Science and Research Committee on Feb. 8th, 2022

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Producing a vaccine is obviously not an overnight process. Vaccines have been produced by consortia of universities and companies whose work has been going on for some time. First, a potential vaccine is developed and then it is produced.

In the case of Canada, it was clear that we did not have the capacity to produce vaccines in large quantities, as our facilities were very limited for this type of production. Moreover, these facilities were already being used for the production of other vaccines, including for influenza. I think we have learned our lesson. I think the government has taken note, given the investments it has made in vaccines and therapies.

I believe that, in the coming years, we must not forget the trauma we have experienced. In other words, we cannot take a piecemeal approach. We will have to make a serious commitment to health security and continue to do so.

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

Thank you, Ms. Nemer—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Thank you very much. That's six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

We're now moving to Mr. Cannings.

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

Thank you.

Thank you both for being here tonight. It is a historic occasion to have a committee on science and research in Canada. It's wonderful to be here at the initial meeting and to have two people such as yourselves before us. I wish we had hours and hours to talk to you.

I met with Dr. Runte a couple of weeks ago, so I'm going to start with Dr. Nemer. I have so many questions here.

Both of you talked about the competition in terms of science and young scientists that Canada has with other countries, the amount of investment in the U.K. and the U.S.A. The U.S.A. is putting out an idea for $250 billion in science and research investment.

When I talk to young scientists, especially in fields that require a large amount of expensive equipment—and this refers to Dr. Runte's field—they are drawn inexorably to the United States because there's just a very limited amount of that in Canada.

Dr. Nemer, you mentioned that Canada had to prioritize science in our economic strategies. I translated that as meaning we have to spend a lot more money. I wonder if you have any ballpark figure there. Would one-tenth of what the U.S. is planning on spending, $25 billion, be what we need to do, perhaps over a number of years? What would make the biggest impact to get Canada on the right track where the federal government is actually putting a good amount of money into science and research that will drive our economy forward in these years?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Mr. Chair, Canada is a member of the G7. We are a developed country. We are one of the greatest countries in the world. I think it would be expected and normal for Canada's investment in discovery and innovation to be above the average of similar countries, whether they are G7 or OECD countries. Therefore, we do have a rough target there and we need a path towards that target.

That said, in terms of keeping the young researchers and scientists in Canada, we need to recognize that we have to create for them diverse job opportunities. They're not all going to go to universities. In fact, even the majority of Ph.D.s don't end up being university professors. What we need to have more of in the country are science-based industries and a science-based economy. Just because we are rich in natural resources doesn't mean we can't do it. In fact, many of the latest technologies, whether AI, robotics or quantum, can have an amazing effect on our sectors, whether it's agriculture, natural resources or even mining.

It's a combination of both. Once we have these industries, these innovative industries, they themselves also will be investing in research and will help pull us up again.

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

You just mentioned a rough target in relation to the G7 or OECD. I assume that's in ratio to GDP.

Do you have an idea of what that rough target might be, where we are or where we should be?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I have looked recently. I'm sorry, I don't remember exactly where we are, but it has been mentioned that we are not in the position where we want to be.

I'm more than happy to provide the committee with these exact numbers afterwards. I'm sorry, but I don't want to be misquoted.

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

It would be great if you could provide us with those numbers.

Dr. Nemer, with the luxury of having you in front of us, maybe this is an unfair question, but I wonder if you could comment on this idea.

You're the science adviser. There was also a proposal put forward for a parliamentary science officer who would give advice to parliamentarians such as ourselves, not just the cabinet and the government. What do you think of that concept? Do you think it's a valid one? Would it be too unwieldy?

I'm really interested in hearing your opinion.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Well, you know, the more science advice we have, the better. There are a number of models out there. For example, in the U.K., there is a parliamentary office that provides science advice and there is a government science adviser as well and things work quite harmoniously.

We can look at the models that exist out there and adapt what we feel is best for us. Science is going to be important everywhere, and certainly all decision-making and parliamentarians would most likely benefit from something like this.

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

It looks like my time is up, so thanks very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Thank you, Mr. Cannings, for being right under the six-minute mark. Good job.

Moving on to the five-minute round, we're going to Mr. Soroka.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Dr. Nemer.

We've talked about the brain drain. I have to admit that my family is no different in this situation, because I have two nephews who are actually going to university in the United States right now. They both started at the University of Alberta, but now one is getting his Ph.D. and the other one is getting his master's degree in business.

Is it really only funding or is it also that the facilities we have are lacking as well, or is it a combination of both?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I'm going to start by saying that it's not a bad thing for young people to go and study abroad, train abroad or even work for short periods of time abroad. However, we definitely want to have them back in Canada and we want them contributing to the country.

As I said, there are opportunities that already exist in Canada, but we must create more of them and that can only happen by having different sectors work together. This includes the government, the private sector and academia. In places like Silicon Valley or Boston that are thriving with a science-based economy, this is exactly what we saw happening; these different sectors came together and each did what they needed to be doing to put forward the best ecosystem possible.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I like your comments but, unfortunately, they both have American girlfriends and I don't see them coming back too quickly. But that's another story.

Dr. Runte, my question is whether there are areas that we're missing out on in research, or areas that aren't getting funding because they don't fit some criteria. Is it pretty much an open field, where there are no bounds and it's just the lack of money to fund them?

[Dr. Roseann O'Reilly Runte]

First of all, you can ask your nephews to be Canadian recruiters and bring their girlfriends to Canada.

There are always areas that we are discovering, just like we're discovering new knowledge, and those areas of discovery are quite often between disciplines. When we bring disciplines together, we get an exchange of different ideas and perspectives. Questions become more richly considered and developed, and the product of the research is better.

When you try to build a model, for example, on the computer simulating a problem, you can build a very simple model and it will give simple answers, but the answers that you need are actually very complex. You need not just consider, for example, that a road would be built ergonomically, but that it should be environmentally and economically done, and it should be done in a way that's culturally supportive of the people's needs. That way you get a road that's really good. When we bring researchers together, that happens.

One of the things we are doing more and more in Canada is creating environments where there's not just the collision of atoms but the collision of minds and people sharing ideas to make new discoveries. That's really exciting and it's happening right across the country.

Recently I've heard about artificial intelligence mixing with agriculture, artificial intelligence mixing with medicine, neuroscience, oceanography mixing with nanoscience. There are all sorts of new possibilities that will come from this collaboration and bringing together of new ideas and people.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Dr. Runte.

I'm short on time, but I have a quick question. Is there something very cutting edge that we're completely missing the boat on here in Canada that other countries are picking up on and that we could research more?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

You have a quick 30 seconds.

[Dr. Roseann O'Reilly Runte]

Absolutely, there are things that we're missing out on, but there are also.... If we told everybody right now, the other countries would jump on it tout de suite. I could provide you with a long list of things that I think we need to develop, but I also believe we will develop them if we give the opportunity to the researchers, and if we provide the basic tools to labs and equipment to researchers, universities and hospitals, people will come together and find those things.

In every one of our granting competitions we ask people: How will your work help Canada and Canadians? What will this do for the country? We think that's important.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Thank you, Dr. Runte.

Moving on, we have Madam Diab for five minutes.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's really wonderful to be here with both doctors at this historic committee, in our first meeting.

I want to talk about something that struck a chord with me, Dr. Nemer. It was when I heard you mention the power generated when government, business, academia and, I guess, private enterprise—I think you said “civil society”—work collaboratively to advance science-based solutions.

Then when I heard Dr. Runte say “Art McDonald”, “Nobel Prize”, “Cape Breton”—of course, I come from Nova Scotia, a small province in Atlantic Canada—it goes to show you that it doesn't matter where we are in Canada, research happens everywhere, but it's also the power of collaboration.

Having spent eight years in provincial politics before coming to federal, I see the real advantage of collaborating, not just between the levels of government but, quite frankly, with academia, our universities, colleges and students, whether international or our homegrown sons and daughters—I have two who are scientists—but also with private enterprise.

Dr. Nemer, what more can we do to enrich this culture of collaboration that I think is desperately needed in order for us to be able to gain a lot more momentum in this country for research and science?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I so strongly believe in collaboration. I think it has to be our mantra, so to speak. Depending on with whom you want to be collaborating, of course, the incentives and the facilitations are very different. Governments have huge tools to facilitate collaboration with specific sectors, between academia and businesses, as well as supporting civil society and communities that want to do research and collaborate as well, based on their local needs and local capacities, and growing those capacities.

It's difficult to provide specific tools, except to say that governments have a number of things. If they wanted to have more businesses develop certain products, they are great buyers. There are procurement things that can be done, and of course taxation and regulations. There are infinite possibilities. Governments are facilitators. I think the expectation of the citizens of this country is that all levels of government will work together and work with the communities and researchers themselves.

In this pandemic, we saw how the researchers were willing to step up and be very generous with their advice and their time. Many of them pivoted to doing research in areas that are needed by our country for the pandemic. I'm very hopeful on those fronts.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

This is for either one of you.

We have first ministers conferences on many topics in government. Are you aware of a ministers conference on research that happens between the federal and provincial governments? Are there opportunities for either one of you to be involved in things like that, in terms of assisting the federal government to proceed with that? In your role, do you assist academia at all on behalf of government?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Maybe I can start.

I'll say that I see my role as a conduit and a convener between academia and the government. To the question of a first ministers conference on science and research, it was one of the recommendations of the fundamental science review. I'm not aware, but I have to say that before being in this role, I didn't follow the politics really.

Beyond having a first ministers conference on [Technical difficulty—Editor].