Evidence of meeting #38 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commercialization.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Precarn Incorporated
If I could, I'll start.
Of course the issue is huge for Canada, and a lot of it is structural. Mr. Corr has talked a couple of times about how it's the culture in Waterloo, the culture of the University of Waterloo, and the innovation sense there that are important. You can't just put one finger on it and say this is the problem.
Similarly, in Canada, all the structural issues of our history, way back before all you young people were born, involved the hewers of wood and drawers of water, and we did not have to innovate in order to be rich. Currently, in Canada, we need to take advantage of the fact that we have a wealth beyond some of our partners, and we have to start to reinvest that back into innovation.
There is the branch plant issue that keeps cropping up in Canada. That is, a company owned by a British, American, or Japanese firm probably does its R and D and its innovation at headquarters. So these are issues you can't necessarily do a lot about.
But I do agree completely that it is a cultural issue and we have to try to change the culture. One of the programs we support with the government of British Columbia, for example, is a joint scholarship. The scholarship has to have two people in it, and they both have to get a scholarship. One is an engineer and one is a business student. They have to work together on the same technology, one of them developing the technological solution and the other one developing the business case, together. What it's trying to do is create a culture where the engineer understands the commercialization aspects and the business person understands the technological aspects.
It's a very small, tiny little program, but it's the kind of thing, for example, that the NCE program, Waterloo, and OCRI know well, where you actually have to start just working on the people, changing their approach to life, so that their goal is not to finish university and get a job; their goal is to finish university and create 100 jobs.
12:10 p.m.
Associate Vice-President, Networks of Centres of Excellence
I would like to talk about the human dimension, whether it be about culture or training. More young people must be encouraged to study science. As Paul was saying, very often in Canada, we were in the habit of operating like US companies. Instead of creating innovation, we were content to commercialize it. That is the key. If you look at various government programs, whether Canadian programs or those of EC or Asian nations or the United States, you will see that everyone deals with these problems the same way.
I don't know if everyone agrees with the grade we were given by the Conference Board. It was very hard on us, but in Canada, we are often harder on ourselves than on others.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
The government invests in innovation and research, but there is no one to commercialize an idea or product. If we invest several million dollars in innovation and are unable to find anyone to commercialize the products, then what is the point? Perhaps we should be doing less research, focusing only on more advanced research. We need to be closer to the people to know how to help them. What is the point of research that doesn't amount to anything?
12:10 p.m.
Associate Vice-President, Networks of Centres of Excellence
In essence, this is what the government is doing through new programs such as the Centres for Excellence in Commercialization and Research, the Science and Technology Strategy for priority areas and new business-led networks announced a while back. We are trying to resolve the problem by focusing on downstream activities such as commercialization, with research being an upstream activity. The granting councils, the new programs and the Science and Technology Strategy are all working to promote more research in areas in which opportunities exist.
For example, one of the models that we present to businesses is the business-led model. We ask companies to tell us about their research needs. Perhaps we have not made sufficient use in this country of our strong industries...
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Monsieur Gavrel, I'm sorry, but we're way over time. Thank you.
Ms. Scarborough, did you want to comment just briefly?
May 13th, 2008 / 12:10 p.m.
Michelle Scarborough Vice-President, Investment and Commercialization, Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation
I just wanted to make a quick comment with respect to the ecosystem of commercialization and investment, generally. A lot of people have echoed that here.
Really, the bottom line is that there's a lot of appetite in the Canadian marketplace, generally, to commercialize products into the market. The government perhaps needs to look at how to integrate an approach that allows commercialization activities to take place. That means pumping up talent and providing incentives to investors to make those investments in early-stage companies happen.
Those are my two cents, very briefly.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
Members and witnesses, I'm very sorry to have to do this, but there are two motions from two members of the committee today that they want dealt with. One option is, if you are interested in coming back, I actually have other members on the list who do want to ask questions, so there's obviously interest in continuing this discussion. If you would like to return, perhaps you could indicate that to one of our research assistants. I'll have them come back to chat with you briefly.
I know there's perhaps a spot open this Thursday, if you're available, or we could have you later in June, if that's amenable to your schedules. But there is an interest in continuing this discussion.
I apologize for cutting this short, but I do have two motions from two members that I do have to get to as the chair.
I want to thank you very much for your presentations here today.
I have a couple of items.
Mr. Dale, in response to Ms. Nash's question and in your presentation, I think you referenced some reports. Could you send us an e-mail with the website links to those reports? Or if you have paper copies, you could submit them.
Thank you very much.
12:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation
Okay, I'll link you to that strategic procurement report.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I appreciate that.
One of the things I think you mentioned, Mr. Gavrel, was getting specific examples.
If all of you, especially in terms of commercialization—Mr. Corr, you mentioned valley-of-death financing, for example—have specific examples of a product that was commercialized and adopted here in Canada and the stages it went through, these would be very enlightening for the committee to know. If you have examples you want to provide to the committee on that, please do so.
If you do want to come back, we'd certainly welcome you. So if you can indicate that to Eleanor or Lalita, we'd appreciate that.
We thank you for your presentations.
Members, we will go on to the motions, starting with the motion by Ms. Nash. I'll suspend for one minute, and then we'll come back.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We will go to the motion by Ms. Nash.
Ms. Nash, everybody has a copy of your motion, so you can speak to your motion.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
My motion is based on the discussion at our last committee meeting, where we heard from some of the pharmaceutical industry and the generic industry. There were many unanswered questions about the change that has been proposed by the federal government to the regulations under the Patent Act. One of the problems seemed to be lack of notification and the very short consultation period. So my motion basically is calling for a halt on making a change until there has been more public consultation. That's the nub of my motion.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I would just like to let the chair know that we will be voting against this motion.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Chairman, I was very disappointed with the timeframe. Regardless of where we think we are or the last-minute briefings that we have been given by the department and by the parties affected, this is a long-standing issue that, in my view, the government tried to sweep under the rug in a very, very short and deliberately brief period of time.
Chair, this is a position taken that for the first time very clearly enunciates that someone within the department has taken it upon themselves to be in contempt of what I think is the long-standing process of allowing at least a reasonable time for commentary. And more importantly, other committees, such as the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, may be more interested in looking at the appropriateness of having a decision, which is well documented in the public domain, rushed by a decision by the department without consultation to members of Parliament, leaving us very little if any time. Indeed, if I am to take it that some members were consulted yesterday, Chair, it was done exactly a few minutes before the time for commentary was over.
Mr. Chair, you'll recognize that I did discuss with you and with others my overarching concern a week ago, when I first learned of this. And I thought the best solution would have been for this committee to at least make a request for a delay until at least one of the affected parties gets a chance to comment. I now learn that it's not just the generics that will be affected by this, but clearly consumers and the provinces.
I'm also concerned not just about the act being, in my view, in contempt of this committee and in contempt of Canadians, but it's also contemptuous of the Supreme Court of Canada. And whatever the merits of the debate are, they could have been thrashed out if the government had actually chosen, as it has in the past, the time-honoured position of informing all parties.
And I understand the argument that is being made that, yes, they should have known about it—here it is, there it is—but considering the amount of effort, considering the amount of legal work that has been done in this area with respect to notice of compliance, no matter what the thing is in terms of streamlining or updating these things, I find this is one of the most odious things.
I certainly have no difficulty with my colleagues on this committee. I think they've all worked very well. But I think in cases of equity and fairness we should be providing that time. I have absolutely no hesitation with supporting this motion.
I would also, though, perhaps want to contemplate an amendment to the motion, which would be that the committee also refer this matter to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, and that it holds the Department of Industry in contempt for having attempted to put this out in a very short period of time with respect to notice.
It is unprecedented. It's unacceptable. No reasonable member of Parliament who is worried about doing through the back door what you can't do at the front door, considering the history of this very important issue and its implications on all our constituents, should take comfort with the idea that this is something we can simply dismiss.
Thank you, Chair.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
I'll just be a moment here, Chair. Chair, I have not had this discussion with Ms. Nash or anyone else, but I would—
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I have Mr. Brison on the list. Do you want me to continue the discussion on the main motion?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Yes, otherwise there will have to be a question of debate on the amendment.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Yes. I move that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology urge the industry minister to not move forward with the implementation of the regulatory amendments to the patented medicines regulations of the Patent Act published in Canada Gazette part I on April 26, 2008.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative