Mr. Speaker, I would like to say hello to everyone who is watching. I hope they enjoyed their cereal this morning because we know that cereal is a product of agriculture. Everything we eat is a product of agriculture. There are stories of people and farms behind everything we eat, stories of farmers who were taken to court by big companies and lost money. Family farms have had to shut down because they could no longer fight against the big companies.
It is good that we are modernizing and keeping up to date with new regulations. That is not a bad thing, but in so doing, we have to come up with a plan to protect those who may be pushed aside as a result and who do not have the expertise, money or ability to be part of such a market. It is important to recognize that.
My colleague gave an excellent speech about the type of situation that can occur. The farm he mentioned is not the first farm that has been taken to court by a big company for unknowingly having patented plants on its land, and it will not be the last.
We know how agriculture works. The wind scatters seeds elsewhere. There are no borders. It is important to comply with the new regulations, but there must be a plan for the smaller farmers. There must be a plan to protect those who do not have the capacity to keep up with the big multinationals.
It is important to mention that no one is opposing intellectual property. However, in agriculture, intellectual property does not necessarily have borders, as my colleague demonstrated. If I own a field and the seeds from the adjacent property come over to my field, I cannot do anything about it. I cannot put a net over my field so that other seeds do not land on it. The situation is more complex than what the Conservatives are trying to tell us. They are telling us that everything is fine, that everything is going well and that the regulations will work. It is more complicated than that.
One of the first things that the Conservatives did when they came to power was eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board. What was the role of the Canadian Wheat Board? It protected small farmers from bigger farmers.
I went to Europe where I met farmers who dreamed about having that kind of board to protect them from multinationals. We know how it works: the bigger farms swallow up the smaller ones, and the Conservatives have decided to disregard this type of relationship by giving more power to agricultural multinationals. What will we end up with? Agriculture that will no longer have local products or local farms.
If the Conservatives do not adopt a Canada-wide agriculture strategy or a national strategy to protect local producers, what will we end up with? Agriculture that does not respect the Canadian tradition of protecting its farmers.
The second thing they did was jeopardize supply management by putting it on the table during trade agreement negotiations. Small farms that are protected by supply management will not be able to keep up with the market and will once again be swallowed up by bigger players.
The ideas in Bill C-18 are valid and legitimate, and it is important to stay up to date and bring in new regulations for the agricultural sector, but we must not forget that people and farmers might suffer as a result. That is all I am trying to say to the government. We need to have a plan.
For example, the National Farmers Union opposes this bill because, it says, it will deprive the smallest farmers of their independence, increase costs for farmers and increase their exposure to lawsuits.
Is that really what the government wants to do? Do they really want to create that kind of instability for our farmers? The Conservatives have already done away with the Canadian Wheat Board, and now they want to get rid of supply management. Is that really how they want to treat our farmers? Do they really want to put them in a position that threatens their security and robs them of their independence?
That would give multinationals an unfair advantage, more power and more control. Is that really what our farmers deserve? No. I can name many people who agree with me. For example, the president of Keystone Agricultural Producers, which represents Manitoba farmers, said:
We're hearing this has been very successful in other countries in attracting investment in our industry, so that should be positive in the long-term for producers.
We'll be looking to our members for guidance on how they want to see this played out, but I'm glad to hear the Minister talk about farm-saved seed being a priority. That's what I hear from members as well.
Keystone Agricultural Producers believes that intellectual property is extremely important, but that we must also protect our farmers. Therefore, seeds stocked by farms are a priority. I hope that the witnesses who appear in committee will be heard and that the Conservatives will vote for our amendments, if we propose any, or that they will change the legislation.
Based on the Conservatives' record, they very rarely vote for opposition amendments. Yesterday alone, the NDP proposed some thirty amendments to improve Bill C-13, and the Conservatives voted against each and every one.
The Conservatives must stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. They tell farmers from their provinces that they take their interests to heart, but then they introduce legislation that, unfortunately, will eliminate their independence and create economic uncertainty.
This could open the door to legal action against them by big multinationals who have plenty of lawyers and plenty of money. Unfortunately, smaller farms will be swallowed up by the bigger farms. That is the Conservative ideology.