening in terms of the larger food economy.

Just this past month, I was in Timmins at a rally against Monsanto and GMOs. Now, Monsanto certainly does not have a good reputation with its history with Agent Orange and creating PCBs. However, I think what brought this issue initially to the public's attention in terms of the scientific manipulation of gene matter to create new varieties was the effort to create the terminator seed. The terminator seed was a solution it came up with as a way of not having to argue with farmers about having to buy seed the next year. One would just simply put a so-called suicide gene into the seed, which would give one yield and then die.

That might have seemed like a smart idea at corporate headquarters, but it has hit ordinary citizens not just in Canada and North America, but across the world as something that is fundamentally flawed, that one could mess with genetics to create a so-called suicide gene. There was a huge pushback against this effort. It scared the public away. People said, “Wait a minute. What is happening with our food?”

We are seeing, especially across North America, a growing awareness about the food economy and the need to ensure some manner of security for food so that we are getting good quality food and there is a sense of the importance of the local economy. Over the years, we have seen a move to this larger and larger sense of agribusiness, but consumers want food that is safe, food that is good. They like the notion of locally grown food. Consumers want to be heard on these issues.

When we talk about new crop varieties, we need to reassure the public that we are looking at these issues seriously, that we are looking at them from the point of view of what creates innovation in order to create better yields, so that our communities can be fed, but also ensuring an overall balance. Nowhere is this more important than with what is happening with the bee population around the world.

We know that there has been a massive die-off of bees. We have seen a 35% decline in bees in Ontario alone. What does that mean for us? I do not think people have any idea what it would mean if there was a substantial die-off of bees, especially with the role bees play in pollination. They are the fundamental players in the entire food cycle. Protecting bees really has to be job one. It does not matter what we do with our food economy; it does not matter how much tile drainage we put in; it does not matter how many plans we put forward. If we do not have God's little creatures actually making this all possible, we are going to be in for a serious shock in our ability to feed ourselves and the world.

We have seen studies done by the American Journal of Science, the American Chemical Society's Environmental Science & Technology Journal and the Harvard School of Public Health, that identified neonics, the form of pesticide that is being used on about 142 million acres of corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton seeds. This is a corporate construction that was seen as a way of improving crop yields by putting these pesticides on corn, wheat, and soy, which is certainly the backbone of the U.S. agricultural economy and much of Canada's agricultural economy.

It is not that this was done out of malice; side effects sometimes happen. If this leads to the death of the bee population, there have to be measures to deal with these pesticides, because it is not good for the long-term economy. There will certainly be corporate interests and lobbyists who will say that we should hold off and study this in another three or five years. Consumers and citizens want clear action. They want to know that parliamentarians hear these things. There is a sense out there that big agriculture has the ear of government, and the average person does not. There is a real uncertainty.

What we need to do as parliamentarians is say that we hear the public's concerns. We also understand the need to have regularity and certainty in the agricultural development of our economy. Agriculture is not a yesterday economy. Increasingly, with climate change and global uncertainty, the role of Canada as the world's breadbasket, as we used to call ourselves, the ability to create food to sustain our population is going to become increasingly important.

There are a number of elements in Bill C-18 which are timely, but there are also a number of elements in the bill, particularly on the issue of plant breeders' rights, how seeds are saved, and what it actually means in terms of establishing some manner of certainty for producers, patent holders, and also for the people who have the God-given right to plant and grow and should be able to maintain that right, that we can raise in Parliament that they need to be identified at committee as to how they will actually play out on the ground.

We are certainly willing to move this bill to committee. We think there is some merit.

The issue of farmers' privilege is certainly a big question. Farmers' privilege is interesting because it allows farmers to save seeds for the purpose of reproduction, but it is not clear whether or not they have to pay to store it, which would effectively negate that privilege. That would seem to be an odd element. Also, there is the question of where the resale is. Is it on the original purchase of the seeds, or on the resale value of what is actually produced as a crop? These are things we feel need to be looked at.

In terms of the advance payments program, there are a number of elements. Again, it is odd that we jump from plant breeders' rights to the advance payments program. The government has thrown in a whole manner of elements to deal with agriculture in one bill. It is sort of a mini omnibus bill. We are dealing with a whole bunch of different elements.

There are new allowances under Bill C-18 that would allow multi-year agreements to reduce the administrative burden for those applying to the advance payments program in consecutive years. That would certainly make the program more efficient. If we had similar provisions in other areas I know it would certainly help.

The bill allows for regulatory changes to cover the breeding animals under the advance payments program, which could result in more opportunities for farmers to access the program. It increases flexibility for producers on a number of fronts, including security arrangements and proof of sale for repayment. All of this would certainly make this program more accessible to producers.

It would also allow program administrators to advance on any commodity in any region, which would provide more opportunities for producers to access the advance payments program. It would also allow repayments without proof of sale, better reflecting the fact that there is a perishable life to non-storable crops. Producers would be able to avoid having to sell products at an inopportune time, for example, at very low prices, in order just to meet their repayment requirements.

There is flexibility built into the mechanisms that we think are very interesting and respond to what we are hearing from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and a number of other farm organizations.

Bill C-18 also grants the government the ability to define new means of repayment. This could provide greater flexibility for producers, including in situations like farm liquidation.

These are all very good elements.

I want to go back to the international protocols that have been put in place through the World Trade Organization, through international agreements. What we need to do is ensure that these are not simply there to benefit very large corporate interests, like Monsanto, but also respect the variety of agricultural experience across the world, including the third world.

We know there has been a huge issue about genetic contamination, the possibility that GMO crops could reach into other crops and affect them. Since 2005, there has been a GM contamination register in the United Kingdom.

The other issue is in India there has been a huge local fight back among farmers about what their plant rights are, and the fact that they have grown the kinds of crops they have for decades and centuries, and corporate control over them has led to a huge pushback. Some of these issues were raised.

Many of the Indian companies are locked into joint ventures and licensing agreements, and concentration over the seeds sector was the result. It has been said that Monsanto now controls 95% of the cotton seed market through its genetically modified organisms in India; that seed which had been the farmers' common resource suddenly has now become, as is being accused by a number of Indian farmers, the intellectual property of Monsanto; that the open pollenated cotton seeds have been displaced by hybrids, including genetically modified hybrids. Cotton used to be grown as a mixture with food crops and other crops, but pressure has been put on to do mono-cropping. That certainly may have restored some measure of yields in India, but on the issue of mixed crops and how farmers grow their crops, particularly cotton, local farmers feel larger corporate control has taken over their ability to control their own land.

These are questions about economics, but they are also about agriculture and the basic issue of civil society and where we go. We are certainly interested in seeing this issue being brought forward and more closely examined at committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I did enjoy the member's remarks. He touched on a lot of very valid points.

If we could sum up this bill with three or four words, we could call it the good, the bad and the ugly. There are some good points in it, and there are some worrisome points as well. The biggest overall concern with this bill is the global corporations having so much control over the family farmers around the world.

One of the areas that I am concerned with in the bill is the plant breeders' rights aspect of it. I have not actually determined in my own mind where we can go on it.

The minister talks about a farmer's privilege, and the member mentioned that as well. I believe it should be a farmer's right to retain and reproduce their seed. What implications will that have on the international agreement we have already signed as a country? I do think it needs to be discussed a lot more. How does the member see, or is there any way of getting around, ensuring that farmers have rights and not just privileges? It should be their rights. They are the ones who are doing the producing. How does the member see getting around that in the context of the international agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question. I have worked with the member on agriculture and he has a wide background on this.

The hon. member has touched on the issue of the rights being afforded in this bill are corporate rights. Everybody knows that a privilege is something that can be taken away. A right is something that one fundamentally has.

I would argue that since time immemorial there has been the fundamental right of the farmer working with nature itself. This is the most fundamental relationship that has existed since humans first stopped hunting mastodons, and maybe even back then. It is that relationship between the grower and what is grown.

Now that there are limits or an ability through international trade agreements to determine how that is done is very disturbing. We know that around the world there has been a pushback against the larger bodies that tell us at the local levels what we can and cannot do.

That is why we need to get this bill to committee, so we can actually look at the legislation and determine whether or not we are actually trading away the God-given rights that farmers have had since time immemorial. That has to be protected.

The devil is in the details, and the devil will certainly be in the details of this bill.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member, as usual, has widened the scope of his speech to talk about his constituency and about the rights and interests of all of our agricultural producers in Canada.

The member made a very important point. Typical of the legislation the government has been bringing forward is a law which includes provisions for the possibility of regulations to be promulgated.

A more open and transparent process would be to table the legislation and at the same time reveal what those regulations may say so that members of Parliament, the agricultural producers who are impacted, and the breeders could know what the government proposes.

I wonder if the member could expand a bit more on the fact that it is nice the bill is being tabled, but there are two significant areas where there will be regulations, and one could potentially severely limit these privileges to the producers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to sound like I am getting all biblical but it does say in the Book of Luke that what is done in the dark shall be seen in the light and shouted from the rooftops.

This is the problem with regulation. We have a few hours of debate on something as substantive as the issue of plant breeders' rights and how the rights of farmers and the rights of an ecological system for growth balances off the larger corporate interests and larger international trade interests. Then it goes to committee, and then it is voted on. Then all the little booby traps can be brought in through regulation, which the public will have no ability to hear.

When we deal with these issues, the public looks to us as parliamentarians to try to find a reasonable solution. Do I know how to balance off plant breeders' rights with what is called the farmers' privilege? I think it should be the farmers' rights. No, because it is in those details. They are very complicated.

The issue that it can be dealt with in regulation after the fact means there can also be the problem of certain interests that will have the ear of the people writing the regulations while the public is sitting on the outside. I do not think that is in the interests of the public.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do indeed have an omnibus bill on agriculture here of 108 pages, with very small font. It is unbelievably important stuff.

To again join my hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, and to get biblical, the part that particularly worries me is that the Creator put these genes on the planet. For us to be saying that a large corporation can control them, monopolize them, and modify them in ways that cause serious potential problems is worrisome to me.

In terms of process, what worries me is that with a bill of this scope, we have five hours to discuss this in a House where the number of people with a scientific background is in the single digits. We desperately need to have expert testimony. We need to have more information.

I would like the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay to give us his thoughts on the process of ramming and cramming this bill through in such a last-minute, draconian fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are very profound questions here. Internationally, we see the whole fight of indigenous cultures who have had their traditional medicines for years, and suddenly they are patented. Maybe it is okay to patent something that was used for hundreds of thousands of years that can benefit all of humankind. There is a public good there. The question is whether the original people who created and used those natural resources should not be disenfranchised, in the same way farmers should not be disenfranchised, in the same way the consumer should not be disenfranchised if Monsanto decides that it will start sticking fish genes into tomatoes and does not want the public to know. These are all issues that as human society we need to be deeply involved in.

To take all these elements of an agricultural bill, some of which are very positive and will help our producers, and throw them all together, ram them through, and not have sufficient time to do the review, when we need technical experts and people of scientific and cultural backgrounds who can talk about what will work and what will not, is not what the Canadian public sends us here to do.

We see in this House the idea that debate is always being called stalling and filibustering. Debate is about raising these issues so the people back home who are listening can say, “I understand what's going on. I see that there are questions that need to be answered”. Then they look to us to be able to provide those answers at the end of the day. If we as parliamentarians are not able to do our job, if we are not able to do the due diligence, how then do we go back to the public and say, “Be reassured, the Parliament of Canada did the right thing with this legislation”?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have talked a lot in the House about the different areas of expertise we have as members of Parliament. We come here with different backgrounds. Some of us are experts in academic issues or technical issues. Some of us are just experts in what it is like to come from our regions. We are very much like Canada in that way, and like Canadians, we have different backgrounds.

My background is not agriculture, and so the bill has been a real learning experience for me. I want to share with the House where my learning experience on the bill actually started, because I will be honest, the bill was not on my radar when it was first tabled. Look at the fact that I am a member of Parliament for Halifax, an urban centre. There are a few fishing villages in my riding, but I really do not represent any agricultural areas.

I talk often in the House about how important it is for us to talk to constituents to tap into their expertise but also to hear about their hopes or dreams or to hear about their fears about different pieces of legislation. That is exactly what happened to me when the bill came up. I looked in my calendar one day and saw that members of the Food Action Committee, which is a committee of the Ecology Action Centre, had scheduled a meeting with me to talk about Bill C-18. I am not one to even remember bill numbers very quickly, so I had to look it up. I realized that it made sense that the Food Action Committee wanted to talk to me about the bill, which is called an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, but I wondered why they wanted to talk to me about it.

I immediately contacted my friend and colleague, the member for Welland, who is our agriculture critic, and he forwarded a lot of material about what Bill C-18 sought to do or purported to do. He walked me through some of the key issues for him as our critic and also very likely for the Food Action Committee.

I went ahead with the meeting and met with Jonathan Kornelsen and Mary Ellen Sullivan, and it was a typical MP meeting, where folks say that these are the issues with the bill and ask what the NDP's position is on it. They presented me with a petition entitled “The Right to Save Seeds”. It had 145 signatures on behalf of the Food Action Committee. They explained that their friend had three pages of petitions and could not keep up. He was at a grocery store in downtown Halifax and quickly ran out of pages because people were so passionate about this.

The petition addresses the agricultural growth act portion of Bill C-18. It has raised serious concerns among farmers and consumers. They put together the text of the petition with the help of the National Farmers Union website.

Before I get to the content of the meeting or of the bill, I want to read something from a blog Mary Ellen Sullivan contributes to called “Adventures in Local Food”. I want to read it because if there is any message I have tried to communicate during my time as a member of Parliament, it is that politicians are just members of our communities. We are not experts. We rely on the expertise of our communities. We want to talk to people and have our constituents shape our views on policy and legislation, even if we are going to disagree in the end. It is so important to be in touch, and I am always thankful when people do that.

On the blog, “Adventures in Local Food”, Ms. Sullivan wrote about our meeting. She wrote:

Our meeting was a relaxed exchange of information, questions and discussion, with [our MP] advising us of the position of the NDP and the workings of the political process. Because we received more than 25 signatures she can present our petition in Parliament!

It was a great learning and rewarding experience for Jonathan and me. [She] instilled confidence in us that grassroots actions such as petitions, demonstrations, and meeting with your MP do have an impact. Politicians do take note of these actions.

I found that the NFU website provided excellent educational and action resources including background information on C-18 and other issues--just use the search box for issues you’re interested in. It gives advocacy suggestions including how to meet with your MP, and information sheets that can be given to them. NFU works in collaboration with such organizations as the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) on issues affecting farmers and consumers.

Meeting with [our MP] was a great education for us and gave us confidence to continue to take food action! I was delighted to have Jonathan join me--a fledgling FAC member with two meetings under his belt, a background in biology, experience working on a farm in BC, and lots of knowledge and passion. Glad he decided to see what’s going on in NS. We hope you’d be inspired to meet with your MP too. Learn about the issue and relax--our MP’s are working for us.

That is pretty inspiring. I am really glad that Mary Ellen Sullivan took the time to lay out that it is not difficult, that people can meet with their MPs, and that we are working for them. Let us sit down and relax. She actually says “relax”. I thought that was a great message.

Let us move on to the content. As members heard from Ms. Sullivan, we talked about the issues in this bill, including an issue that was very important to them. This was probably the main issue they wanted to communicate to me, and it was about the ability to save seeds. Members heard my colleague from Timmins—James Bay go into this quite a bit.

When people come and meet with us, they want to explain their perspective on different issues. They also want to hear what our perspective is, and they want to know what our party will do. Is it going to support this bill? Is it going to vote against it? What are people saying about it? They asked me my position. I explained to them, as I will explain to the House now, that this bill is problematic. It is another omnibus piece of legislation that would make changes to nine different pieces of legislation. Looking at them and breaking down what these changes are, and they are extensive, there are some we do support. There are other parts that, on their face, we oppose and find problematic.

What do we do when we are faced with this kind of situation? What do we do when we like some parts but think that other parts would do damage?

I think that our critic, the member for Welland, and his deputy critic, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, have put a lot of thought into this. They have consulted with stakeholders, and they have done an excellent job of dissecting all the points in this bill to bring them to a balanced conclusion.

My colleague from Malpeque posed a question to my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and asked what the solution is. He has great expertise in this area. He said that we are not sure where we are with farmer's privilege. How do we balance that? How do we figure out farmers' rights versus farmer's privilege? That is a great question to ask. We do not always have all of those answers when we are here at second reading just fleshing out the ideas of a bill. It is so important that we bring this to committee and study it, listen to experts, and maybe try to come up with those solutions. I do not have some of the solutions before me right now, but I am eager to hear from my colleagues what some of those solutions might be.

I told Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Kornelsen that I was prepared to support the bill at second reading and that at committee we plan to work on making the problematic aspects of this bill better. We plan to try to fix the problems. I have to admit that I am not overly optimistic that the Conservatives will listen to our proposal, but I refuse to be cynical about this and just give in. I do think we have to try.

What are the problematic aspects of this bill? I have received a number of postcards from constituents speaking out against the bill. In particular, I have received a lot of postcards from a postcard campaign on the issue of farmer's privilege. On the front of the postcard, it says:

Save our Seed

Stop Bill C-18! Farmers’ age-old practices of saving, reusing, exchanging, and selling seed are in jeopardy.

The postcard has some really compelling language in it. It says:

[The bill], now before the House of Commons, would allow the biggest seed companies in the world to exercise almost total control over seed in Canada. These companies would also be able to charge royalties on a farmer’s entire crop. The Bill includes power to make regulations that would quickly undo or severely limit the so-called “Farmers Privilege” to save seed. This means Canadian farmers would pay giant corporations hundreds of millions each year for the right to grow a crop.

Canadians do not want multinational seed and chemical companies like Bayer, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow and Syngenta to control our seed, and ultimately, our food system.

I am asking you, as my democratically elected representative, to safeguard Canadian farmers’ right to save, reuse, exchange and sell seed by taking all actions necessary to stop Bill C-18.

That is pretty passionate. They are not asking for a rewrite here; they are saying to stop.

I want to thank some of my constituents who have reached out to me on this, including Tessa Gold Smith, Jim Guild, Herb and Ruth Gamborg, Steve Burns, Aaron Eisses, Mark McKenna, Josh Smith, Elisabeth Gold and Peter Gravel. All these folks have signed onto this, saying that we should stop Bill C-18.

I sympathize with their demand to stop this bill, even though I will support it at second reading. This is one of these balancing acts that we have to play from time to time. When I sat down with Jonathan and Mary Ellen and said that there were some aspects of this bill that we would support, they asked me which parts.

I believe there are some pieces of this bill, like putting stronger controls for products that are being imported or exported. There are new strengthening of record keeping requirements, whether for plants, for feed or for fertilizer. There are some safety measures in there to prevent risks to human, animal and environmental health. One big part that everybody could support is prohibiting the sale of products that would be a subject of a recall order from the CFIA. That is a great step toward strengthening our food safety system. It makes me wonder why that has not been there all along.

It is a balancing act to figure it out, so we will try to get it to committee.

I agree with constituents of mine who have written to me in this postcard campaign about the farmers' privilege piece. I have two more letters that I received from some constituents about this issue.

One is from Margaret Murray who says:

No doubt you have done some investigation on Bill C-18. I'm wondering what the NDP issue is on this important issue. Multi-nationals like Monsanto MUST be curtailed in their attempts to 'own' what ought to be in the public domain. Taking a renewable common resource an turning it into a non-renewable patented commodity is simply wrong!

I have also heard from Cynthia O'Connell who asked me to oppose Bill C-18 as it would harm organic farmers on whom she depended for organic food.

Even though the bill is ostensibly about agriculture, it really would impact consumers, including consumers in urban centres like Halifax, which I represent. It is capturing the hearts and minds of people. They are writing to me.

As I said, there is a balance that has to be met here. There would be some benefits of the changes found in the bill, like enhancing public accessibility and transparency when it comes to plant breeding and, for example, protecting researchers from infringement of plant breeders' rights. However, the issue of farmers' privilege is significant, and that is the number one issue about which people have written to me.

Let us get to farmers' privilege and what the NDP would see as very problematic.

Farmers' privilege does not include the stocking of propagating material for any use. What does that mean? Even if farmers are able to save seed for the purpose of reproduction, it looks like they may have to pay to store it, which would effectively negate that privilege. Earlier, when I said that we did not necessarily have all the answers when we came here at second reading to debate the bill, I am very clear when I say it looks as if farmers would have to pay to store it. I would want to explore this issue and find out from the minister if that was actually the intention. If it is not the intention, then maybe that could be fixed with a simple wording change.

The farmers' privilege also would not extend to the sale of harvested material. This means that farmers would 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 margins of farmers.

Some farmers say that paying a royalty base on what they produce instead of on the seed that they buy actually reduces their risk. If they harvest a poor crop, they pay less with an end-point royalty compared to paying upfront when they buy seed. Even in what I am presenting to the House right now, I am a bit unsure, so this is something we would need to explore further as well.

Bill C-18 includes amendments that would allow the CFIA to make changes to farmers' privileges through regulation, not through legislation, and that is an important distinction. This means that the government could significantly hinder these rights at any time without parliamentary oversight.

Not a lot of people understand the difference between regulation and legislation. Legislation would have to come before the House where we would debate it and vote on it. There is a process involved. Regulation is just an order-in-council. What does that mean? Effectively it means that the Prime Minister's Office has written something down and given notice, but it is not democratic. It is an interpretation of the legislation, and who knows where that comes from. In theory it is the Governor-in-Council, but in reality I doubt that is the case. There is no parliamentary oversight, and these rights could be changed at any time, at least that is my reading of the bill.

Allowing for farm saved seeds is an optional exemption under UPOV 091, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants that we signed in 1991. That means Canada could disallow farm saved seed and still fulfill its international obligations under the agreement.

Bill C-18 goes so far as to define what is meant by a document, so that is good because there is some detail there. However, it does not give a definition of farmer, which is problematic. This would have some important implications for the enforcement of farmer's privilege. It goes to the root of the issue here, especially given that Bill C-18 would allow the government to make significant changes to the farmer's privilege provisions through regulation. There we are again. Changes could actually be made, without any parliamentary oversight, through regulation, and there is no definition of what a farmer is.

Given the government's recent changes in Bill C-4 that limit farm loss deductions to people whose primary income is from farming, this is an area where more clarity is needed. Do I count as a farmer if I am participating in a community garden in downtown Halifax? I am not sure.

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

I will finish up with a couple of other concerns about 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 or accidental spreading of patented plant genetic material, but they are not included in Bill C-18.

Given that the expansion of breeders' rights under Bill C-18 would be so significant, it is likely that farmers would face increased and expensive litigation. There is no provision in the bill to ensure that legal fees do not impede farmers' defence in these cases.

That is the overview of what my constituents in downtown Halifax have written to me about. There are other issues in the bill which I am sure members will hear about from other members of Parliament, but that is the big one for the folks who I represent.

While I will be supporting this legislation at second reading, as I have pointed out, we have to watch this closely. We really have to push to change this, to make amendments to the bill to protect farmers. I look forward to being able to do that at committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the New Democrats have not adjourned the House, or attempted to adjourn the House. That is a positive thing.

Next thing is that we have good pieces of legislation. When I say “good”, I should qualify that. This legislation attempts to make changes to nine other pieces of legislation. The government's track record in making changes to legislation that impacts our farmers is not very encouraging. In fact, there are many other things which the government could have done to work with a number of the changes that it would put into place through Bill C-18.

The member highlights that in certain areas there are some aspects of the legislation that are positive and I think would receive fairly decent support from our stakeholders, in particular, our farmers. We within the Liberal Party are very grateful for that. However, there are other aspects that are not.

The concern has to be that we have, yet again, this large bill before us that which would make change to several pieces of legislation.

Would the member not agree that it would have been far better off had the government done its homework and worked with our different communities and stakeholders to come up with what should have been several pieces of legislation? This way we probably would have had better and easier passage on some of the more positive aspects of Bill C-18.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for qualifying the word “good”, because we still have not said that this is good legislation. Yes, there are some good pieces here, but there are some problematic pieces.

I am holding in my hand some notes that my colleague from Welland has put together for folks like me, because this is not our area of expertise. These notes are really quite incredible because they outline each act that would be amended. As we heard, there are nine different acts. This is omnibus legislation and so, we have to look at it that way. There are amendments to the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act. The notes set out what is good about it and what is problematic about it. There are amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the advance payment program. Again, the notes state what is positive about it and what is problematic about it. This is too much.

I go back to 2012 when we had two omnibus budget bills. The first one touched over 70 pieces of legislation, completely rewrote our environmental legislation and there were changes to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, which is the law that governs whether we can sell or trade eggs or what we do with eggs, with sperm. This act was changed. I searched Hansard to see who debated it. I raised it once and one of my colleagues from Hamilton also raised it. It was just a mention. This is whether women can be surrogate mothers. The law was changed and it was buried in omnibus legislation.

God willing, there are no changes to our reproduction rights in this bill, but who knows? We will see.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her excellent speech.

Along those same lines, we are wondering why the Conservative government is making all these small changes and amending a number of different laws when they have yet to convince us that these changes are warranted and that they are in the interests of Canadians. Today we are speaking on behalf of Canadians, and farmers in particular.

What does my colleague think about the fact that Bill C-18 goes so far as to define what is meant by a document but does not give a definition of farmer? There will be a significant impact on farmers' privilege.

Does she think it is reasonable for the government to be amending one definition but not defining the term “farmer” when this bill touches on the importance of farmers' privilege? I am concerned that this will create loopholes in the system.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the advocacy that he does on behalf of his constituents here in the House. He is here talking about the bill. He is always here raising issues that impact his constituents, and I think he should be commended for it.

He should not take my word for it. He should take the word of some of the experts out there. For example, there is Ann Slater, first vice-president of the National Farmers Union, and an Ontario farmer. She argues that the government's changes to plant breeders' rights will turn the customary practice of farmers saving and reusing seeds as part of normal farm activity into privilege, and that privilege could easily be revoked in the future.

Dominique Bernier, from AmiEs de la Terre de Québec, said that the bill significantly weakens farmers' ancestral rights, by forcing them to pay allowances to agro-industrial giants on the entirety of their harvest. However, the marketing of new crop varieties by the big breeders rests on a world heritage, the patient selection over a thousand years of crops by the succeeding generations of farmers.

There are people raising problems with the bill who have expertise.

The member mentioned the omnibus nature of the bill. To get back to that, there are people saying positive things about the bill. However, it is not a dispute. It is not, “I think that this policy x is good; I think this policy x is bad”. There are so many x, y, and zs in one piece of legislation that there are, I want to say competing points of view, but that is not it at all. People are saying they want x, but they do not want y.

It is quite amazing, when there are this many pieces of legislation that are being touched. I think that something needs to be done to stop this ramming through of so many changes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by the member for Halifax on the bill. It is good to see people who have urban ridings talk about their concerns, and I think we all agree that it needs to go to a committee to be discussed.

My question relates mainly to her constituents' opinions on this. Where would those people who buy the food products that farmers produce rather they come from? The bill, as many of the bills that the government has put before this House, has transferred a lot of control away from primary producers to the corporate sector.

We have seen the results of the changes to the Canadian Wheat Board this winter. Farmers used to received about 87% of the export price; now they are receiving about 48% of the export price. The corporate sector is gaining there.

I would point out to the member that, in 2002, Canada ratified the United Nations International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for food and agriculture. Canada was a signatory to that. In that agreement, it was agreed not to limit any rights that farmers have to save, use, exchange, and sell farm saved seed and propagating material, subject to national law that is appropriate.

My question to the member, because she does represent a lot of urban constituents, is on their views. Where would her constituents rather see that their produce comes from? Who would they like to see in control of that produce, family farmers, or the big corporations like Monsanto?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Malpeque pointed out that I am from an urban riding. We are the consumers. One might not think that we are necessarily connected to the land, but in fact we are quite connected to the land. We can see that in the incredible popularity of our farmers market, the Halifax Seaport market. We can see that with the incredible popularity of a store called Local Source, which only sells local products.

At the farmers market in Halifax, we will not find oranges. There are farmers, producers, meat mongers, and fishermen selling their local products.

Absolutely, without a doubt, my constituents want to see those rights and privileges kept with the local family farm. It is incredibly important to us as urban consumers.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

Unfortunately, I have only 10 minutes to talk about this omnibus bill. Obviously, I am not going to have enough time to say everything I want to say about it. However, I will still try to explain to those watching at home how Bill C-18 will affect them. Farmers and those who depend on this industry will want to listen closely so that they can hear the details of the bill.

The government will boast about this bill, saying that it is good for Canada's economy and the agricultural sector, but like every other omnibus bill, it has some good points and some bad points. The NDP feels it is important that this bill go to committee. Although everyone has concerns, as do I, we will still be voting to send this bill to committee so that some consideration is given to the worthwhile suggestions and good amendments that we will be proposing in order to fill in the gaps.

As I said to my colleague from Halifax earlier, Bill C-18 defines what is meant by “document”, but it does not give a definition of “farmer” even though it is a bill about farmers' privilege. We just cannot understand why the government introduced such a badly written bill.

Maybe the government ran out of time. We know it is a little panicky these days, so much so that it decided the House would have to sit until midnight to discuss more bills. That is fine by me. I spent three nights here debating bills until midnight, and I am happy to be debating this one this morning.

My colleague from Halifax is from a lovely, more urban part of the country that I have visited several times. I myself am from Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, a rural part of Quebec. Saguenay, the largest city in the region, is the seventh-largest city in Quebec. It is a small urban centre. Many or our industries are based on resource regions, including forestry, tourism and agriculture.

I myself have a proud family history of farming. My paternal grandfather was a farmer, and we still have our family land, which is now shared by my many uncles, aunts and cousins. Even my brother, who got the farming bug when he was very young, spends a lot of time on the family land. It is not so much a place for growing grain. The grain grown there is used for the cows. The family farm is mainly about dairy production with a little beef cattle on the side.

I therefore have some expertise to offer to this debate. The Conservatives would have us believe that the NDP is out of touch with reality, but I would say that the Conservatives are the ones who are not listening to the public. People in farming in particular have some concerns about this. A number of them have sent letters or emails to our constituency offices. Today, we are pleased, as New Democrats, to help them make their voices heard here in Ottawa.

Bill C-18 is another Conservative omnibus bill. This time, the Conservatives are proposing amendments to nine different laws. We support some of those amendments, but have some serious concerns about others. It is important to note, however, that unlike the omnibus budget bill, which is a hodgepodge of legislative measures, the proposed amendments in Bill C-18 all have to do with agriculture and, in many cases, make the same changes to different laws. The Plant Breeders’ Rights Act is the first law to be amended. I will list the main amendments proposed in this bill then explain the pros and cons of each.

One of the key changes is to move toward ratifying the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

Then there is the amendment to extend the scope of breeders' rights for the varieties that they develop, and to increase the opportunities for breeders to collect royalties for their new varieties throughout the value chain.

Essentially, Bill C-18 includes the following new exclusive rights for breeders: the right to reproduce material, the right to condition, sell, export or import material, the right to use any other plant variety whose production requires the repeated use of the plant variety, and the right to stock propagating material for the purpose of exercising other plant breeders’ rights.

The bill also extends the term of the grant of plant breeders’ rights from 18 years to 20 years, except in the case of a tree, a vine or any category specified in the regulations, in which case the term is extended to 25 years.

There are also new provisions that grant farmers' privilege, enabling them to keep, condition and reuse the plant seed on their own land. It should be noted that this privilege is not extended to the storing of seed or to the sale of harvested material from protected seed.

Bill C-18 also grants the Canadian Food Inspection Agency the ability to make changes, through regulation, under which the classes of farmers and plant varieties would no longer be covered by farmers' privilege. I was talking about farmers' privilege a little earlier and it is at the heart of this bill.

There is also the amendment that seeks to protect the rights of researchers to use patented materials as the basis for developing new varieties or for other types of research.

Then there is an amendment to give the public greater access to the registry of plant varieties, which is a major change from the previous act.

There is also an amendment that seeks to maintain the ability of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to grant compulsory licences to ensure that, in certain situations, plant varieties are available at reasonable prices, widely distributed, and of good quality.

However, Bill C-18 also includes an amendment that allows plant breeders to request that their plant breeders' rights be exempt from a compulsory licence.

The final amendment that this bill makes to the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act is that it gives the government the authority to make changes governing exemptions from compulsory licensing through regulations, without legislative change.

One of the benefits of this bill is that variety developers would be able to see a return on investment for their plant breeding research efforts, providing incentives for an important sector of Canadian agribusiness.

The bill would also grant farmers' privilege to allow farmers to save the conditioned seed for use on their own farms. It would promote access for Canadian farmers to the results of private breeding research from Canada and other countries through more effective intellectual property rights.

It would protect researchers from infringement of plant breeders' rights.

It would enhance public accessibility and transparency when it comes to plant breeding.

Finally, the bill would maintain the existing compulsory licence system, providing some assurance that varieties can be made available at reasonable prices, widely distributed, and kept at a high quality.

However, we also have some concerns. Farmers' privilege does not include the stocking of propagating material for any use. As a result, even if farmers are able to save seed for the purpose of reproduction, they may have to pay to store it, which would effectively negate that privilege. I hope that the Conservatives will agree to compromise a little in committee.

Privilege also does not extend to the sale of harvested material. This means that farmers will probably have to pay for the sale of crops from farm-saved seed. That is a problem. It also means that plant breeders could generate revenue on a farmer's entire production, rather than just on the seed purchased to grow the crop. There will be an amendment in that regard. This could have a significant impact on farmers' profit margins.

In closing, Bill C-18 is an omnibus bill, and I disapprove of this type of tactic.

With respect to plant breeders' rights, the NDP believes that a balanced approach is essential. We will protect farmers, researchers and all Canadians. Although we understand the role that intellectual property rights play in fostering innovation, we want to ensure that Canadians can access and benefit from our agricultural heritage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight one aspect of the proposed legislation that I think it is important.

We all know that farm debt is a serious issue. A good part of that, at least out in the Prairies, occurred because of the humongous wheat piles that accumulated during the springtime and even as early as January from last year's harvest. We had excessive wheat, but the government was unable to ensure its adequate transportation to the B.C. coast, where empty ships were waiting. The government just dropped the ball on this issue, and it is related to farm debt.

The proposed legislation would affect the Farm Debt Mediation Act. The idea is try to provide more mediation processes or better clarity on the whole issue of the mediation process for farmers' debt. This is something that has potential, but one would like to think that the government did some consulting with the farmers to take on the issue in a more serious fashion. We know that the government was not able to deal with the situation of the wheat and the rail lines and so forth.

My question for the member is this: does he believe that this provision in the bill would assist in dealing with farm debt?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has certainly asked a good question. However, I am a little skeptical about the measures established by the government. The Conservative government has shown on a number of occasions that it is rather incompetent, not just with respect to the home delivery of mail, but also with respect to the delivery of wheat to the different regions of Canada, as my colleague mentioned.

The Conservative government would obviously like us to believe that this measure will make the system stronger, but I have serious doubts about that. I am not an expert on wheat. My expertise and knowledge are more in the area of dairy production and livestock production for processed meats.

I would like to give the government the benefit of the doubt, but since we are dealing with the Conservative government, I think that it is very likely that it will shirk its responsibilities rather than carry them through.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

I represent an urban riding that has a farmer's market, the Atwater Market. I also shop at the Jean-Talon Market, in Montreal. A number of farmers produce very special products. There are blueberries from the Lac Saint-Jean area and strawberries from Quebec. One of my favourites is an heirloom tomato farmer.

The changes to the wording of the act make it sound as though it is a privilege for farmers to be able to keep their own seeds and use them every year.

Does my colleague think that the change in terminology is worrisome for local farmers?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. NDP colleague.

His point of view is one of a consumer, which is just as important to hear in this debate on this agri-food bill.

Intellectual property over seeds is one of our primary concerns. This concern, which I share, has been raised by a number of my colleagues.

The New Democratic Party is in favour of respecting the rights of the people who create these seeds. However, when we take a look at international news, we can see that giants like Monsanto have created genetically modified seeds that are spread in fields—sometimes organic ones—and on private farms, and these seeds contaminate other fields. This is doubly worrisome because non-genetically modified seeds are not protected and also because Monsanto and other companies could sue a farmer whose land is contaminated against his will.

Furthermore, consumers are increasingly looking for organic products and good products that taste like real food. That is why I think that this bill does not necessarily fix the problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill.

There have been several time allocation motions lately, and they have affected our speaking time. It is always nice to be able to talk about an issue regardless of what that issue is because that gives our constituents a chance to hear us talking about it. If we cannot talk about an issue, they will not hear about it because nobody is going to be running ads about agriculture in Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I would be really surprised if that happened.

My riding is primarily urban. We have lots of bungalows and apartment buildings. Like everywhere else in the country, much of the new construction is condos, and we have about 250 or 300 of those. Most of the people who live in these condos are older, middle- or upper middle-class people who sell their houses and decide to stay in Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

One of the first speeches I gave in the House in 2011 was about the abolition of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is why I am so glad to be here today to talk about agriculture once again. The NDP strongly opposed the abolition of the wheat board, which included mandatory consultations with farmers. The Conservative Party told us that consultation had been done because it had won the election with about 40% of the vote. That was my first experience in terms of votes, and it seems to be coming full circle in one of the last discussions we will have about agriculture before the next election.

I would like to talk about various issues. Talking about agriculture means talking about production, processing, markets, farmers' economic and financial situation, and research and development. We have to look at all of those elements. These are not things to be taken lightly.

In Quebec, 14% of our receipts are from agricultural land. There are 14,000 agricultural businesses across the province, and the crop production area is about 925,000 acres. Products are sold primarily on the food and animal feed markets. Quebec is Canada's second-largest producer of corn and soy, with 28% and 17%, respectively. These figures are from Statistics Canada.

To be more specific, corn is the number one crop, at 41%. Next comes soy at 29%, oats at 11%, barley at 9% and wheat at 6%. There are some other crops here and there that represent 2%. Production is increasingly specialized. There are 4,196 specialized farms in Quebec, which is a 23% increase over 1995. That means that there are 3,403 more specialized farms than there were in 1995. Specialized farms account for more than 50% of the cultivated acreage. The average farm size is increasing. Quebec very seldom turns to foreign markets because it is somewhat self-sufficient.

Production is the most significant market. In fact, animal feed makes up 90% of the market. The most popular crops are corn, barley and wheat. The main crop for human consumption is wheat, and the domestic market sits at one million tonnes. Next comes soybean production. As in the western provinces, a portion of production—320,000 tonnes—also goes to industrial processing, mainly for ethanol. Soy and canola are sometimes used as well.

Nearly 695 establishments process grain for human consumption, including 41 flour mills and malting plants, 617 companies that produce baked goods and tortillas, and seven companies that make breakfast cereals.

It is important to point that out because there is a connection between food production and the well-being of the public.

I focused mainly on one aspect of the bill: the amendment to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the advance payments program.

The advance payments program is a loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances. For a business owner, often the hardest part is having cash flow.

The advance payments program provides producers with a cash advance on the value of their agricultural products during a specified period. This helps them meet their financial obligations and benefit from the best market conditions and improves their cash flow throughout the year. This part of the bill is rather interesting.

The key changes in Bill C-18 are that it expands access to the program and, with the new provisions on multi-year agreements, will reduce the administrative burden for those—including the growing number of women working in agriculture—who apply to the advance payments program in consecutive years. This will make the program more accessible to producers and make program delivery more efficient.

Eligibility for the program will no longer be limited to those principally occupied in farming, so that farmers with significant off-farm income will also be able to access the program. For those working in agriculture, the season is very short and income is not very high. Therefore, it is often important for people working on a farm to have two jobs. This will allow farmers to work off farm as well, which is advantageous for producers.

Raising breeding animals will also be eligible for the advance payments program, and thus more farmers will be eligible. This is new, and it is fairly important, especially for young people graduating from an agricultural college. There are some very good schools in Quebec. Young people do not have access to credit or financing. What was excluded will now be included in the bill. I think that is an excellent idea.

Bill C-18 also increases flexibility for producers on a number of fronts, including security arrangements. It also provides more flexible means of repayment. That is also positive.

Program administrators will be able to provide advances for any type of commodity and in any region, which will provide more opportunities for producers to access the program.

Despite all of the good things I have mentioned, I also have some concerns. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, among others, has been calling for an increase to the maximum amounts of advances, in order to address rising farm expenses, but unfortunately that was not covered in Bill C-18.

The changes also include a new licensing and registration regime for animal feed and fertilizer establishments; put in place stronger controls for products being imported or exported; strengthen record-keeping requirements for feed, fertilizer and seed establishments and animal producers. The bill would also strengthen the record-keeping requirements for plants and potential risks from pests.

I am going to wrap this up. There is something important that has not yet been mentioned. There are three basic aspects that need to be considered when we are talking about development, namely the social, economic and environmental aspects. As we know, there has been a public outcry with respect to farmers saving seed. People claimed that bees have disappeared and that only certain companies could sell this specialized seed. This worries the population. For the time being, these concerns are not shared by the market in Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles because it is not an agricultural market. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to this bill.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear Liberal and NDP members say this is a pretty good bill, with some flawed parts. I read all 108 pages of it quite carefully. It seems to me to be a very worrisome bill, bordering on a very bad bill, with a few token good parts. The inability to save and store seed, the GMO aspects of it, and the way it runs contrary to the interests of small farmers in favour of large multinational corporations, I would expect from the Conservatives, but I am surprised that these people want to send it to committee where, as we know, nothing will really get fixed.

Therefore, my question to the hon. member is: Why in heaven's name are they not just voting “no” for this very bad bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the member is no longer part of our party, but we cannot change the past.

In Quebec, the UPA has spoken out about the social, environmental and development aspects of this bill. We must all ensure that we consider what impact and consequences this bill will have on sustainable development.

As the member pointed out, there are some good parts in this bill. That is what I wanted to focus on this morning.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that was raised earlier is what is happening with the corporate development of seeds and pesticides. We know of the threat it is posing now to bees with the neonicotinoids. We are seeing a 30% drop in bee populations in Ontario alone and similar drops in Quebec. This is one of the fundamental bases for ensuring agriculture and food security, yet it would be going up against a corporate interest that has enormous amounts of capital put into pesticides, plus going up against the soybean and corn industry.

I know Bill C-18 talks about the corporate rights, which are supposed to be balanced with the so-called privileges of the average farmers, but within that there needs to be a balance for the basic ecological sustainability of our agricultural system that the citizens of our country, and the citizens of the world, have a stake in as well.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague how she feels, that if we just push the bill with regulations and we do not have the time to look through it, that these larger questions are left unanswered.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is why I spoke about some of the social, environmental and economic aspects of this issue. We are wondering where the bees are. Without them, there will be no fertilization and farming will suffer. Apple growers will suffer. Clearly, we have to find a way to successfully manage the environmental, economic, social and sustainable development aspects of this issue. It is extremely important to the future of our society.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, part of the legislation authorizes the minister of agriculture and agri-food to issue certificates setting out any information he or she considers necessary to facilitate certain exports. I wonder if the member might want to provide some thoughts on that issue.

Obviously, it has raised a great deal of concern among many farmers, wanting to getting clarification. We did not get the clarification because, again, there is so much within this one piece of legislation that could have actually been taken aside and debated separately. Could she comment on that aspect?

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is basically self-sufficient in that regard. The crops remain in the province. There are very few exports. If, on occasion, these products are shipped, they are sent to various parts of Canada. That is not a problem for Quebec.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

I have to say that I am absolutely stunned that thus far, and perhaps it will happen but perhaps not before we recess for the summer, we have not heard any Conservative members speaking to this bill. It is clearly a very important bill. We often hear those on the other side talking about how they are the party that represents agricultural producers. We would welcome hearing from them, and hearing the perspectives of the farmers they allegedly represent.

There is not enough discussion in this place about the contribution made by agricultural producers to this country, particularly to the Canadian economy. I am proud to share that my ancestors were fishers and farmers. My great-grandma Sarah Duncan moved to Alberta from Saskatchewan when her husband died. She ran two homesteads, raised four kids, and got them all university educated.

The Steeves family, who I come from, emigrated from Germany, first to the United States and then to New Brunswick, in the mid-1700s. One of them became a Father of Confederation. They farmed since that date. My ancestors then moved to North Dakota and then, by wagon at the turn of the last century, up to Alberta.

My grandfather Pike, who came from a family of fishers in Newfoundland emigrated to this country in 1898. When he was relocated with the bank to Alberta, he was a person who liked to get his hands dirty in the soil and started a ranch in northern Alberta. Sadly, he lost that ranch in the 1930s. I did not discover that ranch until my uncle wrote a history about that.

I have very proud agricultural roots. I spent many childhood days visiting farmers with my father. I was in tears frequently because I could not have a lamb or a baby pig. I am also proud to share that I am an honorary member of the Preservation of Agricultural Land Association, based on the years that I worked with Alberta farm producers who fought long and hard for stronger protections for our prime agricultural lands.

This is a shout-out to the Prairie producers. I certainly value their contribution to this country. I would like to give particular thanks to Lynn Jacobson, who is with the Alberta Wheat Commission, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture. He has been very generous with his time, in sharing his knowledge with me when I go through proposed legislation.

Bill C-18, as has been shared previously, is yet another omnibus bill. It is a very important bill. As I understand it, it changes nine laws. It is regrettable that the time allocated to us in this House does not give us the time to review the entire bill. My concern is that when this omnibus bill goes to committee, there will not be time to review the changes to all nine laws in detail.

Mr. Jacobson thinks that it would be useful for this bill to be taken out to the fields. Here we are tabling this law in this place, and discussing it, when many farmers are still seeding, weeding, and so forth, and are going to be harvesting right up until late fall. Let us hope that this bill is not rushed through, and that the farmers have an opportunity to genuinely participate.

Mr. Jacobson and others have expressed concerns to me that there has not been sufficient consultation to date. There has certainly not been any consultation on the regulations proposed under this bill.

In the brief time I am allotted, I intend to speak to the plant breeders' rights section. It is an issue where we are hearing the most concerns.

In order for Canada to ratify the convention, Bill C-18 must actually enact legislation. That is precisely what is intended by Bill C-18. The legislation as it sits right now was put in place because Canada intended to ratify the previous convention on the protection of plant varieties. That was in 1978.

In 1991, a new convention, which extended greater protections to plant breeders, was signed by many nations. Since that date, Canada has not brought forward legislation. That was 13 years ago. Finally, the government, in its wisdom after being in power for six or seven years, has decided it will bring forward legislation. Let us hope it does not rush it through, because it is a very complex bill.

The difference between the previous convention and the current legislation of the proposed bill is it expands the rights of those who develop and essentially “copyright” seeds to include the exclusive right to produce, reproduce, condition, sell, export, import, or stock other propagating material. It is much more extensive than the previous rights, which were simply the copyrighted right to produce or sell the seed.

It is really important to recognize that debate has gone on around the world for many decades about whether or not there would be greater rights accorded to plant breeders—who, generally speaking, tend to be large corporations like Monsanto. It is absolutely critical for those extended rights to be balanced off with the rights of farm producers. It is generally recognized that saving, reusing, selecting, exchanging, and selling seeds have been understood to be a traditional practice and an inalienable right of farmers.

The concern with this bill, which extends greater rights to the plant breeders, is that the farmers' rights will be cut back. I am advised by the farmers who have been looking at this proposed legislation that there will be even deeper concerns if the Canada-EU comprehensive economic trade agreement is signed, because that bill could potentially extend the plant breeders' rights even further and thereby limit the farmers' rights.

I want to share what some of the issues are. In the bill are accorded certain of what are called “farmers' privileges”. The only provisions in the bill on plant breeders that are accorded to farmers are the rights of the plant breeder, which are enforceable in civil law. As I understand this new legislation, the government will assume responsibility for enforcing these laws, with additional costs assumed by Canadians, including farm producers.

Privileges only—in other words, not really enforceable rights—are extended to the farmers, but they are very limited rights. They include allowing the farmer to use those seeds for the purpose of propagation, but the farmer then cannot sell the crop or the seeds. Many have suggested this is a very hollow privilege.

In addition, the law allows for even further limiting of this privilege by regulation, but the government has not yet revealed what it intends to do by regulation. There are concerns about that.

As I mentioned, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture submitted a brief on the bill. It is presumed that members of this group will be key witnesses at committee, and we encourage them to do so. They are concerned about claims of infringement. There are scenarios in which, for example, there can be drift of seed onto a farmer's land; if the farmer then collects that seed and replants it, and it happens to include some of the seed that is patented, under this law the plant breeder can go after the farmers and sue them.

Additional concerns have been raised, including some raised by Mr. Jacobson in the case of organic farmers. We have had a number of situations of complaints being brought forward by Canadian producers over GMO seeds drifting into organic farmlands, causing their crops to become contaminated and to diminish in value. It reduces their ability to market, certainly overseas.

There are concerns with the free trade agreement that would potentially allow for the seizure of a farmer's assets upon infringement. There is concern about costs imposed on the government, including farmers, to enforce this new law, and issues about compulsory licensing.

Right now, under law there is a provision for compulsory licensing. The plant breeder must ensure that the seeds are made available at a reasonable price and are widely distributed. There is a provision in this new law that would allow them to apply for exemption. What is the problem there? As with the other regulations under the act, there are no provisions to require consultation with the agricultural producers.

With that, I will close my comments. I look forward to questions on the bill. I look forward to the government opening up this dialogue to producers across our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a comment that no Conservatives have spoken to the bill. She must not be following the debate. The minister himself introduced the bill in Parliament and spoke to it. I, as the parliamentary secretary, stood in the House and spoke to it, as did a number of other Conservative MPs.

We are the biggest proponents of the bill. It is the NDP members who seem to be conflicted on the bill. They are weighing one side, weighing the other, and then trying to walk straight up the middle to please both sides of their base.

This is an important bill for agriculture. It is an important bill for farmers. I call on the NDP to support the bill, wholeheartedly and 100%.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I have smoked them out of the weeds. I am glad to see some members on the other side commenting on the debate today. It is very welcome.

I am not going to apologize for the fact that on this side of the House, we actually reach out to those who are impacted by the bills and find out what their issues and concerns are, which is precisely what my colleagues and I have done. Agricultural producers are telling me there are some significant issues with this bill, and they look forward not only to the opportunity to come to committee to discuss the bill but also to be consulted on the planned regulations.

There is nothing stopping the government, frankly, from distributing proposed regulations right now, even before the bill goes to committee. That would then mean that we could vote from a fully informed standpoint in representing the interests of our constituents.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the most significant concern the critic of the Liberal Party has brought to the floor is in regard to the size of the legislation. There are a number of pieces of legislation in one bill. We question why the government has taken this approach, given the importance of the farming community and the number of pieces of legislation that the bill would change. Many of those changes, in fact, could have been stand-alone pieces of legislation.

My question to the member is this: does she not agree that there are too many pieces of legislation being brought as a single piece of legislation? By doing that, are we not preventing the different stakeholders and others from participating in a more detailed discussion on the issues facing our farmers today?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member is aware, at the outset of my speech I raised concerns over the manner in which this bill has been brought forward. I repeat this concern over and over again when the government brings forward legislation in this way.

My particular concern is with legislation that allows for regulations that could deeply constrain even the privilege accorded to agriculture producers. As I mentioned, the law provides certain privileges for farmers to do certain things with seeds, subject to regulations, yet nobody knows what those regulations will say. A good number of measures in this bill allow for that.

Indeed, something as significant as plant breeders' rights merited debate on its own, let alone the eight other laws that would be amended by this legislation. Let us hope that the consultation in committee is extensive, and again I recommend that this bill be taken out to the fields of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to the member about the licensing and registration system. This could require additional funding since measures will be implemented.

Do we have those additional funds? Could there be delays in granting licences and registrations to facilities because those funds are not available?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that unlike current legislation, this legislation introduces an increased role for the Government of Canada, and that means further expenditures. I have not had the time to check to see if the budget provides for these additional funds should this bill become law this year. It is important for that to be revealed. It certainly needs to be revealed at committee.

I am deeply troubled that we are going to use public resources to protect the rights of plant breeders but not necessarily public resources to protect what should be the rights of farmers. That is the area where we need more discussion. I am told by the producers themselves that they are discouraged that the government keeps cutting back on agricultural research funds. It certainly cut the funds for the research based in Saskatchewan and Alberta and it cut back on the community pastures. That is a sad day for the small producers of Canada.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I have the pleasure of rising in the House to speak to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food. I am also proud to say that the NDP has decided to support the bill so that it can be studied more thoroughly in committee.

In our opinion, many aspects of the bill constitute progress for farmers and the agricultural community. However, we are concerned about certain other aspects of the bill. We will examine the bill in committee and propose amendments. We will see how we can work with the government to advance the cause of the agriculture and agri-food sector.

The NDP feels that this bill is massive and is basically an omnibus bill. It amends nine different laws. Certainly, this government has introduced even bigger omnibus bills in the past. One of our concerns is our inability to study each item separately. The Conservatives have been introducing massive bills from the outset.

As parliamentarians, we cannot oppose certain parts of bill if there is no clause-by-clause study. We are supposed to vote in a block, either in support of or in opposition to the bill. If we vote in favour of the bill, we cannot oppose the negative items. However, if we vote in opposition, the government will say that we do not support farmers. That tells me that we are unable to clearly express our opinion on government bills.

Today I will be looking at all of the proposed changes, and I will be stating which ones we support and which ones concern us. I hope that the Conservatives will be open to certain changes and amendments in committee. That is what legislators do.

The NDP went to talk to farmers and those affected, including small and large businesses, in order to gather their comments. We feel it is important to hear everyone's views. Although I live in a very urban area, I visited community and allotment gardens in my riding. The people there have concerns about what is happening in our agri-food and agricultural sector. It is very worthwhile for an MP to travel in her riding and talk to people about what is happening in the House of Commons.

The first amendment was about the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. What this is about is moving toward ratification of the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. This is good: it expands the rights afforded to plant breeders for the varieties they develop and increases the places along the value chain where plant breeders can collect royalties. A new provision allows farmers to save and condition seed for purposes of plant production and reproduction on their own farm. It protects researchers' right to use patented materials as the basis for developing a new variety or for another research use. It enhances public accessibility to the registry of plant varieties, which is a major change from the previous act. It maintains the ability of CFIA to grant compulsory licences to ensure that in certain situations, plant varieties are available at reasonable prices, widely distributed and of good quality. There are a lot of good things in here.

As written, the bill would ensure that variety developers are able to see a return on investment for their plant breeding research efforts, which is very important. It grants farmers the privilege to save and condition their own seed. This is another big step in the right direction. It promotes access for Canadian farmers to the results of private breeding research from Canada and other countries through an intellectual property rights regime. It protects researchers from infringement of plant breeders' rights.

We also have some concerns, and I hope that we can address them by working effectively in committee with all our colleagues from all parties. The Liberals also said they are supporting this bill. At least we are all on the same page. From that point, it will be important to agree on the few amendments that will have to be made. I believe that it is important for a government to have objective criticism of its legislative measures. Working together as a team provides us with the opportunity to address and correct any flaws in the ideas being proposed.

Our concerns have to do with the provisions on the privileges granted to farmers and the fact that those privileges do not extend to the stocking of propagating material. The consequence of these provisions is that even if farmers are able to save seed for the purpose of reproduction, they may have to pay to store it, which would effectively negate that privilege. The privilege also does not extend to the sale of harvested material. This means that farmers will probably have 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. That is another one of our concerns.

We also have concerns about 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 or accidental spreading of a patented plant genetic material. These protections were not included in Bill C-18. Perhaps the Conservatives will be open to adding that protection.

I now want to talk about the amendment to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the advance payments program. Both of these are also affected by this bill. The advance payments program is a financial loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances. Bill C-18 expands access to the advance payments program in a number of ways. There are new allowances for multi-year agreements. This expands producer eligibility beyond those “principally occupied” in the farming operation, which will mean that farmers with significant off-farm employment will also be able to access the program. Furthermore, breeding animals will now be included in the advance payments program.

Our concerns are shared by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has been calling for an increase to the maximum amounts of advances in order to address rising farm expenses. The Conservatives did not include these increases in Bill C-18.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to talk about all of the amendments because, as I was saying, there are so many of them. There are amendments to the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act. We have some concerns in this regard. There is a new licensing and registration system that will require Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to allocate additional resources to the CFIA.

That is too bad because, once again, the government has not provided for additional funding for the CFIA. With the crises that have occurred in the past, I think that the Conservatives are again imposing additional obligations on an agency without giving it the means to fulfill them. That is something that we have seen the government do repeatedly. It imposes new laws and regulations that are worthwhile and help our country progress but it does not give the agencies or departments responsible the means to carry them out. This is once again a weakness in the bill. I hope that together we will be able to remedy that problem.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we are going to support this bill because it nonetheless does have some benefits. However, the government must be open to some changes and amendments. The usual democratic process for a bill is to send it to committee. Recently there have been some problems with committees. I hope that with this bill, the government will note that we are open to changes being made.

I hope we will be able to improve the bill so that it is good for our farmers.

I hope to answer some questions, even if we do not have much time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make reference to the facilitation of certificates for export. This is something which the Conservatives have talked about within the legislation. I want to highlight that there are concerns. There are so many changes in the legislation, but we heard very little, if anything at all, from the minister in regard to this particular issue. It is an important issue.

Imagine all the contracts that have been put under this huge question mark because of the government's inability to get, for example, wheat from our Prairies to the west coast where there were empty ships in the Pacific Ocean, and contracts that were never filled because of government incompetence.

I wonder if the member might want to provide some comment in regard to why we have to tread ever so carefully when it comes to Conservatives and the export of our farm commodities.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which touched on a number of aspects.

We do have concerns about the powers being given to the minister. In their bills, the Conservatives are granting more and more powers. Although I have faith in the current minister, we do not know who the next minister will be. That is a concern for me.

Bill C-18 grants the Governor-in-Council the ability to make changes to the governing of various products. The Governor-in Council's new powers include making regulations respecting the manufacturing, sale and shipping of products between provinces. Furthermore, there is no requirement for the government to consult with the provinces on these regulations. As my colleague mentioned, this is one aspect that concerns us.

I hope that in committee we will have the opportunity to hear effective witnesses speak about the consequences and the benefits of this bill, so that we can make amendments that will satisfy everyone.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for government business has expired. Therefore, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine will have three minutes to conclude questions and comments.

The House resumed from June 13 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.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously NDP members are the only ones working in the House tonight. I am very proud of them.

I am very pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food. Before getting to the main part of my speech, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with my wonderful colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. We are all looking forward to hearing from him.

The bill before us today is another omnibus bill, courtesy of the Conservatives. This is no surprise. We have become accustomed to their way of doing things. However they introduced a refreshing change. Even though the bill amends nine different laws—all the amendments are contained in the same document—they did something very unusual. For once, they focused exclusively on agriculture and agri-food. They seem to have learned something from the previous omnibus bills. At least this time around they have not presented us with a host of amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the bill. It is an improvement and we hope the Conservatives will also improve the way they manage the proceedings in the House and the democratic process in Canada. However this will be the subject of another debate.

I will go back to bill C-18. This bill deals with various issues, from plant breeders' protection to the reinforcement of border security mechanisms, as well as increased access to the advance payments program. Therefore, this bill deals with several issues that are important to our farmers and, by extension, to our fellow citizens. This is why the NDP will support bill C-18 at second reading.

It is important to us that this bill be examined in detail. Indeed, even though we support some measures included in the bill, we believe that they should be studied in depth, as if often the case when the Conservatives introduce an omnibus bill, regardless of what they want Canadians to believe. Various experts have already given their opinion on this and are calling for amendments. The NDP thinks that we should take the time we need to hear them. We must invite experts who wish to speak on the issues included in bill C-18. As parliamentarians, we must also listen to the concerns of the farmers in our ridings to try and come up with the best bill possible.

As we all know, it is simply not in the Conservatives' DNA to collaborate, to negotiate and to look for improvements. Still, we hope that some of that may happen if the bill is sent to committee. This bill needs to benefit all farmers and producers, as well as all Canadians.

As I said, the NDP supports parts of the bill. A few provisions address the concerns of the people from my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. We are in a rural area with numerous family farms, spread over the Portneuf RCM, the Jacques-Cartier RCM and the town of Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures.

Constituents and producers often contact me to discuss agricultural issues. Access to funding is a challenge, as is probably the case in many parts of the country. I am sure that everyone in the House who represents a rural riding hears similar complaints from their constituents.

It is good to know, then, that Bill C-18 improves access to the advance payments program. This would make it easier for producers to access credit through cash advances. Accordingly, producers would be better able to meet all their financial obligations throughout the year, while improving their access to cash. New credit options would also be available to producers whose farm is not their main source of income to support their families.

All of these important changes address my constituents' concerns. However, as I mentioned at the outset, we are dealing yet again with an omnibus bill.

Some of the measures it contains warrant some reworking. They would benefit from expert advice from people who really know the field and work in it every day. That is why we would like to refer the bill to committee. We would like to take the time to do the work we were elected to the House of Commons to do.

There is one problem that deserves to be revisited that I would like to see studied in committee. I am talking about the fact that this bill gives the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food more discretionary powers.

In fact, if passed as is, Bill C-18 would allow the minister to change various provisions of the bill without having to go through the House. He would not need approval from parliamentarians from all the parties. He could simply do it all by regulation. We see that provision quite often in Conservative bills. Frankly, this provision is a concern for the NDP.

This government has shown us many times that we cannot trust it. Here again, it is asking us to give it carte blanche, to give carte blanche to the minister who was at the helm during the XL Foods crisis, the minster who allowed major cuts at the Food Inspection Agency and who allowed the number of inspectors to be cut. The inspectors' jobs are to ensure the health of Canadians, to ensure that we all have access to high-quality food that is not contaminated. It is under this minister that the lives of hundreds and thousands of Canadians were put at risk during the XL Foods crisis. That caused panic here because the government was unable to guarantee the Food Inspection Agency the necessary resources to allow it to do its job properly.

Here again, with the bill before us, we are being asked to trust a minister who has shown his incompetence more than once. Frankly, this needs to be studied in committee again. We need to hear from experts on this aspect of the bill and various other aspects that are controversial and should be improved. We are not saying that we want this bill to be withdrawn completely or that it should never be passed. We are asking the government to show good faith and agree to work with members of the other parties. We also represent farmers, people who are familiar with the problems addressed in the bill, people who deserve to be heard as well as taken into consideration. They should be reflected in the bill that is passed in the House. If we pass Bill C-18 in its current form, that will not be the case.

Personally, when I travel through my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, no one tells me that ministers in the Conservative government should have more discretionary powers because they trust the government. I never hear that in my riding. Quite honestly, most of the time I hear how anxious people are for 2015 to come, so we can be rid of this government.

Aside from that, I have had the opportunity to meet with people from my riding and from ridings across Quebec and Canada. Canadians are worried about the decisions this government is making. It often makes unilateral decisions that do not leave room for opposition or constructive suggestions from the opposition. We know that our job is not simply to criticize. We also suggest solutions and improvements. That generally happens in committee and in the House when we participate in debates that no other parties participate in. We understand our job as MPs. I think it is unfortunate that the Conservatives take their jobs for granted. They do not feel the need to rise and defend their constituents. We saw that with the debate on Bill C-6, when all we heard was yelling from backbench MPs and the same question repeated over and over by the same hon. member on the other side. I strongly suspect that Bill C-18 will only be debated by New Democrat members who care about protecting Canadians and who want to ensure that we all have access to good quality food.

We are the only party that has proposed a global strategy to address the challenges facing farmers and food safety. No other party in the House has addressed this issue. The NDP's objective is to ensure that we can promote sustainable farming communities, support local agriculture, promote safety and transparency in the food protection system and make healthy food accessible to all Canadians.

That is what we want to accomplish here, and that is what we want to accomplish in trying to improve Bill C-18.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her well-informed and heartfelt speech. We can tell that she has people in her riding who are dealing with these issues. I was in her part of the country about two weeks ago, in fact. I visited Cap-Santé, which is a magnificent place.

It seems to me that she is in a better position than most to talk about what farmers are going through. I expect that issues related to heritage seed saving and protection of varieties are of great interest to people.

Is this the kind of issue my colleague would like the committee to take a closer look at?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for a very good question and his kind words about my riding. The people of Cap-Santé will be very happy to know that honourable colleagues like mine enjoy spending time in our lovely riding. Cap-Santé is indeed magnificent, but there are also 27 other municipalities in the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier that I would encourage my colleagues to visit.

To get back to my colleague's question, this is a question that many people have been asking—not just farmers but people like me and like everyone here who eats food every day. They are worried about preserving our heritage seeds and all of the work that our farmers have done over the years. They want to protect that heritage and not leave everything to big companies like Monsanto.

My constituents are very worried about that. They are pleased with the NDP's efforts on behalf of all aspects of agriculture. A little earlier, I mentioned our comprehensive strategy for healthy, high-quality food for all Canadians. One of my colleagues recently introduced a motion to ensure that genetically modified organisms are labelled. All the work accomplished by my NDP colleagues is applauded by the people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and of other rural ridings as well. They expect us to do the same work in committee in order to improve Bill C-18.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely want to thank my colleague for her speech this evening. I know that she works very hard in her riding. She is a strong voice in the House of Commons. We are almost neighbours.

One out of every eight jobs is created in Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector. It is a truly important sector of the economy because it creates jobs in the regions.

I wanted to point out yet again that this is an omnibus bill. We support certain aspects of the bill but, once again, we have fears and concerns. A number of members from all parties in the House presented petitions about adopting the UPOV convention in 1991.

I want to know whether my colleague could comment again on the fact that this is an omnibus bill. Can we really trust this government and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who bungled a number of files such as XL Foods, listeriosis and grain transportation? Can she elaborate on this subject?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that excellent question.

To ask the question is to answer it. As we have seen, we cannot trust this government, and we can trust the minister even less. My colleague spoke about the various crises that Agriculture and Agri-food Canada has experienced since 2011 alone. This government has been in power for far too long, and that is not the first crisis we have faced.

Giving more discretionary power to this government and to the current minister is ridiculous. He has demonstrated his incompetence on more than one occasion. I recently heard him direct some absolutely disgusting comments to my colleague from Alfred-Pellan in response to one of her questions. This colleague represents a riding that is both rural and urban, and he did not seem to get that at all. If he does not understand that, I do not see how he could logically and sensibly exercise the discretionary powers that he would have under Bill C-18. I hope that we can review this provision and amend it as quickly as possible.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for sharing her time with me. With respect to the work she has been doing on this and other issues in her constituency, she easily could have spoken for the full time. Therefore, I appreciate her sharing that time with me.

I am pleased with the work the critics for our caucus, the MP for Welland and the NDP for Berthier—Maskinongé, have done on this file. They have done an absolutely tremendous job.

I will spend a few minutes of my allotted 10 minutes speaking about the leadership they have shown on the whole question of a pan-Canadian food strategy, how important it is for our country and how proud I am as a member of this caucus to have those two critics working on this file.

Let me speak for a minute about Bill C-18. As has been said, it is an omnibus bill but, lo and behold, all of the nine bills it would affect actually have something to do with agriculture, which is unique. Usually we see omnibus bills from the government that cover everything from soup to nuts and have nothing to do with each other. There is no connection whatsoever, no matter how much of an imagination one has. However, this one does.

That having been said, it is very complicated. There are some issues in here with which we agree. Some issues like the plant breeders' rights, farmers' privilege and issues like that are not without controversy. People are concerned with the whole question of how much money would be taken out of the pockets of farmers at the beginning and the end of the day. We need to hear more about that issue.

Other issues, like the advance payment program, that come under the Agriculture Marketing Programs Act are good ideas. However, we look forward to the bill getting to committee so it and our critics can consult with Canadians about what we need to do to ensure the bill would be a benefit to farmers and would benefit food production in our country, rather than be a detriment.

Since the Conservatives have come to office, we have lost over 8,000 small farms in our country? Imagine that. It is phenomenal.

I am from Nova Scotia. I spent a great deal of my young life, from the age of nine up until my early twenties, working on farms, a lot of that time in the fruit tree area. That is an area which Nova Scotia has become well-known, not only across the country but around the world, for our ability to identify not only new technologies in variety, but also in planting, harvesting, marketing apples, in particular, and other areas.

I am very concerned with the direction that the current and previous governments have gone in this area. That is why I am so pleased and proud that my colleagues have come forward with a pan-Canadian food strategy. We call it “Farm to fork”. If anyone is interested in taking a look at it, they can go to my website or to my Facebook page, or they can go to NDP.ca to take a look at that and sign a petition.

We should be ashamed of the fact that Canada is without a comprehensive food policy. We are lagging behind other industrialized countries in the OECD, like England and Australia. The United Nations itself has raised serious concerns about food security in the aboriginal community and the lack of a coordinated food strategy in this country.

New Democrats have picked up on that. We recognize that there is a problem. We recognize that there is a lack of vision. We have come forward with a strategy that deals with our food system, one that connects Canadians from the farm to the fork. We are calling on the Government of Canada to implement a pan-Canadian food strategy that would do the following: promote sustainable agricultural communities, support local agriculture, foster thriving agricultural businesses, ensure safety and transparency, and make healthy food accessible to all Canadians. It is about leadership and it is something that we need to do to move forward.

I am looking forward to sharing some of the aspects of this piece of legislation with my friends and former colleagues in Nova Scotia to get some of their insight into this. I will be interested in listening in on some of the hearings that will be held probably next fall, maybe sooner. The committee might do a cross-country tour over the summer, but I am not sure.

Canadians are interested in farms, food production, the kind of resources that farmers have available to them, and the whole issue of food security in aboriginal communities, coastal communities, and smaller communities throughout this country. Urban Canada will have an opportunity to participate in this and provide input. People will be able to look closely at the pan-Canadian strategy that we introduced and will be talking about. I will be talking about it with the people of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour. I will certainly share it with people throughout Nova Scotia.

This is an important but complicated piece of legislation. It would bring together nine pieces of legislation. Let me go through those nine pieces of legislation: 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 including transitional provisions, and the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

These are important issues. We would like to see the government make these issues clearer to Canadians. We would like to see the government connect the dots. A pan-Canadian food strategy would present a vision to Canadians, to farmers, and to people concerned about food security. Canadians would be able to better understand the philosophy behind all of this legislation and the regulations as they affect the farming sector and the whole question of food security.

This is an interesting omnibus bill. It is not like the ones that I have talked about before that the government has presented. It all ties together but it is complicated. I look forward to Bill C-18 going to committee where it will be examined and many Canadians will have an opportunity to provide their input.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my honourable colleague's speech.

With regard to Bill C-18, I would like to commend the Quebec chapter of Friends of the Earth with whom I participated in a protest on May 24. The purpose of this protest was to give people an opportunity to express their concerns about this bill.

This omnibus bill contains many components. We strongly denounce this Conservative tactic because this is another bill that contains so many measures that it is impossible to break it down and identify which elements we can agree with and which ones we cannot. I deplore the fact that the Conservatives are once again introducing an omnibus bill.

I was listening to my colleague and I was wondering what he thought about the Conservatives' approach. They have done this several times. They introduce an omnibus bill containing a large number of measures rather than taking the time to break it down in such a way that we can come up with the best bill possible.

If we need to split the bill into a number of different parts, we should do so.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right that there are parts of the bill that have caused some concern among people in the industry.

It is an omnibus bill. There are, as I said, nine pieces of legislation in it. There are some things that we like and some things that we do not like. There are other things that we do not understand, and we will need to consult.

My point is yes, it is an omnibus bill, but at least all of the parts tie together somehow, which is different, which is unique. Usually with the omnibus bills that the government brings in, one part does not have anything to do with the other part. They include everything from soup to nuts, is the expression I use.

The bill is complicated. It does have to be examined very carefully. We do have to make sure that people in our constituencies concerned about food security, concerned about food production, have the opportunity to have their say.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for the work that he does in the House and in his riding.

Had a member opposite made a speech, what question would my colleague have liked to ask him or her about Bill C-18?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me say how much I appreciate the kind words from my colleague.

There are a couple of questions I would ask my colleagues opposite, if they were ever to rise to their feet on an issue like this. There are some issues around the whole question of planters' rights that affect research. There is a question of whether small farmers in particular will have access to the research and the support to be able to do research themselves on plant variety and other things.

What confidence can we have in the government and in the minister that the resources will be put in place, whether that be Agriculture Canada or CFIA? What confidence can we or small farmers out there have that the government will back up what it is saying about providing the necessary resources?

It is a key question I have and will continue to have, and I am sure my colleague, the agriculture critic from the NDP, will be able to put that question forward.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak today about Bill C-18, an act to amend certain acts—there are nine of them apparently—relating to agriculture and agri-food.

I heard someone across yell out the word “constituents”, and I do have a number of constituents. Not very many of them have to do with agriculture and agri-food. However, I am surprised because I do know there are a number of members opposite who represent large rural ridings in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and yet they are not speaking on this bill. Do their constituents not wish their members of Parliament to speak on their behalf?

What is going on here? It seems rather strange. If I represented a number of farmers, which I do not, I would want to speak on their behalf on a bill as important as this one. I am going to say that this bill is important, and there are a number of good measures in this bill that we support. There are some problems with it.

However, before we get into the issues that we do and do not support, I want to say that this past weekend, I attended the grand opening of the Weston farmers market. It is a place where farmers gather in my riding, directly across from my office in fact, to sell, and they have done this for the past 32 years.

This farmers market is probably one of the most successful around. There is no cover. There is no shelter. It is a parking lot in the old town of Weston. A number of farmers descend on it, and they are literally picking the night before. These are farmers from all over southwestern Ontario, who come to the riding with the freshest of produce, the freshest of eggs, butter, fruit, vegetables, flowers, and more. There are bakers, coffee makers, and the whole gamut of people who come to a farmers market. Grandpa Ken, who sells back bacon on a bun every morning is a hit. Obviously he gets his back bacon from a pig farmer somewhere in southern Ontario.

The point is that these farmers are successful because they are able to turn their products into money. That is really what is going on; they are earning cash. However, part of this bill sometimes makes it more difficult for farmers to turn their products into money and to survive. That is one of the reasons we want to examine this bill very carefully.

We would hope that the Conservatives would be willing to support amendments to this bill, so that we can fix the problems we find with it. That is one of the reasons we have this debate, so that we can express what we feel are the problems with this bill, and we can hear from the other side what their arguments might be to suggest that we are reading it wrong and that it means this.

We do not hear any of that from the other side. We hear some rumblings and some mumblings, but not a heck of a lot of articulate debate from that side of the House.

My riding is an urban riding. It is a very poor riding. One of the features of my riding is that food security is a very serious problem. There is an organization called Frontlines, which is run by the Baptist church, and is spending a lot of its time teaching 10 and 11-year-old boys how to cook for their families because they are the primary caregiver of a family.

Now, that is heartbreaking when we realize that is who is doing all of the cooking. We have a system in this riding where people teach these kids how to cook. They cannot teach them how to have more money to buy better food, but we are trying. We are trying with a number of organizations that have created small market gardens in the riding. There are individuals who—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Somebody get the guy some notes.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does the member want my notes?

There are individuals who are planting in allotments all over the riding, and they are growing. In fact, they are growing by leaps and bounds. However, this bill might actually get in the way of some of that, particularly if some of the seeds that people are using become more expensive as a result of that—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

How is that?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I see one of them finally woke up.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

How do you feel about GMOs?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, they woke up.

Another issue is raised in this bill, which is the financial ability of CFIA to monitor and enforce the regulations and the legislation that it is being given. I would like to give members an example from my riding of what I believe is a failure of CFIA.

We hear a lot of failures of CFIA in terms of the use of contaminated in meat in Canada. We have heard of some other failures of CFIA—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you for bringing the notes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

There they go.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Just hot off the printer.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Hand delivered.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

You will get onto the right bill eventually.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I know the day is getting on, but the Standing Orders do require that only one member at a time has the floor. There is a reason for that. It is so that other hon. members will have the opportunity to hear what the member who has been recognized has to say.

The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a little organization called Aidan's Gluten Free, which is in my riding. It uses seeds and grains from all over Canada, and probably from all over North America. They are combined in a way that makes bread that is tasty but has no gluten in it. Aidan sells this product, which is assembled in his little factory, to grocery stores and they sell it to the public because it is fresh. This bread is baked fresh every day in his factory, and it is delicious.

However, the CFIA has allowed the big commercial operators like Sobeys, Loblaw and Metro to now bake bread in Chicago, freeze it and ship it to the stores in Toronto. They take the frozen bread, put a best before sticker on it, put it on the shelf and call it fresh. They leave the bread frozen maybe for weeks, maybe for months.The CFIA apparently thinks that this is an okay practice.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sharing my time, so I was going to continue right until—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

More.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted, my point was that the CFIA does not have the resources to properly police material now and to properly keep things fair and honest in our system. We now have a system in which a bread manufacturer in the United States is allowed to ship frozen product into Canada, then have it labelled as fresh, put it on the store shelves and the CFIA says that it is okay. What I think is happening is that the CFIA is not paying attention. This is not a fair position to take.

We note that the biggest bread maker in Toronto was recently sold to a Mexican operation. We wonder if this is not the precursor. Instead of making the product in our own city, taking grain from the Prairies and from those farmers, grinding it into flower and baking bread in Toronto, we are going to start making the bread in Mexico, shipping it to Toronto and calling it fresh, even though it was frozen long ago.

That is the concern, but the CFIA does not seem to have the resources to manage even that operation—

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Can you tie the free trade agreement into that?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would just let the hon. member for York South—Weston know that in fact, at the end of the intervention by the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, we actually surpassed the five hours after the first round of debate on this particular question, in which case there are only 10 minutes for speeches and thereafter five minutes for questions and comments. We have had a couple of interruptions, so I will let the hon. member have another minute to finish his remarks, and then we will go to questions.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually have experience making genetically modified seeds the old fashioned way, by cross-pollination. Members may have heard of Funk's G hybrid. There are signs all over southwestern Ontario for Funk's G hybrid. As a youngster, for 90¢ an hour, I ran around pulling the tassels off two of the rows so the other 10 rows would be pollinated by themselves. It was an awful, back-breaking job, but 90¢ an hour was a lot of money in those days. That is what we did to make a grain that was capable of being a feed grain for the following season. It was a great system. I highly recommend farm work to anyone here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the extra time to continue to wrap it up.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It would appear that we do have time for at least one question and response.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is from an urban riding, so I would just like to ask a question on behalf of all the farmers in Edmonton Centre, and I do not say that totally facetiously. There are actually farmers in Edmonton Centre, or certainly farmers' markets.

We heard a lot of interesting chat, and it was entertaining. I realize that I am throwing him a lob at midnight. Does the member have one specific amendment he would like to make to the bill to make it better?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, our concern is that CFIA does not have the resources now to do the job properly, and there is nothing in the budget, nor in the bill, to indicate that CFIA would be given the resources to properly manage and monitor the implementation and the regulations required for the bill.

There are a lot of good things in the bill that we agree with and that we want to see continue, but if CFIA does not have the resources to manage the bill in the future, and the example I gave was on how it does not have the resources now, then there is nothing in the bill that can be done about that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We actually have time for one more short question. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very interesting speech. I learned a lot, and I would like to point out how important it is that we have a proper debate.

Since Bill C-18 was introduced, the hon. member for Welland and I have been holding many consultations on the bill. It is very important to consult people.

Bill C-18 will put more power into the hands of the minister so that he can make changes without consulting Parliament. Does my colleague have any concerns about that? Does he trust the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food?

I would like to hear his comments.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and the member for Welland for the great work they have been doing to keep all of us informed and to keep the farmers in our country on the right track.

Yes, I am very concerned any time power is concentrated in the minister. We have seen it over and over again with the Minister of Citizenship and the minister of human resources, and now we are giving direct power to the Minister of Agriculture.

We in Parliament think there should be proper parliamentary oversight of decisions like that.

The House resumed from June 16 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.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it truly is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-18, an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food.

I am sure many in the House are scratching their head and wondering why the MP for Sudbury, whose community is known for mining and being a hard rock city, would speak to this legislation. We have a lot of farmers in my community and agriculture is important. This is an important bill for us to debate in the House and I am honoured to speak to it. I also want to thank my hon. colleague the MP for Welland for his hard work on this file. He is our excellent critic for agriculture.

It is important for me to say that we support this legislation. We want to ensure that it gets to committee but we do have concerns. This is once again another Conservative omnibus bill. I guess I could merge those two words together; “consermibus” is what I was trying to say a minute ago.

This legislation would make changes to nine different pieces of legislation. As with previous omnibus bills, there are measures that we support in Bill C-18 and there are those that we see as posing significant concerns for the agriculture sector.

Many of the proposed changes requested by various stakeholders deserve thorough debate and consideration. As I mentioned, we support the bill going to committee but we may not support it at further stages. We hope we can make some amendments. We hope to be able to bring forward some of the changes requested by stakeholders as well as some of their concerns.

It is important to recognize that when it comes to plant breeders' rights, New Democrats believe that we need to look at a balanced approach. A balanced approach to this is essential. We want to protect Canada's farmers and the public researchers who are involved in this. We understand the role of intellectual property rights. We understand it is important to encourage innovation. We want to ensure that all Canadians can access and benefit from our agriculture legacy. We need to ensure that the bill is studied in more detail so we can find out how producers would be impacted by some of the proposed changes.

There are concerns about safety controls over seeds, plants, and animals. The CFIA would likely require additional resources. The cuts made by the Conservative government in the past to CFIA are concerning. We want to ensure that this is addressed and that there would no longer be any gaps in enforcement, especially when it comes to some of the safety measures that are involved in this.

We would all agree that farmers are the backbone of Canada's food system. It does not matter ultimately the colour of one's tie, such as the one I am wearing today, as to how we perceive our farmers. Members of all parties want our farmers to earn a decent living and produce quality food for Canadian families.

We have a great organization in my riding of Sudbury called Eat Local. Approximately 30 to 40 local producers provide food to Eat Local in Sudbury. Let me just talk about a few of them.

Les jardins Blondin specializes in ecologically grown greens, radishes, and assorted produce. Rowantree Farms, Heart and Soil Gardens, Piebird and Soggy Creek Seed, Ouelette et Fils, and Mountain Lake Bison Range are other producers that provide food to Eat Local. Many of these great organizations in my riding are doing great work when it comes to ensuring that we have local produce. It is important for us to ensure that farmers and companies like those that I mentioned in my riding and those right across the country continue to prosper.

Many of those I have met at Eat Local are modern farmers as well. As parliamentarians we need to ensure that we link them to cutting-edge research and technology. Canadians deserve practical policies that can grow our rural economies and foster sustainable agricultural communities.

As I mentioned earlier, when it comes to plant breeders' rights, the official opposition believes that balance is essential.

However, we do have some concerns when it comes to public research. We want to ensure that the incredible contributions that are being made by our agriculture sector remain competitive and benefit all Canadians. Therefore, it is essential that the federal government support publicly funded research, especially for farmers.

I am going to talk a bit now about some of the specifics of the bill. Bill C-18 would protect the rights of researchers to use patent materials for non-commercial uses. However, given the government's defunding of public research and its focus on public-private funding partnerships and linking research to commercialization, it is our opinion on this side of the House that it is unclear if the provisions as written would effectively protect research. Public plant research has made numerous contributions to the Canadian agriculture community, and it is our opinion that it is essential that support for public research be maintained. Therefore, one of the things we want to ensure is that the government will continue to support public research and it would not be hindered in the bill at all.

Canada is moving toward ratification of the 1991 model law of the international union for the protection of new varieties of plants, UPOV '91, which expands the rights afforded to plant breeders for varieties they develop and increases the places along the value chain where plant breeders can collect royalties. Bill C-18 includes the following new exclusion rights for plant breeders: reproduction, conditioning, sale, export or import, and repeated use to produce commercially another plant variety if the repetition is necessary for that purpose. It also includes stocking for the purpose of any other protected acts. The term of the grant of plant breeders' rights would also be increased from 18 years to 20 years, or 25 years in the case of a tree, vine, or any other category listed by the regulations. This also includes a new clause that would grant farmer privilege. That would allow farmers to save seed and condition seed for purposes of production and reproduction on their own farm. We see that as important. This privilege would not be extended to the storing of seed, or to the sale of harvested material from protected seed.

Bill C-18 would grant CFIA the ability to make changes through regulation to which circumstances and classes of farmers and varieties would not be covered under the farmers' privilege. It would also protect the rights of researchers to use patented materials as the basis for developing a new variety or another research use, and it would enhance the public accessibility to the registry of plant varieties. This is a major change from the previous act.

One of the benefits we see in the bill is that granting farmers' privilege, to allow farmers to save and condition seed for use on their own farms, really would promote access. That is one of the important things for Canadian farmers, especially if we are looking at the results of private breeding research in Canada and other countries through effective intellectual property rights.

This is an important bill for all of us, all parties and all members, to stand up and speak to and debate. Even though I come from what many perceive as a mining community, we do also have some great local producers. I also tip my hat to Eat Local Sudbury, which is doing such a great job of promoting local produce and local foods and making sure that, if we needed to, we could survive on what we are growing in northern Ontario.

I look forward to questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I must recognize that the member did coin an interesting word, “Conservabus”. That is a word we might be able to use on several pieces of legislation. It is a valid point in regard to the number of pieces of legislation that would actually be changed within this one piece of legislation. Bill C-18 would amend nine separate pieces of agriculture-related legislation, affecting plant breeders' rights, feed, seed, fertilizer, animal health, plant protection, monetary penalties, agriculture marketing programs, and farm debt mediation. It is a fairly all-encompassing piece of legislation.

Given the members remarks in regard to the importance of our farmers—and I think we underestimate the valuable contribution they make—it would have been more appropriate to have had several pieces of legislation brought in so that the farmers and other stakeholders would have been afforded the opportunity to have more direct input on those aspects of the legislation that are of critical importance to our communities.

I wonder if the member might want to add to that?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my little stumble did create a new word that I think we will all be able to use moving forward.

We do not like omnibus bills. We in the opposition would be in agreement that it is important to be able to bring bills forward, have debate, and be able to hear from stakeholders when we get these bills to committee.

We are supporting this to get to committee. However, that is where the support may end, because we need to ensure we are doing what we believe is right for our farmers. I will tip my hat to my hon. colleague from Welland for the work he has been doing with farmers through the Prairies and up in Sudbury. He had the opportunity of meeting with the folks in Sudbury at Eat Local. We need to find ways to ensure that we are helping him with new technology and research. This bill has some of those, but we need to ensure that, once it gets to committee, we are able to see the advancements move forward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by my friend from Sudbury.

We need to look at Bill C-18 in the larger context of trends. I am concerned with what we have seen happening under this administration, which is a steady trend away from publicly funded research into new seed varieties. That is how we got canola and Laird lentils. There was public investment in coming up with new varieties of seeds, which were then available to everyone. We are shifting to private breeders only and moving more toward Monsanto and less toward Agriculture Canada.

The Conservatives call it the agricultural growth act. They might as well call it the agriculture concentration of corporate ownership act. I am concerned with the specifics of the bill. I know it will go to committee, because the Conservatives have the votes; but the agricultural community is split on this, and it would help us all if we were to look at the larger question.

Since budget 2012, we have seen a reduction in available funding for public research into better seed varieties, and we see through Bill C-18 the opportunity for the Monsantos of the world to keep collecting royalties over which the farmers would have no say as to how that money is spent.

It is not an agricultural growth act; it is removing the rights of farmers.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is hitting the nail on the head when it comes to the specifics of the bill. While we do see that there are some positives in this bill, and while there are a few aspects that we think are good, there are many that raise some warning flags for us.

I will talk about my farmers in Sudbury, the folks who are providing the food and the produce to Eat Local Sudbury. These are the folks who we need to ensure can continue to grow and continue to prosper. If what we are seeing in this is the slow elimination of the resources that farmers could utilize and the support of the larger farming corporations, then that is heading in the wrong direction.

I will rely on great MPs like my colleague from Welland, who is working on this file, to make sure we get this right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not my party's critic in this area, but I do have an interest in this bill because Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is a large riding with many farmers. I think that it is important to review the bill and take a look at the laws it will affect.

The bill proposes amendments to laws that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA, is responsible for enforcing. The laws affected are 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.

As my colleague said, the government has introduced yet another omnibus bill and is taking an unbalanced approach. When the government combines an omnibus bill with limited debate, it is easy to lose sight of some very important aspects that will negatively impact farmers and producers as well as the government. That is why the government often finds itself before the courts. We have seen this government go to court many times to defend measures it has put in place; it keeps losing. That is not an effective way to be spending the money it collects through our taxes.

When the government wants to introduce legislative measures, instead of wasting taxpayers' money, it should ensure that its legislation will be accepted and do everything in its power to ensure that it is good legislation.

As I said, this piece of legislation in particular would change nine different acts. One of them is the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. There are some positive changes in the bill; however, sometimes we have to see if the benefits actually outweigh the concerns and look at the impact they would have.

This particular piece, amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, would actually ensure that a variety of developers are able to see a return on investment for their plant breeding research efforts, providing incentives for an important sector of Canadian agri-business. It would grant farmers privilege, to allow farmers to save and condition seed for use on their own farms, and promote access for Canadian farmers to the results of private breeding research from Canada and other countries through effective intellectual property.

There are a few other benefits we can see: to protect researchers from infringement on plant breeders rights, enhance public accessibility and transparency when it comes to plant breeding, and maintain the existing compulsory licence system, providing some assurances that varieties can be made available at reasonable prices, widely distributed, and kept at high quality.

However, when we look at the concerns that the farmers have raised, we have to take those seriously, and that is why we have a concern. Yes, we want to move this to committee, and yes, we are supportive of having a good debate on this here and making sure that our piece of legislation will be a proper one. However, we have a big question mark when it comes to sending stuff to committee as well. We do not know whether or not the government would be supportive of changes that would actually strengthen the bill, because over and over again we have seen a government that wants to push everything forward and not take any suggestions into account—really good suggestions, changes, and amendments,.

Here are the concerns about the amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. People have raised concerns on this particular piece of legislation and this particular area, even in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. I hear about it in Manitoulin Island and along the Highway 17 corridor, including from people in the agricultural sector in Thessalon.

Here are some of the concerns. There are a few major concerns regarding the clauses on the farmer's privilege. 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, it appears in this legislation that they may have to pay to store it, which would effectively negate the privilege.

The 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 farmers' entire production rather than just on the seed purchased to grow the crop. This could have significant impacts on the profit margin of farmers.

Farmers are already having a tough time, especially when it is not a good season. To add another risk would be very detrimental to them.

Bill C-18 also includes amendments that would allow the CFIA to make changes through regulation, not through legislation, to the farmer's privilege. This means that the government could significantly hinder these rights at any time, without parliamentary oversight. We know how the Conservative government is about parliamentary oversight. Obviously it is not very good. We have to take that into consideration.

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

There are other concerns raised here 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.

Given the expansion of plant breeders' rights under Bill C-18, it is likely that farmers will face increases in expensive litigation. As I said before, a lot of these farmers are already experiencing some tough times. If we want to encourage new young folks to take on farming, we need to make sure that there is no such hindrance in place, or we have to limit them.

While our producers may well be on an extremely uneven financial playing field in relation to plant breeders, there are no provisions in Bill C-18 to ensure that legal fees do not impede a farmer's defence in such cases.

Other changes in this bill, as I mentioned, were the amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the advance payments program. Again, there are some benefits, but we also have to look at the concerns. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has called for an increase to the maximum amount in advances to address rising farm expenses. Unfortunately, such increases are not included in Bill C-18. This is exactly why the government has to be open to amendments.

When we look at the amendments to the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, and the Plant Protection Act, one of the key concerns is that the amendments to the FDMA may require additional resources from Agriculture Canada, as the minister will now be involved in mediation cases. The government has yet to address whether it currently has the resources it needs to fulfill this new duty.

Under Bill C-18, the minister will not be required to review the operations of the FDMA as often. Given that the proposed changes to the FDMA involve an expanded role for the minister in the mediation process, this review period should not be extended.

Again, we cannot ignore some of the significant concerns about the provisions in this bill. I want to finish off by indicating that I think it is important to recognize how important farmers are to our communities and to Canada's food system.

New Democrats believe that farmers must be able to earn a decent living producing quality food for Canadians. That is why the government needs to make sure that when it introduces legislation, it takes the time to listen to the farmers, the opposition parties, and the professionals, whether it is the researchers or the farmers themselves, to make sure we get it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that Bill C-18 is one of the most sought after pieces of legislation by the agriculture community. I come from farming. I live in a farming riding, which is very diverse. It has livestock, grains and oil seeds, horticulture, and greenhouses, and I have not yet come across any farmers who are not waiting for this bill to get to committee, because it means so much to them.

We have to remember that 45% of breeding rights applications are from public breeders. The rest come together because there is an incredible advantage. We have been able to increase the production level and the quality level of our products. Not only are they public but they bring with them public-private partnerships. That is why the farming community is so interested in this bill and in the flexibility of advance payments and being able to save seeds, which is something that was not there before. We want to make sure that still exists.

I would ask the member if she would encourage everyone to get this bill wrapped up and get it to committee. Does she support that?

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

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the member was not listening. I said that New Democrats are prepared to move it to committee. However, we need to make sure that there is proper debate.

Canadians send us here to be their voices. When we look at this particular bill, we need to make sure we protect Canada's farmers and public researchers. While we understand the role of intellectual property rights and encouraging innovation, we need to ensure that all Canadians can access and benefit from our agricultural legacy.

We know that the government has tabled many bills that have been problematic, and it has found itself before the court. Will the Conservatives actually allow us to debate this bill properly, bring witnesses to committee and not rush them through, and make the proper amendments, even if those amendments are the bright ideas of the opposition, because that is where they come from?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her informative comments. She raised some questions in her previous answer about whether the government would do this or that. As a former member of the agriculture committee, I can advise the member that hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars have been cut from public research, particularly on the breeding of seeds. I am truly alarmed by it.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands brought to our attention the fact that now we are moving public research away from the public and into private industry. It is clear that the intention of the government is the corporatization of this kind of research, which is enhanced by parts of this bill that basically restrict the right of farmers to keep and save their seeds.

I am wondering, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the government, if the member is as alarmed as I am by the tenor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, again I agree that the government's direction might not be the right one, and that is why we need to make sure it goes to committee. However, we need Conservatives to be open-minded. Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to get an open-minded Conservative at committee.

The Conservatives see the summer coming, and they are trying to get as much under their belts as possible, but at what risk? We need to have proper debate on this bill. I can say that people have raised concerns.

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

We heard from many witnesses on the changes that must be made to this bill, and when it is examined in committee, I hope that the Conservatives will listen to people's concerns and make the necessary improvements to the bill.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, farming is a long-standing tradition that spans many generations.

The Institut de technologie agroalimentaire, for example, has been teaching young people who want to become farmers about leading-edge technologies in the industry for generations. Biopterre's Bioproducts Development Center, which is extremely successful and innovative, supports companies as they innovate and develop products related to agriculture—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the standing orders clearly indicate that the member should be wearing a tie if he wants to speak in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Of course, the parliamentary secretary is correct.

We are going to wait a few seconds so that the member can put on his tie.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bioproducts Development Center supports companies as they innovate and develop agricultural and agroforestry bioproducts. We are still debating a government bill, but we are all suited up this time. Another gag order has been imposed. The reason why I had to run into the chamber to debate this bill is that no members on the government side want to speak. The only government speakers who are in the House rise on points of order that are rather minor when compared to the importance of the bill that is before us.

On this side of the House, we are debating Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food. This is yet another an omnibus bill because it seeks to amend nine laws associated with agriculture. This morning, we heard some relatively good news, and that is that the nine laws that will be amended by the bill all deal with agriculture. With that, the government is taking a step in a more reasonable direction. Previous omnibus bills that addressed elements of this bill were even broader and pertained to areas other than agriculture.

Among other things, this bill protects plant breeders' rights and strengthens border controls. It also expands access to the advance payments program. I will not have time to talk about all nine of the laws amended by this bill so I will focus on just two of them.

I will talk about the amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. This is probably the most important part of this bill. If this bill is passed, plant breeders will have new exclusive rights. We will support this bill at second reading. I would like to explain something for those watching on CPAC to ensure they understand the legislative process. Supporting the bill at this stage does not make it law. It will be sent to the relevant committee, which is the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in this case. MPs who are members of the committee will be able to ask witnesses questions about the bill, and they will be able to convey the main concerns of several farmers' associations in Canada. At third reading, the final voting stage, we will see if we support the bill. We are ready to participate in the committee process at second reading to see if there is a way to turn the material in Bill C-18 into something that will work for Canada's farmers.

This bill talks about new exclusive rights for plant breeders to protect them. These include the right to reproduction, conditioning, sale, export or import, repeated use to produce commercially another plant variety if the repetition is necessary for that purpose, and stocking for the purpose of any of the other protected acts.

The term of the grant of plant breeders' rights has been increased from 18 to 20 years, or 20 years in the case of trees, vines and other categories listed by the regulations.

I will be consulting with my constituents about this. In my riding, there is an organization called the UPA de la Côte-du-Sud, which knows these amendments and is 100 years old too. I will be sure to find out how these people and the people at Biopterre see this bill. They might like the fact that the patent is a little stronger. I will be talking to them before we get to third reading of Bill C-18.

There is one thing that I find interesting. A new provision gives farmers a privilege, in that they can save seeds and condition them to produce and reproduce plants on their farms. If that is properly presented, it might be a good thing. Selecting seeds is an ancient occupation, but it is recognized as being a trade. Someone who naturally encourages the genetics of a wheat or barley plant to improve it is carrying on a trade that has been recognized since the 19th century. There is a long history there that dates back to well before people started talking about intellectual rights and living product rights. This has been around for a very long time. We need to thoroughly and carefully consider the potential impact of this legislation on thousands of years of tradition and acquired rights for producers who must not be affected by our decisions.

This point may seem worthwhile. It is a provision that gives farmers a privilege, in that they will be able to save seeds and condition them in order to produce and reproduce plants. It gives them rights so that they can continue that tradition.

We will protect the rights of researchers to use patented materials to develop new varieties or do other research. We are getting into Biopterre territory. This may be good for people from my region and for the industry in general.

The increased public access to the registry of plant varieties is a major change from previous suggestions. We need to ensure that with all these changes, access to these great innovations will still be easy. We do not want to end up with monster over-regulated industries because the rights holders would make agricultural production extremely difficult.

As currently drafted, the bill nevertheless has some advantages in that regard. It would ensure that those responsible for developing varieties will profit from their investment in research. Once again, I am thinking of Biopterre. That is an encouraging element for an important agri-food sector in Canada that is innovative and conducts research. The bill would also maintain a compulsory licence system, providing some assurance that varieties are available at reasonable prices, are widely distributed and maintain high quality.

There is one further point that concerns the notion of high quality. People must not be able to claim, even indirectly, that they have created a new category or new species when it is on all accounts similar to what already exists. That would lead to a producer being prosecuted for the use of a species that already exists. We must do our due diligence with this element to prevent such a disastrous scenario from occurring.

Innovations must be easily accessible, but not to the extent that they can be used in an underhanded way to impose fees on existing species and varieties. There is a very delicate balance to be struck and we must be very careful about that.

There are concerns. This 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, it appears they may have to pay to store it. The bill does not resolve this issue. An individual can store seeds and use them the following year, and even help with natural selection to improve the variety. However, will the breeder of this variety be able to charge that person for keeping seeds in his possession? This is another issue that must be examined.

I must speak to another of the nine laws that are affected by the changes in this bill. It is a law that is very important to the people in my region.

There will be amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the advance payments program, or APP. The APP is a loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances.

I question this aspect of the bill. Pork producers in my region have had a great deal of difficulty. The pork industry in Quebec has gone through years of tough times. The APP was one of the programs that supported pork producers. The terms imposed on the producers under this program were quite rigid when it came time to settle the many bankruptcies. If I understand the reasoning behind this bill correctly, not only would it be easier to access the APP, but the conditions of payment would be more flexible. If that is the case, that is an excellent idea. This is very important for businesses that run into difficulties from time to time, as was the case for the pork producers in my region for far too many years.

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

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is an agricultural riding. I met with my constituents and made part of the announcement when Bill C-18 was tabled. I have had the opportunity to talk to the commodity, fertilizer and livestock people because of their involvement in the advanced payment component of the bill. Of the farm organizations, only one has not yet come on side.

Agriculture in Ontario has had some blips in the beef and pork sectors, which we know about, but one should never take the notion that agriculture is not a significant industry for our economy.

How much dialogue has the member had with the farmers, the commodity people,and the organizations in his riding, so we can get this, in a positive attitude, to our committee?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, back home in recent years, we have been busy with our communications and dialogue with various groups like UPA and Biopterre, which have a vested interest in the farming industry.

Pressing matters had to do with what was happening in the discussions with the European Union and the bilateral trade.

There was a lot of concern among the producers, dairy processors and fine cheese producers. The bulk of our work and the public's reaction back home had to do with files like those and the APP, which I was just talking about.

As I was saying in my speech, I can sense just as much concern among some of the UPA producers. I will have more meetings with them to see if we can come up with some constructive contributions for the upcoming discussions between second reading and third reading. It would be my pleasure.

I also want to point out that people like those at Biopterre and the innovation centre will certainly be interested in this bill. I will connect with all these people, and we will try to adopt a constructive approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague on his fine speech.

This bill is extremely important for Canada and Quebec. As deputy critic in this area and together with the member for Welland, I launched a number of consultations on Bill C-18. All we keep hearing are concerns. A number of members have tabled petitions in the House on issues related to Bill C-18. It is really important that this bill be sent to committee.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the importance of a long-term vision for agriculture and the fact that the NDP is the only party with a Canada-wide agriculture platform and a more balanced approach to agriculture. We know that agriculture represents one in eight jobs.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who works very hard on agricultural issues and who is very appreciated by the industry.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has called for protections for producers from claims of patent infringement with respect to natural or accidental spreading of a patented plant genetic material. This example is along the lines of what my colleague said. These are extremely sensitive issues that can lead to serious consequences if they are not resolved and if there is no long-term vision. In some cases, major seed producers have sued people who partially and inadvertently grew protected sprouts in their fields.

We can see the terrible mess producers could end up in if these issues are not cleared up and if producers, not just rights holders, are not well protected by our future decisions.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I rise today to address Bill C-18, the most recent omnibus bill from the Conservatives. They seem to have grown somewhat addicted to this particular way of doing business, of writing legislation that encompasses many laws all in one bill. It is a kitchen sink approach to writing legislation in government. In their previous incarnation in opposition, they had some sort of ethic around democracy and accountability in the process of law and they questioned this approach significantly when Liberals did the same thing.

This omnibus bill is certainly not the worst. It only affects nine different pieces of Canadian law at once. Some might say that is a lot, but we have to see that in comparison to the massive omnibus bills the Conservatives have introduced, which sometimes affected upwards of 50 or 60 different Canadian laws all at the same time.

It is a challenge for those not familiar with parliamentary business, and why should they be? It is a technical and complicated thing. The challenge for parliamentarians from all sides is that our primary job here in this place is to analyze and dissect bills as well as we are able in order to understand what is being presented and what the impacts are likely to be.

We can never know fully what the impacts of any piece of legislation might be once it applies in the real world, since once the civil servants and industry get hold of it, there is a to and fro. However, as parliamentarians we can at least try to do our best to anticipate, by hearing the best advice from witnesses and experts who do know things like the farming industry much better than most members of Parliament. We can hear their input, bring the legislation into effect, and go through a process.

The challenge we have had with the current government is twofold. One is that the Conservatives tend to use the technique they are using here today, an omnibus bill that addresses several or many laws at once. In this case it is nine different laws at once, and separating them is incredibly difficult.

The second challenge is that the Conservatives have grown quite addicted to a technique called time allocation. What that means is that rather than negotiating with the opposition to decide how many days of debate a certain piece of legislation might get, the government invokes and enforces the shutting down of debate even as the bill is being introduced.

This is the most common tendency we see now from the Conservatives. They introduce a new bill, and before anybody in the place other than the minister has cracked a single page, they then follow the introduction of that bill with a technique called time allocation, which means debate will then be shut down.

The Conservatives do not just shut down debate at one stage. As we all know, bills go through several stages of debate, but the Conservatives shut it down at every single stage. They shut down debate again and again.

This has two effects on what happens in Parliament. One is it limits the number of MPs who can speak to a bill and understand what is being presented. I and all of my colleagues find that one of the best ways to understand a bill is to compose a 10-minute or 20-minute speech on it or to study it at committee. We consult with our constituents and hear from experts in order to form up what we will say.

The second thing is that it breeds a natural suspicion, a suspicion the Conservatives used to feel when Liberals did the same thing. When Liberals used time allocation and closure to shut down debate, Conservatives said the Liberals were doing so because they had bad legislation that they did not want the public to fully understand.

I think the Conservatives have now applied this technique over 70 times since the last election, which is breaking all the records set by any government in Canadian history. They do it even on bills like this one, bills that the official opposition has said it would support to second reading. Throughout Canadian history, the natural consequence of being assured of that support is that the government, as a next step, would sit down with the opposition and essentially negotiate. Acknowledging that the opposition wanted to see the bill pass second reading and go to committee stage, the Conservatives would ask approximately how many speakers the opposition wanted to have speak to the bill. That is because every party has a certain number of requirements. Each party has certain members from certain agricultural districts, as is applicable in this case, and those members need to speak to the bill. It is perfect common sense and it is required of Parliament.

Instead, the Conservatives have been invoking time allocation right away. It builds suspicion and opposition from New Democrats and from others, as it did when Conservatives were in opposition, so they know exactly what this feels like, but they do it anyway.

Let us get to the merits and the demerits of the bill itself.

Bill C-18 is attempting to strike a difficult balance on the rights of plant breeders. Plant breeders innovate and develop new seeds, new technologies, and new approaches to farming, growing, and raising food in Canada. It is an incredibly important endeavour, because innovation has always been at the heart of agriculture. In Canada we have had incredible experience and success in innovation, not only in breeding livestock but also in developing plant varieties that are more weather resistant and require less water and less fertilizer. All of that is incredibly important.

Protecting intellectual property rights is important for us as New Democrats because it would provide a shield over those who innovate, protecting them so that they would have some benefit from their innovation. Many regimes in the world have very low standards of intellectual property. China is constantly struggling with this problem, and India as well. If we have very little protection, innovators are not encouraged, and if the innovators are not encouraged, they do not innovate, because it is often very expensive for innovators to test and retest until they achieve something that the market will actually reward.

On the other side of the balance we have farmers' rights, which are incredibly important as well. Farmers are raising some legitimate concerns, and I hope my Conservative colleagues across the way recognize the legitimacy of those concerns. If the balance is placed too far on the side of the intellectual property regime, on the side of those doing the innovating, and as a result farmers pay more or pay in ways that hurt their ability to make an income, it is a significant and valid concern. If farmers have to pay to store seeds or to replant seeds that they have kept from the previous harvest, those are legitimate concerns.

As we know, the farming community is not a unified body. There are obviously many different types of people working in the farming industry, growing and raising different types of crops and cattle and livestock, yet there are great divisions within that farming community in prosperity. Some farmers have extraordinarily large farms that are very profitable, both on the livestock side and on the plant side, on the pulses and grains and whatnot. Other farmers are more on the margin and are just trying to make it. They are in niche markets, with smaller farms that are servicing a nearly urban economy. Those farms may be affected by this bill in disproportionate ways.

Therefore, New Democrats are seeking to get the balance right. In supporting the bill at second reading, we are saying we have some concerns over the new powers of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency around regulating and licensing. While those new powers might be quite needed for the innovative farm industry that we want to continue to grow, there are no resources attached to it. The CFIA has had massive cutbacks over the year. It is a department that has seen multiple rounds of cutbacks to its ability to deliver services to farmers and Canadians. The government is going to give it new powers and responsibilities, so one of our legitimate questions for the government is whether, with the new powers and the new work that will be required, the government is attaching any more resources or any new people to do the work.

We do not want to create these new powers and give farmers hope that this, this, and this program are now going to be a part of reality, and then not have anybody in the department actually assigned to do it. That is a false hope, and too often what we have seen from the current government is false hope.

I speak to the bill as a representative of the riding I represent in northwestern British Columbia, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which incorporates a great variety of people in the agricultural industry. It does not include the full sweep that we see in some of the ridings around Canada, the so-called mega-farms, but we have very large agricultural operations, those growing the pulses and seeds side of things, as well as an extensive and diversified group of farmers who are raising cattle, pig, sheep, and whatnot, who are occupying this conversation in completely different ways.

We have a growing and extensive local farmers' market system in the northwest, which is incredibly important, because regions like mine are very far from some of the high-production areas of the country. As a result, food security is an enormous issue for us because of the great distances, the impacts of climate change, and the need to move food farther to the consumer. We know that the average bushel of produce is moving farther afield. That has serious food security questions, because we have a system that is called “just-in-time delivery”. Many of our retailers depend on food that has to be ready and delivered just in time for the consumer to buy. That creates, unfortunately, a certain level of food insecurity.

The farming community is enormous in Canada. It contributes more than $100 billion to the GDP. One in eight workers going to work this morning went to work in the agricultural sector. In scale it dwarfs many of the other sectors of our industry that get a lot of attention, so it is good that the government is paying this amount of attention.

There are other aspects of the bill that we quite favour. We are raising concerns because we think it is our job. We are raising concerns because that is what Canadians want us to do. In such an important industry in Canada, getting the balance right by allowing for the innovators to innovate while allowing for farmers to earn a living as they feed over 35 million Canadians seems to us a worthwhile cause and an exercise worth doing.

We look forward to the debate at committee. We hope that for once the government will be open to amendments based on the information and the expert testimony that we hear. That would be a welcome relief, as the government so often rejects all science and evidence that comes before us. It is something we think is possible, because hope springs eternal. We believe we can make this bill better than it is right now. We believe we can make it one that an even broader number of Canadians and Canadian farmers can support.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's well-thought-out remarks, and he is absolutely right: this has been a government of reckless decisions, especially when it comes to agriculture. We now know that there has been a $5 billion loss in sales through the Canadian Wheat Board changes and that the farmer's share of the export dollar has dropped dramatically while the grain companies take excessive profits. The new government-controlled Canadian Wheat Board was supposed to report its financial condition on March 31; that has not been seen yet. We have to wonder what the government is hiding.

We know the Conservatives cut AgriStability in just about half. They cut AgriInvest in terms of the amount of investment that producers could put in. They have cut public researchers dramatically. The list goes on and on.

The member talked about finding the balance. I would say the government's record in terms of abuse of the farm community is about the worst of any government in Canadian history. Given that record, how can we trust that the government will not maintain the balance of power on the corporate side of things and give the corporate sector the rights to seed reproduction, while providing farmers merely with the privilege? What farmers need is the right to retain seed and to reproduce it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the new Liberal Party is suddenly very suspicious of corporate Canada. It is an interesting conversation to have.

I suppose I am remembering some lessons from Sundays, one of which is to hate the sin, not the sinner. While we have deep trouble with the way the Conservatives have moved a series of bills through the House while ignoring expert testimony, we see some initiatives within this bill that are highly supported by farmers. I did not get to mention the advance payments program in my speech. We know the expansion of that program would help farmers. It would allow more types of farmers to get into the advance payments program. In my area, the so-called part-time farmers, those who have to seek income off-farm, will now be encouraged to be in this program. That helps the cashflow and investments that farmers need over the year.

To the specific question regarding the balance between the rights of farmers and the corporate rights of those who develop seeds and innovate, we do not think the exact balance we are seeking to achieve has been established in this bill.

Obviously, we do not trust the government. I do not think anyone doubts the resolve and determination of the New Democrats in standing up to the government. The challenge is that when omnibus legislation comes through, we do not get to pick and choose, so all we can do is encourage the good initiatives, discourage the bad, and try to amend them at committee. If the Conservatives refuse those amendments, if they are determined to ignore all of the witnesses and the experts we hear, as they so often do, then we will have to reconsider our position coming out of committee and going into third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a rather simple question for my colleague, who likely remembers the history of agriculture.

The topic of seeds is a very sensitive one. Since humans have participated in agriculture, producers have held the historic right to save their seed.

We definitely want this bill to be studied at second reading. However, we are concerned about the fact that farmers could be held responsible if their fields are contaminated because of the existence of seed registration, where a company owns the intellectual property rights to a seed. They are not personally responsible, but they could ultimately end up being legally responsible.

I remind members of the case of Percy Schmeiser, who was accused by Monsanto. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court and Mr. Schmeiser had to compensate Monsanto for the contamination of his field, even though he had not planted those seeds.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that situation, about the scope of the bill and about what potential impact it could have on similar situations.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, farmers must absolutely retain their historic right to their seed.

The problem now between farmers and people who invent and create new seeds is a matter of rights. The government is giving rights to the companies, but what about farmers' rights? They are in no way equivalent.

We will keep and protect our farmers' rights. At the same time, we will try to keep the portions of the bill that improve the lives of Canadian farmers.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It being 11:17 a.m., pursuant to an order adopted Wednesday, June 4, 2014, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The motion is carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)