Agriculture Committee on Oct. 28th, 2014

[Mark Huston]

I think that what Archie said is spot on. Getting this bill approved quickly, with proper presentations from people who have interest in it, is important.

I'm a seventh generation farmer. We have a family farm. We look at the varieties we can get and the potential of some other varieties outside of the country. The opportunity to get some of those varieties brought into Canada and have them protected at the same time I think offers great encouragement.

Timely approval is what I'd like to see come out of this.

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

I could agree that it's important to move forward, but this is an omnibus bill. It is about 100 pages. It touches nine pieces of legislation, and it is important to take our time to make sure that we get it right. It would not be the first time something was passed quickly and then had problems with it later on.

I completely agree that passing legislation is important, but we have to make sure we do our homework and make sure it is the best it can be, or maybe move on to something else.

One thing which I think is important is talking to producers, farmers—big farms and smaller farms—to make sure they are included in the consultation and they have input on regulatory changes and how it will affect them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Madam Brosseau. We're out of time.

I'll go to Mr. Zimmer, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, witnesses, for coming today.

I just thought of an analogy. I've been a carpenter for many years, and my dad was a carpenter before me. I'm from northern B.C., so, Levi, I'm as western Canadian as you are.

Carpenters often like new tools because they make us more productive. There's a higher cost as a result of that tool, but it's worth the money because it makes our day a lot easier and able to produce more for the same energy expended. To me, it seems obvious that UPOV 91 and protecting farmers' rights to their seed and all that is good, and that's why we're pursuing it on this side. We think it's a good thing for western Canadian farmers.

There has been a narrative out there that says farmers for some reason are not allowed to keep their own seed. I think it's one group that keeps that myth going.

I'd like a comment from Levi.

Where does that myth come from, and is it true? Are farmers able to use their own seed? I mean, you've said it before and I know the answer. I'd also ask how we can combat that myth from being perpetuated. Is the myth true, and how can we combat it?

[Levi Wood]

Thanks.

Can you hear me? I'm having some problems here with this video conference.

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

Yes, we can hear you.

[Levi Wood]

I would say, from my perspective, that myth certainly does exist, and it's probably the number one issue out there with this bill around plant breeders' rights.

You're right. At this time, as I said earlier today, with the varieties that are currently protected, if I buy it, I can use it on my farm. I'm allowed to save that seed and I'm allowed to reuse it on my farm year after year if I choose. There are ultimately other factors that go into that as well, including the agronomic decisions that go with the economic decisions of using a variety, but at this time, yes, absolutely.

I think maybe some of the misconception comes a bit from the rise in canola, the canola models being comparatively different. When you see that.... I think it's partially where the myth comes from. In order to combat this myth, information needs to get out there. People in general aren't too familiar with UPOV 91. At the farm gate level, they only want to know how it affects them.

Ultimately, if we can convey the message that they are getting the best of both worlds, they will see the advantage, because as you said, like carpenters, farmers like a new tool in the chest. Ultimately, the more genetic research we can have here, the more varieties that can be established, made in Canada for Canadian conditions, it will certainly be better for farmers. If I look at a variety in terms of economics and incentive to grow it, that is certainly the case. In grain production, cereals are naturally receptive to western Canadian growing conditions, and I think increased genetics will improve that viability and ultimately contribute to our profitability at the bottom line, which is what's ultimately important.

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

Thanks, Levi.

I think it was you who used the iTunes analogy. I was just talking to one of my colleagues. It's really a perfect analogy. You absolutely can play that song as many times as you like; you just can't resell it. There are certain rights that belong to the producer or creator of that particular music.

Archie, I wanted to speak to what you said about the growth of local food. I like to buy locally produced beef in the Peace. It just seems better than the rest; I don't know what it is. But we're in an international market now, and you've spoken to this many times, that Canada also has to be prepared to be on that scale, to be ready for that and be able to produce to be competitive.

In terms of what Levi said when I asked him about the negative myths that are out there with UPOV 91, you speak to the positives, and so emphatically. How can we get the message out there to regular rank and file farmers that UPOV 91 is a good thing for farmers?

[Archie Wilson]

I think to a degree we've started that. I know the efforts the farm organizations represented by video conference today have made to do this, and I think they've done a pretty good job of educating. Part of it is that we're dealing with misinformation being passed on at the same time.

I think our biggest challenge is that not knowing what it is, people are concerned about what it might be. You mentioned a perfect example, iTunes. That's the way I look at it as a seed company. If we're going to invest to help bring forward opportunities.... We're bound by contractual law to protect the intellectual property of the people we represent, but we also have investments ourselves to bring that forward. We have no problem with someone playing their iTunes songs as many times as they want, but when they decide to start selling copies of them, that's when it becomes a big problem for us.

It certainly is more of the example that Patty talked about earlier too, of not getting a return on investment because of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much. We're out of time.

I want to thank the witnesses very much for coming in and having a very broad and open discussion on the benefits of, and some of the concerns with, the bill.

We will be breaking for a couple of minutes. The next group is on video conference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

We have with us by video conference Mr. Victor Santacruz from Mississauga. He is with the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association.

From the Organic Council of Ontario, Jennifer Pfenning. Welcome, Jennifer.

From Winnipeg, we have Rick Bergmann, vice-chair, the Canadian Pork Council.

We'll start with Mr. Santacruz, for six minutes, please.

[Victor Santacruz, Executive Director, Canadian Nursery Landscape Association]

Good day, my name is Victor Santacruz. I am the executive director of the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association, a national trade organization representing over 3,800 member companies engaged in the ornamental horticulture industry. Specifically, our sector represents the nursery production, landscape services, and retail sectors within ornamental horticulture. Our organization has been serving and landscaping Canada since 1922 and represents members in every province across the country.

The ornamental horticulture sector is an important part of Canada's economy representing over $14.48 billion in economic impact. The ornamental horticulture sector is also the second largest employer in primary production agriculture, bypassed only by dairy and cattle farming. If we include our value chain from the farm to the yard, we employ over 220,000 Canadians in over 135,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

The Canadian Nursery Landscape Association consults regularly with AAFC and the CFIA, and participates in stakeholder consultations on matters that affect our industry. CNLA has been very active and a participant on the PBR advisory committee.

The Canadian Nursery Landscape Association is a proud member of the Canadian Ornamental Horticulture Alliance, which unites the combined interests of the entire ornamental horticulture sector. Also, through this group, we have engaged in direct research and innovation as an ornamental sector. Bill C-18 will have an impact on our activities and future of the sector. We're also a participant in the Partners in Innovation coalition that supports the amendments to Canada's plant breeders' rights legislation to bring it into compliance with the most recent international convention, UPOV 91.

Our position is that we support the changes to the plant breeders' rights in the adoption of UPOV 91. Canada's ornamental horticulture sector was in a competitive disadvantage by being on UPOV 78, and we are pleased with the decision to move this forward. This will place our sector on a level playing field with our trading partners, such as the U.S., the U.K., Germany, and the Netherlands.

Access to new varieties and the ability to protect Canadian new varieties abroad is important to the competitiveness of our sector.

Our association is also involved in managing a Canadian hardy rose breeding program on behalf of industry and through the support of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the former breeding programs at the Morden Arboretum Research Station in Manitoba and at the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu research station in Quebec. Our association and industry are committed to research and innovation, encouraging and greater incentivizing industry to invest, protect, and promote new varieties in Canada and abroad. Our industry's competitiveness depends on the ability to bring new plant varieties to market in a responsible and sustainable manner. All of this is greatly improved and supported through UPOV 91.

To illustrate the importance of plant breeders' rights to our sector, since 1992 to approximately March 2014 the PBR office in Canada has received 7,841 applications of which 5,891 were from horticulture. Of those, over 5,434 were from the ornamental horticulture sector which accounts for over 92% of all horticulture applications and over 69% for all of agriculture. For our sector, PBR is crucially important.

In conclusion, the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association supports the amendments to the PBR legislation and supports moving forward with Bill C-18.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present our views to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

I'll move to the Organic Council of Ontario and Jennifer Pfenning, please, for six minutes.

[Jennifer Pfenning, Chair, Organic Council of Ontario]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

The Organic Council of Ontario is a provincial sector organization representing interests from producer to consumer and all levels in between.

Organic is over a $1-billion industry in Ontario alone. Sustained growth in the sector has been in the double digits for close to two decades, closer to 20% annually in the last few years.

Much of the market is supplied from outside our borders looking to import replacement as supply develops domestically.

I'm Jennifer Pfenning. I am the elected farmer representative and chair of the Organic Council of Ontario. I'm also the part owner and director of Pfenning's Organic Vegetables Inc. We are a farm, packer, distributor, and we do import and export as well. We employ approximately 60 people year round, and seasonally, the peak was 126 this year. Our business and our farm echo that of the industry overall. We have seen 15% to 20% growth annually for the last decade and closer to 20% in the last few years.

Legislation and regulation should encourage and support this growth to continue. As the Organic Council, we do have a few points about specific items in the legislation.

We support the recognition of work done to develop new varieties and want to see that continue. Legislation must ensure that recognition does not inadvertently make criminals of farmers engaging in traditional activities such as selling grains or feed to other farms.

In Germany, for example, the adoption of the UPOV 91 agreement has resulted in thousands of lawsuits against farmers, and I would hope we can avoid that in our adoption.

It is our position that EPR should not be introduced. While it is not currently in the legislation as it is written right now, I think it is possible it may be introduced through the regulatory framework, and we would not like to see that happen.

The proposed subsection for farmers' privilege, 5.3(2), should be expanded to include 5(1)(g). Currently it only applies to 5(1)(a) and (b). Paragraph 5(1)(g) is “to stock propagating material of the variety for the purpose of doing any act...”. It's that stocking the material that we feel is very important to protecting our rights as farmers.

We also have a concern with 5.1 that it may create some difficulties with cross-pollination. If there's inadvertent assimilation of genetic traits due to wind drift or pollinator insect activity, that could have a very big impact on farmers unintentionally.

Also 5.4(1) could create an onerous paperwork burden for farmers as intent is difficult to prove, and that is specifically referring to “the export of material of the plant variety to a country that does not protect varieties of the plant genus or species...”. The point that would be difficult is where it says “not intended for consumption”. It's very difficult. I don't necessarily know what my customer is going to do with everything I sell to them, and I have obviously no control once it has left my facility.

Those are some of the points. I know the Canada Organic Trade Association, Food Secure Canada, and others have raised other points. I don't want to repeat things that have been said by others, but support the overall intention of that feedback to be considerate of the possible unintended consequences of this legislation.

In conclusion, it is our position that unless some of these issues are addressed, this legislation has the potential to negatively impact growth in the organic sector and family farms in general.

As an example of that, on my farm in particular, we work very well with our neighbours who are not organic farmers but who have family farms. We sell grain to them. They may use it for feed; they may use it for a cover crop, or they may use it to plant and harvest to feed their cattle the following year. I have no control over that. We would like to see that type of relationship enabled and not criminalized. Because of the particular nature of organic agriculture, we feel that some of these concerns will disproportionately impact organic growers unless some modifications are made to the language.

Overall, the tone of this bill politicizes control over seed, and we see that as a concern. The need to protect global food security and biodiversity requires us to enshrine farmers' rights in more than a small exception to this legislation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

We'll now go to the Canadian Pork Council, Mr. Rick Bergmann.

You have six minutes.

[Rick Bergmann, Vice-Chair, Canadian Pork Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. As mentioned, my name is Rick Bergmann. I'm a hog producer from Steinbach, Manitoba, and the vice-chair of the Canadian Pork Council.

First of all, I would like to thank the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for the invitation to appear before you this afternoon to discuss Bill C-18.

The CPC serves as a national voice for hog producers in Canada. We're a federation of non-provincial pork industry associations. Our purpose is to play a leadership role in achieving and maintaining a dynamic and prosperous pork sector. As you know, that's not an easy job.

We are pleased that the common theme for the proposed changes in this bill has the potential of increasing producer access to programs and lowering costs. I'll use the next few minutes to comment on behalf of pork producers across the country. For the record, today I will not be talking about temporary foreign workers.

Hog production is a huge economic engine in Canada. We are a sector that exports more than two-thirds of the hogs produced in Canada as either live or pork products. Exports help the Canadian hog and pork industry to grow. They benefit all of us. However, exports, or the potential of an export market, are worthless if Canada does not have producers to supply the product. Keeping farm costs under control and eliminating red tape is important for us and for all our members.

Our industry has faced serious challenges to our ability to compete in the world market in the recent past, including country of origin labelling, a strong Canadian dollar, historically high grain prices, and the world economic slowdown. However, we have managed to come through all this with a smaller but highly competitive hog sector, and we must not lose sight of the Canadian hog industry's long-term interests. The world economy will continue to evolve. We cannot afford to overlook or suspend any efforts that can improve our market access or place our industry at a competitive disadvantage.

The pork industry has turned its corner over the last year and due to lower feed costs and stable hog prices, we're enjoying a better year. CPC has recently commissioned a paper on the financial situation faced by the hog and pork sector here in Canada. The paper highlighted a few things. Current profits have not completely rebuilt the industry equity lost during the previous years, so producers are feverishly taking the money they have been able to make this year and primarily putting it in the big hole behind them to get that fixed so they can move on. We're pleased that can happen.

Current profits are linked to the production impact of the PED virus in the United States. That virus is also here in Canada as well, to a lesser extent. Prices could come under strong downward pressure in 2016 due to capacity limitations, so we need to be able to provide strong export markets for the products we produce here in Canada. The main point is that commodity markets remain inherently risky, and hogs have demonstrated a great deal of price and margin volatility due to hog supplies, global demand, cost of grains, and current fluctuations. The industry as well as its financiers will remain vigilant and cautious as it recovers from the severe trauma of the past years. We have lost many producers over the last five years.

Canadian hog producers see value in the advance payments program and view the changes to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act as an improvement. Steps that can reduce the administrative burden and cut costs for participating can make a difference, and we encourage that to continue. The availability of the program assisted many producers with their cashflow during a very difficult period in the industry. While many of the proposed changes are focused on the administrative part of the program, we encourage a review of the loan limits in this regard. The maximum limit currently of $400,000, with $100,000 interest-free, should be raised to reflect more of the general farm operation sizes, particularly in the hog industry. At one time these numbers were more meaningful than what they are today, so they need to be reviewed and brought in line to where the industry is.

The repercussion from several years of difficulty in the hog sector is the availability of credit. APP will help, but it will not help with the construction or improvement of buildings. The CPC is currently examining the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act and the CALA program to determine how the program could be improved in order to better meet the objective of supporting the renewal of the hog sector in Canada. Building structures are aging, and the industry is in need of significant reinvestment to ensure continued efficiencies. A modified CALA loan program would be extremely helpful in this regard.

Being from Manitoba, we're very sensitive and our provincial government is very sensitive to phosphorus. Phosphorus comes in many forms, but the Feeds Act currently states that there's a minimum-maximum level of phosphorus in the feeds that would need to be consumed by these animals. We believe it's time for that act to be reviewed and to bring it to an area that would be more applicable and acceptable for producers around the world.

In conclusion, we are recognized around the world for our animal husbandry practices and the quality and safety of the pork we raise. People want what we have. We need to continue to build on that momentum.

I thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to colleagues.

Mr. Rousseau, for five minutes, please.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Pfenning, you spoke of your concerns regarding unfortunate proceedings against small producers. Why is it so important to protect traditional farming?

Did you understand my question?

[Jennifer Pfenning]

Sorry, not exactly. Are you asking for examples of court cases against small growers?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

It's not examples, exactly.

My question is the following: Why is traditional farming so important? Some people seem to be on the backs of small producers too much, particularly by initiating damaging lawsuits against them regarding grain rights.

[Jennifer Pfenning]

The example from Germany was specifically referring to lawsuits regarding the sale of grain.

I did some research on the subject, after I spoke with my local member of Parliament, and found that in Germany the regulation was adopted with an exception for smaller acreage growers, varying slightly. It's somewhat complex the way they implemented it. Perhaps that's part of the issue there; I'm not sure.

Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH, the organization in Germany that is responsible for the enforcement of UPOV 91 regulations, has made itself very hostile to small farmers. There are between 2,000 and 3,000 lawsuits against small farmers around this legislation. I can't speak to all of them, and I'm not familiar enough with how the legislation was implemented in Germany, but an Internet search regarding Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH brings up a lot of examples that can be looked to for that. Speaking anecdotally, I know that many small farmers are being harassed by that organization to report even though they fall below the threshold required for reporting.

Does that answer the question?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Yes, in part.

I particularly wanted to focus on organic farming, traditional farming.

In Quebec, Ontario and particularly in the Maritimes, there are a number of very small producers, but they enrich the communities and small municipalities with a population of 500 to 1,000. There is no large-scale agriculture but there is small-scale production. I am primarily asking you why it is important to maintain traditional farming.

Bill C-18 does absolutely nothing as far as increasing demand for small-scale agricultural products. In public markets, there is an increasing demand for traditional and organic agricultural products

[Jennifer Pfenning]

Yes, Bill C-18 doesn't speak to that specifically, and I will say that I've actually spent the time to read it word for word. It was a bit of a daunting task, but there isn't anything in here that is inherently supportive of agriculture in the way that it is done organically in this country. That is one of the reasons that I would like to see the farmers' privilege extended somewhat to include more aspects of control. It is also why I believe it is absolutely critical for this government to develop a secondary piece of legislation that will further support our abilities as farmers, and not just organic farmers but farmers generally, as there is a good deal of political control over this particular legislation going forward. It appears to me that we run a risk of losing the rights that farmers' privilege gives us, even as small as those rights are, should the political will change in that respect.

I hope I've answered the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

You did well, thank you.

I'll now go to Mr. Dreeshen, for five minutes, please.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Welcome to all of the witnesses. I'd like to start with Mr. Bergmann and the Canadian Pork Council.

One of the things that you mentioned was the elimination of red tape and how important that is as we progress to try to continue with our great pork products throughout the world. Of course we have made some changes in that regard.

Other changes that we are looking at in this bill, and you did mention this briefly, are the changes to the Feeds Act and the availability of feeds for the pork sector. Of course this is certainly going to be a benefit in that area. You talked about the need to make sure that there was an ongoing discussion. Perhaps I could ask you what type of input you believe the pork industry will be looking at when we get to the regulations side of this part of the bill.