Agriculture Committee on Nov. 4th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Do you have your amendment, Ms. May, please?

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Amendment number one.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll refresh the memory of committee members because you moved this motion some time ago. In the fall of 2013 this committee, identically with committees throughout the House of Commons, moved a motion that required any member of Parliament in one of the smaller parties, either the Green Party or Bloc or Independent members, to give 48 hours' notice to produce amendments. I wish I had had more time to take into account some recent suggestions that were sent to me through the National Farmers Union, but we operate with the instructions that we have to get them here 48 hours ahead of time. As you will recall, Mr. Chair, the amendments that I, as a person not a member of this committee, will present today are deemed moved through some sort of mystical process, and I get to speak to them.

Quickly speaking to this, the Green Party is very concerned. We know the farming and the agricultural community in Canada is more or less split over Bill C-18, whether we've sufficiently protected farmers' privilege and whether we've got the balance right. In general, I want to stress one point that I think is pretty critical, and it was in the testimony that you heard from the National Farmers Union. Even though UPOV is recognized by the World Trade Organization and it does govern this area, every revamping of UPOV has the effect of ratcheting up corporate control over seeds and is a real concern to farmers but we as a country do have the right under all the UPOVs to maintain our own legitimate protection of plant breeders. That's why we are seeking in my amendments to help buttress the farmers' privilege. I welcome the government amendment that was just passed.

Also, for my colleagues across the way who before we began informally mentioned that they didn't know that Vancouver Island had a lot of agriculture. We have a lot of agriculture. In my riding we have hundreds of farms and farmers and producers of all kinds. We have over 20,000 farms in British Columbia. Contributing to this when you add processing to the total economic impact we have over a $40 billion of economic impact. That leaves out the product that my friends were assuming was B.C.'s biggest green product. I don't know anything about that.

Moving on to my amendment which, in this case, is to add another clause to clause 5. I'm proposing that at line 22, on page 7, we add a general direction for interpretation of all the preceding clauses within clause 5. As you'll see before you, and for theParti Vert -1 the suggestion is that:

Sections 5 to 5.4 are to be interpreted and applied in a manner that does not impose unreasonable financial burden on farmers or impede their rights to grow, save and use seed for planting, including their unrestricted rights to clean, store and prepare seeds for that purpose.

Again, Mr. Chair, I think it's pretty straightforward. I welcome any comments from the officials who are here today. This is a guide to interpretation to ensure that we don't accidentally, unintentionally, create new financial burdens on farmers or impede the rights to clean, store, and prepare seed and to grow, save, and use that seed in ways that the current Bill C-18 suggests it does not intend to have those impacts. This is to clarify for purposes of interpretation.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

Is there debate?

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Chair, I raise the point that again, this is touching on farmer privilege. I think amendment G-1 achieved the clarity that witnesses were looking for. We passed that, and there's the clarity that witnesses were asking for.

I have other concerns with this. One of them is around the words “does not impose unreasonable financial burdens on farmers”. I think that's problematic, because a lot of farms are businesses. There are other businesses in the value chain. Plant breeders may sell to farmers. They may sell to another enterprise in the value chain. It sets up this hierarchy of rights that's different.

It's not well-defined. What exactly does “unreasonable financial burdens” mean?

So I don't think it does clarify. I think it injects uncertainty. For that reason, I wouldn't support the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Although I tend not to always agree with my friend across the way, I'll agree with part of his statement on this particular amendment. It is, quite truthfully, extremely vague. Unless you're sitting here through all the testimony, it's a bit of a reach to really understand what exactly it is, albeit we understand what it is in the sense of what we believe is a farmer's right, rather than a privilege. We think “privilege” is the wrong terminology. It conveys the wrong meaning, in my view. The government has deemed fit to accept what we thought was a strengthened amendment. I don't want to go back and debate it, because we did support the government's small step forward. I just don't think it follows with the infamous statement that was made on the moon, about one small step for mankind, and then something else. The other part, the something else, could have passed with ours.

We'll support this amendment even though it is vague. It's an attempt to go forward with a farmer's right, but it leaves a lot of things open to interpretation, and that's always problematic. As my friends down there would say, we'd have to regulate it to death to try to figure out what it means.

But it's an attempt to do something, perhaps a little more than my friends across the way were hoping for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Speaking to this particular amendment, I think in talking about unreasonable financial burdens you're making an assumption that the new direction of UPOV 91 is going to harm farmers financially. As we've heard here—and for me as a farmer—the most expensive seed is what you buy first. When that's gone, you then go down through the next level. The reason you're looking at that is that you've looked at the traits, you've looked at the situations that exist there. For someone from the outside to assume that these are going to be unreasonable financial burdens.... I guess if you get hailed out, and you bought something that's twice as much as before.... But that's why you have this other suite of things you're going to deal with.

As other people have suggested, when you throw the words “unreasonable financial burdens” in there, you tie in that assumption, which is certainly not the case in the grain industry. There may be some other smaller groups that may fear that, but it certainly isn't the case in the industries we're speaking of here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I just see the word “unreasonable” as muddying the water. What is unreasonable to you might not be unreasonable to Mr. Eyking or Mr. Dreeshen, and that goes all the way down the line.

So I don't think it helps the situation at all.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Eyking.

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

I like the amendment, but there's one part that doesn't fit in there, the “unreasonable financial burdens on farmers”. That's just too broad and vague. It's too open-ended. The rest of it's good:

...or impede their rights to grow, save and use seed for planting, including their unrestricted rights to clean, store and prepare seed for that purpose.

That all makes sense, but that's not the way it works here. That part really doesn't fit. If it were out of there, I think I would have no problem with the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Ms. May, then we'll move.

Yes, quickly.

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

Thank you.

One thing I would like to suggest regarding Mr. Dreeshen's concern is that if there is no risk of additional financial burdens, then there's nothing to fear from this amendment. There's a great deal of statutory interpretation of the word “reasonable” and there are a lot of tests that are applied, but it is guidance for interpretation only.

I would also say to my friend Mr. Lemieux that if in the value chain of food production in Canada we don't decide that in that hierarchy, farmers are the most important, then I don't know what we think we're doing.

I would invite any of my colleagues who are members of this committee and who might wish to preserve some of the language to amend this—I'm not allowed to as a non-committee member—to remove “unreasonable financial burdens” and just include “does not impede their rights to grow...”, etc. If you like that language, we can take out “unreasonable financial burdens” and have it be a friendly amendment, or have it proposed entirely at this table by a member of the official opposition or the Liberal Party.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Eyking.

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

I'll put that forward. I see no problem with taking that out.

Does it have to be written down?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

We need it in writing, please.

Yes, Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'll let them write their amendment before I comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Okay.

Colleagues, the amendment would read as presented, with one change: the words “unreasonable financial burdens on farmers” would be removed.

Is there debate?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Sure.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Is this debate on the amendment to the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

This is debate on the amendment to the amendment.