Evidence of meeting #110 for Science and Research in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was capstone.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I'll continue with you, Mr. Hewitt.
We know that a lot more French research is happening in the social sciences and humanities.
How do you think the new capstone research funding organization could benefit and promote the development and spread of science in French?
President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
That is a very significant challenge. We will be actively participating in the new research funding organization's efforts to promote French research, using the same methods currently being used.
We are waiting for the organization to be created and established. After that, we will contribute to that effort.
Liberal
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Thank you.
Thank you, again, for being here today.
I think I'll start with Dr. Adem.
It's well known that Canada invests less in research and development than almost any G7 country, I think, except Italy, in terms of a percentage of GDP. However, we produce, I would say, great science out of that. You could say that our scientists are very efficient, if you want to put it that way.
I'm just wondering how the capstone is going to help this. Will there be an uplift of funding for the sort of coordinating projects that the capstone does, or will it simply allow us to do better science?
I mean, you seem to be a fan of this. I'm still unclear in my mind as to exactly how the capstone will help the coordination role and the collaboration among scientists that we really need in many cases. I could give examples, but you know them all.
Help me out here. How will this increase our impact in the scientific world?
President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
Thank you for that question.
Indeed, Canada really punches above its weight. I like to say that it's not about the money you have, but what you do with it.
The point here is that science is a very dynamic enterprise. We have to modernize and keep up with the most modern trends, because there's a lot of competition out there. There are a lot of models and ways of doing science that we have to keep up with and that will benefit our researchers. I'll give you an example. “One health” is quoted a lot. To deal with health threats, you don't only look at humans. You have to look at animals, too. That is something that goes between CIHR and NSERC, yet, in the NSERC Act, researchers are not allowed to work on medical issues. There are legacies of things that fall between the cracks.
The idea is to take the deep expertise from these disciplines and assemble them on teams to work on missions. That does not necessarily mean there have to be huge new investments. We can take funds that exist, like the new frontiers in research fund, which is, I think, a prototype of this interdisciplinary tri-council work. We also have some very interesting tri-council programs that are already quite interdisciplinary. Repurpose them for a modern view of science for the 21st century. This would be in consultation with the community—I want to stress that. We don't want the know-it-alls in Ottawa, as I call them, telling the community what programs they should be running. We have to consult with industry. What does industry want to see in our ecosystem? Where are the deliverables? What kinds of international partnerships do we want to have? Increasingly, research security is a very important, key factor in everything we do, so we want to be working with like-minded partners.
I see great potential to really burst out on these interdisciplinary, mission-driven projects that are being contemplated.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
I heard you say a few minutes ago—maybe you were talking about NSERC specifically, but it may have been the capstone as well—that you don't want to be the policy. You don't want to shape policy. You are the deliverers of policy. You have the basic research that should be and, hopefully, will be done by researchers, who are doing it from a purely curiosity-based approach.
I keep coming back to missions, because people talk about the mission-driven approach.
Who is deciding what missions they are? Is it the researchers themselves who band together to undertake a mission, or is it the government telling them what to do? Is it the new advisory council that is doing this?
President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
I think the logical model is this: The new advisory council would set a strategic plan, then flesh it out in particular missions relevant to the strengths Canada has and the different deliverables. Of course, you have these things along the way that you want to do, and those other things that you want to do.
You also have talent streams that feed into that. I want to mention the big investment in talent that was done with budget 2024—increasing stipends and grants to support students. This is very important.
Put all of that picture together. Then, I think, you can unleash the real potential of all these researchers across areas. Now, if you have a mission, you'll have universities, colleges, CEGEPs and industry working on it, so it has a way of levelling the playing field. We're getting the best from all the constituent parts of the ecosystem to face the challenges Canada has.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
If the advisory council says, “This is one of our missions,” do you envision funding streams coming from the government so you can deliver it? How do you deliver that mission? Do you just get extra points when you're applying for a grant, if you check off the mission box?
President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
There are different missions. There are some, for example, into which two councils could try to put some money to address them. If it's a very large mission, such as a very important international mission, I think we would make use of some of the tri-council funds after they've been appropriately deployed.
Of course, we do not decide on funding. That is decided by you. We're here to deliver. I think we understand that concept. It's part of what modern science has to do. Modern science has to be accountable, and it needs to have an impact. That goes all the way from blue-sky research to commercialization.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Valerie Bradford
Thank you very much.
For our second round, we have MP Kitchen for five minutes.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank all of you for being here. It's greatly appreciated. With four groups, it will be very hard to get all the questions in, so I'll try to do something fairly quickly here. Hopefully, the first couple of questions will need yes-or-no answers.
Correct me if I'm wrong on the role that each of your organizations has to allocate funding. The selection of funding should be based on individual merits of scholars applying for the research, and also greatly on, basically, the quality of the proposed research.
Is that correct, Dr. Hewitt?
President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Yes. That is correct.
President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
In addition, the training piece, which you call HQP, is the third factor that comes into the evaluation.
Conservative
Vice-President of Business and Professional Services, National Research Council of Canada
No. The National Research Council does not fund the students. We fund research. We engage and hire students to work with us or work with collaborations. Ours is slightly different.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you.
Next, each of your organizations is to promote collaborative, urgent, international and interdisciplinary research—yes or no?
Dr. Hewitt.
President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
I would say in part, or for the most part, we're funding research that is primarily discovery-based or what we would call fundamental research. It follows where the researchers are moving in terms of issues that they find to be of importance—to them, certainly, but also to society generally. That's how we get projects. Then we evaluate them in accordance with the mechanism you were alluding to in your first question.
We do participate and we do lead in the development of more mission-driven international and other themed research competitions and calls, often in collaboration with the other two agencies as well. We offer not just one program but a series of programs and competitions that try to meet these needs.
President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
I would say that all our programs have to have natural sciences and engineering as a focus, because that's our mandate.
Acting President, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
For CIHR it would be similar to Dr. Adem's response, but in the domain of health.
Conservative