Debates of June 16th, 2014

Agricultural Growth Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Malpeque pointed out that I am from an urban riding. We are the consumers. One might not think that we are necessarily connected to the land, but in fact we are quite connected to the land. We can see that in the incredible popularity of our farmers market, the Halifax Seaport market. We can see that with the incredible popularity of a store called Local Source, which only sells local products.

At the farmers market in Halifax, we will not find oranges. There are farmers, producers, meat mongers, and fishermen selling their local products.

Absolutely, without a doubt, my constituents want to see those rights and privileges kept with the local family farm. It is incredibly important to us as urban consumers.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

Unfortunately, I have only 10 minutes to talk about this omnibus bill. Obviously, I am not going to have enough time to say everything I want to say about it. However, I will still try to explain to those watching at home how Bill C-18 will affect them. Farmers and those who depend on this industry will want to listen closely so that they can hear the details of the bill.

The government will boast about this bill, saying that it is good for Canada's economy and the agricultural sector, but like every other omnibus bill, it has some good points and some bad points. The NDP feels it is important that this bill go to committee. Although everyone has concerns, as do I, we will still be voting to send this bill to committee so that some consideration is given to the worthwhile suggestions and good amendments that we will be proposing in order to fill in the gaps.

As I said to my colleague from Halifax earlier, Bill C-18 defines what is meant by “document”, but it does not give a definition of “farmer” even though it is a bill about farmers' privilege. We just cannot understand why the government introduced such a badly written bill.

Maybe the government ran out of time. We know it is a little panicky these days, so much so that it decided the House would have to sit until midnight to discuss more bills. That is fine by me. I spent three nights here debating bills until midnight, and I am happy to be debating this one this morning.

My colleague from Halifax is from a lovely, more urban part of the country that I have visited several times. I myself am from Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, a rural part of Quebec. Saguenay, the largest city in the region, is the seventh-largest city in Quebec. It is a small urban centre. Many or our industries are based on resource regions, including forestry, tourism and agriculture.

I myself have a proud family history of farming. My paternal grandfather was a farmer, and we still have our family land, which is now shared by my many uncles, aunts and cousins. Even my brother, who got the farming bug when he was very young, spends a lot of time on the family land. It is not so much a place for growing grain. The grain grown there is used for the cows. The family farm is mainly about dairy production with a little beef cattle on the side.

I therefore have some expertise to offer to this debate. The Conservatives would have us believe that the NDP is out of touch with reality, but I would say that the Conservatives are the ones who are not listening to the public. People in farming in particular have some concerns about this. A number of them have sent letters or emails to our constituency offices. Today, we are pleased, as New Democrats, to help them make their voices heard here in Ottawa.

Bill C-18 is another Conservative omnibus bill. This time, the Conservatives are proposing amendments to nine different laws. We support some of those amendments, but have some serious concerns about others. It is important to note, however, that unlike the omnibus budget bill, which is a hodgepodge of legislative measures, the proposed amendments in Bill C-18 all have to do with agriculture and, in many cases, make the same changes to different laws. The Plant Breeders’ Rights Act is the first law to be amended. I will list the main amendments proposed in this bill then explain the pros and cons of each.

One of the key changes is to move toward ratifying the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

Then there is the amendment to extend the scope of breeders' rights for the varieties that they develop, and to increase the opportunities for breeders to collect royalties for their new varieties throughout the value chain.

Essentially, Bill C-18 includes the following new exclusive rights for breeders: the right to reproduce material, the right to condition, sell, export or import material, the right to use any other plant variety whose production requires the repeated use of the plant variety, and the right to stock propagating material for the purpose of exercising other plant breeders’ rights.

The bill also extends the term of the grant of plant breeders’ rights from 18 years to 20 years, except in the case of a tree, a vine or any category specified in the regulations, in which case the term is extended to 25 years.

There are also new provisions that grant farmers' privilege, enabling them to keep, condition and reuse the plant seed on their own land. It should be noted that this privilege is not extended to the storing of seed or to the sale of harvested material from protected seed.

Bill C-18 also grants the Canadian Food Inspection Agency the ability to make changes, through regulation, under which the classes of farmers and plant varieties would no longer be covered by farmers' privilege. I was talking about farmers' privilege a little earlier and it is at the heart of this bill.

There is also the amendment that seeks to protect the rights of researchers to use patented materials as the basis for developing new varieties or for other types of research.

Then there is an amendment to give the public greater access to the registry of plant varieties, which is a major change from the previous act.

There is also an amendment that seeks to maintain the ability of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to grant compulsory licences to ensure that, in certain situations, plant varieties are available at reasonable prices, widely distributed, and of good quality.

However, Bill C-18 also includes an amendment that allows plant breeders to request that their plant breeders' rights be exempt from a compulsory licence.

The final amendment that this bill makes to the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act is that it gives the government the authority to make changes governing exemptions from compulsory licensing through regulations, without legislative change.

One of the benefits of this bill is that variety developers would be able to see a return on investment for their plant breeding research efforts, providing incentives for an important sector of Canadian agribusiness.

The bill would also grant farmers' privilege to allow farmers to save the conditioned seed for use on their own farms. It would promote access for Canadian farmers to the results of private breeding research from Canada and other countries through more effective intellectual property rights.

It would protect researchers from infringement of plant breeders' rights.

It would enhance public accessibility and transparency when it comes to plant breeding.

Finally, the bill would maintain the existing compulsory licence system, providing some assurance that varieties can be made available at reasonable prices, widely distributed, and kept at a high quality.

However, we also have some concerns. Farmers' privilege does not include the stocking of propagating material for any use. As a result, even if farmers are able to save seed for the purpose of reproduction, they may have to pay to store it, which would effectively negate that privilege. I hope that the Conservatives will agree to compromise a little in committee.

Privilege also does not extend to the sale of harvested material. This means that farmers will probably have to pay for the sale of crops from farm-saved seed. That is a problem. It also means that plant breeders could generate revenue on a farmer's entire production, rather than just on the seed purchased to grow the crop. There will be an amendment in that regard. This could have a significant impact on farmers' profit margins.

In closing, Bill C-18 is an omnibus bill, and I disapprove of this type of tactic.

With respect to plant breeders' rights, the NDP believes that a balanced approach is essential. We will protect farmers, researchers and all Canadians. Although we understand the role that intellectual property rights play in fostering innovation, we want to ensure that Canadians can access and benefit from our agricultural heritage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight one aspect of the proposed legislation that I think it is important.

We all know that farm debt is a serious issue. A good part of that, at least out in the Prairies, occurred because of the humongous wheat piles that accumulated during the springtime and even as early as January from last year's harvest. We had excessive wheat, but the government was unable to ensure its adequate transportation to the B.C. coast, where empty ships were waiting. The government just dropped the ball on this issue, and it is related to farm debt.

The proposed legislation would affect the Farm Debt Mediation Act. The idea is try to provide more mediation processes or better clarity on the whole issue of the mediation process for farmers' debt. This is something that has potential, but one would like to think that the government did some consulting with the farmers to take on the issue in a more serious fashion. We know that the government was not able to deal with the situation of the wheat and the rail lines and so forth.

My question for the member is this: does he believe that this provision in the bill would assist in dealing with farm debt?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has certainly asked a good question. However, I am a little skeptical about the measures established by the government. The Conservative government has shown on a number of occasions that it is rather incompetent, not just with respect to the home delivery of mail, but also with respect to the delivery of wheat to the different regions of Canada, as my colleague mentioned.

The Conservative government would obviously like us to believe that this measure will make the system stronger, but I have serious doubts about that. I am not an expert on wheat. My expertise and knowledge are more in the area of dairy production and livestock production for processed meats.

I would like to give the government the benefit of the doubt, but since we are dealing with the Conservative government, I think that it is very likely that it will shirk its responsibilities rather than carry them through.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

I represent an urban riding that has a farmer's market, the Atwater Market. I also shop at the Jean-Talon Market, in Montreal. A number of farmers produce very special products. There are blueberries from the Lac Saint-Jean area and strawberries from Quebec. One of my favourites is an heirloom tomato farmer.

The changes to the wording of the act make it sound as though it is a privilege for farmers to be able to keep their own seeds and use them every year.

Does my colleague think that the change in terminology is worrisome for local farmers?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. NDP colleague.

His point of view is one of a consumer, which is just as important to hear in this debate on this agri-food bill.

Intellectual property over seeds is one of our primary concerns. This concern, which I share, has been raised by a number of my colleagues.

The New Democratic Party is in favour of respecting the rights of the people who create these seeds. However, when we take a look at international news, we can see that giants like Monsanto have created genetically modified seeds that are spread in fields—sometimes organic ones—and on private farms, and these seeds contaminate other fields. This is doubly worrisome because non-genetically modified seeds are not protected and also because Monsanto and other companies could sue a farmer whose land is contaminated against his will.

Furthermore, consumers are increasingly looking for organic products and good products that taste like real food. That is why I think that this bill does not necessarily fix the problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill.

There have been several time allocation motions lately, and they have affected our speaking time. It is always nice to be able to talk about an issue regardless of what that issue is because that gives our constituents a chance to hear us talking about it. If we cannot talk about an issue, they will not hear about it because nobody is going to be running ads about agriculture in Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I would be really surprised if that happened.

My riding is primarily urban. We have lots of bungalows and apartment buildings. Like everywhere else in the country, much of the new construction is condos, and we have about 250 or 300 of those. Most of the people who live in these condos are older, middle- or upper middle-class people who sell their houses and decide to stay in Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

One of the first speeches I gave in the House in 2011 was about the abolition of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is why I am so glad to be here today to talk about agriculture once again. The NDP strongly opposed the abolition of the wheat board, which included mandatory consultations with farmers. The Conservative Party told us that consultation had been done because it had won the election with about 40% of the vote. That was my first experience in terms of votes, and it seems to be coming full circle in one of the last discussions we will have about agriculture before the next election.

I would like to talk about various issues. Talking about agriculture means talking about production, processing, markets, farmers' economic and financial situation, and research and development. We have to look at all of those elements. These are not things to be taken lightly.

In Quebec, 14% of our receipts are from agricultural land. There are 14,000 agricultural businesses across the province, and the crop production area is about 925,000 acres. Products are sold primarily on the food and animal feed markets. Quebec is Canada's second-largest producer of corn and soy, with 28% and 17%, respectively. These figures are from Statistics Canada.

To be more specific, corn is the number one crop, at 41%. Next comes soy at 29%, oats at 11%, barley at 9% and wheat at 6%. There are some other crops here and there that represent 2%. Production is increasingly specialized. There are 4,196 specialized farms in Quebec, which is a 23% increase over 1995. That means that there are 3,403 more specialized farms than there were in 1995. Specialized farms account for more than 50% of the cultivated acreage. The average farm size is increasing. Quebec very seldom turns to foreign markets because it is somewhat self-sufficient.

Production is the most significant market. In fact, animal feed makes up 90% of the market. The most popular crops are corn, barley and wheat. The main crop for human consumption is wheat, and the domestic market sits at one million tonnes. Next comes soybean production. As in the western provinces, a portion of production—320,000 tonnes—also goes to industrial processing, mainly for ethanol. Soy and canola are sometimes used as well.

Nearly 695 establishments process grain for human consumption, including 41 flour mills and malting plants, 617 companies that produce baked goods and tortillas, and seven companies that make breakfast cereals.

It is important to point that out because there is a connection between food production and the well-being of the public.

I focused mainly on one aspect of the bill: the amendment to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the advance payments program.

The advance payments program is a loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances. For a business owner, often the hardest part is having cash flow.

The advance payments program provides producers with a cash advance on the value of their agricultural products during a specified period. This helps them meet their financial obligations and benefit from the best market conditions and improves their cash flow throughout the year. This part of the bill is rather interesting.

The key changes in Bill C-18 are that it expands access to the program and, with the new provisions on multi-year agreements, will reduce the administrative burden for those—including the growing number of women working in agriculture—who apply to the advance payments program in consecutive years. This will make the program more accessible to producers and make program delivery more efficient.

Eligibility for the program will no longer be limited to those principally occupied in farming, so that farmers with significant off-farm income will also be able to access the program. For those working in agriculture, the season is very short and income is not very high. Therefore, it is often important for people working on a farm to have two jobs. This will allow farmers to work off farm as well, which is advantageous for producers.

Raising breeding animals will also be eligible for the advance payments program, and thus more farmers will be eligible. This is new, and it is fairly important, especially for young people graduating from an agricultural college. There are some very good schools in Quebec. Young people do not have access to credit or financing. What was excluded will now be included in the bill. I think that is an excellent idea.

Bill C-18 also increases flexibility for producers on a number of fronts, including security arrangements. It also provides more flexible means of repayment. That is also positive.

Program administrators will be able to provide advances for any type of commodity and in any region, which will provide more opportunities for producers to access the program.

Despite all of the good things I have mentioned, I also have some concerns. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, among others, has been calling for an increase to the maximum amounts of advances, in order to address rising farm expenses, but unfortunately that was not covered in Bill C-18.

The changes also include a new licensing and registration regime for animal feed and fertilizer establishments; put in place stronger controls for products being imported or exported; strengthen record-keeping requirements for feed, fertilizer and seed establishments and animal producers. The bill would also strengthen the record-keeping requirements for plants and potential risks from pests.

I am going to wrap this up. There is something important that has not yet been mentioned. There are three basic aspects that need to be considered when we are talking about development, namely the social, economic and environmental aspects. As we know, there has been a public outcry with respect to farmers saving seed. People claimed that bees have disappeared and that only certain companies could sell this specialized seed. This worries the population. For the time being, these concerns are not shared by the market in Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles because it is not an agricultural market. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to this bill.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear Liberal and NDP members say this is a pretty good bill, with some flawed parts. I read all 108 pages of it quite carefully. It seems to me to be a very worrisome bill, bordering on a very bad bill, with a few token good parts. The inability to save and store seed, the GMO aspects of it, and the way it runs contrary to the interests of small farmers in favour of large multinational corporations, I would expect from the Conservatives, but I am surprised that these people want to send it to committee where, as we know, nothing will really get fixed.

Therefore, my question to the hon. member is: Why in heaven's name are they not just voting “no” for this very bad bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the member is no longer part of our party, but we cannot change the past.

In Quebec, the UPA has spoken out about the social, environmental and development aspects of this bill. We must all ensure that we consider what impact and consequences this bill will have on sustainable development.

As the member pointed out, there are some good parts in this bill. That is what I wanted to focus on this morning.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that was raised earlier is what is happening with the corporate development of seeds and pesticides. We know of the threat it is posing now to bees with the neonicotinoids. We are seeing a 30% drop in bee populations in Ontario alone and similar drops in Quebec. This is one of the fundamental bases for ensuring agriculture and food security, yet it would be going up against a corporate interest that has enormous amounts of capital put into pesticides, plus going up against the soybean and corn industry.

I know Bill C-18 talks about the corporate rights, which are supposed to be balanced with the so-called privileges of the average farmers, but within that there needs to be a balance for the basic ecological sustainability of our agricultural system that the citizens of our country, and the citizens of the world, have a stake in as well.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague how she feels, that if we just push the bill with regulations and we do not have the time to look through it, that these larger questions are left unanswered.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is why I spoke about some of the social, environmental and economic aspects of this issue. We are wondering where the bees are. Without them, there will be no fertilization and farming will suffer. Apple growers will suffer. Clearly, we have to find a way to successfully manage the environmental, economic, social and sustainable development aspects of this issue. It is extremely important to the future of our society.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, part of the legislation authorizes the minister of agriculture and agri-food to issue certificates setting out any information he or she considers necessary to facilitate certain exports. I wonder if the member might want to provide some thoughts on that issue.

Obviously, it has raised a great deal of concern among many farmers, wanting to getting clarification. We did not get the clarification because, again, there is so much within this one piece of legislation that could have actually been taken aside and debated separately. Could she comment on that aspect?

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is basically self-sufficient in that regard. The crops remain in the province. There are very few exports. If, on occasion, these products are shipped, they are sent to various parts of Canada. That is not a problem for Quebec.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

I have to say that I am absolutely stunned that thus far, and perhaps it will happen but perhaps not before we recess for the summer, we have not heard any Conservative members speaking to this bill. It is clearly a very important bill. We often hear those on the other side talking about how they are the party that represents agricultural producers. We would welcome hearing from them, and hearing the perspectives of the farmers they allegedly represent.

There is not enough discussion in this place about the contribution made by agricultural producers to this country, particularly to the Canadian economy. I am proud to share that my ancestors were fishers and farmers. My great-grandma Sarah Duncan moved to Alberta from Saskatchewan when her husband died. She ran two homesteads, raised four kids, and got them all university educated.

The Steeves family, who I come from, emigrated from Germany, first to the United States and then to New Brunswick, in the mid-1700s. One of them became a Father of Confederation. They farmed since that date. My ancestors then moved to North Dakota and then, by wagon at the turn of the last century, up to Alberta.

My grandfather Pike, who came from a family of fishers in Newfoundland emigrated to this country in 1898. When he was relocated with the bank to Alberta, he was a person who liked to get his hands dirty in the soil and started a ranch in northern Alberta. Sadly, he lost that ranch in the 1930s. I did not discover that ranch until my uncle wrote a history about that.

I have very proud agricultural roots. I spent many childhood days visiting farmers with my father. I was in tears frequently because I could not have a lamb or a baby pig. I am also proud to share that I am an honorary member of the Preservation of Agricultural Land Association, based on the years that I worked with Alberta farm producers who fought long and hard for stronger protections for our prime agricultural lands.

This is a shout-out to the Prairie producers. I certainly value their contribution to this country. I would like to give particular thanks to Lynn Jacobson, who is with the Alberta Wheat Commission, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture. He has been very generous with his time, in sharing his knowledge with me when I go through proposed legislation.

Bill C-18, as has been shared previously, is yet another omnibus bill. It is a very important bill. As I understand it, it changes nine laws. It is regrettable that the time allocated to us in this House does not give us the time to review the entire bill. My concern is that when this omnibus bill goes to committee, there will not be time to review the changes to all nine laws in detail.

Mr. Jacobson thinks that it would be useful for this bill to be taken out to the fields. Here we are tabling this law in this place, and discussing it, when many farmers are still seeding, weeding, and so forth, and are going to be harvesting right up until late fall. Let us hope that this bill is not rushed through, and that the farmers have an opportunity to genuinely participate.

Mr. Jacobson and others have expressed concerns to me that there has not been sufficient consultation to date. There has certainly not been any consultation on the regulations proposed under this bill.

In the brief time I am allotted, I intend to speak to the plant breeders' rights section. It is an issue where we are hearing the most concerns.

In order for Canada to ratify the convention, Bill C-18 must actually enact legislation. That is precisely what is intended by Bill C-18. The legislation as it sits right now was put in place because Canada intended to ratify the previous convention on the protection of plant varieties. That was in 1978.

In 1991, a new convention, which extended greater protections to plant breeders, was signed by many nations. Since that date, Canada has not brought forward legislation. That was 13 years ago. Finally, the government, in its wisdom after being in power for six or seven years, has decided it will bring forward legislation. Let us hope it does not rush it through, because it is a very complex bill.

The difference between the previous convention and the current legislation of the proposed bill is it expands the rights of those who develop and essentially “copyright” seeds to include the exclusive right to produce, reproduce, condition, sell, export, import, or stock other propagating material. It is much more extensive than the previous rights, which were simply the copyrighted right to produce or sell the seed.

It is really important to recognize that debate has gone on around the world for many decades about whether or not there would be greater rights accorded to plant breeders—who, generally speaking, tend to be large corporations like Monsanto. It is absolutely critical for those extended rights to be balanced off with the rights of farm producers. It is generally recognized that saving, reusing, selecting, exchanging, and selling seeds have been understood to be a traditional practice and an inalienable right of farmers.

The concern with this bill, which extends greater rights to the plant breeders, is that the farmers' rights will be cut back. I am advised by the farmers who have been looking at this proposed legislation that there will be even deeper concerns if the Canada-EU comprehensive economic trade agreement is signed, because that bill could potentially extend the plant breeders' rights even further and thereby limit the farmers' rights.

I want to share what some of the issues are. In the bill are accorded certain of what are called “farmers' privileges”. The only provisions in the bill on plant breeders that are accorded to farmers are the rights of the plant breeder, which are enforceable in civil law. As I understand this new legislation, the government will assume responsibility for enforcing these laws, with additional costs assumed by Canadians, including farm producers.

Privileges only—in other words, not really enforceable rights—are extended to the farmers, but they are very limited rights. They include allowing the farmer to use those seeds for the purpose of propagation, but the farmer then cannot sell the crop or the seeds. Many have suggested this is a very hollow privilege.

In addition, the law allows for even further limiting of this privilege by regulation, but the government has not yet revealed what it intends to do by regulation. There are concerns about that.

As I mentioned, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture submitted a brief on the bill. It is presumed that members of this group will be key witnesses at committee, and we encourage them to do so. They are concerned about claims of infringement. There are scenarios in which, for example, there can be drift of seed onto a farmer's land; if the farmer then collects that seed and replants it, and it happens to include some of the seed that is patented, under this law the plant breeder can go after the farmers and sue them.

Additional concerns have been raised, including some raised by Mr. Jacobson in the case of organic farmers. We have had a number of situations of complaints being brought forward by Canadian producers over GMO seeds drifting into organic farmlands, causing their crops to become contaminated and to diminish in value. It reduces their ability to market, certainly overseas.

There are concerns with the free trade agreement that would potentially allow for the seizure of a farmer's assets upon infringement. There is concern about costs imposed on the government, including farmers, to enforce this new law, and issues about compulsory licensing.

Right now, under law there is a provision for compulsory licensing. The plant breeder must ensure that the seeds are made available at a reasonable price and are widely distributed. There is a provision in this new law that would allow them to apply for exemption. What is the problem there? As with the other regulations under the act, there are no provisions to require consultation with the agricultural producers.

With that, I will close my comments. I look forward to questions on the bill. I look forward to the government opening up this dialogue to producers across our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a comment that no Conservatives have spoken to the bill. She must not be following the debate. The minister himself introduced the bill in Parliament and spoke to it. I, as the parliamentary secretary, stood in the House and spoke to it, as did a number of other Conservative MPs.

We are the biggest proponents of the bill. It is the NDP members who seem to be conflicted on the bill. They are weighing one side, weighing the other, and then trying to walk straight up the middle to please both sides of their base.

This is an important bill for agriculture. It is an important bill for farmers. I call on the NDP to support the bill, wholeheartedly and 100%.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I have smoked them out of the weeds. I am glad to see some members on the other side commenting on the debate today. It is very welcome.

I am not going to apologize for the fact that on this side of the House, we actually reach out to those who are impacted by the bills and find out what their issues and concerns are, which is precisely what my colleagues and I have done. Agricultural producers are telling me there are some significant issues with this bill, and they look forward not only to the opportunity to come to committee to discuss the bill but also to be consulted on the planned regulations.

There is nothing stopping the government, frankly, from distributing proposed regulations right now, even before the bill goes to committee. That would then mean that we could vote from a fully informed standpoint in representing the interests of our constituents.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the most significant concern the critic of the Liberal Party has brought to the floor is in regard to the size of the legislation. There are a number of pieces of legislation in one bill. We question why the government has taken this approach, given the importance of the farming community and the number of pieces of legislation that the bill would change. Many of those changes, in fact, could have been stand-alone pieces of legislation.

My question to the member is this: does she not agree that there are too many pieces of legislation being brought as a single piece of legislation? By doing that, are we not preventing the different stakeholders and others from participating in a more detailed discussion on the issues facing our farmers today?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member is aware, at the outset of my speech I raised concerns over the manner in which this bill has been brought forward. I repeat this concern over and over again when the government brings forward legislation in this way.

My particular concern is with legislation that allows for regulations that could deeply constrain even the privilege accorded to agriculture producers. As I mentioned, the law provides certain privileges for farmers to do certain things with seeds, subject to regulations, yet nobody knows what those regulations will say. A good number of measures in this bill allow for that.

Indeed, something as significant as plant breeders' rights merited debate on its own, let alone the eight other laws that would be amended by this legislation. Let us hope that the consultation in committee is extensive, and again I recommend that this bill be taken out to the fields of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to the member about the licensing and registration system. This could require additional funding since measures will be implemented.

Do we have those additional funds? Could there be delays in granting licences and registrations to facilities because those funds are not available?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that unlike current legislation, this legislation introduces an increased role for the Government of Canada, and that means further expenditures. I have not had the time to check to see if the budget provides for these additional funds should this bill become law this year. It is important for that to be revealed. It certainly needs to be revealed at committee.

I am deeply troubled that we are going to use public resources to protect the rights of plant breeders but not necessarily public resources to protect what should be the rights of farmers. That is the area where we need more discussion. I am told by the producers themselves that they are discouraged that the government keeps cutting back on agricultural research funds. It certainly cut the funds for the research based in Saskatchewan and Alberta and it cut back on the community pastures. That is a sad day for the small producers of Canada.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I have the pleasure of rising in the House to speak to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food. I am also proud to say that the NDP has decided to support the bill so that it can be studied more thoroughly in committee.

In our opinion, many aspects of the bill constitute progress for farmers and the agricultural community. However, we are concerned about certain other aspects of the bill. We will examine the bill in committee and propose amendments. We will see how we can work with the government to advance the cause of the agriculture and agri-food sector.

The NDP feels that this bill is massive and is basically an omnibus bill. It amends nine different laws. Certainly, this government has introduced even bigger omnibus bills in the past. One of our concerns is our inability to study each item separately. The Conservatives have been introducing massive bills from the outset.

As parliamentarians, we cannot oppose certain parts of bill if there is no clause-by-clause study. We are supposed to vote in a block, either in support of or in opposition to the bill. If we vote in favour of the bill, we cannot oppose the negative items. However, if we vote in opposition, the government will say that we do not support farmers. That tells me that we are unable to clearly express our opinion on government bills.

Today I will be looking at all of the proposed changes, and I will be stating which ones we support and which ones concern us. I hope that the Conservatives will be open to certain changes and amendments in committee. That is what legislators do.

The NDP went to talk to farmers and those affected, including small and large businesses, in order to gather their comments. We feel it is important to hear everyone's views. Although I live in a very urban area, I visited community and allotment gardens in my riding. The people there have concerns about what is happening in our agri-food and agricultural sector. It is very worthwhile for an MP to travel in her riding and talk to people about what is happening in the House of Commons.

The first amendment was about the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. What this is about is moving toward ratification of the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. This is good: it expands the rights afforded to plant breeders for the varieties they develop and increases the places along the value chain where plant breeders can collect royalties. A new provision allows farmers to save and condition seed for purposes of plant production and reproduction on their own farm. It protects researchers' right to use patented materials as the basis for developing a new variety or for another research use. It enhances public accessibility to the registry of plant varieties, which is a major change from the previous act. It maintains the ability of CFIA to grant compulsory licences to ensure that in certain situations, plant varieties are available at reasonable prices, widely distributed and of good quality. There are a lot of good things in here.

As written, the bill would ensure that variety developers are able to see a return on investment for their plant breeding research efforts, which is very important. It grants farmers the privilege to save and condition their own seed. This is another big step in the right direction. It promotes access for Canadian farmers to the results of private breeding research from Canada and other countries through an intellectual property rights regime. It protects researchers from infringement of plant breeders' rights.

We also have some concerns, and I hope that we can address them by working effectively in committee with all our colleagues from all parties. The Liberals also said they are supporting this bill. At least we are all on the same page. From that point, it will be important to agree on the few amendments that will have to be made. I believe that it is important for a government to have objective criticism of its legislative measures. Working together as a team provides us with the opportunity to address and correct any flaws in the ideas being proposed.

Our concerns have to do with the provisions on the privileges granted to farmers and the fact that those privileges do not extend to the stocking of propagating material. The consequence of these provisions is that even if farmers are able to save seed for the purpose of reproduction, they may have to pay to store it, which would effectively negate that privilege. The privilege also does not extend to the sale of harvested material. This means that farmers will probably have to pay for the sale of the crops grown from farm-saved seed. It also means that plant breeders could potentially generate revenue on a farmer’s entire production, rather than just on the seed purchased to grow the crop. That is another one of our concerns.

We also have concerns about the potential legal burden for producers. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has called for protections for producers from claims of patent infringement with respect to natural or accidental spreading of a patented plant genetic material. These protections were not included in Bill C-18. Perhaps the Conservatives will be open to adding that protection.

I now want to talk about the amendment to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the advance payments program. Both of these are also affected by this bill. The advance payments program is a financial loan guarantee program that gives producers easier access to credit through cash advances. Bill C-18 expands access to the advance payments program in a number of ways. There are new allowances for multi-year agreements. This expands producer eligibility beyond those “principally occupied” in the farming operation, which will mean that farmers with significant off-farm employment will also be able to access the program. Furthermore, breeding animals will now be included in the advance payments program.

Our concerns are shared by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has been calling for an increase to the maximum amounts of advances in order to address rising farm expenses. The Conservatives did not include these increases in Bill C-18.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to talk about all of the amendments because, as I was saying, there are so many of them. There are amendments to the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act. We have some concerns in this regard. There is a new licensing and registration system that will require Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to allocate additional resources to the CFIA.

That is too bad because, once again, the government has not provided for additional funding for the CFIA. With the crises that have occurred in the past, I think that the Conservatives are again imposing additional obligations on an agency without giving it the means to fulfill them. That is something that we have seen the government do repeatedly. It imposes new laws and regulations that are worthwhile and help our country progress but it does not give the agencies or departments responsible the means to carry them out. This is once again a weakness in the bill. I hope that together we will be able to remedy that problem.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we are going to support this bill because it nonetheless does have some benefits. However, the government must be open to some changes and amendments. The usual democratic process for a bill is to send it to committee. Recently there have been some problems with committees. I hope that with this bill, the government will note that we are open to changes being made.

I hope we will be able to improve the bill so that it is good for our farmers.

I hope to answer some questions, even if we do not have much time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make reference to the facilitation of certificates for export. This is something which the Conservatives have talked about within the legislation. I want to highlight that there are concerns. There are so many changes in the legislation, but we heard very little, if anything at all, from the minister in regard to this particular issue. It is an important issue.

Imagine all the contracts that have been put under this huge question mark because of the government's inability to get, for example, wheat from our Prairies to the west coast where there were empty ships in the Pacific Ocean, and contracts that were never filled because of government incompetence.

I wonder if the member might want to provide some comment in regard to why we have to tread ever so carefully when it comes to Conservatives and the export of our farm commodities.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which touched on a number of aspects.

We do have concerns about the powers being given to the minister. In their bills, the Conservatives are granting more and more powers. Although I have faith in the current minister, we do not know who the next minister will be. That is a concern for me.

Bill C-18 grants the Governor-in-Council the ability to make changes to the governing of various products. The Governor-in Council's new powers include making regulations respecting the manufacturing, sale and shipping of products between provinces. Furthermore, there is no requirement for the government to consult with the provinces on these regulations. As my colleague mentioned, this is one aspect that concerns us.

I hope that in committee we will have the opportunity to hear effective witnesses speak about the consequences and the benefits of this bill, so that we can make amendments that will satisfy everyone.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for government business has expired. Therefore, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine will have three minutes to conclude questions and comments.

Richmond Hill Horticultural Society

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Richmond Hill Horticultural Society.

One hundred years ago today, a group of community-minded people got together to help make the village of Richmond Hill more attractive. They were so successful that Richmond Hill came to be known as the Rose Capital of Canada.

Each year the society ensures that baskets and barrels around the town are brimming over with colourful blossoms. Garden tours, workshops, planting projects, flower shows, front garden recognition programs, and an annual award celebration are just some of the activities that it organizes each and every year.

This vibrant volunteer community group has roots that are deeply intertwined with those of the town.

The great town of Richmond Hill is celebrating 140 years this year.

Congratulations to the Richmond Hill Horticultural Society on 100 years of making Richmond Hill so beautiful.