Industry Committee on May 28th, 2008

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, panel, for coming. It has been a very educational day.

I want to understand something. We talked an awful lot about the crops that you're growing and the advancements you've made. I'm from southwestern Ontario, and my wife's parents are about 100 miles north of that. I remember how excited everybody was when soybeans were beginning to be planted.

I think, Mr. Keller, you said soybeans are planted in this area.

[Dr. Wilfred Keller]

No, no, in Ontario.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Is there work being done in genetics with global warming? I know that it depends mostly on heat units. I see you have an awful lot of sun here and I understand that you need your frost-free date, but is that starting to happen here in Saskatchewan too? Is corn starting to move up? Is soybean not far behind? Can that be enhanced with genetic modification?

[Dr. Wilfred Keller]

We have evidence, certainly, that there is increasing acreage of corn and soybean in southern Manitoba, very little in Saskatchewan. There's talk of soybean and corn as possibly being alternatives under a global warming kind of scenario. We see a strategy that is more important, I think, in that we have to adopt prairie-type crops to drier, warmer climates.

Soybean and corn do very well in the Ontario area, where you have very warm nights. This is a continental climate; we have cold nights. We don't have the heat units that you're referring to. There are low heat-unit corn and soybean varieties that have been developed, but it would be a significant step to get them into this area because of our moisture restraints and our low temperatures.

It could very well be a mix of some of that, as well as adaptation to the canola and the wheat and the barleys that we already grow and can grow in a continental climate like this; so perhaps on balance.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Then with genetically modified foods too.... I asked this question this morning. I don't know if I got an answer. I understand the mechanics and what is done from one plant to the other, but what about cross-species? I read about this a number of years ago. Is that something that is still being experimented with? The genes of a fish, maybe, from the Arctic Ocean, to make it a little more....

[Dr. Wilfred Keller]

There was a lot of media hype about that sort of thing 10 or 15 years ago. Indeed, I suppose there were experiments to evaluate different types of genes in terms of things like cold tolerance. But on a much more practical and realistic level, I must emphasize that no commercial product with animal genes in plants has ever been made or commercialized.

What the newer genomics and systems-biology sciences allow researchers and the community to do is to investigate the genetic make-up of a crop, be it soybean or canola, and to be able to understand all the genes involved, to tweak and manage that so that you can use the genetic information that's there and point it in a direction to get better heat tolerance, better drought tolerance.

So in the long term, I don't think you're going to see the idea of having to move a gene from a tropical plant into a crop. I think it's more understanding the genetic base of the crop and making those modifications accordingly. This will allow perhaps a greater level of comfort to society over time.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Have I more time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Two minutes.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

My friend was a little rough on you, but actually he had some good words about you. We were both commenting on how well you do in the agricultural world, working in conjunction with farmers and with the agricultural community. Actually, he is a very nice guy.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I'm going to disagree only on this one point, because I think he's right. I think you need a salesman more than anything else. And I think that's what you and I discussed too; that's really what he said. You've done an excellent job, I think, but you have to include industry and you have to convince politicians. Unfortunately, we have to get elected and it has to make sense. And you may even get to that point, but if we think, “Boy, the electorate isn't ready for this”, then....

My suggestion would be that you incorporate, as much as possible, people in the business world who do a good job of...because you do have an exciting story to tell. You've done a remarkable job. I think you should be commended for that.

Mr. Keller, I think you wanted to make a statement. Then I have a quick question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Keller, and then Ms. Reynolds.

[Dr. Wilfred Keller]

Thank you.

Certainly, I think that is important. Again, using the canola example, the development of these new canola strains indeed was an industry-public partnership. I think it's a good example of how you need that infusion, that integration, to make things happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Reynolds.

[Carol Reynolds]

Thank you for recognizing that marketing the science is really of extreme importance, and I completely agree. As a communicator, as a former radio announcer as well, I completely agree.

Involving industry in the whole process from the ground up is of extreme importance. That's the model Genome Prairie is currently using. We have a network system in place where we draw together academia, industry, and government representatives. We get them all in a room and say, “What are our priorities? Why do you want to do this? What does each organization want? How can we make these things happen?”

That's the model that we and some other centres across Canada follow, in the west especially. We've been given some funding by WD to make these networks happen.

So those are now getting under way. It's a really exciting model and we're hoping it will catch fire across all other centres across Canada, and other organizations as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Simard.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

If there's one thing that's become very obvious to me over the last couple of days, it's that the research community realizes the importance of synergies. I can't believe it; you people all know each other and you all work together. In Manitoba, four aerospace companies that don't necessarily compete have formed groups that work together—they're funding a composite centre they can all benefit from. Obviously, you people get this.

Can we say the same for the federal government? We always talk about the silos. My feeling is that they have been disappearing over the last five or ten years. We have Ag Canada, Health Canada, and Industry Canada talking to each other now on this kind of issue. Are the silos disappearing? That's the first question.

Secondly, the provinces are important partners for us. I'm not sure that I've seen a collaborative effort on this with the provinces. I know they're all doing things separately, but I'm not sure that there has been a lot of collaboration between the federal government and the provinces. I've heard that Quebec was doing well at one of our meetings. Is that something you would know? Is there a province we should emulate in its collaboration with the federal government?

[Roman Szumski]

In the last couple of years, we've been seeing a breakdown of the silos and a trend towards working together. Certainly Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the NRC have a long history of working together. Some of it goes back a long way, but it's much more active recently, with the setting up of a national bioproducts program and the like.

Also, there are a number of examples across the country that have strong provincial participation. The National Institute for Nanotechnology is a 50-50 partnership between the University of Alberta, funded directly by the province, and the National Research Council, funded by the federal government. That's a new model and a novel way of working together.

In Charlottetown there's the Institute for Nutrisciences and Health, which has Ag Canada, NRC, the province, and the University of P.E.I. working together, sharing the same facility. You can't tell by looking at the people who they're working for—they're using the same infrastructure. There definitely is a trend towards working together.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

We're funding some of these things through the provinces.

[Roman Szumski]

It's always a cart-and-horse game when it comes to who steps in first to make the investment. Sometimes it happens at the same time, as it did in Edmonton with the National Institute of Nanotechnology. In Prince Edward Island, they recently introduced an innovation strategy. They are investing $200 million over five years, which will call for collaborating and working with the feds and with the Institute for Nutrisciences and Health. Sometimes they happen one after another. I think there are examples of the provinces stepping up. They are interested in innovation in their own regions and are starting to work with the feds.

[Dr. Wilfred Keller]

With respect to your question on dealing with the provinces, we as a federal institution have a close relationship with the provinces in certain strategies—funding research in flax, which is an upcoming crop, and in the pulses such as lentils. We have received direct cash support from the provinces for a genomics global initiative. I think it's another example of how we can build. It also ties into the university system.

[Jerome Konecsni]

Genome B.C. and Genome Québec have done an excellent job of working with the federal government in cases where the provincial governments have made an investment, identified their priorities, and then collaborated with the federal government through Genome Canada.

We're trying to move more in that direction in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. We're making progress, though we're not yet where I would like to be. We're using B.C. and Quebec as models for federal-provincial collaboration, at least in the area of genomics research.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

With regard to labour-sponsored funds, I know it's not normally a federal issue, but it's important, because some of the smaller provinces really benefited from it in the past.

In Manitoba it's been a total disaster. The Crocus Fund collapsed. The ENSIS fund was bought out by a B.C. firm and is no longer interested in investing in Manitoba.

Some of the smaller provinces are not benefiting from this. As investment sites, they aren't as attractive as Toronto or Montreal. Is there a labour-sponsored fund here in Saskatchewan? How important do you think they are as economic engines for start-ups and small companies?

[Ron Kehrig]

Yes, there is labour-sponsored capital in this province as well. Likewise, there's an issue in this province respecting the high technology sector. There are investment opportunities within the province, obviously, in the traditional sectors, and I think that's where the emphasis has been.

As to whether they've been as effective for small and medium-sized technology companies, I guess I would argue that there's definitely room for improvement there.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

If the federal government were to come up with its own labour-sponsored funds with a mandate to specifically invest in start-ups and these emerging companies, would that make sense?