Agriculture Committee on Oct. 6th, 2011

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

I am going to call the meeting to order.

I want to welcome everyone, particularly our witnesses: Claude Miville, from the Canadian Swine Research and Development Cluster; JoAnne Buth, president of the Canola Council of Canada; Jim Brandle, chief executive officer of Vineland Research and Innovation Centre; and Sylvain Charlebois, associate dean at the University of Guelph.

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to join us today.

We are commencing today a study of Growing Forward 2. Our comments are intended to be within the confines, essentially, of that, although not completely restricted to that. We thought it important to continue with our study of the biotechnology industry, and for those reasons you've been invited to speak to us today.

You will each be given 10 minutes to speak. Following four presentations, we will begin questioning. We will have five-minute rounds and we'll be here for the full two hours, if we're all up to that.

I will start, if I might, with Mr. Miville from the Canadian Swine Research and Development Cluster.

[Claude Miville, Chair, Canadian Swine Research and Development Cluster]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

If you don't mind, I will speak in French. It will be easier for those who have to do the translation.

First of all, I would like to thank you very much for this invitation.

As you mentioned, I represent the Canadian Swine Research and Development Cluster. That company is better known as Swine Innovation Porc.

The Canadian Swine Research and Development Cluster, or Swine Innovation Porc, is an organization sponsored by the Canadian Pork Council. The Canadian Pork Council represents all hog producers in Canada, 8,000 hog producers and 10 provincial associations of hog producers. The Canadian Pork Council is a member of the Canadian Pork Value Chain, Canada Pork International and the Canadian Swine Health Board.

These are all national organizations mandated, in one respect or another, to develop pork production and products in a manner respectful of the environment and society, as well as to establish an efficient pork value chain.

The objective and mission of Swine Innovation Porc, our company, is to facilitate research, technology transfer and commercialization initiatives designed to support our partners in the Canadian Pork Value Chain.

We are currently associated with some 100 Canadian researchers from 28 different organizations, research centres, institutions and universities. They are working with us on 14 research projects. We hope that the results of those projects will make significant contributions for the 8,000 Canadian hog producers and our partners in the value chain.

To carry out its mandate, Swine Innovation Porc has partnered with two regional organizations in Canada that conduct applied research and have developed very good expertise in technology transfer. On the one hand, we have the Centre de développement du porc du Québec Inc., which has a team of professionals who serve Quebec's pork value chain. It relies on its expertise in genetics, health and building and breeding management.

On the other hand, the other partner involved in Swine Innovation Porc's efforts is the Prairie Swine Centre, which is indirectly linked to the University of Saskatchewan. The Prairie Swine Centre conducts applied research and has developed very good expertise in technology transfer.

With this team, we have established a program of research projects to transfer findings to our producers.

Now I will present our four findings or messages in what little time we have.

The first message concerns innovation. The data confirm that agricultural research can produce very positive results in terms of economic drivers and economic activity. We are convinced of the importance of science and innovation and of the importance of investing in research.

We are also convinced that research must be balanced, that is to say that research must cover all aspects of production. It must address society's issues and the needs of consumers. We must ensure that we have a dynamic and efficient pork value chain. The strategic aspects of research must be balanced to enable an industry to develop and respond to the expectations of society, consumers and customers.

The second message is important. I must emphasize—and this is to your credit—that we are very satisfied with the strategic framework established for agriculture entitled Growing Forward, which is a support program for the initiatives of agri-science clusters. That program is in response to a request that we made of the Canadian government, and we are very pleased with it. With the funding obtained through the program, we have managed to involve a number of researchers. There are a lot of researchers in Canada, but research is somewhat scattered. We, the producers, or the users, the industry, need to get the best researchers in Canada. It's important to get them to work together. I believe we have been successful in that regard.

We have called upon 28 research institutions, universities and Agriculture Canada research centres for their expertise. One hundred researchers are collaborating with us and are active on 14 research projects. It is interesting to note that at least two universities are involved in all those research projects. That means that, even though certain researchers tend to work in isolation in certain cases, we have managed to have the others work in collaboration. Synergies have been created as a result of the collaboration among researchers from various universities and regions in Canada. We have managed to make our researchers work as a team. That is also the case of Agriculture Canada's research centres because eight of the 14 research projects involve at least one Agriculture Canada researcher together with one or more university researchers.

One other factor attests to this success. We have managed to interest other private partners in investing with us. Five provincial organizations of hog producers have invested in research projects, as well as 14 other private industry partners. We feel the objectives of this program have been achieved to the extent that we have managed to combine the strengths of everyone involved, regardless of where they are in Canada, and to interest various private partners.

There is a third message that I would like to add. In research, there is no point in generating new scientific knowledge if we are unable to transfer it quickly and efficiently to our partners. Research development serves no purpose if our competitors from other countries are faster than we are at using researching findings. This is also an important issue. For us, innovation means generating new knowledge through research, but also ensuring quick and efficient transfer. However, the expertise that can guarantee that kind of transfer is not the same. Researchers do not have it. It requires equally significant resources and the mobilization of people with other types of profiles. In addition, everyone has to work together because we must be able to recover that knowledge as quickly and effectively as possible. This is an important factor for us.

The final message directly concerns the strategic framework entitled Growing Forward 2. We believe the agri-scientific initiatives program is a success. It is therefore important to maintain continuity and to take advantage of the favourable circumstances established through this program. We must maintain the program's continuity because its first phase worked well. We must take advantage of favourable circumstances because the response was greater than the expectations that some of you might have had of the program. Interest has been expressed and people are mobilizing; consequently, it's worthwhile to take advantage of the circumstances.

To do this, we suggest that you significantly increase the funding allocated to this program. In addition, some flexibility should be afforded to enable these scientific clusters, which form the link between the industry and the various research centres of Agriculture Canada and the universities, to do more in future.

I won't take up any more of your time, and I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

You have another minute.

[Claude Miville]

That's enough for me. We'll have more time for questions and answers.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

Thank you, Mr. Miville. I appreciate it.

JoAnne Buth now.

[JoAnne Buth, President, Canola Council of Canada]

Good afternoon, and thank you very much for inviting the Canola Council of Canada to speak with you today about Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Growing Forward 2 policy framework.

Let me start by underscoring the importance that our industry attaches to strategic, forward-thinking agriculture policy development at the federal and provincial levels. These five-year reviews of strategic direction are important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to keep up with the fast pace of change in the agriculture sector.

Canola itself is a good illustration of change and growth. Invented only in the 1970s here in Canada, canola is now Canada's most valuable crop. The Canola Council of Canada represents the canola value chain: growers, seed developers, crushers, and exporters.

Let me give you some basic numbers on our industry. Canola returns the highest value to farmers of any crop: in 2011, it was $5.6 billion of farm cash receipts. The industry supports 280,000 jobs across Canada, and the industry is worth $15.4 billion to the Canadian economy.

Innovation and investment is the backbone of our industry. Our motto is: “Innovative. Resilient. Determined to create superior value and a healthier world.” Constant innovation has led to significant improvements in seed development, production practices, stewardship, and the development of markets. In 2007, our industry announced a stretch goal of 15 million tonnes of sustained demand and production. In 2011, we will reach the 13-million-tonne mark. Through science, innovation, and investment, we are confident in reaching that goal, generating even greater returns to the Canadian economy.

There are two main themes identified in GF2: competitiveness and market growth, and adaptation and sustainability. The two drivers identified are infrastructure and innovation. We agree that these are useful lenses through which to assess the future policy framework direction.

Consistent with these themes, the canola sector has five specific priorities, not all of them related to science and innovation. I'd like to outline these to you, and then of course to be available for any questions you have.

Number one is science and innovation. Canola owes its success to innovation, from seed development through production practices to new uses and benefits of canola. Research, both private and public, is critical to innovation. Through the Canadian agri-science clusters program, the Canola Council is coordinating focused research in partnership with AAFC. The program is driven by producers, industry, and researchers, who collectively determine the priorities and then implement the research plan.

While canola is a big crop in Canada, it is dwarfed by other competitive commodities in the international marketplace, like soybeans and palm. These industries are investing in innovation. We need to ensure a continued partnership between industry and government in Canada on research in order to stay competitive. Research needs to be industry-driven, supported by government, and we must make the most efficient use of resources, which is what the cluster program is all about.

In GF2, we think we can improve on this coordination role and build on our success. We need to continue research on the nutritional benefits of canola. We already have results on reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. We need to continue our research on reducing inflammation in the body, improving the ability to manage diabetes, and the impact on metabolic syndrome. The results of this research will increase the value of canola, thereby increasing consumption, lowering health care costs, and increasing returns to growers.

Canola meal has the unique ability as an animal feed to increase milk production in dairy cows by one litre of milk per cow per day, on average. But we need research to find ways to improve the energy content of the meal to be able to increase the amount of canola meal that can be fed to swine and poultry.

Last, but definitely not least, we need to continue crop production research so we can increase yields, lower input costs, manage new diseases and insects, improve storage, and ensure growers will be sustainable. Most of this research is conducted at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research stations, which are important to our ongoing success as an industry.

Priority number two for us is science-based policies and regulation. Our industry depends on investments from companies that have wide choices on where to undertake research and product development. To attract this investment, we need a predictable, transparent, and encouraging regulatory environment.

The same is true when it comes to accessing markets. The best way to ensure that technical and non-tariff trade issues are not used as protectionist barriers is to ensure that they are based on sound science and that the rules of international trade respect this.

Priority number three is a continued partnership in international market development. One of the most successful programs delivered through the current Growing Forward framework is the agri-marketing program, which is a cost-shared approach to international market promotion.

Our producers and industry have worked closely and strategically with AAFC to promote canola in key markets identified by our board. The program has played a key role in helping lift canola oil's market share in the U.S. to 12%, making us the number two oil in the U.S. In fact, for every $1 invested in U.S. market development, we have seen an additional $1,000 of canola oil sales to the U.S. The program is also helping to promote canola meal in the U.S. and canola oil and its products in Mexico and India. We think we should build on this success by making sure that agriculture commodity promotion is a continued priority in GF2.

Number four is market access. Before we can promote canola in foreign markets, we need access. Today, high tariffs remain in some markets, but in addition to those, we face a wide range of non-tariff barriers. In the last year, for example, canola exports have been affected by concerns over imports of a crop disease to China, feed safety regulation in the U.S., and production sustainability standards in the U.S. and Europe. These are complex issues requiring expertise in science and technical knowledge, but also diplomacy and negotiation.

We applaud the establishment of the market access secretariat within AAFC. Their work, along with that of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and DFAIT, and the support of Minister Ritz on market access, has helped our farmers and industry maintain important markets in the last years. Increasingly, sustainability is a key consideration in promotion and market access. We are confident that canola will be grown in a sustainable fashion even as we increase production levels. We support having sustainability as a key pillar of Growing Forward 2.

Going forward, we recommend that the government implement a cost-shared program like agri-marketing, but focused on market access, which would feature a close, strategic partnership among farmers, industry, and government to maintain and build market access.

Number five, last but not least, is people. The canola industry needs the expertise and commitment of government staff in AAFC, DFAIT, the trade commissioner service, and the CFIA, as well as other departments. These people are important in terms of research and innovation, but also, many issues in international trade can only be resolved government to government. We encourage the government to support research and international efforts by supporting current staff in these departments and, when required, training new people to take their place.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to further discussion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

Thank you, Ms. Buth.

Mr. Brandle.

[Dr. Jim Brandle, Chief Executive Officer, Vineland Research and Innovation Centre]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the members for their interest and their invitation.

I'm here to speak for innovation, and I'm also here to speak for change. Since I wanted to talk about the future, I thought I would focus a bit on the past. If we think about agriculture, we should think that 10,000 years ago agriculture itself was an innovation. Over those 10,000 years, those innovations have sustained us as a species, and we're going to need innovation for another 10,000 years if we're going to be sustained.

At that point I start to think about what's the underlying philosophy of our innovation system here in this country, and I think to the Experimental Farm Stations Act of 1886 that set in motion the creation of the system we have today, to help the country transition from the fur trade to food production, to help all those settlers feed themselves through the winter. It was necessarily a paternalistic system in which new Canadians needed their hands held and they needed to be told what to do.

Obviously, times have changed, and we see very sophisticated innovation, structures, and pipelines, like the one on the Canola Council, but they don't exist everywhere in agriculture. I would wonder again about that act and if there isn't a new way forward. Although I wouldn't argue that it stands in our way, it certainly doesn't lead us into the future. I think we need to do innovation differently. Where we suffer right now is that we take too long. The public system of innovation takes forever. We have product cycles that are three years long, and we have an innovation system that takes 15 years to build. It doesn't work anymore. We have to innovate faster. So it's a very critical piece.

At the end of the day, I speak for horticulture largely. That's our area of interest. Horticulture is a $5.2 billion piece of Canada's agriculture economy. Horticulture is health and nutrition, exercise and healthy lifestyles, so it's fruits and vegetables, flowers and trees, and all those good things, and a lot of value added. It's very important for us. I think it's a place where we're losing ground, where you think about food sovereignty and you think about the importance of that. I don't think we want to get to the place in Canada where we can't grow our own apples anymore because we've lost the ability to do it; we've missed a generation.

That doesn't mean we have to put walls up to protect ourselves. We simply need to be better; we need to innovate faster. We need to have the right apple at the right price. How do we do that? We have to connect everybody together.

When I first came to Vineland--it was only four years ago; I worked a long time for Agriculture Canada and was challenged by this idea. When I started I was told that private sector research was right and public sector research was wrong. My job was then to go to the public sector and ask them for help. Anyway, I wasn't that receptive, as you could imagine, so I thought about that. I thought it was a false choice. It's not an either/or. The real truth is this: the private sector commercializes research really well and the public sector does research really well. So why not create an organization that does both? Out of that we created Vineland.

Vineland is a unique construct. We're an independent, not-for-profit organization, dedicated to research and innovation in horticulture. We're stakeholder driven. We're uniquely Canadian. What do we do in Canada when we have a level of public support here and a level of need or interest up here? We create not-for-profits. They run our minor soccer associations, they run our Canadian Diabetes Association, and the list goes on. That's how we solve problems.

With that you get stakeholder focus, not a single stakeholder but in this case a whole value chain. We work for the whole industry, and it goes all the way through to consumers. Those people really matter. What do people want, and what can we give them and how can we get it to them?

Our whole piece is really again to create this new system, to move from the old isolation model of science, where it's an individual researcher and you have to work really hard to lever them together into groups who work on their own, to a new connection model. I think I told Sylvain today that how we make our 60 people at Vineland into 6,000...you do it with partnerships. Through the cluster program, for example, we can reach all the way across the country, all the way to Kwantlen College in Langley, B.C., to Memorial University in Newfoundland to solve problems for our industry. So it's a great program and a great way to bring people together.

As far as a couple of reference experiences go, I have two things. Again, bringing organizations together.... The private sector is a key piece in this, because research organizations and producers...we do not do sales, marketing, service, or any of those things. You have to have everyone together in the whole value chain to make this work and they need to be part of the project, right from the beginning. Innovation is a pipeline, right? Your partners create the aperture. You want the best possible partners and the biggest possible pipe so you can move as much through as possible.

We work, for example, with Campbell's Soup, creating healthy mushrooms. Campbell's Soup is into positive nutrition. Campbell's Soup feeds a lot of people. They have enormous market penetration. If you want to shift the health status of the country, maybe you could get Campbell's Soup to feed people healthier foods. That's it: feeding diversity and recognizing opportunities.

Canada has changed in the last 50 years and you just need to look across the country to realize it. We get 1.1 million immigrants every five years. They mainly come to Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. They're mainly Chinese, Indian, Filipino, and Afro-Caribbean. For all of the time that they've been coming to Canada, they don't get the vegetables they want. So we feed them imported vegetables to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. All we've tried to do is to teach them to eat turnips and they don't like them.

So we launched a project, a very simple thing. We went out and asked them what they wanted. Out of that comes a list and out of that list comes an experiment. We can grow many of these vegetables. Certainly, in southern Ontario we have a wonderful climate. We have a huge market just across the lake from where we are and it all works, but you have to bring together the people who want to buy those things. You have to understand what they want. You need grocery retail; you need grocery distribution; you need science; and you need farmers. What happens? In two years, you have vegetables in the grocery stores. It doesn't fall into the hamster wheel of basic research. That runs for a long time before things come out.

I'll finish with a few things that I think are important. I've seen some of them in the Growing Forward strategy.

Consider investing in sector and subsector strategies. It's difficult when you're trying to work with producer organizations or with an industry if they don't know where they want to be. I think it's an important part of the program that those things become virtually a requirement. If you don't have a strategy, I wouldn't make the investment. You want to know where people can go. The greenhouse vegetable growers are a good example. They grow greenhouse vegetables for only nine months of the year, and they want to grow greenhouse vegetables for 12 months of the year. That's a simple strategy, and when you're a researcher you can immediately start to solve that problem, because you know what the issues are. It's energy, light, and varieties, and boom, you're working away.

Insist on innovation across the value table. Don't suggest it, but insist that if you can't see right to the end, why would you do it?

Foster better productivity. In horticulture, labour costs are very high. We mainly generate jobs that no one wants. We need to automate. I think we need to focus on the strength we have in our economy and move it into agriculture.

We have to focus on innovating faster. It's a simple thing: faster is the new fast. We have to catch up with everybody else; the world is passing us by.

Help build a new innovation system. The old system is fragmented, particularly in the area where I work. As it's contracted down from over 1,000 scientists to just over 400, there are great gaps and pockets. You can see that across the board, whether it's in universities, the government research system, or extension systems. How do we fix that? We need a new system. We need a stakeholder-focused system, one that's all about connecting those pieces together.

Then pay what it costs. That's a problem with an organization like ours: everyone wants to lever everybody else in the research business. Well, we're not leverable. If you want new organizations and new focused organizations, you have to pay what it costs.

With that I'll finish my talk. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

Thank you, Mr. Brandle.

Dr. Charlebois.

[Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today. So far, I'm quite pleased with the comments of my colleagues. I think we're in for a nice discussion afterwards.

Nationally and internationally, the food landscape is changing fast. Food security is a critical issue, not just for emerging markets but for a growing number of Canadians who are food insecure. Many around the world, including many Canadians, will live with a fixed income in years to come. Food price increases and the global economic downturn will make the concept of eating three healthy meals a day challenging for a great number of people, unfortunately.

The sustainability of agricultural production is by no means assured. In particular, the conservation of precious soil and water resources remains threatened worldwide. Climate change is having a significant impact on global food systems. Understanding both ends of the food continuum will be crucial for moving forward, especially when considering innovation and biotechnologies.

Food authenticity and provenance have been eroded by globalizing demands that threaten developing and ancient food cultures as well as choice for consumers worldwide. Many consumers feel uneasy and are reacting to a phenomenon that is barely comprehensible.

That is why we have seen a severe granulation or fragmentation of market demand. Organics, fair trade products, the 100-mile diet, and the ethical treatment of animals have all been getting significant market traction in the last five to 10 years. And who can blame this varied response to consumer demands? The trust between the food industry and consumers is slowly eroding in the minds of many consumers. Innovation in agriculture in our country has for many years been supply focused. Consumers have been barely part of the systemic equation when evaluating risks and perceptions.

Biotechnology, particularly the introduction of GMOs to our plates in the 1990s, is one of many examples in Canada. For years the biotechnology industry was obsessed with the idea of selling genetically modified seeds to farmers, without educating the consumers. We should have done things the other way around. We have no evidence that suggests that food with genetically engineered ingredients is a significant risk to the health of Canadians, but many believe it is so.

Innovation should also mean public awareness and education, and I believe universities, governments, and industry jointly have a role to play. As such, Growing Forward 2 should entice universities, governments, and industry to do the following things.

First, encourage partners, stakeholders, and communities to create a true relationship between industry and consumers—those who buy food in the end.

Second, develop a unique functional portal to food intelligence resources and research networks that would include farmers and consumers and allow them to better understand and appreciate longitudinal risks.

Third, leverage public engagement with intellectual property in our country and truly celebrate innovation and we should get a full understanding of what innovation means and what intellectual property means. As Canadians, we should embrace new biotechnology's intellectual property. As a nation, we currently don't value intellectual property, especially in agriculture and food, I'm afraid.

Significant changes in sources of research and development funding, in opportunities in science, in intellectual property rights, and in new technologies have been occurring since the 1990s. Some have large social impacts. As mentioned before, having encountered consumer resistance we need to look seriously at public-private sector linkages and their importance in generating value for agriculture, food, and research and development. A clear value proposition should be defined to allow consumers to embrace, value, and celebrate innovation and intellectual property generated in our country.

Canada is recognized as a nation that can design and create widgets, but we're not particularly good at selling widgets; that really seems to be the problem for us. Without this, the proper buy-in from consumers and global challenges in agriculture that will require innovative biotechnologies are going to be difficult to address efficiently and appropriately.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

You have another four minutes, but that's great.

[Dr. Sylvain Charlebois]

I'm looking forward to a discussion with the committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

So am I.

Those were extremely enriching and enlightening presentations. We're very pleased.

We'll now start our questioning, first with Ms. Papillon.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

First of all, I would like to thank you for coming. Your comments were very interesting in all respects.

We've talked a lot about the importance of investing in innovation and research, in particular. We've also talked about this problem that is not exclusive to agriculture, the issue of the transfer of knowledge to produce results, as Mr. Miville explained.

I was wondering whether each of you were considering any courses of action to enable us to invest in knowledge that would produce results more quickly.

Perhaps we could start with Mr. Miville.

[Claude Miville]

With regard to courses of action, it is important that the industry be able to mobilize on the basis of clear objectives. We therefore need to establish strategic planning and to determine where we want to go. We have to mobilize researchers to make the breakthroughs we need.

The industry is mobilized, but we have to focus on the type of research findings because research findings are not transferred in the same way. If you develop a new vaccine or animal feed product, intellectual property is involved and royalties are paid. A contract is signed and a licence is granted. This type of transfer can be done quickly, if everything in the area of intellectual property is clear and the approval mechanisms and regulations facilitate matters.

There are other types of innovations that do not immediately generate marketable benefits for a seller of inputs or products. The strategies in that instance are different.

Consequently, from the moment we agree on a research orientation or on the findings we want to reach, we must immediately establish our transfer strategies to ensure we recover them to the maximum degree.

There's no single answer for that. However, partners have to be mobilized. We need people around the table who will be able to generate that knowledge—the scientists—and also people who know how to transfer it quickly and who know the tools we need.

That can only be done if information is shared within the context of a structure, if the communication among the various partners is good and if people are seated around the same table.

That, I believe, is what we're trying to do with the scientific cluster approach. It facilitates research.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

I'm going to pick up on that. I'd like you to tell me about the strategic framework entitled Growing Forward. You seemed to say it was very good for you. However, do you have any minor criticisms to make?

[Claude Miville]

The criticisms we would like to state concern all the new programs that are implemented, because the standards and rules have to be learned. That comes with time. The results we've managed to achieve and the potential this tool offers are what count above all. There are no real criticisms on the mechanics as such. I'm convinced that minor adjustments will be made as a result of the experience. The important thing is for us to take advantage of the momentum. There has been a quite interesting degree of adherence, of sharing. We've put the Centre de développement du porc du Québec Inc. in touch with the Prairie Swine Centre. These two organizations realized that they were complementary and were reinforcing one another. That's what has to be emphasized: we don't know each other.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's researchers have access to research programs specific to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. However, with a scientific cluster, we don't fit conventional funding models. We're getting these people to think differently and to share information. We're looking for solutions, which means that a number of stakeholders are meeting around a single table for that purpose.

In short, the program I mentioned to you has potential. To take maximum advantage of the momentum, we have to maintain continuity. However, we must have much more funding so that we can meet the demand that has been created.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

That's very good. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

Your time is up at this point. Thank you.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

First let me say thank you for your presence, particularly on short notice. The committee is always faced with the dilemma of wanting to get started with its public meetings, but the first meetings at least leave you, the invitees, with very short notice. I thank you for that.

This is a very important matter.

I had the privilege of attending the swine cluster board meeting less than a month ago. I had a chance to meet Claude and to partake in their discussions.

I like the comments you have made, that you have found the cluster type of format to be new, to be sure, but that there are many advantages, in that it seems to be integrating many different aspects of the science and innovation strength across the country so that there is less stove-piping and more collaborative efforts.

I wanted to ask this particularly. Perhaps, Claude, you might be able to elaborate on this. In terms of improvements for the future, you might be able to elaborate on a few of the things that you really like with regard to how things are operating now, and perhaps you also might be able to elaborate on some of the potential changes you would recommend as we are looking forward into Growing Forward 2.

[Claude Miville]

Thank you very much.

I would first suggest more flexibility in this program.

What is important for us, for the industry, is to develop a project or research portfolio with some very short-term research that we need to solve some specific issues. We also need a long-term vision so that we can do research, the results of which will be longer term.

We can have this flexibility. For example, a three-year program was in fact a five-year program because it took one year and more...one year to plan the program, and so on. The next phase will be five years. We think maybe it will be five years or seven years.

What would be interesting is when you sign an agreement with a cluster you could say, “You can use 60% or 75% of your funds on projects that are already very well defined.” In the course of a program, before two, three or four years, it would perhaps be much more efficient to be able to switch a part of these funds to do research on something new and very interesting should the opportunity come up.

The point is to have more flexibility between the clusters and also a bigger emphasis on the transfer, because we know it takes time to generate research results. It also takes time to be sure that we are efficient in using it. We have to use it in the fastest way we can, so with this kind of flexibility it could be easy to achieve. Finally, it could make better and more efficient use of the money that we want from Parliament, especially since it is public money. It is also private money. We have many private partners who invest with us in this.

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

Can you explain some of that to me? First of all, it underlines that there's a partnership between public and private interests and finances. But just explain to me how the cluster manages the money it receives. It receives public funding and it receives some private funding. You see a project that you like, which you would like to fund; it's a multi-year project because it's in science and innovation, or perhaps longer term. Is the project cost-shared right at the beginning, until its end? Are you able to say that your overall budget is a certain amount and you're going to allocate it that much money? Do you have any flexibility right now to say, for example, that in year three of the program something just came up and you want to fund that kind of research? Do you have that flexibility now?

[Claude Miville]

No. In fact, when we did our first exercise, we invited all the scientific community to submit proposals, and we received more than 50 proposals. Of those proposals, we chose 14 of them. We go through a science advisory body process, and those scientists who are not involved in the project told us that maybe this project is less interesting, or the risk is higher, or the benefits are less, and maybe we should do something else.

We submit all our requests for proposals, for projects, to AAFC, and our scientific advisory body told us that maybe we should do another request for proposals to add on some other specific project that could be more interesting. So we said to the scientific advisory body, “That's good, we really appreciate your comments, and maybe we'll try to do it”. But when we went to do this we were told, “No, I'm sorry, guys, you submitted a proposal with those 14 projects and you cannot do anything else”.

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

Was it because you used up all the funding?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

I'm sorry, but your time is up, Mr. Lemieux.

I'm going to leave the chair to simply ask a few questions myself, and I'm going to ask Mr. Lobb to take the chair.

Do you mind if I just stay here and ask the question?