House of Commons Hansard #147 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, just to build on that, does this mean that the government prefers applied research to pure research? That seems to be a trend in several fields lately.
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, in Canada, we have a history of working closely with the agricultural and food processing sectors. That has been a tradition for about a hundred years, and we will stay on that path because the challenges the agricultural sector faces every year are major issues for our country and the whole world.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the position of the government on this particular piece of legislation and remain puzzled by its obstinacy against the amendments that my colleagues have brought forward.
What puzzles me is that when we are talking about other issues, for example, child care or support for the family, the line from the Conservatives is always, “We do not want big entities to decide the fate of our families”, yet here they want big government to decide whether or not farmers should or should not have the right to keep their own seeds and share them.
I can remember back in the 1970s when I was working on dialogues on the preservation of agricultural land and of the agricultural economy in Alberta, it was the time of a big scare in India. There was a single strain of rice and the harvest was a disaster.
Therefore, I am wondering about this one-sided mindset of protecting the big corporations that want to sell just one seed, instead of encouraging our farmers to keep their heritage seeds and share those. Why is the government not listening to the farmers on the importance of having diversity in crops?
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very interesting.
The market reality is that farmers choose the varieties they are going to plant based on the financial performance they can achieve. Considering the 160 million acres in Canada, farmers like to be able to deliver a product that is in demand somewhere in the world. That is very important, because our country is a very significant net exporter.
We are very proud to be contributing to the stability of global food security.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, can the member explain the changes made to the part related to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act since the first time it was before the House?
Why did we not discuss this in committee, particularly the change in clause 136?
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is a very technical question.
Since I would not want to mislead my colleague, I will have to get back to her on that.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin
Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Québec, Consumer Protection.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.
It is truly an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-18 for the third time. It is an omnibus bill, and I had a chance to examine it at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, where we did a thorough study and heard from many witnesses. It is therefore a real honour for me to talk about Bill C-18 again here today.
This is a rather complex bill. It is an omnibus bill that amends nine existing laws. We agree with several aspects of the bill. It does include some improvements, but as it is written, it could lead to many problems, which were identified at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
I repeat, we cannot support this bill because there are gaps. It does not address all the needs of the agricultural sector. If you aim big, why not do things right? The witnesses mentioned that there were things missing in this bill. It is not enough to align our legislation with UPOV 1991 so that, as though by magic, everything is fixed. We have to consider mistakes made by other countries and have a good understanding of the Canadian reality to ensure that the changes we make are as comprehensive as possible. Unfortunately, as drafted, Bill C-18 does not do that.
In order to ensure that everyone understands what the bill is all about, I will quickly recap what Bill C-18 will do and the risks it entails.
First of all, Bill C-18 will move Canada from UPOV 1978 to UPOV 1991. This has a number of consequences for the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. According to the government, the UPOV 1991 treaty will give breeders additional protection and promote private investment.
The most important changes will expand the scope of plant breeders' rights, provide interim protection for a new variety and extend the term of protected rights.
Essentially, breeders now have the following exclusive rights: the right to reproduce propagating material; the right to condition, sell, export or import material; the right to make repeated use of material to produce commercially another plant variety if the repetition is necessary; and the right to stock propagating material for the purpose of exercising other plant breeders' rights. When we look at this list it is hard to see where there might be a problem. The problem is that the Conservative government has extended the powers of plant breeders so much, in order to promote private investment, that they are at a much greater advantage compared to farmers.
Farmers have even lost the right to clean, trade and resell their seeds. What is more, plant breeders have the power to charge royalties to farmers at any time without any regard for their harvests. What we are being told is not reassuring: the competition among breeders will govern the balance of power and everything will be just fine.
It makes me wonder: why not ensure from the get-go that everything will be just fine by taking the valuable advice of our witnesses, protecting farmers' ancestral rights and limiting breeders' powers to charge royalties?
To sum up this part, Bill C-18 might help us move ahead by harmonizing the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act with UPOV '91 because it protects intellectual property and encourages innovation. The problem is that the way Bill C-18 is drafted, it might also set us back. In fact, it rolls back farmers' rights.
What is more, given the expansion of plant breeders’ rights under Bill C-18, it is likely that farmers will face increased litigation.
However, producers may well be on an extremely uneven financial playing field with plant breeders. There are no provisions in Bill C-18 to ensure that legal fees do not impede farmers’ defence in such cases.
As it happened in Germany, this bill's lack of clarity could lead to a number of legal loopholes that will clog our courts and place an additional burden on our farmers. In other words, Bill C-18 does not provide sufficient protection for farmers against the potential abuse of power by breeders. It is not balanced enough.
I would like to come back to the changes made in order to pass and amend legislation without going through Parliament. Now, laws can be amended through incorporation by reference. That means that any document can be included in the regulations associated with any of these acts through incorporation by reference. In other words, the current government can amend the act without Parliament's consent. This is nothing new. We have seen it in a number of bills introduced by this government.
The government and its senior officials justified this addition by saying that it was needed to ensure the act could be adjusted in response to various contingencies. Although I appreciate the government and its senior officials' commitment to efficiency, the amendments made to a law through incorporation by reference should be voted on or studied by the House or at least the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. That would be a good idea.
What is more, Bill C-18 grants the Governor in Council the ability to make significant changes to the governing of various products, including to safety provisions, without the parliamentary oversight of legislative change. For example, the Governor in Council could establish regulations concerning the manufacturing, sale and shipping of products between provinces without even consulting the provinces or the House of Commons.
These strengthened powers are in addition to the changes made to the minister's authority in various laws. From now on, the minister may, subject to the regulations, suspend, cancel or renew a registration or licence and exempt someone or something from one or more regulations. The minister can do what he wants without any conditions. At the risk of repeating myself, this type of power could politicize the agricultural industry.
If it so chooses, the party in power could favour one company or even an entire sector over another, without the consent of Parliament. We know that it can sometimes be cumbersome to present and approve these changes in the House, but this process is a necessary part of democracy. The agricultural sector must absolutely not become subject or vulnerable to political interests.
In conclusion, I want to say that I support innovation and the protection of intellectual property, but I believe we must ensure that all Canadian farmers and public sector researchers are protected. I want to be sure that Canadians have access to our agricultural heritage and that they can take advantage of it. We need to ensure that new seeds are just as good—if not better—than existing ones, and we need to protect universal access to our common heritage of public seeds.
We also need to ensure that farmers or their representatives have a say about how intellectual property laws are applied and about any regulatory changes that would affect them, by eliminating the minister's authority to regulate amendments and the rights to exemptions.
Although some claim that this bill is necessary for the agricultural sector, I cannot ignore the fact that this bill will create new problems, especially since witnesses told us the same thing and they suggested solutions. That is why we presented 16 amendments. It is very sad to see such a lack of openness on the part of this government.
However, I can say that I am very proud of the work our party has done and of the fact that we are against Bill C-18.
Agricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders
Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière Québec
Conservative
Jacques Gourde ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear that the NDP, the official opposition, will be opposing this bill.
Historically, in the House, we have always voted unanimously to help our farmers and the agrifood processing industry. There is always something that can be improved in agriculture, which is constantly evolving. We need to adapt from year to year.
Today, we proposed a bill that will enable our farmers to face the challenges of the 21st century. We should all vote together to help them.
I would like to know why the official opposition does not want to vote in favour of a bill that will help Canadian agriculture.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that great question.
This omnibus bill will amend nine different laws. Nonetheless, we support several aspects of Bill C-18. That is why our party decided to send it for study by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, in the hopes that there would be meaningful debate and a balanced number of witnesses from both sides.
Even the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food himself, when he appeared before the committee, said that there were changes to be made to the bill. We had reason to believe that the government would listen and not turn a deaf ear, as is often the case.
Unfortunately, the government rejected our 16 common-sense amendments that received support from many witnesses. What is more, the majority of witnesses and people from the agriculture and agri-food industry who support this bill had suggestions about how it could be improved.
I do not know why this government is so closed to any proposed suggestions for improving this bill. It is unfortunate.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, whether one is a farmer on the Prairies or in the provinces of Quebec or Ontario, there is a sense that we need to make legislative changes that would enable farmers to, for example, compete in the world market going forward. There is no doubt from the presentations made by farmers and other stakeholders in committee that there is a need to make several changes. The NDP and the Liberals brought forward amendments, and ideas were generated from stakeholders at the committee stage.
My question for the member is related to the overall package before us today. It seems to me that most farmers would be supportive of this bill, albeit feeling concern over many different areas and desiring to see some amendments.
Are there specific amendments that the NDP was proposing at the committee stage that the member would have liked to have seen pass, as a minimum, that would have allowed for her party to support the legislation?
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I doubt I would have time to list all 16 of our amendments in one minute. Most importantly, we wanted to take away the minister's right to secretly and undemocratically revoke farmers' privilege. People are talking about this issue not only in Quebec, but in all the other provinces too.
I also received other petitions supporting our amendments to Bill C-18. It is important to strengthen farmers' privilege and ensure a better balance.
All we were asking for was a proper balance and that it be put in black and white that our farmers can save, clean and trade their own seeds. We also wanted farmers to be consulted, because this bill is one of the most important bills on agriculture. Basically, one of our amendments called on the government to do more consultation with the industry.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise and represent the great people of Timmins—James Bay. It is a region that continues to grow in agricultural potential. It is part of the key backbone of our economy. People think of the north for its incredible mining strength. In Timmins—James Bay, with the massive gold mines, copper mines, and now diamond mines, we have a lot to be proud of in terms of mineral exploitation and the forestry industry, which opened up our region over 100 years ago. However, agriculture, particularly in the Timiskaming region, has been a mainstay.
What I have seen over the last 20 years is growth, as farms are moving further north. They are moving north into areas where there was once thriving farming; however, they could never quite make it because of the plant varieties of the day and the cold weather. The change in climate has changed some of the aspects of farming. There are new technologies, where they put tile drainage in now. In plots of land, the ability to get a crop off before the frost has increased dramatically, and there are the kinds of plant yields that we are seeing.
In the New Democratic Party, we have a real interest in making sure that farmers have the tools they need to make agriculture succeed in the 21st century.
However, there is another element in our region that I notice, and it is an issue around the world in terms of the changing relationship with farming. People in urban areas want to know where their food has come from. People want to have food security. People are concerned about GMOs. People want to have it on the labelling. People are very concerned about the use of neonicotinoids, the disappearance of the bee population, and the devastating effects that will have on our environment. They are very concerned about the corporate lobby that has the ear of the Conservative government, which is stonewalling action on these issues. Canadians feel that they have a right to participate in these issues. When they look at the issue of plant breeders' rights, Canadians say these are issues that matter to them.
It is not just that agriculture is getting bigger. We have heard for years that agriculture is getting bigger and becoming an economy of scale. We are now also seeing the emergence of niche markets. It is not just in the north, but it is right across Canada. The niche markets are responding to the issues and the very interest we see from the public toward food security, local foods, regional foods, and alternative foods.
The issue of striking the balance between ensuring the larger agricultural interest and that we have diversity is very important. Unfortunately, this bill has failed the fundamental test, which is getting the balance right. There are many elements in this bill that are laudable, but this is an omnibus bill, like many of the Conservative bills, so the Conservatives have shoved all manner of things into it.
One of the issues that we heard about again and again from the people that we spoke to was on the issue of what the government calls “farmers' privilege”. We call it “farmers' rights”. It is the ancient right to save seeds, to reuse seeds, and to try different seed varieties, versus the plant breeders' rights.
For the folks back home who do not know much about the industry, plant breeders' rights really mean corporate rights. We are looking at the protection of the corporate rights for intellectual property for the new seed varieties, some of which are GMOs, versus the traditional rights that farmers had to clean, maintain, and trade seeds.
This is not to say that we have an opposition to the kind of research and development that is being done by some very large corporate interests. If they can improve agriculture, this is great, and they are doing it for a bottom line. We get that. However, we noticed that within this bill, the government would continually put the power in the hands of the so-called “rights of the corporate interests” versus the privileges that farmers are supposed to have.
We have attempted to work with the government on fixing the language around that so we could clarify it, because one of the big issues that farmers face is litigation. When they are going up against Monsanto, it litigates. It goes after farmers. It is very territorial about its corporate interests. In amendments, we could have clarified what the farmers have in terms of their rights in saving and reusing seeds.
We noticed that the government has exempted all manner of what it calls “the farmers' privilege” from the legislation, which will now be decided in the minister's office. This means that the minister would give himself the unilateral power to erase the rights that farmers have always had.
This is not a balanced approach, particularly in an age when we see very large corporate lobbyists who have the ear of the minister and of the government. They can just make a phone call. They can go out to Hy's Steakhouse. They can sit around and have a conversation. The average farmer does not have that. He is going to have to trust the goodwill of the minister. Where I come from, our farmers are practical people. Asking them to trust the goodwill of a minister on rights they have always had is not going to fly. Therefore, there are problems with this bill.
Again, this is not to say that we would have opposed this bill in total. We want to fix the bill. That is what legislation is supposed to be. That is what Parliament traditionally has done. When I came here over a decade ago, we sat on committees and heard various amendments brought forward by Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats, who wanted to improve legislation. We do not have to ideologically agree on everything, but we should come out at the end of the day with the best possible legislation.
However, the current government has a policy. Since 2011, with every single amendment that the opposition has brought, the Conservatives have voted it down. The result has been many flawed bills. These are bills that have to be returned from the Senate because they are flawed, that have been rejected time and again because they would not pass a constitutional challenge. Our justice minister has had more recalls of his legislation than the Ford Pinto. It is getting embarrassing.
The new Democrats brought 16 reasonable amendments. Our colleagues in the Liberal brought amendments. Every single one of them was struck down.
One can be elected and be dim-witted; there is nothing in the laws of Canada that says someone cannot be dim-witted and be elected. People can just run for the Conservative Party. They can be defiantly dim-witted, as the current government is when it comes to responding to any questions about its mistakes. However, we see that the members of the government are aggressively and boastfully dim-witted when they stand up time and again in the House and brag that they do not listen to anybody who can improve their legislation. In fact, they will attack us for doing our job. They seem to want to shut down debate time and again. The fact that we bring forward amendments on any manner of bills and they have not thought them through is an outrage. Again, we are trying to help our dim-witted colleagues. This is our job.
I feel like Job sometimes, with the weight that is carried on us to try to help bring our dim-witted colleagues into the light of the 21st century. However, the Conservatives are defiant about this. They will not listen. They will accuse us of all manner of things under the sun, but our job on legislation like this is to respond to the farming communities. It is to respond to the consumers who want food security in Canada, who want a balance between the development of agriculture and the corporate involvement in agriculture in the growing niche markets, the issues of food security, and the fact that people want to have some knowledge of where their food comes from and what is in their food. These are reasonable things, which people from any party could agree on normally. However, under the current government, the Conservatives do not want to listen to anybody other than themselves, or perhaps their lobbyist friends.
In terms of the seed issue, when farmers are buying their seed from a corporate interest, there is a price that is set. Corporations can have a captive market if farmers cannot get alternatives. They are very expensive, and what they are promised in return is the yields. That is important. However, if farmers want to have their own varieties, they cannot trade them; they would be litigated against. They need some defence in terms of establishing the balance, and this is what we were trying to do with our amendments. We were trying to clarify the rules so that farmers are not facing litigation, so the minister does not get to decide what rights the farmers should be able to enjoy. The Conservatives call them privileges, but we call them rights.
I am sorry, but I do not trust the minister to make that decision on behalf of the farmers in my region. This is what Parliament should be doing. It should be in the act and it should be clear. We brought forward 16 fairly straightforward amendments. The Conservatives did not have to accept them all; they could have accepted some. However, as is their policy, they did not accept any. They then cannot understand why people do not support them.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of farmers in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. This past weekend I had someone approach me during one of the craft shows to tell me how important it is for us to keep raising the issue about the bee situation, so I want to thank my colleague for raising that during this debate. The debate that he put forward was a balanced approach with respect to what we are seeing, the fact that there are omnibus bills being tabled. We are willing to work with the government, but it is not willing to work with us. I am not on the agriculture committee. However, if I remember correctly, there were 16 amendments that the NDP tabled. We did not just pull these out of our hat; we actually talked to people. We have a lot of farmers in our area. I know that my colleague has hundreds of farmers in his area. Some of them are young farmers who are really trying to make a go at this.
Could my colleague perhaps expand on the importance of having a government that is willing to listen, not only to the lobbyists, but also to the other farmers who are impacted by this in the long run because they are not big farmers?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that when my hon. colleague goes back to Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, which is a very rural region with a lot of agricultural families, people talk about the crisis with respect to neonicotinoids. I hear this in my region. The government will make the fact that the bees are dying off because of the pesticides sound like some kind of extremist talk. The corporate lobbyists have the Conservatives all locked up in their little box.
However, people do care, just like people care about the issue of catastrophic climate change. Any time that we ask a question about climate change in this House, the Conservative backbench all howl with laughter, as if they think they can escape it with the Rapture or something. However, when I go home, people are concerned about this. They see the changing weather patterns. In our agricultural region, people have noticed dramatic changes, even in the last 30 years.
Farming is based on the ability to count on the cycle. There have been some years when we have had enormous success in terms of extra warm summers, but we are seeing more frost coming at odd times. We are seeing an early spring, where it gets very warm and people start to plant and then the snow comes back. These are issues that people are concerned about, and they are looking for leadership. Again, what they see is a government that is boastfully, aggressively, and defiantly dim-witted.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.
I gave my first speech in the House of Commons in 2011, and it was about the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board. I am sure everyone remembers that because it was a very divisive issue in the House. Farmers' rights, such as the right to associate and to form co-operatives to sell their products, which gave them a degree of power, were being taken away.
Crops have changed a lot. Now farmers are planting a lot of canola instead of wheat.
I would like the member to tell me a little about just how much power is being taken away from farmers and handed to one person, one minister. The minister has the power to exempt, to choose, to exclude. The minister can take farmers' privileges away. In a way, it is one person against farmers, and it is all case by case.
The whole democratic aspect of this is very important to me because this Parliament is supposed to be democratic.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question on the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers fought to have the power to get their product to market, and the first year after, the farmers could not get their product to market. Welcome to the free market, where one can make more money by shipping oil than shipping grain. Then the government stood up and blamed the train companies and everyone else. The farmers lost a complete bumper crop of grain because of the government's plan to leave farmers on their own. The Wheat Board got grain to market for over 60 years. The first year under the Conservatives, it completely fell apart. That is the beauty of the supposed free market for farmers in this country under the current government.
Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a little embarrassing to get up after what the previous member was saying. It certainly is beneath me to get involved in that argument, so I will not. I will let him answer to his constituents and to the media and others who might be interested about that kind of behaviour in the House.
I am proud to stand here today in support of Bill C-18, the proposed agricultural growth act. Bill C-18 is about growth. It is about growth of plants and growth of an industry. Canada's farmers certainly know all about the benefits of growth. The double entendre was intended. They recognize that entrepreneurs who successfully harness innovation add value to the economy, create jobs, and stimulate growth right across the country.
We need to keep up the momentum. We need to look toward the future. The agricultural growth act proposes to modernize some of the legislation that governs the industry in our country and to encourage innovation. That is exactly what it does.
The agricultural growth act aims to support the long-term success of Canadian farmers and producers. The current law tends to discourage development, so this change clearly is needed. Farmers know that, and farm groups who represent farmers right across the country know that, and they have given us this message loud and clear.
The amendments proposed to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act would support growth by encouraging investment in plant breeding in Canada and giving farmers greater access to foreign seed varieties. Plant breeders' rights are a form of intellectual property and like any intellectual property, without adequate legal protection, plant breeders' rights have virtually no value. Adequate legal protection enables rights holders to obtain value for their intellectual property. For plant breeders, this means they have control over the sale of the reproductive material, like seeds, cuttings, and other items like that from the new plant varieties they develop.
Plant breeding is an intensive process that requires significant time and investment. It often takes 10 to 12 years for plant breeders to develop a new variety. That is a huge investment in time and money. As it stands today, Canadian law protects plant breeders' rights for 18 years. The agricultural growth act proposes to extend protection to 25 years for trees, vines and any other specified categories and to 20 years for all other crops, unless the breeder chooses to give their rights up earlier. In some cases, that happens. For most cereal crops and field crops, that would be a two-year extension to the current protection.
The agricultural growth act would also allow plant breeders to sell a variety in Canada for up to one year before applying for breeders' rights protection. This would give them time to test the market, to advertise, or even increase the amount of stock they have on hand before filing for legal protection. I have heard from some people in the industry that this is important. At the same time, the agricultural growth act would provide plant breeders with automatic provisional protection for a new plant variety from the date of filing, which would allow them to exercise their rights while applications are pending.
In other words, the bill would give these agriculture innovators the tools they need to protect their investment and would support continued innovation in Canadian agriculture.
The importance of innovation in Canadian agriculture was the focus of an exhaustive report published earlier this year by the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. The committee heard from some 170 witnesses over a period of 14 months. In its report, the committee took a bird's eye view of Canada's agriculture and agrifood industry. The report identifies challenges and obstacles and makes no fewer than 19 recommendations, many of them relating to innovation, and that is no accident.
For instance, recommendation number 7 directly calls for improvements in patent protection. That is what this act does. However, I will come back to the committee report in a moment. First, I want to explain another form of intellectual property protection, plant breeders' rights, which is a specific type of legal protection for new plant varieties.
Trade depends upon trust. We know that. Buyers and sellers will do business only when they can trust the quality and the value of the goods and services to be traded. To build trust and foster trade, countries have long negotiated conventions and free trade agreements. Legal protection for intellectual property rights is often a feature of these conventions. The idea is relatively simple. The parties agree to establish a minimum level of legal protection for property rights. They agree to enforce their own laws on rights protection and to recognize equivalent laws in the countries they want to trade with.
The international convention on plant breeders' rights is known as UPOV, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Over 70 countries, including Canada, are members of UPOV. Membership in UPOV allows a country to fulfill its obligations for protecting plant varieties under the World Trade Organization.
Over the years, there have been several updates to the UPOV requirements for plant breeders' rights protection. The current standard is known as UPOV '91. It is important to note, however, that Canada's current legislation does not meet this standard. By that I mean the legislation that is in place right now, because the legislation we are talking about here today has not been passed yet. It meets requirements of the previous version, UPOV 1978. It needs to be updated.
When the standing committee of that other place conducted its study of agriculture, it heard from many witnesses who called on Canada upon to update its legislation so that it would meet the current UPOV '91 standards.
One such witness was Ms. Patty Townsend, chief executive officer of the Canadian Seed Trade Association. She had this to say about this country's failure to meet current UPOV standards:
The consequence [of the non-ratification of UPOV Convention 1991] is twofold. Canadian plant breeders do not have adequate tools to protect their own intellectual property, their own inventions, and they cannot regenerate the funds that are required for reinvestment, but just as important and sometimes even more important is that we cannot attract international genetics or new varieties internationally because companies will not bring their varieties to Canada because we cannot protect them in the same way they are protected in other countries.
That is a quote from Patty Townsend, who has been an effective voice for agriculture on the Hill for a long time.
If we consult the standing committee's report, we will see that recommendation number 8 calls upon Canada to comply with UPOV '91.
The issue of UPOV was also a major focus of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food during its review of Bill C-18. The committee heard from many witnesses critical of Canada's tardiness in ratifying the latest UPOV convention.
One of these witnesses was Chris Andrews, who spoke on behalf of the Canadian Ornamental Horticulture Alliance. Here is some of what he had to say on the topic:
...you may remember when plant breeders' rights were first introduced to Canada in 1991 under the UPOV 78 convention. Unfortunately, after 65 years of efforts, it came too late for the extraordinary Explorer roses, which were developed over the years by Agriculture and Agri-food Canada and were lost to a world that loved them, as we had no protection in those days.
He went on to say:
We had to buy our own plants back. My suggestion is, let’s not let that happen again to our new and innovative Canadian-bred varieties.
As Mr. Andrews points out, Canada already knows what can happen when plant breeders' rights are not adequately protected. Explorer Roses are, indeed, a made-in-Canada success story, much like canola, which has really revolutionized and saved field crop farming in western Canada. There is no doubt about that. I know that. It saved my family's family farm. It certainly helped me with my family farm, and it is what is keeping farming farms going today. Canola is a Canadian success story.
However, the lack of legal protection meant that other countries could simply produce and sell them royalty-free. Mr. Andrews was talking about the Explorer roses.
It would have been great for the Agriculture Canada breeding program had these changes been in place back then, because farmers would have felt the benefit of having that protection and would have received revenue, which would have allowed them to continue to produce new and important varieties.
Canada's failure to meet the new UPOV standard affects more than the individual research teams and companies trying to develop the new varieties of plants. It also has a negative impact on Canada's innovation capacity and our economy.
Another stakeholder expressed this idea succinctly during her appearance before the House committee. Deborah Hart of the Potato Growers of Alberta had this to say:
...If UPOV 91 is ratified, it will allow our industry to compete with other international potato producing areas. It will encourage international breeders to introduce new varieties to Canada and allow our Canadian breeders, both public and private, the opportunity to use new genetic properties in their own breeding programs.
I have page after page of good quotes from people in the industry who have worked on this issue for a great deal of time. The final quote helps to further illustrate the benefits of meeting our UPOV standard. Here is another excerpt from the testimony of Chris Andrews of the Canadian Ornamental Horticulture Alliance:
...This sort of stuff also creates more investment by our growers and our breeders, which in turn creates more innovative plant material and helps us do research that will breed out disease in certain plants. I think that's very important because of all the openness with respect to trade around the world: we're a global economy now. There are more diseases, pests, and insects as well that come into the country, which we have to fight with respect to our new varieties.
Maybe this is why members of the New Democratic Party do not support this legislation. This legislation would truly allow trade to work more effectively and, as we all know, they simply do not support trade.
We listened to all of these witnesses at committee and after much productive discussion with other parties brought forward a further amendment regarding plant breeders' rights, making this legislation clearly and strongly confirm in explicit language that a farmer can store seed for planting in future years on his or her own farm. I hope members of the New Democratic Party heard that. It clearly states that; this legislation guarantees it. The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of meeting the new UPOV standard, and the proposed legislation now before us would take the necessary steps to meet this goal while at the same time protecting a farmer's right to grow and keep his own seed if he or she wants.
The agricultural growth act proposes to bring protection of plant breeders' rights in Canada in line with those of our international partners and competitors. As a result, Canada's plant breeding industry would benefit from a more stable and modern intellectual property network.
These proposed changes would encourage increased investment in plant breeding in Canada. They would also encourage foreign breeders to protect and sell their varieties here.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the country's largest farm organization, has said:
...Canadian farmers will benefit greatly from increased innovation and an increase in new crop varieties as a result of these changes.
As well, a group of leading Canadian farm and agriculture organizations joined forces to support Bill C-18. By the way, any of us who deal with farmers quite a bit know that one thing that is very difficult to do is to get farm groups to work together to move something along, and yet that is what they have done with this. They see the importance to our industries of what is in this legislation.
Partners in Innovation includes the Canadian Horticultural Council, Grain Growers of Canada, and a number of commodity groups, including for potatoes, barley, and pulses. This group says that strengthening plant breeders' rights in Canada “...is critical for the future of our farmers and our agricultural industry’s ability to compete in the global market.”
At the same time, we will continue to consult with the industry before any changes are implemented, including regulatory changes. Our government continues to be committed to consultation to determine the best way to move forward.
I think that is important, and, quite frankly, it is one of the many things the two opposition parties have been calling for. It is reasonable and certainly something our government will continue to do. That said, I trust I can count on both sides of the House to move this necessary legislation forward.
The agricultural growth act proposes to modernize Canadian regulations on a foundation of science and technology, innovation, and international standards. I encourage my hon. colleagues opposite to join me in supporting Bill C-18.
As a farmer, for a number of years I have been following changes that I was hoping would happen a long time back. We all know that no matter what industry we are in—whether it is agriculture, any sector of our manufacturing industries, oil and gas production, mining, or whatever it is—what is going to allow Canada to remain competitive or become competitive is innovation. It is the new ideas spawned by Canadian industries that will keep us ahead of the pack. Quite frankly, in a lot of areas, Canadian industry is simply not competitive right now. We need exactly what this act would do for agriculture to help keep our industry competitive and ahead of the pack.
Farmers are doing their part. We all know the changes they have made so quickly. I would argue that farmers have become some of the most sophisticated managers in this country. The way they manage their businesses is remarkable. They way they adapt innovation is remarkable. The innovation they spawn in terms of new equipment and that kind of thing, often just in a shop somewhere on a farm in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or elsewhere, is amazing. Farmers are doing their part.
Farmers have increased production on their farms remarkably. It was probably only 20 years ago that an average yield of canola was 25 or 26 bushels to the acre. Now, very commonly, canola yields are 40, 50, 60, or even 70 bushels to the acre. Certainly innovation and new varieties being developed in Canada in the case of canola have made a huge difference in this country for farmers. I know that I have seen the benefits of these developments, but there is much more to be done. The act before us would allow those developments to continue, and in commodities other than canola as well.
This act would truly help farmers keep ahead of the curve. It would help farmers with the innovation it would spawn to truly remain world leaders and continue the growth in production and marketing.
Canadian farmers have demonstrated clearly that they can compete with anybody in the world. In fact, in many cases even individual farmers and in other cases groups of farmers are trading with countries around the world. Our commodities are sought after because, quite frankly, they are better than most others in the world.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I was in Kagawong this weekend at a craft show and had a couple of farmers approach me on some of the agricultural issues that are of great concern to them.
We have tabled petition after petition on GMO in this House. Certainly when it comes seeds, it is an issue that is very near and dear to many hearts. We had hoped that this bill would actually have a balanced approach, because that is what is essential when it comes to plant breeders.
The member talked about the right of farmers to be able to save their seeds. Our concern is that these should be farmers' rights, not privileges, but this is what the government has done. It has actually put it into the bill as privileges.
During his speech, the member quoted some people. I can quote Dominique Bernier of AmiEs de la Terre de Québec:
....this bill considerably weakens farmers' ancestral rights by forcing them to pay compensation to agro-industrial giants on the entirety of their harvest. However, the marketing of new crop varieties by the big breeders rests on a world heritage, the patient selection, over thousands of years, of crops by succeeding generations of farmers.
There are several other statements that support the NDP position on the amendments that we had put forward.
One thing in particular I would like my colleague to explain is the changes to the section that refers to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act. We saw this in the House. In particular, we would like to know why there were there further changes made regarding clause 136, because these changes were not discussed at committee. The witnesses did not have an opportunity to give feedback. Why would the government make changes in areas it had not even heard feedback on?
Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to pooh-pooh the member's comments on what some farmers are telling her because, quite frankly, I too heard comments from some farmers in my area expressing concern about what was in this bill. Of course, once their commodity groups examined what was being put forward, they changed their minds.
I think we have to be open. I would encourage the members opposite to be open to looking at what is actually in the bill as opposed to what some people say is in this piece of legislation when it is not reality.
When making changes like this, it is really important that the changes be based on science, not just on rumours that are going around. As I said, I heard from some farmers. In fact, I tabled a couple of petitions in the House that probably had 100 or 150 names. Most were not farmers, but some were. They expressed concerns, and because they were constituents who had given me a petition to table, I tabled the petition.
The reality is that the more the commodity groups and the individual farmers actually looked at what we have done, the more they supported it. When the bill is implemented and the regulations are being put in place, I encourage all the members opposite, and the farmers they have talked to, to have input into the regulations. That is always an important part of legislation.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to UPOV '91. UPOV '91 has generated some considerable concern over the impact it might have on third world countries.
My question is for the member. In his last response, he seemed to be sensitive to some of those concerns, and I am wondering if the member might want to expand on what he believes are some of the concerns in regard to UPOV '91.
Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB
Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that on examining what is in this legislation and on looking at UPOV '91, I see that the reality is that that these changes will help farmers.
The premise of the member's question is not entirely accurate. I do believe that once examined, this legislation and its regulations will be seen to be good for farmers. I can assure the member of that.
I am sorry, but I forget the second question, so I will leave my answer at that.
Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
Agriculture is the reason we live in society. If nobody grows food, we will have serious problems and will cease to exist as a species.
I am from an urban riding, so I am less familiar with certain aspects of agriculture. However, I am very familiar with public administration. Part of the bill is about work to be done at the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Given the government's habit of cutting the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food's resources, and given that this bill gives the department more work, will my colleague opposite ask the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the President of the Treasury Board to give the department more resources so that it can achieve the objectives set out in the bill before us?
Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB
Mr. Speaker, this demonstrates the difference between Conservatives and members of the New Democratic Party.
We do not think it is just the number of public servants that determines how much work can get done. We think that is determined by the system they are operating in, a system that actually gives rewards for good work. We think that type of system allows more work to be done by the same number of people, and we have proved it, by the way, in many of the changes we have made in the public service, so I do not agree with the premise of the member's question or comment. I do think that with a better system in place, we can get an awful lot done with the same number of people.
However, the earlier question from the Liberal member opposite that I forgot to answer was to do with farmers in third world countries. I think this aspect is very important, because the reality is that the type of innovation spawned with this new UPOV '91 enactment is exactly what will allow Canada to continue to feed the world.
We have seen the amazing benefits of genetically modified food in feeding 200 million people in the world every year who would otherwise starve. I would suggest that the changes that this legislation would bring about would allow that number to increase from 200 million people being fed instead of starving.
It is a really good-news story and I simply do not see the potential negative impact that the member has referred to.
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has done an impressive job in laying out the need to have the bill passed.
I have been listening to some of our colleagues from the NDP, who have basically been saying that the farmers do not have the privilege of using the seed once they purchase it.
I wonder if my colleague could comment on how farmers would be able to save and reuse that seed.