Industry Committee on Nov. 28th, 2016

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

The main question was, simply, the ideological interpretation versus science-based. It was only, really, the one question.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Actually, then you went through to talk about a cut to scientists.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Okay, yes. I—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I mentioned in my speech that we actually have had the largest hiring, in terms of 135 scientists for oceans and waters.

Your question, very specifically, is about evidence versus ideology on climate change? Is that the question?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Basically, where I wanted to go with this, Madam Minister, is there have been a lot of discussions about how scientists are going to have this great opportunity to speak, to speak out. We saw what happened when there was a discussion about the Zamboni treatment for MS, when scientists were out, talking, and recognizing that maybe they got ahead of themselves. These were issues.

We have just seen, on the procurement side, that your government has put gag orders on individuals to not speak about things that are happening in procurement. That isn't the way we want it to go. If your intent is to make sure that scientists have this right and this ability to go out and speak, you're not going to work your way.... It sounds good and you're saying all the right things, and you're going back to issues from before that really were based in fact on how you must handle delicate situations, as I mentioned with the Zamboni approach. That's really where I wanted to go with my question.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

The very first act of this government was to reinstate the long-form census. Why? Because we need evidence, fact, and science. The second act of this government was to unmuzzle our scientists. In May, we made good on our promise to put in place a policy regarding communication. The new policy states that communicators are able to speak in an official capacity without being designated, and that includes scientists. That means scientists can speak in an official capacity where they have direct responsibility and expertise, and on scientific and technical matters related to their work.

We know that culture change takes time, so in August, I and Minister Brison wrote a joint letter to all ministers and all departments, to remind them of this new policy. When I meet with journalists I always ask if they see a change in terms of communication. What we've been hearing is that now the scientists are contacting the journalists and offering stories, to the point, in fact, that they can't keep up with them. That's a real change, and one I'm very pleased to see.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Of course, there always is the difference between physical science and political science, and the two seem to meld in every once in a while.

One of the other things that you spoke of, and this is something that I appreciate, was the opportunity to go to Belgium and Germany with you. When we had a chance to talk to researchers in Germany specifically, we found that the dollars that Canada was investing in research were actually the same for GDP and the same for population in Germany. Of course, the issue and the concern was that we weren't getting the buy-in from business.

We have six times zones that we deal with in the discussions. We also deal with 13 different jurisdictions, which is a main key. The third part, of course, is that we aren't the draw. Germany is the draw in Europe, and that's where you want to make sure people and businesses want to invest. In North America there are other options.

Earlier today Jack Mintz was speaking in Calgary about Canada's declining competitiveness. Tax increases are to blame, and again it could get worse with what is being offered up by the new Republican government that is to take place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

You have thirty seconds.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

When we add CPP, carbon tax, and small business taxes that are not going to be aligned to what's happening in the U.S., could you comment on how we can increase competitiveness when we tie the hands of our businesses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

You have about fifteen seconds.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

To address everything from fundamental to applied science, from Max Planck to Fraunhofer to Jack Mintz.... I'll finish by saying I was delighted to meet with Professor Mintz just last week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

I'll move to Mr. Masse.

You have seven minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister.

Sadly, with the unmuzzling of scientists, it's the journalists now who are becoming more the rare commodity with regard to what's taking place, especially in print media.

I do want to talk about scientists, oceans, and water, and move specifically the Great Lakes. There has been some allocated funding to the Great Lakes. We have the Great Lakes institute in Windsor and, of course you have the work done by the IJC. Water is obviously an issue, not only just for health and environmental reasons, but it's going to become very much a political issue. It already is a political issue for many nations including ourselves with our relations to the United States with clean water access and diversion. We have everything from algae blooms to invasive species.

Has there been any thought to creating a specialized component for the Great Lakes that would be able to bring in all the partners and the organizations? The mayors have recently advocated for more of a semblance of a group. Has there been any thought that this department actually might take a lead on that?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

First of all, thank you for the important question because water is of course a fundamental area. I used to teach at the university there and have worked with the Great Lakes institute, so thank you for mentioning the good work they do.

This is actually led by NRCan, but I'll talk about this independent review we've undertaken. My job is to strengthen science and evidence-based decision-making. I mentioned that we had a good budget for science in budget 2016 with $2 billion for infrastructure, research, and innovation. There's a $95-million top-up for infrastructure to the three federal granting councils, and I could go on.

We want to strengthen science, so we are undertaking the first ever fundamental review of federal support for fundamental science. That panel is a distinguished one. It's a nine-member panel led by Dr. David Naylor, the former president of the University of Toronto. We have regional representation with Dr. Martha Piper from the University of British Columbia in the west. In the east it's Dr. Martha Crago from Dalhousie. In Quebec, the chief scientist is Dr. Rémi Quirion. We have Dr. Art McDonald, our newest Nobel Prize winner, and Mike Lazaridis of BlackBerry, and the list goes on.

The point is, they have done the first major consultation with the research community in a very long time. They received 1,200 submissions, and then there were round tables across the country, so there were another 300. They're going to make recommendations on how we can improve our support for fundamental science in the report in the new year.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

The New Democrats have carved out an official critic for the Great Lakes. What I worry about is that there doesn't seem to be, in the Great Lakes, a concentration or a point lead. There is everything from the economics of transportation on the H2O highway to...but there is also the issue of water quality, invasive species, and a number of different factors—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Water quantity.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

—water quantity, all those things.

It seems, and I'll be quite frank, that science seems to get eclipsed, no matter what government is here. It's not often one of the quotable, daily top-of-line issues, but it's fundamental. Our Great Lakes are not only for our economy, but also for our health and well-being in our nation state. I worry about them getting continually lost in the file.

The end of my question would again be, has this government considered consolidating a point lead for the Great Lakes, with science being a major role in that component?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I would have to get back to you because it's an NRCan lead, but I will mention that in September we rolled out $900 million for CFREF. This was for 13 projects across the country, and one of them looks at ocean marine water.

But we would be happy to get those numbers to you.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

No, that's fine.

I think, though, the difference is that NRCan, for the work it does, still doesn't have the political clout that the Great Lakes need at this point in time. I'll leave that one for you to just consider, but that's my general point: leaving it to departments and agencies that don't have that political clout is hurting the ability for a lot of different reasons.

To move quickly to your patents that have been filed—224 is an example from this past year and there are other examples you used, such as 160 patents issued—do we track them now, though? My concern from when we were doing our manufacturing report is getting patents to actually be manufactured if they're goods and services from Canada. Do you track them past being issued? Now that they're issued, does anybody in the government track them to where they actually get into the marketplace?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Let me talk a bit about the NRC, then.

It has a new president, effective August 2016. His name is Iain Stewart. He comes with a wealth of knowledge in academia, in government, in science-tech innovation, and in economic development.

I was actually just at the NRC last week for their internal awards and to see the new applications, not only the research excellence that's being done by the NRC, but also on the application side. The example I'll give to you is a new seat for helicopters that reduces the vibration. Another was de-icing technology. Another one was how you teach surgery.

They have 100 years of research excellence and getting innovation out that benefits all Canadians. We want to see that continue in terms of science excellence, building these clusters, and helping industry.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

What our main—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

You have 10 seconds.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay, thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

We're going to go over to Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

I'm going to ask you two general questions. One of them has to do with the increased funding for the three federal granting councils, and the other one has to do with stem cells.

Let me start with the increased funding that you announced for the three federal granting councils. Can you tell us what these additional funds are allocated for? What were the gaps that you felt you needed to increase those funds to close? What are some of the benefits? How can it be translated into more jobs, better products, or breakthroughs in certain fields, such as stem cells?

That leads me to my next question once you have responded.