Evidence of meeting #10 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Jacob Middlekamp
It's a trick question.
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Poultry Research Council
We've estimated our assistance levels to be around 2.5% to 3% of the federal expenditures. We represent 7% of the farm gate. Research is extremely important to all aspects, all parts of the agricultural sector. If we were getting 7% of the budget, we would be able to do wonders. Part of the discussion was around coordination, because we as an industry have to do much better about coordinating how we spend our money. We're spending in excess of $2 million a year through CPRC, our national organizations, and their members--the provincial organizations--on research and innovation. That includes taking it right to the farm and adaptation. We're stepping forward and we're increasing that.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
But you don't have an exact dollar number and what you would do with that dollar number.
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Poultry Research Council
We know what we'd do with it. We have ideas about it. Our national research strategy will outline a lot more of that.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I do want to get to Mr. Toews for a question, so I'll ask you to be brief on this one.
Would you say the $2 million allocated under the poultry science cluster was a success?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Poultry Research Council
I would say it was very much so. Also, we have five projects with Agriculture Canada or CFIA people, and they're great to work with.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Excellent.
If you have other suggestions as to how we can make the process better, written submissions are welcome at the committee as well.
Mr. Toews, it behoves me to ask you at least a couple of questions, one of which is on the value of commercialization. We've talked to many people about how important is it that there be an end goal in place when we start our science and research and that we have that commercialization knowledge and we know what we're getting into. How important is that to you when it comes to the industry, especially for beef?
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
The commercialization aspect, the technology transfer component of research, is critical in order for us to really benefit from the research that takes place. It has been an issue, I think, as identified by the beef science cluster--and Andrea can perhaps elaborate on this. That is a challenge the science cluster has identified, and I know the group is taking steps to ensure that tech transfer can take place more efficiently, because there has been a gap there in the past.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
November 3rd, 2011 / 4:15 p.m.
Andrea Brocklebank Research Manager, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
Related to that, I would reinforce that have we tasked our researchers with doing that.
First of all, they're not necessarily the best, but our researchers are strapped right now trying to get done what they need to get done. The fragmentation, gaps in funding, and uncertainty have really led them to spend a lot of time procuring funding for research and not doing research. That situation limits our ability to attract capacity, but it also limits what they should actually be focusing on in terms of research. Two-year funding gaps have a big impact in terms of that. Increased funding is definitely important, but if you can create that consistency of funding you will have more certainty as to your research outcomes and you will be able to implement the associated technology transfer strategy.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
You were up, actually, about 45 seconds ago. As probing and interesting as your questions are, Mr. Storseth, I have to move on.
It's my turn to ask questions, and if I might, with your permission, I will ask them from the chair.
We learned a couple of weeks ago that the federal panel on support for research and development had noted that Canadian business expenditures on research and development have fallen every year since 2006, both in real terms and as a percentage of GDP. The panel noted that at 1% of GDP, Canada's investment in research is much lower than it is in the OECD countries, where I think the average is about 1.6%. I'm not blaming government or anyone for that at all. It's business investment. We know that money is invested by the government through incentives or direct investment in public research and other programs. And we know that some of it is privately driven.
We're supposed to cut our budgets, actually, by 5% to 10%, right? And you've come asking for more money. I laud you for that, but it's not likely to happen. Let's be realistic. So what do we do? Do we try to provide incentives through tax policy? Do we try to drive the industry through SR&ED or something different from SR&ED? Do we offer, I don't know, things like flow-through shares that people might invest in to help commercialize? In answer to a question from Mr. Storseth, you noted a commercialization gap.
Can any of you respond to that concern I have? What are you going to do? We know that researchers are heading south already. What are we going to do?
4:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
That's an excellent question. Certainly we're under no illusion that cash will be free-flowing in the next budget. One thing I'll say at the start is that we recognize that the next budget is likely to be trimmed, as opposed to expanded. We also recognize the importance of sound national fiscal management. That is important to our producers, because it creates the business climate and the environment that is competitive globally. So we applaud the government's efforts in terms of deficit reduction.
I think we're coming here today with a priority, knowing that under Growing Forward there was a certain total budget. We're coming today with what we believe is a real priority within Growing Forward. We know that, clearly, there's business risk management and there are a number of other initiatives under Growing Forward. We believe that research and innovation, at the juncture we're at in our industry, needs to become a greater priority than it has been in the past. Our suggestion is that budgets be considered. And knowing that there are trade-offs out there, we believe that it's important to place a higher emphasis on research and innovation.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
Okay.
Mr. Lintott and Mr. Roberts, would both of you please comment?
4:20 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
I agree with what you said, Travis. The key, I think, is to have more dialogue at the farm gate at the research level to find out what is really needed now. And make the commitment to eliminate this whole issue of the gapping of funding. That is--
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
Should there be dialogue between the department and farmers? Is that the dialogue you're talking about?
4:20 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
It would be between the research people and the farm representatives, such as the people at this table now, who can say that these are the priorities we've identified, and if you're only going to spend x number of dollars, spend them here and put the funding in place so that it can have an effect. Sometimes you will find research that is looking for short-term funding--three years or less--and sometimes you need ten years.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
Thank you.
I'd like to give Mr. Roberts just a few seconds to respond.
4:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Poultry Research Council
Thank you.
We did submit a brief.
At this point, we're concerned more with coordination and efficiency. Part of what's happening is that with the gaps and the increased administrative situation and everybody learning these new programs and the cluster.... We like the cluster. That's a new thing.
We think that with the dollars that are there, we can be, at least in the poultry sector, a lot more efficient. That's what we're doing as an industry. We're trying to make ourselves more efficient. CPRC is a major part of that, and it's strongly supported by our members. If we can do that for the whole research thing, we can start putting more dollars into it.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
Just briefly, the dialogue you spoke of, Mr. Lintott, between yourselves and government--is that occurring? Is there a forum in which that's occurring?
4:20 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
Well, this is a perfect example of what needs to happen. Then you--
4:20 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
Not enough; it needs to go right through to the point where we actually sit down and say that this sector is prepared to accept that this is where we're going with these dollars.
We've taken out some of the ideas we've had and we've said okay, we'll shelve those; these are the first priorities and these need to be funded properly. We need to know that this is where we're going. We all need to be on the same page, agreeing. We don't always understand why there's been such a drag in terms of dollars flowing or in agreement on what needs to be done.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thanks, Chair.
Actually, I want to follow up on this. It's great that you started down that line.
I think one of the strengths of the research cluster is that the industry itself is setting its own priorities. I think this is what we've heard from witnesses, that this is definitely a strength. It brings together researchers from the research sector but also from universities and from the industry itself. They set their own priorities, and we're there to provide funding to support their undertakings. We also have researchers who work within the government, of course, but there is the strength of the cluster.
Just following up on the discussion about funding, as Travis was saying.... And I don't know what the next budget will look like, at this point, but I think it's fair to say that money will be in short supply all the way around. If there is a request for more funding for research, I think equally helpful would be a recommendation where you would see the money coming from within Growing Forward.
So if you are seeing something where you would see that transfer taking place, that would be helpful. I think the situation would be difficult where just research would go up and nothing else was affected. That would be an ideal solution, but I'm not sure it will be a realistic solution.
One of the things I'm interested in, particularly from the cluster point of view, is where administrative changes can be made to the cluster to allow you to work more efficiently and more effectively with the money you're receiving from us but also from the industry. Most clusters are getting 25% funding from the sector. With beef it was 15% because of the difficult years you've had to endure.
That's certainly information I'm interested in. It's not a dollar thing but an efficiency and effectiveness thing. I'm wondering if you might have some recommendations. Where could we make changes that would actually help you in administering this funding more effectively to better address your research needs?
I put this to all witnesses.