Grainswest - Spring 2024

Spring 2024 Grains West 18 PERSON PLACE & THING “ Internationally, breeding companies are seeing Canada as being more attractive to release varieties into. ” GW: What challenges did you face during this process? AP: We were hands-on all the way. I made sure it did not go off track. It’s a very different approach government was not necessarily used to. On one hand, you have to convince farmers this is the right step, that it’s going to take them to a better place. But there’s also resistance within bureaucracies. The status quo feels comfortable and this shift is going to create controversy, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth doing. GW: What characteristics do you need to succeed in your role? AP: The first question is, have I been successful? It depends on who you ask. You do have to be tenacious, persistent, forwarding thinking. You might have to go through some pain, but the reward is the positive outcome. The thing that really motivates me is that if I do my job really well, the outcomes are [beneficial] for farmers and everyone in the value chain. You also have to be prepared to fail sometimes, but there’s a lot to be learned from failure. GW: What benefits does PBR legislation offer farmers and the agricultural community? AP: The 1991 Act is the most recent convention, so it’s the strongest form of intellectual property protection offered internationally. Back in the day, Canada was party to the weaker form. The motiva- tion behind moving to stronger legislation was to attract more new plant varieties into Canada. Breeders told us they were not going to release their varieties into Canada. The IP rights were too weak, and they feared infringement of their intellec- tual property. The second part was to help stimulate investment in domestic breed- ing programs. The royalties they collect can be used to reinvest in those programs. If you get those things going in the right direction, farmers have more choice. We have more better-performing varieties that help farmers be more prosperous. The upgraded rights also signal to the world we’ve got strong IP rights. You can come and invest here in Canada. We looked at economic trends and pro- ductivity. Yields, exports and farm cash re- ceipts have gone up. Generally, everything was trending in a positive direction. We saw more filings for plant breeders’ rights. We’re at a 15-year high for international agricultural varieties. Internationally, breeding companies see Canada as more attractive to release varieties into. GW: Where do you see room for improvement? AP: There are some problematic areas. Despite moving to UPOV ’91, our IP rights are not as strong as in Europe and the United States. The U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act is similar to Canada’s PBR Act, but it also issues plant patents on asexually bred plant varieties and utility patents. Canada does not offer the last two, and patents are much stronger forms of IP protection than PBR. The EU offers 25 years of PBR protection for plant varie- ties and 30 years for potatoes, trees, vines, asparagus, woody fruits and ornamentals. Canada only offers the minimum required by UPOV ’91: 25 years for trees and vines, and 20 years for everything else. We compete with the two jurisdictions to attract investment with one hand tied behind our back because our IP rights are not as strong. We’ve made a lot of progress, but we’re not a leading country, which concerns me because we want to unleash the potential of our agricultural sector. We could become a global super- power in agriculture. But we can only get there with IP rights that are strong, effective, fair and balanced, and we’re not there yet. GW: What work still needs to be done? AP: Certain crop types such as pota- toes take a long time to breed and to get market adoption. The IP rights we offer just aren’t long enough. The European Union offers 30 years. If we wanted to attract more new potato varieties into Canada, we would need a longer duration of protection. The Achilles heel of the agriculture sec- tor is we lack an overarching system for fair and balanced compensation on farm- saved seed. And it’s a lightning rod issue. It’s a pity, because it could help fund our dwinding public sector breeding programs and encourage the private sector to invest in crops like cereals. Generally, farmers don’t like the idea. They don’t want to pay any more for a variety than they already do. But the problem is then you’re not going to attract investment, and you’re going to limit your options for innovation. We’re kind of stuck. We’re just not getting signals from farmers, particularly in West- ern Canada, that they’re comfortable with this yet. Perspectives are changing slowly, but it will take time. GW: And yet you’ve made incredible headway. What gives you satisfaction in your role as commissioner? AP: When I see a new variety that would not have been there had we not moved legislation forward. Now farmers have a new option, a new tool in their toolbox that can help them prosper. That’s when I know I’m in the right role. I love the job so much I’ve stayed in it for a decade. I could not imagine doing anything different.