Industry Committee on Nov. 28th, 2016

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

As I said, budget 2016 was a really good budget for science. We had $2 billion invested in the strategic investment fund, which was designed to increase research and innovation infrastructure across our country and we're already rolling out those projects. There was $379 million for space, $237 million for genomics, and we had that top-up to the three federal granting councils, which is $95 million. As I said, that was the highest top-up in more than a decade. I can go on.

There was $50 million for the Perimeter Institute, which is one of the foremost theoretical physics institutes in the world.

Of that $95 million, $30 million went to CIHR, $30 million went to NSERC, $16 million went to SSHRC. Again, we're closing that gap to show the importance of social science research. There was $19 million for the research support fund. People may not know what that is. There are indirect costs associated with research. It costs money to keep the lights and the heating on, to run the air conditioning, and that funding helps offset that. People will apply for this increase. The research community is excited to have that increase because it's going to allow them to fund more areas.

You mentioned stem cells. We announced in budget 2016 the allocation of $12 million for the stem cell network and last week, we announced $9 million would be used for 31 new projects and clinical trials across Canada. I know you have a strong interest in regenerative medicine. It allows us to replace, repair, and regenerate damaged cells, tissues, and organs, which can be damaged by illness or disease. There is such promise in stem cells.

Stem cells are really Canada's science. Dr. Till and Dr. McCulloch trained the next generation, and that's how you see the stem cell network built. Due to this research there is great promise, for example, in cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and autoimmune disorders.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'll go back to the stem cells. As you mentioned, you announced last week funding in the amount of $12 million and I think this was part of the initial bundle that was already announced as part of the 2015-16 budget. Was this just being released or was this on top of the initial allocation?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

In budget 2016, we announced $12 million for the stem cell network. Again, this is Canada's science. There's such promise for the future that I thought it was important to provide that money. Then last week, we announced $9 million of that $12 million for the 31 projects and clinical trials across the country.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm going to advocate very strongly for an increase on top of that, like we got increases for the others.

You mentioned that there is a gap and that, actually, there was a downward trend when it came to stem cell research and the participation of women in that field. My daughter is quite interested in stem cells. Can you expand on what initiatives the government is taking to close that gap and bring that back up, both in gender equality, as well as a balance in getting compensated for it?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Pease give your daughter my best wishes. We want to see many young women, as well as indigenous people and other under-represented groups, go into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Again, I have made this a key feature of my mandate. In the spring, we began having conversations with the post-secondary education community about the fact that this is an issue and needs to be addressed. I don't think a country can afford to lose half its talent. In September, I was pleased to bring back the UCAS survey, which was cancelled under the previous government after having been going since 1937. Why does UCAS matter? Come next April, we are going to have data. Are women progressing through the ranks at the same rate as male colleagues? Are they making equal pay? That data matters. In October, we announced 11 new Canada excellence research chairs. These CERCs are important. They are among the most prestigious awards internationally; $10 million over seven years. Of the 11, we announced that two would be in clean and sustainable technologies, and with that, we announced new equity and diversity requirements that universities would have to put forward. Their equity and diversity plans in those will be tied to the Canada research chairs.

The last thing we did, also in October, was to place all this data on the SSHRC website. We are trying to lead here by taking action on this, but we are also leading internationally. When we went to Beijing for the international Carnegie meeting, Canada worked with Japan to put forward a motion to study women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It was one of three subject areas studied internationally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

We are going to move to Mr. Lobb for five minutes, please.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for attending today.

Your mandate letter talks about environmental assessments and using the information found in there to make decisions. If a municipality is awarded a project that is going to require an environmental assessment, does it make sense that the federal government and the provincial government basically do the same environmental assessment? Do you support that, or do you think it should just be the province that does the environmental assessment?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

You and I have worked together for a very long time, so it's nice to see you today.

Again, this is a government that is committed to science and evidence-based decision-making. My mandate letter requires that I work with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to review and reform the environmental assessment process. It requires that I work with the Minister of Labour to develop new co-op positions in STEM fields, and with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to look at the impacts of climate change on Arctic marine ecosystems.

You asked about environmental assessments. This is a government that is committed to consultation, so the consultation is currently out, and—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Just so I'm clear.... The consultation is out right now to reinstitute a federal and an overlapping provincial environmental assessment. Is that what you are looking at?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

That is not fair. There is a consultation to ask for Canadians' input on environmental assessment, and we'll have to wait for the evidence.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay.

Your mandate letter also talks about using science and scientific information to do other things. I won't quote it specifically, but the question I have for you is, if there are outstanding concerns or issues in certain areas, for example green energy.... In the riding I represent, there are a lot of outstanding issues around the impacts of industrial wind turbines in and around rural areas where people live. Health Canada did a study, and some of the criticisms were that some of the instruments used were out of date.

Is this something you would support, to revisit the high-end tools and machinery that are available, to do studies like that, before the government goes ahead promoting or supporting any more green energy subsidies for, say, industrial wind turbines, just to make sure people's health is safe and sound?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you for the question. You've packed a lot into it: green energy, industrial turbines, and Health Canada.

Again, we are a government that is committed to science and to evidence-based decision-making. This would be a question for the health minister in regard to the health impacts, the potential health impacts.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Well, actually, though, it would be under your department, which would be conducting the work with you and Minister Bains. Specifically what I'm talking about is using.... I know that in one of your answers you talked about noise studies. I think that perhaps it was in regard to rail. For these types of devices that I'm talking about, is this something that you would make available if there were to be another study, in order to have your scientists use the latest and greatest to do a study on, for example, the impacts of industrial wind turbines?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Ben, for the department I serve, along with my colleagues Minister Bains and Minister Chagger, there are no scientists associated with our department, so if you're looking at potential health impacts, the correct place to go would be to the Minister of Health.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay. Maybe at a later date I'll sit down with you and show you the first study they did with the impacts in it.

The other thing is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

You have 10 seconds.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Fair enough.

In 10 seconds, I can't ask you another question. I'll turn it over to somebody else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

I'm sorry.

For the last question, we're going to go to Mr. Arya.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister.

Investment in discovery research is quite important, and I'm very glad you're emphasizing it.

I would like to quote Dr. Douglas Barber, distinguished professor-in-residence at McMaster University. In the study conducted in March 2013 by this committee, he said:

We are at the top in our investment in the knowledge of our people, and not matched by any other country, but when it comes to creating value from that knowledge, we're close to the bottom of the list.

He also said:

...the post-secondary learning environment is commerce-averse. “Customer” is a bad word, “sales” is a bad word, “commerce” is a bad word, and “profits” is a really bad word.

The third statement from him, as noted in the report is that:

...commercialization within the academic setting is not viewed in a favourable light [and] it is possible that students who go on to join the professoriate may also view commercialization this way, and thus, continue to maintain this culture in Canada's post-secondary institutions.

While it is very important that we emphasize discovery research, if we do not highlight the need for creating commercial value, maybe it's going to be a problem in the future too. What do you think?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Chandra, you're absolutely right. We need both. We need discovery research. It's a continuum right through to application research, but science is messy. It's not a neat continuum. You may have incremental research and there may be breakthroughs, but we need both ends funded.

To that effect, under the previous government, in 10 years we fell from third to eighth on higher education R and D. On business R and D, we fell from 18th to 26th. I don't like that trajectory. We need to reverse that trajectory.

You've talked about commercialization. Commercialization and application absolutely matter.

I'd like to give you two examples. In the CFREF money, we've talked about that $900 million, and we've seen other research on the brain. We have an aging population today. If we look at Alzheimer's disease, which has this terrible human toll, we can see that there's also an economic impact. Today, someone is diagnosed once every five minutes, and the cost to the system is $15 billion. In 30 years, we're looking at someone being diagnosed once every two minutes, at a cost of $153 billion. We need those applications. We need to understand the science, but we want to find treatments.

The second example I'll give you is that of quantum computing. Canada has wonderful strengths in quantum computing. I don't think it's a secret to this committee that we are in a race to build that first quantum computer.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Madam Minister.

Mr. Chair, I'm done. Thanks.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a quick question, if I may.

“Chief science officer” is something new. How do you see that role playing out and having an impact?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

My mandate letter says that I will create the position of chief science officer. Under the previous government, there was a similar position that was eliminated. It was not eroded, but actually eliminated.

Just weeks after taking on this new role, I began the first consultation. I talked to chief science advisers, chief scientists, and chief innovation officers in Australia, Israel, New Zealand, the U.K., and the United States. Our officials talked to one another, and we began a broad consultation across Canada. In the seven years that I was here prior to this role, no one ever asked me for my opinion. I made sure that all parliamentarians were asked about this important role. Good ideas don't come from one party only.

I'm pleased to say that we received valuable input from over 80 experts, stakeholders, and parliamentarians from across the political spectrum. In the near future, we will be launching a search for that position.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

That's excellent.

Thank you very much.

On that note, I wish to thank the Honourable Kirsty Duncan for her comments.

Thank you for being here today. We will let you go, and then as a committee—I've spoken with the vice-chairs—we will proceed with the vote. We've agreed that we will bundle all of them into one.

Thank you very much again.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

If I may, I will say thank you to the committee for the invitation.