Science and Research Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I'm going to stick with you on this.

I'm moving from political independence to the second recommendation. You talked about harmonizing processes and understanding what that is.

Can you unpack that a bit for us? What would you like to see when you say “harmonization of processes” across different research bodies?

[Dr. Edward McCauley]

I mentioned some of the big challenges that Canada faces in solving, for example, the productivity gap that we have. Very often, the solutions to those problems come from a combination of different disciplines. Right now, we have the tri-councils, which are very effective: NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR.

In solving those problems, very often we want to bring the expertise from those disciplines together into a productive environment where ideas can be tested and solutions could be moved forward. The capstone organization will facilitate that, and including the process associated with the tri-councils would enable that cross-fertilization.

One of the reasons the University of Calgary has been so successful in moving external research revenue forward and attracting investment is that we've invested over the last decade in a transdisciplinary scholarship. We've incentivized our scholars from those different tri-councils to work together to come up with new ideas or new questions to move Canada forward. That's why this new organization, I think, will be very important in increasing the information flow and the effectiveness of the collaboration among the tri-councils.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

You have 36 seconds.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Is it 36 seconds, or it is 30 seconds now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

It's now 35 seconds.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

We can go along with that joke.

On your first recommendation, you talked about establishing balance. You had four recommendations. I don't know if they were chronological for a reason. If we were to start somewhere with the capstone project to ensure that we start on the right footing, where do we begin?

[Dr. Edward McCauley]

As I mentioned, we need to establish for the capstone organization a clear mandate, the structures and the resources to facilitate that integration to be the stone that provides the glue, in essence, to support the pillars below. The mandate, the structures and, again, a clear strategy associated with the implementation will be very important to move it forward.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

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 welcome the witnesses who are here to take part in our study.

Mr. Poirier, you put into perspective the importance of colleges and CEGEPs in Quebec, and you provided several figures. I'm proud to have a CEGEP in my riding, the Cégep de Rimouski, which has a training site in Témiscouata.

I'd like to come back to your presentation, more specifically to the new umbrella organization's approach to research funding. You said that it should be neutral, inclusive and have the power to redistribute funds. Finally, you talked about college representation.

To begin, I would like you to tell us about representation.

What are you really asking for? What are your expectations of the federal government regarding the composition of the new research funding umbrella organization?

[Sylvain Poirier]

If we want to achieve the desired results and objectives, which are to increase Canada's productivity and affect wealth and growth, the new research funding umbrella organization must ensure that all research actors have a voice that carries equal weight within the body. I'm thinking of those who carry out research, whether it's fundamental or applied, or whether it concerns development, innovation or commercialization.

That would make it possible to distribute funding and projects and ensure that everyone can maintain this continuum, so that the development of knowledge becomes the application of knowledge and, ultimately, a product or service that benefits Canadians.

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

Mr. Poirier, the elephant in the room is representativeness, and you talked about that. I imagine that you would have liked to share those recommendations with the federal government in the past and be part of the advisory panel on the federal research support system, created by the government in October 2022. We did get the report on that. It states that CEGEPs, colleges and polytechnics are key players. I'd like to hear what you have to say about that.

The Fédération des cégeps was completely ignored when the advisory panel was created. In your opinion, does it make sense not to include CEGEPs and colleges when we want to represent the scientific ecosystem?

[Sylvain Poirier]

I think that the advisory panel that conducted the study identified the right problem, but there was a lack of overall vision for implementing solutions that would cover the entire continuum I described.

We would have liked our voice to be more present or more active on the advisory panel and on all committees and organizations. It's the same with the funding, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Mitacs.

The voice of colleges should be present and heard in all discussions about funding and advancing research. Colleges shouldn't take over, but they should play their rightful role in bridging the gap between basic research and business innovation.

There are colleges everywhere, throughout the province, and they are already in contact with businesses. So they can play that role.

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

Mr. Poirier, we have publicly asked to consult you, particularly following the Bouchard report, the report of the advisory panel on the federal research support system. That report was tabled in March 2023, which is to say, a year and three months later. We don't know why, but we may find out one day. The government woke up and said that it should launch a public consultation. It did so at the end of June, when most of your facilities, if not all of them, were closed for the summer. It gave you 30 days to do this.

In your opinion, is it realistic for a government that says it wants science to be a priority to give organizations 30 days to participate in the process when those organizations will be closed during consultations?

[Sylvain Poirier]

I don't want to judge intentions, because I'm not aware of them. However, there may be a lack of understanding of how colleges and CEGEPs operate in Quebec. Of course, July isn't the best month for consultations, when just about everyone has gone on vacation.

So the Fédération des cégeps could not consult its members. We then joined forces with Colleges and Institutes Canada, or CICan, for an exercise involving a few permanent members who could be present.

I would say that this consultation went a little too quickly and that it didn't benefit from the full contribution that we could have made.

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

It goes back to the importance of being inclusive, as you said in talking about the new umbrella organization and your recommendations. Far be it from me to make a judgment, but it's a matter of observing the facts. However, consultations took place over a period of 30 days, on the spur of the moment and in the summer, when your facilities were closed.

I'm worried that not all members really had the opportunity to speak and be heard. I'm talking about the members you represent here today.

[Sylvain Poirier]

In this particular case, our members couldn't be consulted, and they were unable to think about a coordinated response and arrive at a federated position regarding the consultation.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's the time, right on. Thank you.

MP Cannings, the floor is yours for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you all for being here with us today.

As Dr. McCauley said, this is kind of an exciting moment when we're getting to talk about a new way of funding science in Canada, and, hopefully, a better way.

I'm going to turn to you, Dr. McCauley, to try to expand on some of the four points that you mentioned, especially regarding the governance piece, because I think that's critical, off the top.

You mentioned that there should be voices from all sectors and all actors. How do you see the scope of that? We will have to maybe balance the size of a board, for instance. How do we get those voices heard in there? This is what I've heard from some groups; their main concern was they had felt, whoever they were, that their voices weren't being heard in the previous system, and they wanted to be part of this new body.

[Dr. Edward McCauley]

Getting the structure correct is very important to supporting those pillars that I was referring to. I'm sure the government, in the consultation, has brought in information from all different sources as to what that should look like. I wouldn't guess as to where the government is right now in terms of identifying it.

In the capstone organization, my understanding is that there would be, for example, a CEO, and there would be a board. Like any well-functioning unit, the board would have representation from across the research ecosystem, which is very deep and broad in Canada. It would be diverse, and it would also have the opportunity in its governance to get information from the people who are actually creating the new knowledge and are coming up with the solutions to the problems. Feedback from the investigators across the country in those different components of the research ecosystem will be very important.

What I would see, hopefully, would be information flowing up to the capstone program and then, in the combination of strategic decisions and governance, ideas around mission-driven research and things like that being discussed and, in essence, given to the community to ask if they could solve this problem with input from the community.

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

This body will take ideas and make decisions on what those missions would be. Then, as you suggest, later there would be a new envelope of funding for those missions. Is that correct?

[Dr. Edward McCauley]

Regarding some of the big challenges that Canada has faced in terms of, for example, its productivity gap, getting to and identifying those solutions will require extra resources. Again, it's the research ecosystem that needs to be funded to come up with those solutions or test those new ideas and deliver the solutions that Canada needs. There has to be a clear mandate. We have to have clear structures and, again, we have to facilitate that integration, because the solutions primarily are probably going to come from across the tri-councils rather than from within a tri-council.

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

Are there any specific recommendations you have about that structure—thinking back to what maybe hasn't worked so well up until now—or if there are structures like this in other countries, other agencies that have worked, is there something that you would like to see?