Science and Research Committee on April 16th, 2024

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

I think one of the challenges that we will have to address with that issue around the research support fund is this: At the university level, they have a lot of infrastructure to support those indirect costs; it is less so at a college. The connectivity between regional economic development agencies, granting councils, innovation labs and things of that sort.... Those are also considerations because, since they are being federally funded, it is about taking a look at the entire ecosystem.

Are there ways to ensure that other granted bodies have the opportunity or the obligation and the mandate to support other forms of research support, like institutions at Olds College? Capilano has been referenced before. With regard to institutions that don't yet have that infrastructure, can they leverage it?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

On that point, I'm trying to think of ways, concrete recommendations from this committee, to look at restructuring federal research funding allocations that could benefit nimble institutions like yours that are working on real-life problems.

One of the ways that we've kind of heard tangentially from other institutions is to make different types of institutions eligible. I'm wondering if it's a broader principle. If there's a certain type of research that the federal government wants to fund, it should be less dependent on the institution that's conducting it and more dependent on whether the institution has the capacity to deliver on a certain number of criteria—for example, public access to research, knowledge translation, certain types of IP ownership policies.

Do you think that's a way of, perhaps, rethinking or reframing how federal research funding could be allocated?

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

I couldn't agree with you more. I think that's a wonderful opportunity to explore, as long as it is also paired with equal eligibility between colleges and universities.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

This is what I'm getting at. If we sort of reframe the probably dated dichotomy between universities and colleges in terms of that being the eligibility criteria and start looking at the type of research and the capacity to support research, is that kind of what you're driving at on a high level?

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

Absolutely.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Now, what some of our granting agencies or people in our federal public service might say is that we want to also be able to be sure that whoever is applying for this research funding—or whatever institution is doing it—has the capacity to deliver on certain results. Could making them both eligible and addressing concerns around capacity-to-deliver be a way that non-U15 institutions could square that circle? Could stage-gated funding be a way? Let's say that your institution was going for a fund that you've never been able to apply for before. Could stage-gated funding be a requirement for first-time institutions on certain types of research funding?

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

It could be. It would also depend on the metrics being used on those stage-gates, and that would be critical.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I'm speaking more about something like this: The researchers have been hired. The infrastructure is up and operational, meeting certain deadlines, not necessarily in terms of publication but in terms of actually conducting the research. Would that be something that the granting agencies could be looking into?

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

That would be a reasoned approach, yes.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Conversely, sometimes a lot of big institutions will get these grants and then not deliver anyway. Is stage-gating something the federal government should be looking at where there have been instances of, in their research funding review, allegations of misappropriation or significant changes to a research project's staffing levels?

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

I think that would be part of the government's due diligence on any re-evaluation, to ensure that the public stakeholder is well represented and their funds are being supported properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

We go now to Ms. Bradford for five minutes, please.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses today. It's fascinating testimony.

I'll be sharing my time with MP Turnbull.

Dr. Murphy, prior to your current role you were the dean of the Ted Rogers School of Management at Toronto Metropolitan University. Now, of course, you're the president and vice-chancellor of Ontario Tech University.

Would you mind explaining to us what differences you've noticed, or how they affect applying for research and being favoured with research funding based on whether you're in a large city or a smaller community and the size of the educational institution?

[Dr. Steven Murphy]

I would say that my experience in three Ontario universities has been that it's less about being in a major city than it is the track record of that institution in terms of grants. The people who sit on granting agencies and review grants—as I have—are successful researchers. They have typically come from U15 schools traditionally. That expanded out to include more and more institutions as they became successful.

As you saw Toronto Metropolitan University—formerly Ryerson—become a university and come into its own, it won win more and more grants in time. I'm seeing the same thing at Ontario Tech. You have to prove yourself, establish yourself in larger partnerships, and then lead those partnerships, etc.

It's a long process to get to the top. It's not always the most efficient process. It's not always, to speak to Michelle Rempel Garner's question, based on the merits of who can do the work the most effectively as much as it is who's traditionally done the work.

It is really important to note that each university has its own niches it excels in. In my view, it's to be able to target those areas where it indeed can perform to its highest capacity.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you for that.

I am really interested in the wind tunnel. If this committee had obtained permission to travel and see some of these things, it would have been on my list. Unfortunately, we didn't get to travel.

Could you explain the ACE fluid mechanics lab? You alluded in your opening statement to how much of your funding comes from the private sector as opposed to the public sector. I think that is increasingly important. Could you describe that facility and explain how it's funded? I expect a lot of the auto companies, etc., might have been involved in creating and utilizing it. How does that work?

[Dr. Steven Murphy]

Absolutely.

Our ACE wind tunnel facility is one of a kind in the world. It is both geothermal and aerodynamic. This is the place where Silicon Valley and the rest of the world come to test their electric vehicles, their autonomous vehicles and everything from bicycles through to the Canadian ski team. This is as applied as research gets. This is where we see engineering colliding with human factors. Again, we have heard a lot of things that are outdated nomers in the testimony. Universities are as applied today as colleges are.

We are doing work that's at the cutting edge of where electric vehicles are going. One of the big issues with electric vehicles is noise. You take out the noise from an engine that we're all used to hearing. When you get an electric vehicle, the wind noise seems incredibly loud. One of the areas that we've been working with manufacturers hand in glove in, with our students and researchers all involved, is how you reduce wind noise in EVs to make it more comfortable in the cabin and for it to be less noisy in there. It's actually a very big issue when it comes to a buy decision.

We're also working on autonomous vehicles—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

We're going to have to cut it short.

I'm sorry, Mr. Turnbull, that we weren't able to get over to you.

We will go to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to return to today's topic of study, which is the concentration of research funding in Canada.

Mr. Cecil, I'll continue with you.

Would a rebalancing of research funding require us to stop making distinctions, particularly between colleges, CEGEPs, college technology transfer centres, as they are known in Quebec, or technology access centres in the rest of Canada, by comparing them to universities in terms of granting scholarships for certain programs where applied research is important, and by focusing more on the benefits for small and medium-sized businesses, and the local economy in particular?

[Dr. Ben Cecil]

I would agree entirely with that statement.

Levelling the playing field creates equity for the entire ecosystem. When we take a look at our stakeholders, that is the Canadian population. They're looking to all of us, as elected officials and officials inside the government's agencies, to be good stewards of the public purse and to ensure that the results we come up with on their behalf suit their needs.

Levelling the playing field between CEGEPs, colleges and universities, and creating eligibility and equity across a system so that we take an ecosystem approach, will benefit Canadians immensely.

To be bold, I believe this committee has an opportunity to make a generational impact on Canada's ability to compete at a global level by taking a very focused look at reimagining the federal funding ecosystem around research. If we were to become a global powerhouse of applied research—that is, research with impacts in terms of electric vehicles, as my esteemed colleague has said, or new forms of feeding the world—this would change the perception of Canadian research on a global level. This would have an impact for the entire 21st century.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

It's great to have that type of vision in the room today.

Mr. Cannings, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

Dr. Murphy, do you have any comments or answers with regard to the question I asked Dr. Cecil earlier? Would it be useful to have a different funding model for institutes of technology or colleges doing applied research with companies to be more nimble on a time basis and to access grant funds more quickly?

Would that fit with the problem at hand?

[Dr. Steven Murphy]

I certainly welcome any model.

I understand that we have an innovation ecosystem. I think colleges have traditionally been underutilized in that ecosystem, considering what they bring to the table in terms of industry contacts and their ability to do applied research.

We certainly live in a model where universities work with colleges and employers daily to bring in whichever partner has the capacity to do so. I think a funding mechanism that enables dynamic partnerships, where we're pulling the very best out of each of our institutions in service of the country and in service of moving IP forward into industry, would advance all of our causes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I'm also a graduate of Red River College. We had a very strong tie with the business communities and that's still the case. It's great to have that kind of vision in the room, as I said.

Thank you both for your testimonies and for your thoughts on this study of distribution of federal government funding among Canada's post-secondary institutions. If there is additional information that we didn't get to, please submit it to the clerk.

Before we close, I remind colleagues that we have the study on Canada's Arctic in relation to climate change coming up. We need witness lists submitted by next Monday, April 22. If you can get those over to the clerk that would help him do his job.

Are we adjourned?.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.