Agriculture Committee on Feb. 7th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I would like to remind you that when you take your headset off, you should keep it away from the microphone. I think that's where we're getting the feedback.

Go ahead, Ms. Hobbs.

[Dr. Jill Hobbs]

I can't speak specifically to going back to exactly 1994 levels, but in general--and maybe some of my science colleagues can comment--I think we're heard about the importance of ongoing investment to make sure we have both the infrastructure and the people in place.

[Dr. Mary Buhr]

We've looked at the returns of dollars spent in agricultural research to the producers and the consumers--that's economic research undertaken by people in our university and many others--and it varies, depending on exactly what the research is. The dollar return per dollar invested is anywhere from nine dollars to $18 or $20. This has been done by independent third party groups as well.

There is very little doubt that even when you're investing in speculative research, the overall return per dollar invested is enormous, and it's a return to producers, to consumers, and to the country.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

The most recent statistics on research expenditures are from Statistics Canada. In 2005, $2 billion were spent on biotechnology research in Canada. Does anyone know how much of that funding came from the government and how much from the private sector?

[Dr. Jill Hobbs]

I have some information that might be helpful. In 2007, total private sector investment in plant R and D in Canada was about 40%; Agriculture Canada A-based funding was about 21%; provinces were about 6%; and producer check-off funding was 4%. Someone earlier pointed out that NSERC is important; NSERC was at 18%, and other federal funding was 11%, so it is a mixture of funding sources. That's a total investment in plant R and D, in 2007, of $165 million.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Yes, but that's—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

André, you're well over your time.

We'll now move to Mr. Hoback for seven minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to move over to get closer to the mike.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

The mikes are controlled from behind us, and you don't have to move them toward you; they will pick up the sound very well. If we are having trouble hearing anybody, we'll address it at the time.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank everybody for coming out this morning. It's great to see such a great group of Canadians from Saskatoon and the area, including Brad Hanmer, talking about this topic.

When I first approached this topic, I went to the University of Saskatchewan and to Innovation Place. Mark Wartman toured me through the university and showed me what you're doing there. I'm really excited about sharing that with my colleagues here, because it's great stuff.

This study is one that I think is very important, and I think we need some help in developing new regulations and new rules through it so that we can see this industry grow in a responsible manner.

I think the goal of everybody here is not to see this industry fizzle and die. That could kill Brad and all the other farmers in Canada, and it would also have a dire effect on our population as the world population grows. We need to grow in a responsible manner, but we need to make sure we've got the proper regulations and incentives and investment to make sure it grows in a proper manner.

That's where the gist of my questions will probably go this morning. The first thing I'm going to do to clear the air is on the definition of biotechnology. When we talk about biotechnology, everybody goes straight to GMO--at least, that seems to be a consistent practice.

Does the name biotechnology need to changed? Does it need to be branded something different?

Could give a quick answer? I think I'll just go right across.

[Mark Wartman]

I don't think it does--I think biotechnology is a good term--but we do need to continue to define it publicly. I agree that most people seem to assume that it's just dealing with GMO.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Would that response be fairly consistent across...? Okay.

Then as far as the low-level presence goes, I think it's fairly consistent; you'd probably all nod your heads that we need a number. Yes, I see that's fair to say. I'm not sure what the right number is. There are people smarter than I am on a low-level presence policy in Canada and around the world, but I think those would be two recommendations we could come forward with.

Mr. Wartman, you talked a bit about attracting youth. Ms. Buhr, you could probably comment on this also. What do we have to do to get our kids into this sector? Are we doing a good enough job? What can we be doing better to attract our youth into this sector?

[Mark Wartman]

There are two areas, and one is just generally bringing youth in. We know the farms are no longer providing enough young people into this area, so our outreach into urban areas and our education around the impacts of agriculture and ag-bio are really essential. We're developing new programs in the area, and those programs need to be supported and sustained in outreach.

The second area--and I'm sure Mary will want to comment on this--is support for indigenous agriculture development. We are leading North America in terms of our programs at the Indigenous Land Management Institute and our new postgraduate diploma program. As somebody indicated earlier, they have a significant portion of land in this province and across the country. It is vitally important to enable and encourage and bring in those indigenous people, so we're working on outreach in that area as well. They also are the largest number of youth in our--

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mark, I don't think I have time to ask you, but if you've identified any of the barriers to having them come forward and could forward that information to the committee, that would be good.

[Mark Wartman]

Okay.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Bert, you looked as though you wanted to say something.

[Prof. Bert Vandenberg]

With regard to encouraging recruitment to the college of agriculture, people are saying that nobody wants to come. Well, what's more basic than food? Everybody is concerned with it at least three times a day in this country. That's where we miss the link all the time.

I'll go back to my point on that. If you consistently started to introduce the concept of nutrition in grade 3, people would understand where their food comes from. People have to understand that everybody needs to eat. The solutions to the argument about allowing transgenics or not is whether you are providing a food solution. You can't deny people food.

There are many answers to the question. There's a whole box of technologies. I think you just have to seriously educate people, in a very effective way, and I think it has to be earlier in life.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I apologize, but I've got to keep moving on. I've only got so much time.

The next thing I want to talk about is attracting investment. Mr. Potter, you talked about creating those partnerships. We've heard some conversations about how public dollars have shrunk since 1994, but we've also seen private dollars increase. We're not sure what those numbers ar--how they offset, or if we've had a net gain or not--but the reality is that we need both. We need to have both public and private investment. I think everybody would agree with that.

How are you going about tackling that problem with the centre you have here in Saskatoon?

[Dr. Andrew Potter]

More and more for us, it simply means being a bit creative. We tend to tap international sources a lot more than we used to, which is not a bad thing. Private money is tough these days. Over the last two to three years especially, as I think as everyone would appreciate, there hasn't been a lot of it around.

The other thing is that in the space I operate in, venture capital funding in Canada is problematic at the best of times, and over the last few years it has been virtually non-existent. Therefore, most of the technologies go south, where you don't have that issue with biotech.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay.

Ms. Hobbs, was it you who talked about the manufacturing going south?

[Dr. Jill Hobbs]

No.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Maybe it was you, Mr. Kerr, who mentioned that we're seeing stuff being developed here in Canada, and then all of a sudden it's being manufactured abroad.

[Dr. Andrew Potter]

That was me.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Oh, sorry.

Why is that? Why can't we keep that manufacturing here? What chases it abroad?

[Dr. Andrew Potter]

There is no single reason. It ranges from our regulatory system, which today is...“cumbersome” would be a polite way of putting it. The Canadian market is a tenth the size of the U.S. market, and they have an easier regulatory system down there, so you know where industry will go. It's a no-brainer.

That's one reason, but not the only one. The VC side of the coin, of course, is important as well. We've established very successful companies that have been bought out by others and moved south of the border.