Science and Research Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ms. Watts-Rynard, you mentioned the report that your organization did on the economic impacts of applied research at Canada's polytechnics. You shared with us a number that I thought was quite interesting, and I'd like to highlight it again. You said that $1 invested in applied research generates a return on investment of $8 to $18 and that, to me, is tremendous, and people need to know about that.

I suspect that, when you measure return on investment, it's easier to measure and include economic impacts, because you need to quantify a dollar amount. Are there other impacts that perhaps are not measured, like social impacts, that would mean that there are other greater returns on investment to this research that cannot be quantified?

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

There are definitely impacts that can't be quantified. Part of our methodology was to think about everything that could be quantified and all of the social impacts that maybe couldn't be. Obviously, there are all kinds of different research going on. Social impact research is when you think about things like noise reduction or GHG emissions being reduced. When you start thinking about those things, they have an impact not just on the business whose project is under way but also on society. Those are some things that are very difficult to quantify, which is the reason for the range.

The economists who did this work for us said that's what brings them to feeling as though that upper boundary makes a lot more sense—when you start thinking about all of the social impacts of research that are very difficult, to your point, to quantify in dollar terms.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you.

You also spoke today about adopting new technologies for SMEs. My riding of Scarborough North is incredibly diverse. We have a population with over 70% of people born outside of the country. Canada, as we all know, is a country that is built on immigration. People come here with hopes and dreams of having a better life and creating economic opportunities for future generations.

Small businesses are the bedrock of Canada's economy, and in diverse communities there might be a language barrier or lack of understanding of how things are done in Canada. You talked about some of the great successes that can occur when there is collaboration in applied research where your partners are SMEs, and you are able to measure how the work that is being done in applied research can translate to innovation, technology and adoption by small and medium-sized businesses.

Is there a role to play in being able to reach out to more diverse communities? How can polytechnics be supported in doing that so that we can uplift all communities and make sure that the economy is inclusive and works for everybody?

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

This is a good question.

The current funding allows for a fairly narrow focus. A company has to come and say this is their challenge, this is their problem, and they'd like to adopt this new technology. That's the work that's being done. I think, if we were valuing that to the extent that it should be valued in the Canadian economy, we would spend more time talking to the researchers, the students and the institutions. Dr. Sheane brought up the technology access centres. She said to please go out and diffuse the knowledge that you have found in these projects.

It's not a matter of sharing the IP. It's a matter of what we learned about the adoption of this technology in your business and who else in the community would benefit from that. Realistically, the funding is much more directed than that and in very small amounts, which means that the focus is on the business that knocks on the door. I'm worried about the businesses that don't come knocking at the door and don't realize that this support is available to them. I think that's a huge missed opportunity for Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

MP Blanchette-Joncas, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Agbobli, earlier you talked about an imbalance in the distribution of research funds. Specifically, you said that 80% of research funding is concentrated in Canada's 15 largest universities. They are mainly anglophone, and that affects the creation and dissemination of knowledge in French.

Since you represent the largest francophone university network in Canada, you are in a good position to talk about this subject.

I would like us to shine a light on the words of the federal government and the facts.

I refer you to the official press release the federal government issued about the formation of the new advisory panel on the creation and dissemination of scientific information in French.

The first sentence of the press release reads, “Canadians value French and scientific research”.

The second sentence reads, “We also value our post-secondary education system and research in French in Canada”.

Over the past 20 years, Quebec's university network has shown that Franco-Quebec universities are underfunded and that there has been a decline in funding for the educational institutions you represent in terms of the weight of their faculty.

Given these data and facts, do you think the federal government is really prioritizing the post-secondary education system and research in French in Canada?

[Christian Agbobli]

I thank the member for the question, Madam Chair.

The Université du Québec network is the largest university network in the country, in French or in another language—English, in this case. In that context, for this network to play a major role, it is important to restore a balance and provide more support for research funding in French.

Consequently, we believe that, to remedy this imbalance in research funding, we must ensure that our voice is heard. Restoring a balance must necessarily be done through permanent consultation mechanisms that take into account the entire Canadian university system, and particularly the Université du Québec network. Our network is a force in the regions and cities, and it conducts relevant research in specialized fields.

I'll give you some examples.

Wildfire prevention is the first example. Canada recently experienced wildfires, and they will be getting worse. Research in this area is conducted within the Université du Québec network, and it is funded by the granting councils.

There's also the issue of flooding. We have an interuniversity research network, the Réseau d'informations scientifiques du Québec, or RISQ, which contributes to a better understanding of flooding.

Research should be done in French, and it should be funded on a larger scale when it comes to these issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you so much.

Our final questioner of this round and this panel will be MP Blaney, for two and a half minutes.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to ask Ms. Watts-Rynard a question.

You wrote, “Industry engagement in research collaborations should be an important goal of the new capstone research organization, driving input from those positioned to inform the problem statement and implement solutions.”

I'm just wondering if you could share with us what role you see industry playing in the management of the capstone and other sectors of society—things like labour, youth and indigenous communities.

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

In order to undertake any kind of interdisciplinary research and have a fulsome opportunity to address those things, you need to have the diversity of people at the table. It does concern me that, possibly, the capstone would be run by the people who are currently running the tri-council and would not have that breadth of input. That will require youth and labour and industry to be at the table.

I would almost recommend there be limited researchers at that table and instead focus on the big challenges we're faced with, define what those challenges are and then turn that over, whether it's to the management of a capstone research funding organization or the tri-council members, and ask, “What can we put together that will help address that?”

It's almost like we have to get researchers out of how to make this new thing give us more money to fund the work we're already doing. I'm not suggesting we get rid of the tri-council; I'm suggesting that a new organization needs to come to the table with some innovative approaches and a new way of thinking about what research is for in the country.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you for that.

I represent a region that's served by North Island College, and I know that they are extremely innovative and very responsive to community development, economic development, businesses and indigenous communities as they take steps forward. That innovation to work with them is really what makes them so useful. When we look at this format, what do you think they need to understand to make decisions that are more connected to what's happening on the ground in communities?

[Sarah Watts-Rynard]

The ambition of the capstone has been about solving big challenges. It's been about interdisciplinary research, and it's mission driven. The difficulty is that, if we're going to take advice from the same people who would like to see more money for the disciplinary research of the type undertaken by the tri-council, this will not be new, and it will not be different. It will be the same thing under a different name. I think that's a missed opportunity.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you to our witnesses, Dr. Sheane, Sarah Watts-Rynard and Christian Agbobli, for your testimonies and participation in the committee study.

If you have any questions, you can direct them to the clerk. You may also submit additional information through the clerk.

We're going to suspend briefly now to allow the first panel to leave, and we'll resume with the second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Welcome back.

It's now my pleasure to welcome from Acfas, the Association francophone pour le savoir, Martin Maltais, president, by video conference, and Sophie Montreuil, executive director, also by video conference.

Here in the room with us, we have the Canadian Brain Research Strategy and Dr. Jennie Young, executive director. From the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, we have Karine Morin, president and chief executive officer.

Mr. Maltais and Ms. Montreuil, I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

[Martin Maltais, President, Acfas – Association francophone pour le savoir]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am the president of the Association francophone pour le savoir, or Acfas, and a professor of education funding and policy at the Université du Québec à Rimouski. I am accompanied by the Acfas executive director, Sophie Montreuil.

For over 100 years, Acfas has made an exceptional contribution to scientific life in French. Acfas has six regional offices spread across Canada. We work every day to promote our country's prosperity and influence.

As shown in the report we published in June 2021 called portraits and challenges of research in French in a minority context in Canada, research in French is in clear decline in the Canadian scientific community. That decline continues to this day. In a country based on the biculturalism of our two official languages, it is unacceptable that federal authorities are not paying very close attention to that decline, as it is largely based on unfair conditions for francophone researchers when it comes to access to research funding provided by the Government of Canada.

The report released on October 17 on the consultations conducted last summer certainly doesn't reassure us about the seriousness with which the creation of the new capstone organization will embrace the issue of science in French. Out of a total of 10,034 words, only 180 are devoted to scientific research in French, or 1.8% of all the findings made by the three granting councils. However, those 180 words do a good job of summarizing the challenges and harms facing the French-language research community in Canada.

The time has now come to put in place measures that will correct injustices and result in substantive equality, even if the merger of the three councils takes place in a context of astonishing and disconcerting speed. For Acfas, this speed cannot in any way be cited at a later date as an excuse to make up for the lack of measures to support scientific research in French, as the Government of Canada cannot claim that it does not know how to remedy the situation of the decline or that it is not responsible for it following the adoption of the new Official Languages Act. The bodies that will lead to the creation of the capstone organization have everything they need to usher in a new era of public research funding, which will make it possible to achieve substantive equality between the francophone and anglophone scientific communities.

Allow me to quote a news release issued by Canadian Heritage on October 22, 10 days after the publication of the report entitled “What We Heard”: “... the Government of Canada is committed to improving conditions for the production and dissemination of scientific research in French in Canada.”

The news release announced the creation of an external advisory panel on the creation and dissemination of scientific information in French. You can see where I'm going with this: It's imperative that there be strong alignment between the bodies that will create the capstone organization and the members of the advisory panel. However, the agendas don't coincide, as the advisory panel is just beginning its work. Here again, Acfas is in a position of extreme vigilance. There is no way the government will consider failing to acknowledge the need to include strong measures to support research in French in the creation of the capstone organization because the agendas don't coincide. That would be absolutely unacceptable.

In fact, the situation is much simpler than it seems, and that is the crux of our remarks today. The new Official Languages Act, which came into force last June, puts forward a fresh and informed look at bilingualism in our country, recognizing for the first time that French “is in a minority situation in Canada and North America due to the predominant use of English”. The new act also requires, in part VII, all federal departments and agencies to put measures in place to “support the creation and dissemination of information in French that contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge in any discipline”. Therefore, the context for creating the capstone organization is clear: It cannot be done without these measures.

There is some positive stuff. The consultations that need to be held, when it comes to positive measures, have already been held. For the past two years, the Government of Canada itself has done work to document the challenges of research in French and the needs of the community conducting that research. I repeat, it has everything it needs to fulfill its obligations under the new act.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you very much for your opening statement.

We will now turn to Dr. Young.

You have the floor for up to five minutes.

[Dr. Jennie Young, Executive Director, Canadian Brain Research Strategy]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

I'm genuinely grateful to address this committee today. I recognize the level of dedication that each of you brings to this work. The effort you're investing here to ensure that Canada's research dollars have the greatest possible impact mirrors what we in the research community strive for.

I'm here today as the executive director of the Canadian Brain Research Strategy, CBRS. CBRS is a pan-Canadian coalition representing 40 neuroscience and mental health research programs along with clinicians, patient partners, indigenous partners, health charities, research funders and industry partners. Together we're united by a common goal: advancing brain health for Canadians through collaborative and impactful research.

Investing in brain research is essential for Canada. One in five Canadians lives with a brain condition, whether it's dementia, mental illness, brain injury or addiction. Every one of us knows someone who's impacted by one of these conditions, and we all have brains that we want to keep functioning at their best.

We know that the impact of brain health goes far beyond the individual. Brain conditions affect our health care system, economy, workforce productivity and social structures, and this impact will only intensify as our population ages. Addressing these complex issues requires sustained research investment like that announced in budget 2024 and a coordinated national approach.

It's truly an exciting time with the historic investments in science and research that were announced in budget 2024. Now, as we work to catch up with our G7 peers, it's essential that we think about how to invest more strategically and build together toward a more cohesive research ecosystem.

One of the capstone's foundational aims is to support multidisciplinary research, which is essential as the scientific landscape evolves and challenges grow more complex. This focus is especially crucial in a frontier field like brain and mental health research, where its intersection with artificial intelligence puts it somewhere between CIHR and NSERC. Add in the importance of psychology and other social sciences, and it means that brain research often falls outside the mandates of our existing funding agencies. This challenge illustrates why we need an overarching organization like the capstone to bridge gaps and ensure that no field, particularly complex ones like brain research, is left without sufficient support.

Our proposed national brain research strategy offers a model for how we might think about the benefits of the capstone. We've established a framework that enables collaboration among diverse academic disciplines and crucially connects basic research, clinical applications and pathways to commercialization. By leveraging the capstone's potential, we can ensure that research discoveries are effectively translated into practical solutions and improved health and economic outcomes for Canadians.

These types of frameworks thrive when they are mission driven yet still expert informed, a balance that is essential if we are to achieve the capstone's vision of a strategically unified and impactful research ecosystem.

Research priorities and funding decisions are most effective when grounded in the specialized knowledge that experts bring to their fields. Our own proposed national strategy at CBRS was developed with this principle in mind, representing neuroscience and mental health research programs big and small across the country but also recognizing the expertise that patients and patient organizations, indigenous knowledge holders, funding organizations, health charities and industry bring.

This expert-based foundation not only strengthens the quality and relevance of our work but also aligns our projects with the real-world needs of Canadians. As we move forward, it's vital that the capstone's decision-making is guided by experts, even as we work toward larger, mission-driven goals.

In closing, I want to emphasize the great potential that the capstone holds to reshape Canada's research environment into one that is more collaborative, inclusive and strategically aligned. By bridging existing gaps and supporting multidisciplinary research, the capstone can amplify the strengths we already have within Canada's scientific community. With expert-driven guidance, we can ensure that the national strategy is responsive to the most pressing challenges facing our society.

As we work to modernize research funding structures to keep pace with the evolving demands of research itself, ongoing opportunities for collaboration and conversation like those provided by this committee are essential. The capstone initiative is a step towards building the efficient, cohesive support structures our researchers need, and it will require everyone—all of us—working together for this vision to succeed.

Thank you again for this opportunity to contribute to this national conversation. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you, Dr. Young.

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

[Karine Morin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences]

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

My name is Karine Morin and, since last June, I have been president and chief executive officer of the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences. We truly appreciate the study this committee has undertaken on the proposed new capstone research funding organization, and we thank you for the invitation to appear before you.

The Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences is the national voice for disciplines dedicated to the advancement of an inclusive, democratic and prosperous society. Our membership includes 76 post-secondary institutions and 80 scholarly associations together representing a diverse community of more than 90,000 researchers and graduate students across the country. The federation mobilizes new knowledge by supporting researchers across disciplines to inform and inspire policy and action in community and institutions, and across society.

The federation fully supports bringing strategic focus and coordination to Canada's research system, while preserving those features that have led to Canada's strong record of research excellence. The new capstone organization must build upon the foundational strength of the federal granting councils, respecting the current structure and funding levels that support the advancement of investigator-driven research and talent development in the humanities and social sciences.

The federation has three recommendations to achieve that.

First, to ensure the sustainability of federal investments and support for the humanities and social sciences, the new capstone organization, through its mission-oriented research, must recognize that many of the challenges we face are human-centred. Therefore, to contribute to concrete solutions, it is essential that a significant proportion of research be conducted by researchers in the social sciences and humanities.

Second, the capstone organization must integrate support for indigenous research and equity, diversity, inclusion and decolonization.

Third, the capstone organization's governance must be inclusive and build on the strengths of all disciplines.

Let me offer a few more details about each of these three points.

First, the capstone's definitions of mission-driven research, innovation and impact must be inclusive of all disciplines and account for the inherent differences between natural sciences, engineering, health sciences, social sciences and humanities. Addressing diverse challenges facing our democracy, our prosperity, our environment and our humanity demands insights across all fields. It will be critical that new funding opportunities be conceived not only as scientific and technological solutions but also as human-centred ones that fully consider ethical, environmental, legal and social considerations alongside economic ones.

Second, support for indigenous research and for broader principles of equity, diversity, inclusion and decolonization must be embedded within the capstone. Continuous consultation and partnerships with first nations, Inuit and Métis scholars and their communities are vital. We strongly recommend that the capstone build upon the important progress made by the federal granting councils on advancing indigenous research, increasing equitable access to funding opportunities, promoting inclusive excellence and providing necessary guidance and support to institutions in all of these aspects, including through the dimensions program.

Finally, it's critical that the governance of the capstone be diverse, with representatives from across different sectors and disciplines reflective of Canada's own diversity. The granting councils remain best positioned to address the distinct disciplinary needs and strengths of Canada's research communities, and the capstone must build upon these foundations.

In conclusion, integrating the perspectives of the humanities and social sciences will be essential to the success of the capstone organization and will enable it to direct research and its funding in a way that improves the daily lives of Canadians.

We look forward to continued dialogue with the federal government as the capstone organization continues to evolve.

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you for those opening statements.

We'll now open the floor for questions.

We'll start the six-minute round with MP Kitchen.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being here today. It's greatly appreciated. With the witnesses that we had prior, it's so great to continually learn and see so many different aspects.

Ms. Morin, your comment is great because you talked about what I would describe as many disciplines and what we need to have. A lot of times, when we talk about research, I think the average Canadian would think that it's just health sciences or it's natural sciences, whereas we need to also incorporate humanities and social sciences as part of that. Often, that gets broken down.

When we have witnesses coming here, everyone has their own priority. That's what's important to them because that's their area of expertise.

The Canadian Brain Research Strategy is actually very important to me because as a 16-year-old, I was the victim of a hit and run by a drunk driver. I had brain matter draining out of my left ear. I've had a lot of issues that I've had to deal with from the brain, so I would like to see a lot of the research going to that avenue. That's a personal issue of mine.

Those are important things as we move forward.

Ultimately, we have universities, colleges, organizations and businesses. The capstone is going to be an organization that's going to be a bureaucracy. It's not going to be money for brain research, such that they can study more issues of dealing with CTE or whatever the issue may be. They're not going to get that extra money. The money is going to be creating a bureaucracy.

How do we take that money and, instead of creating a bureaucracy, get the tri-council to do the job, doing that appropriate accountability and accreditation and making sure that they're doing what they should be doing?

[Karine Morin]

Thank you for your appreciation that there are many different research priorities. It really is difficult to pick what is the top or even the many important priorities.

What we understand of the capstone, in fact beyond what the current granting councils do on a disciplinary front, is to bring about that mission-driven research that addresses greater complexity than might be addressed in an otherwise discipline-focused research project.

These missions to be defined—and this is where we emphasize that it's important that we not just think of scientific, technological, moon shot missions, but that we look at the complexity of problems that we're facing—are often not to be addressed exclusively or even primarily by scientific or technological solutions.

I like to give the example of the pandemic and how within the first year, there was a vaccine. Those biomedical scientists did their job remarkably fast and effectively. The pandemic persisted. There was more to it than a scientific, technological solution. The whole complexity of deployment within our health care systems, across different populations and across the different provinces—there was much more to the pandemic across the world than that vaccine.

The example would also come from climate science. Our climate scientists have told us the challenges. What needs to happen now is many more changes, from behavioural perspectives—individuals, communities, municipalities—and the different scales. That is where social sciences can come in—

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I have such short time.

I appreciate your comments. You talked about COVID. What our researchers and virologists did was tremendous, in coming up with the vaccines. Fantastic. We continue to see that we need to keep doing that.

The problem with that is government didn't do the job it was supposed to do. The Public Health Agency of Canada wasn't proactive; it was reactive. The whole purpose of PHAC was to be proactive, but that's another debate.

Dr. Young, you put out a presentation earlier that I received on the capstone consultation submission that you made. I really do appreciate it. There are a couple of points in here that I think are interesting. In point two, you talked about the autonomy of granting councils. You said, “Each council should retain autonomy to cultivate a diverse and adaptable research portfolio.”

Can you expand upon that? What I'm hearing there is that each member of the tri-council should be doing its job, which is looking on the avenue of where we provide the research funding.

[Dr. Jennie Young]

I think to determine the specific areas of research funding, again...it's really from the peers. It's not just the leader of that specific council. Peer review and having that scientific advisory body are really important.

What I was really trying to emphasize there is that we do need each of those granting councils to do their specialized work in those fields, as my colleague Karine just mentioned. What we need, though, is to bring those efforts together and that requires coordination. I think for too long we've been just expecting it to happen naturally. Scientists are not trained to do that. There's no support to actually enable that to happen. That's what we're hoping the capstone will do.