Farmers’ seeds at centre of a debate over Agricultural Growth Act

Proponents say this will align Canada with its international trade partners and allow for more private innovation in food biotechnology, while opponents say it will restrict farmers’ rights to save their seeds and place ownership in the hands of the corporations that they are bought from.

By DENIS CALNAN |
Published: Monday, 09/22/2014 12:00 am EDT
Last Updated: Monday, 09/22/2014 12:43 am EDT

Farmers’ seeds are at the centre of a debate over Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. Proponents say this will align Canada with its international trade partners and allow for more private innovation in food biotechnology, while opponents say it will restrict farmers’ rights to save their seeds and place ownership in the hands of the corporations that they are bought from.
The federal government said the act is meant to improve farmers’ access to a wider variety of crops, as well as financial programs, and trade opportunities. It affects nine statutes that regulate the agricultural sector.
The bone of contention for critics of this omnibus bill are the changes to the Plant Breeders Rights Act, which would bring Canada’s seed laws in line with UPOV’91, which is an international agreement reached more than 20 years ago that is meant to protect new varieties of plants.
Ann Slater, with the National Farmers Union, a voluntary members’ organization, said the act will make it difficult for farmers to save their own seed because of “end-point royalties” that would mean paying royalties on the seeds that come from the crop and not just the seed that is bought.
“It gives the seed companies more opportunities to sell more seed and makes it more difficult for farmers to save seed and to store it on their own farm,” said Ms. Slater.
The farmers’ “right” to save seed will be changed to a “privilege,” according to Abra Brynne, with Food Secure Canada. “That privilege can be rescinded by the government of the day without due public process,” said Ms. Brynne.
NDP MP Malcolm Allen (Welland, Ont.), his party’s agriculture and agri-food critic, said there are many things within the bill that his party can work with, but he said the parts of the bill dealing with farmers’ ability to save seed is “problematic.”
“That’s probably the biggest single issue that a lot of farmers are raising with us,” said Mr. Allen, adding that the NDP will be proposing a series of amendments to the bill.
Liberal MP Mark Eyking (Sydney-Victoria, N.S.), his agriculture and agri-food critic, said the terminology used is a concern.
“This ‘privilege’ business—we have some problems with that wording,” said Mr. Eyking, who said the definition of what ‘privilege’ means compared to a ‘right’ is not clear in the bill. “The farmer should have a right,” said Mr. Eyking, who was a farmer for 20 years.
“I think there’s some paranoia out there,” said Ron Bonnett, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, who applauds the move by the government to outline seed-saving rules.
“The way things stand now, we really don’t have any clear guidelines on farmers saving seed from protected varieties. So this act is set up to try and put some rules around when farmers can save the seed,” said Mr. Bonnett.
He said the bill brings Canada in line with many international trading partners and will allow more investment in seeds.
“What we’ve seen happen in other places is, once you get a clearly spelled out way of collecting revenue from a seed that’s being developed, you start to see a little more competition in the market from the smaller farmers, co-ops, and groups of farmers that [have] an opportunity to develop some seeds themselves and go after some niche market opportunities,” said Mr. Bonnett.
Mr. Bonnett said the bill is moving the Canadian agricultural industry in the right direction, but he does have some criticisms of the bill, including increased penalties for farmers who are not following regulations.
Mr. Bonnett said he would “like to see more outreach and education as opposed to monetary penalties.”
Mr. Eyking agreed with that point and said that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should work with farmers and not have a combative relationship. He said that through this act, the government is hiking penalties for violations.
“What we see [the Conservatives] doing is having less inspectors and more regulations and higher violations,” said Mr. Eyking. He said it should be the other way around.
Mr. Allen said the bill should be divided up rather than be an omnibus bill. The legislation will amend several acts including the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act, among others.
“They’re trying to clean up a whole lot of things and its like many of the bills before: they push a lot of things into it that they don’t have to,” said Mr. Allen, “just so they can hide some of the stuff they want.”
Ms. Brynne with Food Secure Canada agrees. She said her organization can support some things in the bill, like restrictions on importing some fertilizers, but because it is an omnibus bill it divides attention.
“The practice of this government, it seems, to always put forward these omnibus bills and then it’s ‘take it or leave it.’ You have to take the whole nine yards, even though eight-and-a-half of it might be a problem,” said Ms. Brynne.
The bill has passed second reading and is to be debated at the House Agriculture Committee this fall.
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz (Battlefords-Lloydminster, Sask.) was not available for an interview.

The Hill Times