Science and Research Committee on May 2nd, 2024

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Chair, can I get that in a written response?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

We'll get that.

I'm going to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Clifford.

Ms. Clifford, regarding the concentration of funding going to a small number of universities, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research are the least egalitarian, with 90% of funding going to the 15 largest universities in Canada.

How can we enable new universities to establish health research centres with this being the situation?

[Dr. Tammy Clifford]

Thank you for your question.

Perhaps I could speak a little more generally to support for francophone research at CIHR.

Within my tenure at CIHR, which is about the past five and a half years, we have implemented some changes—not all that we need, but some—in order to support francophone health research and researchers.

For example, we all know it takes a little longer to write things in French than in English, so one of the first things we did about five years ago was to provide about 20% more space for francophones to convey their study methodologies in the application.

For our peer review committees—which I mentioned earlier are a critical part of how we determine where our funding goes—we are also providing translation services at all stages of the process, from application all the way through to peer review.

Perhaps most importantly, in 2021 with our flagship project grant competition, we implemented what we call "equalization". It provides an ability for us to ensure that the proportion of successful grants is at least equal to the proportion of grants that have been received, in this case in French.

For example, if 15% of the applications come in French, 15% of the grants that are awarded will also go to that population.

We know there's more to do.

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

Ms. Clifford, I acknowledge all the initiatives you may have taken to improve the presence of science in French. However, you are surely aware that 50% of French-speaking researchers, who represent a little over 20% of the population of researchers in Canada, make their applications in English.

You can tell me that you equalize the amount of funding, but we know that 50% of these researchers are already submitting their applications in English, because the success rates for funding are higher when they apply in English. At the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, or CIHR, in particular, we know that success rates are higher when applications are submitted in English.

I understand the efforts being made, but the flip-flopping still shows us that there is an imbalance and there is discrimination against French-speaking researchers in Canada when it comes to access to research funding, particularly in the case of research activities in French in Canada.

I want to come back to my original question.

How do you explain the fact that 90% of funding is allocated to 15 universities at the Canadian Institutes for Health Research?

It is fine to say over and over that we believe in this ideological way of understanding excellence, but excellence also exists outside the 15 big universities. The rest of the universities in Canada receive only 10% of the funding.

How can we ensure that scientific research in health progresses and take on the challenges facing society when this funding is concentrated in the academic centres at only 15 universities in Canada?

[Dr. Tammy Clifford]

Thank you for that clarification.

For CIHR, when we take a look at who receives our funding, certainly there is the U15 group with its affiliated institutes. We also look to research hospitals, as well as the small and medium institutions and the other organizations that I mentioned in response to the previous question.

I would try to clarify the difference between the number of grants received versus the amount of grants received, because there is a qualitative difference in the size of grants for different kinds of research. For example, I'm trained as an epidemiologist, so I don't require a lot of equipment, but we know that some medical research does.

My point here is that we do see strength in smaller and medium-sized universities in health research that is not as equipment intensive, so it is a recognition of the strengths of the smaller universities in the social, environmental and cultural aspects of health research, which are very critical to our ability to benefit most.

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

Ms. Clifford, I would like to come back to the essence of my question.

How can research funding in Canada be distributed more equitably for small or medium universities so they are able to expand their scientific research, particularly in health, by receiving funds from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research?

At present, it is a vicious circle: The bigger an institution is, the more chance it has of getting funding. So how can small or medium universities survive? Is everybody going to have to move to Toronto?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Answer very briefly, please.

[Dr. Tammy Clifford]

I'll be brief.

CIHR has many different funding programs. I've mentioned the project grant competition, which has about a 20% success rate across the country. Strategic funding has higher success rates. In fact, that is where I would encourage all institutions to consider applying again. Once you receive your first grant, it does become easier to get subsequent grants, of course, because you have that track record, if you will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much.

We'll go go Mr. Cannings for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you to you all for being here.

I am going to stay with Dr. Clifford for the moment.

You mentioned that research hospitals can apply directly for funds. I guess I'm a bit ignorant—that may be the word—about how all of this works. I assume that these research hospitals, or at least most of them, are connected with a university. Is that the case?

[Dr. Tammy Clifford]

Yes, it is. I don't have the data as to whether I would say it's all of them, but I would say that most of them would be affiliated with, let's say, a parent university, if you will. However, at CIHR, the research hospitals are able to apply directly to us as opposed to having to go through their affiliated university.

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

When they're applying for funds by that method, would that be institutions applying for funds or strategic grants or something—not individual researchers applying for project grants? Is that the difference there?

[Dr. Tammy Clifford]

It would be both. In some cases, a researcher or a professor may have an affiliation at more than one institution. Again, it is up to the researcher to identify on that application who their parent institution is, if you will.

It provides flexibility. What we have seen and what we hear in health research is that, because universities serve a wide variety of research interests, health topics may not be necessarily prioritized by the university; however, they would be by the research hospital.

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

Right, okay. I think that clears it up for me.

I'll turn to Dr. Adem about NSERC.

We've heard from many of the smaller colleges and other institutions about their particular strengths. A lot of them are able to do flexible research projects, projects brought to them by industry, for instance, but they have had, at least in the past, difficulty in applying for NSERC grants to match those funds or support that in research because the timelines don't match.

Now, we heard something, I think, in our last meeting that the issue has been addressed by NSERC, hopefully, so that there is more flexibility in timelines when there are intake periods so that, if an opportunity comes up, the application can go right in and hopefully get quick approval.

Is that something that NSERC can do for those smaller institutions?

[Dr. Alejandro Adem]

We run the community college integration program for the three councils. That's dedicated to colleges, polytechnics and CEGEPs. It has been growing quite a bit over the years. In fact, it's the program that's grown the most over the past 10 years. It's still insufficient, given the demand, but we are in continual contact with the stakeholders to create conditions that favour the sort of delivery that is appropriate for that sector. The partnerships they have with industry, with committees, of course, are stellar and the key foundation for the work they do.

I think that issue is being addressed, but, on a continual basis, we're in touch with that community and always seeking to tweak the programs to address the specific needs of the stakeholders.

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

I move to Dr. Hewitt. You mentioned that SSHRC gives block grants to small institutions. What's allowed to be charged under those block grants? We hear a lot about small institutions lacking the capacity, lacking the overhead, and about the administrative costs. Is that something they can put in or use directly from those block grants?

[Ted Hewitt]

For us, that is precisely the issue. We're going to fund excellence wherever it exists. In many cases, in smaller institutions they lack the resources, for whatever reason, to assist faculty in making applications to the agency.

We provide the block grants, and they can be used for anything that's eligible under our funding. It's typically used for smaller grants, which are adjudicated locally by peer review, below the value that we would normally offer. You can get a grant of $5,000, $6,000 to help start your research and develop the base for a larger application. It could be used for travel to conferences. It could be used for developing capacity within the institution to mentor or to provide support. It's a very broad range of activities particularly tied to the needs of the local institution to help it increase the number, which can be quite small, and the prospects for success of these institutions.

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

Do the institutions apply for these grants?

[Ted Hewitt]

They don't need to apply. The money's distributed on a formula, and there is also extra money for the smallest of the institutions that they receive automatically, that they can apply for these purposes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

We go to Mr. Tochor for five minutes, please.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

Dr. Hewitt, you became president of SSHRC in 2015. You were reappointed. I was encouraged by your testimony that you guys review the expert review panels and closely monitor the funding of students. That's encouraging to hear.

I have a couple of comments about a media report that came out in April this year, it was within the last month, on April 27. In this report...with SSHRC funding, one of the policies is not to support partisan activities. Is that correct?

[Ted Hewitt]

Absolutely.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Your organization wouldn't fund a group that says, “Don't vote for Liberals.” That would be too partisan for you.

[Ted Hewitt]

I would suggest that's correct, yes.