Science and Research Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

[Dr. Ted Hewitt, President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee members for inviting me to appear before the committee.

I'm pleased to be here as president of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, or SSHRC for short, accompanied by the chair of our governing council and rector of the Université de l'Ontario français, Dr. Normand Labrie.

As you are no doubt aware, SSHRC is the federal research funding agency that for the past half-century has supported research and research training in the social sciences and humanities at Canadian post-secondary institutions and other eligible research organizations.

This research expands knowledge and builds understanding of people and societies. Our community, made up of 70,000 post-secondary-based researchers, graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, examines the social, cultural, technological, environmental, economic and ethical dimensions of our past, present and future. Their insights help explore our own humanity, better inform policy and decision-making, and drive innovation in Canada and beyond.

In 2023 alone, we invested some $44 million in research addressing environmental and climate change issues, more than $34 million to research business and economic issues, $18 million to examine AI and cybersecurity, and over $14 million to help address the housing and homelessness crisis. Approximately 10% of our funding supports research undertaken by and with Canada’s indigenous peoples.

All of these investments are guided by decision-making led by expert review that is conducted at international standards and respected worldwide.

At SSHRC, we also take great pride in our solid track record administering tri-agency programs, including the well-known Canada research chairs program, the new frontiers in research fund, and the Canada biomedical research fund, among several others. Our leading role in designing and implementing these programs has ensured all disciplines—including health, natural sciences and engineering, and the social sciences and humanities—are supported and contributing to Canada's research enterprise.

As the committee is aware, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Health mandated the three federal research granting agencies to engage with members of Canada's broad research community to gather perspectives on the proposed capstone research funding organization and to report back their findings within a month. The agencies published a “What We Heard” report in mid-October.

Overall, stakeholders welcomed the opportunity to provide input on the proposed capstone organization and expressed an expectation in continuing to engage in the development process as it moves forward.

What we heard from our community was that in shaping a new vision and structure, it is of critical importance that the value of social sciences and humanities research be recognized as a fundamental ingredient and leveraged to drive true interdisciplinary and mission-driven research.

Just some of the unique elements SSHRC and our community bring in this respect include a focus on human thought and behaviour that drive innovation and help society understand change and adapt to change; unique methodologies and approaches for conducting interdisciplinary research; expertise in engaging communities in research, including first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, as well as industry and civil society; and experience in supporting a robust research enterprise in French.

As an organization, SSHRC welcomes the opportunities presented by the proposed capstone with respect to increasing harmonization of key programs and initiatives, breaking down silos, and facilitating a more coordinated approach to tackling the challenges that Canadians face.

At the same time, we very much want to ensure that the contributions that SSHRC has made in the past to innovative programming in support of partnerships within and beyond government, interdisciplinarity, knowledge mobilization, equity and inclusion, support for smaller institutions, indigenous research, French language research and international collaboration are firmly recognized and embedded within a much larger, consolidated corporate and financial entity of which SSHRC would form only a very limited part.

In the latter regard, we also strongly urge due consideration of the concerns brought forward to the committee by the tri-council indigenous leadership circle.

As we look to the future of Canada's federal research ecosystem, the committee's engagement in matters related to the government's research modernization efforts is most welcome. As an organization serving Canada's largest community of academics and researchers, SSHRC is committed to this process, and specifically to helping ensure that the social sciences and humanities research is well positioned to contribute to the renewed federal research support system and the outcomes we are all looking for it to produce in terms of enhanced economic and social well-being for Canadians.

Both Dr. Labrie and I thank you for your attention and look forward to your questions and comments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you, Dr. Hewitt.

Now I will give the floor to Dr. Clifford.

I invite you to make an opening statement of five minutes.

[Dr. Tammy Clifford, Acting President, Canadian Institutes of Health Research]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to participate in the committee's important work on the capstone.

I would like to open my remarks by informing your committee that on January 2, 2025, CIHR will welcome its new permanent president, Dr. Paul Hébert, a clinician scientist and health leader with extensive experience within Canada's health research ecosystem. Dr. Hébert is eager to start his new role and work with our partners to make the new capstone organization a success for all Canadians.

Madam Chair, over the last few months, CIHR has had the privilege of engaging closely with its federal partners, including our tri-council colleagues, Health Canada and ISED, to articulate the foundational elements of the new capstone organization, including those that will create opportunities for researchers to work on international, mission-driven and interdisciplinary research. In addition, CIHR has also consulted with partners spanning Canada's health research community. They have contributed invaluable feedback and insight to inform the creation of this new capstone organization.

Overall, the community expressed optimism that a capstone organization will enhance coordination of initiatives among the granting councils, invest in critical areas of importance to the country and provide a unified approach to international opportunities for Canadian researchers. The community also offered key considerations, values and guiding principles upon which the modernization should take place, for example, ensuring academic freedom, research excellence, peer review and domain-specific research.

Another opportunity identified through our recent engagements has been to leverage the extensive experience and expertise of CIHR and of Canada's diverse health research community. In particular, the health community was pleased to learn that CIHR's institute model would be preserved within the new capstone organization. For almost 25 years, CIHR's 13 scientific institutes, which are based at universities and health institutions across the country, have been leaders in their domain. They have excelled in delivering strategic research in response to the vast and ever-changing needs of Canadians.

Our institutes also collaborate among themselves and with domestic and international partners in complex health areas that require an interdisciplinary approach, such as indigenous health and non-communicable diseases.

Within capstone, the CIHR institutes will be poised to contribute their expertise and leverage their networks in exciting new ways. The health research community, and our health partners at large, have also spoken about the importance of maintaining CIHR's strong and direct linkages to the health portfolio, as was noted in the budget 2024 announcement. This ongoing interaction, as you heard from my colleague, Ms. Boudreau, earlier on, will no doubt ensure that health research continues to improve the health of Canadians into the future. This is a key consideration, particularly in light of the complex challenges facing Canadians, the need to be prepared to address health emergencies, and the need for the translation of research into actionable health solutions.

CIHR's continued collaboration with health portfolio partners enables it to rapidly mobilize strategic research across many priorities in support of federal initiatives, as well as to generate evidence to inform policy and decision-making. This includes, for example, close collaboration with the Public Health Agency of Canada on the pan-Canadian action plan on antimicrobial resistance and also in support of the research goals of Canada's national dementia research strategy.

We are pleased that the new capstone organization will preserve these vital linkages so that research continues to drive health system innovation and efficiency, and, of course, better health for all Canadians.

In closing, I would add that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research remain committed to working with our federal partners and the research community to set up a new organization that builds on our strengths and provides the necessary guidance so that we can continue to meet the complex challenges that are arising.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you, Dr. Clifford.

Now, for the final opening statement, we're going to turn to Ms. Aubrey.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Maria Aubrey, Vice-President of Business and Professional Services, National Research Council of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to speak with you today on behalf of the National Research Council of Canada as part of this committee's study of the new capstone research funding organization announced in budget 2024.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that NRC's Canada-wide activities take place on unceded, shared, current and traditional territories of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

We recognize the privilege we have been given to undertake research and fuel innovation on these lands, and we honour the peoples who came before us.

As Canada's largest federal research organization, the NRC advances scientific knowledge, supports business innovation and provides science-based policy solutions. With facilities and collaborations nationwide, the NRC unites scientists, industry, academia and global partners around Canada's challenges and opportunities.

The NRC's current strategic priorities, reflected in our recently released strategic plan, are to advance research and innovation with the greatest impact to Canada and Canadians, focused on climate change and sustainability, health and biomanufacturing, digital and quantum technologies and supporting foundational research.

In addition to conducting research, for more than 75 years the NRC has provided key support to innovative Canadians' small and medium-sized businesses through the NRC industrial research assistance program, or IRAP, to develop innovations that drive the growth of these businesses and Canada's economy.

As announced in budget 2024, a new capstone research funding organization will bring greater coordination and stronger connections among the tri-councils and the researchers they support. While it is not planned for the NRC to be formally part of this new organization, we have long-standing collaborations with the tri-councils through institutions like the Canada research coordinating committee, and we will work with the new organization to maximize the impact of research funding.

As Minister Champagne and Minister Holland indicated in their letter to my tri-agency colleagues on June 17, 2024, the new capstone organization will include key objectives such as supporting internally collaborative, interdisciplinary and mission-driven research.

At the NRC, our mission-driven Défi programs will dovetail with that objective. The programs bring NRC research centres together with industry, universities and international partners to focus efforts in key priority areas.

We are committed, along with our partners and contributors, to advancing high-risk, high-reward research on Canadian priorities.

We look forward to continuing our long-standing partnership with our tri-council partners, NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR, through the new capstone agency, to advance scientific knowledge, innovation and research excellence across disciplines in Canada.

Madam Chair, thank you once again for the invitation to appear today. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you, Ms. Aubrey.

I'd like to welcome MP Genuis to our committee today. I understand you will be taking the first round for six minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I am very concerned about the rising problem of anti-Semitism on university campuses. I do want to focus in this round on some of the potential linkages between that and questions on research funding.

Just to put the problem in perspective, first of all, it's been reported that there were over 5,700 anti-Semitic incidents in Canada in 2023, and it is deeply troubling to see a substantial number of those incidents happening on university campuses, with very anti-Semitic statements made by certain groups, for example, as well as various incidents.

I wanted to ask, just in terms of research proposals, is it fair to say that you have a process whereby you would seek to screen out research proposals that promote racist or other discriminatory ideas or narratives? Would that apply to anti-Semitism as well?

Maybe Dr. Hewitt is a logical place to go to with this.

[Dr. Ted Hewitt]

The short answer is yes. I mean, we stand firmly against research that would be considered anti-Semitic or discriminatory in any way. All of our research is reviewed through panels that involve experts who read materials, provide input and ultimately decide which projects will be recommended or not recommended.

Beyond that, once these projects are funded, we rely on institutions to monitor the process of projects and how they're implemented locally through ethics committees, through their own guidelines and through the laws of Canada and other rules and regulations as they exist there.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

Would you say you're confident that this process is screening out proposals that would promote anti-Semitic ideas or narratives?

[Dr. Ted Hewitt]

I would say at the point where we're reviewing projects, yes, as much as we're able to do that, that does occur, but as individuals undertake projects, or work in certain domains, or move towards certain areas of research or collaboration, then, of course, issues can occur. There are mechanisms for dealing with that, which I'm happy to tell you about as you move to your next question.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. We can come back to that.

I wanted to ask, in terms of what anti-Semitism is, do you use the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism, or would you use a different definition?

[Dr. Ted Hewitt]

We do not screen at the level of the councils for particular types of discrimination or otherwise. We're looking to see whether, in the view of peer review, those exist. I would say that for other screening or other activities that would be taken at the level of institutions, you'd have to ask them exactly what constitutes that in their view, or how they apply the rules within their local institutions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. I am struggling a bit to understand your answer, then, because on the one hand you're saying that you do try to screen out anti-Semitic or other racist content, but on the other hand, you don't have a specific definition of anti-Semitism. How do you screen out anti-Semitic content without having a definition that you're using for anti-Semitism?

[Dr. Ted Hewitt]

As I explained earlier, the screen that we use is peer review, expert review—people who work in the same area, people who have the expertise to provide their views, their oversight and their considered opinion on the worth of the research and whether or not it crosses those boundaries. Should it cross those boundaries and somehow find its way into the institution, then there is a whole other level of scrutiny that occurs at that institution and measures that can be taken, subject to the laws of Canada and local rules and regulations or otherwise, to deal with that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. Essentially, then—I'm trying to be fair to you and not put words in your mouth—there is a screening based on discrimination, but that screen is based on what other people already working in the field say it is, not based on some particular identifiable definition.

That seems like a problem, because if you have existing building concerns of certain narratives being broadly accepted in certain environments, then you might see more tolerance for certain kinds of discrimination than you would see for other kinds of discrimination. In other words, it's not based on objective, definable criteria. It's just based on what other people happen to think.

[Dr. Ted Hewitt]

As an agency and as agencies, we follow the rules and guidelines of the Government of Canada—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The Government of Canada has adopted the IHRA's definition. I have concerns about their implementation, but they have said they adopted it.

[Dr. Ted Hewitt]

We would follow the rules and the guidelines of the Government of Canada and apply those to the best of our ability, but you're right: In the case of peer review, that review is undertaken by experts in the field, and they will have views and they will apply those views. That's how peer review works.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You did say that you're applying Government of Canada policies. The Government of Canada says that it has adopted the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism. Have they said to you that they want to see you use the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism, or have they not?

[Dr. Ted Hewitt]

Not specifically, but generally speaking we are looking, in peer review, to make sure these things are caught. I'm saying also—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It's important to know what that definition is, because B'nai Brith has sent a submission in which they identify specific examples, and they are concerned that there are aspects of the narratives promoted by these examples that are violating anti-Semitism...and they're using IHRA's definition. Someone else might say they're not, but the one we use, and that the government says it has adopted, is the IHRA's definition.

[Dr. Ted Hewitt]

There are mechanisms to review those projects to see if that is indeed the case, and they can be applied at the level of institutions that they should be applied—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Well, one mechanism might be for the government to be clear with you on what it means that it has adopted this definition, because it says it has adopted it, but it is just pretty evident in its funding and, again, evident today that it is not actually insisting on that definition being the one that's used.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's the time.

We're now going to turn to MP Jaczek for six minutes.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses today.

Dr. Hewitt, I'd like to start with you. As I understand it, you're the chair of the Canada research coordinating committee.