Industry Committee on May 8th, 2008

[Dr. Howard Alper]

I think it's more complicated than that. For instance, in terms of granting councils and academic support, we talked about quality and supporting the best, and that means the best proposals irrespective of location. Some of that will benefit the immediate location and help build a cluster of innovation—for instance, the bio-farm industry in Montreal.

But at the same time, there may be outstanding proposals from individuals out in Vancouver that could still benefit that area. For example, look at the development of QLT from research of a biochemist and chemist at UBC that led to the creation of that firm.

It's only when you build clusters, when you have a high critical mass in a certain area of research, be it bio-farm, ICT, energy--the four priority areas we talked about. Then the investments, clustered in a particular location, do reap a harvest of results--as Michael Porter would say.

Nevertheless, you can diversify your investment cross-country and impact regions such as Prince Edward Island in certain areas.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Sorry, we're way over time on the questions.

We'll go now to Mr. Van Kesteren, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for coming. This is fascinating stuff, and we're so glad that you have taken the initiative. It's been said before that you were asked and you've responded to the challenges.

I'm concerned about one thing. In a past study--and I've used this example before--we looked at the challenges of industry, and we examined the forestry industry, for instance. When the question was asked where the equipment was coming from, the answer was that it's coming from Sweden. How did we ever lose that opportunity when our dollar was...?

So as exciting and provocative.... The high-tech seems to have much more appeal. Are you putting enough emphasis on the others?

I'll give you one more example, from my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex. In the Leamington area we have the largest collection of greenhouses in North America. These people, a long time ago, before government initiated the move, recognized that there were 200 million people within one day's drive, and they created this incredible greenhouse industry.

The leaders in the greenhouse industry are the Netherlands and Israel. Have you looked at industries like that? Sometimes we go for the high-tech, but we're missing some other areas. These are our drivers.

[Dr. Howard Alper]

First, I certainly agree with you, and the industry R and D working group is looking at all sectors, from manufacturing to small-sector industries--greenhouse, whatever--in terms of dealing with the issue of enhancing R and D in those sectors.

But on a little cautionary note, right now the ICT industry is under duress in Canada.

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

Yes, I know that. I chose that, but I could have perhaps talked about mining.

Are you looking at a certain industry and saying Canada is a mining nation--that's just an example--but we have this problem: we have all these resources that are found in these obscure, remote places, so are we possibly looking at new roads? If we could create transportation....

[Dr. Howard Alper]

From an S and T perspective, yes, transportation. It's just like in South Africa, where mining is a big industry. I must say the South Africans have created some interesting policies on nurturing the mining industry to do research--again, to produce value-added products, not just getting the elements out of the ground.

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

The spinoffs.

[Dr. Howard Alper]

Right.

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

I've been to Baffin Island, and I'm sure there are resources there, but how do you get to them?

[Dr. Howard Alper]

No, no, no.

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

Are you considering some new methods to get at those remote areas?

[Dr. Howard Alper]

This working group is actively considering a wide range of issues, including different industry sectors--small, medium, and large.

[Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum]

I think it's conceivable that the state of the nation report will, as well, include where we are optimizing the sectors in which Canada has a clear advantage and in which it does not, and that will lend itself....

[Dr. Howard Alper]

If I could, I'll add a point on the state of the nation report, because the comment was made to me last week, after my presentation in Istanbul, that this is very courageous what we're doing. Nobody has done this well. None of the EU countries have done this well. There have been attempts.

In fact, Heather and the others are taking on this responsibility, and it's a challenge, because first you have to define what defines success. What parameters do you use? What criteria do you use? We have to work all that out before we actually do the measuring. So it's a great project, it really is, and we can be a trendsetter globally if we do this very well.

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

That's all, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

We'll go to Mr. Eyking, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to commend you for the work you're doing and thank you for presenting here today.

You mentioned earlier carbon capture. I'm from Cape Breton, and we have a lot of coal in Cape Breton. We have a few large coal-fired power plants. Of course, across Canada, in Ontario, in the U.S., in Europe, and especially in China, there are a lot of coal-fired power plants, and they are recognized as being some of the biggest polluters on the planet. Can you explain a little bit about how carbon capture works, and how we can monopolize this technology as Canadians so we can meet our goals, of course, and help the rest of the world in dealing with these polluting plants?

[Dr. Howard Alper]

This is a very competitive area right now. In Wisconsin there recently was a test of carbon capture and storage.

In the budget, of course, I think $250 million was set aside for a demonstration plant and research, and that's great. In fact, at the meeting I was at in March, the academies of the G-8 plus 5 had to prepare two statements, one on a low-carbon society. There is a paragraph in there on carbon capture and storage. So this is a very important area. Again, this is not really a STIC issue, but it is a scientific matter of particular note. Those who will succeed commercially in demonstrating the commercial viability of CCS--carbon capture and storage--will have a great advantage on a global basis, because they can market their technology elsewhere, not only in Canada.

In Canada this would provide a tremendous added value, as you so well articulated, not only in Nova Scotia but in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, for different reasons. So it's a great area to focus on now. You know, in certain other countries, clean coal is a big issue that's being pursued. It goes in tandem with carbon capture and storage, because the process to clean coal may produce undesirable amounts of greenhouse gas. But if you can capture that and store it, it gives you--the company or the group--a competitive advantage. So there's a lot to do in this area. But the specifics of the science I am honestly not an expert on.

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

At the moment, are we putting enough energy and money into that research?

[Dr. Howard Alper]

Yes, we are.

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

And where is it all taking place?

[Dr. Howard Alper]

Some of it's in Nova Scotia, actually, and some is in Saskatchewan. This is in terms of demonstration, in terms of research in different places in the country, I assume. This is quite new.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Just on that point, if I might, are you working, for instance, with Ontario Power Generation? The Zero Emission Coal Alliance has come out with a number of proposals. It strikes me that some of the large emitters in my province of Ontario, the coal-fired plants.... Are they part of your consultation group for new energies, new technologies, and new science-based alternatives such as carbon storage or sequestration?

[Dr. Howard Alper]

No. I was asked a question on that particular issue, but STIC is not pursuing particular research right now. That's the role of the corporate sector or granting agency or whatever. But I do agree, this is a high-priority issue for the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I'm going to take the prerogative as chair to finish up here.

I have a number of questions, and I know I'm going to run out of time, so perhaps what I'll do is put the questions on the table and I'll let you address perhaps one of them, and if you can get back to me on the other issues, it would be very helpful to have your opinion.

On the issue of intellectual property, one of the things the committee will have to wrestle with is should we recommend or are there better models of intellectual property? Especially if you have granting councils, if you have the university, if you have industry, if you have the researchers themselves involved in the development, what sorts of models should we be looking at in terms of intellectual property?

Second is the interplay between academic institutions and industry. Both of you have experience with that.

The third issue, about foresight, was raised on Tuesday. We need a group that looks ahead. Indirectly, I don't know if I'd say there was a criticism, but there was something your council would not be able to do. You're gauging what's happening now or gauging the past through your state-of-the-nation report. So if you take an issue like fusion, is that something, looking ahead, your council would be looking at or addressing? You could take that example or another example.

Another issue is how the council interplays or is different from the academies.

Another question was raised at the AUCC meeting. Ms. Munroe-Blum, you were there when I was challenged about why the government chose the four it did and excluded design, and I have to admit I didn't have a great answer at the time. The person who challenged me sent me some more information and makes some valid arguments, I would say. I don't know if it's strong enough to add it as a fifth, but it is worthy of discussion.

The final one is the big question. Perhaps you can address this one first and then you can address the others later. The whole issue of commercialization has obviously been a topic around the table. You've pointed out that in terms of basic research we're doing well, but as innovators or companies succeed, success almost presents more challenges. You heard from two groups today. Bioniche is a very good company. A second company is Trojan Technologies, in terms of environmental technologies.

As you go along, you almost face some real challenges. One challenge companies face is the building of a prototype, building a facility and getting the money to do that, and with Trojan it was the adoption of new technology, the same with Bioniche as well. Once you have created this new technology, whether your consumers are cattlemen or municipalities, how do you get them to adopt these new technologies?

There's a whole bunch of big questions there. I apologize for dumping all that on you, but you are two of the smartest people in Canada, so I am going to flatter you and then challenge you.