Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As was indicated, intent has not been referenced in previous UPOV conventions, so adding that intention places a significant impact on the rights holder because it's going to require them to prove intent for instances where their rights have been infringed.
These infringements, Mr. Chair, can occur not just by farmers. They may occur by others in the value chain who do not respect the rights of the breeder and perform acts that are not authorized. They could occur by others commercializing and selling propagating material, or by those who could, with this proposed amendment, offer as a defence in a civil action that they did not mean to infringe.
This may place limitations on exercising the clause 5, section 5.1, which is the mandatory UPOV 91 provision. In addition, it may have a further negative effect on the investment of crop breeding in Canada. The bar may be raised so high for the breeder that they may choose not to invest in Canada, thereby limiting access to farmers of new varieties.
Introduction of the concept of intent into infringement may also invalidate the legislation to conform to UPOV 91 where intention has not been identified as a factor for infringement.
Other examples of intellectual property rights legislation such as the Patent Act do not have an element of knowingly infringing....