Industry Committee on May 16th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you, everybody, for being here today for meeting 61 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), we are reviewing the main estimates, 2017-18: votes 1 and 5 under Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; votes 1 and 5 under Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency; votes 1, 5, and 10 under Canadian Space Agency; vote 1 under Canadian Tourism Commission; vote 1 under Copyright Board; votes 1, 5, 10, L15, and L20 under Industry; votes 1 and 5 under Western Economic Diversification; votes 1 and 5 under Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec; votes 1 and 5 under Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario; votes 1, 5, and 10 under National Research Council of Canada; votes 1 and 5 under Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; votes 1 and 5 under Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; vote 1 under Standards Council of Canada; and vote 1 under Statistics Canada, referred to the committee on Thursday, February 23, 2017.

Today we have the Honourable Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science along with John Knubley, deputy minister; Kelly Gillis, associate deputy minister; and Lawrence Hanson, assistant deputy minister.

Thank you very much for attending, everybody. I'm going to pass it on to Minister Duncan for opening comments.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Minister of Science]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be here this morning with our deputy minister, John Knubley; our associate deputy minister, Kelly Gillis; and our assistant deputy minister, Lawrence Hanson.

I'm really pleased to be here this morning as this esteemed committee reviews the main estimates for 2017-18. You will know that this fiscal year the total for our department is up $1.3 billion over last. This is largely due to the investments in research infrastructure that our government made with the post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund. This $2-billion investment demonstrates our priorities when it comes to supporting scientific excellence in this country. When we are investing in such a major way to build and upgrade Canada's research facilities, this is really an investment in the people who make science happen.

This is my consistent refrain in all that I do. It's all about people. It's the lens through which I view all of our support for Canadian science. It's why our approach has been, and will continue to be, to make investments to provide people with the right skills and opportunities to make their greatest possible contributions to Canadian science. For example, through the Canada first research excellence fund, we have devoted a full $900 million to the Canadian researchers who are taking action on grand initiatives like quantum computing, stem cell research, brain science, and so on.

This year's budget is also investing $125 million to maintain and enhance Canada's international reputation for excellence in artificial intelligence. The committee may be familiar with some of the amazing people already doing world-leading work in this field, such as Yoshua Bengio in Montreal, who is a world expert in deep learning and artificial neural networks and Geoffrey Hinton at the University of Toronto, who is doing groundbreaking work in computer science and artificial intelligence.

It's important to remember that all these investments are in addition to the boost we have already provided to our three national granting councils through budget 2016. They now have access to an additional $95 million per year in ongoing permanent funding. This is the highest amount of new annual funding for discovery research in more than a decade. This new unfettered funding supports the efforts of tens of thousands of researchers and trainees at schools and facilities across the country.

That said, we haven't forgotten that more than 20,000 scientists and specialists are engaged in science and technology activities, government science. To help give these world-class professionals the tools they need, we will develop a new federal science infrastructure strategy.

We've already kicked things off by providing $80 million to replace the Sidney Centre for Plant Health with a new, world-class research facility.

We're also making investments directly in the work of these federal researchers in all the departments.

On the social science side, we have set aside support for the community and college social innovation fund, which fosters community college partnerships aiming at achieving beneficial social outcomes. Science is helping communities understand and meet the challenges and opportunities around them. This is one of the ways we are making good on our commitment to the multidisciplinary nature of science. I truly believe that we can make so much more of the relationship among the pure sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences.

We do all this because, again, it's all about people. It's about nurturing our domestic talent, even from the very earliest age, and all throughout their schooling and careers. That's why we are investing to teach grade school students to code—the language of tomorrow. We are also providing major support for PromoScience, a highly successful program that encourages young Canadians interested in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In addition, we are funding up to 10,000 new work-integrated learning opportunities per year through Mitacs research internships.

As science minister, I want all young Canadians to be able to see themselves taking part in the world of science. As I hope I've shown so far, our government is investing strategically to make the most of today's and tomorrow's homegrown talent, but we also need to make sure that we are attracting the best international researchers to Canada.

That's why, in honour of Canada's 150th anniversary, I've announced a new type of research chair to attract top-tier scientists from around the world. We're working on implementing this new chair quickly so that universities can recruit researchers as soon as possible.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to finish this morning by discussing the science review and how it will inform the future of Canadian research and scholarship. As you may know, a broad external review of the federal agencies had not been done since the 1970s. Simply put, it was time.

I am profoundly grateful to all the distinguished panel members, including the chair, Dr. David Naylor, for their service. I am reviewing the panel's recommendations now with a critical eye, through that people lens that I've been talking about. I'm pleased to see that the report talks a lot about talent. It talks about how we can best support students, researchers, professors, and everyone else involved in our research ecosystem.

It particularly highlights diversity and equity as places where we must do better. This rings so true with me. Throughout my own academic career, I have consistently advocated for more diversity in science. Science needs more women and more young people. It needs more indigenous peoples and more Canadians with disabilities. Because, as University of Victoria president Jamie Cassels so eloquently says, “diversity is the foundation of excellence”.

That's exactly why we have instituted new equity requirements in the Canada excellence research chairs competition. Right now, there is only one active female CERC. This is unacceptable. We have to do better. I have told university presidents that I am expecting to see a change.

What's more, I'll continue to explore other measures to encourage more diversity and equity in the research community. If Canada wants to achieve its full potential, we need all people to feel welcomed in the lab, the field and the classroom. I can't say it enough. The key word here is people.

The science review also brought into sharp focus the challenges facing early-career researchers and new investigators. Young scientists come with fresh insights and new ways to solve old problems. We have only to think about James Watson, Francis Crick, and Rosalind Franklin. Their ages were 24, 36, and 32, respectively, when their work led to the discovery of the DNA double helix. Think of the science we may be missing out on for want of supporting our early-career researchers.

We hope to announce the appointment of the chief science adviser before the summer recess. He or she will be feeding into this discussion as well.

I am confident that if all partners, public and private, are united in working toward a singular goal, together we will be able to create a research system that is bold, vibrant, and equitable.

Thank you for having me to this committee, and I'm looking forward to receiving your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

We're just going to jump right into questions.

Mr. Arya, you have the first seven minutes.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming.

Minister, I'm so glad that you're talking about diversity. We had Bill C-25 in this committee, and when that bill was introduced, the government did not show any direction as to what it meant by “diversity”. After deliberation in this committee, the government finally agreed to put into the regulation what it means by “diversity” in the bill. It says that it includes designated groups such as women, indigenous people, visible minorities, people with disabilities, and others.

I noticed in your speech that you talked about diversity. I would like to quote you. You said that science needs more women and more young people, that it needs more indigenous peoples and more differently abled Canadians. I guess it was an oversight that you didn't include visible minorities there in the speech, but that's okay, I know that you mean well.

On the investment in research, I'm so glad that we are back investing in fundamental research. It's very important for us to invest in this because this is what continues to keep Canada at the forefront of the new, global, knowledge-based economy.

One thing I know is that the bulk of the funds that are going to fund research are used very productively by the universities, but anecdotal evidence also states that some of it is going—and I don't know how to put it—to fund deadwood, that it's continuously subsidizing people who are not productive. Is there anything that's measurable? How can you measure the outputs or the deliverables of the huge investments we are making?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Chandra, for your question. You've raised a number of issues; I'll try to address them all.

Thank you for your commitment to equity and diversity. As you know, our government is the first government to have a gender-balanced cabinet. In this last budget, budget 2017, there is a gender statement.

When I took on this role, I made it very clear that I would make equity, diversity, and science a key priority. I began having discussions with the universities and with the granting agencies. In September we brought back the university and college academic staff survey, the UCASS survey. It had been in place since 1937, but it was cancelled under the previous government. Come this spring, we will have data to know if people are progressing through the ranks at the same rate and whether they're making equal pay.

In October we put in place new equity and diversity requirements for our Canada excellence research chairs. These are among the most prestigious awards in the world. They offer $10 million over seven years. Right now we have only one woman who is a CERC. It's unacceptable.

In October we posted that diversity and equity data on the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council website. It was the first time. You will know that in the last few weeks we've put in place new requirements regarding the Canada research chairs.

The Canada research chairs have been in place since 2000. They're very prestigious to have. We're saying to the universities that if they have more than five of these research chairs, they're going to have to put in place an equity and diversity plan by the end of the year, that we expect them to meet those targets by 2019, and that if they don't, they won't be having their proposals reviewed.

To come to your point about fundamental science, fundamental science is a key driver of innovation. Our government's priority is economic growth, jobs, and growing the middle class and those working hard to join it. If you want innovation, a key driver of economic growth, you need fundamental science, discovery science, curiosity-based science. It's a continuum through to applied science, innovation, those commercial products and services that we'd like to sell. I want to be clear. It is not an easy continuum. It's actually very messy. Scientists go back and forth seamlessly between fundamental science and applied science.

I'm really proud of the investments our government has made. In budget 2016, we gave the largest top-up in a decade to the three federal granting councils. It was $95 million. That was for 2016-17 and each year going forward.

I won't talk about the fundamental review at this point. It matters. I think it's really important for this committee to understand the world-renowned peer review system we have in this country. When people apply for a grant, the granting councils put together a world-class panel to review each grant application. They're carefully reviewed, and then the results are made public. We have, then, this world-class review system.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

Second, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce released their “Ontario Economic Report 2017” this past February. It's a survey of all its members—small, medium, and large businesses in Ontario.

What they identified as the topmost concern of all members was “acquiring suitable staff”. They are finding difficulty in acquiring people qualified to join as their employees. On the other hand, when we were doing the manufacturing study here, the representatives of the universities association mentioned that their graduates were finding it difficult to get jobs.

On the one hand, then, we have the universities stating that their candidates are finding it difficult to get jobs, and on the other hand we have the businesses saying that they cannot get suitable staff. How can we use our funding power to make sure the universities align with, so that they can meet the requirements of, industry and businesses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

You have about 10 seconds to respond to that question.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Chandra, for your question. I'll be as brief as I can.

One of the investments we've made in budget 2017 is for Mitacs. We are funding $221 million for 10,000 work-integrated learning spaces for our students. We want them to have that real-world experience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dreeshen, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here this morning, and to all of your folks from the department.

I've just come from a meeting where our interim leader, Rona Ambrose, spoke to the Economic Club of Canada. When we talk about great women in leadership roles, I think of her. I think of Deborah Grey and Kim Campbell. These are people who won their jobs because of the great skills they had.

I remember going into Central America where I talked about how to get women engaged and involved in politics. At that time, 80% of Canadians had a female premier. There are great opportunities for people to work and use the skills they have, and they need to have chances from everybody. Sometimes that comes via political parties, to make sure that you elect strong people who are there to be able to take on these positions.

I say that to tie into the discussions you have when you've said to universities that if they don't meet quotas or diversity targets, something is going to be done. Of course, what we've heard is that there will be a withdrawal of funding, and so on.

I'd like you to tell us what that actually means. How will you roll out that policy? Is it something that your government will be legislating, or will it be departmental policy at the tri-agency institutional programs secretariat? How will you be withholding funding for those institutions that don't meet the targets that you've looked at?

The other aspect of it is, are we going to be seeing decisions about research funding no longer in the hands of the experts who review and evaluate the science but rather in the hands of politicians, consultants, or bureaucrats with little experience in advanced research? What happens to the tri-agency institutional programs secretariat?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Earl, thank you for your question.

Let me be clear. Equality and excellence go hand in hand. I've gone across this country and the women I meet with are outstanding researchers. I think of people such as Victoria Kaspi, who won the Herzberg medal, which is, as you know, NSERC's highest prize, just the other year. I think of Molly Shoichet who just won a Killam Prize. There are excellent women researchers.

Our priority is always excellence. That means the proposals are reviewed. I've talked about our world-class review process. However, we have not seen the increase in women and other under-represented groups in the sciences that we should have. We know when we bring all minds to the table, to the lab, to the field, it is good for research; it is good for Canadians.

I will give specific examples of what happens when women and diverse groups are not included. I'll start with the example of heart valves. The first heart valves were created by cardiologists who happened largely to be men, and they made heart valves that fit a male-sized heart and not a woman-sized heart. The first voice recognition software was calibrated only to men's voices. The third example I'll give is air bags. The first air bags in cars were created by engineers who largely happened to be male. They made air bag prototypes that fit a male-sized body. When those cars went onto the road, women and children were injured, or worse.

We need to make sure that everybody is included, that they come with different perspectives and ideas. They might use different methodologies, they might ask different questions, and we might get different results that benefit all Canadians.

I hope everyone is attending Science Odyssey events. We have 600 of them across the country right now. I know you were there yesterday, and Kate, and I thank you for coming.

It's really important that we encourage young people to enter science, particularly women.

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

These are great examples, Madam Minister. However, the question is what the government is going to do when it comes to making decisions about those particular chairs. I understand why it's important. Don't get me wrong. I understand and recognize that. However, the statement was made that the universities are going to have to conform. They are going to have to explain the rationale and everything else, and then decisions will be made.

My question is on the decision-making process and where that is going to go.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I want to be clear. These were targets that the universities voluntarily agreed to, back in 2006. These targets were based on discussions, but also on statistics around population. The universities committed to these targets. It is now 2017, and those targets have not been met.

I am saying that we are going to put in place a policy to ensure that they have equity and diversity plans in place and show us how they are actually going to make the targets they voluntarily agreed to. It is always based on excellence, but if they come forward with chairs who are not meeting the numbers, there is the possibility that funding will be withheld until they bring forward new options that are more reflective of the targets they have voluntarily agreed to.

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

I have only a few seconds left.

There have been cuts to both the National Research Council of Canada and the centres of excellence for commercialization and research program. My tax dollars have been moved from certain areas. I'll just pick one, because that may be all I have time for.

Why are you cutting $1.7 million for the centres of excellence for commercialization and research program?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I will have our assistant deputy answer that.

[Lawrence Hanson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Innovation, Department of Industry]

It's just a product of the competition cycle for the CECRs themselves. They are for a limited number of years. As new competitions are launched, new investments are made. We are expecting to launch a new competition under the CECRs shortly, but it's really an issue of cash flow and competition timing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move on to Mr. Masse. You have seven minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here.

I do actually appreciate the movement that's taking place at the universities and colleges, because they are also an addition to the overall society problem that we have with the inclusion of diversity. My background is as an employment specialist on behalf of persons with disabilities and youth at risk, and I can tell you that.... A clear example is that women still do not receive the same pay for the same jobs.

It is important that this movement is happening. The unfortunate thing—and I like your commentary about this—is the fact that the legislation that is being proposed by your government under Bill C-25, the reform to the Canada Business Corporations Act, does not do the same thing. You are moving to a comply or explain model for diversity, and the legislation doesn't even mention the word “gender”.

I would like to get your thoughts on how this is really at odds with what's taking place with regard to legislation in the House of Commons. It is clear that the voluntary commitment by public institutions that have a board of directors who are assigned by the public has required this type of step to change the behaviour with regard to inclusion, especially given the populations, diversities, and gender balance that they represent, their customers being students.

Second, why isn't it carried forth in terms of legislation to the Canada Business Corporations Act and Bill C-25? I had several amendments that were defeated at this committee.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Brian, thank you for your question.

We know that when boards are more diverse, companies do better. It is the same for science. We want people who come with different perspectives and different ideas. We want people asking different questions to come forward.

I have spent 25 years of my life fighting for more equity and diversity in science. Yesterday, I was at Science Odyssey. I met two incredible women who have reached the level of full professor in engineering. They are saying, as we are hearing from across the country, “Thank you for standing up for the Canada research chairs”. It has been 11 years, and those voluntary targets haven't been made. They are grateful for the changes that they see coming, and that the universities will be held to account.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I appreciate that, but your government legislation is not doing the same thing. It's at odds with itself, with this committee, and with the voting in the House of Commons on Bill C-25, so I'd ask you to consider that as that draft legislation works its way through.

The other one to review as a scientist and working so well within our academic communities is Bill C-36. I won't touch on too much of it, but at this point I would appeal for a review of it. It's amazing, Madam Minister, that despite the testimony of Munir Sheikh and Wayne Smith, and other testimony that we had on this committee, not a single amendment was able to pass through this committee with regard to the inclusion of their contributions.

In fact, several witnesses who have high profiles and respect in academia, not only at home here but internationally, and were also the former census operators, both resigning over differences of opinion in the scientific approach to the census going from long form to short form and so forth and also provisions. Not a single word of their testimony, or of any of the witnesses, will be included in the legislation that's been proposed to go back to the House of Commons at this time.

I would like to move though, Madam Minister, to the review panel and the expectations for it. I think that was an excellent approach. In the 1970s we didn't even have the concept of a mobile phone. I think the first time I saw a mobile phone was in a movie with Mel Gibson. The phone weighed about 10 pounds and looked like a World War II phone.

At any rate, can you give us an indication of when we might hear back about that, and what type of movement and resources the government has committed toward that?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Brian.

I'll talk a bit about the fundamental review. Since the 1970s there has not been a comprehensive review of the funding ecosystem. Can you imagine any other system that has been allowed to go 40 years without being reviewed? Therefore, I was very committed to doing this.

We had this incredible blue ribbon panel chaired by Dr. David Naylor, the former president of the University of Toronto. It included people like Dr. Art McDonald, our newest Nobel Prize winner; Dr. Martha Piper, the former president of UBC; Mike Lazaridis of BlackBerry; and the chief scientist of Quebec, Rémi Quirion.

I want to begin by saying thank you to them. They have worked tirelessly for their commitment, for their insights that will improve the ecosystem here in Canada. As well, I want to thank all the individual researchers, the research organizations, and the universities and other academic institutions that contributed to that review. I was pleased to receive the response on April 10. I was very clear that this report would not be buried. It was released at the Public Policy Forum so that we could begin a national discussion about how we fund federal support for fundamental science.

There are 35 recommendations. They talk about the need for additional funds for investigator-led research. There were also issues of governance and coordination, the need for more equity and diversity, the need to support early-career researchers, and the need to make the system more nimble and responsive. For example, if Zika or Ebola hit, money would be available that we could get out to the research community quickly and also support multidisciplinary research.

We have big challenges, whether it's climate change or antimicrobial resistance. We need to bring different disciplines to the table and to support risky research. Those are some of the recommendations from the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Longfield, you have seven minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister, and the support people for being here today.

Getting back to the estimates, it looks as if there's an increased focus on the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council with $86.8 million of planned spending.

Madam Minister, you talked about the need for fundamental research in a previous conversation we had when you were down in Washington. You were talking about the separation between fundamental research and innovation, and how innovation can come from fundamental research, but there is really no guarantee; that's why it's fundamental research.

Could you comment on the need for catching up on NSERC funding, where we are, and where we need to be to regain our ground there?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Lloyd. You've brought in a number of pieces here. You started with the National Research Council, so I'll address that first.

National Research Council has a proud 100-year history in this country, and we want to make sure it succeeds going forward. You will know that we have a new president, Mr. Iain Stewart. He comes with a tremendous background of both academic and government work in science, technology, innovation, and economic development.

When he came on board, my colleague Minister Bains and I sat down with him. I said that there needed to be a lot of listening, and he has had hundreds of conversations with employees of the NRC. In the spring we'll come forward with ideas of how we can strengthen the NRC.

I've been clear that I don't want it to be a political football any longer. We want to make sure that its industrial research assistance program, IRAP, which has 250 advisers across the country, provides help to small businesses—last year, it was 2,500 businesses, and helped support 11,000 jobs—continues, and is strong.

I'd also like to see fundamental research strengthened, because that's where the innovation will come going forward.

You've also talked about needing to support fundamental science. That's part of my research mandate, so we have put in place the top-up of $95 million to the granting councils. That is unfettered money, representing a real change from the previous government that tied money. If you look at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, in 2005 there was no tied money. In 2006, 9% was tied, and before budget 2016, that was 37%. So this is unfettered money.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

Within the Social Sciences and Humanities Research funding, I notice something that Mr. Dreeshen also brought up, in terms of the reduction in centres of excellence for commercialization in research.

I spoke yesterday with Universities Canada and they mentioned some concerns around the intellectual property mobilization program that was cancelled in 2009. We have brought it back, but there are some reductions in funding around intellectual property mobilization. This committee is just about to start an IP study, and I think a key part of that study is going to be technology transfer. I'm concerned that we may be heading in one direction and the government may be heading in the other direction in terms of technology transfer and funding of technology transfer.

Is there anything there that I'm misreading into it, or where are we in terms of a focus on technology transfer?