Not long after the winter election is over and Canada’s 39th government is sworn in, the agriculture minister will be handed a report setting out proposals for reforming Agriculture Canada’s science and research effort.
While the politicians are campaigning in January snows, officials in the department will be analyzing the responses that came from farmers, provinces, researchers and other players during a two-month departmental consultation on new science directions.
Agriculture minister Andy Mitchell has told them he wants some solid recommendations for decisions by the April 1 start of the new fiscal year.
Read Also
Alberta researcher helps unlock the economics of farming
Lethbridge Polytechnic researcher helping agriculture producers with decision-making tools in economic feasibility
Christiane Deslauriers, Agriculture Canada director general for bio-products and processes, said in a Nov. 25 the election campaign will not disrupt the process.
“Analyzing the input will continue as part of our ongoing work and we will be reporting to the government by the end of March,” she said.
The last national consultation was held Nov. 22-23 in Gatineau, Que., and some who were involved in the private sessions said afterward that various themes are emerging.
Most agreed with Mitchell’s initial discussion paper proposal that while research must have national goals, part of the plan should include regional and sectoral issues.
There also is a strong view that Ottawa must spend more money to rejuvenate deteriorating research centres, to hire new scientists and to ensure that core research efforts are expanded.
“I think there is no doubt that there is a need for more money,” said John Vanderstoep, chair of the Canadian Agri-Food Research Council. “If not, they have some hard choices to make, either about more collaboration or priorities.”
Former federal agriculture minister Eugene Whelan, a strong supporter of research during his 1970s and 1980s terms, has been asked to write a letter to Mitchell with his prescriptions.
“We had, when I was the minister, a strong commitment to research and a budget that allowed strong programs at stations across the country,” Whelan said.
“A lot of that has been dismantled over the years and I don’t understand why. The government has to set up with more money.”
Mitchell intimated that he agreed when he spoke to the meeting. He assured them that the science review was not a hidden plan to cut research spending.
“This is not about reducing investment in science,” he said. “In fact, if I have the opportunity as we move forward, I’d like to see that investment increase.”
Vanderstoep said a key issue to be dealt with in the new science policy will be the balance between basic long-term research and shorter term research aimed at producing commercial products.
Since government funding cuts in 1996, the department has been trying to fill the gap by increasing private joint funding of research through the Matching Investment Initiative.
“By its nature, that attracts short-term commercial oriented money so the government has to make sure there is a balance,” he said.
Another theme at the national consultation was the need for less top-down decision-making for research priorities.
Vanderstoep said producers, researchers and others affected by the results of the research should have a say in setting priorities.
Mitchell said any science program must work in producer interests.
“We can’t simply be doing science in isolation,” he told the meeting
Nov. 22.
“We need to do it in terms of how our producers can use the new knowledge, to use the innovative techniques, to use what our scientists and our academics working with our producers are able to produce to make sure that they remain competitive and in a position to create wealth.”
Greenpeace used the Gatineau consultation to propose that Agriculture Canada research concentrate on organic and sustainable agricultural models and that no money be spent on genetically modified varieties.
