Industry Committee on April 17th, 2008

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I would like to explore that question, Mr. Chartrand. I know that you have a study that suggests a link between prematurity and autism, that you are looking at women working in situations that endanger their lives, and that researchers have identified the gene responsible for Lou Gehrig's disease. This research is a form of intellectual property. You share it without getting money or anything at all in return to help with your funding. You are always short of money, because the government does not provide sufficient funding for your chairs.

Could you not get something for the intellectual property in the work your researchers do?

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

Actually, the returns linked to intellectual property go to the institutions. The universities, which for the most part are public institutions, are the ones who benefit from the discoveries or the research.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

I would say that they help society move forward. As a result, society supports us as we move to the next step. I feel that Canadians benefit from the research and therefore decide to invest more at the next stage.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Continuing along the same lines, let us take the example of Lou Gehrig's disease, autism, or something like that. If one of your people discovers a product, a pill, a vaccine, or whatever, and it goes to a company that makes medications, do you also turn over your intellectual property? They use it to manufacture and market the product, but, at that point, do you get any financial benefits?

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

As Dr. Gaffield mentioned, for us, the process goes in a cycle. Researchers are encouraged to make discoveries and the institutes seek to protect the intellectual property associated with those discoveries. Any benefits from that will have economic effects on the population that in turn will be able to decide to continue the process by reinvesting in research bodies.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Do I understand correctly that you are not-for-profit organizations?

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

We are not-for-profit organizations.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

OK.

Mr. Knight, you said that there is a shortage of railway technicians. Has anyone contacted the railway companies to get them to invest in your organization so that you can train people? Can a partnership be set up between industry and your institute?

[James Knight]

Absolutely. We are actively discussing this issue with the Railway Association of Canada. They have come to us.

We are also discussing the shortage of IT graduates with Microsoft and Cisco Systems. So we do have quite a strong engagement with the private sector.

The degree of their investments would depend upon the urgency of their need, I suppose, and the costs associated with their particular type of training. Obviously they make an effort to keep their investment within a reasonable framework.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Vincent.

We'll go now to Monsieur Arthur.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you.

I am very struck by the similarity between young Canadian scientists hoping one day to win a Nobel prize, and young Canadian athletes one day hoping to win an Olympic gold medal. In both cases, we are talking about extremely competitive, devoted and intense young Canadians, sometimes brilliant, but generally doomed to failure. They will not get an Olympic medal.

The Canadian government, the sport federations, the universities and a host of scientists seem to have difficulty identifying those who are going to bring us honour and investing taxpayers' money in them. We seem to be destined to finish 17 ^th in the Olympics and to send people without the slightest hope of getting on the podium who come back saying that they did their best and got a better result than they usually do.

In medicine, physics and chemistry, only five Canadians who studied in Canada have won a Nobel prize. France has ten times that number.

Are we really to believe that you have found a way to identify young scientists with a future, the stars, the geniuses, and to invest in them? Or have you in science not just adopted the same culture of mediocrity that the sport federations have adopted?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Who wants to lead off?

Monsieur Chartrand.

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

I am sorry to tell you that I have a great fear of accepting the notion of Canadian mediocrity in research. All our indicators show that our research performance is very high, both in the number of discoveries and in their impact.

I agree about the number of Nobel prizes won by Canadians, but there are many other things in research than a Nobel prize. The Nobel prize is one form of recognition. I mentioned the Gairdners. Forty Canadians have won this international prize. From 288 nominations, we have 40 Canadian winners. There are a number of factors other than excellence that come into play when Nobel prizes are awarded, including political factors.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Political factors?

So you are telling me the same thing as the presidents of the sport federations would tell me. They say that all their athletes are good and they have no need to choose the best. They think that everyone will be successful and, if they are not, it is because everyone else is on drugs.

Are you telling me that you think the same way as the presidents of our sport federations who are very satisfied with their efforts and who do not want to find more productive ways to pick those who have a future?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

May I answer, because it is a good question. In my view, we are not talking about individual awards, we are talking about societal awards.

Every time that we read rankings of countries around the world, we see how well Canada ranks as a society. How is it that a small country, a colony until quite recently, is now on the international stage and that its society is seen from outside as one of the best in the world?

Together, we in Canada have a starting point from which our society can move forward, but not necessarily as individuals. There are 8,000 researchers outside Canada who are studying us in order to understand how our society has succeeded in facing all manner of challenges up to now, and remarkably well at that.

I do not know. In my view, you have to see Canada as a society. You cannot base a ranking on a small group of individuals.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

So, science is not like sport: winning the silver medal is not just being the best loser!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Arthur.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Not for the country, perhaps.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Gaffield.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, monsieur Arthur.

We have Mr. Brison and Mr. Van Kesteren. We'll switch for now. We're locating Mr. Brison, so we'll go with you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, panel, for coming. It's been very enlightening.

Mr. Knight, what are the eight industries or areas? You mentioned that there are eight that are in demand. They are looking for graduates. Could you just tell us what they are?

[James Knight]

I don't recall giving a specific number.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I thought you said eight. I'm sorry.

[James Knight]

I've mentioned health care. There's the medical doctor, but then there is a whole range of professions that support the doctor. I mentioned the railway industry. Aerospace also is an important employer in Canada. Did I mention construction? That's a very important area. Small business in general is our largest creator of wealth--in terms of new jobs, I should say--and needs IT support and support with innovation from colleges. I hope I haven't left any out.

I would turn to my colleague here. Oh yes, there's energy, big time. Energy is huge, naturally, with the growth of the industry. Environmental technology, broadly, is very big. We're implementing a lot of new technologies, and these must be supported.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

There's the old expression that necessity is the mother of invention. We saw in the last study we did that we missed the mark in the past, for instance, in forestry. The Norwegians took the initiative, and they now seem to be the leader in that industry.

First of all, are we doing the right things with taxes? It's one thing to try to encourage people and provide research. It's quite another when we have this incredible advantage--the dollar advantage we had in the past--and we just let that opportunity slip. Are we doing enough with taxes, first of all, so that industries will focus on innovation?

It's just a quick question.