Industry Committee on May 1st, 2008

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

OK. That was what concerned me most.

[Dr. Martin Godbout]

I can put your mind at rest about that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Great.

[Dr. Norm Hüner]

If I may, yes, there is overlap. I think that's a very important overlap, because we use the techniques of genetics and microbiology to address larger-scale questions. Of course we have overlap in various areas to strengthen our approach in terms of understanding the environmental impact. So I think it's natural that there would be overlap, and necessary overlap to exploit the work that we can do in Biotron. So of course we have funding from individuals who receive funding from Genome Canada and other CFI projects that integrate into the Biotron.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Thank you, Mr. Hüner. Merci, monsieur Vincent.

I'll turn now to Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing. I have a couple of questions.

This is a burning issue with me. I appreciate the work you do and I find it fascinating, and I suppose the areas you talk about in academic circles are probably the most exciting. However, as a parliamentarian--and I've not been at this long--I've wondered in the past about things like the forest industry, for example, which we just dropped the ball on. You're nodding, so I think you know what I'm talking about. Here's an industry that for years had the advantage of the 80-cent dollar, 65-cent dollar, and the Fins and Swedes came along and today they are producing all the innovation on it.

We've started something called a trucking caucus. The trucking industry is huge in this country. It delivers the produce that we as a producing nation and exporting nation have. It has devised and is telling us about the enviroTruck. Do you miss that? Are we missing those types of projects? I know, when we talk about 15 years down the road, absolutely that work has to be done. But the bread-and-butter stuff, the stuff that drives our economy--are we missing the industries that need help there? The universities can give them the assistance they need, and we can grow a whole new industry where we can do all these other things you're talking about.

Could you quickly comment?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Mr. Phillipson.

[Dr. Eliot Phillipson]

I think you touched on an important point. You took forestry as an example, and it's a good example to the extent that historically our natural resource industries were very successful, but not necessarily investing a lot in their own R and D and innovation. In that sense, perhaps we have missed it. But I think those industries are very quickly realizing that the simple availability of the resource is no longer sufficient in today's competitive world. There are innovative ways of harvesting the resource, handling the resource, and adding value to the resource so that we don't simply--

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

Do you go to them and say, listen, this is an important part of our economic sector? Do you go to the mining industries? Do you go the trucking industries and ask where you can help them in the universities to develop...not necessarily a better truck because the Americans are probably going to, or the Japanese, or the Germans will do that, but we can certainly make a better trailer. That's as an example.

[Dr. Eliot Phillipson]

The answer is yes. The universities are now working in several jurisdictions much more closely with their local industries. You mentioned automotive. CFI has funded a number of projects with the University of Windsor, for example, in partnership with the automotive industry. So those partnerships are occurring.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Dr. Godbout.

[Dr. Martin Godbout]

Very quickly, four years ago we had a major issue with mad cow disease. We went to the industry, because it cost $1.9 billion of trade deficit with Canada and the United States. My board said, what can we do to help? We helped by providing the sequence of the bovine genome, which is about the same size as the human. The human cost $3 billion; we did the bovine for $53 million. And the human took 10 years; we did the bovine in 14 months.

To answer your colleague's question or Monsieur Hüner's, we had the technology, and we were ready to react. With the SARS virus, we had an epidemic; it was awful. Within 10 days, Canadian scientists sequenced the SARS virus. The platforms, the equipment, were there and we were able to respond very quickly.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Mr. Van Kesteren, you have one final question.

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

One final question. Well, the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology came out with a report, and I want your opinion quickly on intellectual property. As we invest, where should the IP go? Does it belong to the government? Does it belong to the researchers?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Mr. Godbout, followed by Madame Gauthier.

[Dr. Martin Godbout]

Just very quickly.

In that context, remember when you talk about IP that 20 years ago Canada did not have a law on patent. If you take human health as an example, it takes 15 years to get the product on the market, from the bench to the bedside. We are just at the beginning of this phase because of the 20 years that we have a patent.

So to answer your question, yes, we do take care of it, very much. In the case of genomics and proteomics, the number of filing patents has increased tremendously. Who owns it? I think it should be owned by the institutions, not by the Government of Canada in our case.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Madame Gauthier.

[Michelle Gauthier]

There are different ownership patterns across the country in terms of whether it's researcher-owned or institution-owned. But studies are showing that it's less about who owns it and more about the strength of the technology transfer offices to be able to manage that intellectual property effectively, to be able to pursue the relationships with the business community, with the venture capital community, and to actually exploit its full value and ensure that there is the receptor capacity. When you look at the Canadian and U.S. technology transfer offices in universities, you see that those that have been in operation for more than 10 years have much better results than those that are fledgling, or new at it, and that is where we need to put more of our effort.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

We'll have three more, and then we'll have to wrap it up. That will be Ms. Nash, then Mr. Simard, and then because of his good behaviour, the chair, Mr. Rajotte, will have the last question.

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You are all experts in scientific research, and I'd like to ask you which countries are the benchmarks. Which countries do you feel have got it right when it comes to investing in scientific research, having the right balance between basic and commercialized research, and having the right education policies? Is there a model you immediately think of that Canada ought to aspire to?

[Dr. Martin Godbout]

In the case of Genome Canada, we took the models of the United States, U.K., and Germany, and now the model of Genome Canada is being emulated, copied, by other countries.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Then we are the benchmark.

[Dr. Martin Godbout]

Slowly we are becoming the benchmark.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to comment?

[Dr. Eliot Phillipson]

It depends again on which field. Canada is the benchmark in many respects. Certainly organizations like the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Canada research chairs are being emulated internationally. They were the pace setters. They are unique.

Overall, which countries have it right? Each country is so different that I'm not sure this is a one-size-fits-all proposition. Each country will have to find its way. But if you're asking which countries have been very successful, the most successful, by and large, are the small western European countries—Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark—and Israel. But they are all small countries with quite different geographies. That doesn't mean we can't learn from them. We can, but I'm not sure their experience is directly applicable to the Canadian scene.