Agriculture Committee on Sept. 20th, 2018

[Andrew Casey]

You are quite right: it's a big challenge.

It's one of the biggest challenges of the industry. We're great at innovation. We have great science that comes out of our universities. We have these fantastic ideas. Then, what do they do? They go. They go to other countries for a number of reasons. I'm going to give two that I think are the most important.

One is, if you want to create a company in Canada, you need investment. It's expensive, the timelines are extraordinarily long, and the outcomes are not certain, so you require special kinds of investors. You have to have a very patient investor who's willing to come here and willing to sit through the long process. In medical therapies, you're going through clinical trials, and the timelines are not that much different when you're talking about some of the technologies that we're trying to advance. Therefore, you require a very special investor.

You also require people. As Mr. Dugré was talking about, the schools are creating those people right now. One of the key things we have to try to do is to develop leadership, leaders, CEOs for these companies because they're a unique kind of company, not just a person who can step into some of those large organizations and run an existing operation. We're talking about somebody who has to take something from the ground and build it up, go out and attract those investors.

Where government can play a role here is on the public policy side, because investment is like a global tourist. It's roaming around the world looking for places to go. Canada has to look at itself like a hotel. If you stay at a hotel, you know that they always put out little things such as chocolates on the pillow, free Wi-Fi, free breakfast, nice sheets, or whatever it is. They're trying to attract you as a tourist. Canada has to do likewise to attract investors and to keep people here. We have to put our own chocolates on the pillow.

One of the chocolates on the pillow for investors is how we do tax and how we do regulatory policy. Those are the types of things that provide investors with the assurance that when they invest in these companies, it's going to be here, it's going to grow, and it's going to be successful. That's what we need to do as an economy.

What we don't have right now is a national bioeconomy strategy that links all of this together, something that takes all these different threads and makes a whole cloth. That is one of the most important things that could be done, because as you've heard from my examples, each one of those companies is regulated by about four or five different departments, yet they're not all connected. We have to find a way to identify this sector, the importance of it, the great innovations that are coming out that you highlight, but how do we take them so we can create companies that are going to be based here in Canada?

A huge thing the government could do would be to develop a national strategy that would identify those objectives and bring public policy to that purpose.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

That's very interesting, Mr. Casey.

Mr. Ruest and Mr. Dugré, you have about 90 seconds each to give us your point of view.

[Jean-Marc Ruest]

I agree completely with the comments that were made.

I would, however, like to add one other point, which is very important: we will only be able to invest in research or the development of new technologies on condition that we are certain that we respect scientific requirements and that there are no health risks involved.

The regulatory process cannot contain any subjective elements. The authorization of commercial production, for instance, should not be called into question later because of social pressure to change things. The regulation has to be totally objective and science-based.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Dugré, I'd like to reassure you. Earlier, you talked about the well-being and psychological health of agricultural producers. If you followed our discussions over the past months, you will know that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food will, in the next few weeks, be undertaking a study on that topic. I invite you to follow that study, and perhaps even to register as a witness, if that interests you.

Madam Clerk, I don't know if we have any room left for more witnesses, but it could be interesting to hear from this organization.

I will give you the floor for the last minute.

[Simon Dugré]

In the final analysis, as my two fellow witnesses explained so well today, we are talking about Canadian regulation, which must govern the safety and quality of products destined for the Canadian market and for export.

However, regarding innovation, we have to give some leeway to the users, to those who work with these raw materials, the natural resources, in Quebec or in Canada. And so, we think that social innovation, from the outset, or upstream as you said, represents a good opportunity for enterprises and those who shape them to be able to work—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Dugré, my clock seems a bit faster than yours, and I must, unfortunately, stop you once again. Please forgive me.

Mr. MacGregor, you have six minutes.

Thank you.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Mr. Casey, I'll start with you.

In the springtime, our committee did a great cross-country trip visiting various locations. We often heard the theme that companies appreciated what the CFIA did. Our regulatory structure was sound because there was this theme of brand Canada, the maple leaf internationally. When people look at Canadian agricultural products, they understand that we have a science-based regulatory system. It's produced by high-quality farmers and our attention to detail is pretty good. However, they would sometimes grumble that it's a bit onerous.

In your mind, how do we strike that balance and what more could the federal government be doing to help Canadian companies understand the export market? Do we need to have more CFIA staff in our embassies to understand the international situations? Do you have any comments on that?

[Andrew Casey]

Absolutely, it's a common refrain we've heard from some of our companies.

From both examples I gave you, whether it's the mustard seed into jet fuel or the non-browning apple, both of those companies went through long regulatory processes that they felt were probably too long. In fact, the apple one received FDA approval in the U.S. long before it was received here in Canada.

Can it be better? Absolutely it can.

The only point I would make, though, is that the brand that we have is not just the maple leaf. It is the fact that we do good science and we do have a really good regulatory policy. That's what is recognized. We would never want to lose that, because I do believe that is a competitive advantage. Can it be more streamlined? Can it be more efficient? Yes, it can.

From a promotional standpoint, having those out in the trade commissions would be useful. Probably more important, though, would be to beef up our regulatory capacity here by adding more scientists who are able to keep pace with the change, because when we're talking about this type of change, it is very rapid, with huge leaps in many cases. Keeping up with that would be extraordinarily important. It would be a very good objective to increase our capacity for handling this, because we're at the tip of the iceberg. We're looking at a lot more innovation coming. It's not like it's going to decrease, and it's a competitive advantage for us to be out there in front of all this. It seems to me from an economic standpoint that it makes great sense to do that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Ruest, do you have anything to add to that?

[Jean-Marc Ruest]

From a regulatory standpoint, you mentioned the CFIA. In our industry, we have the CFIA, the Canadian Grain Commission and Health Canada that are all regulating at different times and oftentimes, possibly too often, overlapping in their regulation and involvement in the industry. There is great merit in reviewing the mandates of each of those regulators to determine whether we don't have overlap and inefficiencies built into our regulatory system with respect to grain exports.

As well, from a regulatory standpoint, one of the things that is very difficult and hurting Canadian exports of products is what I'll call the lack of collaboration with respect to the registration of new technologies in different jurisdictions. We have a Canadian registration process, and then in order to be able to export to other jurisdictions, we need to go through very long regulatory processes, and oftentimes in countries where we have very similar backgrounds and stakes at play.

The United States is an example of that. To have to go through again a very long regulatory registration process seems inefficient. We ought to be striving for synchronous approval of new technologies in various countries so we can actually deploy them much more quickly than we currently do.

You spoke about the embassies and the role they can play in importing countries. What we need to do, as I pointed out earlier, is to challenge non-tariff trade barriers being raised under the cloak of regulation and sanitary and phytosanitary and technological issues. We have to recognize when in fact it's not a safety issue but a non-tariff trade barrier that's being raised, and be very aggressive in our position that we defend the interests of Canadian exporters. However, as I said, to do so, we have to be on sound, firm ground in our own internal domestic policy, and at times that is questionable.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Casey, also, during some of our stops, the conversation came up between genetically modified organisms that were using genetic material from a completely foreign plant or animal, and now the new gene-editing tools, which I think in a public relations agenda can come across to the public and they can understand it a bit better if you're taking certain traits of certain plants and trying to make them express themselves better. In the time I have remaining, do you have any final comments, if you're trying to get the public aware of how these can actually help us in a changing world to combat climate change?

[Andrew Casey]

My only comment is that I think it's absolutely imperative that we go there. As to the earlier question from Mr. Berthold, I understand the trepidation. There is some fear out there. This is science and it is advancing very quickly, so it's very prudent for us to make sure we get it right. There's no question about that, and that's where the regulatory system comes in place.

If you have the ability to grow plants with less pesticides or grow plants that use less water or less fertilizer, or grow them in places where you can't normally grow them, why would you not take advantage of that technology, given the challenge that we are facing? If you can grow rice to which you can add vitamin A and it's a staple of a diet in a country that needs vitamin A, a country where there's a deficiency, why would you not take advantage of that technology?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Drouin, you have six minutes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back, Mr. Shipley. It's very timely that you're here today, especially since you're the author of this study.

I want to start off with Mr. Casey with regard to new technologies being developed. We talk about that public confidence, but whose role should it be? Should it be solely the role of government to provide that confidence?

I'll give you examples. When we approve new technologies through PMRA, if it's on the GMO side, we get one side complaining. If we don't approve it, we get the other side complaining. Both sides are not helping to provide that confidence in the system. How do we provide more transparency in that system?

[Andrew Casey]

Certainly transparency is key. Is it up to government only? No, absolutely not. The government plays a very important role once this technology gets to a point where you're ready to put it into the population. Then, yes, you have a regulatory responsibility to take a look at that, and that's really important.

However, ultimately what's going to put everybody's minds at ease is science. It has to be science-based. If you have the testing to show that it's safe and efficacious, just as you do with drugs, it's the same concept with these types of changes. If the science backs it up, that has to give people reassurance. I don't know how else to do it.

If we live our lives in fear of what may happen, I'm not so sure I'm going to drink this water. I could tell you that eating broken glass may make you better. Science tells me that eating broken glass is not good for me, but it might make you better. I don't know. However, you're not going to go out and eat broken glass just because it may make you better.

It's the same thing the other way around. Science tells us that it's all safe. If the science is rigorous and solid, I think we should go with the science.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Great, thanks.

The gentlemen who are with us through video conference spoke earlier about social pressure.

I'd like to spend a few moments on the glyphosate issue in the United States, and the pressure that is exerted on us as MPs, once this type of issue winds up before the courts. In this case, I know that Monsanto will appeal and that other cases may go before the courts. This will put even more pressure on us, because the legal system will be involved.

How can we communicate this to the population with transparency, in order to avoid this social pressure when it comes to new technologies?

[Jean-Marc Ruest]

I agree totally with Mr. Casey. It's impossible to be mistaken if the regulation rests on recognized scientific principles. However, as soon as there is any subjectivity or viewpoints that are not science-based, to what extent can you regulate?

If we really want investment in research and technology, we have to be sure that decisions are objective and based on scientific principles, and not on subjective sociopolitical conclusions that would be too vague to be a basis for regulation.

If we had used that type of conclusion in the past, perhaps there would be no planes in the sky today, since people would not believe that the planet is round and would be afraid of falling off the edge of the world.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

And on this topic, do you sense a movement in the industry toward transparency on scientific issues when new technologies are being developed? I think that the Bayer company seems to be heading in that direction, and wants to publish scientific data on its new products. Does that seem to be the trend in that area?

[Jean-Marc Ruest]

The fact of being on a whole new battlefield makes things difficult. It is difficult to defend yourself in the world of social media, where a simple sentence from a television or film star recorded in a sound clip can have a lot of influence. We would like to reply to it by presenting scientific arguments, but that sort of information is not easy to convey in a few lines in a tweet.

Our industry is dealing with another challenge: when we try to respond, we are attacked right away and accused of speaking for our commercial interests without any concern for the well-being of society.

That is where our government and regulatory agencies may have a role to play, by agreeing to debate the issue, on condition that the science and underlying facts are presented. If someone then chooses to not consume a certain product, it will be up to him to do that, but there is no need to call into question the safety of the entire production.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Dugré, do you have something to add?

[Simon Dugré]

I'd like to talk about the social acceptability of these products. Indeed, this reconciliation with science is necessary. The consumer can indeed be quick to tweet out his thoughts. We have to maintain his democratic right to do so, while providing him with the necessary scientific knowledge. As I said in the very beginning of my statement, we have to integrate social innovation and technological innovation right from the outset when we create new products or improve existing products.

What is difficult at this time is that there are few if any programs that allow us to do that. For instance, one of the only social innovation programs at SSHRC or NSERC was not renewed this year. Over the past three or four years, there were investments of close to $27 million, but this has just come to an abrupt end.

In the current circumstances, we would need to strengthen that type of program instead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Dugré.

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Longfield, you have six minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for your presentations today.

I have a limited amount of time. I wanted to start with Mr. Casey. I'm very interested in the discussion around mustard seed and pressing the seeds to get fuel for jets. I've been following that over the summer. In fact, over the last few years, the University of Saskatchewan has done some great work in this area around fuelling vehicles as well. On the sustainability of that fuel source and the amount of fuel that could be available—we are putting a price on pollution and returning money to people who are working on reducing their carbon footprint—this looks like an amazing opportunity for us.

What type of volume or what kind of transition time are we talking about to get to this type of solution?

[Andrew Casey]

From that sense, I don't know the answer to that. It's early stages. I was remiss not to point it out. You may have seen it just last week, but United Airlines sent a plane from San Francisco to Munich—