Industry Committee on May 8th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, Dr. Alper.

[Dr. Howard Alper]

I'll just finish.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm sorry, we're way over time here.

[Dr. Howard Alper]

Yes, I know. I've given you a chemistry--

[Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum]

Could I do a 30-second intervention?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Perhaps I'll follow with this issue, but I have a list of members here and I want to be fair to everyone.

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Dr. Alper, one criticism of the national science adviser was that there was no mandate, no reporting structure, and the office was underfunded. But the major criticism was that the advice given was insufficient and inconsistent. I was wondering if you could comment on the face time, as well as the formal and informal interactions, that you've had with the current minister.

[Dr. Howard Alper]

To provide context, the STIC was set up and announced as a full membership in mid-October. I believe October 18 was the exact date. November 18 was the first meeting. It met in January, and it meets tonight and tomorrow. The minister is at all meetings, in person. We have had wonderful interaction and rapport with the minister. These are exciting and major issues that we're coming to grips with. Twelve years ago John Manley, when he was the Minister of Industry, said to me that the most challenging problem in Canada was how to enhance industry R and D. We are trying to tackle this problem.

The interaction with the minister's staff has been superb. Heather can confirm this. Peter MacKinnon, who chairs the international S and T working group, this morning said to me in the corridor, “Your staff is phenomenal, just as good as the council itself.” He said, “We're blessed that the minister's office and the minister in particular have been so engaged with us on an ongoing basis.” That's all I can say.

[Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum]

The council is made up of an extraordinary group of members who are leaders in their various sectors. It's fair to say they wouldn't show up with the regularity they do, or work with the intensity they do, both on the work of the council at large and the work we do in the committee structure, if they felt it was a useless exercise.

Like Howard, I've been involved in many provincial, national, and international science councils and bodies, advisory groups included. But I've never seen anything like the attention this minister gives. And on the occasions that I've been with the Prime Minister in public, he has shown that he has knowledge of the work we're doing. I would say that the press we get to keep our work moving forward is a wonderful encouragement. So is our sense that there's a receptor out there waiting for it. I think it's quite exceptional.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much.

The point was also raised that STIC would not be able to fulfill the demands for immediate and long-term independent, transparent advice. The criticism was that STIC really isn't at arm's length, because it includes three deputy ministers. And it was stated that STIC would not report publicly.

Could you comment on those charges and correct any misleading facts that might be in the statements I just read to you?

[Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum]

Maybe I could begin and say that, first of all, there are many bodies in Canada that provide findings and guidance and advice, and the Council of Canadian Academies clearly is one of those doing that kind of work. I would hope the entire academic enterprise of the country serves to provide arm's-length guidance, advice, and input to government and others on the work that's done.

You phrased it, or framed your question, as if it were a before or after picture. At the end of the day, I think one would be hard-pressed to say where the impact has been previously. I guess my source of encouragement comes from the fact that, indeed, I see enormous progress in a very short period of time, and I think our results or performance will be put to the test over time.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Can you comment on the fact that there are deputy ministers there?

[Dr. Howard Alper]

Yes, I could, because this is hardly an original idea. It exists in Australia, Finland, India, Japan, etc.

In late September I was in Canberra to run the executive committee of what's called the InterAcademy Panel, an academy of science for the world. I co-chair that with Chen Zhu, the minister of health for China. The Australians found out that we were meeting and asked me to appear before their Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, which has been going for 11 years. So it's not new or recycled.

The room was full. The membership there consists of approximately 12 individuals, and 10 deputy ministers were in the room. Why were they there? There were too many, because it is an external body, and the preponderance.... In fact, the chair at the time, Jim Peacock, said that if they had to do it over again, they would choose three to four deputy ministers.

The deputy ministers are absolutely key, because they provide the framework within a government context of how to take advice from us and to bring it forward. That has nothing to do with independence or dependence; it has to do with making top-notch advice and recommendations.

[Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum]

In fact, one might be discouraged if they weren't present, for exactly the reason Howard states.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

We'll go to Ms. Nash, please.

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

Thank you.

Again, welcome to the witnesses. Thank you for your presentations and the work you do on behalf of Canadians. It's certainly good to hear that Canada has a great reputation for science and technology.

Dr. Alper, I was very interested in your comments about the importance of innovation adding value to Canada's raw materials, to our commodities, and to really maximize the benefit we get from the many natural resources our country is so fortunate to have.

Something we've heard from other panels, or on which we've had discussion, is getting the balance right between the investment Canada makes in research for commercial purposes—which obviously is very important going forward—and basic research, which can be decades long and perhaps has no obvious end-purpose at the time it's being undertaken. So a question I've been asking witnesses is their view on whether we have that balance right between basic research and commercial research, that is, short or targeted research. If not, what would you advise this committee to place greater emphasis on going forward?

[Dr. Howard Alper]

That question is actually central to any country's strategy. As you say, some research leads to commercialization; it could lead by six months, sometimes three years, sometimes ten years, sometimes a generation, and sometimes never.

I have two examples. If you go to a hospital and want the chief diagnostic for certain possible diseases, it's magnetic resonance imaging. It's derived from what's called nuclear magnetic resonance, developed in the 1950s. But the transformation from that basic research—which serves the research community very well as a general diagnostic—to its application for health took from about 12 to 15 years. It was not foreseen. Of course you are aware of the laser, which has fantastic applications now, be it in treatment of eye disease and in many different sectors, but it was discovered from very basic research.

Having said that, it is my personal view—and I'd like Heather to give her perspective on this, as I think she'll agree with me—is that to have a proper balance between excellent research and.... What I mean is that the signature has to be excellent; that drives whatever we do. We need excellence in basic research and excellence in applied or targeted research. A country needs to make choices for areas of accelerated development. That's why Australia did it, Japan has done it, the U.K. is doing it now, etc. And we have done it. We define four areas in the strategy where we make recommendations on sub-priorities, with the themes within those areas, just as Australia and others have done. As vice-president of research at the University of Ottawa, I led the process for setting strategic areas of development, with four areas and three to four themes.

Doing that exercise is important for several reasons. I discovered this during the Australia exercise. It builds cohesion and direction. Even the people who are not in one of those strategic areas know where the country is going; they know the direction. So a certain proportion of allocated resources needs to go into what I'll call areas for accelerated development, that is, the priority areas. However, basic research is absolutely key to support that, for exactly the reason you cited.

So a significant amount of money--the majority, in my personal view--should go for basic research, and a substantial minority for these targeted areas or areas of strategic development.

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

Do we have the balance right now, do you think, or do we need to emphasize one or the other?

[Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum]

I think it's a bit of a circular question, but we're not in bad shape with respect to the balance. I think we are lucky to be in a country that has a general respect for the fact—it wasn't true 15 years ago, but it is today—that if you don't have that pipeline of basic or fundamental discovery-oriented research, you will not get any benefits, whether in the commercial domain or policy domain. So you simply need that balance.

I would agree totally with Howard, and I like the way he put it, in favour of having the majority of the public investment in fundamental discovery-oriented research and scholarship, and then a significant minority investment in targeted research in the areas Canada shows promise in.

Maybe I wanted a question to be asked before about the four areas chosen on the basis of our empirical progress in those four fundamental areas and their importance to the country. So it's both about taking areas where we've demonstrated excellence and impact and are recognized for that on the world stage, increasing the critical mass of outstanding targeted research based on that pipeline of basic research, and thereby have Canada advance even further.

If I could add one last comment, I would say that just as important as the pipeline in fundamental research, as against targeted research, is to have the range of disciplinary fields covered, because if you don't have the social sciences and humanities translated to the human factor side, you can have all the robust technology in the world, but you won't know enough about how to get the uptake to have an impact on society.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Simard, please.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here and for what you do for our country.

I can't help but notice that Canada's productivity is always lower than that of the nations we're competing with. It seems to me the fact that we have very weak industry R and D may be one of the reasons. Are there certain industries you could identify that are doing a good job in R and D, and could you tell us what they're doing and maybe what we should be emulating?

Secondly, with regard to the provinces, this is all about partnerships, and one of the most important partners is the provinces. Are there provinces that have councils such as yours, for instance, at that level? Are there provinces that we should really look at to see what they're doing in terms of science and technology?

[Dr. Howard Alper]

Thanks. Those are excellent points.

Let me address the second part first. Maybe Heather could address the first part, or whatever she wishes.

On the federal-provincial interface or landscape, there are a few councils like this one at the provincial level, and there are some provinces that invest significantly in R and D.

I was in Edmonton at the end of March to speak about science but was asked to speak also about this council. There was an excellent turnout from the public service, at the deputy minister and assistant deputy minister level and others. The basic discussion was, how do we improve our relationship and team-play better together? That's an issue that certainly merits serious discussion.

Alberta and B.C. have councils. Ontario has a council, as do several others. Several have very interesting policies internationally on S and T to look at as possible role models. Several have weaknesses as well that need to be strengthened. Working in a collegial manner between federal and provincial jurisdictions on the R and D issue is very important for the future.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

And on the industry side?

[Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum]

In that regard, Quebec and Alberta were the pioneers in Canada in investing in their own science and technology policies. You actually see that there is a real synergy that could be achieved between an investment at the provincial level targeted to the framework of the federal level, and vice versa. Again, as a small population in a big country, we need to do more of that leveraging.

In fact, on the first question you asked, we have to do much, much better than we've done. I think there has been a disconnect between the preparation of corporate leadership to understand the importance of R and D and technology in advancing their own enterprises and understanding that, in Canada, universities do a disproportionate share of the research work. We're unlike other Western countries in that regard, where it's usually the reverse and industry does 70% and universities do 30%. Universities here do 70%.