Industry Committee on May 6th, 2008

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

Dr. Coulombe, what's your view on this? Do you agree that there's a lack of commitment to long-term funding and that we're soon going to face a severe labour shortage of scientists for public research?

[Pierre Coulombe]

Thank you for your question. I must speak from an NRC perspective, if you will allow me.

We have been quite successful in the past and still today in hiring key scientists. Every time we make a job announcement, for instance, on the public networks, we receive a fair number of applicants interested in working at the NRC. As Mr. Corbett just mentioned, there is a difference between being a university professor, being, let's say, an NRC scientist, or being an industry scientist, because the focus is not strictly the same. Those people who are interested in working at the NRC, for instance, would be interested in the public good aspect of the science activity that we do. They would also be interested in working to make a contribution in supporting the industry. This is something that distinguishes NRC scientists--their commitment to support the industry in making sure that the industry is successful as a result of their work.

That is a bit different from a university professor's focus, which would be more on HQP, untargeted research programs, which is fine. But at the NRC we have the skills that basically are relevant not only to the public good but also to supporting industry and supporting departments.

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

Is there a problem? Do you agree there's a problem created by the lack of commitment to long-term funding?

[Pierre Coulombe]

I cannot say we have observed that yet, at least at the NRC, because we still have A-base funding that is allowing us to do long-term research programs; and roughly speaking, year over year, NRC has been investing 25% of its assets in long-term research programs. The difference is that those long-term research programs still have a purpose. They are not long-term research programs aiming at developing knowledge. They're obviously developing knowledge, but in areas where we believe we will have, down the line, an impact on the industry. The impact may not be today; the impact may be in five, six, or seven years, but still we expect there will be an impact.

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

Just so I understand, on the funding you offer, you said that once projects are completed, the object is to commercialize the outcome and to get companies to take on the licensing. Is there an ongoing benefit to Canadians once that takes place? In other words, does all of the benefit accrue to the company that licensed the technology? Or is there a benefit, aside from jobs and economic development, which is also important? Is there any other continuing benefit to Canadians?

[Pierre Coulombe]

I do believe there are a lot of benefits.

When we transfer technologies to industry through, let's say, a licensing agreement--that would be technology that we develop; we own patents on this and we'd like to license it--when we find a company interested in acquiring those technologies, we would be signing a licensing agreement whereby the company would be paying royalty fees back to NRC.

Every year we have between $5 million and $6 million in royalties that we collect. Now, it doesn't seem like a large number--$5 million or $6 million--but if you divide that by the amount of money we are investing in R and D, we are the most successful organization in Canada per dollar invested. On the licensing revenue per dollar invested across Canada, we're well above all Canadian universities.

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

Do you have a figure on that?

[Pierre Coulombe]

Yes, it's $6 million divided by $400 million or $500 million. That ratio is as good as you can see in all major U.S. universities, except maybe the University of California. So we're performing quite well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Eyking, please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you to our guests for coming here today. My question is for Mr. Corbett.

I got to know you over the last couple of years, and I have to commend your passion for making it a better and more vibrant scientific community in this country. I sense your frustration here a bit today, especially about the neglect and the lack of priority that this government is giving to the scientific community. You also give some examples on how that can be straightened away.

In an earlier question, you alluded to how other countries deal with their scientific community. Time and time again, we read about some of the European countries, such as Ireland and Germany, and even Australia and Japan, but also right now even the emerging economies in Asia--how they seem to be taking off as scientific-based economies. What could we be learning from these other countries on how their governments are treating their scientific communities, so they don't pass us by and leave us so far behind that we're going to hit the wall and never catch up?

[Gary Corbett]

It's an excellent question.

I'm a scientist. I started as a scientist, and now I'm vice-president of the organization. The most important thing for a scientist is to go out into the community and listen to what other people are doing.

I used to work in the mining community, as you know. I've done papers at international symposia and talked about what's required. There was no forum for us to talk about what other countries were doing so we could learn from one another. We don't know what we don't know, and we won't know it until we go and look at what other countries are doing.

We could learn so much from other countries in their policies, and they could learn from us. There needs to be a forum. Whether it be growing apples, mad cow disease, or the space race, we could learn a lot from talking to each other, and Canada has the ability to be a leader in that way.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

As just a little more on that, these countries have departments of industry or science and technology too. I'm sure they fund them. Do they have a different set-up on how they treat universities, how they work? Are there different models out there that we should be looking to?

[Gary Corbett]

I think you could learn from all of the models out there in terms of what is being done right and what is being done wrong or not so right.

The U.K. is set up differently in terms of their science adviser, for example, or their office of foresight, which is a huge office in the U.K. As I understand, there are 26 employees in that office.

Under the current Minister of Industry, I understand there is only one foresight officer in Canada. That has very broad implications for direction and vision for this country in terms of science, because foresight is about emerging trends and where this country will go 10 to 30 years down the road. But it seems that there is no vision beyond a four-year mandate for this country.

I'm not picking on one particular party here. I'm talking about the need for a national vision for science that transcends a four-year cycle. It's not happening.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have a minute and a half.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

This question is for either witness. Where is our neglect or lack of investment or prioritizing in the scientific community going to show up first? Will it show up in our economy? Will it show up in the automotive industry? Are you going to see it in the food industry? Especially when you have a shortage of people, if the staff is not there....

Where do you see it starting to hit first?

[Gary Corbett]

I see it every day, personally, when I talk to the scientists in the labs across the country. They're worried about what will happen as no long-term vision is done for things such as food and drugs, safety of products, or apples, if I can refer to that.

I'd be crystal-balling to say where we would see it, but I think you're starting to see things emerging now, such as biphenyls in baby bottles. These will be more in the press all the time now. Or the private sector will put a lead test kit on the market, for example, that may not even be the proper, scientifically valid method for testing lead, yet the consumer is going to buy this.

So just look down the road beyond that. It most likely will end up with the public knowing a lot more and asking their politicians why a certain thing is the way it is.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Just as one last thing, more as a comment than a question, our public is becoming more and more critical of products—of everything, about knowing how the weather's going to be. So you see a combination of resources plus a bigger demand, I think, coming through with globalization and what's happening.

That's the connection, is it?

[Gary Corbett]

Yes, I think that is the connection. We've realized that connection, and our campaign is to teach the public how important science is, because we believe the public elects you folks.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Eyking.

We'll go to Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Coulombe, we were engaging in an interesting conversation, before we were called to order, involving energy and what was happening in Canada just prior to what happened in Chicago in 1939 or, I think, 1942. You talked about fission, and we had just about obtained it. I'm interested, too, in that; I'm interested in our research into it. We didn't get a chance, and I was just going to engage you in that conversation.

I read just recently that there is an element about two below uranium that's used, barium. Is that something it is possible to use for atomic energy or for those purposes? I'm wondering whether there's research being done on this. Apparently the byproducts of this element can be used for nuclear weaponry, and as well, the discharge of the properties is not as tough as in the case of uranium.

Can you comment? Are we moving in that direction? Are we still working in those areas where we used to be such a leader?

[Pierre Coulombe]

Thank you for your question. Unfortunately, the NRC is not working anymore in the area of nuclear physics or nuclear energy, not since 1952. All our work capacity was transferred to AECL.

I know that nuclear energy is coming back under more public scrutiny. There's more interest because nuclear energy has no greenhouse gas emissions. There's a lot of work going on around the world to try to improve how much fuel and how much energy we can extract from the fuels—uranium, plutonium, and other fuels—and to recycle as much as we can, so that the residue we'll have to face with nuclear energy will be reduced at its maximum, or maybe that the longer half-life isotopes will be reduced, so that we'd be facing only shorter half-life isotopes, which are easier to get rid of or to control.

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

Do you see us moving in that direction again, possibly to do some more research where we left off? I didn't realize that in 1952 NRC was taken out of that equation.

[Pierre Coulombe]

It would be a bit difficult for me, because I'm not really an actor in this field, but I would imagine that some Canadian universities may be working in the area of nuclear energies and the nuclear fission reaction. AECL could also be pretty much involved.

We also have to realize that nuclear energy is still a global energy, so the American trades are also contributing quite significantly to move the field forward. I could give you the example of France, which is very active in this file, because a lot of their energy is basically coming from nuclear fission and nuclear reactors.

The United States could also be very much involved in this file because, again, they have a lot of capacity in nuclear energy and nuclear physics through the DOE National Laboratories and Technology Centers.

That would be the extent of my answer at this point in time. I apologize. I could try to get additional information, should you wish. I'd be glad to collect that information for you.

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

Mr. Corbett, you talked about a national foresight program and suggested government should establish that to identify S and T opportunities, focusing scientific research in the service of government policy strategy. How is your plan different from what the government is implementing with STIC? I'm confused as to whether or not we're doubling up. How is your plan different?

[Denise Doherty-Delorme, Section Head of Research, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada]

I had the pleasure of listening to Dr. Alper speak about STIC and its vision for its work. He was very clear that STIC was going to be reactive to questions from the departments or from cabinet, that he was not performing the duty of foresight. There's only one person who does foresight in this country, compared to, say, 26 in the U.K.

We do not have the capacity to look for what many of you were asking questions about: what the next trend is going to be, what is going to happen in the future. Government researchers and scientists are the only group who have the capability to be sustained for a long time, able to be called into duty if we should have something happen like a SARS incident or any epidemic. You cannot, without a proper group that's looking at the future, and STIC is not going to, and they have said they're not going to.

You need to have people on the ground who are ready to answer the call of Canadians for the health and welfare of Canadians. We may have some groups who are not working in a commercializable sector of science and technology but are there to offer advice at any moment and who are the best and the brightest in the world. That calls for foresight, and it is not going to be done by STIC or Dr. Alper.