Agriculture Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

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

I think that's something you should be considering.

[Chris Forbes]

Let me just tell you quickly about the kind of stuff we've done. We have worked with the food processing industry round table. It's a sector round table that we bring together to look at some of the costs associated with the proposals—for example, the proposals around front-of-pack labelling. We have worked with them to help quantify their views on the costs of these proposals and some of the economic impacts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you—

[Chris Forbes]

What we try to do—sorry, Chair—is just make sure that the information flows both ways. The sector's information and what they see as the impacts are brought to the attention of our colleagues. Similarly, the processes and priorities and the understanding of our colleagues are communicated to the sector so that we can improve the dialogue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Forbes.

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you for being in front of this committee. I know it's not your first appearance.

I'm wondering if you could give us an update on the fall economic update. I didn't have a chance to go through it with the minister. A few items have been mentioned in terms of regulatory reviews. I'm wondering how that process will unfold, given that it has been mentioned in the fall economic update. I'm talking about the guidance on plants with novel traits, the fertilizer regulatory modernization and the timelines for pre-market assessments.

I've spoken to a few folks in the business, and they welcome that news. I'm wondering how that will unfold from now over the next few months.

[Chris Forbes]

In the statement, obviously a number of specific regulatory commitments were laid out in terms of priorities for officials and for the government to get through. Timelines will vary from item to item. You raised the example of the plants with novel traits. We are engaging with the sector right now through CFIA, the AAFC and indeed Health Canada to talk with the sector about ways we can simplify and clarify the approval process. That's ongoing. The precise timing will depend on the nature of the discussions, but these discussions are ongoing.

For some of the other regulatory items—Jaspinder could probably talk about some of the CFIA stuff—it will have to go through normal processes to the extent that there are changes, gazetting processes, and so on.

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

Maybe I shouldn't have said “timeline”. One of the issues we hear is that sometimes, to take PMRA as an example, they don't consult. They're not necessarily going to consult on the impact on trade, and that's causing some issues for farmers. I'm wondering if we can take this opportunity to have that international trade voice at the table. I'm sure you guys are at the table, but I think that's something that farmers would welcome on a local basis.

Mr. Komal, feel free to jump in.

[Chris Forbes]

Let me jump in for a moment, Jaspinder.

To your point about what came out in the statement, I would say a couple of things. We heard a lot about how to get more external voices talking about regulation and how to think more about economic issues when we look at regulation. You will see a commitment to set up an external voice to advise the government on regulation. You'll see commitments to regularly update legislation to get rid of old economic impediments that are in legislation and regulation that aren't necessary. You will also see a commitment to put more economic emphasis just generally on how we look at regulations.

How do we tackle regulation well? Obviously, it's maintaining food safety in the case of CFIA, and the health of Canadians in the case of Health Canada. It's not giving up the prudential aspects of regulation, but how do we bring more of this economic, innovation, and trade lens to the discussion? That's maybe some of the overarching....

I'm sorry, Jaspinder. You're on.

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

Thank you.

As we work with our trading partners and other parties—either directly, bilaterally, or through international standard-setting bodies such as the Codex, IPPC or OIE—we are very well aware of what is there in the international community, and we try to harmonize, because we are an exporting country. What we're trying to do with our regulations is to harmonize with that so that we are able to trade according to the requirements of the importing country.

Second, we are also trying to make sure that these regulations are enabling and not impeding. We're trying to make them more outcome-based, keeping the intent of the regulation and the authorities that the government has to certify these products, but also making sure that there are no unnecessary things in there that are impeding production or export.

The safe food for Canadians regulations are one of them, and we have other regulations in the pipeline with regard to feed, fertilizer and hatcheries. We have a number of regulations that are in, and we are modernizing them in full consultation with stakeholders. We are making consultations up front so that when it goes to gazetting, we have a full view of the stakeholders. Once it's in the consultation, we will have already talked to our international partners, and then we will also publish it through WTO for 75 days or whatever the time is.

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

Having spoken to a sheep farmer, I know that she will welcome the approval of veterinary drugs using foreign reviews. How would that work essentially? If a drug is approved in the U.S. market but not yet in the Canadian market, I suspect that the publisher or the proponent of that particular drug still has to apply to the Canadian market, but then they would have to.... What we're saying is that Canada will now use, for instance, the same application that was submitted to the U.S. Is that what we're trying to do here?

[Dr. Jaspinder Komal]

That's in the realm of Health Canada. What I heard from them is that they are doing it. In the meantime, we work with the department and also with Health Canada because it's a small industry. Companies don't like to bring products here. It's very costly to license products and market them. What we're trying to do is, on a trial basis, look at a minor use program. We worked in the past with Health Canada and also with the industry to approve certain drugs in Canada through a program where the government helps.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Dr. Komal.

Mr. Longfield, you have six minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you all for being here to answer the detailed questions.

It strikes me that we're in a new process. We've just had our final vote on the budget implementation act, and we're now working on estimates within the same fiscal period. We did an adjustment in the past year. This is a whole new piece, where we're actually talking about things within our budgetary period. I know that you have done a lot of work to get us there, so I just want to thank you for getting us aligned with the budget and the supplements in the same period.

I'm very interested in vote 1a, particularly the reinvestment of royalties from intellectual property being $5.6 million. I also sit on the industry committee, where we have new intellectual property strategy within Canada. Now I'm seeing intellectual property revenue showing up in the agriculture supplements. Could you talk about what that actually looks like and how your department works with intellectual property and reinvests in science?

[Christine Walker]

Yes, this year we have approximately $5.6 million in royalties from licences, fees and intellectual property. Those amounts were collected last year, in 2017-18. They were deposited to the consolidated revenue fund, and now we are basically accessing that money and bringing it back to the organization. Of those funds, 100% will be reinvested in the science program.

A typical example of a royalty would be AAC Brandon, an example of Canadian red spring wheat. It was actually developed by AAFC, and it was planted on over 228 million acres in Canada last year, commanding about 24% of the market share. Just from that, we got $800,000 in royalties.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Wow.

When I was at the open house in your lab in Guelph, I saw some developments—I saw a lot of developments and maybe I shouldn't go into the real specifics—having to do with antimicrobial resistance and using berries and their skins in terms of that, and then looking for market opportunities. Is there any kind of commercialization process that these labs are able to do? Or do they work through industrial partners, and the industrial partners do the commercialization of some of the research?

[Chris Forbes]

Generally, the commercialization of products will come within industry. We're not in the business of commercialization generally. We do have programming that goes a bit to that side, not necessarily with our own innovations, but we do have programming that supports that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Right. Thank you.

I have two other line items that I wanted to address. One is “[r]einvestment of revenues from sales and services related to research, facilities and equipment”, at $2,553,000. On reinvestment from sales and services, again, we're not marketing, but we're using this revenue through partnerships. Is it universities?

[Christine Walker]

Thank you for the question.

I have a couple of examples. We have research facilities. We have 20 research centres across Canada. We lease space to some provincial governments, for example, so they can use our space. That would be a good example of sales and services related to research and facilities.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That's terrific. It's great to show on these line items that we're actually using science in a smart way to develop our markets for our farmers, and that farmers are also involved with the developments, which is great.

There's one final one that I'm seeing. It's the final line item of “[c]ontributions in support of the Living Laboratories Initiative”. When our committee travelled, we went to the University of British Columbia and saw a living laboratory there. We saw some things around organics, and Mr. Peschisolido was talking about our investments in organics. What is the living laboratories initiative?

[Christine Walker]

The living laboratories initiative was part of the $70 million that was announced in budget 2017. It is a contribution over five years of $10 million. It is a nationwide network of sites where groups, both inside and outside the government, can collaborate to develop and implement innovative solutions to address persistent agri-environmental issues.

We've recently completed a series of stakeholder engagements across the country to introduce the concept and get the perspective on regional priorities, roles and responsibilities of partners, and criteria for the site selection of living labs.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

These are great answers. I appreciate that. I've asked all the questions I wanted to ask, so I just want to take the time to thank you for the great work that you're doing on behalf of our farmers and our country.

[Chris Forbes]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Longfield.

Now we'll hear from Mr. Bev Shipley.

[Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

I wanted to follow up on Mr. Drouin's comments. The Agricultural Growth Act came into effect in 2014, which allowed for Canada to be a part of the registration process on a global means. Is that being enforced?