Science and Research Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2024

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

Mr. Miller, I'm asking the questions here, okay? I know that you're giving the answers, but we know the answers.

You haven't said anything publicly to ask the government to change things. You now have the chance to do so.

What does Universities Canada, which claims to represent 96 universities, have to say publicly?

People are listening to you. Small and medium‑sized organizations are listening to you.

Will you ask the government for real and inclusive representation to ensure that people from small and medium‑sized universities, which you also represent, also have a seat on this panel, meaning in the new capstone research funding organization?

[Gabriel Miller]

Madam Chair, I want to say to the government, to our members, to the committee and to the public that we're fully committed to representing all our members from small, medium‑sized and large universities. There are currently a number of ways to support them. For example, we can ensure that they receive the investments needed to boost their capacity to participate in federal programs.

We're currently focusing on the issues that will shape the future. As part of this work, we're committed to representing all our communities.

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

How many small or medium‑sized universities do you want in this group, Mr. Miller?

[Gabriel Miller]

The group's members are appointed by the government. We said that we would do our job, which is to represent—

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

How many small or medium‑sized universities would you like to see in the new group proposed in the budget, to ensure inclusive and fair representation?

[Gabriel Miller]

We want to see diverse representation of our community.

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

Can you give us a rough percentage?

[Gabriel Miller]

We want a diversity that enables us to represent the views of our community and contribute to a system that makes decisions and creates programs to serve the country and the public to the greatest extent possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you so much.

We'll now turn to MP McPherson.

Welcome to our committee. It does take a village, as we saw earlier, to replace Mr. Cannings.

The floor is yours for six minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It certainly does take a village to replace Mr. Cannings, and I'm sorry that I am a pale shadow of Mr. Cannings at this committee.

It's nice to see everyone here.

This is a particularly interesting study for me, because I have so many post-secondary institutions in my riding, including, of course, the University of Alberta. I'm grateful for all of you being here today. I think that might be where I'll start. I'll ask you a few questions about the current situation that we have in Alberta.

As we're looking at funding research and trying to find ways to better fund research across this country, in Alberta right now there is a piece of legislation that is limiting the ability of the university to do that because it actually says that the Alberta government has to determine which dollars can go through to the University of Alberta.

Can you talk about any worries that you have about how we keep political interference out of these decisions, how we ensure that the decisions are made in the best interests and have autonomy? Can you talk about that?

I'll start from left to right.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Thank you for the question.

You're touching on, I think, a really key question that all Canadians and in fact citizens around the world want to ask: Is their taxpayer money being invested as well as possible? In other words, it's used to fund the best research. That's what we want: the best impact, the best results for Canadians.

What we have found over decades and decades is that the minute you base that on something other than serious peer review or merit review, it leads to trouble, and you don't get the best results. The tried and true method is to not try to interfere in the process, to not try to put a thumb on the scale, but rather to allow a robust peer review or merit review system whereby experts come together.

Often, as we found in Canada, we invite experts from other countries and so on, such that we do the best we can in terms of the taxpayer funding that supports our work. It's, I think, worked really well, and I think it's a mistake to ever move away from that. If we do, it will not provide expected results and it will really confuse why we invest in research and innovation. We invest in research and innovation to enhance quality of life, to build a better future and to build a better society, and we can't do that based on periodic momentary preferences.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Johnston.

[Pari Johnston]

Thanks so much for the question, and it's great that you're part of the committee.

What I want to offer is a complementary perspective about how we could think about impacting relevance and excellence.

I think it is important to look at the opportunity, and this is why I think mission-driven research is an interesting concept that we're certainly advocating needs to be part of our ecosystem of investments. This is because, yes, we want to ensure that there is strong scientific merit for what we're investing in, but at the same time, this is where a mission-driven approach can come in.

If you're also involving an impact review in which policy-makers, regulators and those who represent end-user communities also are part of determining the final shape of a research initiative, it can actually be embedded in more results on the ground. From a conceptual point of view, I think that it is interesting for us to look at that in the context of mission-driven research.

With regard to the particular challenge that you're noting in the context of Alberta, I know that there is certainly an interest among our college members who also do a lot of research in making sure that at the end of the day, all of the dollars going into research, both federally and provincially, are optimized to respond to the needs of Albertans. That's where I would come in.

However, I do encourage us to think about an impact lens if we're looking at mission-driven research. There are examples going on here in Canada. I used to work at Genome Canada, so I'm aware of the challenge-driven approach to mission-driven research. There is something to be examined as we look at relevance and impact and who you're involving in finally shaping a research program.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Adding that level of bureaucracy and, as you said, putting your thumb on the scale are not good ways of selecting research.

[Pari Johnston]

Yes. I think it's more about the experts, but outside of the bench scientists, there are also the regulators, the policy-makers, those who represent end-user communities that are going to be the receptors of this research.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have some questions for you on that, but I want to get to Mr. Miller if I could.

[Gabriel Miller]

I'd just simply say on this question that there is no plan for Canada's future, for a better future—a future with better jobs, better salaries, stronger communities and solutions to our biggest challenges—that doesn't require us to have a world-class university system, and there is no world-class university system without institutional autonomy. It is a value that we absolutely have to protect if we want the essential benefits that flow from higher education.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you very much. You're right on time. That's perfect. See what a good replacement you are?

Now we'll start our five-minute round, and we'll begin that with MP Tochor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I'm encouraged by some of the testimony we heard today. I do believe that solutions for the major problems our country is facing can be found through research and through our institutes across Canada working on those problems that face Canadians.

I heard from the testimony that it's important to invest in the best possible research that has impacts on our society, that we have to put an impact lens on this as to how it affects Canadians, and that the results on the ground need to be measured.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, Mr. Miller, but I think you said that there is no bright future for Canada without the research that gets done in Canada. I would say that there is research that falls into those categories. I believe a capstone project would help drive research in getting towards those goals that impact Canada and that it's important.

It's just a little bit troubling when we see what we have spent money on. There are two million Canadians right now who are relying on food banks to eat. One in four Canadians is forgoing meals because they can't afford to feed themselves. Meanwhile, at the University of British Columbia, for $20,000—I wonder how many meals we could feed on that—they studied gender politics and Peruvian rock music—not Canadian, but Peruvian.

Does anyone want to defend that or explain that? If not, that's all right.

The next one we would have is large-scale archaeological video game analysis. This one cost $280,000 that taxpayers paid to research large-scale archaeological video game analysis. Does anyone want to take a stab at that one?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

I'll happily jump in here.

The question you're raising is about the topics of research projects that do, in fact, get selected for funding.

How do we arrive at that? I can remember—

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

I'm going to run out of time here, but would you agree to funding those two examples?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Well, again, I don't want to judge them because I don't know the proposals.

I do know, for example, that the world recently awarded a Nobel Prize to Geoff Hinton, who—

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

Okay, I'll go back to Canada, the problems Canadians face and the solutions that could be found at institutions.

Giving out $280,000 for research on large-scale archaeological video game analysis is a tough pill to swallow, sir.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Well, off the top of my head, I would say that the video gaming industry is now a billion-dollar industry worldwide. Which games succeed and which don't, and how they relate to cultures and so on, have become big preoccupations in the industry and in many governments and societies.