Industry Committee on June 16th, 2015

[Robert Annan]

Yes, thanks for the question. It's a big question and it's one that we spend a lot of time thinking about and talking about.

I think the challenge is to try to reflect the reality. In science labs across the country people don't think about their research, necessarily, as applied and basic. The research is much more organic than that.

I did my Ph.D. at McGill in biochemistry, and we were working on mechanisms of protein folding inside of cells—how do proteins fold?—and there is a lot of mystery. Proteins have to fold and they do and we don't really know how. We developed certain tests to try different explanations and so on, and those tests ended up being really useful to screen for drugs for cystic fibrosis, which is a folding disease. So the tests we developed for basic science we started using to screen drugs, and we had an agreement with a major drug company to screen rapidly lots and lots of drugs to treat cystic fibrosis. Every time we'd get a hit from the drug screen we would then take it back to the basic side and ask, “What was the target? Does this explain why things are happening the way they do?” It was back and forth, and very fluid.

This has always been the way with science. It doesn't compartmentalize easily into these different areas.

Unfortunately it's tough to create mechanisms to reflect that kind of fluid reality. So we've been working with other research organizations like NSERC and SSHRC, the tri-council, and these other government-funded agencies, to try to find ways to integrate efforts to reflect that. Unfortunately I think we still have a lot of funding silos that say this should either be basic research or it should be applied research.

I think the more government can do to try to encourage either integration of effort and support, or to break down some of these silos and fund research, and encourage research to move in whatever direction is necessary to take us forward, that's really a positive step toward supporting innovation and getting away from this false dichotomy of it being either basic or applied.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

That's great. Thank you.

Are there any final thoughts on that point?

[Dr. Jean-Marie De Koninck]

I know you mentioned that the federal government is not involved in education or in research, but innovation is in a sense closer to research, so if there—

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I meant primary education, K to 12.

[Dr. Jean-Marie De Koninck]

Yes, but anyway, if it's possible to incorporate and support innovation at the lower level at school then it would be great. We would all be happy.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

That's a good point. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll move on to Madam Gallant for nine minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Dr. Walker, you mentioned in your remarks about indicators you and your team had seen that government could not commoditize it or the people in the research lab were not able to commoditize it. Google and another company put it all together.

What can government do to help commoditize or create an environment that would be conducive to disruptive technologies when these indicators appear?

[Dr. Robert Walker]

Ms. Gallant, if I had an answer to that, I'd probably be a rich man.

Let me say that among the issues that are out there, I believe one is that the tendency is for government to be engaged in a discussion of funding science, but there's another discussion around government being a customer of science. I think governments tend to be patient investors when they look at being a customer of science, which creates a platform where people have the opportunity to explore the what-if world of what might be around the corner, and with that to get those ideas socialized. If, in being a customer of science, the government also creates the opportunities for industry to look inside that science and to see what's emerging, industry will commoditize.

I think we're talking about new ways of connecting government science, not done inside government but where government's a customer, with industry that has the ideas to turn those emerging concepts into a bright idea that can enter the marketplace. It is the private sector that's far better to commoditize, but it needs to see the potential early on.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Okay. Then let's talk about government being a customer of science.

You had mentioned September 11 and the anthrax attack, but in addition to kinetic and chemical threats, we also have radioactive threats, situations that are not meant for peaceful use. In what way has CNL contributed to tracking and detecting radioactive material for the purpose of keeping our country and its citizens safe and secure?

[Dr. Robert Walker]

Thank you for that question here.

This plays a bit to the theme I've tried to pull on. Disruptive technologies have, ideally, very positive effects on societies. Much of what we try to do, governments with industry, is to maximize proactively the potential for that constructive benefit. It's also the case that technologies can have a downside that has public safety and security consequences. How is it that we're able to get the early indicators of what the downside could be and engage, as opposed to reactively, rather proactively, how we can better address that issue? I would suggest that Dr. Gupta's comments around the Internet of things highlighted a number of the areas where we know there are likely to be security implications emerging. How can science be simultaneously helping us understand the upside and the downside, and address them both at the same time?

At CNL, for example, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, we're heavily engaged with the security apparatus of government to help understand, for example, the illicit tracking of nuclear materials around the world, to make early detections of that material, for example in containers, and then to be able to provide a fingerprinting of that material to trace it back to source of origin, which allows the security community to intervene and deal with the criminal aspects of that particular activity. These are all technologies, of course, that were spun out of the civil application of nuclear technology for nuclear energy, the upside of it. But at the same time as being conscious of the negative side, and helping the security apparatus of government be ready for that, we're helping that technology be a net contributor to society.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Okay. We had Isowater as a witness earlier in this study. The witness spoke about the disruptive technology that his company is working on. While CNL is well-known for the role in the development of the supply of medical isotopes, the labs at Chalk River are involved in developing other technologies based on different isotopes.

Could you describe some other projects involving other types of isotopes at CNL that have the potential to become disruptive technologies or give rise to disruptive technologies?

[Dr. Robert Walker]

Thank you for that.

CNL knows hydrogen intimately. The origin of that, of course, is in our development of the CANDU reactor, which is based on the use of a particular isotope of hydrogen called deuterium in heavy water, which is used for moderating the reactors, the chain reactions in CANDU reactors. The consequence of this is that we understand all of the isotopes of hydrogen intimately. Hydrogen is a potential game-changer when it comes to the energy storage dynamic, the energy storage dilemma, that is facing the globe as we move forward to decarbonize global economies, potentially coupling tightly to the vulnerabilities of renewable technologies, which still have this issue of intermittency to deal with.

There are also breakthrough technologies in the use of tritium, radioactive tritium, for low-powered, very long-life batteries for remote applications. Energy storage, batteries, catalysts that allow the introduction of hydrogen in the hydrogen economy, are all spin-out technologies that have come out of our focus, first on nuclear energy, but through serendipity we are seeing the applications go into a broader set of spheres. That is the innovative process, and certainly CNL is quite engaged in that, oftentimes trying to find that sweet spot with start-up companies in Canada that want to take those ideas into the market.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

What do you see now that will help Canada remain competitive in the nuclear power field, and in nuclear science in general?

[Dr. Robert Walker]

There are two sides to that. Again, I come back to a comment made by one of my colleagues here that we have many start-ups in Canada. The challenge we have is turning companies into sizable companies. It's getting over that threshold of size and market access.

I also think at times we struggle with not having science capacity that's sufficiently robust. The idea of the national laboratory, which is being created at Chalk River, is one such entity. It has critical mass, large infrastructure, and opportunities of easy access by academics and innovators and entrepreneurs to come in and test ideas to prove their viability commercially, to answer questions of regulators, to couple with international capitalists, to be able to prove the concept, to get over prototyping stages, and oftentimes to introduce to larger companies around the world that are interested in accessing or acquiring that company and giving it the critical mass.

The idea of a national lab is something new to Canada, something of the scale of national labs that we see in other jurisdictions such as the U.S. It's going to be enormously interesting to watch how that dynamic plays out in Canada over the next decade.

I'd also highlight that, going forward, solving the problem of decarbonizing the global economy is something I think Canada is uniquely positioned for, given the strength we have, not only in nuclear technology but renewable energy. I believe we need every arrow in the quiver to solve these problems, and a combination of nuclear energy and renewables that build on their complementary strengths can be the answer. I believe CNL's well positioned to help move that forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Dr. Walker and Madam Gallant.

Now we move on to Ms. Sgro for nine minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My apologies to the chair and committee, but it was unavoidable. I'm sure my colleagues all understand how that happens, but I am glad to be here, and I offer my apologies to our witnesses. I knew you were in great hands with the rest of this committee and they ask all kinds of interesting questions.

Dr. Walker, can you elaborate a bit more on decarbonizing, because it's certainly an issue that we're all very concerned about?

[Dr. Robert Walker]

Thank you for that.

One of the attributes we often associate with disruptive technology is that it occurs quickly. All of a sudden it's there, it's visible, and we're now aware of it. Some of my remarks were to suggest that there's often a very long gestation for it. Our G-7 leaders have said we need to decarbonize global economies by 2100. That sounds like a long time away, but I would suggest that it's a very pragmatic and practical outlook for the time required to do this because there are so many profound changes to occur in infrastructure, in outlook, and in technologies before this can occur.

I again come back and believe that the solution to this requires using the phrase “many arrows in the quiver”. We need energy sources that are clean, safe, reliable, and affordable. A multitude of energy sources have strengths along those four attributes and some challenges. How do you find the pairing up of those sources to have that magic to make it viable at scale?

I, for one, believe that renewables and nuclear energy combined will be a big part of that answer, along with dramatic changes to grid technology. These require massive investments. They require big science and many companies aligned to make it happen. Canada is a relatively small country and is uniquely positioned with strengths in renewables and nuclear technology, and has the potential to be a world leader in this area.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

That's very encouraging. I hope everybody was listening as we go forward.

So 2100 is an awfully long time away, and what's interesting here is that you say it's a reasonable date to have. I guess it seems a very long time to those of us who are impatient, but hopefully progress will be made.

To our other witnesses, we've had a variety of people come before us from various universities and so on. What do we need to do as a country to ensure that our young people who have creative skills and want to be innovators.... Where do we need to be investing more? What roadblocks are in their way? I'd like to open it up for all the panellists to give us some idea of what else we need to be doing to provide opportunities for Canada to position our country better.

[Karna Gupta]

Thank you for the question.

I'll kick it off this way. I think it really needs to start at a very early stage at the school level. I recognize the difference in terms of the provincial versus federal jurisdiction issue on education. But that aside, I think a national strategy is needed in terms of making sure our kids are exposed to the right programs at an early stage so their learning capacities are for what's needed for tomorrow and so they are not faced with choices in grade 8 or 9 such that when they come out on the other end their options are working either at Walmart or at Tim Hortons.

If we're going to build a knowledge economy, the most critical ingredient is knowledge. We need to start building for it, and it needs to start before we get to the high school level. Universities play a huge role, but I think we need to start at a high school or junior school level and make sure that the programs are there and the leadership is there to drive kids into the programs we need, which are mostly around STEM, around science. That keeps the doors open. Kids can do other things if they want to later on, but at least the doors are open for them to where they need to go.

Having been a parent of two children who are grown up now, I'd say that the biggest issue for a lot of kids is what program you go into during your early days in order to have the maximum number of opportunities and options available in front of you. Don't shut your doors until you know what you want to do. Way too many kids shut their doors too early, and then opportunities are very limited downstream as they come out of high school on the other end. This needs some national discussion and leadership in terms of programming and how we do that.

[Robert Annan]

Thanks for the question.

It's a big question. Recognizing, of course, the challenges around federal-provincial jurisdiction when it comes to education, I think there's still a lot the federal government can do and is doing.

I think working with young people is important. For instance, I know that one organization, Let's Talk Science, does a lot of great work with young people in encouraging K-to-12 students to engage in science, whether it's through science fairs or scientists in the schools and that sort of thing. Support for those kinds of organizations I think is really great.

I will make one statement, though. I think there is a risk in focusing too much on STEM to the neglect of broader skills. At Mitacs, of course, we work a lot with STEM students, but roughly 15% of our interns who go through now are actually from the social sciences and the humanities. Those creative disciplines have a lot to contribute to innovation, particularly once you start bringing multidisciplinary teams together, where you have engineers working with psychologists and with design people. This kind of mix of skills is important. While of course STEM is important in terms of creating people who have the tools to build disruptive technologies and so on, I think the creative disciplines are still really important. We don't want to neglect them.

I'll also say that, generally speaking, while we are doing a good job as a country with post-secondary attainment—we have one of the highest rates in the world of post-secondary graduation per capita—we do have blind spots, particularly at the higher levels. In terms of Ph.D. production, for instance, we're 20th in the OECD per capita. We just don't produce people at the highest levels of education, and I think we can do better on that.

Right through the post-secondary system, I think it's important to build in diversity so that all of our bachelor's graduates aren't going through exactly the same kind of training—and the same with master's graduates and Ph.D.s—but rather that we provide a diversity of opportunity, which you can do through co-op, internships, and other sorts of experiential learning.

To my mind, diversity, both in terms of disciplines and in terms of experience, is really important to creating a generation that has the necessary skills.

[Walter Di Bartolomeo]

Beyond that, I'll add two things.

There was a mention of women in science and promoting women in science. I think there's an opportunity to tap into the knowledge capability of women. Many of the provinces do have women in science chairs and the like, and I think that's one opportunity to continue to promote, through the STEM programs, early recognition for young girls of the importance and the value that they can bring and that industries can bring to them.

Perhaps a second thing is to move away at the university level from tenure track, which is very traditional—publish or perish—and move more to what is of value to the country, in terms of the technology that's being developed and the research being done, as a means to promote who becomes a tenured professor. That will necessarily pull in different types of students and different types of collaborations with the various industries across the country.

I think those are two things where perhaps we have to move away from more traditional means and ask what the future really needs from us there.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. De Koninck.

[Dr. Jean-Marie De Koninck]

If I may add something, I just want to say that we often underestimate the potential for innovation amongst our kids, particularly at the K-to-12 level.

I want to talk about an experience in France. It's called MATh.en.JEANS—math in jeans—and about 100 professors, researchers from the CNRS, the Centre national de la recherche scientifique, go to primary schools to talk about research and mathematics. You would think that you'd need the basics. No, you don't need the basics. There are geometry concepts. There are a lot of concepts that don't need any background. They stimulate the kids. They build their confidence and so forth.

Normally, you wouldn't do that. By the book, you don't do that. But they do that and it works. Maybe that's why they have some of the greatest mathematicians in the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. De Koninck and Madam Sgro.

Now we'll go to Mr. Carmichael for nine minutes.