Agriculture Committee on Oct. 25th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll call our meeting to order.

We are continuing our study on Growing Forward 2, particularly in regard to innovation.

But first, I was wondering if Pierre could answer the following for us. The clerk has been trying to get the department here. We have them pencilled in for November 3. We've had three or four different dates, and they've been unable to come so far. It's getting very difficult to book witnesses, and what have you, and I just wondered if you could comment on that.

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

I can't. My last discussions confirmed that the department would be available, but I can't say on what date. I left that to the clerk to work out with the department. If there's been a conflict, I imagine that the debate on the Wheat Board has probably been occupying a good portion of their time.

You're saying November 3. I'll have a look at that and find out if it will work or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We only need them for a couple of hours out of their day.

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

I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

With that, we'll move to our first slate of witnesses. From the University of Guelph, we have Mr. Peter Pauls. And by video conference from Saskatoon, we have Mr. Franck Groeneweg, director at the Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission. Welcome to both of you.

Mr. Pauls, we'll turn it over to you.

[Dr. K. Peter Pauls, Professor and Chair, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to you about the issues raised by the Growing Forward 2 discussion paper, from my position as chair of the plant agriculture department at the University of Guelph.

I'll begin by giving a thumbnail sketch of the department. We're one of six departments in the Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph. Our department consists of 33 faculty, 40 permanent staff, 60 contract staff, and 110 graduate students. We have over 20 scientists from various organizations, including Agriculture Canada, associated with us as adjunct faculty. We have a staff member from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs or OMAFRA, co-located in our building. In addition, we have an Agriculture Canada scientist located in the crop science building. We believe this is a model for closer cooperation with Agriculture Canada in the future.

We teach students in the Bachelor of Science in Agriculture and the Bachelor of Science in Plant Biology and also students pursuing a two-year diploma in turfgrass management. Areas of emphasis for our graduate program are plant physiology, genetics, breeding, crop production, management, and soon, biotechnology. Our research interests are grouped around plant breeding, crop production, molecular and cellular biology as they relate to agricultural trades and, most recently, bioproducts. The crops we run breeding programs for include soybeans, corn, cereals, forage legumes, dry beans, asparagus, native flowers, strawberries, nut crops, and food crops.

The department is an active participant in research contracts, particularly with OMAFRA. Of the university envelope of about $120 million a year, the department brings in about $12 million. This research is conducted in more than 10 field stations with multiple soil types and heat zones.

Our laboratories are equipped for studies in plant physiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, genomics, bioinformatics, pathology, and biomaterials, and we have a range of specialized facilities, including large growth chambers, extensive greenhouses, a transgenic greenhouse, a post-harvest facility, the Turfgrass Institute, an organic garden, and the Bioproducts Discovery and Development Centre. Our strategic plan indicates that our core purpose is to improve life through innovative science and teaching.

I'd like to frame some of my specific comments on the Growing Forward document with a general perspective on agriculture first. In southern Ontario, we're very aware of the tension between urban expectations for our food supply and the realities of farming competing globally on the basis of price and quality. Everything that a farmer does is under close scrutiny. Urbanites have rediscovered the food on their plates but have little appreciation for the science, technology, regulatory framework, and infrastructure involved in getting food to local markets, and to restaurants, supermarkets, food processors, and international markets. The knowledge gap is building mistrust and leading to a real possibility that new technologies will not be employed in the future to meet the impending global food production challenges.

The impression that agriculture is a niche business of a minority amounting to the 2% of the population that is involved in primary agriculture is a fallacy. In fact, agriculture has been characterized as the backbone of a strong and healthy Canada by the president and CEO of Farm Credit Canada, Greg Stewart. He indicated that it's one of the country's top five industries, contributing $130 billion to our economy each year and providing one in eight jobs.

The fallacy that agriculture is an activity that engages only a small minority of Canadians hurts agricultural business in a number of ways. It inhibits serious agricultural policy discourse at the highest levels. It inhibits investment in agricultural research and business, a concern noted in the Growing Forward document. It limits the career choices of our young people and leads to shortages in skilled labour and lost opportunities for Canadian-educated workers.

The introduction to the Growing Forward discussion paper comments that many issues that affect the future of agriculture, agrifood, and the agri-based products industry fall outside the mandate of agricultural departments.

I would argue that the agriculture enterprise in Canada is increasingly in the position of being a solution provider for issues in health, environment, economic innovation, and employment. The agriculture sector needs to highlight the opportunities that investments in agriculture foster to prevent human disease, reduce health costs, remediate degraded environments, create novel green products from agricultural biomass, open new markets for Canadian agricultural products, and employ people in fulfilling, high-quality jobs.

Thus, those of us who are involved in agriculture need to engage the people and resources that exist in other sectors into collaborative efforts to realize these opportunities. To engage the public in a debate on the future of agriculture in Canadian life in its broadest sense, I would endorse the call of the Growing Forward 2 discussion document for the development of a national food policy.

I have some specific comments about our experiences with the Growing Forward programs. We have had very good and not so good experiences with the current programs. The Canadian agricultural adaptation program, which is delivered through commodity organizations, has been used by our researchers for a wide variety of purposes. The Canadian agrifood clusters initiative provides funding for research in several sectors, including pulses, canola, ornamentals, soybeans, and cereals. The developing innovative agri-products program provides funding for bean research with an Agriculture Canada scientist.

In contrast, however, our experience with the agricultural bioproducts innovation program, or ABIP, was a major disappointment. After being informed that our consortium with Peter Jones from Winnipeg was granted $9.7 million for a project entitled “nutraceuticals emerging from ag technologies network”, we were never given the funding. This was an unprecedented breach of trust and left several researchers scrambling to honour commitments to graduate and post-doctoral students without any funding.

I'd also like to make some specific comments about the document. Under “competitiveness”, table 1 indicates that there are periodic shortages of skilled labour. We believe there are chronic labour shortages in the agriculture industry at all levels, and that many jobs in applied science and commerce or administration in the sector are filled by individuals without agricultural backgrounds, because of a lack of knowledge about career opportunities in agriculture by a largely urban population.

Under innovation in general, I want to affirm the messages of the document about the importance of innovation for improving the competitiveness of the sector and achieving sustainability. The need for public-private sector collaboration and sustained funding of research and development is important. In some cases, for small crops, the public sector needs to be enabled to carry out the full chain of innovation, from inputs to marketing. At the University of Guelph, we've estimated that the annual farm gate value of various field vegetable and fruit crop varieties developed by our breeding programs in our plant agriculture department exceeds $50 million a year.

Under knowledge creation, I would emphasize the importance of building long-term relationships between industry, commodity groups, and public research organizations. These relationships build understanding of the value of short- and long-term research objectives. Even small sustained investments by commodity groups and industry can be leveraged into large research initiatives when a consortium approach is used. I can give my experience in working with bean growers as a specific example, if the committee is interested later.

Under infrastructure, the section that deals with regulation indicates that the ideal is a regulatory system that is timely, appropriate to risk, market responsive, and adaptable to innovation. I'd endorse these goals and add a concern that the current regulations on the introduction of transgenic organisms into the market are so onerous, they prevent the participation of a public institution like a university in the process. I believe the system loses when the public scientists don't have first-hand, experiential knowledge of the regulatory processes.

Finally, the area I am not concerned about is plant breeders' rights and IP, that is, protecting innovations in applied biological science. Investors in agriculture innovation need the same tools that other high technology sectors have to see returns. This is the basis for developing and maintaining a seeds industry in Canada.

With that, thank you for your patience.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you for being right on time.

Mr. Groeneweg, you have 10 minutes or less, please.

[Franck Groeneweg, Director, Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you today.

My name is Franck Groeneweg. I'm a canola producer who farms near Regina. I have about 2,500 acres of canola on a 9,000-acre farm.

I chaired the research committee of SaskCanola. Here with me is Pat Flaten, our research manager.

SaskCanola was started about 20 years ago and has an annual budget of about $2 million, supported by canola farmers in Saskatchewan through a levy taken at the point of sale. We have an eight-member board and seven staff working. Our strategy is to support agronomy research, germplasm research, and canola utilization research. From the start we've worked in close collaboration with public research and hope to continue and improve on this to enhance public research.

We've had lots of different successes in the past 20 years, which have contributed to the success of the canola crop in Saskatchewan. Biodiesel is one of them. At the early stage we had research, and we have licensed agreements and royalties paid right back to AAFC and SaskCanola for technology. That's a project that's actually starting to pay back small amounts, and we can reinvest these royalties back into research.

We've been in early stage research supporting protein separation extraction technologies. And right now we have two facilities currently that operate in Saskatchewan.

Over the 20 years it's been very important to have improved agronomics for growing the crop of canola and reducing the risk to our canola producers, of which I'm a recipient.

SaskCanola has participated in the canola/flax science cluster with Growing Forward. It's a cooperative project managed by the Canola Council of Canada. There are selected projects that amount to about $20 million, of which $14.5 million is from the federal government and $5.7 million from the canola industry. That includes industry players like Richardson, Viterra, Louis Dreyfus, Cargill; and on the producers' side, the Alberta Canola Producers, SaskCanola, Manitoba Canola Growers Association, and others from the industry, including BASF, Bayer CropSciences, Dow AgroSciences. These companies are all working on projects through the canola/flax cluster, which is a great way to do this because there is actually partnership within the whole industry through the Canola Council.

The industry funds portions of projects through SaskCanola and Manitoba as well.

Some of the areas of investigation right now are oil nutrition, meal nutrition, and crop production within our canola crop.

Right now we are also partners in four research projects under DIAP, the developing innovation agri-products program, through Growing Forward. We've also participated in the Canadian agriculture adaptation program, the CAAP program, to continue commercialization of research on canola protein extraction methodology. Here we're at the pilot plant project stage.

Our organization is very committed to partnerships with federal government programs to enhance our ability to compete globally with other oilseed crops. It's so important for us as farmers to have the tools to be able to grow crops and reduce our risk and to compete with the rest of the world on the world scene.

Overall we've had a great experience with Growing Forward. We definitely appreciate the partnership that we've had and we encourage you to continue through the cluster and through DIAP funding with the next generation of Growing Forward.

Canola has an impact of about $15 billion on the Canadian economy and it wouldn't have happened without strong research and that partnership.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Groeneweg, I'm sorry to interrupt you. We have to make some adjustments to get the audio to pick up your voice by video conference.

[Franck Groeneweg]

Sure, you bet.

I was saying that it's a $15 billion program so it has a $15 billion impact on the economy. With the right tools we've been able to start basically from scratch in the 1970s with canola. As with any crop, canola is grown in rotation....

Our organization deals with canola, but we definitely need to be working with other groups out there. Other groups don't have the background and the financial strength that we have.

The paperwork for DIAP and the Growing Forward program is sometimes very cumbersome. We would encourage the committee to look into more expedient methods to lessen some of the paper requirements so that some of the more fragile or less secure organizations could participate and have the type of success SaskCanola has had over the years.

We also encourage, right alongside DIAP, shorter programs that would help some of the researchers find their way. Sometimes a five-year program ends up taking a lot of resources, and some of the researchers find themselves on the outside looking in. It would be good to have alongside it maybe some shorter-term, same term, and long-term types of funding projects.

We can see at times that tightened budgets are happening, and it seems as if this comes from the top down. We would like to know what kinds of cuts we are looking at and, accordingly, maybe could help you figure out what projects are the most valuable to our industry. Being more at the ground level, we can assess some of the more valuable projects, the ones that have a bigger bang for the buck and that should keep going. If we are in an era of tighter budgets, we definitely need to be consulted.

One big thing is that we need to be able to collaborate with other crops in the sector so that problems can be dealt with better. Sometimes there are common interests, such as regarding an insect that's going to be a problem in canola and might be a problem for other crops. It would be good to have the funding to encourage work across parts of the agriculture industry.

To sum it up, we appreciate the Growing Forward program, and we definitely want to continue. We are very appreciative of the fact that we can participate in this consultation. To us, it means that you guys are connected and want to make sure that you're providing the right programs.

We have several recommendations. First, reduce the administrative burden where possible. Second, manage payments to organizations in a timely manner, which sometimes can be a little bit of a struggle. Third, develop programs for emerging issues that are not restricted to a five-year timeline. Fourth, allow the industry to determine priorities and the allocation of funds to those priorities. Finally, provide a method of funding collaborative projects within the agriculture crop sector to encourage crop groups to work together.

With that, thanks again. If there are any questions, we're right here. I can answer some questions in French, if my French is not too rusty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

We will turn now to questioning by committee members.

It's your choice of language, Mr. Groeneweg.

We'll now move to Ms. Raynault, for five minutes.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am one of those people who really need to understand what is being said.

I would like to ask a question. Since I missed a big part of your presentation, I am going to refer to the notes and the document that we have received.

You are saying that you would like to be consulted when cuts need to be made. In your opinion, it might be appropriate for the industry to determine how those cuts will be made. Could you tell us more about it, please?

[Franck Groeneweg]

I don't know if I was clear on that point.

If we are looking at tighter budgets within the world economic crisis, I would say that Canada is in fairly good shape. But we need to be fiscally responsible. And if we're looking at a cut in programs and it comes from the top down—let's say the envelope needs to be cut by 10% or 20%—we would appreciate being informed of the reduction. That way we could rate the projects according to value, so that the more valuable projects, rather than those at the top of the list, could be considered for cutting.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Pauls.

You say you have an annual budget of $120 million. How much more money would be needed for long-term research?

[Dr. K. Peter Pauls]

That is the research that comes into the university. It's driven by individual faculty members who make applications dealing with particular projects, each of which would essentially have a budget of its own.

It's a difficult question to ask. We apply for a lot more than we succeed in bringing to the university. So I would say that each of those applications is a hope for doing new things. I can't really say the percentage of successful projects. At the NSERC discovery grant program, I think the success rate is somewhere just over 50%, which means that quite a number of people are turned down.

It really depends on the program. I'd find it hard to give a number back at this point. I'm sorry.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

I would like to know more about the plant breeding program. You mentioned asparagus. What does your program specifically include for breeding plants, such as asparagus, for example?

[Dr. K. Peter Pauls]

In each crop you would have different objectives, but a major objective in any breeding program is yield, that is, increasing the productivity from a certain area with certain inputs. That's the minimum requirement and it's usually coupled with requirements for quality, whether they have to do with disease on the produce or the addition of compounds like vitamins and antioxidants. Increasingly, we're being asked to look at the way it affects us in our nutrition and our health.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll now move to Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to the witnesses for presenting to us today on this important topic.

Mr. Groeneweg, I noticed some of the comments you made about maintaining or improving long-term relationships. One of the things that is often talked about here at the committee is innovation. It's been continually identified as one of the keys to making Canada's agriculture and agrifood sector more competitive.

What are the main areas of innovation that Canadian agriculture needs to invest in for the future? Do you have examples of innovative farming practices and new products?

I will follow up on that with you, Mr. Pauls, as well.

[Franck Groeneweg]

Agriculture Canada needs to be involved with projects that are very long shots. When we look at a very long perspective, and as we tighten the timelines, it needs to be more related to producers.

Genetically modified crops are not getting a very good rap in the public these days, but the reality is that we have a growing world that's very hungry. I personally find that people are becoming more in tune with what it represents and with the opportunities out there to make the crops offer health benefits. We have to be very careful not to turn back on that side of research. Along with the producer groups, we need to work together to make sure the public is educated on the opportunities for the advantages that type of technology can bring.

It would be one area that I would strongly suggest we should keep working on.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Pauls, do you have a suggestion?

[Dr. K. Peter Pauls]

It's somewhat tied to the question I answered before. For the most part, Canadian agriculture is based on being productive and competing at a world scale on both productivity and quality. Again, that's a minimum; it's always required for the agriculture that we practice.

I think commodity groups are looking for traits that distinguish their particular commodities to bring them to the attention of the public, particularly when they relate to health claims. We need science to back up those types of health claims.

We're increasingly looking at agricultural products for non-food uses. For example, we have a number of projects where plant fibres are incorporated into plastics that might be used in car parts. I'm involved in an bio-auto project.

This of course raises some societal questions. I think science-based research proposals are increasingly required to cast a broader net and include social scientists in the grant applications to look at the societal implications when crops are diverted to non-food uses. What are the long-term implications on the health of the field? How does it affect the distribution of food in our society? Again, I'm involved in a research project where we have economists as part of the research proposal.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Yes, that's excellent.

I have one question, Mr. Groeneweg. Could you give the committee a written submission? You commented on paperwork and the overwhelming paperwork that can sometimes be attributed to some of these applications. I don't expect you to give an answer off the top of your head, but it would be helpful to the committee if you gave some suggestions in a written submission on things that we could deal with.

Do I have time for one short question, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

It must be very short.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

One of the other things we constantly hear is that technology transfer and commercialization must be included in any project or strategy, as it's the weakest link in the innovation project.

What do you think the federal government can do to better connect both ends of the value chain and increase the number of research projects that are successfully commercialized at the end of the day?