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]

Tuesday, May 1, 2001

• 0907

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of the science and technology policies.

We have two groups with us this morning. From Genome Canada, we have Martin Godbout, and from the National Research Council of Canada, we have Dr. Peter Hackett, Dr. Walter Davidson, and Dr. John Root.

I do believe we're going to start off with Mr. Godbout. I appreciate the fact that you've been here this morning, and we understand that you have a flight to catch later on, so we'll proceed with your presentation. Then we'll move over to questions.

Mr. Martin Godbout (Executive Director, Genome Canada): Mr. Chairman,

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

[English]

It's an honour for me to be here this morning before the committee to give a brief overview of what Genome Canada has achieved over the last year—it's a little historic—the mandate of Genome Canada, the economic potential of Genome Canada. I will review our last operations and what are the challenges for the next year and year and a half.

[Translation]

For my presentation this morning, which I will make mainly in French, I will use slides.

I would first like to say that genomics and proteomics are not diseases. Genomics and proteomics are part of a technology platform, which is similar to that of the Canadarm, which you are all familiar with and which I'm sure you have seen recently on tv.

This technology platform combines three major technologies, including molecular biology, which is commonly known as genetic engineering. Genomics is such a large-scale science that it requires the use of bioinformatics, and the success of genomics and proteomics is mainly due to robotization and automation.

• 0910

There were no programs in Canada on a sufficiently large scale to meet the needs of genomics and proteomics research.

[English]

If you look at this slide—the relative federal budget for genomic research per capita in the 1990s—Canada ranked seventh.

[Translation]

On a comparative scale of 1 for Canada, we can see that the United-States spent $14 more than Canada for genomics research in the 1990s. It was crucial to turn this situation around in order for Canada to become a major player in genomics and proteomics research.

On the next slide,

[English]

We conducted a bibliometric study. If you want to know where Canada stands, you have to use very specific data. In some of those you see on the left panel, you can count the number of publications—that's one of the criteria—where you see that Canada ranked sixth. But if you put the number of papers per million of inhabitants, Canada

[Translation]

is also in sixth position. We can clearly see that smaller countries, such as Switzerland, Sweden and the Netherlands are ahead of Canada. Canada has the potential to become a world leader in genomics and proteomics.

In the middle column, we have the expertise rating. This allows us to ascertain whether Canada is in a position to compete, in specific sectors, with industrialized countries, such as the United States, Switzerland, France, Sweden and Japan.

This study was conducted between 1990 and 1998. Unfortunately, initially, there were no sectors where Canada was in a position to become an expert or a world leader. However, cuts in research budgets and development during the 1990s had what we might call, a positive impact. What I mean is that Canadians, despite the fact that they publish less...

[English]

Even if they published less, the quality of the papers was outstanding. They published in very specialized magazines—Nature, Science—which were among the best papers or magazines in the world. So Canadian scientists were outstanding, but the number of publications was lacking. The global ranking was six.

I referred to that last column, because the challenge of Genome Canada is to go from sixth to third—among the best in the world in global ranking.

[Translation]

When we are faced with a challenge, we have to analyze the parameters very carefully. Genomics is a technology platform, which enables us to find answers to problems in various areas. If you look at the left-hand column, you will see that genomics may have applications in health, agriculture, forestry, fisheries and the environment.

When we approached the Canadian government, two years ago, it was vital for us to persuade officials from the departments of Health, Agriculture, Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources, the Environment, Industry and the Department of Finance. You can imagine how complex an undertaking this was.

Major investment was required in technology platforms such as the Canadarm. We required sequencing platforms for proteomics, functional genomics, genetyping, etc. The final column entitled GELS was also very important.

[English]

GELS stands for genomic, ethics, legal, and social impacts, which all this research will conduct, and the issues that need to be raised by Canadians regarding ethical and legal aspects.

On the next slide I will very quickly describe to you what the objectives are.

[Translation]

So, what are Genome Canada's goals? Its number one objective is to become, following a very detailed inventory of all work that is being done on genomics in Canada, a world leader in specific very specialized sectors of genomics research.

To achieve this, we had to develop a strategy. In some ways, this was a top-down process. Following an inventory of all the work being done on genomics in Canada, we had to develop a business plan, which has enabled us to invest in very specific areas.

• 0915

In the February 2000 budget, the Canadian government provided initial investment to the tune of 160 million dollars. It then asked us to set up and support five genomics centres throughout Canada.

[English]

From coast to coast we now have very well-established centres in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, the Prairies, and Vancouver. These centres have to focus exclusively on the funding of large-scale projects.

So, very quickly, what's the definition of a large-scale project? These are projects that are beyond the scale and scope of any granting councils.

[Translation]

These must be international-scale projects. Their scientific quality must be extremely high and they must be competitive internationally. These projects require researchers from various sectors.

The fifth point is that Genome Canada's terms of reference, as I explained earlier, are to consider all the ethical, environmental, legal problems and the impact that genomics could have on society. It is vital for us to conduct research in this area. It is all well and good to criticize genomics and to wonder whether it is a good thing or not, but the fact is that currently, no other country has adopted such a radical approach as Canada in terms of these issues.

Before I wrap up, I would like to mention that you will see a little later on that we are talking about investment over the coming year of about $600 million for the next four years. This is public money and it is very important for us to talk to the public and to illustrate the economic and social impact that genomics research will have on Canadians.

Lastly—and this is perhaps what interests you most—Genome Canada has been mandated to find other investors. The federal government will not be the only financial backer of genomics research in Canada. We have the authority to find other partners. It goes without saying that there are the provincial governments, but there is also industry and other international organizations, such as the Wellcome Trust, the Riken Institute in Japan, the Howard Hugues Medical Institute and many others.

Consequently, our mandate is to match every dollar given by the federal government to Genome Canada with between $1.50 and $2 from other sources within three years.

On the next slide, you can see how Genome Canada is structured. The structure is very simple. We have a board, which is made up of 14 members, and a skeleton staff of five people. The five genomics centres that we mentioned earlier are responsible for operations at Genome Canada.

The following slide shows that the board is chaired by Dr. Henry Friesen, whom you undoubtedly know. Dr. Friesen was the former chair of the Medical Research Council of Canada, which has become the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

We have one representative per region; not necessarily per province, but per region. We have one in British Columbia, one in the Prairies, three in Ontario, three in Quebec and one in the Atlantic provinces.

The heads of the four granting councils, the CIHR, NSERC, SSHRCC and the National Research Council are all ex officio members of the board of Genome Canada.

[English]

This is to simply avoid duplication in the programs.

[Translation]

The following slide summarizes what Genome Canada has achieved over this last year. We obtained $160 million from the federal government in February 2000.

As early as July 2000, the five Canadian centres and their respective boards had been set up.

An inventory of over 275 projects had been submitted in the five genomics centres in Canada by September 2000.

In November, the five centres submitted 73 letters of intent corresponding to 73 large-scale projects. These 73 projects were assessed by an international peer committee.

On January 26, 2001, the five genomics centres each submitted a business plan. A total of 31 projects were presented in the five business plans representing maximum investments of over $600 million.

In February 2001, the Canadian government allocated an extra $140 million to Genome Canada.

• 0920

On March 22, 2001, a little less than a month ago, the board of Genome Canada selected 17 projects for the whole of Canada in five areas: health, the environment, forestry and fisheries and agriculture. These projects represented a total investment of $270 million, of which $135 million would be provided by Genome Canada and the remaining $135 million would come from the provinces. This is a summary table.

[English]

We were not obliged within the first year to fulfil the table you see in front of you. We had four years to establish the five centres, and they are all operational. All five sectors, agriculture, environment, fisheries, forestry, GELS, and health, will receive some funding from Genome Canada. There are also four science and technology platforms.

[Translation]

The weekend newspapers reported that the Quebec government held a press conference last Friday, which announced that it would match the $40 million provided by Genome Canada for genomic research in Quebec. Further announcements will be forthcoming in the provinces over the next few weeks and months. At least, I hope so.

The red on the following slide indicates that Genome Canada and the provincial governments are the sources of investment for the genomic centres. The business structure of the genomic centres, which are not-for-profit corporations, enables us to raise money through venture capital, international companies, voluntary agencies, such as the Canadian Cancer Society, and through other organizations and, of course, through industry.

Intellectual property belongs to those people conducting the research. Consequently, in terms of a project conducted in co- operation with universities, the intellectual property belongs to the universities. What Genome Canada and the genomic centres would like, is to manage intellectual property and to provide both short- and medium-term benefits for Canada.

We cannot suggest that $600 million would be invested in genomics throughout Canada over the next three or four years without a further inventory.

[English]

We did another inventory. There are more than 54 biotech companies using genomics and proteomics across Canada, among which 23 and 16 are respectively in Quebec and Ontario. These 54 biotech companies cover all five sectors of activity, so we have a receiving industry for all the technology that will be developed over the next three years.

On the next slide, there is venture capital. Venture capital is extremely important in Canada to sustain the biotech industry. If you look at this slide, the year 2000 was tremendous. This is only for life sciences, and more than $1.2 billion of venture capital has been invested in the biotech industry. We estimate that about $250 million is the amount venture capital invested in genomic and proteomic biotech companies last year.

On the next and last slide, we are in the process of benchmarking, so you understand that we have done all the 275 projects across Canada. We look at the industry. This is a very interesting slide, which was produced by Mrs. Mary Macdonald of Macdonald and Associates. On the first line, in 1999, per capita, Canada invested only $87 as venture capital compared to $177 from the United States as venture capital.

[Translation]

However, if you look at the following line, science and health-related investment stands at $16 per head in Canada compared to $14 in the United States. Consequently, we have a venture capital industry which is mainly focussed on the health sector.

[English]

I now go directly to the last line, where more than 18% of all the money invested by venture capital is directly invested in life science, compared to 8% in the United States. So the crash we see in the information technology area in the United States has done less damage in Canada because our base of venture capital is mostly focused on life science, and life science has not been as affected as information technology.

• 0925

[Translation]

To summarize then, we have the capital in the shape of funding through venture capital and we have the science in the shape of scientists. I would like to point out that we are third in the world in terms of the impact and quality of research conducted by Canadians. Canada also has an industry of some 50 different companies, which are directly or indirectly involved in genomics.

In conclusion then, our major challenge in the coming year, or perhaps over the next 18 months, is to move up from sixth to third place in terms of publications, because if we publish more while maintaining the same quality, Canada will definitely be a major player in specific areas.

Our second challenge is to create international partnerships. This process has already begun. We currently have a list of 17 projects involving the best Canadian researchers. These projects are internationally competitive and it is now up to us to develop a partnership with foreign partners.

Lastly, our final challenge is to make Genome Canada funding available to industry. We hope that over the coming year, an increasing number of Canadian biotechnology companies will be eligible for Genome Canada funding in co-operation with universities.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your attention and we are available for any questions you may have.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you very much, Mr. Godbout. I would ask that you furnish us with a copy of the slides so we can circulate them to the committee.

Mr. Martin Godbout: Absolutely.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you.

We'll now start with the National Research Council. Dr. Root, I understand, you're going to begin the presentation, then Dr. Davidson and then Dr. Hackett. Have I got that right? Thank you.

Dr. John Root (Program Leader, Neutron Program for Materials Research, Steacie Institute for Molecular Sciences, SIMS, National Research Council of Canada): My name is John Root. ... [Technical difficulty—Editor]

I am going to tell you about why neutron beams are important to Canada. Then I will tell you about our vision for the future and bring you up to date on the situation at the moment.

Neutron beams are a probe that are used to investigate materials. This is the business of generating new knowledge about materials, things that people don't know already.

Neutron beams give especially unique information about materials, and this unique information enables you to be competitive with how you make materials and how you implement them in the things we build in industry and in society.

So this knowledge is used by three parts of Canada's knowledge infrastructure: universities for training and basic science; government laboratories, basic science directed at economic impact; and industry itself.

The pictures here show you examples of these. To the left, at the bottom, some NRC scientists are looking at the surface of water on ice, part of a project to learn about anti-freeze proteins in fish.

In the middle, Pratt & Whitney Canada have brought a gas turbine engine to learn about the temperature inside the engine while it is running.

• 0930

On the right, some university students from the University of Western Ontario are learning about electrochemical reactions on a metal surface.

Everything is made of materials, whether large-scale engine blocks from GM—a prototype where the casting of aluminum cracks and there's a problem to solve before you go into production—or whether it's basic materials for electronic devices, and here the examples are substrates, where the aim is to find materials that can remove the heat from your Pentium processor, but the material itself is non-toxic.

At the very bottom, and in very small scale, how does a virus attack a membrane in a realistic biological condition? And this is the simian immunodeficiency virus—it's the monkey version of HIV—and neutrons are used to reveal how this virus attacks the membrane.

There are many broad fields of science that neutron scattering provides information for: physics, chemistry, material science, and engineering, on all scales, of all materials we use. Worldwide, many neutron facilities were built about 40 years ago. So they are aging, and many of them are shutting down.

This is a projection. The black graph here shows how, over the next 20 years, the existing number of reactor-based neutron sources is declining dramatically. This coincides with a worldwide understanding of how neutron information is very powerful for developing materials. So the graph on the right shows a great increase in the number of neutron users at one of the neutron laboratories in the United States.

That is a challenge for Canada and an opportunity. Neutrons are very important. Canada knows how to build neutron sources. There's a worldwide demand and a worldwide shortage. But it's also a challenge because Canadian scientists find that there are fewer opportunities worldwide for them to have access to neutron beams.

All around the world, people are scrambling to replace their neutron sources—and here is the list of some of the projects that are going on right now. Small countries, non-nuclear countries, such as Australia, Korea, Taiwan, all recognize that the neutron source is essential to support advanced materials research, and they're building them now.

Larger projects, based on a different method for creating neutrons, are also underway, most notably in the United States. A $2 billion project called the Spalatian Neutron Source will be ready to produce neutrons in 2007.

In Canada, we also have a proposal for a new neutron source. For over a decade, the neutron-scattering community has been saying that Canada needs a new and improved source over what we already have at Chalk River. This source is called the Canadian Neutron Facility. We're looking down from above a large laboratory. Here is the neutron source. It's very small—about the size of a bucket—and it shines neutrons out in many directions to feed a number of instrument stations. This project is going to cost around $466 million, escalated over six to eight years, but it will be a facility that has a life of 40 years and will support 20,000 research projects. So this is not a big science project that just answers one question; it answers thousands of questions and has an impact all across the economy of Canada.

What's unique about the Canadian proposal is that it was thought of as a dual-purpose facility. Not only will it support advanced materials research, but it will also be a key element in supporting a particular industry of Canada, that is, the nuclear industry. You also need a reactor to develop components and materials for nuclear power generation. So the unique concept here, unlike every other neutron source in the world, is that the CNF would be shared by researchers in Canada at large and by researchers specifically in the nuclear industry.

• 0935

It's important to realize that we view this as a piece of infrastructure, knowledge infrastructure, that's needed by all Canadians. We believe this is a national responsibility, as it is done in every other country, and when the infrastructure is in place, Canadians will create on top of that infrastructure.

There are two industrial examples that are coming down the line, so we know companies will invest on top of the CNF infrastructure. One is a facility to do imaging with neutron radiography, in the example here, the interior of a gas turbine engine; and secondly, therapy. Neutron beams can be used to treat certain kinds of brain cancer, and there is an emerging technology to use neutron beams for this application. Canada could be in that business if we had a neutron source as a piece of our infrastructure.

What we're facing now is a gap in Canada in the availability of neutrons. The CNF is not funded, but it requires six to eight years to build this facility. Our existing neutron source, the NRU, is meant to close in 2005. You can do the math as well as I can; you're going to have a number of years with no neutrons.

The impact of that on the neutron-scattering and materials research community is that the professors who train students will stop training them in areas that involve neutron scattering. So we will begin to lose the know-how, the continuity of expertise, and eventually Canada's capability to benefit from neutrons will dissipate—not to mention Dr. Brockhouse. It's a pity, because we have historical leadership and a Nobel prize in this area—I didn't want to whine about that too much.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): He's a great Canadian.

Dr. John Root: He is a great Canadian. What are we doing here?

So the present situation is that we have a small team of researchers who are essential for a large community to benefit from neutron beam technology. There's a high degree of uncertainty in Canada about our neutron source, and there are many opportunities elsewhere in the world for highly qualified personnel to get really great jobs.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Dr. Davidson.

Dr. Walter Davidson (Coordinator, National Facilities, Canadian Light Source, National Research Council of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Over the next few minutes, I am going to describe the Canadian Light Source Synchrotron Facility. I will explain what it is, where it is, how it developed, how it was created, how it is managed and how it should develop in the future. I will then give you an overview of the exceptional quality of this program and I will attempt to address the objective of this round table, which is to better understand the contribution of the Canadian Light Source Synchrotron Facility to the innovation and productivity of our economy, which is increasingly linked to core expertise.

[English]

In my view, the Canadian Light Source will constitute a premier national research tool for Canadian scientists from industry, from our universities, and from government labs, over the coming decades.

Here is the vision for the Canadian Light Source, which is under construction at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. It is the largest scientific project, both in size of the facility and its cost, in Canada in over a generation. It is what we call a third-generation synchrotron ring. There are very few others in the world. It uses devices called undulators to amplify the intensity of the light produced. It can lead to research that was unimaginable less than a decade ago.

• 0940

The main point is that the Canadian Light Source will be critical for the development of many industrial sectors. As the mission statement says, it is national in scope, and it is also a centre of excellence.

The total cost of the facility is $173 million; $32 million was given for the existing accelerator as used as an injector to this device.

There are the various contributors. The Canadian Foundation for Innovation put in 40%—that is, $56 million. We now have collected money from the Ontario Innovation Trust and from the Province of Alberta. The National Research Council, which I represent, has contributed, and so has Natural Resources Canada.

You can see there's a public-private partnership. SaskPower has contributed. So has the City of Saskatoon. The Universities of Alberta, Western Ontario, and Saskatchewan have also contributed. Through the Western Diversification Program, the Government of Canada has given over $20 million. The Province of Saskatchewan has put in $25 million. There are many different partners there.

Here is a slide of the building, taken just a couple of months ago. There's snow on the ground. The building is complete and was formally opened at the end of February of this year. It's also architecturally quite nice and quite effective.

Inside we have a view of the central construction. The central area is where the booster will be built, and they're starting to put in shielding. This building is unique. It is stadium-sized. It's six storeys high. It measures 84 metres by 84 metres, without any central support. In fact, it's one of the biggest buildings in Canada.

Here is a footprint of the synchrotron. This part is the existing laboratory. It was a nuclear physics laboratory for several decades, and it had a linac. This will be used to accelerate electrons into this central region. It's called the booster ring. This takes the beam of electrons up to high energy, specifically to 2.9 giga-electron volts. It is then fed into the storage ring where the electrons circulate at high intensity. As they circulate, they radiate electromagnetic radiation. We can call that light. These very intense beams of light are fed off into various experimental installations on the periphery. It's here that experiments will be done by researchers from industry and from universities. There is also a strong international dimension to this, so there will be people from overseas doing experiments here as well.

I won't dwell too much on this; it's in the handouts just how a synchrotron works. But essentially you can see experimental installations around the periphery where tailored beams of light can be delivered for experiments.

Here is the planning schedule. The idea of a synchrotron goes way back to the late 1970s. Twenty years ago, scientists in this country had hoped to persuade the government to build a synchrotron. That didn't happen. We did have several beam lines on a synchrotron in the United States, in Madison, that our scientists used. It helped build up the community. In the last few years of the 1990s, there was a big push, and eventually, on March 31, 1999, funding was announced, with the Canadian Foundation of Innovation being the biggest contributor.

• 0945

Here the conventional construction has terminated. Now the hard work starts to build up the equipment, the booster, the storage ring, the beam lines. This will take a couple of years. You can see the timeline here. The idea is, by the end of 2003, to have an operating commissioned synchrotron in Saskatoon with six initial beam lines operating. This was a condition of the CFI contribution.

In the meantime, a lot of the scientists have been working with industry, pointing out the advantages of synchrotron light to industry, and have been undertaking a number of important demonstration visits. For instance, one of the big uranium companies in Saskatoon is very interested in determining arsenic in tailings. Some of the CLS staff have taken some of their samples to an American synchrotron to show how one can get an analysis very quickly of the content of arsenic and so on. This company has actually realized that this is very important for their business line and could potentially save them hundreds of millions of dollars. So one is trying to build up the industrial community, because there's a strong industry focus. We hope also over the years to build up more beam lines to make full use of the potential of the synchrotron. Ultimately, one could have that up to 25 or even 30 beam lines, depending on physical limitations.

Now, who will benefit? This is actually the first synchrotron in Canada. It is state of the art. We are the last of the G8 nations to actually build one of these. There are more than 400 researchers in Canada across our country using foreign synchrotrons—the United States, Europe, and Japan. Here we will soon have our own indigenous synchrotron. Virtually all of the scientific areas from biology, medicine, physics, chemistry, geology, agriculture, biotechnology, environmental sciences, mining, and archaeology can potentially benefit.

Another benefit is that it is already attracting back top talent—Canadians who are working abroad—to work on the synchrotron and build it up. So there is a very important aspect of a Canadian brain gain. In the last few years, three University of Saskatchewan faculty and eight Canadian Light Source scientists have been hired from outside Canada—almost all of them Canadian nationals. So when one has a project of this magnitude—of this scope—it acts as an attractor for talented people—people who are very interested in working at a facility that is a centre of excellence.

You can see here that biotechnology and pharmaceuticals and medicine can benefit from this, as well as advanced materials, information technologies and micro-systems, mining, natural resources, and the environment.

My final slide is just some more examples of the benefits that can accrue from this unique device in Canada, ranging from chemical reactions, new drugs and vaccines, designing microchips, etching microscopic components of motors, ultra-thin coatings, analysing oil values of mining companies, as I mentioned, and even down to things such as looking at new super-absorbent polymers. There is quite a big market in the diaper business for this. One of our scientists has already made his name in this polymer field.

I wish to conclude my presentation, Mr. Chairman, with a few points that may help the discussion. There's no doubt that a Canadian Light Source represents a substantial investment in our national research and development infrastructure. When it meets a state of mature operating mode, it will certainly be a world-class facility.

• 0950

The various private-public partnerships that helped build this facility are in some ways unique. Normally in other nations, capital construction money comes from one, two, or three sources. We have more than ten, which poses some problems with the management of the various partners' interests in the Canadian Light Source.

Having a national facility—which this is—owned by a university, namely the University of Saskatchewan, is something of a novelty. We at the NRC, who have a mandate for overseeing large facilities, such as Telescopes and TRIUMPH, are providing our expertise to help run the facility effectively and efficiently. We work very closely with the University of Saskatchewan. The President of the NRC, Dr. Carty, chairs the board. The NRC sponsors an international oversight committee, etc.

The fact that there was from the start a very strong focus on industrial involvement in synchroton will probably not be lost on this committee. Worldwide synchroton has gained less than 10%. It's often just a few percent of their operating revenue from industrial contracts. The target at the Canadian Light Source, when it's a mature operating facility, is to get 25% of the revenue from industrial contracts.

Finally, we will have to continue to raise more money to get more beam lines to operate the facility at its full potential. These beam lines can be expensive. A proton crystallography line can cost up to about $9 million. Other beam lines can be had for less than $1 million, and so on. There is an active program to engage industry and secure contributions for new beam lines at the Canadian Light Source.

I think I will terminate there. Thank you for your attention, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you.

Dr. Hackett.

Dr. Peter A. Hackett (Vice President, Research and Technology Development, National Research Council of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair

[Translation]

Good morning, everyone. It is a great pleasure for me to be here today.

[English]

My presentation today will be about timing. Dr. Cowley and I have come back from Germany, Belgium, France, and Switzerland, where we've been looking at investments in nanotechnology in those countries. Our presentation was put together at eight thirty this morning, so it's a just-in-time presentation.

It is all about timing. If we can go to the next slide, I'm going to quote some words from Paul Martin talking about how Canada will build an innovative economy. He's talking about transformative technologies: “...this is where the true new economy is to be found...in the transformative cascade of new technologies”—wave after wave after wave of new technologies. “This is producing a shift that is...giving rise to whole new fields of industrial endeavour—information technology and biotechnology today, fuel cells, nanotechnology, and genomics tomorrow.”

If Canada is to go from 15th to 5th, then it's got to take some leapfrogging advantages. It's got to move to the forefront; be at the head of this wave.

You know Canada pulled out of the Human Genome Project in the mid-1990s. Now there are 170,000 genes and gene fragments that are patented. Canada's playing catch-up there. Let's see where Canada can lead.

I'm going to talk to you today about nanotechnology. I'd like just to bring you up to speed on what's going on around the world. The U.S., Europe, and Japan each spent $180 million in nanotechnology in 1997. In 2002, President Bush is requesting $485 million in the United States. Japan has just announced a $410 million program. In Osaka, 61 Japanese companies are forming a nanotechnology institute. In New York state IBM is co-funding a centre of excellence in nanotechnology this year. In Switzerland they have a well-integrated national effort, $24 million for advanced science and $55 million for commercialization. In Germany there are a number of large-scale efforts, including a $100 million program for early commercialization efforts.

• 0955

While we were at the Hanover fair with Minister Normand last Tuesday, Bill and I were able to see the new Audi TT, which has a nanotechnology-engineered reflective coating on the windows. We were very jealous of this.

We spent some time in Brussels, where we talked to high officials in the European Community, and we have discovered that one of the six prime targets in the sixth framework of the European Community will be nanotechnology and sustainable development.

So what is nanotechnology? It's the fusion of life sciences and physical sciences, which one day will lead to faster computers, smarter robots, and even tiny probes that could engineer tasks within our body. Just to give some perspective, a nanometre is a billionth of a metre, or about four atoms placed side by side. So it's about making materials at the absolute fundamental limit.

We have some experience already with nanotechnology. As you know, there's an international race to make computer components ever smaller. As physicists and material scientists do this, they will inevitably enter the world where the structures in the computer are of the scale of the atoms in the materials. In this new world everything will change. It will no longer be simple engineering. Quantum effects will become important. Moore's Law will no longer apply. We have to learn, for the benefit of our industries, how to operate in this new world.

Let me make it real for you. Here's a nanostructure. This is a wire that's built at the NRC laboratories on Sussex Drive. The red part in the middle is the wire. The units of production of this wire are molecules. You can't make a wire any smaller. This is the limit. We have to work in this world where the quantum effects and the particle effects start to merge and understand how to build structures...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...in this world. Where will it pay off?

Here is another structure built across town at our Institute for Microstructural Sciences, working in collaboration with the University of Guttenberg in Germany. This is a small Quantum Well laser, only 10 nanometres in size. If you look at the lower pictures, you'll see that we're able to put two of these little lasers together. What will happen when the light emerges from these two lasers is that you will get quantum interference, and we will be able to build for the first time a quantum bit of information. Let me tell you that the computers of the future are not going to be based upon the silicon technologies of today, but they're going to be quantum computers, because quantum bits can store infinitely more information than the single zero and one that you can store on a piece of silicon. You can have very effective parallel processing in the world of quantum computing. I'm convinced that there will not only be Nobel prizes in this area, but there will be new and pervasive technologies developed.

• 1000

Now, we're very familiar with nanotechnology. We all are nanotechnology. Each of us operates because of biological machines that have been designed over millennia to be very efficient and very selective. Biology teaches us all about making molecular devices that carry out engineering-type functions, and we need to bring this knowledge and this approach to the world of materials and the world of microelectronics.

Here's an example from our Industrial Materials Institute, in which the properties of polymers are being engineered by effects on the nanoscale. It is predicted that the market for these types of polymers will be $500 million by the end of the decade. This is a collaboration between that institute and McGill University.

What am I saying to you? I'm saying to you that nanotechnology is Canada's next innovation platform. Starting in 1989, along with a couple of Canadian companies and a couple of universities, we started to invest in dense, wavelength-division, multiplexing technology, because we thought this would underlie further economic activity. And in fact we were correct.

DWDM underlies the rise—and if I claim the rise, I also have to claim the fall—in the TSE due to the success of companies such as Nortel, JDS Uniphase, and Mitel. Because of this success, Ottawa is now known as Photonics Valley, which makes San Jose Photonics Valley South.

In Ottawa, based upon DWDM technology, you now see Marconi and Nokia coming, Alcatel is here, and, again, Cisco, JDS, and Nortel Networks, enormously strong industrial companies, and around them a whole generation of start-up companies, which among them attracted to Ottawa, to IT, to photonics, $1.3 billion of venture capital last year alone.

The companies in red are the NRC start-up companies that were started last year. These alone have attracted $100 million of venture capital money into photonics.

I haven't counted Optenia. Optenia is a joint venture between NRC, 10 employees, and Mitel, 15 employees, again looking at applications of this dense, wavelength-division, multiplexing technology in the economy.

This is what we hope to do for nanotechnology, and we hope to do it at the right time, now, so that Canada can be ahead of the wave.

We convened a workshop in January where we brought together the university participants, the venture capitalists, people from the Department of Finance, and people from provinces and cities to look at this opportunity for Canada. It was concluded that this was an opportunity. We are required to build a strong national institute in order to provide the major infrastructure to drive the field forward, and also we are required to put together a national network in nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology has been identified as a priority for the Province of Alberta, and in Saturday's Globe and Mail you'll see that the province is willing to co-invest in this activity. They have strength in information technology and in proteins. You'll remember the analogy I made between molecules in biology and machines. The protein is a molecular machine. They also have industrial activities developing some of the small-scale chemical analytical devices that nanotechnology will produce.

• 1005

One other conclusion from our workshop is simply this, that nanotechnology is a cross-cutting field. In order to push Canada forward most effectively, we need to build a new approach. We need to build the institute from the ground up using an interdisciplinary approach so engineers, physicists, chemists, and biologists can learn to work together in this new world using this new quantum approach to materials and machinery.

I think I'm getting the sign to hurry up. I have two more slides and two quotations.

The first is from the Governor of the State of California, who has founded four new institutes to secure the future of that state: a nanosystems institute; an institute for IT and telecom; an institute for biotechnology, bioengineering, and quantitative biomedicine; and an institute for information technology research in the interests of society. What he says here is that someone had to build Silicon Valley. Someone had to have the vision. When that's done, all the rewards follow, but it doesn't happen overnight.

I'm going to end with a quote from Neil Lane, adviser to U.S. President Clinton. When asked for an area of science and engineering that would be most likely to produce the breakthroughs of tomorrow, he said “I would point to nanoscale science and engineering”.

Let me end with Minister Martin again and his speech to the Canadian Society of New York in January. In that same speech I quoted at the beginning, he spoke not only of how new technologies are changing industries but of the race to capitalize on these technologies for economic growth. He said that new technologies create new industries. New industries bring new rules, and rule number one is, don't be second!

Let's do it; let's be first.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you very much.

I'm sorry I had to rush you, but extra time was taken by your fellow colleagues, so I needed to get to questions.

Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for your presentations here today.

I wanted to talk about the fact that it's interesting that two of the projects before us today have received their funding. However, one of the projects, the Canadian Neutron Facility, has not, and I just want to talk about the impact that will have on Canada and the Canadian research community.

Dr. Root, you talked about that a bit in your presentation, but could you just expand a little on what the impact is, first of all in delaying the decision to fund the facility? Secondly, if the decision is made not to fund the facility, what will the impact be on our research community here in Canada?

Dr. John Root: There aren't very many neutron facilities in the world, and there never will be. There will be about 20.

It's a specialized resource. It requires a local team of experts to help non-expert users get the information they need out of the technique. As you saw, the team we have at Chalk River is very small. The members find opportunities in other countries very attractive; two of my six people have standing job offers in Australia. Two are very senior and will likely retire shortly. It will be difficult for me to bring in highly qualified people to replace them, so the essential personnel needed to make this technique available to Canadians will be gone. I feel it will happen soon. There's a threat.

You need that expertise to help Canadians benefit from neutrons, and this situation means that Canadians will not have that access any more. Over the next few years I think you'll find that Canada's ability to exploit neutron information will dissipate across the nation. There will always be a few profs who go to international labs and benefit from the expertise there, but as you saw, there's an increasing demand on neutron sources worldwide. Canadians who aren't contributing may not be as welcome at these international labs as those who are players in the field.

• 1010

I think if you don't practise these advanced technologies and develop the knowledge on how to really exploit the information you get, you can't really benefit from access to foreign sources. I believe you'll be taking away from Canada one of the three pillars of advanced technology that support materials research.

Mr. James Rajotte: I'm just picking up on what Dr. Davidson was saying about the facility in Saskatoon and about that being almost a magnet for researchers coming into Canada. Once a researcher chooses to leave Canada, what are the chances of getting them back if they are a top-quality international researcher?

Dr. John Root: I have managed to repatriate a couple of post-docs lately, but that has been balanced by the loss of other young people who have been attracted to the higher salaries in the U.S.A. At this moment, if we demonstrate a lot of enthusiasm and promise, I think we can repatriate people. People like to live in Canada. We have an environment that encourages creativity. There's not just a production lab atmosphere, and that will attract a certain kind of scientist back into the country.

Mr. James Rajotte: Just in terms of the decision to be made on the Canadian Neutron Facility, I hope you're aware that we have decided to support the facility and its funding. One of the things we've made a point of is to say that we ought to separate the decision on the facility itself from the whole debate on the future of the nuclear industry in Canada. They should be two separate debates. Decide now about the Neutron Facility, and then debate the whole nuclear industry at a later time. Is it fair to say that this is your position as well?

Dr. John Root: The fact that the CNF is implanted in this larger nuclear issue makes this quite a challenge. Which issue should you address first? If you build a CNF for the neutron community, are you de facto committing to a long-term nuclear R and D anyway? People think they should deal with the long-term nuclear R and D question first and build the CNF second. Unfortunately, if you do things in that order, you'll lose Canada's ability to do the neutron beam research because of the urgent situation now.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): I will now go to Monsieur Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Dr. Hackett, could you tell us why in the matter of Genome Canada there are five centres of excellence being set up across the country and why in the matter of nanotechnology, which is as significant and as important, there seems to be only one?

Dr. Peter Hackett: The situation is that there are strong centres in Canada, in Vancouver—and I was remiss in the course of my presentation not to bring this up—in Edmonton, in Toronto, in Ottawa, and in Montreal. There are centres of nanotechnology research in the universities in those cities and in the industry here in Ottawa that would be important players in a national network for nanotechnology.

The workshop or national round table we held in Banff identified the need for two things. One was a strong multidisciplinary national institute to provide a very large-scale infrastructure to all of Canada, such as what you'll see in the synchrotron or the Canadian Neutron Facility. That needs to be built, and again, that needs to be built taking this new approach, so we no longer simply go along the biology arm, the physics arm, or the materials arm. We do something unique, which is to capture what this new field is all about. At the same time we should build a network linked to this institute in these other areas across Canada.

If I could have just one more second, I have just one more point to make. This refers to the state of development in nanotechnology and in genomics. It was very clear in genomics, as Monsieur Godbout has mentioned, that we had underinvested and had to catch up. There was a lot of pre-existing Canadian capacity, so the network approach made eminent sense for now. We believe we should wait a year or so in order to better marshal Canadian resources to build the nanotechnology network across Canada.

• 1015

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Mr. Godbout, by the way, is Genome Canada a federal government body or is it a private concern?

Mr. Martin Godbout: It is a not-for-profit corporation...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Who funds it?

Mr. Martin Godbout: ... which obtained initial funding from the federal government.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: All of its funding comes from the government?

Mr. Martin Godbout: For the moment, yes. There are other sources.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is another example of a body which is not a state concern but which relies on the government.

Mr. Martin Godbout: Like companies such as Innovatech in Quebec.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I see.

Mr. Martin Godbout: This is the model that we chose to follow.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: When you talk about Genome Canada, are you talking mainly or exclusively about the human genome?

Mr. Martin Godbout: No, not at all. Work on human genome sequencing was completed last February. When we talk about genomics, we are referring mainly to the way genes work. Consequently, the 17 projects that we have selected...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fine. You stated that Genome Canada has taken a radical approach to ethical, arm's length and societal issues, compared to other similar organizations elsewhere in the world.

Mr. Martin Godbout: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Could you perhaps flesh out this radical approach a bit more?

Mr. Martin Godbout: When we say that we have adopted a radical position, I mean that we have adopted a very strong, transparent all-pervasive stance.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Of the 14 board members, how many of them deal with issues of this type?

Mr. Martin Godbout: Just one.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Just one person. That's very radical. Of the 17 projects which were...

Mr. Martin Godbout: Mr. Bélanger...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm entitled to my opinion.

Mr. Martin Godbout: Yes, of course.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Of the 17 projects that were selected for funding, how many of them focussed on this issue?

Mr. Martin Godbout: All the projects which were selected for funding include an ethical and legal part.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes...

Mr. Martin Godbout: Allow me to finish. Three projects deal solely with ethics, intellectual property, the issue of consent in collecting blood samples and the social impact of genomics.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Could you provide us with a list of all these projects?

Mr. Martin Godbout: Yes, of course. It is on our Web site.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Has Genome Canada adopted an official position on these issues?

Mr. Martin Godbout: No, not at all.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Therefore, you are neither for nor against...

Mr. Martin Godbout: This is ethical research. This research is not overseen by Genome Canada.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Therefore, 3 of the 17 projects deal solely with this issue...

Mr. Martin Godbout: However, the 17 projects contain parts dealing with...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: 1 out of the 14 members of your board is focussing on this issue.

Mr. Martin Godbout: Yes. The board member dealing with this issue is Dr. Bartha Maria Knoppers, who is our international chairperson. There is no better person for the job than Dr. Knoppers.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The other members of your board are representatives of the four government agencies which fund research, science and development.

Mr. Martin Godbout: Among others, yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And the other members are drawn from the private sector.

Mr. Martin Godbout: Yes, we have Dr. Judith Hall in British- Columbia. She's a researcher. We have Dr. Lorne Babiuk in the veterinary sector...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We already have the list.

Mr. Martin Godbout: You have all received the list, haven't you? We have the vice-president of the Royal Bank, lawyers and a president from the venture capital sector.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What are you doing in terms of the situation which has recently emerged? Products made up of genes which are banned in Canada have been found in Canadian stores.

Mr. Martin Godbout: I was not aware of that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You weren't aware of that?

Mr. Martin Godbout: No.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It has been reported in the papers, especially in Montreal, because that's where these genes were found. You're telling us that you're not aware of that?

Mr. Martin Godbout: No.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I realize that the question I am about to ask is not a legitimate one, and you may send me packing. Do you believe that consumers are entitled to know what they are consuming?

Mr. Martin Godbout: Absolutely.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are you personally in favour of mandatory labelling?

Mr. Martin Godbout: Absolutely.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Martin Godbout: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I fully agree with you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): I would like to continue asking questions about ethical issues.

You said that you often fund joint projects with the provinces or public partners, but in the future, there will be private partnerships. What I understood from your presentation is that you are more or less actively seeking such partnerships.

How will this ethical dimension fit in with private partnerships? It may be even more delicate if Genome Canada begins to fund projects that could become extremely controversial. Therefore, what are the ethical standards that will guide you in allocating funds that come from the public sector, funds that you use in projects conducted by the private sector?

• 1020

Mr. Martin Godbout: There is within Genome Canada the Science and Industry Advisory Committee, commonly referred as the CIAC. It is composed of 14 people who are advisors to Genome Canada. They are not members of the Genome Canada board of directors and they come from different sectors.

Three of these 14 people are concerned with ethical issues and the projects themselves are assessed by international peers who must give us their opinion on ethical considerations.

We members of the Genome Canada board of directors do not make ethical decisions. We seek outside opinions from national or international experts, depending on the case in question.

For example, ethical considerations are much broader in the field of agriculture than in the field of forestry. The field of agriculture covers what we ingest, and consequently, GMOs and genetically modified food. Moreover, Canada has never reached a decision on this. You asked me for a personal opinion...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But there is no obligation.

Mr. Martin Godbout: No obligation, but... We understand each other. This is not the case for medical drugs.

Similarly, with regards to genomics projects with companies, it is very important and you raise a good point. In the case of genomics projects involving blood or tissue samplings, there is an ethics committee that is required to give advice to Genome Canada on the situation. This applies to both university research, which does it very well, and to industry research. Therefore, we rely on our experts who advise us in this area.

Genome Canada is not there to take a stand, strictly speaking, on ethical matters because we do not have the information. We therefore spend money to get the information. The fact is, there are two options. There is the European option too. In London, at the bus stop, you may see a billboard showing an apple pie, on which are written the words “Is this apple pie a GMO?” This is an extreme case.

Here, so that the public can decide, we are busy conducting research in the sector, we attempt to have experts throughout the world, Canadians among them, who will adopt a radical position. It is really essential to be transparent in this regard. That is why Genome Canada spends money on ethical issues.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Now, moving on to private funding. You said that, currently, your initial funding is mainly from the federal government. Has there been some delay in reaching the expected level of private contributions to Genome Canada?

Will the losses suffered by certain investors in the high-tech sector have an impact and what will it be? Will it delay the private sector investments that you will obtain?

Mr. Martin Godbout: First of all, we did not set any specific target for funding from the private sector in the first year. As I said earlier, we took inventory and, based on this inventory, we are building for the 17 projects. Already, in Quebec, on Friday, there was an announcement of 40 million dollars in funding from the province of Quebec, along with 40 million dollars from Genome Canada. An additional of 10 million dollars will be provided by the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. So that represents approximately 10%. You will tell me that it is not a great deal. You have to realize that we are talking about major projects here.

I will give you an example of what is happening. We approach a publicly-traded company that is investing perhaps 10 to 15 million dollars annually in research, and propose a new project that would cost an additional 10 to 15 million dollars. Its board of directors will tell it—and this happened, this is an actual case—to wait to see the sampling to be done by Genome Canada and decide if it wants to invest subsequently with it.

So no, there is no delay. We did not expect investments because, as I told you, we have to start up the machinery. However, I believe that I am safe in saying that, in the next three years, we could certainly plan on obtaining an additional 20 to 25% in public funding.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Now, I have one last question for Mr. Root.

You have mentioned the need to build infrastructure quickly. Could this come from resources that are beyond Canada's?

• 1025

[English]

Dr. John Root: I'll need some help on this.

[Translation]

Excuse me.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Not at all.

Mr. John Root: Could you ask your question again, please?

Mr. Pierre Brien: Could international co-operation be used to seek the investments required for your project's infrastructure or will the Canadian government have to pay all the costs?

[English]

Dr. John Root: There are international projects. An example is a neutron beam laboratory in Europe that has Germany, France, and the U.K. These are the largest-scale international laboratories, which are production labs, and the Spalatian Neutron Source in the U.S. is one of these. But each country also needs its local source, which is the place where the new ideas are tried out and the local community is trained in order to benefit from these international projects.

So we want to be one of these local sources, as they already have in Europe, where they have these big ones. Each country also has a local source.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you very much. I'm going to go to three short questions.

Mr. Cannis, Mr. Penson, and Mr. Bélanger, short questions.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): I just want to follow up, gentlemen, on Mr. Brien's question, which started from Mr. Bélanger. In terms of the public-private relationship, there's intellectual property, there are investments, as you mentioned, and there's licensing. Can you give us a bit more of an explanation in terms of that relationship—the government's investments, the revenue? I know you're not for profit, but that's a very broad statement in the way it can be translated in various different ways. Obviously in the advances we're making toward technology and looking to bring new products to the market, surely there has to be a method whereby support comes in.

Mr. Martin Godbout: Genome Canada is not for profit. It doesn't mean we cannot generate revenues. It means if we generate revenues, we have to reinvest that amount of money on a yearly basis.

Genome Canada has a very clear intellectual property policy. The IP belongs to the institutions. Institution means university, federal labs, or industry, if they are involved in the projects. But we manage the IP. We want to make sure there is some commercial benefit coming out of the projects. So we have an agreement with the stakeholders to make sure there is no disbursement of money from Genome Canada and the genome centre, and if there is no agreement between the parties, how they will manage the IP.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you.

Mr. Penson, short question.

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mine is more an observation, I think.

Mr. Hackett, Mr. Godbout, and Mr. Davidson, it must be exciting times for you. You have projects underway. There's a nano experiment happening in west Ottawa, Mr. Hackett. The Genome project is rolling, Mr. Godbout, and it seems to be doing very well. Mr. Davidson has a project underway with a light source, building light source facilities—Syncraton in Saskatoon.

But poor Mr. Root down here in the Canadian neutron facility can't get a decision out of government on where this project is going. I suggest it's more than just the researchers that are being lost here, although that's serious enough. It's the ability for Canadian companies to do testing that we'll lose in the process.

I can't understand, given the government's push on technology that we saw in the statement earlier about where the finance minister wants to go, why they wouldn't fund this facility and get it rolling so we can have a neutron source in Canada, so we don't have to go outside the country to check our equipment. That's all I have to say.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): That wasn't a question, right?

Mr. Charlie Penson: That's what I said. It was a statement.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I want to follow the lead I just got from my colleague and make a comment.

I didn't realize we're only here until 10:30. I thought we were here until 11.

I do believe that nanotechnology is indeed crucial to our future, both economically, in terms of being able to compete, and also in terms of just broad knowledge and the capacity to increase our well-being and do public good. So I would encourage the National Research Council in its efforts to proceed.

• 1030

Having said that, I do have a question. I don't think it can be answered here, because there's an ongoing public consultation now, and I think that should be flagged. It concerns the whole idea of patenting of higher life forms. Just using those words...they're not well defined. No one has really defined well what a higher life form is. But I heard one of our panellists this morning tell us that there are 170,000 genes, or parts of, and that we're issuing patents on them.

A voice: Not the Canadians.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I know that, but the U.S. is, and so are some other countries. I believe Great Britain is. That leads us to a really difficult situation. There's an ethical consideration here, and I wanted to know if Genome Canada is looking at that and what its thoughts might be about patenting or non-patenting of higher life forms. Because if that is so, if you go that route, Mr. Chair, I suggest every one of us here should apply for a patent at the patent office to patent our own genes.

Mr. Martin Godbout: Okay. First, there are not 170,000 genes; there are 30,000.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Someone said 170,000—approximately.

Mr. Martin Godbout: Second, there is no patent on a gene, as much as there is no copyright on any words in the Webster's Dictionary, nor on sequencing.

The EST is still a debate in the United States, and there is no patent issue on EST—express sequence tag. You have a gene and you have a part of a gene, and they claim that if you get the sequence part of the gene, you have a patent on the whole gene. There is no patent on such a thing. There is a patent once you have the gene, the function, and the utility. If you discover a gene that can be modified to get better insulin for diabetics, that's a utility. Then you can patent it. But there is no such thing as a patent on a gene.

On life organisms, l'oncomasse of MIT—I'm not an attorney, I'm a scientist—I would leave it to the government and the debate. Again, the fundamental issue is, if there is a utility and you can benefit from it and it can help the public to have better treatment and so on, follow the rules. The patent law is there, and it's up to the Canadian Parliament...not Parliament, but les avocats, to decide among themselves if it's patentable or not.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, you had it right the first time. It should be the legislators' decision.

Mr. Martin Godbout: I think so.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Ms. Torsney, this is the last question.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

My question's really more of a comment. I don't know if all of you had a chance to read the top 40 under 40 in the report on business on the weekend, but in each of the segments on these bright, great Canadians, they had an opportunity to tell the Prime Minister something. In many cases they asked that there be greater investment in science and technology and education.

My comment to each of you is that it's great to keep asking us for money, but it's not our money actually; it's the taxpayers'. And if they're not aware of what huge investments we've already made with each of the organizations you've benefited from, that is not helpful. You really have to make sure you're getting out there to the rotary clubs, the empire clubs, and the Canadian clubs and talking about what you're doing so that the Canadian public can support you. It's not just a bunch of guys talking about some far-off weird stuff that no one really understands and everybody hopes their kids go into, but something that really will make a difference in their lives and is worthy of greater contribution.

So I encourage you to make sure you're getting that message out and perhaps take out something in the ROB, since that's something people are all reading.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Mr. Hackett.

Dr. Peter Hackett: I would like to pick up on that point. It is, of course, an essential point. I think without this we won't get young people coming into science and technology, and without that we'll have no one to work in these industries.

I want to mention that the NRC regional innovation strategy does involve us going into cities and communities and consulting with all the players—the universities, the high schools, the unions, the sources of venture and angel money—in order to develop strategies that match those communities and their economic growth based upon science, technology, and innovation over the next 10 to 15 years. And that message is being extremely well received in the communities.

• 1035

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you very much. Thank you very much for presenting today and being with us.

This will conclude the first part of our session today. We will now go on to the second part, with a two-minute break in between.

Thank you very much.