Industry Committee on May 8th, 2008

[Dr. Howard Alper]

I'll let her deal with the last ones; Heather will deal with one or two. The rest we'll have to deal with off line.

We talked a lot about industrial R and D, but also this applies to commercialization that emanates from university research. Concerning the person who told you about money for a prototype, which I would call a pilot plant—for a chemist, it's the same thing—there are small programs, Idea to Innovation and Proof of Principle, in two of the three granting councils. But that's from research accruing from university; from industry, it's a different issue.

That brings up again how you enhance support for R and D in industry. The big problem is that discovery requires creativity. The role of a university professor is to nurture creativity—that's it—as a supervisor of graduate students.

If you make some major or landmark discovery, it goes then to the next stage of scale-up, which is what you're talking about. Then beyond that, depending what area we're in, you have financing for it, including venture capital—the challenge of securing venture capital is a major issue in Canada right now—and then ultimately go to the marketplace.

The problem here is not on the R side of R and D; it's on the D side. This is where considerable focused attention needs to be addressed for the future. That's very important.

The other thing goes back to the former Prime Minister of Finland and what he had to say.

In Finland they enhance R and D through two mechanisms. They said SR and ED or equivalent tax credits are useful, but they're far less efficient and effective than direct grants to companies on a partnership basis—50:50, 60:40.... He said his government could demonstrate to you how effective this has been. This might be worth looking at. The second is that successful procurement policy is an essential part of the innovation process.

Those are two components that he raised.

I should tell you that in my evaluation of Slovenia and Turkey—Turkey is not in the EU, but it is treated as such—and I evaluated Emilia-Romagna for the EU, the number one innovation region in Europe....

Emilia-Romagna has a spinner program that is absolutely fantastic, which many countries and regions in Europe are now copying, whereby a student in the last year of his or her studies gets supported by the government, goes into an SME, is supported 100% for the first three years, and supported at a declining percentage for the next three years. You can show the growth of 964 companies in Emilia-Romagna in the last five years.

Turkey has a direct program of direct support—as a partnership, again, 50:50, or 60:40—and Turkey has a fascinating new technology entrepreneurship program, which just started April 1, to stimulate entrepreneurship.

Those are interesting things. But Chair, what you're really talking about is the D part of R and D and then going to the marketplace.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We're well over time.

[Dr. Heather Munroe-Blum]

We'll come back on your questions. We've listed them.

I want to just conclude with one comment. It links to a statement you made and a question addressed by Mr. St-Cyr. That is that I think Canada is well positioned right now, but our progress is fragile in both basic science—remember, it's only just over a decade ago that we let that go—and in figuring out how to have what we might call competitive federalism in Canada and invest in excellence and the areas that are going to go forward. Part of this is foresight, part of it is how much we force common IP policies.

I want to say as a final word that equalization alone will not get Canada to where it needs to be. Clearly we have some equalization programs, and they reflect a part of Canadian values. But to really prevail in the productivity economic development arenas and in the health and social benefits that come from having strong STI platforms, you need a real strategy that says we can make tough decisions and we can reward excellence. Provinces need to have this, and the federal government has to have it as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I want to thank both of you for your time this afternoon. Judging by the interest, we will certainly ask you to come back.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, there's just one small thing. Dr. Alper referred to a letter that was sent here back in March, and I don't know whether we ever received that. I want to check on that.

[Dr. Howard Alper]

I have it.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

That would be great, and if there were any other documents referred to in the context of the presentations today, if we could get copies, that would be fantastic.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Absolutely.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, based on not this presentation but the previous panel we had today, I would like to propose a motion. I do understand that normally 48 hours' notice is required for a motion. However, there is a time constraint that I believe would warrant this committee making an exception, and I'd like to put that to the committee, with your approval.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You're proposing a motion. My understanding is that you'd need unanimous consent of the committee to propose the motion.

Do you want to put the motion forward?

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

I'd just like to say what the motion is, and if it ends up being a notice of motion, so be it, but I think there is strong rationale for creating an exception to this normal requirement.

My motion would be that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology urges the minister to extend, for an additional 30 days beyond the current 15 days scheduled to end on May 11, the consultation period for the proposed regulatory amendments to the patented medicines regulations of the Patent Act, published in Canada Gazette Part I on April 26, 2008.

My rationale for asking for an exemption to the current rules is that obviously by the time our committee would next convene, this period of consultation on these regulations would have expired. Given that this regulatory change seemed to catch everyone by surprise, and given that we've heard this testimony only today and there is a time constraint, it seems to me only fair that our committee ought to be allowed to make such a recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

This is the first I've heard of this motion. I don't have the motion before me. It's not in both official languages. As the member knows, for a substantive motion of this type, either there has to be 48 hours' notice or it has to have unanimous consent.

Does the member have unanimous consent to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

There is not unanimous consent to propose the motion.

You can put it on 48 hours' notice, and it could be discussed Tuesday, at the earliest.

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

Would it be possible, given the 48-hour requirement, for this committee to reconvene by conference call in a special meeting to deal with this, given the time constraint that would render this motion irrelevant by the time we next convene on Tuesday?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My understanding—and the clerk can comment and say whether I'm correct or not—is that I as the chair would need four members of this committee to indicate to me in writing that they would want to have a meeting.

I've never had a meeting by conference call, but my understanding is that to call a special meeting to discuss this prior to our Tuesday meeting, we would need four members of the committee to sign a letter stating to me why they wished to do so.

Michelle will comment on the procedure.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Michelle Tittley]

Substantive motions do require 48 hours' notice for the committee.

Also, the chair of a committee, much as the Speaker in the House, can request that the motion be provided in writing—I would venture to say, in front of the chair—to be able to evaluate whether the motion is of a substantive nature to the subject matter presently under way or whether it's outside the scope of what the committee is dealing with.

Motions, if they deal directly with what the committee is presently discussing, can be admissible outside the 48 hours' notice if they relate directly to what the committee is studying. That said, as I mentioned, the chair would require that in writing to be able to evaluate it.

The committee can hold extra meetings, in addition to the meetings they have scheduled. That would be at the discretion of the committee, to advise the clerk when and where. Conference call meetings are typically very difficult to organize.

The committee could also, by unanimous consent, waive the 48-hour notice requirement or could agree to a compromise whereby the notice requirement would be, let's say, 24 hours as opposed to 48 hours. But that again would require unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Nash, just on your point of order, we don't have unanimous consent for the motion today. I asked for unanimous consent and I did not get it.

I have Mr. Carrie, and then I have Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Carrie, is it on Ms. Nash's motion?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

It is, basically.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I've ruled that the motion cannot be accepted today, because it doesn't have consent.

Mr. McTeague.

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

I don't want to make this sound like a challenge to the chair, but I think Michelle's comments with respect to a matter that has arisen directly from a matter we're studying have to be taken into consideration. You may not require the unanimous consent, therefore, to hear and to delve into and to consider the motion that has been presented by Ms. Nash.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McTeague, can I just thank our witnesses?

Thank you, Dr. Alper and Ms. Munroe-Blum.

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

Thank you.

Chair, I would suggest that you may want to confer again, just to get that wording absolutely clear. I am not certain. Your decision would otherwise be applicable and require unanimous consent if the matter had not been directly related to the subject at hand, but it seems very clear by the lines of questions and the presentation that in fact this issue is very much a question that is before the committee today.

I believe Ms. Nash's motion is very much in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I will comment on that.

First of all, this issue was not raised at all in the second panel. It was raised in the first panel. Frankly, as the chair, I let questions go that in my view were not related to the study before the committee. The committee is supposed to study an overview of Canadian science and technology policy. My hope in having groups here like the Generic Association and Rx & D was to comment on science and technology in general, not to comment on regulations that are proposed by the government with respect to a specific industry. I would argue that the questions actually almost exceeded that, so I would argue it's not related to the study we're doing with respect to Canadian science and technology.

I've made my ruling with respect to the need for 48 hours or unanimous consent. That's my decision.

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

Chair, I would then ask that the committee consider now this point. Regarding the timelines on this, which were done in a way that I think we all agree are rather short—indeed, almost unprecedented—suffice it to say that I'm not here to challenge you, and we appreciate the opportunities you've given on latitude, but the reality here, sir, is that this is a matter that does deal with science and technology. It has a number of implications for science, but more importantly, a motion would probably read in the fact that we would then request the government to reverse its position.

I think it's very clear on the record that what is not allowed to be discussed here, as a result of your ruling, is in effect permitting the government to provide less comment, which is injurious to one side. I don't see how that benefits industry. I don't see how it's not relevant. Of course, we have a difference of opinion, and you're the chair, but rather than create a commotion about this, suffice it to say that I think all members would want to be ready on Tuesday for a motion that will have the effect of asking the government, notwithstanding the decision by the chair today, to reverse the position that gives only 15 days for one side to comment.