House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rights.
The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Réjean Genest NDP Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
Today we are debating yet another omnibus bill, which is nothing new with these Conservatives. They throw all kinds of different things into the same bill. This one has to do with agriculture.
The bill deals with plant breeders' rights for new varieties or new species. Research labs, including government labs, work on breeding new plants for years, even decades. Marketing comes into play because these labs need to be viable. However, we need to be careful of certain companies that cause problems when they try to profit by limiting access to many varieties of seeds.
I have been gardening since I was eight years old. I grow vegetables, flowers, perennials and shrubs. This is my hobby. I love tomato plants. A few years ago, when I would visit the displays at hardware stores and garden centres, I could pick up 30 or 40 varieties of tomatoes to try out. This year, I was not able to get more than 12 varieties of tomatoes. This means that both individuals and farmers need to be careful when buying seeds. Some companies restrict access to many varieties in order to sell the ones that they want to sell.
For example, you can buy packages of seeds for $2, $3, $4 or $5. I bought a package of new certified seeds for $4.95 and I got 11 plants. However, in another package of traditional varieties, I would get 50, 77 or even 100 plants for $2.95. There could be problems if this were to happen with grains.
In the regions, farmers developed seeds that were adapted to their climate. Traditionally, year after year, they would save their best seeds to sow the following year. The new legislation will force them to register those seeds. Farmers who used to pay next to nothing to reseed will now have to pay for more expensive seeds.
Because agricultural co-operatives belong to all of the farmers, they expect to get the best possible price. Now that multinationals have patented seeds, access to traditional seeds will be limited. We need to ensure that our traditional varieties will still be preserved for use.
At one point, there were problems with certain varieties of cucurbits, or cucumbers. People were researching heirloom varieties to improve genetics because cross-breeding the same varieties led to a loss of genetic quality.
It is important that we preserve those older varieties. Large companies in France—such as Kokopelli, an international company—are posing problems because they do business with developing countries. They trade seeds so that the prices are better. For a few years now, France has been regulating seed sales. Major seed producers are constantly in court, fighting this company because it has overstepped its boundaries.
Organic farmers may also run into trouble if their neighbours use new seed varieties. Corn and most grains are fertilized by the wind. The organic farmer's seeds are contaminated by the GMO seeds. His products decline in quality. Not only do his products decline in quality, but the neighbour then accuses him of mixing seeds, using GMOs and using his neighbour's registered seeds. That is when things start to go downhill.
Will there be a system in place to protect the small farmers from the bigger ones, who may contaminate seeds? It is important to know.
We know that this bill is the next step in ratifying the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. As usual, every government since 1991, whether Conservative or Liberal, has stalled on this, and now here we are in 2014. Other countries have ratified it, but not Canada.
This is a kind of copyright act. Looking at the Copyright Act itself, there is the case involving Robinson versus television producers. He has spent 19 years fighting for his fair share. We can see that it is important to have laws that protect patent-holders. However, we have to ensure that heritage varieties that have been around for a long time are not patented as new varieties because that would prevent ordinary people from using those heritage varieties.
Amateur gardeners and co-operatives exchange seeds, and that system works very well. We have to make sure that people can still do this and that multinationals will not be able to prevent people from using heritage varieties.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I thought the NDP might be moving another motion for adjournment this morning. It is nice to see that it has decided not to do that and would rather continue the debate. I really encourage that.
The government has had the opportunity to bring in different pieces of legislation that are affecting farmers throughout our country. This is a fairly large bill that takes into consideration what could have been separate pieces of legislation. There is always a risk when a government does that. There are many different stakeholders who would like to participate through consultation to provide input when the government wants to change laws. However, because the bill is so large and has a fairly significant impact on many aspects of legislation, it is that much more difficult to give it the due diligence and accountability it needs.
Would the member not agree that there are certain aspects of the legislation that are good? One example is that it authorizes inspectors to order certain unlawful imports removed from Canada or destroyed.
There are some good things in this legislation, but there are also others that are causing concern.
Réjean Genest NDP Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I would agree that there should have been several bills rather than just one and that this bill should have been studied in detail to determine the implications. We are very concerned about the fact that we will not be able to do a thorough study of this bill.
I agree with my colleague that we should be concerned about the cursory treatment of these issues and the lack of opportunity to study the minor repercussions that could end up being quite significant.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is the NDP caucus's go-to guy for dirt-under-the-fingernails issues. I would like to ask him a question about his comments on tomato varieties.
Can he tell us more about how this is changing and why?
Réjean Genest NDP Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is simple. When there are more varieties, there is more choice. Seed producers want to promote certain varieties by using displays and other methods.
Limiting the number of varieties automatically leads to the sale of more expensive seeds. There are fewer and fewer varieties being sold with a lot of seed in the packet. Instead of putting 100 seeds in a packet, they put 10 and instead of selling the packet for $2.95, they sell it for $4.95. It is not hard to see that the profit margin goes up. The seed companies' strategy is to limit choice in order to increase their chances of selling more. Someone who has a garden with 50, 100 or 150 plants will have to buy several packets of seed instead of just one packet.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-18, an omnibus bill that will alter a number of aspects of farm life.
Bill C-18 proposes nine amendments to federal laws and will affect almost every aspect of farming. The statutes that will be amended under the Agricultural Growth Act are the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. Currently, all these statutes fall under the CFIA. The bill also amends the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the Farm Debt Mediation Act, which fall under AAFC.
I will now get to the heart of the matter: the issues surrounding plant breeders.
According to the government, this bill will stimulate innovation, which will benefit farmers by increasing the choice of crops and in turn increasing revenues.
However, many stakeholders are worried that the bill will limit farmers' use of seeds. Like me, farmers have concerns about the proposed amendments to the plant breeders' rights legislation that would commit Canada to UPOV '91. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, or UPOV, an intergovernmental organization established in 1961, promotes the interests of plant breeders by allowing them to claim intellectual property rights in countries that sign the agreement. Canada is currently part of UPOV '78, a former version.
Those who support joining UPOV '91 allege that it would result in greater investments by seed breeders in Canada. Those opposed believe that this will cost farmers more money, not just at the time of seed sale but also when crops are sold and beyond.
This is a very delicate subject and we must understand the nuances. We must strike a balance between the interests of seed breeders who want to be compensated for their work and farmers who work hard every day to feed our country. We absolutely must ask ourselves what consequences all the amendments proposed in this omnibus bill will have for both Canadian farmers and food safety.
Has the government done its homework? Is the bill part of a long-term vision for farming in Canada or, once again, is the government blindly making decisions that will benefit the same people?
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you are aware of this, but the NDP is the only federal party to propose a Canada-wide food strategy, which was unveiled last week. We have received a lot of support for this. It is not something we put together in one day; we have been working on it for years. We consulted not only Canadians, but also producers across the country. I am truly proud of this document.
I want to focus on the farmers' privilege aspect for a few minutes. It is a key piece of the legislation that needs clarification. The bill states that farmers' privilege is an exception to subsection 5(1). This article states that the holder of the plant breeders' rights has the exclusive right to produce and reproduce, condition, sell, export, import, or stock seed, and authorize any of these actions. Farmers' privilege allows farmers to produce and condition seed only for their own holdings.
This raises many concerns. For example, can a farmer have his seed cleaned by a neighbour as a favour? Or does the farmer need to condition the seed on their own holding? What about saving seed? The bill clearly says farmers can only produce and condition seed. That means that farmers will have to pay a royalty in order to stock their seed. No matter how many assurances the minister provides, I want to be sure that these provisions are clearly stated in the bill and will not be left open for interpretation.
We need to carefully study the bill to fully understand its effects. I look forward to calling experts to the agriculture committee on this issue in order to hear about the effects of the bill. I hope my colleagues from across the way will be open to amendments to improve and clarify the bill to ensure it is advantageous for all of our farmers.
There is another aspect of farmers' privilege that worries me. Farmers' privilege is explained in the negative. It does not look like a right to me. It looks like an exception. The fact that farmers' privilege can be changed through regulation is more worrisome. These limited exceptions to seed companies' total control on seed could change or disappear without having to consult Parliament. That would give the minister a lot of power. I am not sure I trust the minister with that much power and control over farmers' lives and livelihoods. He does not have a very good track record. I do not think I need to remind members of the grain prices, XL Foods, or listeriosis.
When it comes to plant breeders' rights, I believe that a balanced approach is essential. We need to protect Canada's farmers and public researchers.
The minister has said the bill would increase investment to our agriculture sector by creating incentives for companies to come to Canada. My concern here, again, is the farmer. Innovation needs to benefit farmers. We want to ensure that all Canadians can access and benefit from our agricultural legacy. This is why I would like to see more public funding of innovation, which is something that our party has called for.
In order to prevent the privatization of existing varieties of seeds deployed, we must ensure a variety registration system that would ensure new crop varieties are as good as, or better than, existing ones. We also have to ensure that farmers would continue to have access to existing cereal varieties that were developed by public plant breeders.
Turning to another aspect of the bill, I was pleased to see increased flexibility in the advance payments program. The APP provides producers with a cash advance on the value of their agricultural products during a specific period. This would improve producers' cash flow throughout the year and help them meet financial obligations to benefit from the best market conditions. The grain transportation crisis has shown the value of such a program. It is too bad it was not in place at that time to help grain producers.
Allowance for multi-year agreements would allow the administrative burden for those who are applying to the advance payments program in consecutive years, which would make the program more accessible to producers and program delivery more efficient, hopefully. It is unfortunate to see that the maximum amounts have not been increased. The CFA has called for an increase in order to address rising farm costs. Overall, the changes to the APP make the program more accessible and flexible, which is something I applaud.
I would like to end my remarks on the bill by reflecting on the policy direction of the government. The bill's short title is “agricultural growth act”. Whether the bill would actually help grow the agriculture sector is yet to be determined. Once again, can we trust the current minister? It is questionable. I would like to see the government have a comprehensive vision for agriculture in this country. Agriculture is such an important sector. It represents one in eight jobs in Canada. It is vital to our economy.
The minister is bringing in pieces of legislation that seem to be reacting to an issue, rather than leading the way on agriculture issues. That is very sad. It seems we only have the chance to debate agriculture when there is a problem or a crisis. That is something that I do not want to see. I want more positive things. I want to be talking about agriculture more positively in the House, rather than reacting.
The latest grain transportation crisis is a good example. Once again the government waited months before acting, then scrambled together a piece of legislation that could help farmers but would not be a long-term solution. We can all agree on that. The government only acts when it needs to, and it delays the action as much as possible. I wish we could work with the current government on a forward-thinking vision for agriculture in this country that would be dedicated to supporting big farms and small farms and would also give farmers the tools they need to succeed.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments with respect to thinking positively about farmers.
Not enough is done to generate debate within the chamber about how farmers from all regions of our country contribute to our well-being. It goes far beyond our borders with the first-class quality product that goes throughout the world.
Often, as the member has made reference to, when we are in the position of having to talk about farm-related issues, it happens in different types of crisis situations or when government is taking action that might not be in the best interests of the farmers.
An example of the issue that this bill attempts to deal with is farm debt. Farm debt is real. It is tangible. It affects literally thousands of farmers. It causes a great deal of anxiety on family farms, particularly on our smaller farms. There is an attempt in this huge bill to deal with that issue by amending the Farm Debt Mediation Act to clarify the process. That is something we want. We want to see more clarity with respect to that processing issue. We want to facilitate the participation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the mediation process when the minister is a guarantor of a farmer's debt.
Does the member see this as a positive change within the legislation?
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is an omnibus budget bill. We cannot forget that there are some aspects that we do support, but then there are some contentious aspects that worry us.
I am present in the House for petitions and I have seen colleagues from across the way, Conservatives and Liberals, who have tabled many petitions expressing concern for farmers and for Bill C-18. I mentioned in my speech that we often debate agriculture issues because we are reacting to something. This bill should definitely be separated.
We will support this bill. We are looking forward to having great witnesses come to the agriculture committee to have their voices heard and to voice their opinions. We are hopeful to amend this bill to make it better, but I know the government does not like to work together.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the incredible representation she has been doing on behalf of Canadian agriculture producers. At every opportunity she is standing up and defending their rights and opportunities. The member is making a strong, valuable, and truthful presentation here. We have not had the government of the day take action in advance of issues arising. Here we have one of the largest contributors to the Canadian economy being given short shrift as a result of all their issues being thrown into one bill. We know well that these bills are fast-tracked through the House and through committee.
I am wondering if the member could speak to this. Is it possible to take this bill out to our agricultural communities so they have the opportunity to provide their input, not only on the ideas that are in the bill but on additional items that the government could be taking in the way of constructive advance action on behalf of agriculture?
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, since this bill was announced I have done a lot of consulting in my riding, with different stakeholders on the Hill, and in communities. I had the chance to go to Saskatchewan for the grain crisis and meet with farmers to get a more in-depth feeling of what was happening on the ground. We did talk a lot about Bill C-18.
The government is trying to push this forward. We will be breaking for summer shortly. I will continue to consult with my colleagues from Welland and also Edmonton—Strathcona. We could all be very present with our constituents and consult and continue to make sure that we are hearing the voices of the people who want to express their concern or approval of this bill. However, it is important to be present. We cannot forget that UPOV was signed by the Liberals. They brought it in, but then they kind of dropped it. Now the Conservatives have picked it up and they want to ratify it. We just have to make sure it is in the best interests of farmers and the vision for agriculture in the long term.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île
I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, which, as members have mentioned in previous speeches, is an omnibus bill.
This is an issue that is important to me, my riding and my region. Agriculture accounts for 12% of the Lower St. Lawrence region's economy. Agriculture is an important part of the region's economy.
I frequently consult with farmers in my riding, members of the Fédération de l'UPA du Bas-Saint-Laurent. Some aspects of this bill are similar to previous legislative measures that raised concerns, and they are raising the same concerns as before.
As my colleagues mentioned in their speeches, we are going to support this bill at second reading so that it can be thoroughly examined in committee. That is the purpose of second reading. Since this is an omnibus bill, we are in favour of some provisions, but we may be opposed to others if they remain as they are right now. That is true of the seed issue, among others.
The ratification of the 1991 accord on seed intellectual property raised many concerns, which is not a bad thing when it comes to intellectual property protection. The provisions regarding patents and intellectual property rights allow for research and development. They also make it possible to promote investments in this area and provide a certain amount of protection for investments made by companies that want to improve seeds and various farming techniques.
However, we must always ensure that there is a balance between the protection of intellectual property provided by patents and the protection of farmers' historic rights, rights that have existed since farming became a human activity. According to these rights, farmers and producers can freely reuse seeds that they have saved from previous harvests. However, Bill C-18 does not afford such protection. There seems to be an imbalance. Far more importance is being placed on the protection of intellectual property provided by patents than on the historic rights of farmers.
There is one case in particular that I think illustrates this imbalance and the danger it represents for farmers. A Saskatchewan farmer named Percy Schmeiser, who farms canola, had organic plants, meaning that he did not use a product from Monsanto, which produces herbicide-resistant seeds called Roundup Ready. Mr. Schmeiser did not use these seeds. However, Mr. Schmeiser's field was contaminated by canola plants from nearby fields when those seeds spread. He found canola plants from nearby fields in his harvest.
Monsanto took Mr. Schmeiser all the way to the Supreme Court to demand that he pay for using the seeds. Mr. Schmeiser, who did not use these seeds, had not paid Monsanto for them. Monsanto demanded that Mr. Schmeiser pay the company, even though Mr. Schmeiser's field had been accidentally contaminated. Mr. Schmeiser lost in the Supreme Court as a result of the provisions in the current legislation.
These are the concerns shared by farmers who want to retain the power to choose their own seeds, which they have saved from previous harvests. They could have to pay for seeds that accidentally contaminated their field against their will and despite any safeguards they may have put in place. Unfortunately, Bill C-18 does not provide this kind of protection for farmers. We are very concerned about that.
I would like to reiterate that we do not oppose protecting intellectual property, meaning the protection provided by patents. However, we need to strike a balance so that we protect farmers in a sector that is extremely complex and includes many factors that cannot be calculated in advance.
Here, again, we have an omnibus bill that contains a number of different elements. Bill C-18 amends nine different laws. Clearly, we support some of the provisions, but we think that some others are unbalanced or do not serve the common good or, in this case, the common good of farmers.
For example, one aspect that we support is related to the advance payments program. Farmers really appreciate that program. It is a financial loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances. Farming is a very unpredictable sector. Good crops depend on the weather and climate conditions. A poor climate will yield far more disappointing crops. The advance payments program allows farmers to reconcile their anticipated income with their expenditures and anticipated expenditures. It is a welcome program, one that is appreciated.
Another aspect of Bill C-18 that we feel is beneficial is the fact that red tape will be reduced in the future. That is good for the industry. It was one of the major concerns with the current program. In this case, we cannot really oppose a measure that will help farmers.
There is another element that was not part of the program in the past but that will be now, namely raising breeding animals. Of course, grain farmers had access to the program, as did beef producers, but not for breeding animals. Now, farmers who raise breeding animals will have access to the program. We think that is worthwhile progress.
That said, there are various elements that will require the committee's attention. I hope that the committee will make good use of its time to move forward with these favourable provisions, but also to respond to concerns. I am certain that the committee members will hear testimony from agricultural representatives, whether at the Quebec provincial level from the UPA or the Union paysanne, or at the national level from the National Farmers Union or the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
I hope that the government will take into account the common good, not just corporate interests. Right now, agriculture is at a crossroads. There is tremendous pressure from the United States in particular. There is currently a tendency in the United States and some other countries toward vertical integration. In Mr. Schmeiser's case, it was not about large-scale production; it was really about a family farm. There really seems to be a movement afoot to make life much more difficult for small-scale farmers and much easier for large-scale producers. Vertical integration is when big agricultural conglomerates or corporations, such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, buy up family farms that are barely scraping by, thereby reinforcing their market dominance.
We need to strike a balance in Canada. One way to achieve that is through supply management. I know that both our Conservative and Liberal friends have repeatedly expressed their support for the supply management system. The system enables us to protect something really important, our agricultural diversity, by protecting family farms, which are guaranteed stable incomes and predictable expenses. Parts of Bill C-18, even though they do not affect the dairy industry directly, are in line with that thinking, and that is why we have to support it. However, I really hope that the government will pay heed to concerns about other elements of the bill.
We will support this bill at second reading, but I cannot guarantee that we will support it at third reading if those concerns are not addressed.
James Bezan ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I am a little taken aback by some of the comments made by the member opposite.
I am one of the farmers here, and I am quite proud of our Conservative government and all of the actions it has taken on behalf of agricultural producers across the country. The member opposite has suggested that we do not have family farm operations anymore and that we are going into corporate farming. This is a complete fallacy. Although farms are getting bigger, there are still family operations. Instead of just one part of the family on the farm, it is usually parents with their kids and families, all farming together and farming larger.
There is no question that farms have become larger, especially in western Canada, where I am from, but there are still family farm operations. They may have been incorporated for better tax breaks and purposes, but they are still family farms.
The New Democrats keep saying that they are opposed to this bill because it would not allow producers the right to use their own seed. I can tell members that Canada is finally coming into line with international norms to allow plant breeders' rights, as every country around the world has already implemented, and that from this bill, farmers would get to keep their own seed for their own purposes.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there is an issue with interpretation, but that is not what I said. I did mention that there were family farms. The 12% of the Lower St. Lawrence economy that depends on agriculture is made up exclusively of family farms. I know full well that there are family farms in this country; there are some in my riding. There are family farms everywhere and we must protect them and be sure to help them be productive so that they can survive. I did not say that there are no family farms, on the contrary.
However, I did say that we have to be vigilant and ensure that these farms can continue to be productive and competitive.
Moreover, I did not say that we were opposed to this bill, on the contrary. We have said many times that we would vote in favour of it at second reading and that we wanted the committee to do its job and take into consideration the concerns that will be brought forward, because there will be some.
Seed is one of the main concerns that were raised. For example, I mentioned a case that had to do with contamination. Farmers could end up being responsible for crops that they did not seed, but that were contaminated in their own fields. This is not something we can ignore. On the contrary, we must address this and I hope the committee will do its job.
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which was very well documented, as usual. I would like him to know that the Quebec chapter of the Friends of the Earth is concerned about Bill C-18. I would like the hon. member to tell me whether they have cause for concern:
This bill considerably diminishes farmers' ancestral rights by requiring them to pay agribusiness giants royalties on their entire crop.
Are they right to be concerned?
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi. There is indeed cause for concern. That is why the committee must be especially careful when examining this bill.
It is important to understand that a farmer's right to reuse his own seeds is not only an ancestral right but a truly historic one, dating back to when farming became a human activity. There are changes happening in the industry, and some of them are positive. I do not think that we need to abandon all of the progress made by the industry in improving our crop productivity and yield. We must not abandon everything and say that it is all bad. However, we need to make sure that farmers who want to can continue farming and we need to preserve the ancestral rights that they have been exercising since the beginning of human history.
I know that there are a lot of concerns about this. I do not want to be like the Conservatives and dismiss these concerns out of hand. They must be taken into account. Contamination is an important issue. Why should someone have to pay for accidental contamination of fields, for example? If people are using patented varieties of seeds, then those who paid to develop those seeds must be compensated. If that is not the case, these farmers need to be protected. Personal choice must take precedence. I hope that the committee will have a chance to hear from witnesses on this.
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say hello to everyone who is watching. I hope they enjoyed their cereal this morning because we know that cereal is a product of agriculture. Everything we eat is a product of agriculture. There are stories of people and farms behind everything we eat, stories of farmers who were taken to court by big companies and lost money. Family farms have had to shut down because they could no longer fight against the big companies.
It is good that we are modernizing and keeping up to date with new regulations. That is not a bad thing, but in so doing, we have to come up with a plan to protect those who may be pushed aside as a result and who do not have the expertise, money or ability to be part of such a market. It is important to recognize that.
My colleague gave an excellent speech about the type of situation that can occur. The farm he mentioned is not the first farm that has been taken to court by a big company for unknowingly having patented plants on its land, and it will not be the last.
We know how agriculture works. The wind scatters seeds elsewhere. There are no borders. It is important to comply with the new regulations, but there must be a plan for the smaller farmers. There must be a plan to protect those who do not have the capacity to keep up with the big multinationals.
It is important to mention that no one is opposing intellectual property. However, in agriculture, intellectual property does not necessarily have borders, as my colleague demonstrated. If I own a field and the seeds from the adjacent property come over to my field, I cannot do anything about it. I cannot put a net over my field so that other seeds do not land on it. The situation is more complex than what the Conservatives are trying to tell us. They are telling us that everything is fine, that everything is going well and that the regulations will work. It is more complicated than that.
One of the first things that the Conservatives did when they came to power was eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board. What was the role of the Canadian Wheat Board? It protected small farmers from bigger farmers.
I went to Europe where I met farmers who dreamed about having that kind of board to protect them from multinationals. We know how it works: the bigger farms swallow up the smaller ones, and the Conservatives have decided to disregard this type of relationship by giving more power to agricultural multinationals. What will we end up with? Agriculture that will no longer have local products or local farms.
If the Conservatives do not adopt a Canada-wide agriculture strategy or a national strategy to protect local producers, what will we end up with? Agriculture that does not respect the Canadian tradition of protecting its farmers.
The second thing they did was jeopardize supply management by putting it on the table during trade agreement negotiations. Small farms that are protected by supply management will not be able to keep up with the market and will once again be swallowed up by bigger players.
The ideas in Bill C-18 are valid and legitimate, and it is important to stay up to date and bring in new regulations for the agricultural sector, but we must not forget that people and farmers might suffer as a result. That is all I am trying to say to the government. We need to have a plan.
For example, the National Farmers Union opposes this bill because, it says, it will deprive the smallest farmers of their independence, increase costs for farmers and increase their exposure to lawsuits.
Is that really what the government wants to do? Do they really want to create that kind of instability for our farmers? The Conservatives have already done away with the Canadian Wheat Board, and now they want to get rid of supply management. Is that really how they want to treat our farmers? Do they really want to put them in a position that threatens their security and robs them of their independence?
That would give multinationals an unfair advantage, more power and more control. Is that really what our farmers deserve? No. I can name many people who agree with me. For example, the president of Keystone Agricultural Producers, which represents Manitoba farmers, said:
We're hearing this has been very successful in other countries in attracting investment in our industry, so that should be positive in the long-term for producers.
We'll be looking to our members for guidance on how they want to see this played out, but I'm glad to hear the Minister talk about farm-saved seed being a priority. That's what I hear from members as well.
Keystone Agricultural Producers believes that intellectual property is extremely important, but that we must also protect our farmers. Therefore, seeds stocked by farms are a priority. I hope that the witnesses who appear in committee will be heard and that the Conservatives will vote for our amendments, if we propose any, or that they will change the legislation.
Based on the Conservatives' record, they very rarely vote for opposition amendments. Yesterday alone, the NDP proposed some thirty amendments to improve Bill C-13, and the Conservatives voted against each and every one.
The Conservatives must stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. They tell farmers from their provinces that they take their interests to heart, but then they introduce legislation that, unfortunately, will eliminate their independence and create economic uncertainty.
This could open the door to legal action against them by big multinationals who have plenty of lawyers and plenty of money. Unfortunately, smaller farms will be swallowed up by the bigger farms. That is the Conservative ideology.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
The time provided for government business has expired. We will now proceed with statements by members.
The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.
Brent Rathgeber Independent Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour a very special constituent, Fernando Runco of Edmonton, who last month was awarded the 2014 Distinguished Principal of the Year Award.
The 37-year-old principal from Katherine Therrien Catholic Elementary School in Edmonton—St. Albert was honoured by his peers from the Canadian Association of Principals.
Principal Runco stood out for his ability to get students, parents and staff involved in the school, and his outstanding efforts to connect with parents and students. Mr. Runco has only been principal at Katherine Therrien for three years, but has clearly developed exemplary skills as a principal in that very short time.
In that time, Principal Runco has engaged the outside community, bringing in guest speakers and community leaders to mentor his students. He also employs multimedia and multigrade activities to enhance community within the school.
I would like to congratulate Principal Runco and the entire team at Katherine Therrien Catholic Elementary School for their dedication in educating our children, and their positive contribution to community building in northwest Edmonton.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is Friday the 13th, and only now are some Ontario voters waking up with the worst hangover of their lives. Ontarians now have four more years of pain and misery to look forward to with the return of the most financially incompetent, corrupt administration since the days of Bob Rae and “Pink Floyd”.
Faced with four more years of out of control electricity bills, all of rural Ontario is mourning today with the prospect of the Toronto-centric Liberal high electricity rate policy that is causing high unemployment among our youth, and energy poverty among seniors and others on fixed incomes.
Today in Ontario, electricity costs average over 15¢ per kilowatt hour, up from 4.3¢ in 2003. The increase in the past 10 years has averaged over 11% annually, and well above the cost of inflation. Electricity bills are scheduled to jump another 33% in the next three years, and 42% in the next five.
The only thing saving Ontario residents from financial ruin is a strong, stable Conservative—
Réjean Genest NDP Shefford, QC
Mr. Speaker, Granby, halfway between Montreal and Sherbrooke, is in a strategic location both geography-wise and tourism-wise. Granby is a vibrant city and a wonderful place for tourists to visit.
This easily accessible city has the Granby Zoo, the Amazoo aquatic park, the beach at Parc national de la Yamaska, the Festival international de la chanson de Granby, more than 80 parks and fountains, many cycling trails, some of the most beautiful campgrounds in Quebec, a number of golf courses, just as many renowned restaurants, and I could go on. These are exactly the kinds of things you are looking for on a family vacation. Granby also offers agri-tourism activities, shopping, sports and recreational activities.
Granby is a city to discover. We look forward to welcoming you in large numbers this summer.
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, the decisions made by the Law Societies of Upper Canada, Nova Scotia and British Columbia regarding the Trinity Western University School of Law are not right. They go against the Canadian values of the right to free thought and belief. Tolerance cannot and should not be used as an excuse to persecute others' deeply held beliefs.
The Trinity Western community promotes religious values and has policies that reflect those values. It is a tragic irony hat these law societies discriminate against Trinity Western University with the express intent of promoting tolerance. It is blatant hypocrisy.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the freedom of conscience, the freedom of thought, and the freedom of expression. It is against the public interest to deny future lawyers the freedom to hold and express those core values, values these associations are supposed to uphold and defend.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, I participated in a flag-raising ceremony at the Philippine culture centre in Winnipeg. It signalled the beginning of a week-long celebration of Filipino heritage and pride.
It was on June 12, 1898, in Cavite, where the Filipino people witnessed the public reading of the Declaration of Independence. The national flag was also unveiled, along with the singing of the new Filipino national anthem.
Yesterday, our Canada-Philippines Parliamentary Friendship Group hosted a special event to mark the importance of June 12. I especially enjoyed seeing the young children dressed in their heritage attire.
The Philippines is a beautiful country, a place where I have been on many occasions. My desire is to see an expanded relationship between Philippines and Canada.
As MPs representing all areas of Canada, I would challenge this chamber to not only recognize the many achievements and contributions that the Filipino community has made to our great nation, but to also encourage members to consider the potential if we were to build upon that relationship.
On behalf of the leader of my party and my caucus, I stand to acknowledge 116 years of Philippine independence, and say to my kabayans and friends, let us celebrate our diversity and treasure our heritage.
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, July 1 marks the 20th anniversary of the death of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, known by the Chabad Lubavitch movement as the “Rebbe”.
Chabad Lubavitch is a Chasidic movement founded in a shtetl in Russia in 1775. Today the Chabad movement has over 4,000 centres in over 50 countries around the world running community centres, day schools, summer camps, synagogues, drug rehabilitation centres, soup kitchens, and halfway homes. The activities of Chabad are open to all, regardless of race, colour, or religion.
During his time as the Rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson's love, wisdom, and tireless leadership motivated millions around the world to positively contribute toward a better and gentler world. As we mark 20 years since his passing, let us all pledge to carry on his legacy and reflect on his message of kindness and goodness, thereby bringing more light and warmth to the world around us.
May his legacy carry on for many years to come. Alev ha shalom, Rebbe.