I could give you the example of canola, a crop that is currently very important in western Canada and Quebec. Would canola have been marketed if there had been no public research? Probably not. Researchers at Agriculture Canada were able to investigate further and come up with that new crop, which is now so important to producers.
Clearly, I think that the private sector plays a very important role. It is only normal for people in the private sector to expect a return on their investment, which they would not make otherwise. Table 1 shows that canola yields a return on investment because, obviously, producers are required to use their own seeds. They make huge investments. As for grain corn, the level is lower, but that is because there is a high production of that crop in the United States.
Wheat represents a significant problem. Producers can sow their own seeds, which is why the private sector is not interested. Consequently, producers are still cultivating wheat, but wheat crop area is declining, because producers are not earning as much by growing wheat. They need to ensure the long-term sustainability of their operations. Farmers have to know the tools. Either the public sector has to increase investments in order to help develop such crops as wheat, or there needs to be an environment in which companies are willing to participate. There is no other choice.
Root rot and head blight of wheat is a problem in Quebec. The public sector should be addressing that problem. That disease is also present in Manitoba and in other regions as well. It is essential that the public sector foster research, as you have indicated, so that researchers can do long-term work. Root rot and head blight is an example of that. For instance, a researcher who is studying wheat will investigate a host of other issues because his research is being funded by producers and the public sector. He therefore has much more leeway to do far more in-depth work.