Science and Research Committee on March 22nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Ms. Amyot. I hate to do this, but I have to be even-steven.

Ms. Gladu, thank you for your important questions.

We will now go to Mr. McKinnon for six minutes. The floor is yours.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for joining us tonight. Your testimony has been very helpful and appreciated.

As a B.C. member of Parliament, I want to start with Dr. Winter. I represent the fine riding of Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, so we're almost neighbours.

I appreciated your survey of your history and the broad scope of your experience and what you bring to the table. In your list, one of the main things, point number one, was that we need to “rejuvenate government science”.

Those three words seem to cover a broad territory. I wonder if you could expand on that.

[Dr. Alan Winter]

I think government science is not appreciated, really, in the country and for various reasons, because we've moved most of the science out of the government into contracting for it. What has happened as a result is that in terms of some of the advantages that we need to have in national negotiations, and so on, such as negotiations I was involved with on spectrum in the satellite world, we couldn't have been as successful as we have been as a country without the government scientists providing the background and interfacing with the senior policy people within the government at that time.

In Canada, in terms of government science, we spend about 0.13% of GDP on government science, and the OECD average, again, is about 0.25%, so it's about double—not that it's a huge amount necessarily, but it represents something like $2.5 billion per year.

If you think about that being applied in all the areas where we have challenges, not just trade and not just telecommunications but in our areas around health as we've seen, the economy, our international defence, our Arctic programs, and so on, we need to have people who are in government who understand the science and can provide good advice, which might be confidential at times. That's the direction in which we should go.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

You also mentioned that we need to support big science and we need to support it 100% in carefully selected areas.

What kinds of areas, and how do we carefully select them?

[Dr. Alan Winter]

Yes. That is why I think quite a few people have recommended various ways to go about this, perhaps from a council perspective, which I think had been intended to be set up, but part of the issue here is the context. In terms of the context, as a country, we have to be able to understand that complacency doesn't do it. As we look forward, I think we all agree that we have significant challenges ahead, not just on the economy side but also in our security, in the fact that the world is becoming more protectionist, and so on. If we look at all those things happening, we must make sure that we are able to choose areas that have a connection across academia, across industry, across government, and address some of the things that we really need to deal with, such as climate change. You can take those areas and say, if you work your way back, what are the emerging technologies and how do we invest in them?

I'm on the board of Ocean Networks Canada, which is a great organization, but it spends most of its time trying to find matched funding for the work that's being done. It has been much appreciated that CFI has been able to raise its amount of funding to I think 60% of the total, but the other 40% is still there. Part of what we need to be able to do is not only choose the areas well, but when we've chosen those areas, invest in the basic operations 100%.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

I have a minute and a half left. I have a quick question. I believe I'll direct it to Dr. Kerr. It's about open science.

On other committees in the past we've heard testimony that says public money gets invested in research that is then held in confidence or used in proprietary ways. The thought was that this research, paid for by public funds, ought to be open to basically everybody.

Do you think that's a good idea? Would it stifle research, or would it enhance it?

[Dr. Jeremy Kerr]

Thank you. That's a superb question. There are lots of ways that we can think about this problem and I think we need to be very cautious at the outset that we don't try to argue that all research is specifically conducted in the public interest or that it is investigator-led research.

What that means is that some kinds of research are really targeted towards industry and innovation. There can be all kinds of opportunities along that road for that work to take on a proprietary air, and if so, that might be entirely appropriate.

In my own field, where what I'm thinking about, for example, is usually science in the public interest in some way or another, science thrives on reproducibility and open testing of ideas that are published. As a consequence, we like to see our work appear and be open for everybody to evaluate. That means open science is the way we'd like to go for that work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Professor Kerr; and thank you to Mr. McKinnon for the important questions.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, go ahead. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses joining us this evening.

My first question is for Ms. Amyot, from Colleges and Institutes Canada.

Ms. Amyot, what a pleasure it is to see you again and to have the opportunity to speak with you. Thank you for being here.

I read the recommendations in your brief to the Standing Committee on Finance as part of the committee's pre-budget consultations. I was especially struck by the funding request in recommendation four, a permanent and recurrent investment of $40 million per year in “college applied research capacity”.

Can you elaborate on that recommendation?

[Denise Amyot]

Yes, absolutely. Thank you for your question.

During the COVID‑19 pandemic, we received approximately $40 million annually for two years. Unfortunately, the funding was limited to two years and was specifically meant for small and medium-sized businesses. We feel that $40 million in funding should be ongoing. The money was spent quickly and many businesses received support. In meeting with a number of our members, we saw just how much the support was needed.

Right now, projects are funded on a piecemeal basis, with zero capacity for follow‑up. I'm not sure whether there's enough time left, but my colleague, Mr Lovisa, could give you examples of the gaps that arise when specialized projects are only partially funded, with no support for the work done at the front or back end.

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

Thank you, Ms. Amyot.

In your opening statement, you pointed out that more than 95% of Canadians live within 50 kilometres of a college or institute. You also mentioned that in your brief to the Standing Committee on Science and Research.

Tell us, if you would, why it's so important to ensure the presence of higher learning and research institutions throughout Quebec and Canada, as well as their longevity.

[Denise Amyot]

It is extremely important. The research we undertake is genuinely needed by the communities we call home and local businesses.

The majority of the country's employers are small and medium-sized businesses. All too often unfortunately, they don't have the expertise or equipment to carry out the research that can help solve some of the problems they face. That is the case right across the country, whether we are talking about rural, urban, remote or northern communities.

The applied research we undertake benefits everyone, all Canadians.

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

In your opinion, Ms. Amyot, how do CEGEPs or colleges in regions differ from educational institutions in big cities?

[Denise Amyot]

A CEGEP or college in a region is often the epicentre of the community's activities. It is often where people go to play sports or meet for whatever reason, serving as a gathering place for the community as a whole. Indeed, the institution is often the largest employer in the region.

To support research throughout the country's network of colleges is to foster research, productivity and economic growth right across the country. The importance is clear.

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

Ms. Amyot, do you think the federal government and granting councils understand those differences and take them into account?

Do you think the federal government is doing enough to help regional institutions achieve success?

[Denise Amyot]

Honestly, I think the government can always do more. That is why we are asking for $40 million in funding, which is not at all unreasonable. We want that funding to be made permanent so that all of the country's colleges can benefit, whether they are in urban or rural communities.

At the end of the day, it's also about fairness. Small and medium-sized businesses in Rimouski and Flin Flon, Manitoba, need support too.

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

Thank you.

Can you talk about the barriers CEGEPs, colleges and research institutes face in their dealings with the federal government?

[Denise Amyot]

Unfortunately, the requests for proposals come out only twice a year, but businesses' needs aren't limited to twice a year. Businesses need ongoing funding.

If a business has a problem in November, we have to make it wait until the next request for proposals comes out in June. Only then can we help the business solve its problem. The business world doesn't work that way.

That's one problem. There are others, but I don't have time to list them all.

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

Ms. Amyot, can you get back to the committee with that list in writing?

[Denise Amyot]

I would be happy to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas.

Thank you for your good questions. You're always so on time.

Now we're going to go to Mr. Cannings for six minutes.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to move to Dr. Kerr. I was going to ask Dr. Kerr the scholarship question, because we've heard that from several witnesses already, and I think it's important. It's a policy the government really has to address. However, Ms. Gladu asked that question for me, so I'll move on to something else.

You mentioned citizen science. As you may know, that was a big part of my life before I became a politician. I was involved in building citizen science programs to tackle the question especially around bird population trend analysis and harnessing the expertise and enthusiasm of birders across the country. I had about 20,000 people working for me for nothing—people who knew more about birds than scientists do—true scientists, I guess.

I'm just wondering if you could expand on that, because I think citizen science is such an important part of research in Canada, and this study may be the only place it gets mentioned, so I'd really like to hear more about what you feel about citizen science and where it could lead us.

[Dr. Jeremy Kerr]

Madam Chair, I'd like to say that MP Cannings and his entire family are kind of science superheroes for the rest of us, and the contributions they've made are just unbelievable.

It's a real delight to have a chance to chat with you about such things.

Citizen science puts the process of data gathering, and sometimes even the complexities of data analysis, in the hands of members of our communities. We sometimes call it participatory science. This is one of the ways in which we can open the doors of the ivory tower and make sure that the light gets in but also ideas get into the ivory tower. That goes in both directions. We want everybody to be able to have a conversation about issues that are relevant in their local communities or that they are personally passionate about.

I think we both know there is no more passionate group of naturalists than birders. Things like the breeding birds survey and the breeding bird atlases have enabled literally tens of thousands of people across more than half a century of time—nearly 60 years now, if memory serves—to monitor and detect that the world is changing in ways that affect people but also affect nature.

Citizen science made that possible. It wasn't us scientists in the ivory tower. However hard we work, we have nothing like the power of our communities to step out into nature and to detect things.

I should say that although my own personal predilections in this topic go very strongly toward looking at biological diversity, there are many applications for citizen science that go far beyond counting birds or butterflies. Things like looking at the status of bridges, for example, would make a great citizen science program, or detecting lyme disease risks. There are a million things that can be done. Citizen science puts that power in the hands of our communities, and I think that's a really good idea.

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

A lot of that citizen science work that I did was funded by the federal government. I think they got a huge bang for their buck. Would you agree that this would be something that could and should be expanded?

[Dr. Jeremy Kerr]

I would indeed agree that this is something government should have a clear hand in, and at times even a directing role, or at least a very strong convening role. This gives a kind of structure to the nature of data collection so that those data can sometimes be applied to problems that are pressing. That, I think, would be a very good idea.

There are initiatives under way and we want to make sure that those things proceed. There are things like the Canadian biodiversity observation network, which might be a kind of all-hands-on-deck moment, both for citizen scientists or participatory scientists, as well as the professional science community in both government and in academics. These kinds of things will tell us answers to questions that are extremely pressing as climate changes and habitat loss also proceed.

That's why I believe, Mr. Cannings, that the short answer to your question is yes.