I used the colour analogy because that's what happens in the pharmaceutical world, not necessarily the seed world.
I think Mr. Dreeshen would correct me if I'd suggested that somehow they try to colour the seed because that's not really what they would do. I would accept the fact if he did because he has great expertise as I said this morning and I have great respect for his input here.
I disagree with my friend across the way, Mr. Lemieux, when it comes to “this is just an evolution” or “this is just a minor change from UPOV 78 to UPOV 91”. If it was such a minor change, we wouldn't have seen all of the folks lined up here as witnesses banging the drum and saying we need to get there because this is a leap forward—a giant leap forward, some of them said—and because without it, we will not get innovation.
It's not a minor change. This is a significant change from UPOV 78 to 91. If it was a minor tweak, Mr. Chair, I would suggest to you that you'd probably get unanimous consent on the bill. If it was simply on that one particular subject and wasn't an omnibus bill, you might actually get unanimous consent on the bill. The reason you don't is because these are indeed, under UPOV 78 to UPOV 91, significant changes, and that's why you have significant discussion. As much as my friend would like to minimize it, it's not the case.
There were witnesses, who were the government's witnesses, who were in favour of UPOV 91, clearly banging the drum loud and clear and saying, “We need this in the worst possible way”. I don't think they need minor change in the worst possible way. They were looking to get something that was actually going to be of great benefit to them. I don't disagree with that because it is of great benefit to them.
This is a benefit to farmers. We're trying to keep things in a kind of equilibrium here, where farmers have a fallback position that perhaps—and this is a perhaps, there's no guarantee in this—folks may try to deregister material that's already registered.
That's all it's about; nothing less, nothing more. Simply saying if the material doesn't get used over a period of time, it just simply disappears, but indeed if it does have value to farmers, it'll still be there and some company won't simply put it into the chain to try to deregister it.
As it presently stands, based on what I've heard from our expert witnesses, right now they could put it in that chain and the process would follow as to whether you deregister or not. The process would be for farmers to prove there's value, which can be onerous for some of them to do. What does that mean exactly in the longer term for individual farmers to try to prove there's value to that, versus a large company that can show, “Well this one's better for you”? It may well be, but the problem is I'll have to pay more for that than the other one. That's the dilemma they face.
That's why that amendment's here.
I see that our friends across the way have seen the great piece that's in there and that they'll want to actually say yes to this one.