Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 30 - Evidence - Meeting of May 30, 2017
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 30, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:36 p.m. to continue its study of the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors.
Senator Ghislain Maltais (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, the committee is continuing its study of the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors.
[English]
Today we welcome, from BIOTECanada, Mr. Andrew Casey, President and Chief Executive Officer. Welcome to your son too.
Before beginning, I will ask senators to introduce themselves. My name is Senator Ghislain Maltais, chair of this committee. I am from Quebec City.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. I'm Senator Omidvar from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Beyak: Lynn Beyak, Ontario.
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Casey, do you have a presentation?
[Translation]
Andrew Casey, President and Chief Executive Officer, BIOTECanada: Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to speak about such an important topic.
[English]
With my experience in different associations, one of the things I've thoroughly enjoyed is the Senate's ability to dive into certain issues of importance, give them ample time and take them in an in-depth way, analyze them and come up with some interesting recommendations. For us, this is an important opportunity as BIOTECanada, so I thank you for this opportunity.
We're coming at this obviously from a slightly different angle than the producers and manufacturers who have already come before you, so I'm going try to present the world we see through the lens of BIOTECanada. It might help if I introduce BIOTECanada to start. We're the national trade association that represents Canada's biotech industry, which is a rather broad and encompassing umbrella. You will find under that umbrella a number of different pillars. One of the large ones is in the health and life sciences space, so that's biotech companies that include large multinational pharmaceuticals but also many smaller SME companies across the country that are taking biologic medicines and trying to move them forward into a world where they're solving some of our bigger health problems.
Our membership of 250 members across the country also includes industrial, agricultural and environmental biotech companies. That's where I will focus most of my remarks today because I think they are the most pertinent towards the conversation in this study.
When you look at our industry, what is biotech at its very core? It's essentially using living systems and organisms to create solutions for some of the problems that we're facing as a country and also as a planet. When we look at the planet and the problems it's facing, the biggest one we see emerging is moving very quickly from 7 billion to 9 billion people and the challenges that come with that move. The obvious one is that we've got 2 billion people more over the next 20 to 30 years that we're going to have to feed, and we're going to have to find new ways to do that more effectively and more efficiently. But I think that's probably the easiest challenge to understand and to try to address.
The bigger challenge, and where it starts to have an impact on your study, is as we move to 9 billion people and we're seeing population growth in countries like India and China. One of the things that comes along with that is a move from sustenance, farm-like living into cities, into urban living, to a more middle-class lifestyle, and that brings with it a demand for products, for a life that we've grown used to in the so-called "developed world "but they are now striving for. Along with that comes things like the demand for more protein, moving essentially from a vegetable- and rice-based plate to something that includes more protein on the plate, where the protein is the bigger feature of the meal.
When you move into that space and you start to require more goods and a lifestyle that's more akin to what we've grown used to, obviously that brings with it enormous economic development in growth. It's very encouraging to see. Obviously our economy has benefited in many respects from some of that growth, but that brings with it huge challenges as well. As you move into a world where you're putting greater pressure on the planet, one of the things we're obviously going to have to do is change the way we live our lives as a planet. We cannot continue to go the way we're going; we will have to become more efficient and more effective in how we grow, how we feed and how we heal. That is the area where we see solutions that biotech represents coming into play.
We see two key components to that. One is obviously the mitigation aspect, so that's going forward, looking out and determining we have to change the way we live our lives. We clearly cannot keep going the way we're going. The other one is adaptation. That is, we have to adapt to what is already a changed environment. Whether or not you believe in global warming is almost irrelevant. It's clear that our climate, our environment, has changed.
I'll give an example. I came, as you correctly pointed out, Mr. Chair, from the forest products industry before joining BIOTECanada. You've probably already heard from witnesses that one of the reasons the mountain pine beetle was allowed to do what it did was because we no longer have the cold winters that we used to have that would kill it off and keep its population in check. The forest products industry, if it's going to continue to go forward, has got to find a way to adapt to a changed environment. We're not getting those cold winters coming back anytime soon, so the pine beetle and other pests are going to continue to grow and proliferate at the rates they have been. They have to change the way they're doing their processes as well. Again, that's where biotech solutions come into play.
Maybe I'll give you a sense — and maybe I'll start from the east, because I sense there's an East Coast balance here, out to the West and give you a sense as to some of the potential out there from a Canadian perspective when we think about these solutions.
There's a company in P.E.I. called AquaBounty Technologies, and they have what's called AquAdvantage salmon, which is a genetically modified salmon that can be grown on land in tanks. They've mixed the Chinook salmon gene with the Atlantic salmon gene to allow it to grow at a much more rapid pace so they get to full adulthood in a much quicker way. You need less feed, less water and less energy, and it gets to the market much more quickly because you can actually put the tanks closer to where you're delivering the fish.
If you move to Quebec City, there's a company called CO2 Solutions. They are using enzymes to gobble up CO2 emissions. I'm being very main street because that's my basic understanding of it, but the enzyme goes in and eats up the CO2 emissions, which they can then recapture and use for other processes. If you think about the forest products industry, they are able to then use the CO2 captured for their pulp and paper processes to make it more efficient and more effective, but they can also use the CO2 enzyme that CO2 Solutions is producing to lessen their environmental footprint in the production process itself.
If you go to Ontario, down in Sarnia there's BioAmber, which is taking sugars out of corn and turning that into chemicals that are used to make products like nylons and replacing petroleum-based products.
If you go to the West, you have in Saskatchewan a company called Agrisoma and another company in Alberta called Linnaeus, both of which are taking seeds — one is a mustard seed and there is another oilseed of some sort — that are genetically modified. They grow them where you can't normally grow other plants because there's a lack of soil nutrients, sunlight or moisture. They're able to grow those and basically replace fossil fuels. In the case of Agrisoma, they're making a jet fuel that can go in a jet airplane without changing the engine in any way and without adding any fossil fuel. The plane has flown. It's the NRC plane that sits out at the airport, as you would expect, because they send the jet plane up, they follow it with a sniffer plane and it soaks up the emissions to see what comes out. No fossil fuel in the mix so the emissions come down. You can see that nice benefit.
Linnaeus is also making a replacement for castor oil, which accounts for, I believe, a fairly significant portion of car pollution. They're using again a plant oil to replace what is traditionally a fossil fuel.
In British Columbia there's a company called Okanagan Specialty Fruits, and they've figured out how to turn the enzyme off in an apple to stop it from browning. As I look at my 11-year-old son back here, he doesn't like to bring apples in his lunch because they brown. There's a nice feature there, but it's not as superficial as that. They're also going to look at applying that to similar types of fruits like pears.
In the process of finding that enzyme they can shut down, they're also figuring out a way to stop something called fire blight. It is a fungus that will go through an orchard and destroy the entire thing. It's that discovery process they're getting to through the small modification to the apple to stop it from going brown that leads to other discoveries. We see that right across the board in most biotechnology.
Those are just some of the examples coast to coast, as you can see, that are found in healthy ecosystems right across this country based on great science usually coming out of our universities. Some of it comes out of other areas of discovery, and they are moving forward and stand the possibility of altering existing industries like forest products and agriculture. As you get into the world of finding drought-resistant wheat or other products or adding nutrients to regular produce, in the forest products industry adding greater value to the existing trees so when you cut down a tree you get your two-by-fours or maybe your pulp and paper, but often things are left over that have traditionally been thrown to waste. When you can find a way to use the lignins, and use biotechnology to turn the lignins, you can then start to look at creating things like carbon fibre and even turning it into, as you've probably heard, clothing.
There is enormous potential out there for the industry and for the solutions that the industry represents. It's very positive from that standpoint. There are a number of different challenges. Some of this technology is very expensive to develop. As Senator Ogilvie will know from the pharmaceutical world, you're talking 10 to 15 years and a billion dollars, throwing different estimates around. It's not dramatically less expensive in the agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology sector. It's a bit less expensive and the timelines are a bit shorter, but it's still very expensive. It requires investment dollars and capital. We need to attract that capital to this country because there's not enough of a capital pool here.
The other key element here is talent. We need more scientists and more people to run these countries, as well as more entrepreneurs. Those are some of the key areas that we look at as BIOTECanada and we engage with government because government establishes the hosting conditions that allow this to survive.
The other thread you've probably heard going through much of this is the genetically modified concept, which clearly quite a bit of this requires us to genetically modify seeds or plants. Clearly there's an element of society out there that's still a bit nervous about that. The science is there to say that we should be able to overcome that, but that still remains a significant challenge.
There are enormous opportunities. We have a great ecosystem in this country. We can get there. I think the one challenge we have in this country where we will differ from the forest products industry, which also has to attract investors to make themselves more competitive, if they're unable to attract those investors, they have to leave what they have pretty much where it is. You can't take the forest and move it to other places in the world where the investment may be.
In biotechnology, you're talking about good ideas that reside on computers and laptops. You can do clinical trials and lab tests from anywhere in the world. We want to try to keep those good ideas here, commercialize them here and reap the benefits of that commercialization in Canada. Otherwise, if we don't attract the investors and the talent, those good ideas run the risk of going to other parts of the world, and they will benefit from the commercialization.
We will ultimately get those innovations back in this country, but we will have lost out on all the benefits of commercializing them here.
I will stop there and entertain questions any senators may have.
[Translation]
Once again, thank you for this opportunity. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Casey, for the good explanation.
[Translation]
I must point out that this is of great concern to our committee. How will we feed the world in 10, 15 or 20 years? That is why the committee is exploring all the options. So we salute the ideas that you have shared with us so far. It is reassuring to know that these ideas are being shared by people like you.
Before the question period, I would like to introduce three members of the committee who are new to the Senate: Senator Ngo from Ontario, Senator Bernard from Nova Scotia, and Senator Oh from Toronto. We will begin the question period with Senator Oh.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you, chair.
Is our technology in this field the most advanced in the western world?
Mr. Casey: If you're talking about our members, I'd like to think so. I think that's an excellent question.
The reality is that we are very smart, very good at what we do as a country. We have great science, great scientists, and we're developing wonderful innovation. But when you look at a planet, as the chair says, we're going to big population growth and it's a huge challenge. Other countries recognize this opportunity and the economic opportunity that comes with it.
They're moving aggressively to put in place blueprints and strategies to support their biotech industries. The challenge that presents for us is attracting investors. So they're putting out the welcome mat.
If you look at investors and think of them as a global tourist, so global investors are roaming around the world and looking for a place to invest. If you think of it as that concept, you have to think of your country like a hotel. If a hotel is trying to attract a tourist, they will give you fancy sheets, free Wi-Fi and free breakfasts. If Canada is looking to compete with these other hotels that are looking to attract that global tourist investor to support their biotech innovation, they need to keep pace. So it is the chocolate on the pillow that we need to put out there as a country.
That's where you quickly move into public policy and getting into tax policy. Do we have a strategy for biotech innovation? Up until about two years ago, I would say we didn't really have one. Now we have an innovation agenda moving forward with some potential for super clusters that will create more energy around it. That's very encouraging.
We have a number of measures that are working very well. The SR&ED tax credit is an extremely important measure for the industry and there are a number of other measures.
I think that we have a regulatory system that is top notch. There are some challenges there, but I think it actually acts as a competitive advantage.
The bottom line is we have to keep pace with other jurisdictions because they're moving aggressively to attract biotech innovation to their jurisdiction because they see the economic benefit that comes that with it.
Senator Oh: Is our technology ready for export now?
Mr. Casey: All of our technology is being developed for the export market. Our market is not big enough on its own, so everything that is being developed is for the global marketplace. Yes, it is very competitive.
A lot of the products that I listed before, for instance, Okanagan Specialty Fruits, the apple company, most of their product is going down to the United States. Agrisoma, which has the jet fuel, is also signing contracts with the U.S. military. They're moving to the markets where there is absolute opportunity.
Yes, it is competitive, but can we do a better job at growing more companies in this country? Yes, that's what we need to be aspiring to. We have to grow these companies to a point where they are globally competitive but based here in this country.
That also holds true when you think about the health side, when we are trying to develop health biotech, we want to create those companies here in Canada.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to inform the senators and our witnesses that our time is limited. Since every senator would like to ask a question, I would ask you all to be succinct in your questions and answers.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Thank you.
As you were speaking, Mr. Casey, I was thinking about the shortness of the growing season in Atlantic Canada and even a shorter growing season in Newfoundland. Are there genetically modified strains of corn or wheat that Atlantic Canada could benefit from in the shorter growing season?
Mr. Casey: I don't know the answer to the specifics as to whether or not wheat or corn. I presume you could easily do it.
I will use as an example the Agrisoma product, which is a version of a mustard seed which has been genetically modified so that it can be grown in places that normally couldn't have a crop. So Newfoundland is a good example and certain parts of Newfoundland. Obviously other parts are able to accommodate crops. So you could do that and it's being done. That's one of the advantages because you're not displacing other agriculture with this product. You're putting it into places where other crops can't normally be grown.
Senator Doyle: Wheat is normally planted as an annual crop. Are there perennial strains of wheat that you don't have to till the ground again and that you can actually develop a perennial strain of wheat?
Mr. Casey: So it would be more like a regular grass?
Senator Doyle: Yes.
Mr. Casey: That is well beyond my expertise. I don't know the answer to that question. I think potentially science could get you there, but I don't know if that exists just yet. Certainly nothing that I've seen in our membership that says it's there.
Senator Ogilvie: Andrew, one of the issues that we've faced in a number of other areas, particularly in biotechnology in the past, has been critical mass in locations. To put it in perspective, there are more biotech companies in San Diego than across this vast country.
From your perspective, how are we progressing with regard to developing clusters that are within a reasonable distance within one another? We have fabulous research, as you've pointed out, and Genome Canada has been an enormous strength in this area in helping the biotechnology developments that your industry is moving forward with. What is your view with regard to where we are and how effective we are at keeping diverse scientists and entrepreneurs in this area in contact with one another such that the cross-pollination of ideas occurs that is the basis of economic development?
Mr. Casey: That's a great question. If we had the opportunity to design it right now like it didn't exist, we would look to the San Diegos and San Franciscos and Cambridges and Bostons and say that's what we need to do and let's do that. Let's put it all in one space.
That's not what has happened. We've organically grown to a place where it is spread out across the country. It's usually centred around the universities and research institutes and hospitals and areas of expertise in each province. So we have that as an ecosystem that spreads across the country with strengths in every single province. I think that's the industry we have to build upon.
The second part of your question is entirely correct. If that's going to be the case, how do we keep it linked and make sure it's synergistic and building off of itself. As I said to Senator Oh's question earlier, I think it's very encouraging that there is now an innovation agenda in place and that there is a push for super clusters and they've identified agri-food as one of the areas. We're encouraged by that. We're going to support that. There's a health life sciences one that we'd like to see supported. Each of those will have to tap into all of that across the country. There are strengths in every province.
If I were to make the case for health, the Vancouver cluster has probably got the strongest if you look at the number of companies coming out of there.
In the agricultural area, you would naturally lean towards the central and western region of the country. You still can build on that and tap into the expertise like the aquaculture taking place on the East Coast. It will be incumbent upon us, if we're going to compete effectively with those global power houses, to do it with something that ties it all together.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. Casey, for your very interesting presentation. I would like to hear more about biofuels. It has been said that they offer an interesting possibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I understand that biodiesel is not as efficient as the petroleum diesel that is used in engines. Can we expect to see an improvement in biodiesel so that it can be more widely used?
Mr. Casey: I missed parts of your introduction. I am not sure I understood your question correctly.
Senator Dagenais: Among biofuels, we know that petroleum diesel is often used in engines. In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, should biodiesel be improved so it can be more widely used? Is biodiesel better than diesel?
Mr. Casey: Yes, I will answer in English, if I may.
[English]
A good example again is the Agrisoma example where they are taking the mustard seed oil and creating jet fuel with no fossil fuel in the mix. The diesel has fossil fuel; the biodiesel still has fossil fuel. I think you can move to a place where you no longer need any fossil fuel in the mix, and that is clearly a better outcome from an environmental standpoint, particularly if you are able to grow it in places where you can't grow other produce so you add to the farmer's income as well. You are in a world where either the field is fallow or they can't use it for other reasons because of the lack of nutrients or water. So you have the double advantage of environmental outcome as well as an economic benefit to the farmer.
Senator Woo: To follow up on Senator Dagenais' question, could you say a bit more about the role of agricultural biotechnology not just in substituting for fossil fuels but in removing carbon from the atmosphere? You gave us an example of an enzyme that removes CO2 from the atmosphere, so sequestering essentially, but not just sequestering, also reusing CO2. How promising are these technologies? Are there other forms of agricultural technology that have the potential to remove CO2, and how far away are we from making them commercializable?
Mr. Casey: That's the only one I know that directly removes CO2. You could make the case for some of the other ones that are reducing a need for fossil fuels in their own mix, so BioAmber out of Sarnia is using corn sugars to make what traditionally would be the succinic acid that would come out of fossil fuel. You're no longer use that for the nylon and other applications. With the biotechnology on the forest products side, you can take the lignins and make car and airplane parts out of the carbon fibres. That's where the bigger application is.
CO2 Solutions out of Quebec City is definitely in the world of extracting the CO2 and reducing the environmental footprint at the immediate site in the process and then reusing that CO2 for other processes, but that's the only one I'm aware of at this moment.
Senator Beyak: Thank you for an excellent presentation. You mentioned that our regulatory system is generally good but there are some challenges we face. Would you outline those for us so we can perhaps have them in our report?
Mr. Casey: It's a difficult space. It's something that's moving quickly; it's complex, hard to understand at times, and sometimes our regulatory system is a step behind just because of the pace it is going at.
I will provide an example. The two companies Linnaeus and Agrisoma that I cited, which are modifying a seed and turning it into an oil — just keep it at its very basic — everybody understands the part about modifying the seed, using it in places where you can't grow other products. That's all great. Then turning it into an oil, that's fantastic because it goes into the planes or the cars and you reduce the emissions, great. After you have extracted that oil, you are left with meal, and the meal goes back into the food chain. You use that to feed the cattle. Just like in the lumber world, you cut the tree down and use the leftover and turn it into pulp and paper, it's the same kind of concept. It's part of the economic model of these companies, and that's where the challenge comes in. You move from an environmental, industrial, agricultural benefit and put it back into the food chain and Health Canada becomes involved, and they get nervous because it is genetically modified seed, and that can slow the regulatory approval process down.
On the apple front, as an example, that product was given FDA approval long before they got it in Canada, and that has allowed them to sell in the U.S. marketplace, but it made very little sense to us why you couldn't keep pace. We don't have to go within a week, but the time lag was closer to a year before it was approved for sale in Canada.
Senator Beyak: Thank you very much.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation.
I wanted to ask you about the effects of climate change on livestock mortality and what examples can you give us, coming from the biotechnology sector, that influence and mitigate the risks of climate change on the many cows, pigs and chickens that our farmers have and use and our consumers need.
Mr. Casey: That's where you move into some crossover between health biotech and farm animal biotech. A lot of the same technologies you are seeing emerge on the health side for humans are applicable for animals. One example is a company called Prevtec Microbia out of Montreal. They have developed a vaccine for pigs to prevent them from getting E. coli. They were getting sick at birth if they contracted E. coli. If you are able to vaccinate the pigs beforehand, that prevents it from passing through and destroying the entire group of pigs on your farm. So those are the types of technologies that are definitely emerging.
You could make the case also that the AquaBounty, AquAdvantage Salmon is avoiding some of the challenges they are facing with the fish farming industry. There are other areas where we are seeing some advance in technology innovation.
Senator Omidvar: You talked a little bit about the risk. Could you expand on a fear, I think, that many Canadians may have around overuse of biotechnology, genetically modified foods, et cetera? Can you talk a little bit more about the risk and what your industry is doing to mitigate that risk, and at the same time maybe, or as a follow-up, talk about the regulation compliance policy environment that this study should consider in its recommendations?
Mr. Casey: The risk is one of just fear of the unknown more than anything else. It's not science-based, as far as we can tell. We have been genetically modifying plants for thousands of years in many respects through actual breeding, but now we are getting a bit more exact with the science. Science has shown it's had no negative impact on health whatsoever. You have to make the case that if you have an opportunity to add vitamin A to rice and grow rice should you not take advantage of that technology? You may be afraid of it, but let's base our fears on real science.
We as BIOTECanada can't do much, short of running a large ad campaign, but that's not within our means. The more important way to address that is make sure our regulatory system is strict and as science-based as possible and efficient and look after that. The reality is that we don't have the luxury any more of going through a summer and having a drought and saying, "Oh, well, we'll get it next year.'' That's just not an opportunity. You can get into a discussion as to whether or not we need more land to grow more food, and there is some debate around that, but with the land we do have we need to be more efficient and effective at how we do grow. The biotechnology area is one way we can do that.
[Translation]
The Chair: Agriculture is a triangle, whether in Canada or elsewhere. From time immemorial, there have been farmers, processors and inevitably consumers. In this era of globalization, consumers are asking questions about food safety, for both plant and animal products.
In the coming years, will biotech companies such as yours be able to share their knowledge so that farmers can produce more food to help feed the planet, and do so in a safe way? Do you think that will be possible in the foreseeable future?
[English]
Mr. Casey: I think it's happening now. I think it's imperative that we do this. I think you are registering two fears. One is fear of what is happening as a result of changed climate and environment to our food supply and the impact that will have on our society.
The second fear is that going forward, as we start to change things and take in solutions and apply them to the sector, what will that do to our health going forward? First, I think everybody understands we can have a positive impact as a sector. Biotechnology can have a positive impact on dealing with that changed environment, whether it be in the agricultural space or even in the forest products areas or other ones.
Going forward is the question how do we assure people these are safe to consume? All scientific evidence would point to the fact they are, but we need to continue to be vigilant around science and regulatory processes. These are big changes, there is no question, and I can understand why people are fearful of the unknown, but the reality is science has proven it is effective and safe and we need to rely on that science going forward.
The Chair: Thank you very much Mr. Casey for your explanation and for accepting to do a presentation here. It is very interesting.
[Translation]
I hope you will come and see us again in the future, because we will need people like you to achieve the committee's objectives. Thank you very much and safe trip home.
Mr. Casey: Gladly, thank you very much.
The Chair: In the second part of our meeting, we welcome Mr. Dennis Prouse, Vice President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada, and Mr. Ian Affleck, Executive Director, Plant Biotechnology.
Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you very much for accepting our invitation to appear before the senate committee. We are very pleased to see you. I am sure the senators will learn a great deal from you this evening. I invite the person giving the presentation to take the floor.
Dennis Prouse, Vice President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senators, my name is Dennis Prouse and I am the vice-president of government affairs at CropLife Canada.
[English]
With me is my colleague Ian Affleck, Executive Director, Plant Biotechnology. I hail from British Columbia and my colleague is a Prince Edward Island farm boy. I will make the opening remarks and Ian will answer the hard questions afterwards.
There are many aspects of the plant sciences industry that have evolved since our organization was first established in 1952, but our main purpose remains the same; to advance the collective interests of the agriculture industry in Canada.
With pesticides and modern plant breeding, the plant science industry makes significant social, economic and environmental contributions. Our organization's primary focus is on providing tools to help farmers be more productive and more sustainable, but 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.
CropLife Canada is part of CropLife International, a global federation with members across 91 countries that champions agricultural innovations and crop protection and plant biotechnology.
Mr. Chair, no one has to tell Canadian farmers about the impact of climate change. Farmers are the original environmentalists and have been dealing with the impacts of changing climate for some time. Our challenge now as an industry is to find a way to help Canadian farmers be more productive on less land in a more sustainable way than ever before. Fortunately, Canadian farmers are some of the most rapid adapters of new technology in the world and they are more than up to the task.
What we want to spend our time here today talking about 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'll often hear us talk about our industry's technologies. Most people don't think of tools of modern agriculture in the same way as the online shopping or the latest app on your smart phone. But the pesticides that protect crops and the plant biotechnology that creates heartier and healthier crops represents leading-edge science that make our lives better. These plant sciences innovations deliver a full mix of economic, environmental and social benefits for all of us in Canada.
More often than not when we talk about plant sciences technologies, we focus on how they protect crops, which they do. Pesticides and biotech crops also have an impressive story to tell about how they protect and enhance 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. This means farmers can leave more of what would be marginal growing land alone. That saves 35 million acres of forest, native grass and wetlands from being used for agriculture, keeping Canada green and pristine and protecting biodiversity by safeguarding the habitats of wildlife species. Let's be clear: Far from harming biodiversity, modern agriculture is a crucial part of protecting it, both now and in the future.
In fact, according to Ducks Unlimited Canada, wetlands alone offer essential habitat for more than 600 species of wildlife in Canada. Modern agriculture allows more of these wetlands to exist by growing more food on less land.
Biotech crops and pesticides help farmers better control pests in their fields. Before these technologies existed, farmers had to till their fields to get rid of weeds that would otherwise damage or destroy their crops.
For those who may not be familiar with tillage, it's the practice of ploughing a field to remove weeds. That's hard on the soil. It breaks down organic matter and reduces the soil's ability to retain moisture. Tillage, in fact, was a big part of why the dirty thirties were so devastating for so many people. The soil was so fragile from farmers tilling it, the dry and windy conditions at the time created conditions that resulted in topsoil being blown away. All of that has changed as a result of farmers using pesticides and biotechnology in combination. Because farmers can apply herbicide to a herbicide-resistant crop, they do not need to till for weeds, and because of advances in agricultural technology, farmers can also leave stubble to decompose right in the field, adding organic matter right back to the topsoil and improving soil consistency. As a result, soil is less susceptible to wind and water erosion.
Plant sciences technology is part of the solution. Here are just a few of the ways we are helping to tackle climate change: reducing land use, less tillage of summer fallow, limiting equipment passes, to reducing greenhouse gases by 21 million tonnes a year in Canada. Fewer passes over fields with equipment reduces diesel fuel use by up to 194 million litres a year in Canada alone.
With a growing population to feed, producing more food on existing land means we can leave valuable natural habitat intact while providing a healthy and sustainable food supply to Canadians and those around the world.
Yes, the success of biotechnology since its introduction is significant and it's an important tool in the fight against climate change. However, is it what it can be? Are we, the collective, enabling farmers with access to technology that can make the world a better place? One of the challenges our industry faces both in Canada and around the world is a regulatory system that is slow to adopt new traits. You heard Mr. Casey reference this a little earlier in the first hour. In spite of the annual growth in biotech crop adaptation, we have not seen the predicted introduction of new crops. Eighty per cent of the major crops are still in the four major field crops. What is more, the growth we had expected to see in public sector developed products has not materialized. Seventy-five per cent of commercialized products still come from the leading private sector technology developers. So what is the holdup? Why are we not seeing more new and innovative products in both seeds and crop protection products to improve sustainability and yields even further?
It's not an issue of technology developers not being able to deliver an innovation but rather the regulatory system failing to deliver the innovation to farmers. In this timeline of commercialization, we've seen the most time-consuming and resource-intensive part of getting a biotech trait to market is outside the technology developers' control. Technology developers have improved the science of plant biotechnology so they can effectively create new traits. It's the regulatory science and registration of the product timeline that are holding up new innovation getting in the hands of farmers. The cost and time involved in regulatory science and registration has increased by 50 per cent in the last decade.
We've seen some new consumer traits approved in Canada.Arctic Apples, as you heard in the last hour, produced by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, is the apple that doesn't brown. It should start being available commercially next year, and the possibility for cutting down food waste is very exciting. The same holds true for Innate Potatoes, produced by J. R. Simplot, which provides protection against potato bruising and browning.
This, Mr. Chair, is just the beginning. There are new traits in the pipeline now that will provide improved disease, insect and weed control. Others are designed to improve drought tolerance, saline tolerance and nitrogen use efficiency. There is next-generation yield, field efficiency and ethanol traits, and consumer benefits such as healthy edible oils and enhanced nutrition. Enhanced nutrition has benefits everywhere but particularly in the developing world where the impacts of climate change will be felt particularly hard.
Mr. Chair, the world can't afford to lose out on what these technologies can bring to the world's farmers in the next five years. The regulatory system is limiting the ability for 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. In fact, very few public sector- developed products have made it through, and usually only in countries that wholly support science such as Brazil through public-private partnerships.
It is worth noting that we are talking about technologies that have a two-decade history and a completely unblemished safety record. There is a wide 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.
To conclude, Mr. Chair, we are 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 to climate change, both in Canada and around the world. These contributions will be greatly enhanced should Canada make a sustained effort to reform its regulatory system.
Canadian farmers have demonstrated they are eager and ready adapters of new technology. It makes all the sense in the world to find a faster, more effective way to deliver them that technology while making Canada a global centre for innovation and investment in modern agriculture. We are urging the Government of Canada to seize the initiative and make that vision a reality.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We appreciate your time and we are happy to answer questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Your presentation is very much appreciated.
Senator Oh: Thank you, gentlemen, for your extensive information. My question to you is, according to Derek Lynch, Associate Professor at Dalhousie University, a tillage system might not always be efficient especially for a system with deeper roots, as the organic matter is being deposited lower down in the soil profile. Can you tell us if the tillage practice is appropriate across Canada?
Ian Affleck, Executive Director, Plant Biotechnology, CropLife Canada: There will be various tillage practices across the country and I think we are seeing more of the no till or reduced tillage in the central to western part of the country and less so in the east. I think there will always be opportunities to improve our tillage practices and look for technologies that can help the farmer get to that optimum approach to tillage.
Senator Oh: So how can plant science help the farmers adapt their agriculture practice to the type of crops they grow? How does plant science help them?
Mr. Affleck: Specific to tillage, the herbicide-tolerant products allow farmers to more effectively manage the weeds in their field, which was the driving factor for tillage. If you can provide new and creative techniques to manage the weeds, whether it be pesticides or products of biotechnology, then that farmer won't need to till that field and turn that soil over.
Mr. Prouse: I might add as well, it's an exceptionally competitive field. We have member companies that are competing to have farmers purchase their seeds. So they are very much in a race amongst themselves to provide the best technology they can to farmers.
Senator Oh: Helping the farmer.
Mr. Prouse: And to help farmers create new yields. We work in our GrowCanada partnership with other associations that represent those growers, represent those farmers, and these are associations like the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Canola Council, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, the Grain Growers of Canada, and the farmers who are members of these associations are all very enthusiastic about one thing: modern agriculture. We often say to parliamentarians such as yourselves, "Please don't take our word for it. Please bring in these grower groups and let them tell you.'' They will tell you about the way in which they want to consume technology and how it is they like to buy seeds, and we welcome that discussion.
Senator Woo: I want to ask for a bit of clarification on your distinction between public sector developers and private developers of new crop types and to understand why it is that public sector developers are unable to bring their products to market. You point the finger at the regulatory process but presumably it is the same for both public sector developers and private sector developers. They have to face the same hurdles. Is it simply that private sector developers have more staying power and therefore can go the entire route rather than public sector developers?
Second, why would public sector developers develop a crop type to its commercial stage anyway? When I think of the pharmaceutical sector, while the fundamental research may have been funded by the public sector, at universities, say, or at a government lab even, typically my understanding is that a farm or company would then pick up the discovery in the molecule and commercialize it through the various stages of financing and so on. How is it different in the biotech sector that creates this problem between public sector developed products and private sector developed products?
Mr. Affleck: I think what you started with when you mentioned staying power really is the crux of the issue. The reason why agricultural biotechnology has been mostly in the realm of six large companies for the last 20 years is that the regulatory systems, although functional, don't provide a great deal of predictability. When you have fewer resources in which to invest, predictability becomes everything in terms of what you're going to choose to do your research in. That's why it's tended away from the public breeders into the large private sector.
When looking at the advantage of having the public sector more involved in there, the major crops that currently have biotechnology advantages are corn, soybeans and canola, our major field crops.
As Dennis mentioned, when talking to barley growers or the horticulture industry, they are thirsting for this technology in their crops, but given their markets are much smaller, the acreages are not as large and the return on investment of that innovation is not quite as high, the major companies are focusing on the large field crops and not on the more niche market areas. That's where commonly the public sector can be a great benefit to the farmer by providing tools in these other spaces. I think our industry encourages as diversity in the industry of public, small- and medium-sized enterprises and the large enterprises, and when you have that full continuum, then sometimes a large company will purchase something coming from the smaller and ramp it up faster, but then you will get more innovation in those small niche markets who still need support in modern agriculture.
Mr. Prouse: This is an industry that got its start with public sector research. There's a very strong role to be played in that. There's a bit of a myth there sometimes that we, representing private developers, somehow have a problem with public sector research. That's not true at all. In this sector a rising tide lifts all boats.
Our point simply was while there's a bit of a slowdown in private sector traits being developed, the same has now held true for the public sector. People are saying, "Well, if you haven't brought a lot of new traits to the market as has the public sector,'' although they haven't been able to do that, either, "where's the holdup?'' We would like to see a more responsive regulatory system.
Senator Woo: Can you give an example of a public sector developer?
Mr. Affleck: It's not a Canadian example necessarily but out of the U.S. They've developed a mushroom that has this similar non-browning trait. It's a food waste issue. They got it to the point of approval but were not going to commercialize because the global regulatory environment is too complex and it's just going to sit on the shelf.
Senator Woo: Was this USDA?
Mr. Affleck: This was developed by a public breeder in the U.S. New technology, it's crisper, cutting-edge, great stuff, but there isn't a global investor that sees a large enough market in mushroom growing to invest the money it takes to get it through the regulatory system to the final steps and take it off to commercialization. This is where many great ideas like this exist but they just don't quite get off the ground.
As a further example of this, in 2008, the European Commission had a study completed about where we will be in 10 years in biotechnology. They thought we'd go from 30 traits to 130 traits. It wouldn't be just big companies in the U.S. and Europe. It would be public and private partnerships in small companies around the world. This was based on products they knew existed in the pipeline. From then until now, only 20 per cent of those products have made it to market, none of them being public. The number one reason they see that issue being there is the global regulatory system is unpredictable.
It's not simply an issue for Canada but an issue globally. Canada is positioned well and is extremely well respected. We have great regulators that are highly trained and highly respected where they could be a global leader in creating a regulatory environment that encourages innovation across the board.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have two questions for you. You said that plant science has been able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 30 million tonnes per year. Can you tell us how these reductions were achieved?
[English]
Mr. Affleck: The main driver there is when you can reduce the amount of agricultural inputs you have to use, so you're growing more on less with less, and that farmer is then making less passes on the field, using less diesel fuel and less tires on their tractors. They're creating overall less greenhouse gas emissions by simply being in the field less. That's not only a huge greenhouse gas emission saver, but it's also saving the farmer time. With that, they can optimize other parts of their operation. One thing a farmer never has enough time for is all the things on their plate, so if instead of driving through that field six times a season they're only driving through it once and they're not using a heavy implement and dragging it through the soil, there are immense savings behind that. That's the primary driver behind that 29 million tonne number.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Talking about new technologies always scares consumers. We want fruit and vegetables that look better, but the other day, for instance, I had a strawberry that was as big as an apple. It had no taste, but the colour was very nice. I figured that something had happened, that it could be steroids. Do you have any suggestions to help the public better understand what is done that is helpful and that is not dangerous?
[English]
Mr. Prouse: Well, it's a difficult issue for us to tackle. We've been working on that for some time — consumer confidence. I would say that this industry got off to a poor start on that. We spent a great deal of the first years talking to farmers, to regulators and scientists, and we didn't talk to the public. As a result, some myths got built up about modern agriculture. Now we're having to come from behind a little bit.
I pointed out in my earlier remarks that if we're talking about GMOs and biotechnology, there's a global consensus on the safety of biotech that's clear. That consensus exists in Canada and at the World Health Organization. We just need to be able to tell a positive story to Canadians about why it is that they have some of the most abundant, affordable and nutritious food supply in the world and tell a really positive story. If we're constantly talking about science, that probably won't go very well. That's a difficult discussion to have. I think Canadians trust farmers, so we're engaging farmers in that discussion. That's going better. The one thing we're now going to try to do is also engage regulators and have Canadian regulators who are trusted by Canadians to explain the regulatory system to people more clearly.
It's coming. We see public attitudes getting better, just not quite as quickly as we would like, but it is improving.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Prouse, if I understood correctly, you said that biotechnology can reduce the expanse of soil to be cultivated in order to keep the best arable land. Does that mean that, for forests, we could also reforest some land that is not good agricultural land to rebuild a forest?
[English]
Mr. Prouse: I would leave it to my friends at the Forest Products Association to talk about their technologies. I can say that we no longer need to farm on the marginal lands that would be farmed on previously. The focus now is on increasing production on current farmland. You're not seeing an expansion of farmland in Canada. In fact, it would be fair to say you've seen a slight reduction.
So yes, we're leaving more lands available. What happens to those lands is a subject for environmentalists to discuss. We work with Ducks Unlimited to talk about wetland conservation. Especially in the prairie provinces, that's important — being able to leave marginal farmland so there are wetlands available.
If we didn't have modern agriculture technology, we would have to start farming those lands just to produce the same amount of food. That's the point that we're trying to make to people: Going away from modern agriculture would have an environmental cost, and part of that environmental cost would be having to farm more marginal lands.
[Translation]
The Chair: Is it true or not that it is easier to introduce new technologies on small- and medium-sized farms than on large farms, which have larger expanses of land?
[English]
Mr. Prouse: I'm not sure. For new technology, I'm not sure it's the size of the farm. Previously, it was the size of the company. The thought was that you had to be a large company to go produce new technologies. Okanagan Specialty Fruits is not a particularly large company. There are how many employees? There were six when they started. There were eight employees.
You're seeing more small players now coming into the sector.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am asking you this because, in the past 25 years in Quebec, we have made industrial cheese. There are however many small cheesemakers now who make fine cheeses, so much so that they are sold right across Canada and exported to other countries as well. They are small farms. I have visited many of them and my colleagues from Quebec will agree that we have outstanding fine cheeses in Quebec, thanks to these small producers.
Where did this enthusiasm come from? It is the result of new technologies that were adopted by small operations. I think it is easier for an average-sized farm to adapt to new technologies. Perhaps that is because it costs less than for a large farm that has to invest millions of dollars to have the latest technologies. Would you agree with that?
[English]
Mr. Prouse: There's a division you would probably see here between, let's say, the large field crops on the one side — we're talking wheat, canola, soy and corn — versus fruits and vegetables that are sometimes grown for domestic consumption. When the innovation is taking place, now you're seeing some innovation on that consumer side. It's starting smaller; for example, the Innate potato.
Mr. Affleck: From a farm scale point of view in adopting new technologies, I don't think modern agriculture should necessarily be associated with large agriculture. Modern agriculture is efficient and sustainable agriculture. There's certainly room there for all different sizes of businesses. There are local niche market opportunities for farmers and large export markets.
On the crop side, we've seen that all of those farmers have the ability to adopt technology quickly. They're very adept. That's one of our Canadian advantages. We don't have a year-round growing season, but we do have farmers who know how to adopt technologies quickly. An example given by Soy Canada at a meeting I was at recently, there was one technology that was a few years delayed in approval due to the European approval system. It was approved in March, and that spring, 40 per cent of that crop was planned with that new technology. So 40 per cent of soybeans in Canada adopted that technology in a matter of two months when usually their seed is purchased months in advance.
People are watching for these technologies, they know what's coming and they're ready to adopt them when they see them come forward. I think that applies to all farmers in the crop sphere.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before we conclude, if you had a recommendation for the committee, what would it be?
[English]
Mr. Prouse: It would surround Canada's regulatory system — to have a faster and more adaptable regulatory system to get these technologies into the hands of Canadian farmers. We have the ability to make Canada a global centre for agriculture innovation, and that innovation will in turn make us a leader in fighting climate change. We have that ability, but we need to act, and act boldly. That would be our prime recommendation. There's a tremendous opportunity here that Canada can seize.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, gentlemen.
(The committee adjourned.)