Madam Speaker, I was saying that Motion No. 38 moved by my colleague from Etobicoke North was important. I do not entirely agree with her that we missed opportunities to talk about science and research over the past year. Particularly in the context of COVID-19, there were several studies that raised these issues. However, I do see that we are having a hard time scheduling the many topics and witnesses we are interested in.
In that sense, creating a committee devoted to science and research could be very useful. The Bloc Québécois might serve as an example. I am the critic for matters related to the regional economy, industry, entrepreneurship and access to high-speed Internet, but my colleague from Jonquière is responsible for research and science. We share the work and team up quite a bit on all manner of topics, including vaccines, research, Synchronex, college centres for technology transfer, and the Industrial Waste Technology Centre. Our meetings with the academic community also allow us to reflect on how to do research and work as a team.
Regardless of whether this science and research committee is created, science, research and development will always be matters that I will raise at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, even if the research aspect is removed. I believe that building an industry requires research and development, and that is why it is important to invest in these sectors. I want to point out that I see a definite increase in the industry department's interest in investing in science since the change in ministers. It may be a coincidence, but we can sense that there is greater interest.
Motion No. 38 proposes to split the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in two effective from the beginning of the next Parliament. A new standing committee on science and research would study all matters relating to science and research, including any reports of the chief science advisor, and a new standing committee on industry and technology would address the rest of the topics studied by the current committee.
At first glance, the Bloc Québécois likes this motion. It is in line with the high priority that the Bloc Québécois attaches to science and research. The member for Jonquière is our critic for that file. The new committee will provide a scientific platform for the chief science advisor and will enable parliamentarians to access the best advice from government scientists. The committee will also protect them from any governments that are anti-science. The motion also lays out, quite broadly, the matters the committee will consider, which will look a bit like the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology's mandate. All those aspects look good.
I would also like to mention our COVID-19 recovery plan, which we tabled in September. The word “research” appears in that document 17 times. It is truly fundamental. When we talk about taking action, we do it through research. It is the same thing for our budget requests. We were very clear: investing in research and development, in Quebec's research centres, particularly those in the regions, and in colleges and universities will help us better support our SMEs. The co-operative work being done in that regard is very important.
Motion No. 38 will provide a platform for our chief science advisor and alleviate the workload of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, but the committee can still count on me to continue to make connections between science and research and industrial development.
However, the Bloc Québécois would like to share a few caveats. A science and research committee must not be used as a pretext for interfering in scientific work, which must be kept at arm's length from the policy process. In many cases, basic research is done in universities, and maintaining the independence of universities is absolutely essential.
Splitting the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology should not create a silo where research and science are isolated from the rest of society. During the committee's study of vaccine manufacturing, we saw that basic research, applied research, pre-market evaluation, meaning clinical trials, and vaccine manufacturing are all links in the same chain. We would not want one committee studying the first steps and another studying the rest without communicating with one another.
A good policy has to cover and support all stages of production, or it is doomed to fail. Perhaps a science and research subcommittee that studies the scientific aspects and then reports to the Committee on Industry, Science and Technology with a broader vision of the applications and consequences would provide insight on that, but that is not what we are talking about right now.
We would be very happy if the member who moved Motion No. 38 is open to such a change. We plan to follow the debate closely, in the hope that the member has heard our concerns and is willing to be flexible and open to these good ideas. I reiterate that we support the idea behind the motion. We will likely support the motion even if it is not amended. I believe it is important.
This was mentioned briefly, but I would like to talk about the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and its mandate. This committee may be one of the most underestimated House committees. The committee studies topics such as business assistance, industrial policy, regional development, scientific research, domestic trade, competition, the effective operation of the marketplace, telecommunications, the functioning of federally regulated businesses, and tourism. That is a lot, and we realize that. Science can get lost in the fray.
Since the fall, the committee has undertaken studies on several topics: mobile and Internet coverage in the regions, which obviously involves a scientific component; vaccine manufacturing and research; the aerospace industry; foreign investment; the Canada Investment Act, which we discussed briefly in the House of Commons today; regulations that affect businesses; and the acquisition of Shaw by Rogers. Our scrutiny of our institutions is always productive.
However, we have to acknowledge that the list of topics that the committee turned down is even longer. Nearly every economic sector wanted the committee to address their specific circumstances. The committee was only able to study a few aspects, including the economic aspects of the so-called green recovery, which might turn out to be quite the opposite. In fact, that is the topic we are examining right now. Personally, I want the academic community to be present, and I plan to invite academics as witnesses to add the research and science aspect to our economic recovery. Then there is regional development, something the Bloc Québécois is interested in.
Except for the study of vaccine manufacturing capacity, which included scientific research, the industry committee did not really discuss science per se. We need to acknowledge that as well. Research comes up much more frequently than science.
Splitting the committee in two and assigning the topics of science and research to a new committee could help reduce the committee's backlog. It is a good idea at first glance.
However, it is important to support research. In the interest of taking a more scientific approach, I will give some statistics.
In Canada, Quebec alone accounts for 40% of exports with a high research and development component. Conversely, Canada is one of the OECD countries with the lowest research and development intensity, which means that our economy is not very innovative. It would be important for this initiative to improve this state of affairs, though not at the expense of the provinces and Quebec.
The societies that that rely on a green economy and innovation will have sustainable prosperity. We must ramp up scientific research and development. If creating a science and research committee does that, we will come out ahead.
The federal government supports research in different ways: through the research it conducts itself, through the research grants it provides, through the granting agencies, through the work of the National Research Council's research centres, through its industrial policy, and through the support it provides for research and development activities, especially those carried out by businesses. All these activities are important.
As we saw in our work on vaccines, scientific innovation is a chain in which every link is important. It begins with basic research on structure and molecules. I think it is important to mention this. If we split this up, we might lose certain aspects. Applied research allows us to reproduce the vaccines that come out of clinical trials. One witness even talked about research being translational, because it allows us to go from one stage to the next, from discovery to production. This brings us to the final step, namely production based on the scientific research. If a link is missing, the vaccine will not see the light of day. It is therefore important to see the big picture, to support research and innovation at every stage and to approach government programs accordingly.
I will close with a final point on two principles.
We must ensure equity, whether in the aerospace sector, artificial intelligence, information technology or transportation components. Quebec accounts for 40% of Canadian exports, as I mentioned.
Canada is much less innovative because its economy relies on foreign subsidiaries. Federal policy is designed to compensate for Canada's backward thinking rather than support Quebec's advanced thinking, which is taking the world by storm.
There are also 100 NRC research centres, including 50 centres in Ontario compared to nine in Quebec. Quebec is responsible for 40% of technology exports, and yet it has only 9% of federal research centres. It goes without saying that we are concerned. The same is true for super clusters—