Industry Committee on May 1st, 2008

[Robert Best]

I agree. There is no single model. We have to learn from what is going on in a number of countries. More and more competitor countries are aggressively pursuing higher education and research as part of their national social and economic development policies and strategies. We can learn—I don't want to cherry-pick because we have to take the time to understand the context in which certain kinds of things are done in a country, and it's not our context. We look to a number of the countries Eliot Phillipson mentioned. We look to Ireland. We look to the U.K. We look to Australia. We look to the U.S. simply because it is much larger than we are, but it is next door and it has been enormously successful in this area in the post-World War II era. We can learn from all of them.

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

I hear you saying that we look around the world but we have to chart our own course.

[Robert Best]

That's right.

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

As my last question, I'd like to ask you what our major challenge is. What would you like to see us either look into or address in the work of our committee? I've heard concerns about when things are initiated—for example, the research chairs have no sustaining funding. That sounds very problematic and is something we may need to address. What do you think are the major challenges on which we should focus our attention?

[Dr. Martin Godbout]

In a nutshell, the Canadian innovation system works. The challenge is sustainability. We took 10 years to build it. Now it's time to collect the low-hanging fruit, and if we don't keep funding the Canadian system of innovation, we'll be in deep trouble.

There is a generation of scientists who are mercenaires. They will go where the money is, so please make sure we don't lose them.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Is there anyone else on this?

Mr. Best.

[Robert Best]

Thank you.

Ms. Nash, you raised the issue a couple of times in questions about balance, but it's balance along a number of dimensions. It's not a target where we'll know we have the balance right and we'll stay there; it is always a work in progress. It is a balanced approach to targeted versus non-targeted research. It is a balanced approach to focus on the public versus private research. It is a balance between fundamental research and applied research, with commercialization applications. As a focus for this committee, that is very appropriate and very important.

My members would feel I was remiss if I didn't say that a particular priority for us is the issue I raised in my opening remarks about the institutional costs of research. It is a matter of the balance among the different types of investments the federal government makes. It's probably the least understood and least visible issue, but from the perspective of the universities it's perhaps most important to address ensuring that the institutions have the ability to provide that environment in which researchers can thrive. It means in part that when the federal government funds research through the research granting agencies and otherwise, it covers the full institutional costs. I mentioned that a bit in my opening remarks.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Thank you, Mr. Best.

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

Mr. Simard and Mr. Brison will be splitting up their time as soon as they can resolve that between themselves.

Mr. Simard.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be splitting my time.

I wonder if I can ask both my questions immediately and ask for very precise and succinct answers.

The first one concerns a project in Winnipeg, Manitoba, where Ag Canada has actually partnered. It's called NCARM. The new government calls it CCARM. It's basically nutraceutical research, where a department of the government is involved directly with the university and a research facility. Some of the scientists actually revolve, so you could have Ag Canada scientists working within the research centre.

I think it's very innovative and creative. I wonder if that's the future and if it's being done elsewhere. It was the first time I'd heard of that, and I find that very creative.

My second question goes to Dr. Godbout.

You said that you had invested $840 million which leveraged a billion dollars from the private sector or from other partners. These are long-term projects.

Are there commercialization possibilities? Will there be long-term benefits to share from those long-term projects?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

The first question

could be answered by Mr. Best or others, and the last question by Monsieur Godbout.

Mr. Best.

[Robert Best]

Thank you.

On the matter of collaboration between federal departments and universities, there has been much public discussion about this. We canvassed our universities with a quick survey to see what kinds of collaborative relationships they had in place with federal agencies and departments. I was amazed by the number of them and the longevity of some of them. Some with Ag Can go back 30 years or more. So there really is quite a panoply of these kinds of relationships. They vary widely, but there is still room for new and innovative ones. They've happened below the radar screen. There's a great deal of that collaboration already going on.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Mr. Phillipson is next, very quickly, and then Mr. Hüner.

[Dr. Eliot Phillipson]

Your question is a very good one. Partnerships are the order of the day in research. That is part of the evolving landscape. There's the old stereotype of the ivory tower, with researchers tucked away somewhere, having no foot in reality or connection with the private sector or government science. Those days are long since over. More and more of the projects are collaborative.

You mentioned the example in Winnipeg. There are several examples where the National Research Council, which of course is government science, is co-located on university campuses, the scientists are cross-appointed, and there is much more collaboration--and similarly with industry. So partnerships are the order of the day.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Mr. Hüner.

[Dr. Norm Hüner]

The University of Western Ontario, in the department of biology, has a 50-year history of interacting with Agriculture Canada's station in London, Ontario, which is a huge research station. Over the last several years we've decreased the barriers and allowed research scientists at Ag Canada to be part of the department. So we have a continuous flow of individuals and research expertise between the federal department and our department. Agriculture Canada has been a major contributor to the Biotron itself.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Monsieur Godbout.

[Dr. Martin Godbout]

People say that Genome Canada manages its money like a venture capital fund. That is good or bad, depending on whom you are talking to. When we invest in long-term research projects, we make sure that there can be an outcome of some kind within five years. I will give you two examples. The first is from Newfoundland where we identified the two genes responsible for right ventricular arrhythmia in the heart. We are talking about people 22, 23, 24 or 25 years old, with no cardio-vascular symptoms but who suddenly die without warning. The Newfoundland government has offered to do free genetic screening tests for their families. When the defective gene is detected, the person is given a pacemaker and they survive. So there is a very significant social and economic impact.

The other example is from Quebec City, where Dr. Michel Bergeron's research has developed a device into which a drop of blood or saliva can be placed. When someone comes to Emergency with a two-year-old with fever, no one knows whether the flu-like infection is bacterial or viral. If it is bacterial, the patient can die. Doctors prescribe antibiotics to reduce the risks. But now we can find out within 45 minutes if the infection is bacterial, and, if so, the kind of bacterium and the antibiotic needed. The good news economically is that the multinational company Becton Dickinson has announced that it will invest $300 million in the Quebec City technology park so that it can manufacture and develop the product.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Thank you, Dr. Godbout.

Please be very quick, Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Phillipson, you mentioned environmental sciences as being a particular area of focus. Does the government determine that area of focus or provide that direction or focus to you? Environmental science, as you said, is its focus.

[Dr. Eliot Phillipson]

Right. It's one of the four areas I identified--

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Does that come from government?

[Dr. Eliot Phillipson]

Certainly the S and T strategy identified the four strategic priorities, of which environment is one--

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

What are the key silos within environmental science that you believe will be the areas giving the greatest opportunities? What are you focusing on?

[Dr. Eliot Phillipson]

Perhaps I can just back up, because you asked whether government gave those to us, or you implied it. The answer is that government priorities reflect the reality on the ground--in other words, what Canada's strengths are. The four priority areas that were identified were not as--

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

No, no--I mean, within environmental sciences, where is your focus?