Industry Committee on June 15th, 2017

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Right, so flexibility is key.

[Code Cubitt]

I think that's true.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Baylis.

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

We touched on the question of pushing versus pulling. That came up in a previous discussion with technology transfer officers. As opposed to just sitting in their office and hoping someone picks up the phone and calls them, the successful ones say they were going out there pushing the technology onto universities. I think one of you mentioned this Irish person. Was it you—

[Code Cubitt]

That was me.

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

Would that be something we should look at for our technology transfer officers, something to incentivize them to go out into the world, as opposed to sitting and hoping the phone rings?

Maybe you could start, Code, and then Ms. Johnston.

[Code Cubitt]

I think that's a tactically specific thing within the broader context.

My view is that we should enable universities to essentially do it however they find works best. By that I mean specifically take 1% of research dollars, of the $7 billion that goes into universities—so $70 million—and earmark that for that job, for technology transfer and business development, and let the universities decide whether that means an outbound BD person or a raft of people sitting by the phone waiting for inbound calls. I would leave it to the universities to figure out what works best for them, as long as you're measuring it on the back end and then feeding that loop back.

[Jeff Musson]

I just want to pipe in very quickly.

I've been very fortunate as an entrepreneur, as have a lot of our members. We've leveraged the trade commissioner offices and the consular offices around North America and around the world. The key is that those trade commissioners are already kind of on the ground, with the boots on the ground, and you never hear the universities come up in discussion. If the university is connected with the trade commission which is already established, that's a great entry to be promoting this technology.

[Pari Johnston]

I have a couple of comments.

Starting with what you were saying, Jeff, it is probably more fair to say there are a lot of institutions that are very globally connected that are working with the trade commissioner service. We are very plugged into that group and have been having similar conversations with those who are setting up the invest in Canada hub around foreign direct investment, wanting to ensure that as they make their plans for what their officers are going to be doing on the ground, they understand the university assets as they promote foreign direct investment in Canada.

To your point, obviously, those who are good at what they're doing, in terms of tech transfer offices, should be getting out and doing the push factor, both in Canada and globally. To me, that is an obvious part of the job description that should be happening. Particularly in this day and age, you can't just be sitting in your office waiting for phone calls.

There is one interesting model, which we talked about in our paper, we are seeing in the United States. Dalhousie University has brought us the ICORE initiative, which is an opportunity to do some work with faculty and grad students to help train them, and those who support them, on how best to work with industry and how best to commercialize. That is something Dalhousie is starting. I would really love to see that being picked up as a broader initiative in Canada, because it is about equipping people with the right skills. What faculty does best is delve down and drill down deeply, as we've talked about, but many of them want to make sure that what they're developing is out in the marketplace. Sometimes, it is helping build the skills, both through the tech transfer office and the ICORE initiative, where they're also paired with grad students who are trained in this expertise, who maybe have more time than the faculty member does.

I want to spend one second on global connections, because I think that is a really important point. From our perspective, universities are under-leveraged assets in terms of our global relations. When we look at the CETA with the European Union, we have incredibly deep research partnerships with European institutions. Right now, they are looking to us in a way that has never been higher, with Brexit. I would say the same for China. We are being highly sought after for our research expertise and can help be part of the team Canada approach to promoting Canadian expertise abroad. I wanted to make sure that point was made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Mr. Dreeshen.

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

Thank you very much. I just have a couple of comments. They do tie into some of the things that have been mentioned.

As I have indicated in this committee before, I had the opportunity to be with the science minister in Germany. They told us that, as far as the Canadian taxpayer is concerned, they are giving the same amount of money per GDP and per population for research and development. So, when we hear suggestions that Canadian taxpayers are not doing their part, we should discuss it.

A 2014 Government of Canada report said:

Canada ranks first among G7 nations for investments in R&D in universities and colleges relative to the size of our economy. Canada's researchers produce more scientific publications per capita than most industrialized countries. In fact, with less than 0.5 percent of the world's population, Canada produces more than 4 percent of the world's research papers and nearly 5 percent of the world's most cited papers. Canada's post-secondary institutions have leading-edge research programs and infrastructure that facilitate and stimulate collaborations and networks. Universitas 21, an international network of universities, continues year after year to recognize Canada's higher education system as one of the best in the world.

We have a lot to be proud of, but it does get a little frustrating when we say we are not putting taxpayer dollars in. What we are getting to, and that is why we are having this discussion, is how we then tie business in, and how business is able to get into part of that. That is where I think we are in the discussion.

I just wanted to make that point again when we are talking about leveraging trade commissions. That's what we did when we were talking about how to make sure things were going to happen. That is just a comment I wanted to make.

I'll leave the rest of the time for Mr. Nuttall to continue with his questions.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you.

I would like to go back to the theme of measurables, and maybe tie it into the latter part of my previous question. We have a major funding announcement, the largest funding announcement for innovation that we have seen in a very long time, probably ever, quite frankly. What are the measurables that we should be looking at with relation to this $950 million?

It is so difficult to gauge success. The worry for me on this fund specifically is if this billion-dollar investment creates a certain number of jobs, a certain amount of economic output, start-ups, moving into commercialization, creating jobs in Canada, etc., that is great, but it is difficult to measure. Also, it sounds as if all three of you will somehow be integrated into this. What is it you're looking for, to measure success?

[Code Cubitt]

It's tough. I don't envy you your job, honestly. My job is much easier. I get a dollar, I have to give back three. It's very clear.

In my experience so far on this subject, a lot of statistical wrangling goes on. We created these jobs, we're claiming attribution for this, and so the IRR calculation is very fuzzy. I don't have a clear answer, other than putting emphasis on the process, and auditing that process at the end of the day.

[Jeff Musson]

The hard reality is you're not going to know if you're successful for five or seven years, and that becomes a problem. You're betting the chips on something that you're not going to know if it was successful or not for seven years. In the meantime, it doesn't mean you can't have various markers on which to start measuring that success. It could be job creation, licensing, whatever, but the honest truth is you're not going to know for a while down the road.

[Pari Johnston]

I'd underscore what my colleagues have said. I think it is taking a long-term view. As I look at the last report to Minister Morneau of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, where Dominic Barton and his colleagues put out some of the early recommendations that led to the superclusters initiative, with particular identification of the agrifood sector as one where Canada can be the best in food, they did articulate some long-term goals and targets that should be met as part of this kind of investment. I think that's also something to look at. But I think we have to understand these are investments over the longer term in some cases. We see this with investments in research. I would agree that some of the measurables around job creation and others are going to be early ones to start with, but we have to understand the longer-term impact of results.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Government has the luxury to look long term, but start-ups don't. There seems to be a disconnect here. From a different perspective, if $1 billion was sitting on the table, what would you do with it to help with knowledge transfer or ramping up start-up businesses if you had a blank slate?

[Code Cubitt]

I'll give you a flippant answer, and then maybe a more thoughtful one.

I would create high-speed rail between Montreal and Toronto.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

No, Windsor.

[Code Cubitt]

Windsor? Okay.

That connects people. I was in China recently, and 10 years ago the fastest train in China went at 46 kilometres an hour. Today, they have 22,000 kilometres of high-speed rail, at 500 kilometres an hour. That enables people in rural China to commute to downtown Shanghai and work, 400 kilometres each way. It's a 45-minute commute. If I had a big blank chequebook, that's what I would do: I would connect people.

If you force me to divvy it up between a bunch of constituents, I think the supercluster idea is a thoughtful one because you're marrying industry with academia. I understand there's covenance around matching funds, which I think drives some good behaviour. It's that scale. A couple hundred million dollars, $250 million, is enough to do some damage. I think the quality of submissions are reasonable, and they'll make an impact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

[Jeff Musson]

Adding to infrastructure, it's having high-speed Internet connectivity too. That becomes key. It ties in the rural, everything like that, and that's critical too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Okay, thank you very much.

Let's keep on track.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

We can put the infrastructure under the rail.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

There you go.

[Pari Johnston]

I would implement the recommendations of the Advisory Panel for the Review of Federal Support for Fundamental Science.