Date posted: March 30, 2004

Q&A: Dr. Mario Therrien

The PRRCG Chair explains the thinking behind the resolution to dissolve the committee, and what this decision means for the future of Prairie crop registration.

Q: What's the main rationale behind this resolution?

A: To this point, the PRRCG has been headed by an executive, which includes an overall chair and secretary along with the chairs and secretaries of the four PRRCG subcommittees. In addition to its role as an umbrella for general administration, this executive has been empowered with handling the appeals process for crop lines seeking recommendations of support at the subcommittee level. It has also been empowered with a final say on governance issues.

However, in recent years, some problems have been identified with these executive powers. These stem mainly from the idea that subcommittees, not the executive, are best equipped to make decisions affecting the crops they represent. For example, it doesn't make sense for a barley person or a pulse person to rule on a decision in the wheat area. If it's a wheat question, it should be handled by the Wheat, Rye and Triticale Subcommittee, which represents broad expertise in the wheat area.

With this new resolution, what we're proposing is to remove a layer of governance that the PRRCG members have come to feel is unnecessary. The subcommittees have, for the most part, operated independently anyway, with the PRRCG executive acting essentially as a rubber stamp on subcommittee decisions. However, to this point, the appeals process and some governance issues have remained handled by the executive. This resolution would shift these powers to the current subcommittees, which are better equipped to make decisions in the best interests of the crop areas they represent.

It's important to keep in mind that the PRRCG is simply a recommending body. The Variety Registration Office (VRO) of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has the authority to approve or reject all PRRCG decisions, and that wouldn't change if the VRO were to approve this resolution. The newly created independent subcommittees would still require VRO approval of all of their operating procedures and decisions.

Q: The appeal process has been a major focus of discussion around the need for changes in PRRCG. Can you elaborate on this specific issue?

A: The responsibility for hearing and judging appeals has sat with the PRRCG executive. If a sponsor of a crop line objects to the decision of a subcommittee, an initial appeal can be made to the PRRCG executive, whereby the executive votes and majority rules. The problem with this is that the appeal process is handled outside the main area of crop expertise, which is the subcommittee. Once the subcommittee makes a decision, who are we, as an executive, to tell the subcommittee anything different, when our expertise in the particular crop area is much more restricted?

Quite frankly, the executive, by its very nature, has not been in a position to properly look after the appeals. The executive itself has felt this imposed on it an onerous level of responsibility. Under the new resolution, appeals would be conducted as outlined in the procedures of the individual recommending committees, in which there would be a provision for the option of a third-party based committee to rule on the appeals. Basically, the newly independent committees would have an opportunity to design individual processes that best meets their needs, provided those processes are approved by the VRO.

Q: How does this relate to issues of process and procedures?

A: The same basic rationale applies. Different crops have different needs, and it simply makes better sense for subcommittees to design processes and procedures that best meet the needs of the crops they deal with.

A lot of thinking has come to a head in recent years. The VRO reviews the PRRCG's work every five years, before renewing the PRRCG's five-year mandate. Following the most recent review in 1999, the VRO identified some specific issues related to PRRCG voting procedures and the way meetings are conducted. In looking to address these issues, it became clear that 'one-size fits all' approaches wouldn't work in all cases across the subcommittees. Recognizing the current subcommittee groups as independent recommending bodies would make it easier for these groups to develop processes that make sense for individual crops, and to deal directly with the VRO in addressing concerns.

Officially, the PRRCG executive has had final approval on all subcommittee decisions. But in all routine matters, this has boiled down to the executive listening to the subcommittee decisions and simply nodding up and down. The subcommittees have essentially operated independently already anyway, so why not adjust the formal structure to reflect that? That has been the basic thinking.

The ability to streamline communication is becoming more important, as recommending committees deal with more issues of industry and public concern. As chair of PRRCG, if there was a concern from the VRO on an issue the Barley and Oat Subcommittee had dealt with, the formal process was that the question would initially come to me, which is really an added, unnecessary step. Other than act as a general spokesperson on issues of mutual concern and as an emcee for PRRCG meetings, there was really no reason for the PRRCG executive to act as a go-between for the subcommittees and the people they need to deal with.

Q: What elements of the PRRCG umbrella will be preserved?

A: Under the resolution, the PRRCG itself would dissolve completely and there would be no further operations under that name. However, the current members of PRRCG could still meet as a group under the auspices of the Western Expert Committee on Grain Breeding (WECGB). All current PRRCG subcommittees and their members are, by definition, members of WECGB, which is where the PRRCG derives a key part of its mandate to present views on issues related to crop development and present them to the policy makers and regulators.

The WECGB actually preceded the PRRCG and also includes other commodity representatives such as canola and forages. If the PRRCG resolution is approved, it is our intention that the newly created recommending committees join with these groups to revitalize the WECGB as a forum to deal with and present views on key issues that cross crop boundaries. One immediate example of an issue that could be dealt with under this forum would be the issue of "plants with novel traits," and there are many other possibilities.

© 2004 Meristem Information Resources Ltd.
Meristem® is a registered trademark of Meristem Information Resources Ltd. All rights reserved.
Legal Disclaimer