Science and Research Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2024

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

I understand the gaming industry would support that, but why would the government want to know more about video gaming?

It's not just that one. If I continue on, there's the University of British Columbia. This is in a province where 15,000 people lined up earlier this week for ugly potatoes. You might have seen that news coverage. People are starving and will accept any vegetables. Good on those producers offering food to hungry Canadians.

Here's one: “reframing gender and race in music therapy and its pedagogy”. That's $20,000. The next one is “sexual satisfaction among gender non-confirming Canadians: creation and validation of a gender-neutral sexual satisfaction scale using a mixed method approach”. That was $35,000 to Queen's University.

I am understanding and accepting of everyone's sexual orientation, but to spend $35,000 during a cost of living crisis to study the sexual satisfaction of Canadians....

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Again, I don't know that project, but I can tell you that music therapy, for example, has proven to be one of the most interesting new areas in which we—

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

It might be very interesting.

One last one is “suitably dressed”—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I have a point of order.

Chair, the witness is trying to answer and isn't being allowed to.

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

It's the same amount of time, Lloyd. I'm running out of time. Unless you're going to offer me time....

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I think you're pointing out the need for a peer review process, but go on.

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

Maybe we need a review process for “suitability dressed: finding social justice through distinctions in modest fashion for men, women and transgender people”. This was $35,000 to the Toronto Metropolitan University.

We're talking about millions of unaccounted dollars here, guys, for questionable studies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's your time.

Now we will turn to MP Diab for five minutes.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thanks very much.

Welcome to our witnesses. You have, among all of you, such valuable experience in the fields you have studied and seen, based on your experiences, just like us members of Parliament around the table. We all come from different and diverse backgrounds.

I want to go back to that question. I'm going to let you, Mr. Gaffield, start off with that.

I want to take it a step further. MP Tochor was trying to ask all of these research questions. Dear Lord, I have several degrees and I do not pretend to know....

There's so much research out there. My children, nieces and nephews, who come from a different generation than mine, obviously, all have such varied backgrounds, capabilities and research. A number of them have gone on to graduate with Ph.D.s of different varieties. I'm sure you see so much out there, so I want to take you back to his question and have you elaborate.

I also want to then have you talk about the independence of research. Regarding the capstone the government announced a few months ago, they want independence for it, including from political interference. I will ask you again to elaborate, based on all of that. It's where Ms. McPherson was coming from, but I'd like an even longer explanation. It's incumbent on us to start with that here, this afternoon.

Mr. Gaffield, it's over to you.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Thank you very much.

I think the way to think about this is that Canadians need research focused on what's happening in the headlines right this minute and what is going to be in the headlines five years from now, 10 years from now and 20 years from now. We don't know much of that.

I can remember that on September 11, all of a sudden, people whose research would have been considered irrelevant and a “who cares?” subject.... The fact is that in Canada, we have funding for top researchers studying the 14th century Middle East. It's a time period that people don't care about. Why are we doing this? We are doing this because those people were chosen as being leading scholars advancing research about something they passionately feel is important. They were considered by others to be really justified in studying that.

That day, they were being sought after to be on the news to explain to us what we were hearing, what they were saying, what these documents being referred to are and so on.

Going back to my AI example, when Geoff Hinton was being funded in the 1980s for this new approach, this research on neural networks, people were wondering, “What is he doing? He's a computer scientist. How is this all connected? Why does Canada care?” Today, we see a huge industry in the world, which Canada is leading, thanks to that.

We can't just prepare for the impact right now. Yes, we have a housing crisis, and yes, our researchers are devoted to contributing to that, and we are enhancing that and so on, but we also have to be thinking about 10 years, 20 years and 100 years out there. We have to start preparing for that and developing the kind of talent and expertise.

How do we do that? We have open competitions and we make people compete for very limited funds. They have to be selected as the most promising for those immediate, mid-term and long-term perspectives. Canada has a great tradition of doing this in a very balanced way.

I had a proposal to the editor of The Globe and Mail. I remember I said, “I will guarantee that for any headline you put in the paper, I will be able to provide you with the names of six experts to contribute to that headline.” He said, “How are you going to do that? You don't know what the headlines are gong to be.” I said, “Exactly, but I'll guarantee you that I can do that for the next five, 10 and 20 years.”

It's because of the merit review system that gives Canada the pool of expertise that we need so that we're prepared for or are able to address today, tomorrow and our children's future.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Let me quickly ask you this. When we fund something for $35,000, as an example, what does the money go to?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

It usually goes to research assistants. Usually much of it goes to the kinds of talented people we want developing our country. I think we underestimate sometimes that a lot of these research activities really enhance the human capital component of our country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

We're going to turn to MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll turn to Ms. Johnston.

Ms. Johnston, let's be honest. Colleges, institutes and CEGEPs were completely overlooked when the federal government created the advisory panel on the federal research support system.

I want you to talk about this. Have you approached the government?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

There's no interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

There's no interpretation. We'll stop the time.

Can you hear it now? Okay, we're good now.

Continue.

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

I'm delighted to start again, Madam Chair. It's nice to know that my colleagues are listening to me.

Ms. Johnston, let's be honest. In October 2022, the federal government completely overlooked colleges, CEGEPs and polytechnics when it created the advisory panel on the federal research support system. No member of your institutions sat on this panel.

Today, I want to hear your thoughts on this and your hopes for future representation in the new capstone research funding organization announced in the 2024 budget.

[Pari Johnston]

Thank you for the question.

I think that there was indeed a flaw. That's why we made these recommendations. Our vision of research in Canada must be guided by mechanisms that reflect the players involved in research. These include colleges, CEGEPs and polytechnics.

As I said today, our brief on the capstone research funding organization includes a requirement for college representatives to sit on the new national advisory council on research and innovation.

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

Thank you, Ms. Johnston.

In March 2023, the government tabled the report of the advisory panel on the federal research support system, commonly known as the Bouchard report. One year and three months later, in June 2024, we finally saw a public consultation. After one year and three months, the federal government finally decided to hold a public consultation.

First, I would like you to explain the delay between the release of the report and the public consultation and to share your thoughts on the matter.

Second, the public consultation lasted only 30 days, in the middle of the summer. Were all your members really able to make their voices heard?

[Pari Johnston]

Thank you for your question.

It's a good question about the nature of a genuine consultation that really seeks the input of institutions. You know what happens during the summer months in institutions, especially CEGEPs, in Quebec, but also in other institutions.

It was quite difficult to obtain a representative picture of their perspectives. That said, the colleges considered the consultation vital. They were so eager to have their voices heard that we managed to obtain their feedback in the middle of July.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's your time. Thank you so much.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

For the final two and a half minutes, we'll go to MP McPherson, please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm interested in what you were talking about with regard to “mission-driven” and some of the challenges around mission-driven research.

I know that during the consultations, that term raised some particular concerns with research in the social sciences and humanities and with indigenous communities that saw that perhaps the historical, religious, military and colonial connotations were exclusionary or could be exclusionary. I am concerned, when we do a consultation process like this, what the costs are if we get it wrong—what the costs are if this is not done correctly and if we are not able to hear those alternative voices.

Mr. Miller, maybe I'll start with you, just because I know your colleagues have had an opportunity to answer in this round.

How do we deal with that? How do we make sure that those voices are heard? How do we ensure that we are getting it right?

[Gabriel Miller]

I think probably the most important point on this point that the group of us has made is that the dialogue has to be ongoing. It can't just be a kind of one and done, and then we'll see how it turns out, especially given the speed with which this has had to happen. I think the conversation needs to continue closely with the community at every stage of the decision-making process and then right into implementation.