INST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 30, 2002

0910

The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.))

Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development))

0915

0920

0925

The Chair

Mr. Rajotte

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

0930

Ms. Marie Tobin (Director General, Innovation Policy Branch, Department of Industry)

Mr. Rajotte

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Rajotte

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Rajotte

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Ms. Marie Tobin

0935

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Ms. France Landriault (Director, Policy and Liaison Branch, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada)

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Andy Savoy

0940

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Ms. Marie Tobin

Ms. Isabelle Blain (Director General, Research and Scholarships, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)

Mr. Andy Savoy

Ms. France Landriault

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ)

0945

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Ms. Marie Tobin

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Ms. Marie Tobin

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)

0950

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Ms. Isabelle Blain

Mr. Brent St. Denis

The Chair

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

0955

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

Mr. George Michaliszyn (Director, Life Sciences Branch, Department of Industry)

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. George Michaliszyn

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. George Michaliszyn

The Chair

Mr. Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

1000

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan

The Chair

Mr. Alcock

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Reg Alcock

1005

Ms. France Landriault

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. France Landriault

The Chair

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick

Ms. Marie Tobin

1010

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick

Mr. George Michaliszyn

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick

Mr. George Michaliszyn

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

1015

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Dan McTeague

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Dan McTeague

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Dan McTeague

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Dan McTeague

Mr. George Michaliszyn

Mr. Dan McTeague

Ms. Marie Tobin

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

1020

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

Ms. Marie Tobin

1025

Mr. Joe McGuire

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Joe McGuire

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Joe McGuire

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Joe McGuire

Ms. Marie Tobin

Mr. Joe McGuire

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Ms. Marie Tobin

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Ms. Marie Tobin

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

1030

Ms. Marie Tobin

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Ms. Marie Tobin

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy

France Landriault

Mr. Andy Savoy

Ms. France Landriault

1035

Mr. Andy Savoy

The Chair

Ms. Marie Tobin

The Chair

Ms. Marie Tobin

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

1040

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Clerk

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

1045

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

NUMBER 087

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 30, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)): I'll call this meeting to order.

The minister will be with us until 10 o'clock, so I will ask the minister to proceed. I'll have him introduce his witnesses at the table. As you know, the minister is new in the position, but I did convey to the minister that I would appreciate his coming with his departmental officials so that we could at least have some opportunity to ask some questions.

Of course, Minister, as you know, at any time we could call you back to have more dialogue, but we wanted to make sure you were able to be here with us today, because you're the last one on the agenda.

I would ask you to proceed.

Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development)): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I thank you for issuing the invitation for this opportunity.

We have with us today the policy sector director general, Marie Tobin, of the Innovation Policy Branch. We have, from the industry sector, George Michaliszyn, Life Sciences Branch. Also with us is France Landriault, director of policy, planning and international collaboration. And we have Isabelle Blain, the director general of research and scholarships.

Today I will provide you with the information concerning the estimates for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

To begin with, I would like to address the broader issues of the importance of science and my role and priorities as Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development. As we know, science leads to new ideas and new knowledge, which in turn lead to a better standard of living and quality of life for all Canadians. This defines the undisputable importance of science.

What then is the federal government's involvement in support of this discipline, we ask? In the fiscal year just passed, the Government of Canada spent an estimated $7.4 billion on science and technology, truly a major amount. There are three major reasons for this budgetary expenditure.

First, science influences government policy by contributing to innovations, such as in medical research, technology, and telecommunications, that are changing the world in which we live.

Second, science is closely linked to the government's stewardship and regulatory function in areas, for example, such as climate change and water quality.

Third, developments in science lead to economic and social developments that are integral to the roles and responsibilities of government.

Let me assure the committee that I am committed to championing science, research, and development within the government, within the university sector, and within the private sector as well. My role and priorities can be summed up as follows: celebrating excellence, rewarding success, and encouraging young people to pursue careers in science and technology.

With respect to NSERC, there can be no doubt that Canada's economic prosperity and quality of life depend on knowledge and innovation, particularly in science and technology. We are transforming our economy from one based on commodities to one based on knowledge and value-added products in all sectors.

Critical to our successful transformation is the investment the Government of Canada makes in research and training at Canadian universities through the NSERC and other granting agencies. In NSERC's case, this means research funding for nearly 10,000 of Canada's most creative and productive university researchers, who help maintain a strong Canadian presence in world science and engineering.

In the last 25 years, these professors have trained, with NSERC's support, more than 55,000 masters and doctoral students, the very people who are going to make Canada one of the world's leading countries in research and development by the year 2010. University research and university training of researchers are fundamental to innovation. Federal investments in universities have enabled Canada's rapidly accelerating progress in such fields as stellar communications, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and robotics.

Just to give some examples, at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Dr. James Cavers designs communications systems that are in widespread use around the world. They are found in airline modems for flight operations and communications and in the second-generation GTE Airfones used by airline passengers.

The Chiron program is an interactive computer program developed by one of Canada's leading chemists, Dr. Stephen Hanessian of theUniversité de Montréal. Chiron is used by researchers in university and industry laboratories worldwide. It allows them to quickly visualize and evaluate molecular features with pharmaceutical or other potential.

¿ (0915)

Meanwhile, at the University of Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon, Dr. Lorne Babiuk has become a world leader in developing vaccines to prevent disease in livestock. His team of researchers was the first in the world to develop a genetically engineered vaccine to fight bacterial infection in animals.

To build the research-intensive industries of the future, we must continue to increase private and public investments in our most talented and creative scientists and research workers. They are the foundation for our future success in the new economy.

With respect to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the innovation agenda certainly recognizes that innovation is as much a social issue as an economic and technological one. To continue to be competitive in the global economy, and to strengthen our quality of life at home, we must continue to tie new ideas and new knowledge to new products and services.

Innovation is about changing and improving the way we live, the way we work, and the way we learn. It's also about creating future opportunities for our children. That is why, in the year 2000, the Government of Canada provided the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council with $100 million over five years, to study the impact the new economy is having on the way we do business and to educate tomorrow's leaders.

From children embracing computers at home and at school, to worldwide Internet purchasing, the new economy touches almost every aspect of our lives. In fact, Canadians are conducting more and more of their business over electronic networks. In 2001 Canadian companies took more than $10 billion in orders over the Internet, a 43% increase over the previous year.

But shaping the new economy to Canada's advantage is only one area of innovative research funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Real life is at the core of what the council does. Through this council, the Government of Canada promotes innovative thinking on such social and economic issues as regional economic development, ethics, peace and security, aging, culture, democracy, human-computer interaction, and lifelong learning, just to name a few.

I now come to Canada's innovation strategy. Launched earlier this year by the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable Jane Stewart, Minister of Human Resources Development Canada, this strategy is a blueprint for Canada's economic and social future. It calls upon Canadians to harness their imagination, energy, and ingenuity to collectively achieve excellence in building Canada's knowledge economy. It lays out a number of goals, targets, and federal priorities to make Canada more productive and competitive by the year 2010.

Its four key elements are: first, creating new knowledge and bringing it to market more quickly; second, making sure that Canada has the human skills to compete in the new global economy; third, creating the right business and regulatory environment that will help technological progress and entrepreneurship while protecting the public interest; and, fourth, ensuring that all these elements come together to encourage investment in communities across the country--communities that continue to be attractive places in which to live.

We all admire people who are innovative, who can come up with ideas for faster and better ways of doing things, and who are creative, inventive, and ingenious. But we know that being innovative as an individual is seldom easy. We also know that being a leader in the knowledge economy--as a nation--is no less difficult. It invariably comes into being because determined citizens are able to innovate and achieve excellence under frequently challenging intellectual, economic, and social conditions.

Despite these challenges, it must be done. We must all do our part to make Canada a leader in the knowledge economy. As Canadians, we enjoy a high quality of life, and we are justifiably proud that Canada ranks among the top nations in the world on the United Nations human development index each year.

We can also take pride in the fact that Accenture, the world's leading management and technology services organization, has, for the second year in a row, named Canada the leading country for e-government.

But we cannot take our success in either high-tech or our high quality of life for granted. We need to ensure that our quality of life and our standard of living continue to improve and keep pace in the rapidly changing knowledge-based economy that is our world today.

¿ (0920)

So what have we done? In our relatively short history as a nation, we have made great strides and have accomplished great things in many fields of endeavour. In every corner of this country there are success stories about innovative Canadians. By developing new products and services, they are creating jobs and opportunities and improving the quality of life for other Canadians.

At the University of Calgary, for example, MD Robotics' innovative neuroArm project uses technology from the Canadarm to help neurosurgeons do their difficult job. The neuroArm will allow neurosurgeons to use imagery-guided surgery based on magnetic resonance imaging diagnostic images. Rather than relying solely on the human hand, this robotic arm will provide surgeons with improved precision and stability in operating procedures, thereby reaping huge benefits for both patients and physicians.

Today, “hardware is ready to blast into space...as part of Canada's contribution to the International Space Station”, reported the Winnipeg Free Press on Tuesday. Wardrop Engineering designed and built an aluminum frame and fixtures for the first rail car in space. It will slide Canadarm 2 along the length of the station as it orbits 400 kilometres above the earth, thereby extending the reach of the robotic arm.

But perhaps the best known Canadian innovation success story is the BlackBerry, invented by Research in Motion of Waterloo, Ontario. This device, as we know, allows users to stay in touch with their paging systems, e-mail, voice messages, and personal organizers without being chained to their desktops or home offices. Almost 300,000 people today in more than 13,000 companies use the BlackBerry. The device now accounts for four-fifths of the company's quarterly sales revenue and has essentially gained market dominance in the mobile e-mail sector. As a result, Research in Motion has more than doubled its employee numbers and is nurturing the next generation of innovators by employing more than 200 students as co-ops and interns.

But not all Canadian innovation success stories involve high tech. Some are closely tied to much more traditional industries, such as winemaking. Anyone looking for a bottle of wine need look no further than the seal of approval from the British Columbia Wine Institute Vintners Quality Alliance, or the VQA program.

On the opposite side of the country, the Sutherland family of Belfast, P.E.I., is spinning an innovation success story of a different kind. The family had been in the business of making textiles, but soon realized the challenge lay not in making textiles but in making the machines that make the textiles. To build a better mini-mill, the Sutherlands pooled family members' talents and experience in fibre, computers, machinery, and business applications. They spent two years on research and development, producing their machines one at a time, and always reviewing and analysing their designs using computer-assisted design software. So the Sutherland family set out to design and build mini-mills, and they succeeded in doing that.

What do we have yet to do? We know from these and other success stories that innovative Canadians can compete with the best, and will. But we also know that our competition is global. We must keep moving forward. If Canada is to compete and win in the global market race, we need to move faster and work smarter than our competitors. We can do it; we must do it.

What must we do precisely? To begin with, Canada's private sector needs to be more aggressive in developing new ideas. We need to bring these ideas to market through greater investments in research and development and by forging more strategic alliances among researchers, scientists, innovators, and established companies. That will lead to improved access to much-needed venture capital.

¿ (0925)

For instance, the University of Regina recently announced the appointment of its first university-industry liaison position. This person is responsible for finding commercial applications for the university's wide variety of research applications ready to be patented. This could mean new opportunities and new markets for local businesses and Canadian research.

On May 9, Industry Minister Alan Rock officially unveiled the second phase in the Government of Canada's innovation strategy, the engagement strategy, here in Ottawa, in which business, academic, and youth leaders all took part. The engagement strategy will allow both stakeholders and individual Canadians to voice their views on Canada's innovation strategy and to identify next steps for all regions and sectors of the economy in developing a national action plan later this fall.

So, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in conclusion, I would like to thank all of you for this opportunity to share with you the progress the Government of Canada has made and is making on science and technology issues, and particularly about our plans for Canada's innovation strategy. I encourage every member of this committee to become involved and help us in the coming months as we draw together all sectors of our economy to devise a national action plan.

I would be pleased to take questions, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

I'll begin with questions from Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing before us today. I want to congratulate you on your appointment. I know it's recent, so you're obviously working hard to get up to speed on all the issues. I want to therefore ask some more general questions today.

The first question is on an idea that has been around for quite some time. I asked former Minister of Industry Tobin this idea at a committee meeting last year. He seemed open to the idea at the time, but I guess he did not have time to implement it or act upon it. That's the notion of a chief scientist, or a scientific advisory panel, similar to what they have in the United Kingdom, to advise parliamentarians on issues related to science and technology.

We are being asked to make decisions on areas in which, quite frankly, very few of us have the expertise and the basic knowledge. In the United Kingdom they've set up this Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology to advise parliamentarians, so that they can be better informed and make better decisions. I'd just like to know whether you would generally support the establishment of such an office.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It is a very interesting question. The idea on the surface would attract and invite favourable consideration. But then we know the reality of government departments under several ministers' responsibilities; not only one government department does research, but many of them do research.

I think you will agree that the best approach is not for a chief scientist, but to have the minister responsible for a respective department define the course and set the priorities and plans for each department. Collectively all these departments then weave a cohesive whole.

One danger I anticipate, if there is one chief scientist for the whole of the Government of Canada who will call the priorities for all departments, or could set the priorities for all departments, is it would create a situation where we may spend time discussing the perspective of the chief scientist, whether he is from the area of medical research, or the field of environmental research, etc. So I think it best not to proceed with the chief scientist position.

That is my take, but I will ask my officials if they would like to add any additional comment.

¿ (0930)

Ms. Marie Tobin (Director General, Innovation Policy Branch, Department of Industry): I think your question was more for Parliament--whether Parliament should have an advantage. I would think it's up to members to decide that.

Mr. James Rajotte: Okay. I guess I'll propose it today.

No, the chief scientist is not someone who sets budget priorities for the government; I didn't mean to imply that. What the chief scientist would do is advise parliamentarians on issues--even if you look at the stem cell research bill, or if you look at deciding what funding priorities are more important--just to give them the basic scientific background, even on the issue of the Kyoto accord, so that they have some information relating to science and technology, so that then they can make the decision as to priorities.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I think you are raising a very important issue, and that is, do we need a body or a position with the appropriate person that can provide assessment on certain issues, gather the available evidence out there, and present that assessment to the government to say how to go forward?

This may best be achieved not through the chief scientist's position, but perhaps by an academy of science of some sort.

Having said that, I submit, as Ms. Tobin indicated, it is within the purview of this committee, after examining this question of the need for a chief scientist, to come to a consensus and perhaps identify and delineate more clearly the purpose for this position.

I am sure the government will respond to any such proposal that may emanate from this committee.

Mr. James Rajotte: If we could get a consensus on this committee, we could then solicit your support for this idea?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Certainly, I will look at that, as the minister responsible.

Mr. James Rajotte: Just touching on one point, you said a lot of federal government departments make decisions regarding budgeting for science and technology in Canada. I believe approximately 65 different federal government departments and agencies either perform science and technology activities or have a budgetary allocation to fund science and technology. We've just gone through the estimates and we've had the regional development agencies come before us. Many of them get involved in projects related to science and technology.

I agree with your colleague from Manitoba, Reg Alcock, who says this complicates the funding process for science and technology projects.

Look at one specific project, like the synchrotron at the University of Saskatchewan, which you're probably familiar with. When I toured the facility, they said it would be easier for them to apply through one government agency or to get approval for funding for the project in general, and have it there, instead of having to go through Western Economic Diversification, NRC, and CFI. If they could get upfront approval for that funding for the project through one funnel, it would be easier for them to do.

I'd just like to get your reaction to that. Is there a way to simplify funding for these large projects, and should we be funding science and technology through regional development agencies?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Who has the policy insight into that? I must admit that is an issue we are currently debating in government, certainly in our western caucus. I will be giving my input to that.

First, on defining policies, although it may be in a region or in a central place, before a policy of government is implemented, the government will ask, who must have a consensus on that particular policy, on that particular priority?

So just because it is in the region, it's not that there is no influence of the central place, and just because it's in the central place, it's not that there is no influence of the region. I think we have to dispel that myth.

When you speak of what is best in terms of organizational simplicity, certainly we can examine that question.

Ms. Tobin, if you have anything to add in terms of the policy direction....

Ms. Marie Tobin: I think in general the policy direction is there. The federal S and T strategy that was renewed in 1996, after two years, I think, of public consultation, led to a decentralized approach to science and technology. I gather that's what they heard at the time, that it was the most efficient way. Normally, in government, science isn't done for science alone, but to serve the purpose of the mandate of this or that minister through legislation.

The specific case you are referring to is an application to the Canada Foundation for Innovation. It is university research. The synchrotron is located at the University of Saskatchewan. The Canada Foundation for Innovation requires when you get an award to have matching contributions. They provide 40% of the funds.

The University of Saskatchewan, in a consortium--because it's not only the University of Saskatchewan, but I believe there are six of them involved in three or four different provinces--did win, and did at the time indicate to the foundation that they had matching funding. They've been very active in looking for and getting the matching funding. It is obviously a difficult process.

It may have been messy for them, but that specific case is a CFI grant.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: I'd like to move on. I'll be back.

Mr. Savoy.

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

Thank you for coming, Minister. We certainly appreciate that having been given such short notice and being new in your position it's hard to get on top of the files this early.

I'd like to talk about our federal government's innovation strategy in promoting and supporting innovation at the community level. In fact, the NRC's RPP describes innovation and clusters at community levels and the approaches to working with regional technology clusters, if you will. There are some presently under way in Atlantic Canada, which of course is my region.

Has NRC looked at benchmarking other countries, in other words, has it looked at community-based technology models in other countries? Have you seen the impact it's had on a country's innovation performance in that regard?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It's a very clear question, and I think we have to address this question. If the answer is not available, then we will seek the answer.

Having said that, do we have the answer to the question?

Ms. Marie Tobin: I have to expect the NRC did look at what happens in other countries. The OECD is quite active in that area and publishes best practices across the world. So the NRC has access to all of that. But I can't tell you for sure how they make their decision and what they take into account.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: What I will do in response to your question, Mr. Savoy, is I will seek that particular study or series of reports that are out there and will advise my department to have a comparative analysis, if that has not been done. But maybe we can add to it right now.

Ms. France Landriault (Director, Policy and Liaison Branch, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada): I'd like to mention that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is sponsoring a major research project on the role of local and regional clusters in Canada, and 21 institutions are involved, including 14 foreign institutions. So this is a major grant that will be looking at the impact at the regional and local levels of technology clusters and how they can be improved. Also, this study should be available in a year or two.

Mr. Andy Savoy: When you're getting information, could you also find out why we chose those particular regions, and maybe also what stage of development we're at or what the progress has been thus far? In other words, how did we benchmark the other countries, how did we choose the regions, and how far along are we in the development of those regions?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In terms of your questions, certainly, I will look into that, because it is vital information to have as we continue to respond to the innovation strategy ahead of us and the question of how it responds to regions. I believe that innovation must really begin at the communities because this is where the clusters begin. Then they will go into the region and to the whole of the country, and in fact globally.

So to your first question, yes, the answers to that are vital to have, and I will undertake to have that.

Mr. Andy Savoy: I was going to ask another NRC question, but I don't think we have representation from NRC here. Is that correct?

A voice: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Andy Savoy: I want to speak directly to the IRAP program. If I could make a comment on the record, the IRAP program has been very successful because it's administered for small and medium-sized businesses primarily. It's administered by engineers with experience, and that certainly brings a lot to the table. I know from the take-up on IRAP that their funds have been exhausted, generally 60% to 70% into the year. So for 30% to 40% of the year they don't have any funds. I think that's a testament to the success, and it really promotes research and development at the small and medium-sized business level. I wanted to talk a bit about that, but I'll save that for another day.

On a third point--

¿ (0940)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Let me just add, perhaps, one quick statement on that. I certainly agree with the importance of the IRAP program, and I understand in the government's heart this is one of the priorities. My anticipation is that you can expect a very optimistic future.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Excellent. I'm very happy to hear that.

This is just a general question. Could you explain the contributions of NRC, SSHRC, and NSERC in looking at Canada's innovation strategy and where we're going, the four points, as you mentioned? Could you link the organization spending over the next few years, specifically next year, and how it's going to support and reinforce that innovation strategy? I know you mentioned some comments, but do you have any more details?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Can I ask our financial expert?

Ms. Marie Tobin: It's program content, I think. NSERC and SSHRC should answer.

Ms. Isabelle Blain (Director General, Research and Scholarships, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada): Maybe I can start. I'm from NSERC.

I think each of our agencies has a role to play, and we have to find a niche where we can really contribute and advance the government's objectives and this innovation strategy. NSERC is best positioned to help ensure that the highly qualified people needed to implement the strategy are there. We have done some estimates that in the next 8 to 10 years we'll need about 1,000 more scientists and engineers available in academia, but also in government and mostly in the industry sector, so that these sectors can really fulfil and bring Canada to fifth place in the OECD countries.

Through its programs that exist already, NSERC has a lot of emphasis on the training of highly qualified personnel. So definitely what our NSERC council is establishing as the direction is really a focus on providing the HQP, the highly qualified personnel, to make the whole innovation strategy a reality and a success.

Mr. Andy Savoy: More engineers. I like that.

Ms. France Landriault: Like NSERC, SSHRC is also involved in the training of highly qualified personnel in all fields of the social sciences and humanities.

More specifically, the honourable minister mentioned that SSHRC did get a $100-million special grant in 2000 to address issues specifically related to the new economy. In the next fiscal year we will be spending more than $18 million related to those issues, which are looking at upgrading skills in management and education, and looking at the financial markets and different sectoral areas that are really absolutely crucial to developing knowledge to address the challenges of the next century.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Savoy.

Madame Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Minister. I am very happy to see you again. Last week, I was at the National Defence and Veterans' Affairs Committee with you and today, we're at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. We had a very good exchange last week and I hope it will be the same today.

I have many questions about the 2001 Speech from the Throne. Your government said that its intention is to become one of the most innovating countries in the world and that Canada should be one of the first five countries in the world in research and development by 2010. Presently, Canada is in 14th place.

In the votes for the National Research Council of Canada, there are $132 million for grants and contributions to researchers, whereas $295 million will go to the Council's operating expenditures. If you want to reach the objectives you've set in 2001, shouldn't you do the reverse and invest more in research than in operations? This is my first question.

¿ (0945)

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I do not think we spend more on administration than on actual funding for research. I would like to see--

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This is what I've seen in the documents.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But I would like to have clarification. I too would be surprised if we spend, as a whole, more on administration than on actual research projects. In the period to date, I do not find it to be right, but I'd like to see exactly what you're referring to.

Who would like to take that question from the officials?

Ms. Marie Tobin: I don't know the exact estimates and how they display it.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This is what I've read in the documents.

[English]

Ms. Marie Tobin: We'll have to look at it at the NRC. I suspect it may be how they account for their individual institutes under administration. But they're mainly research. They are a research institute, and stand-alone researchers not affiliated to an institute could be in a different category. But definitely the NRC spends more on research than it does on administration, unless the IRAP program is rolled into this, and a variety of other things of that nature. You have an IRAP program that obviously serves research, but in small and medium-sized enterprises, not researchers in the laboratories.

You also have an amazing library that serves universities, government labs, and the private sector across the country as the one scientific library in Canada. That does cost a lot of money, but that is investment in research. Without that, people can't do leading-edge research.

So they may be just some of those categories that are rolled in to operating, but we will look at it.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I too will send you the documents I have in my possession. I am very happy to see that this makes the Minister jump, because I jumped also when I saw that.

In your budgets, you talk about three kinds of grants: grants from the National Research Council, from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. You spend 86% of your budget on natural sciences and 14% on social sciences and humanities. I have many questions. I wonder what kind of society we want to have tomorrow. Do you want to have a technological society or a society with people who can think and exercise their own judgment? I am very concerned with that tendency of yours to subsidize mostly the technological or engineering sectors. We know that science plays an essential role, but would it not be normal to increase grants for social sciences and humanities?

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My understanding is that we have increased our allocation rating for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. It may still be less in proportion to the natural sciences, but I think we have to look at social issues and the natural so-called basic technological issues, though not necessarily exclusive of each other.

I can imagine--and I'm here reflecting a philosophy, just to delineate on the question you posed--that if my wish is to be an engineer, I will be a happy social person because I have become an engineer, and yet my research would have been in the national engineering council. But if I would like to be a musician--

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, of course.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In other words, we have to have a balance. As to whether we should increase more, certainly the government will be open to any suggestions that may come from this committee.

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. In view of the time, I'll make my question brief.

Mr. Minister, congratulations on your new duties. I'm sure you'll conduct them with great distinction.

On education and the engagement of our young people, particularly before they become researchers, when they're still in high school and figuring out what they're going to do with their life, do we--and this may be a question appropriate to any of your officials--have any official programs that engage the provinces through their ministries of education or school boards in an attempt to draw young people toward the sciences for careers? I ask this in view of the fact that we're going to be short of scientists, I believe, in the years to come.

Also, my question applies to our aboriginal communities, in which there's a real underrepresentation of aboriginal young people in the sciences. I'm wondering, in the area of education, what programs or policies do we have to reach out to young people and prepare that ground for them to think they might want to go into sciences, rather than taking something that they...television has so much of an influence on our young people.

I will leave the question at that so others have more time. I share that with one of my colleagues, actually.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Of course, funding for secondary educational programs at the high school level is under provincial jurisdiction.

There are some individual initiatives and there are various programs of the federal government that do participate in some specific initiatives. I'm aware in my own constituency, for example, that there is support from HRDC whereby there is encouragement for some kind of placement of students interested in science or science fair programs, but there is no direct program.

I will ask Isabelle to comment on any specific initiatives that I may not know of.

Ms. Isabelle Blain: This is really an issue in which our council is very interested, because in order to lead the HQP demand, we need to start not at the university level, but we need to have students going from high school to universities in the fields.

NSERC has adopted the Michael Smith Awards program that used to be at the Department of Industry. We brought this program over to NSERC about two years ago. This program recognizes excellence in science promotion.

We've also established a fairly small program called Promo Science to help provide grants to local groups that interact with young people of high school age. We want to at least interest them in science and engineering and try to avoid their being turned off because science and engineering programs sometimes are seen as more difficult or more challenging.

As the minister said, there has to be some balance or some coordination or interaction between the federal and provincial governments in these areas because education is a provincial jurisdiction.

NSERC has some fairly small programs. Of course, we'd like to get them to grow and to be able to do a lot more in this area.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I will conclude by commenting that when I talk to my constituents, they consistently wish the federal government had a stronger role in education, including establishing some sort of national standards. I know the provinces don't want that, but the voters want that. This is for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Ms. Gallant.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, could I make comments on that?

The Chair: I don't want to get into a federal-provincial--

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, it's not that.

We have a Forum for Young Canadians, interesting youth in the quality of governance. We have the Adventures in Citizenship program, encouraging Canadians to learn about our country.

I would like to imagine we can be creative and have at least once a year an Adventures in Science program, inviting youth to Ottawa to promote the beauty and value of science. It's an idea.

The Chair: Wonderful.

Ms. Gallant, and then Mr. Alcock.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): As you may or may not be aware, our industrial competitors, specifically Japan, Australia, and the United States, are investing significant funds into advanced materials research.

Canada's scientific community put forward a similar proposal for advanced materials research. It was called the Canadian Neutron Facility. We've been told that this proposal was approved by cabinet.

When can we expect to see the appropriate funding put into place for the Canadian Neutron Facility to be operational at Chalk River Laboratories?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Currently under review, in fact, is the status of the future of the AECL, Chalk River. In a sense, the decision on this review will impact on the question you ask in terms of the Canadian Neutron Facility because they are interlinked. I cannot give a definitive answer, by definition, because the review on the future of AECL has not yet been completed.

¿ (0955)

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Okay.

Today in the United States it's being reported that 85% of pharmaceutical patents are merely slight variations of existing pharmaceutical products from the companies that already hold the patents. It appears that the slight alterations are done to the molecular structures merely to extend the patent life for these companies. This means that only 15% of the government resources in the States are being used to approve new cures and treatments.

Has there been a similar study done in Canada to ensure that our taxpayers' money, the government resources, are being used to help Canadians obtain new medicine for diseases that we currently do not have treatments and cures for?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: We certainly have a position that we would like to have access to the newest effective medicines available, after appropriate study. We have increased our assessment panel for drugs and medicines at the Department of Health.

Would you like to add to that?

Mr. George Michaliszyn (Director, Life Sciences Branch, Department of Industry): I guess I can comment in terms of the modification on the chemicals. First of all, if you're talking about extending patents, once a chemical has been identified and patented, it can no longer be protected; once the patent expires, access to that chemical becomes open and available. There may be additional patents provided that modify accessibility if you're doing a time-release formulation, or if you're doing truly a modification on the chemical because it has improved potency with a patient, or if it has fewer side effects. Those are improvements that are still important from a medical and health care delivery standpoint. I think we have to exercise some caution. Most advances in medicines are done in small steps. Occasionally we get the big steps where we get the blockbuster, fundamental change in the way we provide therapy.

As far as some of the government support goes, I can comment on the TPC program. Through TPC, there's some truly innovative work being supported in Canada. With organizations like Aventis Pasteur, we are supporting therapeutic vaccines.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: But that doesn't answer the question as to whether or not we have had a similar accountability program in place to ensure that the resources Canadians are paying for are going into genuinely new treatments. So has there been one, or is there one planned?

Mr. George Michaliszyn: Are you talking at the level of the research at CIHR, or are you--

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: At the level of patent approval for pharmaceuticals.

Mr. George Michaliszyn: Well, the patent system operates independently. If it deems there is an innovation, the patent system will provide protection. Has there been a study that compares how much innovation is there or not? Not to my knowledge; I'm not aware of a study that's been done.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Alcock, you may have one question; then the minister has to leave, but the officials will stay for another half hour, so we'll still ask--

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Well, then, Mr. Chairman, after the minister has left, will I have additional time to question the officials?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Good. Actually, it would be unfair to ask the new minister some of the questions I want to ask, although he's heard them all from me on the plane, as we fly back and forth all the time.

The Chair: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Chair, it's my time. May I speak?

The Chair: No, but he has to leave.

Mr. Reg Alcock: That's fine. I'd like to say what I want to say, okay?

The Chair: Okay. You started late, Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I expect there's a great deal the minister is going to want to learn as he gets into this portfolio. One of the things I would ask him to spend some time on is this issue of distribution, and it picks up on Mr. Savoy's question. After the program review exercises, if you track federal science in Canada, you will note that federal employees involved in science and research in Canada went down in every single region of the country as a result of program review. You might expect that as we reduced. But they went up 174 positions in the national capital region; 76% of federal science is conducted in the national capital region.

Now when we have an innovation strategy that talks about an innovation strategy for Canada, I think we need to look seriously at how we build capacity outside the national capital region, and I'm not satisfied our current system does that. I think we've compounded the problem by fracturing the research support into a whole bunch of disparate groups that force researchers now to spend as much time running from CFI to NSERC to SSHRC to CIHR in order to assemble research as it does focusing them on their core business, which is creating new knowledge and capacity for Canada.

That's really the statement I want to make. I have some specific questions for the officials, but we'll have this debate for some time.

À (1000)

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'll make one brief remark to that. I share the sentiments of Mr. Alcock. I certainly will bring that sentiment to debate within the department. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I apologize for keeping you past 10 o'clock; I know you have to go to a cabinet meeting. But the officials will be staying for another half hour.

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I note in the minister's remarks that we are talking here simply about SSHRC and NSERC. Is the NRC not being discussed today?

Ms. Marie Tobin: The minister is a champion for S and T across the government and I guess across the land; however, it is customary for the Secretary of State to be given specific responsibilities for SSHRC and NSERC.

Bear with us. The minister has not yet received his mandate letter from Minister Rock. It has been three days, and so we had prepared under the assumption of the previous mandate letter, which is the traditional assumption. But this could well change. Minister Rock may want to delegate certain parts of science and technology within his portfolio to the Secretary of State, but we're not aware of it yet.

Mr. Reg Alcock: In the context of the two portfolios here, can you perhaps help us to understand the different levels of support that NSERC and SSHRC receive?

The funding to NSERC is substantially larger than that provided to SSHRC. Yet I understand that the amount of research supported by SSHRC was substantially larger than the amount supported by NSERC. Part of this is a product of the higher cost, in terms of material, of an engineering or scientific inquiry than a literature study, or whatever. This committee and others have made considerable efforts to encourage increased support for SSHRC, given its importance across the country. Yet there has only been a limited ability to make gains.

Can you help us understand why there's this big difference between the two?

Ms. Marie Tobin: I can only talk about facts. Maybe the minister could help you understand how ministers make these types of decisions.

I think you may be correct that, typically or traditionally, natural sciences and engineering studies might cost more than social sciences studies. It's difficult to have a hard and fast rule. I would say pure mathematics might not cost more, but engineering of certain types might. So I think part of the explanation may have been this.

In the recent past, the government has tried to give some signals that it values social sciences and humanities research. The $100 million initiative for the new economy is there to say that the new economy is not just about high tech, but has social and managerial aspects, and that we need to understand more of what is going on. It also shows that while we recognize that SSHRC has already started some initiatives on this, more money is needed.

These are small steps and may not fit what you and Madame Bujold said.

But all I can say is that the decisions you refer to relate to ministers and how and why they take their decisions. We will have to see.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I just saw some facts, though. NSERC's portfolio is three times larger than SSHRC's.

Can you tell us the number of researchers supported, or the number of grants given to individual researchers, by SSHERC versus NSERC?

À (1005)

Ms. France Landriault: As you rightly pointed out earlier, 54% of SSHERC's clientele consists of full-time faculty at universities. And it does receive about 13% of--

Mr. Reg Alcock: You say 54% versus 13%?

Ms. France Landriault: Yes, 54% of full-time faculty.

Mr. Reg Alcock: And 13% of total grants?

Ms. France Landriault: Yes. And 63% of full-time students are in the disciplines covered by social sciences and humanities.

Our budget overall is $206 million, including the allocation for the chairs and the NCEs. We give $52 million of this overall budget to research grants. I believe about 4,000 university faculty benefit from the SSHRC support on a yearly basis under the research grants program. This includes collaborators on different projects.

One of the factors explaining the different ratio of support between the two is historical. Initially, when the councils were created, an allocation was decided for the two. All further increases have more or less respected the initial allocation. Of course, SSHRC would like to see this changed.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): I just have one question.

The topic of research through private foundations has cropped up in our hearings. It maybe relates back to Mr. Alcock's comments about a seemingly pragmatic system for providing research.

Do we have a coherent plan or strategy at the federal level for how we fund research through private foundations?

Ms. Marie Tobin: I can only speak to the fact that ministers have chosen to fund research in the various modes. Research differs, depending on what you do and don't do. The systematic inquiry doesn't, but there are different features to the research endeavour. I can't comment on whether it's a wise decision or how coherent it is. Obviously, ministers believe it is coherent.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: If I were going to try to get one definitive statement of what the government strategy is for funding research through private foundations, would I have to go through the ministers and find out what each one of them was doing on that matter, or could I find one policy statement that would explain how we do this?

Ms. Marie Tobin: I don't think there's a policy statement. The policy statement would state something to the effect that there are varied activities under research, from infrastructure to pure research to applied research in synergy with private sectors or not-for-profit corporations. Each of those facets may want to be funded.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I guess the only comment I would make as an MP is that I would like to think things are coherent and manageable and understandable. When I can't understand how this is being done and it becomes a hopeless task to try to figure out how it's done, I'm a little bit concerned about it.

I agree with comments I heard earlier this morning. If we're doing research, we should have a single, coherent policy about it and we shouldn't have organizations hiring a whole bunch of administrative people to try to sort through this maze and determine what application forms to use and what's the process involved with this outfit as opposed to that one and this minister and that minister and so on. We should have a single, coherent, understandable approach on this.

That's just a comment. I know you're not in a position to make it, but I'm making my statement here anyway.

Ms. Marie Tobin: I understand that the three granting councils and the Canada Foundation for Innovation work together to try to simplify application forms and, in some cases, align timing of decisions to make the work of the university administrator, rather than the researcher, easier.

We are witnessing some people coming back from the United States because of the package we are now able to offer. I suspect that for some people out there it might be a bit more coherent than for others.

À (1010)

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Do all three of the granting organizations make contributions to private foundations for research? Are there any that do?

Ms. France Landriault: No.

Ms. Marie Tobin: Not-for-profit organizations can apply to the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and I think in the initiative on the new economy they can also, but it's not customary.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: None of the officials here have any involvement with the Technology Partnerships Canada program?

Mr. George Michaliszyn: I have some knowledge because of the biotechnology element I deal with.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: This is just a concern I had. I did some number crunching on that program. Something like 86% of the funding since inception went to Ontario and Quebec. A major firm has just done an analysis of the Alberta technology sector and says it's very much alive, growing, and very healthy. Their biggest single problem is obtaining capital. My math shows they got about 1.4%. Saskatchewan, my home province, got zero, and New Brunswick got 0.41%.

The mandate of the program is technology for all of Canada. I just wonder how this came about.

Mr. George Michaliszyn: I might be able to add some clarification, because in fact we were trying to stimulate greater uptake of the program in the regions in the biotechnology area. We also noticed there was not a lot. The response that came back from the private sector, the people we had talked to, was that it was easier for them to actually apply to some of the regional programs like ACOA or WD. In fact, they do access some resources through those mechanisms. That was the response that came back to us.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

I'll now go to Mr. McTeague, then I'll go back to Ms. Gallant, and then Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Thank you very much for being here today. I guess I'm not happy the minister's not here, but I understand he has to leave, and I suspect this may provide us an opportunity to get into some detail.

The Chair: There was a delay at the start of the meeting, waiting--

Mr. Dan McTeague: Yes, I understand, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: --for people, so we wasted 15 minutes, and the minister was here on time.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chairman, my comments were not in reference to that. If you take them that way, I apologize.

À (1015)

The Chair: I didn't want the circumstances to be misconstrued.

Mr. Dan McTeague: I didn't want to make an insensitive remark. I understand that you're extremely sensitive this morning, so I understand that very well.

I was going to ask the minister if he wanted to talk about Veterans Affairs. It's one of the reasons I was late this morning. I was returning from a subcommittee that was initiated many years ago. But I want to move very quickly to some of the topics here.

Madam Tobin, you talked a little bit about the new economy, and the minister has indicated in his statement here his interest in working with greater partnerships, clearly in a number of facets and a number of areas with respect to the private sector. I, too, am interested in how the ultimate attempt by government to translate into private sector successes, especially in Canada, is meeting success. However, I'm wondering if your departments or your groups have taken into consideration the changing nature and the dynamic of the Canadian economy, namely, great concern over the hollowing out of the R and D perspectives of the Canadian economy.

If I'm to follow the concerns of Mr. Gordon Nixon, the chairman of the Royal Bank, that since the beginning of just this millennium, 62 of our nation's largest companies, representing 20% of the current public float value of the TSE, have disappeared through mergers and acquisitions, most of them, admittedly, being American firms, I'm wondering what kinds of challenges that places on your attempts to realize new innovations and productivity and to meet up with the Minister of Industry's commitment to better productivity and greater innovation at a time when the proper outlets in which to practise or to manifest those innovations are becoming increasingly stratified and increasingly the domain of, perhaps, companies that do their business in other parts of the world. Do you believe, in effect, subsidizing research and development in other nations to allow them to then return those good products back into Canada at higher prices, which of course limits our ability to be productive, among other things?

Ms. Marie Tobin: I don't think any country wilfully does that. We provide very interesting R and D tax credits to both big and small firms. They are among the best in the world, and we are like that. There are, I understand, some problems with the administration of it, and I'm sure my colleagues at Revenue Canada can talk more about it in that regard. I can only talk about it in a policy sense, in that we are recognized as having very good R and D tax credits. There are many studies that say one thing and another, and I agree with that too.

In the same fashion, I will agree that there are different perceptions about hollowing out. We have read Gordon Nixon's speech. We are aware of the concerns that are expressed. From a pure R and D perspective, which is what I can talk about, if you look at the figures, foreign firms are investing more in R and D than Canadian firms are in Canada.

Mr. Dan McTeague: On that point, would it not be a function of the fact that they have a larger presence in certain instances, in take-up, than Canadian firms? There are more foreign firms in Canada than there are existing firms, based on a book value. It's obvious that if there's any investment--

Ms. Marie Tobin: I don't think there are more foreign firms in Canada than there are Canadian firms here. I could check.

Mr. Dan McTeague: No, no, I am sorry. What I'm saying is, is it possible, is it conceivable, that the figures that are reflected have much to do with the recognition of a new reality in Canada of a larger presence of foreign firms that are, indeed, taking advantage of R and D tax credits, tax incentives, as a means of doing research here or elsewhere?

Ms. Marie Tobin: It may be--

Mr. Dan McTeague: Is there a guarantee that the research is being done here, or is it simply taken--

Ms. Marie Tobin: Oh yes, the research is being done here.

Mr. Dan McTeague: In the case of biotechnology and in the case of patents, which I think Ms. Gallant raised, would you then qualify molecular changes, subtle, one-type, small change to a particular drug, to be something that would qualify as an R and D investment or as an R and D expenditure?

Mr. George Michaliszyn: I think what is qualified as innovation or patentable really is dealt with by CIPO, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. Those evaluations are independent and done with a standard that looks also at how other nations evaluate. But there is a standard that must be met in Canada, so it is independent. It is, essentially, a separate operating agency, but its decisions are independent.

In terms of whether a small change would qualify, again, you'd have to look at whether it's a new use, whether there's a substantial improvement. These are all things that would be evaluated.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Just to clarify for the committee, because it's my final comment, is there a way of breaking this down by industry, which industries are using their R and D expenditures and taking advantage of these grants? Do we have that, and could it be made available to the committee?

Ms. Marie Tobin: I think Revenue Canada does make that available.

The Chair: Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The figures I mentioned earlier are in Table 7 entitled: “Main Estimates for 2002-2003--Industry Canada Votes Regarding NRC, NSERC and SSHRC”. These are actual figures. The operating expenditures of the National Research Council of Canada amount to $295 million, and the grants and contributions amount to about $132 million. These are the figures I'm presently reading in this table.

Mrs. Marie Tobin: I believe these operating expenditures include the expenditures for all the research institutes.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This is reassuring because I found that amount quite high. That is why I wanted to quote my source.

Earlier on, Mrs. Gallant mentioned patents. Are you in charge of patents? People say it is easier to patent pharmaceuticals in the United States than in Canada. It takes a lot of time over here. Where I come from, many people with very rare diseases need drugs that should be patented very quickly but have not yet been patented.

Is your department in charge of those patents? What is involved in the process? I know that it takes a long time. Here in Canada, it takes five years before a patent is issued for a new drug.

À (1020)

Mr. George Michaliszyn: I do not deal personally with patents, but our department is in charge of patents through CIPO, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.

I cannot comment on how long it takes to issue a patent. I only know that the patent lasts for 20 years and starts from the date when the application is made. If the patent is granted, the protection will be valid for the entire duration of the patent beginning from the date when the application was made.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: There is a lot of ongoing research on new drugs in the United States and patents are issued very quickly. Here in Canada, we also have research, but the process takes a long time. You know that drugs change very quickly today. What was good yesterday is no longer good today because of new drug research.

Since the process is so slow, are you planning to review the new drug patenting policy? This is what I would like to know.

This does not fall under your responsibility?

Mrs. Marie Tobin: I think you had two questions. The first one deals with the approval of drugs which will be available in Canada. This falls under the responsibilities of Health Canada.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: O.K. You have nothing to say in that respect, but you do subsidize research.

Mrs. Marie Tobin: You will note that a chapter of Canada's Innovation Strategy deals with the environment of innovation. There are suggestions aimed at improving the operation of the regulations and improving the efficiency of the system. Consultations are taking place to find out if people really think those suggestions should be among our first priorities, since this is a strategy. We still have eight years to implement that strategy. What should be the first, the second or the third step of that strategy? We will see. The suggestion has been made and will be studied in light of the present context. I'm quite sure that Health Canada is very much aware of the problem or the challenge.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bujold.

Mr. McGuire. Welcome to the committee also, Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you very much. I'm even newer than the minister.

I have two questions. One, as maybe the witnesses would know, in Atlantic Canada we came up with the report “Catching Tomorrow's Wave”, which was an innovative strategy on the knowledge-based industries, clusters, etc. One of the proposals was that the National Research Council, who call themselves the National Research Council, didn't have a facility in New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island. We had suggested that they become national and have research facilities in both of those provinces. They immediately complied with New Brunswick, which was great. But in Prince Edward Island we had suggested that they have a bio-science centre based on our agricultural and marine environments in P.E.I. I'm wondering why that suggestion isn't being complied with. We're not looking for innovation placed in Saskatoon or anything, but we'd like to have our share of the National Research Council's funds in the bio-sciences.

Ms. Marie Tobin: Again, I'm not from NRC, but I think NRC is quite aware of the request of P.E.I. They are working with the province, to my knowledge, on developing a technology roadmap that would be able to figure out what aspect of the bio-sciences would be the best targeted to do in P.E.I. They are working with all stakeholders in the province in doing that, and I think they're quite advanced in it, but I don't know what the results of the roadmap have indicated so far. But it is a live project; it is not a dead project from that perspective.

À (1025)

Mr. Joe McGuire: It's good news that it's not dead. So you are committed to establishing a bio-science centre?

Ms. Marie Tobin: I can't speak for the president of the NRC, sir, but I know that they are working with P.E.I. officials, the university community, and the stakeholders there to find out what they could do there through a technology roadmap.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Could you supply me with an updated note on what is happening on that?

Ms. Marie Tobin: Sure.

Mr. Joe McGuire: My second question, Mr. Chair, is something we've talked to the previous minister, Mr. Bevilaqua, about, and it is about the practical application of some of the research that's been done in Canada and patented in Canada. And it's something we've seen on public television quite often recently: the people who have patented wind diesel. They find the Americans are quite interested in wind diesel, and they're actually buying it and they're setting it up in Alaska, but they find it's very difficult to get the Canadian government to have the same level of interest as the Americans have. With the vastness of our country and our north, and the cost of fuel trucking into the north and pollution, etc., we find it very difficult to get anybody in this country interested, while our neighbours to the south have done a number of innovative proposals in their isolated industries. These people are in India and America, but they're not in Canada and they're Canadians.

How can we get over this, the fact that we don't seem to have confidence in our own people? This is one instance.

Ms. Marie Tobin: I can't comment on why ordinary citizens across the country are not buying this technology, sir. If you want to send me a bit more about it, I'll try to find out.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Your previous minister was familiar with it, and I understood he was doing something about it. He was able, apparently through his responsibilities, to do something. I'm surprised that you don't know what it's about.

Ms. Marie Tobin: I'm not. The standard control is extremely high. I can certainly inquire about it. He didn't send the inquiry to me, let's put it that way, likely because I was the wrong person to activate it. But I can find out about it.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Yes. See what's happened because the minister's not here.

The Chair: Mr. McGuire, I was asking that same question, working with the previous minister on that, because it surfaced a number of times here, and I know he had started some work on it. Hopefully it's been passed on now to the new minister and the new minister can carry on.

Ms. Gallant, please.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Recently we heard at a presentation put on by the Library of Parliament here on the Hill that what is currently lacking is the single voice on behalf of the sciences, someone to speak on behalf of the scientists where a Canadian voice is required here and abroad.

Canada is the only one of the G-7 nations without a national science organization. There's no adviser to the PM; there's no pure science committee in the House of Commons; the situation with ministers for science is fluid. Do you agree that there is a gap in the capacity to fully digest our decisions on research and development?

The Chair: Ms. Gallant, I think that's a question to the minister. I apologize.

Ms. Marie Tobin: I can say that there is an advisory body to cabinet. The Advisory Council on Science and Technology does exist. You may be referring to a different type of body, but it has been in existence for a few years as an outcome of the federal science and technology strategy and feeds directly into cabinet.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: How often does this advisory committee actually meet with cabinet to update them on what is going on in science?

Ms. Marie Tobin: It's once or twice a year in most cases. It has been less active in the past year, but in the previous year they actually did expert studies, which are published, on several topics cabinet wanted advice on.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Okay. Now I'd like to expand somewhat on a notion of a voice for science, and I'll keep in mind that we are dealing with the supporters.

In the current political climate there seems to be an ad hoc approach to research and development. Internationally there are several models to choose from. The U.S. has its National Research Council, the U.K. has its Royal Society, and France has its own as well.

The proposal that's being put forward by some members of the scientific community is that Canada needs to put into place a Canadian Academies of Science, a CAS. Are you considering this proposal?

À (1030)

Ms. Marie Tobin: Yes. It's indicated in the innovation strategy yet again as a priority. Again we will seek advice, but it is my understanding that the three main scientific associations have come together to form the Canadian Academies of Science as a not-for-profit organization that would be ready to serve should the government want to fund it. It is a feature of the innovation strategy.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: The other problem that's been related to me is that scientists don't know where to go when they have to approach government.

Take, for example, the Canadian Neutron Facility project. On the one hand, they had to go to the Minister of Natural Resources, then they had to come to the industry minister, and then there was a change in cabinet. They just had to keep on going back and forth without really having a minister long enough to be able to make a definite decision.

What sorts of things are being done to address this? Will the Canadian Academies of Science fill this need, so that scientists know exactly where to go when they have a proposal, rather than being shuffled from ministry to ministry?

Ms. Marie Tobin: The Canadian Academies of Science is not set up, or it does not have a mandate, to my understanding, to do that. It is setting itself up to have a mandate to do scientific assessment, which means that you know at one point in time what science says on one issue. It's amassing the best knowledge in the world to tell you at any point in time what the facts are. It doesn't comment on whether it would be appropriate to spend x millions of dollars on one project versus another; it's talking about science issues that underlie policy decisions.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you for answering my question.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gallant.

I'll go to Mr. Savoy for the last question.

Mr. Andy Savoy: We've been wrestling with a perceived disparity between funding for NSERC and SSHRC recently in our peer review process, in the draft report we're preparing. Of course, coming from a technical background, we always try to measure the socio-economic impacts, and I understand with pure and applied research it's a significant challenge to do so.

We've heard numerous witnesses on this, and we'd like to hear from SSHRC specifically. On what basis would you make the assumption that a disparity does in fact exist?

Ms. France Landriault: In the level of research funding allocated?

Mr. Andy Savoy: Yes, support.

Ms. France Landriault: As I mentioned earlier, if we look at the number of researchers in our fields and the diversity of disciplines we cover, I don't think the needs are being met. There's an explosion of needs for research in our fields as well to inform policy decisions.

SSHRC has implemented a number of programs in partnership with different federal departments where the research agenda is defined jointly so that the results do in fact clearly meet the needs of those departments. It's called the joint initiatives program.

In our main estimates, there's a list of all the partners we've had over time. A recent one is with Fisheries and Oceans, on oceans management, to get sound facts and research to enhance decision-making in these areas. So we do have a number of programs that aim to provide information for clear policy advice on specific sectoral issues.

Another program that is quite innovative and extremely popular is the Community-University Research Alliances, which provides joint funding for community groups and researchers in local and regional communities to develop a research agenda together that really meets the needs of those communities, to involve researchers more directly in their communities to provide knowledge to assist in community and regional development.

So there are a significant number of programs that are directly aimed at providing information for policy decision-making.

À (1035)

Mr. Andy Savoy: Thank you, Ms. Landriault.

The Chair: Let me thank the officials for being here today, the new people on the committee, our previous ministers and secretaries of state. We had an hour and a half with the minister only because of the change. We wanted to make sure the new minister would at least appear in front of the committee. It was his turn to do some things in cabinet, so I want to thank the officials for staying over and covering for the minister.

I would ask Ms. Tobin, if I could indulge you, to go back to the department.... The department was to circulate to the members of this committee the dates, times, and locations of all the innovation summits that were going to be held. If any of the members of the committee would be able to attend, they wanted to know in advance. That has not been circulated yet.

Ms. Marie Tobin: It's available on the departmental website. They keep being added on, so I don't think there will be a definitive list, unless it's at the very end. But if you simply go to www.innovationstrategy.gc.ca, you are supposed to find it.

I will send the latest printout to the clerk, but I'd just tell you that they are, to my knowledge, being actively added on. So whatever list we send you today may not be final.

The Chair: Okay. Our departments can look that up themselves.

Ms. Marie Tobin: But I will send the list. I'll print it out today and tell you what's going on.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.

We have one item of business, and that is a motion to deal with all the estimates. It's item A on your agenda.

INDUSTRY

Department

Vote 1--Operating expenditures...........$424,556,000

Vote 5--Grants and contributions..........$933,109,000

Vote L10--Payments pursuant to subsection 14(2) of the Department of Industry Act.........$300,000

Vote L15--Loans pursuant to paragraph 14(1)(a) of the Department of Industry Act..........$500,000

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Vote 20--Operating expenditures.............$69,977,000

Vote 25--Grants and contributions..........$364,792,000

Canadian Space Agency

Vote 30--Operating expenditures...........$111,784,000

Vote 35--Capital expenditures...............$164,312,000

Vote 40--Grants and contributions...........$52,081,000

Canadian Tourism Commission

Vote 45--Program expenditures..............$83,166,000

Competition Tribunal

Vote 50--Program expenditures...............$1,395,000

Vote 55--Program expenditures................$2,092,000

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

Vote 60--Operating expenditures...........$41,635,000

Vote 65--Grants and contributions........$427,091,000

Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation

Vote 70--Payments to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation............$35,108,000

National Research Council of Canada

Vote 75--Operating expenditures...........$295,486,000

Vote 80--Capital expenditures..................$69,199,000

Vote 85--Grants and contributions..........$132,670,000

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

Vote 90--Operating expenditures..............$30,360,000

Vote 95--Grants.................$608,101,000

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

Vote 100--Operating expenditures............$14,432,000

Vote 105--Grants..............$180,199,000

Standards Council of Canada

Vote 110--Payments to the Standards Council of Canada..............$6,904,000

Statistics Canada

Vote 115--Program expenditures..........$315,344,000

Western Economic Diversification

Vote 120--Operating expenditures............$40,187,000

Vote 125--Grants and contributions........$271,035,000

The Chair: Shall the committee adopt the main estimates for the fiscal year, with all the numbers shown, and report that to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chair: Thank you.

We agreed as a committee that all the other items on the agenda will be dealt with on Tuesday. There will be a number of items--motions, items that we've tabled in the past to be brought forward--and we'll deal with those at our meeting on Tuesday.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't aware of that, for obvious reasons. I was on the subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. But I do have a motion that I think some of the members are aware of, and I'd like to seek the indulgence of the members to at least address it today. It is pursuant to the meeting of the minister, as well as a commitment made by the previous Minister of Industry.

The motion reads:

That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology undertake to review at its earliest opportunity the Patent Act with respect to the Notice of Compliance Regulations concerning patented medicines.

It does not deal with drug patents. It does not deal with the mandate, the requirement of the 20 years under international.... It goes beyond that, and it is consistent with the minister's view, as well as many others, about what happens beyond that. I believe Ms. Gallant, for instance, raised this issue in her question to one of our assistants.

I'm asking if the committee would consider that now as an item for future business.

The Chair: It's on the agenda for Tuesday.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Do you want to deal with it today?

Can we deal with it now, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: No, we agreed with other members of the committee that we would deal with it on Tuesday.

Mr. Dan McTeague: There was a motion. This has been in for 48 hours.

The Chair: I know the legalities, Mr. McTeague. We discussed it as a committee, and I informed the committee that we would deal with all those items on Tuesday, when more people will be here. It was at their request. We agreed as a committee to do this, and I think it would be wrong to deal with it now.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chairman, is there anything that's left for us to do between now and 11 o'clock, when we're supposed to terminate? Is there any other issue we should deal with?

I don't hear any objections from any of the members to dealing with this now.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: I have an objection. I'd like my colleague to be part of this as well.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Then I would defer on that until Tuesday.

The Chair: We're still trying to get video conferencing for Tuesday. Hopefully, the clerk can finalize that today and advise your offices before tomorrow.

This is the last of the peer review study. We can then finish off the peer review study.

Ms. Gallant, do you have a question?

À (1040)

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: At a previous meeting I had requested that if we were to have a minister appear, we would have the meeting televised. Were we just not in the proper ranking, or do we have to put a motion forward so that the clerk has an ongoing directive?

The Chair: No. I mentioned earlier that from now on there are a number of things. If we want ministers to come here, we want them for an hour and a half, and we've done that with all the ministers except this one, only because of the recent shuffle. And when ministers appear, it would have priority for being televised. If there are more than two ministers, then the House leaders will get together and decide which minister would be chosen.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So that was the case today. There were two other ministers ahead of us?

The Chair: No, it was just a short time for us to have everything. In fact, we weren't sure whether he was going to be here until late yesterday. It just wasn't feasible to organize.

Mr. Dan McTeague: I wish to raise this issue, and I think I will move it as a motion:

That's a motion.

The Chair: That's your notice of motion?

Mr. Dan McTeague: That's a motion. It's been given 48 hours.

The Chair: And the committee will deal with it on Tuesday--

Mr. Dan McTeague: The committee may make its decision known right now, Mr. Chairman. I've put it in motion form.

The Chair: I'll let the committee....

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Do we not have rules of notice?

Mr. Dan McTeague: There was a 48-hour notice. The chair knows that, as does the clerk.

The Chair: We did bring it up, Mr. McTeague, and we did agree as a committee to do it all on Tuesday.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chairman, the committee may decide to do otherwise today.

The Chair: Okay, fine. Let the committee--

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Chair, on a point of clarification, my understanding is that on Tuesday we have other items on the list--we're going to try to figure out what our committee's going to do.

If we voted on this today and said it is an item we're going to deal with, would that mean it's in there and anything else that comes up on Tuesday might have to take a back seat to this motion? If that's the case, I can't support it.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Dan McTeague: It says “at its earliest opportunity”. It doesn't suggest priority.

I move the motion.

The Chair: I've tried to put one hour of video and one hour on these items. We agreed as a committee. If you want to overrule the chair, that's your business.

I'm at your disposal.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I have not received a copy of this motion. I cannot vote on something which I have not yet received.

[English]

The Chair: It was circulated.

The Clerk of the Committee: No, it was not circulated. I have it, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps I owe the member an apology. I did receive your notice. I had it translated, and we received that yesterday.

Mr. Dan McTeague: If you served it yesterday, we'll provide you with the documents--

The Clerk: No, I mean the translated copy.

My understanding from your office was that you were travelling this week and it would be dealt with June 4. There was, as of 4 o'clock yesterday, to be a future business meeting today, so my intention was--I did give a copy to the chair, obviously--to distribute it at that meeting, since I assumed you were going to be there June 4. This was the date given to me by your office.

This is why I asked you when you arrived if you were travelling this week. I did not know you were going to be here. I do apologize.

Mr. Dan McTeague: You need not apologize, Clerk. I made it very clear that I would be here on Thursday, that I would do the first half of the veterans affairs committee.

The Chair: What do you want to do? The motion is on the floor.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Table the motion until the next scheduled meeting.

À (1045)

The Chair: Is it the wish of the committee that we table the motion until Tuesday?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.