Science and Research Committee on Feb. 8th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Good evening, everyone. I call this meeting to order.

We are in meeting number three of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research.

Tonight, we have a few witnesses joining us. I'm excited to hear their presentations and look forward to the rounds of questioning later on this evening.

We are going to start with a six-minute presentation by Dr. Runte.

You have the floor.

[Dr. Roseann O'Reilly Runte, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Foundation for Innovation]

Good evening.

Established 25 years ago to stop the loss of Canadian talent to other countries, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, or CFI, invests in state‑of‑the‑art infrastructure.

We thus enable researchers at Canadian universities, colleges and hospitals to think big, innovate and lead. The CFI is an independent not-for-profit organization operating at arm's length from the government. We invest, on behalf of the Government of Canada, 40% of the total cost of infrastructure projects, with the provinces's private and not-for-profit sectors covering the remaining 60%. This is an important contribution to nation building that creates at the same time a world-class research ecosystem.

Since its creation, the CFI has committed more than $9 billion for over 12,000 projects at 170 research institutions in 80 municipalities across the country. Adding partner contributions, this translates into over $20 billion. CFI investments have supported the emergence of fields of research as diverse as clean energy, quantum computing and precision medicine.

For example, the Centre d'optique, photonique et laser at Université Laval is at the heart of a new industrial sector focused entirely on the use of sophisticated lasers and comprising 70 companies and research centres. It employs over 3,000 highly qualified people in Quebec City.

We work collaboratively with the research granting councils, which fund individuals, while the CFI funds institutions. Growth in our largest research institutions means that Canada can rival the best in the world. The University of Toronto, UBC and McGill University rank among the top 50 in the world, demonstrating the talent, creativity and global reputation of our researchers.

The cumulative impact of our investments has the power to catalyze and transform the economy of regions. For example, vintners in British Columbia and the Niagara region depend on research to develop mould- and cold-resistant vines. The CFI was one of the first investors in the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, then a largely agricultural region. Today, this extraordinary facility welcomes researchers from around the world and is surrounded by a prosperous high-tech community where quantum research is poised to break new ground in collaboration with researchers in Montreal, Sherbrooke and Vancouver.

The provinces have been central to the success of the CFI. When we consulted about the possibility of a biomedical research fund, they all wanted to make sure that their researchers were equipped to respond to future outbreaks of infectious disease and to lay the groundwork for a vibrant life science sector in Canada.

Today, we've learned that we must do more than collaborate internationally. At times, when borders close, we need to be independent and develop a supply chain that goes from ideas and discovery to manufacturing and the commercialization of innovation.

Nations around the world are investing hugely in research and pinning hopes on significant research investments for rapid economic recovery. Our neighbour to the south of the border encourages young researchers to take risks and to expect and learn from failure. In Canada, we do not have a sufficient population or resources to permit investment at such a scale, nor do we have the luxury of failure. We must invest wisely and continue to foster research through a combination of competition and collaboration, building networks and partnerships both across the country and globally. By creating opportunities for convergence among disciplines, for bringing together the diversity of our population and for the meeting of minds across our vast geography, we stand the greatest chance of success.

Canada is once again facing a shortage of skilled and highly skilled employees. There is a global race for talent and every effort is required to keep our best minds in Canada. We believe the solution lies partially within our borders. We recently conducted a national survey of youth to learn how they view science and what influences and shapes their attitudes and perceptions. The good news is that 70% said that science can be relied on because it is based on facts, not opinion. Even better, 77% think science is a good field to pursue as a career. We need to be sure they can follow this dream.

For the CFI, that means providing the spaces for learning hands-on research fundamentals and techniques, spaces where they'll be inspired and motivated to be like Donna Strickland, or Mona Nemer, or your chair, Kirsty Duncan.

There is also a message for all of us here tonight. Fifty-seven per cent of young adults believe it is critical for Canadian politicians and governments to rely on science when making policy decisions. I would like to recognize your leadership in supporting research that offers us not only real solutions to global problems but hope, which is perhaps the gift the world most needs to move from its postpandemic state to new heights of achievement.

Thank you for your kind attention. I look forward to your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will move to our next presenter before we open up the floor to questions.

Dr. Nemer, please start.

[Dr. Mona Nemer, Chief Science Adviser, Office of the Chief Science Adviser]

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity and the privilege to exchange with you this evening.

I would like to first congratulate you and all members on being nominated to this important committee, the creation of which is vital not just for the research community, but for our country's future.

Over the past two years, we have seen science in action like never before, as a new virus swept through countries and posed an existential threat not seen for a century. Science guided us throughout the pandemic and gave us the tools—from diagnostics to vaccines to therapies—that saved lives and are allowing us to return to a more normal state. Researchers raced to learn more about the virus and the disease it causes; their discoveries informed public policies in real time and generated unprecedented public interest in science, science advice and evidence-informed decision-making.

During this time, in my capacity as chief science adviser, I reached out to Canadian researchers who generously participated in many task forces and expert panels to help provide science advice to our government in support of pandemic management. This included advice on research needs, the role of aerosols in virus transmission, the impact of the disease on children and options for ongoing virus monitoring and early detection. Science and research will be needed even more in the postpandemic era to help us build healthy, safe and sustainable societies while addressing the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change. That is why the work of this committee is so important.

Since its inception in the fall of 2017, my office has been working toward fulfilling our mandate to provide advice to government on, first, improving support for quality scientific research, including guidelines for an open science ecosystem; and second, enhancing the science advisory function within government, including processes for science-informed decisions.

To these ends, we developed a model scientific integrity policy, which has now been implemented by 22 federal departments and agencies, along with a road map for open science, which has also been embraced by the research community within and outside government departments. We have recommended and helped develop a growing network of departmental science advisers that further enhances the science advisory needs of government.

If I may, I wish to recognize the invaluable support of the chair, Madam Kirsty Duncan, in her role as minister of science in helping set up this most useful network.

Additionally, my office participated in the creation of the interdepartmental indigenous STEM cluster, or I-STEM, which works to increase and expand support for indigenous priorities in environmental stewardship and research. We have been active in international scientific engagement, which greatly benefited our country during the pandemic.

My office will continue to provide science advice on issues that are critical to the welfare of Canadians, including emergency preparedness, climate change adaptation, advanced technologies, and research and talent development in key sectors.

The acquisition of new scientific understanding, its mobilization in technology innovation and its careful, appropriate and transparent use in government decision-making contribute to the welfare and prosperity of all Canadians. Over the years, we have enjoyed some noteworthy successes in diverse areas ranging from physics, computer sciences and engineering to life sciences and health, which has translated into digital technologies and health products, among other innovations. However, as many countries around the world increased their attention to and investments in research to drive their economies, Canada's relative spending on R and D has declined over the past two decades.

A 2018 report of the Council of Canadian Academies outlines how Canada is lagging other countries in research on most enabling and strategic technologies, and accounts for a relatively small share of the world's research output for promising areas of technology development, notably biotechnology, nanotechnology and materials science. This of course has a direct impact on our ability to create innovative products and businesses that generate jobs and prosperity.

Canada can still catch up to our peer countries that are forging ahead with big, bold visions for science and technology. We have the essential ingredients to do so with our talented people and our world-class facilities, but getting there means prioritizing science in our economic strategies.

The pandemic has already taught us many lessons: the importance of homegrown research, innovation and manufacturing; and the power generated when government, business, academia and civil society work collaboratively to advance science-based solutions.

Most of our peer countries are prioritizing research and innovation for their post-pandemic economies, creating a highly competitive environment for attracting and retaining talent and investments.

As we look to a future that will need even more science and research, we must set ambitious targets for our country and ensure that we have the appropriate environment and conditions to meet them. A thriving research ecosystem is foundational for talent development and discovery. It also enables the development of mission-focused R and D in priority sectors for our country, whether they be health, agriculture, energy or secure communications.

In summary, reaffirming our research prominence will result in socio-economic benefits for all Canadians. Science leadership will provide us with the tools to strengthen our international standing in an increasingly complex world. We need to bring science and technology innovation to the mainstream of our economic policies, and we need to enshrine scientific advice in our decision-making processes.

I look forward to assisting the committee in its important work ahead.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Thank you very much for both of those presentations.

We're going to move into the six-minute round of questioning.

First up is Mr. Williams.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Dr. Nemer and Dr. Runte, for being the first witnesses on the Standing Committee on Science and Research. It's very exciting.

Our future priority in Canada, our prosperity, if we're ever going to move away from oil, gas and mining, which is such a big driver of our GDP, is going to be innovation. It's going to be big, bold ideas and a sense of urgency that get us there.

Right now, we're ranked not near the top but somewhere near the bottom. The Trudeau and Paul Martin governments had wanted us to be in the top five.

My first question is for Dr. Runte.

How are we going to get to number five in this nation?

[Dr. Roseann O'Reilly Runte]

I think we have to make a concerted effort and invest. We need to invest, first of all, in the young researchers so that we have the next generation and the workforce that will bring business and attract economic development. We need to invest in cutting-edge research for the future. We need to continually upgrade what we have and make sure that our past investments continue to pay off. We need to support the top institutions that have the possibility of moving great global issues.

We also need to provide the ability for institutions across the country, smaller research institutions in the regions, so that young people everywhere in the country can have the opportunity to do what Art McDonald, who is from Cape Breton, did: get a Nobel Prize.

We have to provide opportunity across the country while we're supporting the absolute cutting-edge research in some institutions, and we have to maintain what we have already while we're acquiring more.

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

Thank you very much, Doctor.

My favourite country for innovation is South Korea. South Korea fits into the rock of Newfoundland and yet produces the same GDP as we do. Half of their GDP is innovation, so Samsung, LG, Hyundai.

The U.S. right now is in front of us. What I'm getting from you is that we need to have innovation in innovation.

Dr. Nemer, the U.S., for instance, has come up with a new energy earthshots initiative. They have clear targets where some of the most technological problems are solved. Right now they're doing hydrogen economy, battery long-term storage and removing greenhouse gases from here. Yesterday they announced a geothermal project.

Should Canada develop not just a CARPA, but a U.S.-style earthshots initiative to get ahead of the pack so we can become better at innovation in this nation?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I think your observations are extremely important. We need to look at these countries in terms of what they invest in basic research, how they facilitate the translation of research into innovative products and also the makeup of their economy where they have many more companies that are actually in the private sector that do research in those countries.

When I last looked at South Korea, their investment in research is absolutely incredible and the slope that keeps going up. There's also the whole supportive culture, because you have the LGs and the Samsungs, and they can collaborate and help basic researchers in institutions and so on.

I think for us, we need to create this environment. Yes, we do need to have high ambitions. We need to decide that we are going to have our own moonshot projects based on our needs, our capacities, our competitive advantage, and go after it in a determined and systematic way.

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

Thank you. I'll go to my last question.

Dr. Runte, should we be mirroring what the U.S. or our competitors are doing for innovation, or should Canada be coming up with its own differentials, let's say, food processing or some other technologies that we can be more competitive in?

[Dr. Roseann O'Reilly Runte]

That's a really great question. I don't think it's simply looking at technology that doesn't exist where we're going to fill a gap. I think we have to take where we have talent, where we have already developed ability, what coincides with our culture and our ability. There's no point in us developing tropical bananas or something. We have to look at what we have here in Canada. What do we have? What are our talents? What are our strengths?

Part of what we do in the Canada Foundation for Innovation is test that. We hold competitions and look at where we have strength. In 1990 before anybody knew the term “artificial intelligence”, we were funding those researchers who created what we now have in artificial intelligence. When we invested in the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, there was nothing there. It was farmers fields. Yet there were the people who had the ambition and the goal and the drive to do it.

I wouldn't have picked Waterloo—perhaps the mayor of Waterloo wouldn't like this—as a site for that, but it was brilliant, and everything has grown around it. We have to look at the people we have, the need and also the global need, and then we will find our abilities and our niche, and we will be very competitive. We've shown we can do it. In precision medicine, we are very highly ranked in the world. There's artificial intelligence. We've done quite well in quantum, but we have a lot more way to go.

We're looking at what we do for clean technologies across the country. We can build in that area, but we need to take the grassroots and bring them up. That will be our strength, because I truly believe that our strength and our best resource are the minds of the people across this country, and they will be the key.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Thank you, Dr. Runte.

We're moving to Mr. Collins for six minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

First and foremost, thank you to both doctors for presenting tonight. It's a great inspirational kickoff to the first study. Thanks again to Member Cannings who put this study in front of us to get us to where we are this evening. It's a terrific start to what we're doing.

I want to start with Dr. Nemer's opening statement. Something in her speech caught me. She said, “Science and research will be needed even more in the postpandemic era to help us build healthy, safe and sustainable societies while addressing the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change.”

That caught me, Dr. Nemer, through you, Mr. Chair, because I think that 90% of Canadians agree with your statement.

How do we ensure that government policy continues to rely on science and to be guided by science, whether it's on health-related matters, which have dominated, obviously, our discussion over the last two years with the pandemic, or any other government programs in other ministries?

How do we ensure that we, as a government, continue to rely on science and that science is front and centre in the decision-making process, rather than what we have seen from a very small, vocal minority of people who rely on social media?

You can surf Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, or any of those platforms. We have found that those who don't rely on science are questioning climate change. They are questioning the vaccines. There is literally a flat earth society out there now.

How do we collectively, at all levels of government, deal with that issue from an education perspective and from an investment and funding perspective to ensure that it remains a small minority?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Mr. Chair, this is such an important and, of course, complex and complicated issue.

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

Take as much time as you need, Dr. Nemer.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Thank you very much.

I think you're right that this is a societal issue that has to be taken on by our governments, our scientists, and our media, for that matter. This is something we need to be doing for the collective good.

I often say that science and science literacy are so essential for democracy. Science is everywhere. People make decisions every day based on science without even realizing it. When they don't understand the science or when they are influenced by folks who have all sorts of ulterior motives or not in a particular area, then I think we all suffer.

On the hopeful side, we have seen during this pandemic that many of our scientists, researchers and physicians stepped up and were engaging with the media and directly with the public. I am gratified by seeing how the public's appetite for science and evidence is increasing. The public is demanding to understand the evidence on which some decisions are being made. I think that's a very positive development and one we need to continue to nurture. There are many ways that can be further helped, but I feel that we are on a good track for that.

Of course, we ask scientists and researchers to do many things these days. We ask them to talk to the public. We ask them to do their research, to train the next generation and to start companies. I think all these are very important, but we need to recognize their efforts when they engage with the public.

Dr. Runte spoke about artificial intelligence and quantum sciences. These are going to be transformative tools for us to tackle health and environmental adaptation, but we're going to need the public to come along with us, so it's very important to engage with the public.

I'm proud to say that I have taken on bringing scientists and parliamentarians together as a priority for my office. We will be doing another edition of Science Meets Parliament and I hope all members of the committee will be part of this very important exercise.

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

Thank you, Doctor.

Normally I don't comment on other countries' domestic policies, but ours seems to be a topic of interest to our neighbours. I'm concerned about what we see in the U.S. in terms of government decisions at times not guided by science and guided by other information.

How do we deal with that postpandemic? How do we deal with it from an education perspective? I think Dr. Runte says 57% of youth suggested that we continue to be guided by science, which is a bit of a concerning number. I thought it would have been a lot higher—unless I misheard that.

How does the government make investments to ensure that the vast majority of Canadians continue to believe that policies at all levels of government should be guided by science? How do we implement that from a funding perspective and an education perspective?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

I'm sorry, Mr. Collins, but we're just up to six minutes. As much as the last one went a little longer, we are going to try to keep to the schedule.

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

That's no problem. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

It's much appreciated.

Moving along to the next member, we have Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that we welcome you this evening to discuss science, research, success, challenges, and opportunities. Allow me to address my first questions to Ms. Nemer.

Ms. Nemer, first of all, I would like to put into perspective the role of your position as Canada's chief science adviser. This position existed from 2004 to 2008, but then it was abolished by the government, only to be reinstated in 2017. So for almost 10 years, there was no chief science adviser position.

What do you think has been the effect of the absence of this position on government policy and on society as a whole?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

It's hard for me to say what happened when I wasn't at the table, but I can only imagine what we missed. Having said that, I can tell you what has happened since I have been in office.

For example, during this pandemic, it was clear that the position I hold was a very important one. I have been able to work with various government departments, as the multidisciplinary objectives of science cut across several departments. In addition, this position provides us with important links, both domestically and internationally, which have served us well.

I guess it's important to have a chief science adviser position if most of the big countries have one, so that you can be at the table and benefit from what others are doing well, to adopt best practices.

Obviously, there is a lot of work to be done and my deepest wish is that we can have a sustainable science advisory system in this country, a bit like England, and even the United States, which have had well-established systems for over 50 years.

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

Ms. Nemer, Quebec has enshrined the position of chief science adviser in the Loi sur le ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche, de la Science et de la Technologie. As I understand it, Canada's chief science adviser position does not have equivalent protection.

You mentioned the importance of having a chief science adviser to accompany the government in various aspects of science and research.

Wouldn't the fact that your position is enshrined in legislation represent not only a voice for scientists, but also the inclusion of science in government decisions?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Indeed, this observation is very interesting.

Quebec often leads the way. Right now, to tell you the truth, I envy my colleague, with whom I have been in contact throughout the pandemic. I think it is certainly in the country's interest to ensure that a position of this nature exists on a permanent basis. Obviously, if it needs to be enshrined in legislation, that's a decision for parliamentarians, not for me. But I can tell you that many of the scientists and of our international counterparts would welcome it.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Nemer.

I obviously want to ask you a question related to the pandemic. You mentioned it in my first question.

I am trying to understand why Canada, a G7 country, is the only one that has not been able to produce vaccines, and therefore has not been self-sufficient in producing the COVID‑19 vaccine.