Agriculture Committee on Oct. 9th, 2014

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

If I did my very best, I couldn't do it that well. Thank you for doing that so concisely.

Since I'm not a farmer, I'm going to defer the rest of my time to a person on our committee who is a farmer, Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's great to be able to make a few comments on this.

One of the things that I had heard before and that the NFU had talked about is that our ancestors never expected seed to be wrested away from them, yet the grain we grew from that seed was wrested away from us with the Canadian Wheat Board during that particular era. I'm certainly pleased that we've been able to move beyond that.

There's one comment that I would like to speak to the organics sector about. There has been $8 million for the Organic Federation of Canada, I believe for the organic science cluster. We can see that the government has put a lot of money into research. There are 200 collaborating scientists who are going to be working on all these different priorities. I see a great amount of interest from the government in helping organizations.

I'm looking at the opportunity for people in your industry, not only in being able to bring in genetics from other areas, but also in producing your own genetics and selling that worldwide. With this money that's been invested into the organics cluster, I'm wondering if you feel that there are people in your organization who feel you can move forward and actually be competitive with your own skill sets.

[Dwayne Smith]

I appreciate the opportunity of the $8 million. The industry by and large sends its thanks. The $8 million is spread throughout a tremendous number of sectors. We're not just grains, we're not just livestock, we're not just horticulture, and we're not just apiary. We're from coast to coast and it does get disseminated down. There's a little bit to go around, and people still are quite appreciative.

I do think that some of the $8 million is destined to go to some of these varietal developments. Currently, one oat variety has been developed for organic settings. There's talk about and some work being done on organic wheat varieties in western Canada. I'm aware of those opportunities.

I think there are opportunities. We, as an industry, are an industry in an industry. We take great pride in trying to solve problems that are at hand. Our problems aren't necessarily shared by everybody in the industry, but I think we are innovative enough that we can move forward.

I don't think that having UPOV 91 brought to fruition in Canada kills the organics industry. I think it just makes it harder.

I hope that that answers your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Actually, we're going to cut it there, Mr. Dreeshen. You only have a few seconds left.

I now want to go to Madam Brosseau for five minutes, please.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for being here on this important piece of legislation, the agricultural growth act. It is a far-reaching bill that has implications that will last for years and years to come, so it's very important to have this debate. I've really enjoyed all the input from all our witnesses here today.

Mr. Smith, you're saying that with the adoption of UPOV 91 there will be darker days for the organics industry. I keep thinking of my riding, where this week there's the Festival de la Galette. It's a buckwheat festival. I invite everybody interested to come to my riding, to Louiseville, where we're having galettes and celebrating buckwheat.

But is this bill really good for farmers? Will this take more money out of their pockets? There was a lot of talk from Mr. Boehm, who was saying that we could just stay where we're at with UPOV 78. Would you agree that maybe we could stay with UPOV 78?

[Dwayne Smith]

I would agree with that. I think if we adopt UPOV 91 there will be less concentration on public breeding, and less concentration on public breeding will be injurious to the organic sector, and I think injurious to agriculture in general in Canada.

The current system we're under is UPOV 78. While it doesn't provide for end point royalties and some of the other new incentives to develop that are working today, we don't feel the current system is a disservice.

The new system would be onerous. It would provide for more reporting from farms, it would provide for some restrictions, and we think it wouldn't be as user-friendly as the system we have today.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

It's something I often hear. There's a lot of red tape. I have a lot of small farms in my riding so it's important to make sure they are not burdened with more red tape.

Bill C-18 will allow CFIA to make changes through regulation without a debate so when it comes to farmers' privilege, government can change or maybe hinder rights at any time without parliamentary oversight. Do you think it's appropriate for farmers' privilege to be revoked at any time?

[Dwayne Smith]

Not at all. In doing research on this and in preparing for today, farmers' privilege seems to me to be a bit of an oxymoron. I think it's the farmer's responsibility to be able to maintain seed. It is inherently in us to be able to have seed and make sure it's viable and can reproduce for generations to come.

We recognize also that the revocation or taking away of farmers' privilege can just be done through a traditional regulatory process, and it can be done on a crop-by-crop basis so it can certainly cause hurdles in the future.

If UPOV 91 is put in place and there's no public breeding, the new crops will come with novel traits, with contractual agreements that are over and above the seed legislation that will restrict how I produce it and perhaps even how I market it. Being a free enterprise kind of guy, I don't like that too much.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I know a lot of Canadians are uneasy about certain aspects of this bill. Quite a few members of the House would table quite a few petitions from across Canada sharing some of the concerns you have today.

Mr. Boehm, I would like to touch on some of the documentation you gave us. You said the provisions will contribute to the inflation of farmland prices that will make it harder for younger generations.

I have an aging population in my riding. Farmers are looking to transfer their farms. Access to capital and all the other problems that come with transferring farms to their children or other relatives are a big concern.

Could you comment on how this bill, if adopted as is, would be negative for future generations looking to get into farming?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

You have thirty seconds, please.

[Terry Boehm]

That was in reference to the expanded cash advance program and to whom that cash advance system is available. If it's expanded to include defined Canadian corporations that can have outside investment companies that are buying up tracts of land and renting them out or utilizing that mechanism to further investment in land and speculation, we think that's worrisome.

We think the cash advance should be available only to practising bona fide farmers. In reality, some limits on its size would also make it less able to be incorporated into the capital cost of land. That mechanism is the most important thing for farmers: access to land. Increased costs in that regard could potentially be generated by too wide an application of the cash advance program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Payne, for five minutes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank the witnesses for coming today.

I need to help correct a couple of things. I know that Mr. Boehm talked about the NFU, about how good it was for the farmers and how they controlled their seed. My colleague talked about the Wheat Board. I wanted to touch a bit more on that. Of course, with the Wheat Board, for wheat and barley, the farmer, if he was selling, had no opportunity to manage that himself. Even if he wanted to sell it for milling, he had no opportunity to do that. Since the Wheat Board is gone, I have a whole ton of farmers in my riding who are just tickled pink. They can sell it wherever they want, so that's really positive.

On the other comment, our colleague across the way, Ms. Brosseau, talked about UPOV 91 and the potential for regulation to change and eliminate breeders' rights. This is an international agreement, as I understand it, and I don't believe you could change that through regulation without actually bringing it back to Parliament.

That said, I do have a couple of questions, and certainly there were some really positive comments from Partners in Innovation—

[A voice]

It's in law.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

That's right. It's in law. Thank you.

Sorry. I was talking about Partners in Innovation.

Your organization said that you really support the plant breeders' rights and that confidence in the ability to invest in improved varieties will deliver higher yields and better economics for farmers. I don't know if you want to touch on that anymore.

I'm not sure whether Mr. Brock or Mr. Jones would want to add to that.

[Mark Brock]

Yes. As a farmer and a producer, my economic well-being depends on the crops I grow and the yields I get. When you look at plant breeders' rights and moving to this UPOV 91, you see that it creates a better environment for investment by these companies to come in, to create varieties that are tailored to our conditions to account for regional differences across this nation, and as I said, to create varieties that have higher yields and provide quality characteristics that end-users are looking for.

As I said, all it does is really foster the innovation and development that provide varieties and tools we can use as producers to meet our goals as business owners and to meet the users' objectives of what they want to do with the product at the end of the day. As an organization, as a collaboration, we're excited about the opportunities of UPOV 91 coming in to encourage that investment.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

You did talk a little bit about the B.C. grain growers and about the Atlantic Grains Council, was it?

[Mark Brock]

Yes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Do you have any other comments you want to suggest that those organizations have made to support Bill C-18?

[Mark Brock]

Yes. There are a few other organizations that have lent their support as well. The Canadian Canola Growers say, “Enhancing our research environment to better attract investment in new plant varieties is essential to keep our farms sustainable agronomically, environmentally and economically today and into the future.”

You can look at some other crops. There's the chair of Mustard 21, who says, “Plant Breeders' Rights legislation that conforms with UPOV 91 will provide the Canadian mustard industry increased ability to...support innovative plant breeding. This will...continue to keep Canada on the map as the world's Number 1 supplier of...quality mustard...”.

There you can see another couple of examples where these organizations across Canada look at UPOV 91 coming in and the environment it can create for further investment. We view it as a win.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I have one minute, Mr. Jones. You talked about public research. I wonder if you could expand on that a bit, please.

[David Jones]

Certainly. What has happened is that varieties that were developed in Canada since PBR came in actually have been developed at public institutions. Those institutions—universities, provincial organizations, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada—benefit from the revenues generated from the sale of seed. That is money that's available to go back and further increase innovation in Canada. It's very positive.

My area is potatoes. I would like to note that with PBR coming in, there's been an emergence of a private breeding network in Canada; there are only about six or eight of them, but it's really driving that. These individuals have very small operations, but they are generating new varieties for use by Canada. That's directly a result of plant breeders' rights.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I have some potato producers in my riding around Taber.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Mr. Payne. Thank you very much to all of our witnesses for coming in. Thank you for the teleconference in Saskatoon.

We'll break now for a very short time until we get the next witnesses in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I want to call the committee back. I think we're going to be fine as we go into the second hour, which has been extended. I appreciate everybody working through our technical issues here.

In the second hour we have, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Humphrey Banack, vice-president. Thank you very much for coming.

From Cereals Canada, Cam Dahl is with us. He's president. We also have from the Barley Council of Canada, Brian Otto. On video conference from Calgary, Alberta from the Alberta Barley Commission, we have Matt Sawyer.

They will be splitting their time. Also on video conference from Winnipeg, we have Keystone Agriculture Producers.

I'm going to work with our video conference people first, just in case there's a technical problem, and we can go back.

I will start then, if that's okay, with Mr. Doug Chorney, who is president.

You have six minutes please.