Investment in innovation | Committee will advise government on spending priorities for strategic investments
WHITEHORSE — As governments shift their policy focus from farm income support to innovation and competitiveness, a new innovation committee will be a key player in the success or failure of the move.
Federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz announced creation of the agri-innovators committee Sept. 14 at the end of the federal-provincial ministers’ meeting in Whitehorse.
“This will be the first federal advisory body to provide expert advice on where investments in agricultural innovation would be most effective,” he told a news conference.
Former Canadian Cattlemen’s Association president Travis Toews from Alberta will be the industry co-chair, along with new federal deputy agriculture minister Suzanne Vinet, who began the job Sept. 17.
Read Also
Alberta crop diversification centres receive funding
$5.2 million of provincial funding pumped into crop diversity research centres
Industry representatives include pulse representative Lloyd Affleck and Canadian Canola Growers Association general manager Rick White from Saskatchewan, Shaun Moran from Moran Commodities Corp. in Portage la Prairie, Man., former Chicken Farmers of Canada president David Fuller from Nova Scotia, several processors and Quebec pork producer David Vincent.
“Governments are transforming agricultural policy in Canada to increase focus on pro-active and strategic investments that move the sector forward,” said an Agriculture Canada announcement.
The committee, which will review proposals from governments and industry and advise the federal agriculture minister on spending priorities, will be a vital component in the process.
As part of the five-year Growing Forward 2 deal announced last week and to be implemented April 1, government projections suggest a decline of more than $2 billion in business risk management spending over five years with some of that money shifting to non-BRM programs.
The agreement calls for spending of $3 billion over five years on non-BRM programs, including increasing cost-shared funding on the programs to $2 billion from $1.3 billion.
Innovation will be front and centre. Research and increased focus on short-term “cluster research” programs will be a large component.
Last week, even farm groups and provincial ministers who were critical of the BRM funding cuts or the process that produced them were praising the increased spending on innovation.
They were beginning to dream of the projects that could help their jurisdictions as climate change begins to affect farm production.
Saskatchewan minister Lyle Stewart said federal annual contributions to non-BRM program spending in his province will increase to $56 million from $30 million, with the province adding another 40 percent.
“This will be positive for agriculture with the reinvestment in the non-BRM programming including research and innovation, water infrastructure and eventually irrigation infrastructure and other things we may be able to put on the table with the feds,” he said in an interview. “It’s not restricted at all.”
Ontario minister Ted McMeekin saw research into more drought resistant crops and better water management programs for Ontario, given this year’s costly drought.
Grain Growers of Canada, while lamenting farm support cuts, said more investment in research is welcome.
“Having varieties of grain with better yields and more resistance to insects, diseases and drought will help stabilize our farm incomes and may help reduce the need to draw on support programs in future years,” GGC executive director Richard Phillips said in a news release.
The CCA praised the commitment to more funding for Agriculture Canada’s market access secretariat and other efforts outlined in the proposals geared toward opening new markets around the world.
Agriculture Canada produced a background paper that highlighted past success from innovation investments ranging from development of canola and no-till farming to a paper product made from Manitoba wheat and flax straw.
However, there was no explicit provision in GF2 for a boost to long-term basic research of the kind that led to the creation of canola and the development of no-till practices.
