Science and Research Committee on Nov. 5th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I call the meeting to order. We're already starting late, and I know we don't want to be any later than necessary.

Welcome to meeting number 107 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

I'd like to remind all members of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom—though I don't believe we have anyone on Zoom today. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. Thank you, all, for your co-operation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 17, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of the mission, mandate, role, structure and financing of the new capstone research funding organization announced in budget 2024.

It is now my pleasure to welcome Dr. Amy Parent, co-chair, indigenous leadership circle in research, and Dr. Mona Nemer, chief science adviser of Canada.

You'll be given up to five minutes for opening remarks, after which we'll proceed with rounds of questions.

Dr. Parent, I invite you to make your opening statement of up to five minutes.

[Dr. Amy Parent, Co-Chair, Indigenous Leadership Circle in Research]

I'm going to apologize in advance. I'll be five minutes and 34 seconds.

[Witness spoke in Nisga'a]

[English]

I will begin by acknowledging and showing my deep appreciation to the unceded and unsurrendered lands of the Anishinabe Algonquin peoples.

My Nisga'a name is Sigidimnak Noxs Ts’aawit. I carry matriarchal responsibilities to the Nisga'a Nation. I'm here in my role as co-chair of the indigenous research leadership circle with the tri-agencies. In my spare time, I'm also a Canada research chair in indigenous education and governance, tier two, at Simon Fraser University.

Before I begin, I'd like to take a moment to honour the passing of Chief Justice Murray Sinclair, who undertook such respected leadership to advance reconciliation priorities here in Canada. It is in this spirit that I invite you to continue advancing reconciliation by helping to ensure that self-determination for indigenous research and our research governance is meaningfully respected and strengthened in Canada.

I'd like to briefly explain a little bit about the role of the indigenous leadership circle in research.

I will talk a little bit about the role of the indigenous research leadership circle and our responsibilities. Our circle members include first nations, Métis and Inuit leaders who come from diverse indigenous-led research backgrounds. I'm very grateful for their collective guidance and wisdom, which has configured into my statement with you today.

We are responsible for guiding the implementation of the tri-agency indigenous research strategic plan, SIRC, which goes from 2022 to 2026. Ultimately, we provide deep guidance and leadership by advising on matters that may impact the agencies' support for indigenous research, training and leadership related to the implementation of the SIRC plan. Ultimately, we communicate directly to the tri-agency presidents as well as the indigenous strategy team and the multiple committees that come to us in terms of our monitoring of this plan.

The plan itself is quite broad. It has four priorities—building relationships with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples; priorities for indigenous peoples in research; creating greater funding accessibility; and championing indigenous leadership self-determination and capacity building in research.

I'll briefly highlight some of our concerns related to the capstone development and the Bouchard report, but I also look forward to your questioning.

Our first concern relates to insufficient indigenous engagement. The circle had minimal input on the capstone development. Of deep concern is that the Bouchard report lacked genuine indigenous representation on its advisory panel. It therefore poses significant legal challenges due to insufficient alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as the SIRC plan.

Another concern is related to indigenous representation in the capstone governance structure. We see a single indigenous board member in the proposed capstone's governance as being inadequate to address what we would consider an increasingly complex and distinctions-based research landscape.

Within the report itself, we also saw significant epistemic bias. The Bouchard report has a very narrow and epistemic focus on the broad ecosystem of science, and has completely negated the holistic and transdisciplinary nature of indigenous knowledge systems.

We also saw a misalignment of priorities. The capstone's focus on mission-driven and international research misaligns with many of our local, national and international indigenous priorities and mandates, including Canada's SIRC plan.

Our final concern relates to budget sustainability. There is no clarity on how funding priorities for indigenous research will be governed by indigenous peoples, nations and organizations across this country.

We have four broad recommendations. I'd be happy to go into more detail on those.

Our first recommendation is to increase indigenous research funding and indigenous oversight. Current funding levels need to be maintained and extended to support indigenous-led research and governance needs. This includes integration with the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support indigenous infrastructure needs.

We also highly recommend further consultation on indigenous research needs and the development of an indigenous research agency. This should follow a distinctions-based approach and involve partnership with meaningful and robust consultation with indigenous rights holders.

We also recommend continuity of the existing tri-agency indigenous bodies, including the circle itself as well as the SIRC indigenous advisory circle, and adherence to UNDRIP while contemplating extending and really embracing the SIRC plan beyond 2026.

Our final recommendation relates to the appointment of distinctions-based indigenous representation on the advisory council on science and innovation to support the implementation of the national science and innovation strategy.

I'm very grateful to be sitting beside Dr. Nemer here, as well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you so much.

Dr. Nemer, the floor is now yours for an opening statement of up to five minutes.

[Dr. Mona Nemer, Chief Science Advisor of Canada, Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and distinguished members of the Standing Committee on Science and Research.

Thank you for inviting me to discuss the capstone organization project. It's always a pleasure to support the important work you do.

Let me start by saying that I welcome the modernization of our research funding ecosystem.

Two independent reports in the past seven years—the Naylor report in 2017 and the Bouchard report in 2023—have identified similar ongoing challenges and proposed convergent solutions.

One must therefore acknowledge that for the research enterprise in Canada to continue to prosper and benefit Canadians, business as usual is not an advisable option. Indeed, a lot has changed in past decades in terms of the research questions we need to tackle, the way we carry out research, the tools we use and the collaborators we choose. In spite of much effort, maximizing the benefits of research to society remains an area in need of attention in Canada.

It is therefore timely to examine how our federal funding mechanisms are fit to support research and development in the 21st century. Since my last appearance before this committee, my office has continued to promote science and provide advice to government on important issues affecting the lives of Canadians.

In so doing, we have come to appreciate the many strengths of our present research funding system but have also recognized persistent gaps, particularly when it comes to tackling complex challenges that require multidisciplinary, multi-sector and often international collaborations.

For example, our recently released report on the use of science in emergency management illustrates the vital need for research coordination, both in peacetime and during national emergencies. Preparing for and responding to domestic threats requires a focused and integrated approach to discovery, evidence generation and analysis.

It also requires built-in knowledge translation mechanisms to ensure that research is co-designed for the intended needs and that results inform communities, policy-makers and inventors alike.

The efforts of successive Canadian governments to support basic and applied research are laudable, but the disconnect between research and innovation programs has limited our ability to valorize, develop and commercialize research outputs for socio-economic benefits and gains in Canada.

The capstone organization must, therefore, maintain disciplinary excellence and ensure that fundamental research and talent development continue to thrive in all fields and disciplines. At the same time, it must address existing gaps, especially with respect to intellectual property protection and the support of the early critical stages of innovation.

In other words, it must facilitate the implementation of a research and innovation strategy for Canada and strengthen Canada's position on the world stage by clearly signalling our commitment to a strong and coherent research and innovation regime. To achieve this strategy, the umbrella organization must work collaboratively with other stakeholders to fund and build a world-class, inclusive research, knowledge and innovation system that benefits Canadians.

Its governance and workings must reflect international best practices, including inclusive representation of a broad range of stakeholders such as researchers and research institutions but also end-users, like employers and actors in the innovation ecosystem.

The organization must maintain the agility to responsibly embrace needs and challenges. Its workings must be grounded in evidence and excellence, which includes appropriate peer review, the selection of relevant criteria for the adjudication of funds and the evaluation of program performance in line with objectives.

My office would be happy to work with such an organization.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Go ahead on a point of order.

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

Chair and Clerk, I was wondering if you have any news on the ministers who are avoiding this committee.

We are waiting to hear back from Mark Holland, the Minister of Health, and Mr. Champagne, Minister of Innovation, as well as the heads of the tri-councils. It's been another week that they've been avoiding this committee. I was wondering if we have any news on those dates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I don't believe we're expecting them to appear today, so I think it's kind of unfair to say that they're avoiding the committee.

They have been reached out to in writing and we're waiting to hear. That's the update.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you both for your opening remarks.

I'll now open the floor to members for questions. Please be sure to indicate to whom your questions are directed.

We'll start that off with MP Tochor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

Dr. Nemer, the office of the chief science adviser was created in 2017. You have held that role throughout its whole existence.

In 60 seconds, can you kind of regroup what the top achievements of this role are that you would say have truly made the most enduring and positive impact on Canada? You could give a couple of examples, maybe.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Thank you so much.

Since we created the office, we have endeavoured to enhance the quality and the integrity of the science and the science infrastructure in the country. We now have a science integrity policy across all government departments. We have provided a road map for open science. We actually inaugurated last January a repository, so that everybody from the public can see how the funds are used in terms of research by government.

We provided a lot of advice during the COVID pandemic. We've provided a number of reports that are online.

I guess the list can go on. Suffice it to say that we've fulfilled all the mandates that were given to us in terms of advice to government and enhancing the advisory system by having science advisers in several departments. We've managed to connect with the international community as well.

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

What are the new objectives or goals for your organization now that this is done?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

The organization is here to support and to provide advice on requests and to also have some foresight so that we're ready when governments ask us for advice on certain issues.

Right now, we're working on a number of complex issues for biodiversity science and technologies.

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

That'll be exciting. I know there will be future committees that will go through some of those goals and what you've accomplished. Thank you for answering that.

I'll switch gears a little bit to the goings-on in Ottawa.

In June, you received a letter that was to the presidents of the federal research granting councils from the ministries of health and innovation, calling for development of the capstone. The tri-councils were asked to work with and confer with you in your capacity as chief science adviser.

How many meetings have you had with the heads of the tri-councils since that letter was sent out?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

This would be since June. I'm a member of the Canada research coordinating committee, which has those—

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

Have you had specific meetings with them on the capstone?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

On the capstone, they have conferred with me twice. They showed me what they had developed in terms of their consultation strategy, and I provided comments on it.

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

Okay.

In terms of the need for the capstone, you support the capstone. Is that right?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Yes.

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

Could you provide some examples of issues or failures in the present tri-council funding model that make the capstone necessary?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

As I said, if we're looking at the funding of disciplinary science, the granting councils have certainly done a good job. We can always have improvements.

I think the challenges have been when we try to.... I know people sometimes don't like the term “mission focused”. You can call it “challenge” as well. We have examples during the pandemic, for example.

I can give you a couple of examples and areas where I feel that the system has not been as supportive. Agriculture is one of them. Agriculture requires natural sciences, social sciences and health sciences. It falls between the cracks. Biomanufacturing—

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

Would the capstone stop that, in your view?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

The capstone should be addressing gaps, which means that it should be addressing these areas that are at the nexus of these different specific disciplines.

There's the life sciences and biomanufacturing strategy. We all realized how this was a national security issue during the pandemic. To have a specific focus on biomanufacturing, we had to...because it doesn't fall on one granting council only. We had to work with all the granting councils, the departments, etc. We had to have four layers to make sure that we stayed on focus.

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

Who do you think would be a good pick for the capstone chairperson or the president of the capstone? Who do you think that should be? Who would be on a short list for you?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

It would be competence-based. I think it has to be someone with research credentials, for sure, but also with past leadership accomplishments. This is going to be a big job, and I'm sure that there are many qualified applicants in the country.