Industry Committee on March 10th, 2011

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Deputy Minister of Industry, would you like to respond?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Could you do it very briefly?

[Richard Dicerni]

The government announced as part of the economic action plan that about $225 million would be spent on improving broadband. I think we have rolled out to date something close to $100 million in our work and initiatives. We are in the process of continuing to negotiate contribution agreements with other proponents, and we will reprofile some to next year because these things take a bit of time to properly do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Dicerni.

Now on to Mr. Van Kesteren for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, everybody, for appearing before us.

Minister, I get all excited when you start talking about all these programs. I get excited about them because, as you know, a number of them have been in my riding as well. There's the KIP program, knowledge infrastructure program, at St. Clair College. I think the community adjustment was another program you're responsible for. We have a huge sports complex.

When you mention St. Clair College, of course, there's a St. Clair College in Chatham as well. I have visited there a number of times. It is just abuzz and excited about what's happening. We were commended by the president, Dr. John Strasser, for the work the government has done. I would like to convey to you just how happy they are.

I would be remiss if I did not tell you about Ridgetown College. I think you are aware that Ridgetown College is involved in a number of projects for new biofuels. This also would have been impossible without the funding provided by your ministry. We have two projects in southwest Ontario. There's a vast array of them.

I wonder if you could give us an update on how many projects are out there, and how many you feel will be completed by the October deadline, and the stages of these projects. Before I sign off, I'm going to give you an open invitation to come down to southwestern Ontario and see the beautiful stuff happening there.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I'd love to do that.

As far as the number of projects goes, we could probably sit here and list how many projects there are. There are literally hundreds. There are so many programs. CAF-1 had approximately 90 applications that were agreed to, out of some 597 that were sent in. The SODP program had some 1,800 applications asking for $1.6 billion. We had about $100 million under that program. We could list all the programs. The ARC program has 24 current applications. They are all different, and we would be more than happy to get you the data.

I will say, though, on your second point, if you want the number of applications under each program that has closed, we can certainly provide that. I do want to make sure that you know that many of these programs are currently open and ongoing.

We're very proud of the fact that we're flexible, and in a sense agile. I do remember going down near your riding into Leamington one day, when they had a tornado whip through and destroy the docks, which threatened an entire tourist season. As a result of the program and the fact that they had an application in there, I flew down, I think it was the same day or the next day, and then came back to Ottawa and we sat down and got to work. We were able to fix that, and offer them the opportunity to save their tourist season.

The program is very flexible. I appreciate that it has been everywhere. I can't remember all of the applications, although when they're mentioned to me I do think, oh, yes, I remember that one. These go to the department, and we need to credit the folks at FedDev who see these applications by the hundreds, and who make sure they're in the right program, that they fit the criteria and the terms specifically of the program. We do get so many applications and so much surplus that we do have the ability to make sure we get money out where it's most needed and out quickly.

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

On that same vein, I wonder if you could maybe tell us a little bit about a panel of distinguished Canadians you've appointed to conduct a review of the programs administered by the government for support. And while you're talking about that, could you talk about Windsor too? We're close to Windsor, the auto 21--the importance of that...money well spent. We have all these centres of excellence. Where do we plan to go with that?

We know the great work they've done in the auto industry, and in the trucking industry as well. I had a chance to visit the auto 21 and saw the work that's being done with the diesel engines. The opportunities that are there and the world-class facilities.... As a matter of fact, we have world-class personnel there. Maybe you could just expand on that a little.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Minister, I'm sorry.

Mr. Van Kesteren, you are over your time, and I need to be fair.

I'm mindful of your time also, Minister. I understand your departure is at 4:30. Is that correct?

The last questioner, then, from the Bloc Québécois, is Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam, gentlemen, Mr. Minister, good afternoon.

Since the Department of Industry is in charge of science and technology, when we deal with the totality of grants and contributions for these components including research, all of that is managed within this department. If, for example, there are scientific and technological research programs that have to do with the environment, requests can be made by the Department of the Environment, but the budgets will be included in the grants and contributions of the Department of Industry, if I understand correctly.

Earlier this week, in a Sherbrooke local newspaper, there was an article about the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmosphere Sciences at Sherbrooke University. There were people who are working at the PEARL laboratory in the Arctic. We know that within the framework of Canada's economic action plan, the government gave a $1.8 million subsidy to the PEARL laboratory. At that time, of course, the researchers at Sherbrooke University believed that the program was on a sure footing. We know now that last year, their budget was reduced.

I wondered why, on the one hand, investments are made in the laboratory as such and on the other hand, people are already envisaging its possible closure. I was trying to look through the various elements. I had some difficulty finding these sums of money. There are great variations involved in the research at the PEARL laboratory. Therefore I wanted to know what the government intends to do. Why, on the one hand, are they investing in the laboratory, and on the other hand, reducing funding for research, including funding for the researchers working on this project at Sherbrooke University?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

To respond to your question, the particular project you're talking about is under the Department of the Environment. I note that if the research is in the north, it's the Minister of Northern Affairs; if it's under health, then it's the Minister of Health.

Our role as the science and tech.... I'm a minister of state inside Industry Canada. We would provide funding for the laboratories. The laboratories are permanent structures. Under the economic action plan, we provided $2 billion to rebuild research capacity all across the country, and that had to be matched.

The good news is that it was matched—by the Province of Quebec, in your case. In some cases it was matched by the private sector. The $2 billion actually grew to $5 billion, rebuilding the laboratories and research facilities across the country.

In the same year, we also put $750 million into CFI. Part of that money goes to put the equipment into those laboratories. The research councils actually make the decisions on which researcher or which research project gets funding, and I should say that the decision is made by scientists, not by me. These are independent, peer-reviewed panels. Most often, it's scientists saying, this is a good scientific project, these are good scientists, and so on.

So we have the capacity to move money into the councils, who make the final decision. Since we have been in government, we've increased funding to the councils by about 23% on average. I will say that no government in the history of this country has provided so much funding for scientific research. The Prime Minister himself has said that science powers commerce, and that's why we're at $11.7 billion of annual funding for science and technology.

On the Arctic and polar research side, we also put just over $80 million into a number of research labs in the north. For the research that goes on inside those labs, the funding actually comes from another source.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

You are saying that there is more and more investment being made in sciences, technology and research. However, there are more and more reductions in various sectors.

Let us take, for instance, research in the humanities and social sciences. The government clearly stated that it wanted to orient research, especially if it is a ready source of income. Some research projects in pure science do not make money right away, but they are necessary for development and innovation. You have abandoned human sciences to invest in something else. You said that this was due to the environment. Nevertheless, the sums of money are...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You're way over your time, so I'll give the minister a moment.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Very quickly, I'll respond by saying there were no cuts to science and technology. Every council has received an increase of on average 23%, including the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. We actually have the great ability in this country to do all of it. When you hear an announcement that we're funding the commercialization of research, do not assume that we have stopped funding somewhere else. It's not true.

That $11.7 billion is going right into, for example, the Perimeter Institute, which is the leading institute on the planet in physical mass quantum computing. There are things about which we don't know when they'll ever make a discovery--regenerative medicine. But we also fund all the way along the spectrum, from blue sky discovery, pure science, all the way down to saying, hey, you've developed a floor tile that has antimicrobial properties, and we need to get that out, we need to get that invention onto our factory floors and sell it to the hospitals around the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Minister.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I let it glide for quite a bit there.

This is the time that the minister needs to depart. We'll take two minutes to suspend.

Dr. Archibald, Minister Goodyear, thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. We'll continue on our meeting for as long as there are questions, or until the bells go at 5:15.

Now, in the rotation, we're over to the Conservative Party for five minutes. Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank our guests for being here.

I actually don't have any hard questions today, so that's good. I do want to start with some basic ones. If I'm reading this correctly, this is supplementary estimates (C), we're looking at the total ministry numbers. It looks like $7 billion.

[Richard Dicerni]

What page?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

This is page 141. And that's total estimates to date. Is that correct? Am I seeing that as 7$ billion? Am I right?

Today you're actually asking for approval for $23 million, is that correct?

[Richard Dicerni]

That's all in, including the portfolio.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

If I did my math right, that's about 0.3%. Can you tell my why, after $7,000 million, you cannot find $23 million within your own organization to transfer around, to cover off these expenses?

[Richard Dicerni]

If I had control over the $7 billion, that would probably be possible. But a lot of those, if you look carefully, are referred to as the portfolio. For example, the Space Agency is there, which has its own deputy minister; the National Research Council has its own president, who has the same ranking as a deputy minister and is accountable for those funds.

So it's not as though there is just the Department of Industry that has oversight of $7 billion; there's a series of other elements. Moreover, it's broken down, as you know, between operating capital and grants and contributions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Of the $7 billion, how much is non-budgetary overhead, or whatever you want—statutory spending that you can't really change? How much of that $7 billion is...?

[Richard Dicerni]

I can tell you how much is in the department. The key is not necessarily statutory, as per the department; it's the fact that the spending objects are placed in other departments within the broad Industry Canada portfolio.