Industry Committee on June 12th, 2008

[Dr. Art McDonald]

Perhaps I could add one further thing. Canada is actually, in general, the envy of other countries in terms of the way in which it is able to do research and development. Things such as CFI, the Canada research chairs, and the indirect funding and so on that have been put in place over recent years have given Canada the opportunity to move forward significantly. We're able to attract the best people to come and do things, and we're able to do very good things across the broad range from basic science to applied technology, with the exception of what Martin identified, and that is a clear picture of how to deal with the operating support for things that are funded as capital investments.

Also, when you get to the point where you're dealing with the large-scale facilities--which are the things that you should be doing as a certain percentage of the total, because they enable you to do those things that can be done only on a large scale, and very often those are cutting-edge things--when that's a fraction of your budget, you then have different demands in terms of being able to operate such things.

So an overall policy for big science facilities is needed to deal with all of the spectrum that Martin Taylor outlined, and the one we're particularly concerned about right now in our case is that missing operating part.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just very briefly, Mr. Nelson.

[Guy Nelson]

I'd just say that in the case of astronomy the issue is more on the capital side. We're working right now in collaboration with other countries on two major projects that are in the order of magnitude of $1 billion each--of which we're a percentage. And that is to build the facility. It sounds like we may in fact have problems with the operation as well, but we're approaching it to solve both problems.

So the issue is that we don't have a place to go for that capital funding to actually build the facility, which we've unfortunately been the ones to have designed. The Canadians have been instrumental in designing the facility, and we own 25% of the design portion. But it's now coming up time to build it, and we don't have that money.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Merci, madame Brunelle.

Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming.

The funding is always a problem, isn't it?

The first question I want to ask is at what point the government begins to interfere with pure science and with what government generally looks for, which is a return. What's the breaking point? Can you give me any indication of where you think we need a certain amount of discretion on your part as to what should be spent?

[Dr. Martin Taylor]

Let's start with the federal S and T strategy, because I think what the current government has done—and clearly it builds on the previous government's initiatives through the innovation strategy—is establish some areas in which this country wants to position itself internationally as amongst the leaders, if not the leader. These are broad areas, admittedly, but nevertheless I think they give some direction, because when we talk about these major facilities, we have to make choices. And I think now we're distinguishing between major facilities or major programs like the astronomy program, which obviously have major capital and operating investments associated with them. We can't possibly think about covering every area and think that we can succeed and afford to succeed as a country in that international arena. It's highly competitive. International collaboration is now the name of the game.

In the case of oceans, we have enviably now taken a lead position in having NEPTUNE Canada as the world's first regional cabled observatory. Nobody else has one. I've been in Japan, I've been in Europe, and I've been in the U.S., even in the last few weeks in each case, speaking about NEPTUNE Canada and its sister observatory, VENUS, and everybody is envious because we've taken that position. And people understand why Canada has taken that position: we've built a scientific cadre of expertise, and we are bordered by three oceans. With the Arctic obviously now opening up in the way it is, it's of profound consequence to our understanding.

So here's a basis on which, then, I think the federal government rightly has a role, which is to work with the scientific capacity in the country and identify those areas in which we have comparative and competitive advantage and say that these are the areas in which we want to make these big investments and create these national facilities. But having made that decision, as we have done, either in part with the astronomy investments or in whole with SNOLAB and NEPTUNE, we have to follow through.

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

Do we punch above our weight? If we look at our population, I think we have 0.5% of the world's population, but I understand that as far as wealth is concerned, we represent a much larger portion. Do we try to take on too much as a country? Could there be a collaboration? Or do you think we should say these are the areas that we want to be good at, these are the things we want to do? Or have we gone beyond that? Do we need to take a second look and say we have to just back off on this?

[Dr. Martin Taylor]

Let me just say a few things here that I think are vital.

One is about those investments that have already been made, and those that we may yet want to make. We're here representing investments that have already been made. These are the consequences of investments in our scientists, in our students, in our technical staff over many years. It's not by accident that we have $100 million to build NEPTUNE. It's not by accident that SNOLAB has been built. It's not by accident that we have a long-range plan for astronomy and the observatories that are associated with that. These are results of strategic investments over many years.

I think your question is a very good one in terms of where we go from here, in terms of what other facilities we would contemplate bringing on stream. And that's a very real and important question, because I agree with you entirely that we cannot afford to try to be all things to all people. It would be ludicrous, both economically and otherwise. But for the facilities in which we already have the international leadership, let's back it up and make sure we fulfill them in a way we can be proud of.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Van Kesteren, we'll go to Mr. McDonald very briefly, and then we'll have to go to the House.

Mr. McDonald.

[Dr. Art McDonald]

We think we punch above our weight in a number of these areas when, for instance, you get, in our case, one of the top two scientific discoveries in the world and, for six months of 2003, the most citations by other scientists in the whole field of physics for our results. That's significant on the world scene.

When you asked about how one should make decisions, one of the things that one wants to keep in mind is balance. We want to have return on investment in this case, but you have to also have the opportunity to let creativity happen. There's a reason Albert Einstein was chosen by Time magazine as the man of the 20th century. It's not because he ever built a laser or because he ever built a computer. But the things he did were absolutely essential in terms of people's perception of how to do science in the applied way.

So you need a balance of basic science—and you really want to select the best when you're doing it, and we think our peer review system does an excellent job of that—and strategic programs, but not all of one and not all of the other.

Right now, I think we have a reasonable balance. We're pointing out to you one area that is certainly out of balance, which is operating support for basic science. There is a tendency to move that directly towards the programs that we see in place or ones that are aimed more at applied. That balance is something you want to maintain, and if you do, you'll have the ability to have return on investment not only five years from now but fifty years from now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

First of all, I want to apologize profusely to the witnesses. The two votes were unexpected, but they have happened.

I'm going to recommend something to the committee, but I need the consent of the committee to do this. We have a second panel here on tourism. There is the option of moving that panel to Tuesday. I know that's not something they would want to do, but we could move that to Tuesday between 11 and 1 o'clock. I think we can give them the full two hours for tourism on Tuesday.

If the witnesses can stay until two, we'll come back after the vote and continue with this discussion.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

It's a good idea, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

We'll suspend for now. We'll return in about 20 to 25 minutes and continue with this discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Let's call the meeting to order again. I want to thank especially the witnesses, with the interruption of the vote, for staying with us until 2 p.m. today.

Again, formally on the record, I do want to apologize to the witnesses on the second panel, but they will be with us on Tuesday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., during our regular committee hours.

I will resume with the list. We had finished with Mr. Van Kesteren, and we will now go to Mr. Telegdi.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much.

I come from Waterloo, so I really have an ingrained appreciation for R and D and what it means.

Given the distractions in the United States right now, we really have an opportunity to assemble a critical mass of scientists and researchers to look at Canada. In the example of my community, the Perimeter Institute and the Institute for Quantum Computing really have started to get this critical mass of the best and the brightest in the world coming into those disciplines. I think it's important that we recognize it, because it's an opportunity. Once you have a new administration in the United States they will be distracted for a couple of years, but they'll be on it.

One of the things I was somewhat disturbed by was that at the point in time we had Dr. Arthur Carty as the science adviser to the Prime Minister, it really gave an opportunity to get the whole issue of science right in the centre of government. I think that's incredibly critical.

So I wonder if you could comment on those two points: the critical mass, and having someone right in the centre of government as far as science goes and what Canada can do.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll start with Mr. Sinervo.

[Dr. Pekka Sinervo]

On the two points you make around the critical mass and having good science advice on overall national science policy, those are two critical features that have to be appreciated and understood.

I agree completely with the issue around critical mass. In the context of the astronomy long-range plan, that was one of the key overriding principles. The community had to choose where in fact it was excellent, and then focus its resources to maintain that degree of excellence, not spread those resources but actually take advantage of the strength that had already been created within the community, and the excellence, and then build on that. That has meant that Canada is not participating in all of the international astronomy projects. We're participating in approximately 10% of those projects that we could in principle be involved in, because of the need to have critical mass in key areas in order to actually have impact.

As a principle, I agree completely, and the astronomy plan reflects that.

On the issue of how the federal government is able to most effectively get scientific advice, I think the current government has taken a view that a science adviser was not the best instrument, but that perhaps a committee or an advisory panel would actually be an equivalent or better instrument. Without commenting on which one actually is going to be a better mechanism all around, it is fair to say that Canada has not had the sort of voice at a very senior political level giving the informed scientific advice that will help to lead the country forward. From the point of view of the academic community, which I come from, that is certainly seen as a significant weakness in how we can plan and make priorities going forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Taylor.

[Dr. Martin Taylor]

I would echo the comments that Dr. Sinervo just made about the independent advice to government on science and the importance of that being sustained in relation to what happens in other jurisdictions. I have nothing much to add there.

What I do want to talk about a little is the critical mass and the opportunity we have. The good news is that if you look at the Canada research chairs program, you'll see that 30% of those Canada research chairs are filled by people who have either come back to Canada or have come to Canada for the first time. So the investment that has occurred in that particular program has brought dividends to us, and each of the areas that we represent has benefited directly from it. That's been superb. But again, it reinforces the shortness of the window of opportunity. These are the best people in the world, otherwise they wouldn't have been appointed as Canada research chairs, and because they're the best people in the world they can be competed for and recruited elsewhere. So if they're coming into ocean science or astronomy or areas of physics, the three areas that we represent, it's absolutely critical that they have access to the facilities that attracted them here in the first place and that those facilities are not allowed to diminish.

The second comment I would make is in terms of the U.S., because that has particular consequence, I think, for each of us. It has special consequence for NEPTUNE. NEPTUNE Canada was established as an international facility with the U.S., and that still is the full plan. Because the U.S. funding has been delayed due to the circumstances there, it's given us an opportunity in the short run to have Canadian leadership be even stronger than it would have been, increasing its attractiveness to that research community, which again just reinforces the point.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm sorry, we're well over time.

Mr. McDonald, did you want to make a brief comment here?

[Dr. Art McDonald]

I think critical mass in our area is being met very well by a combination of things. The Perimeter Institute is one example. That's the theoretical side of the experiment that we're doing. Also, the CIFAR program in cosmology and gravity is doing similar things. The Canadian Institute for Advanced Research has a program that is bringing excellent Canadians together to work in this area. The advances that have been made in the area, together with the astronomy community, are tremendous. Canada really is regarded as a powerhouse in these areas.

I'll make one more comment on the science adviser. It's worth looking at what happened in the United States during George Bush Sr.'s administration, during which, as it happens, a Canadian, Allan Bromley, was a science adviser sitting in the White House, with a very powerful committee working with him that included people such as David Packard from the Hewlett-Packard foundation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McDonald, I'm sorry, we're two minutes over Mr. Telegdi's time.

We'll go to Mr. Stanton, please.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. I appreciate your patience here this afternoon while we've had some unfortunate interruptions.

Many of the topics that have been raised today were about the--as you framed it--inadequacies around operational costs, the fact that the initial capital investments go in, but there are insufficient dollars to keep that part of the operation alive and well and continuing, and the uncertainty, I suppose, as to how you're going to.... What current sources of revenue do you tap into to help sustain those operational expenses now?

Between the three, if I could get a quick answer to that, I'd still like to go back and put another question, if I could.

[Dr. Martin Taylor]

For the NEPTUNE, we have two years of short-run funding that comes from a combination of NSERC, CFI, and the province, but in each case they've indicated that this is one-time funding.

[Dr. Pekka Sinervo]

In the case of astronomy, the National Research Council has some funding from it's A-base to support the observatories that are currently committed to. There is some short-term funding that is not A-base but is one-time only that has been allocated over the years; it isn't committed for the long term.