Thank you very much, Chairman and members of the committee. It is a privilege for me to be before you again.
Helping to create an environment that sees Canada as a first or the first choice for agriculture innovation is one of the key priorities for Cereals Canada. Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, is an important step in that direction and will encourage the required investment.
My name is Cam Dahl. I am the president of Cereals Canada. In the interests of time, I will skip over the introduction of the organization, but I'm very happy to answer any questions you may have about our makeup.
I'm going to be concentrating my remarks on the portion of this bill that deals specifically with plant breeders' rights. These are proposed sections 2 through 51 of Bill C-18. Cereals Canada supports these measures, and we encourage all parties in the House of Commons to come together quickly and adopt them.
Canada has a strong reputation for consistently delivering quality products to the international marketplace. Cereals Canada looks for opportunities to build upon the Canadian brand. Building a strong Canadian cereals brand goes hand in hand with renewed investment in research and development. The Canadian industry today has an opportunity to develop and implement an innovation strategy that will facilitate increased research investment in the quality traits demanded by our customers.
There is a resurgence of interest in innovation and research in cereal crops. This presents the Canadian sector with an opportunity to make Canada a top choice for investments by helping create a policy environment that ensures a return on investment for all stakeholders in the value chain. Taking advantage of these opportunities will increase the value of Canadian cereals production for farmers, grain marketers, and crop development companies, while developing strong value for our customers.
I will not review the discussion of UPOV 91. I believe that's something you have become familiar with. However, I do want to highlight the mission of the convention, which is “to provide and promote an effective system of plant variety protection, with the aim of encouraging the development of new varieties, for the benefit of society”.
All but a few developed countries—Canada, New Zealand, and Norway—conform to the current version of UPOV 91. The fact that Canadian law does not conform to UPOV 91 means that companies face a disincentive to bring to Canada varieties that have been developed elsewhere, as well as an incentive to invest outside of Canada. Bill C-18 will help correct these problems.
The benefits are already evident. You've heard this from other presenters, but the introduction of Bill C-18, even before it has become law, has already had a positive impact on the environment for investment in innovation.
Last month I had the privilege of attending a sod-turning for Bayer's new wheat-breeding facility near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Bayer has been explicit. The prospect of Bill C-18 and the adoption of UPOV 91 was one of the key factors convincing the global centre in Europe to invest in wheat breeding in Canada.
This is not the only example of increased investment in cereals research. Canterra and Limagrain have formed a partnership to bring new varieties into Canada. KWS, a company based in Germany, has formed a partnership with FP Genetics to bring a new hybrid rye variety into Canada.
It's important to stress that the benefits of complying with UPOV 91 will also accrue to public entities. My friends have mentioned this as well, but I think it is something that is worth emphasizing.
Universities, government departments, and smaller plant breeders will benefit. Between 45% and 50% of all Canadian plant breeders' rights applications for agriculture crops come from public institutions, such as Agriculture Canada, universities, or provincial governments. Royalties collected are an important source of funding for these breeding programs.
Bill C-18 is a positive initiative, and I don't really want to stray into the negative, but it is necessary to highlight the fact that if Canada fails to modernize our regulatory environment, then the upswing that we are seeing in investment in cereals innovation will not take place in Canada. Instead, these investments will be made in countries such as Australia and the United States, with the benefits like increased yield and improved disease resistance going to farmers who compete with us in the international marketplace.
I want to spend some time doing a little bit of myth-busting. I have heard some questions—and you've heard them today—about the adoption of UPOV 91. These questions are largely based on misunderstandings of what the convention means for Canadian farmers and plant breeders.
One of the myths that seems to have propagated on the Internet is that farmers will be prevented from saving their own seed for replanting. This belief is simply wrong.
The current version of the legislation, based on UPOV 78, is silent on the ability of farmers to save seed. An updated Plant Breeders' Rights Act under Bill C-18 would specifically address the right of farmers to save and plant their own seed.
Would it be okay for a farmer who saved their own seed for a variety that was protected under plant breeders' rights to sell some of this to his neighbour for planting? No, that is not okay. Selling brown bag seed eliminates the return on investment for developers, discourages investment, and is illegal under the current version of the legislation.
I have also heard some express concern that existing heritage varieties will suddenly become owned by some big multinational corporation and become unavailable to farmers. Again, this is just plain wrong. All varieties that are currently commercialized, or will be commercialized before the adoption of C-18, will be covered by UPOV 78. So-called heritage varieties are likely not subject to plant breeders’ rights in the first place because they are already in the public domain. Like all varieties in the public domain, they will remain there. The changes you are considering today will only apply to new varieties that plant breeders choose to protect.
I have also heard some express concern that adopting UPOV 91 will decrease the varieties available or decrease Canadian genetic diversity. The opposite is true. Strengthened protection fosters innovation and increased diversity. Mr. Smith had commented about investment in organic variety developments and some of my members are targeting development of varieties specifically for the organic sector.
These are just a few of the myths that have grown up around UPOV 91. They are not the only misconceptions.
I am happy to respond to your questions and comments.