Laurie Hawn

[Care for Veterans, October 20th, 2014]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should examine all possible options to ensure a fully unified “continuum of care” approach is in place to serve Canada's men and women in uniform and veterans, so as to: (a) eliminate all unnecessary bureaucratic processes, both within and between departments, related to service delivery; (b) eliminate duplication and overlap in the delivery of available services and supports; (c) further improve care and support, particularly for seriously injured veterans; (d) provide continuous support for veterans' families during and after service; and (e) strengthen the connections between the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to kick off debate on private member's Motion No. 532.

This motion will address issues of importance in the effective delivery of services to Canada's veterans. The measures proposed in Motion No. 532 are complementary to the 14 substantial recommendations deemed most important by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which were tabled in June in a report entitled “The New Veterans Charter: Moving Forward”.

That report was unanimous, a rare event here in Parliament. Everyone on all sides worked very hard to make it so, and everyone was prepared to put a little water in their wine to move the yardsticks ahead in a substantial way for our veterans.

I will address what Motion No. 532 says, describe how it relates to the committee report, and discuss the government response and the way ahead.

Serving our veterans has been a stated objective of every government of Canada, and our government is no exception. This objective has always been, and will always be, a work in progress. No matter what any government does, there will always be more that we would like to do and there will always be those who will find fault. That is because everyone loves veterans for what they have done and for who they are, and that is the way it should be.

Canada's development as an independent country with a unique identity stems in no small measure from its achievements in times of war and in other less dangerous but nonetheless important missions. The Department of Veterans Affairs exists to repay the nation's debt of gratitude toward those whose courageous efforts have given us this legacy and have contributed to our growth as a nation.

VAC's mandate stems from laws and regulations. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is charged with, inter alia, the following responsibilities:

...the care, treatment or re-establishment in civil life of any person who served in the Canadian Forces or merchant navy or the naval, army or air forces or merchant navies of Her Majesty, of any person who has otherwise engaged in pursuits relating to war, and of any other person designated

and

...the care of dependants or survivors of any person referred to...

The department meets its responsibilities through its various programs. These include programs for disability pensions, veterans allowances, pension advocacy, health care, and commemoration.

They provide compensation for hardships arising from disabilities and lost economic opportunities, innovative health and social services, professional legal assistance, and recognition of the achievements and sacrifices of Canadians during periods of war and conflict.

The mission of Veterans Affairs Canada is to provide exemplary client-centred services and benefits that honour the sacrifice and achievements of our veterans and clients and that respond to the needs of veterans, other clients, and their families.

I want to go back to what is a key phrase in the quote of the minister's responsibilities, and that is “re-establishment in civil life”.

This is the key concept in the overall philosophy of service to veterans by the department. The aim of veterans' programs is not lifelong financial dependence, unless that is the only option; the aim of the programs is to give veterans every support possible to help those who cannot or do not wish to continue to serve in the military the tools they need to succeed in carving out a good future on their own terms.

Motion No. 532 proposes five things. It says that in the opinion of the House, the government should examine all possible options to ensure a fully unified “continuum of care” approach is in place to serve Canada's men and women in uniform and veterans, so as to do five things: first, eliminate all unnecessary bureaucratic processes, both within and between departments, related to service delivery; second, eliminate duplication and overlap in the delivery of available services and supports; third, further improve care and support, particularly for seriously injured veterans; fourth, provide continuous support for veterans' families during and after service; and fifth, strengthen the connections between the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence, and Veterans Affairs Canada.

The veterans affairs committee identified three core themes in its recent study. First was the care and support of the most seriously disabled, the second was support for families, and the and third was improving how Veterans Affairs Canada delivers the programs, services, and benefits under the new veterans charter.

Committee members unanimously agreed that the principles of the new veterans charter should be upheld and that these principles foster an approach that is well suited to today's veterans. This does not mean that improvements cannot be made; however, the legitimate criticisms of various aspects of the new veterans charter should not overshadow the fact that it is a solid foundation upon which to help veterans transition to civilian life when a service-related medical condition prevents them from continuing their military career.

While implementing the recommendations in this report would not solve everything, the committee believes that the recommendations represent a major step forward and express more fully Canadians' solemn commitment to veterans and their families.

The committee also hopes that this report will help to foster an improved relationship of trust that must exist among veterans, Canadians, the parliamentarians representing them, and the Government of Canada that must earn their confidence.

The story we heard over and over again at committee was that in too many cases when someone left the Canadian Armed Forces, he or she spent time in a no man's land before getting connected to the services of Veterans Affairs. This gap led to many difficulties of financial, physical, and psychological natures and made it much harder to transition to a stable and productive civilian life.

Private member's Motion No. 532 addresses some of those challenges directly and is in lockstep with the first recommendation of the committee report, which, in abbreviated form, says that military members seriously disabled as a result of service will not be medically released until the individual is in a stable medical condition, medical records have been given to the individual and transferred to Veterans Affairs Canada, applications for services and benefits have been adjudicated, the file has been assigned to a case manager who has already established contact, and supporting health care and rehabilitation professionals have been identified and their responsibilities defined in the area where the veteran is planning to live.

Recommendation 1 also states that an internal committee should be struck by Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces to develop an interchangeable and unified list of service conditions to ensure that the service-related condition identified by the Canadian Armed Forces that led to the veteran’s medical release will be recognized by Veterans Affairs Canada for adjudication purposes and that a follow-up protocol should be established for all military members who have been released for medical reasons.

I think members can see how this blends nicely with private member's Motion No. 532 in a continuum of service that this act would provide.

Overall, the philosophy of the report and of private member's Motion No. 532 is to ensure that the provisions of the various acts and the veterans bill of rights shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized solemn obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.

There are many other substantial recommendations in the report, and I will abbreviate them.

One is that the most seriously disabled veterans receive financial benefits for life, of which an appropriate portion should be transferable to their spouse in the event of death.

Another is that the earnings loss benefit be non-taxable and set at 85% of net income, up to a net income threshold of $70,000, and that it be adjusted annually to the consumer price index.

Another recommendation is that all veterans with service-related disabilities, and their families, be entitled to the same benefits and support whether they are regular force or reserve.

Another is that military family resource centres be available to veterans and their families to provide additional support in their transition to civilian life.

Another is that access to psychosocial and vocational rehabilitation services be given to spouses or common-law partners, that access to psychological counselling be also given to parents and children of veterans, and that financial support be provided to family members of seriously disabled veterans acting as primary caregivers.

Another recommendation is that VAC undertake a comprehensive review of the amount of the disability award to more adequately reflect awards in civil liability cases for personal injuries, and improve support for financial counselling throughout the process.

Another is that the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada together, as quickly as possible, eliminate overlap between the service income security insurance plan, or SISIP, programs and those provided by Veterans Affairs Canada.

A further recommendation is that eligible vocational rehabilitation training programs be allowed greater flexibility.

Another is that VAC establish a more rigorous case manager training program, review the case manager-to-veteran ratio, and provide necessary resources for its adjustment.

Another is that VAC and DND build on existing collaborative efforts to provide adequate resources for research and understanding of known and emerging manifestations of operational stress injuries.

Another is that VAC consider moving towards a payment system with one comprehensive and clear monthly payment, while ensuring the net benefit to the veteran is not reduced.

Another is that VAC and DND table their official response within 120 days and also table a report outlining the progress made on implementing the recommendations by January 30, 2015.

The first milestone has been met, and I know that there is some very concentrated and intense effort going toward meeting the second milestone in a manner that will give veterans confidence that the government has listened and is acting, because we have and we are.

Contrary to some misleading and outright false comments by some hon. members and some people with axes that they just will not stop grinding, the government has not rejected any of the recommendations of the report. It is, in fact, quite the contrary. Building on these enhancements to the new veterans charter, the government is pleased to indicate that it agrees with the spirit and intent of the vast majority of the committee's recommendations. Many of these recommendations involve potentially complex changes to some veterans programming, and the implications of any potential changes must, therefore, be carefully assessed. Any government would have to do the same thing.

Therefore, the government plans to address the recommendations made in the report using a phased approach, and private member's Motion No. 532 will be helpful in guiding that process.

The first stage is to address those recommendations that can be quickly achieved within existing authorities and budgets of Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence, and which will improve the continuum of service provided to veterans and their families when they leave the Canadian Armed Forces.

The more complex recommendations require further interdepartmental work, budgetary analysis, and coordination with a wide range of federal departments, as well as with the Veterans Ombudsman and veterans' groups. These recommendations will be considered in a second phase.

This is the only approach that makes common sense. There is no magic wand that any government could wave to bypass legislated requirements for ensuring that processes with taxpayers' money are followed. It just does not happen that way. Anyone with any grasp of the complexities of the financial and regulatory realities of government will understand that this is true.

I know and understand why people want everything fixed instantly, but that is just not realistically or practically possible. What we need is steady and measurable progress to achieve our objectives, and that is what we will see. I know that people want to play politics in this place and that's what this place is all about, but surely this is one area where we can all come together to make a great many of the changes for which people have been advocating.

There are many people and organizations dedicated to improving how we look after our veterans. I am one of those people and our government is one of those organizations. Everyone across the floor is that kind of person as well.

We are joined by members of the opposition parties and many stakeholder organizations such as the Royal Canadian Legion, ANAVETS, True Patriot Love, Veterans Transition Network, Wounded Warriors, military unit foundations and many more. By working together to pursue progress, we will succeed at what I have already said will probably always be a work-in-progress. There will always be new circumstances and new challenges as Canada continues to play an important role in world affairs. That is no more apparent than in what is happening in the Middle East, in Iraq and Syria, and so on.

We should not let anyone's image of the perfect be the enemy of the very good.

I proudly served in a regular force uniform for over 30 years and in an honorary capacity for another five years. I am one of the almost 700,000 veterans in Canada, but I am not one of the approximately 200,000 clients of Veterans Affairs Canada because I currently have no issues that require assistance. At some point, I probably will have need of some service or benefit, and I have every confidence that I will be supported by the people whom I know are dedicated to providing the best service possible.

I would like to go further than Motion No. 532 in terms of the integration of Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence. I would personally like to see an in-depth study of the possibility of merging the departments under one roof. I can understand why that may be a bridge too far for some right now, but I think that this could be an area for further study in a future Parliament.

Until that time, I firmly believe that private member's Motion No. 532 is a substantial step in the right direction in conjunction with other measures I have described, and I urge all honourable members to lend it their support.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say at the outset that I have had the good fortune of flying out of Bagotville and have seen the belugas around the mouth of Saguenay many times. They are beautiful creatures, and we should do everything we can to protect them. I agree with that totally.

I am also old enough to remember the great pipeline debate back in the day. I do not remember all of the details of it as I was not that old, but I do remember the rancour of the debate. I recall that the party of which the NDP is the legacy party was dead set against the pipeline for similar rationale that we are hearing today. There was some kind of environmental or scientific assessment done at that time and they went ahead with it after that scientific process was done.

I am curious as to why it was okay then, and I realize this is a bit dated, but it is not okay now to let the assessment go ahead with the qualified people who are there to make these kinds of assessments and then decide, rather than making up one's mind before the first bit of science is in.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to my hon. colleague that he may have misrepresented the Syria factor. The readiness to attack ISIS in Syria is not because ISIS is Bashar al-Assad's enemy but because ISIS is the enemy of humanity and decency in Canada. Like him or not—and we do not—Bashar al-Assad is the internationally recognized leader of that country, at least for the moment. Therefore, this has nothing to do with supporting Assad but everything to do with attacking ISIS where we can and, if necessary, where we must.

I would rather ask this of a Liberal member, but the member may want to comment. This goes to the credibility of leadership. When the Liberal leader was asked today what if Turkey invokes NATO article 5 when attacked by ISIL, his response was to ask what article 5 is.

[National Fiddling Day Act, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague presenting this bill. Relative to the previous question, it is quite appropriate that the bill come from the Senate because people seem to think there is a lot of fiddling going on in the Senate anyway.

At risk of dating myself, I grew up with Don Messer on black and white television, and he was always entertaining.

Again, I would like to congratulate my colleague because this really is an important bit of Canadiana that we preserve.

Could my colleague tell us what impact Canadian fiddlers, and she mentioned so many of them, have had internationally and what recognition that has brought to Canada?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a number of valid points. I was not privy to discussions. It was obviously between the foreign affairs minister and his contemporaries.

However, when she mentions whether we should be doing this or that, we are doing both. It is not that we are just doing one or the other. We are doing both and we will continue to do both.

There are 60 countries, each doing their own thing. They bring whatever they can to the table. Some can bring more humanitarian aid; some can bring more military power; some can bring both. Canada is in a position to be able to bring both.

What we intend to do with the folks who are involved in more of a combat area is, through intelligence, pinpoint concentrations of ISIS and go after those specifically. That intelligence comes in a lot of different ways. Whether from drones or from people on the ground, there are all kinds of ways of gathering intelligence.

It is not going to be a perfect mission. Nothing is perfect. Any combat situation is extremely dynamic. We have to adjust to it every day, and we will look back on it to learn lessons. There is no question of that. We always do. We learn lessons every day. We learn lessons every day in this House. Sometimes we even pay attention to them.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that bombing is the only solution. We have never said that bombing is the only solution. We have said that we are practising a mix of humanitarian aid and kinetic military effort.

The point I have raised a couple times in questions to the member's colleagues is that with regard to long-term solutions, I get that. We all get that. There are a lot of things we need to do and we should have started them already, but the immediate question is, how do we stop ISIS from beheading men, women, and children tomorrow? What can we do?

We can be selective. We can be accurate. The kinds of weapons we are talking about are extremely accurate. We cannot sit back and do nothing.

People are playing various roles. The 60 countries are all playing different roles. Some are playing more humanitarian roles. Some are playing more kinetic military roles. It is a package, and no one thing is going to be the silver bullet. There is no silver bullet. It is a combination of efforts, and as I said, there are no guarantees.

However, I do know we have to do something to stop ISIS killing women and children tomorrow.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I will say that I am sharing my time with the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to rise today to contribute to this important debate. There is nothing more significant that a parliament can debate than whether to send its men and women into harm's way. In that deliberation, Parliament must act as a responsible body, worthy of our democracy.

There is nothing more telling about the character of a country and a people than their willingness to go halfway around the world to protect people who cannot protect themselves. Those characteristics reflect courage and determination, but most of all a simple understanding of an undying commitment to humanity. Throughout its history, Canada has demonstrated that courage, determination, and commitment to humanity, and this is no time to stop.

I want to spend a few minutes on why our participation in the multinational campaign against ISIS is the right thing to do and then spend a few minutes on why our contribution is appropriate.

For the moment, considering the depravity that ISIS demonstrates daily with its savage beheadings of men, women, and children, its barbaric use of crucifixions, the systematic elimination of non-believers, and the enslavement of what remains, nations and people have been compelled to act notwithstanding their natural and deep-rooted reluctance to do so.

Seeing pictures of Iraqi and Syrian soldiers being lined up, digging their own graves, and being systematically executed is painfully reminiscent of pictures of Jews being slaughtered and piled in mass graves by the Nazis. This is the Islamic State version of the final solution, and it publicly revels in and celebrates its savagery and barbarism. Despite our reticence based on a strong desire to wish the best, and the naïveté that attitude can engender, we have to be able to recognize evil for what it is.

The roots of ISIS were spawned in Sunni suppression and its subsequent marginalization soon after the Iraq invasion. Gains realized after the extraordinary U.S. effort were squandered by an Iraqi government that reopened sectarian divides and further marginalized the Sunnis, resulting inter alia in an Iraqi army that could no longer fight.

Syria has also been most problematic. Civil demonstrations against Bashar al-Assad became a rebellion and then a full-fledged civil war. International red lines proved to be nothing more than posturing, and opportunities were missed that might have resulted in a moderate opposition with western support. This potential was quickly overrun and divided by fundamentalists. Between these two powder kegs, the Islamic State was born.

The words and actions of the Islamic State should provide sufficient motivation to act against it. It is expansionist and acting like a state, occupying territory and administering its own brutal form of justice. It has its own economy, based largely on black market oil.

Despite its connection to the wider issues in the region, it has a life of its own. It has redrawn boundaries, committed well-documented atrocities, and threatened Canada directly. With many fighters coming from Europe, North America, and Australia, there is no reason to regard this as an idle threat. Several plots have already been apprehended in Europe and Australia.

The ISIS army is disciplined in its own way. Its bloodlettings are organized as a matter of policy and are not just a lack of discipline. It patrols, fights, and moves in a fashion that indicates some level of coordinated training, and it has weapons that only a quasi-state could support. Degrading and ultimately defeating ISIS will take time and money and, unfortunately, blood.

Rather than an argument to avoid going to war against ISIS, that is quite the opposite. It is an argument to fight it with all means possible and available and end it as decisively and quickly as possible, even if that requires land forces, boots on the ground, from regional coalition contributors. The quicker ISIS is degraded, if not destroyed, the better.

Canada will be joining a large and growing coalition of dozens of traditional and new allies, all horrified at the extreme nature of ISIS actions. To simply bomb ISIS over the course of six months or more will not resolve the baseline issue of Sunni marginalization in Iraq and Syria; I think we all recognize that. In both Syria and Iraq, simply turning the page will not be enough, but for a lasting and positive outcome to be achieved, ISIS will have to be rapidly defeated.

This is a more complex question than a simple choice between humanitarian aid and military action. Today, to be humanitarian often requires the military, which often must come first. It is simplistic to think that we can provide humanitarian aid and support, free from conflict, without the need of some force. The Kurds, Iraqis, and Syrians now struggling with the villainy of ISIS are welcoming the various militaries coming to their aid and are not contemptuous, as some hon. members seem to be.

World affairs are complex and ambiguous, and there are no simple answers. Dealing with those daunting complexities in a mature and measured fashion is what we in Canada and countries around the world want from our leaders.

Thankfully, we currently have that kind of leadership in our Prime Minister.

Now allow me to address what Canada is doing and what we are prepared to do.

Our extensive humanitarian aid has been covered by others, and our CC-177 Globemaster and CC-130J Hercules will continue to provide humanitarian airlift as necessary. I will focus on our military combat commitment.

Canada will play its role alongside allies and partners from across the world in taking on a force that threatens to destabilize the international system. This is what a responsible global actor does.

The third priority of our defence commitments is to project leadership abroad by contributing to international peace and security in support of Canadian interests and values. Canadians expect our military to respond and excel, and that is what it has done.

Readiness is the degree of preparedness and responsiveness of our forces that allows us to deploy them with little notice in response to government direction. Readiness depends in large part on the skill, knowledge, and professional dedication of our men and women in uniform.

The House is well aware of the bravery and many sacrifices made over the years by members of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force.

The Canadian Armed Forces are equipped, trained, experienced, and ready to make important contributions to international peace and security, efforts such as those we are embarking upon in Iraq.

What is being proposed is the kind of operation we ran successfully in the first Gulf War, in Kosovo, and in Libya, and for which we train annually in the multinational Maple Flag exercises in Cold Lake. I was personally involved in mounting the mission to the first Gulf War and in participating in and supervising Maple Flag over many years.

While our combat commitment is being mounted by the Royal Canadian Air Force, the special operations forces of the Canadian Army will continue to supply training and mentoring support to the Iraqi Army. That is a task that our army was very successful at in helping to build the Afghan National Security Forces.

The operation will be supported by approximately 600 aircrew, ground crew, maintenance support, logistics, and security personnel. What will be most visible, of course, are the six CF-18 fighters, two CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft, and one CC-150 Polaris air-to-air refuelling aircraft.

In case anyone needs to know, the CF-18 is 56 feet long, 40 feet wide, 15 feet tall, and weighs over 50,000 pounds.

Contrary to the ill-informed and politically motivated comments by some opposition members, including leaders, the CF-18 is fully capable of carrying out the combat mission alongside our allies. The CF-18 will obviously supply combat power, along with a variety of fighter aircraft from our allies. The aircraft is capable of delivering a wide variety of ordnance, and the emphasis will be on precision to minimize collateral damage, as we did in Libya.

The Auroras will conduct surveillance operations that will assist in targeting and tracking ISIS movements and activities. As others share with us, that intelligence will also be shared with our allies.

The Polaris air refuellers will give the CF-18s longer legs when necessary and also provide air refuelling service to our allies.

Missions will be planned based on intelligence shared with our allies. Steps will be taken during mission planning to ensure that everything we do complies with international law.

Missions will be conducted with the consummate professionalism for which our military is known. There were many times in the Libya campaign when Canadian pilots exercised extreme caution in decisions to deliver weapons, thereby saving many innocent lives. On many missions they brought their weapons home because they were not 100% sure of what they were seeing.

We will give the Canadian Armed Forces a mission, we will specify the parameters, we will give them the equipment, and then we will let them get on with the job. That does not mean that we will not be following the mission very closely, and it does not mean that we will not be supplying information to Canadians, but there are many things we will not do.

We will not be running the mission from question period, and we will not allow the opposition to do that either.

We will not get into a silly and irrelevant numbers game about identifying a precise number of people in any given location on any given day. It just does not matter.

Other than the overall mandate of the mission to degrade ISIS, we will not discuss strategy and tactics. They are what we do, not what we talk about.

We will not discuss rules of engagement. That is not public information.

Will it be a perfect operation? No. Will we learn valuable lessons? Yes.

Will any mistakes made, no matter how small, bring out all the Pollyannas who like to sit around a campfire singing Kumbaya and let someone else do the hard work? Yes, I am afraid that will happen. However, it is a mission we are doing. It is the right thing for a serious country like Canada to do.

Are there any guarantees? No, but I can guarantee one thing: if we do nothing, ISIS will continue beheading men, women, and children. That is not good enough for me, it should not be good enough for anybody in this House, and it is not good enough for Canada.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, even though I may not agree with them.

I will go back to a question I asked her leader earlier today, and there was no answer.

I do not disagree with any of the long-term things that we are talking about here, with reconciling the Sunnis and the Shias, eventually. Whether that will ever happen or not, who knows? Certainly, there are long-term things that we need to be looking at, but my concern is more for the short term.

What is the NDP solution to stopping ISIS from beheading women and children tomorrow? What does it suggest that we do tomorrow, to stop the killing, so that we can get to some of those longer-term things?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick comments and a question.

The Leader of the Opposition cites some comments made by people about command as being somehow contradictory and misleading, but for his clarification and perhaps for others, the Canadian Forces are always under the national command of the Chief of the Defence Staff, wherever they are.

When they are operating in a theatre, they are under the operational command of whoever is commanding that theatre, just as Americans were under a Canadian command in Afghanistan, so it is not misleading the House at all.

We left Afghanistan much better off than how we found it. Will it last? That will ultimately be up to them, but it was a combination of combat, surely, and a lot of rebuilding, much of which was in fact carried out by men and women in uniform.

I do not disagree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that a long-term solution requires sorting out the Sunni and Shia situation. That is true. However, I would like to ask him more about the short term.

Can we stop the short-term violence by ISIL without force? Can we negotiate the cessation of ISIL's short-term and obviously violent activity without force and simply by negotiation? What is his solution to stop ISIL from beheading people tomorrow?

[Petitions, October 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition that the people of Canada recognize the inherent rights of farmers.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or the Plant Breeders' Rights Act in Bill C-18. They call upon Parliament to enshrine the inalienable rights of farmers to save, reuse, selectively exchange, and sell seeds.