Debates of Nov. 24th, 2014

Agricultural Growth Act

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, because in my understanding, the reality is that until now, there has been no guarantee that farmers can save and reuse their seed. For the first time we will have the guarantee in legislation that farmers can do exactly that. I see a really good-news story when it comes to that issue.

I encourage the opposition members to talk about the good news in that story and about the reality, instead of just what someone might have indicated could be the case. That is what the case actually is.

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

What I see in Bill C-18 is that the minister is being given a great deal of discretion. This means that regardless of the laws that govern agriculture in Canada, if a friend of the minister manages to bend his ear, the minister will circumvent the law. If we have paid all our dues and done everything right but someone influences the minister, anyone of us can be told that we cannot even harvest our crops—even if we have bought the seeds and planted them.

The minister has been given far too much power. We live in a democratic system and we have a legal system complete with courts. Normally, it is up to the courts, not just one minister, to determine whether a right is given or taken away from someone.

Something else is bothering me. We are talking about breeders' rights, but it should be farmers' rights. Since time immemorial, everyone has had the right to collect a seed, plant it and harvest the fruits. Now we are being told that it is not a right, but a privilege. We are now living in a society where rights are being taken away from everyone and we are told that they are privileges. I agree that a driver's licence is a privilege, but many other things are natural rights: to grow things or to be able to walk and talk, for example. In the legal texts, we should change the word “privilege” to “right”. As for the minister, he should be granted “privileges” and not “rights”. That is how the bill should read.

There is one more thing that is of great concern to me. Last week, I spoke for 10 minutes about malicious prosecution. This bill will likely result in this type of problem. I will give an example. In my region, there is an organic farmer who uses only organic seeds. He raises his animals organically. Nevertheless, his neighbour grows GMOs. Everyone knows that grain is wind-pollinated. Vegetables are pollinated by insects. We cannot control the wind or insects. There are no borders between fields. Just by chance, it was noticed that there were genetically-modified vegetables among those harvested and replanted. That was a disaster for the organic farmer. Not only did the company that owned the GMO in question not want to reimburse the organic farmer, even though it is the one that contaminated his fields with its GMOs, but it is going to require the organic farmer to pay royalties.

That is what we call abusive litigation. I believe that under the law, those who want to farm in their own way must also be able to harvest, reuse and stock according to their type of crop. There are small corners of the country where grain is grown and the same grain always comes back. These are regional varieties.

Then along comes some company that wants to trample on these regional farmers and impose its own varieties. It sows the new variety in a field among 10 other fields where heirloom varieties grow. There is contamination. It has happened before and it will happen again. The company that did the contamination sues everyone and wants royalties from all the land around it, claiming that the farmer spread pollen all around. A lot of this abusive litigation goes on. I talked about Kokopelli before. It is the target of abusive litigation by French breeders. In France, UPOV '91 was adopted a long time ago, and major multinationals are taking advantage of that.

There is another thing that concerns me about this bill, and that is cascading royalties. When I buy a car, I pay the fees, the taxes and so forth and then I use it. Let us say that after 50,000 kilometres, the company comes along and tells me that if I want to keep using the car, I will have to pay for it all over again. My vehicle works just fine. They are surprised and they charge royalties. The same thing happens at 75,000 kilometres and 100,000 kilometres. That too is an example of cascading royalties. A farmer buys a top-quality product and grows it conscientiously on his land. He puts time, money and everything necessary into it, regardless the method he uses, and he gets a good yield. Then, because he has a better yield than the third farmer who planted the same product, he is charged an additional royalty. As it turns out, because of weather problems elsewhere that summer, his product is worth more money. He is charged another royalty. I call that cascading abusive royalties. Then, if people fight to get his product because it is so great, he will be charged more royalties. Those are cascading abusive royalties.

Can Bill C-18 protect him from that or can the minister, with all the privileges he is being granted, protect the farmer? What I see in this bill, as with almost all of the Conservative government's bills, is that it protects big corporations and leaves small businesses to fend for themselves.

It is also important to protect access to heirloom, heritage and public varieties. It is important that we continue to have access to seeds that have proven their worth for hundreds of years.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech from the heart, as usual. He must certainly be aware that Quebec accounts for 22% of Canada's agri-food GDP.

I am pointing this out, because Quebeckers are often told that they do not have much agriculture in their province, even though they do, and quite a bit. Corn ranks first at $696 million, followed by soy, vegetables and maple products, which you would have thought would be first, most probably because of good advertising. If you add that to animal products, the total is over $8 billion.

The member mentioned how important it was to give farmers the freedom to use and produce what they want, without having a pre-established structure in which, for example, they would be forced to buy grains that were produced elsewhere and that would destroy their own grains.

I think this freedom to produce and to be a small producer, is important for the member, is that correct?

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important. It is a matter of protecting a farmer's right to choose what they will grow based on their experience.

The worst thing that was done to agriculture in recent years was the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers do not have the right to join a group of farmers to sell a product. That is outrageous. The right of association exists for all kinds of things, but not for that.

Once again, farmers are being denied a right.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member heard from his constituents, as I did from mine, concerns expressed regarding UPOV '91. The government attempted to deal with those concerns at the committee stage and brought forward an amendment. I will say that in good part, they have been dealt with.

I wonder if the member can indicate whether his party still has any concerns in regard to that specific area, or does he believe the government was able to adequately address them?

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if one farming association is opposed to UPOV '91 and another association supports it, it is because the Conservative government, as usual, is introducing an omnibus bill that amends a series of laws. Some parts are acceptable to certain groups but not to others.

Honestly, it is difficult to decide without looking at it on a case-by-case basis. This bill should be divided into 9 or 10 parts, each leading to its own law. It is tough to take a stance because this is yet another omnibus agricultural bill.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-18. The official opposition supported it at second reading but will be opposing it at third reading. I will explain why in the next few minutes.

Bill C-18 amends certain agricultural and agri-food laws. Bill C-18, so that people understand, is part of a top-priority, major debate for the ones who will follow, to paraphrase a film titled For Those Who Will Follow, which is well known in my region. This is a debate about patenting life forms. It is a great thing when it is done well. Patents can acknowledge the efforts put into research and the associated costs. They can provide a return on investment for people who have invested in research. That is as true for agriculture as it is for other industries. Patents can make the corresponding knowledge available to everyone.

The advantage of a patent—if it is done properly, if it is not sold for a fortune and if a fake patent is not invented with fake benefits—is that once someone has invested in that knowledge, in the results, and the patent is made public, a great number of people can benefit from it.

However, because we are talking about things we can eat, the very stuff of life, companies that already have many patents on gene sequences, microorganisms and GMOs should not be allowed to patent the genes of varieties developed by groups of farmers over decades. In some cases, we are talking about species that took hundreds or even thousands of years to develop. We absolutely have to protect that while acknowledging that, in some cases, patenting can be a good thing to do if it is done properly and regulated properly.

Probably the most disturbing case, which happened not long ago in Canada and has a bearing on this discussion about patenting living things, involved a farmer called Mr. Schmeiser. Monsanto took him to court for violating a patent. The company discovered that some Roundup Ready was growing in one of Mr. Schmeiser's canola fields even though he swore he had not planted any. A trial court judge sided with Monsanto in the case even though nobody was able to prove how the contamination happened or why Monsanto's products ended up in the farmer's field. Mr. Schmeiser even proved that he had never used Roundup. If Monsanto seeds grew in his field, he did not benefit from it. You have to know how Monsanto products work to take advantage of them because you have to apply Roundup to kill everything else so you can reap the benefits. The farmer proved that he never reaped that benefit. He probably never intended to benefit from the seeds and violate Monsanto's rights, but he was convicted as though he had committed a crime.

The NDP therefore believes that a balanced approach is essential when it comes to the protection of plant breeders’ rights—consider Mr. Schmeiser. Bill C-18 does not meet that objective. As a result, the NDP will oppose this bill at third reading.

In the comments that follow, you will hear the word “breeder”. I want to make sure that those who are kind enough to watch us on CPAC understand what a breeder is. A breeder is the organization that produced, by voluntary selection or genetic manipulation, a plant that is sufficiently stable, homogeneous and distinct from other varieties of the same species to be considered a new variety. If an organization can demonstrate that it succeeded in obtaining such a variety by genetic manipulation or crossbreeding, in many cases, then it should be given the rights associated with the years of research and investments.

As I was saying at the beginning of my speech, we tried to support the bill at second reading in the hopes that the governing party would act in good faith and allow us to amend aspects of the bill that we and many associations are very concerned about. The NDP proposed 16 amendments so that the rules would be fairer for both the breeders, who have the rights to these new varieties, and farmers.

All of our amendments, without exception, were rejected by the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. No improvements were made, even though the witnesses essentially agreed with the NDP that the bill needed to be improved.

Here is one example. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is calling for protections for producers from claims of patent infringement with respect to natural or accidental spreading of patented plant genetic material. This is very similar to the case of Mr. Schmeiser. The NDP therefore proposed an amendment that would have required the intent to infringe on patent protection to be proven, which would have made it possible to distinguish between deliberate patent infringement and the accidental spreading of a patented plant genetic material.

This amendment was rejected, even though it was based on the testimony of witnesses and on the case of a Canadian farmer who had a very difficult time for reasons that, in my opinion, did not make sense. Unfortunately, we will have to vote against the bill at third reading, despite the goodwill of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Worse still, in a similar vein, there are no provisions in Bill C-18 to ensure that legal fees do not impede farmers’ defence in such cases. Imagine if a large biotechnology company were to accidentally spread some seeds. In my region, there was a huge issue with spinach that was possibly genetically modified. Some producers of non-GMO spinach in the region wonder what they will do if such an accident does happen and how they can prove it and defend themselves against the company.

It there is any bad faith on the part of a big multinational like Monsanto, for example, how is a small producer supposed to defend himself if, from the outset, the law does not provide sufficient defence? He could go to court and try to defend himself by saying that he did not deliberately contaminate his field with a patented plant from his neighbour's field, but how much would that cost him? He would not be able to prove that in court if there is no regulatory framework to provide him with minimal protections, which is what we wanted. This could drag on in court forever, and small producers are certainly not going to be the ones to come out ahead in a process like that.

The amendment was proposed, but it was not included in the bill. Like many other amendments, it was rejected by the Conservative majority. Furthermore, the NDP is concerned about the powers being granted to the minister, including the power in the regulations to unconditionally exempt rights and privileges, not of those who obtain the patent, but once again of farmers, on a case by case basis. To sum up why the NDP does not support Bill C-18 at third reading, the bill does not explicitly protect farmers and it puts too much discretionary power in the minister's hands. We oppose this bill.

The bill includes some things that not everyone agrees on, but at least they make sense. However, it also includes many new exclusive rights for plant breeders: reproduction, conditioning, sale, export or import, and stocking for the purpose of exercising other exclusive rights. This is all meant to give rights to plant breeders.

What is more, it also gives farmers what it calls “privileges” and not rights. It is odd to think that after Bill C-18, someone who is growing a natural variety, developed over hundreds of years literally by his ancestors, will no longer really have the right to grow that variety. However, there would be some sort of tolerance or privilege to allow him to do so. In our opinion, this should be called a right. Ethically, this should even be a right that would trump the rights of patent-holding growers who aggressively come after those people who farm our centuries-old heritage products.

In closing, I want to address other amendments suggested by the NDP that were rejected as well. For example, we wanted to protect farmers from abusive litigation. Other members have talked about that. We wanted to ensure that farmers are consulted on the implementation of the bill and the subsequent changes to the rules and regulations.

Since this could have a serious impact on the industry, we wanted to ensure that Bill C-18 would be reviewed regularly and that people in the agricultural sector would always be included in those reviews. This too was rejected. We wanted to prohibit the cascade of royalties, as my colleagues were saying, to ensure that contracts would prevent harmful royalties from being added at every processing stage. This is not settled either.

Finally, I want people to understand that we are against this bill at third reading because it was impossible to improve a bill that should have been improved out of respect for our Canadian farmers.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

I was listening to my colleague's eloquent speech and thinking to myself that he lives in a beautiful riding whose name I can never get quite right because it covers so much territory. It is the beautiful region of the Lower St. Lawrence, which is where I am from. I definitely have a soft spot for that area.

I know that a lot of farmers in this region are concerned because they want to be sure that their rights and privileges are upheld and we recognize how important they are to this country. Our agriculture is a huge source of pride. When I see it or the topic of financial assistance called into question on occasion, I get worried. I know that this will affect farmers back home.

My colleague made a number of points, so I want to ask him to talk about other elements that affect his riding in particular. How would this bill affect his constituents?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot find it in my notes, but there was a whole section on the flexibility of advance payments. Back home, people have mixed feelings about advance payments. Some farmers are experiencing financial difficulties. When the time came to negotiate the remaining payments on this program with the federal government, things did not go well.

One of the first things I want to do, now that we know that Bill C-18 will unfortunately pass as is, without amendment, is to go back to these people to see whether this flexibility could actually have helped them, in the context of what happened to them five, six, seven or eight years ago.

This measure could perhaps be made retroactive to make it clear that these people need flexibility to resolve their financial issues. These are proud farmers who have worked hard, and they had no control over the events that led them to the brink of bankruptcy.

I will then make sure that this flexibility will be considered for these people as well. We cannot lose our farmers in the regions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. We could add the lack of democracy, the protection of heirloom grains and the refusal of NDP amendments to his long list.

Furthermore, I would like the member to talk about the fact that Canada is a signatory to UPOV 1991, which has never been ratified by the government.

Why not and what is it waiting for?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, UPOV 1991 is part of what I was discussing at the beginning, namely the fact that we are giving great consideration to the protection of plant material and the balance between protecting patents and this legacy.

Will we sign these agreements because of Bill C-18? It is not clear to me or to our critics who have worked very hard on this file.

Furthermore, Bill C-18 is vague with respect to long-term intentions. This could be part of the long list of things about the bill that we must unfortunately criticize. Once again we were unable to amend it despite the goodwill of the witnesses and the official opposition.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one question that I have asked several of my colleagues recently with respect to various bills.

What does he think of this growing trend of giving more and more powers to ministers in all kinds of bills?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18 is in keeping with that trend. Here again, there are many areas where the government is saying it will legislate with Bill C-18. There are the so-called plant breeders' rights and farmers' “privileges”.

There are many imperfections in the bill, but topping it all off is the right to amend the impact of the legislation through regulations and authorities that are as dumb as any minister who would get directly involved. That is a serious problem.

There is a pile of bungled omnibus bills that have not taken expert opinions into consideration. They affect a lot of different aspects of a sector and include the possibility of, for example, regulating other things if the bills do not work. This is an appalling admission that these bills have not fully matured. If that were the case, the government would not have to say that it will do something else if the bill does not work two weeks down the road. That is very worrisome.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

This government has made no bones about it. Creating jobs and strengthening Canada's economy remains our top priority. Through Bill C-18, we would secure the continued success of one of Canada's prominent industries, agriculture.

In 2009, Canada exported $35 billion in agriculture and agri-food products. Last year, we exported $50.4 billion, and the potential for future growth is substantial.

With the global population expected to reach 9.3 billion by the year 2050, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that in order to feed everyone internationally, food production will need to increase by 60%.

Currently, the world is hungry for the goods that Canadian agriculture producers provide. Bill C-18, the agriculture growth act, would ensure our farmers would have the means to meet that demand. More specific, the act would ensure that Canadian farmers could keep pace and even make gains against competitors like China, Brazil, Russia, Australia, the United States and the European Union.

One way in which Bill C-18 would give Canadian farmers an edge is through the proposed amendment to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, and I will explain.

Canadian agriculture producers cultivate more than 75 million acres of farmland from coast to coast. Ultimately, the value of the harvest depends largely on the quality of the seed sown. To grow the best, Canadian farmers must plant the best. They must sow crop varieties that produce high yields, resist drought and disease, and that meet specific demands in the global market.

This sounds straightforward, but the science behind the development of farmers' all-important seeds is extremely complex.

Plant breeding is a time and resource-intensive process. It typically takes 10 to 12 years to bring a new variety to market. As members can do doubt appreciate, plant breeders have a reasonable desire to own the results of their many years of hard work.

Where inventors protect their intellectual property through patents, plant breeders do the same through plant breeders' rights. These rights give plant breeders control over the sale of the seeds, cuttings and other reproductive material of the new plant varieties they create.

In Canada, all plant species are eligible for protection. The relative strength of our intellectual property environment for the plant breeding industry, however, ends there.

Nearly all of our major international partners, including the United States, the EU, Japan, Australia and even South Korea have an enticing environment that conforms with most current international standards: the 1991 International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Canada's existing plant breeders' rights meanwhile is based on outdated 1978 conventions. We cannot afford to continue to lag behind.

Ms. Patty Townsend, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Seed Trade Association, an association that brings together 130 seed company members, has said:

Due to our outdated plant breeders' rights legislation, companies with an interest in these crops have chosen to invest elsewhere. Added to that is the fact that plant breeders outside of our borders won't send their varieties here for testing, because our plant breeders' rights legislation has not kept pace with the rest of the world.

We can change this and update the protection. We will encourage private investment in Canadian plant breeding programs, encourage more foreign breeders to protect and sell their varieties here in Canada, and ensure that Canadian agriculture and horticulture producers gain access to the innovative new plant varieties they need to compete in a global marketplace.

Specifically, Bill C-18's proposed changes to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act would improve protection for plant breeders in five ways.

First, the amendments would extend plant breeders' rights to the reproduction, import and export, conditioning and stocking of material for commercial purposes or propagating. Currently, the plant breeders are protected only on the sale of propagating material and for production and propagating material intended for sale.

Second, the amendments would enable plant breeders to sell the new varieties in Canada for up to one year before they must apply for plant breeders' rights protection. For many breeders, this 12-month period would be critical because it would allow them the time to test the market, advertise and increase their seed stock before they filed for protection.

Third, Bill C-18 would entitle plant breeders to exercise their rights while applications were pending by providing provisional protections for a new plant variety from the date the application is filed.

Fourth, Bill C-18 would lengthen the time plant breeders would be protected from 18 years to 25 years for trees, vines and other specified categories, and from 18 to 20 years for all other crops. In both cases, breeders could choose to terminate their rights earlier.

Finally, Bill C-18 would clarify under the act that plant breeders could only collect royalties on the initial sale of a particular cycle of propagating material. Should breeders be denied reasonable opportunities to collect these royalties because of theft or the illicit sharing of propagating materials, they could exercise rights on harvested material.

These are five critical improvements. They are five critical tools that agriculture innovators need to protect their investments and successfully conduct business in today's global marketplace.

Our Conservative government heard from stakeholders that there was a need to amend Bill C-18 to make it absolutely clear that storage of seed is included in farmers' privilege. As a result, we now have an amendment that directly addresses this key issue.

Equally important is that Bill C-18 would balance the interests of agricultural producers and breeders and would ensure benefit-sharing through two specific exemptions.

First, under the research exemption, anyone would be able to study or conduct experiments on protected varieties without seeking permission. This means that Canadian farmers, whose livelihoods are tied to their seeds and soil, would continue to get up-to-date information on potential benefits and drawbacks of those seeds years after the release of a new variety.

Through the second exemption, the breeders' exemption, anyone could access protected varieties to breed other new varieties without seeking permission. What this means is that profits would not stand in the way of innovation and progress. Competing plant breeders would have open access to all PBR protected varieties for breeding purposes so that they could build and improve upon the work of others. By extension, every Canadian farmer would be able to benefit from a competitive breeding environment, which would bring new and innovative plant varieties to the marketplace to meet their specific needs.

I do, however, support the amendments as they stand in the agricultural growth act, and I do not use that title lightly. This act would improve the quality of agricultural inputs and would increase the global demand for Canada's agriculture goods. I ask Parliament to join me in supporting Bill C-18.

I have gone back to my riding and have talked about Bill C-18. There has been a lot of confusion and a lot of misinformation spread by different parties that does not really benefit the industry. However, when I have sat down with farmers and have told them the exact benefits and gains they would be getting from plant breeders' rights and what benefits they would see in the future, they have been very excited. They understand what can happen when they invest in new seed technologies.

I look at the canola industry back to Saskatchewan. When I was farming back in the early 2000s, if people had a 20 or 25 bushel crop, that was an average crop. If people had a 35 or 40 bushel crop, that was a tremendous crop. If people had a 50 or 60 bushel crop, they were just fibbing or lying. Today, the reality is that 50 or 60 bushels is quite common, 40 bushels is okay, and 20 or 25 bushels is a disaster. The changes that have happened are because of plant breeding. It is because we have invested in new genetics. Those new genetics have been marketed to farmers, and they have been able to take advantage of it.

The return per acre for the farmer in this situation has been phenomenal. When we look at a 20 or 25 bushel crop going to a 60 or 65 bushel crop, their return per acre is more than doubling. When we look at the operations farmers have, their incomes are definitely going up substantially. That is why the farmers get very excited.

If we can take that technology and logic and put it into wheat, barley, pulses, and lentils in our agriculture sector, we can see the benefits to farmers. That is why they get really excited about the potential of seeing this type of investment here in Canada. In fact, we are already seeing companies investing here in Canada. We are already seeing Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada taking advantage of new varieties. The collaboration and the growth from new companies and the work Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has done is very exciting for farmers. It is going to make a very exciting and very strong future for Canadian farmers, especially young farmers.

I will close there. This is such a basic act. It has been modernizing our agriculture sector. It is something it requires and has asked for, and we are just doing what it wants. The benefit at the end of the day will be for all Canadians, because when Canadian farmers grow and harvest a good crop, they spend money, and the Canadian economy flourishes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in the House on this particular bill to reiterate the fact that we need a balanced approach. We do not quite see that in this bill.

We put forward 16 amendments, which the government denied outright. Here is an opportunity for the government to say that opposition members have farmers in their ridings as well. A variety of people have presented here, and the government should be taking everyone's views and making sure that it has a bill it will not be challenged on over and over again, as we have seen with previous bills.

The fact is that we need to ensure that every farmer's rights are looked after. I wonder if the member can explain why the NDP amendments were defeated, especially the one that would have ensured that new varieties were as good as or better than existing ones. The NDP amendment would have included language that would ensure that new varieties demonstrate unique features that are clearly distinguishable from the initial varieties.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the amendments proposed by the NDP were bad amendments. It does not matter how many amendments one proposes in committee, if they are bad amendments, they are bad amendments.

If the member had been there and listened to the witnesses, she would have heard what farmers and the industry were saying. The New Democrats would have recognized the fact that they should not even have come forward with those types of amendments.

The member should not complain because her amendments were not approved. If she writes bad amendments, they will not be approved by this government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not feel obligated to defend the New Democratic amendments, but if we look at the government's record on amendments, no one would be surprised to know that it is very rare for amendments to be approved. It might have approved one or two since it formed a majority government.

I want to focus on the bill. We in the Liberal Party understand and appreciate many of the needs our farmers have and why it is important that we take a step forward. This legislation deals with a number of acts. It is not just one focus, even though the member across the way focused on one aspect of the legislation.

There is no doubt that we need to recognize the valuable economic and social impact our farming community, our agriculture sector, plays in our economy. We want it to grow.

The question I have for the member is not that far off from the previous question. Does the member not recognize that, yes, this as a whole is good legislation, but it could have been that much better for our farmers had the government listened to what the stakeholders, in particular our farmers, across the country had to say, which could have improved upon the legislation?

Would the member comment on why the government not only rejected the NDP amendments but also Liberal amendments and some good ideas that came from the stakeholders?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are not biased on this side of the floor. A bad amendment from the Liberals or a bad amendment from the NDP is a bad amendment. It does not matter where it comes from. If it is a bad amendment, it is a bad amendment and should be voted down, which was done.

He does not understand that a tremendous amount of consultation went into this legislation before it ever hit committee. We talked to stakeholders and there was a consulting process with the Department of Agriculture, which the minister went through. It was intensive. As a result, we have a bill that is exactly what the stakeholders, the industry and the farmers wanted, and that is what they got.

For johnny-come-latelies to say they can make an amendment and look like heroes, they have been non-existent in the agriculture scene all along. They are still non-existent in the agriculture scene. Putting forward more and more bad amendments will not improve their stature among agriculture producers.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to explain why I support Bill C-18.

The agricultural growth act proposes to modernize the legislative framework that supports Canada's agricultural and agri-food industry. This framework helps to protect the safety of the food we eat and helps our farmers and producers compete successfully in global markets. The bill proposes a series of amendments that would modernize and streamline nine different statutes, seven that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency uses to regulate Canada's agricultural sector, and two administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Some of the acts that Bill C-18 would amend date back to the 1950s. They have served us well, to be sure, but we are in 2014 now. In recent decades, the agricultural and agri-food industry has experienced tremendous innovation, such as new production techniques, and plant varieties that are driven by science. During the same period, international trade in agricultural products has skyrocketed. Today, Canadians regularly eat foods originating from around the world, and Canadian food products are exported to an ever-expanding list of foreign markets.

Given these significant changes, it comes as no surprise to learn that Canada's current legislative framework for agriculture, first enacted decades ago, is outdated and struggles to accommodate modern realities. As new varieties and new developments in science continue to emerge, this framework must evolve to keep pace. This is particularly true when our international trading partners regularly modernize their legislative frameworks. The agricultural growth act proposes to put Canada's legislative framework on par with those of other countries.

Bill C-18 would help support the ability of Canada's farmers and producers to compete in global markets. To illustrate, allow me to focus on a few specific challenges and explain how the agricultural growth act proposes to meet them.

The first challenge relates to plant breeders' rights and how they are protected. Agricultural researchers continually strive to develop new varieties of plants, varieties that produce greater yields or are more resistant to drought, pests, or disease. This innovation is essential to modern agriculture. Without research, there is no progress.

To support ongoing innovation, most countries abide by an international convention on plant breeders' rights, known as UPOV, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. The convention sets a legal standard for protecting these rights. Unfortunately, Canada's laws do not meet the current standard, known as UPOV '91. Bill C-18 would bring Canadian law up to the current UPOV standard. This would give Canadian farmers access to the same cutting-edge crop varieties that most of their foreign competitors already have.

Bringing our law up to the current UPOV standard would also promote crop research here in Canada. This is because any research breakthroughs made in Canada would be protected by laws in Canada, which would be on par with the laws adopted in other countries that have ratified UPOV '91. This kind of protection would give investors the confidence they need to back the development of new varieties and production techniques in Canada. As was just pointed out by my colleague, there are many benefits.

During its review of Bill C-18, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food heard several professionals make precisely this point. For example, consider the statement from Mr. Gary Stanford, president of the Grain Growers of Canada. He said:

The adoption of Bill C-18 will bring our regulations in line with international standards. Canada is only one of a handful of developed countries not covered under UPOV 91. This keeps our farmers out of competitive advantage. Aligning our regulations will not only level the playing field for our producers, but it will also encourage foreign investment into new varieties for Canada. This would give our farmers access to new varieties that their competitors already use.

It is important to recognize that Bill C-18 explicitly recognizes the farmers' traditional practice of saving and reusing seeds from crops grown on their own land. The practice is commonly known as farmers' privilege. Bill C-18 now includes an amendment that makes it perfectly clear that Canada's farmers will be able to continue saving, cleaning, treating, storing, and replanting seed from protected varieties on their own land.

Therefore, when it comes to new varieties, Bill C-18 balances the interests of all concerned, producers, researchers, and consumers.

The proposed legislation would encourage researchers to develop new varieties, at the same time enshrining and protecting the practice of farmers' privilege.

Bill C-18 also proposes to improve the legal framework governing Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector in other ways. The proposed legislation would, for instance, allow consideration of foreign reviews and analyses in the approval process. This change is designed to promote innovation and to cut red tape when it comes to approving certain agricultural products.

The standing committee heard from several industry representatives who strongly support this element of the bill.

Mr. R. Edward Empringham, senior project manager of the Canadian Animal Health Coalition, had this to say:

...as a matter of principle the coalition supports the modernization of legislation to harmonize approaches and recognize modern business practices, the concept of inclusion by reference into regulation, the ability to reference foreign reviews and analysis, and the need to ensure that legislation ensures the protection of animal health and welfare, food safety, meets the requirements of trade, enables innovation, and doesn't impede commerce.

Bill C-18 proposes to clarify and confirm the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's authority to consider foreign reviews, data, and analyses during the evaluation for approval or registration of agricultural products that are new to the Canadian market.

This information would be considered in addition to ongoing Canadian reviews and analyses, always with an eye to the Canadian context, such as how relevant that foreign data is to the Canadian environment.

This in turn would allow for an efficient and effective approval process so that Canada's farmers can benefit from the latest scientific research from around the world and keep pace with the competition.

Bill C-18 would also introduce, through future regulations, the ability to license and register feed and fertilizer manufacturers. The agricultural growth act proposes new, broader controls on the safety of Canada's agricultural inputs through licensing or registration of feed and fertilizer manufacturers.

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

The approach proposed in Bill C-18 keeps farmers top of mind. This amendment should apply only to businesses that sell animal feed and fertilizer products across provincial and international borders. It would not apply to farmers who make these products for use on their own farms.

The wisdom of this balanced approach earned the approval of the producers and other professionals who appeared before the standing committee.

Here is an excerpt from the testimony of Mr. Clyde Graham, acting president of the Canadian Fertilizer Institute:

Bill C-18 allows for the licensing of fertilizer and supplement establishments, which is common in the United States. The bill also enables the licensing of persons to conduct an activity involving fertilizer and supplements. The Canadian Fertilizer Products Forum has signalled that this is an area that needs to be explored, but only with industry consultation.

Regulations form the core of all licensing regimes, and this government would develop regulations only through detailed consultations with stakeholders.

The truth of the matter is that the extensive shareholder consultations completed during the past few years fully informed the agricultural growth act. This government continues to listen, and, as the most recent amendments made to Bill C-18 attest, we take appropriate action.

We also remain committed to additional consultations. Please be assured that before any changes are implemented, especially regulatory changes, our government is committed to consultation to determine the best course of action.

Upon the bill's receiving royal assent—and it is my great desire to see that day—some of the changes would come into force almost immediately, while others would be phased in or require regulatory amendments.

We need royal asset. That is why I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

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

Over time, we have gotten used to feeling that this government does not listen to us. Earlier, one of our colleagues said that the amendments we proposed were most likely moronic as usual. Obviously, that kind of disdain for the opposition does not really bother us anymore.

Does my colleague believe that the bill was perfect by virtue of the fact that his apparently omniscient party created it, even though the UPA's brief did raise several issues?

How can it be that, once again, these issues did not cause Conservative Party representatives to feel even a twinge of doubt about whether it is a good idea to drive a bulldozer with blinkers on?

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

Mr. Speaker, as pointed out in my presentation, there were amendments that came forward. My colleagues did put some amendments forward in regard to ensuring that farmers could grow their own seed and use it on their own farming operations, not sell it in other commercial entities. That is a right of farmers, the farmers' privilege. That amendment did come forward, and it passed because it was a good amendment.

I want to say that there are many other opportunities to bring legislation like this forward, but this is a prime piece of legislation that would bring Canada up to speed, no matter where they are in Canada. No matter where they are in regard to being able to move more of the product, this legislation would bring us up to speed with the UPOV '91, on which we were falling behind in many areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brandon—Souris, not only for his great intervention and speech but also for his understanding, knowledge, and background in agriculture.

I have been listening to this debate, which will wrap up here shortly. The focus has been on farmers' privilege, and I understand why some folks are focusing on that aspect but missing the big picture of the greatest value and the greatest movement forward for the agriculture industry in many years.

One of the things I would like to ask my colleague is this. I had the privilege in 2006 of bringing forward a motion, M-460, to give the competitive edge in getting products to the farmers at a reasonable rate and having the inputs from research so that as global research is done, Canada can be a part of that. What it is about is ensuring that our products are competitive in the big field.

I want—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member has a very short answer.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is just as I said earlier. This bill is so important in bringing us up to the rest of the world in terms of UPOV '91. We had fallen behind. We were still in the 1950s, and this is a great opportunity for us to move forward in the world and be able to be competitive with others. As I said earlier, if we do not have research, we do not have an industry. That is why it is so important to get caught up with the rest of the world in these areas.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, November 19, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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