Science and Research Committee on March 1st, 2022

[Dr. Gail Murphy, Vice-President, Research and Innovation, University of British Columbia]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting me to join you today, and I thank the members for taking on this important work.

I'm Gail Murphy, vice-president of research and innovation and a professor of computer science at the University of British Columbia. I'm also the co-founder of Tasktop Technologies, an enterprise software company headquartered in Vancouver with over 200 employees. I am grateful and privileged to be joining you today from the beautiful, traditional ancestral and unceded territories of the Musqueam people.

I'll begin with a very brief introduction of UBC and its research enterprise. UBC is the second-largest university in Canada, with nearly 70,000 students and more than 17,000 faculty and staff at our large campuses in Vancouver and Kelowna and at research and learning sites throughout B.C.

The university is consistently ranked among the top 50 in the world, with particular strengths in innovation and research commercialization. UBC researchers attract over $700 million in funding each year, the second most in Canada, and are responsible for tremendous contributions to knowledge, technology, public policy, economic growth and social progress.

Many of the themes you've discussed at this committee resonate with me in my roles as a vice-president of research, a professor and as a tech entrepreneur. I've been watching closely as countries around the world are making ambitious, new investments in science and research, recognizing the benefits of more highly skilled workforces and how advanced research helps fuel competitiveness and growth, not to mention the importance research for tackling pressing issues like pandemics and climate change.

Thanks to investments from successive governments and actions taken in recent federal budgets, Canada has positioned itself well, but as a number of my colleagues have highlighted, we now risk being left behind if we're not able to continue to attract and retain top talent while other countries accelerate and intensify their investments.

Support for Canada's research enterprise is ultimately an investment in developing Canadian talent and the expertise of our people. Exposure to and engagement with research and the scientific process is a critical experience that equips individuals to be innovators throughout their lives and their careers. When done right, the resulting skills help advance knowledge, develop new technologies and solutions and equip people with a readiness to try the new and re-examine conventional wisdom. Equipping Canadians and especially our youth with these competencies is particularly important for our country as we tackle the great challenges of our time, from meeting climate and environmental targets to building an inclusive, green and innovative economy and enhancing the health and wellness of Canadians and our communities.

For example, through the Stewart Blusson Quantum Matter Institute at UBC, faculty, students and staff are engaged in initiatives that build interest in quantum science and encourage participation from diverse groups of students. This has included K-12 outreach, undergraduate scholarships and mentorship programs, and all of these have a special attention on reaching students with identities that are currently under-represented in the sciences, including indigenous peoples, women and girls and people of colour. The institute has engaged over 3,500 students in the past five years.

Another example is my own experience building a Canadian tech company. The knowledge on which we built the company came from NSERC-funded research that enabled us to think broadly about problems facing software developers while NSERC further supported our early stage formation through the Idea to Innovation program. Continued innovation at the company was fuelled in part by industrial undergraduate research grants.

My two other co-founders in Tasktop include a Ph.D. student from UBC and a master's student from the University of Victoria. Our first hires were graduate students from UBC, and the company has been fuelled by a steady stream of talent from Canadian institutions.

While I echo calls for funding levels that ensure Canada's core research granting programs remain globally competitive, I would also like to bring closer attention to programs that support students and make opportunities to pursue advanced study more accessible. Funding amounts for graduate student scholarships, for example, have not changed in nearly two decades, which, in inflation-adjusted terms, means a 35% decline. At the same time, Canada ranks 28th in the OECD in graduate degree attainment. As we seek to improve access to opportunity and support diversity, increases in the number and the value of these awards are critical.

We also need to expand undergraduate student participation in advanced research. Earlier and deeper experience in research will help our students develop their curiosity and talents, which will serve them and Canadian society very well as they pursue their careers.

I hope the committee finds these contributions to its study helpful. I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you and to address any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Dr. Murphy, thank you.

On behalf of the committee, we'd like to thank you all again, Dr. Quirion, Ms. Gagné and Dr. Murphy. You have an interested group in this committee.

We will now go to the first round of questioning.

Mr. Tochor, you have six minutes.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you kindly, Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses today. It is an honour to be here, with all the knowledge and intelligence that is on display with the presentations. We're very blessed by that.

Dr. Murphy, I'd like to start with you. You touched a little bit on the pandemic and some of the challenges that brought, but even more urgent and more timely right now is the tension in eastern Europe. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the potential impact on research. What could possibly happen with some of the siloing effects from the tensions in eastern Europe? What might that mean for research here in Canada? Do you have any comments on the potential drawbacks—or maybe even some of the potential upside with some of the Ukrainian community coming to Canada?

Perhaps I can get your general thoughts on that, Dr. Murphy.

[Dr. Gail Murphy]

Thank you for the question.

I think that we will see a lot of the potential impacts that we saw during the pandemic actually continue. We saw an interruption in the ability of graduate students who might be coming from other locales to come to our country and be able to pursue their studies here. We saw the lack of an ability to collaborate internationally. In some jurisdictions we saw a lack of access to large research facilities in some cases, etc.

I don't have any data at hand with respect to what we might be accessing in countries close to where the conflict is currently occurring, but with these kinds of conflicts I think it does cause all of our researchers concerns about travel, about interactions and about their graduate students. There are a lot of effects for our researchers who have family embroiled in the conflict. That has a significant effect on an individual's ability to think creatively and to undertake the deep thought that can be involved in their research. It's something that is on all of our minds to make sure that we're supporting our colleagues through these very difficult times.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Are there any Russian state software companies that would raise flags if you would see them associated with any research in Canada?

[Dr. Gail Murphy]

Nothing comes to the top of my mind. A number of individuals in different parts of the world contribute to open-source software. That might be an area in which there needs to be more thought.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

You talked a little bit about how some of the funding levels haven't kept up with inflation and about some of the changes with the crisis in terms of the pandemic and whatnot. Are there things we can do better to ensure that the research continues in future crises? The last two years has taught us a little bit to expect the unexpected.

Are there ways in which we can be proactive in thinking about how we can protect the research that's done in Canada?

[Dr. Gail Murphy]

Well, I would like to thank the Government of Canada, because during the pandemic specific supports were provided to the research environment where we were able to continue to fund especially graduate students and post-docs, and also to start up research infrastructure again after the pandemic allowed institutions to begin to open a little bit more.

I think ensuring that there is some long-term, fundamental base funding that allows us to keep our large infrastructure running, whether it's at a university or a college or a government lab, is really important. For many of these kinds of facilities, you cannot just turn them off and then start again. You really need to keep things flowing on a regular basis.

We need to ensure that our youth really are continually engaged in these endeavours. We need to ensure that they have access to funding for student summer programs, and that if they start a master's program, they can finish that program. They'll have that funding, which is really important to enable engaging them and allowing them to increase their skills at a time when we know that this is all about having advanced technology to in part deal with a crisis, whether it's conflict, whether it's the climate or whether it's the pandemic. The ways in which we're finding out how to get out of these situations are often through advanced technologies, but they also have to come with that social science lens of research.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Yes.

[Dr. Gail Murphy]

It's things like understanding how to get over vaccine hesitancy, how we can, with conflicts, understand the history of those regions so that actions that we might consider taking are informed by what has happened in the past.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

History doesn't often repeat itself, but it often rhymes. I'm a big believer in learning from past rights and wrongs of humankind that are out there and which, unfortunately, I think we're seeing a bit of in eastern Europe.

I think I'm almost out of time, but just quickly, on the resilience question, in general, what else can we do for the resilience factor of a research facility?

[Dr. Gail Murphy]

In general, in particular, many of the facilities are working on that five- or six-year flow of funding that you've heard about. Often that's not enough time if you're talking about a particle accelerator or you're talking about a synchrotron. You really need to be able to plan 10 or 20 years ahead to make sure that you have things in the right state.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you so kindly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Mr. Tochor. I appreciate your questions.

With that, we will now go to Mr. Collins for six minutes, please.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair; and welcome to all the witnesses here this evening.

My first question, through you, Madam Chair, will be to Dr. Quirion. It's addressing one of his last statements about scientific literacy and the importance of it.

Almost from the start of the pandemic, the joint efforts of all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, were challenged and in some cases undermined by misinformation on social media or in other places.

I've been an elected official for 27 years now, and in all that time, I've welcomed opinions that differ from my own. I like my opinions and my comments and thoughts to be challenged by others, so feedback from my constituents has always been very important to me.

Through the pandemic, I heard some very disturbing comments, whether through the election process or through the last couple of weeks here in Ottawa with some of the events that we recently had to deal with. There were comments such as “You're listening to the wrong doctors,” or “You have the wrong information that you're using as a government to address the pandemic.” There seems to be a real resistance to science, whether it's the use of masks or the importance of vaccinations, and those comments stand in the way of our getting back to some sense of normalcy.

What can the federal government do as it relates to making investments or policy changes that combat misinformation? How do we appropriately respond to a shift in attitudes that question the validity of scientific evidence, and in some cases, the scientists who are helping us through the pandemic?

[Dr. Rémi Quirion]

Thank you very much for the question. It's a big one and, of course, there is no easy answer.

Overall, I think we have had a challenge over the past couple of years with the pandemic, in which science was very much at the forefront and in the press every day. A lot of scientists in the press were much more visible, and sometimes there is a contrary type of argument. Of course, we knew nothing at the beginning about that virus, the behaviour of the virus and how to develop vaccine drugs that would diminish the effect of the pandemic, so there was a back and forth with little information. Maybe the general public started to say, “What is that?”

I think that what we have to do now and do much better at the level of the federal government, for example, is first of all for the tri-council to support research and explanations of the scientific methods, so basically to have citizens involved in research projects, what we often call “citizen science” or “participatory science”. For me, it's not the result of today that's important; it's more the process of science so that everyone understands a bit more how you build science one little piece at a time. I think that's critical.

Another critical aspect—working very closely with the province—is education. General education is key, but so is education in science from primary school. You start simple, but the principle of science is that kids enter science as a young generation. They are bright. They are very curious. I think we need to make sure that we foster that more and more in the future, with a very strong collaboration between the federal government, provincial governments and cities, to make sure that you put science there, that you explain science to kids and explain science to citizens.

In addition to that, and given what happened for example in Ottawa over the past few weeks, is that we need to have social scientists on board—I think Gail mentioned that—to be able to understand a little bit of how society, how our democracy, evolved with time, because there is some danger. I have been a bit anxious about this for the past couple of years now. We see that social media goes so quickly and that you can rally people from all over the world on a very bad piece of information. I think we have to make sure that social scientists are at the table with, for example, experts in public health and virology if we're talking about pandemics, but also experts in climate change. How do we make sure that we can explain to our citizens that climate change is very important? What does it mean for me on my street and my family?

Otherwise, it's too abstract, so we have to change the way we do it as scientists.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Dr. Quirion.

I don't have much time left, Madam Chair, but could I ask a question of Dr. Murphy very quickly?

Do you have any advice on how the government can get more women involved in science and research? What progress has been made, and what needs to be done?

I know I have only about 30 seconds left, or less.

[Dr. Gail Murphy]

Very quickly, I think we are all making progress across the country, and the dimensions project that was introduced is helping us think through it to actually do the background research within our own institutions about the barriers that keep individuals from entering into research. Often it's getting people involved in paid ways as opposed to asking them to start through volunteering their efforts, and making sure they have opportunities that they see in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Mr. Collins, for your questions.

It's been a good discussion tonight. I think we all really appreciate this.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would like to say hello to the witnesses joining us this evening.

I'll start with you, Mr. Quirion. Thank you for joining us. I'm always happy to see you.

I would like to talk about the Naylor report, which you know well, since it's the work of a committee that you sat on and which was struck by the chair of this committee.

I would like to review with you the ground that Canada has covered since the release of the Naylor report. Based on your analysis, how does Canada rank as we come out of the pandemic? What should be its priorities in terms of research and development?

[Dr. Rémi Quirion]

Thank you for the question.

I am very proud to have helped draft the report, which is important for science and technology in Canada. Various recommendations were made in it.

In particular, I'm thinking of the creation of a federal position that is roughly equivalent to my position in Quebec. Mona Nemer is currently the chief science advisor of Canada. She is a great colleague, and I work with her a lot.

Furthermore, we recommended that there be more co‑operation between the three federal research councils and that research programs result in the creation of widely varied multidisciplinary teams, with researchers in health, engineering, mathematics, social sciences and the humanities. In that respect, we have made great progress.

We have also made a lot of progress on the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion.

Where we still have significant challenges to overcome, as I mentioned in my opening statement, is support for basic research in Canada. We are lagging by percentage points compared with other countries in the world, such as the United States, France and Germany, but I also mentioned smaller countries like Finland. There is work to be done on this issue.

Progress also needs to be made on the Canadian funding ecosystem for research and innovation. Even I find this ecosystem complicated, and I have been immersed in the field every day for 40 years now in Quebec and Canada. I often liken it to a jigsaw puzzle. I'm not talking about something easy; it's a real jigsaw puzzle. It is sometimes difficult to understand how things work. It's like a new jigsaw puzzle that you receive as a gift: when you open the box, you think that there are far too many pieces, but when you start working on it, you realize that some pieces are missing. In Canada, we have added a lot of pieces, but the work is often done in silos.

I think that it's time for a new follow‑up to the Naylor report. A small group of experts could determine what we really need, what is missing, and which pieces don't fit together well in the Canadian research and innovation ecosystem. That type of committee could issue short‑term recommendations and then become permanent and oversee how Canada compares with the rest of the world on science and technology. That's something that is still missing today.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Quirion.

I would now like to turn to Ms. Gagné.

Thank you for joining us this evening and for explaining the CCTTs, the college centres for technology transfer and innovative social practices.

I have several questions for you about the CCTTs. You will therefore be able to provide us with more details.

In your opinion, have the federal government and its funding agencies fully understood the unique nature of the CCTTs? How is this understanding or lack thereof reflected in the funding structure?

Furthermore, is the project‑based funding that the CCTTs have access to sufficient?

[Marie Gagné]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas.

Is the unique nature of the CCTTs fully understood? I would say that college research is still quite unknown. Is this research well funded? I think that we still have ground to cover.

As was explained earlier, college research is conducted under a self‑funding formula. Certainly, if we want to maintain capacity, infrastructure and critical mass, we will need both core funding and project‑based funding. The more core funding there is, the more project‑based funding needs to keep pace.

Applied research is necessary and useful. Small and medium enterprises account for over 80% of the economies of Quebec and Canada. We need to help them innovate more, and that is done through applied research, with colleges as local hubs.

Concerning college research, CCTTs are relatively unknown, even though all of the technology access centres are inspired by the Quebec model. Therefore, I think that it is high time that this research be funded at a level that reflects the socio‑economic spinoffs that it creates in all regions and ridings of Canada.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Gagné.

Concerning support for research, there is a lot of talk about the indirect costs of research. In your opinion, does the federal government provide enough funding to cover the indirect costs of research? What impact does that have on your organization's research activities?

[Marie Gagné]

I would say that the Government of Canada does not recognize the indirect costs of research at the college level. We do not have access to any funding for the indirect costs of research. However, it is important to understand that they're what helps to maintain quality research, infrastructure, research ethics committees and all of the intellectual property policies. We're talking about all of the costs that are not borne directly by projects.

With the Quebec government, through the ministry of the economy and innovation and the ministry of higher education, we conducted a study on the college research system—