Evidence of meeting #36 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nrc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Yes, but there are; there are through the granting councils. There are through the indirect costs program. There are through universities themselves. There are through CFI, at least initially, and then through the construction of a project.
So where is that in-house capacity required?
12:35 p.m.
Section Head of Research, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
The synchrotron is an excellent example of where government has done well in big science. The idea of the synchrotron started 20 years ago. It took a lot of federal government leadership to dig that hole and put the synchrotron in there. It's one of a very few in the world. The federal government took a leadership role in getting it there.
Does it need more? I don't know exactly--
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I know all of that. I'm well aware of that. You're saying that it requires in-house capacity as distinct from a university, as distinct from industry, as distinct from CFI. I'm trying to understand where the in-house capacity is required.
12:35 p.m.
Section Head of Research, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
It has received sustained funding, since the start to now, from the federal government. That's the big-science in-house capacity that needs to be there. A private company would not have started the synchrotron.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
But universities are countering this argument, as you well know. They are arguing that the university, partnering with industry, using vehicles funded federally, like the CFI, like the indirect costs program, like NSERC, like CIHR, are able to do this without in-house. That is an argument that some universities and some university presidents will make.
And the counter to that argument is what?
12:35 p.m.
Vice-President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Perhaps I can jump in here.
You know, there's a difference in the research conducted with respect to the synchrotron and.... We're going back to “public good” science here, and perhaps this is longer-range public good.
You ask a very good question; I don't have the answer right off the top of my head. But the government should be concerned about anything that has the potential to affect public good or even have benefits for public good. We really don't know a lot of the spinoffs of this research, so the government should be associated with it in the long term and have stable funding for some people there. If that can be done through partnerships, that's fine; that may work in that particular instance, but it's not working in others.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
I am unfortunately out of time, but I'd like to tell you, Mr. Coulombe, very briefly, that I very much appreciate reports like this one. I think all members of the committee have one. I think what has happened is that the NRC and other organizations are doing what we've asked them to do in the past--to tell stories and to explain, certainly to parliamentarians, most of whom do not have a science background, exactly what you are doing related to this.
I also want to give kudos to the IRAP program. It receives very high marks certainly from my community, and I believe from communities across the country. I wanted to make sure I said that.
I want to thank you for coming. If there's anything further you want to submit to the committee, please feel free to do so. You can submit it to the clerk and we will have it translated and distributed to all members.
Members, we're going to suspend for a couple of minutes and then go in camera to discuss the service sector report.
Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]