Bill C-18 (Historical)

Agricultural Growth Act

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

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

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

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

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

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

Motions in Amendment

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 2

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

Motion No. 3

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

Motion No. 4

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

Motion No. 5

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

Motion No. 6

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

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

Motion No. 7

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

Motion No. 8

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

Motion No. 9

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

Motion No. 10

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

Motion No. 11

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

Motion No. 12

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

Motion No. 13

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

Motion No. 14

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

Motion No. 15

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

Motion No. 16

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

Motion No. 17

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

Motion No. 18

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

Motion No. 19

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

Motion No. 20

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

Motion No. 21

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

Motion No. 22

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

Motion No. 23

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

Motion No. 24

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

Motion No. 25

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

Motion No. 26

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

Motion No. 27

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

Motion No. 28

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

Motion No. 29

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

Motion No. 30

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

Motion No. 31

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

Motion No. 32

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

Motion No. 33

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

Motion No. 34

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

Motion No. 35

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

Motion No. 36

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

Motion No. 37

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

Motion No. 38

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

Motion No. 39

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

Motion No. 40

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

Motion No. 41

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

Motion No. 42

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

Motion No. 43

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

Motion No. 44

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

Motion No. 45

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

Motion No. 46

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

Motion No. 47

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

Motion No. 48

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

Motion No. 49

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

Motion No. 50

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

Motion No. 51

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

Motion No. 52

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any case, that was the major amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once more, for my NDP colleague:

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

He goes on to say that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

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

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

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am open to any questions from members.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

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

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

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