Agriculture Committee on Oct. 28th, 2014

[Rick Bergmann]

The pork council would like to be involved all the way through the process. I think it's very valuable for regulators as well as producers, in this case the Pork Council, to walk alongside each other and build something together. It's accepted better that way than if it's mandated by one and not necessarily accepted easily by our membership.

An example of some other improvements that could be made is currently, when products are endorsed by governments around the world, it's many years later that they are endorsed or approved for use here in Canada. That's a frustration for our members because we need to stay competitive. If there are other countries that have a competitive advantage because of items or products that they can use, the red tape or the stack of paper that has to be gone through should be reduced. We don't want it to be eliminated because there has to be due process, but we find in numerous situations that there's a long wait for products to be approved.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Mr. Santacruz of the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association.

One of the things I wanted to ask is how your members plan to utilize UPOV 91 in order to bring new products to market. You mentioned that somewhat in your address. I would like to get an idea as to how innovative groups are able to use this in order to bring it to the Canadian market and some of the goals for those that are more adventurous as to how they might be able to take what they produce and expand into the world markets.

[Victor Santacruz]

From our sector, the old rules weren't really helpful to get industry to invest in new varieties simply because the vast majority of the world, 71% of the countries that are following UPOV, are following UPOV 91. It would be very difficult for them to get products in here from those countries if we didn't have that same protection, but it would also be very difficult for us to get local growers to invest in and put money into new varieties as a payoff if we didn't have that level of protection. Now UPOV 91 not only compensates and incentivizes people to invest in research innovation for export, but it also allows for expansion of or derivatives from new varieties to also bring benefit and value back to breeders and producers— [Technical Difficulty—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Sir, we lost the connection. Perhaps you could finish in a few seconds.

[Victor Santacruz]

Sure.

I was just saying that it does help incentivize industry to invest because there is protection and there is a return on the investment to do so. Right now Canadian hardy products in ornamentals are quite successful in Europe, and we have good research programs with Vineland Research and Innovation Centre to progress forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Eyking, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, guests, for coming.

I'm going to continue on with the questioning by my colleague, especially on the nursery side, because most of the witnesses coming forward have been from the grain industry. We heard from some from the horticulture industry but not much from the nursery side. I've been to the Vineland Research and Innovation Centre, and it's amazing what they're doing with different varieties. At the end of the day, consumers in Canada would like to have the varieties that there are all over the world.

I visited the Dutch market in Holland where they sell all these varieties. We have a terrific greenhouse industry here in Canada. I think we have the potential in the beddng industry not only to grow plants for Canada, but also to be an exporter into the U.S. market. We're doing so well with the greenhouse vegetables, why can't we be selling more greenhouse plants down south?

That being said, can you give a little more detail on that and some examples—you mentioned the rose varieties—of how that would be transformed after this bill was passed and how your next year would unfold with these new regulations?

[Victor Santacruz]

I'll use the example of roses, which is the one I'm most familiar with since I am responsible for our program in Canada. We've been working—and before us it was the federal government actually—on a program for breeding strong hardy roses. With the help of Vineland, which is doing the research, we're taking those roses and working on black spot resistance and basically making them genetically strong plants that can sustain Canadian winters and disease. We have achieved rather spectacular plants through breeding strong plants and bringing together generations of different plant material to get a great product.

The beauty is not only that all of that gives us a competitive advantage over our American colleagues in the northern States but also that those plants that aren't the real winners for the Canadian climate are still excellent products we can export to a lot of European markets and warmer climates because genetically they're still quite valuable. Perhaps they're not that hardy but they do have a lot of the disease resistance that many other plants in the world do not possess. Canada is very strong in that. UPOV 91 allows us to financially benefit from those investments and that research in other jurisdictions that also respect plants breeders' rights, whereas for a country that doesn't have UPOV 91, it's a bit more harrowing to take plants into that area if that intellectual property is not protected to the degree to which it should be.

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

Thank you.

I'll now go to the Organic Council of Ontario.

Time and time again at this committee, small farmers and organic farmers are very concerned about this. Many of them are not against it, but there's nothing in it for them. I was just wondering if our committee should be looking at more for organic farmers and for small farmers as we go forward.

I'm also interested in what's happening in Germany. You alluded to the thousand lawsuits. Is that Europe-wide or is it just a group or what is really happening with these farmers? Can they not use your seed? Can you get into the details of that?

[Jennifer Pfenning]

As you said, this legislation doesn't really address a lot of concerns. Most of the legislation is directed at very large-scale operations. For reference, my own family farm is about 600 acres, and some 400 acres of that is in vegetables that are fresh market or processing vegetables and then there are some grains for rotation. That is the perspective I am coming from personally.

In Germany, on the lawsuits that I was referring to, a very quick Internet search brought me the information that there are between 2,000 and 3,000, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,600, active lawsuits against farmers in Germany. I have a full-time job, so I didn't really read all of them, but in a couple of the examples that I did read about, the farmers were saying that—

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

Excuse me. Are they selling the seed? In this new legislation you're allowed to reuse the seed. Are they selling the seed? Why are they getting in trouble?

[Jennifer Pfenning]

On most farms, even in Canada—and this is the example that I was going to say; I actually read the details of a couple of the cases—farmers will sell seed, grains particularly, between farms and the farm you sell it to may use it for feed, may use it to plant as a cover crop. They may use some for feed and then they run short on seed for planting for forage and use some of the grain that they've purchased from another farmer to plant in their field, which they then harvest. It's this detail that is creating the issue.

For example, one young man was saying that the lawsuit he was talking about—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

We're going to have to shorten it up here, please

[Jennifer Pfenning]

Sorry, may I finish?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Just finish it, please.

[Jennifer Pfenning]

Okay. He had sold some grain that was planted by another farm and it was several years down the road after he had sold it and that's why he was being sued. He didn't know what the farm had intended to do with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lemieux, for five minutes, please.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you to our witnesses once again for being here and sharing their thoughts on this bill.

To follow on that conversation we were having, just regarding the organic sector, I was asking the Canadian Seed Trade Association, which has organic seed providers within its membership, if they felt that Bill C-18 would be helpful. I got a sort of unequivocal yes in that the bill will encourage investment in organic seeds as well. Especially in my mind, because it's a growing market—a rapidly growing market as you quite rightly pointed out—there is huge potential that has already been realized, but there is tremendously huge potential still to be realized, and I would think that organic technology would be the friend of the organic farmer in perhaps reaching out to Canadians and new consumers.

I would also point out one other thing, and that is I do want to clarify that Bill C-18 is not instituting plant breeders' rights. It's not like there are no plant breeders' rights today, that Bill C-18 is charting a new path and now there will be plant breeders' rights. No, they're already in effect. It's extending them. Certainly, what we've heard from a number of witnesses is the extension of these rights is what is going to encourage investment and has already actually triggered positive decision-making by those involved in seed research and development, in terms of the decisions they're making to do this type of research in Canada.

Jennifer, perhaps you could comment on that, that organic farmers could very well benefit from new investment because these are being extended, and also perhaps recognize that the bill is really only extending plant breeders' rights, not instituting them from zero.

[Jennifer Pfenning]

I hope I haven't given the impression that I thought it was instituting. I certainly am aware and we support plant breeders' rights insomuch as it is very important to recognize an individual's or organization's investment in bringing a new product to market and that is to the benefit of everyone.

One of the concerns that many organizations and individuals involved in the organic sector have is that much of the commercial research dollar has been devoted to development of varieties that are specifically intended to dovetail with chemical inputs and there's less focus on more traditional breeding and more traditional styles of varieties and traits.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

By extending the rights you would think that might encourage further development than perhaps a focus on the organic sector because there is a greater payback.

[Jennifer Pfenning]

It very well may.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes.

[Jennifer Pfenning]

The only concern is as I said in my original presentation about unintended consequences of criminalizing things that we have traditionally done both organically and not organically speaking, the sale between farms and storing seed.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Let me comment on that. I actually don't think it's criminalizing it. I think it's clarifying it. Right now it is unclear. There might be a common understanding but it's not defined anywhere. I think through this bill we're making a very real attempt to clarify what is a farmer's privilege in terms of seed or a farmer's right in terms of seed. I don't want to get into the semantics of privilege versus right, because you know the legislation is actually talking beside that little title about what is actually incorporated. I would think that the clarity actually would be helpful to farmers as opposed to perhaps being in the unclear situation of what a commonly understood definition might be even though it's not in writing anywhere.

[Jennifer Pfenning]

Agreed. Let me be clear that the organic council does not feel that the sky is falling, to put it in the vernacular, if this bill is passed. We're simply suggesting a few modifications and strengthening that farmer's privilege.