Industry Committee on Dec. 7th, 2011

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Regan, go ahead for seven minutes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had the pleasure of visiting the Perimeter Institute a few years ago. It's a very impressive place, although I must say my impression was that my visit somehow didn't have quite the same impact as Stephen Hawking's. I don't understand that.

[An hon. member]

Pretty close.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Pretty close, you say? I don't believe you, but anyway....

I think it's a fabulous institution and I'm delighted that it has received the support it has, both private and government.

I think it's disappointing, though, that an institution as good as it is has been exploited by the two other parties with me today. Today it's being brought up here in a very partisan way. I think that's unfortunate. If we consider the high level of work done by the people at that institute, I think we'll have to seek for it to inspire us, to ensure that the work we do—I'm not saying it's going to be at that level—is as good as it can be and that we make sure the work we are doing as a committee has value and worth.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Now, is it worthwhile to understand something about the Perimeter Institute? As individuals, yes. Is it the right thing for us to be studying as a committee, when it appears to be here only for the chance to further the debate what happened in the House? I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.

For example, are we advancing the knowledge of most Canadians about the Perimeter Institute by being here and holding this meeting? Well, by the interest from the media, as I see it, there's no indication that it's the case we're advancing that. Are we advancing the cause of accountability of government? We weren't able to have a minister here on the estimates, for example, and yet we have a minister here carrying on a debate from question period that ought to have been left behind, frankly, left to the House, as a question of honour or whatever you want to call it—leave it to the House.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I support the institution and I'm prepared to leave the rest of my time to my opposition colleagues to use as they see fit. I just don't see the point in carrying on with this kind of conversation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Is there unanimous consent that his....? Okay.

Then it's the NDP for the next four minutes and 40 seconds.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Last week, a new competition was launched for 10 Canada Excellence Research Chairs, for which the government will commit $53 million. The following was said:

Chairholders will be selected through a highly competitive and rigorous two-stage process. [...] An independent selection board recommends the appointment of chairholders to the program steering committee, based on the highest standards of research excellence.

I have one question. Once again, I want to stress the fact that I am not at all questioning the Perimeter Institute's good work, in support of which there is ample evidence. My government colleagues have also shown as much. I am very eager to visit this institute of excellence, which I feel must be a very exciting place.

However, I am wondering what criteria contributed to the fact that, in 2007, a decision was made to grant the institute $50 million over 5 years. Was there, for instance, an invitation to tender or a competition for that funding? If so, what criteria were used?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

The Perimeter Institute had a number of mandates. One was to attract the brightest minds in the world. It was doing that. One was to train the next generation of the brightest minds. It is doing and was doing that. One was, of course, based on an independent audit of the institute itself, which was very favourable and showed not only that they operated and managed their money well, but that they were attracting and building their capacity at a greater rate than was anticipated....

The same type of study was done again by KPMG in June, I think—just a few months ago. The government always has to look for areas where basic research can build the future economy. Physics has been well known the world over to be one of those areas. Whether it ends up as a new generation of computer, or in information communications technologies, or as better imaging facilities for our medical personnel, or in surgical simulators and in better transmitting different things, this will always be an economic area that almost every country on the planet wants to go into.

Whether we should go into it is actually—if I can use the phrase—a no-brainer. Supporting the Perimeter Institute would be based on the criteria and their ability to have achieved their historical mandate, which was in fact set forward quite well by the previous government. They met all of those criteria, and that's exactly why they would have received the $50 million.

You mentioned the Canada research chairs earlier, which has, I should point out, for the most part, an entirely different program from the Perimeter Institute's. It does in fact—of course I wasn't prepared to talk about that, but I will—have a two-part process. The first selection is actually based on the institution. The universities have an opportunity right now to put forward that, first of all, they are the best people to do this particular type of research, and they state all the reasons for that. An independent peer review panel of expert scientific folks will decide which universities might get a chair position. Once that selection is done, the actual universities that win a spot then have to prove that the researcher they want for that particular research is in fact the best researcher on the planet to do that research.

If the researchers' peers believe that to be the case—it's not the government and it is completely independent—then in fact there is a Canada excellence research chairs grant available. It's $10 million for the researcher and his or her team over seven years.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you for clarifying.

I would like to know whether the government plans to provide similar funding to other institutes and, if so, which ones.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Are you talking about other institutes like the Perimeter?

Of course. There is the Institute for Quantum Computing. There is TRIUMF out in British Columbia. There is NEPTUNE, VENUS and SNOLAB.

There are a number of institutes that are pure basic science research institutes and that are frankly a little bit too large for the private sector to entirely take on themselves. Of course, we partner with other countries around the world for a number of other scientific research projects for which the research is even a little too large for one country.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Minister, that was quite a bit over, but I wanted you to be able to articulate your answer.

We're in the second round, by the way.

Mr. Lake, go ahead for five minutes.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to address comments that have been made by a few folks today.

Ultimately, when clearly inaccurate statements are made...first of all, we can avoid these types of discussions by simply not having members make inaccurate statements in the House. Secondly, when a member does make one, as the NDP member did, they can simply apologize. We see that happen in the House of Commons on a regular basis. We see apologies made. We saw an apology made today, I think, in the House of Commons—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Caron, on a point of order.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

The motion we voted on last week on this specifically said:

That, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology undertake a study of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and examine:

- the positive effects the Institute has on the greater Kitchener/Waterloo region;

- the positive effects the Institute has on the science, technology and advanced research in Canada and the world....

I would submit that the point being brought forth is actually outside the scope of what we are studying right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

Because we're talking about the Perimeter Institute, it is germane—although it is debatable—to our point. It's not a point of procedure. I understand that you may think it's positive or negative, but it certainly isn't so far outside that I would need to make a ruling on that.

We'll start the clock again.

Please proceed, Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'll just finish my point on that by saying this: we can avoid this type of situation in the future if members take the time to do better research before they ask questions and then correct the record when they make mistakes. As a government, on our side, this is a tool that we have at our disposal—when we're in a situation like this—to actually correct the record. There is this inaccurate information put forward time and time again in question period. It's put forward in a news release and left up on the website, and at some point that record has to be corrected, and that's what has happened today.

I'm going to move off that now, though, and get on to a question actually about the institute.

I imagine for all of us, when we're meeting with constituents, especially in this era where getting the budget back to balance is a priority for many Canadians, they might look at $50 million and say it is a lot of money to be spending.

If you were sitting at a round table with my constituents and that question came up, what would you say to them about the benefit that the average Canadian taxpayer gets—not a Canadian researcher or someone actually at the Perimeter Institute, but the average Canadian taxpayer. What benefit do they get out of this expenditure?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

The immediate benefit that we can speak to is actually the training of the students who are currently in college. No one would argue about the money we spend on post-secondary education. I will say that Canada is number one in the G-7 in terms of our expenditures on higher education as a percentage of our GDP. That is a fantastic story.

Why do we do that? It is because we know that in the future that level of expertise and that level of skill by citizens will ensure them a good-quality job and ultimately a good quality of life. So we train students right now at the Perimeter Institute, but it really is the future benefits that will come from the discoveries and the innovation that these scientists discuss every single day—game-changing, transformative technologies—that will in fact create, as has always been the case over the history of Canada, those jobs of the future.

As we do, and we should be primarily concerned with our economy now and jobs now, it is imperative that a government maintain for its people some focus on the economy of the future and the jobs that come with that economy. And that is something I take very seriously in this role in support of institutes like the Perimeter.

Of course, I don't want to go back to it either, but I will tell you that I'm very passionate about the reputation that Canada has currently in the science and technology community around the world. It's exactly why scientists are coming here from the United Kingdom, from the United States, from Germany, from France, and from Australia. It is because we have an incredible reputation right now, and when we make mention and don't correct the record, it throws a black spot on that reputation. Therein lies my passion about the issue.

The fact that it's still on the website today concerns me greatly that it wasn't a mistake, that there is intention behind this, and I will battle and fight for the scientists and researchers of this country because they are the best in the world. They do the best work in the world, and they do it for us.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I just have one quick follow-up to that question.

The science and technology strategy that we came out with in 2007.... Maybe speak to what we've learned from our experience that's very positively regarded, such as what we've done with the Perimeter Institute. Maybe speak to what we've learned from that in regard to our science and technology strategy moving forward.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Our science and technology strategy—and I'll be as brief as I can be—is multi-faceted and it was planned over a number of years. Just quite briefly, we had a stimulus plan that actually rebuilt our research capacity at universities and colleges all across the country. We invested in equipment for those buildings. And through programs like the Banting fellowships, the Vanier scholarships, the Canada excellence research chairs, and others, we are attracting, keeping, and training the best minds to use that equipment in those buildings, and they are, in fact, producing some of the best inventions and innovations in both products and processes. That's where our future economy is going to come from.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Caron, you have five minutes.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

Well, if that's the game the government wants to play on this, I'll play, no problem.

It has been clear that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was never impeding the good work of the Perimeter Institute, and neither is the NDP. That has to be very clear. If you look at Hansard and his interventions in the House, you see that he says he's talking about the Perimeter Institute, “which is an excellent institute, by the way,” and he follows up with another question that mentions it does “excellent work and we salute them”. He says, “Personally, I love the study of particles and...the superstring theory”. That I actually like as well and actually study on a personal basis the theory of relativity and advanced physics.

So there's no question for the NDP that the Perimeter Institute is a good institute that does good work. What the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was trying to say is that according to the parliamentary budget director, there are some accounting issues with the way the government is presenting the numbers. Those numbers have been tabled and hopefully will be shown. I will be more than happy to table as well the copies of Hansard—obviously in both languages—on this.

So on this matter, I think it's wrong to say that the NDP is impinging on or giving a bad name to the Perimeter Institute, because we acknowledge the good work the institute does. We know of the work it does and we certainly hope it will survive, live on, and do great work in the future.

What has been raised by the NDP in the House and here as well is accounting practices. We're not going to say that those practices are wrong, but if you're looking through the database of the parliamentary budget director, it shows that there are discrepancies in the accounting methods that are used. This is the point that has been raised. This is the point I would be raising. This is the point that people continue to raise. This is why we're not removing the press release: because the press release is accurate in the sense that the accounting methods used, as noted by the parliamentary budget director, seem to have some problems.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Well, again, I will just comment that I'm very discouraged by that answer. You obviously don't go to a brain surgeon to have your brakes repaired: the authority on the accounting is the public accounts document. Everybody knows that. You have taken a secondary source of information. I've pointed out very clearly to you that you are using incorrect research. This document has the facts. This is the source of accurate information.

That's all I can do. I'm concerned that you are not accepting the facts and are choosing to continue to use incorrect information. I'm pointing it out yet another time. I would simply encourage you to apologize to the Perimeter, to apologize to the Comptroller General, and to remove the website—and it's a done deal. If you're sincere about putting forward the truth, the truth is the facts; there is no other authority higher than this one, and I don't see how you can choose to accept the other authorities.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Well, I would submit that there's no apology needed on our side, especially since we never insulted the Perimeter Institute in any way. I would actually challenge you to find a place where we actually have impinged upon the reputation of the Perimeter Institute, knowing that at every step of the way we actually praised the work they did and that we actually specified...and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie actually specified in his remarks that he knows the institute hasn't received that money we are talking about and hasn't spent it.

So in any case, the remarks that were done were never directed at the Perimeter Institute. It just happened to be on their budget line—