Science and Research Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

[Dr. Nipun Vats]

Well, I think there are a few layers to that.

The first one is that it will have a governance board that will bring the perspectives of the research community, of industry and of civil society around providing strategic direction to the organization. It'll be informed by government directions, but there's a degree of independence in terms of how it funds research to make sure that—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Presumably most of that is already happening. The councils are governance boards.

[Dr. Nipun Vats]

It varies by council, but the way that the councils are structured now, the councils per se, in the case of NSERC and SSHRC—and my colleagues here can speak to this a bit more—play an important advisory function but don't have a true governance function for the organization. There's a bit of a shift in terms of the way an organization is governed with that strategic oversight.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Who is providing governance at this point?

[Dr. Nipun Vats]

The presidents are accountable to the minister for that. They draw on the expertise in the research community, but it's not formalized in the same way, except for the councils, which, again, are valuable. However, they serve more of a governance function with respect to CIHR. It's a little different.

The other thing I will say is this: The idea is that the CEO of the new organization would carry the voice of the Canadian research community. The way it works right now is very effective in certain kinds of—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Is that a dedicated...rather than the health minister? Is that what you're—

[Dr. Nipun Vats]

It wouldn't replace the political dialogue that can help pave the way for important collaborations. When you get down another level, what often happens, because we have such a rich research ecosystem, is this: If you go to an international meeting, you'll have 12 Canadians on one side and maybe two or three people on the other side. Again, we've organically developed this great research ecosystem. However, when you want to speak as a collective, it's a little harder to do. Part of what this would do is enable a single-window, coherent voice on those larger-scale research initiatives.

There would still be a role at the political level for paving the way for some of that. However, the idea is to bring more focus to those initiatives at the research level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you very much for that.

We'll now turn to MP Diab for six minutes.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon to the two witnesses.

I believe you're both of Nova Scotian descent. MP Mike Kelloway and I are also from Nova Scotia.

Welcome to the committee.

I am very proud that you're bilingual as well. Well done.

My first question is for Ms. Boudreau.

I understand that your background is in health, and your work relates predominantly to pharmacare, mental health and substance abuse policies, or a combination thereof.

Can you speak about the importance of maintaining or even enhancing the linkages between health research and Health Canada under the capstone, as it relates to those important issues?

[Michelle Boudreau]

Certainly, and thank you for the kind invitation.

I'm Acadian, and I'm very proud of Acadia. I come from an area in the Acadian riding of Richmond.

Absolutely. Maintaining that link with CIHR is critical for Health Canada. As you mentioned, I can tell you, from the areas I work in, that one of the first things we do, as policy-makers looking at initiatives, is think about what the research component is. Are there specific research elements we would want as part of the initiative? For example, in the national strategy for drugs for rare diseases, there's a strong component that has to do with research. We have CIHR leading that. In mental health and substance use, one of the things we have been putting forward is IYS, or integrated youth services, and its hubs. Again, there is a very strong link with CIHR and the work it has done through its network of networks.

It's almost instinctive for us at Health Canada. When we start to develop these strategic initiatives, we think about what the research component is and where CIHR can help us with that.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thanks for providing those examples. Sometimes I find using specific examples makes it easier for us to understand the linkages between all of that.

What would you say are the top considerations to make the capstone successful?

[Michelle Boudreau]

I would answer that question by playing back to you some of what's in the “What We Heard” report and what researchers themselves have told us. My colleague Nipun mentioned a few of them in his opening remarks. Certainly, independent research should be merit-based; there should still be room for investigator-led research; there should continue to be a focus on equity-deserving groups and health equity, and there should be the continued importance of indigenous health and indigenous issues. Look at addressing the disparities that exist.

Finally, here are a couple of things to close on that: Make sure the link between CIHR, the health portfolio, health partners and the Minister of Health remains critical, and ensure that some of what's currently in the CIHR Act remains in some of the governance. In other words, the successes CIHR has brought will continue to be critical as we move forward with the capstone.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Dr. Vats, you work with investments in post-secondary research, among other things. What impact do you see capstone having on that process? What would be the top considerations, in your opinion?

[Dr. Nipun Vats]

Well, I think the starting point is to say that you want to ensure that the basic research enterprise isn't compromised through the creation of capstone, because there's still a need for the ideas and talent that are developed through that kind of core research funding enterprise.

With respect to some of the activities of capstone, some of them may just be about better coordinating activities that are already under way within the councils and, I should say, beyond the councils. It's important to connect. We have a very broad research ecosystem. Can we pull that community together more effectively when we're talking about international or mission-oriented work?

I think there would also need to be—and this is something that would follow, so it wouldn't be a day one thing—more thinking about how you can better engage the consumers of research in how you define things like mission-oriented research: talking more actively with industry, for example, about how you can meet their needs in the research enterprise and talking more with community groups when it comes to issues that are research-related and are going to impact communities directly, and having that be the way that you shape the larger-scale initiatives that would come forward through the capstone. I think that's a really important part of constructing something that's going to have real impact.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Where are we now with developing the governance structure? Or is this part of what we're doing with some of these studies? I'm not clear on that.

[Dr. Nipun Vats]

The two ministers asked the presidents of the three councils to consult this summer. As part of that consultation, as you know, there was a kind of framework document that laid out the kinds of high-level parameters of what the organization would look like.

It talked about many of the things that I spoke to in my opening remarks, but it also is asking for that input. We talked about having a board. What should that board look like? We talked about having a CEO. What kinds of characteristics should that CEO have? This—

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

It's a work in progress.

[Dr. Nipun Vats]

It's a work in progress, and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's all the time we have.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

That's very helpful. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

Now we will turn to MP Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses with us today.

Dr. Vats, in October 2022, the federal government formed the advisory panel on the federal research support system. A few months later, in March 2023, a report was tabled. Among other things, it suggested that an umbrella research funding organization be established. A year and three months later, in June 2024, the government asked for public consultations.

Can you explain to us what happened between the tabling of the report in March 2023 and the public call to consult those in Canada's science ecosystem in June 2024?

[Dr. Nipun Vats]

Thank you for the question.

I'm not perfectly bilingual, so if I may, I will answer in English.

What I would say is that the Bouchard report identified the issues and also laid out a proposed structure for responding to that. There's a fair bit of work internally to determine how we could move forward with that.

There was informal consultation with a range of organizations and groups to better understand the implications. You'll note that the proposed structure that came out in the consultation document from ministers in 2023 was not exactly the same as what was put out by Monsieur Bouchard and his colleagues.

There's a bit of work to identify how to realize the objectives that were laid out by the Bouchard panel in a way that we felt would be more effective. The purpose of that next consultation is to provide more specificity on how the government would intend to respond, and then seek the feedback of the community. There are two elements of input. One is broad community input to an expert panel, and the next is the government proposing a model, then seeking their feedback and explaining why they didn't do exactly the same as what was recommended by the panel.

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

Thank you, Dr. Vats.

On June 17, 2024, you formally asked people in the science ecosystem to comment on the establishment of the new umbrella organization. You set a staggering deadline of 30 days for conducting these consultations.

On the one hand, your department took a year and three months to decide to request public consultations, and on the other, you gave people in the science ecosystem 30 days to comment on the matter.

Would you agree that establishing this umbrella research funding organization is one of the biggest changes in the organizational structure that you've seen in the five years you've been in this position?

[Dr. Nipun Vats]

Yes, it is a pretty significant change, and I agree it would have benefited from having a longer period of engagement. I don't think there's any question that we want to hear as many voices as possible. In the interim period between the Bouchard report and the request to the councils, there was a fair bit of dialogue at the ministerial level, with officials to try to understand the community's responses to Bouchard. Then, having put out a proposed model, it was a validation to say whether this model actually makes sense.

The time constraint.... I think we got almost 120 responses in that period of time, so it wasn't a small consultation.

I may also add that—