Agriculture Committee on Nov. 4th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Mr. Eyking.

Debate.

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

Chair, I think I would just say that this particular amendment looks at amending farmers' privilege and we just did that. We just did that in amendment G-1, so this amendment wouldn't be necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Eyking.

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

Yes, that's why I voted for the previous amendment, because it did one part of that, but it didn't do the other parts. It doesn't say in your amendment that you can sell it for somebody to use for animal feed. It only says one thing. I think your previous amendment has that the farmer can stock it, doesn't it, but it doesn't have the other two things in it. This would add a couple of things to your amendment, because your amendment does not do as much as my amendment. Your amendment is fine, but it just doesn't go far enough, so you can't say they're the same.

I think if you want, Chair, you could get clarification through the staff you have. There is a difference in the amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Are you asking that?

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

I would say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Okay, who would you like?

[Nicolas McCandie Glustien, Manager, Legislative Affairs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are a few things in this amendment that we've looked at. For the most part it's repeating a lot of the exclusive rights of the breeder and what the farmers' privilege then allows the farmer. For instance, paragraph 5.3(c) says “sell, for uses other than propagation...”. If you go back to proposed paragraph 5(1)(c), the breeder's right is exclusively “to sell propagating material of the variety.” So the sale of the harvested material is already out. I think that's why the amendment was phrased as “For greater certainty...”. It may be adding all the different rights into that one place.

However, I think there is one element that is outside of the “For greater certainty...”. It's in (3), which says, “without having to pay any further royalties,” which may impact the ability to have regulations in different sectors that would address an end-point royalty scheme. In our opinion, that little bit in subclause 5(3) may not allow for those regulations to be made.

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

May I ask a question, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Yes.

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

Let's be clear. Let's look at this in the farmer's terms. I'm a farmer and I've bought the certified seed. I plant it and I harvest it. What I am seeing here is that I, as a farmer, can do a couple of things with this seed: I can take some and sell it, of course, as long as it's not for somebody to plant. I can sell it to a farmer down the road who's feeding his hogs, or I can reseed part of that myself without paying royalties.

Are you saying that's where the problem is, that you should not be able to take that seed you have stored in your bin and reseed it without paying royalties? Is that where you have a problem with “without having to pay any further royalties”? That's what I am saying, “in respect of the propagating material of a plant variety may, without having to pay any further royalties.”

Are you trying to say that they should pay royalties when they reseed something they harvested the year before? Am I clear?

[Nicolas McCandie Glustien]

I think our problem was perhaps with the lack of clarity in the way it was phrased. In rereading it, I can see it the way we've been thinking about it in studying this the last few days. I can also see an interpretation where it is only on those acts that belong within the farmers' privilege for not paying further royalties.

I think that because of this lack of clarity, it may seem to us that this is essentially repeating the rights of the breeder and the rights of the farmer that have come up before. It was a little unclear to us, in terms of the potential for an end-point royalty.

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

Thank you.

Can you find where it is stated in this bill, beyond what I'm putting in here, that the farmer does not have to pay royalties on reusing the seed for seeding? I am willing to take that part out if you already see it somewhere.

[Nicolas McCandie Glustien]

The ability of the plant breeder to collect the royalties is in subclause 5(2):

Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, an authorization conferred under paragraph 1(h) may be subject to a condition to pay royalty to the holder of the plant breeder’s rights whether or not the holder is Her Majesty....

If you go back up to paragraph 5(1)(h), dealing with the rights that it sets out for the breeder that the latter can give to the farmer, the rights are all about the production and reproduction of the propagating material of the variety and the selling, exporting, or importing of the propagating material. Then the farmers' privilege comes and it carves out those elements of propagating on your own farm for future use of the harvested material.

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

You're saying...[Inaudible—Editor].

[Nicolas McCandie Glustien]

Yes. The royalties would be collected on the elements of the breeder's rights in subclause 5(1), and then the farmers' privilege carves out those elements of propagation on the farm.

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

Can you also see within this bill the other three things I have? Are those rights enshrined in this bill already?

[Nicolas McCandie Glustien]

In our opinion, they are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Mr. McCandie-Glustien. We're well over time.

Thank you, Mr. Eyking.

Is there further debate?

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

Mr. Chair, if they are in there...what's wrong with repeating it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

You heard the comment.

Is there further debate on the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

We now move to NDP-5.

Madame Brosseau.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is on clause 5, page 7, to be amended by adding, after line 22 on page 7 the following:

5.5 The rights referred to in sections 5 to 5.2 are to be interpreted and applied in a manner that does not restrict the rights of farmers to sell or otherwise transfer propagating material to other farmers, including transfers by means of farmer-owned organizations such as cooperatives, associations and non-profit organizations.

We know that the minister said that he was going to clarify this. We are amending and reinforcing parts of this bill. We want to make sure that it is in black and white that farmers do have the right to save, condition, and exchange seeds. They should not have to pay for their seeds up front and should have the right to exchange and sell what they grow in their fields. It's also to make sure that we clarify that we include organizations and cooperatives in this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Madame Brosseau.

Is there debate?

Hearing none, shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived)

We'll now move to Ms. May.

Welcome.

PV? What's PV on your amendments?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's the designation used by the House of Commons for Parti Vert.

I think, initially, when they marked my amendments as “Green Party”, they were worried that members would be confused with government amendments. Until the day I form government, it's probably appropriate that we avoid the confusion.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!