Science and Research Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2024

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Does that also involve ensuring that continuity as projects are chosen or selected? We know that there are experts and researchers who are involved in that selection process. What role did the academic community play in peer reviewing and selecting the projects to be funded?

[Gabriel Miller]

The best of what our system has established is the tri-council's definitive role in evaluating the research proposals. I think it's very important that it continues to be the case, that proposals be evaluated for their scientific merit.

This goes back to the point that Mr. Blanchette-Joncas talked about. It's very important that a diversity of institutional and academic backgrounds be represented and that we're helping researchers from all institutions build the capacity to access these funds and contribute to our research ecosystem.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you. Two and a half minutes goes fast.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you so much.

Thank you to the witnesses. We really appreciate all your expert testimony today. It was very interesting. We appreciate your coming before the committee.

Dr. Gaffield, we're always glad when you return. Thank you so much.

Actually, if you have anything else that you didn't get to cover and that you would like to submit, you can submit those through the clerk.

We're now going to suspend while we get ready for panel number two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Welcome back.

I believe that we have a witness who is participating via video conference. I'll read this for you.

Click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either floor, English or French.

It's now my pleasure to welcome our witnesses.

From Research Canada and Alliance for Health Discovery, we have Alison Evans, president and chief executive officer; from Evidence for Democracy, we have Sarah Laframboise, executive director; and from the Canadian Science Policy Centre, we have Mehrdad Hariri, president and chief executive officer, who is appearing virtually today.

Welcome, everyone. We look forward to your testimony. Up to five minutes will be given for your opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

Ms. Evans, I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

[Alison Evans, President and Chief Executive Officer, Research Canada: An Alliance for Health Discovery]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon. I want to thank all members of this committee for inviting me to appear as you study aspects of the new proposed capstone research funding organization. We heard of this first in budget 2024.

My name is Alison Evans. I'm the president and CEO of Research Canada, which is an alliance of organizations from across the health research and innovation ecosystem. Our members range from hospital research institutes to pharmaceutical companies, from med tech start-ups to post-secondary institutions, from provincial health organizations to health charities. Despite differences across these organizations, we share a vision that a world-leading health research and innovation system is essential to the health and prosperity of Canadians and the country.

One of the most important things I observed through several town halls, focus groups, board conversations, stakeholder and member engagements in the lead-up to budget 2024, in the months that have followed and in service of the capstone organization consultations earlier this summer is this: There is growing consensus from health and broader research and innovation stakeholders that the severity of our declining prosperity, competitiveness and innovation must be addressed in new ways and without delay, so much so that previously siloed sectors and organizations are lining up to work together in ways I've not seen before.

Incredible things are happening in businesses, labs, clinical trials and regional innovation hubs, but for those pockets of success and ingenuity to lead to transformative outcomes across the country, national leadership in the form of compelling vision, decreased regulatory and other hurdles and the provision and coordination of much-needed resources are essential. Now is the time to be bold. We need renewed ambition for research and innovation as a driver of not just health outcomes but economic outcomes that matter, and in so doing, alleviate the alarming and growing frustration of Canadians as they grapple with the many repercussions of declining productivity, quality of life and health.

Canada has not adequately translated its investments in research and in building a highly educated workforce into domestic innovation. Why is it that we don't have a homegrown global biopharmaceutical success story much like RIM? The top three biotechs on the NASDAQ—Amgen, Vertex and Gilead—have a market capitalization of over $400 billion U.S., which eclipses the market cap of all 129 oil and gas companies.

Look at Novo Nordisk, whose market cap at times has exceeded the entire GDP of Denmark. The irony is that this company was founded on insulin, a Canadian innovation, which they licensed for one dollar.

Thus Research Canada welcomed budget 2024's investments and measures that respond to key findings in the report of the advisory panel on the federal research support system that suggest a readiness to modernize and strengthen Canada's research and innovation system.

The promise of the capstone organization is for greater coordination and impact of the research supported by NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR as well as the advancement of Canada's leadership in internationally collaborative, major multidisciplinary and mission-driven research. The capstone organization, if effectively implemented and refined with ongoing input from stakeholders, could do even more. It could be used to strengthen the linkages between basic research, clinical research and the commercialization of research for better health and economic outcomes in ways we've not been able to achieve.

In our submission to the tri-agency presidents earlier this summer, we suggested a number of principles to be upheld in the pursuit of this capstone organization, and I'm happy to elaborate on them in the Q and A period, particularly those that pertain to CIHR and the health portfolio.

We also identified risks, including funding, the connection of health research to the health of Canadians and the system of health care delivery. We saw those reflected in the “what we heard” report, and we're glad to see them there.

We also note the critical importance of marrying structure with strategy, which is to say that structural changes in the absence of strategy and prioritization could jeopardize the intent of transformative change. Tinkering at the margins of our research and innovation ecosystem, adjusting structures, programs and policies is no longer sufficient.

What we need is leadership and overarching vision, which is why we've also been actively feeding into the work being done to stand up a council on science and innovation.

We understand that this is a challenging moment and that competition for mindshare and resources is at an all-time high. Other countries see research and innovation as the way forward. We believe that Canada has an opportunity to lift itself out of this record slump in productivity by maximizing previous investments in infrastructure, grants, programs and organizations for all types of research and innovation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's quite a bit over our time.

[Alison Evans]

Oh, I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

We'll probably have a chance to elaborate on some of the comments in our questions.

[Alison Evans]

Thank you for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

Now, Ms. Laframboise, you have the floor for an opening statement of five minutes.

[Sarah Laframboise, Executive Director, Evidence for Democracy]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the standing committee, for the opportunity to be here today.

My name is Sarah Laframboise, and I'm joining as the executive director of Evidence for Democracy, known as E4D for short.

E4D is a national, non-partisan not-for-profit that works to close the gap between decision-makers like you and the best available science and evidence. We believe that we all benefit when government makes decisions that are informed by the best available science and evidence.

Canada is facing significant challenges—low productivity, climate change and a strained health care system—all requiring evidence-informed policies.

While Canada ranks sixth in higher education research and development expenditure among OECD countries, our overall research and innovation ecosystem lacks coordination, and we risk falling behind without a strategic direction.

As proposed in the 2024 federal budget, the research capstone organization promises to provide better coordination across the federally funded research ecosystem. We echo the recommendations previously made in the 2024 “Report of the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System” and the 2017 fundamental science review. I believe that if executed with transparency, accountability and community engagement, this new capstone organization could strengthen the very foundation of our science and research ecosystem. Importantly, this organization has the opportunity to lay the foundation for the development of a national strategic vision for the science and research community.

I'd like to share with the committee a set of values that E4D believes to be crucial when taking on the creation of this organization.

First, we believe that prioritizing transparency, accountability and openness will ensure the utmost trust in this organization and its seamless execution. For example, the capstone organization should be sustainably funded, ensuring that we strengthen the foundations of our research ecosystem. Securing the transparent allocation of predictable funding to support the organization's operations, staff and resources will enable long-term success.

There should be an established mechanism to prevent the duplication of efforts and to enable open communication among research entities, promoting efficiency and collaboration.

There should also be a reporting, feedback and collaboration process with ISED and health ministers that is formalized and structured for ongoing communication and coordination with relevant government departments.

A publicly available strategic plan and evaluations should published in annual reports to outline the outcomes and impacts for this new capstone organization.

Next is ensuring that the community continues be involved in the vision and execution of the work of the capstone.

At its core, the new capstone organization should ensure that its work is informed by a representative set of science and technology stakeholders by intentionally establishing government bodies. While a board of directors will likely be composed of representatives from the tri-agencies, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the chief science adviser's office, we see an opportunity for intentional representation on the science and innovation council.

Ensuring that this council has a clearly defined mandate means that the council can play a large role in providing strategic input to guide the priorities and work of the capstone.

Further, this council should have diverse representation from academia, with dedicated representation of trainees, early-career researchers and established investigators, in addition to industry, non-profit organizations, third party organizations and the public sector. Individuals should reflect Canada's diversity and regions, with consideration towards gender, career stage and marginalized communities.

Beyond this, evaluation of research proposals under the capstone should uphold the values of peer review, ensuring that all research proposals are evaluated based on scientific excellence and potential impact.

It should also exist independently, and government structures should be established to protect the organization from political interference, ensuring that decision-making processes are based on scientific merit and integrity.

I look forward to hearing more on the capstone in the upcoming fall economic statement, and we are encouraged by the release of the “what we heard” report based on the public consultations just last week.

I hope that we can continue these conversations through the coming year as more becomes clear about the structures of the capstone organization, and it's my hope that we can continue to move forward in a way that encourages the active participation of researchers and community members.

In summary, I will reiterate that if executed with transparency, accountability and community engagement, the new capstone organization could strengthen the very foundations of our research and science ecosystem and could help Canada unlock the full potential of its ever-growing knowledge asset and talent capacity for the benefit of society at large.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you, Ms. Laframboise. We appreciate that.

We will turn it over to Mr. Hariri for a five-minute opening statement.

[Mehrdad Hariri, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Science Policy Centre]

Thank you, Madam Chair, honourable vice‑chairs and committee members—

Can you hear me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Yes.

[Mehrdad Hariri]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today.

My name is Mehrdad Hariri. I'm the founder and CEO of the Canadian Science Policy Centre, or CSPC, an independent, non-profit, non-partisan and non-advocate organization dedicated to connecting science, innovation and policy communities across Canada.

CSPC serves as a national hub for convening, connecting and capacity building within the science, technology and innovation policy ecosystem.

We raise our own funds through programs, including our annual conference, which is Canada's largest science and innovation policy forum. Other key programs include science policy magazines and editorials, more than 20 events annually, workshops and Science Meets Parliament, which is a unique program bringing young scientists from across the country to meet with parliamentarians on a non-advocacy basis in order to learn about policy-making in the Canadian Parliament. Many of these programs rely on contributions from volunteers.

Please note that my observations today are my personal views and do not reflect CSPC's position, as CSPC does not hold any views or make recommendations. It remains a neutral platform for national conversations on these matters. My perspectives as an individual come from outside government, granting agencies and academia, but they are grounded in my experience working in science policy.

The proposed capstone organization is based on the premise that it is important for Canada to generate more coordinated efforts, in particular in three areas: international collaborations, multidisciplinary research and mission-driven research. I believe the context for the proposed capstone organization stems from the recognition of the rapidly changing landscape of research and of the world, including geopolitical shifts, the evolving nature of scientific research as it becomes increasingly multidisciplinary, and the need for strong mission-driven research to address our socio-economic challenges.

The mandate also references the gap between research outcomes and their application in public policy and industry, which, in my view, is an important element to include.

The first area is international collaboration.

In today's interconnected world, the complexity of global challenges like public health, technological disruption, global supply management, climate change and many others requires a collaborative approach that transcends national borders. However, Canada's ability to effectively engage in international research partnerships is hindered by insufficient coordination among various entities. Our research community often faces barriers, such as limited funding mechanisms and limited policy coordination for international project engagement in science, technology and innovation, or STI. This is well reflected in a Council of Canadian Academies report published this year entitled “Navigating Collaborative Futures”.

The CCA says:

The need for a strategic and deliberate approach to international [science, technology, innovation and knowledge] partnerships is acute. Opportunities for such partnerships are rapidly expanding, and Canada risks falling behind in an increasingly competitive global knowledge economy. Meanwhile, new scientific discoveries and emerging innovations are increasing in complexity.

The second area is the need to provide more incentives for multidisciplinary research.

This has been mentioned in report after report over the years. While the tri-agency has moved to adjust its programs in this direction, more needs to be done. The research community itself is advocating more opportunities to pursue research that crosses traditional disciplinary lines, much of it collaborative.

The third area is mission-driven research.

The concept of mission-driven research has two dimensions: one, the challenges of enhancing critical connections between research and the end-users of knowledge, and two, the alignment of our research enterprise with national and global needs and priorities. My organization, CSPC, is active in this sphere, connecting and convening researchers and end-users.

However, more needs to be done. Canada needs a road map of interrelated and interdependent economic, social, environmental, security and technological risks that are impacting our societies, one that frames mission-driven research initiatives. Could capstone marshal the strengths of our research community to anticipate and help shape the future? This mission remains critical. Again, in a rapidly changing world where research and technology are the drivers of economic, social and environmental progress, we have an enormous opportunity to up our game.

In conclusion, capstone represents a bold step towards transforming Canada's research ecosystem by enhancing international collaboration, breaking down disciplinary silos and driving mission-focused research.

These changes are vital if we are to remain globally competitive and address the complex—

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you. That's quite a bit over.

We'll now open the floor for questions. Please be sure to indicate to whom your questions are addressed.

We'll start our six-minute round with MP Lobb, please.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, everybody, for being here today.

I'll direct my first question to Sarah.

In your estimation, with all the granting agencies already, why do you think we don't do everything? Like, why aren't we doing that right now?

[Sarah Laframboise]

May I ask, doing what?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

In this meeting, we've heard all the great possibilities of capstone and mission-driven research, etc. With all the wise people at all the granting agencies and universities, why aren't we doing it already?

[Sarah Laframboise]

I think maybe it's just about the history of the creation of the tri-councils and the division of the science that then falls under the mandates of those tri-councils. That's how we've created these silos of social sciences and humanities, natural sciences, and then the health research, CIHR. The siloing of those into those funding structures has benefited the community in the way that we can consolidate different funding through those processes, but it has created gaps where you can't provide funding. As well, interdisciplinary research might combine multiple domains.

That's where I see the strengths of the capstone coming. You can have the interdisciplinary aspect ingrained right into the mandate, including the mission-driven research.

It's not to say that we don't do applied research in a lot of these tri-agencies, but I think that the distinction is important: Applied research definitely does happen in the tri-agencies, but mission-driven research is where you have this intention, where you have a vision for what the mission should be for Canada.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Who do you think should decide what the missions are?

[Sarah Laframboise]

That's a really important question—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Is it the government of the day that is handing out the money? Is it the wise people at all the universities? Who do you think gets to decide the missions?

[Sarah Laframboise]

Thank you so much. I think that's a really important question.

It's important that research broadly is occurring outside of any sort of political interference. That is how it will be sustainable. If we have something like the science and innovation council that is representative of the community, I think that is where I see a large portion of vision and guidance coming from, because you have that community representation. I think the operating board of directors and leadership will always be more on the bureaucratic side. The combination of the two will allow for things like that to be happening.

I'll say one last thing. I think having publicly available strategic plans and mandates will also help that to be really accountable to the public and to policy-makers to be able to hold that accountable.