Science and Research Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2024

[Alison Evans]

I echo my colleague Mehrdad's earlier example of UKRI.

We also have our homegrown example in the province of Quebec. I find that our colleagues in that province have a lot of interesting perspectives and lessons learned as they put their own granting agencies under a single umbrella.

I think Canada is the type of country that ought to look very closely at what is working in other jurisdictions. We have our own unique challenges here with our federated model, for example, but we don't have to reinvent everything. I like the fact that we are making good on some of the recommendations from the previous studies to try to get ourselves into an operational state of readiness.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you.

Dr. Laframboise, in terms of political interference, how can we make sure that in the structure or strategy around the capstone organization, the funding decisions are independent and we can prevent interference, whether it be political, peer to peer or in the workplace?

[Sarah Laframboise]

I think this really comes down to the accountability mechanisms that will be in place for this capstone project. I see this as being a really great opportunity to proactively have these conversations now. I think when we're talking about political interference, we can look to examples showing that when the public sees evidence and sees these types of accountability procedures, they're more willing to trust.

I really believe in accountability to the public in spending research dollars. By putting in mechanisms like publicly available reports, impact statements, mission statements, mandate letters and things like this, you'll have the opportunity to have that conversation surrounding accountability, but without those mechanisms it's almost impossible to hold the organization accountable for its actions.

That would be my recommendation. I have more listed in my brief.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

I know that we don't have the details yet of the changes for this organization. We've spoken about opportunities, but what would be one big concern you might have in terms of the creation of this organization?

[Sarah Laframboise]

I think the involvement of the community is the most important part for me.

I've spent the last few years advocating for graduate student scholarships and post-doc salaries. It was 20 years before we saw increases to those salaries and scholarships. I hope that involving the community at the get-go, at the beginning of these types of processes, will make sure that the community is heard from at the very beginning. I think that will allow for 20 years not to pass before we realize that we need to improve living standards for a group of people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's our time.

Now we'll 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.

Ms. Laframboise, are you concerned that the government will appoint people to advisory panels based on the connections that it would like to have or the directions that it would like to take? There have been two advisory panels in eight years. These panels always include people from the same group, which is the large universities. No one represents colleges, CEGEPs and not‑for‑profit organizations like yours, which must remain vigilant and monitor the advancement of science and the strategies implemented.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

[Sarah Laframboise]

In this perspective, I think having the ability to train and having a mandate for a council like the council for science and innovation will help deflect any of that sort of interference. By promoting people from the not-for-profit sector and the community, you will also diversify that in a way that should negate any sort of political alliances.

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

Do you agree with the Bouchard report's recommendation to set up a committee to liaise between the granting councils and other players in the research ecosystem, including universities, companies, the Quebec government and other provincial governments?

[Sarah Laframboise]

Yes, I would. I think the council for science and innovation is a great place for that to lie.

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

Thank you.

The Bouchard report also suggested the creation of a single multi‑council portal for all grant applications to reduce administrative redundancies and speed up the process. I think that my Conservative colleague will be pleased to hear about a measure to increase efficiency and reduce red tape and related costs.

Do you agree with this simplified process for researchers?

[Sarah Laframboise]

It is, yes. This is undeniable. I think unifying and being able to review these processes in the creation of the capstone project will help to take out some of these duplications.

I do think the tri-agencies should still exist and have independent structures for funding, mostly because I think it allows the peer review process to work properly, because you have people who are experienced and have experience in that type of research who are able to evaluate those reports. It just becomes a question of where you should be applying. It's the education side of where you should be directing that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you very much.

Welcome, MP Idlout, to our committee. In keeping with the theme that it takes a village to replace Mr. Cannings, you're the third person to do that today, and we also had one briefly on the screen.

The floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

I did listen to a bit of the testimony. One question that came to mind is based on some of your responses so far.

We know that Canada just didn't emerge. First nations, Métis and Inuit were here before Canada became a country. Through colonial and genocidal policies, first nations, Métis and Inuit were actively suppressed. Their knowledge, their expertise and their science were ignored. I think we still see the impacts of that.

We still don't see enough indigenous researchers or scholars in academia. We do have some. I'm very lucky to have a good friend of mine, who is also an MP, who says she's recovering from academia.

I'm curious about the process for the creation of the capstone, which the NDP supports.

What will this agency do to ensure that indigenous research is also supported, that indigenous expertise is part of the design and that indigenous researchers are also funded through the capstone?

Qujannamiik.

[Alison Evans]

I really appreciate the question. It's very important.

Again, without speculating on how exactly that might be addressed in the future organization, we were all pleased to see that in the “what we heard” report and across so many of the more than 100, submissions that went into this process. Those very considerations and concerns were there and acknowledged.

Whether it's indigenous, Métis or Inuit knowledge and ways of doing research and representation, whether it is patients with lived experience, whether it is citizens and whether it's the not-for-profits, colleges, or any groups who have been under-represented, we've seen, over the years, many activities and initiatives designed to further our progress in these areas

Of course, this is an inflection point where we can make a commitment to doing even better. With change comes the opportunity to do better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you so much. That's our time.

Thank you to our witnesses, both on the screen and in person today. We really appreciate your testimony. If you have anything further to add, you may submit it to the clerk.

I want to remind our members that our next meeting on Thursday will be reviewing the second draft of the U15 report, and we will have committee business. We need to focus on what we're going to do after the capstone study, and hopefully we'll be able to have a discussion on that.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

The meeting is adjourned.