Agriculture Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You're all done unless the witness has something to add.

Thank you very much.

Okay, that's the completion of the first round. We're going to go to the second round now.

We're going to start off for five minutes with Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The study that this committee is doing is an extremely important one. But one of the difficulties I have with what we learned on the weekend, the government cancelling the AFMNet program, is that it almost makes a fallacy of our work that we're starting as a committee.

AFMNet sets up networks of centres of excellence, and the funding, I understand, is $5.6 million a year. Is that right, Dr. Yada?

[Dr. Rickey Yada]

Correct.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

And it's the very area that this committee, in initiating this study, really wants us to move forward on. So you have a committee starting a discussion to talk about the benefits and the negatives of biotechnology, and at the same time, just as we start, the government cancels a very important program that has been in existence for a period of time. I'm really worried about that.

Dr. Yada, can you explain to me the funding around AFMNet, which is, I think, where we want to go?

[Dr. Rickey Yada]

Thank you, Mr. Easter. You're correct that AFMNet received $5.6 million a year. We acted as a granting council for Canadian researchers in the agrifood sector, also in the social sciences and humanities sector in relation to food.

As I indicated in my presentation, what this funding does is address the issues that I was asked to address on intellectual property, some socially relevant issues around sodium, trans fat.

The sad thing about the withdrawal of funding is that it takes so long to build up infrastructure and expertise, and then once funding is removed, regardless, it really erodes that ability to move forward in an expeditious manner. That's the sad thing about withdrawal of funding.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I looked at the projects in the Advanced Foods and Materials Network--that's the long form of AFMNet--and I understand it was a seven-year program.

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

Yes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Under the “discovery research” projects, you're looking into four core areas that are extremely relevant to the farm community and this committee: nanoscience related to food and biomaterials; food, nutrition, and health; consumer attitudes and behaviour in conjunction with regulatory policy; and traceability and authenticity of foods and food ingredients.

Under that section alone there are 12 projects. What will happen to those 12 projects?

[Dr. Rickey Yada]

Well, unless we find other sources of funding, I would say that those projects will cease to exist. Again, the infrastructure that's been built up will erode very quickly without funding.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It just makes no sense at all. I can't understand why the government would do this, because the research that's in place will be lost. It's important to farm security, to food security, and to our future investment in research. And the government, just like that, cuts it off. It makes no sense at all.

The second area of projects is intellectual property. There are 18 projects under that area.

I've seen from past experience that when these programs are cut, not only do you lose the investment going forward, you lose the investment you've made in the past. You also usually lose researchers.

What will happen to the researchers and the coordination across the university system as a result of these cuts by the government?

[Dr. Rickey Yada]

Well, the coordination will probably dissipate because there are no moneys to support the networking.

The other thing that researchers will end up doing is they'll gravitate towards other funding envelopes, which may or may not be in their core area of expertise. So again, we'll lose some of that expertise and infrastructure that we've built up.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

It's a sad day for the food industry.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Did you have a short comment to make, Mr. Surgeoner?

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

I would just like to comment on this.

I think Dr. Yada put this point forward. In science and technology, everybody likes what I would call the sexy and exciting things, the IT and all of those things, yet food is so fundamental to us as Canadians. The other key thing that I have to emphasize is that it's probably our number one health risk right now, because of over-consumption in terms of calories.

So we should be putting an effort into that in terms of public health care. Forget the food side; it's public health care and how we put that forward. How do we have what I will call a “working together” community to figure out how we can get the health benefits from foods, not just the risks?

We have to get it up to the top of all of our agendas in terms of what we do. Right now in Ontario, 50% of all tax dollars are for health care; and when I see a $5-billion type 2 diabetes bill, I know that a lot of that is because of over-consumption of food relative to exercise.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much.

We're going to go back to the government side, starting with Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I want to take a moment to clarify how some government funding is delivered to programs such as AFMNet. I think Mr. Easter knows this, but he's playing politics with the issue, and I think he needs to be clear how the money is actually allocated.

This year our government is providing a record amount, $11.7 billion, in science and technology. This of course is going to create jobs. It's going to improve the quality of life for Canadians. Some of that money gets invested in agricultural research programs.

The most important element of this, though, is that AFMNet is funded through the Networks of Centres of Excellence, the NCE. The NCE receives money or funding from the federal government, but the NCE is an independent, arm's-length agency based on a peer review board.

Mr. Easter, you're shaking your head, but you would know this quite well. The funding for AFMNet started back in 2003, so you should have been aware of this.

The decision to fund AFMNet is not made by the government. The funding decision is made by NCE, the Networks of Centres of Excellence, based on the applications they receive. They are independent. They are third party. They are at arm's length.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

[Inaudible--Editor]...a minute and a half.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'll use my time appropriately.

This is an important point to clarify.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

No, no, but it would be preferable if you directed your questions to the witnesses. That's why we brought them here today.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you. I will continue.

Let me ask the witnesses, then, the following.

Are you aware that in fact these decisions are made by the Networks of Centres of Excellence, the NCE, and not directly by the government, and that our funding flows to the NCE, and the NCE receives your submissions and other submissions, and they make their decisions accordingly?

[Dr. Rickey Yada]

Yes, we acknowledge that there is a peer review system.

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

Absolutely.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Perfect. Well, thank you.

I just wanted to clarify, because Mr. Easter had it all wrong.

Mr. Richards, over to you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Richards, are you—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, Mr. Easter never “had it all wrong”.

The fact of the matter is that money has been cut. The government is ultimately responsible. They like to claim they're responsible, and they're responsible in this regard. The government, if it wants to make a decision, I'm sure can have this changed.

I don't know why the government would allow this research to be lost.