Science and Research Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I'm sorry. That's our time. Maybe you can follow up on that in the next round.

We will now turn to Ms. McPherson for six minutes, please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for coming today and sharing your expertise with us.

I've been struck by a few things I've heard today. My colleague from the Conservatives asked about how the mission is determined. That's the first thing that comes to my mind, especially when the mission-driven approach is described as top-down. I come from the international development sector, and top-down has certainly never been seen as a particularly strong method.

On the other hand, Madame Laframboise spoke about how we need to make sure that the representation is there and that we have a diversity of voices and a diversity of participation. I am concerned that this process will privilege certain groups and exclude others by the very nature of a top-down approach.

Ms. Evans, when we talk about the idea of the potential in the income and the amount of money that can be generated, we will often run into situations. I know you're from the international development sector. Vaccinating kids, for example, in easy circumstances is always the first choice, but it's the kids we need to vaccinate in the hard circumstances who are the most important.

How will you deal with these particular challenges of making sure that the research that is being selected...? How would you propose that this be done?

Ms. Evans, I'll start with you, and then maybe I'll go to you, Ms. Laframboise.

[Alison Evans]

Thank you so much for the question.

I'm sure we all think of mission-driven research in slightly different ways, but to me, it's about starting with what we are trying to solve and kind of working backwards, whereas some types of basic research are more exploratory and we don't know where it's going to lead.

Mission-driven, of course—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That comes down to who identifies the problem and who identifies what we're trying to solve, right?

[Alison Evans]

Yes. That's understood.

I think both Sarah and I have talked about the importance of having an independent mechanism, a representative body outside of the capstone. Whether that's the council on science and innovation or whether that's the governing council of capstone itself, it necessarily needs to have that diversity of voices.

Part of what we heard from the health community is how important it is—especially if CIHR moves over from under the Minister of Health to the Minister of Industry—to maintain that inextricable link, the spirit of the act of CIHR about the health of Canadians.

We also need to think of people with lived experience. We need to think of people in the provinces at the provincial level. All of these voices are extremely important.

I think your example about international development and what we know about the importance of local voices in designing solutions really does apply here as well. It comes down to how we set up representative bodies to be a part of the designation of priorities and strategies for the country.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Before I move on, I will say that science has been historically very white, very colonial and very institutionally racist in a number of different mechanisms. I think it is very important to be able to step outside of that.

[Sarah Laframboise]

I'll echo most of what Alison has said as well, because I think creating that diversity and that landscape has to be really intentional.

You mentioned who's choosing the priority areas. I think the more that we have accountability in the people who are involved in those decision-making processes, the more we and the public will be able to have trust in the whole science research ecosystem. Ultimately, these are taxpayer dollars. It should be accountable to the public and it should have a public interest as well. This is a huge, important part of this.

I think there's a balance in that. I've said it a few times in my remarks, but I think it's worth emphasizing that this shouldn't come at the expense of fundamental research as well, because there is a balance to be struck there. So much of our future in Canada depends on fundamental research. While mission-driven research might be more apparent in the immediate future, that is how I see long-term sustainable impact to our community and to the public.

I also think that investing in data structures and things like this to help with that successful collaboration is an important aspect. The more that you can have successful conversations with the tri-agencies and the capstone together, and the more cohesive that is, the better this will be in the long term in terms of efficiency.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have one last question on that.

As I mentioned to the first panel, in Alberta the provincial government is interfering with funding mechanisms that are supposed to be going to the university. What future-proofing could be done to ensure that future governments that want to choose to meddle, to interfere, are not able to do so?

We've seen that before. We've seen the muzzling of scientists. We've seen the muzzling of research. We've seen focus on research that has clearly had political interference. How do we protect this in the event of a different government or another government?

[Sarah Laframboise]

My organization was founded at a time when scientists were impeded from speaking out publicly when they worked for the federal government. This has been problematic in the past.

In terms of political interference, it's about creating sustainable and independent bodies that help guide a lot of this work. The science and innovation council has a great potential here. I emphasized this a few times today, because I think there's a lot of opportunity here to use that.

In terms of the example in Alberta, I think it's also education about the peer review process and what that actually means. I think this has been a core tenet of Canadian research, and it's the backbone of what we have done. I really think that talking about what that process is and what it does for Canadians is important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll turn to our second round of questions, and we'll start with MP Kitchen for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. I really appreciate your comments. In some ways, they're enlightening us on what's been going on.

I have so many questions for all of you and so little time, but I'll start with you, Mr. Hariri.

I'm looking at your website. It's great to look at. It talks about how it's a “non-profit, non-partisan, and non-advocate organization.” That's great to see.

One of the things you mentioned in your presentation was that you raise your own funds. That's another fantastic thing, because the reality is that as a government, we have to be very judicious with taxpayers' dollars.

What percentage of research do you think should be private investment, government investment or non-profit organization investment?

[Mehrdad Hariri]

Thank you for your question.

Are you referring to the funding for research in research institutes? Is that the question?

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

Yes. Thank you.

[Mehrdad Hariri]

Thank you.

That differs from country to country, but I think the main chunk of funding for research institutes comes from the public and from the government. However, the private sector needs to step up and provide a significant amount of research funding for research institutes, as well as for research within the private sector. As you know, there are—

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

I appreciate that. I'm sorry for interrupting.

Based on your experience—and I'm not holding you to this—what do you think would be a good percentage, roughly?

[Mehrdad Hariri]

Currently, the federal government invests around $10 to $14 billion in public research in Canada. That includes the departments as well as granting agencies. The tri-agency funding is around $3 billion. The business sector invests around $15 billion in research. A very small part of it comes to public research institutes. Most of the research is being conducted within private sector firms.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Ultimately, when we look at that, one of the things we've heard around the table today is how bureaucracy consumes a lot of that funding. It eats it up. By creating a capstone, the concern will be how much of the federal funding is actually going into that bureaucracy and not to the boots on the ground, as I like to say, and the researchers. That's a big concern in getting that out there.

Ms. Laframboise, your comments were excellent when you talked about reporting, feedback and public availability of plans, and you included community involvement in academia. In my previous life, when I did my undergraduate degree, I had to do research, and I did it. When I did my graduate degree, I had to do a research project. When I did my fellowship, I had to do a research project. I've gone through that route. The one thing it taught me is that I wasn't cut out to be a researcher and that I was going to go into clinical practice versus research practice.

As you move through those steps and you're making those presentations to these organizations and to the tri-agency committee to make those decisions, especially from a health care point of view, to your point, Ms. Laframboise, the reality is that it's based on scientific merit. That's the big challenge we have. It's the accountability for the scientific merit that determines what the research will be.

For example, $111,000 was given to a study at the University of British Columbia. The title is “Narco-Animalia: Human-Animal relations in Mexico’s Narco-Culture”. If we're talking about scientific merit—somebody gave that money to this study—where is the scientific merit?

Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Sarah Laframboise]

I believe in our peer review process in Canada, and I believe our tri-councils uphold it in a way that funds the best research in Canada.

I'm not familiar with that study, so I can't elucidate on it, but I trust that our peer review process was created in a way that is supposed to fund the best available research.

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

Ultimately, that presentation.... For whatever that person could get, they had to come up with a methodology beforehand. They had to have a purpose and a scientific basis for doing the research. That was what the funding was based on, not the peer review. The peer review would be based on what the report is and whether the report was a valid study, after the fact. The money was given beforehand, which is a waste of taxpayers' dollars, if that's the case. It's given out before there's any understanding of it.

Ms. Evans, do you have any comments?

[Alison Evans]

Well, what I'd like to key in on here is the opportunity before all of us when it comes to the three previously siloed granting agencies. Bringing them together under a single umbrella will allow some operational day-to-day streamlining and new efficiencies. It will lead to greater coherence for researchers wanting to apply to these granting agencies and allow us, through the umbrella mechanism of the capstone itself, to make sure we are attending to the most important priorities and the strategy we set for the country.

The ways Canada can show up to major interdisciplinary, international and mission-driven—

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

That umbrella you're talking about still has the three agencies with their own determination factors underneath. Now you have two groups doing that. That umbrella isn't going to cut NSERC, CIHR, etc., because they've already given that money. The set-up for the capstone is putting another agency on top of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's our time. I'm sorry.

Thank you.

The next five minutes will go to MP Chen.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

The world experienced a major global health crisis in the COVID-19 pandemic. I want to bring the notion of mission-driven research into this example.

What could an organization like capstone, which implements mission-oriented research, have done differently in the midst of a global pandemic?

Ms. Evans, could you talk about that further?

[Alison Evans]

Well, I guess we're talking a bit theoretically here.

In the absence of existing structures, a whole bunch of new ways of working had to be developed when the pandemic hit. All kinds of synergies across governmental departments had to be forged. In the urgency of the situation, people rose to the occasion. We were able to set up funding for rapid response research. We were able to be at the forefront of some very important outcomes that helped in Canada and elsewhere. We've also seen a variety of structures and changes come into place postpandemic, based on those learnings.

How exactly would the capstone purport to operationalize in those moments? We're all awaiting those details in the fall economic statement.

I think there's a sense that the time and energy invested in creating ad hoc, cross-governmental bodies to address.... It was a health emergency that time. It could be a climate change emergency next time. Maybe the forest fires are another example. We want a one-door, one-stop shop, going forward, where that interstitial tissue is already there and being strengthened through each successive major challenge.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you.

Other countries have taken bold strategic action to enhance their research ecosystems. What can we learn from what peer countries have done and their experiences, so that we can move forward in a way that is thoughtful?