Science and Research Committee on Feb. 15th, 2022

[Dr. David Naylor]

I've had the privilege through the years of doing a few reports for government. I learned a long time ago that your batting average is never 100%. There will be some recommendations that stick and others that don't. I would say that, by the measure of past experience, I thought that many of the recommendations were acted on. The funding that flowed was hugely appreciated by the community. It did not rise to the level we had hoped, but it was certainly generous, and I think it made a real difference.

I do wish that an oversight body like a council of science and innovation or a national advisory committee on research and innovation had been created. I think that is a missing piece, a vehicle or system to knit things together. I also think that, now that we're past that five-year mark, it really is time for us to reconsider what investments we need to make, remembering that the budget that followed that report had a limited lifespan for further investments.

We had a very generous budget in 2021, but it was also very focused on specific areas. Now we need to get back to basics and think about how to support the broad range of disciplines and institutions of all types and sizes to lift all boats as best we can.

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

Thank you, Dr. Naylor.

Do you have any recommendations that weren't in the report but that you feel are urgently needed?

[Dr. David Naylor]

There are elements such as the review of governance and harmonization that I think are not as urgent but would be nice to have. That's one thing that's worthy of consideration.

I take the point raised earlier about the need for a big science oversight mechanism. We really need to have outstanding facilities at scale to compete internationally. We need to know how to pick them and how to invest in them, but we also need to know how to decommission them and wind them down, if they have to be wound down. I thought that was a very good point made by my colleague, and I think that's another one that needs fairly urgent attention, given how important big science is to the success of this country on the international stage.

By and large, as I said, there was a wide-ranging response that we appreciated on the panel and a few things that I think merit urgent attention. The biggest issue is that we need to reinvest now to keep up with our peer nations, to lift all those boats to help the next generation of bright, young Canadians across all backgrounds. It really is about equity and excellence together so we can succeed in the years ahead.

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

Thank you, Dr. Naylor.

One of the report's main recommendations sought a major reinvestment of federal research dollars. The panel recommended that the reinvestment be undertaken over four years, equivalent to an additional 0.4% of the government's annual budget. Spending would have gone from $3.5 billion to $4.8 billion.

This is 2022, nearly five years later. How would you assess the federal government's investment in research and innovation?

[Dr. David Naylor]

I think that we made up a lot of lost ground. I want to emphasize that. It was very important, but I think we didn't catch up as far as we needed to. The most recent budget was completely understandable; it was a pandemic budget. It was highly focused, and it made a lot of important investments.

I think that it would be inappropriate to be critical of a very strategic set of decisions. Generous investments were made, mostly on a one-time-only basis. We do, however, need a multi-year plan to reinvest now, to build on a steady basis and to provide a stable platform for the next generation of scientists and scholars. I think that's what's necessary now.

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

Thank you, Dr. Naylor.

You referred to a plan or vision. Besides the recommendations in the panel's report, what would you recommend to the federal government in the short term? Specifically, I'm talking about a vision for the future when it comes to science, innovation and research, so that Canada can compete on the world stage and, of course, make up for the ground it lost in recent decades.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Dr. Naylor, give a short answer, if you can.

[Dr. David Naylor]

First, there are many areas of exciting opportunity. We're back to that challenge of picking winners. I think the whole point of having a broad-ranging investment in fundamental science and scholarship is to let the winners emerge, not only through the process of peer review but in the broader marketplace of ideas, inventions and discoveries that determines the flow of science.

I am very optimistic that, if we make broad-ranging support and the granting council is a priority, those areas will find themselves. We've picked a few areas already. They're obvious: artificial intelligence, quantum and so on. We made a big bet on building pandemic and infectious disease capacity. I think this will unfold well in the years ahead if we make a sustained, broad investment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Dr. Naylor.

Thank you, Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas.

You can see the interest in the committee in this subject area.

We will go now to Mr. Cannings for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, all, for being here before us.

I'm going to continue with Dr. Naylor.

It has been brought up a couple of times, so I don't want to hammer on too much about this business of your recommendations of a national advisory council on research and innovation. The Council on Science and Innovation, CSI, was announced a couple of years ago. That seemed to have that same role. There was a secretariat created, but it doesn't seem to exist.

I wonder if you have any insights on where that initiative is, or if it is off the table now completely.

[Dr. David Naylor]

No. I have no special insights.

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

Okay, thanks. We'll move on, then.

I wanted to maybe give you some more time. There was a big question that Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas asked about where we stand compared with different countries in the rest of the world. You mentioned Germany's big, annual increases over the past decade or more.

Where are those countries putting that money? Is it pure research money, like NSERC, CIHR or SSHRC, or do those funds include private investment?

What should the government should be doing? Maybe we are doing the right thing, but not at the level you think we should. I'm looking for some international insights.

[Dr. David Naylor]

Thanks very much.

There has been an interesting mix in how countries have approached their reinvestment over the last number of years. The 3% refers, really, to the core and Germany, but remember that they structure their research on institute lines, as well as having granting councils analogous to ours, so it's a blend.

In like fashion, if we were to look at Canada, I think we always need a blend. We need to support open-ended, discovery-oriented, blue sky research—however you want to describe it. The free flow of imagination in all disciplines is so essential to create a better future for the world and for Canada, and also to allow young minds to flourish. However, some targeted areas are important and you'll understand that Canada has to make some bets in particular areas. We've done that effectively in a few places already. It has to be a blend.

The last thing I would say is that we have NRC reinventing itself. There's money that's been set aside for the new CARPA. I think that is the acronym for it. We have to figure out how to link entities like NRC and CARPA to the upstream ecosystem to create a positive flow and interchange between research and development and innovation. Again, oversight through some type of body would help, but we need a plan, we need a vision, we need stable, long-term support and we need to make sense of how that works together in the broad public interest.

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

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'll cede the rest of my time. The bells are ringing here and I think our minds are turned elsewhere, but I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Cannings.

The bells are ringing, and I'm sorry for that.

All of us on the committee would really like to thank our witnesses. This was tremendous. We're very grateful for your testimony tonight.

To our outstanding colleagues, thank you for being so excited and part of this inaugural committee.

With that, I'm afraid we will have to finish for the evening.

The meeting is adjourned.