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.
4:15 p.m.
An hon. member
Yes, just stay there and ask your questions.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
All right. Thank you.
I'm going to start at the other end asking questions. I've had some opportunities, as others on the committee have had, to go across Canada to research facilities. Over the summer I had opportunities to speak to many in Guelph, in the clusters and at the university. I'm acutely aware of the fact that there is some marvellous innovation and research going on, but a lot of our innovation is being exported. My concern is the commercialization, the turning of all these wonderful ideas into products and jobs, and their being sold here in Canada. We just lack the money to do that.
What came to my mind were things like flow-through shares and other incentives that the government might introduce to spark the industry and get it going. I'm wondering, Dr. Charlebois, if you could speak to us about that--commercialization.
4:15 p.m.
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
I don't necessarily think we lack the money; we just lack the will. If we do it right, we'll generate even more growth and wealth to support the industry. If we're able to connect supply and demand properly, we'll generate the growth we need to make our agricultural economy more prosperous.
Just going back to my comment about intellectual property, in Canada I don't think we actually understand what that means. I know that a few months ago PotashCorp had a hostile takeover bid from BHP Billiton, and the government at the time deemed that it was a strategic asset. But it was potash and it wasn't going to leave; it was going to stay here in Canada, whereas other companies have been bought out with licences. Right now, RIM, which is close to Guelph, has patents, and a lot of people are afraid that perhaps that knowledge can actually be bought out by another company elsewhere around the world. I don't think we actually appreciate the book value of what intellectual property is.
I do certainly agree with your comment on commercialization. We don't know how to market products in Canada. We try to always adopt a supply side of commercialization, whereas we need to connect both.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
What do you see as the solution, then, to that commercialization?
4:20 p.m.
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
I think the solution is to replicate Vineland's model, but across the board, not only in horticulture. I've been to Vineland. I think it is a model that actually works, and it should be expanded.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Frank Valeriote
There is an innovation centre in Guelph that started, and I know the many comments I've heard, for instance, from Dave Smardon at Bioenterprise.... And I don't mean to take issue with you, but people are afraid to invest. You're right, the money's there, but there seems not to be the incentive to invest or the models through which private people like myself and others would want the opportunity to invest in all of this great innovation.
I'm wondering, Mr. Brandle, if you could speak to that.
4:20 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Vineland Research and Innovation Centre
Again, I think success breeds success, of course. We have to bring confidence. You have to have systems in place that de-risk it in a way.
I think largely there's a lack of investment as well, just to speak to the amount of value that's trapped in the ivory tower. The Conference Board gives us a D in innovation, and that's because we're great at science and we're poor at translation, and that translation piece is all about a gap. There's no hand-off. So part of the deal in innovating faster is the stop and go problem.
I'm a basic scientist. I invent something. I write a manuscript, it gets published, and I go back to my laboratory. And there's nothing wrong with that. That's what that job is. But we don't have systems and organizations in place that take the hand-off, that are there effectively scouting for opportunities, and they're the folks who move it one level further. In many cases, that innovation isn't ready yet for commerce. It's not ready yet for investment.
So there are more steps in between, and therein lies the gap. If you're working in a straight public system where everyone's boat floats and you give things away, it's very easy. But to be strategic about innovation takes a lot more thought, and I think what we lack is organizations that sit as we do in this space between upstream research and the hand-off, either at the farm gate or the grocery store or into your fridge. So the piece that's missing in the system is connecting research with innovation.
Innovation is the act of doing something with a research outcome. It's invention taken to practice. So that part of it is the piece that I think we need to invest in most and where we need to get good. Where indeed we did have a system back in the 1880s that functioned very much that way, the whole pipeline existed. It still exists in many of our plant breeding programs, but it doesn't exist elsewhere.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Yes, a question for Dr. Charlebois. You had mentioned your three items and you said “true relationship”. What do you mean by that?`
I have three parts to my question, so do you want to take all three?
4:20 p.m.
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
True relationship--relationship means understanding. Do farmers try to understand consumers more and more? But it's not enough. I've been meeting farmers around the country, I've been on panels, and the comments I get at times are quite backward looking.
We are in a market-driven economy. We operate within a global economy. That's a reality. We have to accept it. We have to define what is our competitive advantage as a nation when it comes to agriculture and food. I don't think we've actually had that discussion.
One thing I would suggest for Growing Forward 2 is to actually better define what that competitive advantage is for our nation. Are we going to have to pick and choose at some point? What are the industries that we want to nurture and support? I think we need to have a debate, because at some point we can't be good at everything.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
I understand now.
You also gave a negative...an example of what climate change has done to our food supply. I wanted to know if you had at least one or two examples of that.
4:25 p.m.
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
I didn't say negative; I just said changes.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
What effect would global climate change have on our food supply? Do you have one or two examples of that?
4:25 p.m.
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
Irrigation is certainly an obvious one. Out west, on the Prairies, obviously there are some water issues. Climate is a factor that has been affecting crops and yields over the last 10 or 20 years. That trend will continue.
Climate change does offer some opportunities as well. We'll have more and more land to grow fruit, vegetables, and wine. Different products are being developed right now because the climate is friendlier to those kinds of commodities. We couldn't develop them 50 years ago.
We need to consider how that will influence our country as a trade-focused country.
We do trade. The majority of our dollars are based on trade. We have to accept that. What can we sell abroad that would allow our farmers to make a good living? I suspect that in many different industries there are factors related to climate that can either help or not help their positioning.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, As an Individual
I try to be as short as possible with my answers.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
I have a question for Dr. Brandle, the same question we talked about before. How do you see government, in our role here on committee, making that work better? You said there is a disconnect between the scientist and the farmer or the consumer.
4:25 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Vineland Research and Innovation Centre
Particularly the consumer.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
It's one thing to say this is a problem, but what would you suggest we do to make that better?
4:25 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Vineland Research and Innovation Centre
Given that you hold the purse strings, it's just a question of the way you structure programs. You need to insist on the connection. It's like insisting on a strategy: If you don't have a strategy, I don't think we can really fund your program; we don't know where you're going to go.
Within those programs, you say if you can't see a Canadian buying that product or an export market for it, or whatever it is, then you question why we do this. It need not be lip service, but real relationships all along the value chain. You do it by insisting it's an element of the program. You're going to fund it; you're going to have every piece put together so you can measure an outcome.
