Agriculture Committee on Oct. 30th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Go ahead, Reg.

[Reg Schmidt]

I think we could answer that very quickly. With our cap, largely we service only cattle producers presently. In just a quick conferring with our administrator, we figure that at least one half, or 50%, of our producers use both the grain advance and a cattle advance together.

So yes, that's a pretty big number, when you look at a percentage, that could be taking advantage of a single administrator versus having to use two administrators. As you know, that's a double-edged sword. It could be that the grains people may be doing cattle advances, and we may not be doing the cattle advance in that regard, or the other side is that we will be doing both cattle and grain advances to the same producer.

Again, it should be about producer choice. That's a message that I really wanted to leave the committee with. Allow the producer to choose who's going to serve them best and provide them, from an administrative point of view, the least headaches.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemieux.

Now I'll move on to Mr. Eyking, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, guests, for coming.

I only have one kick at the can here, for five minutes, so if the witnesses can keep their answers short, maybe I'll get a couple of questions in. I'd appreciate it.

I think overall the bill is needed for farmers and the food industry. It's a big bill and there's a lot in it, so the devil's in the details. We're in a situation right now where any amendments that have to go forward have to be done by today.

I don't know if you guys are in the best position or worst position, because you're the last ones out, but I think we have to get advice on that. Most people who have come forward are in favour of this bill—most—but most also want tweaking done.

I have two lines of questioning. One is on the penalty part for violators in food production. I was a farmer. We did value-added on our farm. Many times the CFIA inspector came. Sometimes he gave us warnings, but most times that inspector helped us move forward with our products to make sure they were safe and to also have the right products to sell. My concern is the part of the bill that's pretty heavy-handed, where it seems to switch from the philosophy of government being a “coach”—I guess you would use that terminology—to a referee, where they're going to come in and do drive-by big penalties.

I know the government is saying that they're going after businesses. Well, most farmers have businesses, and most people do value-added. Small farmers or big farmers are in business. At the end of the day, I'm very concerned about that part of the bill, where government is becoming so-called big government and being a referee instead of a coach. I would want to see some changes on that.

I'm working on an amendment. I think this was brought up by a couple of witnesses already. I'm not sure, but I think it may be the Canadian Animal Health Coalition that opened up that conversation.

Mr. Empringham, can you give me a little comment on that?

[R. Edward Empringham]

We made no comment about that in our comments. It was outside our scope.

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

Maybe it was another witness who talked about the violations.

[Dave Solverson]

Mr. Eyking, we did comment and were basically wondering how it would be implemented and enforced. We're concerned about minor offences of little risk to human or animal health and were wondering if these was going to be caught up in these automatic $5,000 minimums. Our concern is implementation and how it will be implemented. We don't really have a suggestion for how you would do the amendment, but we're concerned about—

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

You're bang on, because that's my concern: how it's going to be implemented. Going back to my analogy, it is more about being a type of referee than a coach, where you're not helping these food processors and people doing value-added, but more that you're coming in there and saying, “Okay, here's your big fine.” There's no warning and then they move on. The individual—

[Dave Solverson]

And they don't always get caught—

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

—has to kind of defend himself in court.

[Dave Solverson]

Correct. You've made a great point about being more of a coach than a referee. For instance, at the time of the XL crisis a couple of years ago, in the fall—I forget the acronym—for minor offences it used to be that the CFIA would just work through it with them. But because there was so much interest from media and whatever, all of a sudden these minor problems that normally would have just been coached through became public, and it looked it was a far more serious event than it was. I think you're onto something there.

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

That's why I'm concerned about this part of the legislation.

My second question is on the advance payment. For most of the witnesses who came before us, it was about the amount of money. It's interesting that now we're hearing that it's not only the amount of money, but the flexibility in the program, especially with multi-commodity farms. It is a problem I hear across the country, not only in relation to this act but also in dealing with a lot of business risk management programs; they do not really suit multi-commodity farms. Can you expand on that a bit, the whole subject of the business risk management or this advance payment, that they're not suited to multi-commodity farms?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

You have 15 seconds, please.

[Reg Schmidt]

I'm going to express this in a general sense. In the last number of years some new programs have been developed, both privately—especially with the cattle price insurance, so I'll speak generally on the cattle. The program itself has become mainstream. It provides a good level of risk management, purely on the price side. The cattle industry has always been a bit critical of the AgriStability piece because of its lack of responsiveness, but I'm not going to get deep into that. But you can see by producer uptake that that side of it is not very favourable, therefore they can't get an advance. So are there other pieces we can put together that would allow producers to get an advance?

Am I following your question, sir?

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I want to thank the committee, and I want to thank our witnesses for taking part in a little bit of a shortened agenda because of procedures that happened in the House.

With that, we will break for two minutes while we hook up the video for the next group.

Thank you very much for your attendance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I want to welcome our witnesses. One will be with us very shortly.

In the second hour we'll start again with our video conference. With that, we'll move to Richmond Hill for the Canadian Ornamental Horticulture Alliance, and Mr. Chris Andrews.

Welcome, Mr. Andrews. You have six minutes, please.

[Chris Andrews, Administrator, Canadian Ornamental Horticulture Alliance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

Good afternoon. My name is Chris Andrews. I am the administrator of the Canadian Ornamental Horticulture Alliance, a national organization that represents the ornamental sector across Canada. This industry, the single largest sector in horticulture, comprises both the floriculture and the nursery industries.

According to the economic impact study performed by Deloitte in 2009, the ornamental horticulture sector is an important part of Canada’s economy, contributing an economic impact of over $14.48 billion. The ornamental horticulture sector is the second largest employer in primary production agriculture, surpassed only by dairy and cattle farming, according to the Canadian Agriculture Human Resource Council report from ESDC. If we include our full value chain, we employ over 220,000 Canadians in over 135,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

Since the inception of COHA in 2006 by the partners, whose own time goes back to the early 1920s, we have been engaged with the federal government through a number of departments—for example CFIA, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, ESDC, Health Canada, PMRA, PMC, and a whole bunch of other acronyms that are well known up there—and have worked with our partners to continue to improve the way in which we work with legislation, domestically and internationally.

We are here today to provide our support of the changes to the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act through the adoption of UPOV 91. Our industry has long been at a disadvantage competitively and globally under the PBR UPOV 78 and we fully support the moving ahead with its adoption. We have further expressed this opinion through our inclusion within Partners in Innovation, which has been active in its lobby for this move. With this action we will move to a level playing field with our international community and it will provide us with new plant materials that we have long been unable to obtain.

The success of the ornamental sector in Canada depends upon new and innovative plant materials and varieties, many of which would arrive from other countries and our competitors. We are very active in plant research and innovation here in Canada and have a global reputation due to the new plants we have developed over the decades. We currently have, in Canada, in excess of 8,000 different plant varieties. We have a large advantage in that we have 10 hardiness zones across this vast country that give us an advantage that other countries do not have. This is shown well through the Plant Breeders' Rights Office in Ottawa, which processes the largest number of applications for protection from the ornamental sector: over 70%.

I will ask you if you may remember when plant breeders' rights were first introduced to Canada in 1991 under the UPOV 78 convention. Unfortunately, after 65 years of efforts, it came too late for the extraordinary Explorer roses, which were developed over the years by Agriculture and Agri-food Canada and were lost to a world that loved them, as we had no protection in those days. We had to buy our own plants back. My suggestion is, let’s not let that happen again to our new and innovative Canadian-bred varieties. Let's move this adoption forward in consultation as soon as we are able.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

Now I see from the Potato Growers of Alberta, Deborah Hart.

You've joined us. Welcome. You have six minutes, please.

[Deborah Hart, Seed Coordinator, Potato Growers of Alberta]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Deb Hart, and I’m pleased to be here on behalf of the Potato Growers of Alberta to speak to you regarding the amendments to the plant breeders’ rights legislation as proposed in Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

The Potato Growers of Alberta is a not-for-profit grower organization, formally organized 48 years ago. We currently have 140 licensed producers, 4 lab/greenhouse operators, 47 seed producers, and 89 process and fresh growers. This past growing season, Alberta produced 53,000 acres of potatoes, as the third-largest potato producing province in Canada. Currently over 50% of potato production in Canada is west of Thunder Bay. Alberta is also the largest exporter of seed into the United States, our major trading partner, and currently the only province in Canada to export seed to Mexico. The Potato Growers of Alberta is a member of the Canadian Horticultural Council, Canadian Potato Council, as well as the United Potato Growers of Canada.

This past growing season, 245 different varieties were grown in Alberta. Over half of these varieties, 127, are listed on the PBR website as either fully protected or in the process of becoming protected varieties. Although public varieties grown for the processing industry in North America make up the largest acreage grown in Alberta, many of the protected varieties are from other countries. These varieties grown are high generation for export to the United States, as further seed production of these varieties in Canada is discouraged due to the current PBR legislation.

Administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act was implemented by Canada in 1990. This legislation complied with the 1978 International Convention for the Protection of New Plant Varieties, or UPOV; however the convention was revised the next year, in 1991. Despite the fact that Canada signed the convention with full intent to ratify by amending the PBR legislation, 24 years later the amendments have yet to be made and Canada is one of only a few developed countries not a member of UPOV 91. From seed production through to processing and fresh potatoes for consumers, without access to UPOV 91 the potato industry is missing opportunities created by the introduction of new and improved varieties. The fact that Canada cannot protect new or private varieties in a similar fashion to other countries, which have ratified UPOV 91, has had a negative impact on domestic and international interest and investment to develop and protect new varieties in Canada. Countries that have ratified UPOV 91 are more likely to invest and align with countries that have also ratified.

By ratifying UPOV 91, the potato industry would have increased access to new and innovative varieties that would contribute to the success and competitiveness of our industry. Currently there is only one public potato breeder, located in Fredericton. Dr. Bizimungu has a great team; however they are limited by budget restraints and cutbacks. Within the past 10 years, the two-phase accelerated release program was introduced to fast-track new Agriculture Canada varieties. Phase one allows interested parties to obtain breeder seed for non-exclusive field trial evaluation for two years. Phase two involves Agriculture Canada inviting companies to submit cash bids to procure an additional three-year period for exclusive testing. At the conclusion of the testing period, a renewable licence can be obtained for the varieties developed by Agriculture Canada. This process can reduce the registration process by half and ensures more varieties are available to the Canadian industry. Many of the newly developed Agriculture Canada varieties are PBR protected, resulting in funds being returned to the breeding program in a timelier manner as seed production increases.

The private potato breeders in Canada have formed their own organization, the Canadian Private Potato Breeders Network, and with the enactment of Bill C-18, private breeding programs would be further encouraged. Private breeders in Canada have made available many improved and innovative varieties suited to Canadian production areas and requirements; for example, the varieties resistant to potato cyst nematode. However, the current PBR legislation is not competitive with UPOV 91. The Canadian private breeders would like to have a PBR protection program similar to those their colleagues in other countries are currently able to obtain.

If UPOV 91 is ratified, it will allow our industry to compete with other international potato producing areas. It will encourage international breeders to introduce new varieties to Canada and allow our Canadian breeders, both public and private, the opportunity to use new genetic properties in their own breeding programs.

In closing, although I am here today representing the Potato Growers of Alberta, I'm also speaking for the national potato industry. We are a very close industry working together, and plant breeders' rights has been a topic discussed at the national table for many years.

I hope the committee will agree that amendments to the plant breeders' rights legislation will benefit Canadian agriculture, and allow us to be leaders and competitive on an international level.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Ms. Hart.

Now I'll move to the Canadian Organic Growers, Ms. Ashley St Hilaire, please, for six minutes.

[Ashley St Hilaire, Acting Executive Director, Canadian Organic Growers]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. I'm grateful to have been invited to speak to you today on Bill C-18.

My name is Ashley St. Hilaire and I'm the acting executive director of the Canadian Organic Growers.

Canadian Organic Growers is Canada's only national organic charity with supporters and chapters in all regions of Canada. COG's membership is diverse and includes farmers, gardeners, processors, retailers, educators, policy-makers, and consumers. Not all of our members run certified organic operations, but they share a vision for a sustainable, bio-regionally based organic food system. Through our educational activities we aim to lead local and national communities towards the sustainable organic stewardship of land, food, and fibre, while respecting nature, upholding social justice, and protecting natural resources.

Canada's organic marketplace is a good news story for the Canadian agricultural sector. Organic farming is helping to revive our rural communities in Canada and attracting a new and diverse generation of farmers in Canada. These farmers are driven not only by their dedication to growing food using organic principles but also by the Canadian consumer demand for organic products, which is currently outpacing our domestic supply.

I have no doubt that it's the intention of Minister Ritz and the members of this committee to implement regulatory changes that are in the best interest of all Canadians. That's why you've taken the time to listen to testimony like mine.

Over 60% of Canadians buy organic products, and our Canadian organic market is now valued at over $4 billion. It's my job today to remind this committee that any changes to our agricultural policies, such as those proposed by Bill C-18, should provide a foundation that supports the continued growth of our organic marketplace, which is of interest to all Canadians.

Seed sovereignty refers to a farmer's own control over their access to seeds, replanting of their own seeds, and their enabling of others to access seed. In an age of ever-changing growing conditions, Canadian organic producers rely on locally produced organic and ecological vegetable and field crop seeds with the genetic diversity needed to adapt to tomorrow's climates.

Canada's organic sector is relatively young, and so there exists a limited availability of organic varieties of seeds that are suitable for our Canadian growing conditions and the agronomic needs of Canadian farmers.

In addition, as you know, many of our organic farmers are small farmers. One of the topics that has repeatedly come up during these hearings is the need for this bill to support small farmers. One way that committee members can do this is by recognizing that an activity critical to the operation of small farms is the practice of saving, storing, conditioning, and reusing seeds for replanting on their own land. Recent studies have shown that up to 60% of organic field crops are planted from saved seed.

Our government assures us that the changes proposed in Bill C-18 aimed at harmonizing the Plant Breeders' Rights Act with UPOV 91 would not impinge on these seed practices, which are described as farmers' privileges. It's even a bit funny that we use this word “privilege”. A privilege implies something that can be taken away, when really, the practice of saving, storing, conditioning, and reusing seed is a historical and inherent right of farmers of all sizes, big and small.

I sincerely believe it is the intention of our government and this committee to preserve these farmers' privileges, and we want that to be legally binding. Right now, Bill C-18 legislates the farmers' privilege to save seeds, but this can be withdrawn or restricted at a future date through regulatory changes. In the interest of the organic sector, we recommend that these farmers' privileges be explicitly articulated and built into the new act, to state that organic farmers have the right to save, store, condition, and replant registered varieties of seed; that organic farmers maintain the right to store and stock seeds harvested for livestock feed; that they have the right to store and stock a supply of seeds to be used in the event of a crop failure, disease, or frost; and that they have the right to store and stock unsold crop on their property.

Should these farmers' rights not be explicitly stated in the act, COG recommends that this committee not adopt UPOV 91 and keep UPOV 78.

Furthermore, it's been noted by COG that Bill C-18 may result in the development of an end-point royalty system, which could allow plant breeders to collect royalties on harvested materials. COG recommends that organic farmers be consulted should the development of this system be pursued, and that it include a provision to exclude harvested organic seeds produced from non-organic seed by a farmer.

Thank you very much for inviting us to speak today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Ms. St Hilaire.

Now we'll go to Mr. Bouchard from the Dairy Farmers of Canada.

Go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Dr. Réjean Bouchard, Assistant Director, Policy and Dairy Production, Dairy Farmers of Canada]

Thank you very much for the invitation, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

I'm going to talk on behalf of these guys or gals who are busy producing food, and on behalf of the staff at Dairy Farmers of Canada. Our president, Mr. Wally Smith, sends you his regrets for not being able to attend and comment on the bill dealing with important issues affecting the income of agricultural producers and affecting the entire agrifood industry.

Dairy Farmers of Canada's position on Bill C-18 is well reflected through comments made by Mr. Ron Bonnett, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, soon after the bill was presented to Parliament. Referring to plant breeders' rights, Mr. Bonnett indicated that the legislation strikes a good balance between plant breeders' investment in the development of new varieties and the farmers' ability to save, store, and condition seed for their own use.

Dairy farmers depend on continuous improvement in forage and grain varieties to increase their productivity. One important element of Bill C-18 for dairy producers is the Feeds Act. Bill C-18 would result in a major renewal of feed regulations. Dairy Farmers of Canada, along with the animal nutrition industry and other animal and fish commodity producers, is involved in a thorough consultation, which will likely result in a set of regulations accommodating a modern animal and feed industry while protecting food safety and the health of consumers. Dairy Farmers of Canada acknowledges the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for its foresight and leadership in the modernization of the feed regulations.

Regarding animal health regulations, the proposed changes are addressing existing gaps in the current regulations. Dairy farmers are looking for a positive outcome. The changes require careful monitoring and analysis to ensure that they do not negatively affect other aspects of animal health regulations.

The concept of incorporation by reference introduced in Bill C-18 is an element of particular interest to dairy farmers. The rationale is excellent as long as the affected parties are adequately consulted and their observations are taken into consideration. It is clear that incorporation by reference will lead to a reduction in the period of time required for modifying relevant regulations. However, this new approach needs to be monitored very carefully by all parties involved.

Another concept introduced by Bill C-18 is the notion of preventive control plans. Over the last few decades, agricultural producers and the food industry with government support have developed food safety programs grounded in a series of principles based on hazard analysis and critical control points generally called HACCP. The Canadian food industry system rests on this basis. The concept of preventive control plans deals with sensitivities new to producers and requires careful discussions. Producers are concerned that they will be required to implement preventive control plans and they need clarifications. For example, the on-farm food safety program for dairies is named Canadian Quality Milk. It is evolving as a component of an integrated program involving milk quality, food safety, animal welfare, animal health including biosecurity, along with different aspects of sustainability, including the three pillars of sustainability, namely economic, societal, and environmental.

Producers are concerned that changing the basis of the on-farm food safety program may affect our national program named proAction. There are equivalent programs for all other commodities.

In conclusion, the process and criteria need to be clearly communicated. Producers need to see written evidence demonstrating that our on-farm food safety programs will be sufficient to meet the requirement of the preventive control plans, and producers are asking for producer-specific information from CFIA on the issues raised above.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I thank all of the witnesses very much for their presentations.

Now we'll move to the committee and Madame Brosseau for five minutes, please.