If you want to make it easier you could say the Quebec cash-crop growers. In French, it's the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec.
I'll do my presentation in French, since I'm a Quebecker.
Good morning. My name is William Van Tassel and I am a farmer from Lac-Saint-Jean. I live in Hébertville and I am a grain producer. I grow wheat, canola, soy and malt barley.
I am here today as the first vice-president of the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec, or FPCCQ (Quebec Federation of Cash Crop Producers). The FPCCQ is very grateful to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for this invitation to participate in its study and voice the concerns of our farmers. Going well beyond discussions at the provincial level, this invitation is a unique opportunity to participate in the national discussion.
The federation represents about 11,000 of the 42,000 farmers in Quebec. This large group of farmers has many diverse challenges to meet. However, a common denominator among all these producers can be found in some of the broad directions and concerns within the sector. Biotechnologies have greatly changed the way Canadian and Quebec farmers respond to and approach those challenges. Genetically modified plants have become inseparable from farm life in Canada and Quebec. To start, we might ask ourselves the following question: Do biotechnologies create needs or help respond to the needs of producers and stakeholders? The answer must take into account our agricultural contexts, since that is what producers have to deal with, as well as the latest major trends. I will now talk about the context in Quebec.
The grains sector in Quebec is essentially based on corn, soy, canola, barley, oat and wheat production. The average area for all crops in recent years has been about one million hectares. The volume of grain harvested and marketed is about five million tons. The farm landscape in Quebec has 3 zones with different production potential. As you can see on the last page of our brief, zone 1 is suited to most crops and predominantly produces soy and corn as well as certain other cereals. Zone 2 and zone 3 are more suited to cereal and have very specific pedoclimatic conditions, requiring adapted cultivars. Graphs 1 to 3, which are also in our document, show a declining or stagnating trend in crop yields. However, yields are on the rise in other provinces and in neighbouring U.S. states. That addresses the question of competitiveness and the conditions allowing producers to be sustainable in the long term.
As for sources of research funding and sectoral output, that declining trend is more alarming in the cereals sector. In fact, in terms of yields, the gap between Quebec and elsewhere is quite substantial. Biotechnology firms do not invest in that sector because they want a return on their research investments. The cereal and grain crops in Quebec, however, do not represent a potential market for those firms. Furthermore, if you look at table 1, which shows the amounts invested by the private sector in agricultural research, you will note that research funding between 1987 and 2012 will have grown by 1,715% for soy, 1,027% for canola, but only by 80% for straw cereals.
The direct impact of the investment by biotechnology firms in profitable crops can be seen in the level of growth for genetically modified crops in Quebec. The area dedicated to GM production has increased from 100,000 hectares in 1999, to 400,000 hectares in 2009. The negative effect of such disproportionate funding could have been elevated if more research had been funded by the public sector. However, we are seeing a declining public investment in research. Today, research funding, in constant dollars, is 40% lower than what it was in 1994. To get back to that same level in 2020, a budget envelope of $28 million per year would have to be provided. As well, the research sector is facing a shortage of human resources and equipment infrastructure. In her 2010 report, the Auditor General of Canada indicated that 40% of the workforce in the research sector is over the age of 50 and 18% of the employees in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Research Branch are currently eligible for retirement.
Moreover, 71% of buildings used for research activities were in average or poor condition rather than good or excellent, and no fewer than 71% of the 28,000 items of equipment had exceeded their service life.
The positive impact of public investment in research has been confirmed in a number of developing countries that, unlike Canada, have deployed an increasing amount of public funds for research. For example, Brazil has increased its production by 365%, in large part because of its funding for agricultural research. China increased its public investments by 10% per year from 2001 to 2007.
Those two examples show that we need to increase global production of foodstuffs by 70% in order to feed a population that will reach 9 billion in 2050. Public investment in research also helps support economic and social development.
Studies have shown that the equivalent of $1,500 invested in agricultural research and development will lift 7 Chinese citizens out of poverty. In Quebec, one job created in the regions is equivalent to 20 to 30 jobs created in large urban centres. Generally speaking, the return on investment for research in agriculture amounts to 40% for the economy as a whole.
The challenges to be met in the grain sector are increasingly complex. Producers have to deal with the consequences of climate change, tightening of quality standards, consumer demands, instability in market prices and so on. Those are dynamic conditions that change over time.
In order for agriculture to keep up with the pace of change, it in turn must be dynamic and diversified. Public research must be strengthen to enable agriculture to meet expectations. Declining public investment in research will reduce the technological choices available to producers and foster a dominant position for biotechnology firms as well as the widespread use of GM plants.
The consequences will be more severe in peripheral regions—zones 2 and 3—which are less competitive and where plants are not cultivated—no corn and very little soy. Producers there are heavily dependent on straw cereals, i.e., wheat, barley and oats. Those crops rely on public research. Moreover, those regions do not represent a potential market for private biotechnology investors.
This means that the competitiveness gap between regions will widen. In addition, speeding up regulatory processes, such as the approval of phytosanitary products, would reduce production costs and enhance producers' competitiveness.
In closing, the FPCCQ is very happy to take part in these discussions with the members of the committee and is grateful for this invitation. The FPCCQ is aware of the interest in the agriculture and agro-food industry and of the industry's importance to the Canadian economy and regional development, and hopes that these discussions will continue, and that the committee will support action taken by the industry.
Thank you.