INST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE, DES SCIENCES ET DE LA TECHNOLOGIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 29, 2001

• 0902

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): I now call the meeting to order pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of the science and technology policies.

We're very pleased to have with us this morning the Honourable Gilbert Normand, Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development. He has brought officials with him, and I'll let him introduce them.

We'll turn it over to you, Minister, for an opening statement, and then I'm sure we'll all have many questions for you.

[Translation]

Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[English]

If you agree, I will present my speech in French.

[Translation]

Ladies and gentlemen, Madam Chair, I'm very pleased to be here this morning. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to address your committee since it represents an opportunity for me to let people know what is happening in the sciences.

I have been working in this area for some two years now and I can state that it is not easy to be aware of everything that is happening and to have an overview of everything that is being done in the scientific sector in Canada.

My remarks today, of course, complement those that minister Tobin made here recently, which as you will recall, focussed primarily on innovation, in every sense of the word and in all applications.

It is crucial that we maintain our momentum in this vast field. Not only to safeguard the advantage we have already gained over other countries, but to broaden it still further. As you know, we had begun to lag behind in the past few years because of the cuts that were made beginning in 1993. We are currently catching up. It is, therefore, very important.

We must tirelessly pursue our objectives through knowledge creation, innovation, research and development, and especially through perseverance, in all sectors and using all our energies.

As we are well aware, innovation forms the basis for what is known as “the knowledge economy” and depends to a great extent on our efforts in science and technology, research and development.

• 0905

However, despite the greatest willingness on our part, all our efforts would be in vain without the close collaboration of third parties: the private sector, universities, the public and, of course, the members of this committee.

Furthermore, Madam Chair, I would like to emphasize at this point that the interest you have shown in our department's activities has had an impact and is contributing in a very positive way to the development of our many programs, and will also help to further their future coordination.

As Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development, I am personally delighted at the recent change in the name of this committee and look forward to an increased contribution by your committee on subjects that are close to my heart, and which, in my opinion, are indispensable for the future of our country and the well-being of our population.

Thanks to you and to the many players involved in scientific and industrial creativity, our country has taken giant steps in recent years.

We have certainly worked very hard at carving out a position of leadership for ourselves in what is rightly or wrongly known as “the new economy”.

In my opinion, there is but one form of economy, that is, one that encompasses all sectors and all stakeholders in society. Everyone must contribute and, conversely, everyone must be able to benefit from this economy.

For we must realize that any kind of success, whether national or international, will result in increased prosperity for the whole of Canadian society.

In the majority of fields, our contributions enable us to compete quite effectively. It is for this reason that most major institutions predict that Canada's immediate economic future will be superior to the G-7 average.

This assessment is comforting, and certainly encouraging, but it may be misleading. There are some who might be tempted to limit their horizons to a much too limited short-term future. This would be a serious mistake.

On the contrary, we must draw our primary inspiration from the last Speech from the Throne that projected a most visionary strategy, targeting a much more distant global future. We have to catch up because of the cutbacks, as I indicated earlier.

The major axis of this strategy is based on innovation. An economy based on the creativity and innovation of all its participants and, consequently, its partners, will benefit all Canadians at the four corners of our great nation.

In future, our main objective must be to establish a genuine culture of innovation in our everyday life, in our general conception and in the way we do business, and even in our management of science and research within government.

At the international level, Canada already has a very enviable reputation as one of the best places to live in the world and this culture of innovation will add another, economic dimension: it will become one of the best places in the world for investment.

It is obvious that this culture of innovation is first and foremost conditional upon research and development.

If we look closely, we can see that the major growth in our R&D investment in the past 10 years has come from industry, especially the communications sector. However in the past two or three years several sectors are expanding, such as biotechnology, the aerospace sector, astronomy and research into different materials, and I could name many others.

It can also be seen, however, that despite its growth, participation by the Canadian private sector remains less than that of other OECD countries.

Of course, statistics are never more than a reflection of the past. In recent years, the government has rolled up its sleeves and multiplied initiatives to accelerate its participation and encourage research programs.

It should, first of all, be noted that we have just applied an initial major income tax reduction: $100 million for all taxpayers and businesses operating in Canada. Again, just recently, we have increased funding for the Canada Foundation for Innovation by $750 million, bringing its overall funding to $3.2 billion. This has been done to ensure that our research infrastructure is at the leading edge.

We have just added $100 million to the budget of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to launch a new program aimed at a better understanding of the changing nature of the new economy, the possibilities it offers and the skills it requires.

• 0910

In addition, this initiative will considerably increase the capacities of public and private sector decision makers to develop new policies and methods that will promote the success of all Canadians in the context of the new economy.

We have also allocated an additional sum of $140 million for the Genome Canada budget.

In recent times, we have been hearing a great deal about new technologies and their impact on our present, and especially our future, everyday lives.

Their application in genomics open almost limited doors to research that will in turn lead to discoveries.

Genome Canada now has an overall budget of $300 million that will make our country a world leader in research and will thus lead the way to this “culture of innovation”.

And I'll draw an aside here to say that Genome Canada will show the way not only in terms of research but also in terms of funding, because Genome Canada has also been able to collect $300 million more than what we gave them from the provinces as well as several tens of millions of dollars from the private sector. That is the sort of partnership that we would hope to see all organizations develop over time. And you haven't seen anything yet, because after Genome Canada has done its work, we will see developments on proteins, which will be able to dissect genes in order to better identify the proteins within. This is just the beginning.

Another important aspect of biotechnology and genomics research is that it encompasses the entire range of ethical and social issues.

As this element has a very direct impact on the daily lives of our citizens, it is essential that they be consulted and kept informed of government decisions.

It is impossible to place too much emphasis on participation by the public, on the role that it can and must play in this science of biotechnology as well as on the necessity to provide the Canadian public with detailed information on a regular basis.

It is in this context that the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee will launch a series of public consultations throughout the country next month.

These consultations will focus especially on regulations concerning genetically modified foods and will enable us to seek various opinions on higher life forms as candidates for intellectual property.

The “culture of innovation” is therefore a social project, and its success will, of course, depend on the collaboration of all stakeholders.

Here again, we have every reason to be proud. Our researchers are among the most productive in the world, both in terms of the number of research-related publications and the level of international co-operation they have to their credit. These results prove that we are on the right path, but despite this, the Canadian government is fostering much more ambitious projects.

We are determined to rank fifth in the world for investment in research and development by 2010.

Our southern neighbour and main international competitor, currently occupying this coveted fifth place, devotes 2.61% of its GDP to research. On the other hand, in 1999, the most recent year for which we have statistics, Canada committed 1.62% of its GDP to research. It is therefore clear that if we are to achieve our objective of fifth place, we will have to make a larger investment.

It is in this context that the Canadian government has promised to double its own expenditure on research and development by 2010.

We must therefore multiply our efforts and initiatives, and we are endeavouring to do so.

First of all, we need competent personnel, researchers, discovery experts. We have to ensure not only that they remain in Canada, but we must also look to the future. That means starting to train our young people in grade school and high school.

We obviously do not lack the means to do so. We have excellent universities and the federal granting councils are working to support our young researchers throughout the country. The Canada Foundation for Innovation gives them access to state of the art equipment.

One of the most critical roles that the Government of Canada plays is at the front end of the innovation system in the support of fundamental university research and in the training of the next generation of scientists and engineers needed to drive Canada's innovation engine.

Thousands of professors and students in universities depend on the government of Canada's support for university research. The peer programs of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the other granting councils deliver this support to the highest quality candidates and the most promising new ideas.

• 0915

Through such programs as the Networks of Centres of Excellence, the councils also have a significant track record as enablers in building long term, productive partnerships between the university community and the private sector.

Expanding our commitments to the Granting Councils, as we promised to do in the Speech from the Throne, will be essential for Canada to achieve its innovation targets.

But we must continue our efforts. The slightest complacency would be fatal because our success on the international scene depends largely on our aptitude for developing and exploiting our expertise. This is why we have, among other things, introduced the Research Chairs Program across Canada. Before implementing this program, the Canadian government funded fewer than 200 research chairs. With this program our current funding has been extended to 2,000 chairs. Each program, each initiative is designed to complement our global strategy centred on innovation.

The objective is certainly ambitious and requires management and periodic updating of an extremely complex range of programs and initiatives. In this respect, I would point out to the committee that a working group is currently studying the eventual creation of what we could call the National Academy of Science or Canada's academies. I have a deep personal interest in this project because we are the only G-8 country that does not have this type of organization, namely, an independent body comprised of competent individuals who can, further to serious scientific analyses, provide the government with opinions. These opinions would then be made public, so that the public could come to its own decision. In this manner, we will sustain public confidence in scientific advances.

The members of this working group that I established last fall recognized the validity of such agencies with multidisciplinary roles. Their work would facilitate informed decision making on issues relating to science and technology.

Madam Chair, Canada's international expansion does not rest entirely on the shoulders of elected representatives. Each sector of society, each citizen, each business, small, medium or large, must assume a share of the responsibility to advance science, research and development in Canada.

The “culture of innovation” is not a commodity that can be purchased. It is acquired through action, participation and the collective will to succeed. It is to be hoped that the private sector, for its part, will follow the government's example and participate actively in our culture of innovation. The future of all Canadians, our collective well-being and our national pride depend on it. This explains our current efforts urging the private sector to join us in investing in research.

I believe, Madam Chair, that your committee's attention to this issue can greatly contribute to this awareness, and consequently, to the success of our concerted efforts and to improving the situation, if possible.

I would like to thank you for your attention and I am prepared to answer your questions, providing they come under my purview.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

[English]

We're going to begin questions with Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madame Chair. Thank you, Dr. Normand, for appearing today.

I want to ask about specific large-scale science and technology projects. The first one is the Canadian neutron facility at Chalk River. It's being proposed jointly by NRC and AECL. It requires a large capital investment of $500 million approximately, and it will be built over a six-year period. Could you comment specifically on whether you support this personally and whether the government will fund this project?

• 0920

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: This is a project that is currently under review and the decision will be made by Cabinet. At present, we are aware of the importance of this type of facility. I personally travelled to Vancouver to visit what we refer to as TRIUMF, where the cycloton is located. A few weeks ago, in Saskatoon, we made the announcement about a synchrotron, and we are very conscious of the importance of neutrons. You're right, but now we are wondering whether Canada should be the only country investing in this type of research or whether we need to find some partners. I cannot give you a final answer, however, this is clearly an aspect of the research which is of the utmost interest to us and it is an aspect that we are currently examining.

[English]

Mr. James Rajotte: Okay.

I'd like to ask about a second project. We had a presentation here at committee from the Canadian Coalition for Astronomy and Astrophysics. They presented their long-range plan for astronomy and astrophysics. This requires an investment of $164 million over ten years. I wonder if you would comment on that project and whether the government does intend funding it.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Two or three weeks ago, I went to the trouble of visiting investments that we have with other countries in Mount Mauna Kea in Hawaii. These investments include such projects as GEMINI, which is the most recent initiative. We also have, in Hawaii, the Maxwell telescope and what we call the “Canada—France—Hawaii”, an initiative where we joined forces with these countries.

Astronomy in Canada is perhaps not something which currently hits the headlines every day, but in my opinion, it is very, very important. We have some very well-known Canadian astronomers on the international scene. The investments that we have made in this sector have benefited many Canadian companies. For example, there is a Vancouver firm, by the name of AGRA Coast, that, last year alone, built observatory domes throughout the world for an amount totalling nearly $150 million. In addition, there are all the other developments made in computer science and technology. For example, at the Victoria Observatory, all of the images taken by the Hubble are recorded for NASA. Two Canadians invented the process using CDRoms and DVDs. Numerous innovations such as these have been the work of our Canadians as a result of research in astronomy. I feel that we must, as a priority, review this development plan for astronomy. It is a sector that we must not sidestep.

[English]

Mr. James Rajotte: Do you support the plan with the funding?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I am in favour of it, personally. Now, it is up to Cabinet to decide whether it is prepared to put money into it.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you more of an administrative type of question, one that deals with an overview, and I would also like to ask you a very specific question on the scientific aspect.

Firstly, it is clear that the country is heading more and more towards what I have preferred to call “a sciencitic culture”—I even made this an issue during the election campaign in my riding—and we see emerging, in many departments, in many government agencies, a will to seize this dimension of our existence. I would imagine, at some point in time, that we will need to review these legislative and administrative frameworks that govern this aspect. I would like to ask a question about the administrative framework.

Many departments, including Industry, for instance, as well as Health, Agriculture and Agri-Food, and Finance, in implementing fiscal policies for science and research and so on, have a direct influence on this scientific culture and on the need to develop it. However, there seems to be, in my opinion—and I would like your reaction to this question—shortcomings on the administrative side. I think that this may be attributed to the fact that we do not have as much consistency as we would like to have within the government's administrative framework. If my observation is pretty accurate, what steps could we take to rectify the situation?

Mr. Gilbert Normand: You have raised an issue that is a key one. First of all, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Bélanger, because I know that it is more or less thanks to you that the Industry Committee is focussing on science, a promising development.

• 0925

I would like to point out that, at present, the scientific sectors are very diversified. We have sectoral departments that conduct their own research such as, for example, Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources, Environment and Industry, and it is very difficult to have what I would call an umbrella or some type of control over all these activities, so that there are some departments that do this job better than others, there are some that make less of an effort. I do not want to exaggerate the situation, but we know that this problem exists within the government apparatus.

With the emergence of all of these granting councils, it is going to become increasingly difficult for sectoral ministers to oversee all of these activities. In the future, if we want to supervise, to some extent, the activities, not only of the granting councils, but also of the sectoral departments that do research, I think that we are going to have to obtain authorization from Cabinet or from the Prime Minister's Office. I do not know if I've answered your question.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, that answers my question. But in your opinion, what could a committee like ours do to accelerate this reform, if we can call it that?

Mr. Gilbert Normand: At the present time we have a committee known as the Committee of Science and Technology Experts, whose meetings I attend, but what I want to point out is that several countries have set up systems. In the United States, Japan, Germany and Britain there is, at the level of the Prime Minister's Office, a scientific advisor and there is often a science minister who is not necessarily a sectoral minister but rather a minister whose mandate covers all such activities throughout the government in all areas.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I see.

I have a rather scientific question now, if I may. I believe there is a significant number of Canadians who, like me, are keenly interested in the discoveries of science, in the infinitely great and the infinitesimal. As I see it, this infinitely great is represented by our support for the long-term plan for astronomy and astrophysics, a plan that was presented to us here about a week ago and which I hope will receive this committee's support. If this support of my colleagues is forthcoming, I hope you will be kind enough not only to convey it to your colleagues in the Cabinet but to support it yourself. I won't make any further comments on the subject but will come back to it later.

The other question relates to the infinitesimal. I raised the question of nanotechnology with Minister Tobin and the President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. It is my opinion that if we do not soon make significant investments, this will mean a decline for the country. As a matter of fact, I think that the country is already lagging when it comes to nanotechnology. I already mentioned that last year the United States supposedly invested half a billion dollars in a nanotechnology institute. I would like to know what you think about this and whether there is reason to hope that we will soon be hearing about decisions to improve Canada's position with respect to this science, an extremely fascinating one that, in my opinion, will become very important in our daily lives.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I think that first of all it should be noted that there is no separation between what you refer to as the infinitely great and the infinitesimal. From what I have understood about the present research in astronomy, for example, the purpose is to understand the origin of the world and of life. In order to understand the origin of life, we must understand the infinitesimal. We have in Sudbury at the present time an excellent collaborative effort with other countries in research into what are called neutrinos and there is eventually a convergence among researchers working in this field. I previously spoke about proteinomics. So I would say that nanotechnologies are indeed the sciences towards which evolution is leading us.

Last week I went to Edmonton where the University of Alberta also has a very interesting project on nanotechnologies. They are also engaged in proteinomics, something I already mentioned that consists of dissecting genes to identify the proteins. There is an important project here. There are the neutrons that we already talked about.

• 0930

In a single week we shall be presenting a billion dollars, worth of projects relating to molecular research. That is why it will be very important to identify the priorities. It will be increasingly difficult to select priorities in these different areas.

We have to know exactly what the purpose of such research is. There may come a day when we have no choice but to say that we cannot afford research in a particular area but will have to enter into alliances with other countries and focus on specific areas of research where we are already in advance.

I don't think it will be long in coming.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Brien, please.

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Welcome to the committee, Mr. Normand.

There's one thing that worries me and which I had a chance to discuss with the Minister of Industry when he appeared before the committee last week. Major investments are being made in the granting councils. They should more appropriately be referred to as reinvestments. The Canadian Foundation for Innovation and others will be receiving major new investments. Behind this is a laudable aim, namely to maintain our research capacity, our researchers and so forth.

But there's something worrying me a lot, namely the potential gap between small and large universities. Evaluation is conducted by peers and often the networking of the big universities is far more efficient and influential. There are lots of projects on the table waiting. It's my impression that for the first phase, they ended up with a lot more and often the smaller universities find their ability to maintain their own researchers diminished. And there's also a certain amount of poaching from one institution to another. I'm afraid this may eventually lead to a problem: research may be at an excellent level in the larger universities but the smaller ones will have trouble maintaining a sufficient research level to attract researchers who will be rather isolated contrary to the larger research communities in big universities.

It's all very well to say that the money is administered by the Foundation, an outside organization, but should there not be more strict guidelines from the government relating to such funding in order to avoid widening this gap between smaller and larger universities?

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Perhaps it doesn't take the form of a guideline. Even though there is talk of chairs and so forth, specific envelopes are set aside for them. I think that that can be said about the small universities.

What I've observed is that there are smaller universities that are in the forefront of research and have also been successful in entering into alliances with the large universities. It has to be understood that when important research is undertaken, there must be a critical mass of researchers to carry it out. Often the smaller universities are not able to attract this critical mass of researchers. On the other hand, some universities have had the genius to go into a certain type of research that does not require a significant critical mass and that is well adapted to their territory.

Let me give you the example of the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi where a chair was set up for the discipline of de-icing. They started with the de-icing of electrical wires and are starting now to be interested in the de-icing of airplanes. It's quite a significant effort. There is a mass of approximately 15 or 17 researchers with an international scope.

In Rouyn-Noranda, I know you're interested in that, research is now taking place on pain from the medical point of view in conjunction with McGill University and the University of Montreal. In Chicoutimi the same thing is taking place in the field of marine research.

In my opinion, the smaller universities will have both the obligation and the responsibility to create alliances with other universities in the country, not necessarily in close proximity, to develop specific niches responding to the needs of their region. That is a direction we are now heading in and I can tell you that the directors of the granting councils, both Mr. Strangway from the Foundation and Mr. Brzustowski of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Mr. Marc Renaud, are aware of this phenomenon and discuss this matter with the universities.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I would like to add that the problem is that small universities, in Rouyn or wherever, are unable to take on projects because the indirect costs exceed the budgets they are given. They are able to get funding from the granting councils, perhaps even from the Foundation, or a research chair, but it is very hard for them to absorb the resulting indirect costs. Support for indirect costs seems to be a missing component from this whole policy, and the small universities do not have the same means as, for example, McGill University in Quebec, which has a lot of money just in private funds.

• 0935

So the smaller, younger universities, without their own tradition of donors or fundraisers, do not have the means to finance indirect costs in the short run. That is how they are disadvantaged and become junior partners in larger projects. Their ability to initiate projects themselves is reduced because they do not have the capacity to finance the indirect costs.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: You are touching on another problem there, the problem of indirect costs. It is a problem for small universities, but also for a number of large universities, and we are currently dealing with that problem.

In fact, a report on this problem has been tabled. The department is currently studying the report to see how to deal with the problem. It is a problem even for the large universities that get grants from the Foundation. For example, in some cases, the Foundation provides 40%, the provinces, 40%, and the university has to come up with the remaining 20%. The rules have been relaxed: currently, we provide 40%. We tell the university that it is required to come up with the other 60%. So most of the time, the government puts in 40%, but if a university wishes to deal directly with a foundation, it is free to do so as well. We will definitely have to deal with indirect costs if we hope to continue investing and to have universities, research centres, hospitals and so on follow through. If we do not deal with this problem, we will definitely run up against a wall later on.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I agree that the problem affects all universities, but in my opinion, there is an imbalance in that small universities have it even worse. In my riding, we have investment in partnerships with, for example, McGill or Laval University, which have an often greater capacity to finance indirect costs; when you sit down at the bargaining table with a larger university, the concrete benefits, leadership and control of the project go—and it is the same everywhere—mostly to whoever contributes the most money.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: You are right about that, and I think people are not unaware of that fact, because it has been suggested that the percentage of indirect costs to be covered should be higher for small universities than for large ones.

Mr. Pierre Brien: That is reassuring.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brien.

Mr. Savoy, please.

[English]

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I'd like to speak to the statement in your report that says “success on the international scene depends largely on our aptitude for developing and exploiting our expertise”, specifically exploiting our expertise. I think there are two aspects of successful research and development: it has to be scientifically sound, but it also has to be relevant. And when I say relevant, I mean relevant to the market conditions, both internationally and nationally. We've been great when it comes to universities taking a direction that may not be market relevant, but we haven't also been good in the university sector at getting out and talking to the private sector in the SMEs and finding out where the relevant areas of research should be. And when I say relevant, I mean directly related to exploiting our expertise.

This refers not only to determining where the new areas of expertise are required and a new type of product or research, but to giving the marketing people a role of responsibility in that equation, where they can actually help direct the universities' research. I'm wondering if there are any initiatives or programs that are being considered, with that in mind, for actually doing relevant research.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: First, there are two types of research: there is so-called basic research, and there is applied research. There is definitely a huge debate, mainly in universities—I think we have to be up-front about it—in favour of having the freedom to choose which type of research to do.

Earlier, when I was talking about guiding priorities, I was just referring to areas of activity. We cannot impose a specific research topic. It is important to understand that often, when doing research, an unintended discovery is made. Here is the best example I have of that. Tuesday morning, in Quebec City, I announced a transfer of technology; research had been done at Valcartier on some product, but another product was discovered for civilian use, and it was transferred to a civilian company. It will create 30 or 35 jobs.

• 0940

It is very hard to say that we are directing research towards a particular product. We can determine the areas. We could say we are not going to get involved in aerospace, for example. That is just an example I am giving, because it would be a bad decision on our part. That is one area where we are very strong. I do not think we can say to universities, for example, to do no more biomedical or molecular research. The universities have understood this, and we are now at what I would call stage 2 of the debate, the so- called marketing. That is why we have made efforts and provided funding to help universities market the fruits of their research. People often do research that is incidental to them, that is not the ultimate goal of their research, but that could be very useful in other areas of activity or other industries. That is where we want to work with the universities to increase and enhance their research results.

[English]

Mr. Andy Savoy: I agree with what you're saying to some extent, but I think before we direct the research dollars into the various sectors, we have to do market research with the private sector, and specifically SMEs, which is my focus. If we don't, a lot of these dollars we're directing into research won't be able to be exploited—the research won't be able to be exploited, because it's not relevant. I understand where you're coming from, but I think we should look at a program or an initiative that would deal more with the marketing or business side of research and development, to make it very relevant commercially. That's not really a question, more a statement. But thank you very much for your response.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Thank you.

In your presentation you mentioned an additional $100 million going into social science and humanities research. Can you tell me what the total amount going into that area is right now? With $100 million added, what would be the figure now?

[Translation]

Ms. Marie Tobin (Director General, Innovation Policy Branch, Department of Industry): It is $137 million.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: It is $100 million over and above the $137 million annually. They get $137 million per year.

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay. The reason I'm asking is that we had our research briefing notes and noted that of all the expenditures the social sciences and humanities had only $121 million. So when I heard your comment about adding $100 million, I was asking myself, so was there only $21 million?

Ms. Marie Tobin: No.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay. But that's my question then. Is the $100 million added on to the $121 million, or is our research figure...?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Yes.

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It's added on to the $121 million?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Yes, but over five years. It is $20 million more per year.

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay. So it's now roughly $140 million every year.

Ms. Marie Tobin: I guess our figures differ from your research. I have SSHRC as $137 million a year.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: And that's with the additional—

Ms. Marie Tobin: No, without.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Without. So it's now $157 million.

I was a little bit concerned before I heard Mr. Savoy's comments, and I'm probably more concerned now, because, again in our briefing notes, the Government of Canada states that its vision of the future is “...one of a society whose economy is competitive, whose population is healthy, whose children are prepared, and that it invests in knowledge”, and then the last line was, “...and we harness our science and technology in a collaborative and strategic manner to advance our economic competitiveness and industrial productivity.”

So I was a little concerned that this was the only area we were guiding along, and then you gave me a little relief when you were saying, the market isn't the only thing, and when we deal with the universities, we want to help them market, with all the effort that they're putting in. But then, to quote Mr. Savoy, “We want to exploit the research, so that we don't do anything that's not relevant, with purely the market in mind.” So I'm a little bit nervous that as a country, all we're looking at is the science and technology and the research purely from a market perspective and nothing else. With that added to the fact that I was seeing the social sciences and humanities having a whole lot less than everybody else, I was greatly concerned.

• 0945

I would like your comments on exactly how you see Canada's activity in regard to science and technology research, whether it's purely on a market competitive basis, that is, we're only going to do things where we see the bang for the buck, or maybe where we see some humanitarian relief.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I think your question is a good one. No, we do not just consider marketing or the market. Earlier I was talking about marketing for universities. That is to help universities find new sources of funds.

Now, with respect to the humanities and social sciences, in my opinion, these are currently under funded, despite last year's $100 million increase. There will certainly have to be so-called humanitarian studies on people's customs and the way in which the population is changing and reacting to various situations. That is very important too. Research is not based purely on that which is commercially profitable, but also on what it has to offer Canadians in terms of health, for example.

If a newly developed drug enables a group of patients to regain their health much more quickly and prevents certain illnesses, even if the country makes no money from the drug, it is an important investment for the well-being of Canadians. That must always be kept in mind. I think current research, for example, BioChem Pharma's vaccine research, takes that approach. We helped Merck Frosst with arthritis research that led to the discovery of a drug that, unfortunately, is not yet on the market in Canada, because Health Canada is perhaps a bit behind other countries with its studies, but that won first prize internationally last year. So in many areas of activity, in addition to marketing, the well-being of Canadians must be kept in mind.

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you for emphasizing that point, because I was becoming somewhat nervous from the way the comments were going.

I have another question. In our briefing notes as well, the comment is here:

The Government of Canada provides the most generous research and development tax and other incentives in the world, yet this does not yield us much research and development activity, at least compared to most other industrial countries.

—and in your presentation—

It should, first of all, be noted that we have just applied an initial major income tax reduction: $100,000,000 for all taxpayers and businesses operating in Canada.

Bearing in mind that our briefing notes indicate that we're not seeing our bang for the buck because of the tax incentives, I'd like your comments in this regard.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: There is a distinction to be drawn. I also saw a report that said that the tax incentives for companies had not encouraged companies to do as much research as they should have. But I think that will change, because in my opinion, our new incentives should attract more companies, strengthen the partnership between universities and industry and better reflect their needs.

Now, one thing is sure. That is that at present, small businesses have a pretty tough time with tax incentive programs. They have trouble figuring them out. They do not know how to take advantage of them. My colleague, the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Cauchon, is currently dealing with this problem to try to facilitate access to tax incentives, especially for small and medium-sized businesses.

[English]

The Chair: Last question, please, Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Generally, you're saying that we're far better off as a country to put the investment in the research, rather than necessarily have the tax incentives do the job. We're far better off to invest outright rather than have some kind of tax incentives, and then try to make it work for everybody.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: No. I say we have to do both. I say we have to keep investing with our partners, universities and companies, but especially given that universities have new tools, new levers, it will be much easier for them to work with companies, and companies will be able to make better use of tax breaks if they do more work with universities. It enhances both, and both are crucial.

• 0950

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Now they'll get the tax reduction as well as the government money.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Absolutely.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Macklin, please.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): With respect to the general policy that we have in scientific research, do we have a policy that is directing us toward private sector-public sector partnerships? If so, do we have a policy then that follows from that as to intellectual property rights and how they would be protected and dealt with in the event of that partnership relationship?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I would first like to make a slight correction to something that was said earlier. When we work with industry, that does not necessarily involve grants. It often involves repayable investments, so there is something in it for the government.

Depending on the program, proprietary rights may be protected. Take, for example, Agriculture Canada's cost-sharing program. Industry puts in $1, and the government, through the Department of Agriculture, puts in $1. Then the government and industry sign a memorandum of understanding regarding ownership. The company and the government may retain ownership for a period of three or five years before public release. It is often negotiated on a case-by- case basis. There is currently no hard and fast rule governing these situations. It depends on the program. Proprietary rights are taken into account. That is something we pay very close attention to.

[English]

Mr. Paul Macklin: Will this form part of the consultation process that you're going to undertake through the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee? Will this be part of that process—looking at the proprietary rights?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Indirectly, because the main issue here is proprietary right to so-called life-form structures, and particularly higher life forms. For example, in the United States, there was a discussion with Celera Genomics regarding ownership of certain genes. Canada's current position is relatively firm: we fully endorse the position of Great Britain and the United States.

The discussion will cover this type of intellectual property, but I do not think we are asking the public whether Canada should retain the rights to this or that research. The discussion will mainly be about life forms.

[English]

Do you understand all right?

Mr. Paul Macklin: Yes. Taking a slightly different direction, do we have any policy established in terms of dealing with the present public reaction to genetic research and the genetic products being produced?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Here in Canada, we have a fairly good assessment of the public reaction to research. For example, the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee has conducted fairly major public opinion polls, polls I would call progressive because they were done at various intervals. Those polls show that currently, 72% of Canadians have confidence in what is going on in Canada in the area of genetics research.

Personally, as I travel around the country and meet the directors of universities and research centres, I try to get across to them that public opinion will change, and that how it changes depends on how universities explain to Canadians what they are doing and why, and how it is beneficial and to whom.

I think the line between different areas of research activity grows increasingly fine, whether it is the line between medicine and information technology—those people now work together—or between agriculture and engineering. The separation between disciplines is shrinking, and people have to work together more and more, not only within universities, but among them, in a network. The more money we spend on research, the more Canadians want to know what is being done with their money.

In my view, all those who receive government grants, not just government, have a moral obligation to explain to Canadians what they are doing.

[English]

Mr. Paul Macklin: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Brison, do you have any questions?

• 0955

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): My first question is relative to the situation of small universities and research and CFIs—or the perceived bias against small universities. I've heard it referred to earlier. Mr. Brien referred to it. Part of the problem is the matching funds issue.

Coming from a region with a disproportionate number of smaller universities with some of the best undergraduate programs in the country, there's a great deal of concern, because the provinces are faced with significant fiscal constraints currently. So there is the potential to create a ghettoization of funding that actually discriminates against some of the provinces with tremendous need and opportunity from the perspective of universities and smaller universities.

I would appreciate your feedback on what is being done to address that challenge.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I think you raise a valid concern. Personally, when I became Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development, one of my first instructions to granting councils was to take into account small and regional universities, and I feel strongly about that. I think very good research can be done regionally, and perhaps that is a recommendation the committee could make: that specific rules be made to support and protect future funding for small universities. I would look favourably on such a recommendation by the committee, because that is also one of my concerns.

As I explained earlier, small universities must also forge closer ties with large universities, because even large universities are growing closer to one another. If the small ones go it alone, they are bound to fail. They have to do as the large ones do, try to find partners, big brothers who can support them.

[English]

Mr. Scott Brison: The smaller universities also play a very important role in terms of producing undergraduates with an enthusiasm for research and science.

In terms of commercialization and tech-transfer strategy, it seems that in the U.S. there's a higher level of success in commercialization from the university's perspective than we see in Canada. I understand part of that is policy, which encourages from the outset a long-term view towards commercialization.

From a Canadian perspective, what are we doing to create a better environment to encourage more aggressive tech-transfer strategies at our universities?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: As I explained earlier, we have earmarked funds to help universities market their products. I think universities have to share this mindset. As you know, that is currently the subject of a huge ideological debate on university campuses. Some researchers and professors say they want nothing to do with marketing, that they do research for research's sake, that they are not interested in marketing and that the government has no business telling them what to do in that regard. That is one side of the argument. However, a number of universities are taking the opposite approach, and in my opinion, we will have no choice but to move toward what the Americans are doing if we hope to attract private investment and to be involved in the evolution of all of the research. If research never leads to marketing, we are going to have a huge return-on-investment problem, like it or not. Even though research is not done just for profit, the bottom line is important. As they say, no money, no candy.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: The issue of investment and the importance of investment in technology, whether it's in biotech, or photonics, or whatever area you're speaking of, is pivotal. Increasingly, for instance, if you look at the evolution of biotechnology and the degree of private sector money that is making that happen, I think the macro issues of capital taxes, how we tax capital, and how we tax capital gains—all these issues can play a greater role perhaps in science and technology than they did 20 years ago.

• 1000

We are still disadvantaged compared to the U.S. in these very critical areas, particularly with how mobile capital is. High taxes used to redistribute money; now they tend to redistribute people and researchers. So I'd appreciate your feedback on that.

I'd also appreciate your feedback on some of the provincial programs in Quebec, which I think have been extremely successful in terms of fostering biotechnology investment and creating a very sound infrastructure in biotechnology, which will pay dividends in the future.

I guess that's two questions in one.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: As I explained earlier, I think our new policy direction will promote changes to tax incentive programs. Changes to those programs are needed, in my opinion. The Finance Minister did announce very significant tax cuts. We are talking $100 billion in the coming years. If you want more, you will have to talk to him when he appears before the committee.

We are definitely heading towards something similar to the United States. As I said in my statement, only 1.62% of our GDP currently goes into research and development. This can be done through grants or tax incentives. There is a shortfall. If we want a 1% increase within 10 years, we have no choice but to increase both grants and tax incentives.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. We'll come back, Mr. Brison.

Mr. Lastewka, please.

Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to go back to our astronomy discussions. Basically, the National Research Council has been mandated by Parliament to manage and operate observatories and negotiate multinational agreements and work with the astronomy community. We've done that as a Parliament.

On the other hand, we create the CFI fund, which is to be used with universities and can't be used by the NRC. Therefore we eliminate the astronomy section from being eligible for any CFI funds. That might have been an oversight or a misunderstanding when the CFI fund was created.

The question that comes to me very quickly is that we need to transfer the authority to a university so that the astronomy section could now be eligible for CFI funds. We have put in, first of all, $900 million, then $750 million, and I am sure that down the road, as more money becomes available, we'll put more money in the CFI fund because of the way it has been successful.

My concern is for the astronomy section. It seems that we as government have boxed them in, and we leave it in your hands now to decide, to promote to cabinet a better ten-year program, a long-range program.

I'm not sure you've answered the question well enough for this committee on what we should be doing to make sure the astronomy section or discipline is not left out. I'd like to get a more concrete answer than the one earlier.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: There may be some misunderstanding, because the Foundation cannot currently, under its charter, fund government organizations. However, the NRC is responsible for the development of astronomy—it always has been—and for foreign exchanges.

• 1005

Take GEMINI, for example. Canada has a 15% stake in phase II of GEMINI, to be set up in Chile. Chile wants to sell its share, which is 5%. To buy Chile's 5% share, for example, it would cost Canada $9.2 million. It would subsequently cost Canada $1.4 million more per year in operating costs. The NRC takes care of that.

The Canada Foundation for Innovation has a new section, funded to the tune of $200 million. There was already a $100 million fund, and another $100 dollars were added last autumn for what we call international scientific exchanges.

Several universities in Canada have students and researchers in astronomy. The Foundation will be able to help such university researchers to participate in exchanges with Chile or the United States.

Regarding infrastructure, the NSERC can also help to invest in instruments. For instance, I visited Hawaii, as I already said. There is a telescope there... For instance, researchers from France often bring their own instruments for certain kinds of research. Sometimes they will lend them to others. Canada can also do that. The NSERC can, in such cases, invest in instruments that will be used by other countries. It is rather complicated.

I do not think that the fact that the Foundation cannot directly fund the NSERC jeopardizes the astronomy program in the least. The funds currently requested through the NRC, the $164 million requested for the next 10 years, are meant to pay for its participation. The Foundation can further help astronomical research by funding universities engaged in international exchanges.

[English]

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I understand what you're saying, but I have a feeling...because we're trying to organize the universities better through networks of centres of excellence and a lot of partnerships, with the 2000 chairs, and now the CFI fund. We've had a lot of debate on the CFI fund here. What I'm trying to get across is that we might be restricting the astronomical area because it has to flow through NRC. So I'd ask you to take another look at that.

I want to follow up on some of the comments. I think the message Mr. Savoy was trying to get across is that small businesses have a lesser chance to get transfer of technology and be in on it because they don't have as much money and they don't have as many people who can help them in the businesses.

I know the University of Alberta in Edmonton has probably the best commercialization department with their researchers. We've talked around this table a number of times about the lack of good commercialization of research done in universities. Have you had any discussion with the University of Alberta in Edmonton or universities across the country about how we could better take the research that's being done in university...? Many times it's basic research that then develops into something a little more developmental, but for some reason is not being moved out of the university to the marketplace.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: That is what I just said. We are currently trying to help universities to market certain kinds of research. I do not think that large companies are the only ones who can benefit from technological transfers.

I mentioned a Quebec company called Gentec Inc. It is a small company that currently has 18 employees. With the transfer of technology it will receive from the Valcartier Research Centre, a Canadian government research centre that does research for National Defence, and with the new technology it will receive, it will be able to create 30 new jobs. Economic Development Canada gave it a reimbursable 200,000-dollar grant for marketing its research.

• 1010

This is the kind of partnership we will want in the future with our research centres and universities, to make this technology transfer profitable. We must be careful with technological transfer: we should not always sell it abroad, because once they have our technology, they sell us the product. That is not the most financially viable option for us. Thus, we try to carry out technology transfer with our own industries, and as far as possible, with industries affiliated to the relevant university or research centre, to create jobs and foster regional development in the regions where the research centres are found. But the transfer can be done elsewhere if there is no one nearby who can work with the new technology.

[English]

The Chair: You have time for a last question, Mr. Lastewka.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: To give a more complete answer, because there were two questions, the National Research Council of Canada also has a program, namely the Industrial Research Assistance Program, or IRAP, to help small companies market new technology.

[English]

Mr. Walt Lastewka: No, I understand that. I work very closely with IRAP. My concern is that outlying areas, small communities, and small businesses that are not near a university have a disadvantage because they're not as close to a university.

You mentioned IRAP. The IRAP offices are attached to universities. Therefore, communities in the rural areas and outside of university areas are disadvantaged. Firstly, the IRAP people are in the university. Secondly, there's not enough means of helping those businesses in outlying areas. So what happens? The businesses decide to move closer to a university or an urban area. We don't want that. So the question is, what are we doing to assist in the transfer of technology, especially to small businesses, and especially outside of university areas?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: But things have evolved, after all. Take for instance, the Canada Foundation for Innovation which has been funding and helping colleges for the past two years, mainly in designing productivity technologies. We have moved closer to the college level, which is much closer to small enterprise. I think that this is a step forward, but I agree with you that there is still room for improvement. If we learn what the problems are we can find solutions.

[English]

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Rajotte, please.

Mr. James Rajotte: Dr. Normand, I just want to touch on something you mentioned during your statement. On page 3, you say “participation by the Canadian private sector remains less than that of other OECD countries”. I'm wondering if you can expand on that. Particularly when Canada does have one of the most generous R and D tax credits, why is it that our private sector does not seem to be faring well, relative to other countries?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I believe this is a cultural matter. For instance, wealthy families in Great Britain have set up foundations. I do not know whether you are aware of the Wellcome Trust, founded by the Burroughs Wellcome pharmaceutical company and which now has a Foundation of several hundred million dollars, perhaps even billions of dollars. Foundations like that and like the Rockefeller fund in the United States were gradually founded by vary wealthy families in those countries, to help invest in activities like research. This culture has not developed much in Canada, and in my opinion, big companies like Bombardier and several others are now headed in that direction. They will be gradually called upon to consider creating these kind of foundations, which will be to their advantage and to the advantage of the population as a whole. In my opinion, this is a matter of culture.

[English]

Mr. James Rajotte: Just following up on the cultural aspect, in general, do you have an opinion, or does the department have an opinion as to what is more effective at getting private sector investment? Is it public sector-private sector partnerships, where the public sector invests first? Is it the R and D tax credit? Or is it the general level of taxation? Can you list the three, or is it a combination? What's most effective at making the private sector increase its investment?

• 1015

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Regarding support for research, the current system is adequate, especially in more recent years. There seems to be a gap where marketing is concerned, in helping small companies do their marketing. Companies will often avoid investing in research because they know that they will have no support to market the results of that research. We currently have a program to help marketing abroad, but there is not much to help marketing within Canada. That might be a gap.

[English]

Mr. James Rajotte: I just want to return to what we were discussing earlier about these large-scale scientific projects. I'm assuming you're the person who would recommend to cabinet whether a certain project goes ahead or not. Is that correct?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: No. I work very closely with Mr. Tobin. Currently, the Department of Industry oversees all decisions and presents programs to the department. This prerogative is not included in my mandate, it belongs to the Department of Industry.

[English]

Mr. James Rajotte: Just working with the minister, then, if a specific project comes across your desk, what's the process by which it is decided to either support or not support that specific project?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: This is being debated with the minister. We want the analysis to be done within the department, and after that, if the minister agrees to let us make a presentation to Cabinet, I might make the presentation myself, with the minister's approval.

[English]

Mr. James Rajotte: What I'm driving at here is that we had a recent increase of $750 million for the CFI. There's a Canadian neutron facility that is requesting $500 million. There's a long-range plan for astronomy. There are a lot of what seem to be very viable projects that need money. We're in a situation in which we're in uncertain economic times. We need an overall, overarching fiscal framework to decide this, but we also need a method by which we can say this project is worth funding, considering our economic circumstances, or it's not worth funding. I think it would be very helpful for this committee if we could know what the thinking of the minister and the department is on how to do this.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: The current mechanism is the one that I just explained. Will this mechanism be sufficient to adequately oversee all investments? It is not up to me to judge, but certainly, as the umbrella of science, research and development grows bigger, it will be less under the control of any individual department.

[English]

The Chair: Your next question will be your last question.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Usually, the Department of Industry oversees almost all research organizations, except the research done in departments like Agriculture and Fisheries. Some health research institutions are supervised by the Department of Health, but all the others fall under the Department of Industry.

[English]

Mr. James Rajotte: Maybe I'll use the specific example of the National Research Council and its support for this Canadian neutron facility. Can you just walk me through how that would be brought to the minister, and whether the minister is deciding or how he's deciding whether this is a project the Canadian government should be investing in?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: The National Research Council of Canada submits its project to the Department of Industry and the Minister of Industry decides whether or not this project can be submitted to Cabinet; if so, it is submitted it to the Cabinet for approval.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Rajotte.

I still have two members on this side who want to ask questions. I'm not sure if there are more questions on the other side, but we do have some other business to deal with as a committee.

Mr. Price.

• 1020

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

Doctor Normand, you may be surprised to hear me asking questions about telescopes.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: No.

Mr. David Price: I was most fortunate to have the opportunity to visit several telescopes. Before that journey, I thought that I knew something about telescopes, because there is one close to my home, on Mount Megantic. I was also involved in establishing communications between telescopes and four universities, Bishop's, Sherbrooke, Laval and Montreal.

This visit opened my eyes, especially regarding Canada's role in the field of astrophysics. I realized Canada's importance in this field. We must continue our involvement in this field. We are very involved in Canada, France and Hawaii. One of the directors of the GEMINI project just spent a year on Mount Megantic. He is now directing one of the biggest international projects in the world.

We were fortunate to meet some young people. I think that it is great to be able to work in real live laboratories. They were really lucky.

We met people from universities from all parts of Canada. I think it is unfortunate that there are so few young people. It would have been good to have more young people participating in the co-op programs. Some Canadian universities have co-op programs, but there are not many.

I wonder if we could insist or demand that research chairs establish more co-operative programs to get more young people involved in live laboratory projects.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Thank you for having asked that question. I am very glad that you are also aware of the importance of astronomy.

To answer your question, there are two kinds of chairs. There are senior chairs and junior chairs.

Junior chairs can be used by young researchers to finish or to continue a research doctorate for instance.

As I said earlier, the new funds for the Foundation, which can be used for international projects, will foster collaboration among universities so that, for instance, students can purchase observation time in international observatories. The Foundation will be able to do this for students and professors through their universities.

Mr. David Price: On the other hand, let us now deal not with astrophysicists, but rather those who work at the technical level, or the craftsmen. Many workers are needed in the field of fiber optic cables. We need electricians and experts in electrotechnology.

Can we do something in colleges or universities to get these people involved? If I understand correctly, there are no chairs in colleges. What can we do to provide help at that level?

Mr. Gilbert Normand: The international phase will also apply to the college level, where electricians and electronics experts are trained. We have seen how far the field of electronics has advanced and that we need very good technicians, of international calibre, to do this very high precision work.

The Foundation's youth exchange programs will certainly be accessible to young people at the college level, not only in astronomy, but also in other fields, like the aerospace industry, for instance.

Mr. David Price: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Price.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert Normand: Let me simply add that I visited the European Space Agency in December and that there are nine Canadians working there.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Madame Jennings, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you very much, Doctor Normand, for your presentation.

• 1025

My question is about productivity and innovation in SMEs.

We know that most companies in Canada are SMEs. In its recent study of productivity, this committee noted, as you also mentioned, that our SMEs tend to purchase or import technology and are less productive than foreign companies. I know about the IRAP program, but I do not think that it solves those problems. I would like to know what you or the government are going to do to solve this problem, because this really is a problem.

There is a great deal of industry in my riding, but I must say that the company that took advantage of IRAP could not be considered a small or medium-sized enterprise. I am talking about GE Hydro, that participates in big construction projects in China, like the Three Gorges. I have visited small enterprises—ones with perhaps 50 employees—that have very small research labs for improving their equipment or procedures. These people need funds, and the issue is not that they are working within a small community.

This is a municipality on Montreal Island. Thus, it is close to Concordia University, the University of Montreal, the UQAM and McGill University. There are four large universities, without mentioning centres like the Centre d'entreprise et d'innovation de Montréal, foundations, etc. But there seems to be a gap. How can we ensure that there is outreach? I think that universities and governments are lacking in outreach. These companies should be sought out, identified and helped to overcome existing obstacles, and IRAP is not doing this now. They must be companies that are practically ready to do something, except for the little bit of expertise that they need.

Mr. Gilbert Normand: I mentioned this earlier. I just happened to be in Montreal yesterday. I met about 10 executives from almost every field, chemistry, computers, etc. They were unanimous. They all said that the biggest problem, at this time, is marketing. This is where small enterprises often come up against the wall. They have no money left for marketing, no one helps them.

Currently, very few programs respond to that need. Perhaps we need a program to help marketing without necessarily giving grants. Reimbursable help could be offered, because these companies often have a good cash flow, but banks still refuse to grant them loans. We should probably discuss this with the industry, and, for instance, with Canada Economic Development and other representatives of economic development. There is a gap. There really is a gap and I think that if companies could market their products more easily, they would perhaps invest more in research.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much. That is all.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Jennings.

Dr. Normand, we want to thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate the very frank discussion today, and we look forward to meeting with you again in the future, which I know we'll be doing on estimates sometime in May. So thank you very much.

Now, for the committee, we have other business that we're going to move to. Is Mr. Bélanger still here?

A voice: He stepped outside.

The Chair: He stepped outside. Okay.

The clerk has a draft science plan that he's going to circulate to everyone, and it's just for comments and for discussion on Tuesday. We'll be meeting on Tuesday with the CFI. I believe it's Tuesday morning; is that correct? Hopefully, if we have time, we'll discuss it then.

• 1030

We have some outstanding business to deal with. We have Mr. Bélanger's motion from Tuesday, and we have the other motions as well.

Does everyone have a copy of Mr. Bélanger's motion in front of them? I believe it has some slight changes and clarifications since it was circulated on Tuesday.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, I'd like to read it so that it will be clear:

That it be proposed that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology support the long-range plan (LRP) for astronomy and astrophysics. The LRP proposes an additional $16.4 million per year for 10 years, totalling $164 million to be allocated to the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

[Translation]

The resolution would read as follows:

Be it resolved that: The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology offers its full support of the Long Range Plan (LRP) for Astronomy and Astrophysics. The LRP proposes an additional $16.4 million per year for 10 years totalling $164 million to be allocated to the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: On a point of clarification, would you mention that figure again?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's $16.4 million per year for 10 years, so therefore $164 million, which is exactly the—

Mrs. Bev. Desjarlais: Would you like a copy of the motion?

The Chair: No, but that's fine because my translation came out as $6.4 million, so I wondered whether something had changed.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, if I may, very briefly, the reason I thought it might be useful to bring that forward is because of the usefulness of the NRC and NSERC being able to protect our international participation. It might be a while before we finish our studies and reports to the government on the overall picture, and it might be a while before there's a budget. By enunciating our support, if we so choose, it would indicate that indeed there's a necessity, or we think it's important, to protect our international presence in this field of endeavour. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Bélanger. Are there any other comments?

Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. James Rajotte: Our concern in the Canadian Alliance is that we're looking at these projects one by one, sequentially. We don't really have an overall fiscal framework within which to judge whether these are affordable or not. The questions I was trying to propose to Dr. Normand today are....

We as a committee are making decisions. I would agree that the Canadian Coalition for Astronomy and Astrophysics presented a very good case for the funding, but the fact is that we could probably have 10 other groups present excellent cases as well. How are we as a committee to decide what cases are, first of all, affordable and whether we should be spending it in this fiscal year or not?

If I may, I'd like to move an amendment to the motion.

The Chair: You have an amendment?

Mr. James Rajotte: I do, yes.

The Chair: What is it?

Mr. James Rajotte: The amendment is that the motion be amended by adding the following words after the word “astrophysics”:

subject to the Minister of Industry and the Treasury Board providing this committee with the framework of decision-making criteria for assessing and prioritizing funding for large-scale scientific projects, and this committee satisfying itself that the LRP meets those criteria.

The Chair: Is there any discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's a friendly amendment.

The Chair: Okay. Is there any discussion on the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Is there any more discussion on the motion? You move to vote?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I do just have a question on the motion. The motion is that we recommend that this be done. It's not necessarily saying it's going to be because we're not the deciding factor, so it's just that we support that.

The Chair: It's adding our level of support.

Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I'd just like to add to Mr. Bélanger's comment.

The Chair: Well, we actually do have a motion on the floor to move the vote, and it really should—

Mr. Walt Lastewka: It's okay.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: And I allowed Ms. Desjarlais because of a clarification.

The Chair: Well, would you allow Mr. Lastewka, or—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Is it a clarification or a comment? It's different.

The Chair: Okay. Let's move the vote.

• 1035

(Motion agreed to: [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: With the committee's permission, then, I will forward a letter to the Minister of Industry outlining our motion, and to Dr. Normand as well.

Secondly, we have a couple of other items from Tuesday's meeting that are outstanding. First, we did pass the motion that the Minister of Industry and the Ethics Counsellor, Howard Wilson, should appear. We have rearranged the schedule for next Tuesday. The Minister of Industry will appear at 3:30 p.m.; Howard Wilson will appear at 4:30 p.m. We'll be meeting on estimates, plans, and priorities—and I make that very clear—in Room 253-D. That is for Tuesday.

Secondly, outstanding from Tuesday are a number of motions that were tabled. I want to reiterate what I said on Tuesday and refer you to Marleau, which says that once a chair's decision is made, it is binding on the committee. It's not binding on future committees; it's not binding on future chairs, but it is binding on this committee.

I outlined in....

Mr. James Rajotte: I have a point of order. We don't wish to move this motion today.

The Chair: I'm not asking you to move the motion. I'm ruling on the eligibility of the motion. It does not have to be moved for me to do that. The motion's been tabled before this committee. There's been a 48-hour passage of time. I'm going to deal with the eligibility of the motions.

In my ruling on Tuesday, I was quite clear about the mandate of this committee, what falls within the mandate and what falls outside the mandate of this committee.

I was also quite clear that I believe it is not up to this committee to investigate the conduct of another member of Parliament. For those reasons, I find all four motions out of order again. I also would add that Mr. Duceppe's motion goes further than that. It deals with a matter that is presently before the courts, which is also an item that should not be coming before committee at this time. So I find those four motions out of order at this time.

Monsieur Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Should I gather that you deemed Mr. Duceppe's motion out of order even in the absence of court proceedings, or that you deem it out of order at this particular time?

[English]

The Chair: It's out of order at the present time, and it's out of order for two reasons. It deals with the conduct of another member of Parliament and it is a matter that is presently before the courts.

I recognize that the Business Development Bank is part of this committee. If someone would like, they can come before us on estimates. That list is still open for estimates, and I'm still waiting for members to put forward names of other agencies or departments under the Department of Industry they would like to hear from on estimates. That would be quite within our mandate, but, as the motion is presently, it is not, because of the two elements of it. Okay?

Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. James Rajotte: Madam Chair, I'd like to give notice of a motion that we report this decision of the chair to the House of Commons.

The Chair: Notice of a motion that we report this decision of the chair? That will be discussed at our next meeting, I guess.

Mr. James Rajotte: To give notice of a motion that we report this decision of the chair to the House of Commons.

The Chair: Unless we want to discuss that now.

Mr. Lastewka?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I find the 48-hour notice—

An hon. member: A point of clarification.

The Chair: A point of clarification? If it was of a substantive nature, but that motion is on my decision right now....

So, Mr. Lastewka?

• 1040

Mr. Walt Lastewka: It's a procedural clarification. Members who want to bring motions to the floor of this committee are allowed to bring them to the clerk at any time. Is that correct?

The Chair: That's very much correct.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: We don't need the song and dance of discussing everything at a meeting before submitting a motion?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Rajotte, there is only one possibility with respect to my decision at this time. If you're not happy with my decision, you should appeal it. Your motion would not be in order at this time.

Mr. James Rajotte: I'm not moving the motion now. I'm simply giving notice of this motion.

The Chair: I'm trying to explain to you: if you're going to appeal my decision you have to do it now. You can't delay that. That's part of the rules.

Mr. James Rajotte: We're just giving notice of this motion.

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm not sure I understand what the motion would have us do. Is it to make sure that every member of this committee has a copy of the minutes by whenever? Is that what the effect is, essentially?

The Chair: I believe Mr. Rajotte is trying to suggest that we table a report about my decision in the House of Commons, and you cannot do that. It's not proper.

Mr. James Rajotte: It's proper.

The Chair: Well, I've just been advised by the clerk that you cannot do that. That's why we have a clerk, to advise me. If you wish to challenge my ruling you can do that now.

Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I would like to know by what standard a motion requesting a report on the decision would be out of order. I would like to know on which standing order the clerk has based his suggestion that it is out of order.

[English]

The Chair: I'll look up the rule.

In Marleau, it says quite clearly on page 857 that the procedure to follow is the appeal of the chair's ruling. It's quite clear. That's the guidance I've been given, and that's the advice I'm going to take.

Madam Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Just a point of clarification. If I understand the rules and procedures correctly, if there's any question about the chair's decision on these motions, the only avenue available to a member of this committee is to appeal that decision before this meeting closes.

The Chair: Correct.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

Mr. James Rajotte: Madam Chair, we're not appealing this decision. We're just asking....

The Chair: But that's your only option, Mr. Rajotte. I'm making a ruling.

Mr. James Rajotte: We're asking for the decision to be reported. We're not asking for an appeal of this decision.

The Chair: This is a public meeting. My decision has been reported, and everyone knows that. The decision is that those motions are out of order. So if you wish to appeal that, you can, but your timing for doing that is now.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, a question to you and the clerk. Would it be in order to have a motion to sustain the ruling of the chair?

The Chair: Certainly.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I so move.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Seconded.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. James Rajotte: Is that debatable?

The Chair: It's not debatable. Would you like a recorded vote?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: Should the ruling of the chair be sustained?

There's a motion on floor. It's not debatable. We know the rules clearly. I will just read the rules from Marleau. The rules are:

While the Chair's rulings are not subject to debate, they may be appealed to the committee. A member appeals a ruling by requesting that the committee vote on the motion, “That the Chair's ruling be sustained.”

• 1045

That's Marleau, page 857, word for word. So that's the motion before us now: that the chair's ruling be sustained.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.