Thank you for that question.
When speaking about crop inputs we talked about fertilizer, but when you look at seed varieties that are more hardy and resistant to deteriorating in the field and crop protection products that avoid damage to those crops so that they store well—we don't see them either rotting in storage or in the field before they even have a chance to arrive to the plate—that's where these technologies are so important if we're going to avoid food waste.
To that point, I think the regulations you speak of are incredibly important. Canada is a science-based regulatory role model for the world. What we do here reverberates around the world and can either support or hinder food security.
With that in mind, when there are public questions or concerns especially with pesticides, GMOs or gene editing, it's important that we continue the government's work on this and not pause the work. We have to double down on engagement with the public and explain science-based regulation rather than pausing it. I will give two very quick examples of this where I think we've done well and maybe not so well as a government.
Last week Health Canada published an excellent response in The Hill Times to misinformation around their recent policies on gene editing. It was an excellent defence of a science-based regulatory system. It demonstrated what the truth behind that science was and why they chose that direction.
In contrast to that, last summer the government paused the activities on pesticide maximum residue limit adjustment and review in the face of public questions and considerations. It's completely understandable that people have questions, but pausing internationally aligned science-based work in order to figure out how to respond to the public just jeopardizes the science-based system. It confuses our trading partners by which these MRLs create an ability for us to move our Canadian produce into areas of food insecurity.
We have a great example in The Hill Times of defending the science-based process and moving forward, and an unfortunate pause on MRLs on the other side, which creates a confusing message. We really think it's important that public engagement, communication and risk understanding is critical versus a pause in activity.