Agriculture Committee on Oct. 6th, 2011

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Unfortunately, Pierre stole a little of my thunder. That was the question I was going to finish with the first time. It was government's involvement, but we'll take it a little further.

We talk about government's involvement, and I guess to have that gap, but you said it was to facilitate that and maybe build a framework for it. I wanted to know if you know of any examples in the world where this is the case, where they're already doing it well, something we can learn from, where governments play that role. Are there any that you know about?

[Dr. Jim Brandle]

The British have a pretty good food policy you could have a look at. It's very good. And New Zealand.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Can you give a reason why? We have a few minutes, if you can explain.

[Dr. Jim Brandle]

Well, it's the only one, so what do we have to compare it with? It's the only one I've read anyway, the British one. It's simply clarity, that's all, and you can see that underneath now the European Union and their ag research committee have created more clarity around looking at food policy. Their stated goal now is they want twice as much with half the inputs by 2030. How are we going to do it? Boy, then you have to set research goals that can spread across every commodity and every animal.

It's the only one I've read, so I don't have anything to compare it with, Mr. Zimmer, but I felt it was a very bold and brave thing that they did, and it was open-minded as well, I thought.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

England has one and Scotland has one, I've read. It's fascinating.

Ms. Buth.

[JoAnne Buth]

Jim and I actually participated in the same process, the CAPI process, the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, on linking food to health, because there is not a clear linkage there in consumer minds and also in the medical community minds. So as the health accord comes up for renewal and as we were looking at Growing Forward 2, we spent quite a bit of time trying to develop a path forward for food and health policy, and we could only get so far.

I think we did okay, but it was extremely difficult with the people around the table. We kept going in circles. I'm not too sure why, looking back on it, but we could not come to consensus in terms of where we needed to go.

[Dr. Sylvain Charlebois]

Looking at food policies and vision, for the countries that do have a clear vision--Britain, New Zealand--there's a common denominator for all of them. They've gone through major food crises.

The message I would convey to this committee today is that we shouldn't wait for a major crisis to hit us before we actually provide ourselves with a vision.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

We still have time. Does anyone else want to answer?

Mr. Zimmer, do you have any more questions?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I guess to say that it's refreshing to hear, because it appeared that you were looking to us for an answer for this, or to be the lead role in it, but you've now answered that. It's quite the opposite, and it's refreshing, because we have a role--

[Dr. Sylvain Charlebois]

We do trust you.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Yes, good. We're not God.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

Mr. Lobb, you had a question.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

A quick question while you're here. I might as well ask it, though I know everybody wants to get home for the day.

Much of what we heard today was about the seed and the molecular structure of the seed and the innovation there, and with the partnerships and clusters. Are any of the partnerships with any machinery manufacturers or equipment manufacturers to improve their end? I understand where you focused today, but I'm interested as well in how that partnership works and does that fall within the context of Growing Forward 2 and the science and innovation.

[Dr. Jim Brandle]

In horticulture, if I might speak for horticulture, it's absolutely critical.

Our big problem is labour cost. Most of the labour—or a lot of it—is offshore labour, and it's not sustainable in the long run. As situations get better in the countries we draw labour from, they'll be less likely to come, so we need to automate.

I think the machinery piece is around productivity, right? We have productivity problems throughout the country in many of our industries. In agriculture, it's particularly significant.

I think about robots. I hate to get down into the details, but robots are pretty cool. Robots are smart; machines are stupid. There's a lot we can do to drive cost, certainly out of horticulture, where there are loads and loads of hand labour, by using robotics. We've got great strength in the country in manufacturing robots.

This situation recently has allowed those guys to.... They're thinking about other options right now instead of building cars. So I think there's lots to be done with equipment and machinery and automation that shouldn't be left behind that speaks directly to productivity.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Frank Valeriote]

Mr. Brandle, thank you. You've had the final word. That brings the meeting to a conclusion.

I want to thank all the witnesses again for sharing their valuable time with us. I wish each of you and the entire committee a wonderful Thanksgiving.

The committee is adjourned.