House of Commons Hansard #105 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was insite.
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec AgreementRoutine Proceedings
Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon B.C.
Conservative
Mark Strahl ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2008-09 and 2009-10 annual report on the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 26 petitions.
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
moved that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent for travel motions for committees.
The first is in that, in relation to the annual conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees and the Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors' annual conference, ten members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, in August 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
Second, that in relation to the pre-budget consultations, 2014, ten members of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia and Montreal, Quebec in the fall of 2014 and the winter of 2015, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
Third, that in relation to the pre-budget consultations, 2014, ten members of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Toronto, Ontario in the fall of 2014 and the winter of 2015, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
Fourth, that in relation to the pre-budget consultations, 2014, ten members of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Winnipeg, Edmonton, Yellowknife, and Vancouver in the fall of 2014 and the winter of 2015, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
Fifth, that in relation to its study of the defence of North America, ten members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Winnipeg, Yellowknife, Cambridge Bay, Resolute Bay, and Iqaluit, Nunavut in the fall of 2014 and the winter of 2015, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
Sixth, that in relation to its study of the defence of North America, ten members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Bagotville, Quebec; Gagetown, New Brunswick; and Halifax, Nova Scotia in the spring and fall of 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
Seventh, that in relation to its study of the defence of North America, ten members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Trenton, Ontario; Thule, Greenland; and Alert, Nunavut in the spring and fall of 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
Finally, that in relation to its study of northern and Arctic fisheries, ten members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to Whitehorse and Dawson City, Yukon; and Inuvik, Hay River, and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories in the spring and fall of 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
Digital Privacy ActRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Digital Privacy ActRoutine Proceedings
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present eight petitions regarding concussions. The signatures were collected by two extraordinary young women in my riding, Sandhya and Swapna Mylabathula, who are doing their Ph.D. in concussion research. They have spent almost three years working on a bill proposal for a pan-Canadian concussion strategy.
Concussion can deeply impact individuals psychologically, neuropsychologically, socially, and economically. Those living with this brain injury deserve comprehensive action and support.
The petitioners call upon the government to enact a pan-Canadian concussion awareness week; a pan-Canadian strategy for prevention, diagnosis and management; and a centre of excellence in concussion research.
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first petition calls upon the government to reverse its recent cuts to Canada Post services and look instead for ways to innovate in areas such as postal banking.
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the government to withdraw its support and endorsement for the construction of the Never Forgotten memorial monument in Green Cove, Nova Scotia.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
From residents of Salt Spring Island within my riding, I present a petition calling for this House to protect and ensure stable and predictable funding for the nation's public broadcaster, the CBC.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I also present petitions from residents of my riding and beyond, from Qualicum Beach and Campbell River, calling for the Conservative government to refuse to approve the Northern Gateway pipeline as long as there are so many significant scientific questions that have not been resolved.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to present petitions from almost 18,000 people across Canada. Members might ask what the issue is that has generated such enthusiasm from Canadians. There is a desire to strengthen our laws to protect animals. These petitions are in support of two bills to strengthen our laws against animal cruelty.
Animals are not just property and they are not just working animals. Animals are sentient beings capable of thinking and feeling pain. They should not be treated as property and they should be better protected under our animal cruelty legislation. We need significant penalties and a greater likelihood of conviction in the case of an offence.
On behalf of the almost 18,000 people who have signed these petitions, and on behalf of the many other Canadians who support the well-being of Canada's companion animals and other animals, I do submit these petitions. I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to support our bills to strengthen our animal cruelty legislation.
James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today and present a petition on behalf of many Albertans who are calling upon the government to act to stop the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has struck at the heart of many Canadians across the country.
I am presenting one of some dozens of petitions that have been presented by the NDP, the official opposition, decrying the cuts to Canada Post that have come at the hands of the Conservative government.
Small towns across rural Canada rely on their post offices. Therefore, people from Smithers, Houston, Telkwa, and the surrounding areas are asking the government to reverse its draconian cuts to Canada's postal service, return it to its once proper service, and to in fact expand service to allow Canada Post to continue being viable and strong into the future.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The House resumed from June 16 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.
Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON
Mr. Speaker, it truly is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-18, an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food.
I am sure many in the House are scratching their head and wondering why the MP for Sudbury, whose community is known for mining and being a hard rock city, would speak to this legislation. We have a lot of farmers in my community, and agriculture is important. This is an important bill for us to debate in the House and I am honoured to speak to it. I also want to thank my hon. colleague, the MP for Welland, for his hard work on this file. He is our excellent critic for agriculture.
It is important for me to say that we support this legislation. We want to ensure that it gets to committee but we do have concerns. This is once again another Conservative omnibus bill. I guess I could merge those two words together; “consermibus” is what I was trying to say a minute ago.
This legislation would make changes to nine different pieces of legislation. As with previous omnibus bills, there are measures that we support in Bill C-18 and there are those that we see as posing significant concerns for the agriculture sector.
Many of the proposed changes requested by various stakeholders deserve thorough debate and consideration. As I mentioned, we support the bill going to committee but we may not support it at further stages. We hope we can make some amendments. We hope to be able to bring forward some of the changes requested by stakeholders as well as some of their concerns.
It is important to recognize that when it comes to plant breeders' rights, New Democrats believe that we need to look at a balanced approach. A balanced approach to this is essential. We want to protect Canada's farmers and the public researchers who are involved in this. We understand the role of intellectual property rights. We understand it is important to encourage innovation. We want to ensure that all Canadians can access and benefit from our agriculture legacy. We need to ensure that the bill is studied in more detail so we can find out how producers would be impacted by some of the proposed changes.
There are concerns about safety controls over seeds, plants, and animals. The CFIA would likely require additional resources. The cuts made by the Conservative government in the past to CFIA are concerning. We want to ensure that this is addressed and that there would no longer be any gaps in enforcement, especially when it comes to some of the safety measures that are involved in this.
We would all agree that farmers are the backbone of Canada's food system. It does not matter ultimately the colour of one's tie, such as the one I am wearing today, as to how we perceive our farmers. Members of all parties want our farmers to earn a decent living and produce quality food for Canadian families.
We have a great organization in my riding of Sudbury called Eat Local. Approximately 30 to 40 local producers provide food to Eat Local in Sudbury. Let me just talk about a few of them.
Les jardins Blondin specializes in ecologically grown greens, radishes, and assorted produce. Rowantree Farms, Heart and Soil Gardens, Piebird and Soggy Creek Seed, Ouelette et Fils, and Mountain Lake Bison Range are other producers that provide food to Eat Local. Many of these great organizations in my riding are doing great work when it comes to ensuring that we have local produce. It is important for us to ensure that farmers and companies like those that I mentioned in my riding and those right across the country continue to prosper.
Many of those I have met at Eat Local are modern farmers as well. As parliamentarians we need to ensure that we link them to cutting-edge research and technology. Canadians deserve practical policies that can grow our rural economies and foster sustainable agricultural communities.
As I mentioned earlier, when it comes to plant breeders' rights, the official opposition believes that balance is essential.
However, we do have some concerns when it comes to public research. We want to ensure that the incredible contributions that are being made by our agriculture sector remain competitive and benefit all Canadians. Therefore, it is essential that the federal government support publicly funded research, especially for farmers.
I am going to talk a bit now about some of the specifics of the bill. Bill C-18 would protect the rights of researchers to use patent materials for non-commercial uses. However, given the government's defunding of public research and its focus on public-private funding partnerships and linking research to commercialization, it is our opinion on this side of the House that it is unclear if the provisions as written would effectively protect research. Public plant research has made numerous contributions to the Canadian agriculture community, and it is our opinion that it is essential that support for public research be maintained. Therefore, one of the things we want to ensure is that the government will continue to support public research and it would not be hindered in the bill at all.
Canada is moving toward ratification of the 1991 model law of the international union for the protection of new varieties of plants, UPOV '91, which expands the rights afforded to plant breeders for varieties they develop and increases the places along the value chain where plant breeders can collect royalties. Bill C-18 includes the following new exclusion rights for plant breeders: reproduction, conditioning, sale, export or import, and repeated use to produce commercially another plant variety if the repetition is necessary for that purpose. It also includes stocking for the purpose of any other protected acts. The term of the grant of plant breeders' rights would also be increased from 18 years to 20 years, or 25 years in the case of a tree, vine, or any other category listed by the regulations. This also includes a new clause that would grant farmers' privilege. That would allow farmers to save seed and condition seed for purposes of production and reproduction on their own farm. We see that as important. This privilege would not be extended to the storing of seed, or to the sale of harvested material from protected seed.
Bill C-18 would grant CFIA the ability to make changes through regulation to which circumstances and classes of farmers and varieties would not be covered under the farmers' privilege. It would also protect the rights of researchers to use patented materials as the basis for developing a new variety or another research use, and it would enhance the public accessibility to the registry of plant varieties. This is a major change from the previous act.
One of the benefits we see in the bill is that granting farmers' privilege, to allow farmers to save and condition seed for use on their own farms, really would promote access. That is one of the important things for Canadian farmers, especially if we are looking at the results of private breeding research in Canada and other countries through effective intellectual property rights.
This is an important bill for all of us, all parties and all members, to stand up and speak to and debate. Even though I come from what many perceive as a mining community, we do also have some great local producers. I also tip my hat to Eat Local Sudbury, which is doing such a great job of promoting local produce and local foods and making sure that, if we needed to, we could survive on what we are growing in northern Ontario.
I look forward to questions and comments.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, first, I must recognize that the member did coin an interesting word, “Conservabus”. That is a word we might be able to use on several pieces of legislation. It is a valid point in regard to the number of pieces of legislation that would actually be changed within this one piece of legislation. Bill C-18 would amend nine separate pieces of agriculture-related legislation, affecting plant breeders' rights, feed, seed, fertilizer, animal health, plant protection, monetary penalties, agriculture marketing programs, and farm debt mediation. It is a fairly all-encompassing piece of legislation.
Given the members remarks in regard to the importance of our farmers—and I think we underestimate the valuable contribution they make—it would have been more appropriate to have had several pieces of legislation brought in so that the farmers and other stakeholders would have been afforded the opportunity to have more direct input on those aspects of the legislation that are of critical importance to our communities.
I wonder if the member might want to add to that?
Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON
Mr. Speaker, my little stumble did create a new word that I think we will all be able to use moving forward.
We do not like omnibus bills. We in the opposition would be in agreement that it is important to be able to bring bills forward, have debate, and be able to hear from stakeholders when we get these bills to committee.
We are supporting this to get to committee. However, that is where the support may end, because we need to ensure we are doing what we believe is right for our farmers. I will tip my hat to my hon. colleague from Welland for the work he has been doing with farmers through the Prairies and up in Sudbury. He had the opportunity of meeting with the folks in Sudbury at Eat Local. We need to find ways to ensure that we are helping him with new technology and research. This bill has some of those, but we need to ensure that, once it gets to committee, we are able to see the advancements move forward.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by my friend from Sudbury.
We need to look at Bill C-18 in the larger context of trends. I am concerned with what we have seen happening under this administration, which is a steady trend away from publicly funded research into new seed varieties. That is how we got canola and Laird lentils. There was public investment in coming up with new varieties of seeds, which were then available to everyone. We are shifting to private breeders only and moving more toward Monsanto and less toward Agriculture Canada.
The Conservatives call it the agricultural growth act. They might as well call it the agriculture concentration of corporate ownership act. I am concerned with the specifics of the bill. I know it will go to committee, because the Conservatives have the votes; but the agricultural community is split on this, and it would help us all if we were to look at the larger question.
Since budget 2012, we have seen a reduction in available funding for public research into better seed varieties, and we see through Bill C-18 the opportunity for the Monsantos of the world to keep collecting royalties over which the farmers would have no say as to how that money is spent.
It is not an agricultural growth act; it is removing the rights of farmers.
Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is hitting the nail on the head when it comes to the specifics of the bill. While we do see that there are some positives in this bill, and while there are a few aspects that we think are good, there are many that raise some warning flags for us.
I will talk about my farmers in Sudbury, the folks who are providing the food and the produce to Eat Local Sudbury. These are the folks who we need to ensure can continue to grow and continue to prosper. If what we are seeing in this is the slow elimination of the resources that farmers could utilize and the support of the larger farming corporations, then that is heading in the wrong direction.
I will rely on great MPs like my colleague from Welland, who is working on this file, to make sure we get this right.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not my party's critic in this area, but I do have an interest in this bill because Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is a large riding with many farmers. I think that it is important to review the bill and take a look at the laws it will affect.
The bill proposes amendments to laws that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA, is responsible for enforcing. The laws affected are the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the Farm Debt Mediation Act.
As my colleague said, the government has introduced yet another omnibus bill and is taking an unbalanced approach. When the government combines an omnibus bill with limited debate, it is easy to lose sight of some very important aspects that will negatively impact farmers and producers as well as the government. That is why the government often finds itself before the courts. We have seen this government go to court many times to defend measures it has put in place; it keeps losing. That is not an effective way to be spending the money it collects through our taxes.
When the government wants to introduce legislative measures, instead of wasting taxpayers' money, it should ensure that its legislation will be accepted and do everything in its power to ensure that it is good legislation.
As I said, this piece of legislation in particular would change nine different acts. One of them is the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. There are some positive changes in the bill; however, sometimes we have to see if the benefits actually outweigh the concerns and look at the impact they would have.
This particular piece, amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, would actually ensure that a variety of developers are able to see a return on investment for their plant breeding research efforts, providing incentives for an important sector of Canadian agri-business. It would grant farmers' privilege to allow farmers to save and condition seed for use on their own farms, and promote access for Canadian farmers to the results of private breeding research from Canada and other countries through effective intellectual property.
There are a few other benefits we can see: to protect researchers from infringement on plant breeders rights, enhance public accessibility and transparency when it comes to plant breeding, and maintain the existing compulsory licence system, providing some assurances that varieties can be made available at reasonable prices, widely distributed, and kept at high quality.
However, when we look at the concerns that the farmers have raised, we have to take those seriously, and that is why we have a concern. Yes, we want to move this to committee, and yes, we are supportive of having a good debate on this here and making sure that our piece of legislation will be a proper one. However, we have a big question mark when it comes to sending stuff to committee as well. We do not know whether or not the government would be supportive of changes that would actually strengthen the bill, because over and over again we have seen a government that wants to push everything forward and not take any suggestions into account—really good suggestions, changes, and amendments,.
Here are the concerns about the amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. People have raised concerns on this particular piece of legislation and this particular area, even in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. I hear about it in Manitoulin Island and along the Highway 17 corridor, including from people in the agricultural sector in Thessalon.
Here are some of the concerns. There are a few major concerns regarding the clauses on the farmers' privilege. The farmers' privilege does not include the stocking of propagating material for any use. Even if farmers are able to save seed for the purpose of reproduction, it appears in this legislation that they may have to pay to store it, which would effectively negate the privilege.
Farmers' privilege does not extend to the sale of harvested material. This means that farmers will likely still be required 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 farmers' entire production rather than just on the seed purchased to grow the crop. This could have significant impacts on the profit margin of farmers.
Farmers are already having a tough time, especially when it is not a good season. To add another risk would be very detrimental to them.
Bill C-18 also includes amendments that would allow the CFIA to make changes through regulation, not through legislation, to farmers' privilege. This means that the government could significantly hinder these rights at any time, without parliamentary oversight. We know how the Conservative government is about parliamentary oversight. Obviously it is not very good. We have to take that into consideration.
Allowing for farm-saved seed is an optional exception under UPOV 91, meaning that Canada could disallow farm-saved seed and still fulfill its international obligations under the agreement.
There are other concerns raised here regarding 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, accidental spreading of patented plant genetic material. However, these protections are not included in Bill C-18.
Given the expansion of plant breeders' rights under Bill C-18, it is likely that farmers will face increases in expensive litigation. As I said before, a lot of these farmers are already experiencing some tough times. If we want to encourage new young folks to take on farming, we need to make sure that there is no such hindrance in place, or we have to limit them.
While our producers may well be on an extremely uneven financial playing field in relation to plant breeders, there are no provisions in Bill C-18 to ensure that legal fees do not impede a farmer's defence in such cases.
Other changes in this bill, as I mentioned, were the amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the advance payments program. Again, there are some benefits, but we also have to look at the concerns. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has called for an increase to the maximum amount in advances to address rising farm expenses. Unfortunately, such increases are not included in Bill C-18. This is exactly why the government has to be open to amendments.
When we look at the amendments to the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, and the Plant Protection Act, one of the key concerns is that the amendments to the FDMA may require additional resources from Agriculture Canada, as the minister will now be involved in mediation cases. The government has yet to address whether it currently has the resources it needs to fulfill this new duty.
Under Bill C-18, the minister will not be required to review the operations of the FDMA as often. Given that the proposed changes to the FDMA involve an expanded role for the minister in the mediation process, this review period should not be extended.
Again, we cannot ignore some of the significant concerns about the provisions in this bill. I want to finish off by indicating that I think it is important to recognize how important farmers are to our communities and to Canada's food system.
New Democrats believe that farmers must be able to earn a decent living producing quality food for Canadians. That is why the government needs to make sure that when it introduces legislation, it takes the time to listen to the farmers, the opposition parties, and the professionals, whether it is the researchers or the farmers themselves, to make sure we get it right.