Evidence of meeting #77 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was change.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Okay.
Mr. Prouse, you mentioned something that I think is key. I apologize, but I'm going to paraphrase. You'd like the government to help in realizing the dream of better yields. Can you elaborate on how we can do that both on the funding side and on the side of our regs?
Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada
Sure.
My colleague, Ian, referred to it somewhat regarding speeding up the approval process. Right now, we look at that two- to three-year period. If we want to make Canada a leader in biotech and in investment, we should be able to drive that down to a one-year period. There's no cost to the government for that. That's simply a matter of applying better principles and speeding up the process.
On funding, it's making sure that those regulatory agencies are fully staffed, so they can deal with not only the technical requirements, but also a lot of trade issues that are now involved. For example, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency not only deals with health and safety issues, but they also end up dealing with issues of what's called MRL, maximum residue limits, that have impacts on trade. Are those regulatory agencies staffed well enough to provide the resources that are going to be required? That would be the funding issue that would come up for us.
However, the reform of the regulatory system—and my colleague, Ian, could speak to that more fully—is something that we're pushing because we want to make Canada a centre for that investment in biotech. We know that research is going to take place. It's going to take place somewhere in the world. We'd like it to take place in Canada.
Liberal
Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada
Sure, but go ahead, Ian.
Executive Director, Plant Biotechnology, CropLife Canada
Maybe I'll add one point to the end of that, too.
We have great intellectual capital in Canada in plant breeding, within groups like the crop development centre at the University of Saskatchewan. Those groups want to get into this space of modern traits, but they are scared of the regulatory system, the costs, and that they can't afford it. There's a balance between funding for those great breeding centres we have in Canada, with those public-private partnerships, to accelerate that, but then they have to know they can get that innovation to market through our own regulatory system. This is why they don't go there now. They're a great group to talk to if you want to talk about plant breeding.
The Okanagan apple—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Maybe it'll come up with another member.
Ms. Brosseau, you have six minutes.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you, Chair.
Usually when we start studies, we have departmental officials. I'm so happy to have you guys in to break the ice and start this important study. I think it is the first time that we're really delving into a study about climate change, soil, and sustainability, which I'm really happy that we're finally doing.
I just have a question for you, Mr. Prouse.
We were talking about approval processes. How long does it take to get things approved in the United States compared to Canada?
Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada
The basis of the U.S. system is similar. They are a science-based system—and Ian could speak to this. It does tend to be a bit faster in the United States now. It's up in the air as to where that's going because in the U.S., they are now questioning how they are going to regulate, if at all, some of the new technologies that are coming along, including what's called CRISPR technology.
Ian, if you can explain that in 30 seconds, that would be amazing.
Executive Director, Plant Biotechnology, CropLife Canada
Well, I guess you can say that CRISPR is.... Conventional plant breeding has been happening for 10,000 years. The modern stuff that we're talking about and that we regulate right now has been happening in the last 50 to 60 years. CRISPR is the next 40 years. This is the new technology. It's faster. It's more precise. It's easier to generate the data required for regulations, so it's an exciting new field. It's also far more accessible to smaller businesses, because the cost of innovation goes down. This really could create a much more diverse innovation marketplace.
Going back to the U.S. and how they compare, on average they're faster than we are, but not by a lot. If you look at the average, you'll see that it's, say, 18 months versus 24. They do have some interesting policy tools, whereby if you bring in something that looks a lot like something else, they can bridge it and give you a very quick approval in four to six months for very similar products. Where their system slows down is that it can become very litigious. You can sue those government agencies, which then jams things up for 12 years. It's excellent that Canada stands on science and doesn't have that problem.
The biggest interest is in their proposals about what we are going to do in the future. We have 20 years of history in regulating these products, and never have we or anyone in the world seen a problem. Are we going to put that same level of regulatory barrier in front of the next generation of products when we can learn from the last 20 years and maybe have a more modernized approach? There's an opportunity for Canada to work with the U.S. there, not just to do what they're doing, but to influence what they're doing to make sure it lands in line with what we think the appropriate science is here in Canada.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, on their website they talk a lot about the impacts of climate change. They talk about opportunities and the challenges we've had. In some years we've had horrible droughts, and then we've had flooding.
We had really bad flooding in my riding. I have some farmers who had so many delays and who lost a lot of yield. Could you talk about how things have evolved—seed varieties—and how farmers can make sure that they have the tools to deal with climate change and adapt for the future? We are talking a lot about augmenting the production and having all these trade agreements and exporting. Can you talk about what is necessary to deal with and fight climate change?
Executive Director, Plant Biotechnology, CropLife Canada
Before I start, I'll say that I get really excited when I talk about this area.
Biotechnology in crop protection is not a silver bullet. It's just a set of tools in the farmer's tool box. They need to draw on the tools from every production practice they can find in order to get what works on their farms, but there are some specific technologies that are coming or could come in terms of having crops that will survive when they're under water for a few days, so that when they come out of the water, they'll still grow.
These are in laboratories. The idea is there, but unfortunately, if these are being carried by companies, return on investment becomes critical to them making it to the marketplace. The major cost there is the regulatory science required to get through regulation. If that barrier is high, those products will take longer to come to market, because the demand won't be as high until the climate situation becomes more serious. The lower those barriers, the faster they will come to market, and the more small players you will have bringing in more and unique products to put in that farmer's tool box. That is one of the major pieces.
On the apple, for example, we don't have service standards for biotechnology approvals in Canada. They had no idea how long it would take. When you tell your venture capitalist that you have an innovation and it's fantastic, but you have no idea whether it's going to make it to market, it's very hard for that venture capital person to keep cutting cheques to keep the lights when you're going “maybe next month, maybe next month...”.
Basic service standards to drive rigour there would help create the predictability that they could bring those new water-tolerant, drought-tolerant, or salt-tolerant products to the marketplace. We already have drought-tolerant corn that's available and on the market, but there's more we can do.
Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada
Yes, and very quickly, that drought-tolerant corn is what allowed the United States to actually have a yield two summers ago when they had a terrible drought. They ended up having a yield equivalent to about 1990's, which wasn't great, but 50 years ago, drought conditions like that would have completely wiped out the crop. They would have had no corn yield whatsoever. They were still able to have a crop. Why? Modern plant science is why they were able to actually have some semblance of a crop even under terrible conditions like that.
NDP
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Could you maybe elaborate a little more on the sustainable indicators we have in Canada and if they align with international ones?
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Maybe somebody will pick it up.
Monsieur Drouin, you have six minutes.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
We collaborate on this committee, so if she wants to—
Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops
Do you want me to answer?
Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops
We have 12 different categories, and we have aligned them with what is required internationally and what is commonly considered to be sustainability. In terms of social responsibility, it includes worker safety and security but also the safety and security of the producer himself or herself, labour relations, working conditions such as minimum wage benefits and so on, and relationships with the community.
In terms of the environment, one is agrochemical management or management of pesticides. There is nutrient management. We talked about that before. There is soil quality and productivity; water quality and quantity, specific to what you do to protect that; and land use and biodiversity management. There's a lot of emphasis on not converting forest land or sensitive land to annual cropping. There is greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, management of waste and pollution, and then financial viability.
We've been able to collect information on all of those. In terms of performance, we're not at that stage yet. We have some good stories to tell and we have some improvements to make. The purpose of the platform will be to put the information out there and use it as a base to move forward.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Affleck, I was curious about what the U.S. is thinking. You mentioned the CRISPR method, which I was familiar with, but on the medical side. I know that this is something that's the next revolution in gene editing. I'm curious to know what an acceptable timeline for CropLife would be in terms of getting regulations. Right now we're at two years. Should we try to get down to one year, or as quickly as possible? I know that with the CRISPR method, technologies get quicker, so obviously, the goal is to shorten that cycle. I'm curious to find out what the Government of Canada's goal should be.