Science and Research Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 112 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

I'd like to remind all members of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking, and all comments should be addressed through the chair. Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. Those participating by video conference can click on the microphone icon to activate their mic. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French.

Thank you all for your co-operation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, October 31, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of the impact of the criteria for awarding federal funding for research and excellence in Canada.

It's now my pleasure to welcome our three witnesses.

From Colleges and Institutes Canada, we have Pari Johnston, president and chief executive officer; from U15 Canada's group of Canadian research universities, Dylan Hanley, executive vice-president; and from Universities Canada, Gabriel Miller, president and chief executive officer.

Up to five minutes will be given for your opening remarks, after which we'll proceed with rounds of questions.

Ms. Johnston, I'll start with you. You have the opportunity to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

[Pari Johnston, President and Chief Executive Officer, Colleges and Institutes Canada]

Thank you very much.

My name is Pari Johnston, the president and CEO of Colleges and Institutes Canada. On behalf of our 134 member colleges, institutes, polytechnics and CEGEPs, I want to thank the committee for making the time for this study.

When I was here for my appearance on the capstone organization, we talked about the fact that we must ensure that federal research investments lead to real and tangible impacts in the daily lives of Canadians—to results that support economic prosperity and social well-being for all, that drive community and business innovation, and that respond to the biggest challenges we face as a country. To do this, we must reimagine how we currently invest in research and re-evaluate what we value. We must redefine how we assess and award research to move beyond concepts of excellence defined primarily within a university-centred approach.

We also need to focus on the impact, relevance and scope of the research.

Impact‑driven research means first determining the nature of an issue and then designing a research program that brings together all the right partners and end‑users to resolve it, that uses all the research tools available and that implements inclusive assessment criteria with a focus on the application and impact.

Impact‑driven research is helping to build better houses more quickly; to increase drought‑resistant varieties of agricultural crops and find out how to encourage farmers to plant them; and to develop new methods for leveraging genomic tools in local clinics.

This exact type of research is carried out in colleges and institutes.

Colleges lead partnered, problem-driven and real-time research that generates applied knowledge and de-risks technology development and adaptation. This results in on-the-ground benefits through improved knowledge translation and mobilization, IP staying with the local business partner and greater technology uptake by local partners in priority economic and social sectors.

In 2021-22, our members led more than 8,000 applied research projects, resulting in 6,500 new processes, products, services and prototypes in areas like housing construction, advanced manufacturing, climate-smart agriculture, food production and social innovation. Ninety-nine per cent of our partners are Canadian companies and non-profits, keeping the fruits of our research at home in Canada.

If we want to optimize the impact of federal research investments, the following three recommendations must be actioned.

First, the federal granting agencies and research funders must redefine and rebalance the weighting of criteria that is currently used to award federal funding to ensure they adequately assess and reward research impact. This includes looking beyond traditional metrics of excellence, such as publication records, citations and other metrics aimed at establishing expertise in academic research. Criteria such as partner uptake of research outputs, capacity of a project to develop new IP or develop a novel application of an existing technology, or policy reports that lead to improved implementation pathways are indicators that speak to research impact.

Second, federal research funders must ensure that merit review committees include representation from a diversity of institution types, end-users, and industry and community partners that are able to provide a more holistic ecosystem perspective on research programs and how to ensure that benefits on the ground have broad reach. Currently, most merit review committees are almost exclusively composed of representatives from universities. To support impact, review committees must include voices from across the research ecosystem, including colleges, end-users and policy-makers familiar with effective implementation and delivery of research results.

Third, it is time for ISED and the federal granting agencies to expand eligibility for colleges and institutes in all existing tri-council programming. Right now, colleges are not eligible as lead applicants for NSERC's alliance program, which is its flagship partnership initiative. In addition, we must address informal barriers, such as not allowing research grants to cover college faculty course release time or to hire replacement faculty to carry out research projects.

Canadians and their communities expect their federal research programs to deliver for them. Enacting these three recommendations will help achieve this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you, Ms. Johnston.

Mr. Hanley, I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

[Dylan Hanley, Executive Vice-President, U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks to all of the members of the science and research standing committee for the opportunity to appear before you today.

U15 Canada is an association of Canada's leading research universities. Today's study is concerned with the impact of federal funding policies on research excellence in Canada. Promoting excellence is at the very heart of our work at U15, and I'm confident that Canadians should be very proud of the global impact and competitiveness of our research university system, which punches way above its weight internationally, including in value for money.

Taking the University of Toronto as an example, last year the journal Nature ranked it at number two in the world for impact in health research, after Harvard and ahead of even Johns Hopkins, and yet it also educates more students every year than the entire Ivy League combined.

This is only one example of how our leading research universities deliver value to Canada and Canadians at a low cost to entry. U15 universities alone award 160,000 degrees a year, including to the vast majority of doctors and dentists in Canada, developing a crucial pipeline of talent.

We also know that research conducted at our universities has real-world impact, from research at the University of Saskatchewan to protect the Canadian pork industry from the risks of African swine fever, to research at the University of Alberta on carbon capture and storage aimed at enhancing a clean energy future for our country and to leading work on Arctic monitoring at Université Laval that will help track the impact of climate change and enforce our Arctic sovereignty.

Leading research universities also drive innovation. From artificial intelligence to agriculture, partnership between businesses and post-secondary institutions is a defining feature of our R and D system in Canada, with us ranking third in the G7 and in the top 10 in the OECD in the percentage of private sector R and D done in partnership with post-secondary institutions.

It's also important to underscore that our research universities deliver impact that's truly pan-Canadian. Our universities act as hubs of expertise across extensive networks that bring together other post-secondary institutions, research hospitals, innovative industries and community organizations. In 2022-23 alone, just our 15 universities collaborated with over 3,600 different partners and organizations on tri-agency-funded research in nearly every community and riding across this country.

Canadian research excellence has been made possible in part due to a long-standing cross-party consensus.

The Chrétien government brought in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and launched the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Canada research chairs program. The Harper government made major investments in the CFI, launched the Canada first research excellence fund—or CFREF—and the Canada excellence research chairs and funded excellence-based scholarships. As well, the current government has made significant investments in investigator-led research, the new frontiers in research fund and crucial programs in quantum, AI and genomics.

CFREF is expressly designed to create globally competitive platforms for Canadian research strengths. These networks have impact across the country and include projects in important evolving areas for Canada, including the links between brain and heart health at the University of Ottawa, climate change and ocean science at Dalhousie and the health and well-being of children at the University of Calgary.

Another example is the Canada excellence research chairs program, which attracts world-leading scholars to Canada, along with their talented teams, to create clusters of excellence and expertise here.

Another major pillar of our excellence system is the Canada research chairs program, which provides funding for universities to hire some of the best and brightest researchers across all areas of research.

To ensure that Canada's research enterprise can continue to flourish, I am going to suggest the following key principles.

Number one is the best ideas. It's important to note that excellence in research rests on the foundation of peer review, wherein experts in the fields are the ones to judge which proposals move forward and receive funding.

Number two is strong, healthy institutions. Our world-class research universities are a national strength that, again, all Canadians should be proud of, but we're facing unprecedented financial challenges because of decades of stagnant or declining real government funding and turbulence around international students.

Number three is unlocking impact. Our institutions are working hard to unlock the full potential impact of research in our businesses, communities and society through entrepreneurship programs, connectivity hubs for business and extensive partnerships with governments and non-profits in the social sector.

We certainly can do more, and we should do it together.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you, Mr. Hanley.

We'll now go to Mr. Miller.

You have the floor for a five-minute opening statement.

[Gabriel Miller, President and Chief Executive Officer, Universities Canada]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you very much for inviting me.

I'm Gabriel Miller, the president and CEO of Universities Canada, the national voice of Canada's public universities.

I want to compliment the committee for its decision to undertake this study. I hope it's the start of an ongoing discussion about an issue that's critical to Canada's future.

As our challenges become more complex and our technology more advanced, research excellence must be at the heart of any serious plan to create jobs, increase our prosperity and improve our quality of life. Federal research investments are an essential pillar of our higher education system, a system that gives millions of Canadians a pathway to expand their career opportunities, increase their job security and earn higher salaries that help them pay the rising costs of owning a home and supporting a family.

Our research system is a training ground for the future doctors, engineers and entrepreneurs whom we need to support our economy and meet the needs of our aging population. It's through research that Canada can create the knowledge and develop the talent to fuel innovation and productivity across vital sectors of our economy, whether they are energy, agriculture, manufacturing or arts and culture.

Today I want to leave you with three broad recommendations.

First we must build on the core principles of Canada's outstanding research system, a system built over decades with support of successive governments and members from all parties. These principles vary from program to program but almost always include the need to make an original contribution to the research field, the need to provide training opportunities for highly qualified personnel and to demonstrate that the project is feasible with the resources available.

Second, I want to recommend that we continue the difficult and often imperfect work of expanding opportunities to more people and communities. What does that mean? It means that we have to help universities of every size in every region to contribute their fullest to the research enterprise. The research security fund should be strengthened so that smaller universities aren't held back by the costs of meeting a growing administrative burden and larger schools aren't slowed down.

It means that we must strengthen the unique role of universities as a forum for independent thought, discussion and discovery, where a broad range of political and ideological perspectives are engaged and explored. No one should be excluded from participating in scientific debate and discovery, conservative, progressive or otherwise. It means that we must continue the fight against racism and discrimination in all their forms and reduce the barriers that have deprived too many people of the opportunity to contribute their abilities and perspectives.

Lastly, we need to support French‑language research, which faces unique challenges when it comes to submitting applications and publishing in French. Systemic barriers remain an issue in French‑language research, including differences in success rates according to language.

We're heartened to see the committee that the government set up to study this issue. A new capstone organization could also promote excellence in French‑language research.

What I've described is not a narrow conception of diversity. It's a commitment to unleashing the incredible talents of our country. It's a vision we should embrace with passion but with care. We must undertake this work with humility.

Many Canadians have questions, concerns and criticisms about the most effective ways of expanding opportunity and about some of what they see and hear being done in the name of diversity. We need to be listening—"we" in the university sector. We need to be learning and engaging in these discussions. We must be evaluating the tools that are used and prioritizing those that reduce barriers while strengthening research excellence.

I want to close by noting that the upcoming supply votes include important research and graduate scholarship funding for next year. I can't stress enough the importance that this funding will have for graduate students at institutions across Canada and for creating a better foundation to address many of the issues I've discussed today.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Thank you to you all for your opening remarks.

I'll now open the floor to our members for questions. Please be sure to indicate to whom your questions are directed.

We'll start this off, please, with MP Lobb for six minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Hanley.

Thanks for coming here today. Mr. Gaffield always does a fine job when he's here as well.

A lot of grant dollars I've been able to look at—and I'm sure they're well into the millions—have nothing to do with research in Canada. That doesn't mean we have to be ignorant as a society and not look beyond our own borders, but should we be looking at more dollars invested in Canada and a Canada-first approach to our research? What do you think?

[Dylan Hanley]

Thanks for the question. It's a good one.

First off, I'll say regarding the dispersal of funds among the councils, just shy of 80% of all new funds go for health research, natural sciences and engineering—to NSERC and CIHR. The vast majority goes there. I think a lot of it may be partnered outside of here, but it isn't research on something specific or not specific to Canada.

With regard to the value of research on issues around the globe, it's crucial for us both to be studying things that happen in Canada and things that happen around the globe. My own personal background in graduate research was studying the Middle East and nuclear non-proliferation related to Israel and Iran. Am I bringing it to bear on the work I'm doing now for universities? I'm not sure, but it's important for Canadians to be engaged in issues that are important around the world.

I think what's more interesting is that a lot research that has taken place in recent years on our history here in Canada has been on aspects of indigenous cultures, local regional cultures, etc., that we may not have understood unless we were engaged in it.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

The studies you mentioned are very impressive. I would never question that, because it's a very interesting topic to study.

However, I see research grants given out to study Dolly Parton's lyrics. The committee has heard me about that. Shaun, I think, gets a sore stomach when I bring it up. There is a study of the Maidan Museum in Ukraine. The list goes on and on. You'd think there might be a couple, but I would say there are hundreds. It's in the millions of dollars. I've tried to test it and maybe I have cherry-picked them. However, when I'm in my riding on the weekend and people ask what I'm doing, I say that we're doing this study and that these are some of the things they're studying. They can't believe that their taxpayer dollars are going to those things.

I'm trying to present it in a fair manner. Some of the stuff you're mentioning is absolutely great. People would be proud of that. However, should we take a step back and look at some of these projects we're funding?

[Dylan Hanley]

I think the peer review process, which I talked about, is about peers in a discipline judging what is a well-crafted research project according to the scientific method. You put forward a hypothesis and you're going to test it. They're going to ask whether this is the right experiment to run, regardless of whether it's in the social sciences or the medical sciences.

I think this research reflects Canada as a whole. As I said, the vast majority of it is in areas related to the harder sciences, medical research, etc. We have research in fields in the social sciences that you can go through and question. I guess what I would say is that we are a reflection of Canada as a whole. There are arts and non-profit organizations, so there is research in all of those fields, as well.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

That's fair enough.

However, I don't know how many times we've had people come here and say, “Ben, you cannot challenge the people who make these decisions. It's unhealthy. It's not wise to cherry-pick. We have to look at everything.” Still, I go down the list and I can't believe it.

Here's one. My optometrist said I need bifocals. Do you know what? He's right. I do. I can hardly read this. It says, “Understanding and addressing the mental health impacts of unpaid care work on women in Bogotá, Colombia”. If that were in Canada, I'd say, “Great”. However, this is in Bogotá, Colombia. Why doesn't Colombia pay for that study, and we'll do a study in Canada on unpaid work?

What value is that to the Canadian taxpayer?

[Dylan Hanley]

I think the value of the research enterprise is the ability of researchers to explore any topic they are interested in. I've—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

We're having a good conversation here, honestly. I know you have to defend it.

Ms. Johnston, does this frustrate you a bit? I don't want you and Dylan to get into a fight here, but does it frustrate you slightly when you're trying to get funding and research money for your colleges? You know those studies. You're in the same groups as these guys. Does it not frustrate you that you can't get a bit your way? Come on.

[Pari Johnston]

For me the issue, as I tried to set out, is that the college approach to research in this country has, until now, not been valued in the way that we need to value it to drive impact for Canadians. I think there's a need to look at the ecosystem that we invest in, in this country, and to start to look at how, if we want to involve those who are partnering at the local level on problems that local folks have defined, we need to reinvest in college-led research as well.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I look at Elon Musk's robot. I saw it laying bricks and doing all this work. Wouldn't it be great to have one of those at every college in Canada, and have young, brilliant minds think, “How can we make this work for us?” How can we...? Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that be great to apply for a project, a federal project, and do something like that?

[Pari Johnston]

Absolutely. Our view is that there is an opportunity here to really be bold and rethink the opportunity to reinvest in college-led research in this country. Right now we get 3% of the overall federal investments and, as I said to this committee before, I'd love to see it at 10%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's well over our time. I'm sorry. I didn't want to cut you off.

MP Jaczek, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming here today. I hope you had the opportunity to review some of the testimony we heard last week because some of my questions will concentrate on what we heard, and I'd like your opinions.

My first question is for Mr. Miller. Last week we heard some witnesses who claimed that, by pursuing equity, diversity and inclusion, you inevitably reduce the research output of an institution or country. Perhaps you could tell us, from your experience, to what extent EDI plays a part in the evaluation of applications for funding, for federal funding? There was a claim that it was akin to affirmative action, which I have always seen as something applied to human resources and hiring of individuals, not to research applications. Could you tell us a little about the weighting of this sort of analysis related to EDI?

[Gabriel Miller]

Through you, Madam Chair, first, I should say I'm not a researcher myself but, of course, I've been working with universities for several years and, now, with Universities Canada for eight months.

What I would say is that, in all of my interactions with the tri-council and with researchers in our community, what has been paramount in all of their work and in their assessment of research projects has been excellence, the potential to really create change inside the discipline, the ability to contribute to the training of graduate students and evaluation on the basis of merit. There's no question that there's been growing interest, discussion and, in some cases, policies around efforts to expand opportunities so that a broader group of Canadians can participate and contribute their perspectives and talent, which, ultimately, is in itself a major contributor to excellence. My observation has been that there is a concerted effort in the community to expand opportunity, but to support merit and excellence, not to compete with it.

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

Thank you so much.

Perhaps I'll turn to Mr. Hanley to ask you the same question. To what extent do you see EDI being considered? Do you have any comments in relation to it?

[Dylan Hanley]

Listen, I think all of our institutions are committed to the principle of ensuring that all Canadians get a fair shake, both in terms of accessing a university education should they wish to—which is still the most transformative action you can take for your economic future, and we think there are obviously other benefits to it in addition to economic—and participating to the greatest percentage possible specifically in the research enterprise.

With regard to EDI in the last number of years, I think that in our institutions, like in society as a whole, there's been a greater recognition of historic and traditional systemic barriers, and attempts to get rid of those, to open the field and the table to more people and to make sure that they have a fair shake. I think, in the last couple of years—and this is a pretty recent phenomenon that we've been undertaking this with the level of energy—there have been criticisms of some of the specific measurements and programs that have gone on. We're open to those criticisms and to making things better inside of our institutions. There are regularly programmatic reviews to look at what's.... And this isn't just for these policies; it's for any policies that are going on across the administration, so I think we are committed to it.

In the research enterprise, again, as my colleague said, I think this is about actually opening up the diversity of viewpoints that are able to come to the table and improve research. We know, in corporate teams, that diversity of perspectives and viewpoints makes things better and leads to better outcomes.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Johnston, you talked about the peer review process and opening it up to a certain extent, particularly in looking at applied research. I think many of us have been very convinced by your arguments.

Do you have any particular opinion on the use of equity, diversity and inclusion in that peer review process?

[Pari Johnston]

I think you're right. The point of view from which I come is, as you said.... Our sector is undertaking research always in a partnered approach. We start from the point of view that we are responding to problems identified by community organizations, by business partners or by others in the community, a particular problem that they think is important to solve, and they want to know if the college can work with them on that. By being accessible and open to responding to these business or community problems, we're already getting a diversity of perspectives.

I do think it's really important to have a diversity of perspectives on a research problem, as well as a diversity of lenses on the benefits of research. I think this is the other part. I'm really interested in talking about broadening review committees to include a representative set of voices that includes end-users, those for whom the research is, perhaps, intended to benefit. How does it benefit people differently? This is where I think we need to also be thinking about a diversity of approaches—who's on the team and also who's benefiting from the research. That is a part of where we're interested in looking at a rebalancing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's our time. Thank you so much.

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