Bev Shipley

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 24th, 2014]

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

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

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

I want—

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. He has been consistent in his questioning.

How does this help small farmers? Actually, the whole issue around UPOV '91 is about being able to allow seed to come in from other countries to be used and protected in Canada. One thing about Canada is that it is geographically very big and numerically very small. Part of what my Motion No. 460 was about was the need to make sure that we aligned ourselves with countries that have the same standards we do, so that when we bring in those seeds, it will help the small breeders, because we do not always have that breeding in Canada. Whether it is horticulture, small farmers, or organic farmers who have special seeds, they will now have the opportunity to bring seeds in from other countries that have the same high standards we do.

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great thing how this bill came forward. As chair of the committee, I very much want to express my appreciation to the members of all parties for how this was addressed and how we moved forward on the bill. As I mentioned before, the amendments that were presented to us were very much aimed a taking away from the bill's objective and what farmers in Canada were telling us.

In terms of UPOV '78, that is my point. It was 25 years ago. Agriculture is not about 25 years ago. Agriculture is about now and looking forward maybe 25 years, not going back 25 years. All of our trading partners are involved with UPOV '91. Just about all of the industry people who came to the committee said that we needed to move forward for the protection of agriculture and its sustainability.

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and pleasure for me to illustrate to this House my party's support for Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

First, I wish to express not only my appreciation but that of the farmers in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, and I believe the large majority of farmers across Canada, to the Minister of Agriculture for his foresight and action in bringing this bill forward and the work that the parliamentary secretary has done to get the bill to committee. I also want to thank the committee, which has worked hard to get the bill to the form it is in today, so that we can move the industry of agriculture forward.

At one time or another, all of us have read the sign “If you ate today, thank a farmer.” In fact, I have a few of those in my office. I have one around the licence plate of one of my vehicles. It is an important sign as a consumer, farmer, dairy farmer and cash cropper. It raises the importance of not only what agriculture is but the importance of food.

As parliamentarians we need to do more than talk. We need to express more than just saying thanks. I need to ensure that farmers, and the industry as a whole, have the support of this effective legislation that is before us.

Before I focus on the main element of the bill, I would like to address the amendments that have been proposed by opposition members. If members can imagine, there are 56 amendments on the order paper, which would meet their objective to gut the bill and take away its effectiveness.

I will not, and my party will not, support those of types of motions. In fact, I urge everyone with a level head on their shoulders not to support the amendments, and move forward and adopt this great bill. Should we start to approve the gutting of the bill, it would turn the clock back in agriculture about 25 years. We are not prepared for that and I do not believe the country is prepared for that.

Bill C-18 proposes broad controls to ensure the safety of Canada's agriculture inputs. It would allow the licence and registration of fertilizer and animal feed operators, and facilities that import and sell products across provincial and international borders. That is in addition to the current system, which registers feed and fertilizer individually, product by product. However, licencing and registering facilities and operators is a more effective and timely method to verify that agriculture products meet, and surpass in many cases, Canada's stringent safety rules and other standards.

The bill is also important because we need to ensure that we align ourselves with our major trading partners and help our feed, seed and fertilizer industries maintain access to those markets, especially with our closest neighbour, the United States.

For the information of members, exports in the agriculture industry range up to 85% of what we grow. That is an incredibly high number. It means that one in eight jobs in this country is related to the agriculture industry. The agricultural growth act proposes to keep these jobs safe and secure, but that can only be done through modernizing our current antiquated legislation and by improving Canadian access to the latest farming technology.

Exports are part of the solution, but what we grow here is the other part. Members may recall that during the last Parliament, Motion No. 460 was debated. It read:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I was glad that the motion was adopted by the House, but I did not get help from the NDP, which I find strange. It is clear that it does not support the idea, but do members know who does support it? Farmers. Who is fulfilling the promise to farmers? Our Conservative government.

During the 2011 federal election, the Conservative Party platform said:

Like other businesspeople, Canadian farmers want access to the latest innovations, to succeed in the global economy. Unfortunately, long and burdensome approval processes imposed by the federal government are preventing Canadian farmers from obtaining the best fertilizers, pesticides, and veterinary drugs available on the market. We will revise current approval processes to allow for international equivalencies in such products. We will eliminate needless duplication, while protecting our national sovereignty and maintaining the highest safety standards.

What did the stakeholders tell us about this at committee? The president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers, for example, said in October 2014:

...allowing the CFIA the opportunity to use data that is sourced externally to Canada, not having to be reproduced, and to use data that is from a country that is considered to be equivalent to the standards in Canada is, I think, a significant improvement in terms of allowing the CFIA the freedom to operate, and reducing that administrative burden of recreating data that would be already acceptable in terms of identifying the safety and the ability to use that product in Canada.

Our bill would do this. Indeed, we have such a strong belief in this idea that clauses 56, 67, 77, and 96 of Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, would implement this idea. The amendments proposed in Bill C-18 would provide the CFIA with stronger tools to fulfill its mandate to protect Canada's plant and animal resource base. The changes would provide additional reassurance that imported agricultural products meet Canadian requirements. Those are strict requirements. Bill C-18 would be part of our government's strong agricultural agenda—and I am not alone in seeing Bill C-18 as a key milestone for Canada's agriculture sector.

The Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Seed Trade Association, and the Canadian Horticultural Council are only a few of the many agricultural organizations anxiously waiting for the proposed legislation.

New, stronger border controls for agricultural products are urgently needed. Bill C-18 would respond to that. It would give inspectors from the CFIA the authority to have important shipments of feeds, fertilizers, or seeds that do not meet legal requirements to be ordered out of Canada. That would be similar to the current treatment of imported plants and animals that do not meet those requirements now.

Canadian farmers would benefit because they would be competing on a level playing field with their international counterparts. That is so important because Canadian consumers would benefit from a strengthened food safety regime.

To be clear, the CFIA already takes action to seize illegal animal feeds, seeds, fertilizers, and related products. Bill C-18, however, would propose to update that as we do this.

In some cases, under the current process, seizure of illegal products is followed by lengthy and costly court proceedings and, at that time, Canada must pay to dispose of those illegal products. Members can see that being able to order the products out of the country becomes a much more efficient and a much more practical procedure.

At the same time, Bill C-18 would give CFIA inspectors the ability to allow the importer to fix the problem at the border, if there are no safety concerns and if the inspector can be certain that the issue would be addressed.

It has been an honour and privilege for me to make this presentation on Bill C-18 on behalf of our government and I look forward to addressing any of the questions or comments that may come forward.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is that we are the only party in the House that has ever taken any concrete action to protect supply management and to meet the requests of supply management, whether it was the compositional structure of cheese or whether it was the pizza kits. Everybody wants to talk about it, but talking does not get us anywhere. We have to take action.

When supply management people come to us, of course there is a debate. There should be a full debate about how protection works. We have supported the three pillars of supply management, and every one of those will change over a period of time, as they should. Supply management is not in concrete. It is a living document. The industry is a living industry that will progress and move with what technology and innovation bring.

We always say we support supply management. Everybody says that. However, when it comes down to it, our party is the only party that has ever taken any action to protect it so that it will remain viable, strong, and sustainable for the long term.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the question came forward and I know it comes from his heart. The difference in philosophy between the NDP and us is that we believe that farmers do not want subsidization but markets. Farmers want the ability to expand and to have access to markets, which we in government have the responsibility of giving them.

One of the other great things is the ability to be competitive with some of the other farm subsidies, whether in Europe or the United States. That why we are going to have a debate in another couple of nights on Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, which is going to give an incredible amount of support and opportunity to farmers to be competitive, so hang in. I have all the faith in our farmers that they will compete. Give them the markets and they will compete and produce.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is an opportunity and a pleasure to speak tonight on CETA. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, and I look forward to hearing his intervention, following mine.

As chairman of the agriculture committee, I want to first thank all the members of all parties for their interventions and the work that was put into coming forward with the report on the economic trade agreement with Europe.

The historic agreement with Canada and Europe came about because there had been an incredible amount of consultation with farmers, which I am pleased to say has been my life occupation. When we talk about dairy, I lived that for a few decades. Thankfully, I still have the opportunity to be in farming by having someone to help manage it.

What we did as a government was make sure that we had a full impact, whether it was with farmers or processors. I guess we can talk about all the stakeholders. We did that because we wanted to make sure that when we got to the negotiating table, we had the support and the concerns of each and every one of those stakeholders.

We are at the stage now where we have the report. I am pleased to say that we have the committee's recommendations, and our government supports those. Basically there are five. It recommends that we approve the agreement to expedite the economic benefits it would bring to Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector; that we continue our strong defence of supply management, which seems to have captured a lot of the discussion here tonight; that we leverage this agreement to harmonize approvals for new agriculture and agri-food technologies; that we work with industry to protect maple products from unfair competition from substitutes in the EU; and that we continue to pursue additional comprehensive trade agreements. That last one is key to what our agriculture and agri-food industry wants us to do.

This, without a doubt, is one of the most exciting times to be in agriculture. This is an exciting time for farmers and processors. It is an exciting time for those in the agri-food industry. It is because of the 24 agreements with 43 countries that have been negotiated and finalized. What it means to our producers and our industry is that we have opened opportunities. We can produce and sell into markets and invest in our technology and innovation so that our industry looks forward.

I talk to the young farmers and the farmers who are coming along in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and Southwestern Ontario.

I am very fortunate to represent my riding, which is not unlike that of my colleague across the way from Pontiac. We talked earlier today, and we have similar ridings, very rural and agricultural with small towns, which means small family-oriented businesses. There is a diversity of livestock, supply management, grains and oil seeds as well as horticulture and greenhouses across my riding. There is incredible diversity, and each and every one of these businesses sees the opportunities in this trade agreement.

However, we are hearing from the other side: what about supply management? It is sort of an interesting comment, because everybody has their quotes, but for supply management, we must look in terms of the amount of imports that would come from this agreement, which I believe is around some 17,000 tonnes for cheeses.

Canadian cheeses are so popular. In fact, during the debates and witness testimonies in committee, we had a cheese producer from Quebec come in with some samples of cheese. I have to say that it was incredible cheese. The owner of the company commented that she did not have a concern with the agreement and actually saw an opportunity to market her product. She saw an opportunity to grow the market for these great cheeses.

We love cheese in Canada. The growth in cheese consumption in Canada is somewhere in the range of 8,000 tonnes per year. It seems to me that, when I listened to those producers and processors, they were saying that they have an opportunity and wondered why they could not meet that demand domestically in Canada. Those of us who are in the dairy industry and understand it know that it is true entrepreneurism. Those entrepreneurs think that this is a challenge and an opportunity.

When I talk to the young farmers in my riding, they are excited. The industry of agriculture is not unlike any other industry, such as high technology, and there is innovation and opportunity. This agreement talks about all of that. It talks about our farming generation that wants opportunity. The members of this generation want us to give them access to markets and then let them go.

Will they be able to provide hormone-free beef? Give them the opportunity and they will. Will there be processing plants to deal with the pork? We have had those conversations with the member from Manitoba, and we respect the concerns in Manitoba for that growth. However, we have opportunities in Alberta, where they want to build or expand a plant to process hormone-free beef. Why? It is because this agreement gives them the opportunity to sell it in a new market.

In closing, with almost half of Canada's total agriculture production exported, we have potential for growth in the sector, which lies in its ability to expand its markets abroad, making market access a key priority for this great industry that I am involved in along with many others across the country.

I ask the NDP in particular to stand and support this agreement, because not only will it be good across Canada, but it will actually also be good for those in Quebec the members keep taking about and are concerned it will harm. It will not. It is good for Canadian agriculture.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a very quick question. There has been a lot of discussion about supply management. I would like to ask my colleague which one of the three pillars, if any, this EU trade agreement would impact negatively. Could she name the one that it would impact, and what that impact would be?

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee of Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report this bill back to the House, with amendments.

[Petitions, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions I would like to present that come from across Canada.

The current drinking and driving laws in Canada are a concern, and the petitioners want those changed because when it involves death, it needs to move into the Criminal Code of Canada.

The offence would fall under vehicular manslaughter. There are a number of conditions the petitioners have listed, which I will not go through. It would hold people accountable when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol and kill someone and, in addition, leave the scene.

I submit these petitions on behalf of people across Canada.