Agriculture Committee on Oct. 20th, 2011

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

If you could, give us some examples within your faculty in which you've had partnerships with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or where you've had them with industry and have had some tangible results. I guess that's the question.

[Dr. Michael Trevan]

Probably the most well-known one is the relationship between one of our biosystems engineers and entomologists from Agriculture Canada around grain storage.

Grain storage is a big issue in a lot of the world. China loses more grain in storage each year than Canada produces. What these scientists together have done is develop a life-sized grain bin that can model the environmental condition for the movement and infestation of insects in grain in any environment in the world. This has become so successful that it's now being copied by the Chinese and the Indians, and the Ukrainians are also interested in this particular model.

This would only have happened because of the unique ability of these scientists to work together across that sort of institutional boundary. We could do it partly because the Agriculture Canada cereal research station where the entomologists were employed was on our campus.

[Dr. Karin Wittenberg]

We have some other models within the functional food and nutraceutical area. Both the Richardson Centre, which has Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada scientists and technical staff working within the centre, and the Canadian Centre for Agri-food Research in Health and Medicine, CCARM, where we have professors and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada scientists working together, have been developing new products. They have been attracting significant industry interest, and not just local but national and international industry interest and investment.

It is our ability to develop that critical mass of expertise to carry out some of these larger programs that is the underpinning of the success there.

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

My next question is for you two as well.

Moving forward, let's say hypothetically that there are increased dollars within the next phase of Growing Forward for science and innovation, which would probably mean there would be more projects in collaboration with industry, producers, and academia, can you or how do you handle the increased labour requirements among your researchers and professors? How does the faculty build the bench strength to do that? And what period of time does it take to be able to handle an increase in dollars and projects?

The problem is that if there is an influx or increase in dollars, the last thing we'd want is to have the universities come back saying they don't have the bench strength for the next couple of years to handle the projects.

[Dr. Karin Wittenberg]

We're going to be announcing a $3 million project shortly in livestock and forage research. I can tell you that one of the ways that we have been starting to cope with it is by bringing in research coordinators. These are people who can help at the front end to bring the teams together to discuss what might be a good research program and strategy. These same people, once the funding comes in, help coordinate the carrying out of that research across the various disciplines or institutions. We have gone as far as Texas to get the research done in compliance with the goals of the program and the specific project. If there's some support for good coordination, it can help a great deal in getting work done in a timely fashion.

The second thing is the difficulties with modern accounting requirements—dealing with last-minute changes. This is something we also have difficulty with. Longer-term programs are probably the best solution. Generally, it's defined sums of money, and often the decisions about that money don't happen until the 11th hour, which is year four of a five-year program, or year three of a five-year program. The effectiveness with which the dollars are used is then an issue.

[Dr. Michael Trevan]

May I add to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You may, very briefly.

[Dr. Michael Trevan]

I think the research capacity exists, and without wishing to sound flippant, it is the case that money speaks. Our research scientists are continually applying for research grants. If there is one that is particularly attractive, they will go for that one rather than another. The capacity is there; the question is whether the money is there to buy that capacity.

In some places it worries me that the capacity isn't there, which is why we are investing in entomology. We foresee that in a few years' time, as some of the senior entomologists retire, there will be a void in the new set of professional entomologists. We have about the only program training graduate entomologists left in Canada. We have the only department of entomology left in Canada. There are some areas where if you came and offered us $10 million for entomology, to be spent any way we want, we might have some difficulty finding the capacity to do so.

Mind you, I wouldn't object.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you. We have run out of time.

I would like to thank the witnesses for taking the time to appear before us. Your testimony has been valuable. Good luck in your work.

Mr. Sardinha, I hope your crops are good and you get them off.

[Joe Sardinha]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks to everybody. We'll take a break now before we move on to our next witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We're ready to roll again.

Ms. Buhr and Mr. Boon, thank you for being with us here today.

I want to remind the witnesses that our study right now is in science and innovation, so I would ask you to stick to that topic.

First of all, we'll go to Ms. Buhr from the University of Saskatchewan.

[Dr. Mary Buhr, Dean and Professor, College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee.

I was in Ottawa for a meeting earlier this week that was looking at the future of animal agriculture to serve the food needs of the world and Canada, so it was a delight to be able to stay over and come and join you personally. It's good to see you here.

I wanted to start off by talking about what I see as the major issues facing Canadian agriculture and then move from there into some of the things that I think Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada might best address.

There's really little question that a major issue facing not just Canadian agriculture but global agriculture is food security for the future. Define food security however you want, but it's basically physical and economic accessibility to safe nutritious food: meet dietary needs, meet food preferences, and provide enough for active and healthy lives. We look at the issue of food security in the face of what is known to be the growing world population. We reach seven billion this month. We're expected to reach nine billion by somewhere between 2040 and 2050. Various projections go well beyond that in the years past that. We have to be able to feed not just those people but our own people as well, and basically the estimates are that we have to increase food production by at least 70% more than what we're doing now—170% more food in 40 years from now. That's enormous. It's terrifying. And at best, 10% of that can come from increasing arable land. There's just simply not enough arable land in the world to do that.

Of the seven billion people we've got now, 1.3 billion are known to be seriously malnourished and/or starving, and a reasonable proportion of those are in our own communities, as was mentioned earlier, in our remote communities, our northern communities, and in our inner cities and around. So when we address food security, we are addressing things that matter to our own peoples as well, and that makes it really, really critical to face these kinds of issues.

On top of needing 170% more food, we've got to do that and manage the environment better, because we're not doing a particularly good job right now. So that means we have to be more ecologically sensitive. We have to have more environmentally sustainable practices. We have to make more than just food from renewable products. We have to do feed, fibre, energy, plastics, anything and everything, nutraceuticals, cosmeceuticals—I can never say that word. We have to look at all of these kinds of products that have to come from renewable resources in a world where water is becoming incredibly limited and we don't want to have any additional problems with more pollution.

How are we going to do that? Again, the problems become almost terrifying. We have the moral imperative to feed the world and look after our environment better. We have the moral imperative to look after our own Canadian population better. Moral imperative is one thing; it sounds good. But practically speaking, it's no doubt that food insecurity—inadequate access to good food and clean water—is absolutely a cause of social unrest and huge instability. It probably was one of the leading factors that actually got the people in Egypt on the streets, and it goes beyond that.

So there's the ethical reason, there's the political reason, but if we're really, really practical, there's a third reason to look at this issue. If we can significantly increase what we're doing, it's going to make our producers and our country an enormous profit, in terms of our already highly lucrative exports of agricultural products and of our research and development. So there are some very, very black and white reasons that we need to go ahead with this.

If one major issue that we're facing is food security or food insecurity, the second one that compounds it is climate variation.

The estimates in the world again are that the climate is changing. Most people will agree and most good science will agree that it's warming, but you don't need to believe in that to look at the storms, to look at the rainfall, to look at the droughts in Texas, where they didn't get rain for how many months, to look at the changes around the world and to know that we need to be able to adapt to huge variations in the environment in which we are growing food and in which agriculture is going to be operating.

I think you only have to look at the Arctic to recognize that something is very, very different, and we have to be prepared to deal with that. The flip side of that one is that if we adapt our practices and our products to a wide variety of climates, we're not only addressing our own immediate needs in our own country, but again that climate exists now somewhere around the world and we can sell it. Isn't that right? It's something that we can export and that we can be doing that will make a difference.

Again, water is a limiting factor. Biodiversity is something we need to protect.

The third one I wanted to speak about just a little bit is policy. There's very little doubt that a major issue facing Canadian agriculture is policy for agricultural regulations and the science innovation side of it. In all of the most recent statements on science and innovation that have come from the federal government, there is no mention of the word “agriculture”. We speak of science and innovation, and occasionally we will speak about commercialization and occasionally we will speak about environment, but the word “agriculture” is not there. And when you remove the word “agriculture” from that front face, you are essentially saying that agriculture as it exists, from taking that high-powered science and making it ultimately applicable, that range, is not important. It is not saying to the world that Canada is standing up and supporting agricultural science and innovation for the future. We will talk about science and innovation, but agriculture gets lost. I think that's a huge signal that we don't want to support, at least from my point of view, and I'm biased. There are lots of other policy issues, but you get the basics.

The other thing that I really wanted to speak to you about in a very focused way is the need for high-quality people. High-quality personnel are hugely important. We need the trained people to go out into industry and to go out onto our farms and to go out into our businesses and to come into our educational institutions.

So what should Agriculture Canada be doing about all of this? Agriculture Canada should focus on the long-term, expensive, slow research that neither universities nor industry can really undertake effectively. There are aspects of animal and plant breeding...looking at novel species that will be used in new or challenged environments. There is something called life-cycle analysis. There is something called nutrigenomics--looking at nutrition that's dedicated to how your genetics work.

Agriculture Canada should also be very involved in collaborative R and D and the development of highly qualified people. Certainly the lessons from the cluster need to be there. We need to be collaborative in a wide variety of ways and reduce barriers, as people have already said.

Thirdly, Agriculture Canada needs to be there fighting to promote policies and regulations that support desirable industry practices: rules-based trade; standards for practices that promote sustainability and standards that promote health, whether that's personal or ecosystem health; and safety of food and peoples.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Boon, in 10 minutes or less....

[Kevin Boon, General Manager, British Columbia Cattlemen's Association]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present here. My presentation might become a little shorter here for the simple reason that I had added a portion on business risk management, and I'll remove that as you're dealing with science and innovation. I will restrict it, and it will be in the written part or if questions need to be asked.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I appreciate it. If you want to forward us that in hard copy, in both languages, that can be distributed at a later date. So thank you very much.

[Kevin Boon]

Thank you very much.

Despite the challenges of the last eight years, the beef industry remains one of the biggest generators of gate cash receipts in Canada. In 2010, cattle-calf receipts in Canada totalled over $6 billion, with beef production contributing $24.6 billion. Of this, B.C.'s portion of the Canadian herd is about 4.5%.

While it is very important that we recognize the economic input of the beef industry, consideration also must be given to the contribution made by producers who are the stewards of the land. In B.C., beef production utilizes about 85% of the available agricultural land base of 25 million hectares. Society depends on clean environment and fresh water. As long-term stewards of the land, our producers continue to bear this responsibility.

Regional differences also need to be a focal point. While we recognize and realize that Growing Forward 2 is being designed as a federal program with provincial and territorial partnerships, it needs to be understood that regional differences prohibit a one-size-fits-all program. Ranching in B.C., for example, presents unique challenges and benefits that distinguish it from the Prairies. Programs need to have enough flexibility to enable a province or territory the ability to tailor programs to adapt and compensate for these differences.

In some of our requests for Growing Forward 2, these are some of the things we feel need to be looked at under environment, animal health, and on-farm food safety program investment. Research and development of programs designed to protect the health of the Canadian herd as well as on-farm food safety programs and environmental protection and enhancement are important for the new Growing Forward. However, research is not enough. Programs need to provide the opportunity to be implemented in a cost-effective manner as well.

Farmers and ranchers are responsible for being caretakers of a large part of Canada's lands. Resources for conservation programming and management tools need to be established so that ranchers have a better ability to continue to maintain and enhance the grassland's ecosystems as well as improve biodiversity, conservation, and wildlife habitat. More and more the public is demanding environmentally sustainable food production, and there is no doubt that much of the responsibility to meet the demand falls on the producer. However, the public must be prepared to compensate these producers for financial losses caused by wildlife.

Incentives for best management practices need to be rewarded, not taxed. B.C. currently has a carbon tax, but no other province has, and there's no incentive for sequestration. Taxes imposed in one province and not in others create disparities in costs of production, which create competitive issues. We feel very strongly that this is where the research and the programs in carbon initiatives need to be closely looked at in a combined effort on a national basis as we go forward.

Environment, clean water, on-farm food safety, and animal welfare practices in Canada are marketable assets for trade and need to have sufficient resources to utilize in foreign and domestic markets.

The accessibility to funds needs to be simple. Currently, Growing Forward programs are often so restrictive that they are not used efficiently or meaningfully. There needs to be less red tape and more common sense applied.

Multi-year funding for projects and programs needs to be applied. When budgetary deadlines are imposed, projects do not reap the same benefits for industry. The value of the project cannot be jeopardized by having to meet a deadline that will restrict its outcome. Multi-year funding needs to be available, especially for research and AgriFlex-style initiatives.

On investment in research and regulatory improvements and market development, we have three points that we'd like to put forward.

Number one, research funding must be included as part of the next Growing Forward initiative. A national checkoff study conducted in March 2010 showed that for every dollar invested in research, there is a $46 return. Many of the present Growing Forward criteria impose reporting timelines that dictate research rather than the project carrying out the most important work. Increased flexibility could ensure that the research is able to be conducted in a seamless manner.

Regulations are one aspect of our industry that are necessary to ensure the safety and marketability of our product, but they need to be implemented with great care and consideration. In the past we have seen how creating and implementing regulations that are more onerous than those in other countries and jurisdictions limit our competitiveness. To compete in both domestic and world markets, we must be careful not to put ourselves in a position through regulations that limit our competitiveness. It is easier to create a regulation than to change or eliminate it, and therefore science and common sense must dictate any implementation.

Market development, both foreign and domestic, requires coordinated and cooperative collaboration. Government needs to continue its aggressive role in opening markets and remain diligent in negotiating meaningful access with minimal restrictions and regulations based on science, not politics. Once access to markets is available, industry has the ability to expand on these, but often resources are a limiting factor. Trade within and outside our border is crucial for the long-term sustainability of the beef industry in Canada. Recognizing that the beef industry is a major contributor to the Canadian economy, it is in government's best interest to continue to invest in the industry's future.

In summary, when looking at how best to design the next Growing Forward, it is imperative that consideration be given to the increasing importance of food production in the coming decades. Growing populations around the world will dictate food demands to fewer nations able to produce more than they consume.

Canada needs to continue its enviable position of producing more food than we consume. Growing populations will result in fewer nations in this category. For this reason alone, agriculture will become one of the world's most sought after resources, making it an even larger economic driver for Canada. Without profitability for Canadian farmers and ranchers, foreign ownership of agricultural lands will become an increasing reality.

The programs designed through the Growing Forward initiative must create stability for those producing the food. We urge you to use common sense in national program development, reduce the red tape and regulations, and have a clear vision of where Canada wants to be as a supplier of food products throughout the world.

Government alone cannot develop these programs but must have an open relationship with industry to allow meaningful input that is both listened and adhered to.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We will now move to Mr. Rousseau for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for Dr. Buhr.

I'm sorry if I mispronounced your name.

The European Union has a strategic agricultural plan to increase production using half the resources. Clearly, innovation will have to be at the very core of the new Growing Forward plan.

Do you think that Canada could turn to the European plan for inspiration, and do we have the necessary resources at this time to reach such a level of agricultural effectiveness as regards the environment and productivity?

[Dr. Mary Buhr]

Canada has the ability. One of the things that was stated carefully and clearly at the conference I was at was that we could readily increase productivity and efficiency of production to meet food needs. Whether or not the food can be efficiently distributed and whether or not we can make all the differences we need to make, we still don't know for certain.

Different crops and products are at different levels of efficiency now. For instance, when we look at GMO crops that are resistant to herbicides or pesticides, we see that we can produce more crop in the same amount of land with less pesticide and herbicide because of those genetics. So these things are all very intertwined.

The other thing we should be focusing on, something that I think we at AAFC and the rest of the research community can work on together, is decreasing waste. There's about 30%, best estimate, of foodstuffs that are wasted, whether it's through losses in harvest, losses during storage, or losses during processing. If we can reduce that loss due to wastage, we will increase automatically the amount of foodstuffs that are available. So we're increasing our efficiency by doing nothing other than harvesting, storing, and processing foods more efficiently. These are some of the things that, if we focus on them, can have a significant effect.

The other efficiency that we have to be careful of when we're dealing with any of these things has to do with food safety. When we're storing food, we're not just storing it and keeping it; it has to keep its nutritional quality, and it has to be safe and healthy. It's a multi-faceted problem. The best minds say we can do it if that's our purpose.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Boon, what type of science innovation was helpful for the cattle industry in the past years? Did Growing Forward help in any way?

[Kevin Boon]

Yes, it did. Most of our research has been done and organized at the national level with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association through the science cluster. There's been an awful lot of research. We need only look to BSE--I refuse to call it mad cow in public because she wasn't mad, she was only a little angry. If it were not for Canada's getting BSE, if it were not for Canada's science and research, the world would still be probably 10 years behind. It was we who brought the science to the table to prove that this disease is not the serious human health issue it was originally proclaimed to be. It's that type of research and science generated right here in Canada that has changed the entire world in this aspect.

Unfortunately, that science hasn't been adhered to in trade. This is where that crossover needs to be made. When research and science take place and show that there is a better mechanism, we have to make sure we aren't penalized in trade issues.

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

Ms. Buhr, what can we do about climate change, about science and climate change? Is there any way to forecast impacts in different regions?

[Dr. Mary Buhr]

It would be wonderful if we could, and I think this is the science and technology that the meteorologists and other scientists need to work on. Quite frankly, the best we can do is come up with more ways to adapt to varying climates so that we can have more crops, better practices, different kinds of animal species that are better adapted to a wider variety of climates. This way we can have options and tools to use no matter what kind of climate we end up with.

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

Do you have anything else, Mr. Boon, on that subject?