Industry Committee on June 12th, 2008

[Dr. Pekka Sinervo]

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

We'll go to Mr. Norlock, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Once again, gentlemen, thank you very much for remaining while we go through the throes of our active democracy.

For the benefit of folks who may be listening in, they're hearing about some of Canada's premier projects, which you gentlemen have been highlighting. I think it's necessary to also mention that through the Canada research chairs program there are some 2,000 different projects throughout this country, so some of what you're saying, of course, is relevant to yours, but it is also relevant to others.

We also learned, through the course of your attendance here and through some publications, that Canada is one of the leading countries in terms of its public investment into research and development. I suppose it's a carry-over--not going in the same direction, but similar to what my friend here said about governments having an obligation to do a lot of things and your being one component. But I think it's a major component.

We still have to take care of our elderly, our sick, and infirm. We have to do all those things that governments do. We also have to think to the future, and where I see you and what you do is not only in our present but in our future. But I would like to bring everything into relevance.

I think it's one of the throes we're going through in our country right now. How do we convince the person who pays the freight that it is necessary to allocate the additional resources in a country where the taxpayer thinks they're being overtaxed?

Perhaps I'll help you a little bit, but I would like you to make some comments.

When we talk about astronomy, folks think that if you can afford it, you do it, or that it's a good pastime. But we all know, with the Phoenix Mars Lander and with our exploration of space, that there are a lot of practical applications right here on earth that go to saving lives.

I think people need to know some of the numbers. For instance, I'd like you to comment on the fact that we're looking at a planet that is undergoing some very difficult strains, and of course, there are $230 million allocated to ecoENERGY technology initiatives. I'm wondering if some of those research funds might flow towards you gentlemen. I'd also like you to comment on the over half a billion dollars going to the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

But again, I'd like you to comment--in particular, Mr. Sinervo--on how I, as a member of Parliament, can convince Canadians that their investment in the Phoenix Mars Lander is good for them, not only from the standpoint of the folks who put together the things that went into the exploration vehicle that went to a foreign planet, but in how that translates into how they go about their everyday lives.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. There are some big questions there.

Mr. Sinervo, do you want to start?

[Dr. Pekka Sinervo]

I'll start and then just come back to the Mars rover question.

Clearly you don't do a rover project because of the spinoffs; you do it because that's actually the only way you're going to be able to learn about our world in a way that we haven't been able to before. It's extraordinarily important to understand in the broad context what is happening on other planets.

Is there life on Mars? That's been a major initiative and focus around all of the exploration on Mars and it will continue to be. There is a lot of speculative and very interesting stuff happening. But if you actually pull off a few layers you realize, in fact, that people are looking at Mars not just because of whether there's life on Mars, but because it's actually another climate that doesn't have any asporogenic effects and is driven by some of the same things as our earth's climate is driven by, and it provides an opportunity for us to learn more about what's happening on our own planet by being able to compare and contrast.

Those are the sorts of questions you can ask only by actually going and doing this discovery science--and it is discovery. At the ultimate level you really are talking about whether Canada should be involved in discovery science or not. If you say yes, then the country should decide how much it should be involved in, and it should prioritize and make the commitments that are going to ensure it will be successful.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. McDonald wants to comment.

[Dr. Art McDonald]

Let me give you another example of why it is necessary to have basic science in order to make progress in technological areas.

Simply take computers. For 30 years we have been dealing with what's called Moore's law; that is, the capability of a computer doubles every 18 months, roughly. The reason that's been happening is because the scale of the structures on the silicon—and it has been essentially all silicon that you're dealing with—gets smaller every 18 months. You make them smaller, the distance between them is decreased, they are faster, and you are able to store more. That's essentially what's been happening in that technology.

Within the next 10 years, you will be in a situation where you have reached the size of the silicon atom. You cannot go any further with that particular technology in terms of what has been, really, one of the major revolutionary things that have changed our society over the last 30 years. You have to go to something that deals with things at the atomic level. You have to get into quantum and nano objects. And no one knows what the next technology is going to be that enables that computer progression to take place.

Who are the people capable of doing it? It's the people who understand quantum mechanics, the people who understand what happens when you get to the quantum level of interactions of things in various materials. It may be something different in a revolutionary way from silicon. But if you don't have that mix in your country of people who are capable of understanding how to exploit, given the basic knowledge, and the people who are pushing the basic knowledge, working together, you're not going to be able to make the sort of progress when you run up against those sorts of questions that are not just expanding the technology, they're expanding your understanding of how the world works.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Taylor, is it essential? Very, very quickly.

[Dr. Martin Taylor]

I just want to say that CFI, when it funded each of the programs that we represent, required us to state very clearly what the benefits for Canada and Canadians were of that investment. That's written into our original proposals. A key part of that for us, with NEPTUNE Canada, was the applications to these various areas of public policy as well as public outreach that I've spoken to earlier. The onus is on us, and I take the point absolutely of being proactive in communicating how those benefits are translating. It's not enough to put it in an original application. You have to follow through, demonstrate it, and communicate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Telegdi.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much.

Actually, the question came up, how do we convince taxpayers? The reality is that for that little machine there are over 10,000 employees, and not all of them have gone to university. There is the production side, putting these machines together.

I'm glad you mentioned quantum computing, because IQC is in Waterloo and it points to a number of things. They were able to attract a critical mass, and in the case of Dr. Raymond Laflamme, who is actually a Canadian who was down in Texas, he was brought back to head IQC. Mr. Laflamme is at the top of the whole quantum industry. He was Hawking's star student.

They have put together a critical mass around this, and we're leaders right now in this technology. But the rest of the world is starting to focus on it. So unless we continue to be leaders and we build on what we have, we can lose it to somebody else. The potential for quantum is so huge, it would be a paradigm shift. Dick Tracy's world is what you're essentially talking about once you get into that miniaturization, where you actually harness the positives and negatives in the atom. It's mind-boggling. But if we do manage to be at the forefront, the kind of job creation that leads to, and the wealth it leads to as well, is huge.

So the question for government is that we're at the forefront in this research; are we going to build on it? Are we going to stay at the forefront? There are absolutely no guarantees that we will be the ones who will benefit from it, but we have a good chance of doing so. Just as with any other research that we engage in, it touches all sorts of people who never go to university.

As one thing more in terms of the climate for promoting science, Kitchener-Waterloo is known for its Oktoberfest. A couple of years ago we had EinsteinFest, which came around the same time as Oktoberfest, celebrating Einstein's 100th birthday. It was huge. The popularity and the number of people who went through there was just amazing. People actually came in and got really excited by science. Yes, there's a real need for scientists to explain what they do, but it can be incredibly exciting.

Getting back to the panel, I think what we have to be keen on is being niche researchers. We can't do everything, and you said that. We have to identify what we're good at and where it makes sense to invest to keep it going. It doesn't do much good to throw tens of millions of dollars, or hundreds of million of dollars, at it and then abandon it. Once we make that commitment, it really is important that we go through with it, along with the peer review to make sure we're on track.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McDonald.

[Dr. Art McDonald]

I just spent a fascinating hour listening to Ray Laflamme as he received a top prize from the Canadian Association of Physicists at their conference in Quebec City earlier this week. So I understand exactly what you mean about this particular individual.

I think the sort of thing that attracts that type of person to the country, who will work at the frontiers of basic science, is the ability to offer them the sorts of facilities that we're talking about in certain niche areas, as you put it, that have been selected appropriately by peer review teams as being the things that Canada can be excelling in. What you mentioned in terms of quantum computing is one of them, I think, personally and self-serving, but the ones that are being discussed here at the table are others. I think our ability to push the forefront in a wide variety of areas at the very basic level is going to be important for our competitiveness, as it is in this particular example that we're dealing with of quantum computing.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Taylor, did you want to comment?

[Dr. Martin Taylor]

I just want to indicate that there are two venues where I think advertising, in the best sense of the word, to the world where we are leaders is happening. One is in Beijing right now in terms of the lead-up to the Olympics and through the Olympics. Canada, as you know, is exhibiting there, and exhibiting amongst other things its science and technology. Within that, NEPTUNE Canada is being showcased, because it's putting us in a lead position internationally.

In 2010, we host the Winter Olympics right in British Columbia. We're in active discussions right now as to what areas of science and technology we want to showcase to the world as demonstrations of Canadian leadership, and NEPTUNE will be there.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We have Madame Brunelle, and then the chair will have the final question.

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

Thank you.

What this committee really wants is to hear science and technology success stories. That would be a stimulating experience. I was interested to learn upon reading the submission of the Coalition for Canadian Astronomy that Softimage, a leading software design company, was developed by two researchers from the Observatoire astronomique du Mont-Mégantic in Quebec.

As I see it, the current debate on how to convince taxpayers of the benefits of funding this field speaks for itself. You mentioned other examples, including that of Dynamic Structures which has created a business that has generated revenues of several hundred million dollars. These are very compelling examples.

Is there not a need first and foremost for a structure that would better promote your major accomplishments? Perhaps you would like to talk to us about the successes in your respective areas. That's what we need to hear to convince taxpayers that everyone benefits from research activities and industry spinoffs.

[Guy Nelson]

We actually saw that problem. As a business person, and actually just having joined the astronomy envelope in the last year, we acquired the company called Dynamic Structures a year ago. We've committed to creating an industry-wide video for general public consumption, because we felt we weren't connecting with people on the successes we had developed as an astronomical community both on the industrial side and in the bodies and the lives that we had touched.

The reason it went that way was that we were awarded the use of a new 3-D software called Inventor in the design of TMT. Microsoft brought us down to 10,000 users in Las Vegas and gave us an award there for the use of that software, for pushing the envelope on this particular one. We were using 4,000 tonnes of steel in developing that, taking that particular software where no one had taken it before.

So it's exactly that point we felt we were missing, and particularly in the International Year of Astronomy--next year, 2009--it was a good time to speak about the successes we've had and to build that groundswell beyond just the people who have astronomy as a hobby through to the professional astronomers. So we are doing that, and my company is actually leading that with about half a dozen others across the country who felt that was missing.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Taylor.

[Dr. Martin Taylor]

In the fields we're talking about, modesty is not a virtue. And in part, I think we've had a problem with being far too modest as a country, and I think that extends to our science and technology achievements.

You're right to put the question back to us. Where are we in terms of being proactive in our communication planning and communication strategies to make sure the success stories that we're all relaying today are not just being relayed around this table, that they're being relayed to the public at large in the venues where they can best be heard? I take that as a challenge very seriously, and it's built into the planning for NEPTUNE Canada and for its sister observatory, VENUS.

As I've said, we have special opportunities because we are going real-time onto the Internet, but that can't be taken for granted either. People have to know and want to access that, given the saturation of information that's out there.

So clearly it takes a special effort and a proactive plan to make sure that indeed these success stories get out there and that we work closely with the media. And has been mentioned, Peter has been a great supporter of us, as have others. NEPTUNE Canada had a terrific story just a couple of weeks ago on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen indicating some of the early successes, particularly on the VENUS system.

Those plans are in place, but I accept entirely that the onus is on us to make sure those success stories are not buried.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. McDonald, go ahead briefly.

[Dr. Art McDonald]

I also accept that responsibility. We accept that responsibility.

We are working with Science North, which not only develops things for Sudbury, but also develops theatres that can be sold around the world. Those are examples of things it has done. It does IMAX movies. It has that capability here in Canada. We're working with it to develop a future project that potentially is internationally saleable, which is in this area of science that we've been talking about and emphasizing, particularly in underground science and the related field of astronomy.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Merci, Madame Brunelle.

I'm going to use the chair's prerogative to ask the final question.

One of the biggest issues the committee is going to have to address is the operating funding issue. Mr. Taylor, I liked the way you outlined the three parts of this: there's capital funding, operating funding, and experimental funding. The capital funding issue, largely through CFI, has been addressed. The experimental funding, through granting councils, has largely been addressed. As for operating funding, there are indirect costs for research institutions, but I think that both you and Mr. McDonald and the other big science project people are correct in saying that this funding is not available for big science projects. So you have a gap there for operational funding.

It's a valid point, but as you know, it's always a tough sell for any committee or group of persons to go to the government and say we ought to institute a new program or have further government spending in this area.

You're experts in this area. Could you perhaps provide some details to the committee on what the program would look like? Could you give us an estimate at to what costs we'd be looking at, how the program would operate, and some details? The committee can recommend something general, such as by saying that we need something to address operational funding, but I think it would be better if the committee had something more specific to propose to the government, so that the government could really have something they could consider.

[Dr. Martin Taylor]

If you're making that an invitation to us—

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Absolutely.