Natural Resources Committee on April 23rd, 2007

[Sherif Barakat]

As I mentioned, NRC is really working very closely. What sets our priorities are the national priorities for the country, as I mentioned, and the needs of Canadian industry. So we're working with key sectors. We determine what sectors, and what work we do will impact those sectors and produce more wealth for Canada than other sectors. So we chose those sectors that actually need R and D and have the capacity to absorb R and D and commercialize it. These are the nine sectors we chose.

In looking at priority areas in our strategic planning, we looked at all of the world's challenges. I have a page full of them. Then we looked at those that were important to Canada, and at what we could contribute to them. You can lump them into a number of areas, but they came out very closely to energy, environment, and health. By far, those are of highest importance in Canada—and not only to Canada, but to some other people in the world. In some of the strategies we looked at, some scientists and thinkers believe that energy will by far be the top challenge for the world over the next few years. If you solve the energy problem, you'll solve everything else. And some Nobel laureates have gone on to say or enumerate how we can solve everything else, or at least the next ten challenges, if we solve the energy problem.

So that's how we chose them. Then we went out and consulted with 300 Canadians in seven cities in Canada. We invited a large number of people from industry, academia, and government to present to us and validate what we've seen and validate the areas we're actually taking on.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I think we can all anticipate there's going to be some new regulatory regime coming down, of whatever form, whether it's going to affect the automotive industry, the oil and gas sector, or things of that nature. Have you anticipated any of that in your work plan? How would you see that unfolding in the weeks and months and years to come?

[Sherif Barakat]

In aerospace, for example, we are always on top of that, because we are practically the institution of choice for aerospace companies to work with. We work, for example, to certify the new engines. So we have to anticipate the technology to be able to actually meet the demands of new engines for higher efficiency, lower noise, and lower emissions, when these new engines come out. So we have to anticipate what we need to do.

For the work on new fuels and gas turbines that I mentioned, now the tendency—and there's some scattered work on this around the world—is to find other fuels for stationary gas turbine engines generating electricity. If you do that, it means you need to take a very close look at standards for those: at what the turbines will need, at the blades, at the new materials and coating on these materials, and read the emissions coming out of these fuels. So this is what we anticipate, and we're now building up the project in the environmental lab to be able to meet those.

They haven't yet come to us, actually. We know of them, and when they come, we'll be ready.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

What percentage of all of your R and D becomes commercially marketable, or something that I, as a consumer, can basically avail myself of?

[Sherif Barakat]

That's hard to say; I can't give you a figure. But really, if it isn't marketable as a product, it's probably marketable as know-how. Every project has to have an outcome that somebody will benefit from. In construction there really isn't a large idea or large marketing, but it's the know-how and the transfer of know-how in the industry that makes the difference.

So for every project you have to have a guideline or standard that results in a new way of doing stuff. That's how we work. It is not in fundamentals for fundamental research's sake.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Okay, thank you.

[Sherif Barakat]

We have a multitude of spin-offs, as well, from NRC, particularly in the ICT area, and now have the one I mentioned on measuring leakage out of pipes. There's a large number of them. We're talking about a few coming out in the area of fuel cells, and stuff like that. So we've licensed a lot of technologies out to companies.

There's a variety of things we do, really, but the main thing is that NRC is not in basic research. While we work on discoveries, because those actually keep us excellent in research and abreast of what's going on around the world in research, and we work with universities on those, most of our work is in the applied area, where we really have to have something tangible in the end to give somebody.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you, Mr. Russell.

Mr. Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have known Sherif for at least 25 years and I know that he speaks French very well. Unfortunately, he is shy and that why he's not speaking French today.

I have a brief comment to make. He is extremely modest. He's a renown researcher who has worked on glass, among other things. He's done some extraordinary things. Ms. Bell asked a question about buildings and construction that may not be as good as it once was. I have to say—because he won't admit it—that the National Research Council of Canada is considered to be one of the world's best research centres on construction—especially on residential construction. Because of men like him, Canada and Sweden are known for developing the greatest number of technologies for northern climes. The United States sees us as being on the leading edge of technology in this field. However, this research has not necessarily filtered down to builders.

The extensive research been done at the National Research Council of Canada doesn't always filter down because of jurisdictional considerations. Builders come under provincial jurisdiction and take what they can from the NRC's work. The federal government is not aggressive enough to ensure these technologies are adopted. Someone raised an excellent question concerning R&D. How many new technologies have been adopted? Sound research is being conducted, but results are not being implemented because the government is not doing what it needs to do. It's as simple as that.

I'd like to come back to something Mr. Gourde said. Mr. Barakat, this committee is meeting to look into the greening of electricity consumption across Canada. We want to focus on production aspects, distribution and interutility tielines. Should distribution be done on a more regional or local level? We believe it should. What kind of approach should be taken? Who in your organization could help us explore this field further and get a better understanding of the kind of research being carried out? Mr. Gourde asked an excellent question. How much electricity is being lost during the transmission process? Should this have an impact on the maximum distances over which electricity should be transmitted? What about the distance between the location in which high voltage electricity is produced and the place where low voltage electricity is produced? All of these questions need to be answered in order for us to become green consumers of electricity. Can anyone be of direct assistance to us?

[Sherif Barakat]

There is a group at NRCan that's responsible for electricity generation and transmission, but I think the best people to help you with the question are those at the electricity association. I worked with them a long time ago on utilization, but I know they have groups on generation, transmission, and so on.

There are some very strong researchers, engineers, and people working on this area in hydro. I would look to the very active hydro companies in Manitoba, B.C., and Quebec. They are really active, not only in that area, but in the area of consumption and utilization, because they had programs. B.C. still has a very good program on energy utilization. So that is probably a good idea.

I'm not an expert. I know that when we went from AC power to DC power transmission we saved quite a bit. I was close to a couple of people who worked at Ontario Hydro when I was in Manitoba, and there are some people there who really know that subject inside out.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

You spoke during your presentation about an action plan for climate change. Does this action plan, which is of special interest to our committee, affect energy transmission and the safety of the grid? Without question, climate change affects the safety of electrical grids. As part of your study, do you have people looking into the effect of climate change on electrical distribution?

[Sherif Barakat]

I can't answer the question; I'm sorry. I know people who work on climate change and how it affects buildings and how it affects municipal infrastructure, for example. The effect of climate change—

I am sure people who worked after the ice storm that we had a few years back are very interested in the occurrence of such events in Canada and otherwise, because that's a major catastrophic event. I would assume they are, but I can't tell you; I'm sorry.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

It was an excellent question.

Summing up, I'd like to come back to a question that was put to you earlier. Who has the final say on research priorities? Does the federal government ever ask you, through its minister, to focus on specific research areas? If so, do you ever advise the federal government that you have taken specific action to further its understanding of or to help it resolve certain problems?

[Sherif Barakat]

Actually we respond to government needs coming from other government departments to support their mandates, departments such as NRCan, Environment Canada, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. NRC over the past has built strategies not on demand, but on indications set by the government for priorities. In the past it was biotechnology, aerospace, and so on; we responded to that. The idea then was to see how the S and T strategy was coming up and how we could respond to it for the country.

With the work we have done, I would probably not be surprised if we are already very aligned. Maybe we have to adjust when it comes out, but that is where we take our signals. It is really the priorities announced by the government, whether they are priorities through throne speeches or budgets, or just indications of where the country is going. That is what affects us; it is not particular demands. We respond to that and we present a program, a strategic plan, to Parliament.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you, Mr. Ouellet.

We will go to Mr. Allen now, please.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few questions I'd like to ask you. One is about the energy code for buildings. When we constructed our house back in 1996, we went to an R-2000 standard. I know things have changed over the last number of years.

I'll follow up on Madame DeBellefeuille's question. You said you started developing this business code. How long was the process for you to actually develop it? Then the next process is how you roll it out. How long would it normally take you? How long did it take you to develop your last one?

[Sherif Barakat]

When we started it, we took it from scratch. It was basically from scratch. It was five years. The long time was because of the consultation.

We don't sit down and close the door and say we'll do a code. Actually we were established under the commission for building and energy codes. They have to establish standing committees from different industry partners and government and so on to actually oversee the direction and development of the code, so it takes a longer time to do that and the consultation.

It took us five years to publish a document at that time, from 1992 to 1997. My guess is it will take a much shorter time now, because the work has been done. We had to start at that time from an energy code that was developed mostly from computer modelling, along with energy prices, construction prices, construction methods, and so on. I think that if we established a base, building it up again would, I assume, need a shorter time.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

You would assume that it's probably not one year. Is it probably a couple of years with all the consultation?

[Sherif Barakat]

It's probably a couple of years. That's right.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

So we're talking at least 2009 or 2010 before we have a new building code?

[Sherif Barakat]

I would guess.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I was reading an article the other day in the National Post. I think it was on Friday. The article said Alberta now has run into problems with their wind power. They have a penetration of about 4%, and now they have realized that because the capacity factors are low, they are now going to have to build new generation to allow them to put more wind in.

I was talking to a utility person in New Brunswick this morning, and this person said the same thing—that they're concerned about all this wind energy not being reliable enough to keep the system going.

It seems that NRC's focus is more on the smaller kinds of things and on efficiency, and maybe in the future we would gain more by having some of this renewable energy on the customer side of the meter, versus the other side. How much research is being done into the small kind of wind power, perhaps on a farm or on a housing project, to allow you to generate energy efficiently?

[Sherif Barakat]

There isn't much with IRAP support. A couple of projects are being worked on with companies that picked up that area. The technology exists, it just needs modification or downsizing at this time, not upsizing.

The challenge in that is really the integration. As you said, wind energy is not there every day, and you've got to build enough systems with the availability for energy or storage. You'd have storage, you'd have energy replacement, whether with a fuel cell or wind energy. When the wind is down I have solar, or if I don't have both, I have a battery. System integration is going to be an important part, and I think we're starting to work on that, as I mentioned, in Vancouver. That's an area we're heading to.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

With respect to your energy-related R and D, you look at the $30 million for the energy-related and $10 million on external programs for R and D, and that's on a budget of $835 million, less $166 million in revenue. Are there other pots of money buried in there, in the department, that also are on the energy side? Because if you look at your key sectors, I'm not seeing that energy plays a big part in it.

[Sherif Barakat]

Sustainable energy is a priority that looks at alternatives, particularly fuel cells. There could be other parts under different industries. This is reporting by cutting through all the sectors to see what we spend on energy. Just to elaborate, the $30 million or $40 million is on the NRC research budget; the research institute's probably $300 million only. When you add IRAP and other stuff, then it does come up to the 600, so it is 10%. It's not a great amount, but it is a little more than 10% in energy, but we don't have an energy program per se. As I mentioned, we serve industry in different areas, and one of them is energy and that's why we report on it. We haven't had an energy program and an energy division since 1984. Priorities changed, and we shifted to other priorities.