Industry Committee on June 3rd, 2008

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am very pleased to see you here today.

Mr. Carey, you make the following statement in your brief:

The Science Plan identifies three strategic directions which will guide our efforts over the coming ten years: 1. Developing an integrated environmental monitoring and prediction capability; 2. Understanding cumulative risks; and, 3. Managing risks, optimizing opportunities and building resilience.

These strategic directions are broad enough to allow us to examine certain issues, but when, on a weekly basis, we see tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados and the like occurring all over the world, one has the sense that human beings need to work very hard. It is often said that these are “acts of God”. However, these risks are very real.

Are we equipped to deal with them?

I want to connect that back to what you said at the outset, which was that two thirds of your employees are involved in related activities, as opposed to research. Is that the proper balance? Is it enough? Both your plan and your strategic direction require a great deal of research. Did you say that to advise us that your Department does not have enough researchers?

[John Carey]

Thank you for your question, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Because of the way we've structured the management of our science--and it's very complex--in our department, as I mentioned, we have priority management boards that actually decide on the science projects themselves each year. We have found that while that is a very effective way of focusing our efforts on departmental priorities, it's not a very effective way of managing the people and the long-term capacity of the science within the department.

So we have a science branch that manages the people and we have results management boards that manage the results. Within the science branch that manages the people, we try to analyze. You are correct that these are broad areas, but the science plan indicates that we need to maintain and grow our capacity to do and to function in these broad areas.

So the science plan is meant to guide. I'm sorry I didn't bring it. I should have brought it and tabled it for the committee. It has a section on our priorities, and it talks about the priorities of the boards. It also has a section on how we manage our science, and how we will ensure we have the capacity in the future to meet the needs of the boards, which is done as a separate exercise through this science plan.

That's what I was trying to say with that last section. I had only very brief comments, and it's hard to actually get into details. Managing the science community as a community to ensure that you have the capacity, infrastructure, etc., to be able to carry out the job is quite different from managing for results in the short term. So we found that we had to separate them. The plan is meant to guide one and the results boards are meant to guide the other.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Your statement raised a question, Mr. Carey. There are related activities. You talked about weather forecasting, among other things.

Is there any funding coming from organizations or industries that benefit from your services? One assumes that the media, for example, benefit from your weather forecasting services.

[John Carey]

Thank you.

In answer to your question, yes. For example, a very large contribution comes from Nav Canada, who are users of the weather. We provide aviation weather forecasts to them, and they provide forecasts to the various airlines who wish to fly, suggesting routes and other things. Nav Canada is a separate agency that was split off from the federal government. We provide aviation forecasts to them under a long-term contract. They pay for it. We have various other sources for resources, but they're nowhere near as big as the Nav Canada resource.

Our main client for our science is internal. Our clients for services, of course, can be broad.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Munro, you have piqued my curiosity. I am from Mauricie, which is a forestry area. We are obviously experiencing major job losses. You talked about innovation in forestry research.

Could you tell me a little more about that, possibly giving me some hope, and say where all of this may be leading?

[Geoff Munro]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to that.

The forest sector in the country has gone through a fairly dramatic struggle in the last five to seven years, driven by a number of different components, not the least of which are the issues--north and south--with softwood lumber and the change in the Canadian dollar. A number of components have had an impact.

What has happened is that the industry, working closely with both the provinces and the federal government, have gotten together and they've put together an organization that looks at the research and science and technology needed to transform the industry, right from the forest through to the production end--pulp and paper, solid wood products, innovative new products, bioenergy potentially, and other things.

We found, when we examined the situation, that we were quite fragmented. One organization was dealing only with pulp and paper. It was not looking at what the characteristics of the trees were in terms of what the company was trying to produce--high-quality paper, lightweight paper, coated paper, or whatever. And it was the same thing in all of the other components.

So the industry collectively, working with its funders--the private sector, the provinces, and the federal government--demolished the structure of the separate institutes and built this one. It is now the world's largest public-private partnership on R and D in forestry. Actual federal government employees are part of the institute. They act as a division within the institute.

What we have now is a partnership, working from the forest all the way through to production, that is looking at ways to make it more efficient, looking at alternative uses of the fibre, and looking at what that will mean in the near term and in the long term as the industry goes through its cycles in its revitalization.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Stanton, please.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses today.

We've learned, of course, that in the realm of science and technology, the internal or the intramural part of S and T within government tags at about $2.2 billion. It's a pretty major investment on the part of the government. Our study is looking at how our investments in S and T can help enable the economy and advance knowledge, obviously, and other things.

I have a few questions. First, when you're conducting research and a discovery is found--you come across science that might potentially have an ability for commercial products, with some being inadvertent--is there a protocol in place that would allow the exploration of that discovery for economic purposes? Second, can you think of any examples of how, in a practical sense, that might have happened through one of our federal labs? And finally, what recommendations would you have to consider how those types of discoveries might be furthered along the path of developments that would create some economic advantage?

Perhaps we could start with Dr. Saindon and then go to anyone else who wishes to comment.

[Gilles Saindon]

Thank you for the question.

For us in agriculture, they mostly come in the form of crop varieties. Basically, those are the discovery innovations we come up with. When we do plant breeding, we come up with new varieties that are being used out there by producers. As a result, right now we have about three quarters of the acreage of wheat in western Canada seeded with AAFC varieties. That has a tremendous impact. Every time we increase the yield by 1% or so, there's something in the neighbourhood of $30 billion to $40 billion in returns to the producers, roughly.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Is there a protocol to move this along to the...? You said in collaboration with others you could move this along.

[Gilles Saindon]

Yes, we do have it both ways. In some cases, it's issued publicly to.... The industry would like to commercialize the variety for us. In other cases, we have research arrangements with industry. They come very early on, in some areas, and invest in the research, and they may have first right of refusal to the varieties.

The way to improve this, maybe in the future.... What we always try to do is look at it from the angle of the output trades, like with the value-added. We may just add to the variety so that it could be used in a particular way and would provide an economic advantage to our producers. So that would be the way.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Carey.

[John Carey]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to point out to the committee that it's one thing for a department that's meant to be supporting a sector. The response would be more direct. For a department that's basically a regulatory department, the answer to your question poses some potential problems.

I think of a research program we had, for example, with respect to cleanup of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes. We developed new methods of cleaning up. That has been licensed now to a global company in Calgary, which has done the Boston harbour, the Hong Kong harbour, etc. Ironically, they haven't done the Great Lakes. But we always worry that if that company were to show up and want to do a major project in Canada, it would face an environmental assessment that our minister would end up having a role in, and technologies we developed could somehow be part of that. It puts the minister in a kind of a semi-awkward situation.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

So what should happen there then? That's what I was getting at. What are the protocols that should be followed?

[John Carey]

In fact, we follow protocols to license, but we try very hard not to get into the active promotion. It puts the minister in an awkward situation if she has to judge a project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, or in the case of a chemical that may be regulated under CEPA, if we have developed applications for that. We try to ensure that private sector folks who may be interested in taking advantage of or capturing the opportunity are aware of it, without being active promoters of it. It could put the minister in an awkward situation.

So for regulatory departments, that's an important question.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Any others? I have only one minute left, so....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Dodds.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

We're also primarily a regulatory department, when you're looking at our science and technology, so we have some of the same issues Environment Canada has.

But we certainly do look at, and have come up with, patents and intellectual property on many methods or parts of methods that help you in terms of things like detecting different substances in the environment or in food or in water that could pose harm. We have an intellectual property office. So anything that has the possibility of being patented or being intellectual property is looked at within the department. And we take the same strategy Dr. Carey talked about with licensing.

[René LaRose]

For defence, we have a slightly different reality, defence being a market on its own. But I would call it an insufficient market. So for us, the approach is more about the co-development concept we are using, where we are co-investing with commercial partners. We are looking at the applicability of this technology to the defence and security environment, while our commercial partners are looking at the broader market, where they will be able to explore the technology on their own. Our concept is based on being able to leverage, so our industry can win other markets, either international defence or the commercial market, with our technologies.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Stanton.

We'll go to Ms. Nash, please.

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

Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing here today and for your presentations. I appreciate how difficult it is to give an overview of what you're doing in such a brief timeframe.

I'd like to ask my first question to Ms. Gonçalves, but perhaps others may want to add as well. It's a general question.

Are we doing enough as a country to invest in the scientific expertise that we need in all of your departments? I appreciate that you have significant budgets and that you already have significant scientific expertise. Are we positioning ourselves as a country to attract and retain the scientists we will need for the future?

I'm thinking, Ms. Gonçalves, of the point in your notes that 75% of DFO is composed of scientists and 30% are eligible to retire by 2013. That doesn't mean that 30% will retire. I assume working for DFO is a desirable job for a scientist, very interesting and challenging, and that people will want to stay longer.

But what are you expecting in terms of turnover, in terms of retirement of scientists? I see there is an HR strategy. Do you feel there will be a shortfall, or do you feel this transition is being managed effectively?

[Jacqueline Gonçalves]

Given the nature of scientific work, what we often find is that people in scientific types of jobs often stay longer in their jobs than, say, other public servants would naturally do.

Obviously we've been recognizing that this demographic crunch has been coming up on us for a number of years. So we developed our HR strategy in light of that. In terms of ensuring that we have the right people with the right competencies to carry on our mandate, what we've tended to focus on is not only work within the department, but also with our colleagues in the S and T community.

Essentially, what we've tried to do is, first of all, identify the competencies that we're going to need in the coming years in specific areas that we would call at risk, the very specialized knowledge that takes a long time to grow and foster. So the actions or the strategies we've put in place are trying to transfer some of the knowledge we are expecting will be walking out the door in the next little while, to ensure that the new generation of scientists have an opportunity to really gain from that expertise.

For example, one of the things we've instituted in the last couple of years is something we're calling knowledge transfer agreements. So a retiring scientist who's been identified as somebody who's going to be leaving in the next few years is essentially being partnered with an incoming scientist, somebody who's new in the area, and they have the opportunity to work together so that the knowledge is being transferred from one generation to the other.

We also have a very healthy scientist emeritus program. What that means is that scientists who are retiring are not leaving the organization; they're actually staying, being part of the organization, so that they can, in some instances, continue the work they've been doing or can mentor the new generation coming up behind them.

So I think we are taking steps to really ensure that we have the right qualifications, that people are coming in, and that we're doing the best we can to actually attract people from all over the globe, really, to come and work at Fisheries and Oceans.

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

Would any other of you like to comment on that in terms of the demographic change that's taking place?

[Geoff Munro]

I would start by saying ditto to what my colleague from DFO has said, and I suspect that's true across most of the witnesses here today.

But the one other thing I would like to note is that as we develop a more collaborative innovation system in Canada, the movement of scientists between the academic world and our world, either in an employment environment or in a collaborative environment, working on a common objective, will help us in two ways. One, obviously, is on the work, in that you get the different perspectives with the university world, potentially the industrial world, and certainly with government as that innovation system matures.

But the other key opportunity for us is this. By working closely with universities on the work, we expose graduate students and post-doctoral fellows to the opportunity to become employed in the government's science agenda. Just making them aware of the interesting careers, the opportunities that are there, has already had an impact for, I suspect, all of us.