Science and Research Committee on March 22nd, 2022

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Balsillie, according to the OECD, the Canadian private sector’s R and D investments accounted for just 0.81% of GDP in 2019, while the average for OECD member countries was 1.76% of GDP. In light of that indicator, Canada ranked 24th among OECD countries.

Can you tell us why the level of R and D investment by Canada's private sector is so low?

[Jim Balsillie]

Yes, I'm happy to do that.

In this policy area, Canada's policy community has peddled myths that there's a complacency, lack of competitive intensity or weak receptors for the business community. You have to understand that research by government leads to research by business in the traditional production economy, but when you go into the intangibles economy, research for government must then translate into what's called freedom to operate or owned intellectual property, which naturally then drives corporate investments. We missed the middle step in the changed economy.

For instance, if I say that I want to make the next Google and here's $5 billion to go build a data centre, of course that's not going to work. If you wanted to be a brick manufacturer 100 years ago, it would work because you don't own the ideas. The reason we lose the translation from GERD to BERD is that we missed the institutional middle piece of freedom to operate. That's the foundational flaw of our public policy.

If we had expertise in the civil service through a new economic council and a proper analytical framework, that would snap that issue forward right away. That's precisely what the provinces are doing to address this and the ISED pilot. Let's see what the real issue is and focus on it.

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

Quickly, Mr. Balsillie, can you tell us what the barriers are for companies that want to invest?

[Jim Balsillie]

The problem is there's no idea to invest it into because the idea's gone. There's nothing to invest. The government money went to foreign firms or it was just squandered because there was no institution that developed it over five years. There's nothing to invest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

We have two and a half minutes and we'll go to Mr. Cannings, please.

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

Thank you.

I will go back to Evidence for Democracy and let them respond to my question about scientific literacy in decision-makers.

Specifically, you've mentioned in passing the idea of having a parliamentary science officer who would be available to MPs, senators or whoever needs scientific advice or who could present ideas to them and ask what the science behind it is. The chief science adviser works for the government—for cabinet, basically.

Should we have some office that could provide that service for parliamentarians generally?

[Rachael Maxwell]

Yes, we did make the suggestion for a parliamentary science officer for pretty much the exact reason you just outlined. The parliamentary science officer could be there to directly serve parliamentarians and really provide more scientific expertise in the House of Commons itself.

There are models of this in other countries. The U.K. has a parliamentary office of science and technology. The White House has an office of science and technology policy. It could be similar to the Parliamentary Budget Officer who is already in place.

Specifically, a parliamentary science officer can give a stronger voice in Parliament. They could have responsibilities like assessing the state of scientific evidence relevant to any proposals or bills before Parliament. They could answer requests from committees and individual MPs for scientific information or expertise and even conduct independent analysis of federal science and technology policy.

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

I'll just leave it there, but I wanted to hear your views on that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Mr. Cannings.

I'd like to thank all our witnesses tonight. You've provided a lot of information for us, which I know the committee really appreciates. We're grateful for your time and your expertise.

To our colleagues here, I know all of us would like to recognize the wonderful people who support this committee. We say thank you.

With that, we have a new analyst joining us tonight. Welcome to Mr. Grégoire Gayard.

Thank you, everyone. We'll break for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Good evening, everyone. Colleagues, I'll call us back to order.

I'd like to welcome all our witnesses tonight.

You have a really lovely committee here that's really interested in what you have to say. We're thrilled that you are joining us. We can't wait to hear your testimony.

Tonight we have Dr. Alan Winter, who is the former British Columbia Innovation Commissioner.

We have Dr. Jeremy Kerr, who is a professor of biology, Faculty of Science, and university research chair at the University of Ottawa.

From Colleges and Institutes Canada we have Denise Amyot, who is the president and chief executive officer. We've heard she's just won this wonderful award.

We also have Don Lovisa, who is president from Durham College.

Welcome, everyone.

You'll have five minutes to speak.

With that we will start with Dr. Winter for five minutes, please.

[Dr. Alan Winter, Former British Columbia Innovation Commissioner, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. My name is Alan Winter and I'm pleased to be invited to appear before the committee.

This work is very important to Canada's future and I hope to explain why I think so. Although I was recently B.C.'s Innovation Commissioner, I'm appearing as an individual today, so I'll introduce myself because it will give a context to my comments.

I came to Canada for my Ph.D. at Queen's University because of Canada's reputation as the third nation in space and because the space program was driven by a mission to provide Canada with communications, remote sensing and economic opportunities throughout the country, particularly in the north.

The space program was fuelled by excellent Canadian science with government, industry and academia in a strong partnership to overcome challenges and to benefit the country. After my Ph.D., I worked as a government scientist at the Communications Research Centre on satellite programs, and led a successful international project called SARSAT. Canadian companies developed the key equipment and it's now used internationally.

Entering the commercial world, I became the director of engineering for Telesat Canada at a time when we launched six new spacecraft and extended satellite links as far north as Eureka on Ellesmere Island. We moved out west and I became CEO of several telecom and tech companies including MPR Teltech, I think at that time the largest tech company west of Ontario. We had strong research links with the universities and spun out six companies during the time I was CEO. And also for two years I was president of the space division of Com Dev in the Waterloo region.

When I left the corporate world and returned to Vancouver, I got involved with the human genome project and Genome BC in 2001. During the 15 years I was CEO of Genome BC, we were able to raise over $700 million for B.C. through partnerships with the federal government, the provincial government and industry to invest in the science of genomics for the bioeconomy and health—and I think, Madam Chair, when you were minister, you visited us there—which is now paying off for the life science sector in Canada, particularly during this pandemic.

From 2018 to 2020, I was B.C.'s first Innovation Commissioner advising the government on research and innovation and helping to attract investment into B.C. Two of my reports were made public and I've referenced them for the committee below.

In my view, so from that experience, we've had some spectacular successes in science in Canada, and I'm sure the witnesses will be able to tell you that in each of the meetings.

Successive federal governments must be commended for continuing to invest in science at a significant level.

However, as many have said, the world has changed and we need a science framework or policy in Canada that encourages science to be a significant driver of the knowledge-based economy and to meet the challenges we face. I think there's been some discussion in the first hour around that.

In this way we would encourage the demand side of science as well as the supply side. That science framework in my view would help us to recognize several points.

Now more than ever we need to rejuvenate government science to help with the complex regulations and standards in our society and trade negotiations in an increasingly protectionist and, particularly recently, geopolitically unstable world.

We need to encourage big science in carefully selected areas and fund the basic operations 100%. The matched funding of big science just doesn't make sense.

We need to learn from the pandemic to apply our science to preventative measures and to develop secure and essential supply chains within the country, not only in health. We learned that in a big way during the pandemic.

We need to develop a science foresight system with the Council of Canadian Academies and others to identify emerging science that builds on strength and enables Canadian competitiveness.

We have at least three solitudes in Canada: government, industry and academia. We have a long way to go to connect the excellent science we do to the rest of the innovation system, to the challenges we face in the country and therefore to our security and prosperity.

It's time to get serious. There is no reason that we cannot harness the intensity we brought to the space program to address such challenges as climate change, our health system, our defence, our oceans, sustainability in an increasingly global economy and others.

Canada has long enjoyed abundant natural resources, attractive geography and favourable access to North American markets.

However, despite excellent science, we have traded raw commodities to buy technology.

This has led to competitive complacency, particularly over the last 20 years or so, and has left the country behind in innovation, productivity and particularly in business investment in research and development.

We need to reclaim our economic sovereignty as a country, and I look forward to seeing this committee's recommendations on how our excellent science can help lead the way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Dr. Winter. We're delighted you could join us tonight.

Now we will go to Dr. Kerr for five minutes.

Welcome.

[Dr. Jeremy Kerr, Professor of Biology, Faculty of Science, University Research Chair, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

I'm so grateful to join you this evening. I greet each of you from the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin people. I acknowledge their stewardship with gratitude.

I am a professor of biology at University of Ottawa, an ecology researcher, a research chair holder, a past president of a scientific society and an executive member of NSERC. I have long been involved in working on science to inform policy and on policy for sustaining science. Most importantly, I'm a parent who cares about the world my children will inherit. Like each of you, I wear many hats. Like everyone here this evening, I'm doing my best to make a difference for others.

It’s a long road to become a scientist. Completing an undergraduate degree in any scientific discipline is frankly tough. That degree often culminates in a research project that provides a taste of what discovery requires. It’s easy to doubt yourself through these difficult years. Will I discover anything? Do I have what it takes? And what comes next?

For a researcher in training, what comes next is graduate school. For many, that means a doctorate. The best bridge between an undergraduate and a graduate degree is a scholarship from a federal granting council. Such scholarships help enormously, but they are falling increasingly far below the poverty line. They are also incredibly hard to get.

The resulting hypercompetition imposes a filter that excludes many talented people from pursuing their dreams of contributing as a scientist. I drew the term “hypercompetition” from the recent report on discovery research in Canada by the Council of Canadian Academies. It simply means that the competition is so fierce that excellent people are excluded arbitrarily. Hypercompetition filters excellence out of our system.

A student completing her doctorate is usually in her late twenties, a long way yet from becoming an independent scientist. There are still years to go as a post-doctoral researcher, requiring more hypercompetitive applications for fellowships. By the time this scientist completes her post-doc, she's probably in her thirties, at least. If she finds a position as a researcher, she'll need to obtain more funding. Of those funds, 60% go directly to student support. To sustain her career, she's going to need to publish her and her team's discoveries frequently in good-quality research journals, which impose steep fees for that privilege.

There are so many gateways to pass before becoming a scientist. Each of us experiences these gateways, these filters, differently. I am not called by hateful racial epithets on the bus, but some of my students have experienced just that. When I attend meetings, I do not have to worry about unwanted physical contact in the hallways. And yet, such things, and worse, can be a fact of life for some in our community. The hard work we are doing towards inclusion must continue in granting councils, in institutions and in our labs.

Yet, there are many extraordinary moments that make being a scientist the most rewarding career I can imagine. Moments of discovery and learning make those years of training and effort worthwhile. For me, discovering ways that climate change pushes species towards extinction resonated deeply, and pointed also to solutions. Leading students through the Serengeti to work on conservation changed my life as well as the lives of those students.

Scientists enjoy extraordinary trust from society. That trust is both sacred and provisional, and it needs constant renewal. A great way to do this is through citizen science, which mobilizes communities to participate in data collection. We started building such programs in my lab more than a decade ago, starting on Canadian butterflies. How can people not trust evidence when they have collected it themselves?

Canada needs its scientists to remain engaged, speaking passionately and with humility about the awesome mysteries of nature that we study. So in your study of Canada’s science and research ecosystem, I hope you'll remember that it is our researchers who make Canadian science extraordinary. Where hypercompetition and bias stifle excellence or filter it out, we are missing opportunities to bring all our talents to bear on the defining challenges and mysteries of our time.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Professor Kerr. We're grateful that you are here with us tonight.

We'll now go Colleges and Institutes Canada.

Ms. Amyot, we will hear from you for five minutes.

[Denise Amyot, President and Chief Executive Officer, Colleges and Institutes Canada]

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Today I want to discuss the role our members play in science and research on behalf of our 142 publicly supported colleges, CEGEPs, institutes and polytechnics.

With 95% of Canadians and 86% of indigenous peoples living within 50 kilometres of a college campus, our members are deeply rooted in their communities. As trusted industry and community partners, colleges serve as local gateways to the innovation ecosystem. Our members contribute to Canadian science in two essential ways. First, they prepare students for careers in the sciences, from technology and engineering to mathematics. Roughly 1,500 of the programs our members offer focus on science, and a certain proportion of the others naturally incorporate scientific content. These programs meet the needs of local economies by equipping students with the skills and training to be work-ready.

Second, Canada's colleges are home to a unique form of applied research. Applied research is an essential part of Canada's research ecosystem that uses the discovery process to solve problems for partners, often businesses, especially SMEs, and our business-led approach to science and research makes Canada more productive, competitive and resilient.

Our approach is unique in three ways: the research question is driven by the partner; the partner retains the intellectual property; and we develop solutions quickly, with 85% of projects being completed in under one year.

Small and medium-sized businesses are especially fond of our approach because they account for approximately 70% of our applied research partners. Over the past decade, investment in applied research has risen significantly. On one hand, revenue has doubled, and on the other, private sector contributions match federal investments dollar for dollar. In 2019–20, more than 8,000 businesses received support from a college, be it technical expertise, equipment or access to a talent pool. More than 42,000 students participated in applied research activities, resulting in the development of more than 5,500 new processes, products, prototypes and services.

To share more, I will now turn to my colleague, Don Lovisa, president of Durham College.

[Don Lovisa, President, Durham College, Colleges and Institutes Canada]

Thank you, Denise.

Madam Chair, it is a privilege to be here before this committee representing Durham College and speaking on the impact of applied research.

Our research partners value our collaboration with them because they know we can quickly deliver solutions on their timelines and they retain the ownership of their IP.

One example of a business that we partnered with during the pandemic is 4Pay Inc., a financial technology firm specializing in digital wallets. Durham College's AI hub assisted them with building a wallet optimizer to manage gift cards in the company's proprietary digital wallet.

Another company, ConnexHealth Inc., is a first-of-its-kind personal-support-worker-as-a-service company, providing care services for seniors across this country. Durham College's AI hub assisted the company to build their digital health service to assist users with choosing their services and optimizing timing and delivery.

We're always grateful for our primary research funders: NSERC and the NRC. Commercialization supports, however, are limited in the current funding environment, and without assistance, companies can struggle with next steps such as regulatory challenges, certification, finding strong investment partners, sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution. The lack of these supports for small and medium-sized companies is a limiting factor in their success. There are limited local resources to support growth, and for colleges, we do not receive any resources beyond funding projects.

Looking to the future, we are exploring the development of a trades innovation centre that would be the first of its kind, establishing an exciting new connection between diverse trades to collaborate and develop new industry solutions.

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak to you this evening. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

I want to thank all of you for appearing at this inaugural committee for its inaugural study. We are grateful for your time and your expertise. I know that our members are eager to talk to you.

We will begin our six-minute round with Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here tonight. As a chemical engineer, I started my career in research doing hollow fibre membrane separations for artificial kidneys in dialysis, so I certainly value all of your contributions here tonight.

I want to start with you, Mr. Winter. It seems to me that, if I look at what's happened over the past number of years, we have eliminated the ministry of science, the $4 billion of increased funding that was suggested from the Naylor report didn't appear, and we put money into superclusters but we didn't really put the money towards participation in global innovation.

What would you like to see from the federal government in order to really spur innovation ahead in Canada?

[Dr. Alan Winter]

I do believe that for the money we're currently spending in these areas of science, technology, research and development, we need to get a better bang for the buck. Some of that was discussed in the first hour.

Beyond that, I think we have to recognize the fact that we're one of the only OECD countries that has been reducing year by year, to some extent, our total investment in research and development and science and technology, whether that be from the higher education side, the government side or the business side, but particularly on the business side. Our total investment, if you like, is around about 1.6% of GDP. The OECD average is something like 2.6%. That's a 1% difference, which represents something like $26 billion.

It's not that the government funds that, but the government has to create the environment where that sort of money is spent on higher-value products. Only when we have high-value products are we able to have the productivity and the amount of revenue that's coming in at that particular time.

I do think that, first of all, we need to get more bang for the buck in the money that we're spending. Second of all, I think we have to make sure that we bring together government, academia and industry into centres of excellence. In my reports for the B.C. government, we talked a little bit about some of the recommendations of how to actually do that within a province and encourage the active participation of not only universities but also the colleges, the communities in business and government and others in centres of excellence that would be able to compete on the world stage.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Well said. Thank you.

Mr. Kerr, you spoke about the competitiveness of students and hypercompetition. It seems that we've heard a lot of things so far about how we're not competitive in the salaries we're paying to the Ph.D.s. They have not been increased in 25 years. Then there's the frustration that if they come and they do research in Canada, there are so many barriers to actually seeing a successful commercial enterprise come forth from the research.

Could you comment on what you think we need to do to be competitive on the world stage with respect to students?

[Dr. Jeremy Kerr]

Budget 2018, of course, was a historic investment in science and research in Canada. I think it's really worth noting that there was a major influx of support for investigator-led research, something we hadn't seen before. However appreciative we should all be of that budget, there were bits that were not in it, and that's not surprising. One of the bits that wasn't in it was the sharp expansion in student support that we might have aspired toward had funding been unlimited in some way.

We would like to see a couple of different things in terms of student support change as funding becomes available to the science and research ecosystem. The first of those is simply that the number of awards really does need to increase. To do that, we need to expand the budgets to the tri-councils to facilitate their support for doctoral or master's scholarships as well as the Canada graduate scholarship. We also need to look at the amount of money associated with those scholarships, which, as you correctly point out, has not changed in a long while. I know that many people would like to see that change. I'm one of them. I think that's another area we can look at.

We need to adjust the success rate so that it improves. We need to adjust the funding rate for people who are successful. The innovation piece I think is probably most clearly associated with the mission that Mitacs currently has. There was a very, very large investment in Mitacs last year. If memory serves, somewhere between $700 million and $800 million went towards fellowships. I think we need to watch very carefully and hope that this will lead to important advances in innovation for students.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

That's very good.

Now I have a question that both Ms. Amyot and Don Lovisa can answer. It has to do with colleges.

In my riding, we have Lambton College, which is always in the top three of research for colleges in Canada. I know there's lots of excellent work going on. However, it seems that the split of funding for universities and colleges is not where it ought to be.

Can you comment on what you think we ought to be doing in terms of that split?

[Denise Amyot]

Absolutely, it's a very good question. If I may, I will answer, and then Don can add what it means at the local level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Ms. Amyot, please provide a very short answer, like 20 seconds.

[Denise Amyot]

In fact, the difference is that colleges get about 2%. They get 1.9% of all the amount of dollars in research, so the potential is huge.

What is interesting is how the investment of the private sector towards colleges' research has increased, in fact, in the last two years. Now it's dollar for dollar.