Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Motion No. 460, which states:
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.
At first blush, this seems like a reasonable proposal. However, once one listens to the speeches of the various presenters on this bill, one soon gets a different impression of what this resolution is about. In fact, if the government were so intent on taking action in the area, one would think it would have opted to bring in a government-sponsored bill. We see this with the government in a lot of different areas. It has backbench members bring in initiatives under the umbrella of private members' bills. The government is just sitting back and not taking the initiative.
This is one such example. Clearly, we are involving a number of areas here. I will get to the specifics later, but a proper bill that would be brought in would include changes to several current acts in the Parliament. The basis upon which the motion is framed makes perfect sense. We should not be duplicating research. However, there are obviously other issues involved.
My colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, did speak to this bill in the first hour. He expressed the view that it is no secret that Canadian farmers often experience frustration in not being able to access the latest technology the way their competitors do, because American companies will go to the markets with the greatest population. It just makes sense.
If companies are going to develop a product, before they consider developing it for a country with 30 million people, like Canada, they will look at introducing and developing that product for the market that has the larger population, which in the case of the United States is around 300 million people. If they are going to invest a tremendous amount of money in research and development to develop a product, they are going to put those resources and dollars toward developing the product to the American standards, which in fact may be lower.
The conundrum we have is that we do not want to disadvantage our farmers. At the end of the day, if an American product such as, say, a fertilizer is approved in the United States and is not up to Canadian standards and therefore cannot be used by Canadian farmers, in fact that fertilizer will be used to produce crops that will be imported into Canada, be sold to consumers and be consumed by Canadians. Canadian consumers will still be eating the food that was grown under the conditions using, say, a pesticide that is maybe not acceptable in terms of Canadian standards.
This is a big problem and one that certainly has to be dealt with. The ramifications extend from there to the free trade deal as well. But I think the government has to show initiative and some leadership here and bring in a comprehensive bill amending all the pieces of legislation that I mentioned in an effort to solve the problem.
I am sure the member who submitted the motion had the best of intentions in mind. Having read in Hansard what members said, it is very clear to me that if he had discussed the matter in advance with the NDP critic, as well as the Bloc's, he would have found there would be a requirement from both critics to make certain that whatever we do adheres to Canadian standards.
He indicated that it is on his website. The question is: Why did he not, why would he not and why could he not amend his resolution so it would reflect that request from the two parties?
I am not certain that he could not have gotten broader support for this motion had he discussed it with the critics for the Bloc and NDP at an earlier point. Having read their submissions, I see the reality is that they are not very far off. They are in agreement. The Bloc and NDP critics both agree that this is a problem that needs a solution, but the suggestion is that somehow the motion does not cut it, partly because the motion does not indicate it would have to apply to Canadian standards. There are only three or four more words that would have had to be included in the motion.
The member who is proposing the motion indicated that it is covered on his website. If it is covered on his website and he believes it is in there, then why not simply make the extra effort and simply put it into the resolution?
Then we get back to the question of how relevant the motion is in the first place. If he will not do that, then clearly the motion will not succeed in the House, the problem will remain unsolved and the government will have to look at bringing in proper legislation.
