Evidence of meeting #4 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 industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
The government shouldn't pick and choose winners and losers. The market should--big difference.
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
There's a big difference, so whatever framework we decide to provide to ourselves needs to be flexible enough to allow the market or markets to dictate exactly where the industry should be going or ought to be going.
As I said earlier, innovation is really about selling to markets what they need without markets knowing. We have to be ahead of the game on that. It's similar to Apple. Steve Jobs just passed away yesterday, and it reminded everyone that innovation actually can create tremendous growth. Nobody really thought they needed an iPad, but they bought it--
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
--and in truckloads, right?
Chief Executive Officer, Vineland Research and Innovation Centre
I can see one from here.
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
Yes, exactly. This is what we should be doing in agriculture and food in the country.
To respond to your second question, when it comes to research, I can speak as a university administrator. It's always difficult to provide capacity to industry. As Mr. Miville was saying earlier, industry gets frustrated dealing with the universities because they can't get the proper knowledge. Well, what I would suggest to government with Growing Forward 2 is to provide incentives to universities to hire the right people to provide capacity to industry. That's what I would say.
Chief Executive Officer, Vineland Research and Innovation Centre
I have just a comment on the idea of allocating part of our budget to the transition between innovation or research and commercialization. I might even argue that it feels a bit harsh, but if I were you, I might require it; I think that you can't really have a project unless it's there, especially with what you're trying to accomplish with these programs.
It's a built-in. It has to be there. There's a certain allotment of money and you have to build it in. I think as well that you need to hold people accountable at the end of it for that transition. Because you know that much of it gets trapped, right? It gets stuck and doesn't go anywhere. I think you're on the right track. I'm sure there will be a discussion about who pays for it, but I think it's an absolute in terms of requirements.
President, Canola Council of Canada
I think it comes back to the strategy. If the strategy is sound and it has all the pieces in it, the transition is there. When you pull together the people who need to direct the research.... We do something different from what the swine centre does. We don't call for proposals. We go out and we find the people to do the research, and we know that they know what needs to be done, so our research has been very directed.
If you develop the strategy from start to finish, the transition is there, because you've already developed something that the market is going to need. We would not give up any of our money to let the government fund transition to the marketplace.
Chair, Canadian Swine Research and Development Cluster
The important thing for us is the final result. If we don't have a guarantee that the innovations will be useful or serve the industry and our members, that will produce nothing. We need an overall vision. We're concerned about the final result and about the use we can make of it. That goes without saying; we have to take the necessary steps to get there.
In some cases, we need expertise or new fields of expertise in research. If we don't get that, a mechanism could perhaps be used by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. I know that, for some time, you had as many as 600 researchers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's research centres.
I believe that's already been done. There might be a way to revive the connections or arrangements with universities. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada could partner with universities to put young researchers in situations in which we could develop critical masses of expertise.
We're concerned about renewing this research capability. We have to be very flexible and imaginative about the ways we'll use to facilitate this transition so that we can gain access to those researchers.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
I'm going to take my five minutes again, if I can.
Dr. Charlebois, you mentioned the lack of venture capital--and this is really a spin-off from Mr. Lemieux's question about commercialization. How do you incent growth in the venture capital industry in Canada? I'm going back really to the idea of flow-through shares or whatever that might incent it.
Do any of you have any ideas?
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
Venture capital is about risks, and I'm not sure I want the government to take on all the risks for these endeavours, but we need to figure out a way to better support these widget builders out there. There are many of them. There are many of them in agriculture and food. There are some great products being developed. Mustard is an example. Saskatchewan is one of the biggest exporters of mustard grains in the world, and we haven't figured out how to bottle it and actually sell it to market in a bottle at five times the price.
We have a project in Gravelbourg now. It's starting slowly, but it's not growing fast enough to build some interesting economies of scale. They need some venture capital in there. How do you get that? Well, I think we need to establish a framework that would allow a partnership between governments--provincial and federal--and industry and perhaps angel investors. There are tons of circles of angel investors across the country, and they aren't talking to each other. People tend to keep their cards close to their vests, and there's a reason for that, but at the same time I think the government should become the broker of all these parties to allow these projects to become reality.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
I have another two and a half minutes.
I'm not sure who mentioned this earlier, but they talked about government needing to drive in some way or create the framework in which we could have a sustainable food industry, with food security. It sounds to me as though that has the makings of a national food strategy or policy.
Could I hear from any one of you about the need for that food policy or food strategy and what you think, in its basic form, would be in it?
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
I'm personally involved with the Conference Board right now. You may be aware that Galen Weston of Loblaws is funding a good portion of this “food in Canada” policy that is being orchestrated by the Conference Board of Canada through the Centre for Food in Canada initiative. We've been working on this since last November, for less than a year now, and we meet three or four times a year.
I think there's some good work being done within the group. First of all, it's a large group, with over 35 stakeholders. Two of us around the table represent the University of Guelph. My main concern is that it's very much driven by political agendas, and in food and agriculture we all know that food politics play a big role when establishing frameworks and a vision.
Do we have a vision in Canada? It's not complete yet because of that disconnect between farmers, processors, distributors, and consumers in the end. I don't think consumers really recognize themselves and what we're trying to provide to them. And if they're trying to vote with their dollars, they're not too sure how to do that.
So if we are to generate a comprehensive food policy in Canada, I think we need to make sure that whoever is driving the boat is a legitimate player who will try to make sure there's no political contamination in the process.
Liberal
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
No. It will play a role, but not a leadership role.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
Does anyone on the panel see government playing a leadership role in driving a national food policy?
President, Canola Council of Canada
I agree that it needs to be a facilitation role, not--
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
A facilitation role. All right.
And would you agree with that, Mr. Charlebois?
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
I would.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
Okay, a facilitation role.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Zimmer, you'll take us home.
