Agriculture Committee on Nov. 4th, 2014

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

So we'll vote on the amendment to the amendment, and then we'll vote on the amendment itself?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

We will be voting on the amendment to the amendment first, and then we'll vote on the amendment.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay.

When I look at the whole amendment that's being proposed, in its original state and as amended, you're just repeating what has already been encompassed in the government's amendment, which was already approved. Whenever you start repeating things, you start creating all sorts of conditions where you're unsure of what exactly is the intent of the committee or the piece of legislation that's there.

So I would keep it simple, and the simplest way is the way the government amended it previously. Thus, I don't think this is necessary. I think we're going down a road that we don't need to go down. Whether we amend it or not, it still says the same thing, and it's already in the clause. I just don't see this as being necessary at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you for the debate.

Shall Mr. Eyking's subamendment to PV-1 carry?

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

Thank you.

Folks, we now have in front of us clauses 6 through 16, for which there have not been any suggestions of amendments. We can move through those rather quickly by consent, regrouping and applying them as one vote.

Can we do that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

(Clauses 6 to 16 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 17)

Madame Brosseau, go ahead with NDP-6, please, under clause 17.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Bill C-18, in clause 17, by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 14 with the following:

acceptable, the Commissioner may take those results into consideration as part of the evidence for a review of a decision pursuant to any regulations made under paragraph 75(1)(m). The person on whose part material is

This amendment just speaks to the fact that we know that there are a lot of people in groups who call for foreign studies to be recognized and given consideration. We just want to make sure that there's more due process and harmonization when it comes to the criteria given, and to make sure that Canadian findings take precedence whenever there's a discrepancy found.

So this amendment is just to ensure that the acceptance of foreign studies is governed by due process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Madame Brosseau.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

I don't quite understand why the amendment is coming forward. Right now it says the commissioner may rely on those results. He has the flexibility, using his good judgment, to rely on those results.

I'm wondering if Madame Brosseau could explain in more detail why this amendment is necessary. What is lacking or where is it that you feel the commissioner might not act in the best interest here?

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

It's based on consultations that we had with stakeholders, where this was put forward as a recommendation. We decided it was suitable to be put in an amendment, just to make sure that Canadian research takes precedence.

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

Again, Mr. Chair, I don't quite understand why there's this lack of confidence, perhaps, in the commissioner having the ability to rely on those results, as it's worded right now. I don't understand why there's a change to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Allen, I know you wanted to speak. Maybe now is your time.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We talked about this just last week with one of the witnesses, and I asked a question around how you determine who does what. So, part of a study is whether it is internationally accepted by all parties or not. Right now there isn't that.

In many industries there is an ISO standard, which many of you may well be familiar with, that is acceptable across boundary lines of countries, per se. The auto sector is a prime example of that in North America, where they have ISO standards that say, “If you make the part to this standard, we'll accept it here, and here, and here.”

In this particular type of material, that's not absolutely so, at the moment. The intent is to say to folks, “How do we develop those standards and how do we make sure we have those standards?” If we're literally going to suggest to folks that they use it over there, why can't we have it? Well, the issue is, did they actually test it in the same manner we did? Right now, it's a very loosey-goosey situation. We say, “Well of course they have the standards as us”. Do they really?

A lab in Alabama has the same standards as a lab in New Hampshire. Perhaps. We don't now that because there isn't any recognized acceptable standard. There is no international designation for them. It's simply a private lab run by some individuals who say they do testing to such-and-such a level. Okay. It may well be true, but we don't know that.

The idea of it being acceptable is the whole idea of, what standards do we have? Are they comparable? How do you measure that comparability? How do you do that?

Without a recognized international standard between the parties that's agreed upon in advance, are you sure you're getting what you actually said you wanted? Or, are you simply hoping you get what you thought you might get? That's the dilemma with materials.

That's really where we're trying to drive this piece, so it ends up being a safety piece, and we don't end up bringing in material and then finding out after, oops, that lab really wasn't a very good one. We shouldn't have accepted it. Now we're scrambling after the fact to introduce regulations that prohibit because we have to go back to square one.

The whole process of making sure this is an acceptable standard has a whole process to go. Now perhaps Mr. Lemieux will tell me the regulatory framework is going to do all these things for us, and that we're going to actually get to a standard that's acceptable because clearly there are standards that would be and some that would not be. It really is providing a framework, so that everyone is on an acceptable page that says that standard is independently verified.

ISO standards are done by a third party evaluation. It's not just simply somebody putting they're hand up and saying he or she has a certificate. They have to be verified and they have to be verified on a continual basis. You would actually know you really get the stuff that you actually thought you would get in a safe manner. That's really what this is all about.

Then eventually when you say you will accept it, it can actually come across the border, and there isn't any issue. That's really what it's about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Eyking.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to get some opinions from the witnesses who are here. Does this give the commissioner any more teeth, manoeuvring room, or whatever, compared to what's in their original clause?

[Tony Ritchie]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will take the first stab at this and my colleague, Nicolas, can add additional material.

Article 12 of the UPOV 91 convention does state that we can take into account the results of growing tests or other trials that have already been carried out. The core components of UPOV are that breeders need to demonstrate that their product is distinct, uniform, and stable. These are common to all UPOV member countries.

Requiring tests and trials to be carried out in each jurisdiction often significantly increases the cost to the developer and can delay the introduction of innovative new varieties into the marketplace to the detriment of farmers.

Canada accepts high-quality, distinct, uniform, and stable results in tests and trials. As well, we sell our own tests and trials to other UPOV member countries. Imposing regulations in that particular environment would significantly delay the ability to consider those tests and trials internationally, and can result in fewer varieties and less choice for farmers.

[Nicolas McCandie Glustien]

Mr. Chair, if I could add one quick thing to that, or two quick things?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Sure.

[Nicolas McCandie Glustien]

At the beginning of subclause 24(1) in terms of the acceptability of the tests, it does say that it's from the appropriate authority in the country of the union. This is the authority that's charged with discharging the UPOV 91 legislation in that country, so it's from a regulated authority. The CFIA is that authority in Canada and there are other competent authorities across the globe.

The other part is that the way the amendment is structured would limit the consideration of that foreign data only to reviews of the decision of the commissioner. The commissioner takes decisions under subsection 23(1) about the application for breeders' rights. The way the amendment is written now would limit it to only reviews of those decisions done through the regulatory process. It would actually restrict the ability of the commissioner to review and consider foreign data.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Any further debate?

Those in favour of the amendment? Opposed?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 17 agreed to)

I'll move on. Seeing there are no amendments to clauses 18 through 38, I would like to seek unanimous consent to apply the vote to carry all of those.

(Clauses 18 to 38 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 39)

What we have in front of us is NDP-7. I'm going to allow the debate to happen on this because I think it has some validity. It could easily have been ruled inadmissible, but I'm going to allow the debate to happen.

Madame Brosseau.

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

Thank you.

This one is on page 22, clause 39, with the following words to be added after line 42:

(4.1) The Commissioner is responsible for providing information, on request, to breeders of plant varieties, dealers in seeds, growers of seeds, farmers and horticulturists to explain the application and operation of this Act and the regulations, and for seeking comments from those entities on the application and operation of the Act, including any proposed changes to the Act and the regulations.

Mr. Lemieux mentioned today that consultation is very important. Since this is a fairly big bill, touching on nine pieces of legislation and has quite a few sweeping changes, we want to reinforce that farmers' interests are being taken into consideration.

This amendment reiterates the fact that consultation is very important. Many of our witnesses said time and time again that even if they did support this bill, they wanted to be an active part of the consultation. In broad strokes that's what this amendment does, to make sure that producers are given the right to understand these laws and participate in consultations when it comes to regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you.

Is there debate?

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Again, Chair, I'm just wondering, are there examples of problems we should know about? CFIA, the commissioner, already have this responsibility. They carry out this responsibility. Is there something specifically driving this amendment that we should know about?

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

It was just based on witnesses who came to committee, and also in just talking with stakeholders. They said they wanted to be consulted. It's just reinforcing and making sure it is enshrined in this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Payne.