Science and Research Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2024

[Gabriel Miller]

We must ensure a strong representation of researchers who speak French fluently and use the most effective tools to achieve this goal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you. That's our time. I appreciate it.

Now we will turn to MP Cannings for six minutes, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you for being here today.

I'm going to start with Ms. Johnston.

You mentioned that you felt that merit review committees were biased toward universities. I'm just wondering if you could expand on that.

How does that impact the criteria for awarding federal funding? How could we fix that while maintaining excellent research across the country?

[Pari Johnston]

I think we need to look at whether these committees are broadly representative of those who are part of the research ecosystem. I think we have seen gaps, to date, in representation of those who are the end-users of research, those who are familiar with policy implementation and those who come from the college system.

Our premise is that excellence, relevance and impact should be part of how we think about the investments we make in research. If you accept that premise, which I think is incumbent upon us to start thinking about very actively as we think about our research investments, then it stands to reason that the merit review and the review committees that we're making are representative of those in the research ecosystem.

I would say that another opportunity is for us to look at two-stage reviews. How can we look at research, particularly challenge-based research funding, that takes the first scientific and technical stage of review, but then has a second impact review that is also composed of committee members who are broadly representative of those who will be benefiting from the research?

In our view, it's about being more intentional about representation that's inclusive of those who are part of the research ecosystem.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thanks.

I'll turn to Mr. Hanley now with U15.

We heard from witnesses last week. One of the recommendations from one witness was to shift all research funding to the provincial governments from the federal government.

Could you comment on what that would accomplish, if anything?

[Dylan Hanley]

I'm not sure it would accomplish much. There is provincial research funding, as you know, although at different levels across provinces, and it's not the lion's share of the research.

Traditionally, research has been a federal responsibility. In the United States, it's the same. I don't know what shifting it to the provinces would do practically in improving outcomes or excellence, etc.

I will say that the provinces work collaboratively with the federal government in shaping the system. They are the ones shaping the institution, shaping the enrolment corridors and regulating the post-secondary institutions across the country, so I think they have a bearing in how things get shaped.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Miller?

[Gabriel Miller]

Yes. I think it's a terrible suggestion and it defies all logic. Among other things, would it really make sense in this country to have provinces as small as some of ours try to recreate a federal research system in a world where Canada is already up against heavyweights money-wise and population-wise?

We need to make sure that we're making the absolute most of our investments in this area and acting, as one of the previous members said, in a way that's going to have the biggest benefit for Canada's interests, so no.

I think what we've built in Canada is a success story. It has its flaws, but the notion of turning it into 10 systems is not supportable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

You have one minute and 36 seconds.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'll give you 30 seconds each to talk about how overall government funding supports—provincial and federal—for universities and colleges are essential for research. We've heard some testimony about how much universities take in terms of a percentage of some research funding.

I'll start with Ms. Johnston and try to get you all in about why we need to increase the core university funding and college funding across the board.

[Pari Johnston]

Fundamentally, we need to invest in, from our point of view, applied college research in a way that's more robust. In our case, we'd love to see it at 10% of the overall research investments in this country, in part because we are those at the coalface, working with businesses and community organizations that want problems solved at the local level. They are often those that want to come and have a new product, service or technology adapted or developed to respond to a local problem that then can be scaled.

To me, we need to invest in the productivity of our local SMEs and in the social innovation of our local communities, and we need to keep the research fruits and the IP that we're generating with Canadian companies. That's good for Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's our time.

Now we'll start our second round with MP Viersen for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for coming today.

As members of Parliament, our job is to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for their tax dollars. If our goal of research is research excellence, where we put our money should pursue excellence as well.

In our next panel, we're going to hear from an organization called Retraction Watch, which has done an excellent job of exposing falsified or poor research. Its work ensures that we can move toward research excellence.

In 2017, the Liberal government put together a fund called the Canada 150 research chairs. Mr. Hanley, your organization, understandably, welcomed that. One of the new research chairs was Jonathan Pruitt, the chair for biological dystopias. He received a one-time federal grant of $350,000 for seven years, which is a total of $2.4 million taxpayer dollars. What he did with that money was write a bunch of papers using falsified data. Thanks to Retraction Watch, we know he had 15 papers retracted over three years.

When we're pursuing research excellence, going forward, how do we prevent this type of fraud from happening and what gaps might exist that we need to address to prevent this from happening again?

[Dylan Hanley]

It's a great question.

When I started working with U15—we have a committee of vice-presidents of research—it was not this specific case, but questions around academic integrity, fraud and research ethics were right at the centre there. Nobody has...no institutions have a greater interest in ensuring that the system is robust and has a minimum amount of that kind of behaviour.

I have to admit I'm not familiar with the case you're talking about, so I can't really speak to it specifically, but we are absolutely committed to ensuring that our academics are passing rigour and that the studies being put forward are world class.

Again, it underscores the importance of peer review. It doesn't mean that certain things don't slip through the cracks. You heard about a few famous studies in the United States that had the same thing. I don't think it's something you can ever entirely eliminate, but we do everything in our power to try to eliminate it, and I think our commitment to it will be steadfast.

I will say that's the case with all of those regulatory requirements. We handle hazardous materials in labs. There's a lot of regulation that needs to be overseen by universities. We think we do it in a way that's excellent, but the point to underscore is the reputations that are on the line when those things go wrong are our reputations, and we believe they're world class, and we do everything we can to protect them as well.

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

We continually hear about this peer review process, but with the 15 papers I mentioned, it seems that.... Who's not doing their job if we have 15 papers making it through that peer review process? We first have the funding granted at the beginning—that's apparently a peer review process—and then you have 15 papers that are retracted later. Somewhere along the line, somebody's not saying something. This is an egregious case with a lot of papers happening.

How do we manage that? From our perspective, the research community is coming to the Canadian government looking for $5 billion annually, so how do we manage that?

[Dylan Hanley]

It is a challenge and, again, I'm not familiar with the case. I don't know which journals were publishing those various articles, whether they're Canadian journals or not or what adjudication processes were there.

One thing that has been an issue of focus, again, for the vice-presidents of research to try to manage these things across their institutions is the pressure on researchers to publish and the advent of journals that may have easier processes for publishing than others and what we do to be able to control the proliferation of those journals if they don't have tight enough requirements.

Also, I'll say there's a balance between weighting that and wanting open science and collaboration and not wanting only a few prestigious journals like Nature and Science to control all of the academic currency.

The case you're talking about is clearly egregious, and I'll tell you I'll make a point of looking it up after this committee meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's your time.

Now we will turn to MP Kelloway for five minutes, please.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a comment that I think will lead into the questions I'm going to ask all three of you.

The last meeting we had was quite interesting. We had researchers who had a particular point of view, a right-of-centre view, and who were somewhat jaded, and some comments were made about minority groups and women not holding their own compared to, say, people like me: men.

I thought, “Should I bring that up?” I do think it's important to have sunlight, as it's the best disinfectant. I disagree with them; they had their right to say what they had to say, although I vehemently disagreed with it.

When I think about the comment about women not measuring up, I think of people like Dr. Cheryl Bartlett at Cape Breton University. I think of Dr. Jane Lewis, Dr. Coleen Moore-Hayes and Dr. Shelley Denny, who's Mi'kmaq.

In one of the comments made at the last session, there was seemingly a discounting of indigenous knowledge and indigenous research in academia and research. I wonder if all three of you can come back to me with a comment on “it just doesn't add up” or “it just doesn't measure up to other types of research.”

We can start anywhere you like.

[Pari Johnston]

I am happy to take that question first.

It's very important that we have continued, over the last number of years, to invest in indigenous-led research and research on issues that are affecting first nations, Métis and Inuit communities in this country. A number of our members are in remote, rural and northern communities, and they are very dedicated to engaging in problem-based research with their local communities, which are really interested in working together with our applied researchers to discover and determine solutions to problems that they might be facing around food scarcity or environmental change in the community affecting the local water systems.

In my view, it is important to ensure that we have a diversity of teams, including those that are working with first nations, Métis and Inuit communities to solve the problems that they define as important.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

So, it would bring value.

[Pari Johnston]

It would bring value.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

It would bring opportunity. It would bring curiosity.

[Pari Johnston]

Yes, and it brings a perspective on the research that perhaps those coming from southern institutions don't have as part of their research tool kit, a perspective that enhances the research outcomes.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Would either of you like to respond?

[Gabriel Miller]

I think it's enormously valuable. First, because indigenous peoples are an inherent and fundamental part of life in Canada, we can't possibly study that aspect of who we are or our history without doing it in collaboration and in the spirit of reconciliation. That means respecting the history of indigenous peoples, coming to the table as equals, and understanding their experiences and their cultures.

I also think that there's a false idea that somehow indigenous knowledge is in competition with the scientific method. I've seen much more that indigenous knowledge can feed into, strengthen and add perspectives to the scientific method, and that strengthens our science.