Industry Committee on June 3rd, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Sorry, Monsieur LaRose. We're well over time here, Mr. Van Kesteren.

We'll go to Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Good morning to all of you. It's nice to come in at the end, because you have a lot of information, although you can never have too much.

Mr. Carey, you said that some people give research mandates and that other people manage the results. Why are there some people requesting research and others managing it? Does that not lead to duplication of effort? It seems to me that the people giving the mandates should also be the ones managing the results.

[John Carey]

First of all, it isn't a different group; it's a single group with a sense of common purpose, but different people have different roles within the group. But the people who are setting the priorities--not the mandate, but the priorities--are the people who are the users of the information. We think it's important to get the view of the users of the information in setting the priorities, as opposed to scientific priorities that might be driven by curiosity or capacity.

We believe that having the clients and the users of the information...it keeps our information focused. As I said earlier in my presentation, the department is the main client for much of its science, and the science is related to decisions that the minister or the government must take. If you're going to influence those decisions, it needs to be timely and it needs to be relevant to the decision, not relevant to the general area. And those two need to be actively managed by science managers, which is quite different from what you would see in the academic sector.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Munro, you said that you have $500 million, a staff of 3,000, and that you found an additional $300 million in services and cash.

Could you explain what the cash is?

[Geoff Munro]

The $500 million I spoke of is the normal annual S and T budget. It includes the salaries of the—

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I'd like you to talk specifically about the cash. You said that you had $500 million to begin with, but that another $300 million would be added to that in services and cash.

I would like to know what the source of that cash is.

[Geoff Munro]

It's from our partners. It's the leverage we get through working with provinces, with other federal departments, with industry, and with academia. The total S and T activity equals around $800 million, of which we spend $500 million, and we get $300 million from others, either in cash or in kind. So it's a leverage measure that I was trying to give.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

My most important question is addressed to all of you.

We visited a number of places over a three-day period, and the biggest problem, as far as I can see, is that, even when there is money available and even when research is being done and results in an actual product, there is no one who can commercialize it.

How do you intend to commercialize these products? Ms. Dodds, you talked about intellectual property earlier. It is all well and good to have patents, but if no one is commercializing these products, what are we to do? It seems to me that every department's priority should not only be to see how the money is being spent, but also how this research can be used to increase company profits or create new jobs.

Would you not agree that it is essential for you, in your respective areas, to find a way to commercialize this research?

[John Carey]

As I mentioned earlier, for us, the client is not the economy. There are three or more roles for the federal government in supporting research. Obviously one is economic benefit. Another one is to improve the quality of decision-making within government. For us, that's the primary reason we do our research, but we try to capitalize on opportunities. So, yes, we patent, and then we have licensees. We have licensees, for example, for sediment remediation, but also for technologies we've developed for groundwater purification. We rely on the private sector to do that, and we protect them by protecting the technology so that their investments will be protected.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Ms. Dodds, I would like to hear from you on this.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

It is no different for us, at Health Canada, than it is for our colleagues at Environment Canada.

We are not primarily doing research for commercial application; we are doing research to support our role in Health Canada as a policy-maker and as a regulator. Where there is the possibility to be opportunistic, we take it, but our reason is really to protect Canadians and to help them support a positive sense of health.

I might give you one example I know of from my colleagues at Agriculture Canada. Canola, which most of us know--canola oil--was a variety developed by Agriculture Canada scientists, and it is now marketed around the world. One of the reasons it's marketed around the world is because it has a good profile of fatty acids in it as an oil. So Agriculture Canada has been supported by Health Canada scientists in taking that message around the world, that canola oil is one of the healthiest oils for people to consume.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Saindon, very briefly. We're about a minute over the time.

[Gilles Saindon]

I would just like to add that canola is a very good example. We worked on it in partnership with the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. Varieties are clearly the best vehicle. We also have the Investment Cost-Sharing Program with industry. By getting a partner involved in the innovation chain early in the process, we can also involve it in commercialization. Many small- and medium-sized businesses in Canada have been able to commercialize some of our innovations directly in the laboratory, be they varieties or other types of innovations.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, monsieur Vincent.

We'll go to Monsieur Arthur.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Merci, monsieur le président.

When Air Canada or WestJet buys a new airplane from Airbus or Boeing, or Embraer or Bombardier--Bombardier is my exception--the Government of Canada has the courtesy of recognizing that aviation experts in the United States, Europe, the United Kingdom, or France are competent enough that when their own industry makes a new aircraft it will not be subjected in Canada to the same rigorous testing that the aircraft has been through in the United States, if it's Boeing, or in Europe, if it's Airbus.

Why do we need to start from scratch, Mrs. Dodds, testing new medications, vaccines, coming from countries where their scientific tradition is at least as good or better than the one in Canada? If a vaccine has been invented in France, the United Kingdom, the United States, or Germany, how can we justify to the taxpayer that your little scientists will start from scratch trying to define if it is useful or dangerous? Why don't we trust the other countries and stop spending money on research that doubles what people sometimes better than us have already done?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

First, we don't require additional testing in Canada. It is essentially common testing required for a pharmaceutical product around the world. The information is then submitted to the different regulators around the world. Increasingly, in the area of human medicines, we are looking to collaborate with colleagues. I mentioned the United States Food and Drug Administration; I mentioned the European Medicines Agency. In the area of pesticides, for example, we are now doing joint reviews with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. So we share the information that comes in. We schedule the Canadian people who are going to review this part and the Americans who are going to do this part. In pesticides we've also done a number of global reviews, which have involved Canada, the United States, the U.K., Europe, and Australia.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

You share the research but not always the conclusions.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

No, each country, to this time, has maintained the authority to make their own decision.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

So from the same research a product can be authorized in the States and be unavailable in Canada. How can you justify that?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

It's our experience in pesticides, where we're doing joint reviews, that every country has come to the same conclusion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Okay.

We learned from the agriculture people in Saskatoon that they are doing extraordinary research around flax. They are this far in the research from being able to say that flax has a definite, positive effect as far as countering diabetes is concerned. Yet, if those scientists find that, your scientists will not allow them to say it in public because it's not right to have something that comes from agriculture or is a natural product. It does not come from the pharmaceutical industry and it has not gone through all your little researchers' testing. You are not allowed to claim a health benefit from something natural in Canada.

Are you talking to each other?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

We are talking to each other. If something is a natural health product you can make a health claim. It has to be substantiated by evidence, and you can make health claims for certain foods. Again, it has to be substantiated by evidence.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

So when flax was included in some cereals that are sold to the consumer in the United States, thanks to their research, they are able to say that it can have a good effect on such and such a thing. But in Canada the same cereal cannot be sold. Why not?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

The same cereal could probably be sold--

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Not under the same claim....