Good afternoon.
In Les AmiEs de la Terre de Québec, we are working towards a society that is green, united and just. We are concerned by the way in which Bill C-18 may or may not encourage a transition towards viable development.
Just like the federal government, we want to encourage innovation and prosperity. The innovation and prosperity we want improves the quality of the food the public consumes and fosters the well-being of those working in the agri-food sector, not just in Quebec and Canada, but also internationally.
The provisions that attract our attention are those dealing with plant varieties and those seeking to bring Canada's legislation into line with the UPOV 91 standard. We will discuss their impact on agricultural biodiversity, the recognition of the common good, innovation, citizen engagement and food sovereignty.
First, our fear is that the provisions governing plant varieties will adversely affect the free management of seeds. The provisions allow restrictions on the storage and distribution of seeds with a plant variety certificate. In reality, it is mostly the large companies that have the resources and the culture to do the administration required to obtain such certificates.
In recent decades, we have seen agricultural biodiversity eroding at an unprecedented rate. According to the Convention on Biological Diversity's agricultural biodiversity work program, the reduction in biodiversity is the result of the homogenization of agricultural production systems through the intensification and specialization of cultivation and breeding, and the standardization implicit in globalization.
Historical data show that, until now, the diversity of farming, especially the coexistence of many small farms, each of which chose and managed its seeds, while sharing them widely, fostered diversity among plant varieties, whereas the industrialization of agriculture introduced by large companies has contributed to a severe curtailment of agricultural biodiversity.
Therefore, by adopting standard UPOV 91, Canada could reduce the number of players involved in managing seeds, thereby further weakening the creativity of those players and adversely affecting the current level and the expansion of agricultural biodiversity.
The seeds we use today are the result of the work and the ingenuity of millions of farmers who, over millennia, have selected varieties that best match their conditions of climate and geography, their way of life and their taste. As the result of centuries-old processes of innovation and diversification, agricultural biodiversity and the seeds that contain it should be recognized as a common heritage of mankind. We feel that this heritage should not be patented, or almost patented, by plant variety certificates. Imposing a monopoly of that kind on certain varieties of seeds would not show deference to the collective work from which they emerged.
To stimulate innovation, rather than rehashing the traditional system of patents and copyrights by means of plant variety certificates, Canada would do much better to look for inspiration to the open-source software movement and the data liberation movement. Technology and electronics are eloquent demonstrations of how distributing source code stimulates collective intelligence into producing efficient tools while generating wealth. Data liberation is also being adopted by many government administrations and hundreds of universities and research institutions. Currently, data liberation is providing a host of examples of its relevance and its productivity. Adopting standard UPOV 91 would run counter to that movement.
Moreover, seeds are the basis of our food supply, one of the pillars of our survival and quality of life because of its effect on our environment, our health and our mental faculties. In our view, therefore, public management of seeds is critical.
In that context, we are concerned by two points in the bill. First, as we have highlighted above, the changes in plant variety management that Bill C-18 envisages, in addition to their negative effects on biodiversity, do not encourage public participation in seed management.
Additionally, it is critical in our view that the development of new plant varieties must in no way be in the hands of companies motivated by financial gain. We feel that a wider range of players, motivated by a much wider range of incentives rooted in a diversity of communities and contexts, are better able to bring about development in a way that will meet the needs of present and future generations. In that sense, always mindful of the vital role of agriculture and food supply, we would like public authorities to have responsibility for seed innovation and to respond to the directions set out as a result of public debate.
Through the points we have just presented, that is, our concern for agricultural biodiversity, recognizing it as a common heritage of mankind, free access to, and the democratic and participatory management of, seeds, what we fundamentally want to advocate is food sovereignty. La Via Campesina defines it as the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through sustainable methods and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.
A people or a state has achieved food sovereignty if it has “the right, the freedom and the ability to define its own unique agricultural, labour, fishing, food and land policies”. That is to say that a population's food sovereignty cannot be achieved to the detriment of others.
Food sovereignty puts agrifood matters in local hands. Food supply and agriculture must therefore, by definition, be collectively managed in order to be tailored to the environmental, social, economic and cultural characteristics of the communities.
This concept therefore is somewhat removed from current economic trends in which agriculture and food production are subject to economic rules that are disconnected with their social and environmental consequences. Food sovereignty represents a legitimate reason, for example, to adopt measures to protect local production, distribution and marketing and to set criteria for employment standards and for environmental respect. Measures that traditional economists may perceive as protectionist therefore become the basic tools of community development.
Adherence to the principle of food sovereignty means that the disappearance of small holdings observed in recent decades can be combatted. It is a way to stimulate the economy of rural regions and shield them from the vagaries of global markets. Encouraging small agricultural operations can also be a tool that provides access to fresh and high-quality local produce. Just like participation in agricultural activity, that high-quality produce can play a role in promoting healthy lifestyle habits.
I only have one more sentence to go.
