Agriculture Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2011

[Jim Lintott]

On that point, the Manitoba Forage Council has been instrumental in bringing together the researchers in our province, both federal and provincial. We have a process where we're trying to draw consensus on what needs to be done and what we can do most effectively in the short and long terms.

What we're missing at this point is any commitment from the people who actually control those dollars that we're relying on to be a part of that group. We have that process started. It's been ongoing for two to three years. Now we need to see someone coming to the table who actually has control on those research dollars who can be a part of that discussion process so that we know that the time and energy being spent are in fact taking us in the direction we need to go in.

[Travis Toews]

I'm going to defer to Andrea, our research manager, to respond to this.

[Andrea Brocklebank]

First of all, in terms of coordination of research outcomes, the impetus for the cluster and the national beef research strategy came out of the round table. The round table is really focused on looking forward and developing strategies around research, market access, and all of these things. That's been integral in terms of the plan. The group around that table is also integral, moving forward, in terms of research outcomes.

With respect to how we improve the use of limited dollars, the biggest thing we see--and administratively, this was a learning process for everybody--is that there is a significant divide in the funds between vote 1 and vote 10 dollars.

At this point, as a result of that divide--i.e., what goes to Agriculture Canada researchers and what goes to universities--it's an extreme management issue, because no dollars can be transferred between those two even if it makes sense. Also, it has to be managed separately and currently out of different departments under the science research branch. Basically, although consistency has been provided, from an industry perspective it does create challenges that we're trying to revise and reform and work on. In essence, you're reporting on two different areas, and that type of thing.

Where this creates the biggest challenge is that we finally have forage researchers across this country working together under the beef cluster, with other researchers. We put them together and said “Here is the outcome we want; develop the plan”, and that was very positive. But when they can't meet due to restrictions under Treasury Board guidelines, that is a concern.

We need to overcome some of those administrative hurdles to help facilitate those types of things.

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

Did you say when they can't meet? What would be the impediment to meeting?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

Possible impediments might be travel budgets, or limitations, especially for Agriculture Canada researchers, particularly around the fact that if Agriculture Canada researchers come to a meeting, we can't cover the cost of their meals because we can't use vote 10 dollars to do that. It just creates those awkward little administrative things. I'm respecting Treasury Board guidelines, but I think it is a nuisance.

The other part that I think is important is that the research plans under the clusters had to be very prescriptive, so we had to write them at the beginning. Well, as you go along, you need refinement and room for flexibility. New researchers come in and outcomes tell you what you need to do as you go along, especially under a five-year research plan. Accountability is fundamentally important, but some flexibility is also very important.

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

We've heard that, actually, where in year one it's very hard to predict a situation that might present itself in year three or year four.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

Sorry, that's the end of your time. You're way past now. I'd love to give you more time, but I can't.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

You're welcome.

Mr. Rousseau.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Valeriote.

My question is for each one of you. I would like the representative of each of the sectors to provide an opinion.

It is often said that research in pure science, in agriculture and elsewhere, is carried out in a vacuum. We witness in the various university research chairs the development of research programs and plans that are not applicable in the field. Producers thus have difficulty accessing the results of this research work.

I would like to know if the Growing Forward program, with its agri-science clusters, has facilitated knowledge transfer. Has there been research work applicable in the field and capable of moving our agriculture forward?

We all know that productivity is lagging here, in Canada. If we want to be more competitive internationally, we must focus particularly on research that is applicable in the field, whether it relates to technologies or pure science.

For each of your sectors, should there be programs to facilitate knowledge transfer? How might we make this knowledge more applicable in the field, for producers?

[Jim Lintott]

As I said in my presentation, we're looking very closely at the need and the value of having whole-farm demonstration farms established, where there's very intensive input/output analysis done. So the farm is a privately owned farm, and it provides a huge chunk of the capital input costs that are required, but what we are funding is a measurement of those research ideas being applied to that functional farm. That is a very powerful way for the farming community to see and adopt new ideas.

If you can go down the road and see your neighbour working with new ideas and the success he's having, or the failure he's having—knowing what not to do also has value—that moves through the farming community very quickly, especially if he buys a new half-ton truck.

[Jacob Middelkamp]

Thank you for the excellent question.

At the CPRC, the research projects that are done for the poultry industry...the researchers, when they end a project, have to have a report ready, in layman's terms, for the producers, what they can use in the barns and in the field. That's a request for us, especially so that a producer can understand what research is done and what they can apply on their farms.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Merci.

[Travis Toews]

I'm going to defer to Andrea on this one.

[Andrea Brocklebank]

Under the beef science cluster we did invest substantial funds looking at tech transfer. We looked at models like Australia's, Israel's, and several others. What we found is that past extension models, which are primarily provincial, were useful, but our industry has changed too, and we need to reach beef producers in some cases for things like forage, but we also need to reach suppliers and processors, depending on what the research is and where it should be directed, and drug companies, when technologies are getting to the point they can be in.... We're looking at alternative ways to do that and reach the right groups with all of the research outcomes, because we do span a broad spectrum.

The second part of that is awareness. The more awareness of the value of research, the more investment we can likely procure from check-off, which industry...that's an ultimate goal of ours. If you have awareness and understanding of the value, you create greater investment opportunity.

The last part, though, is that under the first Growing Forward program we had understood there was going to be another program—and I apologize for not knowing the correct name—that was a sister program to the science clusters and would focus on innovation transfer. It was supposed to be released shortly. The concern is that we're almost done with the first Growing Forward—I mean we're into consultations. So for this program, when it's released, I fully expect funds.... A plan will have to be submitted. It takes time to build that, and then funds will have to be expended by March 31, 2013. That's part of the issue in terms of effectiveness of funding that we need to look at, because that innovation program is very promising if it's going to coordinate with the science clusters and that opportunity. But those plans take time to develop and then implement.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Do I have any time left?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

No, I'd say you're out of time now. Sorry.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chair. My questions and comments will be through you to the witnesses.

Thank you for coming.

I want to follow a little bit along the lines of my colleague Mr. Lemieux, in terms of the clusters and the questions around the priorities and those sorts of things.

Mr. Toews, one of the things I was wondering about was the check-off you talked about. I guess one of the things I'd like to know is how much that check-off is and whether all of that is going into research. Is it part of the clusters, or how does that whole piece work?

[Travis Toews]

That's a very good question. In the cattle industry we do collect a check-off. It's the national check-off of $1 for every head marketed, every time it's sold. On average, in an animal's lifetime, an animal will relate to $2.70 approximately in terms of total check-off collected. Of that $2.70, the majority goes to our national and international market development programming, but a portion of it goes to our beef cattle research. Approximately, at this point, 15% is going to the Beef Cattle Research Council. The council is made up of a combination of producers, researchers, and experts who establish research priorities and then work through the science cluster approach at ensuring that research is done. And as Andrea has noted, it is also now really working on the attempt to have a meaningful tech transfer.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I think you've all talked about long-term funding and research. This question is to each one of you. If you had some of this long-term funding, what would be your top two priorities, and what would you see as the outcomes from those priorities?

I'm not sure who is going to answer. Is it going to be Travis or Andrea?

[Travis Toews]

I will defer to Andrea.

[Andrea Brocklebank]

One of our top two priorities is increasing the demand for beef, with a focus on food safety and quality. Food safety capacity is of the utmost importance, because it's not only about the research; it's about having expertise when we have an issue. I will emphasize that.

Our second major priority is production efficiency to ensure that we're competitive with our international counterparts. We have to be competitive, otherwise our industry prosperity won't be there. We're focused on forage productivity, feed productivity, and animal health and welfare. All three of those are very interlinked. To invest in one at the loss of another will not help our industry.

[Jim Lintott]

I think we were fairly clear in our presentation that there are two areas we're most interested in: grazing efficiency through advanced technology; and plant breeding, specifically of the grasses and not the legumes, because we think that's taken care of already by the seed industry in Canada. For sure, there's not enough research happening on the grasses, and we've outlined that.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

You talked about high sugar in rye. Was that what you were talking about in particular?

[Jim Lintott]

Yes. The work we've done in speaking to the industry and speaking at the farm-gate level on some of the species that marginally work in western Canada indicates very strongly that's the path to go down. There's just nobody here now taking that little bit of knowledge, pushing it through, and coming up with the products we need.