Agriculture Committee on Feb. 8th, 2012

[An hon. member]

Is that on the record?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

It is on the record. I think everyone knows.

As a general comment, I'm wondering what you think about the work Minister Ritz has been doing to try to open up markets across the globe.

That's a general question for whoever wants to answer, and then I'm sorry, but I have to leave.

[Gordon Bacon]

I'll talk about it from a primary agricultural and commodities perspective. We were behind the game in a lot of market access areas. We talked about Colombia. We ratified before the Americans did, but we would have been behind by a 15% tariff disadvantage. Right now in Morocco we have a 30% tariff disadvantage on peas relative to the U.S. and a 3% tariff disadvantage on lentils. We cannot compete as an exporting nation unless we have access that's equal to or better than other exporting nations, and if you're exporting product and you don't have equal tariff treatment, you're just not in that market.

I think that's a cornerstone. That was my number one priority. If you're an export economy, you cannot be at a tariff disadvantage relative to other exporters if you want to be in the game.

[Debbie Zimmerman]

I could comment on the ice wine issue.

We want to believe that Mr. Ritz will ensure that our ice wine remains a product of the highest value, not to be dumbed down by other countries that may not use the methods we do to produce ice wine in Ontario. This value is important to protect. I know this is a consideration right now, as Mr. Ritz is discussing expanding the trade agreement.

We want to ensure that it's protected, and that the market is protected, the export market. We thank the minister for his work on opening up and moving the goods between Canada and the U.S., because that will help us tremendously.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair, and my thanks to the witnesses for tolerating what's going on with the votes. I appreciate your understanding.

Mr. Bacon, one thing with the pulse growers: you've done a really good job with the research dollars you've been given through the federal government in identifying research programs. Can you describe some of the programs that you've used in the pulse sector?

[Gordon Bacon]

The pulse sector, like every other ag sector, has had the opportunity to apply for science cluster money and a number of other programs. Are you interested more in the programs or the kind of work that we're focusing on?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I was interested in the work you're focusing on and how you go about receiving the funds, as well as things you could improve on that we could promote.

[Gordon Bacon]

Here's one area for improvement, and this was brought out from the universities. One of the considerations we can look at in Growing Forward 2 is using the current programming. You actually have to spend the money before you can apply to have some of it refunded. So if you have a $500,000 research grant, you may have to spend the money before you can submit a claim. So there's a question of cashflow. We need to be considering ways to have some of the research money advanced at the beginning of a project, so that industry is not looking at ways to generate cashflow. There are advances on some of the programs, but some of them were a little difficult to administer.

Perhaps it would help to see if there are ways to advance some of this money up front. I realize there's a risk that government takes if money is not expended in the way it was supposed to be, but I think we have to balance that off against the ability to actually conduct those research programs.

One of the things that has been working well is the collaboration we're starting to see between government agencies such as Health Canada and Ag Canada. They are starting to take a look at what we can do to further some of our work in ag products and health outcomes, and there's certainly a lot more that could be done there.

In our view, we need more alignment between the regulations and the research. To get novel product approval—and we'll use pea fibre or pea starch as an example—we have to have regulatory approval, because they're considered novel products in Canada. When we go to the U.S., we have to go through FDA to get GRAS status.

As to areas of collaboration, which may be through the RCC, they're basically trying to reduce some of the duplication of effort and increase mutual recognition, so that we don't have to repeat everything. I am all for focusing on human health protection and environmental protection, but we need to get rid of some of the overlap, doing the same work twice. We need to stop reviewing work that has already been reviewed by other scientists. It's duplication that's not adding value. I think we can pay more attention to issues such as health protection by focusing on the right things and not duplicating things that add no value.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Harry, I know you have to head to the airport. Do you want to jump in on this one at all?

[Martin Harry]

I somewhat agree. Well, I totally agree.

A point Mr. Bacon made, which was slight in my program—and I've been doing a lot of these government funding things for quite a few years—is that we cannot have a gap.

You were very good in saying that by January 1 we've got to be going.

We've had other government programs—co-Ontario-federal—where the research funding is going, it runs out, and a year later.... So for a year, the researchers have hardly any funding to carry on that study. The continuation factor is very important, in my mind, just because it is long-term research for some of these projects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

I know some of you have to go right to the airport. Thanks again for being here. We apologize for the delay, but it was out of this group's control. Anyway, thanks again.

The meeting is adjourned.