Science and Research Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2024

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

Alison, what are your thoughts on who gets to decide?

[Alison Evans]

I share the sentiments of my colleague in that what's really essential, as we look to prioritize and develop strategy and plans, is that diversity of voices.

You mentioned the universities several times, but we also have research taking place in clinical settings; at patients' bedsides; in colleges, as we heard earlier; and in a variety of other settings.

In terms of decisions about how Canada is going to respond to such increasingly massive global challenges as climate change, AI and things like that, it will need to be increasingly multidisciplinary.

This perhaps goes to your point of why the three existing mechanisms might need an overarching umbrella framework for mission-driven, major international and multidisciplinary research in ways that we haven't seen so far.

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

Right.

From all the presentations I've heard today and from all that I've read, it's a very impressive idea, but maybe the question is this: Have there been enough details? Are we lacking details? Do we have any guidance on how many years and how much money?

There are some impressive claims with this mission-driven research with capstone. Are there details that you've had or that you think there should be? What does it look like?

Alison, you can go first, and then Sarah. We'll switch it up this time.

[Alison Evans]

Thank you for the question.

I think what we're working on is the level of detail that was provided in budget 2024 and then the further timeline that will be coming out in the fall economic statement.

Then, of course, what we did was respond to the opportunity to provide input from our community earlier this summer, which was our chance to outline the principles, the risks and the ideas that we would hope would be incorporated or considered as those additional details are developed.

One of our main recommendations is that all the communities continue to be consulted, because clearly this is not, as I think one of the colleagues earlier said, a one and done. To get this right and to evolve it over time, we all have to continue to work together and to consult throughout the process.

[Sarah Laframboise]

I'll echo mainly what Alison said. We are waiting for the fall economic statement for the details that you are looking for and that I think that the community is looking for as well.

While generally the community is really positive about this, there are questions. I think that's why it's important to have conversations like this now to put forward some of the values that we're hoping to see, and also we can then have conversations later about accountability and how to enforce things once we do get some announcements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's the time. Thank you.

We'll now turn to MP Jaczek for six minutes, please.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses on this panel.

The need for a capstone organization seems to have been clearly established, starting with the Naylor report in 2017 and the Bouchard report and the intention of coordination and mission-driven research. I think we all understand that concept. I'm more interested in how the structure is actually going to work.

Is it necessary to maintain boards of directors and CEOs for the tri-councils? Why would you not, from a structural point of view—possibly to promote efficiency and maybe even to save some money—have the capstone organization and just simply not disband the tri-councils but have all that assessment of individual research projects occur via the tri-councils? Could you somehow have a way of coordinating that activity without requiring approvals through individual boards and CEOs that then go to the overarching capstone?

I'm just trying to understand, through the consultation that you were engaged in through the summer, some of these more detailed aspects of how it will work.

Ms. Evans, you used the term “without delay”. There seems to be a certain urgency when you talk about mission-driven, etc. How are we going to ensure that in fact there is no delay and that the coordination occurs rapidly? Could you elaborate, in a very practical way, as to how you see this working?

Perhaps, Ms. Evans, I'll start with you.

[Alison Evans]

Thanks for the question.

Again, we share curiosity about some of the operational details and we value the opportunity we had to outline things that we think should be considered to operationalize well. We think that all the intentions that have been shared and the aspirations are great, but a lot of it is that the devil's in the details, and implementation is very important.

We agree that huge operational streamlining and efficiencies can be gained by having all three granting agencies under one umbrella. To your point about how this could help with speed, when the pandemic hit, we didn't have a go-to spot to set up rapid response research that was as transdisciplinary and robust as we will need going forward for such things.

I think it was Chad Gaffield who earlier talked about that one door that will allow the government, when a major crisis or opportunity or challenge reaches a boiling point, to have a mechanism through which each of the three autonomous, investigator-led, discipline-rich organizations can more systematically use their power to work together on transdisciplinary challenges.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Go ahead, Ms. Laframboise.

[Sarah Laframboise]

Thank you.

I think it's important that the existing roles and responsibilities of the tri-agencies be relatively unimpeded during this process, just because of the importance of research and the everyday research that does happen, but this is an opportunity to review and harmonize a lot of that inter-agency communication.

Even in the fundamental science review, they recommended that the government undertake a comprehensive review to modernize it where possible, to harmonize a lot of the legislation between the four agencies and to support extramural research as well.

These calls have been coming since 2017. Opening up the idea of capstone allows us to re-evaluate some of those things, even including the review of current allocations of funding between the tri-councils as well. I think it ensures that we can have these types of conversations in a time when we are starting to have the conversation about preventing duplications and trying to streamline and enhance productivity and efficiency.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Dr. Hariri, are you aware of other countries' organizations of this sort from your institute's knowledge of the structure in other countries? Could you give us some examples of where this kind of organization is working well?

[Mehrdad Hariri]

Sure.

Certainly one of the countries we can look to is the U.K. A couple of years ago the United Kingdom merged a couple of granting agencies into UK Research and Innovation—what is known as UKRI—under one CEO and with one mission, but with different units in it. That perhaps could provide some lessons learned, which we can look into.

I hope the government and the granting agencies are looking into these models to take lessons from them, but UKRI perhaps could be one of the best examples to look at.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you so much.

In the consultations, would you say there was good engagement? Were you given lots of opportunity to provide feedback through the summer? We know that was the intention. Did you feel that you were well consulted?

[Sarah Laframboise]

I'll go first.

It was a bit of a short turnaround of consultation. I think most people were able to engage with their communities pretty rapidly, mostly because I think the research community is really interested in this. I think a lot of our organizations are getting constant questions about this, and people want to engage.

I believe they got about 118 submissions—in about 30 days, I believe—which is pretty substantial and I think represents the interest from the community on this.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you so much.

We'll now turn to MP Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to extend my greetings to the witnesses here with us for the second hour of this study.

My first question is for Ms. Laframboise from Evidence for Democracy.

It seems that we're going in circles. Today, we're looking at a capstone research funding organization. This organization was previously proposed in 2017, in the Naylor Report, by the committee that the government created. A few years later, we're working on this again. In 2022, another consultation was requested. It came out in 2023. A year and a half later, the government woke up and said that it might be time to consult people publicly. Evidence for Democracy has already released a report on the recommendations made in the Naylor report. Today, people want to talk about a new capstone organization. However, this topic has been on the drawing board for a long time. The two reports were released eight years apart. Eight years of work requires a great deal of consideration. We want action.

I would like you to tell us, as a representative, what you want the government to do. We're familiar with the recommendations, strategies and consultations. How can the federal government ensure that the scientific ecosystem is better represented in this capstone organization, but also more effective, particularly in the interdisciplinary field?

[Sarah Laframboise]

Thank you for the question.

I think it has been a long time since we first heard the calls for a unified funding body. As I said, there were some challenges with the current funding structures. I don't think it's appropriate to think that we could change everything overnight, but once we start to open up the doors to change like this, I think it's important that we have proactive levels of transparency and accountability from the very beginning so that they are created in ways that are sustainable and that support this in the long term.

I would have loved to see this announced in 2017—absolutely. I wouldn't say no to that, but the reality is that it's being proposed right now, and all we can do in the moment is to say the values and wishes that we would like to see now, because we are having these conversations before it is announced.

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

I would sum it up as eight years of work or waiting and patience for a number of people.

In a nutshell, both reports call for a review of the granting councils to ensure better coordination and increased funding.

The Bouchard report focuses more on innovation, partnerships with the private sector and the effectiveness of the assessment process. The Naylor report emphasizes the need to strengthen funding for basic research and to create an independent advisory body to guide the national science strategy.

I want to know your opinion on this. Do you agree with all these requests? Have we forgotten anything? Now is the time to speak up. We hope that the government will then take action.

[Sarah Laframboise]

I won't speculate on Mr. Miller's statement, because I'm not familiar with the wording. I think it is important to uphold these values of transparency, accountability and community engagement, and I see that as our way forward.

As I said, we are having these conversations before the announcement, and this is a unique opportunity to engage with the community beforehand. We've had lots of time to think about it, and I think the public consultations showed that people want to have their voices heard.

Going forward, I've provided a few recommendations of reactive transparency and reactive measures that can happen later for accountability. I think those will be important going forward when we hear more details.

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

Ms. Laframboise, you talked about a key issue in politics, but especially in science. That issue is transparency.

The Bouchard report called for a review of the assessment processes for grant applications. Specifically, it called for a review of the assessment mechanisms to make the granting processes more transparent and effective. It also emphasized the need to review assessment criteria to better include interdisciplinary projects.

I want to hear your thoughts on this.

[Sarah Laframboise]

As I said, there are two forms of transparency that we like to talk about at E4D: reactive and proactive.

Proactive is the moment we're in right now, when we can create structures that will allow this to function in a transparent way. This can include publicly releasing a mandate and a strategic plan. When we create councils, we can also create mandates for the councils so that they are then accountable to those procedures and outcomes. We also have things like instituting sustainable mechanisms, funding and training for people who are on councils like this. These will all impact transparency in a proactive manner.

Reactively, I look at things like annual reports, strategic plans, who's involved in those meetings and who creates the strategic plan for the capstone and the public release of all of these things. My organization has done a variety of research on transparency practices in the federal and provincial governments. Overall, what we're seeing is that the evidence often isn't shown in the creation of policies.

Going forward, the more we can be transparent about what those missions are and the evidence that was used to create them, the more trust we'll generate with both the research community and the public.

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

Thank you.

We noticed that the people involved in these public consultations came from the large universities. No one came from CEGEPs, colleges or polytechnics. No one came from the type of organization that you represent, the not‑for‑profit organizations that also advocate for the advancement of science.

We have a government that claims to uphold the values of equity, inclusion and diversity. Yet, when it comes to appointing the people who represent this diversity, funnily enough, these values seem to completely vanish.

I want to hear your thoughts on this.

[Sarah Laframboise]

I think it's important, because there is a wall for information that goes to the not-for-profit and third party organizations in comparison to academia or universities. They're already tied into that conversation, so it's quicker for them to be able to participate in a lot of these.

The more that publicly accessible consultation happens and the more open it is, the more the not-for-profit and public side will be able to contribute.

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

Do you think that the government—