Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 29 - Evidence - Meeting of February 12, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 12, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:35 p.m. to examine and report on research and innovation in the agricultural sector. (topic: The impact of investment at the federal level on industry players from an academic perspective.)
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome honourable senators and witnesses. As stipulated in the order of reference, the witnesses are here today to share their experience and vision, and to make recommendations to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
[English]
I would like to ask the senators to introduce themselves. I will start. I am Percy Mockler, from New Brunswick, and chair of the committee.
Senator Mercer: I am Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Fernand Robichaud from Saint-Louis-de-Kent in New Brunswick.
Senator Merchant: Pana Merchant from Saskatchewan.
Senator Tardif: Claudette Tardif from Alberta.
[English]
Senator Plett: Don Plett and I am a senator from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Buth: JoAnne Buth. I am a senator from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Frum: Linda Frum from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Rivard: Michel Rivard, Les Laurentides, Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for accepting our invitation to come and share your vision and your opinions on agriculture with the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry was authorized to examine and report on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector in particular. The committee was authorized to examine research and development efforts in the context of developing new markets, domestically and internationally, enhancing agricultural sustainability and improving food diversity and security. The committee is continuing its study on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, today we welcome Dr. Janice Bailey, research associate dean, Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences at Université Laval.
[English]
We welcome also Dr. Grant Vandenberg, Associate Member, The Institute of Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods, Université Laval.
To the witnesses, I will ask that you make your presentation, which will be followed by questions from the senators. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Dr. Janice Bailey, Research Associate Dean, Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences, Université Laval: I am pleased to appear before the committee today to share my thoughts and my opinions on agriculture and research.
I have provided a document. I could talk to you for 45 minutes, but when we met informally last spring, this is basically what I presented to give you some information on our faculty and our expertise. I am also including a mini- biography of myself.
[English]
I come from Manitoba and studied in Ontario and in the United States.
[Translation]
I learned French over the past 20 years as a professor at Université Laval. I am the research associate dean and administrator, but I am also a real researcher and a real professor. I have a team and I am a researcher in the trenches.
I am not going to talk about everything our faculty does, but if you read the information about our expertise, perhaps you can find out more. The order of reference is on page 23 of the document I provided. I had not yet decided which language I was going to use.
I sometimes find that my French is not always perfect, but after almost 20 years in Quebec, I search for my words in English as well. So I am not perfect either way. I would like to present the points in agricultural research that could be improved. I am always trying to find solutions because no one likes someone who complains and does nothing about it.
My criticism is constructive, and I hope to be able to discuss your concerns with you. On page 24, I talk about the challenges of research at the federal level.
I have discussed this with several colleagues at Université Laval and in other provinces. It is a small world, and one of the concerns we find very upsetting in the field of research is that the agricultural, food and environmental sector is no longer a strategic target for NSERC — the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.
I am sure you are aware that NSERC is one of the largest government funding agencies. By this, I mean a tri-council made up of NSERC, the Institutes for Health Research and SSHRC, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Those are the three councils that fund research. I think this is very important because it shows just how interdisciplinary the agricultural research being done is. That is why I think that NSERC, the Institutes for Health Research and SSHRC are partners when it comes to agricultural research.
So, agriculture is no longer a strategic focus for NSERC, except that there are four or five strategic research areas established by the Government of Canada, which means that the door may be closed to certain funding programs. There are research programs that have completely shut down and, over the past few years, that has had a significant impact.
I think the situation has changed in the past four or five years. I have not checked the exact dates, but the agri-food sector was previously a priority, and our faculty was responsible for nine major projects that were high risk, but that turned out good results. The private sector might have been involved.
What I find unfortunate today are the concerns set out in the order of reference, which indicate that the world is really preparing for a global food crisis, which is due to a significant increase in population, climate change and biofuels made using grain products.
In my opinion, these are the three major causes contributing to a food crisis. The message we get in Canada is that we are not concerned about this situation, which is basically what I wanted to share with you.
I can talk about funding agencies because I have been on review committees. I believe that research proposals from agriculture and agri-food are much less valued than those from other fields of pure research. It is sort of sad. For example, for a very basic project, you might use mice. People are going to dispute the use of a pig or a cow. Why not something more classic? Why use a tomato?
I am also bothered by the budget cuts being made to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and to Fisheries and Oceans Canada because this directly affects agriculture research.
For example, there were cuts of 10 per cent last year, and there will be another 10 per cent this year. As a result, some sectors have been completely eliminated, including research on sheep production. I find it bizarre that the order of reference poses the question of how to improve food diversity and safety.
With increased immigration in Canada, the fastest growing sector in meat consumption is mutton. I found it difficult to see that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada decided to cut that sector. And Fisheries and Oceans Canada completely eliminated funding for research into fresh water fish production.
So how can we improve? Agriculture should certainly be a strategic focus for NSERC. It is a federal entity that must be changed. I also think that the general public will be concerned to know that there are so many good research projects that are not being supported, simply because of a lack of research funding.
I can make suggestions, but one thing is important and I can elaborate on that later. Senator Buth asked me the question when she visited us in March.
[English]
She said, "You know there will not be any more money for research. What do you change?"
I thought about that, and the biggest thing that I would suggest is that a huge proportion of the research funds that are already allocated to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and perhaps other councils, such as Health Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, should be transferred and their budgets managed under a category of "agriculture" by NSERC, CIHR, and perhaps SSHRC.
[Translation]
That is what I would like to recommend, that a large part of this funding be transferred to be managed elsewhere. I will answer your questions, but I think that these are transparent research councils that are experienced in managing research funding. The money goes directly to the universities and not to other companies, as is currently the case.
The funds are very well accounted for. With respect to research challenges, I would say that Canada has a lot of support for research done in partnership with the private sector. There are a number of research support programs, and there is one that I am very impressed with. It is a research and development program supported by NSERC.
Basically, for each dollar received from a private partner for a real research project, the federal government is willing to contribute up to two dollars. It is very interesting because the United States does not have something like this. There is a lot of interest in this kind of thing in Algeria. International visitors who come and see us find this very interesting.
That is just one program of many. Although I just made a complaint to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada about how research funding is managed, I would like to give an example to show how partnership research is supported. Most of their research projects must be funded through a sector. Their research funding goes to a sector, such as dairy or canola, and they are the ones to direct the funding to the universities, to the researchers who make a specific application.
It is very interesting from one perspective because the sector is sure to receive a certain type of research that it hopes to do. The problem is that this type of partnership research has been promoted but, at the same time, too many cuts have been made to basic research.
To make an analogy, if we cannot plant the seeds, we will never harvest anything. It is like growing potatoes on a large scale. The level of funding we are currently at is very worrisome.
It is the same thing for the sectors supported by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Take the dairy sector, for example. Dairy companies do not necessarily want to share all the information that emerges. This is especially true for food processing sectors. They do not want to participate in this kind of program imposed by Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada. I think that lacks some vision.
There are a lot of examples about the various programs on page 27. I took this from the Government of Canada budget. It gives the impression that the government is contributing to a significant number of projects, and that is true. But what is not mentioned is the fact that, with all these projects, a minimum of 20 or 30 per cent of the funding must come from the private sector for these projects to see the light of day. The private sector is always behind it one way or another.
That gets a little dangerous. There was a story in the news last year about a McGill researcher who was working on asbestos, and he was harshly criticized. According to his work, which he published, asbestos does not cause any health problems. He said that perhaps the health problems were not as serious as we thought. The media looked at who had funded his research and saw that the funding came from NSERC, in partnership with the asbestos industry.
I felt sorry for this man. It was not necessarily a conflict of interest. Without the program or the funding he received, he might never have been able to do this research. But the program was peer-reviewed before he received the funding. The data was not pulled from a hat. A review was still done. His research articles were also published in good journals, unless he falsified the data, which I know nothing about. That is the risk you take with conflicts of interest.
There is something else that upsets me, and it is a serious and recent problem in Canada. NSERC cut programs to fund equipment purchases. Research institutes have not had such a program for I do not know how long. What is going on now? The Canada Foundation for Innovation has major programs. We are talking millions here. That is where we go when we want to buy a machine worth $2 million when major renovations are required, like in a hospital. Our department has been very lucky because we got one. It was a major competition. It cost $6 million.
But it is not there for buying small pieces of equipment. The last time we were advanced funding for this was in 2009. It takes years to prepare an application because the competition is fierce. You have to write a novel for this and it has to be for something major.
If I break a plate at home or my plates are worn or I need more because the family is growing, all I have to do is buy new plates. You do not rebuild the whole house. Research funding for all lab equipment under $100,000 will no longer exist as of this year. In five years, we will have major problems. I think we should take part of the CFI funding and transfer it to NSERC and to the CIHR to give researchers some money to replace equipment. It is no use spending $6 million if we cannot replace something that, in a few years, will cost $35,000 to replace.
I also have criticism for the drop in the number of students doing postgraduate and postdoctoral work. Through a special program, they can receive a scholarship of $70,000 a year. I am sure that whatever job they get after they graduate — often a teaching position — will not pay as well for their first few years of work. So the amount they receive in this type of program is poorly balanced. I would like there to be two or three scholarships instead of this megascholarship.
You also mention globalization in your order of reference. The federal mechanism to support research with international partnerships is weak. There are not really any good programs to do this. Quebec, which has supported these initiatives, historically, must also find other ways to improve this situation. We could share Canadian funding with these other countries to create innovative partnerships.
The federal government should give funds to NSERC so that it can support its own researchers. No researcher from any department can work internationally, even if invited. I organized a convention last year, and the Health Canada researcher I invited came, all expenses paid, but only for 24 hours. We want to have exchanges with specialists during these conventions.
One of our colleagues on campus has a lot of trouble getting to her own fields in the Beauce because her expense budget is so tight. She lives in Sainte-Foy. Conducting research that way makes no sense. That is why it would be better to transfer everything to universities through NSERC.
I can give you all kinds of examples to explain why we should be looking internationally. Canada is ready; we have knowledge to share but we need the means to do so. Other countries also have resources that we can use. We are not talking about development aid; we are talking about scholarly exchange. With our knowledge, we should be recruiting people from overseas and keeping them here with their expertise, then get partnerships and other things under way in order to make our own society better.
One little thing bothers me: the public perception of agriculture is negative and it is wrong. I can understand that it is because there is a huge agriculture lobby in North America, but the danger of that perception is that it will cause major problems. I find that a pity, given the importance of food all over the planet. When you came to see us in March, you asked me to give you examples of sectors that should be developed because they are groundbreaking and innovative. For me, one would be aquaculture. My colleague is an aquaculture expert and it is an orphan industry, if you will. Another promising area would be agroforestry. No one sponsors those two sectors. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does not support them and neither does Fisheries and Oceans, which is more concerned with the open seas.
Agroforestry is not a traditional area. It has a lot of promise, but its two elements are both orphan sciences, I feel. I am sorry if I am taking too much time. But I am a professor and a mother.
In closing, I would like to give you a message that comes right from my heart: the agriculture and agri-food sectors include preventive health. Sustainable development starts with us. We do it to protect the environment and always with the good of society in mind. Agricultural research in this country really can be summed up in those few sentences.
Senator Maltais: Ms. Bailey and Mr. Vandenberg, welcome. It is a pleasure to see you here. I am going to leave it to my colleagues opposite to discuss the way the funding works and I am sure that they will teach us well. But I would rather focus on some specific points. In the Senate, we see an awful lot of researchers and we have travelled across Canada ourselves. You said that the forestry sector is somewhat of an orphan in Quebec, but do you know that it is well looked after in other provinces?
Dr. Bailey: Yes.
Senator Maltais: I will use the example of New Brunswick, where independent researchers come from universities and private industry. Do you know that the forestry legislation in Quebec, Bill 65 they call it, comes from New Brunswick? I was a member of the National Assembly at the time and I went over to New Brunswick to see what I could learn. The bureaucrats wanted to send me to Sweden and Norway. But, since I am from Baie-Comeau, all I had to do was cross the river. We have to make use of the research that is being done all over Canada and that is something that researchers often forget.
I was talking about aquaculture with Dr. Vandenberg. I have visited some facilities and I have never understood why we in Quebec are incapable of raising trout, however smart we think we are. They have aquaculture in other provinces. I just do not get it. So that is an area we could develop.
In terms of funding, I feel that private industry has a place because, in other provinces, it is very present. There is still the problem of intellectual property, but that is a matter for the lawyers.
I would like to discuss one specific point with you; it is coming, probably this year. How do you see the Canada- Europe free trade agreement in terms of science and technology in agriculture?
What kind of agreement can you make with the countries of Europe so that agriculture complies with the overall terms of the treaty?
Dr. Bailey: First of all, let me make a quick comment about research cooperation with other provinces. I completely support it and NSERC provides great support. Dr. Vandenberg is part of an interprovincial organization that discusses challenges in agriculture. You are aware of INAF; it sets up partnerships with all the provinces. Our faculty also collaborates with researchers in all provinces. So we understand the situation. I mentioned agroforestry, the link between the two elements and the difficulties involved.
In terms of free trade — and I am no economist — what I can say is that a number of studies on it have been done in our faculty. Your analyst did her masters in agri-food economics in our research centre. There are people who study it in conjunction with the faculty of administration. So the research centre brings two faculties together.
Dr. Grant Vandenberg, Associate Member, The Institute of Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods, Université Laval: I am not an economist either; I am a fish nutritionist. But we still see the potential of cooperating with other countries on research. For a start, I am thinking particularly about food safety because standards vary greatly and we have to try to align varying standards, both in production and processing as well as for food safety indicators. Scientists are playing their part, but government organizations need to do a great deal as well. I am thinking of food inspection agencies, and how to align various standards. It is a major challenge.
Senator Maltais: I am asking the question because quality is always a challenge in free-trade agreements.
Dr. Bailey: I feel that it is one of our strengths.
Senator Maltais: When quality is a challenge, deeper research is automatically needed. We are going to have to be out in front of this because there will be products coming from Europe and we will be sending products there too. The technology has to be one step ahead. In research, we cannot stand still because that automatically means falling behind. We have to keep moving forward little by little and it is not easy. We need to keep doing research in order to maintain the high quality of our products. I quite agree with you.
I just have one last point. You mentioned a group of research grants coming from different sources. You mentioned the departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Oceans, and so on. Could you send us a little note on that so that we can follow up with the research centre? We cannot reinvent the wheel, but I understand that it becomes very difficult for you to fill in applications to all the programs, because they vary a great deal. I also think that is what the minister wants, so if there is a way to bring them together more, so that researchers like you have to spend less time running after grants, it would be a good thing. I feel that this is a step forward because it is a consideration that did not exist before and that now does.
Dr. Vandenberg: I find that idea very interesting. It is true that there are scientists in a number of organizations like Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Agriculture Canada and Health Canada. Why not integrate them into universities? True, they will be afraid of losing their jobs, but, especially in organizations like agriculture and fisheries and oceans, we are seeing a reduction mostly in basic research. So why not integrate them into universities?
[English]
Senator Mercer: Thank you both for being here; it is good to see you again.
You have given us a lot of material. I am having a hard time determining where to contribute, but I want to talk about graduate students, the master's program, PhD, and post-doctoral program at Laval.
On page 7, you tell us what those numbers are, and they have grown steadily in the master's program and in the post-doctoral program. There was a dip in the PhD program between 2005-06 and 2010-11. At the same time, you told us on page 28 that the support for graduate students from, for example, NSERC's awarding scholarships had dropped off significantly.
Is there a direct reflection between NSERC and your program, or is something else driving that?
Dr. Bailey: Is something else driving the fall in the PhD program? There are perhaps a number of reasons. In our particular university in Quebec, the population is declining. There are fewer students entering CEGEP and fewer students entering university and then going on.
Another factor in our constant effort to recruit graduate students is that in the agriculture programs the acceptance rate or the job placement rate is very close to 100 per cent. We could certainly use, in Quebec anyway, another 10 per cent more people in agriculture working on the ground, in the field of agronomy. We have a hard time recruiting. That could be part of the reason for the PhD students. I think it is mostly declining numbers. There are very good job placement rates after an undergraduate degree and even better after a master's degree. We are working hard to increase that.
Yes, obviously, not having scholarships is tough. If those students do not have a scholarship, at least in our faculty and probably most faculties of agriculture across Canada, our research grants support them. If a student comes to me with a scholarship, I am so happy because that means I have a little bit more money for something else.
Senator Mercer: You comment on page 30 that the further from the farm, the further from reality is the perception the public has of agriculture, how they look at it in a negative sense. That perception is probably having an effect on recruitment also.
Dr. Bailey: I am very sorry to say that that is probably at the root of some of our academic-level challenges in recruiting students. Agriculture in this continent is not considered to be very sexy. I think all the time of how we can change the name of agriculture to be something a little bit more attractive. It breaks my heart to think that the field that feeds us and invented the concept of sustainable development and respect for the environment has such bad press. I absolutely do agree with you, internationally it does not seem to be the same kind of problem. There is so much misguided mistrust and perhaps poor knowledge, but that is a real problem.
Senator Mercer: Canada has been a world leader in many ways in the development of agricultural products and particularly through the National Research Council and through the experimental farms, et cetera, across the country. It is a shame that we are losing that.
You did say something at the beginning that should have scared most people — it did me — that we are on the eve of a global food crisis.
Dr. Bailey: I think so.
Senator Mercer: If we tie that into the 9 billion people we are about to have on this planet, how do you see the global crisis manifesting itself? What will the first signs be, in your estimation?
Dr. Bailey: I want to clarify something also. I want to go back to your original question that the type of students we are seeing now in agriculture is quite different. When I started roughly 20 years ago there were a whole bunch of John Deere hats on a bunch of young men in the lecture theatre. Now there are many women, and a lot of these people — and the men as well — are very much environmentally aware. It is a different mindset. I am happy that the students we have are thinking in a really visionary way. I do not want to be disrespectful of John Deere.
In terms of the global food crisis, we are going to feel it a lot less immediately in Canada. In terms of climate change, we are going to probably benefit in many parts of Canada. We are not exploring that at all, whatsoever, in my opinion. Also, a reason why it seems so far away from us is that, despite everyone's complaints with growing food costs, the truth is that the amount of our disposable income used to buy groceries is probably the lowest it has ever been in history. It is under 10 per cent, I believe, whereas in France it is probably 22 per cent, and in Africa it is probably 70 per cent. We are so privileged; we are going to feel it so much later than other countries.
Perhaps Mr. Vandenberg would like to comment on this. He has had a lot of experience in Africa and Asia and can probably comment more.
Dr. Vandenberg: Someone who came to speak with us at our aquaculture annual meeting last year, an economist from Ottawa, had a very interesting quotation. He said that in the next 50 years we will have to produce more food than we have produced since the start of humanity. When you think about that for just one minute, it is pretty daunting. If you look at the increase in productivity of grains or animals, it has been quite incredible. We talk about the green revolution and the importance of very intensive farming and how that has been able to come about. Then you see the developments in biotechnology, genetically modified organisms and the great applications that will come from that. I am a firm believer in that. That will be pushed to the nth degree to be able to feed people for the next 50 years.
I have been involved in development efforts related to aquaculture in West Africa in particular, in Ghana, Burkina Faso and Togo. We have a project ongoing right now where we are trying to use biomass to produce soldier fly larvae to feed fish that will feed the people in a very extensive way, not very intensive, but nonetheless it is a great opportunity.
Biotechnology and innovations in agriculture will have to lead the way, the way it has been done for the last 50 years, but it will take a different form.
Senator Mercer: Dr. Bailey, you said that we are not exploring the opportunities that global warming presents. We are also not exploiting it either. That is the opportunity that is there.
Dr. Bailey: Exactly.
Senator Buth: It is good to see you again, Dr. Bailey. I want to go back to the NSERC position where agriculture is not a priority. I will challenge you again. I did not hear in what you gave us anything that we could use essentially or that could be used to convince the Government of Canada that agriculture needs to be a priority.
Dr. Bailey: Perhaps it is how we could deal with the industry in terms of climate change or this global food crisis that we think might be happening. The other thing in terms of Canada that was mentioned earlier is that we are not going to feed the world like maybe we think we can. When I was a girl, I grew up thinking that I lived in the breadbasket of the world. I thought that we fed half the globe. That is not really the case.
We have to concentrate on quality as well. If we want to be competitive in anything, we have to be the leaders in terms of quality and also responsible production.
I do not have the exact numbers, but I think that one in eight positions or jobs in Canada are directly related to the agri-food industry. In terms of agriculture and its impact on the environment, and also the crises that we have experienced in recent years in meat contamination and public health scares, I am not saying we are having a problem; I am saying we are dealing with it very well and I am sure we are losing fewer lives because of food health or food safety issues compared to the years when we ate the beans that grandma canned on the farm. Botulism and these kinds of bacteria were much greater then.
We have some challenges in terms of globalization and also the massive distribution of our food within Canada. We have many challenges to carry out, and we need to maintain our food source as a priority.
The other thing is that we have an aging population, and nutrition, health and aging are all interconnected. We can talk about preventive measures and eating healthier foods. All that is part of agriculture, the nutrition, and these are really key issues that the government will have to worry about.
I think I structured my comments very poorly. If I was typing this I would be cutting and pasting and moving things around.
Senator Buth: Globally there is a surplus of wheat in the market right now, and India is exporting. Things can change very quickly in food production. It is not that we are in a food crisis right now. I still have not heard from you what Laval's value proposition is. What is Laval doing that is innovative and amazing that could convince us to say to NSERC we need more funding in agriculture?
Dr. Bailey: I think that we would probably have to look at all of the priorities, not just NSERC, or all the councils. First, as I said, aquaculture is a huge, gigantic sector that needs support and research. There is great potential in the middle of Manitoba — there was a model farm there — in terms of interesting types of innovation. Canada should be a leader in aquaculture but we are not.
Agri-forestry is very new and exciting. I talk about agri-forestry, but I do not know much about it; we have experts in our campus on this area. It is where you use treed production along with some large crops and things like this. It can be very effective. There are some studies from the United States talking about the incredible productivity that can happen. This is maybe not something that is going to happen in the fields of the Prairies that we know, but it might be something that could be very interesting for some of the other areas in Canada, especially as climate change happens. We can exploit some areas that have perhaps not been used heretofore.
I think in terms of nutrition. Nutrition is part of agriculture. This is where we start to have some really innovative areas of research at INAF, the Institute of Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods. This is where they are able to find bioactive compounds that have extreme health benefits that can be protective of health. This is a nice, prophylactic, good-cost way to keep healthy as we are aging as opposed to constant medication. This is the difference between preventive health and medicine, if you will. That is where I think agriculture is key. We have this great expertise at INAF where they are working on things like the neurophenols that are in cranberries. I think cranberries are high in them, as are blueberries. They are able to extract these products from these fantastic plants that we have indigenous in Quebec. These are being studied to see how they actually work to protect against Alzheimer's. I think we can talk about fish products and how they protect cardiovascular health. We are innovative and world leaders in that kind of thing as well.
Types of innovative production, as Dr. Vandenberg suggested, need to happen here, for example in urban agriculture. There are some exciting ideas where some fish productions are coupled with greenhouse horticulture productions that are then maybe using some kind of by-product from hydroelectric dams. All these industries are connected together to be more effective in their production. These are exciting and innovative things that we need to think about here to feed some of our populations even in the Far North that can be touched. Those are very innovative. However, I do not know if I am able to convince you.
International is not my area of expertise, but we have people studying in terms of free trade. As Senator Maltais said, I think this is where Canada really has to play its role carefully or we will be squished.
Dr. Vandenberg: I also wanted to address the issue of the interface between agriculture and energy because a lot of agricultural commodities now are going for energy production. You have to look at the Prairies, where they use canola to make biodiesel.
Senator Buth: Do you know what percentage that is?
Dr. Vandenberg: I do not.
Senator Buth: That is less than 1 per cent, so I want to caution you about using that term a lot.
Dr. Vandenberg: If you look at the example of the United States and using corn for production of ethanol, that has grown significantly over the last number of years. I think that really is a stop-gap approach. That will go by the wayside because we are learning how to use the waste from agriculture, corn stover, straw and things like that, to produce ethanol using the by-products finally rather than the useful products that could be used to feed humans.
I think a lot of innovations should be directed toward that. That work is ongoing at Laval University with Agriculture Canada and some academic groups. There is a large effort to use agricultural by-products and forestry by- products to produce ethanol and biofuels.
Senator Buth: I will ask if you could think about this and maybe provide some information to the clerk.
Dr. Vandenberg: Yes, for sure.
Senator Buth: If I am a farmer from Quebec dairy, looking at maybe canola because it is increasing in Quebec, I want to know what have you done for me lately. That is the kind of information I am looking for.
Dr. Vandenberg: I am a fish nutritionist, and we have large problems. One of the big problems holding back the industry in Quebec is the perceived problems of environmental degradation of feeding fish. We have been working hard over the last number of years to develop low-polluting, high-performance feeds. Those are now used by 80 per cent of the farms in the freshwater sector as a result of the work we have done along with our collaborators. That is a clear example of how we have affected that problem. Will that change the production of fish in Quebec? Unfortunately not because we are lacking a lot of leadership on the provincial side, and that is a real pity.
Dr. Bailey: That can also change things in other provinces where they have more leadership. That is a good example.
Dr. Vandenberg: For sure. In the province of Manitoba — and I just met my colleague from AFRI here today — we are trying to produce a new concept for producing fish. The first one went in at the Interlake Region outside of Morin, Manitoba.
There is a lot of innovation to be done in certain sectors. Certainly Laval has a great history of work in the dairy sector, not so much genetics but feeding cattle, management, processing of milk, all of those innovations from the cow on.
Senator Buth: You need to talk more about that. If you are looking for funding, it is not a matter of saying we need funding and here are some global issues.
Dr. Bailey: I could think of some clear examples, in addition. All the probiotics and things we are seeing in our yogurt drinks and things like that were done by STELA, our research centre, which was primary in that kind of technology. When we look at embryo transfer in our dairy cattle, it is well known that Canada's dairy herd is the best in the world; everybody wants our genetics. Those techniques of embryo transfer, embryo sexing and testing happened at Laval in collaboration with the industry. These kinds of things are the direct results of what happened. We also have a tremendous amount of effort going on in terms of restoring peat lands, which have great protective effect against some of the greenhouse gases. Many of them have been destroyed worldwide. We have a remarkable woman working actively on protecting these kinds of lands. I appreciate your asking for some very clear examples.
Senator Buth: I am probably more than out of my time, chair, so I leave it up to you.
Dr. Vandenberg: Could I just address one of your questions regarding agriculture falling off the radar of the federal government. One clear example is NSERC's Strategic Project program. About five or six years ago, novel foods and bioproducts were a major theme of importance within that program. You could apply only to a handful of themes. If you do not work in that area, you do not apply to it. They are very nice grants. They are very competitive and they are early-stage research that will bring out products.
I think that the country benefited greatly from that work, but that was taken off the priority area and was probably replaced by information technology. That is not unimportant; do not get me wrong. However, I find it a pity that strategic area was taken off. That is just one example.
At the same time, Agriculture Canada and Fisheries and Oceans are backing away from research. It is rather insidious in terms of the backing away from the importance of agricultural research and development in innovation. These things are happening simultaneously and it will, over time, erode our capacity to innovate.
Senator Buth: It is competition for dollars, and that is why I am challenging you. Your story has to be really clear.
Dr. Vandenberg: I appreciate that.
Senator Merchant: Many of my questions have been answered. Maybe you need better public relations. Obviously you are not convincing the government, and even the ordinary person on the street is not relating to you. There is a lot of confusing information out there, and what is good today, something else comes along, even about fish oils, omega- 3s, you can take too much. It is very confusing for people.
For a researcher this is very interesting and exciting work for you, but I think you need to have support from Canadians and from governments, provincial and federal. I do not know how you can get your story out.
Dr. Bailey: I really appreciate that question. I quickly mentioned it in a slide here. I wonder: Is that a dossier that Agriculture Canada should be looking at, trying to do the PR for people? Should universities do it? I do not know. That is a question I really wonder about as well. That is a very good question.
With due respect to our media, I think we are also very heavily influenced by the type of media we have. As a general rule, most journalists do not have a strong background in science or agriculture, and so we wind up being a bit of a slave to their limitations.
Dr. Vandenberg: There is a saying, "If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead," and that is very true. Sometimes good news stories are not as interesting.
Senator Merchant: They are not in the news.
Dr. Vandenberg: Yes.
Senator Merchant: Ms. Bailey, when you were speaking at the beginning you made a funny grimace when you spoke about funding here as compared to the U.S. Can you tell me what they are doing there? Are they taking some of our researchers? We are worried about that.
Dr. Bailey: There is a brain drain. I think things in the United States are very poor. They are much worse than here in Canada. What I do not like is that I feel that so many of the decisions made by, I do not know, decision makers, are so heavily influenced by what happens to the U.S. that I worry we are heading onto a slippery slope. The funding and support to the land-grant universities in the U.S., which we do not have here, thankfully, is rock bottom. I do not like that precedent and where that could lead us. These people are having a hard time, and I want us to remain distinct.
The support for research funding in general in the United States is marginally poorer than ours. Just because it is terrible in the U.S. does not mean that Canada should follow that as well. I really hope that we can prevent that.
We have to maintain a balance between industry-supported research and basic, fundamental science. We have to maintain that balance, and maybe we are tipping. In the United States they do not have the history of industry-funded research. I think that is where we are strong.
Senator Merchant: What other countries do you look to and aspire to emulate in securing funding?
Dr. Bailey: Canada is really a leader in terms of collaboration. I think we should be the model for others. For fundamental research, that is a really good question.
Dr. Vandenberg: I was speaking with a colleague who is on sabbatical in Norway, and she is completely blown away by the amount of support they have for fundamental and applied research. A lot of those countries — Finland, Denmark, Norway — have a tendency to be very liberal.
Dr. Bailey: Maybe the Netherlands too.
Dr. Vandenberg: Yes, but they are suffering to a certain degree. In Norway, for instance, they are very lucky: They have a lot of petroleum money coming in at the moment and are spending that on research and innovation.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I have some questions about research funding in 2010-11. It is on page 12 of your document. Since you are from Quebec, let me start with your provincial funding. The Marois government has announced a cut for next year. Can you remind me if it was a 10 per cent cut to grants or $10 million, by and large?
Dr. Bailey: The provincial government's budget for research is $63 million.
Senator Rivard: So it is 10 per cent.
Dr. Bailey: Even more than that.
Dr. Vandenberg: For the natural sciences, the cut is 30 per cent. In medicine, it is less.
Senator Rivard: I would like you to tell me the exact amount of the cut to your research funding that is going to come from Quebec. Have you been made aware of those details?
Dr. Vandenberg: I am sure the figures are available. I do not think the impact on the various programs is known yet.
Dr. Bailey: It is true that $63 million are going to be cut. As Mr. Vandenberg said, that is one third of the budget for the natural sciences, which was highly competitive already. For medicine, the figure is 12 per cent, I believe, and the same goes for the social sciences. It is dramatic.
Senator Rivard: Are some research programs going to be in trouble?
Dr. Bailey: Absolutely.
Dr. Vandenberg: Yes.
Senator Rivard: Are you hopeful that the private sector can do more?
Dr. Bailey: No.
Senator Rivard: But I see that 45 per cent of your budget comes from the private sector, meaning that a little bit of extra effort on their part could make up for the provincial cut, to some extent.
Dr. Bailey: I should have brought you a chart so that you could see how much the pie has changed in the last 10 years or so. Ten years ago, the federal government's share was more than 50 per cent. That has changed a lot. Our faculty is by far the highest performing in terms of partnership funding. It is probably the same all over Canada. I dare say we are going to get a big shock.
Senator Rivard: In the same table, I see that private partnerships made up 45 per cent of the funding in 2010-11. I imagine that it is pretty much the same in 2013.
Dr. Bailey: Probably.
Senator Rivard: That is probably about $10 million today. Can you name two or three private sponsors whose contributions are more than, say, $500,000? Are there private companies that contribute at that level, or are we talking about a whole lot of little sponsors?
Dr. Bailey: There are some big projects we can talk about. The research chairs based on partnerships are pretty impressive. The Fédération des producteurs d'œufs du Québec, for example, supports real positions, in the order of $1 million over five years, at least. The Fédération des producteurs du lait du Québec supports big projects with major amounts. Novolait, which is a consortium of three private companies — Agropur, Parmalat and Saputo — supports at least two major positions and some large-scale projects. We should also mention the sod producers. They do a lot. I went to see Medicago, and it is a very interesting industry.
It is a company that manufactures bioactive molecules from genetically modified plants. They contribute almost half a million dollars in cash and another half a million dollars in kind.
Senator Rivard: On page 27 of your presentation, the point I am about to make is not in your text, but you mentioned that the federal government requires you to have a contribution of 20 to 30 per cent from the private sector for new research projects. But according to the data on page 12, you already have 45 per cent from the private sector. So the problem does not arise.
Dr. Bailey: What I meant on page 27 is that it gives the impression that the money is solely for academics. But we need other campaigns in order to find partners, because without partners, you cannot get access to that funding.
Senator Rivard: Thank you. Keep up the good work. We are very proud of what the Université Laval is doing; it is our university.
Dr. Bailey: When you next come to campus to visit your grandson, stop by and say hello.
Senator Rivard: With pleasure.
Senator Robichaud: Earlier, you mentioned researchers employed by various departments. Did I understand that, if there were more cooperation between departments and universities, we would be a lot more productive? I would not really like departments to be cutting researchers and sending them off to work in universities. But is that the point you wanted to make?
Dr. Bailey: I just gave you the facts that research positions have been cut. I know researchers who have lost their jobs. But you raise a very interesting point. One good way for the government, the federal departments, to stimulate research would be to have researchers in universities. That kind of collaboration would be very interesting and productive.
When I arrived in the faculty, there were four or five Agriculture Canada researchers at Laval. They had supervision privileges for graduate students, which is generally a privilege that only professors have. That kind of collaboration was quite productive in terms of the training of highly qualified people and in the use of resources. We could use Agriculture Canada's equipment and services and they could use ours. That kind of initiative is very interesting.
One suggestion I could have mentioned would be to encourage that kind of collaboration. I think there are examples in other faculties. In agriculture, I imagine that kind of arrangement could work very well.
I also believe that Agriculture Canada has decided to make cuts in certain areas. I am hesitant to go any further into that because I do not understand the rationale for the cuts. Despite their collaboration with us, no one saw fit to protect those researchers.
Senator Robichaud: We do not know either, but we are trying to understand. Mr. Vandenberg, would you like to add anything?
Dr. Vandenberg: I would like to reiterate what Ms. Bailey said. Not only do we have researchers in our midst, but a lot of associate researchers are part of our department. Because of that ongoing collaboration, we co-direct graduate students. The practice is widespread. For example, in our department of animal science, we collaborate closely with the research station in Lennoxville, which is not very far away. We often see student exchanges and it a very active area.
Senator Robichaud: We hear about urban agriculture, but that is pretty much it. I thought I heard about experiments being conducted in Montreal on rooftops to recover energy or heat for greenhouses. Should we pay closer attention to this type of agriculture?
Dr. Bailey: That is a very good question. Mr. Vandenberg is on an exploratory committee. Our faculty has just started to offer a certificate program or a mini-program in urban agriculture. That is an area we are exploring right now and your question is relevant.
Dr. Vandenberg: I feel this is a fascinating issue for a number of reasons. First, it was mentioned earlier that people no longer know what agriculture is and where their food comes from. This is a way of making this vital notion a concrete one. As a supply of nutrients, the area is fairly marginal. The mini-program that we are organizing is still very useful in terms of vegetables, of course. Perhaps you have seen the show La semaine verte on raising hens in cities. In Vancouver, the trend is very popular. The problem is that it is prohibited in a number of cities. Restrictions in some cities do not really allow this type of production.
Senator Tardif: I would like to go back to the whole issue of funding by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. Could you tell us what percentage of researchers who submit applications to the Council receive funding?
Dr. Bailey: It all depends on the program and the age of the researcher. I cannot strictly talk about agriculture. Generally speaking, we are talking about a researcher's smallest but the most prestigious projects. The success rate is still very high. It is probably around 35 per cent. Those are small grants of $35,000 or $36,000 per year. But they are very significant. I feel that my grant is really at the heart of my research program.
In agriculture and in veterinary science, there has been a reform that made the evaluation more multidisciplinary. As a result, our success rate has dropped by approximately 10 per cent, becoming much lower for us. I think that this drop is a result of misperception or the fact that it is difficult for evaluators to appreciate why some agricultural issues are being studied—but I am just speculating.
For other partnership programs, the success rate may be around 70 or 80 per cent, which is quite high. For other programs, such as research chairs, the rate is much lower and the competition is higher. On paper, the rates seem very good. However, NSERC will sort through the applications and say that it is not worth proceeding. If a letter of intent is included, the success rate is often higher. So success varies. Is my answer helpful?
Senator Tardif: Yes.
Dr. Bailey: I was quite vague.
Senator Tardif: I think it is still relatively high. Other research councils, such as the social sciences and humanities research council, have a success rate between 20 and 25 per cent.
Dr. Bailey: In medicine, the rate is lower than that. I was the evaluator of one of the discovery programs, which is very important for researchers in Canada. I was there in 2010 or so.
Ms. Fortier, the president of NSERC, works very hard to protect that fund. An international panel of experts was formed to assess the program, which was criticized because the success rate was too high. The panel strongly suggested that the program be protected. Ms. Fortier would be in a better position than I to defend it, but I was privileged to be involved in the evaluation.
Senator Tardif: You mentioned that agriculture is not a strategic sector for NSERC. Did that have an impact on the success rate of the grant applications?
Dr. Bailey: I think so. We do not have any evidence, but we have noticed a substantial drop of 10 per cent in our sector after the change.
Senator Tardif: You said in your presentation that a number of excellent research projects are not funded. You gave us a few examples. Do you have any other examples that you would like to tell us about? If there were more projects and if the 10 per cent had not been lost, what type of research could have been funded?
Dr. Bailey: By NSERC or in Canada, in general?
Senator Tardif: For your researchers at Laval University, for example.
Dr. Bailey: I am trying to think of those that did not make the cut. One project that was not funded comes to mind, but I did not do the assessment myself.
One project that I can think of has to do with nutrient absorption mechanisms in domestic animals and with trying to develop better strategies to reduce the release of phosphorous and nitrogen.
Another project that was not funded — once again I cannot say whether it was great or not, since I did not evaluate it, but I am familiar with the topic — was on the bacteriology and microbiology of meat, the behaviour of pathogens, in terms of public safety.
Those are the two topics off the top of my head. Once again, I did not assess those projects, but I know they were not funded.
The Chair: Ms. Bailey, since this is a very relevant question, would you be able to send us your projections for the future and your observations so far? We are not trying to tie you in knots by asking you this question, but we would like to know what the impact on the industry is exactly.
Senator Tardif: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That would in fact be very useful for the committee.
You talked about interdisciplinary research and the fact that the term "agriculture" is perhaps perceived as being very limiting. You also said that you would like to see another word used instead of "agriculture" in your grant applications? Is interdisciplinary research encouraged? And does it receive sufficient funding, in your view?
Dr. Bailey: That is a great question. As an academic, I have used the word throughout my career, saying that multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research is always encouraged, that we need projects, and so on, but the reality is that there is actually no mechanism to support this interdisciplinary approach.
I would say that NSERC is the body that is most open to it. We can do things that are more multidisciplinary, but not as much as we would like. In Quebec, we have had chief scientist Dr. Rémi Quirion for a number of years and he manages the research funds for Quebec. There are three councils, one for natural sciences, one for health and one for social sciences. Dr. Quirion had put out a call for truly multidisciplinary projects in those three major areas. Our faculty took on two that were well regarded. Mr. Vandenberg sent one that dealt with fish farming and greenhouse production, in conjunction with health and the social sciences, because he said that this type of technology can be developed in the far north by Aboriginal peoples. So that put it in the social sciences.
We had another one in our faculty — it was truly interdisciplinary — on how the environment can change our health. Those are the two projects that were submitted. Dr. Quirion was very enthusiastic about the two projects. Mr. Vandenberg was invited to make presentations to the provinces. The problem is that, with the cuts, we had to find an additional $10 million for this project. But now we have $63 million less. I am not sure how we can work with that.
At the federal level, there is a small collaborative project between NSERC and CIHR. That project is really interesting and it is just getting off the ground. They have been talking about it for a long time, but it is only now that they are starting to do something. It is easier said than done. We can work on it in our research centres at Laval University, since we use a multidisciplinary approach, after all. I am part of a research centre for reproductive biology, which overlaps with medicine, animal protection, ethics and law.
Senator Maltais: We have done a thorough job of covering the issue in broad terms, with individual senators asking very specific questions.
We must also talk about the outcomes. Earlier, you said that Canadian beef has high ratings internationally. You may have forgotten to mention milk. I know you have worked with the Fédération des producteurs de lait. You have worked with the other provinces as well. We are seeing the results today. The largest Quebec cooperative is merging with the maritime provinces cooperative. Why? Because there is a market for high quality milk. The same goes for Western Canada.
It is through research that we have reached this level of quality. If we compare our Canadian milk with American milk, our milk has better nutritional value. Dairy products, such as yogurt, are also better.
That is all the result of research. It is because you formed a partnership with producers at the time. You have developed very high quality products that are recognized internationally. Let me just say congratulations. Do not give up. Life is full of obstacles. Agriculture, although it is not celebrated across Canada and it does not make the headlines, still provides the nutritional independence of a country like Canada and this is important. It also helps us feed other people in the world.
The Chair: Before we adjourn, I would like to draw your attention to two points. On a visit to McCain Foods, Senator Mercer mentioned the following, and I quote:
[English]
. . . the Toronto-based company is no longer just a processor of potatoes but a marketer.
"We have an obligation to satisfy consumers' needs for many, many years to come. . . . We collectively need to shift our focus on the consumer as never before. We can't rely on population growth and we can't rely on prosperity per se."
[Translation]
So that is what the modernization of agriculture means.
I have two questions for you. I am not asking you to answer right now, but please send us a written response.
First, should aquaculture be directly related to or should it be integrated into what is known as agriculture? I would like to know your opinion on that, because the industry approached us saying that it would rather belong to agriculture than the fishing industry.
Also, you made a comment that concerns me and affects Canadian agriculture. You talked about a global food crisis. Could you tell us what factors will contribute to this global food crisis?
On that note, I thank you for being here.
(The committee adjourned.)