Debates of Nov. 17th, 2014

Motions in Amendment

[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, NDP, 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 that there should be an amendment to Bill C-18 aimed at streamlining the program and that it is important the government consider an increase in the maximum advance limit. The letter states that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am open to any questions from members.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

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

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

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

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

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government Decisions

[Manon Perreault, Independent, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all of Quebec is coming together to denounce austerity policies, yet the federal government is moving forward with its harmful agenda to systematically dismantle the government bit by bit. The Conservative government is eliminating self-funding programs and withdrawing services that ultimately save public money. All this for purely ideological reasons.

What is even more frustrating is that these ill-gotten savings do little to help Canadians. Take, for example, the oil company Suncor, which receives millions of dollars in subsidies, even though Ottawa excluded the company from the federal bidding process because it was convicted of fixing gas prices.

The people of Montcalm, Quebec and Canada do not want to help the Conservative government's buddies in the oil industry. They want programs that stimulate economic growth. They want a government that cares about their priorities.