Thank you for providing a partial answer to my question.
I would now like to address Mr. Reid.
Since the beginning, you have talked a lot about intellectual property rights as they relate to patented seeds. I have no problem with a company that develops new seeds benefiting from intellectual property rights. I feel the same way about pharmaceuticals. We could have a similar discussion about companies that develop drugs and then, a few years later, someone else copies the drug and makes it generic and so on.
I would like to talk abut what intellectual property rights have done for companies in the United States like Monsanto, for example. I am sure you know all about this. These companies have taken over certain regions. Take corn, for example. These companies have used their patented seeds to take over certain regions by suing farmers who were not using the seeds sold by the companies, based on the claim that these seeds could contaminate the neighbour's seeds and so on.
Here is what happened. Contrary to what you have stated, the cost of seeds rose significantly for farmers. Many of them could no longer buy seeds from the companies that patented them and that won the right from the Supreme Court to protect their seeds, even on land that does not belong to them, that is, farmers' land.
The opposite occurred. The cost of seed did not drop, but rose significantly, forcing some farmers into bankruptcy because they could no longer buy seed. The rising cost of seed does not necessarily mean that farmers can sell their crops for higher prices. Farmers pay more for their seed, but in the end, they cannot get more money for their crops. If memory serves me, that is what happened in Minnesota. A lot of farmers went bankrupt because Monsanto won its case in the Supreme Court and was able to force farmers in several regions to buy its seed or stop producing.
This kind of monopoly lasts a year or two or three until a new kind of seed becomes available. That is U.S. intellectual property rights in a nutshell.