Thank you.
I'd like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak on this extremely important piece of legislation for not just farmers but all Canadians.
The NFU is Canada's largest direct membership, coast-to-coast farm organization. You have to be a voluntary member not simply a producer of a commodity to be considered a member of the National Farmers Union. We establish our policy through democratic, well-developed institutions.
Canadian farmers have a history of developing institutions to rebalance power, such as that of farmers against railways or grain companies. We have the Canada Grain Act, the Canadian Grain Commission, Canadian Wheat Board, co-ops, pools, etc. All of these arrangements came about because of exploitation of farmers very early, particularly in the settlement phase on the Prairies. There was a recognition that there had to be a balancing of power between those who would exploit farmers and the general public interest of farmers' success and, beyond, for the economy of the country as a whole.
Our ancestors who came to this country never imagined having seed wrested away from them. Seed is hope in the future. It's powerful. There's a tremendous amount of power contained in the seed. We are witnessing, with strengthened plant breeders' rights, not innovation but innovation in the extraction tools and control of the seed. This is not in the public interest. It's in the interest of a limited number of seed companies that are continually consolidating. Our responsibility to resist for the future, and not to become quislings endorsing the granting of extensive rights to plant breeders or their representatives, is extremely important. Giving a temporary nod to farmers with a privilege to save seed on their own holdings is completely inadequate and inappropriate.
In the whole question about rights, the breeder is given an extensive list of exclusive rights: saving, reusing, stocking, conditioning, etc. The farmers' privilege gives a slight exemption and if you read UPOV:...each Contracting Party may, within reasonable limits and subject to the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of the breeder, restrict the breeder's right in relation to any variety in order to permit farmers to use for propagating purposes, on their own holdings, the product of the harvest which they have obtained....
It talks about reasonable limits and legitimate interests. The farmers' privilege can be undermined—and this is a presentation by the commissioner of plant breeders' rights here in Canada. It could be determined by the size of the holding, the type of variety, the number of cycles of reproduction, remuneration, proportion of harvested material, etc.
What it really means is that farmers are losing ability over time, as we've seen in the variety registration system, a continuous erosion in the ability of farmers to do what they've done for thousands of years, to have the hope for the future contained in that seed, to utilize that seed. It's one of the inputs they can actually reproduce themselves, quite successfully. They're not opposed to paying for new varieties from time to time, but they are opposed to the restrictions imposed by the mechanisms contained in Bill C-18, essentially UPOV 91.
Some organizations are lulled into complacency that there are no other options, that it won't be so bad, that this is only fair. I feel they're victims of groupthink and brainwashing. There is another way for farmers. I stand on 10,000 years of seed varietal development, developed by farmers. The NFU proposes a document, the “Fundamental Principles of a Farmers Seed Act”, where there would be the unrestricted right of farmers to exchange and sell seed and not be restricted by contracts or other mechanisms including UPOV.
Bill C-18 is extensive. It goes into other areas, incorporation by reference. There's a reverse onus on farmers to prove variety, and ultimately there would be litigation chill causing farmers to buy seeds on an increasingly shorter cycle for fear of the exercise of these measures within Bill C-18.
It is not the only way. There are 196 countries in the world, of which 71 have UPOV regimes. Eighteen of those have UPOV 78 regimes, which we have right now in Canada. We fulfill our trade obligations with that. Our major competitors, Argentina and Brazil, use UPOV 78. It's only in the minds of those who wish to facilitate increasing dependence and a loss of autonomy for farmers to promote this.
I would close by saying that he who controls seed controls the food system and ultimately people. Do we trust a few consolidated seed companies with that kind of power? I think it's short-term thinking to believe that this is the only way. There are many different ways, such as participatory plant breeding and reinvestment in public breeding. Innovation takes place on the farm with breeders in a cooperative setting, not by facilitating the revenue extraction tools that Bill C-18 is making possible.
We have submitted a brief to the committee that goes into other aspects of Bill C-18. I would encourage the members to have a look at that.
Thank you.