Science and Research Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[Dr. Edward McCauley]

It's great to be a first mover, but in this situation there are other countries that have taken this sort of approach: the U.K., France and so on. I think we can take a lot of lessons learned, from how they amalgamated their system, in terms of designing the capstone and then designing the governance structure associated with it. I would, once again, gather information and then implement some of the best practices, with learning from what was successful in other jurisdictions and what would work in the Canadian context.

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

Again it's important, I think, to get back to the voices: We have CEGEPs here today, big universities, colleges, new researchers, experienced researchers—all those important aspects of it.

[Dr. Edward McCauley]

The big problems that we face are going to require input from the broad research ecosystem. We're a U15 university. In our jurisdiction, once again, we collaborate extensively with polytechnics. We help to support the research endeavours in our community through help with animal care, research policies, research security issues and things like that. We work with our colleagues across the research ecosystem to actually build up the capacity of that research ecosystem. That's what a research university can do in a community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

We now go to our five-minute round, and we kick that off with MP Tochor, please.

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

Dr. Singh, you are a legend for your energy and wisdom. Thank you so much for being here at committee. We have, roughly, a minute and a half for these questions for you. You mentioned that there are fragmented investments in place. Can you give an example of what opportunities might arise as a result of the creation of this coordination body?

[Dr. Baljit Singh]

Thank you very much. Did you say $5 billion?

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

Yes.

[Dr. Baljit Singh]

With regard to some of the opportunities, we will need to go back to what president McCauley was saying about going back to the consultative process to see what Canada's biggest needs are. If I take one example, one gap in our system is mobilizing our discoveries from the universities into the private sector for value-added creation of businesses and support of economic enterprise in our country.

How can we find better policies, frameworks and procedures to connect the universities with the small and medium-sized enterprises from small communities to larger cities? If we can plug those gaps between our innovation ecosystem, and between basic and applied research and commercialization, I think we will make so many gains within our system that it will pay for the investment that we are making. That will be one of the major investments that I will think about.

Another piece—

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

I have another question, and I have only 30 seconds for the answer on this one. You mentioned the international opportunities that we are missing out on at the moment. Can you expand on just that portion, please, quickly?

[Dr. Baljit Singh]

Yes. Let's take the example of pandemic preparedness. It's not that COVID-19 is gone: another one might be coming soon. The global collaborative effort among vaccine and infectious disease organizations—for example, in Saskatoon, with the leading organizations at Oxford University or in Germany—will require that level of international collaboration and appropriately matched investments, which none of the existing councils are in a position to make. The development of a capstone organization will help us forge that level of collaboration to protect the health of Canadians and other citizens around the globe.

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

Thank you so much for that.

We've heard from many universities, and most universities—either researchers, presidents or experts—all want more money. They are all starving. It's not just the 2 million Canadians who are starving and needing the food bank; it's universities that are starving for research. We're very supportive of not having a partisan approach to the picking of subject matters, but government is about choice, and it is a choice about what you invest in and where you invest.

All three associations and universities have a climate change department, and I have a list here of some the investments that Environment and Climate Change has made. I just can't think that governments pick winners and losers, and with regard to this list of things, I'd point out that if we are fortunate enough to form government, we're going to bring in a law that for every dollar of new spending—and perhaps that's on research—we have to find a dollar of savings.

I'm going to list off a couple of projects that Environment and Climate Change Canada has offered. Jump in at any time to say, "No, this is a project that should not go ahead", and we'd forego the reinvestment of those funds in facilities.

The first one we have is for Iron Ore Canada, and this one's $18,125,000. This is for the decarbonization of the iron steelmaking process for reducing fuel consumption and improving fuel efficiencies. This is a company that Rio Tinto owns 58% of. Their total asset cap is $103 billion, but the Canadian taxpayers paid $18 million to them. Once again, this is corporate welfare that Environment and Climate Change Canada has invested in, versus universities.

Another one is Glencore Canada Corporation, and it's$10 million for critical minerals and mining conversion to electricity. Once again, it's Environment and Climate Change. This is a company that had a $38 billion U.S. in equity in 2023, and we're giving them $10 million.

The next one is Copper Mountain Mine, for $3.2 million. It's the same idea; it is, once again, a for-profit organization that is getting funding that could be refocused for research at universities.

There's FCA Canada Inc., and that's $2.4 million. That's in Toronto. Once again, it's Environment and Climate Change Canada.

We have other ones. Etobicoke Casting Plant's carbon neutrality project, and that's $2.2 million, we—

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's your time.

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

Thank you so much.

You can send us written briefs. If there's anything that you think you could use those dollars better for on research, rather than this corporate welfare, please submit that in the brief and we'll make note of it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

We'll now turn to MP Longfield, for five minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to everybody who is here, and a shout-out to Dr. Bouchard—who will be here in the second round—for the work that you've all been doing around governance.

I think the honourable member across the way was pointing out the importance of peer review in research.

Last week we had a similar list, and one of the things was music therapy in bettering mental health and education. This morning I was with Parkinson Canada, and with researchers from across Canada and clinicians.

There is some great work in Alberta, Dr. McCauley.

There were some surprising recommendations from the panels this morning, where we're looking at Parkinson's treatment in Canada and really focusing on the physical aspects of Parkinson's. One of the areas that came up was music therapy for patients. One of the patients who was there said one of the best therapies he had was singing Kenny Rogers tunes. He got to choose the tunes and then that helped him with his voice, which was diminishing because of the symptoms of Parkinson's.

Another person said that we need to deal with Parkinson's in terms of a family of support—that it's not just the patient, but it's the care provider. They said that social services needs to be involved in research and that the therapists are supported by families who provide different social aspects.

We heard about the importance of interdisciplinary research, not just from the neurologists, but from the people who improve the quality of life for people who are dealing with Parkinson's—as a specific case.

Dr. McCauley, could you talk about the interdisciplinary approach and how some research, which may seem disconnected, could be brought together with an interdisciplinary approach?

[Dr. Edward McCauley]

Thank you.

We're very fortunate at the University of Calgary to have the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which is a major investment from our community in the university to advance research in neuroscience.

These diseases that you just mentioned are horrible. While we're unlocking the biological causes, in the neurosciences, of what produces these results, we have to look at many different alternatives to assuage the difficulties associated with it for both the individual patient and with the families.

The key piece is the evidence-based approach or the peer-reviewed approach of ideas that could help in that area. It's putting the ideas forward, testing them in situ—testing them in the hospitals and testing them with the families to move that forward—and then choosing the best outcomes.

While we figure out some of the root causes and while we figure out some of the better therapies, again, it's the multidisciplinary approach of bringing in these different pieces of the environment that the patient is in, like the track record of the individual's experience throughout their lifetime, what they've been exposed to and things like that. Those all require integration of information from social sciences, as well as familial relationships and so on.

Again, it's pulling that information together to come up with efficient therapies that are tested.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you very much.

It's exciting to think that we're on the cusp of being able to do that more efficiently, thanks to your work and the work that Dr. Singh has done.

We've had several conversations over the years in terms of veterinary medicine, looking at the range of colleges and universities across Canada that work together on veterinary medicine. Of course, the University of Guelph is part of those conversations, but so is Olds College in Alberta, and so is Prince Edward Island. Of course, Saskatchewan is there as well.

When we're looking at new approaches to plant and animal health, could you maybe expand a little bit on the importance of being able to tie into international peer review and for us to provide international peer review?

[Dr. Baljit Singh]

Thank you very much.

I have had the good fortune of studying at Guelph, working at the vet college in P.E.I. and being a dean of the college at the University of Calgary and then in Saskatchewan. These are stellar institutions spread across the country.

The example of the peer review process that we undertake in understanding animal health and its connections to plant health, environmental health or human health under the rubric of “one health”, is something that truly brings the multiple disciplines together. If we are going to peer review that level of complex science, then we also need international peer review panels.

The Canadian peer review system stacks up against the best around the globe, whether it's the Germans, the Brits or the Americans. We do participate in international peer reviewing bodies. We contribute Canadian scientists into international bodies and we invite scientists from other countries to work with us.

I will give the example of a collaborative program between the German science council and the Canadian NSERC to fund the training of the graduate students in very interdisciplinary areas. That's where the German and Canadian peer review systems work together to adjudicate on those grant projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I'm sorry. That's our time.

Thank you very much.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Chair, for giving a few extra seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

We will now 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.

Mr. Poirier, federal government published the Bouchard report, but Quebec also had its Bouchard report, whose authors are the eminent Guy Rocher and sociologist Jacques Bouchard. In that report, published in 2021, they recognized CEGEPs as key institutions that support Quebec and its objectives regarding access to education, regional development, technical training and adaptation to modern challenges.

That conclusion is very important. In your remarks, you mentioned some eloquent figures and pointed out the relevance of CEGEPs throughout Quebec. You said that the federal government allocates just over 2% of the budget to CEGEPs, colleges and polytechnics. If I give 2% of my budget to something, that means I don't give much to it.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about that. Would you go so far as to recommend that a minimum of 10% of the funding for higher education research be allocated to the college sector, mainly for the purpose of conducting applied research, and that this funding be sustainable and predictable?

I'd like to hear your opinion on the importance of that support.

[Sylvain Poirier]

Thank you for the question.

Not only are we calling for a significantly higher percentage to be allocated to applied research, but also for a good portion of applied research programs to be primarily assigned to and managed by the college sector. As we know, the latter can and will collaborate with universities. However, we are changing the paradigm by funding colleges, that is, instead of having a scientific thrust—according to a marketing term—we have market imperatives.

So we end up with needs that justify investment in research and call for investment in research. I'm talking about investment in research, because money invested in college research is money that pays off. In fact, numerous studies prove it.

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

Thank you.

Do you have a recommendation for the federal government to recognize the relevance of your organization? Once again, when the federal government gives you only 2% of the budget, I wonder where it puts you on the priority scale.

I understand what you're telling me. I also recognize the importance of your organization, but what message do you want to send to the government about recognizing the contribution you make to research and socio-economic development in all communities?

[Sylvain Poirier]

That kind of comes back to the question raised a little earlier about the lack of representation, which results in not being listened to and not being seen.

What we would like is to be seen as being among the bodies that distribute funding sources for research inside Canada. We would also like research being done in colleges to receive its due, without taking away what anyone else is due, so it can play a role in terms of applied research in SMEs.