Science and Research Committee on Nov. 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Is there further discussion here?

Go ahead, Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I am even prepared to propose that the clerk communicate with the witnesses again who have not yet appeared. If they still cannot or do not want to testify, we will make adjustments. We still have time to do it. The committee meets next week and we have already planned other meetings.

I think we do have to give these people an opportunity to confirm that they will not be coming. We are talking about more than 15 witnesses in total who have not had the opportunity to testify as part of this important study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Committee, I'm looking for some direction here. This is your committee, so we need to come to a decision.

I see Mr. Collins and then Mr. Cannings and Mr. Lobb.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I think Mr. Cannings was before me, Madam Chair. I'll go after that.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thanks.

I would just point out that I'm not really convinced by Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas' argument. I don't think we can compare the number of witnesses who appeared at this study to any other study because each study is different. For each study, we've assigned a different number of meetings. I believe we've had the number of meetings in this study that the original voted motion called for. I remember that in the first study we did, I wanted to call many, many more witnesses, and that was turned down.

I think that if we do this for every study, we will be taking longer and longer. I would just make that original point: Each study is going to be different in terms of how many witnesses will be necessary to hear the full story, and each study will be different in terms of how many different voices we need to hear. I believe we have covered the bases on this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cannings.

We'll go to Mr. Collins now.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

It has been a very important study, and I agree with Richard. I think we've accomplished what we set out to do in terms of the number of meetings. We can certain dissect the reason why certain witnesses for all studies haven't been able to attend. However, I think back to the point of how many meetings we've had, and we're starting to hear a lot of repetition from the witnesses who are coming forward. There are some common themes. We're going to hear that and see that, I think, in the final committee report. We have dedicated four meetings to this subject, so I'm not certain what more we're going to hear beyond what we've heard through four meetings.

We're at the point where our friends on the other side of the table have been giving their time to our Bloc member, which is fine—the rules certainly permit that—but I think it says something about where we are with the study, so I'm not supportive of giving any more time to this one. I think we've covered all the bases, to use Richard's term. I think we need to move on to the next study. I look forward to seeing the analysts prepare the report and to going through the recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Lobb is next.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I guess all I would add to the conversation here is that it's just one more meeting, really. I understand that's an entire week, but it is one more meeting. We did miss a week a couple of weeks ago, so that would be fine. In addition to that, if any of your witnesses aren't available, it's understandable. We all understand that. They'd all be able to put forward a written submission to the committee as well.

I think we could do another meeting, and then they can have written submissions on top of that. Then we can get on to the next study, right?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

I'm not hearing agreement here. Is there further discussion? If not, I think this has to go to a vote.

Is there further discussion?

Go ahead, Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to come back to the comment made just now about the number of witnesses. I understand that comparing the number of witnesses may not be the main argument. However, those 14 witnesses were on the list made up by all members of the committee. That list was surely not made up because it was nice outside; it was because those people are experts who were to come and share their concerns with us about the subject of the study. I think the fact that almost half of the witnesses scheduled, 14 people out of 34, have not yet been able to come, for various reasons cited by the clerk, speaks volumes.

I think we have to let these people have an opportunity to say very clearly whether they want to testify or not. They can simply confirm this for us. I even indicated that I was open by saying that if the witnesses confirm that they will not testify, we can simply continue with the current plan. However, we can't let almost 50% of the witnesses, 14 witnesses, precisely, who are already on the list, just fall by the wayside. It seems to me to be very important to consider those witnesses in connection with this important study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

Is there further discussion from the committee?

I think I see Mr. Tochor getting ready here.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Yes, Madam Chair.

This committee is fairly non-partisan. We like to hopefully find common ground here and compromise. If we agree to have another meeting in two weeks' time, that would give the clerk the ability to send those invitations out and fill that meeting. If that meeting in two weeks doesn't get filled, for whatever reason, we would backfill it with moon shot witnesses so that we are not out any time.

It is unfortunate that we had to miss the one meeting a few weeks ago that would maybe have facilitated some more witnesses. I think it would be a respectful thing if we could grant.... We're not talking about weeks of additional studies. It's just one more meeting.

I would encourage colleagues to vote in favour of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Tochor.

I see that Mr. Cannings has his hand up.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

On the point that Mr. Tochor made, I would like to ask the clerk how this would affect planning. I understand that next week's meeting has already been planned with witnesses. What about that next meeting two weeks out? Would that involve changing witnesses' scheduling?

I guess what I'm feeling is that if we have a number of witnesses who really wanted to put forward ideas, we could ask them to submit briefs if they haven't done that already. We're already starting this next study momentarily. I think we should try to move on to that as best we can. In my experience in committees, we rarely get to hear all the witnesses. It's unfortunate, but we do get briefs. We've heard a lot of good information in this study, but I think we have to manage our time as best we can.

It's my opinion that the best way to move on would be to use written briefs for those who haven't been able to appear and move on to the next study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Cannings.

Is there further discussion?

I do not see agreement here. Do you want to put this to a vote? As Mr. Tochor says, this committee is generally very collegial, but there does not appear to be agreement.

Maxime, would you like it to go to a vote? Okay.

Let's make sure we're all voting on the same thing. Is this on the original motion or what Mr. Tochor put forward?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

It won't take very long, Madam Chair. The motion is going to be transferred to the clerk, who can read it for us and distribute it to committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Okay.

Clerk, for the sake of time, could you read it out loud, please?

[The Clerk]

The motion reads: That, as part of its study on scientific research and publication in French, the Committee allocates one more meeting, Monday, November 28th, in order to allow witnesses who did not get the opportunity to participate in the current study to be heard by the Committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Is everyone clear on what the motion is?

Do we put this to a vote, then?

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

We're going to briefly suspend. Then we're going to start our new study on the moon shot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

I call this meeting back to order.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

We are excited. We are beginning a new study. It's pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, September 26, 2022. We're beginning the study of international moon shot programs.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For interpretation for people on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor audio, English or French. For people in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments by committee members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

With that, I'd like to welcome our witnesses. We're very pleased to have you here. The committee is excited to begin this new study.

Tonight, from the Mila – Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute, we have Yoshua Bengio, scientific director. From X-energy Canada, we have Rosemary Yeremian. She is the vice-president of corporate strategy and business development.

We welcome all our witnesses. You will have five minutes to present. At the four and a half minute mark, I will raise this yellow card. It lets you know that you have 30 seconds left.

With that, we will begin with Mila and Dr. Bengio. The floor is yours.

[Yoshua Bengio, Scientific Director, Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute]

Madam Chair, I would like to tell you about why I think such moon shots are important and, more specifically, where I think our government should focus and the kind of effort that it should focus on.

[Yoshua Bengio]

Madame la présidente,

The successes of science that have ended up having transformative impacts on our society arose thanks to funding of curiosity-driven research, which also trains the needed talent, followed by mission-oriented R and D.

As an example, in my own career, I've worked on deep learning that has fuelled the current AI revolution. These advances were made possible by really broad investments in curiosity-driven research on neural networks, much before the applications became a possibility. Then that was followed by major industrial investments in R and D.

In many cases, government funding has been crucial in our society to kick-start major innovation-driven sectors of the economy. A really well-known historical example is that of the DARPA funding that created the Silicon Valley ecosystem.

However, the profit motive of industry is not always sufficient to get this transfer to happen, because it's not always well aligned with the needs of society. This process whereby we rely on industry to create the innovations that follow the basic research doesn't always work, particularly in areas such as health, environment, education or social justice, which are typically the domain of the government.

I'm going to tell you about one really striking example that I know all about, and that is antimicrobial resistance, which means bugs that are mutating to become resistant to our drugs. For example, we're now facing bacteria that we don't have any drugs to defend ourselves against, and it's going to get worse. It's already costing Canada billions per year and it's going to increase tenfold over the next two decades. Right now, there are already 1.2 million deaths per year globally. That's projected to grow to 10 million deaths per year. That's comparable to COVID-19 or more, and the costs globally are going to grow to $100 trillion U.S.—that's a projection, of course—if we don't do anything.

You would think that the pharma industry would develop the required drugs to protect us, but it's not happening because of a complicated market failure that makes it not profitable for industry to do the required R and D to protect us. Similarly, there are other related market failures that happen in other areas where we need R and D—for example, to fight climate change. Generally, there's a lack of innovation culture and innovation investments regarding government-funded services.

Of course, government is already investing a lot in R and D funding for industry as well as academics, but usually it's based on the formula of matching funds with contributions from industry. That's advantageous, because it makes it easier to choose what projects to fund. Presumably, if some company thinks it's worth putting in money, then it's probably not a bad idea. Unfortunately, that process discards missions such as the ones I mentioned, for which there's a really important social value but not a sufficient profit incentive.

For academics, there has been movement on the side of NSERC Alliance funding, which helps to fund academic research when there is a non-profit involved, but this kind of funding is not really focused on the sort of strategic missions that I think governments should be thinking about. On the other hand, for government funding of industry R and D, like the superclusters or R and D tax credits, there's really nothing to try to focus the investment on for these kinds of social missions, because they also rest on this cost-sharing method.

It's really crucial for governments to provide the necessary incentives. It could be financial, regulatory or both. What I mean by “regulatory”, for example, is that increasing carbon pricing is going to create innovation to fight climate change, so we can develop a new sector of the economy, springing from an ecosystem of innovators, to solve these socially important problems. We need to do that in a way that combines both our strengths in academia and the more mission-oriented culture of the private sector.

I can understand that it may be difficult for government to decide on which projects to consider—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Professor Bengio, I'm sorry to interrupt. That is the five minutes. It goes very quickly, but you have a very engaged committee that will want to ask many questions. We thank you for being here. There will be lots of questions, I assure you.

Can we go to Ms. Yeremian for five minutes, please?

[Rosemary Yeremian, Vice-President, Corporate Strategy and Business Development, X-energy Canada]

Thank you.

I'd like to begin by asking you all to imagine what a net-zero Canada would look like.

In our vision, the transportation sector is powered by non-emitting electricity and GHG-free hydrogen; northern communities, especially remote communities, have 24-7 access to affordable, non-emitting power and heat; Canada has a distributed energy system in which consumers can buy and sell power from and to the grid to meet fluctuating demands; Canada's oil and gas sector uses non-emitting technology to extract and process resources; heavy industrial users rely on abundant, baseload, carbon-free heat and power; and hydrogen production and water desalination are abundant and use non-emitting technology.

Advanced small modular reactors—or ASMRs, as I call them—are one of the only options that can provide heat, steam and power to achieve deep decarbonization in Canada.

For the electricity sector, ASMRs can provide emissions-free baseload power for on-grid or off-grid applications.

In the agricultural sector, ASMRs can provide heat for greenhouses and clean hydrogen for agricultural equipment. They can be used in a cogeneration mode to heat buildings. For heavy industry, they can provide power, heat and steam for large industrial users, and they can provide emissions-free power and hydrogen to enable our transition to the electric vehicle market. For the oil and gas sector, ASMRs can be used to provide emissions-free power and steam for SAGD extraction and operations.

ASMRs are not your grandfather's technology. They use a new form of fuel called TRISO, and I encourage you to ask me about it. The U.S. Department of Energy calls it “the most robust...fuel on earth.”

The design of these innovative ASMRs makes them simpler and easier to transport, which makes them cost-competitive with other forms of generation.

ASMRs also have the smallest land footprint of any emitting or non-emitting technology.

Canada has an opportunity to be a real leader in this emerging lucrative market. We're blessed with a strong and capable nuclear sector and nuclear supply chain in Canada. Our current supply chain can be built out across the country, resulting in significant economic benefits for Canada that will position Canada to take advantage of this market, which it is estimated will be $150 billion by 2040.

To achieve real decarbonization in Canada, we will need to deploy ASMRs as part of a national strategy that should include, one, the acceleration of deployment of ASMRs through public investment capital for both public utilities and private corporations; two, the modernization of regulatory frameworks to provide climate considerations, including streamlining regulatory requirements such as impact assessment timelines; and finally, supporting the Canadian supply chain to develop the capability needed to supply ASMRs and to allow Canada's economy to benefit from early adoption.

In closing, we believe Canada must seize this opportunity to decarbonize a variety of sectors using ASMRs, while at the same time positioning us to benefit from the enormous economic benefits of being a leader in the emerging global ASMR market.

Thank you.