Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 35 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 30, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:35 a.m. to examine international trade in agricultural and agri-food products, and short-term and long-term measures for the health of the agricultural and the agri-food industry in all regions of Canada.
Senator Leonard J. Gustafson (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: This morning we are examining international trade in agriculture food products and the short-term and long-term measures and the health of agriculture and the agriculture food industry in all regions of Canada. We have as witnesses this morning Alex Dudelzak with York University and Nicolas Tremblay, Research Scientist.
[Translation]
Dr. Nicolas Tremblay, Ph.D, Researcher, Crop Management and Nutrition, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us here to discuss with you how research efforts in Canada can be enhanced to meet the needs of farmers. We would like to tell you about a promising technology which can solve a number of problems associated with the environment and with plant yields.
[English]
Dr. Alex Dudelzak, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor, York University: Thank you for the opportunity to tell you what is occurring in this area.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Precision farming, which probably all of you have heard about, is a fairly new, albeit highly promising, method which involves various technological advances designed to strike a balance between crop requirements and environmental impacts. These technologies are fairly comprehensive. We would like at this time to present our research and technology findings to you.
These new technologies combine to provide important information to farmers on crop management. Using a Global Positioning System, or GPS, a particular section of land on a farm or within a field can be isolated and the crops located in that particular area can be better managed, along with the crop inputs required.
The use of GPS makes precision farming possible. It also allows for adjustments to plant needs at particular locations.
Our research is focused on identifying plant requirements and on obtaining agronomic data with a view to interpreting crop signs for management purposes. The most interesting example of all is nitrogen. While it is probably the most beneficial fertilizer, nitrogen has the greatest impact on plant yields. It is critical to plant growth.
Nitrogen is also the most important factor in terms of business performance and profitability. It is one of the few components over which farmers have some control when it comes to influencing crop yields.
Nitrogen is an important fertilizer. However, it can also have adverse effects on the environment. It can contaminate rivers and well water. Nitrogen can also produce greenhouse gases and must therefore be handled carefully. The problem is how much nitrogen to use: too little reduces crop yield, while too much can adversely affect the environment.
One of the important characteristics of nitrogen is that levels within a field can vary considerably. This fact has been known since the advent of precision farming. A host of other characteristics were discovered upon examination of the previous year's crop. Nitrogen levels were found to vary considerably within a given field. Consequently, a decision can be made to apply more nitrogen in some areas, and less in others such as commercial fields where quantities are already sufficient. Sophisticated equipment is used to spread the nitrogen at a variable rate.
All of which begs the following question: how can we obtain immediate, real time reliable information that may result in a recommendation to add some fertilizer right at the opportune moment? The answer is to install sensors on farm machinery. Considerable technological advances are being made in this area right now and some marketing has already been undertaken.
Some companies have successfully marketed tractors equipped with sensors that monitor crop quality and provide important information on crop management. Ideally the sensors should be able to identify which component should be introduced at a particular location within the field. They should be able to identify the specific product that the plant requires, the location where that product should be applied as well as the amount to be applied, with a view to meeting crop requirements.
[English]
Mr. Dudelzak: There is a technology that allows detection of where to apply those fertilizers, but it is not easy. It is just starting in Canada. Many researchers around the world were trying to do this. There are difficulties associated with it because many substances are in a living plant, and it is not easy to detect remotely in real-time what is there. We are talking about an analytical technology that can detect substances in a plant or in water to check for the quality of water or agricultural runoffs and so on.
Generally, there are several methods that can do this. You can pick up a sample chemically, but this is expensive. You have to send a technician to the site and the processing takes a long time. There is also satellite sensing. People are hoping that satellites could let us know about the chemical changes occurring in plants, soil and water. They can detect the presence of stress — whether it is yellow or green — but it is usually too late and not specific to the cause of the stress. Nitrogen is a specific substance that requires more precise methods.
Another tool is ``active remote sensing,'' specifically, laser-induced fluorescence, LIF. It deals specifically with individual substances in mixtures such as plants, water, soil and so on. This slide shows why fluorescence has been chosen. Only fluorescent spectroscopy has the ability to detect substances in real-time and remotely, without taking a sample. For example, a sample in the case we are discussing could be right in the film. It is excited — that is the terminology — by the laser beam and the light coming out of this sample is analyzed spectrally for the elemental composition.
A group of scientists and engineers in Canada developed a method called ``spectral signatures'' that work literally as fingerprints. At the bottom, you see a specific fingerprint in certain coordinates. Those are spectral fingerprints. Every molecular substance in a mixture has its own specific signature that allows recognition of this particular one out of the multitude of the others. This picture shows different pollutants found in rivers and lakes, in particular, those coming from power plants, which are quite harmful, and they are all recognizable.
There is a measured spectral fluorescent signature after the sensor and then a computerized expert system compares it with your own database, much the same as the police check fingerprints of someone with their database. It works the same way here, and you can identify and quantify substances by doing that real-time analysis.
The agriculture research centre in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and the Canadian Space Agency in Saint-Hubert have been working together on this since 1998. A Canadian company makes this equipment for us. Initially, it was a partnership with the world's largest fertilizer manufacturer, Norsk Hydro, with its agriculture division in Germany.
This picture shows, for example, two levels of nitrogen in corn. It is recognizable even with your naked eye. Those pictures are different, and you can put a scale on these colours. This can be done in the manner Mr. Tremblay explained, which is to put it in a tractor, check every individual plant and then control the nozzle to disperse the fertilizer or not at that point.
The technology was made initially to check the water quality in pipes. It is called a ``smart pipe,'' and it tells you if something unwanted is in the water flow. An alarm may sound, or the flow is cut if something is wrong. There was also a version you could put on an aircraft and fly over the coastal zone or river or lake, and this graph shows the concentration of the organic matter, which indicates whether there is eutrophication happening.
There is a device right now at the prototype stage. It is not up to you, but I believe that Mr. Tremblay's group needs some fund infusion to finish this to be implemented and to give it to farmers.
In general, this basic technology could be arranged in an airborne, shipborne, inline — like a smart pipe — or portable system to monitor, in real time, health rating hazards, such as fertilizers, pesticides, and manure, which is a now substantial problem. If this technology had been implemented a few years ago, possibly the Walkerton situation would not have happened. It is capable of detection, in real time, without picking up that many samples. Even the bacterial colonies in water could be detected. It could be applied in municipal and industrial water supply systems, natural and industrial reservoirs, watersheds, marine coastal and inland waters, agricultural runoff areas and detecting fertilizer distribution over crop fields.
We hope that those are some future applications for this technology. It could be smartly used in fertilizer applications to provide guidance for herbicide spraying with robots, potential for disease detection and real time water quality assessment. Right now, Canada is definitely ahead of anyone, but it is being picked up in the United States. As we know, their Department of Agriculture has started looking into this. With their education and financial capabilities they may soon be ahead of us.
Again, in this particular area, Canada is the world leader in agriculture and water quality. Specifically in those technologies needed for this, there are several companies in Canada that could make this equipment. Canada has needs for technological answers to address productivity and pollution issues.
Site centres, could reduce pollution and increase productivity in Canadian crops by detecting actual requirements of fertilizers and pesticides. In terms of this precision farming, you apply as much as needed because of this technology's real time sensing features, which are quantitative, substance specific and can be done in real time.
The Chairman: Right now farmers are putting on all the nitrogen they can afford. That is what decides how much nitrogen goes into the soil. In Europe, they are using as much as 400 tonnes of nitrogen. They put it on to begin with and then they spray it over and over again. You say that Canada is a world leader. Is anything being done in Europe on that issue? That is where I see the greatest number of problems with excess use of nitrogen.
Mr. Dudelzak: Canada is the world leader in the technology that enables the smart management of fertilizer application. In Germany, they initiated this method because they are concerned about polluting the rivers and waters and destroying the soil.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: I agree. The Europeans, French and Germans use far more nitrogen than we do our on their crops. However, they do have serious nitrogen pollution problems. This explains why they looked into equipping tractors with sensors. Currently, a type of tractor outfitted with a sensor is available on the market, although the technology used is not quite the same as the one we have just described to you. This particular sensor has quantitative and stress identification limitations.
We were approached by a German company about developing the next generation of sensors which use the laser- induced fluorescence principle. This company was looking to us to fill their needs. At the same time, we realized that this technology could also prove beneficial to Canadian agriculture.
[English]
Senator Wiebe: This technology that you have developed tells you what kind of fertilizer strength there is either in the plant or on top of the surface. Does it tell you what strength the fertilizer is under the surface?
Mr. Dudelzak: No. Indirectly. You detect the presence and the concentration of the fertilizer in the plant itself. Before the crop was planted, you distribute some fertilizer. However, as Mr. Tremblay showed, the initial distribution of the fertilizer in the soil is uneven. Thus, while applying evenly after that, you may increase more than necessary at one spot and may have not enough at another. When the crop has grown somewhat, you can run a cultivator that can detect where there is not enough and where there is too much. Thus, you can add only where there is not enough.
Senator Wiebe: You are receiving that sense from the plant and not from the soil; is that correct?
Mr. Dudelzak: That is correct.
Senator Wiebe: Can a technology be developed that would avoid the soil tests? A lot of us map our fields right now with physical soil tests. It is a considerable amount of work to get a 160-acre field covered because the various levels of nutrients in the soil on that area vary. That is a time-consuming job. Can this technology be developed to help us in that area?
Mr. Dudelzak: You are perfectly right. This is an important issue. Today, there is no technology to do it in plants. This is the first one that allows you to do so. You cannot jump around in nature. This is based on light, and light does not penetrate the soil, as we all know. There could be something, but it is a more sophisticated technology, which provides the elemental analysis right on the soil. We developed something like that for the Mars missions. When drilling occurs, they take core samples after having drilled the Martian surface. Then, right on the spot, the elemental composition of the rock is analyzed. Farmers cannot afford this at this point in time. This one is really affordable.
Senator Wiebe: You mentioned in your earlier comments that some of the research was cost-shared with industry, such as Norsk Hydra in Germany. Is the majority of your research cost-shared with industry or is it basically the department that is funding it? If cost-shared research is being done and if something new is developed, who will own the patent?
Mr. Dudelzak: Perhaps there was a little misunderstanding. The German industry initiated this. They approached us. We made a device for them using the capabilities of Canadian industries. Industry paid for this, not in full, but they contributed a lot. They just made this prototype for the German company. Then, they stopped because of a very unfortunate situation. The leader of this project had just died in Germany. We have continued and, right now, we are planning to develop a real portable version of this.
So far, it has been funded by two departments: The Canadian Space Agency contributed a little bit and Agriculture Canada contributed a little bit more. The company also contributed a little bit, but they obviously would like to be paid for making these devices for us. In the lab, we do the basic research that allows this technology to happen.
Senator Wiebe: They would then own the patent; is that correct?
Mr. Dudelzak: Agriculture Canada would.
Senator Wiebe: That is the best news I have heard today.
The Chairman: As a supplementary question, I would like to hear a comment from you on the mood of the general public of Canada toward agriculture. It seems to me that there is not a lot of support for agriculture, especially in the urban communities. Do you feel that we are doing enough to educate the Canadian people as to the problems we are facing in rural development and these areas to get this kind of thing to happen in research and so on?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: As researchers, we believe we can do a great deal for Canadian farming and for the environment. We would like to receive more financial support in order to develop these kind of technologies for the benefit of Canadian farmers. More should be done to support initiatives of this nature.
By talking more about successes achieved, we could increase public awareness of the problems facing the industry and of potential solutions. Much needs to be done to educate people who do not understand everything that is at stake and who believe farmers care little about the environment and solely about their bottom line.
Farming is highly complex and difficult work. Farmers have to contend with low prices for their products and with fierce competition. In addition, they must be respectful of the environment as they go about their work. It is critical that their efforts be supported more extensively through research.
[English]
Senator Fairbairn: Is this exciting project in which you are engaged actually being used in Canada now, in any of our farm communities?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: No, this particular technology is not used because it has not yet reached the commercial development stage. The current research prototype is too large and unwieldy to use on farms. For the purposes of our research, we need a prototype that allows us to conduct a range of tests. We are working to simplify the equipment to bring it more in line with a commercial application. That is where we now stand in terms of our work.
Farmers are now starting to use sensors on their tractors. At present, these sensors do not use LIF technology. The technology is less accurate.
[English]
Senator Fairbairn: Have you reached the point, then, of an actual pilot project?
Mr. Dudelzak: No. That is the point. Right now, it is too big, and it costs approximately $30,000. It can do anything. It is a universal device. We need to study how to apply it. Right now, we can see that it could be smaller and cost to $4,000 or $5,000 and could be put on a tractor. Then you could sell it to the farmer. A pilot project is needed to do this.
Senator Fairbairn: I was particularly interested in the part about the piece of equipment that could go into pipelines. You mentioned Walkerton. I come from southwestern Alberta, around the city of Lethbridge. We were called ``feedlot alley'' because of the number of intensive cattle feedlots we have. Could this apply in that kind of intensive operation? Concerns have been raised by Walkerton and by the threat that communities — rightly or wrongly — perceive that the spread of water contamination could reach their personal water supplies.
Mr. Dudelzak: I am pleased to hear about these concerns. The emphasis of this particular presentation was made on agriculture and fertilizer detection because this is the most difficult part of what you could do. The water quality could be done today. The devices I showed you during my presentation exist as real instruments. They do exist as real instruments. Water is the easiest part. The quality of water, the presence of bacterial cultures, liquid manure leaks and any other biological substance there could be tested immediately. All we need is a pilot project. This could be done in a pipeline mode, smart sensor, or you could fly over and see where there are run-offs are, or whether there is already something in some natural water reservoir before it hits the municipal water supply. In that way, you could identify the source of a leak, like pig farms or other installations. That could be done today.
Senator Fairbairn: That is not yet being done, is it?
Mr. Dudelzak: The company we mentioned is trying to move forward. They spoke to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources before Walkerton. They were told, ``Oh, that is what we need,'' and no one answered them. After the incident at Walkerton, they approached the minister again, and he never answered. The application is really in the government's hands. The government is taking care of the water quality because real users only wake up when the alarm rings, not before.
Senator Fairbairn: You said that there was a connection with the Ontario government. To your knowledge, has there been any similar interest expressed or actual experimentation or even a viewing of the process from any other province?
Mr. Dudelzak: There are national programs in disaster management and so on. So far, they have been relying on satellite information to provide information, but those satellite pictures are usually post-mortem — when everything is done. This technology allows you to detect early chemical changes before something shows up.
There is a new entity, the so-called ``Innovation Acceleration Centre'' at the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing. They have started thinking about it, but as far as I know, not much has been done.
Senator Fairbairn: Is this well known to the Canadian Department of Agriculture?
Mr. Dudelzak: The technology?
Senator Fairbairn: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: We have expressed an interest in researching the applications of this technology for agriculture. Agriculture Canada is more informed about this technology. However, water quality is not the focus of my research.
I agree with what Dr. Dudelzak just said. This technology was initially developed to evaluate water quality and we are trying to adapt it for the purposes of identifying diseases in plants. This involves more elaborate processes. The technology for evaluating water quality is simpler and already available. Instrumentation has been developed and is available commercially at several locations around the world.
Initial attempts have been made to market this technology here in Canada. Dr. Dudelzak mentioned that Ontario has been approached. Two or three years ago, when the project was launched, the issue of water quality and the opportunities afforded by this technology had also been submitted to Quebec's Department of the Environment. Surprisingly, these questions did not generate very much interest. It is difficult for me to explain why this matter has been forgotten today.
In spite of everything, we have tried to promote awareness of the technology's application, myself to agriculture, and Dr. Dudelzak, to water quality. We have endeavored to the best of our abilities to inform those likely to be interested in this technology.
[English]
Mr. Dudelzak: The situation is like this: we approach a potential user, which in is this case would be the municipal, provincial or federal government in charge of water quality, the reaction is great: ``Wow. This is exactly what we need. Do not go anywhere else. We will be back to you in two weeks.'' Then nothing happens.
The Canadian Space Agency can only assist the users with technology development. We have invested money in that. However, the real burden should be on the users — the cities, the province, the provincial or federal departments of environment, and so on. So far, nothing has happened.
The Chairman: On that point, you may be aware that this committee travelled to Europe and to the United States. In general, we found that there is a lot more concern centred on rural development, environment and agriculture together in both Europe and the United States. We do not seem to have that initiative in the same strength in Canada. While you may have some very good ideas, are we going to allow the Americans to beat us to the punch on these issues?
Mr. Dudelzak: Mr. Chairman, you hit the nail on the head. We were approached by both Agriculture in the United States and, strangely enough, by the Department of Energy in the United States. They wanted to check the cleanliness of the water around their nuclear weapon test sites. To undertake this, they chose this as their standard technology. They asked us to go there, to give them a presentation and then awarded a contract of $4.5 million to an American company to build the device. Because we did not tell them everything, they failed. The Canadian companies were upset because the Americans did not award the contract to a Canadian company.
The Department of Energy works with Agriculture Canada. Mr. Tremblay and I visited a research centre at Disneyworld. It is a strange place to test equipment. They are currently far behind; however, the time will come when they will catch up. Right now, for water quality, there are instruments ready to be installed as a pilot project
Senator Wiebe: Can this type of technology also be used to detect early signs of disease in plants?
Mr. Dudelzak: To identify early signs of disease in plants, more research is needed. Mr. Tremblay could be more specific on that point.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: This is another area that we would like to delve into further. In Saint-Jean, we have at our disposal pathologists, entomologists and experts who can employ this technology in their work. Efforts have, however, been impeded, primarily because of a lack of funding.
Theoretically, the technology can detect stress caused by disease or insects. Preliminary tests have already demonstrated this fact. However, extensive research has not been carried out on the potential for detecting the myriad of diseases that affect plants. There is no question that this technology provides a means of detecting a pathological problems in plants. We have been amazed to see just how sensitive this technology is in terms of providing an early diagnosis. Fluorescence detects problems at a very early stage, before they are even visible to the human eye or before they can be detected using some other method.
We conducted an experiment in a greenhouse setting where we deprived plants of nitrogen. After depriving plants of nitrogen fertilizer for a period of two days, fluorescence detected a problem. However, other methods were unable to detect the first signs of a problem until anywhere from seven to ten days had elapsed. Much remains to be done to apply this new technology to disease detection.
[English]
Senator Wiebe: What budgets are you now working with?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Our budget to date is minimal. The funding I received from the German firm has now run out. All that remains is for us to draw up the final report and present it to this firm which paid us $398,000 over a period of three years.
For now, I am relying on my own research budget which amounts to $10,000 per year. I have spent nearly half of this money, and the year is not over yet.
[English]
Mr. Dudelzak: This nitrogen detection device developed for agricultural purposes is what we call prototype 2. It is a research device. We entered into a contract with a company to develop a smaller version, and then unfortunate matters ensued. The gentleman in Germany died, Agriculture Canada experienced budget cuts and the space agency said, ``We have invested. Now it is the user's turn.''
Please do not misunderstand. We are not asking this committee to give funds to our labs. We are simply answering your questions.
Senator Wiebe: Senators cannot spend money. However, we can make recommendations.
You, Mr. Tremblay, are employed by the Department of Agriculture, and Mr. Dudelzak is at York University?
Mr. Dudelzak: I am a professor at York University. When the invitation arrived, I advised the clerk that as there was insufficient time to get approval from the department, I would speak, as an extension of my academic freedom, as a professor. It turned out that I had time to get the approval of the Canadian Space Agency. I am employed full time by the Canadian Space Agency in Saint-Hubert, Quebec.
Senator Wiebe: Mr. Tremblay, your salary is being paid by the Department of Agriculture. However, they are not providing you with research dollars to make use of that salary; am I reading that correctly?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: My salary can be used for all sorts of purposes, as far as research goes, but my current annual operating budget is $10,000. While I can spend this money however I choose to, I allocate it to research on fluorescence because we need to make advances in this area. The level of funding, however, is inadequate. Considerably more money needs to be invested in research into this technology and that is why I choose to use part of my salary for this purpose.
[English]
Senator Tunney: My question was related to funding and the witnesses have just answered it. I might just suggest to you that if there is a disappearance of funding, you will be a pair of volunteers, I suppose.
Mr. Dudelzak: We are.
Senator Tunney: That is the case in many instances. When people are so dedicated to their work, they work even though we do not fund research to the point where we should. I always say research does not cost; research pays. It is true.
Mr. Dudelzak: My job at the Canadian Space Agency is to develop space technology, and the agency was very kind to allow this kind of research in its own lab. This is a contribution of my paid time by the space agency. Moreover, the agency also invested in buying some materials needed for the research, and the equipment needed for the research in the lab. The same happened at Agriculture Canada, as I gather. However, the point is this: To make the device, you cannot do it as a volunteer. You have to buy the components, you have to hire industry to put this together, and you have to meet certain electrical safety and other standards and this, unfortunately, costs money.
Senator Tunney: I appreciate what you are doing, and I wish you well with it.
Senator Day: I read your briefing material that was prepared for us by Mr. Charbonneau, and having heard your presentation, I would like to clarify a point to be sure that I understand your presentation.
Your technology is based on a radar application technology; is that correct?
Mr. Dudelzak: Almost. Radar stands for radio detection and ranging. It means it works in the microwave area. This is ``lidar,'' light detection and ranging. Instead of a source of microwave, they are using a source of light: a laser. Otherwise, it is more or less the same.
Senator Day: There is no mass spectrometer involved in your sensing device?
Mr. Dudelzak: No mass spectrometry is involved. This is real remote and does not touch the sample at all.
Senator Day: If you have a poor area in the field where the crop is not growing well, you can sense that from a remote situation. How can your technology, other than that, help the farmer automatically adjust the application rates for seeds?
Mr. Dudelzak: It cannot.
Senator Day: For the application of fertilizers?
Mr. Dudelzak: Only when you go over grown crops, a little bit grown. I was told the standard agricultural procedure is that they put the first amount of fertilizer together with seeds. The next round happens when a cultivating tractor goes a second time, and they apply it for the second time again, evenly. The procedure addressed here would be exactly applied to this second round. If you do it for several years, it accumulates. I am not an agronomist, but I understand that different plants take fertilizer from the soil with different efficiencies. Even if you distribute this evenly, the next year one took a lot and another did not take at all.
The most important application point is water. With water, there is no problem. We can do it today to find out whether there are deviations from whatever environmental forum.
Senator Tunney: My supplementary came from your intervention. I heard you talking a lot about nitrogen. I have not heard you mention phosphorus and potash, the other two macro elements, and I have not heard you mention the micro copper borax, boron, those nutrients that are just as important as the macro nutrients.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: A number of other components are critical to plant growth. We chose nitrogen because it had the greatest potential from the standpoint of variable rate application. Phosphorous, potassium and lime provide acceptable soil analyses, but plants do not react as much to variable rate applications of these inputs.
In the case of nitrogen, no sensing technology exists. Soil analyses do not lend themselves to variable rate application of nitrogen. Too many analyses would need to be done. Real-time technology is the key to sound nitrogen management. Phosphorous levels do not vary much throughout the course of a growing season. Therefore, real commercial potential lies with nitrogen.
For now, the soil analysis results of other components are sufficient. We have not excluded the possibility of using the same fluorescence technology to detect plant requirements for other substances, but we felt it was important to start with nitrogen.
In response to a question raised earlier, as far as a certain number of crops are concerned, a single application of fertilizer suffices when the crops are sown. These particular crops do not require a great deal of nitrogen.
We have selected crops that require a considerable amount of nitrogen. For example, in the case of corn, an additional application of nitrogen is often required during the season. Other crops also need a great deal of nitrogen and are therefore potentially more polluting. This explains why we decided to focus first on these particular plants.
[English]
Senator Day: Is your technology sensitive enough from a remote sensing point of view, to differentiate between different varieties of the same crop?
Mr. Tremblay: Different cultivars?
Senator Day: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: I would have to say that it is not necessary to use this technology to differentiate between cultivated plant varieties. This can be accomplished using less sophisticated technologies. When we fly over an area to obtain geo- reference mapping information, the sensing process is quick, while processing the image is another matter. It takes two or three weeks for the information to become available. This is too long a period of time for farmers. Sensors installed directly on tractors provide the information more readily, without the lengthy delays often encountered.
[English]
Mr. Dudelzak: I am pleasantly surprised with the way you ask questions. It is as though you have worked in this area before.
It is important to understand is that none of this could be done from a satellite; for example, there could be no analytical sensing. Identifying substances or types from a satellite is very difficult. You need an active device. Radar would not do because it would not provide the chemical content; lasers do. There have been applications to different species, marijuana, for example, in the field. A lot of work was done in water. By using this technology, you could identify different types of chlorophyll in marine vegetation such as chlorophyll A and other pigments. This is doable and is being done.
The answer to your question is ``yes'' but as Mr. Tremblay said, there is an easier way rather than flying an airplane to do it roughly. This technology allows you to do it immediately.
Senator Day: If a farmer had a field of canola that was modified by a company like Monsanto and the farmer next door did not want it, can this technology identify whether there was a spread of the modified canola from one field to another?
Mr. Dudelzak: Theoretically, it could. Before I answer yes, however, I should like to run a sample to see how different they are.
Senator Day: They are not too different visibly.
Mr. Dudelzak: No, I mean from the point of this technology.
Senator Wiebe: Can this technology be used to detect genetically modified plants that are growing out there? I would certainly encourage your department to pursue this aggressively because the mood is out there and there will be a lot of discussion and debate over whether we should allow genetically modified foods. If we are to do so, then how can we detect which is and which is not? I am happy that we can do that. If it requires flying over the field with a plane, we may have to fly over a lot of fields to make that determination.
Mr. Dudelzak: The research is needed before you start flying.
Senator Wiebe: Do you feel that this technology can be developed?
Mr. Dudelzak: Potentially, I think so. However, I have heard many promises, even to the point where some things that possibly cannot work were promised. For this one, on the physical background of light interaction with light and the type of molecules we are dealing with, yes, potentially it is. However, to say how, what would be involved and how much does it take to be able to do so, I cannot answer that today.
Senator Wiebe: How many dollars would you require to develop that technology?
Mr. Dudelzak: For differentiating between genetically modified and non-modified?
Senator Wiebe: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: I would have to say that the feasibility could be determined within a relatively short period of time. Measurements could be taken over a one-year period by comparing different varieties that either or have not been genetically modified. Assuming that everything worked in a laboratory setting, substantial investments would be needed to apply the process on a broader scale. It would be possible with a reasonable research budget to determine fairly quickly whether or not the process worked in a laboratory. I am talking about a budget in the neighbourhood of $100,000.
[English]
Mr. Dudelzak: You probably wanted to hear not ``reasonable'' but how much. A careful scientist would say, ``Let me do my budget.'' Generally, the whole thing would fit between $100 and $1 million Canadian.
Senator Wiebe: That is a lot of leeway.
Mr. Dudelzak: I mean different stages. First, you run the research in the lab and you pay a technician and buy some little things. I believe our agencies would contribute our salaries, which is probably the most expensive part. However, to make a device is a different story.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: That is an excellent suggestion, one that I had not thought of. There is indeed considerable potential in the application of genetically modified organisms. Thank you for suggesting that.
We have also obtained some very interesting results in the area of weed detection. We conducted tests in our Saint- Jean laboratory and found that by using a simple piece of equipment, it was possible to detect areas where weeds were growing and thus curtail herbicide use. Herbicides can then be applied only in areas where weeds are present. Remote sensing technology is especially suited to such applications and the potential for use in a discriminatory manner is great. We are interested in further developing this particular application of the technology.
I mentioned nitrogen levels, but weed detection is another example of how this technology can be put to good use.
[English]
The Chairman: Given the fact that you do not have the research money and that things are not moving ahead, is this giving a real leg up to companies like Monsanto to capitalize on this type of thing? This is a real political issue out in the farming community. We have no idea of the impact of what is happening out there. I was talking to one of the fertilizer companies last night and they claim they are losing money. I find that hard to believe, with the amount of fertilizer we must buy for our farms.
There is a vacuum here that concerns me. When we did plant breeders' rights — and I lived through that in the House of Commons — we actually brought in something that we all worked for that is now penalizing us because the small seed grower has not got a hope. We have created a monopoly for some of the big companies, which might be tying your hands on research to some extent.
Mr. Dudelzak: I do not think they do anything like that, but one should ask: Why was it was the largest fertilizer manufacturer in Germany that started the whole research of this sort there concerning nitrogen and everything? We were doing this for water, for nuclear contamination, organic, biological, and so on, but it was that fertilizer manufacturer who went ahead and said, ``We do not want to be overloading because our government does not like it. At the same time, we do not want to undercut ourselves and sell less than necessary.'' They then came to Canada because the technology was here.
I had expression of interest once but the representative of the company said, ``We will buy this device when you have it ready. We will not fund the research.''
Senator Mahovlich: Thank you for your excellent presentation. I have a money question. Would there have been a great influx of research money after the Walkerton incident?
Mr. Dudelzak: If you read the newspapers, yes. The Ontario government had $800 million to throw in to improve the water quality checking and the supply.
I do not want to sound cynical, but I have been watching the creation of two independent clean water networks in Canada, universities centres of excellence. There were substantial monies, something like $4 million. They were competing for them. I was invited to both establishing conferences of those networks. To my surprise, only economists, lawyers and others were attending from different faculties of universities. There were no technology people. By now, the money has disappeared on something. Mr. Tremblay has not felt anything on that source of funding.
Senator Mahovlich: You have not participated with the research from Walkerton?
Mr. Dudelzak: There was no research in Walkerton.
Senator Mahovlich: There was no research after the incident? I would think the governments would have approached people like yourselves.
Mr. Dudelzak: I made a presentation about the water — not this one, though — at one of those centres of excellence. It was done at the invitation from Crest Tech, a centre of excellence in the Ontario university network. There were people from the Ministry of Natural Resources of Ontario that are responsible for water quality. They said, ``Would you be in a position to come to Peterborough and make an extended presentation?'' This was in January 2000, a few months before the Walkerton situation. They said, if your organization, like the space agency, would put something on the table, we would do much more. I said, ``With pleasure. My superiors will definitely support it if we see the need. The space agency is the source of the technology. Our mandate is to fly in space. This is a spin-off of what we are doing. I was pleased to hear that, but I never heard from them again.
When Walkerton happened, I sent an e-mail to the same gentlemen and I still have no answer.
Senator Day: I have a supplementary question to a question that Senator Wiebe posed earlier.
[Translation]
I think Mr. Tremblay may be able to answer my question. Earlier, you stated that if the technology is patented, the government would be the patent holder. Is that generally how things work, or does the patent holder vary, depending on the contributions of each partner in the venture? If the government is awarded the patent, does the private firm hold exclusive licensing rights? If that is the case, then the company has the sole rights to market the invention.
Mr. Tremblay: Let us focus on this particular case. The company has exclusive marketing rights, but not in perpetuity. If I recall correctly, if the company remains inactive for a period of two years, we can claim the rights to market this technology. A clause has been included to provide for this eventuality.
Senator Day: And if the company profits handsomely from this marketing licence, it retains its exclusive rights. Correct?
Mr. Tremblay: In fact, we do receive some royalties.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you for an interesting morning. We are dealing with the report ``Farmers at Risk.'' In what you presented this morning, I am concluding that perhaps we are allowing Canada to fall a bit behind. I am not too critical of the Americans or the Europeans for standing up with the heartland of their countries and recognizing the importance of agriculture. In the world, we have a cheap food policy and the farmers cannot carry the brunt of it all.
Mr. Dudelzak: This happens not only in agriculture. There were several instances elsewhere. People say that it is a typical Canadian situation when Canada is often on the cutting edge in proposing new ideas and then it goes by the wayside because of the lack of funding or support on the second stage.
The whole science of checking or studying water remotely was initiated in Canada. Dr. O'Neil, who started the whole thing in the late 1970s, had an excellent research group. All of them are now in the United States, flying very high at NASA, at the Department of Agriculture, at the Environmental Protection Agency, and elsewhere. Dr. O'Neil is a director of a division that no longer has anything to do with technology development because he did not have funds for the second stage after being praised for starting the whole area of study. This is a bit different.
I wish to thank you very much on behalf of both of us and wish to point out again that whenever something critical was said, it was done in an effort to answer your direct questions. We did not plan to do so intentionally.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation this morning.
The committee continued in camera.