INST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE, DES SCIENCES ET DE LA TECHNOLOGIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 22, 2001

• 0909

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order, colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), for the consideration of science and technology policies.

Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, CA): Madam Chair, pursuant to Standing Order 108, I move that this committee send for Mr. Jonas Prince to appear as a witness regarding the ownership of shares in 161341 Canada Inc.

The amount of time has been allotted in terms of the technical aspect of two sleeps since we served notice of motion. I'd therefore like to table this motion today.

• 0910

The Chair: We'll be dealing with this motion on Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock. We have witnesses scheduled for only an hour on Tuesday. The clerk is new, and has not had an opportunity to fully review past precedents of this committee. We're in the process of doing that.

As well, we don't have a quorum this morning to deal with the motion. You have to have nine individuals.

I understand you're tabling another motion as well that we can also deal with on Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock. Again, I haven't reviewed it, but I will remind you that we did agree at the steering committee meeting that we would begin main estimates on May 8 with the minister, based on the minister's schedule. I see your motion is counter to that. I'll just remind you of what we agreed to at the steering committee meeting, at which you were present.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I'm sorry, can you...

The Chair: At the steering committee last Thursday, we agreed that the minister would appear on May 8 to do estimates. That was the first day he was available. We were all in agreement with that. I now see that your motion is counter to that. We'll just have to deal with it on Tuesday.

Mr. Charlie Penson: In fact, Madam Chair, we just decided to deal with the different ministers, or secretaries of state, in some kind of sequence to make sure that everybody gets on before the end of June. No dates were set.

The Chair: The estimates must be done before the end of May, by May 31, and I clearly stated that the first day the minister was available was May 8. I believe I had agreement from all members at the steering committee that May 8 would be when we would start estimates, that we would finish the Lobbyists Registration Act, and then we would begin estimates on May 8.

You do have your motion, and we'll have to wait to deal with it as well on Tuesday. I just wanted to bring that to your attention if you wanted to review that before Tuesday.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CA): Madam Chair, I do believe we have nine people here now.

The Chair: No, we have seven. They're not members.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's right, they aren't. And here I was bumping them up.

The Chair: We have witnesses before the committee this morning.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just so we're clear, Madam Chair, certainly the events of the last few days have pointed out the need, as far as we're concerned, to deal with this notice of motion as quickly as possible. So certainly at the earliest possible date we would like to consider that. If that's going to done on Tuesday then we can do it at that time.

It seems to me that there are things that need to be cleared up, that the ethics counsellor certainly isn't on any time constraint, as far as we know, as to his availability. Certainly we can get started on this motion, if the committee was to consider it, at the earliest date possible.

The Chair: With all due respect, Mr. Strahl, I as well would like to deal with the motion as quickly as possible. I have asked that there be research done. We haven't had that research done.

I cannot rule on the motion today. We cannot deal with it. We have witnesses present. If we were to deal with the motion, we would deal with it after witnesses. The agenda has been set. We have witnesses before us.

That being said, you should also know that, at the steering committee meeting, we did agree to a process as a committee. Those minutes were circulated at last Tuesday morning's meeting, with no objection from anyone, including Mr. Penson, who took part in the steering committee meeting.

We have set a schedule for this committee and we have asked the clerk to schedule witnesses accordingly. We've agreed to certain times and certain dates for meetings, so I have to be aware of that as well. We've asked witnesses to arrange their schedules around those times.

So we will do our best to accommodate everything. Tuesday morning we have one witness from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., and at 10 a.m. we will have more than enough time to deal with both motions. I would hope we'd have a very full and frank discussion on Tuesday at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm not arguing with you, Madam Chair, but I don't really know what the clerk's going to research. I think the motions are totally in order. We're soon going to approach nine members—

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, we have witnesses.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: —but most importantly, Madam Chair, whether it was agreed at the steering committee or not, it still doesn't preclude the committee as a whole from considering it. I just want to make it clear that, steering committees aside, others can bring forward motions and that's certainly what's being done here today.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, I don't disagree with you that others can bring forward motions. That's why we have the 48-hour rule, so that we can consider motions in due process and be properly prepared for them.

The steering committee is the place where we would hope that members would put forward what their intentions are. It's unfortunate that obviously the intentions were not put forward. Now we will have to rearrange the schedule of the committee to try to accommodate those intentions. However, we do try to work together on this committee, and I had, I thought, a very full and frank discussion at the steering committee meeting. I've laid out a schedule. I've put forward ideas and dates.

Again, Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock we'll have more than enough time to deal with both motions. We do have witnesses who have come a long way and I'd like to go to them now.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

• 0915

Mr. Chuck Strahl: And there will always be witnesses, but there are always two motions, one notice and—

The Chair: Just so you know, Mr. Strahl, in case you haven't had the opportunity to check the rules, I know that as chair I determine the order of the meeting. The meeting is witnesses first, and if we do motions, motions are last.

Our witnesses are here and I'm now going to call on them.

Mr. Charlie Penson: The committee, Madam Chair, is its own master.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Charlie Penson: We have nine members on this committee right now, and therefore we have the amount we need for quorum in order to table this motion.

The Chair: You don't need any quorum to table a motion.

Mr. Charlie Penson: You just said we did.

The Chair: No, not to table a motion. The tabling of your motion is done whenever you submit it to the clerk's office.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Well, listen, then, because that's what we're requesting.

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Madam Chair, we went over this the other day. We had agreed to hear Mr. Wilson, to have our five minutes of questioning per party. I just can't believe we're now going to agree on things and then we're not going to follow what we agreed to.

We have witnesses today. If they want to table their motion, they can table it. They don't need a quorum. Let the rules fall where they may and we'll vote on it.

In due respect to our witnesses, this political partisanship that's taking place now with the Canadian Alliance is not fitting for this committee. This committee has worked in a non-partisan way to hear witnesses, to hear the things that are concerning Canada, and I believe we should proceed in that manner.

This is the same stuff that came up over and over again in previous meetings. I believe we have an agenda, we have witnesses, and we should carry on with the meeting.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Madam Chair, that may be so, and they may consider whatever we do here to be partisan, I suppose, but the committee has been given a notice of motion. I would like to move that motion right now, Madam Chair, pursuant to Standing Order 108. I move that this committee send for Mr. Jonas Prince to appear as a witness regarding his ownership in the shares of 161341 Canada Inc.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, I am postponing my ruling on whether that motion is in order until Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock. I know it is within my power to do so. We'll deal with it at 10 o'clock on Tuesday.

We'll now hear from our witnesses.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But haven't you been given 48 hours' notice on this, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, I just informed you that I have the right and I am postponing my ruling until 10 o'clock Tuesday morning. My ruling is final.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I challenge the ruling, Madam Chair. I challenge the chair.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Let's have a vote.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think we should. I don't have confidence in the chair on that ruling.

You were given 48 hours' notice on this.

The Chair: I just received advice from the clerk that I have the ability to postpone my ruling on that motion. However, I would be more than happy to have a challenge.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Put it to the committee.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I do. I'd like to move a motion on confidence in the chair over that, Madam Speaker. I'd like to speak to that motion, if I could.

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, I can. I can speak to any motion I want.

Just to be clear on this, Madam Chair, the motion was given, and in a technical matter, it is 48 hours' notice. As Mr. Penson has mentioned, it's a two-sleep thing. In other words, the notice hasn't been sprung on you.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It has been given 48 hours' notice. It is in order. It is translated.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, I have a point of order.

Yes, Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: We have proceedings and we have rulings. We don't need a whole pile of diatribe. We should get on with the meeting. We have procedures, so let's follow the procedures.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's what we want to do.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: No, you don't.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We are following the procedures.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: No, you're not. You didn't follow the procedures the other day and you're not following them now. To me, it's pretty simple.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, it may be simple, but—

Mr. Walt Lastewka: It is.

The Chair: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): On a point of order, Madam Chair, perhaps Mr. Strahl isn't aware that when a decision has been made it has been made. The chair has made her decision. You have disagreed with that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Right.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Repeating your arguments over and over again is not going to change the ruling or the facts. So if you would like to have another motion—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: —and you would like to put that on the table, great; then there's another 48 hours until that motion will be considered.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No. I've moved a motion on confidence in the chair, and I'm speaking to that motion now. That I don't need to give 48 hours' notice for.

The Chair: Let's have some order here.

The reality is that Mr. Strahl's motion to challenge the chair is not debatable.

Mr. Reg Alcock: It's not debatable. That's exactly the point.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. Let's have a vote on it.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.

• 0920

The Chair: I won't be the one holding the vote, so...

I don't know how this should be worded.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Chair, “Shall the ruling of the chair be upheld”.

The Chair: All right.

Shall the ruling of the chair be upheld.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

The Chair: So my ruling is upheld. We'll deal with this on Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock.

Thank you very much.

Turning to the witnesses, we are very pleased to welcome here today, from the Coalition for Canadian Astronomy, Dr. Russell Taylor, president of the Canadian Astronomical Society and a professor at the University of Calgary.

I'd like to have order in this room. If you have conversations, please take them outside. We have witnesses at the table.

We're also very pleased to welcome Mr. Peter Janson, chair and chief executive officer at AMEC Inc., and Professor René Racine, a professor emeritus with the physics department at the University of Montreal.

I understand that you will begin with a presentation. We look forward to questions with you afterwards.

Dr. Russell A. Taylor (Co-Chair, Coalition for Canadian Astronomy): Thank you, Madam Chair. I now understand why we're called “witnesses”. We're here to witness the process of government at work.

An hon. member: That wasn't quite government work.

Dr. Russell Taylor: Thank you for the opportunity to come here and thank you for the invitation for my colleagues and me to present our national vision for the future of Canadian astronomy.

My short speech will be accompanied by a presentation at the other end of the room. It will be orchestrated by my colleague Steve Schumann.

My name is Russ Taylor. I'm the president of the Canadian Astronomical Society and a co-chair of the Canadian Coalition for Astronomy. With me today is Mr. Peter Janson, the chair and CEO of AMEC Inc., and co-chair of the coalition. I'm also joined by Dr. René Racine, a prominent member of our community. He's a member of the Order of Canada, former director of the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope project, and currently a member of the NRC.

Canadian astronomers have developed a ten-year plan for astronomy in Canada. This long-range plan builds on the strengths of Canadian science and technology on the international stage. It provides opportunities for Canadian high-tech industry and our young scientists and technologists to participate in the development of new technologies and innovations. It also maintains Canadian leadership in the international advance of the frontier of knowledge about the nature of our universe.

Today we want to give you an overview of Canada's long-range plan for astronomy and astrophysics, or LRP, as we call it, and discuss with you why it is important for this country's future that Canada continues to support this key area of scientific research.

To begin with, I'd like to give you a sense of the state of the discipline internationally and Canada's prominent role on the world stage.

Advances in the power of technology over the past few decades, many pioneered by Canadians, have brought the field of astronomy to the brink of charting a complete history of time. Our most powerful telescopes, such as the Hubble space telescope, show us the universe as it was at half its present age. We are now poised to observe even further back in time and to answer fundamental questions that have engaged the curiosity of human beings throughout the ages.

How did the highly structured universe we see around us come into being? When was the dawn of first light and the birth of stars and galaxies? How has the universe evolved, and what is its ultimate fate? When did the building blocks of life first occur in the history of the universe? Does life and possibly civilization exist elsewhere in the universe? Are we alone? How does humanity fit into this cosmic history?

These and many other questions are driving the development of the next generation of ground-and-space-based telescopes. These telescopes will be so powerful and push current technology so hard that no individual country has the resources to develop them on their own.

• 0925

Astronomy is moving into an era of internationalization, where groups of developed countries work together and combine their resources to develop and build facilities that redefine the cutting edge.

Canada is an important player in these international efforts. Most Canadians know that this country is a world leader in science and technology, but across all scientific disciplines Canada does about 5% of the world's research. The relative impact of a given discipline on the international stage is measured by the number of citations to published research—i.e., the uses of the published research by our international colleagues and other researchers.

Within the science and technology community in Canada, astronomy leads all of the disciplines in international impact. As you can see from the plot at the end of the room, astrophysics is the top bar there. We're followed closely by medicine and chemistry.

The impact per astronomer of Canadian astronomy makes this country the third most important player in this area in the world, behind the United States and the United Kingdom. We're ahead of all other major science and technology supporting countries. This is despite the fact that Canada has the lowest per capita funding level for astronomy among our G-7 partners, and in fact among the OECD. We're seven times less than the U.S. and five times less than the U.K.

Nevertheless, by any measure Canada is among the world leaders in astronomy and astrophysics. Canadian research and discoveries have directly contributed to moving astronomy to its current position internationally.

Discoveries made by Canadian astronomers over the past decade include the invention of techniques to measure ultra-precise motions of stars, now used to detect the presence of planets around other stars, and the development of adaptive optics techniques to remove the distortions produced by the atmosphere of the earth in astronomical images. Canadian theorists have used computers to develop and predict the structure of the universe before the era of light, when the first light was produced. These predictions will be tested by the next generation of telescopes.

As well, Canadian scientists have used measurements of the motions of galaxies in space to measure the density of the universe and to predict whether the universe will continue expanding forever or stop. Canadian scientists have identified the missing link in the evolution of matter from the primordial state outside of galaxies to the complex state needed to form the building blocks of life.

One of the most important factors in bringing Canada to this high standing in the international community has been the relationship between the university sector and the National Research Council of Canada.

The National Research Council has the parliamentary mandate to operate national facilities for Canadian astronomy. The NRC continues to play this key role in developing international partnerships and negotiating agreements to jointly develop new telescopes. The NRC also maintains domestic laboratories and telescopes in Canada, where advanced technologies are developed and young Canadians are trained.

But despite our great success in astronomy, as the international community ramps up to develop the new world observatories Canada is in danger of being sidelined. The stakes are changing. The LRP, or long-range plan for astronomy and astrophysics, has one overarching goal—namely, to ensure that Canada remains a key player in this new era of internationalism and reaps the scientific and economic benefits of the new developments in astronomy.

Because of the direct economic benefit to Canada of the investment and because of Canada's current leadership position in international astronomy, it is a goal that is both affordable and attainable.

The plan was developed by an expert panel and reflects the consensus and support of the entire astronomical community. It builds on our natural scientific and technical strengths to continue Canada's international leadership in astronomy. It has also been publicly endorsed by all major stakeholders, including the presidents of all the government agencies involved in providing funding for astronomy in Canada—the National Research Council; the Canadian Space Agency; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; the presidents of all Canadian universities engaged in astronomical research; such leaders of Canadian industry as Mr. Janson, beside me here; and leaders in the field of public awareness in education and science. It has very broad support.

The LRP calls for an investment in technology development, infrastructure, and people over the next ten years. We want approximately $200 million to be spent on development of Canadian technologies, key technologies for international space astronomy missions and for the new generation of ground-based world observatories.

In space, Canada will become partners in the Next Generation space telescope. This will replace the Hubble space telescope around the year 2010. It will observe even further back in the history of the universe, hopefully to the time when galaxies first formed. The FIRST and Planck missions will probe the relic radiation from the big bang itself and the next generation space mission will probe the universe for supermassive black holes. These are exciting missions.

• 0930

On the ground, Canada will provide key technologies for the Atacama large millimetre array, or ALMA, including specialized high-speed digital electronics devices, which will convert the faint signals detected by the telescope into images of dust and gas from the early universe. Plans for Canadian partnership in ALMA have been formalized as part of an agreement between the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Canadian government's National Research Council.

We will also develop an innovative Canadian radio telescope concept, the Canadian large adaptive reflector, and construct the world's largest telescope in Canada as part of the technology development for the square kilometre array, which will probe the dark era of the universe before the first light. This technical innovation by Canadian scientists will allow construction of giant radio telescopes at a tenth of their current cost.

We will also develop a new approach to fabrication of optical telescopes as part of an international program to design a very large optical telescope on the ground that will be used to measure the properties of planets around nearby stars, for example.

All of these technology developments are carried out in partnership with Canadian industry. Another $64 million will be used for people, infrastructure, and training within Canada.

A Canadian investment of $264 million over the next 10 years buys Canada an opportunity to participate in over $4 billion worth of the new generation of observatories. It will develop in Canada new expertise for technology and knowledge industries, and enable Canadian companies to compete for billions of dollars worth of contracts, something they would not otherwise be able to do.

The space-based component of the long-range plan, $100 million, has been funded by the Canadian Space Agency. These funds have been committed. The Canadian Coalition for Astronomy is now seeking a commitment from the federal government for the remaining funds, $16.4 million per year for the next ten years, to fund the land-based component of the plan.

This investment will secure Canadian scientists' access to these new world observatories. It will enable Canadian technology and engineering companies to compete for work designing, developing, building, and maintaining the facilities.

Money invested in astronomy is a direct investment in the Canadian economy. Over the last two decades the funds invested by the government in industry-based research and development for astronomy has had at least a twofold direct return to Canada in the high-tech industry through development of expertise that enables them to compete internationally. Advanced optical components, innovative structural designs, high-speed digital signal processing, telecommunications, control systems engineering, information technologies—the list goes on and on.

Peter Janson's company, AMEC, is an excellent example of the impact astronomy can have on the Canadian economy. I would now like to ask him to share some of his experiences and observations with you.

Mr. Janson.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter Janson (President and Chief Executive Officer, AMEC Inc., Coalition for Canadian Astronomy): Thank you, Russ.

Madam Chair, distinguished members, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having invited us to meet you today.

As Mr. Taylor said, the members of the Coalition for Canadian Astronomy try to contribute to the implementation of the long range plan for astronomy and astrophysics in Canada. To do so, we must raise $16.4 million a year over the next decade.

Canada is a world leader in astronomy. During the recent election campaign, the Liberal Party made a commitment to increase considerably the funds allocated to basic research and development, in part to increase Canada's high profile in science and technology.

The reasons for such an investment are numerous. We are, in several ways, at a cross-roads which is as crucial as in 1989-1990, when Canada decided to take part in the Gemini project. At that time, the private sector was engaging in the Keck program. Today, we must take a different approach to large-scale projects.

In January, Canada signed international agreements. We will soon have to commit funds to fulfill our obligations. If we don't join in the discussions soon, we will have less impact on the definition of projects, and our skills and technology might well be replaced by those of other countries which are prepared to go ahead.

• 0935

Mr. Taylor indicated how this investment is justified scientifically speaking. I would now like to make a cost-effectiveness analysis.

[English]

Canada currently invests about $22 million annually in astronomy, a per capita investment of 98¢ per year. Our investment is several times smaller per capita than in the U.S. and typically five times smaller than in European countries with similar GDPs. And yet with that small investment, the National Research Council maintains three major offshore facilities through international partnerships.

Canadian engineering has been at the foundation of these impressive observatories, including the twin 8-metre Gemini telescopes, one in Hawaii and one in Chile; the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope; and the James Clerk Maxwell radio telescope.

I would like to highlight the Gemini telescopes to demonstrate the excellent value Canada receives through this focused investment.

First, Canada invested $38 million to buy its partnership in the Gemini twin 8-metre telescopes. My company, AMEC Dynamic Structures, formerly known as AGRA Coast, built the Gemini domes. Our contract for the construction alone was worth $44 million. Our ongoing work in telescopes has now resulted in gross revenues of close to $150 million.

Canadian enterprises competed for an addition $8 million in contracts for sophisticated electronic equipment installed at Gemini. These projects returned even more to Canada as spinoff benefits from that original $38 million investment. As well, more than 80 high-tech and engineering companies across Canada involved in astronomy projects would not have been eligible to compete for the work they are doing in this field if Canada had chosen not to participate in Gemini.

Because of AMEC's experience in astronomy structures, we are now placed at the forefront of another sector, the multi-billion dollar international amusement ride industry. This may seem like a stretch, but it's true. AMEC has become the contractor of choice, providing turnkey solutions to some of North America's largest amusement park companies and international theme park builders.

So when you're on these rides where you feel like you're falling off a cliff, say, those are our rides. You might even feel like that today.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter Janson: It's only virtual reality.

An hon. member: Same thing here.

Mr. Peter Janson: The economic activity generated from the construction and operation of major astronomical facilities has a broad impact. Even a very conservative reckoning would show that for every dollar Canada invests in astronomy projects, Canadians get at least double their money back through the spinoffs and the work that Canadians are uniquely positioned to do.

If we fully implement the plan, not only will we preserve Canada's leadership position in world astronomy but our designs will influence and form the foundation for other countries to follow. With Gemini we bid to construct structures to specification. Implementing the LRP will mean that Canada will write the specifications that others will have to bid to. It can be everything. It can be entirely developed in Canada, by Canadians, for the world.

One thing for sure is that if we don't invest in the new round of projects outlined in the LRP, Canadian technology will not be a part of them and Canadian companies will not be able to compete for the work.

Make no mistake, these projects will be built with or without Canadian participation. The business members of the coalition want to compete and win so that Canada can win. Whether it's engineers, technicians, graduate students or advanced researchers, Canadians want to continue to play a prominent role in the unravelling of the mysteries of the origins or our universe. We're asking you today to share in that vision.

Russ.

Dr. Russell Taylor: Thank you, Peter.

I think that's a very good explication of the situation. An investment in Canadian astronomy can bring a high and positive economic return to the Canadian economy through both direct spending on high-tech research and development and developing the expertise that allows expansion into other areas.

• 0940

Many spinoffs from astronomical research have an impact on our daily lives. I'll list just a few examples.

The technology for the now world-encompassing Netscape program was invented for computational astrophysics work.

Image reconstruction techniques developed for astronomy are used currently for analysis of CAT scans and for magnetic resonance imaging.

Sensitive microwave receivers, another astronomical development in radio astronomy, are used for breast cancer scans.

The precursors of the detectors that scan baggage at airports, and when you enter the Parliament buildings now, were developed for X-ray satellites.

Synthetic aperture radar, such as that used by the Canadian RADARSAT program to map the surface of the earth in high detail, uses the technique of aperture synthesis first developed by radio astronomers to make detailed images of the sky.

Two students from École Polytechnique in Montreal started a small company, Matrox, in 1979 to produce electronic cards for storing images from the Observatoire du mont Mégantic in Quebec. Today Matrox is a world leader in video cards for personal computers with export sales in excess of $200 million annually.

From the same observatory, two researchers, including Dr. Racine beside me, developed a computer display system for astronomical images. The resulting software company, Softimage, has grown into an industry leader in computer visualization and video production.

What new products and processes will be derived from continuing to challenge the imaginations of Canadian scientists, technologists, and engineers through astronomy? That remains to be seen, but we do know there will be real and lasting benefits. We have the talent.

In summary, implementing the long-range plan for astronomy and astrophysics will help maintain Canadian leadership in the high-profile area of science and enhance Canada's reputation as a leader in scientific research and high-technology research and development. It will develop the expertise within Canadian industry that gives us a competitive advantage in the international community of high technology and returns the investment manyfold. It will excite Canadian youth and help us keep a generation of our best and brightest young scientists in Canada, where they belong.

Perhaps most excitingly, from my point of view and many others', it will give Canada a lead role in this new, historic era of cosmic exploration. As a nation, Canada will share in the excitement of discovery and it will share in the national pride that comes from helping push back the frontiers of knowledge and from knowing that you're part of it.

I urge the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to champion the long-range plan for astronomy and astrophysics. It is the right thing for Canada.

When the Minister of Industry spoke to you last week, he responded to a question from Mr. Manning about what criteria would be used to decide what proposals to move forward and get funded. The long-range plan is consistent with the minister's criteria. We're not asking for an exemption or an exception in any way.

Minister Tobin indicated that he wants to resist funding a shopping list of projects but instead wants to rely on expert panels for advice. The long-range plan package you have before you includes a report from an international blue ribbon panel that reviewed the plan and fully endorsed it. Moreover, the NRC-NSERC long-range planning panel itself, which put together the LRP, was a panel of experts. It represents a national plan that has the consensus of the entire community in Canada, and its broad support, as I pointed out earlier.

Minister Tobin also said his priority was to invest in “research excellence”, “merit”, and “where we get the most effective investment for our moneys”. Well, Canadian astronomers are world leaders in research citations and have the highest productivity in astronomy in the OECD countries with the lowest funding level. Within Canada, of all disciplines the science of astronomy has the highest impact on world research.

As coalition co-chair Peter Janson has demonstrated, investment in astronomy yields a large return to the Canadian high-technology, construction, and engineering industries. The long-range plan is coherent. It makes sense. It has broad-based support among astronomers, academia, and industry. It meets all of the Minister of Industry's criteria for support.

We are seeking a way to go ahead and fund the ground-based component of the coherent plan before you. There's a broad consensus that the LRP is good for Canada, yet because of internal constraints and funding formulas in such programs as the CFI or the Networks of Centres of Excellence, there is not yet a coherent funding source for the plan. There are no funds in place.

The National Research Council, which has the mandate and the experience to negotiate for Canada internationally and to construct and operate astronomical facilities on behalf of Canadian scientists, is the logical funding stream.

Ms. Torsney last week put the question to the minister with reference to the LRP. She asked if there was a way to get everyone to the table to find an innovative way to move forward, because, as she put it, “A pocket here and a pocket there and a pocket the other way does not an international commitment over 10 years make.”

The Canadian astronomical community has achieved great things in the past. Discovering the origins and structure of the universe are close at hand. We want to continue the tradition of Canadian excellence and participate in these discoveries. We hope you will help us by encouraging the government to commit to funding the Canadian long-range plan for astronomy and astrophysics.

Thank you very much.

• 0945

The Chair: Thank you very much for that presentation. I know we're going to have many questions.

I will just let committee members know that there is another meeting scheduled for this room at 11 a.m., so we will have to try to be somewhat brief in our questions.

Mr.Rajotte, please.

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, CA): Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming out this morning, and thank you for your patience as well.

I'll admit up front that I'm not an expert in this area, and I very much appreciate the information you've given us. I have two basic questions arising from your presentation. First, with regard to the asked-for increase in investment and increase in funding, right now the funding goes through basically three agencies. Is that the best way to fund the plan we're talking about here or should one agency take the lead on this?

Maybe you can just comment on that generally.

Dr. Russell Taylor: There are three agencies that currently fund astronomy in Canada. The first is the National Research Council, which has a mandate for the facilities component, the facilities for the national community. The second is NSERC, which funds research at universities by researchers. They respond to individual proposals and grant holders at universities. They fund about 25% or so of the annual funding level. The third is the Canadian Space Agency, which funds currently at about $10 million a year the involvement in the space programs.

That system works quite well, and I don't see any need to change that. Most of the money goes through the National Research Council, because the most expensive component historically has been the ground-based programs. The Canadian Space Agency is becoming a larger presence because of their new commitment. It's of similar magnitude to what we need for ground-based.

We have worked with those funding streams for the past two decades very well. Part of why we are a success is that we're able to do that, so I wouldn't suggest that we change that scenario.

[Translation]

Prof. René Racine (Emeritus Professor, Département de physique, Université de Montréal, Coalition for Canadian Astronomy): Madam Chair, I would have something to add to Mr. Taylor's remarks that the collaboration between the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics and the University Group of which I'm a member has been an essential ingredient of the success of Canadian astronomy for as long as I can remember. Whatever the way the LRP is funded, it is essential that this collaboration and this coherence between university and government laboratories are ensured.

[English]

Mr. James Rajotte: Just to follow up on that point, who decides, or how is it decided, what portion of the money goes through which agency? For instance, for the $16.4 million that's being asked for right now, who would decide what percentage goes through what stages?

Dr. Russell Taylor: The allocation is actually in the proposal. Of the $164 million over 10 years, $17 million we propose would go through NSERC to fund university-based involvement in these projects, and $147 would go through NRC to actually construct and operate the facilities.

Most of that money, although it's directed at NRC, in fact ends up in Canadian industry, because contracts are let to companies like Mr. Janson's to develop technologies. But it's managed by the National Research Council.

That's done in collaboration with the university community, of course. There's a very strong historical working relationship between NRC and universities.

The Chair: Last question, Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. James Rajotte: The last question relates to the top of page 3, which says:

Canadian scientists have identified the missing link in the evolution of matter from the primordial outside galaxies to the complex state needed to form the building blocks of life.

Now, this is just a question for my general interest, but I'd love it if one of you would comment on that.

Dr. Russell Taylor: Oh, I could give you a lecture on that one. That has come about as a result of research I'm involved in, the Canadian galactic plan survey, a Canadian-led international effort to map, with very high detail, the gaseous content of our galaxy.

• 0950

The gas in our galaxy is the material from which planets and people and stars ultimately are formed. One of the problems has been identifying how matter evolves from the diffuse state outside galaxies into these more complex molecules. As part of the survey, we've identified a state of matter that looks like it's the link between those two. It's a very cold, dense version of hydrogen gas, which is the first step towards complex molecules.

Mr. James Rajotte: What moves it from one process to another?

Dr. Russell Taylor: Within the universe are essentially two counterbalancing forces that generate the evolution of matter. When the universe was first formed, it was very diffuse and homogeneous, and in order to get things into stars and planets you have to compress it. So it's a forced compression. What we think is happening is that the spirals you see in a galaxy move through the galaxy and produce a shock wave, which produces a galaxy-scale shock that we think produces the compression force for the state of gas.

The Chair: Does that answer your question, Mr. Rajotte?

Dr. Russell Taylor: I can come back and give a lecture, if you wish.

Mr. James Rajotte: It's fascinating.

Dr. Russell Taylor: And I'm very glad for the question.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Rajotte.

Monsieur Bélanger, please.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I want to put it on the record that I already have written in support of this proposal. I believe we should find a way to fund it and commit to it over 10 years, and I certainly would support a motion coming from this committee to the government to that effect, if that were appropriate, Madam Chair, even with 24 hours' or 48 hours' notice, if necessary—unless we have unanimity, of course.

At any rate, I certainly hope we would entertain as a committee taking such an action to support and recommend to the government the funding of this program. That's number one.

Two, I have a question on the program itself. I'm aware of a committee of members of Parliament in the U.K. that has looked at the situation popularized by Hollywood in the last few years—namely, the possibility of an object hitting the earth. And that might happen tomorrow, but that one's a man-made object. Will happen tomorrow, it seems...

At any rate, they looked at the near-earth objects scenario, and what were the possibilities, and what could or should be done. I haven't read their report yet, although it's in my pile of things to read. I'll get to it.

My belief is that they've recommended an additional space telescope. Are any of you aware of any of this?

Dr. Russell Taylor: I haven't been involved in those deliberations at all.

[Translation]

Prof. René Racine: As a matter of fact, we proposed the construction of two ground-based telescopes and possibly a space station, which could be constantly in operation, to monitor those objects which could hit the earth. Mr. Bélanger is right. It might happen. It will happen if we wait long enough. It happens about every 60 million years. The last time it happened, dinosaurs were affected.

There is no specific target for this project in the LRP, but the contribution which astronomers must make is to find the statistics and to inform correctly the public of the risks or of the peace of mind it can have.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If I might suggest, Madam Chair, it might be appropriate if at some stage we were informed of whether or not U.K. committee of members of Parliament who looked into that...and perhaps we would like to look at it ourselves, at least the report.

Dr. Russell Taylor: Perhaps I can make some additional comments. The issue of the earth asteroid that you say has been popularized by Hollywood recently—and it's become a point of discussion not only in the U.K. but in other countries as well—is not one of the priorities of the astronomy long-range plan. However, I should point out that there are initiatives in Canada and in the U.S. to probe for near-earth asteroids. In fact, it's one of the goals for the University of Calgary observatory. It's well suited to a small observatory concept. It's not a very expensive program.

• 0955

As well, some of the concepts that will be developed as part of the long-range plan do lend themselves to these kinds of projects. One of the new technology directions of the telescopes is to be able to image a large part of the sky simultaneously. Once you're able to do that, then projects like near-earth asteroid searches become feasible.

So even though we haven't highlighted it in the plan, it is something we could entertain doing with these telescopes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What would be required for that to be done?

Dr. Russell Taylor: Well, once we build these telescopes, that's something you could do with them. It would just take the will of the people involved.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is there a reason why that would not have been included in your presentation as part of your long-range plan?

Dr. Russell Taylor: Yes. We didn't identify that as a high priority for Canadian astronomy and astrophysics.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But it could be done as a side effect, almost, so I fail to understand why you wouldn't.

Dr. Russell Taylor: We probably would, but it's not high priority in the plan. There are many things we will be doing in astronomy that are not in the plan. These are the high priorities.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I understand that. Okay. Maybe I misunderstood. What I understood was that if the plan, as it is, is funded and goes ahead, you will be able to do that.

Dr. Russell Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Then I might argue that this would be a selling feature for the plan.

The Chair: Dr. Racine, do you want to attempt a reply to that?

[Translation]

Prof. René Racine: NASA has a project which pursues those objectives. That project was done in New Mexico, with a telescope built by a Canadian from the Université Laval, a three-meter liquid mirror telescope which is well suited for this kind of project.

It is an interesting matter but it is not a scientific priority within the community. It is a problem of choice for us but I can assure you, as you will understand, that the telescopes we are proposing—optical, infrared—are quite capable and even very well-suited to serve that project.

If you wish, I could give you later in private some detailed information on the reason why we hear so much about that project in the U.S.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Mrs. Girard-Bujold.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen. This is the second time that I have been attending a meeting of the Committee on Industry. This morning, I am very happy to hear a retrospective of Canada's involvement in astronomic research. To me, it is a fabulous area in which I am far from knowledgeable, but which has always fascinated me.

You have a budget of $22 million a year. In the plan you are tabling, you are saying that you want to have $16.2 million a year over the next decade. This plan will keep you on the forefront as researchers and world leaders in astronomy. These are your own words. Does this plan include physical infrastructures or is it only about research and development by scientists? This is what I would like to know.

You are also saying that you don't know where to find funding. You are saying that you have presently three funding streams. You have the NRC, the scientists and the Canadian Space Agency. I would like to know why you are not able to go to the other agencies or the other... The government of Canada created the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. How is it that you are not able to obtain funds from that foundation?

Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Peter Janson: There were several questions there. And excuse me for answering in English.

With regard to how much goes into infrastructure and that kind of thing, there are some very positive things about the astronomical community in a global sense. Everybody understands that you don't make a political decision to put a telescope in somebody's riding. You put a telescope in the best place to be able to get at the science. Those places tend to be very high and dry, so we have Hawaii, Chile, and these kinds of places.

• 1000

The international community also understands that what you need is nights in order to be able to see the stars, to capture your data with your telescope and then take it away and study it. By putting in the kinds of funds we're talking about, we buy a ticket to play the game.

How do we play the game? One, we get access to nights when our scientists can be there, collecting the data. We also get access for industries such as mine to get in and compete for mandates to do designs, to build, that sort of thing.

In that sense what we're looking at here is not a grant. What we're looking at is a ticket to play the game. We'll get in and play the game. For example, we were a structural bridge company. We started doing some very fine designs on our first telescope and developed a competence, and we were allowed to bid on the other ones in a serious way and then were able to succeed.

In that sense, you're giving a contribution to maintain our stature in that global industry, if you will, or global science, and in many different contexts we can be a player.

I think you want to talk about the CFI answer.

Dr. Russell Taylor: Yes, I can address the question about the Canadian Foundation for Innovation.

We have in fact talked to the CFI management about this issue. There are several reasons why that's not the best way to proceed for this. One is that the CFI is set up to fund universities and not-for-profit research organizations, so to fund astronomy through that route we have to set up some infrastructure that could be funded by the CFI.

Currently our involvement in international facilities has been managed by the National Research Council, so that's where the management expertise resides. That's where the technical know-how to interface with industry resides. That's the organization that needs to engage in these government-to-government international agreements and lay out a ten-year plan. The CFI was set up to fund projects at universities.

If we were forced to go that way, really we would have a laundering mechanism to take funding from the CFI and channel it to NRC, through universities, which would be a very inefficient way to proceed. The most logical way to hit the ground running and to maximize our involvement in these projects is to fund the major component through NRC so they can manage it on our behalf.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You are talking about the National Research Council, but in the plan you are tabling, you are also talking about scientific research. Dr. Janson is involved in scientific research. Couldn't you isolate that scientific research in order to obtain funds from the CFI?

Prof. René Racine: I think it should be stressed that the $16.4 million a year provided for in the plan are in addition to the amounts which are already available...

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: $22 million.

Prof. René Racine: ...to NRC, to NSERC and to the Canadian Space Agency.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Okay. I understand. It is in addition to the $22 million.

Prof. René Racine: In addition to the $22 million we now have. We have to grow and to get near the level of contributions, in terms of GDP, which the other members of OECD have.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka, please.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My question is going to be very simple but not easy. It concerns the funding. I want to go back to the graph you showed on Canada's investments and where we stand in the G-7.

From what I'm seeing here, you're asking for additional funds from the federal government, $100 million from the Canadian Space Agency, which is the federal government. So you want to increase your total funds.

My question is for the people from the universities of Montreal and Calgary. Other than the moneys forwarded to universities through the provinces and so forth, how much money does the University of Calgary or the University of Montreal invest in astronomy that's not coming from the federal or provincial governments?

[Translation]

Prof. René Racine: I can answer for the University of Montreal. The University of Montreal, within the budgets attributed by the Quebec Department of Education, supports 12 positions of professors or professional researchers, and contributes directly, in collaboration with the Université Laval, half a million dollars a year towards the operation of the Mont-Mégantic observatory, an astronomic observatory in Quebec which is shared by the two universities.

• 1005

So, there are 12 professor salaries with benefits and half a million dollars. You can make a quick calculation: it amounts approximately to $2 million.

[English]

Dr. Russell Taylor: I think I can speak for the University of Calgary, although I'm making these numbers up in my head to some degree, based on an estimate. We have in Calgary seven faculty members who are supported full time in astrophysics and 15 to 20 graduate students whose salary support is partially provided by the university in teaching roles, of course. The university provides overhead and research infrastructure to the faculty. It would be difficult for me to put a number on that, but it's probably several hundred thousand dollars a year.

We maintain an observatory, the Rothney Astrophysical Observatory south of Calgary, constructed at a cost of about $3 million and maintained and operated by the university.

So my estimate would be something like $2 million a year.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: But those are funds that come from the Alberta education minister, a portion of which come from the federal government?

Dr. Russell Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: What I'm trying to do is—

The Chair: Dr. Racine wants to add something to that.

Prof. René Racine: In answer to your last comment, yes, these are moneys that come from the universities and the provincial funds. In addition, of course, astronomy in Montreal and Laval benefits from grants from NSERC and other federal programs.

The total of these grants, which are obtained also through the CFI... Last year was a good year. In addition to the provincial money, we obtained a total of nearly $8 million in grants.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: You don't have to answer it here, but maybe you could table this with the committee. I'm trying to get a better understanding.

In your presentation and in your booklets that you forwarded to the offices earlier, I can't get my hands around the whole dollars from the federal government, through all the various agencies. Perhaps someone can come up with the total astronomy budgets the federal government invests in and the other parties invest in, private enterprise and so forth, for the good of astronomy. I'm trying to capture an overall sheet.

You're asking for $264 million from the federal government, correct? I'm looking for an overall summary of the moneys you receive now and the moneys in total.

That's the extent of my questions. I just want to understand the total budget and where the moneys are coming from toward astronomy.

Dr. Russell Taylor: Sure. I can give you some sense of where the funding comes from for astronomy in Canada, if that would be helpful, or I could provide a brief to you later.

You'll see in the report—I'll locate it for you later—that about $30 million a year is spent by the federal government on funding. By the way, in terms of those plots were we compare OECD countries, the funding from the other countries is federal government funding as well. All developed countries fund their astronomy programs through the government.

So that compares federal government funding in Canada and with funding in other countries. Of $30 million in Canada for funding, $15 million comes from the National Research Council, about half of it, which goes toward developing and maintaining the facilities on behalf of Canadian scientists, but about $8 million, and now $10 million, comes from the Canadian Space Agency. Most of that, again, is spent in contracts to industry to develop technology for satellites for astronomy.

On the question of funding at the universities, which is provincial, which partially is transferred from the federal government—in Alberta, though, I think we're on the other side of that balance—now 14 universities in Canada have graduate astronomy programs and fund and hire faculty to work on astronomy and grad students and provide infrastructure and facilities.

• 1010

I would hazard a guess that each one of those is several million dollars, or maybe $2 million or $3 million a year, in total investment, with maybe a $1 million average. So something like $15 million to $20 million comes through that route as well, in my ballpark estimate.

René, do you have anything more to add to that? That doesn't include private industry, I guess.

Prof. René Racine: No, that doesn't include private sector.

I'm sorry, but we cannot give you exact numbers now. We don't know them.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I don't want an answer now. I just would like to have an answer tabled with the committee—i.e., the federal government provides so much money. I want to know how much industry provides for astronomy, not in eventual contracts that industry gets and so forth, down the road, but how much money industry puts into the equation at the beginning. You can forward that to the committee.

Prof. René Racine: Yes, we will do that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lastewka.

Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Thank you for coming and for, as others have mentioned, bearing with the initial start-up of the meeting.

This might not be a question you can answer now, but I'm just curious about the people who are employed through your different programs, either in universities or with your business. Where were most of those people educated?

Dr. Russell Taylor: They predominantly would be educated at Canadian universities in either the physics and astronomy or engineering departments.

Mr. Peter Janson: If I can comment directly about our company, to the first question, we invested between $300,000 and $500,000 last year in bidding for the design. We came up with a design concept on one of these large international things. We didn't win that. Part of it would have been that they weren't really sure if Canada was going to be part of it. As it turns out, the design they chose has a few problems, so we'll get back in.

The lead of the technology group in our company—this company is located just outside of Vancouver—is an associate professor at UBC. The facility is like a rabbit warren, full of youngsters coming out of UBC, with big screens and tremendous computers, putting these designs together. So there's a case where we're directly linked primarily with UBC, just getting their best and brightest to help us out.

[Translation]

Prof. René Racine: I was going to add that the majority of the professors in Quebec universities for example received part of their education in Quebec—I would say that 75 percent are of Canadian origin—but they all went, without any exception, through schools abroad, in the U.S., in Europe, in Australia or in Japan, to improve their education and their expertise. It is a bit of a challenge for us to bring and attract them back home.

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So it's safe to say that in this area there's no brain drain. It's somewhere else, with students coming in—

Dr. Russell Taylor: One of the reasons we have such a high stature in the world is that we have been able to produce a culture for astronomy in Canada and a set of facilities to attract our best people. As Dr. Racine was pointing out, our students participate internationally in these projects. So even though they're trained at a university, they spend a large fraction of their time at facilities around the world, interacting with top astronomers and engineers from all over the world.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

My next question is not related to the presentations today but is certainly related to astronomy. A month or so back, there was a program on TV that said they really didn't land on the moon. It was all a heist.

Were any of you watching? Did they land on the moon?

Dr. Russell Taylor: That conspiracy theory has been around a long time. I'm vowed to silence, actually.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: And they'd have to kill me, which is what one of those roller coasters would do.

Dr. Russell Taylor: I'm old enough to have actually seen it on TV, and, yes, we have actual evidence of material coming back from the moon, the rocks that we know to be from there.

Prof. René Racine: You should ask the president of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation about that. He has worked with some of the rocks.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay. Thanks very much.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Dr. Taylor, Mr. Janson and Professor Racine. Your made an outstanding and very interesting presentation. I think you raised some important issues for the committee, for the government and for Canada in general as far as research in astronomy is concerned.

• 1015

I want to follow-up on the question asked by my colleague, Mrs. Desjarlais, who talked about the brain drain. You did say that, because of the position of Canada in this area of research, we did not have any problem. However, you also said that if the plan is not implemented and if the funding is not found within a short time, probably by the end of 2001, Canada is in danger of being completely sidelined from the next stage of this research. So, if we don't participate, we could experience a brain drain.

If Canada is not at the cutting-edge of research, are our students not going to leave the country, once they are educated? Are those who want to do postdoctoral studies not going to go to the other countries to complete their studies and gain an international reputation, because research is not done here but in another country? Is it a real possibility or is it just fear-mongering?

[English]

Dr. Russell Taylor: It's not just a possibility. It's a fact. It will happen. These projects will go ahead with or without Canada. Even if Canada is involved there's going to be tremendous headhunting activity internationally to attract people to work on these projects.

We need to be able to attract them to stay in Canada and this is the way to do it. There's no doubt that this is the direction for astronomy. If we don't do this we're going to be sidelined and our people will leave. That's the bottom line.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay. Professor Racine, do you have anything to add on this point?

Prof. René Racine: I agree completely. I think the decision is yours here, in Ottawa. You must choose the priorities. Astronomy is an area where we are very well equipped and where we train excellent researchers, but we will not be able to attract new students if we do not participate in those large-scale projects. So, it is up to our honourable members, to our representatives and to our public policy makers to decide whether Canadian money will be used to support astronomy or to support something else.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much.

Page 47 of your executive summary precisely mentions the community of astronomers and researchers. It says that it includes 160 professors or faculty members, 150 young researchers, postgraduate students, postdoctoral students, etc. A study made by NSERC in 1977 demonstrated that 30 percent of them are going to retire and to leave this area over the next decade.

Given the fact that it is a 10 year project, if the government does not support it, this area of science will be in fact killed for more than a decade, because we will not have the young people to replace those who leave over the next decade. In the second decade, the following one, it will be virtually dead.

Prof. René Racine: Once again, I agree. We have been building Canadian astronomy since the beginning of the century. In 1917, when we inaugurated the Observatory of Victoria, we had the largest telescope in the world. It was a Canadian telescope. In 1935, the two largest telescopes were Canadian telescopes. If we do not go ahead and participate in these large projects, we are going to fall apart.

Talking about the people who are going to retire, you have before you one of those numerous retired persons.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, you are too young, Professor Racine.

Prof. René Racine: I am talking very seriously.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much.

• 1020

First, I can support officially this project, as did my colleague Bélanger. I think it is essential that this committee looks into this and makes a decision as to an urgent and priority recommendation to make to the Minister of Industry and to the government.

Secondly, I think the proof is there, especially as they say that Canada has an international stature in this area. It is in this area that we are ahead. In order to protect our position and to ensure that this area and our young people have a future here, the government has to act. I understand that it is the National Research Council which has a mandate to act. It is where the funds should go.

I understand that, in spite of all the new investments the government has made in science and technology, that Council has not had a budget increase for many years. It was forgotten in our plans to increase our investment in and our financial support to scientific research.

I would like to correct what I said. They did not get an increase of the same order as the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and other granting agencies.

[English]

Mr. Peter Janson: I think one of the things we can get lulled into is a sense of “Well, there's some time here, we're talking about ten years and $60 million”. But there is a couple of elements around this. One is this whole idea of “Could there be a brain drain?” If it would be only one, we wouldn't know, but any bright kid coming out of university or out of high school will go to the University of California because they'll have access to nights and we won't. So we'll lose them.

I mean, kids go for opportunity. All this tax stuff doesn't matter. If the opportunities are there for them, they'll go. If we have any opportunities here, they'll stay.

Then there's this sense of time that we have, because it's a decade program. The end of the year is too late. We're talking about making a decision.

I must say, in the involvement I've had, I've heard nobody say “This is crap”. All I've heard is “Oh, that's a good idea”. The CFI says it's good, but is it really our mandate? I certainly can't speak for the NRC, but it seems that if they say this is good, then maybe they'll have to end up funding it and that might take it away from something else.

You have a chance as a committee here to be very open and straightforward, to get this thing moving. I'm sorry, but we cannot wait. If we wait until the end of the year, the time is gone. There are going to be other countries that step in there. We'll get a piece, but it'll be a very small piece, and that will be a waste of money.

The Chair: Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I'd like to pick up on this whole debate, because it seems to me that every group that is involved in science has a good case to be made, and it's difficult for people like me to decide where funding should go. It's the government's challenge, I guess, but all parliamentarians need to have the best information available.

Dr. Taylor, I think you were here on Tuesday when we talked about all of the different groups competing for public money. You know, this sounds like a great idea. The new neutron facility up at Chalk River sounds like a great idea. The problem is, there's a limited amount of resources.

In order to help parliamentarians decide, the idea has been advanced by numerous people that a chief scientist or a group of people could help decide where our priorities should be put. Would you feel that this would be a good idea? Would you be confident, if we had that person or that panel in place to help us decide, with regard to how your scientific projects would stack up with regard to priority? Do you feel confident that they would rate high in order to get funding?

Dr. Russell Taylor: I'd be very confident that they would rate high. This proposal has been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed, and experts have weighed in with regard to their support. Presidents of universities across Canada, presidents of organizations—everybody has said it's a great idea.

• 1025

I think there are a few criteria you ought to bring into place when making these decisions. One is that you should always fund excellence. You should never fund mediocrity. You'll never win that way. When you fund excellence you always win, because you get excellent people, I think. So that should be one criterion.

I think astronomy—

Mr. Charlie Penson: But doesn't everybody make that argument? I mean, that's our problem.

Dr. Russell Taylor: Certainly that's a philosophical approach, but I think the trick then is to demonstrate that in fact you are excellent, and I think we have done that. Astronomy leads the world in Canada. We historically have done that because of the excellence of our people and the approach we have to developing these coherent national programs for astronomy. We're not a bunch of people scattered all over the place. We have a vision that's national and we know how to make it happen.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I understand that—

The Chair: Mr. Janson would also like to comment.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I want to follow up with Dr. Taylor just before we get to Mr. Janson.

The question I was asking is more on how to advise us in Parliament on what good scientific projects are.

Dr. Russell Taylor: Do you mean what mechanism you should put in place?

Mr. Charlie Penson: As I said earlier, there have been suggestions that we maybe should have a chief scientist to advise Parliament on what direction we should be looking at to publicly fund projects like yours. I'm just asking you, do you think that's a good idea?

As you can see, there's a lot of good scientific knowledge there. All those projects are excellent when we hear about them, but with the exception of a few parliamentarians, I would say there are very few people with scientific backgrounds. It's thus difficult to make those decisions.

Would you have a problem with the whole concept of some type of chief scientist?

Dr. Russell Taylor: I think a single point decision-making person like that would probably not be appropriate, because no one person would have the purview of all the various scientific disciplines that happen in Canada.

An advisory council is not a bad idea. I think some type of advisory body to which you could go for feedback on scientific issues is probably worthwhile, but I think the decision-making needs to be in the hands of the members of Parliament, who have the best interests of the Canadian populace at heart—one hopes.

Mr. Peter Janson: I spent four years serving on NABST in the early 1990s. During that period we went down to the White House to meet the president's science adviser, who was also a Canadian.

The Chair: Mr. Janson, could you explain what NABST is just for the benefit of the members?

Mr. Charlie Penson: And that illustrates part of our problem, Mr. Janson.

Mr. Peter Janson: Exactly. That's why I mentioned it.

NABST is the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, which is made up of non-governmental people who, quite frankly, weren't all that scientific, either. We were drawn from very many different disciplines.

At the time I think the Progressive Conservative government had these questions and wanted them answered. I was privileged to lead a subcommittee on spending priorities, trying to figure out how we should make these kinds of decisions that you were just asking for. We prepared a report. It was kind of unique, because we began to measure one department against another. That was really interesting. All of a sudden ministers and everyone got excited about what we were doing.

We measured using market criteria, market orientation: Is industry also putting money into this? Is there a community like we have here, with all of the universities, pan-Canadian in the truest sense? Is everybody willing to step up, contribute, and support an activity like this? And then on the other side, what really is the market? Do we have anything?

If we were stepping out to try to pour billions of dollars into microelectronic manufacturing facilities today, I would have a little trouble with that, because it's well developed in many other places. Rather, we should pick the things where we already have a competence and where we can get the best bang for the buck.

Russ has shown some pretty strong statistics, as far as I'm concerned, that say we do have a good bang for our buck. We have a presence, we have a critical mass, if you will. With the kinds of people you have behind the plan, we also make a clear statement that there's a strong market support for this. There are companies out there that have been developed from this industry and that are putting money back in.

Mr. Charlie Penson: So if we had this type of panel or chief scientist who could advise Parliament, I gather that you are supportive of the idea and think that you would rate well—

Mr. Peter Janson: I think an advisory... I understand some type of NABST spinoff still exists.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Are you aware of any other jurisdictions where they have that kind of person available to advise—the U.K., for example?

Mr. Peter Janson: The U.S. has a chief science adviser to the president.

Dr. Russell Taylor: The U.K. has an astronomer royal.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Penson.

Mr. Alcock, please.

• 1030

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would love to get into a debate about that. I don't disagree with Mr. Penson's presentation that expertise is useful. The problem with designating a chief scientist... I believe that was a policy that was put in place just prior to the arrival of Queen Victoria, when it was thought that you could capture all knowledge in the head of one person. They had the concept of the Renaissance man. Today, using advisory bodies and drawing upon the expertise in the community, giving you a lot more flexibility, is the dilemma.

But I have to take the fifth on this one, because I unfortunately am possessed of insider knowledge here. My smart cousin—to use my mother's characterization of him—

An hon. member: As opposed to...

Mr. Reg Alcock: —is an astronomer, and there is one thing I have found really interesting about both this discussion and my experiences with him. By the way, he works out at the observatory in Victoria. In fact, he just won an award.

I think Mr. Penson's question is quite valid in the sense that we have every group you can imagine in the country coming before us saying, “Give us more money, because here's a really great idea”. One of the things I have observed—I was drawn into it at earlier date—was that during program review, when cutting was taking place, a challenge was given to the various scientific organizations across the country to look for external partners, private sources of revenue and such. I know my cousin at that point was coming to me quite nervous, quite concerned about cuts that were going to take place in the observatory and the work he was doing.

I see him regularly, and today he tells me he's busier than he has ever been. They simply cannot meet all the challenges being brought to them. This whole business of turning them around from an inward-looking research shop to a shop that interacts exactly the way that you gentlemen are suggesting, with the external environment, and competing for and contracting for research from around the world, has actually worked. You can provide external validation for this. It may differentiate this project from some of the others that come to the table.

I guess I'd be interested in hearing from Dr. Russell or the other two gentlemen a sense of what the community went through as we went through those changes between about 1993 to 1998.

Dr. Russell Taylor: I think the community you're speaking about is the National Research Council, which suffered through the scaling back that occurred in part of the last decade.

I think there has been historically a transition from the NRC as a pure research organization, which it was back in the sixties—perhaps Professor Racine can speak more to that, since he was around—where basic research was a stronger part of their mandate, to a philosophy of the client server approach, where the NRC serves a clientele and tries to bolster Canadian industry in this virtual circle of science technology, where science feeds off technology and technology feeds off science. That was in one of my overheads.

The NRC is trying to position itself to work at that transition. I think they've done that very successfully. That is built into our plan for the next 10 years. We're going to build on that model.

Prof. René Racine: What has changed over the last 15 to 20 years is that research in astronomy and astrophysics has become more expensive in actual terms, so one needs much stronger infrastructure. The problem arose in Canada. By the time we had joined the Canada-France-Hawaii project and were to join the Gemini project, there needed to be a local infrastructure that would serve the Canadian community—engineering, scientific, management. They took up this challenge quite well, with the result that your cousin is much more busy than he had expected to be.

With your permission,

[Translation]

Madam Chair, I could make a comment on the criteria that parliamentarians should use to decide which ones of those marvellous projects should be funded.

We have a community of astronomers which are highly skilled and internationally recognized. The decision whether or not to support astronomy will be made by public policy makers. The work we want to do, the mission we have been given by the community, is to tell you what happens, to make discoveries, to bring them to you and to enable the public to share our wonder in the face of research.

• 1035

This is the bottom line. You can decide today that it is important for Canada, with the possible technical, industrial and economic impacts or you can decide that it is not important. The decision is yours to make.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Alcock, did you have a final question? Okay.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: In the document you sent us, The Origins of Structure in the Universe, chapter 5 is entitled: Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics in Canada to 2015. On page 69 you say that, at the present time, in order to maintain the existing structures, you have a deep partnership with NRC. Staff levels are barely sufficient and you are very concerned about the future. You make a recommendation and you say that to be up to the task and not to be outpaced you are going to have to hire at least six additional high-calibre astronomers as well as new technicians. This is one of the things which struck me most.

It is what should be done today in order to maintain the level of skills Canada now has on the international scene. You are submitting a plan. Are those six astronomers and technicians included in this plan? Is it exactly what we should have to maintain what we have or are these additional things in order to project ourselves in the future world, to be ranked first in the area of astronomy?

[English]

Dr. Russell Taylor: The six individuals referred to in this paragraph are to be hired by the National Research Council. Those are research staff associated with the NRC.

In the plan I laid out before you, $200 million is for infrastructure and facilities and $64 million for domestic infrastructure and hiring in Canada. These six people are included in that $64 million, so it is in the plan.

Over and above this, the universities will be investing in additional faculty in astronomy as well. As we engage ourselves in these high-profile projects, the universities will respond in terms of their hiring pattern. So we expect that in terms of graduate students and faculty at university there also will be an increment. Of the $64 million I mentioned for the infrastructure in Canada, $17 million is for NSERC to support the research of additional university staff.

I don't know if that answers your question.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: There are many items in this document. You talk among others about computer science, about Summer training, about outreach, about collaboration with primary and secondary schools to ensure that young people are more attracted to astronomy and physics.

You have today $22 million a year. You recommend that we give you additional funds just for that, in order that you have at last more visibility in Canada. The amount of $164 million you are talking about is for a very specific project. With those $22 million, you cannot do what you want to have a greater visibility, just in Canada.

Back at home, there are young people who would like to know what are physics and astrophysics, and there is now nobody who could come and meet them in the schools to talk to them about that. I would like you to develop a plan to really get involved with our future physicists.

[English]

Dr. Russell Taylor: Yes, indeed, and that's a very excellent point. It's not one we've ignored. Page 12 recommends in detail the allocation of funding to various projects. At the bottom of the table there is an outreach item, for about 2% of the budget. So we're taking that very seriously. It is included in part of the plan.

• 1040

As well, within the society I'm the president of, we have initiated a program of public education. We've managed to fundraise something like $300,000 to launch a Canadian public outreach initiative in astronomy. We will in fact be bringing to the public the wonder of the Canadian role in astronomy.

So we're taking it very seriously, and I thank you for that question.

The Chair: Merci.

Mrs. Desjarlais, do you have any other questions? All right.

Have you dealt with in the past the advisory panel on science set up by the Prime Minister?

Dr. Russell Taylor: I have served on various short-term advisory panels for government agencies, such as the space agency and NSERC and NRC, but I haven't served on a standing advisory panel for the government. I don't know if one exists at this point.

The Chair: All right. Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, I've now come back to the notion of a motion from this committee. Would that be in order at this time if there was unanimous consent to put it forward?

The Chair: If there was unanimous consent and we had a quorum, but since we don't have nine members we don't have a quorum for a motion. But it would be possible...

I've asked the researcher to take a look. We are in the process of doing a whole report and a whole look at science. As we all know, we haven't determined what the outcome of that will be, but in the past when we were doing reports, if a more urgent issue came up, we have had some precedents at the committee where we have done motions and written letters of support.

So if you'd like to put a motion forward and submit it to the clerk—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Give notice of motion.

The Chair: —then on Tuesday we could deal with that as well. If you want to have some consultation with our researcher, that would be fine.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Dr. Taylor.

Dr. Russell Taylor: I just want to address the question of urgency. It is quite urgent that we begin funding this within the current fiscal year, or starting next fiscal year, I guess in April.

The Chair: April 1.

Dr. Russell Taylor: That's right, yes. I don't mean this month but this year, for two reasons. One, we have engaged in international agreements where our partners are waiting for us to come to the table. As well, although these international projects are cooperative projects among many countries, they are also competitive. We are being asked to participate because of our current position in leading certain areas of technology. If we can't come to the table with our technology and our funds soon, those opportunities will go away. There are other competing elements internationally that would certainly like to have our place. We need to move quickly on this.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps I can clarify something. This document, The Origins of Structure in the Universe, is the report of the NRC-NSERC long-range planning panel. This is the one done for the Canadian Astronomical Society research work. Is there one for all the other disciplines of science? Are we going to get a $164 million request from each of the disciplines, and you guys were just first?

Dr. Russell Taylor: Oh, no, I think you will find that no other discipline has the national cohesion that we have and the ability to put together a plan that has the full support of the community. That's something we have done very effectively over the past 10 to 20 years. One of the reasons we are first in the world on astronomy is that we have the ability to come together around a vision.

I can't speak for the other disciplines, because I don't know what they're doing, but I believe this is a somewhat unique result.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, whether the quality of their work is better or is not doesn't mean they won't be asking for more money.

Dr. Russell Taylor: For sure.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's just that we fund NRC. NRC is funding this report, which you guys have participated in, that is demanding more money for NRC. Do you see how it's a little bit...

Dr. Russell Taylor: The report was not produced by NRC. The report was commissioned by the vice-president of NRC. The report was produced by panel members from the university community in Canada—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, and the U.S.

Dr. Russell Taylor: —and by some international colleagues.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It clarifies who's on the panel, but this is the one for astronomy and astrophysics.

Dr. Russell Taylor: Correct. This is what we do.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, but do you see my point that it's possible we could be getting one from several other disciplines also asking for huge increases in funding, and who would also perhaps make very good cases for why there are spinoffs?

Doubtless your cohesion and your coordination with business and everything else is going to be, as we heard today, most excellent. Did business also participate in funding this report and putting together all these packages?

• 1045

Dr. Russell Taylor: Yes, there is a section on economic spinoff in which we were helped quite a bit by industry.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: These are expensive.

Dr. Russell Taylor: The funding of this was minimal. It was all done voluntarily by the Canadian Astronomical Society. The panel members weren't paid except for travel expenses, which cost maybe $10,000.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Torsney.

I want to thank the witnesses for being with us. I appreciate your patience at the start of the meeting. I've also appreciated your presentation and the discussion.

I do know that a number of the committee members have a very strong interest in this topic. As well, since, as members of Parliament, we vote on the estimates and all kinds of spending, I think it's quite appropriate for this committee to discuss spending in the area of science and technology and to endorse certain projects or not endorse certain projects. So I think we will have this discussion on Tuesday—if there's time after all of our other motions—and we will deal with it as quickly as we possibly can. You may find yourself part of a larger report down the road as well.

I thank you very much. We would appreciate any information you may have that you could provide to us in the future as time continues.

The meeting is now adjourned.