Agriculture Committee on Nov. 4th, 2014

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What concerns me about this particular amendment is that it effectively removes the ability to use regulations. I think to put in place a legislative framework and then to have regulations follow is a very standard process. It's a well-defined process actually, using a regulatory process. Of course, there is wide consultation with industry, a gazetting process, and a feedback process.

The other thing, too, is that the regulatory process is more flexible than legislation, which is the strength of the regulatory process when it comes to having to make lower-level changes, or put definitions in place, etc., to further define the legislation. I think it's important, too, because with legislation in general, regulations allow the legislation to be tailored to particular circumstances that may arise after the legislation is implemented.

In our time here in committee, I think we have all spoken about one size not fitting all. I think a regulatory process and the use of regulations helps to guard against a one-size-fits-all approach. It allows regulations to actually tailor the legislation, but only to a certain degree, to particular circumstances that may arise, if it is necessary, following a well-defined regulatory process after the legislation has been implemented.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I see I got a nod of approval. Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

As much as I can agree with the parliamentary secretary that regulations are meant to augment, supplement, and clarify, because as he's suggested in the past and is suggesting today, legislation shouldn't try to be all things to all people all of the time because it then becomes a book rather than a piece of legislation. Regulations, actually, are meant to enhance and clarify.

In this particular case, what we are attempting to do in the bill is to make sure that something isn't taken away by regulation, not clarified by regulation. The issue is one of a potential withdrawal of something that someone believes they've got under the legislation, rather than a clarification of something under the legislation. The intent of the piece is to say to those....

As everyone who has sat through the testimony of all the witnesses knows, one of the major points of contention in the legislation is about farm-saved seed. This is about saying to folks that we intend to let them keep this—albeit there are some pieces in here that define what that means, and we'll get to those pieces in the legislation. This is about giving comfort to those farmers and saying that we don't intend to lose it to a regulatory process—albeit I'm not suggesting the government has a nefarious sense here. That's not what it's about. But the issue is about telling people in a direct way. It's not an indirect way of saying we're never going to do that by regulation.

The issue is that there are always some who believe they're always nefarious, regardless of who's in power. It's not always going to be the other team that's in power. This team might be in power, and you may actually think we shouldn't have regulatory ability to do some of the things we might do that you may not like. So that's why we think it should be here.

It's that simple. It's not any more convoluted than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you.

That's the end of debate. Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived)

I'll move to NDP-4, please.

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

You have to do the clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

No. We have a whole bunch of amendments to this clause, so we'll finish those first and then we'll wrap up with the approval of the clause.

Madame Brosseau, please.

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

Thank you.

The amendment proposes modifying clause 5 by adding after line 35 on page 5 the following:

(3) The payment of royalties referred to in subsection (2) can only be required once, either when beginning to or ceasing to exercise the rights in respect of which the authorization is conferred under paragraph (1)(h). (4) It is not an offence to clean a protected variety of seeds for a third party and no person who does so may be compelled to reveal the names of their clients.

There are two parts to this amendment. First, we all know a lot of producers have come to committee and spoken to us about their concerns about the rising cost of seed inputs. It's also to talk about the possibility of royalty at every step of the process to ensure that the limits on them will be enforced.

The amendment gives plant breeders rights and producers the freedom to decide where and when they want to see the royalties kick in. Again, it's a more balanced approach when it comes to plant breeders' rights.

The second part of the amendment explicitly protects seed cleaners, taking them out of the awkward role of gatekeeping that the bill currently keeps them in. We are concerned about the long-term impact of Bill C-18. It's to make sure that we don't target seed cleaners, which is something that we're heard in our ridings and in consultations. That's what the two proposed subclauses are about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Madame Brosseau.

Is there debate?

Mr. Lemieux.

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

I think the problem here is that it's restricting when royalties can be collected. It's short-circuiting a regulatory process that the industry may ask for.

Given our experience on this committee, I think we all recognize that agriculture in Canada is not homogeneous; there are many different sectors. They have different requirements and this type of amendment eliminates a regulatory process that a particular sector may ask for because it makes sense to them.

I think it's important when it comes to the payment of royalties that a particular sector has the ability to determine what's best for it, in wide consultation, of course, and working with the government and through the regulatory process. This would forbid it outright, no changes. I don't think that is necessarily conducive to all sectors within agriculture here in Canada.

I know there was some concern about paying royalties up front and paying end-point royalties, for example, which are not specified in the bill at this point, but there may be good examples whereby an end-point royalty may benefit the sector and ultimately benefit the farmer if it's a common sense change, but also if it stimulates and enhances the investment in new varieties for that particular sector of farmers.

Those would be my comments, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I agree with what Mr. Lemieux says about having that flexibility. That's why we do regulations; things change from time to time and from year to year. All of a sudden whether a new technology comes into place or a different way of doing business, you want to have the ability to adjust regulations.

I will also remind the committee that the minister was very clear that any regulations that he proceeds with will be done in consultation with the farm groups and farmers as a whole. I trust his word on that. He said it more than once when he was in front of this committee at regarding both the process and regulations.

I oppose this amendment because it restricts the ability of governments to make regulations that farmers may require sometime in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

My friends across the way hit the nail on the head, actually. It is restrictive and is intended to be so. It doesn't restrict the amount they can collect. It simply says that you can't start picking away at it at the beginning, at the middle, at the end, and perhaps even to sell it. That's really all it's saying.

For example, if you want to charge a dollar—let's use an easy number—for the entire system, you don't get to charge 33-1/3, then 33-1/3 and 33-1/3. You charge a dollar. You actually know up front what it's going to be. I don't end up with it picking away at me all the way through the system to find out that it ends up being $1.10.

I hear what the regulatory process says and I'm not suggesting anything otherwise. That may happen. I unfortunately didn't hear the minister, as wasn't here that day, but I did read it. I hear what my friends are saying about what the minister was saying as well. No doubt that will probably happen. This purposely is restrictive. We're not going to claim that it's not. It's intentionally so. There is a fear out there that this is what will happen, that we'll see this cascading royalty piece come into play. What it will mean for farmers is less money in their pockets and more money in someone else's pockets. It's pure and simple as that.

We're probably on opposite ends of the pole on this particular one. That's okay. It just gives folks an opportunity to look at one side or the other of whether this should be a type of restrictive piece. Ultimately it's not. I'm going to say it again, that it doesn't restrict the tech firm from actually charging you royalty and getting the money they think is fair based on what they do. It doesn't restrict that piece, but simply restricts it from pecking away at it all the way down the ledger.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you for the debate.

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

I just want to make a comment on that and provide a hypothetical example of where end-point royalties might be useful to a particular sector. If there's an end-point royalty—and I'm not saying that there would be or there should be—an example would be a breeder and farmers working together. With a front-end royalty the breeder basically earns his royalty upfront, sells the seed, and it's in the farmer's hands. With an end-point royalty, the breeder is actually very interested in the harvest. If there's a great bountiful harvest, not only does the farmer win but so does the breeder. If there's a lousy harvest they both lose. They actually have a connected interest in the harvest and it would run against what Mr. Allen just said. He said that the breeder would just take advantage of the farmers, but I would say in this example—and I'm not saying it's for all sectors under all circumstances—in particular sectors under particular circumstances you could see where the breeder and the farmer would actually have a shared interest in the harvest end of what is being produced from that particular variety.

If it actually stimulates more investment in research and development and the commercialization of new varieties then that's a good thing. That's what this bill is all about. It's about stimulating investment. If they have this joint interest and one of the benefits is that the breeder says, we're going to use that money to develop new varieties, then that's actually what this is all about and the farmer wins again.

I'm just giving an example that I think is quite reasonable.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I'd like to look at proposed subsection 5(4) where the point was made about seed cleaning plants and that type of thing.

I think if we take a look at the different regulations that exist for them.... I did not hear anyone suggesting that there were going to be any issues or any problems. As someone who has taken grain to seed cleaning plants, I understand the processes and procedures they go through. I do think that when we add subsection 5(4) to this, we're throwing something in there that isn't required whatsoever. When you put it in as an amendment, that in itself causes an issue.

I just wanted to bring that to people's attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you for the debate.

Those in favour of the amendment? Those opposed?

(Amendment negatived)

Can I move then now to—

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

I was in favour of that. I just wasn't quick enough on the draw.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Okay.

Thank you.

I think the clerk wants to clarify something.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean Michel Roy]

Just to mention to you, in the agenda that you have received, the order of amendments is incorrect. What you do is simply continue with the package of amendments. Keep track of the package and forget the agenda for the moment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

We will keep moving on down. If I miss it or if I'm on the wrong one, we'll get it straightened out.

We're now going to move to amendment G-1.

Mr. Lemieux, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to move amendment G-1, that Bill C-18, in clause 5, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 7 with the following:

5(1)(a) and (b) and—for the purposes of exercising those rights and the right to store—the right referred to in paragraph 5(1 )(g) do not apply to harvested

When put into context, it will read as follows:

The rights referred to in paragraphs 5(1)(a) and (b) and—for the purposes of exercising those rights and the right to store—the right referred to in paragraph 5(1)(g) do not apply to harvested material of the plant variety....

This committee heard from almost every witness interested in UPOV 91 that the government needed to strengthen the farmers' privilege. When he was here the minister indicated that that's what he heard through consultations, and this amendment is what he spoke about when he was here in front of committee.

We're using the word “store”. It clearly sets out that storage for the purposes of propagation, and conditioning for propagation, are permissible for the farmer for the sole purpose of propagation on his or her own holdings, for example replanting in future years. This amendment also makes it clear that stocking of seed, as long as it is for the purpose of propagating on the farmer's own holding, is also included in the exemption. The amendment has been drafted to make sure that the reproduction of propagating material and/or conditioning of propagating material is also protected under farmers' privilege.

I would encourage each of my colleagues here to support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you.

Is there further debate?

(Amendment agreed to)

We'll now move to Mr. Eyking for amendment LIB-1, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It's in clause 5 and it's going to be amended by adding line 6, on page 7. This is what's going to be in the line:

(3) For greater certainty, a farmer who has acquired the rights referred to in paragraphs 5(1)(a) and (b) in respect of the propagating material of a plant variety may, without having to pay any further royalties

(a) stock and condition the propagating material and any harvested material derived from the propagating material;

(b) make repeated use of the harvested material on his or her holdings for the purposes of propagating the plant variety; and

(c) sell, for uses other than propagation, harvested material that is derived from the propagating material.

Chair, and colleagues, this pretty well sums it up: farmers have a right to stock and condition the so-called propagated material; they can repeatedly use it for harvested material, so they can replant it for the following year; and they can also sell it to a farmer down the road, say, if there's a hog farmer who's going to be using it for feed. Of course, this does not mean using it for propagation, because they can't sell it to another farmer for seed.

I think this sums it up and really defines that, yes, the farmer who has this seed and has harvested it can use it for whatever they want to use it for, and that they also can sell it to the farmer down the road for feed. I think this would give a lot of clarification and would help many the witnesses who were here. I don't sense that this would change the intent of the UPOV legislation as put forward.