Science and Research Committee on Feb. 8th, 2022

[Dr. John Pomeroy]

Yes. The government scientists I have had the pleasure of working with have seen their budgets drop over the decades. Their numbers have dropped over the decades. Investments in federal laboratories have not continued apace. They have become isolated.

There used to be many programs for government scientist-led national research enterprises and networks and engaged deeply with them. We had funding agencies and approaches that promoted this very strongly. That seems to have declined to some degree.

Where we have sustained it and kept it strong has been with the co-location of government labs on campuses. We have the National Hydrology Research Centre of Environment Canada on the campus of the University of Saskatchewan. Working together, that builds that strength in water research that is so crucially important.

Of course, government scientists also generally cannot apply for tri-council funding, which is different from what it would be in the U.K., for instance, or elsewhere. They miss out on being investigators on large programs such as the Canada first research excellence fund, or NSERC networks, unless they find ways to bring their own cash, and often that cash is simply not there.

It makes it very challenging for them. That's difficult for students because some of our graduate students would be superb government scientists and would love to have a career as a government scientist. Those jobs are very few and far between.

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

You're a water scientist. Can you comment on the history of the experimental lakes area project, maybe as a cautionary tale? We heard about it in the House today, I think.

[Dr. John Pomeroy]

This particular facility was developed in the 1960s and 1970s. It's simply the best in the world to study the problem of acid rain, but it also then became over time a more valuable facility to study the impacts of climate change, land use development and others.

It was a federal laboratory for many years, and was dropped, as were many others. There are dozens of research basins like that across Canada, where federal research on water was conducted, that were given up by the federal government.

The universities or other groups are trying to operate them. IISD in Winnipeg is trying to keep the experimental lakes area going, but there are many others by the universities of Saskatchewan, Waterloo and McMaster—you name it. We all have our former federal research site that we're trying to keep going.

That has been part of the issue, because these outdoor laboratories, like the experimental lakes area, are invaluable for environmental research and water research. If we don't keep them going, then we lose a legacy that cannot be repeated, particularly when we have rapid climate change. We have to know how these ecosystems operated before that climate change and how they have changed during it as our early warning systems. It's quite precarious to do it now.

I'm a big fan of the Canada Foundation for Innovation. We have put many proposals together. I finished one just two hours ago to support places like this.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Thank you kindly.

Now, moving on to our last round, it will be two questioners each with five minutes.

First up is MP Soroka.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Goel, you mentioned something about research being narrow focused. I'm curious about that comment.

If someone has one fantastic idea to do research on, is the problem with the narrow focus because of the bureaucracy that's involved trying to get funding either from government or different organizations out there? Are the streams so difficult to navigate that they just continue to keep doing the same kinds of projects? Is bureaucracy really the problem with funding, as well as a lack of money and facilities?

[Dr. Vivek Goel]

It's really a combination of all of those things. We talked about the challenges of the granting councils. They are organized around disciplinary boundaries. Within each granting council, they have review panels which are usually organized around very specific disciplines.

I'll give you an example. I was talking today with someone about some of our quantum researchers who are developing technology that can be used for imaging brain cancers, so they're working with clinical researchers. Do they apply to NSERC, because they're engineers and physicists working on quantum technology—that's what NSERC sponsors—or do they apply to CIHR because they do clinical research? It kind of falls through the cracks.

There are these new programs like CFREF and the new frontiers in research fund, but they're very large-scale programs. If you're just that individual researcher with this great idea, you can't easily get that funded.

To build on this a little further, we talked a lot about funding, but our challenge for our researchers, and what I think you're hinting at, is that we do have a lot of complexities with our funding mechanisms. There are a lot of different kinds of forms—you can call it bureaucracy—that researchers have to fill out.

We have security considerations now that researchers working in certain areas and with certain types of partners have to work on. Universities very much support the security considerations, but the implementation is creating a new set of challenges for our researchers, with new sets of forms and hoops they have to go through that they don't see in other countries.

When we talk about the potential for the brain drain, it's going to be a combination of the funding and these bureaucratic hoops that our researchers have to go through.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

My next question is for Dr. Patry.

I was quite concerned when you talked about the brain drain. As I said to the previous presenters, I have two nephews; one is getting his Ph.D. and the other has a master's. They both went to the States and I don't see them coming back.

You said that we have fallen behind so far. Is there any way of catching up again, or is this basically beating a dead horse, because there's no way we can compete any longer with these other countries?

[Dr. Gilles Patry]

I think there's a way of competing, and I thank you for that question.

Maybe I should qualify this. We've fallen behind dramatically on the business expenditure in R and D. In the higher-education expenditure, we're still there, but over the last 20 years, when you look at the pressures in the system, which are inflation plus growth, the available funds, what I call the normalized funding, is decreasing.

What we're calling for is essentially a significant investment that goes beyond inflation. We have to address inflation, but we also have to address growth, and we have to address competitiveness. If we want to be competitive and ensure that research and innovation take place in Canada, and we should, then obviously we need to invest.

When we invest a dollar in a researcher, when we give Dr. Pomeroy $100,000 to conduct his research, it's not going to pay his salary as it is in the Unites States. It is going to pay for his graduate students. He takes that money and passes it on to graduate students and post-docs, so you're creating jobs essentially, and at the same time you're educating the workforce of tomorrow.

There's a perception that this money disappears in the system. Essentially, close to 80% of the funding that a researcher receives goes to support their graduate students and their post-docs.

I think there is an opportunity to be competitive because we do have areas of excellence that are extraordinary. Dr. Pomeroy mentioned water. That's also my own area, and we can point to so many developments in water technology, water treatment, waste-water treatment, water security, AI, quantum, advanced manufacturing, agriculture and so on.

There are some fantastic areas of expertise, but remember the three points that I mentioned earlier in terms of the focus. That's also an important area to look into for future development.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Thank you kindly.

We are going to move to the last questions, which will be from MP Lauzon.

You're on for four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to be part of this new committee. It's a historic opportunity to sit on a science and research committee, and I'm very happy to do so.

My first question is for Dr. Pomeroy.

I met with the National Cattle Feeders' Association this morning, who were explaining to me the difficulty they face with drought on the Prairies. I also met with the UPA, which faced the same challenge here in Quebec with the floods.

How could your expertise, which is in the study of water, and more broadly, in climate change, allow Canada to remain competitive in cattle farming and in agriculture in general, and more precisely, in rural areas?

[Dr. John Pomeroy]

Thank you for the question.

One of the things I conduct research on is the water footprint for cattle, whether it's providing water for them for drinking or water for the feed for the animals, and then also making sure we dispose of waste appropriately.

With rapid climate change, what worries me about climate change more than other things are what Jim Bruce described as “the raiser”, which is water, the extremes of drought and flooding. Our farmers fluctuate between flood and drought, sometimes in the same year within the same province, but the story in the last year has been extraordinary drought. We're in a North American drought. In Canada, it extended from Vancouver Island into southern Quebec and even a bit into the Maritimes.

This week in southern Alberta there was a massive dust storm—in February. This is unprecedented. If you go back to the dirty thirties, they don't talk about winter dust storms, but this is what we're seeing now.

We have a project called Agricultural Water Futures, which is studying the water footprint of various crops. We're looking at new crops that are spreading northwards as the climate warms and what their water use and requirements are. We're also looking at how to manage soils better and how to trap snow when it's available for water supply, looking at tillage systems, and looking at mountain water supply and other water supplies for irrigation.

Both Alberta and Saskatchewan have proposed massive irrigation systems. We have to make sure there's enough water to do this and that it's available through the longest droughts, and that there is also water for ecosystems, indigenous communities, the cities, and hydroelectric and other purposes.

It's a very challenging time.

Canada's agricultural water tie-in could be even more important in the future as the rest of the world loses its ability to produce food reliably. We will have stresses and difficulties, but we will be relatively better off than many areas, including the Midwestern United States as one example.

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

Thank you very much. That is a complete answer.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

Actually, MP Lauzon, unfortunately we're at the time of adjournment.

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

Oh, my God, I have so many questions to ask.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

It went really quickly. I appreciate everyone's patience tonight.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Corey Tochor]

On behalf of all members, I thank our presenters on the first panel and the second panel. It is a historic night, being the first time we have witnesses at this committee, and I am honoured to chair this.

It being the time of adjournment, not seeing any other business, this committee will stand adjourned until Thursday.