Agriculture Committee on Nov. 7th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome, everyone.

Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we begin our study of climate change and water and soil conservation issues.

We will be hearing from the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops today; it is represented by its Executive Director, Susie Miller.

Welcome, Ms. Miller.

From CropLife Canada, we have Dennis Prouse, vice-president, government affairs.

He is accompanied by Ian Affleck, the Executive Director responsible for plant biotechnology.

We will start with the presentations, which can last up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. Miller, go ahead for up to 10 minutes. Thank you.

[Susie Miller, Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

The Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops was formed in 2013 specifically as a means to proactively advance sustainability for the grains industry in Canada.

The CRSC, which is what we call it for short, is member-based and has a broad scope of members. These include grain growers, supply chain organizations, grain handlers, food processors, food service companies, and environmental and sustainability organizations.

Currently, we have about 50 members from across Canada. Government has no members—we exclude them from membership but they are invited to participate in our meetings and they contribute to technical committee discussions.

The CRSC mission drives our work and our mission is as follows: to create value for all members of Canada’s grains sector by providing a national forum for advancing, reporting on, and communicating the sustainability of Canadian grain production.

To this end, the Canadian grain sector, through the CRSC, is driving an industry-led initiative to gather existing information, to conduct original research, and to make publicly available comprehensive and national data about the sustainability of grain production in Canada. We intend to maintain this information online and keep the information as up to date as possible, enabling all interested parties to understand sustainable grain production and to see how it changes over time.

The need for this initiative was clear. There are numerous sustainability certification standards globally, some of them company-specific, but they all focus on the same issues.

The CRSC has determined which issues are important from across the major standards with the goal of allowing any stakeholder, regardless of which standard they use, to find the information they need on the sustainability of our production.

We believe this will serve a twofold objective. First, it will enable food manufacturers and food-service customers to clearly and credibly tell consumers the story of the sustainable production of the grain products they make. Second, it will help Canadian grain and oilseed producers and exporters to maintain market access for those economies or customers that require macro-level sustainability information as part of their regulations or procurement policies.

To accomplish this, we have first engaged with the membership itself, and then outside to buyers, customers, and the general public. This dialogue is critical to establishing a congruent approach among our members, many of whom have active programs to enhance sustainability. The CRSC offers them the opportunity to coordinate and develop synergistic approaches among these various organizations and initiatives.

Given that the CRSC has members that produce grain as well as members that buy and consume grain products, the CRSC assists in the understanding of the expectations of customers and societies, including environmental organizations. This understanding of the expectations of consumers and society led us to the second focus of our work, which is on the establishment of research priorities and the undertaking of research to fill knowledge gaps.

To ensure that information meets the needs of our stakeholders, it must be science-based and credible. In the last year, the CRSC has invested in researching the carbon life-cycle footprint of ten crops in major grain-producing provinces. As well, we conducted a survey of producer practices that relate to sustainability criteria.

The researching and collection of credible and relevant data is not in itself valuable without a mechanism to effectively communicate that information to those who want it or require it. To do this, we embarked on a major project to build our online grain-sustainability metrics platform.

As mentioned earlier, the platform will provide relevant and credible science-based data about the sustainability performance of Canadian grain producers. Although the majority of the information is about environmental sustainability, we're also providing information on social responsibility, which is about workers in the community as well as the economic viability of the industry as all three are important to our customers and consumers. We are currently in the latter stages of development and plan to have this platform launched in early 2018.

To do this, we are using a multitude of data sources. One source of particular importance is the work that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada undertake on environmental indicators.

In addition, we rely on results from a number of Statistics Canada surveys, such as the agriculture census, the farm environmental management survey, and the water use survey. This survey information is complemented by our own data, which I talked about earlier, as well as that generated by the Canadian Field Print Initiative, which is another sustainability initiative undertaken by the grains industry.

I would also mention that we have been able to undertake this because of the contribution of the Government of Canada through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's programs, which provide funding that's matched by our members.

In closing, I would like to share with you the results of the research that we've conducted into the expectations of markets and civil society regarding environmental sustainability. As expected, there are definite expectations that producers handle agrochemicals, fertilizer, and manure in such a manner that they do not negatively impact water quality, and that producers maintain the productivity of soils. In addition, markets and civil society also have expectations of the agriculture industry in general for greenhouse gas reduction, the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitat, the maintenance of sensitive areas, and the management of waste and pollution.

There is also an understanding within these groups that are looking for sustainable performance that ideal results will not be achieved immediately, but that there's continuous improvement over time.

Again, thank you for your interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Ms. Miller.

Now we have CropLife.

I don't know if you want to split your time , but you have up to 10 minutes.

[Dennis Prouse, Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We appreciate the invitation today. With me is my colleague Ian Affleck, our executive director of plant biotechnology for CropLife Canada.

Although many aspects of the plant science industry have evolved since we were first established in 1952, our main purpose remains the same: providing tools to help farmers be more productive and more sustainable. Our members also develop products for use in a wide range of non-agricultural settings, including urban green spaces, public health settings, and transportation corridors.

No one has to tell Canadian farmers about the impacts of climate change because they've been dealing with them for some time. Our challenge now as an industry is to find a way to help Canadian farmers be more productive on less land and in a more sustainable way than ever before. Fortunately, Canadian farmers are some of the most rapid adaptors of new technology in the world. What we will talk about today is what Canadian farmers are doing now to improve sustainability and address climate change and how we can do even more in the future.

You will often hear us speaking about our industry's technologies. Most people don't think of agriculture in that way, but the pesticides that protect crops and the plant biotechnology that creates hardier and healthier crops represent leading-edge science that makes our lives better. In addition to protecting crops, pesticides and biotech crops also have an impressive story to tell about how they help protect the environment by helping farmers use less land to grow more food, preserve biodiversity, tackle climate change, and conserve natural resources.

Thanks to plant science technologies, Canadian farmers grow more crops on the very best of our country's farmland, leaving marginal land alone. Doing this saves 35 million acres of forest, native grass, and wetlands from being used for agriculture, thus protecting biodiversity by safeguarding habitats.

Far from harming biodiversity, modern agriculture is in fact a crucial part of protecting it. Biotech crops and pesticides help farmers better control pests in their fields. Before these technologies existed, farmers had to till to get rid of weeds. For those who may not be familiar with tillage, it's the practice of plowing a field to remove weeds. This is hard on the soil as it breaks down organic matter and reduces the soil's ability to retain moisture. Tillage was a big part of why the dirty thirties were so devastating. Because the soil was fragile from tilling, the dry and windy conditions resulted in precious topsoil being blown away.

That has changed as a result of farmers using pesticides and biotechnology in combination. Because farmers can apply herbicide, they do not need to till for weeds. As a result of advances in agricultural technology, farmers can also leave stubble to decompose right in the field, adding organic matter back into the topsoil and improving soil consistency. As a result, soil is less susceptible to wind and water erosion.

Reduced land use, less tillage and summer fallow, and eliminating equipment passes reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 29 million tonnes a year in Canada. Making fewer passes over fields with equipment reduces diesel fuel use by up to 194 million litres a year in Canada alone. The success of biotechnology since its introduction is significant, and it's an important tool in the fight against climate change.

We constantly challenge ourselves as a industry, however, to do even more to give farmers access to technology that makes the world a better place. One of the challenges our industry continues to face, both in Canada and around the globe, is a regulatory system that is slow to improve new traits.

In spite of the annual growth in biotech crop adoption, we have not seen the predicted introduction of new crops. Eighty per cent are still in the four major field crops. What's more, the growth we had expected to see in public sector-developed products has not materialized. Seventy-five per cent of commercialized products are still coming from the leading private sector technology developers.

So why are we not seeing the new and innovative products in both new seeds and crop protection products to improve sustainability yields even further? The reality is that the regulatory system is failing to deliver innovation to farmers.

With regard to the timeline of commercialization, we've seen that the most time-consuming part of getting a biotech trait to market is actually outside of the developer's control. The cost and time involved in regulatory science and registration have increased 50% in the last decade.

We have seen some new consumer traits approved in Canada. The Arctic apple, produced by Okanagan Speciality Fruits, is the apple that doesn't brown after slicing. It should start being commercially available next year, and the possibility for cutting down food waste is exciting. The same holds true for any potatoes produced by J.R. Simplot, which provide protection against potato bruising and browning.

This is just the beginning. There are new traits in the pipeline, and they will provide improved disease, insect, and weed control. Others are designed to improve drought tolerance, saline tolerance, and nitrogen-use efficiency. There are next-generation yield, field efficiency, and ethanol traits and consumer benefits such as healthy edible oils and enhanced nutrition. The benefits of enhanced nutrition are important in the developing world, where the impact of climate change will be felt particularly hard.

The regulatory system is limiting the ability of private and public sector developers to get new traits and crops to farmers. While private sector developers can shoulder these time and cost burdens, it's very difficult for public sector developers to see their products through all the way to commercialization.

It's worth noting that we're talking about technologies that, in their over two-decade history, have an unblemished safety record. There is a global scientific consensus on the safety of biotech crops, and neither Canada nor any other regulatory agency has encountered one documented case of harm. Biotech crops are not a health and safety concern for Canadians, nor are they a regulatory concern.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we're very proud of the role that our industry has played in making Canadian agriculture more productive and more sustainable than ever. Modern agriculture is very much part of the solution on climate change, both in Canada and around the world. These contributions would be greatly enhanced should Canada make a sustained effort to reform its regulatory system. Canadian farmers are eager and ready adapters of new technology. It makes sense to find a faster, more effective way to deliver them that technology, while making Canada a global centre for investment and innovation in modern agriculture. We urge the Government of Canada to help make this vision a reality.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We appreciate your time, and we look forward to the committee's questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Prouse.

We will now start with Luc Berthold, for the Conservatives.

You have six minutes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentations. They were very instructive.

We begin this study with our minds fully open. Changes in climate, the effects on soil quality, access to water and everything related, are vast topics. This issue is a concern for many producers all over Canada. It should also be a concern for consumers because, ultimately, everything on our plates comes from the earth, at least the vast majority of food does.

My question is very simple. Every time I meet groups of producers, especially producers of grains of all kinds, everyone talks about expanding their production capacity in the coming years. They are talking about doubling their production in the next 10 years. There are also government targets for a quite significant increase in exports.

When people talk to us about those objectives, they say nothing about the constraints associated with climate change. Everything seems fine and dandy and there seem to be no fears as to the ability to double production, to deliver the product, and to achieve the objectives. I would like to hear what you have to say about that.

Let’s start with the people from CropLife Canada, and then go to Ms. Miller.

[Dennis Prouse]

There is no question that ambitious goals have been set out. We saw them in budget 2017, and we hear them talked about. What we've said is that we need a regulatory system that is flexible enough to provide new tools to farmers. There won't be that expansion without a regulatory system that is responsive enough.

We keep coming back to that, because those regulators hold in their hands the keys to any innovations we have. They have to go through the regulatory system. We support that regulatory system. Canada has a science-based regulatory system.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

If I understand correctly, you are afraid that those ambitious objectives cannot be achieved if changes are not made to the way in which the industry is regulated.

[Dennis Prouse]

Yes, that is correct. We need change and reform in our regulatory system if we want to realize those goals, because they're exceptionally ambitious. We're talking about trying to take Canada from number five in the world to number two. That's a tremendous goal, and we're excited about that goal, but there needs to be a road map to get there.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Do you have a specific example of a regulation we need? If we had to approve a regulation and it could be done quickly, which one should we choose?

[Dennis Prouse]

Over to you, Ian.

[Ian Affleck, Executive Director, Plant Biotechnology, CropLife Canada]

Thank you for the question.

I think a good example is around plant biotechnology specifically and new products of biotechnology. To drive the kind of innovation we need to see, Canada has to get these tools in the hands of farmers as quickly as possible and as safely as possible. In no way should we be compromising the safety of our regulatory system, but we should move it forward quickly.

I think you're probably looking for a specific crop.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Could you tell me, quickly, because time is unfortunately limited here, what the main irritant in this area is?

[Ian Affleck]

I would say it's in two pieces, time and cost. It takes about two to three years to get a product approved in Canada right now. A large portion of that time is spent with the file sitting in a queue and not being looked at, sometimes for 12 months. If we could get it started faster, it would be finished faster.

The second is the overall data requirements and the cost. That's very limiting to small start-up companies who may want to get into this space. They have a hard time getting started because they can't meet those overall regulatory costs that the big companies can.

If we want to see broad innovation in a lot of small niche markets that are going to build toward this greater goal, we need to impact those costs so we can get those smaller players. Okanagan is a great example of a smaller player. They had to raise a lot of capital to get through that regulatory process to get that product on the market.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Ms. Miller, along the same lines, is the objective of doubling production incompatible with the idea of sustainable agriculture? Do you think we can get there?

[Susie Miller]

I think in terms of sustainability, one of the things that climate change will do is change the meaning of sustainability and what the expectations are. From an individual farmer's perspective, they're dealing with the conditions they're facing right at the moment. Because they don't know exactly what the impacts are, they're focused on the current conditions, the current state of technology, the current markets, and what they're going to do this year, next year, and five years down the road.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

So, according to your research and your studies, it is difficult for us to project what the situation will be in 10 years and therefore to say whether we can double production.

[Susie Miller]

Well I think in terms of the situation currently, the producers adapt to the needs of the market. One of the contributions we're trying to make is to let them know exactly what's required.

For example, and my colleague talked about it, the adoption of tillage has benefits from an environmental perspective, but it also has benefits from a financial perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Mr. Peschisolido, the floor is now yours for six minutes.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for appearing before us today.

All of you touched on the need to expand production—we get more stuff from fewer factors—but also the need to do it in a sustainable way, to limit the bad impact that occurs on soil, water, the environment.

You talked about two other things. You implied there were funding issues, but you also talked about a regulatory regime.

Ms. Miller, I was fascinated by your initiatives. You talked about a few initiatives and that you have a matching funds program.

Where do you think the government could gear its funds to help you in obtaining the goals you'd like to do?

[Susie Miller]

Thank you for the question.

I think there are some things we have found during the last four years.

One is the importance of dialogue. It's not evident that people talk to each other, or different organizations talk to each other. When you're trying to bridge the gap from the market all the way back to the producers, but also including civil society and environmental groups, which we're trying very hard to do, it takes time to generate that particular understanding.

I think the second area is in the investment in data. There's a lot of investment in data, a lot of talk about big data, efforts made for open data, but not necessarily in a way that can be used for our purposes. We're trying to do something new here. As we try to do something new, we're hoping it will inform those kinds of decisions.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Ms. Miller, there are those who participate in that dialogue who deny climate change. They say that it's not an issue, that we shouldn't be dealing with increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Do you believe that climate change is an issue and that we should be dealing with it?

[Susie Miller]

Everybody that comes to our table, the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops, has a commitment to enhancing environmental sustainability. That's a precondition for membership. We have every grain-producing organization in Canada and, as I said, the grain handlers, the retailers, etc. It's never come up in our discussions.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

All right.

You've discussed the inputs. You talked about manure versus artificial fertilizer. Can you talk about that? Does it matter what type of inputs the farmers are using, as it relates to water quality and environmental issues?

[Susie Miller]

From the perspective of the market requirements and the sustainability requirements, the source is important only in how it's used. For example, for manure, there is more of an emphasis on storage because it just doesn't appear overnight or get used overnight, so there's a storage period. However, the principles are the same. You use the right product, in the right amount, at the right time, and in the right place, which are actually the four Rs that Fertilizer Canada is promoting. That's exactly what they want. The issue with fertilizers, other than the incidental potential contamination while it's being stored, is that it be utilized by the crop and not be available for runoff into water.