Science and Research Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's our time. Thank you so much.

We'll now turn to the final round for this panel. MP Richard Cannings has two and a half minutes.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to continue with Dr. McCauley.

Again, I'm trying to find out what we've attempted to do in the past in Canada, in terms of coordinating research and research funding. We have the Canada research coordinating committee, etc.

Do you have any examples of frustrations among researchers who have tried to build co-operative projects, ones that could have been better organized regarding funding and direction? How might this help with that?

[Dr. Edward McCauley]

I think one thing has changed in Canada considerably: the desire among scholars to collaborate. In previous generations, there tended to be solitary scholars: “I'm going to work in my discipline, and I'm going to have an impact in that area.” The new generation of scholars in Canada recognizes that they have incredible value to offer in solving some very important problems. That has led to, in essence, a generational shift in collaboration and in how scholars want to work together to solve those problems. That's been a very fast-moving tide. It is a challenge for built-up granting organizations, such as NSERC, CIHR and SSHRC. They have specific mandates and have delivered incredibly for Canada, but, in terms of discovery research, it's about being able to anticipate those changes at the global level.

I'll give you one example. We were involved in a project—I won't give you the area—that brought together interdisciplinary work from the U.S., Germany and Canada. It was a challenge for our tri-council to get their head around the magnitude of the problem. The new capstone organization would be a one-stop shop for that, in terms of engaging with international partners to facilitate this. That was driven by the scholars up into the organization. Having that opportunity to collaborate across the councils, I think, would be beneficial.

There has been a sea change in collaboration across the world, in a very short period of time.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I would assume that, even within one of the tri-councils—say, NSERC—there have been collaborative grants. I was peripherally involved in a big ecology one in Yukon. However, what you're talking about is broader than that. It's across all of these disciplines and countries.

Is that the kind of thing you mean?

[Dr. Edward McCauley]

Exactly. Think about how we're going to mobilize capacity around Arctic research in Canada for our sovereignty, safety and so on. We have to bring together those disciplines from a variety of areas to conduct research. Where do they go to get funding for the field experiment, for legal or societal analysis or for working with indigenous populations? How do we pull that together?

I think the capstone organization would provide that governance, as well as the structure and mandate, to go after some of those bigger problems.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That is your time.

Thank you to all of the witnesses—Sylvain Poirier, Dr. Edward McCauley and Dr. Baljit Singh—for you testimony and participation in this committee study.

If you have any additional submissions you would like to make, you may make them in writing by submitting them to the clerk. We're always happy to receive them.

We'll now suspend briefly so our witnesses can leave, then resume with our second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I'm going to call this meeting to order.

I know we're all very excited to hear our next panel of witnesses, so we'll get under way.

It's now my pleasure to welcome, as an individual, Frédéric Bouchard, dean, faculty of arts and science, Université de Montréal; and from the Canada Foundation for Innovation, we have Sylvain Charbonneau, president and chief executive officer.

Up to five minutes will be given to you for your opening remarks, after which we'll proceed with rounds of questions.

Dr. Bouchard, I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

[Frédéric Bouchard, Dean, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee members, I had the privilege of chairing the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on that committee and to say that although my remarks are informed by that report, my testimony today is offered as an individual.

We submitted our report in early 2023, and several of our recommendations were included in various measures in the 2024 federal budget.

I would like to highlight and recognize the higher value of scholarships for research students, the larger budgets given to granting councils, and the creation of a capstone organization, which is the subject of your study.

Research and innovation are not luxury hobbies in advanced societies. In fact, they are the necessary prerequisites if we are to collectively flourish. These budget measures are therefore crucial to guarantee the welfare, prosperity and safety of our communities.

This is now one of the many reasons why it is urgent to breathe new life into the federal research support system. In 2026, Canada, the United States and Mexico will be re‑examining their free trade agreement: CUSMA, the Canada—United States—Mexico Agreement. It is essential that Canada be able to explain how it is a strategic partner in various economic sectors. Scientific research is a fundamental pillar of the United States' growth strategy.

The U.S. recently adopted the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act, with approximately $280 billion U.S., and the Inflation Reduction Act, with approximately $800 billion U.S. in authorized spending. These policies aim to anchor advanced manufacturing operations and scientific pre-eminence back in the U.S. More broadly, this renewed ambition supports the whole knowledge pipeline, from basic science to applied science, innovation, commercialization, and national security. More broadly, substantial investments strengthen their National Science Foundation, their National Institutes of Health, NASA and so on. There is also increasing public and private support for humanities and social sciences research in various agencies to make sure that the U.S. will have access to the best human capital available. Put simply, like other ambitious countries, the U.S. is anchoring its future well-being, prosperity, and security on talent, research and innovation.

How important is Canadian science to American science? According to scientific co-authoring data, Canada is the number three international partner for U.S. scientists, all fields combined. Given Canada’s size, third place is nothing to sneeze at, but we used to be number one until about 1995 or so.

As the Naylor and Bouchard reports have shown, there are many reasons to pick up the pace in the race for talent and ideas. I am emphasizing one of those reasons here: Canada must invest in research and innovation to ensure that we remain a priority partner and avoid becoming a vassal economy that would succumb to brain drain.

To respond to emerging challenges and profit from unprecedented opportunities, we recommended the creation of a capstone organization that would support interdisciplinary, mission-driven research and international collaborations. That would also enable granting councils to intensify their efforts to support non-oriented research, research that is essential to discovery and to training talent.

How would this work? Well, for example, capstone could launch mission-driven funding calls for advanced materials research with U.S.-supported partners. Such funding calls could demand an interdisciplinary component to make sure that ethical and policy insights propel technological developments, and they could support novel university-industry partnerships in Canada. Other possible funding calls could focus, for instance, on disinformation, cybersecurity and democracy projects with NGOs, Europe, the U.S., other key allies and so on.

However, I have a word of caution. In doing this work, we must ensure that it is never at the expense of the excellence of investigator-driven research. Investigator-driven research is the foundation of talent training, research excellence, innovation, and science diplomacy with the U.S. and other allies. This is true from a graduate student in history to a Nobel Prize in physics.

Let us never forget that societies that are ambitious for their research enterprises thrive, while those that are not falter.

We very much hope that your work will help Canada set its sights higher in the search for knowledge.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you very much.

We'll now turn to Mr. Charbonneau for five minutes, please.

[Dr. Sylvain Charbonneau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Foundation for Innovation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hello, everyone.

Thank you for inviting me.

This is my first opportunity to address a parliamentary committee since becoming the president and CEO of the Canada Foundation for Innovation just a few weeks ago.

The CFI funds research labs, equipment and other infrastructure at universities, colleges and research hospitals, and we are a critical element of the research funding landscape in this country.

Our unique mandate allows us to support the bold ideas of researchers and innovators. We also serve as a vital link between academia and the private sector to deliver tangible benefits to Canadians. We support the proposed capstone research funding organization. This initiative presents a valuable opportunity to harness the strengths of all players in our research ecosystem.

Today we offer three recommendations. First, maintain the existing independent status and mandate of the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Second, include representation of research infrastructure interests and perspectives in the governance of federal research funding. Third, preserve the CFI's rigorous merit review process for funding.

Let me elaborate on these points. First, we recommend maintaining the existing status and mandate of the CFI. The CFI is an independent arm's-length organization with a unique federal-provincial funding model. Over 27 years, this model has allowed us to leverage more than $10 billion in federal funding and translate it into over $25 billion of investment in state of the art infrastructure. This successful program has helped Canada achieve its research goals and priorities.

Our second recommendation is that the governance of federal research funding should include representatives with deep knowledge of research infrastructure to ensure that this perspective is considered in the capstone activities. With its own expertise in research infrastructure, the CFI is also ready to collaborate with the capstone organization to help develop a comprehensive road map for research in Canada. We are well positioned to identify areas that are ripe for exploration and innovation built on existing infrastructure capacity.

Finally, we emphasize the importance of maintaining a rigorous assessment process. As a custodian of taxpayers' dollars, it is incumbent on us to focus our process on excellence, relevance and impact, and to demonstrate our value to Canadians. Let me provide you with a few examples of how our investments have been translated into meaningful outcomes.

CFI invested $35 million in state-of-the-art equipment that allowed a University of Alberta virologist to develop vaccines for hepatitis C, a disease that costs the health care system about $160 million each and every year. Look at the Niagara wine industry, which in 2019 contributed over $1 billion to Canada's GDP. It has benefited from process and product testing in CFI-funded labs in both colleges and universities in southern Ontario.

I also point to Chantiers Chibougamau, a lumber company in Quebec that applied research insights from a CFI‑funded facility to create a new line of engineered wood products, and in so doing created 250 new jobs for the community.

In Saskatchewan, the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization continues to break ground in infectious disease research and vaccine development for both humans and animals.

Our investments also touch small and medium-sized enterprises. They gain access to expertise and cutting-edge equipment to solve their business challenges.

It is also important to note that 25,000 students and post‑docs every year work with research leaders and gain hands‑on experience in the labs we support.

These rich training environments foster an entrepreneurial spirit that prepare the next generation to innovate and contribute to the economy.

In summary, I invite the committee to consider our recommendations as you move forward with your capstone report. By maintaining our current status, considering infrastructure expertise in federal research funding, and upholding our assessment processes, we can further strengthen Canada's research ecosystem and continue to deliver remarkable benefits for Canada.

Thank you. I would be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you both very much for your opening remarks.

I will now open the floor to questions.

Members, please indicate to whom your questions are directed.

MP Tochor, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

I'll start with Dr. Bouchard.

In your testimony, you talked about CUSMA, the importance of being a partner, what the States is looking for in other trading partners and how Canada is being strategic with its research. I couldn't agree more. What we spend our research dollars on tells our story to the world. We have to make sure that we're investing in things that are practical and real. Some can be foundationally based, driving toward a goal, and then there's other research that gets done in Canada.

In the context of how you think the CUSMA renegotiation goes and how we're doing strategic investments and research, we have, from McMaster University, the project “Superheroes, sacrifice, and salvation: themes of redemption in the modern comic book”. That was for $17,500. This is what we are strategically investing in in Canada.

Meanwhile, we have other investments. It shouldn't be comical, but these are comic book investments we've made.

Another one we've invested in is “Batman vs Superman: visions of the American cityscape in contemporary graphic novels”. We spent $17,000 on that. This is from the University of British Columbia.

Mind you, earlier this year, in the Vancouver Sun there was an article entitled, “B.C. drug 'super labs' producing fentanyl for here and abroad—but charging suspects proving elusive”. That was that reported in the Vancouver Sun on October 21.

We're investing in research looking at Batman versus Superman for $17,000, when dollars could be put into research on, hopefully, crime reduction. That would be a strategic investment for our country, but that's not taking place.

This is the last one, and then I'll get your comment on those three. “History is Magic: The Importance of History and Memory in Harry Potter”. That was for $17,500 as well, and that's at McMaster University.

You might have heard the story CBC reported, entitled, “Hamilton becomes latest Ontario city to declare state of emergency over homelessness, other crises”.

You have money going to study Harry Potter in a community that CBC has declared as being in a state of emergency because of homelessness. Don't you think, strategically, we could be investing in better projects?

[Frédéric Bouchard]

Thank you for the question.

Not knowing these projects in particular, I'm not going to comment on them. However, more broadly, most prosperous countries support this kind of research in the social sciences and humanities, and they do so for two reasons.

First of all, they do it—

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

I know there's a Canadian connection with Superman actually starting in Canada, but why would the Canadian taxpayer be willing to put money into a study for Batman versus Superman?

[Frédéric Bouchard]

Most of these dollars go to supporting graduate students. They are supporting people in training to acquire skills in communication, critical thinking and creativity, and these skills are portable skills. The proof of that....

I don't know these projects in particular, but when Ubisoft, the game company, set up shop in Montreal, one of the first things it did was hire medieval history grads to develop one of the games in Assassin's Creed. Batman is in the DC universe. I'm not going to say that the Marvel universe will hire these grads, but there is some expertise here that has value in the media industry. It's the same thing with Harry Potter.

Again, beyond the specifics of these projects, which we know actually do have commercial value—even if they didn't—there is some valuable training of the talent here. I would look at these projects—

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

That's a very thin line to draw, saying there might be a grad student who gets a job in the gaming world that would work. That is—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Chair, the witness isn't being respected here. He's given us his opinion and his answer, which are very informed. We don't need to belittle him at this committee.

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

I'm not belittling anyone, my honourable colleague—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm talking to the chair, not to you.

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

—but we were talking—

[Frédéric Bouchard]

I'm comfortable with the thin line I'm drawing, because these are actual cases.

There's a question in the cultural sector, which is a big economic centre in Canada, be it for video games, the movie industry or the cultural industry, and the students in a lot of these projects, beyond the knowledge they're acquiring, are developing skills that have economic value in the private sector afterwards.

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

These would be some of the people for whom I don't think there would be a heightened brain-drain concern, because here at committee we are looking at strategic investments for the benefit of Canadians. The three examples of taxpayers' dollars being spent.... Indeed, it was mentioned earlier that sometimes the federal money gets paired with provincial money, and $10 billion can grow into $25 billion. Well, there is only one taxpayer, and the taxpayers of this country are sick and tired of their tax money being wasted in research that goes into Batman versus Superman, Harry Potter, and a whole host of things. We have real issues in Canada that aren't being researched.

[Frédéric Bouchard]

I think we should look at the talent base that is being developed, and this is, in fact, human capital that is being developed. This is why most European countries, the U.S., and the U.K. are investing in research in these kinds of topics—not because they want to learn more about Batman or Harry Potter, but because actually it's a good way of developing the talent base.

Perhaps you will allow an analogy. If you do CrossFit training, one of the exercises is flipping tractor tires. Now, it's not because you're expected to flip tractor tires every day, but because it's a very efficient way of developing muscle mass. These kinds of Master's theses and Ph.D. theses are a CrossFit for the mind. They're basically developing the talent base beyond the domain expertise that is being developed.

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

At the expense of research....