Industry Committee on May 1st, 2008

[Dr. Martin Godbout]

No, no, the questions are very related. He asked what the ingredients were and you asked about the balance. You have to do some cooking here.

The solution is time. It takes time. Don't compare Sorrento Valley or Silicon Valley with what we do today. In ten years from now, we will be able to do some benchmarks.

Do we have the right balance? I think we do. The question is sustainability. You will not see the results of investing $10 billion in research from the government next year. You won't see the results of that next year. It will take, in live science, 10 to 15 years.

One responsibility that Genome Canada has is to ask the applicants--those who apply to get the funds--to convince us that there is a potential application within five years. So we go from 15 to five. But we don't look for a return on investment. It will take time. It takes time.

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

Mr. Hüner, do you have a comment? You partly sparked my question with your comment on the underfunding of basic research.

[Dr. Norm Hüner]

I think the balance varies depending on the area. For example, I would think that the area of the environment now is a crucial area that government and scientists are focused on worldwide. The likelihood that you're going to get a commercializable product supporting environmental research is not necessarily obvious, yet the importance of this is unquestionable.

So I think the balance varies depending on the area, and depending on the probability of getting a commercializable product out of the area. The balance has to be also in terms of what is the long-term importance of the research itself in terms of the concerns of the government, the people, nationally and internationally. That's going to evolve and change over time. I think we have to be ready to let it evolve and change over time.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Ms. Nash, I'm going to allow you a small question. There was some time taken away for the Liberals, and I made the deduction.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hüner, are you saying that when it comes to certain areas of research, perhaps we don't quite have the balance right, and that in areas that are not obviously commercializable in the short term, we need to be augmenting our basic research?

[Dr. Norm Hüner]

I've been doing this research on the environment for 30 years, before climate change was a big issue. Issues arise over time, and we have to be sensitive to changes in issues. We can't put all our eggs necessarily in one basket, because it may not be that basket that we want to put them in 15 to 20 years from now. It's going to change over time, and we have to be sensitive to that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

Mr. Simard, you have five minutes or less.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here this morning.

I'd like to start by referring to one of Mr. Carrie's comments with regard to what we fund and what we don't fund. What we don't fund in a lot of cases are the operating costs. I find that in a lot of cases we are losing the provinces as partners. I've seen provincial ministers at openings of some of our nice big research facilities; they're very negative about them because they know they'll be stuck funding the operating costs over 10, 15, or 20 years.

Is this a fact or...? The provinces are a very important partner in any research project that we would do.

[Dr. Martin Godbout]

If you look in the package that we provided to you, there is a graphic showing co-founders of Genome Canada. Genome Canada receives $1 from the Government of Canada; by contract, we have to raise another $1 from another source. And it is not federal-provincial. We have to lobby--sorry for the expression--to get them on board.

When you look at the pie chart overall, Genome Canada is providing 40%; the province 17%; the foreign investors, the philanthropists, about 14%; the private sector, the VC, the venture capital, 10%; the federal government--it's my colleague Eliot Phillipson with the CFI, because we have to synchronize our competition for equipment and operating costs--about 8%; and finally, the universities, the institutions, provide 8%. When you have a commitment to raise money from other sources, you have to bring people on board.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Mr. Simard, I see two others--Mr. Best and Mr. Phillipson--who are interested in answering. l'll allow both of them to respond.

[Robert Best]

Thank you.

If I understood your question correctly, it was specifically with regard to the operating costs on big science facilities.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Actually, it was any research project. In my riding of Saint Boniface, for any research project that we announce federally, the province is there. But they're saying, “You know, it's very nice; you guys come in, cut the ribbon, and walk away, and then we're stuck funding the operating costs.”

[Robert Best]

On big science, on the specific issue of operating.... We have to be careful not to generalize, because some provinces in fact are contributing to the operating costs on some of them. It varies, and it varies with our own priorities, but it is the case that some are contributing.

Dr. Phillipson would be able to speak more, I think, to the leveraging of provincial and other partner funding for infrastructure projects across the board, because that's built right into CFI.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

I'd like to move on, actually--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

I'll give you a few more seconds, Mr. Simard. We're a little more flexible here.

Mr. Phillipson, go ahead.

[Dr. Eliot Phillipson]

I can only speak for the projects funded by CFI, of which there are well over 5,700 now across the country. We actually did a study a couple of years ago on the ongoing operating and maintenance costs, and what you say is correct. You hear about those. But only 17% of the projects reported difficulties in the ongoing operating and maintenance costs. Now, they included, understandably, several of the large science facilities that were referred to earlier, because the magnitude of their costs is so great.

So there is a problem. We do work with the provinces before these awards are made in the first place. There is a problem, but I think it needs to be kept in perspective.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Mr. Simard, go ahead.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Phillipson, we all understand the principle behind universities as centres of excellence. The concern I have, or that I've heard expressed, is that sometimes it's at the expense of smaller universities. So you would have the same university—U of T or UBC—receiving funds, and the more funds it receives, the greater the gap between that university and smaller universities, for instance.

Can you tell us on what basis you provide your grants and how you ensure an equitable distribution of funds?

[Dr. Eliot Phillipson]

Thank you. I appreciate that question.

Our awards are made on the basis of a rigorous assessment of merit, as I said. I won't go into the detail, but it involves expert scientists in the field first evaluating the science, then a higher-level committee—made up of a broader representation of academic, government, and private sector—assessing the potential overall benefits for the country, and then a third level. Our awards are based ultimately on the assessment of merit, as I've described it, albeit briefly.

When we actually look at how various-sized institutions fare as a percentage of their applications, it turns out that colleges in the country actually do slightly better than small universities and large universities. Small universities do second-best, and the large universities, the type you mentioned, are third in terms of the percentage of applications that are successful. The difference is the size of the applications, because the large universities are the ones capable of putting together the plans and proposals and maintaining some very large science facilities.

The other point that's important to keep in mind is that some of the largest awards are in the medical and health field, and there are only 16 medical schools in Canada. Therefore, in those smaller institutions you referred to that do not have medical schools, the percentage of their applications that are successful is competitive. It's just the size of the awards that is smaller, because many of their projects are in non-medical areas that don't require huge investments.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Mr. Best, very briefly, please.

[Robert Best]

Thank you.

I anticipated that question might come, because I noted it had been raised before, so I did a little quick checking. The fact is that concentration is not a new phenomenon. In 1997, if you look at total federal support for university research, the top 15 institutions accounted for 75%. In 1991, the top 15 accounted for 74.5%, and in 2004-05 they accounted for 76%. At the bottom of that list of 15, some move in, some move out, but concentration is not new. It happens in other countries as well.

That said, our view is that excellence does not have an address. You will find pockets of research excellence, or the potential, in small, medium, and large institutions. The key is to ensure that those institutions have the capacity to compete in national peer-reviewed positions on the basis of their own excellence.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Thank you, Mr. Best.

I will now turn to Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I guess it's good afternoon now. Welcome to our witnesses.

You gave some very enticing presentations. As you can probably appreciate, most of us are not from the scientific community, unless of course you include the chair for his science in terms of managing gas prices.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Dan McTeague]

Let's not go there.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes, let's not.

I have several questions.

I want to go back, Mr. Phillipson, to one of the points you made towards the end of your presentation. You said words to the effect that the global S and T picture is accelerating quickly, although we're doing well here in Canada. I wonder if you could follow that up and give some indication as to what implications that has for Canada. Is there something you might suggest or recommend we should address ourselves to?