Agriculture Committee on Oct. 21st, 2014

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

So these are the positive aspects you see with regard to that?

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

Yes.

[Dennis Prouse]

Just to elaborate on that very quickly, globally there's competition. I alluded to that a little. In fact, our member companies will tell you that there's competition within their companies: what country is going to receive that investment? Is it going to be Canada? Is it going to be Argentina? Is it going to be Brazil? Is it going to be the United States?

That's why Canada has to be the most attractive place that it can possibly be to attract this investment. As I say, that agricultural innovation is taking place. There is growth, there is innovation, and it's going to take place somewhere. We'd like it to be in Canada.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

You were talking about the CFIA and different foreign reviews. I wonder if you could expand upon that.

[Dennis Prouse]

I'll let Stephen answer that.

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

Personally, that's the most exciting part of these proposed amendments from our perspective, so just very quickly, to create a plum of novel traits through biotechnology or other modern plant breeding techniques, a number of steps need to take place to ensure safety: the environmental assessment, the food safety assessment, and the feed safety assessment.

Bill C-18 has a proposal specifically for the feed side of it to allow the regulators to take into account safety assessments done by other jurisdictions. We think that is going to be extremely encouraging, provided of course that the standards of those other jurisdictions are equivalent to Canada's, that this is going to be very beneficial for our member companies and other developers of products of modern plant breeding. It will save resources, both from the developers' perspective in terms of the information they would be submitting to the regulators, and also, in our view, on the regulators' side because they're not having to duplicate the risk assessments that are done by other jurisdictions that have equivalent—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dreeshen.

Now I will move to Mr. Eyking for five minutes, please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, guests, for coming.

As many of you know, our country needs some modern legislation, and this bill has a lot in it. I guess, in a way, it would have been better to separate some of the bill because recently when dealing with witnesses it's mostly been UPOV; that seems to be the main issue here. At the end of the day, every time we bring in witnesses, that's where it goes. As was mentioned before, we seem to have two different philosophies. Some would say it's all or nothing to be with the rest of the world, and then we have other groups coming forward here that are not happy at all and would sooner just see the thing removed.

That's not going to happen at the end of the day. As a committee, we are going to try to have some amendments here that could probably work for everybody. That's usually the problem we have, as a committee.

That being said, with CropLife—and I know you represent a lot of big companies and companies that produce the seed—do you think there is any wiggle room to change some of terminology so we can all be half-satisfied in this country with this new bill? The minister said he was open to changing some of the wording on rights and privileges and whatnot.

[Dennis Prouse]

I read that as well, and I gather some of those changes would be about farmer-saved seed. I really believe that our friends at the Canadian Seed Trade Association could best address them.

I guess, Mr. Eyking, we're looking at this from more of a 40,000-foot level. What encourages investment in Canada, what recognizes innovation, what encourages innovation, and how might some of those compromises get made? Have we given a tremendous amount of thought to that? No. Have we given some thought to the fact that Canada desperately needs to get in line with UPOV 91? Yes, we've given a lot of thought to that, and we think we do.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

It's to not only to go to 40,000 feet but also to stay at ground level because that's where the soil is, right?

[Dennis Prouse]

Absolutely.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Van Tassel, you represent a large group of farmers and agricultural people in this country in Quebec. We've had witnesses before, talking about European countries because most European countries have this legislation for UPOV already. Some would say there are problems in France with that; a lot of farmers are against it.

Quebec and France have a lot of similarities besides language. There is passion for food; a lot of their food is produced locally. What do you know about what's happening in France and other European countries, and how are they dealing with UPOV? To put some of the naysayers at ease, what is your sense of the UPOV changes?

[William Van Tassel]

For Quebec, when you look at UPOV and the changes between 1978 and 1991, I do not think it's a huge concern. I'm talking about some small farmers; I don't think they know too much about it, but for the average farmer in Quebec, I don't think it's a huge difference. The farmer's ready to pay $250 a bag for corn. Why? It's because he'll have a return on his investment. He's ready to pay an amount for certified seed as long as he has a return on investment.

We have had an obligation to use certified seeds since 1991 to have crop insurance, so for us, I don't think it will make a huge difference. Most of the farmers use crop insurance. For some soybeans, yes, the farmer goes around it and doesn't use it. Anyway, he hides it there, but normally the majority do it, so I don't think it will make a huge difference to the farmers of Quebec.

Maybe Salah could talk about that because France is far away from where I live, and I don't know what's happening there.

[Salah Zoghlami, Advisor, Agronomic and Research, Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec]

Forgive me, but I am going to have to speak French, because I find it easier to communicate my ideas that way.

In France, like everywhere else in the world, we always have to weigh the pros and cons of laws or new bills. Basically, all of the statistics in the world indicate that by 2050, the world's population will have reached 9 billion. World agricultural production will thus have to be double what it is now. Consequently, for the same parcel of land, we have to double our potential.

Of course, there is mechanization and technology, but we also have to take into account the plant's potential, in this sense that it has to produce more. For it to produce more, there has to be more research, and we have to put more effort into it. In order to put more effort into things, we have to have a guarantee that there will be a reward. It is quite a simple equation.

The objective of food safety is to be able to feed everyone. The farmer is the main actor in all this, and we must have productive agriculture. In order to have productive agriculture we must have the necessary tools. Consequently we must have genetic plant material that meets market needs and consumption needs. Be it in France or elsewhere, I think that logic has to prevail over any ideological or nostalgic speculation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Mr. Eyking.

I want to thank the witnesses for being a part of this hour.

We will now go in camera to discuss committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]