Science and Research Committee on Nov. 28th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much.

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

Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Madam Chair, I'd like to discuss my motion, as I mentioned earlier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas, that's six minutes. Perhaps we could do that on a different round. I'm sorry.

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

Excuse me, Madam Chair, but I'd asked you to stop me when I had five seconds left so that I could move my motion. Did you miss that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas, I did it at the 30-second mark. Can we wait to do this in the next round?

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

Unfortunately, not, Madam Chair. I might not get a turn in the next round.

You may not know, but when you hold up your card, I can't see it on the screen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Okay. Please be very quick, Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas.

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

Here I go with my motion, then, Madam Chair. I'll be super quick.

The motion I am putting on notice, which the honourable members already know about, reads as follows:

That the deadline for the submission of briefs in relation to the study of research and scientific publication in French be extended to 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 22, 2022.

The members of the committee know that I have raised this issue before. In a nutshell, we are waiting for the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, François-Philippe Champagne, to appear. I've already invited him. In addition, the parties had reached an agreement on October 31.

The minister is expected to appear before the committee soon. The last I heard, he should be here on December 12, and I very much hope that's the case.

Many witnesses have told me that they want to wait until after the minister's appearance to submit their briefs. As per the agreement, we were going to extend the deadline for the submission of briefs by 10 days, to take into account the minister's appearance.

That's the purpose of my motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas.

Is there any discussion?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Could we vote on the motion, please, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Monsieur Lauzon.

Is there agreement to call a vote?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

It looks like there's agreement. Mr. Clerk.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk, and thank you, Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas.

Now we will go to Mr. Cannings for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you to the witnesses. As usual, it's a very interesting discussion.

I want to start with Dr. Smith.

I just want to clarify something I thought I heard you say, and maybe I misheard it. Was one of the moonshots you were talking about a “sustainable health care system”, or were you talking about a “research system”?

[Kevin Smith]

No, I was actually talking about a sustainable health care system and thinking about how we would create that, which would include basic research as well as pedagogical or educational research.

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

That's good. I was a bit surprised to hear that, but happily surprised, because I think 100% of Canadians would say they would be very interested in hearing about a sustainable health care system.

Perhaps you could expand on that with a bit of background. I remember one of the first things I read when I was getting into politics 10 years ago was a book by Jeffrey Simpson. I forget what it was called—“chronic care”, or something like that. It was about Canada's health care system. He went through various ideas about how we could improve the system and make it more sustainable. It ended with the fact that if you look at the health care systems of the world, you see that those with the best outcomes for the money spent were those more or less in northern Europe where they invested in people up front. They made sure that they were well educated, didn't fall into poverty, stayed out of hospitals and stayed out of jail—all those things that are the social basis of health. Then they had a good health care system that could run properly, but it took that upfront investment.

I'm wondering if you could comment on whether that is still one of the pillars of a sustainable health care system.

[Kevin Smith]

Absolutely, Mr. Cannings.

When you think back to the chamber in which some of you are sitting, you may remember that it was Monsieur Lalonde, I believe, in the early 1970s, who really introduced the health of the population to Canadians. That really means not only an illness care system for when people are sick, but recognizing that education, housing, food security, eradication of poverty, and good drinking water are incredibly important components of health. Of course, for illness care it means strong delivery mechanisms.

We know currently that one of the greatest challenges facing our health care system is adequate health human resources. That challenge is not unique to Canada; it is around the world. When we think about the economics of health care, we realize it is one of the most expensive social programs, yet of course one of the most important, although I am a tiny bit biased.

That said, if we really want to look at the effectiveness of the system, often we need to look at the incentives that we've put within it.

I could think of a moonshot looking at the sustainability of a health care system, but would it include economists thinking about how we can better fund the system and better align our incentives to the outcomes that we're hoping for? Would it include thinking about data scientists and artificial intelligence experts who can help Canadians make better individual decisions? Would it include thinking about digital health that allows people with chronic diseases like congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to be able to be managed at home using downloadable, wearable devices, which are actually made right here in Canada by remarkable companies that are actually often more attractive on the international market than on our own Canadian market?

Last, but certainly not least, who are the extenders of physicians and nurses and therapists who we know could and should be brought to the health care system to make that health human resource issue get much better? We could easily think about a science-social, science-economics model of care by which we would bring together truly the most interdisciplinary team we could imagine to address both population health and the health care system of those who are ill and require treatment.

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

Thanks very much. I'll leave it at that, because we could talk about this for days, I'm sure.

I want to turn to Dr. Barber.

We just did a study on small modular reactors. The government, I think, has come up with almost $1 billion in funding to support these reactors, yet they don't seem to be supporting fusion at the same level.

In the time remaining, I wonder if you could compare where fusion is versus small modular reactors. You say you'd be on the grid by 2030. What are the ongoing costs of that? How would the costs of fusion energy be compared with SMR energy?

[Amee Barber]

We do have a timeline to be on the grid that's relatively comparable. We have received government funding in terms of SIF, IRAP and SDTC, but again, we are seeking a larger strategic partnership in contributions, say, with the government. We have proposed a structure whereby it would be warranties, which would position the government as an equity partner, as part of a large “raise” that we're currently in, much like the one that has just been awarded through Ontario Power Generation, and in partnership with the provinces.

We are seeking opportunities like that—federal government in partnership with other national governments, such as the U.K., and/or with provincial partnerships. Our timeline for development and deployment is approximately the same.

Yes, that's what we are seeking, and we do hope for support and endorsement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Dr. Barber.

Thank you, Mr. Cannings.

Thank you to both our witnesses tonight.

Now we're going to go to the five-minute round. I see we have Mr. Williams.

It's lovely to have you back, Mr. Williams. The floor is yours.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's lovely to be back.

Thank you to our witnesses here today.

I want to start with Dr. Barber. It's very fascinating. It does seem that this is a definite moonshot.

I want to start by asking why you think Canada has the potential to be a leader with fusion.

[Amee Barber]

We have here all of the components we need. We have the labs. We have the fuel source out of Ontario, with the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. We have utilities that are interested in the transition. I was just in Alberta, and they would have transitioned away from coal much earlier, and I'm sure they would transition away from the intermediate source of fuel even sooner, if something like this would be available.

We have a history of energy development and leadership. We're climate leaders as well internationally. We have an excellent reputation. We would be a politically safe source from which to export this technology, particularly in light of the current crisis and geopolitical energy security challenges.

Again, we have the academic institutions. I'm constantly coming across people who work for, say, the University of Alberta, the University of Saskatchewan or UBC who have a background in plasma physics or particle science or materials science or mechanical engineering.

We have all the constituent components. We just need to bring them together into a formalized and committed program and have the policy commitment to underpin that.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

I know you might be a little biased, but if you were going to rank this technology compared to hydrogen or compared to small nuclear reactors, where would this technology be in terms of prominence? You discussed the target of almost three times our energy needs in the next 20 years. Where would you put your technology?

[Amee Barber]

Well, we are completely carbon-free with no atmospheric emissions, so I think that goes to say where it would be in terms of priority.

However, as I mentioned at the beginning, there's room for all of these technologies to meet our future energy needs. We say that really the only competition right now is the status quo if we're going to get to where we need to be.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

One of my colleagues was asking about the commercialization gap. We are going to be studying this very soon, so we might ask you to come back.

When it comes to commercializing your IP, your intellectual property, what do we need to do? What recommendations would you make for us?