Major projects: How Bill C-5 works and why Indigenous leaders are so concerned
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
2 hours ago
Who controls the food supply? Proposed changes to seed reuse reopens debate
It's a small change that risks cultivating a big debate. On one side is the principle of farmer's privilege — the traditional right of Canadian farmers to save seeds at the end of a growing season and reuse them the next year. On the other is the principle of plant breeders' rights — the right of those who develop new seeds and plants to protect and profit from their discoveries. The issue has been dormant for a decade. Now, proposed changes to government rules regarding plant breeders' rights are reviving that debate. It also raises questions about how Canada gets its food and who controls what is grown. Ultimately, it's about food security, said Keith Currie, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The group supports the changes, which include narrowing the scope of farmer's privilege. Not only keeping us competitive to keep food costs down, but also to make sure that we maintain new varieties coming forward for that food availability. Enlarge image (new window) The proposed changes could reduce the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds for crops like fruits and vegetables. Photo: The Canadian Press / Giordano Ciampini In a notice (new window) dated Aug. 9, the government announced proposed changes to Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations — a form of intellectual property protection for plants, similar to a patent. The regulations give plant breeders a monopoly over the distribution of their product for a set period, as a way to to encourage investment and innovations such as varieties with higher yields or more resistant to drought or pests. It's a big business. Estimates of the economic impact of the seed industry in Canada range from $4 billion to $6 billion a year. The right to reuse The changes would remove the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds and cuttings from protected fruits, vegetables, ornamental varieties, other plants reproduced through vegetative propagation and hybrids. For most plants recognized under the law, the protections last for 20 years. Personal gardens and many other kinds of crops such as wheat, cereals and pulses, where seed saving is more widespread, would not be affected. Among the other proposed changes is to extend the protection for new varieties of mushrooms, asparagus and woody plants like raspberries and blueberries to 25 years from the current 20 years. A public consultation on the changes runs until Oct. 18. Enlarge image (new window) NDP agriculture critic Gord Johns is calling for parliamentary hearings into the proposed changes. Photo: Kendal Hanson/CHEK News NDP agriculture critic Gord Johns says the changes raise an important issue for Canadians. He questions why the government is holding the consultation in summer when most farmers are focused on growing and harvesting crops — not drafting submissions for public consultations. They keep doing this over and over again, said Johns of the federal government. They announce regulatory changes that impact farmers and their livelihoods [and] they schedule the consultation period during the busiest time of the year for farmers. Johns said companies producing new kinds of seed should be adequately compensated for their innovation and intellectual property. But he said farmers who grow and harvest the food Canadians eat shouldn't be starved by big corporations choking off their seed supply. He wants the House of Commons agriculture committee to hold hearings and take a closer look at the changes being proposed. A spokesperson for Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Heath MacDonald said the government is committed to encouraging innovation, investment, research and competitiveness in Canadian agriculture, horticulture and ornamental industries. The spokesperson said the government will review all feedback before determining next steps. Access vs. innovation Former prime minister Stephen Harper's government triggered a debate in 2015 when it adopted measures to bring Canada's rules more in line with guidelines adopted by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, known as UPOV 91. The rules are separate from patent law or technology use agreements which some seed companies use to prevent farmers from saving and reusing seeds. Changes to plant breeders' rules are now again on the table. Last year, a government consultation resulted in 109 submissions, the majority supportive of change. Meanwhile, lobbyists have been busy behind the scenes. According to the federal lobbying registry, 13 people from several different groups or companies are currently registered to lobby on plant breeders' rights including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and Swiss-based Syngenta, owned by Sinochem, a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Enlarge image (new window) Wheat is not included in the proposed changes, but a research director for the National Farmers Union worries they could be the start of a 'slippery slope.' Photo: Reuters / Todd Korol Cathy Holtslander, director of research and policy for the National Farmers Union, says the proposed changes risk hurting farmers while increasing profits and the power of seed-producing companies — often multinationals with foreign ownership. While the changes are focused on an area of agriculture where seed saving is less common, Holtslander warns the changes are a slippery slope that could lead to an erosion of the rights of farmers. If they were to go after wheat with the amendment, there would be a huge uproar and people would really be angry and push back, Holtslander said. She said what's being proposed paves the way for other crops to be included later. The seed industry does not want farmers' privilege to exist for any seed. They want to be able to require people to buy new seed every year, she said. Holtslander's group plans to fight the proposed changes. She said the issue goes beyond the question of individual farmers reusing seed. If the big multinational companies control the seed, they control our food supply, she said. Lauren Comin, director of policy for Seeds Canada, acknowledges the issue can be controversial but argues Canada needs strong intellectual property protection if it wants access to the newest innovations to compete on the world stage. It's incredibly important to have these frameworks to encourage investment companies, businesses, public entities, to know that they are going to somehow be compensated and protected, Comin said. She said that while the changes provide that certainty and that incentive for investment, she wants them to go further. While acknowledging there isn't enough certified seed for all of Canada's cereals and small grains crop, Comin would also like to see farmers compensate plant breeders when they reuse seeds, as they do in Europe. The farmer's privilege does not say that that use is free, she said. [Farmers] can choose to buy the latest and greatest product of innovation, which means that there is a tremendous amount of investment and effort that went toward developing this improved variety. Or they can decide that they don't value innovation, and they can go back to a variety that's unprotected and grow that. Currie, an Ontario grains and oil seed farmer who saves and reuses seeds, says Canada needs to balance the two principles. He says farmer's privilege is key to Canada's competitiveness, but so is access to new varieties of seeds and plants. While I do understand where some of the multinationals want to have better control, I believe in order for the industry to be viable, farmers have to have some control as well, he said.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Indigenous leaders on Trans Mountain lessons as Building Canada Act moves forward
OTTAWA – Two former Indigenous leaders on both sides of the debate over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion say the federal government can't ignore First Nations on future infrastructure projects it seeks to approve. Their comments come as Prime Minister Mark Carney aims to fast-track major projects, such as pipelines and mines, through his government's newly adopted 'Building Canada Act.' Following years of delays and legal challenges, the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline, known as TMX, began operating last year. The project took more than 10 years to complete, after a court cited inadequate consultation with Indigenous groups in its decision to quash the federal government's initial approval of the expansion. The Canadian Press spoke with two former Indigenous leaders — one who supported TMX and one who opposed it — about what lessons have been learned from Trans Mountain, and whether they expect anything different from Carney's plans to accelerate more major projects. Leah George-Wilson, former chief of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, doesn't believe Ottawa has learned any lessons. 'I think we will see more First Nations turning to the courts over this piece of legislation,' she said of the Building Canada Act. George-Wilson's B.C.-based First Nation fought in court against the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, which ends in Burrard Inlet, part of her people's ancestral territory. They initially succeeded in reversing the Trudeau government's approval of the project in 2018 over a lack of consultation. However, after the government reapproved the project in 2019, First Nations such as Tsleil-Waututh were unable to stop it. It was during this legal battle that the federal government purchased the Trans Mountain project from Kinder Morgan, which had been preparing to withdraw. The TMX saga has left George-Wilson feeling pessimistic about the government's approach to other projects. 'Even today … the government has not responded to the significant impacts that Trans Mountain has had and continues to have on our community,' she said. She says she is not reassured by Carney's promise to respect section 35 of the Constitution Act — which guarantees the ancestral rights of Indigenous peoples — nor by the meetings he held over the summer with Indigenous leaders on his government's plans to quickly approve infrastructure projects. Some Indigenous communities have said they were not consulted during the drafting of the new legislation and fear it will infringe on their rights. Nine First Nations in Ontario have already filed a legal challenge against the Building Canada Act. With the law, Carney wants to speed up projects that Ottawa considers to be in the national interest, with the goal of limiting approval times to two years. 'I don't think this piece of legislation is going to speed up the projects at all because they're going to end up in court,' she said. However, Joe Dion a former grand chief in Alberta, says he thinks the Carney government will respect Section 35 and honour the principle of free, full, and informed consent of First Nations. 'For the government to revoke this section or to go against it would be a national shame. So I don't think it's going to happen',' said Dion, who is the CEO and director of the Western Indigenous Pipeline Group. The group includes dozens of Indigenous communities that, in partnership with Pembina Pipeline Corporation, want to acquire TMX. Ottawa has signalled its intention to divest itself of the pipeline ever since it purchased it from Kinder Morgan, though it has not yet done so. Dion believes that things have changed significantly since the Trans Mountain saga began, and believes the Carney government intends to fully involve Indigenous communities in future projects labelled as in the national interest. 'The government is now saying that the First Nations and the Indigenous groups will have equity, will have ownership in these projects,' he said in an interview. 'When TMX started, there was no promise of that at all … We had to fight for it, we have to fight for it.' Dion acknowledges that the Building Canada Act has drawn criticism from many Indigenous communities, but he said, 'You will never have unanimity, whether it's First Nations or non-First Nations.' In his view, projects that would 'severely affect' Indigenous communities will simply not go ahead, and won't be selected as being in the national interest. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 18, 2025.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Anand says international law is fundamental, as Ukraine talks kick off at White House
OTTAWA – Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand says Canada is trying to convince other countries that international law is fundamental for peace in Ukraine and across the world. Anand is in Helsinki, meeting with foreign ministers from Nordic countries as part of Canada's foreign policy for the Arctic, which seeks more economic and security ties with countries like Finland Anand will meet with Finnish President Alexander Stubb on Tuesday, after he returns to Helsinki from a White House visit with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy is in Washington alongside major European leaders to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump, who hosted a summit last week with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump is trying to play peace broker to end the war that started with Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, followed by its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Kyiv says it needs security guarantees, which involve meaningful commitments of military force by more powerful countries if Russia makes more incursions into Ukraine. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 18, 2025.
