Science and Research Committee on March 1st, 2022

[Dr. Adel El Zaïm]

Rural life is very important. I can give the example of forest management. We are working with regional municipalities to ensure the proper management of the forest, in a sustainable, lasting and environmentally friendly way.

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

Mr. Nantel and Mr. Singh, I had at least five questions for you, but I don't think I will have the time to ask them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Monsieur Lauzon. I know the interest you have. The witnesses were so grateful. It's really interesting testimony.

Now we will go to Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas.

Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to greet my colleagues and, of course, all the witnesses joining us this evening.

My first questions will be for Mr. Nantel.

Mr. Nantel, you mentioned in your presentation that Canada was competitive when it comes to basic research. That piqued my curiosity.

Could you elaborate on that for us?

[Dr. Marc Nantel]

Thank you for the question.

It has been a while since I worked in basic research.

However, I can tell you that we are talking about large research institutions, such as Canada's particle accelerator centre TRIUMF, in British Columbia, or the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, which is located here, in Ontario.

A number of large Canadian institutions have made discoveries of global importance. I mentioned that Donna Strickland won the Nobel Prize in physics. Canada is rising above its class and weight when it comes to basic research. Not a decade goes by without one, two or three Canadians winning the Nobel Prize. I don't have the data on hand right now, but Canada generally has a very good reputation in basic research.

Canada has a bit more difficulty in the commercialization of discoveries, in products, economic development and job creation. I think colleges can help address that issue. When it comes to research in Canada, better integration of colleges will really help resolve this issue.

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

Thank you, Mr. Nantel.

What characteristics do you think make Canada really competitive on the global stage?

[Dr. Marc Nantel]

I provided two examples in my presentation.

The Canada Foundation for Innovation has had a transformative impact. I experienced this personally. I saw how it helped modernize facilities from coast to coast to coast, in universities and, more recently, in colleges.

What is more, the Canada research chairs program is becoming increasingly egalitarian. I thank committee chair, Kirsty Duncan, who was science minister at the time.

Those two programs, among others, have done a lot to help Canada position itself close to the top.

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

Mr. Nantel, other stakeholders shared with us another point of view on basic research. I would like to cite Roxanne Borgès Da Silva, who appeared before a House of Commons committee. She said that the government should be apprised of the importance of basic research and that a lot more emphasis was being placed on applied research. Of course, the funding issue also came up again, as that is always the crux, as you probably know. We all know the data. In fact, Canada is the only G7 country that reduced its investments in research and development between 2000 in 2020.

So I am trying to understand what you are telling us. We are competitive, and I am happy about that, but would we be more competitive if investments were made?

Could we even stand out internationally?

[Dr. Marc Nantel]

Yes, of course.

It is certain that my colleagues from the Université du Québec en Outaouais and the University of Saskatchewan would be favourable to additional subsidies not only in pure science, but also in applied science. We would be in an even better situation.

It is true that applied science has been favoured over the past two decades. I think the government was trying to bring to Canadians the fruits of basic research, which was done very well. It must now be ensured that this gives us jobs and meaningful economic development. That is what I was talking about.

There is always a way to do better. We won't stop you from going in that direction. Count on us for encouragement.

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

Thank you, Mr. Nantel.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

You have about a minute and a half, Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas.

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

Thank you very much.

I will continue with our other witness, Mr. El Zaïm.

Mr. El Zaïm, it is a pleasure to have you with us this evening. First of all, allow me to congratulate you on this new challenge that you have accepted as vice-rector at the Université du Québec en Outaouais, a position you have held since last August. I have read your track record, which is quite remarkable. I would like to know more about your international experience.

I know that you have made contributions through various francophone organizations.

In your opinion, is it still possible, in Canada, and even internationally, to do scientific studies and publish articles or books in French?

[Dr. Adel El Zaïm]

I thank you for the question.

It's always possible, but it's difficult. It's still possible to do studies in French and it's still going to be done. It's a bit harder to publish, but the main thing to ask is what you're going to publish, why and for whom. If one wants to publish to win a Nobel Prize, it would probably have to be done in a language like English. If you want to publish to inform policy-makers of scientific results, you should do it in their language.

We all benefit from being multilingual. Our French language is essential and fundamental. We will continue to publish in French. Even if it is more difficult, it is possible. But we need help to do more research in French and to publish in French.

We also teach in French. We have institutions in Canada where they teach in both languages. Indeed, when I travel abroad and deal with the internationalization of higher education, people always talk to me about Canada as a country where you can work in several languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. El Zaïm.

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, for your very important questions.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to start with Dr. Singh. You mentioned the 17 national research facilities across the country. I think you said there were three at the University of Saskatchewan. You said there was a struggle for ongoing funding. I was just wondering if you could expand on that. How are those facilities funded? What role does your university play in the funding of those facilities, and why is there a struggle?

[Dr. Baljit Singh]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I can respond to that question.

For example, currently at the University of Saskatchewan we have the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, which developed Canada's first COVID vaccine. My colleague Professor Volker Gerdts appeared in front of this committee. We also house Canada's only synchrotron facility, called Canadian Light Source. These facilities are funded through a mechanism that is within Canada, CFI. These are called MSI, major science infrastructure funding competitions. Every five to six years, there's a competition. An external international review panel comes to visit these facilities.

For example, in the current round of MSI funding, we projected the operational costs of both of these national facilities for the next five to six years. Because of tight budgets, we were encouraged to look at a 15% reduction in the operating budget of the facilities. That was quite challenging. We believe the reason for this is that CFI, the current funding model, as my colleague from the agricultural college talked about, has served us very well for the last more than 20 years to allow equipment for individual researchers and the creation of larger facilities.

What we are proposing is that we need a different funding model that looks at a large facility. Whenever Canada decides to build a major science facility, from the day the shovel goes into the ground over the life cycle, which may be 20, 30 or 40 years, we should be able to project the cost of operating that facility and make a decision as to how we will fund it between the federal and provincial jurisdictions.

The second layer of complexity is the partnership money that we need to secure, as universities, from the provincial and other entities to complement the funding that will come from the federal government. That creates a patchwork funding model, which is not very conducive to operating these large national facilities. These facilities are also used by hundreds of international researchers who come to Canada, thereby creating prominence for Canadian science on a global stage.

Therefore, an adequate and newer funding model for these facilities is something that we need. We have first-hand experience at the University of Saskatchewan, because we operate these three national facilities for Canadian science.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Dr. Singh.

Dr. Nantel, I have two post-secondary facilities in my riding, Okanagan College and Selkirk College. They're both small- to good-sized colleges, but they operate on that college model you talked about, where research is not paramount. It's operated in a more applied way.

You talked about the college and community innovation fund, 2% of our tri-council budget, and yet you listed off what sounded like very successful programs that are done with that funding. I'm just wondering if you could maybe expand on that.

At Okanagan College we have a sustainable building program that would be so useful for the green infrastructure we need for the future. At Selkirk College we have Metal Tech Alley and other things around the tech smelter that deal with advanced metal science.

I'm wondering if you could maybe expand on your ideas on how we can improve this to make it work better and on whether this model of how colleges do research could be better.

[Dr. Marc Nantel]

Thank you very much.

Through the chair, applied research at colleges is relatively recent. At Niagara College, we've been doing it for 23 years, but we were one of the first to actually receive funding from the government to help us work in collaboration with companies to do applied research. Universities have been doing it for centuries, but with colleges it's relatively new.

When we started in the late nineties and early 2000s, few colleges were actually ready to tackle this type of work. Now, and in great thanks to NSERC's CCI program, I think I saw that 90% of the 140 colleges across Canada conduct applied research and are building their research office infrastructure.

I mentioned earlier that when I was at the University of Toronto as an adjunct professor, I wrote my own grants, hired my own students and ran my own budgets. I was the principal investigator. I did it all myself. At the college, because the faculty is there to teach and to do a little bit of curriculum development, it's the research office that has to do all of that work. Once a company identifies us and wants our help, and we help them find the project and we get funding for it, then we assemble a team around the needs of the company. That's when we release faculty from teaching to work on the project. That's when we hire the students who are going to work with us.

It's a model that works pretty well, honestly. Right now, with the 20 years that we've taken in building ourselves up, it's the funding that could help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Dr. Nantel, I'm so sorry to interrupt.

Mr. Cannings, thank you for your questions. It's really interesting testimony.

We're now going to the second round. We will go to Mr. Williams for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to everyone for being here.

I'm going to continue with Dr. Nantel, so not to worry.

I also have a college in my riding in Bay of Quinte, that being Loyalist College. I know the challenges. Thank you for already answering a lot of the questions I had at the beginning.

Under your leadership, Niagara College has been successful in partnering with businesses to develop commercialized innovation. You spoke a little bit about that in the beginning. What kinds of tips or best practices would you share with other post-secondary institutions that they can copy?

[Dr. Marc Nantel]

Well, we're in competition. I can't give all my secrets, Madam Chair.

Through the chair, what makes a lot of sense is to understand how college applied research does work. It's to focus it on the needs of the companies in your region and the education of the students. We have what we often call a trifecta of success. You have a company with a need, students who need to be educated, and faculty or staff experts who can work together with them and solve the problems.

One thing I did when I first came to Niagara College was to focus on the areas that were important to our region. In Niagara region, we have food and beverage, agriculture, and manufacturing. I focused on those. All of a sudden, we weren't madly off in all directions. We actually focused on what was important to our region and the programs that we offer at the college because the students we hire on projects have to come from somewhere. They have to come from the programs that we have. That's one thing.

Then I would recommend going for stability. That's very important. Doing one project at a time or one little grant at a time is really tiring and it's hard to get momentum going. With NSERC and the regional development agency—in your case, it's FedDev Ontario—there is a way to actually get multi-year funding to bring the funding together when the industry partner needs you.

If I have to write a grant proposal every time, it's a six-month process. That's not the speed of business. I like to work at the speed of business, so if I can have umbrella funding that I can deploy whenever a project is judged worthy of undertaking, that really helps. Long-term funding in area one, area two and potentially area three of your expertise.... It might take three to five years to get that to happen, but that's another way.

Once you have envelope funding and repeatable success that way, you build an infrastructure that can actually get more grants, find more companies and educate more students. You need a certain critical mass.

Jeremy at Loyalist will get that done, I'm sure. He's a great colleague of mine.

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

Yes, he is. He's a great guy.

My second question is this: How are you engaging the industry? What best practices do you have to engage the industry in the Niagara region?

[Dr. Marc Nantel]

Thank you for this, and through the chair—

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

It's through the chair, yes.

[Dr. Marc Nantel]

Sorry, I go to municipal meetings too sometimes.

There are many different ways. We have a good website that is known in Niagara. I sit on several boards. We have our staff on industry association boards. We go to industry association meetings. We make sure that we display our expertise and our equipment. Sometimes we even have press releases, obviously, when we have new funding or new equipment that we want to showcase. We have Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram. We try to reach people where they will try to reach us. Often it's the companies who call us. We're lucky—and it's a little bit in your case also—that in the Niagara Peninsula there are two institutions, Brock University and Niagara College. Brock University is just starting to get an engineering school. Whenever a company wants research in manufacturing, they call us. It's a question of making ourselves known out there actively, but also to be receptive to incoming calls, because you'll have some of those, and for that you need to build your infrastructure and be able to take those calls.