Industry Committee on April 17th, 2008

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

As the chair, I'm going to take the prerogative to ask a couple of questions.

I was at a session with the University of Alberta's president, Indira Samarasekera, and she gave a wonderful presentation. Then a politician stood up—not I—and asked her a very tough question. He was going to put her in her place. He talked about how she had mentioned all these wonderful topics over a 30-minute talk, and he then asked her to define for him in one sentence what a good university is, because she kept talking about “a good university”. She looked him in the eye, and she said “an institution where the students are lining up to attend and the professors are lining up to teach and do research.” I thought she knocked it out of the park.

So I'm going to put the same challenge to you and ask that you define for me in one sentence, from your perspective, either success or failure.

We'll start with Mr. Knight, and we can go down.

[James Knight]

Thank you.

I think the university president got it right. If the students are lining up and the professors are engaged, that's marvellous. But in the institutions I've visited in my sector, there's a sense of excitement, a sense of progress and self-fulfilment. I think that's an important ingredient of success.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Chartrand.

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

The capacity to capture the excellence is the most crucial criterion, because at the end of the day, if we're talking about research and training, it's all about people. So our capacity to capture that excellence is critical.

[Dr. Nigel Lloyd]

For us, it would be that we have succeeded in achieving our vision of making Canada a nation of discoverers and innovators for the benefit of all Canadians, which means we have a culture of innovation in the country.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Our descendants would look back on us and say that we did everything we could to advance knowledge, develop talent, and try to make a better world.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I appreciate those answers, and that sort of leads into my second question. It's a very challenging question for me, as a parliamentarian. I think it's very challenging for any government.

The federal government funds S and T in many ways. You have the human resources side; you have the granting councils; you have Canada research chairs; you have community college funding; you have funding for post-secondary education; you have capital infrastructure; you have the CFI; you have the indirect costs, which are now called the institutional costs of research; you have big science projects, as well as their operational costs; you have the whole commercialization aspect; you get into things like IRAP, further down the innovation continuum; you have Networks of Centres of Excellence; you have centres like AUTO21; and you have the National Research Council. You have all of these excellent agencies and programs and institutions that all come to the government and say, “Here's what we're doing an excellent job in”, and they're right.

I think what Mr. Chartrand said to Mr. Brison was that we could be funding many more researchers here in Canada. I think that's probably true of every granting council or every institution. The challenge for our government is how to define the ratio--how much for human resources, how much for capital infrastructure, how much for institutional costs, how much for commercialization?

You can give me an answer today or you can think about it and get back to us, but as an overall broad policy, would you put 40% into human resources, 40% into infrastructure, and the rest into indirect and operational costs? What ratio would you use if you were the minister or the Prime Minister or the Clerk of the Privy Council?

Maybe we'll start the other way, with Mr. Gaffield.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

This is a question we've been thinking a lot about, and in fact we're doing some studies on it now. We're meeting with vice-presidents of research at universities, we're talking with partners, and so on. My sense is that we're not going to end up with a simple formula, a cookie cutter that we can use.

I think the approach that's been taken--and I think it is working well--is to have a multiplicity of tools, a multiplicity of instruments, and it's going to be an ongoing question of increasing or keeping stable, and so on, across a whole diversity and multiplicity of instruments such as you've described.

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

I would add that I think one critical element that is really now starting to gel is our working together. This is essential, because actually the balance will come from our working together and ensuring that the resources are put in the right place.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Knight.

[James Knight]

For our institutions, I would say, within a broad framework, let them manage themselves. They do it extremely well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Lloyd, do you want to comment further?

[Dr. Nigel Lloyd]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. It's still a perplexing question. I look forward to further discussion.

Thank you, witnesses, for your comments and questions here today. Especially with respect to any recommendations you want the committee members to consider, we'd look forward to any further documentation from any of you.

I want to thank you for your time here today.

We do have a motion from Madame Brunelle to deal with, so we are going to suspend for a couple of minutes, and then we'll go to Madame Brunelle's motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I will ask members to take their seats, please.

We do have a motion to deal with under committee business. We will not be going in camera. It's a motion, so we'll be continuing in public.

Ladies and gentlemen, I did want to make an announcement. I was informed by Ms. Nash's office that unfortunately her father passed away yesterday. I'd just like to pass that along. If members could, I think an e-mail or a note from you would be very much appreciated. That is why she has not been here this week. I thought I would pass that along from her office.

We do have a motion, and I'm hoping we can deal with this and finish it off today.

Madame Brunelle, perhaps you want to speak to your motion. I think everyone has a copy of the motion.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

This motion asks the Minister of Industry to stand firmly by his decision under the Investment Canada Act to not allow the sale of aerospace assets, including RADARSAT, by MDA to ATK.

So we worked on this file and we were satisfied with the minister's decision. We also know that the company has 30 days to come back and reopen discussions. This would be a statement of the will of this committee that the sale not take place. The motion simply asks the minister to stand firmly by his decision.

This is about sending a clear signal to the minister, and I think that all parties could agree on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, madame Brunelle.

I have Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I have a quick comment, Mr. Chair, and then we're okay if you want to call the vote.

I just wonder strategically why the Bloc would bring this up in five different committees. We own it here and we've been studying it here. I just see it as more or less a waste of Parliament's time. We could be having more committee work done. Why would you bring it up at five different committees?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I can answer. Because of the Investment Canada Act, the Minister of Industrywas involved. But the matter also affects foreign affairs and they are debating it now. RADARSAT also has a major impact on natural resources because the data used by the Department of Natural Resources are important.

This is not to waste time, because it is only a matter of five minutes in each of the committees. But it would nevertheless show the extent to which RADARSAT is an important technological tool and that our concern extends to the environment, to natural resources, to foreign affairs and to security. It is therefore a concern for all our committees, and it has been brought to us by our members who are the critics for those departments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Maybe it would only take five minutes, but really we do have to book off half an hour during each committee for two and a half hours.

Thank you very much for your response.

If you'd like to call the question, just to let you know, we will be abstaining from this.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I think I have Mr. Murphy on the list.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

No, I just want to correct it. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, there is just one correction.

I'll just perhaps point out to members that if this is reported to the House it can go for a concurrence motion in the House. I think that's one of the points behind Mr. Carrie's statement. I guess this could take up to 15 hours of debate in the House. I sense there is support for this motion on the committee.

Monsieur Vincent, you wanted to speak to the motion.